Aspie Entitlement Syndrome
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Aug 2013, 9:59 am
Huh? All taxes are paid to support others (you're an other too!) - it's typically enforced by putting you into prison if you don't pay.
Everyone who pays is entitled to benefits (if you're driving a car, for example, you're using some of those benefits) that help him live a decent life - that's the idea of solidarity, a concept that has made humanity as successful (at least in numbers and technological advancement) as it is now.
Yes, I use the roads. But I'm also paying into the system. We're talking about people who do nothing but take. No system can exist long where some people do all the giving and others only take no matter how much you might wish the case to be otherwise.
11 Aug 2013, 10:08 am
History books prove that a system that lets the weak rot will cause revolutions ending up with corrupt and instable governments and inevitably endless civil wars, maybe you should do some proper research into our systems and those of other European countries before making baseless claims, as a system like ours has never even existed before the 20th century and is definitely not due to collapse anytime soon, in fact looking at the way we keep improving on it I highly doubt it ever will collapse, if anything is crippling Europe right now its the European union and not the way we treat the weakest in our societies.
11 Aug 2013, 10:18 am
I have known people on long term disability and some of them to seem to have a sense of entitlement. They have never worked and don't really understand the concept of trading work for money. I myself am on short term disability (due to a rather severe breakdown,) but am now getting back to work. In my case, this system has been a lifesaver and has given me time to get my s**t together. I may have ended up on the street otherwise. Now I am becoming productive again.
Societal support of people with disabilities, which make working impractical for them, are necessary. Not because they are entitled to it, but because it makes our society a better place to live. It's like paying taxes for schools. I don't have any children, but I still pay because it's better for society if children are educated.
11 Aug 2013, 10:19 am
Huh? All taxes are paid to support others (you're an other too!) - it's typically enforced by putting you into prison if you don't pay.
Everyone who pays is entitled to benefits (if you're driving a car, for example, you're using some of those benefits) that help him live a decent life - that's the idea of solidarity, a concept that has made humanity as successful (at least in numbers and technological advancement) as it is now.
Yes, I use the roads. But I'm also paying into the system. We're talking about people who do nothing but take. No system can exist long where some people do all the giving and others only take no matter how much you might wish the case to be otherwise.
What about the people who give less than they get? Are you sure you're not one of them? Are you sure you'll never be? Do you know how much money is spent to support you in terms of public infrastructure and how that relates to what you pay? I hope you're keeping track of how often you use the roads in order to not exceed the fair share you bought with your taxes!
It seems to me you don't get the idea of solidarity at all - it's based on the realization that we need each other's support. It's based on the ideal that if someone needs help, s/he should receive help, not as charity, but because overall it's better for everyone, because it's more successful in the long run.
_________________
What goes on inside is just too fast and huge and all interconnected for words to do more than barely sketch the outlines of at most one tiny little part of it at any given instant. - D.F.W.
Last edited by LookTwice on 11 Aug 2013, 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
11 Aug 2013, 10:19 am
There are a lot of options in-between communism and capitalism, and having the strong help the weak out, so they can start supporting the weak once they have become stronger themselves, is not at all something to be scared of.
Your views are rather simplistic and old fashioned and not in a good way.
Jonov, my friend I can assure you that you will not convince thelibriarian of anything. When he says the world does not owe you a thing this is what it implies. We live in a business and hustling culture in which everything is reduced to a commodity. When he means the world he really is talking about the United States of America and its' culture. As crazy as this sounds Americans are very self-centric. People in America generalize the USA to the whole world when it is not so.
In America, there is no such thing as something having an intrinsic value. You come from a different culture that has a different set of standards and values than the USA. People in America believe in the ethos of "Pulling themselves by their bootstraps" meaning you're supposed to work it out and figure it out yourself with no help in anyway, shape or form once one graduates high school. The truth is you're dealing with a people who want no part in socialism whatsoever. They see what you advocate as socialism and it goes against their whole cultural ethos.
The Soviet Union was on one extreme. We are on the opposite extreme. IMHO, Our very culture is as dysfunctional as the Soviet Union but in the opposite way. LookTwice put out some good points about Tyrion. I can answer the discrepancy of Tyrion. In America, part of the culture is that since one is supposed to pull himself by his bootstraps one may have to pretend that he is. He is doing what a lot of people in America are doing. He is putting on this air of fake bravado, fake optimism and he is putting people down because this is a part of the American Culture Mythos. If one whines in America how one can't make it part of being in America is to cut this person down. He is faking it until he makes it. In America, honesty is not the best policy anymore because one is supposed to be deceptive and put on an act.
