Was it "zero tolerance" or was it abortion?

nesf

The Corinthian wrote:

What is suggested is essentially a eugenics policy directed at a socio-economic group that has a high propensity for anti-social behaviour. Regardless of one’s position on genetic influences with this, most concur that it is largely an environmental rather than genetic problem, but it’s there, it can be pinned down to a subset of the population and it’s not going away.

Changing this environment is one route to take. Unfortunately all attempts to date to do so have failed or met with very limited success. As an alternative, limiting the growth of a high risk demographic, with the use of eugenics, is another option that can be used in tandem with more traditional policies designed to improve the social environment.

Of course, by eugenics this does not mean that you need sterilize people or force them to abort if they have beyond their quota - in modern liberal democracies, such a policy would find it very difficult to gain acceptance. Far more politically viable is making it less attractive to have children (e.g. decreasing benefits for subsequent children) or more attractive not to have them (e.g. better housing for childless couples) and would be all you need to achieve a small but significant decrease population growth in that demographic, which in turn would ultimately lead to a long term decrease in crime as the population of that high risk demographic falls.

At least, that’s the theory.

The above is quite a good description of the facts. I'm really not sure what you are getting upset about mycroft. Really. Your posts seem to be taking issue with TC for the sake of it rather than any kind of refute to his points. All he did above was lay out the situation from a certain perspective. He did not actually advocate any particular solution to the problem, rather just present a few options.

One point I would raise though. I think the kind of crime is quite important here. The particular socio-economic group he refers to is most likely to be the source of violent crime and violent anti-social behaviour in this country. "white collar" crime is also a big problem. But it generally is non-violent activities such as fraud and embezzlement. I think most of us would agree that it's violent crime that needs to be stopped with more urgency than it's non-violent cousins.

As for eugenics. Hmmm. I don't know, it is very much a case of nurture over nature when it comes to this topic. Being born to parents from this socio-economic class doesn't make you any more likely to be criminal but growing up and being raised as a member of said socio-economic class does. Although how one can actually combat this in a way except for the extreme solution of mass sterilisation is not obvious to me. Even though the idea of mass sterilisation does appeal to me when I consider alot of situations....

mycroft

nesf wrote:

The above is quite a good description of the facts. I'm really not sure what you are getting upset about mycroft. Really. Your posts seem to be taking issue with TC for the sake of it rather than any kind of refute to his points. All he did above was lay out the situation from a certain perspective. He did not actually advocate any particular solution to the problem, rather just present a few options.

My point is history has taught us widespread social eugentics engineering doesn't work, and Corinthian hasn't defined how his social engineering would work on anything that could be remotely described as a detailed level.


One point I would raise though. I think the kind of crime is quite important here. The particular socio-economic group he refers to is most likely to be the source of violent crime and violent anti-social behaviour in this country. "white collar" crime is also a big problem. But it generally is non-violent activities such as fraud and embezzlement. I think most of us would agree that it's violent crime that needs to be stopped with more urgency than it's non-violent cousins.

As for eugenics. Hmmm. I don't know, it is very much a case of nurture over nature when it comes to this topic. Being born to parents from this socio-economic class doesn't make you any more likely to be criminal but growing up and being raised as a member of said socio-economic class does. Although how one can actually combat this in a way except for the extreme solution of mass sterilisation is not obvious to me. Even though the idea of mass sterilisation does appeal to me when I consider alot of situations....[/QUOTE]

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

Each pays to what he can afford.

I’m sorry, but did clichés derived from Karl Marx suddenly become valid rebuttals while I was napping? Why should I or anyone else subscribe to that?

They recieved social welfare benefits, a childrens allowance. My own parents did. You're punishing them for wanting to have a family.

Why is it punishment? If you want to call it that, that’s your prerogative, as I’ve already said. However, encouraging people not to have children by giving them extra benefits if they don’t is not exactly punishment, for example.

