re: #15 Obdicut

So what? That’s what we’re talking about— whether or not cutting of food stamps is in any way a proper consequence.

Why? Is this just a moral ground for you?

If someone quits their job because they feel it was unsafe— say, someone at the Massey mine quit— you feel that they and their family should not be eligible for food stamps?

Great. Do you realize this completely goes against what you were saying before about validating subjective choices?

Oh for fuck’s sake. If you can’t bother to avoid ludicrous hyperbole, don’t even bother. Jesus.

We have already established that there is no talk of cutting food stamps. The issue is not to be eligible for increases in the event of a choice to strike.

Nobody claimed life is fair. If someone at Massey had chosen to leave, they could have done so after finding a new job, or sought whistleblower protection, etc. I have been out of work often, and had to make significant concessions in terms of my quality of life, including the foods I ate and the things I did. One of the times I was out of work, I had left over differences of opinion with management. On principle. I bore the consequence of my decision, without expecting the rest of the world to pony up.

I am not engaging in hyperbole. I would simply like to know if you see any boundaries at all for geting public assistance, or whether the concept of personal responsibility and consequences exist in your thinking.