Moderator: Stoic Guardian
Dan~ wrote: In a planned economy, if planned well enough, everyone could have jobs and the prices for things would change dramatically. Again, the authority would need to free itself from corruption somehow. Either through being a direct democracy or through being a meritocracy or some such thing. We suffer from unequal distribution of power.
lizbethrose wrote:James, I'm supremely sorry you had such a horrendous time in Seattle. (I don't particularly like the city, but that's beside the point.) I'm surprised you weren't able to find water. First, because summer of 2011 was so rainy and cold all over the state small farmers lost crops and we weren't able to grow anything in our backyard garden. If you''re ever in that situation again, go into a public building, find a water fountain, and fill up your canteen. You can use the potty while you're there, as well. Some of them even have showers, since Seattle is a bicycle city.
Seattle tried to establish public toilets, but they became centers for both drug trade and prostitution and were shut down. They'd been placed in the main area frequented by pan-handlers and the avowed homeless. The idea was well meant, but the people it tried to help shot it down.
Both Pav and I have offered you a place to live and a job. That you have refused both says an awful lot about you, doesn't it?
Stoic Guardian wrote:You think that might be how it's designed? Perhaps shelters are purposely made to be inadaquate so that the homeless don't get too comfortable being homeless.
Thats how the old poverty control laws were in Europe, they'd give you a Job but it wasn't a good Job so the impovershed would be more motivated to find themselves a Job.
James L Walker wrote:To Liz: Go up to the many homeless in the Seattle area. We had another nickname for the city there other than how all the urban yuppies perceived it to be.
We called it the city of damnation or the city of the damned.
Great city my ass. Great for whom?
Do you even know of the suffering that exists in your backyard. I bet your clueless like the rest.
lizbethrose wrote:James, I'm supremely sorry you had such a horrendous time in Seattle. (I don't particularly like the city, but that's beside the point.) I'm surprised you weren't able to find water. First, because summer of 2011 was so rainy and cold all over the state small farmers lost crops and we weren't able to grow anything in our backyard garden. If you''re ever in that situation again, go into a public building, find a water fountain, and fill up your canteen. You can use the potty while you're there, as well. Some of them even have showers, since Seattle is a bicycle city.
Seattle tried to establish public toilets, but they became centers for both drug trade and prostitution and were shut down. They'd been placed in the main area frequented by pan-handlers and the avowed homeless. The idea was well meant, but the people it tried to help shot it down.
Both Pav and I have offered you a place to live and a job. That you have refused both says an awful lot about you, doesn't it?
lizbethrose wrote:James L Walker wrote:To Liz: Go up to the many homeless in the Seattle area. We had another nickname for the city there other than how all the urban yuppies perceived it to be.
We called it the city of damnation or the city of the damned.
Great city my ass. Great for whom?
Do you even know of the suffering that exists in your backyard. I bet your clueless like the rest.
Dear James--I never called Seattle a great city--I don't live there and I think I've said that I dislike even going there. Nor am I saying that being homeless has derogatory connotations. I haven't said, as many other people have, that it's an abasement of anyone if they're found homeless--or that they could have avoided homelessness if they'd made 'better decisions,' 'worked harder,' or whatever excuse is given.
I think I've known only one homeless man--a regular at the library who was always treated with respect. He finally agreed, after he almost died, and through the intervention of his aunt who had spent years trying to help him, to go back on his meds and to put himself back into her home. Before then, he slept in the service bay of a garage (which the owner allowed) and got new shoes, umbrellas, and some spending money, thanks to a fire squad in another city.
Yes, some of us know the suffering. Some of us are also aware of the fraud that goes on. That's why our charity monies have to go to recognized organizations that truly try to help. Finding such organizations is often difficult, since so many of them take monetary donations and use them for 'operating expenses.' But we do try, Joker.
I think what I really object to is personae created by people in order to project something, or someone, they aren't, so as to emphasize or give reason to their beliefs.
Misrepresentation will almost always be discovered. It can be as simple as wondering how you, as a homeless man, drifting around the country, own a computer and are able to pay an ISP to support that computer.
It's like contra-nietszche saying he lives in a jungle, on a rainy, uninhabitable mountain in Hawaii--and yet he can post his ideas in an on-line forum. Does he walk down the mountain every day, find an internet cafe, and plug in? Or does he somehow own a super-duper battery that keeps him on line indefinitely?
It's these inconsistencies I question--not your thoughts.
James L Walker wrote:lizbethrose wrote:I think what I really object to is personae created by people in order to project something, or someone, they aren't, so as to emphasize or give reason to their beliefs.
Misrepresentation will almost always be discovered. It can be as simple as wondering how you, as a homeless man, drifting around the country, own a computer and are able to pay an ISP to support that computer.
It's these inconsistencies I question--not your thoughts.
Do not fucking talk to me anymore. I do not like being talked down to and I am sick of your bullshit replies to everything I have to say.
I have no respect for your arrogant conservative mind set.
Magsj wrote:I met a guy who abhorred all authority figures but he was lovely ergo.. the two can go together.
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users