Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 ‘War on Poverty’ — Repug style?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2011 :  19:16:20  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
According to PZ Myers, this looks bad.

So, they can't be caught with $20 dollars or more on their person unless they can prove that they didn't use their card for it?

Edit: Not quite.

More reading reveals:

ugh, a bit misleading here. The bill in question prevents you from withdrawing more than $20 cash/month from your electronic benefits card. it doesn't say you can't posses more than $20 in cash.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87

Still a bad idea and just over-complicates the entire process. They also want a picture ID to be given everytime you use the card. Another dumb idea.


Subdivision 1. Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter 256J are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household's name printed on the card. The card must also state that "It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages." This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient's name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from a vendor.


All about control, isn't it?

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

Edited by - the_ignored on 03/18/2011 20:00:31

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2011 :  19:32:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Can't let the poor have too much money. They may start demanding economic justice.

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2557 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2011 :  20:02:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sorry, alienist. I got that wrong slightly it looks like. See my edit above. Still, it doesn't look good.


More info



>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 03/18/2011 20:17:55
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 03/19/2011 :  07:25:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The bill is still bizarre. It is like they are trying to see what poor people buy, and then find a way to blame them for being poor.

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2011 :  08:27:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by the_ignored

According to PZ Myers, this looks bad.

So, they can't be caught with $20 dollars or more on their person unless they can prove that they didn't use their card for it?

Edit: Not quite.

More reading reveals:

ugh, a bit misleading here. The bill in question prevents you from withdrawing more than $20 cash/month from your electronic benefits card. it doesn't say you can't posses more than $20 in cash.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87

Still a bad idea and just over-complicates the entire process. They also want a picture ID to be given everytime you use the card. Another dumb idea.


Subdivision 1. Electronic benefit transfer or EBT debit card. (a) Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit cardholders in the general assistance program and the Minnesota supplemental aid program under chapter 256D and programs under chapter 256J are prohibited from withdrawing cash from an automatic teller machine or receiving cash from vendors with the EBT debit card. The EBT debit card may only be used as a debit card.
(b) Beginning July 1, 2011, cash benefits for programs listed under paragraph (a) must be issued on a separate EBT card with the head of household's name printed on the card. The card must also state that "It is unlawful to use this card to purchase tobacco products or alcoholic beverages." This card must be issued within 30 calendar days of an eligibility determination. During the initial 30 calendar days of eligibility, a recipient may have cash benefits issued on an EBT card without the recipient's name printed on the card. This card may be the same card on which food support is issued and does not need to meet the requirements of this section.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), EBT cardholders may opt to have up to $20 per month accessible via automatic teller machine or receive up to $20 cash back from a vendor.


All about control, isn't it?


This is why I could never be a liberal. I have absolutely no problem with controlling what welfare benefits can be spent on.

Do you guys actually know any of these poor people who receive these benefits? Well I do, many of them. They are the ones that have the nicest cell-phones, latest video games, and most expensive clothes. They are also the ones who's children are not fed or clothed properly. Go out and get to know some of them, you will grow contempt for them like I have.

Have I ever told you about my buddy's girlfriend who offered my wife $100 in food stamps (this is when they were still paper) for $50 cash so that she could go out drinking? This is just one example of misuse of government benefits that I have witnessed.

It seems that liberals have this fantasy about all of the well-meaning poor people out there (while there may be some) who just can't get a break. This is what leads me to beleive that liberals don't atually know any of these welfare recipients.

It's such a simple solution. The technology is there to make it relatively easy. Why not use it? What is morally wrong about making sure that welfare benefits can only be spent on food, clothing, rent, and utilities? This whole "Ooh....they are not going to let poor people have more than $20 in their pocket" is an exagerated load of horsehit.


Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2011 :  09:02:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

Have I ever told you about my buddy's girlfriend who offered my wife $100 in food stamps (this is when they were still paper) for $50 cash so that she could go out drinking? This is just one example of misuse of government benefits that I have witnessed.
This appears to be not an example of someone who is simply misusing government funds, but instead an example of someone who needs some serious help with her priorities.
It seems that liberals have this fantasy about all of the well-meaning poor people out there (while there may be some) who just can't get a break. This is what leads me to beleive that liberals don't atually know any of these welfare recipients.
The welfare recipients I've known certaintly haven't had cell phones or even clothes without holes. They were the sort of people who would see a crappy old lamp set out with the trash and say, "hey, now we'll be able to see in the bedroom at night."

