Abandoned Dogs Roam Detroit in Packs as Humans Dwindle

[Warren Dew]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

The problem is YOU don't understand the actual logistics and realities of packing up your life and moving somewhere else, when you are DESPERATELY POOR. Orph has explained some of them to you, and you don't get it. I could explain more to you, but you will never get it. Waste of time.

If you own enough that packing up is an issue, you're not desperately poor.

[pErvinalia]

Wow. How is it some people are so fucking clueless about the logistics of being poor? Is it any wonder why I think conservatives are a fucking plague on this planet?

[JimC]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

The problem is YOU don't understand the actual logistics and realities of packing up your life and moving somewhere else, when you are DESPERATELY POOR. Orph has explained some of them to you, and you don't get it. I could explain more to you, but you will never get it. Waste of time.

If you own enough that packing up is an issue, you're not desperately poor.

I don't think that the packing is the issue, it's the money and the insecurity of employment. These days, young people on professional contracts think nothing of moving many times, but they are well educated, savvy in finding accommodation, only make the jump when they've either secured a job, or are moving to an area they know will have many job opportunities, and the costs of relocating are a minor part of their overall budget. To move with no money, and no job security is not easy, whether you are burdened with possessions or not...

[pErvinalia]

It's amazing that this even needs to explained to another human being. It's a good case of why the world is totally fucked. Allegedly intelligent people can't grasp the most simplest of things. I like to argue that it's wilful ignorance. It certainly is in Seth's case. Dunno about Warren. Sometimes his posts are so breathtakingly stupid I think he can only be trolling.

[JimC]

It's amazing that this even needs to explained to another human being. It's a good case of why the world is totally fucked. Allegedly intelligent people can't grasp the most simplest of things. I like to argue that it's wilful ignorance. It certainly is in Seth's case. Dunno about Warren. Sometimes his posts are so breathtakingly stupid I think he can only be trolling.

Honestly, I think it's mostly due to seeing the world through a personal set of interpretive lenses. If you are in a secure and relatively affluent environment, with a good situation vis a vis family and friends, it may be hard to adjust your views of society and economics to match the human reality out there, much of which is fraught and unhappy. I know this can certainly be a failing of mine; perhaps it leads to a somewhat over-optimistic view of the future in general.

However, the opposite can also be true.

[Seth]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

The problem is YOU don't understand the actual logistics and realities of packing up your life and moving somewhere else, when you are DESPERATELY POOR. Orph has explained some of them to you, and you don't get it. I could explain more to you, but you will never get it. Waste of time.

If you own enough that packing up is an issue, you're not desperately poor.

Indeed. And as Robert Heinlein wrote, "Once or twice in a lifetime a man should be required to abandon everything he owns and run for his life." This gives one perspective on what's important in life.

If someone wants to starve to death among their treasured belongings rather than abandon them and move on to greener pastures that's a choice they make for themselves, and I don't feel compelled to interfere with their sovereign right to do so. Why you feel you have a right to compel me to pay for moving someone from where they are to where the work is eludes me. Now, they can ASK me for help...like the battered wife and her three children that may be moving into my basement apartment next week to escape her violent soon-to-be ex-husband, and I might be happy to help out, as I am in this case.

But if some government dipshit showed up at my door and demanded that I take her in and shelter her or be arrested, things would go very, very badly for that dipshit I'm afraid.

[Seth]

Wow. How is it some people are so fucking clueless about the logistics of being poor? Is it any wonder why I think conservatives are a fucking plague on this planet?

The poorer you are, the less "stuff" you have to worry about and the easier it is for you to walk out the front door and head for greener pastures without a backwards glance.

Most of the "poor" these days are actually merely unemployed middle-class people burdened with 25,000 pounds of "stuff" they have accumulated and are loathe to let go of so they can migrate to where the work is. That's not my problem. Their "stuff" is their burden to bear...or abandon, not mine. I abandoned a good deal of "stuff" when I sold the ranch and I'm still abandoning junk I don't need even today, and I mean literally today as I sorted through bin after bin of junk that I've hoarded for decades to make room for my new housemates. It's actually liberating to do so, and I've not infrequently wished for a "catastrophic" fire that would destroy it all so I can start completely fresh.

