Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Social Welfare State
Options
Comments
-
-
@ei.sdraob
Would it help if we organised an entire 'We Hate the Harte Family' sub forum? - that way you could keep most of your posts in the same place.
0 -
-
-
@ei.sdraob
Would it help if we organised an entire 'We Hate the Harte Family' sub forum? - that way you could keep most of your posts in the same place.
that be great a whole sub forum dedicated to welfare abusers
thats the sort of ideas that are missing from An Bord Snip report!
:P
you right they are probably not even the worst but i will continue using them as an example of how messed up the system is0 -
Advertisement
-
Well everybody reading will, I'm sure, take your word for that.:rolleyes:Spudmonkey wrote: »I'm sure what I quoted is what you posted, however context is everything. When taken out of the context of the thread in which they were posted, they don't back up your accusations of me wanting to have welfare abolished.Spudmonkey wrote: »Wow, what a generalisation. So you think that every person who scams the system are from poor areas? Even this "far right extremist" didn't say that. I don't care what class a persons from, if they scam the welfare system, the scam the welfare system.
SO I was right the first time. Logic is lost on you. I can't make the point I was trying to make any more clearly. Hopefully anyone else reading can follow it. By the way, you know YOU are the only one who keeps referring to you as a "radical" and a "right wing extremist"? I don't know why you keep putting it in inverted commas like you're quoting someones else usage. Maybe it's just how you see yourself......Spudmonkey wrote: »If you do want to talk about those from deprived areas, is there any reason why those who are able bodied and not on welfare are not able to work? I actually work with some so I know that some do, I fail to see why others can't. The only answer you have given to this is that this seems to be very complex, which I read as "you don't know!"
Now I think they are bad? and evil? etc etc etc... I'm not looking for one word explanations but it does seem that when you are asked a question you don't know the answer to, the usual response is there are too many factors, your questions are far too simple, bla bla bla...
You have NO coherent thread of rational argument here. I'll respond to what I think you are saying. Congratulations. You've got me on not "knowing" the answer to all society's problems and being aware of the multitude of factors responsible therefor. I never claimed anything else. The point I'm making is that at least I'm big enough to admit I don't have all the answers. My OPINION is that the flawed and broken system we have is better than what you advocate, the law of the jungle, lest Limerick turn into West Baltimore or worse. It's always idiots who see the world as black and white and claim that if this and this and this are done, the perfect society will emerge that screw things up royally, whereas those who see the shades of grey and the nuances generally adopt a more cautious and nuanced approach. And before you say "I don't do that"
"
I mean I'm sure getting rid of the dole completely would solve a lot of problems, but thats not likely to happen "
Direct quote maybe it is out of context as you say but it puts forth a fairly simplistic solution to a fairly nuanced problem don't you think? And for what it's worth I strongly disagree with that contention, it would breed a plethora of problems far worse than the occasional welfare scammer.Spudmonkey wrote: »You abolish welfare to these people and crime increases, and they start killing each other and society rots? What people are you abolishing welfare for? I thought it was the poor (well what you consider the poor, whoever the hell they are), do you think they are really capable of such atrocities? What it really seems to me is that you want to pay these people off so that society doesn't descend into chaos.
What in the name of Christ are you talking about here? Do I think who are capable of such atrocities? What atrocities? Of course there is a price to pay for civilized society-is this a news-flash?Spudmonkey wrote: »
From wikipedia as you think its such a reputible source...
Might I highlight the term minimum in the above paragraph, as I've said before the current level of welfare is far from minimum...
HAH! I can't help smiling to myself here. Once again your loose grip on the English language defeats your rubbish point. By the way before I said you used the word bread-line in the wrong context, "above the bread-line" implies you are using it as some sort of threshold, as per the poverty line. The bread line refers to an actually line of people queing for bread or a soup kitchen. SO...
Now here, you can highlight the word minimum all you want, but look it up in a dictionary first because you are blatantly confusing it with the word MINIMAL. The gove could increase the MINIMUM wage to 500,000 per annum and it would be far from MINIMAL on this we can agree I think? SO your devastating use of wikipedia to defeat my argument is a complete non-sequiter. Minimum can be any level. Minimal is a MINIMAL level. Try not to use words you don't understand.Spudmonkey wrote: »Again bla bla bla, completely unrelated to this thread but anything to try and discredit someone eh... Even though it is off topic, I don't advocate what the bankers did or how they are being bailed out, however I was listening to plenty people who had bought into the Celtic Tiger and were only too willing to pawn the blame off elsewhere. This is neither here not there but does highlight your willingness to veer of topic in order to attempt to discredit someone.
Stop trying to erase the past. If you say things on previous threads which DO discredit what you're saying here I'll use them. You crying it's against the rules isn't going to stop me. And the argument I brought up does go some way to discrediting your claim that you're not coming from an ideological standpoint and not merely from a concern about the level of public expenditure.Spudmonkey wrote: »
Me condescending? The irony of it all... I normally put sarcastic comments in inverted commas, I assume you think my ideas and opinions are too "radical" (sarcasm)
Look mate, you use words you don't even understand in your arguments, remember MINIMUM/MINIMAL? It's pretty difficult not to be condescending. And it's not ironic either. I didn't say "let's all not be condescending" I merely asked for you not to condescend to me. I didn't say I wouldn't be condescending to you
Spudmonkey wrote: »Excuse me but your idea of a debate is using someone's previous posts, mixing them up in you head and then attacking someone with them. If you are to do this, use posts that are relevant and the portray a person's actual beliefs, not what you want them to mean.
Untrue. I do use previous posts. I quote them directly to avoid allegations that I've mixed them up in my head, and to show your actual beliefs not what I want them to mean. It's an effective tactic. You just don't like it cos it works.Spudmonkey wrote: »Frankly Wheely, I couldn't be bothered waiting for a reply, you have shown to me that you don't want to engage in a proper debate. It's obvious that we are not going to agree, so I can only say we can agree to disagree. I'm not going to bother waiting for your next post which I'll assume to be just ar5e gravy of the highest kind. I've come to expect nothing less. You will forgive me if I don't partake in your petty squabbling anymore, I have more important things to do.... like counting the number of pixels on my monitor!
Fine, I'm full of arse gravy, whatever. On topic, if you ever find yourself so inclined, read the following
The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein
The Corner by David Simon and Ed Burns
for a examination of policies you advocate both on an international and localised level. Unless you are ideologically blinded you should change your views. Also try watching
The UP Series of documentaries and tell me what you think.
And just to show I'm not a complete dik if you have any books/documentaries that you think might enlighten me to the wisdom of your way of thinking recommend them and I will gladly give them a go.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think that civilisied modern societies pay social welfare for a myriad of reasons most of them pretty noble.But I think that one valid less noble reason is to "pay these people off so that society doesn't descend into chaos".I mean the word "dole" comes from the Ancient Roman practice of doling out free bread to the urban Roman working class to ensure social stability and to ensure that the "plebs" were content and didn,t periodically tear down the city in food riots.The Romans had bread and circuses we have social welfare payments and playstations.
Good post, but the plebs are breeding too fast and there's not enough bread left for all of us. Soon they'll form a barbarian horde, and well.. you know what happens next.
0 -
-
Advertisement