Pro-life and Democrat

[Arthur Brain]

I did use words, but not to appeal to emotion.

I wonder what the over/under is for you repeating that in new and entertaining ways until you hit your go-to emoji.

Wouldn't get much odds via William Hill or Ladbrokes on that one. In fact I think it's one of the few bets where the pundit always loses whatever...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nobody knows what you're talking about. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You're "Nobody" now?

 

[Town Heretic]

Wouldn't get much odds via William Hill or Ladbrokes on that one. In fact I think it's one of the few bets where the pundit always loses whatever...

Doesn't really matter to him what I post. He goes through the same motions. You know what it's about. I even tried setting it out without the inference.

Kat was saying that she gets tired of helping those who won't help themselves, in essence. The point of my answer was to remind her that Christ sacrificed for all of us and we could be aptly described as being, spiritually, exactly as she sees those who won't do for themselves materially.

It was an appeal to emotion.

Try to make rational points. That's what one would expect from a rationalist.

That was the response. It's not about getting or not getting, except for the goat.

What I wrote for Kat wasn't an emotional appeal, but a call for a broader perspective, a recognition that her complaint is problematic, that in the right context we are, each of us, the worst possible expression of the negative stereotype that fuels her irritation.

If we, as Christians, are saved from our willful acts, then is it so much to help those who are only described that way in the margin?

 

[Stripe]

A call for a broader perspective, a recognition that her complaint is problematic.

There was nothing wrong with her words. We get it: You don't like them. You could just say that. Instead, you trot out an appeal to emotion that exposes your ignorance of what the gospel is.

If we, as Christians, are saved from our willful acts, then is it so much to help those who are only described that way in the margin?

It's not an issue of salvation.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

Doesn't really matter to him what I post. He goes through the same motions. You know what it's about. I even tried setting it out without the inference.

Oh, sure I do. It's the standard Stripe "response" to post silly little smileys when smarting or caught lacking in argument. It's little wonder he's reduced to it so much.

 

[Ktoyou]

I was with you until the end of that, because we both know the standard of living the poor would receive if we dedicated ourselves to a living wage floor would be far below what those of us who have or have experienced the life provided by having substantial means experience(d).

Travel, both abroad and at home, cultural exposure, quality of everything from the sheets on your bed to the food in your pantry is simply on a different level. And it would be if we did a better job for the poor, though I'd agree that job should be tied into production of some sort where possible. Let's have another TVA or the like. Our infrastructure is a mess and there's plenty of work to be done.


I wonder if Jesus ever gets tired of forgiving us on that same principle.

It's worth considering at any rate.

There is just an observable contradiction for me, as on moral grounds I would be against abortion and for open, even paid adoption. On economic grounds it would be irrational to be pro-life.
So, there you have it the moral side of me prevents my condoning pro choice, which presents a contradiction in my stance on women's rights and personality theory.

 

[quip]

It is just as simple as wealthy persons paying almost all the taxes in this country being sick of doing so. That is the main issue I see, too much offered to the poor destroys their incentive to work when they can receive almost the same standard of living on the dole.

Is this endemic to the poor/poverty or rather a condition of the low-wage/max-profit system the 1% (enjoying 80% of it's proceeds) have constructed for themselves?

 

[Ktoyou]

Is this endemic to the poor/poverty or rather a condition of the low-wage/max-profit system the 1% (enjoying 80% of it's proceeds) have constructed for themselves?

The 1% everyone hold up to criticism are not replaceable. Think about it; say, an ordinary labour is worth twice his wage, so the company makes his wage in profit, thus pays him half they retain from his labour. Now imagine that one PhD. student in chemistry, the one who is just smarter than all the other PhD. graduates, and he invents a new cancer or AIDs drug, or maybe just a real working insomnia medicine, and the company which hired him makes billions off his great gift of extreme ability. and he is the only one, or only one of very few. Now he goes to work for a big pharmaceutical company that offers him a 5 million dollar a year salary. Is he not being cheated in a way, since all the manual worker can offer is twice is worth in hid labour, while the chemist will make the company 1000 times his worth! Now who is being cheated?

Welcome to the world of economics! What you Marxist leaning thinkers need to understand is that !% who originally made their wealth have done more than 100,000 workers, yet you can seriously entertain that the genius who make industry work does not deserve his great wealth.

The government taxes him by his salary them up the percentage as if it is wrong to be a smart and creative person.

You take God out of the equation, as many today do and what you have is the reality that most persons are simple not worth as much as the few others, and that is reality, which divides people.

