The Poor

[2ndRateMind]

There is no "responsibility" for us to eradicate poverty or anything else.

I am talking moral responsibility. If you can't see that responsibility, we have nothing in common.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

"Poor" is a very nebulous term more often used as an emotional heartstring rather than a specific condition with qualifications and causes ( which dictate specific remedies)

How many times do I need to say this? I am discussing absolute or extreme poverty, when one doesn't have the means to support and sustain oneself and one's family. Pay attention.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I am talking moral responsibility. If you can't see that responsibility, we have nothing in common.

I suppose when one is ducking for cover, any excuse to avoid answering the previous questions will do so lets talk about this and dispel this deflection away from your Marxist points.

Exactly and specifically what is this "moral responsibility" you speak of, its authority, its origin and limits.

Does it extend to going in and literally killing those evil people who oppress these "poor people" and keep them that way? Then establishing a "beneficial government" to build the infrastructure to keep them "unpoor"( thats what it will take in many areas I have seen)

Lets assume anyone buys off on this "moral responsibility" for argument sake- where is the plan? What is the plan? Who is going to implement the plan? Who is going to sustain it?

"Hope" isn't a strategy and "wishing' wont make it happen.

Then what responsibility do these "poor' bear to get themselves out of this condition?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

How many times do I need to say this? I am discussing absolute or extreme poverty, when one doesn't have the means to support and sustain oneself and one's family. Pay attention.

I pay attention specifically to your waffling and evasion for direct relevant salient points in the form of actual answers to legitimate questions.

Define "poor" in terms that can actually be measured in any legitimate way.

What specifically and exactly are these 'means of support" ( thats a broad subject)- that could stretch to infinity.

You cannot even fully define the problem ( actually you are deliberately evading that because thats not the actual goal- taking money from people is the goal and you know that well) and without that first step- no solution is possible.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I suppose when one is ducking for cover, any excuse to avoid answering the previous questions will do so lets talk about this and dispel this deflection away from your Marxist points.

I am not a Marxist. Just left of centre leaning.

Exactly and specifically what is this "moral responsibility" you speak of, its authority, its origin and limits.

God is generally thought to be the author of morality, and writ it on our hearts. If you have any problems with that, take it up with Him.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I am not a Marxist. Just left of centre leaning.

A rose by any other name

God is generally thought to be the author of morality, and writ it on our hearts. If you have any problems with that, take it up with Him.

Already have. Not only nowhere in His word is there even the slightest endorsement or instruction to abide in this "moral responsibility" that you are ascribing to- God actually speaks to the opposite.

Again, stop ducking and answer the questions

 

[2ndRateMind]

I have to say, my friend, your netiquette is not good. If you were less interested in scoring debating points, and more interested in having a productive discussion, we both might learn something. Until then, I can't be bothered with you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I have to say, my friend, your netiquette is not good. If you were less interested in scoring debating points, and more interested in having a productive discussion, we both might learn something. Until then, I can't be bothered with you.

What that means in "non-double talk"- you yourself know your points are both Marxist and evil but cannot talk yourself out of the hole you dug so you are doing the typical ad hom method of trying to whine your way out of it by coming up with non points to hide behind.

There is nothing wrong with my "netiquette" as I stayed focused on the issues YOU brought up, kept it focused and on point with the salient points and brought out legitimate points- all of which you ducked and ran for cover when your true agenda was exposed.

There are no "debating points"- they are legitimate points. Your "points" just imploded and you didn't like that nor do you have any answer for mine. It is not "I" who couldn't "debate".

We had a productive discussion going until you refused to answer legitimate relevant questions and address salient points. That exposed you fully as to what your real agenda is. You realized you cannot answer the points because that was never your goal or intent. You had no intention to "discuss" anything- your goal was to promote a Marxist agenda but your hand got called on every point and the points imploded on their own weakness.

Then you feign some kind of "indignance" to hide behind.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.