This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Can of Worms: Is marriage necessary anymore?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
People who complain about welfare because of exploitation would sooner let the hungry starve than allow a few select people to get food they don't deserve.
Did I mention I'm a fan of Social Darwinism?
Post by
Patty
People who complain about welfare because of exploitation would sooner let the hungry starve than allow a few select people to get food they don't deserve.
Did I mention I'm a fan of Social Darwinism?
So, because someone's
born
into poverty (on the assumption that without income support their family would be in a position where serious malnourishment would become an issue), they should just die?
Post by
Atik
If you are talking about benefits related to paying for children, I am all for those. They are good because the children grow up to become workers and assist with society.
If someone put themselves in a position of poverty, or made no effort to leave such a position they don't deserve any benefits for it.
Post by
Patty
If you are talking about benefits related to paying for children, I am all for those. They are good because the children grow up to become workers and assist with society.
If someone put themselves in a position of poverty, or made no effort to leave such a position they don't deserve any benefits for it.
That's.... extremely simplistic. Some people who don't make efforts to leave poverty do so because they have no aspirations because of their upbringing, education, and a whole range of other factors. Somebody who only knows poverty might not know about any alternative.
Furthermore, it's difficult to make the distinction between someone who puts themself into a position of poverty and somebody who does not. Arguably, if someone picks a job, then are made redundant and find themselves in poverty - they put themselves there by applying for the job that then laid the person off.
I think it's immoral and callous to say "well, it's your problem" and leave somebody to die, and I'd be horrified if I ever found myself living in a society that ostracises the poor rather than tries to help and care for them. I may believe that the planet is overpopulated with humans, but that doesn't mean that I am in favour of abandoning a human being to squalour and possible death - because if ever I found myself in a similar situation, I would like to think somebody could be kind enough to help.
Post by
Atik
I think it's immoral and callous to say "well, it's your problem" and leave somebody to die
I personnally don't.
I may believe that the planet is overpopulated with humans, but that doesn't mean that I am in favour of abandoning a human being to squalour and possible death
We control animal populations in even worse manners. Rather than leaving said animal to die, we kill it ourselves.
Don't see the problem with doing the same to other people. Exspecially people who aren't contributing and probably won't be without excessive resources wasted on them.
Post by
Adamsm
So if you fall in that number, you are fine with lining up for the slaughter?
Post by
Jubilee
And who has the right to decide who is productive and who isn't? Hitler thought he did and he thought the Jews were bringing society back more than they were contributing to its advancement.
Post by
Patty
We control animal populations in even worse manners. Rather than leaving said animal to die, we kill it ourselves.
Many animal cullings are done humanely. While I agree that animal cruelty exists, and that it's in many cases abominable, I don't think it can be used as an excuse to then be punishing and cruel towards human beings.
Don't see the problem with doing the same to other people. Exspecially people who aren't contributing and probably won't be without excessive resources wasted on them."People who aren't contributing" is a very, very vague phrase - and potentially extremely dangerous. One person's definition of contributing is not the same as another's. One leader might say that "well, benefit frauds aren't contributing - let's gas them!" and another may go further and persecute based on gender, race, age, health etc.
Post by
Atik
So if you fall in that number, you are fine with lining up for the slaughter?
Yes. I would be ashamed of myself, and would do what I could to get out of the rut. But I wouldn't beg for assistance.
And who has the right to decide who is productive and who isn't? Hitler thought he did and he thought the Jews were bringing society back more than they were contributing to its advancement.
People with jobs who are keeping money in circulation = productive.
Jobless beggers = not productive.
And once again, we are letting them die on their own. Not killing them.
Post by
Jubilee
People with jobs who are keeping money in circulation = productive.
Jobless beggers = not productive.
You believe you're the one with the right to decide that? Where do you get the right to decide that?
Post by
Atik
People with jobs who are keeping money in circulation = productive.
Jobless beggers = not productive.
You believe you're the one with the right to decide that? Where do you get the right to decide that?
The fact that the word productive would imply exactly what I just said?
To be productive would mean, at the very least, you are helping the society in some way.
The bare minimum for helping society would be working. (Also including those who raise children here, as that is a job in itself.)
Post by
Patty
The bare minimum for helping society would be working. (Also including those who raise children here, as that is a job in itself.)
So, when people retire they should be left to rot?
Post by
Jubilee
The right to decide that someone you deem unproductive economically is not to be helped.
Post by
Atik
The bare minimum for helping society would be working. (Also including those who raise children here, as that is a job in itself.)
So, when people retire they should be left to rot?
Any money they have saved up is free for them to keep. If their family wishes to care for them, fine.
But other than that? Yeah.
They should also be respected by the society.
Post by
Patty
Any money they have saved up is free for them to keep. If their family wishes to care for them, fine.
But other than that? Yeah.
They should also be respected by the society.
"Despite relying on you for years to keep us afloat, we're not going to help you keep afloat now that you could use the help. But, you know, respect your elders." You don't think that the elderly should be thanked and respected by the government in some way for their 'contributions to society', as you phrased it?
Post by
Atik
Any money they have saved up is free for them to keep. If their family wishes to care for them, fine.
But other than that? Yeah.
They should also be respected by the society.
"Despite relying on you for years to keep us afloat, we're not going to help you keep afloat now that you could use the help. But, you know, respect your elders." You don't think that the elderly should be thanked and respected by the government in some way for their 'contributions to society', as you phrased it?
Pretty much exactly how I would do it.
Sounds horrible at first, but they have lived their lives and now must pass on their mantle.
Elderly should be respected for their hard work, but they must pass on so the next generation may live better.
Post by
Patty
Pretty much exactly how I would do it.
Sounds horrible at first, but they have lived their lives and now must pass on their mantle.
Elderly should be respected for their hard work, but they must pass on so the next generation may live better.
So, you disagree that it's paradoxical to leave a generation who have maintained a government to die yet at the same time uphold a society that shows respect and care for the elderly?
Post by
Atik
Yes. The elderly have gained much knowledge that can be learned from them to further younger generations, and should be respected for that.
But they should not be leeches.
Post by
Patty
Yes. The elderly have gained much knowledge that can be learned from them to further younger generations, and should be respected for that.
But they should not be leeches.
But it's alright for the government to leech from them whilst they're working?
Post by
Atik
The government isn't leeching, as I have a very interesting idea for that;
Any government officials are only paid minimum wage. Tax money is used for their pay, and government funding. Anything not used for some sort of government payment is saved and given back equally to all people of working age at the end of whatever time frame is decided.
People also shouldn't be forced into retirement, just to get that out of the way.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.