Democrat wins Va. House seat in recount by single vote; creating 50-50 tie in legislature

[u/slaysia]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrat-wins-va-house-seat-in-recount-by-single-vote-creating-50-50-tie-in-legislature/2017/12/19/3ff227ae-e43e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.82f2b85b50fa

[u/GlibTurret]

Please point out where I used the word "compassion" in any of my arguments.

You are reading what you want to read, not what I wrote.

Also, still waiting on your source for your argument.

[u/hyeondrugs → u/GlibTurret]

You're the one who refuted my claim on the way things always been, which as I just stated the only time the poor have received anything was to quell any chance of them rebelling which would cause chaos within the empire. As your source even indicates this was a practice solely in the capital due to its sheer size and lack of availability of cheap grain. No where else in the Roman empire would you be able to access this benefit and it's reasoning is quite obvious.

Maybe I went a little overboard but my point still stands as far as I see it.

[u/GlibTurret → u/hyeondrugs]

Okay, so now we've gone from "you're only worth as much as you contribute" to "the poor get handouts if giving them those handouts keeps the ruling class in power."

So it has, in fact, by your own admission not always been the case that:

You are only worth as much as you contribute and that IS in fact the way things have always been.

Now let's go back to your claim that started this discussion, which was:

Most people just expect handouts nowadays, contrary to the way things have always been.

As you have just learned, most people in Ancient Rome expected handouts be given to the underclass in the Capitol. This was done to keep the underclass from starving to death/rebelling. Regardless of the reason, which you misidentified as compassion because you misread my argument and source, it does disprove your original point. It is rational to expect handouts when those handouts provide a net benefit to a society, as they did for a time in ancient Rome. (And other places, but I ain't getting paid to teach you, so you can go to the library to learn about those.)

Good game.

[u/hyeondrugs → u/GlibTurret]

Okay so let's only provide them in Washington DC by that logic, because no one else received the same benefits if we're going off that.

They didn't expect those handouts either, as you source indicated it was brought forth by populists in the senate. Only after its establishment was it a legitimized practice to maintain order on the streets of their capital.

I really don't see where you're going with this and how you think that it's practical when people today expect far more in handouts that isn't just grain, also those people won't rebel because this country isn't about handouts its about earning your keep which seems to less and less the case with additional implementation of welfare.

I really don't care to continue this since you seem to have it figured out, but that world view of yours is what will lead to turmoil for a number of reasons. Good day.

[u/GlibTurret → u/hyeondrugs]

I am not arguing for or against any particular stance on the social safety net in this thread. I am simply arguing that when you said

Most people just expect handouts nowadays, contrary to the way things have always been.

You were wrong.

You have conceded the point that handouts were expected and given at one point in history - ancient Rome. The genesis of these handouts, their impact, and their modern incarnation are not part of my argument. You are trying to make it part of yours because you seem incapable of realizing that you were wrong to say

Most people just expect handouts nowadays, contrary to the way things have always been.

Even though you have already admitted that there were handouts, and those handouts were expected, in at least one other point in human history.

I chose to confront you over your claim that

Most people just expect handouts nowadays, contrary to the way things have always been.

because it is intellectually lazy, and I hate that. If

the way things have always been

were really a good reason for doing things, we would all be living in caves and using stone tools.

[u/hyeondrugs → u/GlibTurret]

Still don't see how you don't see the glaring fact of the matter, this was limited only to the city of Rome. The Roman empire was much larger than 1 city and in the Roman empire as a whole this wasn't the case.

If you aren't in favor of such things then I don't see the sense in all this talking over semantics, you took always too literally. Far more often than not it was the case that there was no one to provide for you, however just the basis that it's always been this way isn't my reasoning against such things.

[u/GlibTurret → u/hyeondrugs]

I thought you were done here?

You don't seem to be very good at saying what you mean.

you took always too literally

just the basis that it's always been this way isn't my reasoning against such things

So now you're saying that my argument is invalid because the thing you said isn't what you meant to say?

I'm not psychic. I can't have an honest argument with you if you don't say what you mean. This is insane.

[u/hyeondrugs → u/GlibTurret]

You made this whole argument on one word, always. Even so, as I followed up I said it was mostly this way since nothing in history is absolute when referring to all of human history as a whole. You are so dense as to disprove an absolute negative because it's the easy way out, even though I stepped away from the word knowing full well there is minor examples contrary which still don't draw away from the point.

You're basically just trying to score points rather than have a conversation.

[u/GlibTurret → u/hyeondrugs]

It was your word.

I just reread the thread and I don't see in any of your comments where you replaced "always" with "mostly". I do, however, see a couple of places where you called me a liar, criticized an argument about compassion I never made and doubled down on your "always".

Source please?

Or, y'know, just admit you were wrong when you said it's the way things have always been. That's all I want from you. That and a little self reflection.

[u/hyeondrugs → u/GlibTurret]

I mean how can you not see my acknowledgement of these limited and direct instances of some sort of welfare being provided with a purpose in mind as dialing back from always since my first comment was rhetorical, I may have restated my first comment as is but I was hardly defending always as an absolute. I simply addressed the examples you brought forth as limited in nature, but rather than address that you try to restate those examples as if I somehow believe that there has never be any form of welfare prior to modern America or whatever. That was never something I believed simply because it's false, I do believe that the presence of welfare throughout history is the exception, not the rule. Obviously on top of that, I hold my own opinions on the effects of welfare on society which may have leaked onto my replies.