Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Sitrep: London looting and riotingFollow

#52 Aug 09 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
Somehow I think Nilatai was agreeing with the person BEFORE you, gbaji.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#53 Aug 09 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Oh, I was talking to Olorinus. I didn't see your post.

I agree with you to a degree. The government need to make it harder for people to live if they refuse to work.

And to be clear, I do mean refuse to work. They've made it harder for people to cheat the system by pretending to look for work.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 8:27pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#54 Aug 09 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Oh, I was talking to Olorinus. I didn't see your post.

I agree with you to a degree. The government need to make it harder for people to live if they refuse to work.

And to be clear, I do mean refuse to work. They've made it harder for people to cheat the system by pretending to look for work.



I am sure this opinion will not be popular, but I don't really blame anyone who "refuses to work" for the rest of their lives on earth in service-job hell.

If people were being offered an opportunity to do meaningful, non-degrading work, I would be more inclined to look down on those who refused to contribute their fair share.

But if the best we can offer people is a minumum wage job with no respect for the forseeable future, I don't know why we shouldn't expect they will do what they can to shirk the system.

Let's be real here - the service job economy is toxic - toxic for the mental health of those working in it, and toxic for the planet.

While I am sure that a lot of these folks are just lazy sods, I am also sure that many of them, if they were given the opportunity to do good work that offered them a fair wage and a decent standard of living - would be happy to do so.

I just know from my own experience that I have a very low threshold when it comes to tolerating the kind of bullcrap that is tossed at people who work at low-wage, low-respect jobs.

And it isn't like our societies and communities are offering people a way out of the service industry either. No, we're raising tuition fees, rent in any city where one might glimpse an opportunity are through the roof, our public education systems are a joke... gah.

I just can't blame anyone who doesn't want to work 8 hours a day, get paid the bare minimum and crapped on constantly. No wonder they would rather sit at home and collect a cheque.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#55 Aug 09 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
I just think people should be productive in the larger society. And, let's face it, the large number of people who refuse to work really just aren't doing that.

____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#56 Aug 09 2011 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I just think people should be productive in the larger society. And, let's face it, the large number of people who refuse to work really just aren't doing that.



I agree... but I question whether a lot of work out there is truly productive. I guess that I am ambivalent towards our consumerist society and what it is doing to the earth, and so I inherently question the value of the work that is involved in much of it.

I mean I can't and won't deny there is a value and dignity in carrying one's own weight and paying our own bills etc. But I can't deny that the world would probably be a lot better without a lot of these rubbish jobs and the indignities they perpetuate.

That said I am doubtful that these looters and rioters have articulated these things to themselves. It isn't as if our society encourages that kind of reflectiveness and self knowledge.

These are angry young people. I doubt they know exactly why they are angry, but we cannot discount their anger, or the inequality and oppression that surely lies at the root of it. Nor can we excuse the way our society has failed to instill them with better values.

But better values can't just consist of judging them for not wanting to work at **** jobs for crappier money and no respect. Who wants that? No amount of pious moralizing on the value of a hard day's work can disguise the raw deal we are handing these people.

I mean look at all the politicians who were on holidays abroad, fat on the public purse, when this broke out. It is hard not to sympathize with the rage of people who have little to no hope for a better life, thinking of their Prime Minister - too busy playing tennis abroad to do his **** overpaid job. But he had plenty of time to cut the community supports their families relied on, didn't he? I bet none of the austerity measures cut a penny from the paycheques of the politicians.

I have no doubt these hooligans are idiots without a coherant ideology, but I have no doubt poor social planning and a culture of rigid social hierarchies with little hope of mobility created most of them.



____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#57 Aug 09 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Default
*
150 posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbdWuBHIEw

Smiley: lol
____________________________
Ain't no ban here bruh
#58 Aug 09 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
*
150 posts
http://cjstreems.blogspot.com/index.html

Live stream of a Sikh group defending shops guarding a hindu temple and talking about the riots.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 10:17pm by zukunftsangst
____________________________
Ain't no ban here bruh
#59 Aug 09 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
I mean I can't and won't deny there is a value and dignity in carrying one's own weight and paying our own bills etc. But I can't deny that the world would probably be a lot better without a lot of these rubbish jobs and the indignities they perpetuate.


I suppose there's merit in both sides of that. But to me, the bigger issue is about the social effects of attempting to provide for those who don't work (for whatever reason). As we've seen, it's not the dignity of the first generation, but of their children and grandchildren, who grow up in communities in which there are concentrations of those living "on the dole", and in which as a result there simply aren't sufficient jobs available for them to engage in any sort of employment, regardless of whether it's indignant or not.

Most people will put up with crappy jobs if they know that those jobs provide them the opportunities to get better ones later on. It's practically a tradition in the US to work at some form of job which requires wearing a paper hat (or equivalent) along the way. But we tend to expect that you should gradually be able to obtain better jobs with better pay as your work experience and responsibilities increase.

What happens when we create a social safety net is that there aren't sufficient jobs in the area to allow for this effect to happen. Those raised in those areas are lucky to get a crappy job, and very very few will be able to leverages those into something better. The sense of hopelessness this creates has to be crushing over time. At the risk of injecting a free market argument into this topic, this effect can only happen where governments step in to try to "help" the poor. Absent that intervention, such large and concentrated populations can't exist. They wont grow to include that high a percentage of folks without any access to jobs, let alone good jobs.

