Feminist 'War on Women' propaganda goes off the rails - i have no words for this video

[pessimist]

These examples describe dirtbags. These people are the antithesis of masculinity.

I agree, but many of those types fancy themselves as real men.

Masculinity, in my opinion, would necessarily include the values that accompany social and biological maleness. Not doing the things you just described is the bare minimum you need to call yourself a "man." It's just a given that a man should not do these things.

I don't know man. I am way too much of an individualist to care about any "man code".

People here can speak for themselves, but I think they're referring to a de-emphasis on masculinity in our culture. Government has taken over some of the functional roles that males once performed. Welfare is a good example of enablement that has written off the responsibility of fatherhood.

I can understand what you're saying here, but I am going to look at from a different angle: a responsible person wouldn't procreate if he or she didn't have the means in which to raise the children in the first place. You're either responsible or you’re not- whether a 'safety net' is there to catch your fall should be irrelevant.

One of the reasons that they're conflicted about just basic males roles is because so many have attempted to socially engineer maleness in a way that conflicts with basic biology and roles. If a young man knows that government is going to enable his irresponsibility, then he can further justify his impregnations of young women. The problem becomes exacerbated and cyclical when those male children do not have fathers to teach them responsibility in how to treat females.

Another example is women attempting to match men in aspect of living when it's difficult or unfeasible. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fathers staying at home to raise children, but it is not practical in the infancy years because only one sex is capable of breast feeding. Artificial milk is a social solution that is inferior to biology.

Do you believe that government is solely responsible for vacant fathers and reckless mothers?

[euphemia]

I like the way you word this and agree whole-heartedly. I'm not going to tell my girls what to do for their men because I think that's the mother's job. Only a woman can teach developing women how to handle these situations.

A dad can teach these lessons to his daughters. Indeed, he should. Dad lives in a man's skin, and he can teach his girls to live with integrity.

[PaulConventionWV]

A dad can teach these lessons to his daughters. Indeed, he should. Dad lives in a man's skin, and he can teach his girls to live with integrity.

Well, yes, but I think this only goes so far. After all, he can only teach it from a man's perspective. If the daughter really wants to know how to react, she should also consult the wisdom of her mother.

[PaulConventionWV]

You're preaching to the choir here, but in certain situations, such as the bar scenario, it's understandable why some women don't know how to handle problems when they come up. It's a preservation instinct that can't be easily fixed unless the person has had proper education (most likely starting in childhood) about how to handle aggressive people.

Well, sure it's understandable, but the onus still remains solely on the woman to be assertive. Nobody else can do it for her.

[euphemia]

Maybe you two should be some pre-marriage counselors.

Thanks. The very thought has the entire wedding industry quaking in their high heels. I would look at the guy and ask him a sports question. If the woman rolls her eyes, I would tell him, "Dude, you need to get the ring back. She has just minimized your passion." She doesn't have to love sports, but rolling her eyes is the first sign that he is going to take a back seat to what she thinks is important.

[pessimist]

I learned far more from my mother than my father. My father taught me stuff I would have figured out on my own. My mom taught me about life on a more intuitive and human level. Mom; abstract, conceptual. Dad; conventional, practical.

[euphemia]

I'm not saying one person is better than another. I'm saying that when both parents are involved, it teaches children that something is important. Open discussion is very important.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

You guys should not feed the feminists.

[euphemia]

Oftentimes it appears as though the woman is into the guy chatting her up and sitting just a little too close, and as a bystander one might wonder why the woman chooses to humor the man.

I want to address this. I think this is fundamentally dishonest, unkind, and unhealthy. And a little desperate. A woman (in this case) gives a vibe of being into a guy when she isn't and is offended when he asks for more? How does that work exactly? I would rather be thought to be [something unflattering] than fake interest in a guy because I am afraid of what other people will think. I have learned that we teach people how to treat us. If I am not looking for a certain kind of response, then I don't act as if I am. Integrity demands that I politely excuse myself than sit there and allow expectations to be formed.

