Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-09-2019, 12:02 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
There was the amusing case of Craig T. Nelson who was upset about paying taxes. Nobody helped him when he was on foodstamps and welfare, so why should he help anyone else.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/craig-...-on-glenn-beck
I hadn't seen this before. How can someone possibly say "I was on food stamps and welfare" and THEN say "Nobody helped me"??
  #52  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:50 AM
Andy L Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I hadn't seen this before. How can someone possibly say "I was on food stamps and welfare" and THEN say "Nobody helped me"??
Epic levels of non-self-awareness?
  #53  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:51 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I hadn't seen this before. How can someone possibly say "I was on food stamps and welfare" and THEN say "Nobody helped me"??
Seems to me he may have been saying nobody helped him out of the situation of being on welfare, given the rest of the the sentence was "that came from my education"


As opposed to saying " nobody helped me out " as a coloquialism for getting help in general.


I could be wrong but he doesn't seem quite that stupid.


I could readily believe that some people would be that stupid though, quite a few I know of that it wouldn't really surprise me if they were to say that.

Last edited by Littleman; 01-09-2019 at 09:53 PM.
  #54  
Old 01-09-2019, 09:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,793
This is why education camps will be necessary.

We will need emergency legislation declaring the republican party a treasonous, terroristic political wing that is the enemy of the American people. This will only be possibly when the Republican policies bankrupt the average American, which is why we need a great depression. But even then, you're average Jerry Springer-watching, Joe Rogan-listening Ameritard still might not get it. The military (centrist) can take over and demand behavior.
  #55  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:08 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is why education camps will be necessary.

We will need emergency legislation declaring the republican party a treasonous, terroristic political wing that is the enemy of the American people. This will only be possibly when the Republican policies bankrupt the average American, which is why we need a great depression. But even then, you're average Jerry Springer-watching, Joe Rogan-listening Ameritard still might not get it. The military (centrist) can take over and demand behavior.
Not this unhinged shit again.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-09-2019 at 11:09 PM.
  #56  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:29 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Seems to me he may have been saying nobody helped him out of the situation of being on welfare, given the rest of the the sentence was "that came from my education".
I think the point is... food stamps and welfare helped him out of the situation he was in. "Being on welfare" isn't the core problem, being impoverished is.

Without these programs, without enough food or money to pay for rent, would his education have actually gotten him out of his bind?
  #57  
Old 01-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,794
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
This is why education camps will be necessary.

We will need emergency legislation declaring the republican party a treasonous, terroristic political wing that is the enemy of the American people. This will only be possibly when the Republican policies bankrupt the average American, which is why we need a great depression. But even then, you're average Jerry Springer-watching, Joe Rogan-listening Ameritard still might not get it. The military (centrist) can take over and demand behavior.
This is pretty far afield from the topic at hand. Also, ranting belongs in the Pit. Try to stay on topic, and save your rants for the proper place.

[/moderating]
  #58  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:26 PM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I think the point is... food stamps and welfare helped him out of the situation he was in. "Being on welfare" isn't the core problem, being impoverished is.

Without these programs, without enough food or money to pay for rent, would his education have actually gotten him out of his bind?
Yeah I know, it's kind of semantics but just saying, I'm not even sure who this guy is but taking the quote out of context definitely made it seem far more ridiculous.
  #59  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:59 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,354
Yeah but being on food stamps and welfare means somebody IS helping you. The rest of America is helping you. To deny that seems ridiculous to me.
  #60  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:09 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I think the point is... food stamps and welfare helped him out of the situation he was in. "Being on welfare" isn't the core problem, being impoverished is.

Without these programs, without enough food or money to pay for rent, would his education have actually gotten him out of his bind?
Yeah I know, it's kind of semantics but just saying, I'm not even sure who this guy is but taking the quote out of context definitely made it seem far more ridiculous.
Out of context? The post by Andy L upthread included a link to a transcript of the entire conversation with Craig T Nelson. Does reading the whole thing make it seem less ridiculous? I don't think so, but perhaps you do.
  #61  
Old 01-10-2019, 10:54 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
If I favor a complete gun ban but happen on one when the bad guy is raping and murdering my family, is it hypocrisy to use the gun?
"Gun ban" is kind of nebulous. If you believe that using guns to hurt others is wrong, and you use a gun to hurt someone, then yes, you were hypocritical.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-10-2019 at 10:56 PM.
  #62  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:34 AM
Littleman Littleman is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Out of context? The post by Andy L upthread included a link to a transcript of the entire conversation with Craig T Nelson. Does reading the whole thing make it seem less ridiculous? I don't think so, but perhaps you do.
Yeah, unlike many I actually read the last half of the same sentence.

It's all stupid but I mean , there are degrees of stupidity and specific kinds of help
Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish and all that.

Where I find it most ridiculous is that if he was on food stamps the education was probably paid for ,which he fails to mention.