We create these problems with our own best intentions. And unfortunately, those segments of the population which tend to be the most favored targets of such "help" also tend to be those which have historically been disadvantaged (so those who ethnically different than the majority). This tends to create a secondary racial aspect to the whole problem.


Quote:
These are angry young people. I doubt they know exactly why they are angry, but we cannot discount their anger, or the inequality and oppression that surely lies at the root of it. Nor can we excuse the way our society has failed to instill them with better values.


Absolutely. I guess where I take a different approach is that I believe we failed them by trying to single them out for special "help" in the first place. Unintended consequences and all of that.

Quote:
I have no doubt these hooligans are idiots without a coherant ideology, but I have no doubt poor social planning and a culture of rigid social hierarchies with little hope of mobility created most of them.


Again though, I'll counter with the argument that it was too much social planning that caused this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Aug 09 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
Well Gbaji we are all cultured by our experiences.

I was in the care of the director at age of majority. In plain talk, that means that the state was my legal guardian.

So what you see as interventionalism that undermines equality, I see as necessary supports helping people such as my child-self escape harmful environments and access knowledge. I see it as the state filling in the gaps in community that have been created by this accidental explosion of civilization.

Do you think children who are subject to the predatory impulses or ineptness of the adults in charge of them should not be given the chance to thrive?

And how many poor home environments are because of the involuntary poverty thrust upon families who are sacrificed to the kind of social darwinism you propose?

You talk about families cultured by the dole, but you don't talk about what perpetuates the dole. It is not plutocrats who are taxed too much, it is an uncaring and ridiculously unequal society which stacks the deck against the vast majority of the population and then invents myths to explain why they are downtrodden.

Matthew 4:4 "'One can't live on bread alone, we need every word that comes from the mouth of God."

We need not only physical nourishment, but spiritual nourishment. The mind can't be healthy if the body is sick. Right now the body politic is sick.

yeah... waxed poetic...disregard

Sick of **** jobs that give no dignity and little wage
Sick of being asked to bear the weight of the nation
while leaders are on vacation
sick of watching cities burn
while yearning for work that earns
our loyalty and pride

Sick of being asked to ratify
actions that destroy earth
I pledge my allegience to the dirt
that nourishes



____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#61 Aug 09 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Somehow I think Nilatai was agreeing with the person BEFORE you, gbaji.


I think he should sig it anyway, for the irony.
#62 Aug 10 2011 at 4:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I'd like to see these people try and loot any areas with a strong Millwall fanbase...


Speaking of vigilantes, Millwall fans apparently decided en masse not to make the trip down to Plymouth for their Carling Cup tie - instead protecting Eltham High Street from trouble, while chanting: "No-one loots us, we don't care."
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/early-doors/article/344031/
____________________________
.
#63 Aug 10 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
jtftaru wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I'd like to see these people try and loot any areas with a strong Millwall fanbase...


Speaking of vigilantes, Millwall fans apparently decided en masse not to make the trip down to Plymouth for their Carling Cup tie - instead protecting Eltham High Street from trouble, while chanting: "No-one loots us, we don't care."
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/early-doors/article/344031/

I used to live in Eltham, I've got a lot of family and friends who were in that crowd.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#64 Aug 10 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Hello Rioters. Look at your friend, now back to me. Now at your friend, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using petrol bombs and started using job centre he could potentially be me. Look down, back up. Where are we? You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an application form to that job you need. Look again. The form is now money. Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting...
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#65 Aug 10 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
Well Gbaji we are all cultured by our experiences.

I was in the care of the director at age of majority. In plain talk, that means that the state was my legal guardian.

So what you see as interventionalism that undermines equality, I see as necessary supports helping people such as my child-self escape harmful environments and access knowledge. I see it as the state filling in the gaps in community that have been created by this accidental explosion of civilization.

Do you think children who are subject to the predatory impulses or ineptness of the adults in charge of them should not be given the chance to thrive?


This is a completely different issue. I'm talking about supporting adults who aren't able to obtain jobs to support themselves. That's not even remotely the same as providing housing and shelter for children who's parents have died, abandoned them, or are unfit.

My argument is that by "helping" poor people to have housing and food and whatnot even though they aren't earning enough to obtain those things for themselves, we ultimately create the very conditions of poverty itself. Social programs tend to work best when those in need of them are nearby. It's just more cost effective to help a thousand people all living in tenements within a 2 block radius of the government hand-out office than if they're spread around. As a result, you end out over time creating concentrations of people living on the dole in areas in which there are not sufficient jobs to employ them even if they wanted to.

This process effectively creates urban prisons which are just as real as any other prison. The bars aren't there physically, but it's just as hard to escape.

Quote:
And how many poor home environments are because of the involuntary poverty thrust upon families who are sacrificed to the kind of social darwinism you propose?


Far far fewer than are created via the process of trying to prevent that darwinistic process. Absent that social service "help", you don't get that same amount of concentration of poverty in single areas. It's pretty easy to see this if you think about it. Imagine that 15% of your population is "poor". If that 15% is concentrated in areas, so that 100% of those living in those areas are poor, you've effectively removed any chance of the people living there ever improving their lot in life. And you'd done the same for their children as well.

Spread that same 15% among the rest of the population and they're surrounded with opportunity. They wont all succeed, but at least they'll have a chance. Each individual has a chance at success. They aren't just lumped in with the group called "poor" and left to a miserable existence on public assistance.