[pessimist]

I'm not saying one person is better than another. I'm saying that when both parents are involved, it teaches children that something is important. Open discussion is very important.

I think a child needs two things: love and stability. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

I only mentioned that because as a guy (admittedly maybe a bit too 'spoiled' growing up) I had a better relationship with my mom due to our similar personalities.

My dad is more a 'simple' and traditional guy, I am not. Even though I love him, I didn't really learn anything that I couldn't have figured for myself. I have common sense mixed in with my madness and possible mental retardation . Also, I'm a guy.

But yeah, both parents are important. But many have a closer relationship with one over the other. I think that often ties into how we view the opposite sex as we grow up.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I am way too much of an individualist to care about any "man code".

Sounds like you're mixing up macho with masculine.

You're either responsible or you’re not- whether a 'safety net' is there to catch your fall should be irrelevant.

Enabling encourages irresponsibility. Our safety net falling has devolved to swimming pool diving.

Do you believe that government is solely responsible for vacant fathers and reckless mothers?

Not solely. Of course not. Do you think government has contributed to these mothers and fathers?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe I'm just the little fat grandma, but I've been married over 30 years to the same guy. What I told our daughter is that she should not plan to be married until she is willing to commit to being sexual with her husband at least 2-3 times a week for the rest of her life. It is unfair to ask a man to commit to an exclusive relationship that does not also include being regularly and willingly sexual. It's the one thing that should not ever be in question, barring serious illness or disability.

It is still a mutial choice. Women should stop being naive. If they are not willing to choose to be enthusiastically sexual with their men, they should stay doggedly single. Don't expect the calls, texts, flowers, candy, movies, and dinners. Most men are not pigs. They are men. They deserve not to be minimized for how they are wired. And men should respect themselves enough to be honest with that and not be involved with women who ignore their needs.

Just my opinion and my experience for over 30 years. If any of you guys want to present an honest argument to the contrary, I'm here to listen. Life is too short to be silly about basic biology.

I want to address this. I think this is fundamentally dishonest, unkind, and unhealthy. And a little desperate. A woman (in this case) gives a vibe of being into a guy when she isn't and is offended when he asks for more? How does that work exactly? I would rather be thought to be [something unflattering] than fake interest in a guy because I am afraid of what other people will think. I have learned that we teach people how to treat us. If I am not looking for a certain kind of response, then I don't act as if I am. Integrity demands that I politely excuse myself than sit there and allow expectations to be formed.

Sounds like outstanding advice.

[2young2vote]

Every time I read about conflicts between different types of people I can't help but think about Ayn Rand's quote - The smallest minority on Earth is the individual. These people focus too much on groups and not enough on the individual.

[pessimist]

Sounds like you're mixing up macho with masculine.

Enabling encourages irresponsibility. Our safety net falling has devolved to swimming pool diving.

Not solely. Of course not. Do you think government has contributed to these mothers and fathers?

I don't want to sound crass here, but I highly doubt govt is on the mind of people before they have sex.

"Do you have a condom? I'm not on the pill or anything"

"Nah, I don't wear them. Don't worry about it, baby. Uncle Sam will take care of ya"

The guy that has 9 kids to 6 different women would be doing the same even if there was no welfare state. I think the same is true for most of the women. To be blunt: many of these folks are uneducated, not very intelligent, and lack impulse control.

If you look at many poor ‘third world' nations, you will see that their populations are exploding in growth. They have every incentive NOT to procreate but yet they still do. They receive no govt handouts.

As for government promoting irresponsible behavior? I tend to agree but not nearly to the extent that you suggest. Are there "welfare queens" (not just referencing blacks here, many poor white women do the same) who pop out kids every year or bring in bus loads of foster kids purely for the handouts?

Sure. However, they are in the minority.

