Classes of Welfare Recipients - How to deal with each

[Farnhamia]

No, seeing as they have thoughts, feelings, are self-aware human beings, they can feel pain etc.

Wait, isn't it logical to say that the host can do whatever they want with the parasite?

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And anyway, KMA, you are not the "host." You are one cell in the "host." The "host" is the United States. The United States and the states (or organs, to continue the silly biology metaphor) choose to help other cells in the Body Politic (that worked out nicely, now I think on it) through limited welfare programs (see my post earlier referencing the PRWORA). So thanks for playing and don't forget to pick up your parting gifts on your way out.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Given the definition of a parasite at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Can we then define Government welfare recipients as parasites on those who pay taxes to support them.
Can we also then justify thier extinction, based on the argument that the host has the right to rid itself of its parasites.

Or -

Are these merely human beings who need the help of the host to survive to a point in which they can be viable members of the community/society and no longer be parasitic.

And now, let's get to the OP.

By the biological definition (the one that was being referred to in the other thread) they aren't parasites. Some other definitions (such as #2 listed there) they are, however given that the removal of parasites (in the other thread) only referred to biological parasites, you don't get to just remove them.

And besides, the government (which is what is providing for them) has no rights, so the rights of the individual in question are all that are used.
Your last sentence makes it utterly and completely clear that your going to use this as a justification for anti-choice laws.

So, out of the two options provided: innocent humans is closer, I think.

So if you are gonna use this definition, fetuses are not parasites either. They are not of a different species.

Congratulations to those who saw through my veiled attempt, however thin. This thread illustrated the hypocrasy of the other thread.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

However, back to my original meaning...

OP, how much do you pay taxes from your income?

I pay 20% from the welfare money I get.

I pay in the 30%-35%. I dont have my tax return with me.

[Phenia]

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You are receiving support from others in this same manner, unless of course you do not use roads, highways, transit systems, or rely on national defense, police, fire, emergency medical services, health care, water, electricity provided by us - your gracious host.

So, what useful or proper return do you give me? Me the taxpaying citizen, footing the bill for your leisurely standard of living. You take it so much for granted you apparently thought that you weren't even benefiting from taxpayers and receiving support and advantage for others. I mean sure, we can pretend you pay taxes - welfare recipients do too. What else? What's your useful or proper return?

Making the least intelligent and most smug of illogical non-arguments on the web? Yeah, some return that is.

You are a parasite by your own definition. Isn't it logical that I be able to do whatever I want with you? DANCE MONKEY DANCE, I OWN YOU.

[The Tofu Islands]

So if you are gonna use this definition, fetuses are not parasites either. They are not of a different species.

Not part of the definition of parasite I was using. The one I quoted in the other thread was from wiktionary, and it doesn't have anything to do with species. It defines it in terms of organisms.

Congratulations to those who saw through my veiled attempt, however thin. This thread illustrated the hypocrasy of the other thread.

It as so far failed to show any hypocrisy.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You are receiving support from others in this same manner, unless of course you do not use roads, highways, transit systems, or rely on national defense, police, fire, emergency medical services, health care, water, electricity provided by us - your gracious host.

So, what useful or proper return do you give me? Me the taxpaying citizen, footing the bill for your leisurely standard of living. You take it so much for granted you apparently thought that you weren't even benefiting from taxpayers and receiving support and advantage for others. I mean sure, we can pretend you pay taxes - welfare recipients do too. What else? What's your useful or proper return?

Making the least intelligent and most smug of illogical non-arguments on the web? Yeah, some return that is.

You are a parasite by your own definition. Isn't it logical that I be able to do whatever I want with you? DANCE MONKEY DANCE, I OWN YOU.

Umm. I am getting something useful in return. I contribute to society. I pay my taxes. I am not on the govmt dole. Therefore I am not a parasite.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

So if you are gonna use this definition, fetuses are not parasites either. They are not of a different species.

Not part of the definition of parasite I was using. The one I quoted in the other thread was from wiktionary, and it doesn't have anything to do with species. It defines it in terms of organisms.

Congratulations to those who saw through my veiled attempt, however thin. This thread illustrated the hypocrasy of the other thread.

It as so far failed to show any hypocrisy.

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

[Phenia]

Umm. I am getting something useful in return.

No one disputed that!

I contribute to society. I pay my taxes.

So do welfare recipients. What else have you got? Prove you're not a parasite.

I am not on the govmt dole. Therefore I am not a parasite.

We were going by the definition you used. Apparently you don't like that definition when it clearly applies to you. How conveeeenient.

Fail.

[Neo Art]

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

um...yes, actually. You see, the same word can mean the two different things, and when a word is used in ONE context to make an argument, trying to to disprove that argument by using the word in a DIFFERENT way to disprove the argument is....well....really fucking stupid.

