Social Welfare is immoral and evil.

[Mr Natural]

If private charities were enough to see to it that the less fortunate among us were seen to, then the government would not have needed to get involved.

 

[originalthought]

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

If you are in need of other great thinkers and philosophers who advocate taking care of the less fortunate as an act of morality, we'll talk about it. But I can assure you that bigger minds than yours and mine have seen the utter truth of morality in giving succor to the poor.

First of all, you have no idea who you are talking to, so you dont know.
Secondally, I never said I was against giving to those in need.

What I said was that government socail welfare is immoral. Forcing me to help people is immoral. You want to quote Jesus, Jesus also said Do onto other as you would ahve them do unto you." I never steal and take things from others because I don't want anyone to steal my stuff.

you still have not proven the morality of social welfare. you only state that it IS moral, but you have failed to prove it

And you still avoid the question - If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable? (

 

[Indeependent]

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

 

[Nosmo King]

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

If you are in need of other great thinkers and philosophers who advocate taking care of the less fortunate as an act of morality, we'll talk about it. But I can assure you that bigger minds than yours and mine have seen the utter truth of morality in giving succor to the poor.

First of all, you have no idea who you are talking to, so you dont know.
Secondally, I never said I was against giving to those in need.

What I said was that government socail welfare is immoral. Forcing me to help people is immoral. You want to quote Jesus, Jesus also said Do onto other as you would ahve them do unto you." I never steal and take things from others because I don't want anyone to steal my stuff.

you still have not proven the morality of social welfare. you only state that it IS moral, but you have failed to prove it

And you still avoid the question - If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable? (

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

 

[theword]

If private charities were enough to see to it that the less fortunate among us were seen to, then the government would not have needed to get involved.

The Christian churches in Campbell, CA, tell us homeless people to go to San Jose to seek help. LOL

 

[originalthought]

Jesus of Nazareth said taking care of the poor is moral. Perhaps you have heard of Him.

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

Taking a dump in private is to my own self interest, and to yours

Neither of those examples involve taking away my proerty and giving it to other people, for "the greater good." Thats the immoral action jackass. Taking my property that I earned and giving it to someone else against my will.

 

[Indeependent]

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

Taking a dump in private is to my own self interest, and to yours

Neither of those examples involve taking away my proerty and giving it to other people, for "the greater good." Thats the immoral action jackass. Taking my property that I earned and giving it to someone else against my will.

As a matter of reference, do you have society today or in the past that has handled this situation in a successful manner acceptable to you and what would that methodology be?
The key words being successful and acceptable.

 

[Nosmo King]

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

Taking a dump in private is to my own self interest, and to yours

Neither of those examples involve taking away my proerty and giving it to other people, for "the greater good." Thats the immoral action jackass. Taking my property that I earned and giving it to someone else against my will.

Funny. I feel the same way when my taxes are spent on bombs.

 

[originalthought]

If you are in need of other great thinkers and philosophers who advocate taking care of the less fortunate as an act of morality, we'll talk about it. But I can assure you that bigger minds than yours and mine have seen the utter truth of morality in giving succor to the poor.

First of all, you have no idea who you are talking to, so you dont know.
Secondally, I never said I was against giving to those in need.

What I said was that government socail welfare is immoral. Forcing me to help people is immoral. You want to quote Jesus, Jesus also said Do onto other as you would ahve them do unto you." I never steal and take things from others because I don't want anyone to steal my stuff.

you still have not proven the morality of social welfare. you only state that it IS moral, but you have failed to prove it

And you still avoid the question - If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable? (

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

 

[Indeependent]

First of all, you have no idea who you are talking to, so you dont know.
Secondally, I never said I was against giving to those in need.

What I said was that government socail welfare is immoral. Forcing me to help people is immoral. You want to quote Jesus, Jesus also said Do onto other as you would ahve them do unto you." I never steal and take things from others because I don't want anyone to steal my stuff.

you still have not proven the morality of social welfare. you only state that it IS moral, but you have failed to prove it

And you still avoid the question - If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable? (

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

What is the moral compass?

 

[originalthought]

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

What is the moral compass?