I am not completely against welfare. There are people out there who genuinely run into bad luck and need legitimate help. There are also sympathetic cases- a single mom who is trying to juggle two low paying jobs, while taking classes at a local community college, all while raising a kid on her own deserves sympathy. She may need some form of govt assistance to survive. Yeah, it sucks taxpayers have to foot the bill for some these people, I mean, why should everyone have to pay for the mistake of some dumb teenager? Well, they're human. In an example like the one above, she is trying to make a better life for herself and her child.

But yeah, having to support the 'parents' of a bunch of feral, unloved, unwanted children is just sad and infuriating. There is no easy solution.

btw none of this has anything to do with being a man- it has to do with being RESPONSIBLE and doing the right thing. Both sexes should practice it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Don't worry about it, baby. Uncle Sam will take care of ya"

Silly dialogue in the heat of the moment, but the conversation does happen outside of that.

If you look at many poor ‘third world' nations, you will see that their populations are exploding in growth. They have every incentive NOT to procreate but yet they still do. They receive no govt handouts.

I think this is true to a certain degree, but there are other factors. My in-laws, for example, all have large families (except one), but they are caught up in a transitional economic structure. They are also all married. This example is often widespread.

There are also sympathetic cases- a single mom ...deserves sympathy.

Do you personally and voluntarily donate to these sympathetic people?

She may need some form of govt assistance to survive

Why government assistance? She just needs money from any source. Do you voluntarily give to such people?

btw none of this has anything to do with being a man- it has to do with being RESPONSIBLE and doing the right thing. Both sexes should practice it.

Men abandon their children far more than women. That difference has everything to do with it.

If the fathers refuse to man up, then women will find daddy support one way or another. That support today is the surrogate father called government. We're raising and enabling generations of goldbricks and buttercups.

[pessimist]

Silly dialogue in the heat of the moment, but the conversation does happen outside of that.

I highly disagree. I don't think most of these pregnancies are planned. You make it seem like some calculated nefarious plot. Most of it is just unthinking people acting on their primal urges.

I think this is true to a certain degree, but there are other factors. My in-laws, for example, all have large families (except one), but they are caught up in a transitional economic structure. They are also all married. This example is often widespread.

Marriage has nothing to do with it. I am sure the 'family unit' is very strong in these poor countries, but you left out one thing- many are DISEASE RIDDEN AND STARVING and in most cases don't have running water or any type of sanitation or infrastructure.

Do you personally and voluntarily donate to these sympathetic people?

If people I know need help, I volunteer my time and money when necessary. But what the hell is a few hundred bucks going to do for some struggling single mom who lives half way across the country? What if her kid needs surgery? Who is going to pay the bill? "Acts of charity"? What if she has to miss a week or two of work and has no other sources of income?

The list goes on and on. Yes, charity is a great thing but it's unreliable and can't help everyone who needs it.

Do you personally and voluntarily donate to these sympathetic people?

If I personally knew of someone in that aforementioned position, yes, I can honestly say that I would.

Why government assistance? She just needs money from any source.

Way more complicated and multilayered than that.

Men abandon their children far more than women. That difference has everything to do with it.
If the fathers refuse to man up, then women will find daddy support one way or another. That support today is the surrogate father called government. We're raising and enabling generations of goldbricks and buttercups.

Government has to take over the responsibility of $#@!ty degenerate men and careless women. Should we just let these kids starve to death? Some people are just terrible human beings or just plain dumb. I don't think govt is solely responsible for that.

Eventually this is all going to come crashing down though. The system will no longer be able to endure the exploding population of people who NEED govt assistance just to survive.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I highly disagree. I don't think most of these pregnancies are planned. You make it seem like some calculated nefarious plot. Most of it is just unthinking people acting on their primal urges.

There's an overall structure that enables it.

Marriage has nothing to do with it. I am sure the 'family unit' is very strong in these poor countries,

If the family unit is strong, then marriage might have something to do with it.

but you left out one thing- many are DISEASE RIDDEN AND STARVING and in most cases don't have running water or any type of sanitation or infrastructure.