It's that lack of opportunity which causes the sorts of desperation and despair which in turn leads to riots of this sort. Those people just don't care because they don't believe that they can improve their lives, so why bother trying? Surely you can see that concentration of that sort also makes rioting like this happen. Riots require high concentrations of people all feeling the same thing. They can congregate to riot, but it's particularly easy when everyone in your neighborhood is in the same crappy situation you are in, right?

Quote:
You talk about families cultured by the dole, but you don't talk about what perpetuates the dole. It is not plutocrats who are taxed too much, it is an uncaring and ridiculously unequal society which stacks the deck against the vast majority of the population and then invents myths to explain why they are downtrodden.


A free market stacks the deck against no one though. It rewards effort and skill. It's only when we start applying alternative social agendas that we start stacking the deck against groups of people. I just honestly can't see how any amount of racism in the free market (for example) could be more effective at limiting the outcomes of minorities than modern liberal social policies do. Feel free to make a case otherwise, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Aug 10 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Hello Rioters. Look at your friend, now back to me. Now at your friend, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using petrol bombs and started using job centre he could potentially be me. Look down, back up. Where are we? You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an application form to that job you need. Look again. The form is now money. Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting...

But... you're not on a horse. Smiley: frown
#67 Aug 10 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Hello Rioters. Look at your friend, now back to me. Now at your friend, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using petrol bombs and started using job centre he could potentially be me. Look down, back up. Where are we? You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an application form to that job you need. Look again. The form is now money. Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting...

But... you're not on a horse. Smiley: frown

I'm on a...payroll?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#68 Aug 10 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Nadenu wrote:
But... you're not on a horse. Smiley: frown
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Aug 10 2011 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Hello Rioters. Look at your friend, now back to me. Now at your friend, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using petrol bombs and started using job centre he could potentially be me. Look down, back up. Where are we? You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an application form to that job you need. Look again. The form is now money. Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting...


Have you considered that there aren't actually enough jobs to go around? Job centres tend not to increase the number of jobs filled by very much. They just shuffle the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. Unemployment is at 7.7% and that's not going to change anytiem soon.

I'm not suggesting looting fill the void, but you seem to be in thrall to the myth that most of the people on unemployment actually want to be.

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 5:17am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#70 Aug 10 2011 at 11:19 PM Rating: Excellent
$title{308642}
*****
0X317A posts
Hope Nobby, Tarv, et al are well.
____________________________
Since 1 March 2004

Rift Signature
#71 Aug 11 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
Well Gbaji we are all cultured by our experiences.

I was in the care of the director at age of majority. In plain talk, that means that the state was my legal guardian.

So what you see as interventionalism that undermines equality, I see as necessary supports helping people such as my child-self escape harmful environments and access knowledge. I see it as the state filling in the gaps in community that have been created by this accidental explosion of civilization.

Do you think children who are subject to the predatory impulses or ineptness of the adults in charge of them should not be given the chance to thrive?


This is a completely different issue. I'm talking about supporting adults who aren't able to obtain jobs to support themselves. That's not even remotely the same as providing housing and shelter for children who's parents have died, abandoned them, or are unfit.

My argument is that by "helping" poor people to have housing and food and whatnot even though they aren't earning enough to obtain those things for themselves, we ultimately create the very conditions of poverty itself. Social programs tend to work best when those in need of them are nearby. It's just more cost effective to help a thousand people all living in tenements within a 2 block radius of the government hand-out office than if they're spread around. As a result, you end out over time creating concentrations of people living on the dole in areas in which there are not sufficient jobs to employ them even if they wanted to.

This process effectively creates urban prisons which are just as real as any other prison. The bars aren't there physically, but it's just as hard to escape.

Quote:
And how many poor home environments are because of the involuntary poverty thrust upon families who are sacrificed to the kind of social darwinism you propose?


Far far fewer than are created via the process of trying to prevent that darwinistic process. Absent that social service "help", you don't get that same amount of concentration of poverty in single areas. It's pretty easy to see this if you think about it. Imagine that 15% of your population is "poor". If that 15% is concentrated in areas, so that 100% of those living in those areas are poor, you've effectively removed any chance of the people living there ever improving their lot in life. And you'd done the same for their children as well.

Spread that same 15% among the rest of the population and they're surrounded with opportunity. They wont all succeed, but at least they'll have a chance. Each individual has a chance at success. They aren't just lumped in with the group called "poor" and left to a miserable existence on public assistance.

It's that lack of opportunity which causes the sorts of desperation and despair which in turn leads to riots of this sort. Those people just don't care because they don't believe that they can improve their lives, so why bother trying? Surely you can see that concentration of that sort also makes rioting like this happen. Riots require high concentrations of people all feeling the same thing. They can congregate to riot, but it's particularly easy when everyone in your neighborhood is in the same crappy situation you are in, right?

Quote:
You talk about families cultured by the dole, but you don't talk about what perpetuates the dole. It is not plutocrats who are taxed too much, it is an uncaring and ridiculously unequal society which stacks the deck against the vast majority of the population and then invents myths to explain why they are downtrodden.