Nonetheless, we punish people all the time for the greater good. Smokers are forced to pay high duties on their cigarettes because, while somewhat price inelastic, increasing the cost of smoking encourages them to stop or cut down.

Tariffs on imported goods are another example of where people are punished, as they are again encouraged to buy domestic / EU goods and services over foreign / non-EU goods and services.

Neither am I suggesting that this is a solution, but part of a greater solution that would include more traditional approaches to both crime and the environment where it is fostered.

These refer to where someone lives. How else do you plan to decide whom is going to be "punished" (to coin a phrase) to recieve a handicapped social welfare allowance.

Upon the level and type of social assistance. Geography would be a poor metre.

We could for example examine them on a case by case basis but that'll mean a massive increase in social workers. And the rich are being puinished enough, don't you think, so we can't start raising their taxes.

The infrastructure is probably already quite adequate as people are already being assessed to begin with. Certainly simply saying that it’ll mean a massive increase in social workers is just an assumption upon your part.

You refered to an environment, I assumed this splendid piece of social engineering you propose would work on a community by community basis, how then do you propose it to work?

I’d imagine through the existing system of social welfare benefits.

You tend to argue your POV in a vacuum. I'm just pointing out some of the complications your marvelous piece of social engineering might encounter.

You’ve not really put forward any complications.

Whats the demographic? How is it defined, measured etc....

The socio-economic background of criminals, in particular repeat offenders, with an emphasis on the social welfare benefits received by them and their families would not be such a bad approach.

Posters past record, has, to put it mildly suggested he has a callous cyncial attiude to mass societal problems, combined with a williness to argue his points in a vacuum.

Get off the cross. Someone needs the wood.

eddie-fandangle

*mod edit*

earwicker

One point I would raise though. I think the kind of crime is quite important here. The particular socio-economic group he refers to is most likely to be the source of violent crime and violent anti-social behaviour in this country. "white collar" crime is also a big problem. But it generally is non-violent activities such as fraud and embezzlement. I think most of us would agree that it's violent crime that needs to be stopped with more urgency than it's non-violent cousins.

Not sure I agree with your clear-cut distinction. With so-called white collar crime, there is the potential for more far-reaching effects and victims in the hundreds and sometimes thousands: for example such fraud may endanger a person's ability to look after themselves in old age if their retirement fund is raped. If there is a violent altercation the number of people involved is low. People also heal; no-one can be certain of the long-term effects for the vicitms of white-collar crime. Perhaps your above response reflects your immediate concerns: if you are younger, you may have more reasons to fear a beating on the streets at night. If you are older, and live in a leafy suburb, that may not be so much of a threat.

As far as eugenics is concerned, I can see where TC is coming from. Incentives not to reproduce are worth consideration (there are some in place already, if you look at some policies closely). Traditionally, middle class families have also tended to be smaller than working class families, and that plays a significant role in their ability to generate and maintain wealth it seems to me.

However, I do have a problem with simply picking one "sort" for eugenic scrutiny: once you accept that individuals from white-collar backgrounds might arse-rape retirement funds and shaft entire companies and put its entire work-force at risk, making "selections" becomes very problematic. You can't simply look at "poorer" areas any longer.

I wonder how the idea would fly then.

eddie-fandangle

eddie-fandangle wrote:

_mod Edit_

language timothy!

Hotblack Desiato

earwicker wrote:

With so-called white collar crime, there is the potential for more far-reaching effects and victims in the hundreds and sometimes thousands

Widespread tax evasion in the 1980s had very damaging effects on Irish society.
People give out about tax now, but back then, PAYE workers on modest incomes (the only people who couldn't evade tax) were paying 65% :eek:

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m sorry, but did clichés derived from Karl Marx suddenly become valid rebuttals while I was napping? Why should I or anyone else subscribe to that?

And the "taxing the rich punishes people who are successful, and therefore low taxation for the highest earners encourages people", nonsense went out the door along with reganominics. I'm guessing you and Dubya missed the memo.