The US is not disease ridden, unsanitary, etc., so what is the excuse for Americans?

If people I know need help, I volunteer my time and money when necessary...

If I personally knew of someone in that aforementioned position, yes, I can honestly say that I would.

So which is it? You would help? Or you have helped?

Yes, charity is a great thing but it's unreliable and can't help everyone who needs it.

Government is more reliable and helps everyone who needs it? Here's a story about people volunteering their time to feed and help the homeless, but the government is passing laws against it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...meless-people&

Way more complicated and multilayered than that.

What is so complicated about finding a person in need and helping them?

Government has to take over the responsibility of $#@!ty degenerate men and careless women

.

Why?

Should we just let these kids starve to death?

Who is we?

The system will no longer be able to endure the exploding population of people who NEED govt assistance just to survive.

I did not know that survival meant having cable TV or a DVD player.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What if her kid needs surgery? Who is going to pay the bill? "Acts of charity"? What if she has to miss a week or two of work and has no other sources of income?

Who is paying the bill now? If taxpayers are now paying the bill, then why not let them pay voluntarily? If you take government out of the process, then shouldn't the process of direct giving be more efficient? Wouldn't there be more money?

[pessimist]

There's an overall structure that enables it.

Enables what? Sex?

If the family unit is strong, then marriage might have something to do with it.

Uh, my point was, in the context of your earlier reply, was that even a 'strong' family unit can still be irresponsible. Hell, even a lot of them need financial help.

The US is not disease ridden, unsanitary, etc., so what is the excuse for Americans?

Bad people + low intelligence + sexual desire?

So which is it? You would help? Or you have helped?

I help people all time, but don't devote my life to charity. Do you? Would you?

Government is more reliable and helps everyone who needs it? Here's a story about people volunteering their time to feed and help the homeless, but the government is passing laws against it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...meless-people&

Giving the less fortunate a nice meal and clothing is nice. But it isn't a long-term fix.

What is so complicated about finding a person in need and helping them?

okay I am too tired to finish this, but I think we're talking about different things. We're either misunderstanding each other, or you're just taking $#@! out of context in an attempt to win an argument.

Why?

Because people are $#@!ty, and letting their unwanted offspring starve to death in the streets is even crappier in a humane society.

Who is we?

Society. Think you can survive entirely your own and be entirely self-sufficient? Even manly men rely on OTHERS to live.

I did not know that survival meant having cable TV or a DVD player.

Yes, because that is ALL folks on welfare use it for, right? There is absolutely no one out there who actually needs it? It doesn't feed any children or anything?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I help people all time,...

Like what?

Giving the less fortunate a nice meal and clothing is nice. But it isn't a long-term fix.

Welfare has been around for decades, but people are still poor. How is government a long term fix?

Society. Think you can survive entirely your own and be entirely self-sufficient? Even manly men rely on OTHERS to live.

Who in society? You said you sympathize with the struggling single mother. What are you doing to help her?

[pessimist]

I used the WORKING single mother as an example of someone who doesn't make enough money to support her child and needs government assistance to HELP. She is trying. She deserves SOCIETIES sympathy.

Can people in positions similar to hers RELY on a monthly payments and medical help and whatever else these 'handouts' provide from the 'good will' of the people on a consistent basis?

Many of these folks who get govt assistance may get to the point where they no longer need it.

Look I am not condoning irresponsible behavior if I didn't make that clear enough. However, the welfare system serves a purpose. It sucks that is abused, it sucks that there are so many terrible and idiotic people in this world.

We are approaching overload. This welfare system won't last and it is going to have devastating effect.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

She deserves SOCIETIES sympathy.

So, you personally sympathize with certain people, such as your example of the single mother. The sympathy is apparently not strong enough for you to devote your life to charity. The sympathy is not even strong enough for you to personally help them or even seek them out. The complications also seem to override your sympathy. In other words, you have voluntarily done nothing to help these people and you currently do nothing.