A free market stacks the deck against no one though. It rewards effort and skill. It's only when we start applying alternative social agendas that we start stacking the deck against groups of people. I just honestly can't see how any amount of racism in the free market (for example) could be more effective at limiting the outcomes of minorities than modern liberal social policies do. Feel free to make a case otherwise, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
The free market also rewards cunning, deceit and exploitation. The rest of this post is some of your better fiction. Srsly, have you ever met a single one of these folks you seem to know so well?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#72 Aug 11 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
#73 Aug 11 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
$title{308642}
*****
0X317A posts
#74varusword75, Posted: Aug 11 2011 at 10:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#75 Aug 11 2011 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
There's no more reliable source of facts than from someone who calls himself the High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#76 Aug 11 2011 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Hello Rioters. Look at your friend, now back to me. Now at your friend, now back to me. Sadly, he isn't me, but if he stopped using petrol bombs and started using job centre he could potentially be me. Look down, back up. Where are we? You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an application form to that job you need. Look again. The form is now money. Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting...


Have you considered that there aren't actually enough jobs to go around? Job centres tend not to increase the number of jobs filled by very much. They just shuffle the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. Unemployment is at 7.7% and that's not going to change anytiem soon.

I'm not suggesting looting fill the void, but you seem to be in thrall to the myth that most of the people on unemployment actually want to be.

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 5:17am by Kavekk

I live in a predominantly working class area. The chavlet children around me couldn't care less about getting jobs. These are the people rioting and looting, the 11-20 year olds. It's ridiculous. When I was 16 I worked at McDonald's, it was the worst experience for my life and I absolutely hated it. I still did it. There's nothing stopping these people from getting a **** job, except for the fact they can live more comfortably if they don't work at all.

I've claimed JSA, last summer. The woman at the job centre seemed to think that more than half of the people there just pretend to look for work because JSA pays out more than the dole does per week. It would be trivially easy to bring in measures where it would be impossible to lie about looking for work. Something like getting a reference number from a potential employer when submitting a job application, CV or attending an interview.


I'm not saying everyone who is unemployed is like this, but 7.7% would go down by a significant fraction if we could bring in measures to stop those who refuse to work.

Besides, the best way to remain unemployed and get a lot of money from the government is to become a student. Smiley: grin
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#77 Aug 11 2011 at 12:53 PM Rating: Excellent
$title{308642}
*****
0X317A posts
Nilatai wrote:
Besides, the best way to remain unemployed and get a lot of money from the government is to become a student. Smiley: grin


BS! The UK's government has done nothing to help my student loans and lack of 3D OLED TVs in every room with minature giraffes!

Americans qualify for that, right?

Also, JSA? I'm too busy to google.
____________________________
Since 1 March 2004

Rift Signature
#78 Aug 11 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Justice Society of America if Google is to be believed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#79 Aug 11 2011 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A free market stacks the deck against no one though. It rewards effort and skill. It's only when we start applying alternative social agendas that we start stacking the deck against groups of people. I just honestly can't see how any amount of racism in the free market (for example) could be more effective at limiting the outcomes of minorities than modern liberal social policies do. Feel free to make a case otherwise, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
The free market also rewards cunning, deceit and exploitation.


Far less than government social programs do though.

Quote:
The rest of this post is some of your better fiction.


It's observations on social behavior. If calling it fiction despite the accurate predictions which result makes you sleep better at night, then that's your choice.


Quote:
Srsly, have you ever met a single one of these folks you seem to know so well?


Ah. Because I espouse conservative ideas, I must have been born in a well to do home, with everything handed to me, right? Apparently my memories of being embarrassed because my family could not afford new clothes for me, and the times I went to school with no lunch because there was no food in the house were just fabrications. The time I spent hanging out with runaways was just a dream. All those people I knew who spent their days looking for pot or crank, and were regulars at the blood and plasma donation centers were just in my imagination as well. I didn't actually know that dozen people who lived in one house all wearing their own individual punk uniforms. I never knew any of those welfare mothers who came into the store I worked at who'd use their children to buy 5 cent pieces of gum one at a time with food stamps to get enough change to buy a pack of smokes or a 40 of beer. I never lived in my car.


Yeah. My life experiences have completely sheltered me from ever encountering both poor people who choose to work their way out of poverty and those who fell into the trap of social services. I don't have an aunt who relates how hard it was to get off welfare after she divorced. The system is rigged to try to keep people on their services. She was actually charged with a crime for asking not to receive welfare payments anymore. Imagine that! They simply assumed that no one would ever choose to refuse free services and money as long as they could qualify for it, so she must have had some other income she wasn't reporting. Then there's the pair of friends who got pregnant at 16 and took welfare to get by. A few years later, the father got a good paying job and they were able to get off welfare. He made the mistake of offering to pay back the assistance they'd received because he believed that it's wrong for people to take from others without paying it back. He offered to pay X amount per month until all they'd received from the government was returned. They took him to court instead and demanded he pay them... less than he'd offered.


Welfare and other social services often tend to be incredibly dehumanizing. It's the one common factor I've seen. You stop being a person and are just an account like any other. There is little if any incentive on any side of the issue to help anyone get off the system. Quite the opposite in many cases. The politicians measure how much good they are doing by the amount of dollars spent on such services. The workers get to keep their jobs only if volume of need is high enough. All of this acts to wear down what little motivation many of those who end out in the system had to begin with. Even people with good work ethics find it hard to get out. It's just too easy to keep working the system. And those who are born into it? Forget about it.



