'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Holiday'

[xoxoxoBruce]

Post #96, you claim it was “social security” rather than patriarchal, and needed 2k years ago
Post #98, I linked to a story proving it still exists.
Post #99, you wrongly pronounce my link doesn’t belong in this thread because it’s about a different subject.
Post #100, I point out it was about patriarchal.
Post #101, you claim it’s still ok because the intent is “social security”.
Post #102, patriarchal abuse in not ok in the 21st century.
Post #103, claim 1st century exemption.
Post #104, point out it’s still happening as shown in post#98.
Post #105, who me?
Post #106, yeah you!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

All of which documents in glorious detail that you persist in missing my point, and also miss that I merely observed this was how they tried to do it. I'd amplify that it seems they had little to nothing else, those being unsophisticated times economically, which from the talking they did about it in the Bible, suggests they weren't sure they were getting the job properly done in 100% of the circumstances. Sounds like everybody who had something to say about it could name a starveling widow or three.

It's the sort of thing that would have been come up with in a social order where your family and your blood relatives were the chiefest, if not the only, thing you kept allegiance with -- tribal bonds and links being a sort of extension of the family bond.

Note also that the story of Onan documents, insofar as this is documented at all, and aside from the superstitious coda of "...wherefore the Lord slew him also," the point at which the Hebrews abandoned this law in apparent hope of finding something better, that didn't rely so heavily on some other available relative being interested enough in, and happy enough with, the widow, to fix her up with descendants with the filial obligations to keep the ol' gal in comfort. Read it and see if this interpretation doesn't hold up.

I also draw a distinction between "social security" and individual "retirement plan," positing the latter and not the former, the one being governmental entitlements, the other private.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The fact remains they live in a patriarchal, abusive society now and have for thousands of years, as Elspode posited.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I also draw a distinction between "social security" and individual "retirement plan," positing the latter and not the former, the one being governmental entitlements, the other private.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Living offspring were the Social Security of the era.

UG, you really should leave attempts at logic alone and stick with the blatent insults.

[wolf]

Both of his above statements are accurate.

Originally Posted by wolf

Both of his above statements are accurate.

OK, Wolf, I'll bite. How? Social security is a government entitlement program. Living offspring were the social security of the first century. How are living offspring a government entitlement, especially in 1 AD? I can understand someone making the argument that a welfare Mom with 6 illegitimate children in the 21st century has them as a "government entitlement." However, saying a child born in the 1st century was the same as a government entilement program is stretching just a wee bit.

[wolf]

Logic is a little bird tweeting in a meadow. Even I know you're not as stupid as you are currently pretending to be.

[Happy Monkey]

wolf - the statements each, taken out of context, are true because they make different assumptions. They just don't work together. In the context of the first statement, the second one should be

Living offspring were the individual "retirement plan" of the era.

since he is explicitly not positing "social security."

[mrnoodle]

I think that when the argument has reached this level of inanity it's safe to assume we've worn it out.

[Trilby]

What? did somebody say 'Nazi' yet?

[capnhowdy]

Nazi yet

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

OK, Wolf, I'll bite. How? Social security is a government entitlement program. Living offspring were the social security of the first century.

In a feudal society serfs are essentially considered posessions of the landholder and therefore are, in that sense, a form of government entitlement.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Nazi yet again?

Moved and seconded.

Originally Posted by wolf

In a feudal society serfs are essentially considered posessions of the landholder and therefore are, in that sense, a form of government entitlement.

Wait! How did we suddenly leap into a feudal society with serfs? I thought we were talking about nomadic desert peoples who followed flocks of goats and sheep around. But if we are going to talk feudal society and serfs, then the analogy of living offspring/social security makes even less sense. If a person is essentially an item of property owned by someone else, then their children also become someone else's property. Joe Serf Jr. may long to help out dear old Mom in her old age, but if the evil Lord of the Manor has decreed that he go off and dig turnips somewhere a week's journey away, there's not much little Joe or his Mom can do about it, and Mom's sure not secure in her old age.

BZZZZZT!

Next meadow lark, please.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by marichiko

If a person is essentially an item of property owned by someone else, then their children also become someone else's property. Joe Serf Jr. may long to help out dear old Mom in her old age, but if the evil Lord of the Manor has decreed that he go off and dig turnips somewhere a week's journey away, there's not much little Joe or his Mom can do about it, and Mom's sure not secure in her old age.

I haven't been following the thread closely but isn't this a description of Social Security? We don't own the fruit of our labors. I'll have to go back now to see what you're not getting because I do in fact speak jive.