Why is it punishment? If you want to call it that, that’s your prerogative, as I’ve already said. However, encouraging people not to have children by giving them extra benefits if they don’t is not exactly punishment, for example.

Ah but thats a different argument. I'd love to here to try and sell and encouragement of childless couples in catholic ireland. Or free birth control, and additional benefits for taking it, will go down well with ole pope benny.

It would be an interesting theory, I suspect it'll be more popular when the population crisis hits in 50 or 60 years. Of course that'll be a tad stable door, and what else is new.

Nonetheless, we punish people all the time for the greater good. Smokers are forced to pay high duties on their cigarettes because, while somewhat price inelastic, increasing the cost of smoking encourages them to stop or cut down.

And pays for the burden they put on the health service. I look at it as smokers subsidising the future burden they're going to be on my health service with increased taxation.

Tariffs on imported goods are another example of where people are punished, as they are again encouraged to buy domestic / EU goods and services over foreign / non-EU goods and services.

We're not going to go into some intense debate about tariffs are we? Cause if we're going to get into a conversation about tariffs and sugar beet and EU subsides, Arcadegame2004 may just reappear. Rumour has it all you have to say it "EU membership has improved quality of life for Irish people" x3 and he appears.

Neither am I suggesting that this is a solution, but part of a greater solution that would include more traditional approaches to both crime and the environment where it is fostered.

Which means more police (more punishment) and longer prison sentences. That system does not work. We call it the 80s.

Upon the level and type of social assistance. Geography would be a poor metre.

You'll find it will. More people on the dole in ballymun than blackrock. more people will be affected in those areas. Geographical impact will be a byproduct of your policy.

The infrastructure is probably already quite adequate as people are already being assessed to begin with. Certainly simply saying that it’ll mean a massive increase in social workers is just an assumption upon your part.

You're adding a subjective variable "good" and "bad" people who claim social welfare payments and asking benefit and social welfare officer to make a judgement call. Thats not really fair, because you're changing social welfare from a right to a privilege, and depriving those who don't satisfy your criteria to the random judgement of officers. Too may people already fall through the cracks of our social welfare system to change it a harsher model

I’d imagine through the existing system of social welfare benefits.

You’ve not really put forward any complications.

Yeah I have, you're switching full benefits from a right to something that can be taken away(with greater ease than it can be now), you're ignoring the potential impact this might have in migration of population, and the increased workload and pressure on social welfare (not to mention radically shifting the concept of social welfare)

The socio-economic background of criminals, in particular repeat offenders, with an emphasis on the social welfare benefits received by them and their families would not be such a bad approach.

But by decreasing the influx of legimate cash you are for start punishing the least fortunate elements of such a family, the children.

Before we had such a high minded concept as social welfare, poor families were large, theres nothing to suggest your draconian measures would change that situation, and plenty of historical evidence that such a family may be encouraged without a legimate form of support, to withdraw their children from education, and put the to work, in the "family business"

congradulation you've just spawned some more uneducated yobs to knick my car stereo.

Get off the cross. Someone needs the wood.

Wow.

:rolleyes:

I have to admit you are getting use out of that well thumbed copy of
"cliched insults to fling using internet debates" we got you for christmas.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

And the "taxing the rich punishes people who are successful, and therefore low taxation for the highest earners encourages people", nonsense went out the door along with reganominics. I'm guessing you and Dubya missed the memo.

Where on Earth did I suggest that the rich should not be taxed? Just because I may disagree with your standpoint, does not imply that I hold the diametric opposite view.

Ah but thats a different argument.

It’s not - you’ll find I suggested incentives for not having children in my first post.

I'd love to here to try and sell and encouragement of childless couples in catholic ireland. Or free birth control, and additional benefits for taking it, will go down well with ole pope benny.

It would be an interesting theory, I suspect it'll be more popular when the population crisis hits in 50 or 60 years. Of course that'll be a tad stable door, and what else is new.