You do however, support the notion that I, as a member of society, support such people. You further require that I support such people by passing laws requiring that I monetarily assist them. Your sympathies are now apparently so strong in this area that you require everyone to do this.

In short, you're telling everyone to do something about a problem for which you won't lift a finger.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

The problem is there is no shame associated with being an irresponsible single mother anymore, and yes most single mothers are irresponsible (Widows aren't single mothers, they are widows), and for some reason we "praise" them like they are brave. It's like praising a drunk for being drunk.

Listen, don't $#@! drunks, don't $#@! dudes that don't have the means to support themselves, don't $#@! dudes that have $#@!ed 20 other women, don't $#@! any dude from a bar, don't $#@! any guy on the first, second or third date. State clearly you only want a man that is interested in marriage after a couple dates, and watch half of them lose interest.

Now, marry one those that remain. Then emotionally support him, and have sex with him with no conditions and enjoy it, you married him and presumably love him, don't bitch at him constantly and whine, and watch him willingly work his ass off to provide for a family he loves.

You won't be a single mother.

Simple really.

Or the single mothers can continue their delusions, and be miserable trying to be a man and a woman and FAILING. The crime stats don't lie, most criminals, drug addicts, etc... were raised by SINGLE MOTHERS. Most women are just arrogant, anymore. It seems most think they are smarter than GOD, or Natural Selection if you prefer. Do, they even stop for a second to think maybe their is a reason there are Men and Women beyond sperm donations and licking on their puss......... I seriously don't think they do. You can't do it all, you weren't designed to do it all, if you were, we'd all be WOMEN..... Also, Men can't do it all obviously..

Men don't want Women that mimic Men, and that is all feminism is turning women into. Women you can be an executive, Women you can be a Software Engineer, Women you can be a lawyer, and still be the bestest mom and wife on the planet. BLAH, no you can't, you can be one or the other. Also, they tell women they should be able to mimic the bad male behavior without shame, like screwing a bunch of dudes. No you can't, at least you can't without all men that would be good husbands thinking you a disgusting whore. Feminists should teach women not to $#@! men that $#@! alot of women, that would actually be helpful for women. Instead they have SLUT WALKS. LOL. SLUT WALKS, and that is supposed to be about equality. Women should be repulsed by dudes that screw around, that is the natural response, not mimic the behavior.

But we can ride this Feminist train to it's inevitable conclusion, which is the destruction of any society. You can not ignore Mother Nature, and expect a good outcome.

BUT, BUT, my feminist theory class said...... Shut up...

[dannno]

I highly disagree. I don't think most of these pregnancies are planned. You make it seem like some calculated nefarious plot. Most of it is just unthinking people acting on their primal urges.

"Nah, I don't wear them. Don't worry about it, baby. Uncle Sam will take care of ya"

The guy that has 9 kids to 6 different women would be doing the same even if there was no welfare state.

Silly dialogue in the heat of the moment, but the conversation does happen outside of that.

pessimist I think it is less about what is seen which is government supporting single moms who take advantage of the system and more about what is unseen - single moms, particularly single moms who are particularly irresponsible having to face the community that would take place of the government in assisting them. So they might still act on primal urges and make mistakes and would hopefully find some voluntary assistance, but they might be more careful and act in a way that makes people want to help them, or makes the father want to help them.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Or the single mothers can continue their delusions, and be miserable trying to be a man and a woman and FAILING. The crime stats don't lie, most criminals, drug addicts, etc... were raised by SINGLE MOTHERS. Most women are just arrogant, anymore. It seems most think they are smarter than GOD, or Natural Selection if you prefer. Do, they even stop for a second to think maybe their is a reason there are Men and Women beyond sperm donations and licking on their puss......... I seriously don't think they do. You can't do it all, you weren't designed to do it all, if you were, we'd all be WOMEN..... Also, Men can't do it all obviously..

