Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[Tomas]

.

The New Welfare Bums

Most of the lounge lizards are fully convinced that
they have a problem that justifies getting a check.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/welfarebums.html

.

[Dan Rowden]

Simplistic, sanctimonious drivel.

[Unidian]

Wow, they are going so far as to dispute the existence of disability? I think that when they have to resort to that, it pretty much closes the case on the intellectual worth of their arguments...

Here is a comprehensive and appropriate rebuttal.

[Shahrazad]

For the purposes of welfare, if a person gets fired from job after job, or if they go on interview after interview and nobody wants to hire them, they should be regarded as unfit to work. Would anyone deny that a person that can't hold / get a job doesn't belong in the workplace?

My question is aimed at Tomas, but anyone can answer.

-

[Faust]

a real disability is a physical one such as being paralyzed, or mentally retarded with an IQ of 50. Unidian is a phony disability, because there's a difference between not wanting to do something, and not being able to do it.

Shahrazad, the problem with that is that anyone can willfully keep getting fired and not hired in order to get a free ride, not because they're disable.

[Unidian]

Nevermind, no point in saying what was here.

[Shahrazad]

a real disability is a physical one such as being paralyzed, or mentally retarded with an IQ of 50. Unidian is a phony disability, because there's a difference between not wanting to do something, and not being able to do it.

Disabilities come in degrees, and I don't think our bar should be placed so high that only a paralyzed or severely retarded person qualifies for welfare. If a person is irresponsible, for example, they are very limited in the kind of work they are able to do, if any at all. Why condemn them to starvation, if we can help it?

Shahrazad, the problem with that is that anyone can willfully keep getting fired and not hired in order to get a free ride, not because they're disable.

I agree that that can be a problem, but it is not enough reason to condemn those that really aren't fit to work. It's a price I'd be willing to pay to live in a world that is less social darwinistic.

Let us assume you own a business. You would want to reserve the right to choose to hire only the best employees. There will always be a bunch of people that nobody will hire, because they can hire somebody more qualified and/or fit. Why is it so wrong to keep the unhireable ones alive? What would you like to happen to you if you were one of the unlucky ones?

-

[Carl G]

Gosh, the subject of this thread has come about full face. Went from unemployment being the best indicator of a high philosophic character to an argument about whether the last kids picked for their teams should be given a chance to bat.

Btw, Nat. You do know about the delete post feature on this forum? It's way cool for erasing an entire submission.

[snow bunny]

Btw, Nat. You do know about the delete post feature on this forum? It's way cool for erasing an entire submission.

I like that new thing they have here for deleting posts; the good thing about the edit feature is they record your time, so that they are able to maintain the integrity of the thread. If you get overly playful, then you can just delete a post that was carelessly made.

[Carl G]

The edit feature only records the time if the edit was made after a subsequent post. If no one else has posted in the thread during your changes no record will show.

[snow bunny]

oh, I see where you are going with this, someone can manipulate a thread, if they change their mind about something they didn't mean to write, or if they just misunderstood something, then you could nail 'em with a zinger.



[edit: added the italicized words, for clarity.]

[Carl G]

then you could nail 'em with a zinger.

Yup. In fact, I like to squirt 'em in the eye with Celestial Seasonings Red Zinger tea.

[snow bunny]

Zing!

howmanycharactersdoyouneedtotypetomakethemessageavalid?

[Dan Rowden]

Deleting posts after they've been replied to will bet you banned, so I'd advise against it. The whole point of a non-chat web based forum is that you have all the time you need to think about what to say. There's no excuse for post deletion. If you regret what you wrote then that's life. Take what you post seriously and it's less likely to happen.

[Unidian]

Mine wasn't replied to. I don't edit out or delete posts someone has cited.

I do sometimes remove ones I quickly realize are absolutely pointless - the idea being to get rid of them before they get an equally pointless reply.

[Dan Rowden]

I think it's always wise to use the preview function. Gives you some time to reflect on the content and your motives.

