I’m up front with my biases on debtor-creditor issues. But I should note that I’m still a new attorney and I’m not quite so jaded as a lot (by “lot” I wouldn’t venture more than half… but who knows?) of other members of the bankruptcy bar. They’ve been around long enough and seen enough abuses from the creditor industry that they’ve got a very cynical view of creditors generally. Many are of the opinion that if there is any legal way to screw the creditor, so much the better (this ties in well with the time-honored attorney obligation to represent the client’s interests above anyone else’s). They forget that the debtor does, in fact, OWE MONEY and has some moral obligations toward the creditor, no matter whether that creditor acts ethically or not.

I’m not there yet, and hope never to be. But I do hold sympathy for those who find themselves on the wrong end of a massive imbalance of knowlege, resources and power. I feel that laws are meant to correct that imbalance.

I guess that’s the social liberal position in a nutshell.

The social conservative position, in a nutshell, I think was best expressed by Garrisson Keiler who called it the idea that “you can’t make people’s lives for them, and it’s almost always a disaster when you try.”

Finding the truth in there is, of course, the heart of our political debate in America.

One of the problems I have with the “bloggernacle” is a whining undertone to all the discussion. I guess if there wasn’t such a tone there wouldn’t be much discussion. It would feel too much like SS and then what would be the point?

But you do have a knack for engaging people in a way that is perhaps not as constructive as it could be. For the record, I don’t care much. Your original remark here didn’t bother me in the least

By the way. If you ever had the time or desire (and a suitably deranged state of mind) to look back over your various comments and my responses on FMH, Millenial Star, here, and wherever else, you’ll find that I have never (in my memory) accused you of hatred, bigotry, racism, sexism, or whatever else. Don’t lump me (and others) together with those who have been angered enough to say some of the things you mention.

Again, your original remark was not framed in a way that invited much by way of response from me. But the viewpoint you represent is compelling to a great many people, and I would certainly like to have it discussed in a useful manner, if you, or anyone else is so inclined.

Reminds me of the comments made by the author of Eat the Rich and a number of other books that there isn’t any poverty in the United States, just hell on earth for some of the poor.

P. J. O’Rourke had it right.

The problem is Seth that when you speak you want to hear an echo. That isn’t debate nor dialogue. The LDS blogosphere is full of people who are more formed by Leftism than they are by the gospel of Jesus Christ. His gospel is about forgiving others. He is the only Victim and he forgives all those who slay him with their sins if they only will acknowledge him. The problems of this life (and the next) are ALL curable by faith in his atoning sacrifice.

Yes, people tend to immediately slap labels on you. Probably unfairly.

And yes, you do tend to deliberately provoke it with very strong statements.

And once the labels start flying, you usually play the victim card and accuse the labelers of hypocrisy and intolerance.

Then you get accused of trolling… and we’re off to the races again.

I’m not saying you’re technically wrong or that the others are technically wrong. But I’d rather not repeat this little ritualized drama that you and your fans have going on. After watching the same predictable script about a dozen times on various parts of the bloggernacle, it’s gotten a tad stale.

Please be more original with your invective.