Uh... lol. There are so many things wrong with this rambling nonsense that I don't even know where to start, but I love (no I don't, actually) how you turned your diatribe about the evils of single motherhood into a generalized statement about female sexuality. In other words, you've made it perfectly clear what your little rant is all about. The point of feminism isn't to turn women into something that "men want." I and many others couldn't give less of a $#@! about how you think women should behave. There are plenty of decent men out there who completely respect a woman's ability to make decisions about her own sexuality, and they certainly wouldn't be bad husbands.

Also, are you seriously claiming you have any idea what God would want (that's dangerous territory you're treading there; hope you don't attract the ire of the religious people here) or what natural selection "would lead to"? I don't know if you know this about the term you just threw around so flippantly, but natural selection is not purposeful. It does not produce a single point of convergence in which all women are demure and committed to your version of marital and sexual bliss. It's a process based on mindless variation; nothing more. Therefore, it is hardly applicable to what is largely the product of culture. This is leaving aside the fact that you're just blatantly appealing to "nature" (a loaded term) and thus begging the question. It's nearly impossible to separate culture and biology.

Just as a side note, a lot of people who think like you love to cite natural selection based on the behavior of people who lived 50,000 years ago. I'm not sure if anyone has cited it yet in this topic, but I've seen misguided people doing it before in others. The problem is, the behavior of these ancestors obviously isn't directly observable, and this is a problem when trying to understand modern behavior in the context of ancient behavior. What ends up happening is that people use circular reasoning and commit inductive fallacies because they take modern behavior, find a supposed parallel with ancient behavior, and then assert that this behavior is biologically meaningful because they take as given that current social relations are the product of natural selection. Then the next step is to note that the behavior appears in modern times and so modern behavior must be the result of natural selection. It's a neat little trick, but the problem is that it's completely fallacious. That doesn't stop it from cropping up time and time again, though.

[pessimist]

So, you personally sympathize with certain people, such as your example of the single mother. The sympathy is apparently not strong enough for you to devote your life to charity. The sympathy is not even strong enough for you to personally help them or even seek them out. The complications also seem to override your sympathy. In other words, you have voluntarily done nothing to help these people and you currently do nothing.

You do however, support the notion that I, as a member of society, support such people. You further require that I support such people by passing laws requiring that I monetarily assist them. Your sympathies are now apparently so strong in this area that you require everyone to do this.

In short, you're telling everyone to do something about a problem for which you won't lift a finger.

Oh for the love of God. WE CAN'T ALL DEVOTE OUR LIVES TO CHARITY. You are completely missing the point.

We live in a society, not in small tribal communities in the jungle where we only associate with our own tribes. We have infrastructure; schools, roadways, bridges, hospitals, police and fire departments, libraries, etc.

So most of us contribute to all this via taxes. We all rely on one another in some form. No man is completely self-sufficient. The proud hard working man with the stiff upper lip even relies on people to PROVIDE him work so he can earn a living. The system we have now is flawed, rigged, and bloated. It will not last in its current form- so many of you might get your wish. America: the third world nation.

Anyway, some of the heartless people in this thread are living proof as to why a welfare system needs to be put in place. You better hope you or any of your family members never run into a rough patch where you’ll need good old government assistance.

[euphemia]

Why does marital status have anything to do with whether a person deserves sympathy or not? Seems discriminatory to me.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

WE CAN'T ALL DEVOTE OUR LIVES TO CHARITY.

Who's talking about charity? You're the one who brought it up. You demand others address a problem for which your sympathy is apparently not enough to do anything in your entire life.

We all rely on one another in some form. No man is completely self-sufficient.

This is a universal in all societies, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Anyway, some of the heartless people in this thread are living proof as to why a welfare system needs to be put in place.

Heartless people? That sure is interesting coming from someone who has not lifted a finger but demands that others do so.