But you're right. I don't know anything about this. I've never seen it, or known anyone in the system. I don't right now know two siblings, both born of a well off family. One sibling worked hard, got married to someone of the same mindset, and is happily living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood. The other decided to work the system. He's been in an out of jail. He's had drug problems most of his life. He's never ever held a job for more than 6 months at a time. He married a person of a similar mindset. Now both of them have mysterious back ailments which prevent them from working. They collect disability checks and sit around all day high on oxycontin, or pot, or meth. Both siblings have 14 year old daughters. Want to take a guess which one smokes, makes off color jokes about explicit sexual acts, and has no idea what she wants to do with her life and which one gets good grades, works hard, and has already mapped out her college plans and future career? One has ambition and goals. The other does not. And that's absolutely the difference not just of poverty, but of the social environment created by how our government treats poverty.

Absent the free ride of social programs, those two would have to work. And I know for a fact that both of them could. But since they don't have to, they don't. And this has a horrific effect on their children. I'm sorry, but IMO most social services are a cure that is worse than the disease. Most people would be better off without them, and their children certainly would be. But we only look at the immediate need in front of us and never consider the life one could have led if a different path were taken. I think that's incredibly short sighted.

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 1:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 11 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
acprog wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Besides, the best way to remain unemployed and get a lot of money from the government is to become a student. Smiley: grin


BS! The UK's government has done nothing to help my student loans and lack of 3D OLED TVs in every room with minature giraffes!

Americans qualify for that, right?
Free money every year! That I have to pay back at 0% intrest over the next 30 years, so long as I earn over 15k/year. Yaaay.

acprog wrote:
Also, JSA? I'm too busy to google.

Jobseeker's Allowance. It's supposed to be there to support you if you're between jobs. You go to your local job centre and sign on for it every fortnight.

Jobseeker's Allowance is £53.45/week if you're between the ages 16 and 24, and £67.50/week if you're over 25.

You can get other stuff on top if you're registered as disabled or are a single parent etc.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#81 Aug 11 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,260 posts
gbaji wrote:
And that's absolutely the difference not just of poverty, but of the social environment created by how our government treats poverty.

Absent the free ride of social programs, those two would have to work. And I know for a fact that both of them could. But since they don't have to, they don't. And this has a horrific effect on their children. I'm sorry, but IMO most social services are a cure that is worse than the disease. Most people would be better off without them, and their children certainly would be. But we only look at the immediate need in front of us and never consider the life one could have led if a different path were taken. I think that's incredibly short sighted.



And the 7-12 percent of people who can't get jobs because they don't exist should what, starve to death? I'm really curious. Do you really think that putting people through more hardship is going to solve social problems?

I see you offer some anecdotes which to you, prove that it is welfare that creates social problems - but there is no evidence to be seen here, none at all.

Sorry, but I don't give a **** if some people sit around on welfare smoking weed. I really don't. Not if the only solution you can come up with, is starving people out to force them to become respectable.

Cause people who have been living on the street - they are likely to get jobs when unemployment is over 10 per cent and tons of people who are better suited to work intellectually, and emotionally, who live in houses with showers and laundry are going for them???!?

Give me a break.

Just cause you believe that people are made bad by welfare doesn't make it true. You knowing a friend of a cousin or something who is a douche on welfare doesn't make it true.

And that 14 year old you are talking about - yeah, I have no doubt her crappy parents and crappy home environment have helped make her what you say she is - but don't you think that what you are doing is actually arguing for more government interventions to support her where her parents fail? I would say that 14 year old is evidence of how almost two decades of conservative-led attacks on the public education system has led to vulnerable youth not receiving the supports they need to thrive despite crappy home environments.

Do you think having her parents on the street would have been better for her than welfare? You can say "oh they would have smartened up and gotten jobs if there was no welfare" but you have no evidence that this is the case, especially when there is this thing, called an unemployment rate, which hasn't been at 0 per cent in my life time.

At least she had food in the fridge and a home to sleep in at night.

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#82 Aug 11 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Iron Chef Olorinus wrote:
And the 7-12 percent of people who can't get jobs because they don't exist should what, starve to death? I'm really curious. Do you really think that putting people through more hardship is going to solve social problems?


First off, I already mentioned that the reason many of those people can't get jobs is because of where they're living, not because there aren't sufficient jobs *anywhere*. And they're living there because that's where the social services have set them up to live. This is doubly prevalent in the UK, btw.

Also, how much of the UK's GDP is being spent providing that housing and medical care and food? The US government, even with its ridiculous recent spending increases, spends 25% of its GDP. The UK spends 50% of its GDP. Can you even for a second entertain the possibility that us conservatives might just be right and that by taking that much money out of private hands, you cause the problem of fewer jobs in the first place?

It's a catch-22. You tax that money away to pay for social services which are needed by those who can't find jobs. But the people can't find jobs because you've taxed the money away from their potential employers. I'd laugh at the ironic symmetry, but it's not really funny.

Quote:
I see you offer some anecdotes which to you, prove that it is welfare that creates social problems - but there is no evidence to be seen here, none at all.


I didn't say that welfare "causes" social problems. I said that welfare makes existing social problems worse by institutionalizing them within a population. If you are poor and there is no welfare, you'll fight to not be poor anymore. There are good odds that you or your children will not be poor. If you are poor and on welfare, the odds that your children will also be poor and on welfare are dramatically higher than the odds of your children being poor if you were poor without any welfare. Welfare turns poverty into a generational problem. And, as I pointed out earlier, this effect is amplified when the government actually designates areas in which to put welfare housing (council housing), since everyone who isn't on welfare eventually moves away, taking the jobs with them. This leaves the welfare recipients stuck in an area in which they can't get jobs and can't get out of the system.

