Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
At the end of the day, would you let a person die?
I think the main difference between liberal and conservative is that, liberalism is just plain easier. Hence the bleeding heart tag that's often associated. It would also make sense that chemistry has a lot to do with it too. How many staunch conservatives are female for example. Usually most liberals are either women or fags like 75th...
Whatever the case, the notion that someone who
-doesn't take care of themselves,
-or their property,
-lets their delinquent kids run wild that they had irresponsibly,
-would rather sit around doing drugs than look for a job,
-uses a welfare card to pay for groceries then goes out and buys a big screen TV or other luxury,
-occupies Wall St.
deserves anything other than a "Fuck off" from a personally/socially disciplined and proactive person, is just asinine and part of the problem we have today.
I didn't say that you were responsible for anyone else other then yourself.How so? So, as a taxpayer, I'm responsible for the lives of other full grown adults?
I think that one side is easier because people aren't honest with themselves.I think the main difference between liberal and conservative is that, liberalism is just plain easier.
Are you saying to save the person regardless? Wow, you must be rich! You can pay my share.Nice
I didn't say that you were responsible for anyone else other then yourself.
I said would you do it?
I think that we need to be more honest with ourselves. Some people get a shitty lot in life and have some medical conditions that require attention and they don't have the ability to pay for them. You have a chance to let that person have somewhat of a normal life through taxation OR they could die because they didn't get their medicine.
So, the question is - Is $10 or $100 in taxation worth it? Sure, some will take advantage of the situation and be lazy (and most people believe that they will). Some are in the situation because of shitty conditions.
Or we could take it another way. Your husband dies in a car crash. Your baby has a few tough years with health problems and then beaten with a claw hammer then raped when she's a teenager. For argument's sake, let's say that she wants to have an abortion. Am I am bad person for not giving one dollar for her?
Or we could take it a third way. My family's house is destroyed by a flood. I am the the only surviving member of my clan. My insurance found a loophole and screwed me out of paying my insurance. The government could spend a little money to provide relief to the area. Are you a bad person for not helping me out?
Generally, people tend to think that all poor people are lazy or that all rich people are crooks but we both know that it isn't true. There are situations for everyone one, but we both know that people don't give a fuck for the situation and lumps people into general groups.
If it helps, my answer to the first question is to let that person die. I have no problems with it.
I know what you mean (to a degree). My cousin worked in the social sector in the inner city. I would help her out from time to time because I "wanted to make a difference". That experience changed my perspective on everything.I agree that there are specific situations that would IMO warrant temporary help. I worked in Cook County (Chicago) doing child welfare for over a decade and I worked closely with this population (unemployed, uneducated, multiple children, welfare families) and based on what i observed over the course of almost 13 yrs doing that kind of work, there are not NEARLY enough parameters in place to curb abuse of the system. Our government sucks at pretty much everything it does, and this is only one example. It's like we're just throwing money away year after year to people who don't deserve the help. Sooo frustrating. Our resources arent allocated very wisely from what I can see.