<p>What about lust then? Potentially you hurt yourself by thinking about nothing but sex all the time, and you could inflict a lot of psychological and physical damage on others if you add up lust and violence…</p>
<p>does lust have to be for sex?
and ooo sounds like welfare will be a distractor.</p>
<p>I’m sorry! back on topic!</p>
<p>no no i wanna hear what d-yu really meant?</p>
<p>My question is, Can one be picked? There all DEADLY SINS for a reason, right?
If one of them was stealing a cookie, we could all agree that it was the weakest one and eliminate it, but whoever made the deadly sins made it so that they were all equally sucky for the individuals involved</p>
<p>oh yikes, i’ve sparked the beast within hudson :).
alrighty, ready to defend position <em>cracks knuckles</em>
not necessarily people on welfare, but **slackers in general<a href=“many%20which%20happen%20to%20be%20on%20welfare,%20i’m%20not%20dissing%20people%20on%20welfare”>/B</a>. seriously, at school, when i have a slacker in my group, i’m really ****ed</p>
<p>Lust for other things are kind of covered in envy and gluttony, or are you referring to other things?</p>
<p>The welfare-forced labor thing might be more interesting.</p>
<p>Which of the sins do you guys think is responsible for the most “problems” (well, “issues” if you don’t believe there are any problems) facing society today?</p>
<p>Oh man. We’re into the problems again. Grin.</p>
<p>Greed in our hyper-consumer culture?</p>
<p>my definition of slackers include pale computer loving kiddies who spend their days writing code. im not liking the association at all. while there are people who are on welfare because they are an ineffective and lazy its not always the case. and i frown on the generalization.
forced labor camps… i will chalk up to pent up frustration at weak-link classmates.</p>
<p>yeah id def say greed for america. glutton too. im pretty sure we are a bad mix of all of them.</p>
<p>again, i do not diss welfare people, but slackers</p>
<p>Sparked the beast? I like the sound of that. From now on, whenever I enter a debate, I’m going to shout, “You have sparked the beast!”</p>
<p>If we do have welfare camps, we can’t call them camps. Really, you wouldn’t even need camps, just a work-in-exchange-of-welfare-benefits-program. If you are on welfare, you then are taken in as a public servant to your city or town. If plants need planting or buildings need painting, they’ll get you to do it. It’s really not a bad idea, in my opinion.</p>
<p>but you say: slackers in general(many which happen to be on welfare, i’m not dissing people on welfare).
if most of the people on welfare are slackers. you are dissing them cuz i highly doubt they are slackers. maybe products of their environments (if you believe that) or just people who wont stop reproducing.
and hudson i think they call that getting a job. and i hate to say this but that sounds like some preverted form of slavery. and i thought indentured servitude was over??</p>
<p>It would be interesting, like the Great Depression Works Progress Administration- you work a day you get a dollar. Or you decrease benefits and offer the positions with the money you save. That way it’s not like servitude. Although, if the government is giving them money, it’s not actually slavery. They could choose to not do work and not get handouts.</p>
<p>It’s wage slavery now.</p>
<p>i dont agree with welfare. i say get a job or deal with it. as for your kiddies the state can take them if it’s really that bad.</p>
<p>Jobs may not be present, seeing as the person is on welfare. Anyway, it isn’t slavery, because they don’t have to accept welfare, thus not initiating their service, would receive money, and they can leave welfare any time they want.</p>
<p>Maybe there should be a time limit on welfare, rather than eliminating it completely. The mother of a friend of mine lost her job a few months ago and lived off the state for three months. She was able to find another (low-paying, but doable) job during that time and get off welfare. If people are faced with the pressures of time constraints, they’d be more likely to actively seek jobs.</p>
<p>hhmmmm… this debate is getting pretty controversial. my proposal : no welfare programs except an optional welfare backup plan in which the people are paid for working for the community, and are offered benefits like they would in a regular job. Most of these people need jobs, not free handouts</p>