Quote:
Sorry, but I don't give a **** if some people sit around on welfare smoking weed. I really don't. Not if the only solution you can come up with, is starving people out to force them to become respectable.


That's not my solution though. That's the straw man version of my solution which you've chosen to pretend is the only alternative. To be fair to your point though, I will acknowledge that once you get as far along in this process as the UK and France have (in terms of housing specifically), it's incredibly hard to undo. You have these large populations living in areas which can't sustain them. That's a hard knot to untangle.

I'm kinda using those examples as reasons why we *shouldn't* pursue that same course here in the US. We're not quite as far along (although some inner city areas are similarly bad). It's hard to fix the problem, but relatively easy to avoid it. You just have to choose *not* to make the same mistakes.

Quote:
Cause people who have been living on the street - they are likely to get jobs when unemployment is over 10 per cent and tons of people who are better suited to work intellectually, and emotionally, who live in houses with showers and laundry are going for them???!?


So since it's hard, we should just give up, right? It's exactly that sort of attitude that makes this such a big problem.

Quote:
Just cause you believe that people are made bad by welfare doesn't make it true. You knowing a friend of a cousin or something who is a douche on welfare doesn't make it true.


Every person I've met who's ever been on welfare has given more or less the same story. Some manage to get off welfare, but only because they have a strong work ethic. If you have even a decent streak of "find the path of least resistance", you'll find it easier to work the system instead of working a job. A **** of a lot of people fall into that trap, and a large percentage of them never ever get out of it.

Quote:
And that 14 year old you are talking about - yeah, I have no doubt her crappy parents and crappy home environment have helped make her what you say she is - but don't you think that what you are doing is actually arguing for more government interventions to support her where her parents fail?


No. I'm arguing that if the government didn't intervene in the first place, her parents would have been far far less likely to fail. Never underestimate the maturing effect of having to provide for yourself and your family. When we have a government which makes it easy for parents to sit on a couch and collect a disability/welfare check, why be surprised when the number of people who end out sitting on a couch collecting those checks increase? And why be surprised when people who do this turn out not to be very good parents?

Quote:
I would say that 14 year old is evidence of how almost two decades of conservative-led attacks on the public education system has led to vulnerable youth not receiving the supports they need to thrive despite crappy home environments.


WTF? What does this have to do with anything? But for the record, over the last two decades, the amount of money spent on education programs designed to help troubled kids has increased dramatically. It hasn't helped though, has it? It's because the left continues to believe that the way to solve social problems is by spending more money. It never occurs to them that what they're doing is counter productive.

The public school system isn't ever going to be able to correct for bad parenting. Anyone who thinks so is freaking moronic.

Quote:
Do you think having her parents on the street would have been better for her than welfare? You can say "oh they would have smartened up and gotten jobs if there was no welfare" but you have no evidence that this is the case, especially when there is this thing, called an unemployment rate, which hasn't been at 0 per cent in my life time.


Unemployment rates don't work that way. Also, in this particular case, both of them were employed. They both developed mysterious back injuries (the type which creates lots of pain which needs medication, but of course doctors can't really definitively say exists or doesn't) and quit their jobs to take disability and welfare (for the kids). It's almost hysterical because I know the family well and they'll have some get together at the grandparents house and there's a whole huge extended family, some of them into their 80s, all healthy and walking around, and these two mid-30s people hobble in making a big deal of using their canes and grunting and groaning and moaning the whole time. Then they plop down on chairs and complain about their lives the whole time, whilst everyone else looks at them in disbelief.


Gee. What a coincidence that the only two people who have some mysterious injury which prevents them from working is that one married couple? Both of them? Within a year of each other? Sorry, it's BS. They could work if they want to. They choose not to. A choice that is made possible because they can work the system.

Quote:
At least she had food in the fridge and a home to sleep in at night.



And pretty much zero prospects for ever having a better life. I'd rather suffer a few hungry nights if I know that I have opportunity available to me to improve my life. People in prison have food and a place to stay. I just don't think that in a free society those things should be given more weight than the opportunity to make something of yourself of your own free will.

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 5:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Aug 11 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts

You tax that money away to pay for social services which are needed by those who can't find jobs. But the people can't find jobs because you've taxed the money away from their potential employers.


Yeah, that's not how that works.

Here's the idea, simpleton. If the problem is lack of jobs, you raise corporate taxes substantially while offering offsetting deductions for creating new jobs. See how that works better than lower taxes with no incentive to create jobs? Create jobs, pay less taxes. Don't create jobs, pay more taxes to support people without jobs. You know, the lazy assholes who for some bizarre reason can't travel from Detroit to San Jose to interview for $12 an hour grocery bagging jobs every week and instead choose to live in the lap of luxury provided by food stamps and section 8 housing.

See how that would create more jobs than just letting corporations keep money they usually use primarily attempt to consolidate and eliminate competition?

Edited, Aug 11th 2011 9:31pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Aug 11 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You tax that money away to pay for social services which are needed by those who can't find jobs. But the people can't find jobs because you've taxed the money away from their potential employers.


Yeah, that's not how that works.


Yeah, that's exactly how that works.

Quote:
Here's the idea, simpleton. If the problem is lack of jobs, you raise corporate taxes substantially while offering offsetting deductions for creating new jobs.


