6 ms·

that's the opposite of what the article is arguing Exactly. If I wanted to summarize the argument of the article I would translate from newspeak to English: W

that's the opposite of what the article is arguing Exactly. If I wanted to summarize the argument of the article I would translate from newspeak to English: We want to pay right-thinking, liberal arts majors middle class salaries for them to administer money distributions from functional people to dysfunctional people. We have no data to suggest this will help anyone, but we are pretty sure it will help ourselves.

crux_ 19y ago
Right-o, to read between the lines here: "Dysfunctional" people are poor because they deserve it, because they are dysfunctional and have not earned anything. "Functional" people are wealthy because they are functional and have earned their wealth. Let's take a look at a time in one's life before anything can be earned or deserved: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? No, of course not: By your own ethos, you only deserve what you have earned. There is no way to make a moral argument that newborns deserve anything other than equal circumstances to begin to create a life for themselves. (Unless you are the sort who believes you chose your parents well and deserve the just rewards of that choice....) Even for the Ayn-Rand libertarian there's a pretty compelling case to be made for widespread welfare efforts: not for the poor, who may have earned their own hardships, but for their children who will suffer without having done a thing to deserve it.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  Strawman. Sufficiently so that I won't comment further than to say that I was translating what I perceive them to believe--"them" being the class of people who thrive on dysfunctional populations.
  - keating 19y ago
    crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.
      - abstractbill 19y ago
        In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?
        mynameishere 19y ago
        Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
        jacobolus 19y ago
        That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
        deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
      - 19y ago

crux_ 19y ago

Right-o, to read between the lines here: "Dysfunctional" people are poor because they deserve it, because they are dysfunctional and have not earned anything. "Functional" people are wealthy because they are functional and have earned their wealth. Let's take a look at a time in one's life before anything can be earned or deserved: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? No, of course not: By your own ethos, you only deserve what you have earned. There is no way to make a moral argument that newborns deserve anything other than equal circumstances to begin to create a life for themselves. (Unless you are the sort who believes you chose your parents well and deserve the just rewards of that choice....) Even for the Ayn-Rand libertarian there's a pretty compelling case to be made for widespread welfare efforts: not for the poor, who may have earned their own hardships, but for their children who will suffer without having done a thing to deserve it.

mynameishere 19y ago
Strawman. Sufficiently so that I won't comment further than to say that I was translating what I perceive them to believe--"them" being the class of people who thrive on dysfunctional populations.
- keating 19y ago
  crux_ makes a very strong argument that deserves to be addressed rather than dismissed without comment.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    Well, crux_ misrepresented my views, and that's that. But fine: At birth, does one newborn somehow deserve better education, improved nutrition, and a life that will offer far more opportunities and fewer hardships than some other child? In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. The only way to force equality is just that: To force it. People who are careful with their finances, with their vocations, with their reproductive activity inevitably wind up supporting other people's children. Think what you will about that. To me, it is disgustingly criminal.
    - abstractbill 19y ago
      In fact, parents are responsible for their own children. I am not responsible for other people's children. That is a hard, cold fact. That doesn't sound like a "cold, hard fact" to me. It sounds like an opinion on the best way to structure responsibility within a society. Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? If so, why do you specifically exclude children?
      - mynameishere 19y ago
        Do you believe you have any responsibilities at all, to society at large? Yes: To not force others to raise my children.
        jacobolus 19y ago
        That’s not a responsibility to society. That’s a rejection of society. Which is to say, in your eagerness to repeat your previous point again, you’re deliberately avoiding the question asked of you. If the answer is “no”, you shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
        deleted 19y ago
        [deleted]
    - 19y ago