Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party

Page 24 of 27 [ 419 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 3:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Why would it have to be nutritious but tasteless?......I do not think I will understand your desire to make things as unpleasent as possible for people who are already in very unpleasent situations. lol I'll cook the damn food for the poor and it will be delicious and nutritious if I'm the one cooking.


The lack of flavor, the unpleasantness (as you put it) is an incentive for them to get off their arses and look for work, even if it is volunteer work.

Why should those who pay nothing get as good stuff as those who pay something?

ruveyn


Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2011, 3:33 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself..


There is always something useful for someone to do unless they are entirely crippled or mentally incompetent. In the latter cases there is help available. For those who are capable of doing something there is no excuse for doing nothing.

ruveyn



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

09 Dec 2011, 4:00 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:14 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?


_________________
I try to prevent my ego from obscuring my greatness.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself..


There is always something useful for someone to do unless they are entirely crippled or mentally incompetent. In the latter cases there is help available. For those who are capable of doing something there is no excuse for doing nothing.

ruveyn


your point being?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:22 pm

MarsCoban wrote:
dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?


People don't need nutrients to work, are you insane. lol


_________________
We won't go back.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 4:26 pm

In China workers are only allowed to eat one bowl of rice a day. Since conventional rice does not provide Vitamin A rice has to be genetically engineered by splicing carrot genes with rice genes.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:32 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Why shouldn't they....its not as easy as going out and working anymore, first there has to be jobs then the jobs have to pay enough for them to feed themself. Now of course if you can't afford food your options might be limited but you should not be barred from good quality food if someones providing it. If I want to donate decent quality food to a food shelf for instance I should be able to. So I see no reason for any regulations to ensure they only get tasteless food.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should regulate what sort of food you're allowed to give to the poor. The very concept seems ludicrous. Everyone should be free to do with his or her property as he or she chooses, and this of course includes donating it to the indigent. If however the government intends to, at gunpoint, rob from the "rich" to feed the poor, is it unreasonable to suggest this feeding ought to consist of only rice cakes and water? Should we all be excessively taxed so that those who, for whatever reason, don't work can eat caviar and drink Champagne?


Well I would hope not...it sounded like that's what was being suggested though. and since when is the government robbing the rich at gun point to feed the poor, no one has suggested that either. and what about people who are working and still cannot afford an adequate amount of food......back to the whole assumption that if you work your automatically going to be able to afford everything you need......when that is not really the case anymore.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:33 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
In China workers are only allowed to eat one bowl of rice a day. Since conventional rice does not provide Vitamin A rice has to be genetically engineered by splicing carrot genes with rice genes.


well if Corporate america were not so obsessed with cheap labor maybe that would not be the case.


_________________
We won't go back.


dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

09 Dec 2011, 4:41 pm

MarsCoban wrote:
Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?

You're correct, but the phrase "rice cakes and water" was intended only as a figure of speech. I strongly considered revising it before submitting my post as I fully anticipated that someone would call me out regarding the nutritional completeness of rice cakes; however I decided, perhaps unwisely, against doing so because I felt that it would disrupt my sentence flow. :)



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 4:50 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
MarsCoban wrote:
Rice cakes and water don't exactly provide all of a persons nutrional needs. How about some fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, etc?

You're correct, but the phrase "rice cakes and water" was intended only as a figure of speech. I strongly considered revising it before submitting my post as I fully anticipated that someone would call me out regarding the nutritional completeness of rice cakes; however I decided, perhaps unwisely, against doing so because I felt that it would disrupt my sentence flow. :)


Fair enough.


_________________
I try to prevent my ego from obscuring my greatness.


dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

09 Dec 2011, 4:50 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Well I would hope not...it sounded like that's what was being suggested though. and since when is the government robbing the rich at gun point to feed the poor, no one has suggested that either. and what about people who are working and still cannot afford an adequate amount of food......back to the whole assumption that if you work your automatically going to be able to afford everything you need......when that is not really the case anymore.

Taxes, irrespective of their necessity, are tantamount to robbery at gunpoint. If you refuse to pay your taxes the government sends men with guns to lock you up in prison for a long time.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

09 Dec 2011, 4:53 pm

Under Capitalism workers are machines and must run under the cheapest fuel possible.



MarsCoban
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 175
Location: Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 5:03 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well I would hope not...it sounded like that's what was being suggested though. and since when is the government robbing the rich at gun point to feed the poor, no one has suggested that either. and what about people who are working and still cannot afford an adequate amount of food......back to the whole assumption that if you work your automatically going to be able to afford everything you need......when that is not really the case anymore.

Taxes, irrespective of their necessity, are tantamount to robbery at gunpoint. If you refuse to pay your taxes the government sends men with guns to lock you up in prison for a long time.


Ya know, stating the obvious here...but poor people pay taxes too. So what's worse, robbing a rich person of one of their three vehicles, or robbing a poor person of the food on their table or the roof over their head, in order to pay for the food and shelter of a person who is unemployed?


_________________
I try to prevent my ego from obscuring my greatness.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 5:21 pm

dmm1010 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well I would hope not...it sounded like that's what was being suggested though. and since when is the government robbing the rich at gun point to feed the poor, no one has suggested that either. and what about people who are working and still cannot afford an adequate amount of food......back to the whole assumption that if you work your automatically going to be able to afford everything you need......when that is not really the case anymore.

Taxes, irrespective of their necessity, are tantamount to robbery at gunpoint. If you refuse to pay your taxes the government sends men with guns to lock you up in prison for a long time.


Alright well what do you suggest, I don't like the way our government spends taxes but how else would there be money for public services?


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 Dec 2011, 5:22 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Under Capitalism workers are machines and must run under the cheapest fuel possible.


to me that would be a good reason not to support capitalism.


_________________
We won't go back.