Kudos for making the effort to advance beyond that but to then turn around and say you shouldn't return the favor because you had to put in effort is.... Well ok maybe that's the most ridiculous part.


Anyway, you must admit using only the first part is an attempt to exaggerate the stupidity even further.
  #63  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:47 AM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It is entirely possible to be against something, advocate against it, while simultaneously taking advantage of it.

Play within the rules, while trying to change the rules. I could be against a particular tax deduction, but continue to take it while it is available.
I agree, the OP proposition is a largely false choice. Especially when realistically considering the tiny % of people who seriously think there should be *no* publicly funded benefits. It seems implicitly based on a view of say 'Paul Ryan type' conservatives as favoring zero govt social programs, as opposed to the reality that they favor sizing them within the willingness of the public to pay for them, tilted relatively modestly in the direction of reining in benefit *growth* rather than raising taxes. Whereas most people on the reasonable left favor the same basic idea, just with a different mix of how much to tax and spend. It was only during Obama's admin that the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles committee recommended the issue be solved mainly by curtailing benefit *growth*, with some tax increases, though it didn't go anywhere

US politics (the implicit topic) is still to a large degree 'played between the 40 yard lines', though there's now more rhetorical extremism on substantive policy debates for its own sake. Which I believe is driven by the issues where partisans are *really* alienated from one another, which are cultural issues, not tax/spend issues per se. But it's spilling over into substantive issues now, for example more people now at least for show proposing no social welfare state at all (though almost exclusively on the internet) and others competing to see how extremely high a top marginal tax rate they can propose (that one includes relatively extreme elected Democratic officials though).

For high 90's% of people to the right of center there's no issue in accepted X benefit when you believe its growth will have to be limited in the future by a change in the rules per the accepted process, or even if that particular benefit (say, tax credits on the purchase of expensive electric cars by well off people) should be eliminated in a general overhaul that would still be very, very far from eliminating all social welfare spending.

Last edited by Corry El; 01-12-2019 at 10:50 AM.
  #64  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:16 AM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,580
Already most of what had to be said has been said -- I would comment that for some time now I have been tending to go when people try to "play the hypocrisy card" on this and other issues as if it were a quick way to shut up the other side. As mentioned very often what you are really observing is simple inconsistency, or lack of self-awareness/ignorance of the facts or context (the "self made" man who used public benefits), or just plain old fashioned selfishness not based on any high philosophical principle. That is fair game to pointing at, but at least let's accuse people of what they are actually doing.
  #65  
Old 01-13-2019, 02:13 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Already most of what had to be said has been said -- I would comment that for some time now I have been tending to go when people try to "play the hypocrisy card" on this and other issues as if it were a quick way to shut up the other side. As mentioned very often what you are really observing is simple inconsistency, or lack of self-awareness/ignorance of the facts or context (the "self made" man who used public benefits), or just plain old fashioned selfishness not based on any high philosophical principle. That is fair game to pointing at, but at least let's accuse people of what they are actually doing.
First sentence I agree with. From there though seems to do pretty much what the first sentence says not to, moral condemnation (if not specifically 'hypocrisy') of anyone not favoring more social welfare spending (from wherever it happens to be).

A person can be opposed to increasing social welfare spending without being hypocritical if they operate within the existing system, without lacking self awareness, without being ignorant, without being plain old fashioned selfish. It doesn't make their opinion one you have to agree with, but there's no such categorical moral/factual inferiority implied by such an opinion.

And specifically, it's not 'selfless' to propose as person A taking more tax money from person B to give to person C. Which is usually the situation of normal income people saying higher income people should pay more taxes. Sometimes it's rich people saying they themselves should pay more, but also sometimes it's people in group C saying other people should pay more for *their* benefits. There's no monopoly on selfishness on either side of that debate. And IMO a lot of people on both sides are motivated by non-selfish factors. What will result in a better society overall? Some people really do not believe that more and more taxation and social spending would necessarily lead in that direction. I find it a blind spot of many left leaning people not to recognize that possibility. Either the possibility it actually would not, or at least the possibility that others sincerely believe it would not.

Last edited by Corry El; 01-13-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #66  
Old 01-19-2019, 04:12 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
First sentence I agree with. From there though seems to do pretty much what the first sentence says not to, moral condemnation (if not specifically 'hypocrisy') of anyone not favoring more social welfare spending (from wherever it happens to be).
Because my point was, if either you or I consider someone to be operating from a willfully shortsighted or unrealistic premise, we should be able to say so, even strongly denounce it if we so feel, without gratuituously whipping out the "hypocrisy" card. If I believe someone is being selfish or lacking awareness, that should be what I claim and I should leave it open to rebuttal (as in fact you provide an example for) as opposed to go around saying "I call 'HYPOCRISY', game over I win!" as too many seem to think it works.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017