>>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. ;)
>
>I welcome the snip and I think you did a fine job.
>
>>< 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.
>
>I agree that someone should step in, I'm just not convinced that the state is the best choice.

I don't see how else it could work. Who could possibly have the authority to step in if not the state (or an agency given power by the state - which would end up being the same thing). Not just anyone can come along and take away someone's children.

>If Jim were still with us he'd get on me for the following anecdotal example but I think it's an important part of the discussion.

>I have a friend who works for CPS and one of her biggest gripes with her job is the dysfunctional burecratic system in which she must perform her duties. She has described cases of intolerable conditions where children are living where no action was taken due to regulations. Yet, she has also mentioned that nearly any report of spanking must be followed up repeatedly. The system itself is inherently broken, yet it's the only one we have.

I have a close friend who works for the tax department here as tax investigator. She's seriously thinking of quitting because she can't handle the lack of work ethic she sees in the department all around her.

The problem though, is still, afaics, that the state is the only entity with the authority to do anything about this stuff - especially in the field of child neglect.

>>>>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.
>
>So we'll agree to disagree. Minor nitpick : I do not presuppose that all people are as capable as myself, nor do I presuppose that I make entirely correct decisions. To me life is an ongoing learning process and I feel that in most cases people need to learn from their own mistakes. I do agree with you that in extreme cases someone needs to step in, we just disagree about who that someone should be.
>
>>>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.
>
>Ahhh. Common ground at last. ;)

Yes, common ground. Sad where it turned up though, isn't it.

>>< whole lot more snippin'