Stop ranting.

And pays for the burden they put on the health service. I look at it as smokers subsidising the future burden they're going to be on my health service with increased taxation.

Ironically, the burden on the state from people not dieing of smoking related diseases and going on to draw state pensions in retirement and growing sick and dying of something else anyway, coupled with the drop in revenue from tobacco duty could well be greater than the cost of smoking related diseases on the health services.

Nonetheless, what’s the issue - it’s a demographic that has a higher propensity to be a burden to Society in the long run. Not all of them are, my great-grandfather smoked until his death at 85 years of age, he was no more a burden than your average non-smoker.

We're not going to go into some intense debate about tariffs are we? Cause if we're going to get into a conversation about tariffs and sugar beet and EU subsides, Arcadegame2004 may just reappear. Rumour has it all you have to say it "EU membership has improved quality of life for Irish people" x3 and he appears.

A non-response and another rant all in one. Have you been drinking?

Which means more police (more punishment) and longer prison sentences. That system does not work. We call it the 80s.

No it doesn’t, but I didn’t say that. I said the “both crime and the environment where it is fostered” - the point being that no one type of solution is likely to really make a difference, as you correctly pointed out more police and longer prison sentences do not solve the problem, but then again the social policies of the bleeding-heart bed-wetters have similarly failed over the years. The reality is that a mixture of policies is likely to be the best we can hope for.

You'll find it will. More people on the dole in ballymun than blackrock. more people will be affected in those areas. Geographical impact will be a byproduct of your policy.

And what exactly do you suggest is that impact?

You're adding a subjective variable "good" and "bad" people who claim social welfare payments and asking benefit and social welfare officer to make a judgement call. Thats not really fair, because you're changing social welfare from a right to a privilege, and depriving those who don't satisfy your criteria to the random judgement of officers. Too may people already fall through the cracks of our social welfare system to change it a harsher model

And too many people already are abusing the loopholes and blind spots of our social welfare system to change it a softer model either. I would concur that social welfare is a right of the citizen, but this does imply that it is a free for all either. Ultimately, whether you like it or not, assessments must be made, all we can do is be as fair and accurate as possible for the greater good of Society.

Yeah I have, you're switching full benefits from a right to something that can be taken away(with greater ease than it can be now), you're ignoring the potential impact this might have in migration of population, and the increased workload and pressure on social welfare (not to mention radically shifting the concept of social welfare)

I’ve suggested both disincentives and incentives. Then what migrationary impact would such a policy have? What increase in workload? You’re simply indulging in wild speculation to support your view.

And how exactly has the concept of social welfare so radically changed? We already use incentives and disincentives with regard to employment; people have their payments cut when they consistently refuse to attend courses or take up vacancies or can continue to be paid the bulk of their benefits (in addition to their salary) when they take up a job.

But by decreasing the influx of legimate cash you are for start punishing the least fortunate elements of such a family, the children.

Oh, will someone please think of the children :rolleyes:

Before we had such a high minded concept as social welfare, poor families were large, theres nothing to suggest your draconian measures would change that situation, and plenty of historical evidence that such a family may be encouraged without a legimate form of support, to withdraw their children from education, and put the to work, in the "family business"

Why are you continually focusing on the withdrawal of benefits and ignoring the suggestion of additional benefits? So were we to suggest only that people on social welfare are not penalised for large families, but are additionally rewarded for limiting their family size, where would that leave your indignant rants?

I have to admit you are getting use out of that well thumbed copy of
"cliched insults to fling using internet debates" we got you for christmas.

It never gets old on you though.

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

I'm guessing you and Dubya missed the memo.

Wow.
I have to admit you are getting use out of that well thumbed copy of
"cliched insults to fling using internet debates" we got you for christmas.

TC wrote:

Stop ranting.

A non-response and another rant all in one. Have you been drinking?