For example, the word "fag" means both a cigarette, and a derogatory term for a homosexual. Someone who is anti smoking may well make an argument "we should ban fags". No agree or disagree with that argument, if you then try to make a post of "do you think we should kill all gay people?" to try and "disprove" his argument is....well...I'm again going to go with "really fucking stupid"

The sad part is, you seem to think you were being clever.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Of course, the point of this thread was to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that since a fetus is a parasite, it is OK for the host to kill it.

I DO NOT advocate the eradication of people on welfare. I have been on govt welfare in my life, and it has saved my life a few times.

The thing that makes may ass twitch about this whole argument is that Pro-choicers who advocate the killing of babies (I know they are parasites, or they arent babies they are fetuses,whatever) go all ballistic if you try to even the playing field.

To them it is OK to kill a baby, but ghastly to kill someone who is in a "protected group".

I know all of the arguments.

I'll let you in on a secret the pro-choicers dont want you to know about. The reason babies die and "protected groups" live is that "protected groups" vote. The left creates "protected groups" in order to pack the ballot boxes.

[The Tofu Islands]

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

The definition I use for parasite makes no mention of species anywhere in it, so a fetus is still a parasite. You tried to insert a different definition (that does mention species) and use that one instead. My argument still stands based on the definition of parasite I have linked to.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

The definition I use for parasite makes no mention of species anywhere in it, so a fetus is still a parasite. You tried to insert a different definition (that does mention species) and use that one instead. My argument still stands based on the definition of parasite I have linked to.

So, you can justify the killing of babies based on an online dicitionry definition. I think that sounds a bit dodgy myself.

[Phenia]

Of course, the point of this thread was to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that since a fetus is a parasite, it is OK for the host to kill it.

Which you can only do by ignoring the minor little detail that fetuses are NOT HUMAN BEINGS while welfare recipients ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

The whole point of your thread is to fail. Congratulations, you succeeded at that.

The thing that makes may ass twitch about this whole argument is that Pro-choicers who advocate the killing of babies

Emotive, irrational screaming nonsense. Your point is now that pro-choicers are "baby killers." Even though a fetus is not a baby.

Comprehension fail.

(I know they are parasites, or they arent babies they are fetuses,whatever)

Apparently you do not know this and need to be told until it sinks in.

To them it is OK to kill a baby, but ghastly to kill someone who is in a "protected group".

"Wah! People who disagree with me are baby killers!"

As above - emotive, irrational screaming nonsense. How impressive.

I know all of the arguments.

If you really knew all the arguments, you wouldn't be choosing the ones made of 100% bullshit.

I'll let you in on a secret the pro-choicers dont want you to know about. The reason babies die and "protected groups" live is that "protected groups" vote.

OH NOE YOU ARE TELLING EVERYONE OUR BABY KILLING CONSPIRACY'S SECRET!

[GetBert]

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

The definition I use for parasite makes no mention of species anywhere in it, so a fetus is still a parasite. You tried to insert a different definition (that does mention species) and use that one instead. My argument still stands based on the definition of parasite I have linked to.

So, you can justify the killing of babies based on an online dicitionry definition. I think that sounds a bit dodgy myself.

Not babies, fetuses.

[Smunkeeville]

Is it then justified for me, as a tax paying host, to eradicate the parasites?

No, seeing as they have thoughts, feelings, are self-aware human beings, they can feel pain etc.

Wait, isn't it logical to say that the host can do whatever they want with the parasite? And that the parasite's rights can't interfere with the hosts rights?

[Phenia]

Oh.... so we can justify our arguments because of differing definitions?

The definition I use for parasite makes no mention of species anywhere in it, so a fetus is still a parasite. You tried to insert a different definition (that does mention species) and use that one instead. My argument still stands based on the definition of parasite I have linked to.

So, you can justify the killing of babies based on an online dicitionry definition. I think that sounds a bit dodgy myself.

WAH you are oppressing me with ur definitionz! I should be able to define words incorrectly just so I can call people baby-killers! Waaaah!

[The Tofu Islands]

Of course, the point of this thread was to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that since a fetus is a parasite, it is OK for the host to kill it.

I have not said that. I said that since a fetus is a parasite (in the biological sense), it's host has the right to remove it. Once it's viable, this removal is induced birth.

The thing that makes may ass twitch about this whole argument is that Pro-choicers who advocate the killing of babies (I know they are parasites, or they arent babies they are fetuses,whatever) go all ballistic if you try to even the playing field.

Argh.
Firstly, I don't advocate the killing of babies. Fetuses & embryos aren't babies.
Secondly, I don't even advocate the killing of fetuses and embryos. I'd prefer for abortion to not be used (not because it's barred, but because it's not needed due to easily accessible contraceptives and education).
Thirdly, this thread isn't trying to level the playing field.

To them it is OK to kill a baby

Oh fer god's sake. NO I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT AND IT'S GETTING REALLY IRRITATING

but ghastly to kill someone who is in a "protected group".

I wont even dignify that with a comment.

