Assume Nothing

Exciting new products that entice me to purchase, but isn't in stock. I've posted in the style thread that the 'superhydrophobic' spray seems brilliant, but I'm disappointed that they aren't selling it yet. It's torturous to me :(

Exactly. To completely get rid of 'the bad things' you must spend too much money/time/happiness. Want to 100% ban drugs? You'll have to check every single person and every single storage space on the planet. Same deal with every other crime. It's a bad idea to expect a system to be entirely efficient/effective. That being said, I'm in favour of a benefit system for everyone. Even if people choose to leech, it's still civilized to take care of other people. Basic things like food, water, shelter, internet (at least over here you have to do your taxes via internet, so it's not optional anymore) should be available to everyone. You can solve that by handing these things out for free, or by handing out the equivalent money; I prefer the money because it allows people some freedom. I don't know about internet (public libraries have that for free), but the rest of the stuff, I agree. That's not to say you shouldn't have checks to losely make sure people aren't abusing it, but some bad eggs shouldn't ruin it for everyone. I'll try and address this in chronological order. "Everything good system has people who abuse it." That's true, and I don't disagree on that point. The point I do disagree with is the implicit notion that because that's the case, we shouldn't try to minimize the abuse. I think we should, and effective strategies don't have to be supply-side. It's rather simple in theory, although the logistics is up for debate. We can: lower the incentives to not work, whilst penalizing those who legitimately can't, OR - we give an incentive to work, without penalizing those who legitimately can't. It doesn't have to be monetary, either - it could be a system where hiring/firing became a less lengthy process, or regulations in place to make work more enjoyable and less mundane (e.g. a highly encouraged leisure time allotted to employees who have to put more effort in). The welfare trap phenomena is well-understood. I don't think it's fair to say or suggest that we shouldn't address the issues because there always will be some.

I've never assumed, nor will assume that it was a crackhead's cheque, for your info. When I refer to leeches in society, I'm referring to those who are clearly able to work but refuse to out of apathy. I don't think they should receive anything from the government. It also disgusts me that people who can abuse the system, using foodstamps in addition to buying excessive luxury goods that they don't really need - it just shows that they have the money to spend but would rather take from the system when they could just reduce their wastefulness. I believe that these people should be withdrawn from the system. If the military is overspending, does that really justify the wasteful welfare system? I don't think it does.

*kicks you in the groin* Banned for getting kicked in the groin.

In the UK, the citizens are given a right to claim welfare benefits if they fulfill the eligibility criteria. In recent political discussion, there has been some discussion about whether it is fair for them to receive these payments. On the contrary, if I'm recalling correctly, the US has a much more stringent system that is arguably inadequate for some people. There has been some recent controversy regarding changes to the system. On a personal level, I consider it unfair that those who are truly unable to work, or those who are in circumstances at no choice of their own to be refused aid by the state. On the flipside, I consider welfare leeches a poison to society, and should be withdrawn from the system as soon as possible. What do you guys think? Does your country have a good welfare system? Does it even need it? Should it be adjusted in any way, shape or form? Discuss.

I could tell you; overcrowded and costly. Universal studios were decent, but I don't consider Disney land worthwhile.

That's an amazing find, but it isn't for sale yet, to my knowledge :(. EDIT - I can find something similar, but in the same vein, it also lacks a clear product line like most other e-commerce sites. http://www.isurtec.com/products.html

FTFY

I think we can even grant exceptions to infertility, if that was the case.

My idea of appropriateness may not reflect that of Tip.it. I enjoy controversy, but that may be depicted as inappropriate. It's difficult to determine appropriateness in this specific thread because it deviates from standard 'acceptable' OT behaviour. To say 'Do you think that it's acceptable? If yes, then...' doesn't help me, because that doesn't answer the question: what does acceptability mean, and what are the boundaries? It seems pedantic, but reductionism is useful to define these vague notions into something more practical. It lacks practicality right now. Your trial and error theory is a risky one. It could take a single post of an inappropriate image before I receive a ban/warning. I don't consider that a wise decision. I'm glad the post made you laugh, but does it make our responses... appropriate? Here's something relevant:

