londonfog
Well-Known Member
yes killing an animal to feed your starving family is something you should do
Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving family?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
I can understand why your so upset with illegals there taking away your Jobs right ?? i mean its not there Fault that the employer knows there better off with them then some sorry lazy lard ass that only complains ,, get used to it
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Upset?I can understand why your so upset with illegals there taking away your Jobs right ?? i mean its not there Fault that the employer knows there better off with them then some sorry lazy lard ass that only complains ,, get used to it
I'm for amnesty and immigration reform. Have been for years.
Cpappa27
Well-Known Member
Its a dog eat dog world so get over it. In the end its still a battle of survival and evolution and only the strong will survive, and most will be left behind.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Way i see it is no country should have borders , We shouls should be allowed to go where ever ,
With stealing for food is just wrong,
A person has to do what a person has to do to survive be it move to a place where there may be work,, instead of staying where there at .
With stealing for food is just wrong,
A person has to do what a person has to do to survive be it move to a place where there may be work,, instead of staying where there at .
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
thats the thing people have become to reliant on gov programs,, for one if i have mandatory drug inspections for work , so should anyone that is getting Gov assistance .
But the truth is laziness, people do not want to work women get knocked up have tons of kids Guess what they live comfortably,,
i was not put on this Earth to support fucking dead beats ,, i mean seriously of course i agree there there for emergencies .
But like every god dam thing humans will exploit , i would bet 40 percent or even higher on social assistance should not be there how in the fuck does this loop hole exist
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Instead of reciting your opinion, why don't you post the evidence of your claims? Let's examine them
-People have become too reliant on gov. programs [because they're lazy]
-People do not want to work
-Women have kids to increase their welfare benefits
-At least 40% of welfare is fraud
Let's start with those four claims. What evidence do you have that supports them?
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
The greater part of human history has gone something like this: see animal, chase animal, kill animal, skin animal, cook animal, eat animal. But all that chasing and killing and cooking means a lot of brutish work, and somewhere along the way we fell in love with the dream of the effort-free existence. Now iRobots vacuum our carpets and wash the kitchen floor; battery-operated, self-heating jackets from North Face and Maplin keep us warm; and our cars park themselves, if we're fortunate enough to own a Lexus LS 460.
While traditionally given to hard work, Americans have also, somewhat paradoxically, kept a close watch for any innovation that might take some of the drudgery out of everyday life. This contradiction in our national character was present in the DNA of two of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As part-time inventors, both men made mighty contributions to humankind: Jefferson radically improved the plow when he created what is known as "the moldboard plow of least resistance," which dug into the soil with less effort; and Franklin was a bona fide scientific pioneer who proved, by capturing lightning in a bottle, that lightning and static electricity were indeed one and the same substance—a discovery that made him internationally famous. But both men also had a talent for dabbling in the kind of thing that might put a dopey smile on the face of the fat and sedentary American of 2007. In 1804, Jefferson invented the automatic double doors: open one and, voilà, both doors swing open at the same time thanks to the workings of a mechanism concealed beneath the floorboards. In another, perhaps more intense burst of inspiration, he added a leg rest to the already extant "revolving Windsor chair," thereby coming up with the prototypical La-Z-Boy (a piece of American ingenuity perfected, in 1928, by La-Z-Boy's two founders, Michigan cousins Edward Knabusch and Edwin Shoemaker). The "air bath," Ben Franklin's main innovation along these lines, sounds like something that could be offered at a Sedona spa in our time. It involved "lying uncovered and naked on a bed for an hour, a practice he claimed was good for one's health," writes cultural historian Tom Lutz in Doing Nothing: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America. The air bath didn't catch on, but you have to give Franklin points for investing so much thought and effort into something that required so little of each.
While traditionally given to hard work, Americans have also, somewhat paradoxically, kept a close watch for any innovation that might take some of the drudgery out of everyday life. This contradiction in our national character was present in the DNA of two of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. As part-time inventors, both men made mighty contributions to humankind: Jefferson radically improved the plow when he created what is known as "the moldboard plow of least resistance," which dug into the soil with less effort; and Franklin was a bona fide scientific pioneer who proved, by capturing lightning in a bottle, that lightning and static electricity were indeed one and the same substance—a discovery that made him internationally famous. But both men also had a talent for dabbling in the kind of thing that might put a dopey smile on the face of the fat and sedentary American of 2007. In 1804, Jefferson invented the automatic double doors: open one and, voilà, both doors swing open at the same time thanks to the workings of a mechanism concealed beneath the floorboards. In another, perhaps more intense burst of inspiration, he added a leg rest to the already extant "revolving Windsor chair," thereby coming up with the prototypical La-Z-Boy (a piece of American ingenuity perfected, in 1928, by La-Z-Boy's two founders, Michigan cousins Edward Knabusch and Edwin Shoemaker). The "air bath," Ben Franklin's main innovation along these lines, sounds like something that could be offered at a Sedona spa in our time. It involved "lying uncovered and naked on a bed for an hour, a practice he claimed was good for one's health," writes cultural historian Tom Lutz in Doing Nothing: A History of Loafers, Loungers, Slackers, and Bums in America. The air bath didn't catch on, but you have to give Franklin points for investing so much thought and effort into something that required so little of each.
Cpappa27
Well-Known Member
Your way off, stop trying to twist my words to benefit your weak arguement. Your dismissedMaybe you should take your own advice then
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Hey, people need welfare, why don't you just get over it?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The figure for welfare fraud is too low, since all redistribution that arises from force is fraudulent if it is renamed charity.
Any kind of thing that says it is charitable cannot begin with some people directing others resources thru forcible confiscation. It is impossible.
When people do that with another persons labor = slavery
When people do that with other peoples property = theft
Charity can only arise from a voluntary basis or it isn't charity.
I could rebut a few other things you mentioned, but since you won't be able to rebut what I've already said, I'll go roll one up now.
Or get off the computer and get a job...
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
I want to know if its wrong to shoot someone for stealing my food?
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
it's only wrong if you get caught
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
So one shouldn't shoot to wound but to kill.
Thanks.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
why waste bullets by shooting to wound? that's just silly
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's a good question. You certainly have a right to protect your property from thieves.
For me the concept that comes to mind is proportionality of response. If somebody were stealing my food my response could be based on the circumstances.
If they broke into my house in the dead of night, I'd be more likely to use deadly force than if somebody were grabbing some blueberries from my field or taking an apple from a tree etc.
It's funny though that people have been conditioned to think that it's not theft if the people doing the taking have anointed themselves "leaders" .