Your most controversial view?

1) not everyone has a family or a family that could financially support them.
2) since charities rely on donations there will never be a guarantee that the charities can cater to everybody who needs help because there will never be a guarantee that people donate.
3) Not everyone has friends, or friends who could or would be willing to support them.


To be honest I don't really care whether you think it's theft, what I care about is that the government makes sure that nobody in this country is left to starve or fall homeless. To me that is a lot more important than whether or not you have more disposable income to spend on luxuries. Your words quite clearly come from a selfish place.

you're not answering my question - why should I pay for people's problems? your ideal is that I pay for it, but would you put a gun to my head to make me pay for somebody's living if they fail to continue doing it themselves? if you don't support this, why do you support a government doing this for you/in your name? and whether you want to call me selfish or not, I am simply being objective. and calling me selfish doesn't prove me wrong in my principles or reasoning.

I think that we as a society have a moral responsibility to ensure the well being of everyone in society. That is my opinion and you may not agree with it, and that's fine.

where does this public/moral responsibility come from? parental responsibility comes from the act of voluntarily giving birth or reproducing. legal/contractual responsibility comes from the act of signing/assenting to a contract. where does moral/public responsibility come from if not from actions? how else can you logically progress from the origin to the result (the duty/responsibility)? you can't just look at something and say "you are responsible for this!" when there is no derivation from the non-agent and the situation.



but why should people, logically, be entitled to other people's money, when, logically, this other person did not earn it by any rational criterion?



...it wasn't an analogy. if I refuse to pay taxes, the police will eventually come to my house and either say "come with us where we will make you spend your life in a cage, or we will get reinforcements to assault you if you resist and put you in that cage through force" - in this country, the police aren't armed with guns - their armed with batons, handcuffs and other kinds of things - if I said government taxation was a baton to your head would that make you more secure in the understanding?



so there is some selfishness that you are willing to deploy violence towards? does selfishness cause violence to others? so why are you wanting to use violence to combat non-violence? don't you believe in peace? how is peace not more important than public entitlement/selfishness? I've *never* understood, for example, how it isn't selfish that people on the left are allowed to vote for a party that will give them more free money from other people's pockets (e.g. greens, labour, perhaps lib dems in some respects in particular) but then it *is* selfish to say "I'll make my own money and you can make your money. when is my money/property yours, and why?" (the individual-based perspective, or what you called "selfishness").

Moral responsibility to me is more philosophical than something so simple as contractual responsibility if you've signed a rent lease. It is more to do with personal opinions and what an individual believed to be morally right or wrong.

how can you adequately fuse a subjective or non-calculable opinion into a mandatory and absolutely-binding law of the land, though? in my opinion, this is why our laws contradict so often. we have rational and normative laws against violence for when a person starts that violence, and laws against theft for when a person steals, but for taxation? well shoot, "taxation's different 'cause it's different...". this isn't to say I don't respect democracy, but democracy isn't a measurement of who is "correct" or "moral", but rather a measurement of who is "powerful" in our system.



but I am not a public servant. I am surely an independent citizen in my own right. I do not need to serve others to possess my rights and my dignity. if I am to pay taxes, I will pay them on what is voluntary to the most reasonable degree; I will and would pay for taxation when it is based on police protection, the court system, the funding of the parliament etc, but there is no consent on my part to paying for things which make no rational-legal sense like welfare. it's not consequentialistic but it makes logical sense to declare "this person worked for this amount of money. therefore, we can see that clearly this money belongs to this person and not that person."



1) "ass", whether you literally pronounce it in a southern-english dialect, is still spelt "ass" and not "arse"; would you spell "grass" (assuming you pronounced it with an "ah" sound) "grarse" under this logic?
2) that's absolutely fair enough - I'm not fighting you, I simply enjoy understanding why people believe in what they believe, and you seem to have, unfortunately, lashed back at me for it. I'm not well either - I've been in bed all day.

ah someone after my own heart i did write a manuscript for an english class and got given six counseling sessions admittedly torture using droplets of acid in to the eyes and a hand in a deep fat fryer oh and drowning someone in cement at one point too

Because that wasnt the question o.O

Sausages are better than bacon.

I have genuinely experienced considerable discrimination due to this belief. I'm currently a social pariah living a lonely existence with my pet knife and my sausages waiting for time to overcome me.

Seriously though, I'm not sure if it is just "hurr durr bacan lad durr hurr" bandwagoning or I am genuinely in the massive minority here.

I agree with you.
Woo team sausage!


Posted from TSR Mobile

You are truly vile. Big Daily Mail reader, I take it?

You are truly vile.

Nope.

In my honest opinion, if you take another humans life, you should (not have your life taken away) but have the closest thing taken away: human rights like SH04045 said.

It is truly disgusting that our taxes (especially my hardworking taxes) are spent on them getting privileges and being able to be kept in a room with 3 meals a day whilst our armed forces get less. At least switch it around like oh my god.