[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

This may help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpb4nwfiaPY

Apparently, he is for making a certain amount of welfare contingent on doing certain things like attending parent teacher conferences and taking drug tests. I think that his words have been taken out of context instead of arguing against his actual position. Free or reduced lunches at schools should not be contingent on something the parent must do. You end up hurting kids if you do it. But there definitely does need to be some changes to the welfare system.

Originally Posted by Andrew

I think he is getting at the fact that the more dependent a demographic is on government aid, the less likely they are to be successful as a whole. That is just my guess, I don't know anything about this guy.

I think drug tests for welfare make absolutely perfect sense and should be mandatory, if they are not already done. I had never stopped to consider whether or not there are required drug tests for welfare recipients. It seems insane to me if there aren't, though. I can't get a job without taking one, but I can get welfare?

It's a crappy situation, though, because I am not comfortable with the thought of drug addicts starving to death, and I don't know where the balance is on all of this. It's easy to get up on my pedestal and say that everyone should work, and if they don't they deserve to starve, which is theoretically true. But I also want to help people. And to say that it should be privatized is all well and good, but that doesn't actually happen everywhere in the real America, so that isn't a valid answer either.

I believe is very little government, but feeding people who are too lazy or unable to make a living is something I think that the government should do. If a person is too lazy to work we can't just accept the fact that they should die. That is barbaric. I just don't know where I come down on all of this. Ugh.

Anyhow, that was a bunny trail of sorts, I am sorry.

It's not the principle behind the comment that he said that bothers me. I agree that people can become too dependent on welfare and we should do things to help curb that. The comment he made makes me think he doesn't care about the poor, that they are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated. If he could get away with it, he'd let them starve to death and provide no assistance.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable,But the mouth of fools spouts folly.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Bryan

It's not the principle behind the comment that he said that bothers me. I agree that people can become too dependent on welfare and we should do things to help curb that. The comment he made makes me think he doesn't care about the poor, that they are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated. If he could get away with it, he'd let them starve to death and provide no assistance.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable,But the mouth of fools spouts folly.

Okay, I agree with that analysis. I am not sure which he really believes, but it sounds the way you just illustrated.

[tlj009]

It's not the principle behind the comment that he said that bothers me. I agree that people can become too dependent on welfare and we should do things to help curb that. The comment he made makes me think he doesn't care about the poor, that they are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated. If he could get away with it, he'd let them starve to death and provide no assistance.

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable,But the mouth of fools spouts folly.

Perhaps. But the article indicates that he grew up having free lunches. He was part of the group that he is now talking about. While people can many times forget where they came from after having success, I will give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Now if he had always been a rich kid who despised the poor......

[tlj009]

Right. So if he isn't proposing withholding free lunches then what is the relevance? That's what I'm wondering.

The way that I understand it is that he was proposing withholding free lunches. I was just saying that I don't agree with that stance.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The way that I understand it is that he was proposing withholding free lunches. I was just saying that I don't agree with that stance.

Well, I was also trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but if this is the case then I cannot. Putting pressure on someone's kids to try and motivate them to be self-sufficient is cruel.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Bryan

The comment he made makes me think he doesn't care about the poor, that they are a nuisance that needs to be eliminated. If he could get away with it, he'd let them starve to death and provide no assistance.

That would certainly seem to be the opposite of the most obvious interpretation of the metaphor.

Presumably he wanted to feed stray animals because he liked seeing them fed, cared for them.

But, his grandmother warned him that they would soon take advantage of his kindness to them.

When that happened, their numbers and their need would be far past his capacity for free care.

You don't feed a stray if you find it a nuisance to be eliminated; you set out traps or poison for it.

Likewise, you don't leave a bowl of milk out for a stray kitten that you want to "starve to death".

Certainly it's possible that he feels exactly the opposite of how what he said would connote.

I think it's more likely that he chose the most appropriate metaphor he could for his position.

Personally, I think it's a fantastic metaphor. It's relateable, rhetorically effective, and emotional.

His issue with welfare isn't that it's not needed, but that it causes more problems than it solves.

It's a shame people can't debate his position, rather than be overly literalistic with his metaphor.

[tlj009]

Well, I was also trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but if this is the case then I cannot. Putting pressure on someone's kids to try and motivate them to be self-sufficient is cruel.

I doubt that he sees it as putting pressure on the kids. I suspect that he thinks the parents would have to provide for the kids if the government doesn't. I just think that is wrong. I suspect many would not provide the extra money for their children to eat lunch and in some cases breakfast. After listening to the entire speech, I don't think that his intention was to be cruel, but instead to address a problem with our welfare system.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Nate

It's a shame people can't debate his position, rather than be overly literalistic with his metaphor.

but that wasn't the purpose of this thread.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Bryan

but that wasn't the purpose of this thread.

Well, if you want to make a linguistic argument, it's going to take a fair shake more than the analysis thus far to convince me that "don't feed strays" means "I don't care about strays."

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Nate

Certainly it's possible that he feels exactly the opposite of how what he said would connote.

This is his grandmother's policy. Maybe she found strays a nuisance.

Personally, I think it's a fantastic metaphor. It's relateable, rhetorically effective, and emotional.

Little as I know about rhetoric, widespread negative press and being compelled to apologize doesn't strike me as a hallmark of success.

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't think that his intention was to be cruel, but instead to address a problem with our welfare system.

Of course he didn't intend to be cruel. Much cruelty is unintentional.

[tlj009]

Of course he didn't intend to be cruel. Much cruelty is unintentional.

I always thought that "cruel" necessitated intentional damage. I think that a person can simply be wrong and cause harm without being cruel. But I don't really want to get into an argument about definitions so I will leave it at that just so you know where I was coming from.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Nate

Well, if you want to make a linguistic argument, it's going to take a fair shake more than the analysis thus far to convince me that "don't feed strays" means "I don't care about strays."

that was just the impression I took, I really could care less if you agree. and that is probably the way most people would take it.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Little as I know about rhetoric, widespread negative press and being compelled to apologize doesn't strike me as a hallmark of success.

Originally Posted by Bryan

that was just the impression I took, I really could care less if you agree. and that is probably the way most people would take it.

It just really fascinates me [see my blog title here] how the metaphor was interpreted.