Speaking of not working! Two flaws with that:

1. Government is terrible at determining what will create new jobs. What usually ends out happening is that the government creates incentives for doing things, which may or may not create very many jobs, but which businesses will happily engage in to get more profits. Add in a bit of lobbying, and pretty soon what you have is a process where companies figure out how to work the system to maximize profits without having to employ very many people at all. All because the government has inadvertently made things that don't create jobs more profitable than things that do.

2. If this actually works, then government wont get any additional revenue anyway, right? Think about it. Social programs are measured by how much they spend. Loss of revenue is seen as "bad". Thus, they'll call for more revenue. And what will they target? The very deductions they created in the first place. They'll label it "corporate welfare", or some such and get their water carriers to attack big business for taking them, while people are being denied necessary social benefits!


What do you think is happening right now? Think "deductions for corporate jets". Everyone's up in arms about this, right? Obama made a point to single that out as a deduction that does nothing except let rich people stay richer. But what they managed to avoid telling anyone is that the Democrats deliberately reinstituted that deduction as part of their own stimulus bill. That deduction falls on a yearly falling schedule from the time you purchase a new jet. It was intended to help bolster jobs in the aerospace industry.

The utter irony being that the very deduction that the Dems and Obama are loudly attacking today is likely also being used in their own calculations of jobs "created or saved" when defending their own recovery act.

So no. That doesn't work. The far left, in its ravenous desire for more more more tax revenue, will not allow those evil corporations to keep those deductions. It's a tactic to slip the higher taxes in, knowing that they'll attack the deductions later. You know this, of course, but choose to pretend that this works anyway.

Quote:
See how that works better than lower taxes with no incentive to create jobs?


If your objective is purely to raise more tax revenue, sure. I don't agree with that agenda, though. I believe that if you want to create jobs, you need to give the free market as much elbow room as possible and stand the **** out of the way. Most things business will do, absent any government intervention at all (except to prevent harmful actions) will tend to create jobs. We can't accurately predict what those jobs will be, or what form they will take. That's the whole point. We need to stop trying to use government to control the market. It just doesn't work in terms of the broader objective to create jobs.

Quote:
Create jobs, pay less taxes. Don't create jobs, pay more taxes to support people without jobs.


Again though, what you propose has never actually ever worked. Once you get the government in charge of choosing what things are rewarded and what things are penalized in terms of the job market, the temptation to use this power for political ends will become too strong. Best to not meddle in the job market in the first place.

Quote:
You know, the lazy assholes who for some bizarre reason can't travel from Detroit to San Jose to interview for $12 an hour grocery bagging jobs every week and instead choose to live in the lap of luxury provided by food stamps and section 8 housing.


Do it the other way, and they wont need to travel that far to find a job in the first place. Allow something to turn a profit and someone will do it. Employment will follow that profit motive. The left just hates this because it's not controlled enough for them. They want to create jobs, not just stand back and trust that they'll be created on their own. And that's where you guys go wrong. And lots of other people suffer for it IMO.

Quote:
See how that would create more jobs than just letting corporations keep money they usually use primarily attempt to consolidate and eliminate competition?


Nope. I don't. Again, largely because your own political "side" wont allow it to work.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Aug 11 2011 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Ah, fairy tales. Gbaji is certainly on a horse, and it is very high, and I think it might actually be a unicorn.
#86 Aug 12 2011 at 12:38 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I'm not saying everyone who is unemployed is like this, but 7.7% would go down by a significant fraction if we could bring in measures to stop those who refuse to work.


Consider that with unemployment rates this high, anyone looking for workers can find them very easily unless they need very specialist skills.

Consider, then, that available positions are almost entirely filled.

People unwilling to work isn't really a problem now because there are substantially not enough jobs for those that do and don't have one. Any job will have an enormous surfeit of applications.

Do you not understand? If jobs are full, then JSA will not somehow magically solve unemployment. It might help certain individuals and companies, but it can't have any real impact on the unemployment rate.

Every time the government totes improvements to the job centre as a cure, I wonder what kind of idiot actually believes them. Now I know.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#87 Aug 12 2011 at 5:06 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Are you really so dumb that you can't see that stopping people from being able to refuse outright to work, for no reason, would lower unemployment?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#88 Aug 12 2011 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Dumb? It's hard to hear you talk with America's **** lodged so deeply in your throat. In your case, 'soft' power seems to be a bit of a misnomer.

Try not to choke.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#89 Aug 12 2011 at 5:54 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
And yeah, it won't. If every job vacancy is filled, then unemployment is as low as it can be unless more vacancies appear. Persuading people to stop pretending to look for work and actually do it won't generate many vacancies, will it?

This is basically as simple as I can make it for you.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 11:55am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#90 Aug 12 2011 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Dumb? It's hard to hear you talk with America's **** lodged so deeply in your throat. In your case, 'soft' power seems to be a bit of a misnomer.

Try not to choke.

Okay, the fuck are you talking about? Oh, oh! This is some kind of witty banter about how my government bows to Washington, right? Awesome, you're so smart Kavekk.


As far as the whole job vacancy thing goes, there are plenty of jobs around. They're just shitty jobs. I don't see Polish immigrants struggling to find work. You know why? Because they take the jobs that are available and the sponges on permanent JSA think they're too good to do.

Get off your high horse, the simple fact is a lot of people are too fucking lazy to work, and the government has made it far too easy for them to not have to.