Common sense. If I appreciate dark humour, I would consider that funny. If a majority finds it funny, does it make it acceptable? If a minority find it offensive, does it make it unacceptable? If so, would it be based on how badly people felt about it, or would it be based on how reasonable taking offense to it actually is? 'Common sense' is an ill-contrived notion - it's not as common as suggested, and allows for ambiguity and confusion. It's better to know exact boundaries to be clear of them, so the posts won't be limited to a small range, but be completely within the rules. I ask because I consider this important, but it seems that I get snippy responses instead of anything meaningful. Is it really that difficult to make a brief explanation, as opposed to posting a sarcastic remark? I personally enjoy c&h strips, and xkcd. I enjoy some fatpita, imageur, and failblog too. I don't want to limit everything to mediocre images that fail to evoke laughter due to the overly stringent rules. That's why I ask for clarification. Is it that hard to compose a meaningful answer? I consider this funny, but is it?

What constitutes funny? What separates a funny picture from a picture that is deemed unacceptable?

I wouldn't say being optimistic is optimal for achieving a fulfilling life. I wouldn't say that being pessimistic is optimal for that either. I think being someone who accepts reality on reality's terms, and having the determination and the passion to aspire to be the very best is.

Nice assumption there, Turtle.

I think I aimed to address a similar topic before, but evidently it was never done. I think I'll submit a counterpoint to this article soon.

I'd say that acts as a good general rule of thumb, but it goes much deeper than that, because we have to acknowledge that it does actually happen and our objective is to address it. It's not just about what we should/ought do, but 'what we need to do'. It almost goes beyond ethical theories. I think when I made my father/daughter reference, I was referring to a case where they were estranged from a young age and had met again much later in life. I personally don't see the problem with it, since any parental relationship argument couldn't be established. If we argue on the health perspectives of the child, then yes, incest is harmful. It's an incredibly complex situation where there's no clear answer.

If the crime is indeed victimless, then what's wrong? I'd say marijuana is pretty victim-less too, or at least, no more so than any commercial drug like tobacco or alcohol. EDIT - I think it's the latter, based on some of the incestery reports/articles I've seen on the topic. I'm wondering though - is there any difference between a girl having intercourse with her biological father, than say, with her step father?

I get this more when I'm walking through the town centre. I pretend they don't exist, and if they block me, they'll get bumped into. It's their fault, right?

Oh, philosophical theory about everything being determined. I don't believe in that, although I don't fully disagree with the last panel of the comic. It's more about the range of choices they make that limits them, as opposed to lack of free-will.

You've sent me a pm, you say? It's a good thing they're not monitored ;)

I don't hold anything against cybering, but at least do it with a webcam, man. RuneScape cybering is just not cool. EDIT - I personally recommend Logitech C920, or at least a Logitech 9000.

I'm a little upset that I can't share my NSFW links on many forums :(. Brief question - is it acceptable to share via pm, if we agree that it doesn't offend each-other?

In my High School's case on the definition of 'spirit', 'shut out all sorts of cynicism, pessimism or any sort of introverted behavior that obstructs our unrealistic campaigns'. The more I think about it, 'spirit' can have more harmful and bad uses than good when it gets into the those dreaded territories of over-invested optimism. It's more evasive than that. It's usually phrased as 'to support our cause'. If you even make a reference to the possibility that their vision is distorted, then you'd probably be penalized. In essence, they oppress you like the church does. Because of their oppressive nature, they are a considerable annoyance to me.

That implies the criticism is constructive and well-founded. I've already shown why that's not the case. I'm waiting for someone to show why it is. It doesn't help that we're skipping topics because people think that they can take free verbal taunts at me, now does it? EDIT - I'm sure it goes "There is always a crazy person on the bus. If you can't spot the crazy person on the bus... it's probably you." You're speaking with too much certainty if you deny the possibility that you're wrong.

If you don't want to continue the discussion, then stop posting. I did see you quoting a bunch, but were they: Relevant Sufficient Kept in original form for context I've already addressed them with my own counterarguments within this public thread. Why does it seem to be such a difficult thing to grasp? Leaving the discussion doesn't make you right - having a well-founded argument does. I'm not suggesting that my arguments are well-founded, because I can't judge on that, but it doesn't seem that anyone has pointed where my arguments are flawed.