Indeed. And am I the only person who had a mental image of the man using that bed on which he’s sitting to masturbate about Halle Berry? Like I said, hideous hack article.
That man is not depressed; that man has a good thing going, and he doesn’t want it to end. If someone put me up in a hotel and gave me $9000, I might just lie around and watch tv, too. Was he
As for how special humans are, there are six billion of us. We’re not all special. In fact, most of us are decidedly un-special. You know what’s special? 6000 tigers left in the entire world.
It is a noble idea to keep every single human alive for as long as possible, and go to extreme lengths to make sure every human who wants to can reproduce, but I’m not sure that’s going to be good for the human race in the long run from a biological standpoint.
Oops, left a thought unfinished. I was starting to say, “Was he a product of his environment and his upbringing, that he would waste $9000 and then stick his hand out for more? Sure. But he is also a mature human being who can change himself and his life if he makes the decision to do so.”
Unfortunately, this guy actually does sound like a lazy, lustful, childish jerk who can’t/won’t manage his money.
If you’re looking for some light diversion this summer, might i suggest the work of William Graham Sumner. His Social Darwinism might appeal to you.
Admittedly, he didn’t actually advocate the killing of social “parasites,” as you so charmingly put it, but he did suggest that society would be better off without them around.
This quote is taken from his essay “Sociology,” which can be found here.
There’s also his classic work, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. While it’s impossible to reduce a 160-page book to one word, the general impression one gets is that his answer is “nothing.”
You guys should get along great.
Instead of insulting WierdDave why not make an effort to refute his posts and/or Sumner’s point of view?
Or are you such a lazy sack of shite that you can’t be arsed to do that 
Superficial biased reporting will do that.
There’s a huge difference between can’t manage money and won’t manage money, too.
But what’s your basis for saying the reporting is superficial and biased? The fact that he didn’t offer proof for the “partying” comment and that he notes Johnson doesn’t like to beg for change? What you’re actually doing is making guesses about how the reporter learned these things. It’s equally possible that Johnson SAID he spent the money on partying and that he doesn’t like begging for change, for example.
You are invited for tea and chloroform when you are in Nashville.
~Ole Miz Zoe
Oh, YEAH? Well I [Snips wisass remarks when I remember who I’m dealing with, here.] and I ain’t a-sceerd of you or your funny tasting drinks nohow! 
Zoe, is this an Arsenic and Old Lace-style reference/joke, or am I playing my usual dumb foreigner role to perfection?
I can almost hear someone saying it, so I’ll get it in first: “You are quite convincing, I assure you.”
This bears repeating.
You’re right I’m making guesses. That’s because the reporter didn’t do his job with his sources.
- It’s superficial because the sources aren’t well-documented and identified. No one in management from the Holiday Inn is used as a direct source, nor are they identified as an indirect source of information. We only have the reporter’s word that Sharon the caseworker has relevant information and is assumed to be part of a germaine social agency. Plus I don’t like the one-sided treatment of Johnson – his side of the story is completely missing. Which means either he didn’t do his job or is possibly making shit up – which he will totally get away with, given that Johnson is a poor, dispossessed, homeless guy with an apparently frustrated advocate. 2) It’s biased because of words used by the reporter. Decriptors like “lazy lust,” “booze,” “partying,” have no business in the factual text of an article unless its clear the’s writer is paraphrasing a direct quote from a source in the story. The reporter seems to be making his own judgements and drawing his own conclusions. That’s bias. This ain’t an op-ed piece, (that I’m aware of) this is news.
Q.E.D., you left out the sentence before that one, which makes the whole situation even more of a candidate for the Twilight Zone:
(emphasis mine)
Where’s the insult?
I described Sumner’s views as Social Darwinist, and anyone who knows anything about American intellectual history would agree with me. The views of weirddave, as presented in this thread, are also Social Darwinism. Sumner also has other views about free markets and social responsibility that dave, based on the positions he’s taken on this board, would probably agree with.
If you called me a Social Darwinist, i might be insulted, because i don’t espouse such views; i am, in fact, a social meliorist. But if one expresses Social Darwinist views, then one shouldn’t be surprised when others give those views their proper name.
The reason you’re making guesses is that you want to look at it a different way. The reporter does use biased language, and he could be clearer with his sources. But the making shit up/didn’t do his job part, unfortunately, is what you’d like to think. Maybe I’m holding someone else to my own standards, but if the guy writes Johnson spent most of the money on partying, I’m gonna guess that it’s because Johnson described his activities that way.
You know what, screw it. I’m putting more effort into defending this piece than it deserves. I don’t think the author is going for any racial stereotypes, but he IS trying to shock people by making Johnson look as lazy as possible, which is reflected in the word choices you’re complaining about. He could have written a piece that was harder to attack if he’d sourced things better, and, more importantly, if he’d offered any kind of balance. Even if everything he says is true, he handles it poorly.
That’s an interesting point. However, if everyone was motivated by being tossed out on the street, we wouldn’t have such a homeless problem, no? He’s been fed, clothed, and taken care of. If his situation in the hotel is better than the situation at home, why does he have any motivation to go back?
I’m not saying that he isn’t an asshole. I’m not saying that he’s not lazy. I’m not saying he hasn’t abused the hell out of the system. I’m not saying that we should give him a dime more unless he works for it. I’m simply saying that we don’t know know what a person is capable of.
Completely agreed.
This is demonstrably false. If I held a gun to your head and told you to do 20 jumpjacks, or I’ll pull the trigger, that’s a pretty good motivation to start calesthenics. However, I think (and I could be wrong) that you’re saying that motivation from external sources is never as powerful as motivation from within. If that’s what you’re saying, then I completely agree with that as well.
However, if he starts to starve, he will go to a public hospital and use up their precious resources trying to get fed. Or if he starves to death, his family will raise hell and try to sue whoever threw him out of the boat.
I don’t have any quick and easy answers, obviously, but there are (and I believe always will be) people who will take advantage of the system if they can.
It sounds to me like he is mentally ill to me.
But in the scheme of things, 9k isn’t that much. If you lost your home, your job, your car and everything you owned, 9k probably would be a drop in the bucket towards getting your life back together- the Peace Corps gives returned volunteers a 6k reajustment payment, and this is for mostly young people who chose this path and were able to plan on it.
I have some professor-friends who lost their homes to Katrina, and now they may well end up homeless (couch surfing most-likely, since they are of the class that they have social connections in most major cities) because their FEMA money is running out. It’s not so easy to just pick up a professor job, and they havn’t really been able to stay in place long. Sad story, really. But at least they have the resources to know that they won’t always be like this.
I am such an enigma…I’m all about using tax dollars as a sort of insurance pool for those who get smitten by the Hand of God. I think it takes this great big country a step closer to being a small community. But just as soon as someone demonstrates a parasitic nature on such a system, they need to receive a deep facial brand and be barred from further assistance, and persecuted as a nuisance by law enforcement if they attempt to freelance their laziness on street corners.
Oh, and DEFIANT 1, if you mean “Fucking lazy Southern Nigger” then just say it. You might just find that, while an unpopular term in some circles, you will in fact receive a greater degree of respect around here simply by not coming off as a sneaky, backpeddaling liar. If you’re not eventually banned, please allow me to be the first to invite you to just get the fuck out of here.