Renegade

a Ph.D doesn't imply that they have some way of knowing whether or not the respondants are accurate in what they report. Of course. Any claims I or anyone else make are subject to verification. One would expect, but for example you have presented interpretation without supporting facts. So you believe there is a religious connotation to this? What of those who are not religious.

I have no idea who the poor are trying to please. Perhaps they are trying to please themselves. Responses cannot be taken at face-value without understanding context of verification. What does that have to do with anything or how do you even know that this is true? Your contention is that the poor do without food to give their children a chance to be revolutionaries to the point that they would die. Can you refer to even one case where someone has died of hunger to give their kid internet access as you contend? They have an opinion, as do I, as do you. Opinion is not fact and other social scientists have different opinions. Excellent. Then direct your generous and wealthy nature to helping the poor and let eveyone else do so voluntarily.

They can't really be hungry enough if they avoid food banks. So your claim is that in order to avoid showing they are hungry they avoid food banks but when asked they will fess up? They are showing remarkable fortitude in hiding their hunger. According to you, the conseqences are immediate: hunger. Really? Isn't it notable that we don't rely solely on self-reporting to accurately determine the status of anything else? Or is it your contention that only the poor tell the truth when questioned? Avoidiing the question again? If no one has ever worked then what is your issue with work. You are clearly against work, but it should be a non-issue since according to you "No one has ever worked". I'm going to guess based upon your evasiveness that you are one of the unemployed who doesn't qualify for EI, has to rely on welfare, and blames the rest of the world for your situation.

I have not actually questioned their results. In fact I have quoted their results. That they show that when asked, people of low income say that they want more food is not a surprise. The are free to do so, but then they also accept the consequence of their choice. How so? Unless you are malnourished you have no idea what hunger is. That you think my credibility is destroyed is pretty much irrelevant to me. So Benoit, do you work? If your answer is no, it explains a lot about you. If you answer yes, it shows how hypocritical your position is.

So if upper middle managment are slaves, as are lover managment, and as are workers, isn't upper management slaves too, afterall they too are hired to keep the rest of the company in line? Are you better off being a slave or an owner, when a compny bedomes bankrupted? Not according to Benoit. He proclaims a disdain for work, hence the question. To do what?

So you don't have issue with the content of what I say but you quibble with the words I use to express that content? The dictionary definition of "complain" is "to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault". Is that not a more accurate decription of what transpired? It is the claims of hunger which are biased. I don't believe either the respondants nor you are aware of what true hunger is. They may also decide that cable TV provides long term opportunities for a child. There is no shortage of choices of where a parent can spend money for the benefit of a child if they so choose. The fact that they are hungry because of their choice still means it is their choice despite the availability of alternatives. I am happy we live in a free society where they are alowed to make such a choice. So? Who ever said otherwise? The issue addressed was whether there was a comparison between hunger in Toronto and some other poor regions. Unless an individual has experienced real hunger, they are not likely to fully appreciate it, even if they "know" about it or have relatives in poorer countries. So, are you one of those enriched by your lack of work? Do you even work at all?

Benoit, have you been enriched by your lack of work or whatever it is you do? I can say that I have been enriched by the work I have undertaken, and as an employee I certainly don't feel taken advantage of.

Biased? I almost quoted exactly what was said in the study: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/media-releases...security-1.html Note also that almost 70% of the families, decided that internet, cable, and telephone were more important them food when "faced with the threat of acute food shortages". It is interesting how their actions don't exactly match their words. My guess is when faced with a sympathetic ear, there is a tendancy to eggagerate hardship. BTW, what does your response have to do with the comparison between global hunger and local hunger? Clearly the two don't compare.

Do you mean as compared to hungry people in some other parts of the world? It was interesting to note in the study, that of the people who complained about being food deprived, very few went to the food bank.

And have you done so? I can tell you from personal experience that hunger in Toronto does not compare to hunger in other places. As per the interview. Individuals complain about not having fresh food. People in some other places have to worry about ANY food. People in Toronto complain about not paying the rent on time. People in some other places can only dream of having an apartment to rent. I don't believe you have any idea of true hunger.

What does that even mean? Should we ignore superior products produced elsewhere to buy inferior goods produced locally? How far does your local mandate stretch (ie must one purchase only goods and services produced in their neighbourhood instead of in their city or province)?

Yes, I can see that you babble the same nonsense on the other forum. Interestingly enough, their reaction to your "messsages" is similar to ours. Of course it must be that all of your audience is wrong and only you are right, and the wisdom of your words so profound that no one can make sense of it.

Then perhaps Benoit, you should spend less time doing some of each and more time reading the forum rules:

Are you double-posting or just plagerizing? http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/...g-word%E2%80%A6

"Hard work has no real place in a sane economy"????? You are kidding right? Hopefully no one, neither poor or rich believes that. If the poor hold the same attitude as you, and they believe that they should shun hard work because "the economy" owes them a cushy and easy job, then it would be no wonder they would be hungry.

So no evidence huh benny? The existance of insider trading is no more evidence that all rich have consipired to corrupt the system than a poor man stealing is evidence that all the poor are conspiring to defraud the system. You seem to have a resentment of the wealthy with no evidence to back it up except for what you make up.

Any evidence of this consipracy of the rich? Which laws and loopholes are you referring to? It quite evident that the rich and the middle-class pay the disproportinate share of taxes.

The rich don't need to argue that they need more money than the poor. The simply argue they need to keep their money because they obtained it lawfully

Huh? Who said we were trying to maximize the marginal utility of income? Of course each incremental dollar is more valuable to the poor than the rich, but so what? Your original contention was that the wealthy were not entitled to their riches because their wealth was not obtained their wealth legitmately. Since it is "we the people" who determine what is legitmate acquisition of wealth, and the law-abiding rich have obtained their welath through lawful means they ARE entitled to their wealth. It is up to them whether they want to increase the marginal utility of their wealth by distributing it to the poor by undertaking such schemes as chartiable dontations.

Who are you to define what a "real" welfare scheme is? BTW, a minimal welfare scheme also results in happiness. Mine and the rest of the taxpaying public.

Correct! They move from one welfare scheme to another even more generous one.

If they cannot afford to pay for their own risk contingency what they are asking for is in fact a hand-out from the rest of society. The fact is few actually put money aside because they assume the state will take care of them if needed when imo they should be making their own contingency plans. Isn't the unpredictability exactly why insurance exist? If the people receiving EI payments have paid into the program, what's the complaint?

So what if their lives are somewhat regulated. Clearly if they continue to make bad choices like bringing children into the world when they cannot afford to support those children, they are not regulated enough. Loss of control of their lives is the price that they should pay in return for state aid. There is no reason to throw poor in jail unless they commit crime. In fact throwing poor in jail would be costly to the taxpayer, perhaps even more than increased social assistance. As far as forced sterilization, there may be some individuals, such as child-molesters, who would be unfit parents, and for whom, such treatment would be appropriate. The saftey net is costly and that cost is not borne by the people who benefit, thus those who have to bear the cost have no incentive to repair it.

Oddly enough, "we the people" have passed laws that makes it illegal to steal even if you percieve you are in need, and "we the people" have passed laws which deem protecting one's property is lawful. You contention that it is "lawful", as authorized by "we the people" and not theft to forcefully or by stealth take another's property becuase of percieved need, is completely without merit. If you believe otherwise, please cite criminal statutes and not philosophers's quotes.

Who has the authority to legitimize it? you? Locke? One of your other philsophers?