The Prog Squad

[Adre]

I was making a much broader point, not one confined to charitable acts. Calling into question the notion that ‘I did it all by myself and needed no help from “society” to do so.’

 

[LukNotLuke]

Idiots throw out pejoratives like Randian, FOX and racist because they
are completely incapable of formulating grown up argumentation or
even understanding the differences between Aristotle and Plato and
the impact that they have had upon society, the former more briefly,
and with greater progress for mankind than the latter who has
brought us nothing but grief in the form of Kant, Hegel and a
myriad of royal families, dictators, primal tribes and tyrants.

You just say these things in random threads like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. It only proves that you're the one incapable of original thought.

 

[HisArpy]

You just say these things in random threads like it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't. It only proves that you're the one incapable of original thought.

Or it gets you to comment and show your lack of comprehension on anything and everything.

It's one or the other.

Decisions, decisions...

 

[LukNotLuke]

Or it gets you to comment and show your lack of comprehension on anything and everything.

It's one or the other.

Decisions, decisions...

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3e/56/71/3e5671a7c4eda1192c1c082f8b603cf8.jpg

Like I said, you're nothing but a cheerleader for morons who are usually wrong. AJ spews this irrelevant crap in threads which he is incapable of participating in. Been that way for years, n00b.

 

[HisArpy]

Like I said, you're nothing but a cheerleader for morons who are usually wrong. AJ spews this irrelevant crap in threads which he is incapable of participating in. Been that way for years, n00b.

You know what's kewl about being a cheerleader?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I was making a much broader point, not one confined to charitable acts. Calling into question the notion that ‘I did it all by myself and needed no help from “society” to do so.’

I understand and I'm cutting through all the buuu shit and getting down to brass tacks, Because we all know we aren't talking about infrastructure and national security here.


Bottom line argument is over taking care of the less fortunate in our society.

We have two options.

Voluntary charity and free association vs. authoritative wealth redistribution.

At three levels, local, state and federal.

Fight over what level does this problem need to be addressed??

Being a big fan of federalism over a unitary state, I think the authority should stay as close to the people as possible for maximum effect and minimal infringement.

Also I think poverty is too micro of an issue for federal authority to handle with 1 size fits all solutions. IMO it's just the wrong tool for the job.

What is causing poverty in one place is almost certainly not the same thing as another. Even within a state with some of these uber-plex metro areas vs smaller towns or even each other.

What's causing poverty in LA might not be the same as SF, certainly not the same as Eureka or Redding CA....I know poverty in Houston ain't for the same reasons as poverty in DFW...St.Paul issues aren't the same as the challenges in Duluth. Poverty issues are going to need real world local level efforts.

 

[LukNotLuke]

You know what's kewl about being a cheerleader?

I suppose the biggest perk for you is that you get to blow AJ.

 

[HisArpy]

I suppose the biggest perk for you is that you get to blow AJ.

You suppose?

Does that mean you don't actually know?

 

[LukNotLuke]

You suppose?

Does that mean you don't actually know?

Fine. The biggest perk for you is that you definitely get to blow AJ. Better, Rapey?

 

[HisArpy]

Fine. The biggest perk for you is that you definitely get to blow AJ. Better, Rapey?

dudly, put down the shovel. There ain't no shame in saying you don't know. Ok, in this case there is, but seriously, put down the shovel.

 

[LukNotLuke]

dudly, put down the shovel. There ain't no shame in saying you don't know. Ok, in this case there is, but seriously, put down the shovel.

You'll never explain what this means, admit your fuckup, or ever be man enough to do either.

 

[HisArpy]

You'll never explain what this means, admit your fuckup, or ever be man enough to do either.

If you actually KNEW, I wouldn't have to "explain"; now would I?

Admit it, you don't know.

 

[LukNotLuke]

Or it gets you to comment and show your lack of comprehension on anything and everything.

It's one or the other.

Decisions, decisions...

You know what's kewl about being a cheerleader?

You suppose?

Does that mean you don't actually know?

dudly, put down the shovel. There ain't no shame in saying you don't know. Ok, in this case there is, but seriously, put down the shovel.

If you actually KNEW, I wouldn't have to "explain"; now would I?

Admit it, you don't know.

^^^ Personal attacks with zero critical thinking or relevant shitpists.

 

[HisArpy]

^^^ Personal attacks with zero critical thinking or relevant shitpists.

Lolz. This from one of the GB's most prevalent Ad Hom idjits and shitpister.

And you still don't know the kewl part about being a cheerleader.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Adre has taken up the argument, "I'm not saying A is also ¬A, but that ¬A ⊂ A," which is not true, unless you are of the Hegelian School of thought. To say that our charter of negative liberties implies that there is a role for charity in our Federal Government is to advocate for just a little Socialism, a subjective value that in recursive fashion continues to lead to Socialism by means of just a little more Socialism, because Socialism has proven unable to turn ¬A into A for all its efforts; it just increases the need for charity/positive interferences.

And we see that here.
No matter how much money we apply to a social problem
the only alleviation is temporary, close to the source, and leaving a need for more application.

 

[Que]

^^^ Personal attacks with zero critical thinking or relevant shitpists.

^"thinks" he is capable of critical thinking; thinks his shitpists are relevant.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Adre has taken up the argument, "I'm not saying A is also ¬A, but that ¬A ⊂ A," which is not true, unless you are of the Hegelian School of thought. To say that our charter of negative liberties implies that there is a role for charity in our Federal Government is to advocate for just a little Socialism, a subjective value that in recursive fashion continues to lead to Socialism by means of just a little more Socialism, because Socialism has proven unable to turn ¬A into A for all its efforts; it just increases the need for charity/positive interferences.

And we see that here.
No matter how much money we apply to a social problem
the only alleviation is temporary, close to the source, and leaving a need for more application.

Jesus.

 

[Que]

^^^ Personal attacks with zero critical thinking or relevant shitpists.

"Thinks" he is capable of critical thinking; "thinks" his shitpists are relevant.

 

[LukNotLuke]

"Thinks" he is capable of critical thinking; "thinks" his shitpists are relevant.

Knows you obsess over Luk and anything he posts. Knows you make multiple threads for Luk. Knows Tweak is a meth-head.

You really don't have to respond to every post made by Luk, ya OCD tweaker.