[Carl G]

I wasn't advocating deleting after another post has followed, much less replied to. But I don't see anything wrong with deleting just after posting. Preview function aside, nobody's perfect.

[hsandman]

I wasn't advocating deleting after another post has followed, much less replied to. But I don't see anything wrong with deleting just after posting. Preview function aside, nobody's perfect.

Yup. Many hasty and nasty jibes and quips made in haste during my inebriation, have been removed by my own volition to avoid a conflagration. Four thumbs up for delete function on this forum. ( mmmm beer.) %-)

[Shahrazad]

Many hasty and nasty jibes and quips made in haste during my inebriation, have been removed by my own volition to avoid a conflagration. Four thumbs up for delete function on this forum.

Yes, including one where your twin Tomas attacked me, which I replied to and you removed afterwards. Pissed me right off.

[hsandman]

Many hasty and nasty jibes and quips made in haste during my inebriation, have been removed by my own volition to avoid a conflagration. Four thumbs up for delete function on this forum.

Yes, including one where your twin Tomas attacked me, which I replied to and you removed afterwards. Pissed me right off.

The rape thread? It was damage control based on "out of sight out of mind" reasoning. :-/ I removed it after I thought it over and issued statement of regret for my flippant attitude towards your feelings regarding your misfortune. I was not trying to be malicious and was just expressing my frustration with work I have to put in to "romance" by that remark.

Stop sulking! ;-P

Edit:
I thought it comical how "Do on to others as you wish them do on to you" aphorism, just breaks down even in such mundane things as courtship between two main groups of human species.I ment it as a social comment on inequality between sexes, which on second thought (Unidians outrage of it made me think, admittedly) I realized, was not worth posting and compounding someone’s genuine feelings regarding such personal psychological trauma. The whole genetic proliferation power plays between sexes are so confusing and farcical, that I just try to see the funny side to it all whenever I come across it. :-|

[Shahrazad]

It would've been more honest for you to leave the original post intact, and then just explain that you changed your mind about it, or admit you were wrong. That would not be a sign of weakness in my mind, nor would I have thought that you are a "girly man".

Was it really the rape thread? I honestly can't remember.

-

[hsandman]

I honestly can't remember.

-

I wish I was so lucky. :-P

[snow bunny]

I wasn't advocating deleting after another post has followed, much less replied to. But I don't see anything wrong with deleting just after posting. Preview function aside, nobody's perfect.

Yup. Many hasty and nasty jibes and quips made in haste during my inebriation, have been removed by my own volition to avoid a conflagration. Four thumbs up for delete function on this forum. ( mmmm beer.) %-)

I wasn't talking about deleting a post, where the post remains, but you delete the text. I initially thought Carl was referring to deleting posts in any form. I tend to do that from time to time.

[Ergasiophobic]

.

The New Welfare Bums

Most of the lounge lizards are fully convinced that
they have a problem that justifies getting a check.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/welfarebums.html

.

"Yes, there are people who are, on the whole more disabled and there are those who are, on the whole, more able. But that does not prevent people from cooperating to their mutual advantage". [emphasis mine]

How socialist.

"The point of freedom and the division of labor* is that people discover their own comparative advantages and skills and concentrate on them while avoiding areas where they are, comparatively, less skilled. Thanks to the free market, there is a place for everyone within this brilliant system". [emphases mine]

"freedom" <salivates> I didn't catch the rest of that.



* "I went to a pizzeria, I ordered a slice of pizza, the fucker gave me the smallest slice possible. If the pizza was a pie chart for what people would do if they found a million dollars, the fucker gave me the "donate it to charity" slice. I would like to exchange this for the "keep it!"" - Mitch Hedberg

[Tomas]

.

Welfare Reform

Implementing a "McDonald's Welfare" system would just encourage every freeloader and cheapskate in the neighborhood to take advantage of the program to the detriment of those that really need it.

http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/we ... eform.html

.