I'll let you in on a secret the pro-choicers dont want you to know about. The reason babies die and "protected groups" live is that "protected groups" vote. The left creates "protected groups" in order to pack the ballot boxes.

This is completely false. Babies die due to neglect, or malnutrition, or poverty. And what do you mean by "protected groups"? I support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

[The Tofu Islands]

So, you can justify the killing of babies based on an online dicitionry definition. I think that sounds a bit dodgy myself.

Firstly, I'm not justifying killing of babies.
Secondly, that dictionary definition is accurate.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Given the definition of a parasite at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.

Can we then define Government welfare recipients as parasites on those who pay taxes to support them.
Can we also then justify thier extinction, based on the argument that the host has the right to rid itself of its parasites.

Or -

Are these merely human beings who need the help of the host to survive to a point in which they can be viable members of the community/society and no longer be parasitic.

I haven't yet read the thread so this is probably the umpteenth time the same points have been made.

Those pro-choice advocates who refer to an unborn human as a parasite are (1) clearly using the first definition listed above and not the later definitions and (2) are focusing, in particular, on the use of another's body without their permission.

To fail to recognize the moral/ethical distinction between a physical invader of one's body and a welfare receipient only reflects poorly on YOUR judgment, not that of some pro-choice advocates.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

This is completely false. Babies die due to neglect, or malnutrition, or poverty. And what do you mean by "protected groups"? I support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

How, in your mind, can you

support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

and yet justify abortion.

Oh wait, I forgot, abortion does not kill babies, it kills fetuses/parasites/Zygotes/Blasotcysts.

I'm sorry, this isn't about who can win a stupid debate. This isn't about some stupid forum on a stupid game. This is about taking human lives. Lives who never had a voice, or a chance to progress.

I know you are not religious, because it is virtually impossible to be religious and advocaate abortion, but...
"forgive them for they know not what they do". Those babies will have thier justice.

[HairyHares]

Well let me put it this way , do you want to live in a society that cares about each other no matter how much they make or one where your worth is based upon how much you make or have ?
Neighbors help each other you can expand this up to a national level or you can worry only about your profit level

[The Cat-Tribe]

This is completely false. Babies die due to neglect, or malnutrition, or poverty. And what do you mean by "protected groups"? I support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

How, in your mind, can you

support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

and yet justify abortion.

Oh wait, I forgot, abortion does not kill babies, it kills fetuses/parasites/Zygotes/Blasotcysts.

I'm sorry, this isn't about who can win a stupid debate. This isn't about some stupid forum on a stupid game. This is about taking human lives. Lives who never had a voice, or a chance to progress.

I know you are not religious, because it is virtually impossible to be religious and advocaate abortion, but...
"forgive them for they know not what they do". Those babies will have thier justice.

Appeals to emotion aside, why do unborn "babies" deserve not only more rights than other living beings with greater claims to personhood (such as many animals we eat for pleasure) BUT ALSO more rights than we give living, breathing, sentient, human beings that live outside the womb

[Phenia]

This is completely false. Babies die due to neglect, or malnutrition, or poverty. And what do you mean by "protected groups"? I support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

How, in your mind, can you

support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

and yet justify abortion.

Oh wait, I forgot, abortion does not kill babies, it kills fetuses/parasites/Zygotes/Blasotcysts.

You know, you don't forget. You willfully ignore it because your argument is entirely based on ignorance.

I'm sorry, this isn't about who can win a stupid debate. This isn't about some stupid forum on a stupid game. This is about taking human lives. Lives who never had a voice, or a chance to progress.

A fetus is not a human life.

Welfare recipients are.

Argument still made of fail.

[The Tofu Islands]

How, in your mind, can you

support everyone's right to life, not just people in 'protected groups'.

and yet justify abortion.

Because the right to life does not trump the right to bodily autonomy. The right to life isn't the right to enslave people so that you can survive.

I'm sorry, this isn't about who can win a stupid debate. This isn't about some stupid forum on a stupid game. This is about taking human lives. Lives who never had a voice, or a chance to progress.

Aww. I'm positively sobbing with your appeal to emotion (logical fallacy, BTW). This is also about whether slavery is justifiable, and I think no.

I know you are not religious, because it is virtually impossible to be religious and advocaate abortion, but...
"forgive them for they know not what they do". Those babies will have thier justice.

You're maybe-correct about my religiosity, however for the last few months I've been both Christian and pro-choice.
So there.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I'm sorry, this isn't about who can win a stupid debate. This isn't about some stupid forum on a stupid game. This is about taking human lives. Lives who never had a voice, or a chance to progress.

Aww. I'm positively sobbing with your appeal to emotion (logical fallacy, BTW). This is also about whether slavery is justifiable, and I think no.

So this debate has to be solved through logic? Logic is one of the reasons we (America) are in the troubles we are in. Logic is the languange of laywers. Laywers have screwed the country.

But whatever, I am banging my head against the wall, going round and round. If you want to kill your parasites, go ahead. Justice will be yours.