Our problems in America are ontological. The American Dream is the flaw itself. We're dealing in a culture that has taken its values and standards to an extreme and the logical conclusion. If you want to read more of what I am saying please read my blog and comment. http://whyifailedinamerica.wordpress.com/
11 Aug 2013, 10:22 am
Deleted
_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?
Last edited by CockneyRebel on 11 Aug 2013, 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
11 Aug 2013, 10:28 am
It seems to me you don't get the idea of solidarity at all - it's based on the realization that we need each other's support. It's based on the ideal that if someone needs help, s/he should receive help, not as charity, but because overall it's better for everyone, because it's more successful in the long run.
He is not going to get the idea of solidarity. We both come from the same country and it is more about extreme individualism than about solidarity or the nation as a whole. What he sees is that he is forced to support others by gunpoint to those that in his mind do nothing. All he sees and perceives is that people are commodities and we're all expected to work it out ourselves. A lot of people in his country and my country sees it this way as well.
In a sense he is correct about one thing is implying. You can't force a whole culture to do what it does not want to do. In a sense what you believe and are advocating is like kryptonite to our culture. You can't force the tax payers to pay for what they reject as going against what is inherently a part of their culture. Any attempt to implement socialism or any aide to those who need it in America more than likely will fail because people will consciously or unconsciously make it fail. Our country is very ethnocentric meaning the people here sees themselves as the whole world.
Our country is finished. To solve a number of our issues would require ontological discussions by most people. It will not happen. The truth is our culture is a culture of opposition since its inception. We've always been opposed to something or had an enemy we had to fight. Who are we as a people? We always identify ourselves by what we are not and what we oppose? What are we for?
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Aug 2013, 10:59 am
History books prove that a system that lets the weak rot will cause revolutions ending up with corrupt and instable governments and inevitably endless civil wars, maybe you should do some proper research into our systems and those of other European countries before making baseless claims, as a system like ours has never even existed before the 20th century and is definitely not due to collapse anytime soon, in fact looking at the way we keep improving on it I highly doubt it ever will collapse, if anything is crippling Europe right now its the European union and not the way we treat the weakest in our societies.
What I'm reading are sweeping generalizations. Can you cite me an example of a system the collapsed because it "let the weak rot"?
I read just the opposite: All wars start when one group of people decides they are going to take from another group, which is exactly what you are advocating. What's more, the left agrees with me; taking from others is what the communists referred to as The Revolution.
You highly doubt that your welfare state will collapse? If you care to tell me what country you are in, I can give you the exact numbers rather than a bunch of opinion and vague innuendo.
Please, enlighten me with some specifics.
11 Aug 2013, 11:41 am
if a then b.
a
b
You're saying ~b. Why? How do you get ~b?
Well, coming from "left field" I say we can't afford any of it. As far as your logic goes, you need to do some more work, as you're assuming a hypothetical instead of a disjunctive or conjunctive.
Let's look at your questions. Here is my response. How do any of us truthfully have a true say in where our money goes whether we earn our own money or we do not? Do we truthfully have a say or is it the illusion of say? If 4 wolves and a sheep vote on what is for dinner then does the sheep truthfully have a say in what is for dinner?
As far as your wolf/sheep analogy goes, would it really be better if the sheep determines what is for dinner for the four wolves? And if so, how is that different than tyranny?
Brilliant comment. The illusion of say--- ha ha, and brilliantly handled topic, Tyrion---thanks. I do not know what the title was before, But Aspie Entitlement Syndrome sure does hit the nail on the head. Now to get down to brass tacks:
Savvy identity wrote on page 4:
It's okay for aspies to do it about nt's but not for nt's to do it about aspies or aspies about (some) other aspies, apparently. I bet you are not protesting about those oh so many threads.See, this is what many but not all aspies do not seem to get---in the realm of generalizations a well proven technique is to fight fire with fire. Just don't go overboard and set the whole house on fire:-). This is how wolves and sheep eat, except I think wolves eat sheep. Anyway Christ was not a lamb, but without wolves there would be no Christ. This is the basic human conundrum--..how to sort and grade seeming irrreconcilables and come up with an action that is not irreconcilable and at the same time compassionate. Obviously an actual wolf will never learn this, but it is something for a human being to aspire to, as we carry both aspects within ourselves.