You better hope you or any of your family members never run into a rough patch where you’ll need good old government assistance.

What makes you think I, or others, here have not run into those rough patches with family? What makes you think that someone here has not faced multiple situations that are 100% life and death?

Do you know in a country, such as the Philippines, that starvation is a reality for thousands every day? Do you know that if you don't have money for a life and death hospital situation, then you are not going to be seen and you will die? Do you know that if a woman's husband is murdered, then there are no widows benefits, even if you have 7 children and are pregnant with one of them?

Do you know where a lot of the assistance comes from in such a country? No, it's not from the "good old government." It comes from the "heartless" and unsympathetic people who don't demand that others do something for which they would not do themselves. It comes from people who actually do something about a need, and then have to also pay to double dippers like you.









.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It will not last in its current form- so many of you might get your wish. America: the third world nation.

You don't know a damn thing about third world countries. Your attitude is a typical, spoiled American full of excuses. You have the nerve to demand that everyone have sympathy for someone, but your contribution is taxes. You then have the gall to say that simply helping another human being is "complicated" and "multilayered." Wow, what a humanitarian.

It's not hard to find needy people. It can even happen in a bureaucratic and multilayered society such as the United States. Talk to a person with a cardboard sign. Pick up the phone and dial a social service agency. If you're sympathetic to single mothers, then join the Big Brothers program. Mentor at The Boys' Clubs. Help at a midnight basketball program. You suggest an exploding population that needs government assistance to survive, all demanded from the comfort of your keyboard or a college classroom.

[pessimist]

Who's talking about charity? You're the one who brought it up. You demand others address a problem for which your sympathy is apparently not enough to do anything in your entire life.

This is a universal in all societies, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Heartless people? That sure is interesting coming from someone who has not lifted a finger but demands that others do so What makes you think I, or others, here have not run into those rough patches with family? What makes you think that someone here has not faced multiple situations that are 100% life and death?

Do you know in a country, such as the Philippines, that starvation is a reality for thousands every day? Do you know that if you don't have money for a life and death hospital situation, then you are not going to be seen and you will die? Do you know that if a woman's husband is murdered, then there are no widows benefits, even if you have 7 children and are pregnant with one of them?

Do you know where a lot of the assistance comes from in such a country? No, it's not from the "good old government." It comes from the "heartless" and unsympathetic people who don't demand that others do something for which they would not do themselves. It comes from people who actually do something about a need, and then have to also pay to double dippers like you.

In the words of my ex: "oy!"

Look, this 'argument' no longer interests me. I feel like there is a communication barrier here. I am either misunderstanding you, being too vague or inarticulate or just rambling on assuming you know what the hell I am talking about.

I don't see how you WEREN'T alluding to charity as an alternative to welfare. I mean, if devoting ones time and resources to help others isn't charitable, then I don't know what is.

Secondly, charity is NOT a viable alternative for the COUNTLESS struggling people in this country. A person could give half their pay check to a humanitarian organization, spend most of their time being a big brother, or working in soup kitchens, and it still wouldn't make any overall difference.

Welfare when used properly is there to be a shield, a life preserver, a safety net. It is a RELIABLE means to help those who need it. People need to eat, support their families, and pay their bills. When life hands them a $#@!ty card, or they hit a bump in the road, they should be able to have a reliable support system (government) to help them get back on their feet. Note that I said help, not pamper.

A CIVILIZED society needs a structure that protects and helps its citizens. Social Darwinism has no place in the modern world (I realize that I am ideologically at odds with most people here).

As for the third world stuff. Look, all these humanitarian organizations, Christian missionaries, churches, etc., do wonderful things. However, what these people REALLY need is a functioning government and infrastructure. They need sanitation, sewage systems, running water, schools, roadways, electricity…the list goes on and on and on. Meals, clothing, and bibles are only temporary fixes. They need stability.

We simply cannot rely on charity.