Should we have sympathy for flood victims?

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Sarge034 said:
It's nice of you to realize how great I am.



So you do admit to passively aggressively calling me names through generalization. So do you not poses the professionalism of attacking my points and not me. Tisk tisk.
I'm not a professional forum poster, I think I have better places to invest my skill points. ;)

Seriously, not all who receive aid are taxpayers and you are fooling yourself if you think they are. My tax comment was directed at the fact that you implied the victims of the disaster didn't want sympathy from people like me and I replied by saying fine they shouldn't want our money either.
And you are fooling yourself if you think you can just discriminate between the two of them, and neatly divide people into "deserving" and "undeserving". That's not your call, anyway.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
MammothBlade said:
>Big ass picture that probably should have been in a spoiler box<
Don't act like that, you set yourself up for that one.


I'm not a professional forum poster, I think I have better places to invest my skill points. ;)
Nor did I say you were. I was commenting on your lack of tact in forum discussions.

And you are fooling yourself if you think you can just discriminate between the two of them, and neatly divide people into "deserving" and "undeserving". That's not your call, anyway.
Discriminate against whom? The people who do pay taxes versus the people who don't or the people who accept my empathy versus the people who don't? If it's the former then yes I can, and I do. You don't get to reap the rewards if you don't contribute. If it is the latter then I was not the one making that "call", they were. I was simply highlighting the hypocrisy of your statement. "We don't want your empathy OR your sympathy but we'll take your money!"
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Discriminate against whom? The people who do pay taxes versus the people who don't or the people who accept my empathy versus the people who don't? If it's the former then yes I can, and I do. You don't get to reap the rewards if you don't contribute.
Well, okay, but how do you discriminate there in order to stay fair? I mean, there's more to taxes than just "income tax" and all...and there are different reasons for people not paying one or the other.

If the tenant needs something fixed the landlord is required to attend to it, regardless if the landlord spent all of the rent money or not, so one could surmise the tenant can "set the rules".
Which country do you live in and how can I move there? I mean, landlords over here do tend to keep their places maintained and all, but you can't exactly force them to, all you can do is shame them so they won't get anyone renting their places anymore.

On the other hand, they're only allowed 2 visits per year by default by the law, they can't just pop up whenever they feel like without your consent, so not like tenants can't make a landlord's life difficult if necessary ^^
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Nor did I say you were. I was commenting on your lack of tact in forum discussions.
Meanwhile you're being completely tactful and not at all callous towards the people we're discussing. I think it evens out.

Discriminate against whom? The people who do pay taxes versus the people who don't or the people who accept my empathy versus the people who don't? If it's the former then yes I can, and I do. You don't get to reap the rewards if you don't contribute. If it is the latter then I was not the one making that "call", they were. I was simply highlighting the hypocrisy of your statement. "We don't want your empathy OR your sympathy but we'll take your money!"
That's the thing, you can't just pick and choose who deserves something like this. And that sort of "sympathy" is poison. The intent is all wrong, you're just asserting your prejudices against the unemployed, disabled, homeless, etc, those who don't directly "contribute". And you seem to be identifying anyone who chooses to live there as a scrounger in the first place. It's one of those situations where you have genuine sympathy, or you don't.

Would you feel grateful if say, you were caught in a fire and the firemen only gave sympathy, and therefore aid to those they deemed worthy, saving you and a few others whilst everyone else burnt to death? Extreme example, but that's what this sounds like.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Well, okay, but how do you discriminate there in order to stay fair? I mean, there's more to taxes than just "income tax" and all...and there are different reasons for people not paying one or the other.
I don't understand what you are asking. The entire point of discrimination is to not be fair. However, I can see where my generalization of those who don't pay taxes could be confusing. I speaking to those who intentionally dodge taxes. That mainly includes illegals and welfare riders (note there is a difference between those who need a hand and those who collect government money and then go out and sell drugs or simply don't try to get off of welfare).

Which country do you live in and how can I move there? I mean, landlords over here do tend to keep their places maintained and all, but you can't exactly force them to, all you can do is shame them so they won't get anyone renting their places anymore.

On the other hand, they're only allowed 2 visits per year by default by the law, they can't just pop up whenever they feel like without your consent, so not like tenants can't make a landlord's life difficult if necessary ^^
The US and states all have slightly different wording, but it boils down to...

"Under most state and local laws, landlords must offer and maintain housing that satisfies basic habitability requirements, such as adequate weatherproofing, available heat, water, and electricity, and clean, sanitary, and structurally safe premises.

Local building or housing codes typically set specific standards, such as the minimum requirements for light, ventilation, and electrical wiring. Many cities require the installation of smoke detectors in residential units and specify security measures involving locks and keys. Your local building or housing authority and health or fire department, can provide information on local housing codes and penalties for violations.

Tenants have the responsibility to keep their own living quarters clean and sanitary. If you do not, you can't go to the landlord and request repairs that are due to your negligence, such as infestations of pests such as ants. In that case, the landlord could have the work done and send the repair bill to you.

When the landlord is responsible for making certain repairs, the landlord can usually delegate the repair tasks to the tenant in exchange for a reduction in rent (if the tenant agrees). If the tenant fails to do the job well, however, the landlord is not excused from his responsibility to maintain the property in a habitable condition."

MammothBlade said:
Meanwhile you're being completely tactful and not at all callous towards the people we're discussing. I think it evens out.
Logical fallacy, and stating an unpopular opinion is not the same as calling people names because you disagree with them. I am being tactfully callous.

