| Should we feel sympathetic for people who CHOOSE to live in a flood plain or area consistently affected by hurricanes? |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by brandonbrooks711  United States |
9 Points
|
I can't think of a spot in the US that isn't subject to some kind of natural disaster...some just occur more frequently than others, and some are subject to the changing weather patterns.
I heard this argument alot when I lived in California, only it was about earthquakes and fires. It is a big state, and in 17 years only experienced one really BIG quake, entirely by accident (I was visiting someone in Orange County). No damage done. No fires in my neighborhoods, although I have seen ones in neighboring townships. Never saw a landslide either. Did I feel sympathy for those people? Of course. To feel anything else makes you a sociopath.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyTrue. That is an ethical choice, not a constitutional one.
What if they are all republicans??
It's not a Constitutional issue - it's a humanity issue. Some people want to see their tax dollars go to help those who need clean water and food while billion-dollar insurance corporations drag their feet and refuse to pay while checking the details of the policy. Other just like their tax dollars to go for bullets.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI bet you sit around all day thinking about what a Christian you are, don't you Jon?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou are quoting from times when the government did not have the right to tax the people. Times have changed. As the country grew, so did our need for infrastructure.
And I have a problem with spending billions of our tax dollars on a new plane for the military, but telling the child of a mentally disabled adult "sorry about your luck" and letting them live hungry, homeless and without a way to improve their own chances by receiving a basic education. I like that some of my tax dollars go to benefit children and fellow people who's plights I would never be aware of otherwise.
Charity institutions would be the BEST way to see to these people's needs. But looking at some of the churches that have expanded around me, hey, they're not interested in helping the poor - they're more interested in gathering donations and spending it on themselves.
Here's one of my very favorite local churches. The only thing missing from the photo of the church is the great big flashing sign out front. It spins and whirls the church ministers' names in a way that would have made Liberace blush on a Vegas opening night:
http://www.solidrockchurch.org/king_ofkings.php
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAgain - you are quoting another government philosopher who existed BEFORE the constitutional amendment allowing taxation was introduced. By your argument - you would have been paid with your military service with land and then it would be up to you to raise crops so you didn't starve to death and were able to feed your family. You would have probably given some of the food you raised, the winter preserves that were made, the game you killed to the local town idiot, the widow with six young children, and the man who was injured on his farm. You would have probably pitched in to help the injured man bring in his crops. But those days are gone.
Now you receive cash for your past military service. Some of that money is withheld for building and maintaining roads for cars, to feed and help those who are unable to help themselves and God help us - to buy planes for the military. Times have changed to a small degree.
But today - if you own a farm, you could donate a chunk of the food that you raised to local food banks for the poor - then deduct the value of the food from your tax liability.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplySome people live in areas much more susceptible to disaster than others. Living there is a choice they make. I live near a big river but I live in a very elevated area where I'm safe from the worst floods. Many people who live on the river are water sports oriented and they were fully aware of the power of the river when they moved there. People should not have to concern themselves with people who made a conscious decision to live near the river fully aware of the possible hazards. Same logic applies to people who choose to live in any disaster prone area.
What state do you live in? I'm curious to know what potential threats you have.
I'm personally waiting for the New Madrid fault line to go off. That will rattle things pretty badly for a lot of people, and it's existence is well documented. Shouldn't people in that area be required to buy earthquake insurance the way Californians do?
Tornados happen all around here every time it storms. The last New Madrid quake woke up people around here in first and second floor bedrooms, but nobody in my area with a lower level bedroom got woke up. And, this is weird, I was awake and didn't even notice it downstairs. A really severe New Madrid quake might cause basement wall cracks but I think, being a couple hundred miles from the epicenter, it wouldn't cause major damage.
Depends on how big...the 1812 was felt over 50,000 square miles, and some portions of the Mississippi ran backwards for 3 days. One of those things I'd love to see, but don't want to see the human cost, lol.
The river ran backwards for three days?
Ahhh, a great way to hasten the delivery of supplies from sources downstream, eh?
Yet, I imagine, kind of disconcerting to people who usually sent their goods downstream. :-)
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyTwo points! (lol)
Some people can't afford to move.
What made them settle there in the first place?
Poverty. Family. Any number of things.
And prior history...if the last big flood happened before living memory, chances are it is not very real to them.
Makes me wonder about the liability issues for developers...you hear how stupid people are for moving to such places, but not the evilness of people who would buy cheap land and throw up houses to make quick cash.
Not to mention Florida. Now they have been pounded pretty heavily in the past 20 years or so by hurricanes. Apparently having Jeb as governor there helped fund those people.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAre those that vote "no" offering to rehouse the populations of Bangladesh or Tuvalu in their country?
No - they're just the typical, selfish types who lack empathy, compassion and sit around all day thinking about how 'Christian' they are.
Silly Nilly-I love your opinions about Christians. All we really do all day is sit around and store up judgement in our minds for the world that we hate to live in. And furthermore I really enjoy the believers on here who get so heated up over your comments. Great Job! Have you ever met a Christian you respected?
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replylol - you're funny, Norman. Does he know your other identity says you're a typical customer of mine?
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYes. I have. A number of them. Was raised in a Christian home, with Christian values and with an appreciation and respect of those who make an effort to truly live their lives in that way. I choose not to live my life along that path - but I open say so. The majority of America's 21st Century Christians ALSO choose not to live on that path, but loudly PROCLAIM they do.
It is this respect that makes me reach out and BITCH slap those 'Christians' who would openly take the Lord's name in vain as they seek to use Him for their own pathetic need for power. They pass hypocritical judgment on others, they are selfish and demeaning, throw stones at every opportunity and openly cleave to the teaching of the Old Testament when it suits their purpose, tout the New Testament and disavow the Old Testament when THAT suits their purpose.
And they openly SEEK political power not for God - but for themselves. God has no need of political power. Jesus' words and actions speak for themselves. It is the majority of CHRISTIANS who love to carry Christ's cross before them - and use it to hit anyone who gets into their way. They find joy in making others quail and run before them.
Oh - and your passive-aggressive comment is a typical method used of today's 'Christians.' Nice try. But you revealed yourself as a hypocrite - I didn't need to. I'm not a betting woman, but I'd wager you don't even understand why your response is the exact opposite of what a true Christian response would be.
And just so you know - if your response would have actually BEEN a Christian response - I would have apologized to you and explained myself. All I can suggest is that you put away that great big cross you just tried to hit me with. It has no affect on me. I have too much respect for Christianity to ever quail and run before a pathetic twerp who takes His name in vain.
I love how you are able to decide what a true Christian response is even though you have admittedly denied any sort of relationship with Christ. Also you seem to have taken Christ's place as the only judge of anyone here on earth. You sure must have had the perfect Christian parents who really set an example no one today can meet.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the dialogue, especially since it is public.
lol - again with the passive-aggressive. Whoopie! Makes my job of pointing out hypocrisy SO much easier.
Your definition of a relationship and my definition of a relationship are two different things. That's easy to see.
And I'm not a judge. I just point out facts. I let others do the judging. They will look at what you say, and they will look at what I say. And God will do the same.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYes - but not with too much sympathy.