Last edited by littlebee on 11 Aug 2013, 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
11 Aug 2013, 11:43 am
History books prove that a system that lets the weak rot will cause revolutions ending up with corrupt and instable governments and inevitably endless civil wars, maybe you should do some proper research into our systems and those of other European countries before making baseless claims, as a system like ours has never even existed before the 20th century and is definitely not due to collapse anytime soon, in fact looking at the way we keep improving on it I highly doubt it ever will collapse, if anything is crippling Europe right now its the European union and not the way we treat the weakest in our societies.
What I'm reading are sweeping generalizations. Can you cite me an example of a system the collapsed because it "let the weak rot"?
I read just the opposite: All wars start when one group of people decides they are going to take from another group, which is exactly what you are advocating. What's more, the left agrees with me; taking from others is what the communists referred to as The Revolution.
You highly doubt that your welfare state will collapse? If you care to tell me what country you are in, I can give you the exact numbers rather than a bunch of opinion and vague innuendo.
Please, enlighten me with some specifics.
Yes, letting the weak rot can work for a while but that's one of the reasons why France doesn't have a monarchy anymore and why my own country doesn't have a class based society anymore, because people tend to grow a little angry when you implement such tactics.
You seem to mistake socialism for communism, giving a little to help the weak doesn't suddenly make you dirt poor, communist Russia was a disgusting corrupted hellhole and a very bad example but I guess that really is the only example you have isn't it ?
My country is the Netherlands, which you would have known if you had read my previous posts, like I suggested you to do when I referred to my country.
And by the way I have nowhere stated that you should give money to the disabled while they do not try to give something back to society and that's not how my country's social security system works either, but if they really cannot give anything back, I'd rather give some of my money to them, than handing them a piece of rope so they can just hang themselves to get it over with.
-edit- Some further info on how our system works.
The unemployed are often enrolled into work rehabilitation programs ( if they refuse they lose their benefits) and in order to receive their benefits they need to prove they are actively seeking jobs, and if they fail to do this they risk having their benefits taken away from them.
To a certain extend this also counts for the disabled and they are often reevaluated to see how severe their disability still is this happens at least once a year and often leads to psychological evaluations, and sometimes they are instructed to seek professional help and if they refuse they once again risk their benefits to be taken away from them so they do not really have a choice but to seek improvement, that's why our system works because we keep in touch with the people receiving benefits.
We have freeloaders here and the fact that we fail to do anything against them sometimes has more to do with political correctness and the fear to alienate minorities rather than the fact that we care for the weakest in society.
Last edited by Jonov on 11 Aug 2013, 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Aug 2013, 12:17 pm
So, the French Revolution is the example you are giving me? The French Revolution proves me point. What set the French Revolution off was the fact that only commoners paid taxes, and to support others who contributed little or nothing to the society. The actual spark occurred when taxes were raised on average Frenchmen. As far as these people having nothing, history hardly bears that out. This was in the wake of the Enlightenment, feudalism in France was almost dead, and the average Frenchman lived far better than most Europeans.
The Netherlands is actually in better fiscal shape than most other European nations. But this only means that the collapse there will come a bit later than for other Europeans countries. Here is a report put out by the UN on just this topic if you are interested:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/ ... DF06083280
My point is that only invalids--the completely helpless--should be taking without contributing. Since I haven't said otherwise, I'm not sure where your disagreement with me lies.
BTW, Wilders' PVV is gaining on the mainstream parties very rapidly. In fact, nationalist parties are gaining all over Europe, and some of them are less than savory. Have you asked yourself why?
11 Aug 2013, 12:39 pm
The French revolution may not have been my strongest example, but it does show what happens when people feel cornered and do not have the ability to crawl out of the hole they feel that they are in.
The PVV is gaining popularity because a lot of minorities ( former immigrants) combined with eastern European immigrants and illegal immigrants are taking advantage of our social security and some of them receive it and don't even live here, these immigrants also seem to spark the "they took our jobs" feelings that Wilders quite smartly plays into and he is not wrong here but political correctness stops us from addressing that issue, if you put our own freeloaders on top of that you get a very nasty situation, and currently the government is working hard to put better restrictions on the use of social security ( but we have to stop trying to be politically correct).