The only thing anyone needs to begin the journey to a new, better life somewhere else is the clothes you are wearing and the courage and resolve to overcome whatever difficulties you may face on the road. Millions of people did exactly that during the Great Depression and there's nothing preventing the inhabitants of Detroit from doing so tomorrow.

[Seth]

I don't think that the packing is the issue, it's the money and the insecurity of employment. These days, young people on professional contracts think nothing of moving many times, but they are well educated, savvy in finding accommodation, only make the jump when they've either secured a job, or are moving to an area they know will have many job opportunities, and the costs of relocating are a minor part of their overall budget. To move with no money, and no job security is not easy, whether you are burdened with possessions or not...

Nobody said it was easy, or comfortable. But since when are the rest of us obliged to make life easy or comfortable for people we don't know and have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility for? I'd say getting out beats starvation or living amongst packs of feral dogs in a decaying city with no services. For fuck's sake, I'd walk out of town buck naked before enduring that sort of thing.

If they don't want to leave, then they must find remaining behind preferable to the stresses of relocating. Who am I to object to or interfere with their choices?

[Seth]

It's amazing that this even needs to explained to another human being. It's a good case of why the world is totally fucked. Allegedly intelligent people can't grasp the most simplest of things. I like to argue that it's wilful ignorance. It certainly is in Seth's case. Dunno about Warren. Sometimes his posts are so breathtakingly stupid I think he can only be trolling.

Honestly, I think it's mostly due to seeing the world through a personal set of interpretive lenses. If you are in a secure and relatively affluent environment, with a good situation vis a vis family and friends, it may be hard to adjust your views of society and economics to match the human reality out there, much of which is fraught and unhappy. I know this can certainly be a failing of mine; perhaps it leads to a somewhat over-optimistic view of the future in general.

However, the opposite can also be true.

It's really simple. I require people to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions, for better or for worse, and not foist their difficulties off on others just as I myself do. I do not accept any involuntary burden for relieving people who make bad decisions of the consequences of their actions. Those consequences are instructive and help to ensure that they make better decisions in the future, which is better for them and everyone else.

This does not mean however that I am unwilling to assist those I find to be in legitimate need when and where I am able to do so, as I've explained. But it absolutely means that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, specifically including the government, has any authority or right to make me financially or physically responsible for the well-being of anyone else unless I have voluntarily accepted such responsibility.

You may ask me for assistance and it may well be granted, but if you demand it of me, I will refuse every single time because I am a free and sovereign individual and will not be forced to labor on behalf of others for no better reason than that some fuckwit thinks I ought to do so.

Give me a good reason to help and I'll die to protect others. Otherwise, fuck off.

[cronus]

It's amazing that this even needs to explained to another human being. It's a good case of why the world is totally fucked. Allegedly intelligent people can't grasp the most simplest of things. I like to argue that it's wilful ignorance. It certainly is in Seth's case. Dunno about Warren. Sometimes his posts are so breathtakingly stupid I think he can only be trolling.

Honestly, I think it's mostly due to seeing the world through a personal set of interpretive lenses. If you are in a secure and relatively affluent environment, with a good situation vis a vis family and friends, it may be hard to adjust your views of society and economics to match the human reality out there, much of which is fraught and unhappy. I know this can certainly be a failing of mine; perhaps it leads to a somewhat over-optimistic view of the future in general.

However, the opposite can also be true.

It's really simple. I require people to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions, for better or for worse, and not foist their difficulties off on others just as I myself do. I do not accept any involuntary burden for relieving people who make bad decisions of the consequences of their actions. Those consequences are instructive and help to ensure that they make better decisions in the future, which is better for them and everyone else.

This does not mean however that I am unwilling to assist those I find to be in legitimate need when and where I am able to do so, as I've explained. But it absolutely means that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, specifically including the government, has any authority or right to make me financially or physically responsible for the well-being of anyone else unless I have voluntarily accepted such responsibility.