 

[ok doser]

Is this endemic to the poor/poverty or rather a condition of the low-wage/max-profit system the 1% (enjoying 80% of it's proceeds) have constructed for themselves?

which 1% ?

name them

are you referring to physicians, lawyers, accountants, dentists, computer designers?

https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu...2516004.png?w=768&crop=0,0px,100,9999px&ssl=1

is there any particular reason you think they shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of their labors, that others should benefit from their hard work, years of education and intelligence?

 

[ok doser]

The 1% everyone hold up to criticism are not replaceable. Think about it; say, an ordinary labour is worth twice his wage, so the company makes his wage in profit, thus pays him half they retain from his labour. Now imagine that one PhD. student in chemistry, the one who is just smarter than all the other PhD. graduates, and he invents a new cancer or AIDs drug, or maybe just a real working insomnia medicine, and the company which hired him makes billions off his great gift of extreme ability. and he is the only one, or only one of very few. Now he goes to work for a big pharmaceutical company that offers him a 5 million dollar a year salary. Is he not being cheated in a way, since all the manual worker can offer is twice is worth in hid labour, while the chemist will make the company 1000 times his worth! Now who is being cheated?

Welcome to the world of economics! What you Marxist leaning thinkers need to understand is that !% who originally made their wealth have done more than 100,000 workers, yet you can seriously entertain that the genius who make industry work does not deserve his great wealth.

The government taxes him by his salary them up the percentage as if it is wrong to be a smart and creative person.

You take God out of the equation, as many today do and what you have is the reality that most persons are simple not worth as much as the few others, and that is reality, which divides people.

it's jealousy, plain and simple - they want that which they haven't earned or deserve and demand it like little children

a lot of ongoing conversation in canada about this at the moment - they've just implemented $14/hour minimum wage in Ontario and there's increasing talk around the feasibility of a Guaranteed Minimum Income

$14/hour mandatory minimum wage. Say goodbye, teens, to entry level jobs where you learn a skill while earning pocket money

 

[Jonahdog]

You take God out of the equation, as many today do and what you have is the reality that most persons are simple not worth as much as the few others, and that is reality, which divides people.

Interesting, you need your god to give you worth?

 

[Stripe]

Interesting, you need your god to give you worth?

The only avenue of objective worth is through God.

 

[Jonahdog]

The only avenue of objective worth is through God.

Without any objective evidence of your particular deity. Again, interesting.

 

[quip]

The 1% everyone hold up to criticism are not replaceable. Think about it; say, an ordinary labour is worth twice his wage, so the company makes his wage in profit, thus pays him half they retain from his labour. Now imagine that one PhD. student in chemistry, the one who is just smarter than all the other PhD. graduates, and he invents a new cancer or AIDs drug, or maybe just a real working insomnia medicine, and the company which hired him makes billions off his great gift of extreme ability. and he is the only one, or only one of very few. Now he goes to work for a big pharmaceutical company that offers him a 5 million dollar a year salary. Is he not being cheated in a way, since all the manual worker can offer is twice is worth in hid labour, while the chemist will make the company 1000 times his worth! Now who is being cheated?

Welcome to the world of economics! What you Marxist leaning thinkers need to understand is that !% who originally made their wealth have done more than 100,000 workers, yet you can seriously entertain that the genius who make industry work does not deserve his great wealth.

The government taxes him by his salary them up the percentage as if it is wrong to be a smart and creative person.

Apologetics for the advantaged always seems bizarre (ironically superfluous) to me..especially coming from the - less than auspicious - working-class segment of that remaining 99%. :idunno:

You take God out of the equation, as many today do and what you have is the reality that most persons are simple not worth as much as the few others, and that is reality, which divides people.

Well then, in that case put God back into the equation...and recalculate. Or perhaps, never take Him out to begin with! :idea:

 

[quip]

Interesting, you need your god to give you worth?

God is, as God does....via mankind.

 

[Stripe]

Without any objective evidence of your particular deity. Again, interesting.

:rotfl:

:mock: Jonah.

 

[Idolater]

Without any objective evidence of your particular deity. Again, interesting.

You don't think Christ's Resurrection is 'objective evidence?' Interesting.

 

[quip]

You don't think Christ's Resurrection is 'objective evidence?' Interesting.

Not by objective evidentiary standards.

 

[ok doser]

Not by objective evidentiary standards.

you have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event

what else would you expect or accept?

 

[quip]

you have recorded eyewitness accounts of the event

what else would you expect or accept?

Certainly not by hearsay...religious or otherwise.