Why don't you go find some hard numbers on the welfare abuse you describe? I'd bet it's a fraction of what you think it is, nationwide. Perhaps local to you, there are bigger problems.
What is morally wrong about making sure that welfare benefits can only be spent on food, clothing, rent, and utilities?
Nothing, unless the method punishes those who don't abuse the system. The real solution is actually stop the abuse, since a $20 limit isn't going to stop the abusers (like it wouldn't stop your buddy's girlfriend). If people on public assistance are failing to properly feed and clothe their children, then take the children away and reduce the abusers' benefits accordingly (with penalties). It doesn't take a genius to see that putting a limit on cash withdrawals from a debit card will be no roadblock to someone who is willing to shortchange their own kids, but it may screw over someone who's trying to do the right thing.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2011 :  20:20:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ebone wrote:
Do you guys actually know any of these poor people who receive these benefits? Well I do, many of them. They are the ones that have the nicest cell-phones, latest video games, and most expensive clothes. They are also the ones who's children are not fed or clothed properly. Go out and get to know some of them, you will grow contempt for them like I have.
I worked for five years with poor youth designated to be "at risk" in inner city Philadelphia. I didn't see many luxuries. I did see a 15 year old kid who had already lost a tooth because of lack of sufficient health care (apparently the local clinic would do the root canal, but they won't give a poor person a crown to replace the lost tooth.) That same kid was able to quit his job as a drug mule because we offered him a slot in a Work Ready program learning how to work on public murals. (He needed to work because nobody in his household made enough money for rent and utilities.) I could give countless examples of poor people I've met who have appropriately and hugely benefited from social services, not to mention those who have been hurt badly when services lost funding. But I agree with Dave that all this anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. Do you ever provide any evidence that most beneficiaries of social services abuse the system?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2011 :  20:43:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ebone, maybe a big part of what bugs you is that most liberals won't admit (probably because, as you say, they haven't met many genuinely poor people) that in general poor people kind of suck worse than people with sufficient and stable income. By "suck" I mean all the sort of irresponsible behavior you mentioned. It seems to me that people who notice this come to one of two different conclusions: either that most poor people are poor because they sucked in the first place (Libertarian view), or that the circumstances of being poor cause lots of people to suck (Liberal view). I would argue that there is enough research into human behavior to make the latter explanation the much more reasonable conclusion.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2011 :  06:01:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Ebone wrote:
Do you guys actually know any of these poor people who receive these benefits? Well I do, many of them. They are the ones that have the nicest cell-phones, latest video games, and most expensive clothes. They are also the ones who's children are not fed or clothed properly. Go out and get to know some of them, you will grow contempt for them like I have.
I worked for five years with poor youth designated to be "at risk" in inner city Philadelphia. I didn't see many luxuries. I did see a 15 year old kid who had already lost a tooth because of lack of sufficient health care (apparently the local clinic would do the root canal, but they won't give a poor person a crown to replace the lost tooth.) That same kid was able to quit his job as a drug mule because we offered him a slot in a Work Ready program learning how to work on public murals. (He needed to work because nobody in his household made enough money for rent and utilities.) I could give countless examples of poor people I've met who have appropriately and hugely benefited from social services, not to mention those who have been hurt badly when services lost funding. But I agree with Dave that all this anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. Do you ever provide any evidence that most beneficiaries of social services abuse the system?


I do agree that this rant is based on strictly anecdotal evidence. Should opinions only be able to be formed using in depth studies? I don't think so. The subject matter of the OP does not require an in depth study. There is no reason that the solution of ditributing benefits via debit card should not make everyone happy. It is efficient and can be used for everything that a person needs. It seems that those in opposition to it are only opposed to it because there is some actual control of how the cards are used. I on the other hand think that the control is necessary.

When comparing your story to mine it becomes apparent that your city has much more extreme social problems than mine does. This only goes to show that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to cure them. The fact that you spend time out there in personal contact with people helping them gives me much respect for you.

