The answer you seek is found in "mandatory fun" orientated OJT.Now I have to figure out how to help wayneh by not helping wayneh with his tablesaw question.
The answer you seek is found in "mandatory fun" orientated OJT.Now I have to figure out how to help wayneh by not helping wayneh with his tablesaw question.
The problem with table saw OJT is that you can convert one of your hands from digital to binary in a hurry.The answer you seek is found in "mandatory fun" orientated OJT.
Well, we can all be happy about veteran benefits getting cut.1. When you have to forcefully take from someone to give to someone else (like taxes >> welfare). In this case it's not really charity, it's theft.
I agree with is statement. Charity can destroy infrastructure. When thinking is not part of a persons/organization job description, then nothing good will come of good intentions...................... Free food drops actually destroyed the local grocery business and supply chain.
Equating veterans' benefits to charity is not cool. Those benefits are contractual and earned, and I doubt a veteran would appreciate your comment. It's not charity for an employer to pay employees.Well, we can all be happy about veteran benefits getting cut.
Veteran benefits are authorized and paid via the general fund, just as any other transfer. Money is collected through taxes as forcefully as any other tax, and paid to other people just as Strantor wrote. BTW, I'm a vet.Equating veterans' benefits to charity is not cool. Those benefits are contractual and earned, and I doubt a veteran would appreciate your comment. It's not charity for an employer to pay employees.
Strantor explicitly wrote TAXES. Not someone robbing anyone on the street. It's all collected and paid the same way. Vet benefits have been eroding and continue to do so, often justified with the same rhetoric as other types of assistance.What Strantor described is more like someone robbing you on the street so they can give your money to the homeless guy under the overpass, only at a large scale.
Then don't pay them. I'm sure there are places on earth where people don't pay taxes. I hear western New Guinea is tax free.Taxes for forced charity and robbing in the street (to pass to the guy under the bridge) are morally indistinguishable. Differ only in scale.
True, but, like I say to people who work with deadly voltages ... the ass you save maybe your own. Safety first.The problem with table saw OJT is that you can convert one of your hands from digital to binary in a hurry.
I guess now would be a good time for me to concede that I dont have all the answers.Well, we can all be happy about veteran benefits getting cut.
Your last sentence is spot on. I agree they need psych help, but I'm on the fence about housing and whatever might be included in "etc."@strantor,
I'm not convinced that all the people holding up "homeless veteran" signs are really vets. But it is true that homelessness is a big problem among veterans. They need much more psychological care, assistance with housing, etc, but budget hawks continue to deny these programs. They say it's too expensive. I say if it's too expensive to care for veterans, then it's too expensive to go to war.
I'm on the fence about getting shot at or getting blown up by IED's. Maybe if we can cherry-pick about what support we are willing to give to vets returning from war, it's reasonable for vets to cherry-pick which dangers they are willing to face. "OK, we'll man checkpoints in rear areas, but we won't travel through areas known to have IED's." Seems fair, right?I'm on the fence about housing and whatever might be included in "etc."
The last paragraph of my previous post was not in relation to anything you have written. It was directed at the overall thread.To be clear, I'm not arguing that giving is ever immoral (except giving STDs and plague infected blankets to indians). I'm only arguing that, if you really want help someone, giving handouts might not be the most effective method of accomplishing your goal. Even so, a handout is morally superior to withholding any/all giving at all.
Agree.I agree that unintended consequences are , well, unintended, and don't factor into the morality of an act. Giving is always good. We should however, if we have more than just a passing interest in being helpful, strive to understand the problem and help in the most effective way possible. That's what I'm doing now.
That would be a personal choice. It would depend on several factors beyond my knowledge. My main thing is to not support any leaders who talk a good game but don't step up to the plate when it counts.What could I have done better for him?
But that's the thing - it's not an extreme minority. It's quite common. I won't say it's the rule....I do understand that in an extreme minority of cases, there are unintended consequences....
All one has to do is observe the result of 'philanthropy' on the effect of inner cities.Giving things to people tends to destroy them. It's hard to avoid while doing good things.
Depends what the goal was. If it was to provide a permanent underclass that votes in predictable manner, it's been a stunning success.The "War on Poverty" has failed miserably.
by Duane Benson
by Jeff Child