Life, Liberty, and Property. Along with reason and logic.

I am surprised anyone would have to ask..... Use your own and it will reveal the kind of person you are I guess

 

[originalthought]

You are forced against your will to take a dump in private by virtue of being educated in a civilized society.
You are forced to drive below a certain speed based upon, seemingly, in your opinion, immoral traffic laws.
And so on...

Taking a dump in private is to my own self interest, and to yours

Neither of those examples involve taking away my proerty and giving it to other people, for "the greater good." Thats the immoral action jackass. Taking my property that I earned and giving it to someone else against my will.

Funny. I feel the same way when my taxes are spent on bombs.

Me too. I am against war except in self defense.

 

[Nosmo King]

First of all, you have no idea who you are talking to, so you dont know.
Secondally, I never said I was against giving to those in need.

What I said was that government socail welfare is immoral. Forcing me to help people is immoral. You want to quote Jesus, Jesus also said Do onto other as you would ahve them do unto you." I never steal and take things from others because I don't want anyone to steal my stuff.

you still have not proven the morality of social welfare. you only state that it IS moral, but you have failed to prove it

And you still avoid the question - If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood voted and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable? (

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

You speak of "duty". That's odd because I feel you have no real sense of duty, honor, or the Golden Rule of Christian charity. Do you want to take a good, studious look at the second paragraph of your post to which I'm responding? Maybe you can make sense of it, but it fails me.

And if my '
roommates' tok my things, that's theft. I presume that, if they are my roommates, they are doing as well as I. But if a hobo came to the door begging a meal or a shower, it is my moral duty to provide them.

 

[originalthought]

I have proved it. Our constitutional preamble provides for both domestic tranquility and promotion of the general welfare. Can you possibly imagine anything like domestic tranquility should the poor rise up out of shear desperation? Does it promote the general welfare having people without the basics of human survival?

Your ham handed specious argument about roommates taking my belongings is not applicable. Perhaps you should take that self professed 'big mind' of yours and develop a more apt scenario. Judging from the syntax, grammar, spelling and basis of your argument, I feel as if I'm on firm ground when I say bigger minds than yours or mine have concluded the moral argument of helping the destitute.

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

You speak of "duty". That's odd because I feel you have no real sense of duty, honor, or the Golden Rule of Christian charity. Do you want to take a good, studious look at the second paragraph of your post to which I'm responding? Maybe you can make sense of it, but it fails me.And if my '
roommates' tok my things, that's theft. I presume that, if they are my roommates, they are doing as well as I. But if a hobo came to the door begging a meal or a shower, it is my moral duty to provide them.

Next time dont be a jackass about grammar. It's a stupid blog! LOL. And please highlight which paragraph you want me to change so you can understand.

Ok- you answered most of the questions in the "story," except "What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft?


And I am not arguing anything against you taking a homo in. That's your preference. I am arguing agaist you bringing that hobo over to my house and forcing me to take care of him for one night. That's is immoral because you are using force; you are forcing your will onto me.

I will practive the Christian golden rule on my own accord. If you force me to do, I don't beleive that Christ will be pleased.

 

[Nosmo King]

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

You speak of "duty". That's odd because I feel you have no real sense of duty, honor, or the Golden Rule of Christian charity. Do you want to take a good, studious look at the second paragraph of your post to which I'm responding? Maybe you can make sense of it, but it fails me.And if my '
roommates' tok my things, that's theft. I presume that, if they are my roommates, they are doing as well as I. But if a hobo came to the door begging a meal or a shower, it is my moral duty to provide them.

Next time dont be a jackass about grammar. It's a stupid blog! LOL. And please highlight which paragraph you want me to change so you can understand.

Ok- you answered most of the questions in the "story," except "What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft?


And I am not arguing anything against you taking a homo in. That's your preference. I am arguing agaist you bringing that hobo over to my house and forcing me to take care of him for one night. That's is immoral because you are using force; you are forcing your will onto me.

I will practive the Christian golden rule on my own accord. If you force me to do, I don't beleive that Christ will be pleased.

What you don't know about Jesus could fill a Bible.

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Seems He used the verb 'command', in spite of your self centered greed.

