oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
You guys that are worried about Roger and I hurting each others feelings to the point of not being healed, do not know Roger or me very well. This will be a spirited debate but we will not attack each other personally. This debate will be about ideas (philosophy), not us. I would not get involved in this, if I thought Roger was not capable of handling it.
Yes - Dave's a good guy and I know this and believe this even though we are diametrically opposed when it comes to our thoughts on certain issues.
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
Roger – I would be thrilled to buy you a beer and even let you push me off the dock, after I win this debate.
.... :roll: ...
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
Now it will take me a little time, because I have not had the formal education you have. I am a slow reader and a slow thinker, and as most of you know, I am a school drop out (that means prior to high school) and of course as you already know I am also a little slow and dense.
No - I know that you are quite clever and I will freely admit that education does not make one smart (I have colleagues with Ph.D.'s who prove that on a near daily basis).
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
Just so I do not have to do anymore reading than necessary, I will use your words and the study you linked to for the majority of my argument with a bit of common sense and logic thrown in. If you throw in other studies, that means I will have to read them also, which could drag this out. See above, (I am a slow reader)
See - you are clever - both of us are trying to frame the debate to make our points. I'm shooting for a very narrow framing in which you (or even someone else) simply provide a "reliable source of non-biased data that indicates that the majority of welfare recipients would rather accept welfare than work at a job that pays a liveable wage". The nice thing about framing the debate around this simply stated request is that neither your nor my beliefs really need to be involved. Either the majority of welfare recipients would rather be on welfare than work or not - and this is an issue that has been studied extensively.
I'd also be willing to bet that when it comes to beliefs, you and I (and indeed nearly all the people on this board) probably have a very similar set of core beliefs surrounding work ethic. For example, I personally work 60-70 hour weeks on a very regular basis and have done so for much of my adult life. As a result, I do believe that one should work hard to earn a living and that one can through hard work earn a living in most circumstances. I also believe that able bodied people (of sound mind) should be in the workforce if possible. I also believe that in a country as wealthy as ours, no child should ever go hungry or be without adequate shelter or clothing. I think that where we most likely differ is in our beliefs about the root causes of poverty, whether or not society has a responsiblity to the poor and what the solutions should be.
However, debates centered around beliefs, rarely come to any agreement since by their very nature, some beliefs are not changeable. As you state below, you have faith in yourself and your beliefs and nothing will change in your life either way. I commend you for that and I feel the same way - except when my beliefs generate testable hypotheses and it turns out the data is inconsistent with my beliefs. Then, I have to let the data show me the way. Hence, I want to draw a clear dividing line between beliefs and facts. So I'll stick with the challenge of "show me a reliable source of non-biased data that indicates that the majority of welfare recipients would rather accept welfare than work at a job that pays a liveable wage".
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
Roger – even after you loose, I will let you say you won and even acknowledge that you won if you need it. I have enough faith in myself and my beliefs, that nothing will change in my life either way. I do not want to put a good friend in a position where his core beliefs are shattered and cause the devastation of his self worth, even if they are wrong. I would rather it be a gradual progression until, all of a sudden a light cones on and you can see the light.
An excellent debating strategy - regardless of how things turn out we both can claim victory. Also an excellent way to maintain friendship - even those that are developed solely electronically.
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
You pick the judges if you want to. They can all be “avowed left wing, democrats” as you call them. I do not want “avowed right-wing republicans” as you call them for my judges. I would prefer judges that can look at the facts and arguments as presented and make a decision based on common sense and logic.
You do know what the debate is, because your last post left some doubt in my mind?
Well, hopefully that's crystal clear now with perhaps the exception of a definition of "liveable wage". I actually don't think liveable wage is that complicated of a concept. I would simply define liveable wage as the amount of money required to provide food, shelter, clothing, transportation, educational materials, health care and basic utilities to one's family without completely sacraficing necessary time for good parenting. By my math, I can't see how a single adult can live on the federal minimum wage in most urban areas not to mention a single parent of 2 children.
oldgrowth":12u4api3 said:
You want to create more rules or just fire the next shot, or do you want me to?
Good luck.
________
Dave 
