Shaming the bottom-feeders.

[Formaldehyde]

Thanks for providing another excellent example while even insinuating that she might be lying.

 

[Cutlass]

If we're to actually believe her story, her situation would likely be improved by informing DHS wherever she resides that her mother would rather pay for cigarettes than food for her child.

Aimee is not a child. She is an adult student with disabilities.

 

[DinoDoc]

I believe most people are lying about their personal lives on the internet. Nothing personal against him/her.

 

[Traitorfish]

I haven't said a word directly "on her behalf".

Not directly, no. I don't think I've ever seen you say anything directly. You've got this weird way of talking in rhetorical questions and crowbarred-in quotations. But talking on her behalf none the less.

I believe most people are lying about their personal lives on the internet. Nothing personal against him/her.

That's a bit paranoid.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: This thread is not about Aimee. Let's all drop that, ok?

 

[Borachio]

You mean like these comments which should have never been publicly made?





It is really none of your business. But if you think you might be actually able to help improve the situation by offering her such platitudes, you certainly should have done so in private instead of publicly.

Of course, that is just my opinion. YMMV.

Well, that's me told, and no mistake.

I never thought these comments of mine could have been taken this way. And I certainly hope aimee didn't think I was patronizing her.

In the end, I was just showing the sort of things that poor people (in whose illustrious company I count myself) must do. And, I must add, this advice is useful. Platitudinous it isn't.

All in all, I think you've rather shown how little you know yourself about such matters.

But perhaps you right, and it would have been better by PM.

As for reprehensible....Pfft!

 

[DinoDoc]

That's a bit paranoid.

Prudence.

 

[Traitorfish]

Prudence would be assuming that people aren't disclosing the full truth. (Which is, of course, their privilege.) Assuming that they're all actively misleading you is paranoia.

 

[DinoDoc]

Prudence would be assuming that people aren't disclosing the full truth. (Which is, of course, their privilege.) Assuming that they're all actively misleading you is paranoia.

After someone faked a suicide attempt on another forum I go to, I've been a little distrustful.

 

[Borachio]

But it was a genuine faked suicide attempt, right?

Don't you/we have to take things at face value, until we find out otherwise?

 

[El_Machinae]

I find it much easier to pish-posh poverty if I don't believe the tales.

 

[DinoDoc]

I find it much easier to pish-posh poverty if I don't believe the tales.

I believe poor people exist in America. I'm just highly skeptical they have internet access and actively post on Civilization game forums. But I thought we were supposed to stop talking about Aimee here.

 

[Atticus]

Moderator Action: Yes, please do. And all the spinoffs of that conversation too.

 

[Lohrenswald]

There are probably plenty of us who work ourselves half to death, pay a huge chunk of our hard-earned money to Uncle Sam, then still have to deal with the notion that there is a huge population of people who don't work at all and yet receive all the necessities of life that we have to sweat and bleed for. They seem to think, interestingly enough, that they "deserve" those things.

Have you ever heard about this thing called human rights?

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't sweat and bleed for necessities.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

(Notice I only "shirk" off an engagement with Formaldehyde since he has a history of having long drawn-out slanging matches which never reach a conclusion. If you choose to interpret it as rudeness that's up to you. I call it good sense. But whatever. )

I don't come here frequently, but I've never sensed anything notably wrong with what Formaldehyde wrote in the threads I followed. And of course, I don't know him, worship him, or have any special reason to agree with him. But yes, he can be quite vindictive at times.

The figure of 47% comes from Mitt Romney http://www.ibtimes.com/why-almost-half-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-790126.

Leaving aside the issue of whether this figure is accurate or not (and I can't see why it shouldn't be - coming from a Presidential candidate, and surely you wouldn't suggest that American politicians are corrupt to this extent? Though if you did, I might be inclined to agree.), this gives a substantial number of people who are in receipt of government benefit, in kind, in the form of defence most notably (but no doubt there are many other things too).

You aren't really making yourself more credible by writing this because Mitt Romney and the top Republicans (with few exceptions) have a history of distorting facts.

Now then, this isn't a particularly rigorous analysis of the welfare system of the United States by any means, I'll be the first to admit. But as a matter of principle, arguing in terms of the benefits that individuals receive, I would suggest that it isn't really possible to untangle who the net beneficiaries and who the net contributors to any system really are. (Just what price would you put on national defence?)

So in the end, you are admitting that it is not really possible to tell who the net beneficiaries are despite that 47% figure from Mitt Romney.

I think the problem is that we really are talking about people who are not contributing, so the things you've said are misleading and not very productive. At least that's my view.

Or would you like to just characterize my position as outrageous blithering nonsense?

(I really don't mind either way.)

(Oh and btw I only made the second reply because it occurred to me to do so. Nothing more. You know how it is, a thought just pops up sometimes. It's no big deal.)

I have never seen some people who are so vocal about their indifference that they'd spend so much effort into trying to get that point across... but whatever

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Well, that's me told, and no mistake.

I never thought these comments of mine could have been taken this way. And I certainly hope aimee didn't think I was patronizing her.

In the end, I was just showing the sort of things that poor people (in whose illustrious company I count myself) must do. And, I must add, this advice is useful. Platitudinous it isn't.

All in all, I think you've rather shown how little you know yourself about such matters.

But perhaps you right, and it would have been better by PM.

As for reprehensible....Pfft!

But TBH, I don't think you were being patronizing. I would've given similar advice.

 

[choxorn]

I believe poor people exist in America. I'm just highly skeptical they have internet access and actively post on Civilization game forums. But I thought we were supposed to stop talking about Aimee here.

For one thing, she's Canadian...

 

[MobBoss]

For one thing, she's Canadian...

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I believe poor people exist in America. I'm just highly skeptical they have internet access and actively post on Civilization game forums.

Well gee, I'm terribly sorry for damaging your perception of people on low incomes. By the way, I'm Canadian.