 

[originalthought]

You speak of "duty". That's odd because I feel you have no real sense of duty, honor, or the Golden Rule of Christian charity. Do you want to take a good, studious look at the second paragraph of your post to which I'm responding? Maybe you can make sense of it, but it fails me.And if my '
roommates' tok my things, that's theft. I presume that, if they are my roommates, they are doing as well as I. But if a hobo came to the door begging a meal or a shower, it is my moral duty to provide them.

Next time dont be a jackass about grammar. It's a stupid blog! LOL. And please highlight which paragraph you want me to change so you can understand.

Ok- you answered most of the questions in the "story," except "What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft?


And I am not arguing anything against you taking a homo in. That's your preference. I am arguing agaist you bringing that hobo over to my house and forcing me to take care of him for one night. That's is immoral because you are using force; you are forcing your will onto me.

I will practive the Christian golden rule on my own accord. If you force me to do, I don't beleive that Christ will be pleased.

What you don't know about Jesus could fill a Bible.

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Seems He used the verb 'command', in spite of your self centered greed.

Well Jesus didn't command that. And even though the word "command" is used, do you really think if something is done out of force it is done with love? God also told the Israelites to keept the Sabbath day on the seventh day (Saturday) Do you follow that one too?

I dont want to play this religion game in this thread. Start one up and I will come show how much about Jesus and the Bible I know.


I want you to show me, using logic and reason, not emotion, that social wekfare is moral.if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?" Would it still be theft? Please stop avoiding the questions.

 

[Nosmo King]

If there are arsons in your neighborhood, your home owners premiums will rise, even though your house wasn't burned. If there is a blighted property on your block, your house's value suffers, even though your house is a show piece.

If there is hunger, poverty, inadequate housing, inadequate clothing for the poor, our American economy suffers. I'll put it in terms you can wrap whatever it is you call a heart around. Poverty in the neighborhood causes a drop in the value of that neighborhood.

If people are unable to compete economically, through whatever circumstance, the entire economy is slowed. Helping people reach a place where they have the chance to compete makes our economic output stronger.

I sense you utterly despise the poor with a Dickensian fervor. Is helping the poor a moral act? Only someone devoid of morality could pose such a question. If the simple Christian virtues are too much for you to handle, maybe the economic benefits will open your eyes.

And, on a side note, could I ask, are you younger than 25 years old? I'm curious because mature people understand morality far better than youngsters who have precious little life experience. Doubt me? Have a four year old ask you why is the sky blue and then, after you explain dispersion of light, count the times they ask why.

 

[hangover]

Social Welfare is immoral and evil.

This is one of those right wing "so called" christians that try to make people believe that Jesus preached "greed is good". This morality is "fuck the poor, fuck the elderly, fuck the sick". Here's a clue, it's not morality it's moronic.

You're just one ugly human being...who has bought into the Government is all good and if people don't believe that, than they get your kind garbage you've heard from others dumped on them..
do you ever think for yourself?

I think not for myself, but for the common good. As opposed to you, not having two braincells to think with. If you had two, you could rub them together and start a fire. Your religion is ANTIchrist.

 

[Indeependent]

Just because the framers talk about general welfare, does not mean that it is correct! They also allowed slavery to continue. Is slavery moral?

Is it my duty as a human being to provide a person with the basics of human survival? No. It is not the govt's either. It is your own duty as a human being

If you lived with roommates, would it be acceptable for them to take your belongings? What if the entire neighborhood "agreed in a court of law" and said your roommates had the right to take your belongings; would it then become morally acceptable?
There I changed it... Now can you answer?

What is the moral compass?

Life, Liberty, and Property. Along with reason and logic.

I am surprised anyone would have to ask..... Use your own and it will reveal the kind of person you are I guess

And Native Americans and Africans were given these attributes by the Constitution.
So I presume that reason and logic obviate scripture.

 

[originalthought]

If the question is one of morality, then yes indeed it is a moral act for a government to serve its least fortunate citizens. Abandonment and indifference is immoral. If the question is one of legality, then again, the answer is yes. Social Security has yet to be found to be unconstitutional.

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral. I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?