4 ms·

"Their lives of excess"? No one on EBT is living a life of excess, and they are just as deserving to enjoy ice cream or other pleasures of life as you are. Ther

"Their lives of excess"? No one on EBT is living a life of excess, and they are just as deserving to enjoy ice cream or other pleasures of life as you are. There's nothing irresponsible about buying ice cream or anything else in a grocery store. You're being ridiculous and cruel.

allovernow 7y ago
>There's nothing irresponsible about buying ice cream or anything else in a grocery store That's a debatable point when you consider the context that these people, many of whom are perfectly capable of working, are living exclusively off of the labor of others, perhaps not entirely with the laborer's consent. Is it just to force someone to work without benefit for someone else else's survival? What about for someone else else's comfort? Some reservations over such handouts are entirely justified. You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure, that's a form of oppression.
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  > You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure No one is being forced to work! They can simply live a life of “excess” off government assistance right? All they have to do is trade in their current friends, their standard for home ownership, their dreams of financial stability, any ability to pay for their kids’ emergencies / college / wedding ... This society has determined that the people who cannot fully take care of themselves should still be taken care of and given a microscopic slice of a tiny sliver of dignity, and that it’s worth the cost of some percentage of bad actors milking the system. It’s not perfect but I am okay with that trade off.
  - allovernow 7y ago
    This is not black and white. The point is that there is some cutoff between full welfare for all of life's luxuries and literal table scraps. Some of us think spending a month worth of food stamps at Walmart on junk (where there are cheap healthy alternatives) is past the line of the minimum that people deserve for free. And it may be anecdata but anyone who's been to Walmart on EBT day has seen plenty of people making this choice.
    - tehwebguy 7y ago
      I am so sorry but it is exactly black and white: Society sets up rules, most people follow most of them. One of the policies society has agreed on is that if your life is totally fucked financially you can get some table scraps from the government so that you don’t die as a direct result. Some people are bad actors, which society will tolerate up to a certain level, so long as it means that the worst off people in the country can eat if they jump through some hoops. That said if you see someone you suspect is scamming EBT etc please report them. Same goes for when your friend gives you a stock tip that’s a little too hot or your folks tell you they didn’t report some income.
      - allovernow 7y ago
        >can get some table scraps from the government so that you don’t die as a direct result. I think you've missed my point. By black and white I mean we are debating over where the appropriate line is between table scraps and government subsidized golden toilets.
    - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
      The fact that the stuff is in Walmart is proof that people who aren't on EBTs are eating the same junk. You aren't interested in them eating healthy food. You're interested in making them suffer for their poverty.
__s 7y ago
When I vended ice cream we were directed to poor neighborhoods where people wouldn't have ice cream from the grocery store
julianapostate 7y ago
by that logic you should also give that pass to beer and cigarettes, as they are comparably addictive and unhealthy. I think it's more cruel to have no standards for expecting responsible eating and spending as it only leads to more suffering down the line for ones family.
- Chinjut 7y ago
  Ice cream isn't comparably addictive and unhealthy to beer and cigarettes. C'mon. But yes, I also believe the poor are equally deserving to enjoy a beer or a cigarette as the rich. I also think both the poor and the rich should be helped out of alcoholism or cigarette addiction, of course, when such issues arise. But I really don't see why the poor should be given so much moral scrutiny over every little pleasurable indulgence that no one questions the right of the rich to access as they choose.

allovernow 7y ago

>There's nothing irresponsible about buying ice cream or anything else in a grocery store That's a debatable point when you consider the context that these people, many of whom are perfectly capable of working, are living exclusively off of the labor of others, perhaps not entirely with the laborer's consent. Is it just to force someone to work without benefit for someone else else's survival? What about for someone else else's comfort? Some reservations over such handouts are entirely justified. You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure, that's a form of oppression.

tehwebguy 7y ago
> You have no right to force others to toil for your pleasure No one is being forced to work! They can simply live a life of “excess” off government assistance right? All they have to do is trade in their current friends, their standard for home ownership, their dreams of financial stability, any ability to pay for their kids’ emergencies / college / wedding ... This society has determined that the people who cannot fully take care of themselves should still be taken care of and given a microscopic slice of a tiny sliver of dignity, and that it’s worth the cost of some percentage of bad actors milking the system. It’s not perfect but I am okay with that trade off.
- allovernow 7y ago
  This is not black and white. The point is that there is some cutoff between full welfare for all of life's luxuries and literal table scraps. Some of us think spending a month worth of food stamps at Walmart on junk (where there are cheap healthy alternatives) is past the line of the minimum that people deserve for free. And it may be anecdata but anyone who's been to Walmart on EBT day has seen plenty of people making this choice.
  - tehwebguy 7y ago
    I am so sorry but it is exactly black and white: Society sets up rules, most people follow most of them. One of the policies society has agreed on is that if your life is totally fucked financially you can get some table scraps from the government so that you don’t die as a direct result. Some people are bad actors, which society will tolerate up to a certain level, so long as it means that the worst off people in the country can eat if they jump through some hoops. That said if you see someone you suspect is scamming EBT etc please report them. Same goes for when your friend gives you a stock tip that’s a little too hot or your folks tell you they didn’t report some income.
    - allovernow 7y ago
      >can get some table scraps from the government so that you don’t die as a direct result. I think you've missed my point. By black and white I mean we are debating over where the appropriate line is between table scraps and government subsidized golden toilets.
  - MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    The fact that the stuff is in Walmart is proof that people who aren't on EBTs are eating the same junk. You aren't interested in them eating healthy food. You're interested in making them suffer for their poverty.

__s 7y ago

When I vended ice cream we were directed to poor neighborhoods where people wouldn't have ice cream from the grocery store

julianapostate 7y ago

by that logic you should also give that pass to beer and cigarettes, as they are comparably addictive and unhealthy. I think it's more cruel to have no standards for expecting responsible eating and spending as it only leads to more suffering down the line for ones family.

Chinjut 7y ago
Ice cream isn't comparably addictive and unhealthy to beer and cigarettes. C'mon. But yes, I also believe the poor are equally deserving to enjoy a beer or a cigarette as the rich. I also think both the poor and the rich should be helped out of alcoholism or cigarette addiction, of course, when such issues arise. But I really don't see why the poor should be given so much moral scrutiny over every little pleasurable indulgence that no one questions the right of the rich to access as they choose.