|
I have an argument that comes up frequently and I am unaware of the eloquent way to defeat it- My coworkers (at any organization I've worked at in the past few years) are solely upper-middle class former military. I would say about a quarter of them routinely bring up "all the peopel doing nothing and receiving government handouts". Now, I can generally mitigate their point by talking about how it's a relatively small amount of the budget, how the education system in the United States works against them, etc. It is easy to explain that the underlcass has a much harder time moving up because of the way income and expenses work, access to schools, jobs, even good nutrition. What I can't defeat is the argument that the individual has no excuse for not moving up because anyone (which really means anyone not disabled) is able to join the military to start a better life for themselves. An argument of "well they shouldn't have to" isn't going to work, and to be honest, I don't really buy into that either. So, what are my options? How would you debate this?
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 02:01 |
|
|
The problem with using that argument is it still comes back to personal choice: "So don't get pregnant when you're young", for instance. I am having trouble comprehending how you can get to 18 years old as being incapable of military service that does not derive directly from personal choices (except for poor nutrition). I have never gone through this so I am very ignorant to it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Right, those with disabilities can't get in, that's fine. That doesn't account for 75% of the population. I agree completely with the last thing you said, but that won't work with a good portion of Americans as an argument.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
The argument generally boils down to the fact that not all poor people are lazy, but a lot of them are don't care to ever even have a job because welfare is easier.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I would suggest doing some research on our social programs and actually learning whether or not "welfare is easier" because it isn't. It's a maze of bureaucratic poo poo for a paltry sum of money. I'm sorry, I meant that's what THEY are saying, I don't really believe that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2011 15:47
|
|