Oh, will someone please think of the children

It never gets old on you though

Get off the cross. Someone needs the wood.

the cynic in me thinks you both enjoy this. The mod in me doesn't enjoy it. Focus. A fair few quotes there I could interpret as insults.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Where on Earth did I suggest that the rich should not be taxed? Just because I may disagree with your standpoint, does not imply that I hold the diametric opposite view.

No you refered to high taxation of those who are sucessful as puinishment, a classic argument of those who argue for a low tax band for high earners. You'll notice I've never tried to say you said "the rich should not be taxed", misrepresenting my counterattack is typical of your argument.

It’s not - you’ll find I suggested incentives for not having children in my first post.

Oh c'mon

(e.g. better housing for childless couples)

For starts in NI one of the moments that sparked the civil rights movement was a protestant woman getting housing before a catholic family. Do you think people would consider it tolerable or acceptable that children live in squallor and childless couples get better housing? What government would commit political sucide doing this?

Ironically, the burden on the state from people not dieing of smoking related diseases and going on to draw state pensions in retirement and growing sick and dying of something else anyway, coupled with the drop in revenue from tobacco duty could well be greater than the cost of smoking related diseases on the health services.

I'm aware at the irony, and I'm aware that this state and the rest of the world have spent billions studying and coming up with the kind of treatments for lung cancer, I consider the duty to be retroactive money to ensure that such research is paid for.

Nonetheless, what’s the issue - it’s a demographic that has a higher propensity to be a burden to Society in the long run. Not all of them are, my great-grandfather smoked until his death at 85 years of age, he was no more a burden than your average non-smoker.

Well if it's ancedotal evidence we're using.......

A non-response and another rant all in one. Have you been drinking?

No a suggestion that the concept of tariffs goes outside of the remit of this debate combined with a joke.

No it doesn’t, but I didn’t say that. I said the “both crime and the environment where it is fostered” - the point being that no one type of solution is likely to really make a difference, as you correctly pointed out more police and longer prison sentences do not solve the problem, but then again the social policies of the bleeding-heart bed-wetters have similarly failed over the years. The reality is that a mixture of policies is likely to be the best we can hope for.

Exactly which is why I object to such an immense broadsweeping idealogy lead concept; as you've suggested.

And what exactly do you suggest is that impact?

Oh christ corinthian do I need to repeat myself. I've said what I think is the impact is in my first post.

And too many people already are abusing the loopholes and blind spots of our social welfare system to change it a softer model either. I would concur that social welfare is a right of the citizen, but this does imply that it is a free for all either. Ultimately, whether you like it or not, assessments must be made, all we can do is be as fair and accurate as possible for the greater good of Society.

And whats fair and accurate is to treat everyone equally and give them the benefit of the doubt. And now you claim you want to decide whether a "certain demograph" should be punished, or disallowed from certain equal rights. Demographs is the study of a section of society which means you'll be applying this to a broad section of society, thus betraying the concept of fair and equal treatment.

I’ve suggested both disincentives and incentives. Then what migrationary impact would such a policy have? What increase in workload? You’re simply indulging in wild speculation to support your view.

Considering you've painted your concept in the broadest of strokes it's not wild speculation, put together a policy statement and I'll focus on the specifics (but we know you're bad on those) I'm just coming up with some random problems in your bold social project that come to mind.

And how exactly has the concept of social welfare so radically changed? We already use incentives and disincentives with regard to employment; people have their payments cut when they consistently refuse to attend courses or take up vacancies or can continue to be paid the bulk of their benefits (in addition to their salary) when they take up a job.

because you've decides a demographic, and this is a fundamental shift in the concept of social welfare as a basic right, and the withdrawl of such a right is taken on a case by case basis. Either you insist on you incentives and disincentives on everyone or otherwise, you're attacking a sub section of society.

Oh, will someone please think of the children :rolleyes:

Oh please.....won't someone please avoid the issue :rolleyes:

So were we to suggest only that people on social welfare are not penalised for large families, but are additionally rewarded for limiting their family size, where would that leave your indignant rants?

