Keep moving the goalposts. Eventually, maybe somebody will fall for it. This has nothing to do with the original question you posed. Also find it cute you refuse to answer any questions you don’t like…which seems to be most of them.
Completely different question than the one originally postulated. I notice you still haven’t answered tom’s question. Too hard for you? Or are you capable only of dodging?
I am trying to figure out if people are approving of others that make their living in a non-productive way, simply because there’s enough people already who are doing something productive.
But if accusing me of shifting the goalposts is easier than asking me to clarify something you don’t understand, then accuse away.
I’m convinced the net effect of meter maids in small towns is just a leech on taxpayers. What’s that? My property taxes won’t cover the nickel an hour to park on main street and the woman wandering around gets a paycheck because she busts people doing some shopping.
I also have an issue with small towns who have WAY too much law enforcement, who must then justify the expense with over policing and numerous speed traps.
Oh boy.
Apologies to everyone while I engage in some frivolity:
Because I’m a deeply insecure person, and finding ways to elevate myself above others makes me feel better. I am emotionally immature with very low self-esteem, and this often causes me to question my self worth. So that’s why I really enjoy it when I see others mocking and putting down people for doing something I don’t do, or not doing something that I do. It’s just my childish way of making myself feel better, because I’d rather do this then actually deal with my emotional problems.
You know, it must be great being someone that doesn’t look down on anybody for anything, because otherwise I could accuse you of throwing stones in glass houses :rolleyes:
Sure, why the hell not? None of my business if someone plays cards all day. (as long as they tip the waitress who brings the drinks)
Well, I look down on you. Happy? 
Interestingly, I was actually interested in the question because I saw the whole card player discussion as a niggling detail that could turn into a hijack.
If we have no legitimate reason to look down on anyone, why should we look for more reasons to scorn other people?
However, since you appear to be uncomfortable addressing your own question, I will leave you to your card sharp quibbles.
I’m still trying to figure out your definition of non-productive. So people who used to work at something productive, but now don’t due to retirement, get a pass.
How about someone that worked for 20 years and then won the lottery?
How about someone that worked for 10 years, then became a professional gambler?
Someone born into money, that’s never had to work?
Someone with low material demands, so they don’t need to work to fill them?
In short, why the heck would you take any of this as a generic license to look down on someone? Your question about the 2 non-producers on a deserted island is different, IF their lack of participation lowers the survivablilty of the others AND if the 2 still take part in the largess of the other 18. If the 2 care to wander off to the other side of the island, or sit on the beach, chewing grass stems, then Via con Dios.
With some due respect, it seems like you’re fishing for an angle to either attack someone on ( my guess is you’re looking to pick a fight with someone who says that it’s ok to be down on someone who ‘doesn’t contribute to society’ with whatever your pet peeve occupation is) or you’re looking to try to make yourself look superior.
So, before you go any further, you need to define, clearly, what you consider to be “contributing to society”. No quibbling, no waffling… what defines the important part of what you’re asking?
You say making music is contributing.
You say stocking shelves is contributing.
You say that making a living playing cards is not.
Why? Define, or drop it. Put up or shut up.
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.
Gaming a slot machine does not contribute productively to society, surely by every reasonable definition of productive.
Paving roads does contribute productively to society, surely by every reasonable definition of productive.
So what? What I’m doing right this minute doesn’t contribute productively to society either. Or what you’re doing right now. You have already stated that past productivity gives people a pass. (Say that three times fast!) We have also pointed out that even if the hypothetical slot gamer existed, she would still be buying things with her winnings, tipping the cocktail waitress, paying for parking, and doing all the other economic activities that keep the system working.So unless you are willing to posit a gamer who springs like Athena into existence, having never done a thing productive in her life, having inherited her initial stake, who pays no taxes and buys nothing from anybody else, the question is rather meaningless.
What we are doing right now is not what we do to make a living. This is leisure time. Why, in a discussion about what people do for a living, are you pointing out that we are not being productive in our leisure time?
Spending money is not what working people do for a living. Spending money is what people do with their money after they have acquired it. People who rob banks also spend their money, yet we look on down on them for how they acquire it.
I disagree.
Way back when, you stated that “stay-at-home” mothers contributed to society by allowing their partners to go off and have jobs. Same goes for the slot player. If she wasn’t there, the waitresses, bartenders, valets, cage cashiers, floor managers, etc. would all be out of jobs. Her presence is what enables them to go out and make a living being productive. Therefore, she is productive.
Bank robbery is a crime, because the robber takes by force property that belongs to others.
As I posted earlier, but you conveniently ignored, your slot player harms no one, breaks no laws, therefore, what he does is none of your damned business.
Umm, no. No business in the world is there due to people that take money from it, rather than put money in it.
What about somebody that has figured out a way to live off welfare. Do you feel the same way about them?
Isn’t the system the problem, in that case? Close the loophole and go on. Something about hating the sin but loving the sinner.
Strongly suspect I have a lot more experience with people on various forms of public benefits than you do. It ain’t quite the gravy train you seem to think it is. Most folks I know who receive such benefits want very much to improve their station in life to the point that such benefits are no longer needed.
That said, if someone qualifies to receive the benefits under applicable law, then I have no problem with them receiving those benefits.
You’re committing the broken window fallacy. If not for those marketing campaigns, those people would be making more cola beverages.