His popularity also has a lot to do with the rise of Islam in our country or at least the fear of it and the consequences for women's rights and freedom of speech, bottom line is: we want to care for our weak, but only for "our" weak, and not for the weak from any other nation in the world.
To me it seemed as though you did not want to implement such a system altogether out of fear of it being misused, and we seem to agree on the basic rules of such a system.
So to answer your question about what the people paying for the social security should get in return, that may have sparked of a unnecessary discussion.
In my opinion they should get a promise, a promise that the people receiving benefits vow to try to the best of their ability to improve themselves to become more attractive for employers, they need to be able to show that they have at least tried and should show what they have tried in order to further benefiting from such a system.
If they cannot move forward on their own, then they need commutate that, and ask for psychiatric help or coaching, which should be available to help them succeed.
Some may still not succeed and those are likely your truly disabled who are unable to work at all, the ones that are freeloading will already have been caught by then because they had nothing to show for.
Last edited by Jonov on 11 Aug 2013, 1:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
11 Aug 2013, 12:57 pm
No one is saying that those who can work should get a free pass. This is not what is being said at all. I think we're all arguing apples and oranges. What I desire is to help people get to work and get into employment. It doesn't have to be totally be done by the government either. What I desire is that the average Joe to help as well but out of the goodness of his own heart. If the average Joe did this we would not need socialism.
Imagine if the average NT explained themselves to us and things like "Be yourself" Because of our "pull yourself by your bootstraps culture" it will not happen. The community mindset of helping everyone else and uplifting them is gone. This is the real solution as far as I see it to a number of problems the USA has. Even if one does not believe in God or Jesus Christ still follow his teachings. If the majority did we would not need a socialistic government IMHO. The culture is the underlying problem not the government nor the economic system.
Sometimes art can reflect life and I believe there is some truth to the core theme of this movie.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-Km9zvFao[/youtube]
Thelibrarian
Veteran
Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
11 Aug 2013, 1:07 pm
The PVV is gaining popularity because a lot of minorities ( former immigrants) combined with eastern European immigrants and illegal immigrants are taking advantage of our social security and some of them receive it and don't even live here, these immigrants also seem to spark the "they took our jobs" feelings that Wilders quite smartly plays into and he is not wrong here but political correctness stops us from addressing that issue, if you put our own freeloaders on top of that you get a very nasty situation, and currently the government is working hard to put better restrictions on the use of social security ( but we have to stop trying to be politically correct).
His popularity also has a lot to do with the rise of Islam in our country or at least the fear of it and the consequences for women's rights and freedom of speech, bottom line is: we want to care for our weak, but only for "our" weak, and not for the weak from any other nation in the world.
To me it seemed as though you did not want to implement such a system altogether out of fear of it being misused, and we seem to agree on the basic rules of such a system.
So to answer your question about what the people paying for the social security should get in return, that may have sparked of a unnecessary discussion.
In my opinion they should get a promise, a promise that the people receiving benefits vow to try to the best of their ability to improve themselves to become more attractive for employers, they need to be able to show that they have at least tried and should show what they have tried in order to further benefiting from such a system.
If they cannot move forward on their own, then they need commutate that, and ask for psychiatric help or coaching, which should be available to help them to help them succeed.
Some may still not succeed and those are likely your truly disabled who are unable to work at all, the ones that are freeloading will already have been caught by then because they had nothing to show for.
Jonov, I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
The root of the problem as I see it is that if somebody is getting something they didn't work for, somebody else is working for something they won't get. There is a limit on that as to how much of this kind of thing people will take.
I will conclude by saying that the jobs need to be brought back, and that means doing away with so-called free trade. It's not possible to expect people to work when there are no jobs for them.
11 Aug 2013, 1:18 pm
Wait a minute! We all seem to agree on these things. Why are we all debating each other then? I think what is happening is we're all missing the salient point of what we're all trying to convey. So, we all agree that those who need help to get employment should receive it but should not receive a handout so this person can do nothing. Am I correct?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Savant syndrome |
26 Mar 2024, 3:42 am |
| Savant syndrome |
16 Mar 2024, 6:31 am |
| Downs Syndrome question |
30 Mar 2024, 11:49 am |
| Question about Asperger Syndrome and tem "Severe Asperger" |
29 Jan 2024, 11:37 pm |
