Pardon my snipping, but it's starting to be unmanageable. I hope I've saved the stuff that's important for this leg of the discussion. If not, sue me. ;)

< whole lotta snippin' goin' on >

>>>Our opinion of compassion is obviously different. I believe it is compassionate to help people along a path to better their own lot in life as they will care more when they've invested their own time and energy. I find welfare to be detrimental to the potential of the individual.
>>>
>>>You have every right to your opinion about my beliefs but kindly don't insinuate that your opinion is fact. Either defend or retract this statement. "You feel everybody including children are a) expendable, and b) as capable as you are, but too lazy to bother."
>>
>>Do you not recall saying, in message #1168272:
>>
>>This will be harsh but here goes. Children get hurt. Children die. It's a part of life and life is not fair. I do not believe it is the role of the government to be the populace's baby sitter. It's an incremental mess that is happening in regards to the nanny-state and it always seems to be done to protect 'the children'.
>>
>>Was I supposed to take from that statement that you feel people (including children) are not expendable?
>
>"Expendable" means not worth salvaging/saving. The above statement was part of my rejection of the idea that the government can legislate protection for children. Rejection of government policy <> children are expendable.

I guess we have a different definition then. My definition more closely resembles Webster: more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected

If that isn't what you meant then I apologise, but the fact is that I believe that if parents refuse to protect their children, then yes, the state should definitely step in and do it.

>>As far as my 2nd point, you keep saying over and over that people should make better decisions and that therefore whatever happens to them is their own fault.

>Not all. I will allow for a small percentage of people who have things happen to them that are truly out of their control. But, for the most part this is true.

>>Is that supposed to recognise that not everyone is as capable of making the good decisions that you're made? In my world, not everyone is so capable. If they are not, then it seems that you feel that's just tough. Correct me if my impression is wrong.

>I feel people not only make bad decisions, but it is necessary for them to learn and grow. I have made some wonderfully bad decisions in my life and I cannot remember a single one where I did not have to suffer the consequences. I also learned great lessons from each. I argue that people who are bailed out from their bad choices, either through government programs, the platitudes of friends or the support of sycophants are having their development stunted.

Well, I still think that such an attitude presupposes that those people are quite as capable as you in their ability to make good decisions, and if they mess up, to learn and grow as well as you did. As I said, we've been down this road before. I don't feel everyone is in that class intellectually or emotionally. I feel that part of the government's responsibility is to make sure that such people aren't left by the wayside just because they can't keep up.

>Frankly I think the very idea of compassion has been bastardized into handouts and it's a leading cause for the state of the western populace at large. I do stand by my opinion that American's specifically and western people in general are by and large lazy, spoiled, arrogant and self-absorbed. You were dead on there. ;)

I find that particular point very difficult to disagree with.

< whole lot more snippin'