But you've not suggesting that corinthian and why don't you stick to the principle you raised.

It never gets old on you though.

Speak for yourself, one who overused cliched internet insults. We need a name for your ilk.

uberwolf

He started it.........

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

No you refered to high taxation of those who are sucessful as puinishment, a classic argument of those who argue for a low tax band for high earners. You'll notice I've never tried to say you said "the rich should not be taxed", misrepresenting my counterattack is typical of your argument.

First of all, you let your views on taxation quite clear when you paraphrased Marx. Secondly, when discussing taxation, I was simply referring to one group in society being forced to pay a higher (note the word is higher not high) than another group - that as a demographic they are punished (I used your word there) for simply being in that group.

Oh c'mon

Yes. Would you like me to quote my post and rub your nose in it or would you prefer to remain in denial?

For starts in NI one of the moments that sparked the civil rights movement was a protestant woman getting housing before a catholic family. Do you think people would consider it tolerable or acceptable that children live in squallor and childless couples get better housing? What government would commit political sucide doing this?

You’re comparing a case of unofficial, corrupt, preference over one that would be transparent and open to scrutiny. Certain groups in Society already get preferential treatment on council housing. This is official and above board and you don’t see a riot every time it happens.

As for political suicide, perhaps so, but that too is simply speculation on your part.

I'm aware at the irony, and I'm aware that this state and the rest of the world have spent billions studying and coming up with the kind of treatments for lung cancer, I consider the duty to be retroactive money to ensure that such research is paid for.

That’s touching, but what’s your point?

Well if it's ancedotal evidence we're using.......

It’s not anecdotal really, simply an illustration of the fact that not all smokers end up as burdens to Society, yet they are penalised because they have a much higher chance of becoming burdens to Society. And regrettably, the same is true of families in demographics.

No a suggestion that the concept of tariffs goes outside of the remit of this debate combined with a joke.

Why are tariffs outside the remit of this debate, outside of the fact that they do not suit your argument? We’re discussing how incentives and disincentives can be used to influence behaviour after all - and what do you think a tariff is designed to do?

Exactly which is why I object to such an immense broadsweeping idealogy lead concept; as you've suggested.

Where have I suggested an ‘immense broad sweeping ideology’ given I’ve just rejected the notion of using single measures to try and solve anything?

And whats fair and accurate is to treat everyone equally and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed. Free money for everyone. It grows on trees.

And now you claim you want to decide whether a "certain demograph" should be punished, or disallowed from certain equal rights. Demographs is the study of a section of society which means you'll be applying this to a broad section of society, thus betraying the concept of fair and equal treatment.

But that type of fair and equal treatment does not exist in Society. We are penalized or rewarded largely due to our earnings. I’m not adding anything particularly new to the mix, TBH.

Considering you've painted your concept in the broadest of strokes it's not wild speculation, put together a policy statement and I'll focus on the specifics (but we know you're bad on those) I'm just coming up with some random problems in your bold social project that come to mind.

Sorry but you are speculating wildly. And now you’re hoping that throwing an insult or two at me may deflect the fact that outside of claiming that we’d have massive migratory problems, you’ve presented nothing to back up this claim.

because you've decides a demographic, and this is a fundamental shift in the concept of social welfare as a basic right, and the withdrawl of such a right is taken on a case by case basis. Either you insist on you incentives and disincentives on everyone or otherwise, you're attacking a sub section of society.

Of course I’m insisting on incentives and disincentives for everyone. Means tested.

Oh please.....won't someone please avoid the issue :rolleyes:

I’m not, I’m ridiculing your propensity for melodrama.

But you've not suggesting that corinthian and why don't you stick to the principle you raised.

Why not? If I accept that the disadvantaged should not be punished, as you would see it, and only propose incentives, would that not satisfy you?

Speak for yourself, one who overused cliched internet insults. We need a name for your ilk.

Oh do grow up. Seriously.