You may ask me for assistance and it may well be granted, but if you demand it of me, I will refuse every single time because I am a free and sovereign individual and will not be forced to labor on behalf of others for no better reason than that some fuckwit thinks I ought to do so.

Give me a good reason to help and I'll die to protect others. Otherwise, fuck off.

See, you are half way there already. Why should you help? Why not hinder?

[pErvinalia]

It's amazing that this even needs to explained to another human being. It's a good case of why the world is totally fucked. Allegedly intelligent people can't grasp the most simplest of things. I like to argue that it's wilful ignorance. It certainly is in Seth's case. Dunno about Warren. Sometimes his posts are so breathtakingly stupid I think he can only be trolling.

Honestly, I think it's mostly due to seeing the world through a personal set of interpretive lenses. If you are in a secure and relatively affluent environment, with a good situation vis a vis family and friends, it may be hard to adjust your views of society and economics to match the human reality out there, much of which is fraught and unhappy. I know this can certainly be a failing of mine; perhaps it leads to a somewhat over-optimistic view of the future in general.

However, the opposite can also be true.

It's really simple. I require people to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions, for better or for worse, and not foist their difficulties off on others just as I myself do. I do not accept any involuntary burden for relieving people who make bad decisions of the consequences of their actions. Those consequences are instructive and help to ensure that they make better decisions in the future, which is better for them and everyone else.

This does not mean however that I am unwilling to assist those I find to be in legitimate need when and where I am able to do so, as I've explained. But it absolutely means that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, specifically including the government, has any authority or right to make me financially or physically responsible for the well-being of anyone else unless I have voluntarily accepted such responsibility.

You may ask me for assistance and it may well be granted, but if you demand it of me, I will refuse every single time because I am a free and sovereign individual and will not be forced to labor on behalf of others for no better reason than that some fuckwit thinks I ought to do so.

Give me a good reason to help and I'll die to protect others. Otherwise, fuck off.

This is your usual goal post shift. When your original point is shown to be utterly stupid, you fall back on the old libertarian faithful of "adapt or die". You aren't dealing with dumb teatards here, Seth. We are too intelligent to just accept your faulty lines of reasoning. You would have thought you would have learnt this after so many years debating rationalists at the various sites.

[Seth]

This is your usual goal post shift. When your original point is shown to be utterly stupid, you fall back on the old libertarian faithful of "adapt or die".

What on earth are you talking about? I'm entirely consistent in my arguments.

You aren't dealing with dumb teatards here, Seth.

Must....not....make....appropriate.....critical....but....highly....insulting....reply....

We are too intelligent to just accept your faulty lines of reasoning.

Perhaps. Sadly however, it appears that you are not intelligent enough to understand my faultless lines of reasoning.

You would have thought you would have learnt this after so many years debating rationalists at the various sites.

[/quote]

You mean after so many years of debating people who labor under the delusion that they are "rationalists" don't you?

[Warren Dew]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

The problem is YOU don't understand the actual logistics and realities of packing up your life and moving somewhere else, when you are DESPERATELY POOR. Orph has explained some of them to you, and you don't get it. I could explain more to you, but you will never get it. Waste of time.

If you own enough that packing up is an issue, you're not desperately poor.

I don't think that the packing is the issue, it's the money and the insecurity of employment.

As I said in my response to Seth, those with current employment may indeed face this issue. However, if your current employment is sufficiently good that you can afford to stay where you are, then while you may be poor, you are not desperately poor.

Honestly, I think it's mostly due to seeing the world through a personal set of interpretive lenses. If you are in a secure and relatively affluent environment, with a good situation vis a vis family and friends, it may be hard to adjust your views of society and economics to match the human reality out there, much of which is fraught and unhappy. I know this can certainly be a failing of mine; perhaps it leads to a somewhat over-optimistic view of the future in general.

That would certainly account for rEvolutionist's viewpoint. Evidently he has never known - can't even conceive of - a person in such desperate straits that they must flee with nothing but the clothes on their backs, while I have people in my immediate family who have been in that situation.

[piscator]

I never knew your family was from the inner city Warren.

[cronus]

I've tried desperately poor and found it didn't suit my temperament.