That's the thing, you can't just pick and choose who deserves something like this. And that sort of "sympathy" is poison. The intent is all wrong, you're just asserting your prejudices against the unemployed, disabled, homeless, etc, those who don't directly "contribute". And you seem to be identifying anyone who chooses to live there as a scrounger in the first place. It's one of those situations where you have genuine sympathy, or you don't.
I can pick and choose, just see me doing it in the above posts. Like I said above I realize my use of the broad label non taxpayer was not specific enough to my thoughts. I never called anyone who lived in a disaster prone area a scrounger so please do show me where I implied that. I said if they were there by choice they understood the risks involved and I find it hard to care when you make a risky decision that comes back to bite you in the ass. And that's why I made the distinction between sympathy and empathy. They get my genuine sympathy OR my genuine empathy.

Would you feel grateful if say, you were caught in a fire and the firemen only gave sympathy, and therefore aid to those they deemed worthy, saving you and a few others whilst everyone else burnt to death? Extreme example, but that's what this sounds like.
Grateful? Yes, probably just because I was saved but it does make sense. As bad as it sounds I would rather the fireman uses his/her limited time in the building to save those who are innocent in the situation to saving those who caused the fire and letting the innocent die. However as this is an extreme example, and might I add very unrealistic, the response is extreme and unrealistic.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Vegosiux said:
KingsGambit said:
Now it comes down to each individual making a decision of risk vs reward. What are the benefits of living here vs the risk of living here? People live in Japan and San Francisco, both earthquake prone areas. I don't live there and yet even I know about their geographic issues. So when an earthquake hits one of those places, should there be sympathy for the victims? Should we be surprised and sad for losses suffered when a hurricane hits Florida or Louisiana, flooding hits Louisiana or Missouri and so on?
Yes.

Our planet hates us and no matter where you live, something might happen. Like, my country, Slovenia, last week and the week before, it was literally encased in ice. Thanks to the temperature swinging right about zero Celsius, rain froze overnight, and a few days of that, most stuff was under 3-4 inches of ice. It destroyed trees, it snapped power lines, it made life quite unbearable, and the damage it did to our forests is in hundreds of millions, and that will affect our already troubled economy.

I was lucky, living in Ljubljana, so I was inconvenienced at worst but people living in other parts of the country took the brunt of it, were cut off from power, water and even means to get anywhere. 75% of schools were closed for damn near a week.

It was also not something that's happened in at least 50 years (and I assume massive earthquakes in San Francisco that kill people are rarer than that). But hey, it's their own fault, right?

Of course there's also the issue that just picking up and moving somewhere else costs resources, resources a rather significant part of the population, even in the first world, simply doesn't have.

Still, for the sake of the argument: Do you know of any location on our planet where one could be considered "safe" from the whims of nature?

Or rather, how would you suggest the population should be distributed around the planet?
As a Floridian, I agree with this. It doesn't matter where you live, there is some sort of natural disaster in your future. Here in the US, pick your poison: blizzards in the north east, hurricanes in the south east, tornadoes in the mid west, earthquakes on the west coast. Plus flooding anywhere near a river or the coast, both of which are still incredibly important to things like basic commerce. People tend not to realize this, but navigable rivers are just as important for shipping freight as they were in Mark Twain's day, we've just got more freight in general moving around by more methods in addition to river traffic now.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Vegosiux said:
Well, okay, but how do you discriminate there in order to stay fair? I mean, there's more to taxes than just "income tax" and all...and there are different reasons for people not paying one or the other.
I don't understand what you are asking. The entire point of discrimination is to not be fair. However, I can see where my generalization of those who don't pay taxes could be confusing. I speaking to those who intentionally dodge taxes. That mainly includes illegals and welfare riders (note there is a difference between those who need a hand and those who collect government money and then go out and sell drugs or simply don't try to get off of welfare).
Well, setting up another administrative hoop to jump through is definitely not going to help people who need to be helped after their place was hit by flooding or something. When things like this happen, it's better that help arrives sooner rather than later.

Also, such extra administrative hoops cost tax money. This kind of logic seems to me like if a hobo asked you if you could spare 10 bucks, then you took out 20 out of your wallet, and burned them in front of his face just to spite him.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Vegosiux said:
Well, setting up another administrative hoop to jump through is definitely not going to help people who need to be helped after their place was hit by flooding or something. When things like this happen, it's better that help arrives sooner rather than later.

Also, such extra administrative hoops cost tax money. This kind of logic seems to me like if a hobo asked you if you could spare 10 bucks, then you took out 20 out of your wallet, and burned them in front of his face just to spite him.
I'm not advocating for another admin to be set up. Where did you get that from what I said? I'm saying that when they go to get all of the supplies from a FEMA center you should have to input your SSN into a secure terminal. This would keep track of who got supplies so no one could double dip and it would keep the illegals from getting any. The welfare riders would probably slip through the cracks unless there was a rework of the welfare system. Something like if you don't consistently have job interviews or it is confirmed you throw your interviews then you loose FEMA benefits. Yes, that's cold. No, I don't care. Just to answer that now.
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
KingsGambit said:
You do have to understand having major flood evacuation warnings is a part of life on the coastal waters. Most of the time they are just false alarms. After a while you gotta push yourself just to board up the windows.

I know the EBS is trying to be safe than sorry, but they would be taken more seriously if they didn't space out over half a foot of rain.