Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 01:30:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1121 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Ed Jones wrote:
> >
> > I grew up during the 60s - remember the era that fought for equal rights,
> > fought against the war in Vietnam, fought for student rights, fought against
> > oppression of the poor by the rich, fought to get assistance to those who • were
> > in need.
>
> The 60s is the decade that invented the socially-acceptable slacker as
> far as I can tell. I get so sick of you people ranting insanely about
> how grand those times were.
Why, because we had the nerve to see that things were wrong and fought to right
them? Or because your generation has done absolutely nothing but reap the
goods for nothing.
> How exactly did you and yours fight for those things? Equal rights - I
> hire people regardless of their sex and ethnicity.
In the 60s you didn't have to hire anyone. You could freely descriminate
against blacks, women, etc. etc. Things have progressed - slowly - but are
far from complete. As an example - in Lexington, KY if you go into a "good"
restraurant, expect to find white maitre'd, white waiter/waitress and black
busboys.
Vietnam - My dad was
> drafted for the 'Nam he's still alive, but I figure I've done my share.
How? Two of my brothers were in Nam. I protested against the war. What have
you done?
> Student rights - I'm too ignorant to come back with something
> appropriately flippant...what's the deal with students?
Why am I not surprised by your confession of ignorance. Major changes in
universities - adding programs, becoming involved in curriculum development,
establishing student councils/advisory boards. Major changes in public schools
- does segregation ring any bells or didn't they teach that in CA.
Oppression of
> the poor - I guess that's where y'all decided it was OK to be ignorant
> slackers and that the rest of us would foot the bill.
Yes that was our full intent. So that today's spoiled brats could complain
about their tax dollars going to the less fortunate.
The oppression was brought about by the lack of equal rights to employment,
housing and education.
Assistance to
> those in need - seems a little general.
The development of social care and health centers (medical and mental). Drug
rehab centers. Many of these services were cut back during the Reagan era -
the result - the homeless.
I know that my impoverished
> family got help from church and neighbors during the OK dustbowl before
> cashing in and moving to LA...I guess that concept wasn't invented
> during the 60s.
For middle class white people it was established. For blacks and other
minorities, there was noone to assist. They had been kept out of decent paying
jobs, had been denied equal rights to housing and education and were kept in
the white owned and operated slums.
> > You now propose sterility in order to qualify for "social benefits" • programs.
> >
> > Hmm... How about student loans - isn't that a form of "social benefit"? • How
> > about sterilizing anyone that has a student loan until the loan is paid • back.
>
> Exactly! That's the spirit. Of course, most of my student loans were
> from banks, not the gubmint, but still, I think you're on to something.
> That way, only the ones successful enough to pay them off get to
> procreate. But, that's not necessarily the smartest or whatever, it
> might be too restrictive for a healthy program of gene pool management.
Bummer we couldn't have gotten to your parents first.
> > Senior citizens on Medicare - oh yeah, they're ripe for sterility.
>
> No, medicare is kind of a right that they've paid for all their lives.
> It's not truly welfare. It needs to be shut off, gently, but shut off
> with social security just the same.
How so, I know many senior citizen women who never worked a day in their life.
Why are they getting goods for nothing?
> > Construction workers - most of whom work 6-8 months a year, but are on
> > unemployment during the winter - and some even receive food stamps. Why • not,
>
> Well, unemployment is insurance, not welfare, and food stamps is
> something they should be able to avoid by saving during their working
> season instead of quaffing a six-pack every day like the ones who
> visited my 7-11 while saving up for college entrance did.
>
> > they're tax dollars have paid for the right to receive food stamps. Do we
>
> I thought we were past this right to free goods thing. Oh well.
Why is this free goods? They have paid for those goods with their tax dollars,
have earned those goods and have a right to receive those goods.
> > sterilize them each fall and reverse the operation each spring?
>
> No, I would advocate sterilizing as a precondition for receiving aide,
> and then allowing them to waive future aide in order to turn it off.
> Actually, I wasn't the one who brought up reversible sterilization, that
> was Mike's idea. I meant full-on permanent sterilizations.
Again, to bad we couldn't have gotten to your parents in time.
> > Or is your intent merely to limit the reproduction of citizens that you find • to
> > be worthless to society?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by merely. I consider such a goal a grand
> aspiration, not something to be referred to as 'mere.' We already have
> natural selection that is guided by societal mores. I'm not proposing
> anything particularly revolutionary. And it's behavior that we impose
> on lower animals without qualm...what's the difference?
You must be one of the lower animals not to be able to see the difference.
:P
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