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Ebone4rock
SFN Regular

USA
894 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2011 :  06:08:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Ebone4rock a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Ebone, maybe a big part of what bugs you is that most liberals won't admit (probably because, as you say, they haven't met many genuinely poor people) that in general poor people kind of suck worse than people with sufficient and stable income. By "suck" I mean all the sort of irresponsible behavior you mentioned. It seems to me that people who notice this come to one of two different conclusions: either that most poor people are poor because they sucked in the first place (Libertarian view), or that the circumstances of being poor cause lots of people to suck (Liberal view). I would argue that there is enough research into human behavior to make the latter explanation the much more reasonable conclusion.


I have no response to this but I totally dig it!

Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2011 :  21:00:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Life satisfaction, state intervention go hand in hand, Baylor researcher finds

...Flavin and two other researchers used data from the World Values Survey's 2005 study. Their research included 10,405 people from 15 advanced industrialized countries who were asked, "All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?" On a scale of 1 to 10 — with 10 the highest level of satisfaction — the average rating for all respondents was 7.39, with respondents from the United States reporting an average of 7.26.

The study measured government intervention into the economy in four ways: government tax revenue as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP), government consumption of GDP, generosity of unemployment benefits and a country's welfare expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

"In many cases, less government intervention can allow for a more efficient economy, but greater economic efficiency doesn't necessarily translate into greater contentment with one's life," Flavin said. "If you get sick and can't work or lose your job and there are few social protections in place, you're more likely to be anxious and less satisfied."

The findings were consistent regardless of whether respondents were rich or poor and regardless of their political views, Flavin said. The findings rule out alternative explanations including individual characteristics — such as personal health, level of education and marital status — and such national factors as gross domestic product and unemployment rate...


Of course, this is just one study.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2011 :  23:52:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ebone4rock

There is no reason that the solution of ditributing benefits via debit card should not make everyone happy. It is efficient and can be used for everything that a person needs.
Nobody is objecting to distribution of funds via debit card.
It seems that those in opposition to it are only opposed to it because there is some actual control of how the cards are used. I on the other hand think that the control is necessary.
The "control" is illusory. It looks like a control, but doesn't solve any problem that it's meant to solve. Abusers who want more than $20 from the debit card will circumvent the control by (for example) buying extra diapers on the debit card and selling them half-price to their neighbors for cash. Cash with which they'll go get high, and/or buy new cellphones or sneakers, while their kids go hungry.

Honest people, however, will also have to resort to such tactics if they happen to need $25 cash to have a friendly handyman fix the air conditioner near their infant's crib on a hot August day at cost. The "control" only punishes people who are trying to do the right thing. The abusers don't care, and the "control" won't stop them.

(This is much like the "security theater" we see in airline screenings. A team of ten terrorists could collectively carry almost a gallon of liquid explosives onto a commercial jet even though none of the individual terrorists would go through a TSA checkpoint with more than four three-ounce bottles of "toiletries" in his/her TSA-mandated clear, one-quart bag. Again, the "abusers" can easily find a way around the "controls," while honest people are inconvenienced, and not really more safe.)

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/09/2011 :  03:34:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You ain’t seen nothing’ yet. The Republican hypocrites have gotten even stupider in FL.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida lawmakers on Thursday sent Gov. Rick Scott a bill to require drug testing of welfare applicants, an issue that's been a top priority for the governor.

He's expected to sign the legislation enacting changes that he campaigned on last year.

People seeking temporary state assistance would have to pay for the screening out of their own pockets, but they would be reimbursed if they pass. Estimates for the cost of each test have ranged from $10 to $80.
So.... What if the person, clean or otherwise, doesn't have 10 or 80 dollars? And urine tests are easily beaten every day.

What's next I wonder, SS recipients? Disabled veteran's comp? Say, I have an idea: Test everybody who receives "taxpayer" dollars starting with the entire FL government. And then test anyone with a history of drug busts -- we'd probably at least inconvenience that lying pig Limbaugh.

This, amidst other nonsense, is what happens when you put the teabaggers in charge.





"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 05/09/2011 :  06:45:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The drug testing crap really pisses me off. Government employees can't be drug tested without cause because of protections under the Fourth Amendment. But apparently that can't protect private employees being treated like suspects by their employers (at the encouragement of the government) or welfare recipients.

