| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 06:41 acker wrote: I don't understand what your definition of "forced" is. Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in? | ||
|
JackDragon
525 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On June 10 2011 06:42 RoosterSamurai wrote: It's not illegal to not be on welfare. So "forced" means "illegal"? Edit: wrong person, my mistake. On June 10 2011 06:42 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Forced by another human being, or an institution. That was pretty obvious from my context. Are you thinking forced by nature, or the situation they're in? "Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"? This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways. There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions? | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On June 10 2011 06:42 acker wrote: So "forced" means "illegal"? Edit: wrong person, my mistake. "Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"? This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways. There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions? You're not forced to do something if you could choose to do otherwise. Got murdered? You didn't have much of a choice on the dying part, I'd say it was forced. Decided to fill out a welfare application.... doesn't sound forced to me unless there's someone holding a gun to your head. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 06:42 acker wrote: So "forced" means "illegal"? Edit: wrong person, my mistake. "Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"? This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways. There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions? Did you know that context is integral to the English language? Edit: If everyone took the time to consider every possible interpretation in their sentences we'd never get anything said. Though admittedly, we'd develop a tremendous amount of patience, as we'd be listening to people finish all the necessary clarifications while knowing the entire time what they're saying. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On June 10 2011 06:42 acker wrote: So "forced" means "illegal"? Edit: wrong person, my mistake. "Forced" means "forced by another human being, or an institution"? This is a very selective definition. It's almost tautological. For example, no one is "forced" to die according to this definition, but everybody does so anyways. There's a lot of different things that "force" us to do things, according to the common definition. Why limit it to humans or institutions? It seems they don't understand... it's not worth arguing with people who just want to argue  . It's a shame that these topics always devolve to this. | ||
|
ewswes
39 Posts
also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs responsibly and anyone who thinks drugs are always bad without exception is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young. User was warned for this post | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:16 ewswes wrote: drug tests are stupid because there's so many ways to beat them so only the uninformed get caught. also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs and anyone who thinks drugs are bad is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young. Yeah... So when my uncle overdosed on heroin last year, I guess there must have been another problem. (Not being sarcastic, that actually happened). Sorry, but you're pretty naive. | ||
|
DMBJonesy
United States42 Posts
| ||
|
VPCursed
1044 Posts
| ||
|
funnybananaman
United States830 Posts
The biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?). The right to refuse spontaneous and unwarranted searches by the government is a critical part of the constitution and an inalienable right which this new law tramples all over. The fact that there are so many stupid people out there that support this kind of thing amazes me, but that amazement turns in to hopeless disappointment when i realize that its because people support it that violations of rights like these get passed. Tyranny of the majority to the max. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:16 ewswes wrote: drug tests are stupid because there's so many ways to beat them so only the uninformed get caught. also there's nothing wrong with taking drugs responsibly and anyone who thinks drugs are always bad without exception is brainwashed by d.a.r.e. highschool programs when they were young. This is true, and drug prohibition should end, but welfare money shouldn't be spent on drugs regardless. It would be like placing other stipulations such as, "you agree not to purchase a car worth more than x dollars". | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. But the biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?) The point is that they don't piss away taxpayer dollars on useless vices, instead of spending it taking care of their children like they're supposed to. Legalizing drugs would just be like sweeping the problem under the carpet so someone else has to deal with it. | ||
|
DamnCats
United States1472 Posts
| ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:21 funnybananaman wrote: completely ridiculous, a clear violation of constitutional right to privacy, not to mention morally fucked up as well-- if we are doing this to welfare people why not also to everyone else receiving any kind of government benefits/money? It unfairly singles them out. But the biggest issue is the violation of privacy. Instead of this crap why not just make the drugs legal? That'd save way more money (i assume the point of this is to save money or something?) Its conditional to accepting the money, someone agreeing to take a drug test is not a violation of their 4th amendment rights. | ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
"Hell, it's about time..." | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On June 10 2011 07:25 DamnCats wrote: I like how if you're on welfare you can be as much of alcoholic as you want. Basically the worst drug ever. WTG florida. That's not an argument against the policy, that's an argument for adding alcohol in as well. | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
It only hurts people who are on drugs breaking the law already. They should drug test people by monthly and create more government jobs. Having people go around and collect these drug tests to make sure everyone is staying clean. If you are working for your own money and want to do drugs go for it I don't care but if your using the system and tax payers money GTFO... | ||
|
Contagious
United States1319 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