Some people have legitimate problems which stop them from being able to work, a significant fraction of the unemployed do not. This is basically as simple as I can make it for you.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#91 Aug 12 2011 at 6:30 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.
____________________________
.
#92 Aug 12 2011 at 6:57 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
jtftaru wrote:
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.

I kinda like the visual of america's **** shoved down some whiney lil teen-brits throat.

Friday movie....

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#93 Aug 12 2011 at 7:01 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Elinda wrote:
jtftaru wrote:
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.

I kinda like the visual of america's **** shoved down some whiney lil teen-brits throat.


Whiny? Also I'm 23.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#94 Aug 12 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,924 posts
I wouldn't mind coming over there to stomp some chavs for you.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#95 Aug 12 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
It's always a fun thing to do.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#96 Aug 12 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nilatai wrote:
I don't see Polish immigrants struggling to find work. You know why? Because they take the jobs that are available

To be fair, there's only so many office buildings that need cleaning.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Aug 12 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
jtftaru wrote:
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.


It's really not my fault that two FFXI players aren't intelligent enough to understand an exceedingly simple point.

Haha, seriously, though, I can definitely sympathise with you; that sounds like a horrible situation to be in. Tell you what, if you can point out the obvious flaw in my logic, I'll come around to your point of view and rate down Nilatai enough to offset your rate-ups.

That's my offer.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#98 Aug 12 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,792 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I don't see Polish immigrants struggling to find work. You know why? Because they take the jobs that are available

To be fair, there's only so many office buildings that need cleaning.
Well, I heard those jokes about how many of them it takes to change light bulbs... one normal job must be employing half a dozen Polish.

Kinda pads their numbers a bit.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#99 Aug 12 2011 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,263 posts
Kavekk wrote:
jtftaru wrote:
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.


It's really not my fault that two FFXI players aren't intelligent enough to understand an exceedingly simple point.

Haha, seriously, though, I can definitely sympathise with you; that sounds like a horrible situation to be in. Tell you what, if you can point out the obvious flaw in my logic, I'll come around to your point of view and rate down Nilatai enough to offset your rate-ups.

That's my offer.

The obvious flaw in your logic is the assumption that everyone who is claiming JSA is a victim of circumstance. This isn't the case, it's never been the case.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#100 Aug 12 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Dumb? It's hard to hear you talk with America's **** lodged so deeply in your throat. In your case, 'soft' power seems to be a bit of a misnomer.

Try not to choke.

Okay, the fuck are you talking about? Oh, oh! This is some kind of witty banter about how my government bows to Washington, right? Awesome, you're so smart Kavekk.


We live in the same country, you syphilitic wastrel. One where 'dumb' means 'mute', not stupid.

That was the point, stupid.

Quote:
As far as the whole job vacancy thing goes, there are plenty of jobs around. They're just shitty jobs. I don't see Polish immigrants struggling to find work. You know why? Because they take the jobs that are available and the sponges on permanent JSA think they're too good to do.


No, there aren't plenty of jobs around. There are very few jobs. One of my flatmates is a polish immigrant, as it happens, studying PPE, and she couldn't find a job in London. Funny, huh? And that's with the 'take sh*tty job' racial that all polish people have. I don't know, maybe she fucked up character creation.

Quote:
Get off your high horse, the simple fact is a lot of people are too fucking lazy to work, and the government has made it far too easy for them to not have to.

Some people have legitimate problems which stop them from being able to work, a significant fraction of the unemployed do not. This is basically as simple as I can make it for you.


Yeah, I never said that wasn't the case, what I said was that it isn't an immediate cause of high unemployment. I mean, I don't know how much it's the case - certainly, I've never seen anyone whining about it give any kind of figures, and one could certainly suspect that it's largely just the Victorian 'worthy poor' rhetoric resurrected, given a quick make over and then and raped by the tory propoganda machine, fond as it is for necrophilia... but I don't care about that right now. That's not what we're arguing about.

What we are arguing about is whether there are a significant number of jobs going undone because the company can't find enough workers. Unless this is true, you can't point to forcing people to work as a solution to unemployment. This is what you have to prove to vindicate your claim, and what I have to disprove to vindicate mine. Do you understand?

I'll start with this.

As an aside, I'm not against forcing people on JSA to take a job. The system already does that. Is it perfect? Probably not, though anecdotally I've seen it happen to a couple of people. But what proposals to fix this tend to do is bar people from JSA even when they are looking for work - probably because there's a strong financial incentive to do so. Also, because they're the conservative party. I mean, we CAN talk about the minutea of that as well, if you want, but I have the sneaking suspicion you're not actually familiar with the rules.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 4:45pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#101 Aug 12 2011 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
jtftaru wrote:
Kavekk, the stuff you are saying is so stupid you are forcing me to rate up Nilatai.

Please stop.

Thank you.


It's really not my fault that two FFXI players aren't intelligent enough to understand an exceedingly simple point.

Haha, seriously, though, I can definitely sympathise with you; that sounds like a horrible situation to be in. Tell you what, if you can point out the obvious flaw in my logic, I'll come around to your point of view and rate down Nilatai enough to offset your rate-ups.

That's my offer.

The obvious flaw in your logic is the assumption that everyone who is claiming JSA is a victim of circumstance. This isn't the case, it's never been the case.


See, here's the problem. You've either failed to read or understand my argument, because that's not part of my chain of reasoning at all. I did mention, as an aside, that I did not believe this to be the case for absolutely everybody.

So, I guess that makes you what, extra wrong?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (35)