I might point out that marijuana use carries much less risks to health than consumption of alcohol, isn't addicting like alcohol and cigarettes, and can be home grown for almost nothing, which is probably why it is the recreational drug of choice among poorer populations. And even though people with money smoke pot more (because they can afford to), poor people already get arrested several times more frequently than middle class people for possession. Oh, and the government passed a law a few years ago making it so that if you have been convicted of even a minor drug charge you can't get federal aid for college. Seems to me that the drug war is all about spending tax dollars to help maintain poverty as well as punish and humiliate poor people.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 05/09/2011 :  09:37:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Both side have valid points. I know a couple who both got $400 each a month in food stamps. They got it electronically added to "credit cards" for that purpose. By applying as individuals but living together they couldn't spend $800 on food a month. Because they would loose unused monthly dollars he would make the offer to charge the purchase of the customer in front or behind him in the grocery line, for 50 cents on the dollar and get it. Realize this went on right in front of the cashier who would process the transactions, back to back, clearly to separate customers. He also would give it to a person to use at their convenience and receive $.50 on a $1 spent. No ID check is verified, one just presents the card and enters a 4 digit code at checkout. This ended when she got a job that required her to give her SS# and she was no longer eligible, he still gets the money. The law won't change shit unless the cards have a picture and/or the store doesn't permit the fraud. The carnival will continue unfazed because this is not about stopping abuse of a government program but politicians doing what they do best. Dividing the public and plying for votes.
Some people cheat others don't. Being immoral has no financial requirement. If law makers hearts were in the right place they should help the poor learn to fish and not only buy the fish. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 05/09/2011 :  20:15:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
SS"
Both side have valid points.
Oh really? Where was the good point about how these particular controls on the debit cards will actually help stop abuses and at the same time not hurt those who are using them responsible?

I know a couple who both got $400 each a month in food stamps. They got it electronically added to "credit cards" for that purpose. By applying as individuals but living together they couldn't spend $800 on food a month. Because they would loose unused monthly dollars he would make the offer to charge the purchase of the customer in front or behind him in the grocery line, for 50 cents on the dollar and get it. Realize this went on right in front of the cashier who would process the transactions, back to back, clearly to separate customers. He also would give it to a person to use at their convenience and receive $.50 on a $1 spent. No ID check is verified, one just presents the card and enters a 4 digit code at checkout. This ended when she got a job that required her to give her SS# and she was no longer eligible, he still gets the money.
Yay, more anecdotal evidence without any objective evidence.

The law won't change shit unless the cards have a picture and/or the store doesn't permit the fraud.
Oh really? What would stop someone from just then buying stuff they are allowed to purchase with the card and then selling it cheap for cash? You CAN'T completely stop abuses. Not in a system that is this complex that involves this large of a society. If the government decides to help the poor at all, some abuses will be part of that. So what? Unless you can prove that the abuses do more harm than the good done for those who use the aid responsibly, you have no argument.

Some people cheat others don't. Being immoral has no financial requirement.
What is that supposed to mean? I notice that nobody has mentioned the ways that some beneficiaries of social programs cheat inefficient programs in order to make it work better for them. For instance, in the example you gave, if the guy doesn't need the food, what if he uses the card to get cash which he then turns around and uses to improve his financial situation in the long term (such as transportation to job interviews.)

If law makers hearts were in the right place they should help the poor learn to fish and not only buy the fish.
How does this platitude connect to the specific program being discussed in this thread? It is such a cliche. Think about it: if someone is malnourished and hasn't eaten in days, you gotta give them a fish to eat first. Over time you can teach them how to friggin' fish, but that won't do them any good if they are starving right now. Two of my friends have been unemployed or underemployed on and off for three years now. One of them just finally qualified for Medicaid and is in the process of getting some treatment that she's needed for years. This woman has an advanced degree. She's smart and well educated. But she's been unlucky and in a field that doesn't pay much and for which there are few jobs. If she is healthy she is much more likely to get and keep work. The other friend has benefited from unemployment that prevented him from having to move back in with his parents and therefore out of the area where he is more likely to find work. It looks like the government is just handing these two people something for nothing, but in the larger picture it is "teaching them to fish."

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.64 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000