Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#152 May 12 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Why we have government funded charities at all is completely beyond me. Charity is not the role of government.

Be that as it may, the view of the Republican party towards the one is much more favorable than its view towards the other. Needless to say, it has nothing at all to do with preserving our precious tax dollars from misappropriated use.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 May 12 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#154 May 12 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.


The rate has increased by a factor of 13 over that period of time. Are you suggesting that an unwed mother is only 1/13th as likely to require government assistance today as she would have back in the 50s? Why? That just seems like wishful thinking to me.


I'm suggesting the figure makes the situation seem worse than it actually is. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the difference between the involvement of women in the work force has doubled since 1950. In addition, the difference in average wage has changed quite dramatically since the 1950s. Adjusted for today's economy, women of the 1950s were making approximately $7,000/yr. That's compared to the $32,000/yr they are actually making, according to information collected in 2006. If you combine those two factors, it starts looking quite close to that 13 fold factor you have suggested. I stand by my claim that the information you provided paints an uneven picture.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or *** education as a solution to fix a growing population.


Not a "growing population", but a "growing population in need of government services". Remember when I insisted that we clarify your hypothesis:


Quite right - an important clarification.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.

Yes, I would agree that is my guess. For sake of debate, I'll agree with your wording and say it's my "claim".


Your assumption is that by funding birth control, we are decreasing the amount of funding we have to pay for social services to support the children which would otherwise be born. Your argument is exactly about using birth control as a means to solve the problem of a growing population of children born poverty. You do remember your own argument, right?


You are parsing my words too closely regarding my quote embedded in the above quote. To say it's my claim has a different connotation than I intend; it seems as though I am championing the assumption as fact when I am, in fact, quite openly stating it is a guess. That is all I meant.


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.


Sure. But as I stated before. If your reason for supporting government funding for birth control on the grounds that it will reduce the cost to government to support the children who would otherwise be born, it's clear that the data simply does not support that reasoning at all. There's no evidence at all that handing out birth control is having any effect on the rate at which children are born into the conditions most likely to result in them needing government assistance. None at all. We assume this because the "obvious" assumption is that birth control helps "control birth", and thus empowers people to avoid that condition.


But it's clear that for whatever reason, it's not working. Can we at least agree therefore that spending money on providing birth control isn't the solution to that problem? I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for doing it. I'll point out that I'm not arguing against funding birth control. Despite appearances, what I'm arguing against is doing it for the reasons you are claiming. You just stated what I saw as a week/false argument for providing birth control. That's it.


I appreciate the clarification on your reasoning, and I believe I understand the position you're coming from. I think part of the reason you do not see any data on it "working as assumed" though is because you have no frame of reference were it not to be there. We are looking at reality and saying "It's not working! Nothing has changed!" I think that is not an entirely correct way to view the situation when trying to determine if it is preventing additional welfare payments. How could it be determined that its existence did not in fact have the effect of decreasing the rate at which welfare assistance has increased (under these specific circumstances to these specific groups as defined earlier in our discussion)? I think you would be hard pressed to show otherwise simply because we cannot analyze that situation.
#155 May 12 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#156 May 12 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


Just not the concept, right?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#157 May 12 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
You know, whenever I scan this thread I keep thinking it's about PicklePrince...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#158 May 13 2011 at 12:57 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Kachi wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


Just not the concept, right?

Nope, I got that down pretty good, too.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#159 May 13 2011 at 3:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Where exactly do you draw the line between general welfare and charity? If we were to draw a Venn diagram I think most of us would find considerable overlap.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#160 May 13 2011 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#161 May 13 2011 at 4:19 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#162 May 13 2011 at 4:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#163 May 13 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,387 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.
#164 May 13 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Kachi wrote:
Where exactly do you draw the line between general welfare and charity?

A handout is a handout is a handout. Within the normal program guidelines, unemployment insurance, paid for by the employee & the employer, wouldn't be charity. Government contributions to the base program, and extensions beyond the base program, are charity. Food stamps, EBT, WIC, etc., those are all charity. Section 8 housing vouchers, charity.
Kachi wrote:
If we were to draw a Venn diagram I think most of us would find considerable overlap.

So you've identified the problem then.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#165 May 13 2011 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.

Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#166 May 13 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.
I think you mean should not be the role of government.
I will now await your grumpy response :)
No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
No, if it is not the role of government then government should not be performing the role. If it should not be the role of government then government should be performing the role because it is its role.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#167 May 13 2011 at 7:14 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?
Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.
Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.

You're so close to comprehension. I wish I could understand how it felt to be on the outside looking in.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#168 May 13 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.

Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
You've made it this far, so I'm not sure how you're not making it the rest of the way.

By the way, while Moe and I agree that the government shouldn't be giving to charities, we do define charity differently in that scope.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#169 May 13 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
By the way, while Moe and I agree that the government shouldn't be giving to charities, we do define charity differently in that scope.

Yeah, he's Canadian. We both mean about, but he says it aboot.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#170 May 13 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.
I think you mean should not be the role of government.
I will now await your grumpy response :)
No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
No, if it is not the role of government then government should not be performing the role. If it should not be the role of government then government should be performing the role because it is its role.

But the government IS performing the role, yes?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#171 May 13 2011 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#172 May 13 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#173 May 13 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.

No. Jumping on stage and doing Juliet's lines doesn't make it your role.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#174 May 13 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.

No. Jumping on stage and doing Juliet's lines doesn't make it your role.

Wait, is government policy the stage or Juliet's lines in this analogy?

Edit: That depends, am I jumping onstage without permission or am I doing it because I was cast as Juliet? These are government approved programs, so it's the latter.

Edited, May 13th 2011 8:29pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#175 May 13 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I wish someone would just expedite the natural death of this semantic quibble by linking the dictionary definition of "role."

What is a role can be subjective, and particularly in a democracy, anyone can claim what is or isn't a role of government. Or you can choose a circular definition that says that if something does it, that is its role. All of you are both right and wrong by your failure to acknowledge that words have more than one meaning.

There. Now you geniuses can discuss why you think a given program should or shouldn't be the role of government.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#176 May 13 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I hope you don't think that's going to stop them.

Nothing can stop them.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)