Children just must not go hungry

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Was that your intent when you wrote the following in your OP?

"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene to ensure that "children just must not go hungry" and take action on other similar assertions in Johnson's inaugural address? "

If it was, you really missed the mark there.

The key words are "government", "responsibility", "the extent", "intervene" and "action". Therefore the discussion I am seeking is about policies and measures, resourcing these actions, and the mechanics of compelling citizens to participate. The discussion I am seeking is not simply about "greed" being the cause of the problem or that dealing with the problem is "simple". To focus only on those two assertions is to have missed the mark.

Originally posted by @fmf
The key words are "government", "responsibility", "the extent", "intervene" and "action". Therefore the discussion I am seeking is about policies and measures, resourcing these actions, and the mechanics of compelling citizens to participate. The discussion I am seeking is not simply about "greed" being the cause of the problem or that dealing with the problem is "simple". To focus only on those two assertions is to have missed the mark.

More importantly the key phrase is ""What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene ".

As I pointed out, if it were your intent to discuss the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done', then you really missed the mark.

Why are you pretending otherwise?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
As I pointed out, if it were your intent to the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done', then you really missed the mark.

Well, regardless of whether it was you or me who got the wrong end of the stick as to the intended angle of my thread topic, now you know what it is I am interested in. I am interested in "action", "intervention", "extent", and the "moral nuts and bolts" attendant thereto, as I think has been perfectly clear from many of the things I have said in my subsequent posts. Any thoughts on the specific topic I have been seeking to discuss will be welcome.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, regardless of whether it was you or me who got the wrong end of the stick as to the intended angle of my thread topic, now you know what it is I am interested in. I am interested in "action", "intervention", "extent", and the "moral nuts and bolts" attendant thereto, as I think has been perfectly clear from many of the things I have said in my subsequent posts. Any thoughts on the specific topic I have been seeking to discuss will be welcome.

Well, regardless of whether it was you or me who got the wrong end of the stick as to the intended angle of my thread topic...

lol. Would it really kill you to admit that you really missed the mark?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Would it really kill you to admit that you really missed the mark?

I don't think I did. I think my OP was crystal clear and that absolutely everything I have posted on the subsequent 7 pages has been of a piece with it.

Even if you misunderstood the OP, my other posts on page 1 and page 2 and page 3, and so on, ought to have set you straight, as would any number of my responses to you over the last several pages where I was pointing out that you'd got the wrong end of the stick. So, I don't think I missed the mark at all.

Now you know. So, do you have any thoughts on the moral underpinning and implications of the nitty gritty of a government enacting anti-poverty policies?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't think I did. I think my OP was crystal clear and that absolutely everything I have posted on the subsequent 7 pages has been of a piece with it.

Even if you misunderstood the OP, my other posts on page 1 and page 2 and page 3, and so on, ought to have set you straight, as would any number of my responses to you over the last several pages where I wa ...[text shortened]... nderpinning and implications of the nitty gritty of a government enacting anti-poverty policies?

lol. Evidently you think it would kill you to admit that you really missed the mark.

Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as:
"discuss the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
lol. Evidently you think it would kill you to admit that you really missed the mark.

Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as ...[text shortened]... tting it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

I think you are mistaken. But never mind. Now that you know what the topic is, do you have anything you want to contribute?

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you are mistaken. But never mind. Now that you know what the topic is, do you have anything you want to contribute?

lol. Evidently you think it would kill you to admit that you really missed the mark.

Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as:
"discuss the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you are mistaken. But never mind. Now that you know what the topic is, do you have anything you want to contribute?

You really should read over what I posted earlier about rationalizations.

It can only help you to understand yourself better and perhaps gain a little maturity.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
lol. Evidently you think it would kill you to admit that you really missed the mark.

Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that ...[text shortened]... ing it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

I am fully aware of your objection to the wording of my OP. But, now you have had it explained to you, is there anything you have to offer on the moral issues related to deciding the extent of government action to intervene to tackle the problems Lyndon B. Johnson drew attention to in his speech?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
So I am speaking of "rationalizations" as excuses for "greed".

Be that as it may, but I am not interested in "excuses for greed". I am interested in the morality of taking the necessary action. That is what this thread is about. Not "greed". Not "excuses". It's about solutions and the necessary government intervention.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am fully aware of your objection to the wording of my OP. But, now you have had it explained to you, is there anything you have to offer on the moral issues related to deciding the extent of government action to intervene to tackle the problems Lyndon B. Johnson drew attention to in his speech?

You're really too much fmf.

Trust me. It wouldn't kill you.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
You're really too much fmf.

Trust me. It wouldn't kill you.

I think you just got the wrong end of the stick. But it doesn't matter. If you want to proceed with the topic in hand, feel free.

Originally posted by @fmf
I think you just got the wrong end of the stick. But it doesn't matter. If you want to proceed with the topic in hand, feel free.

Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as:
"discuss the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Here's the key phrase again:
"What are the spiritual, moral, or philosophical dimensions to the debate about the extent to which it is the responsibility of a nation's legally established government to intervene... ".

There's no reasonable way to interpret that as:
"discuss the moral nuts and bolts of 'getting it done'".

They are two very different topics.

Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Like I said, I think it is you who is mistaken, not me. You seem to want to frame the topic as being about "greed" and "excuses" but doing so does not address the issue which is how, in practice, should the extent of government responsibility and action be defined and implemented. Any thoughts on the topic as I am framing it?