The Welfare State

[Mr JP Fugley]

The biggest problem we have in the UK is people ripping of the welfare state and simply refusing to work. It's a drain on the decent people who just want to make a decent living and pay their way.

I'm a socialist, always have been, it's the way I was brought up. As such I very much believe in the concept of "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". That to me is morally correct. So if someone genuinely cannot work, then let's look after them. That's the type of society we want to be.

However more and more often I see people who just don't want to work. There are those who simply say "why should I work, I get as much on benefits and get my rent paid for me, save on travel cost etc. Fuck I wouldn't have as much to spend if I worked". I'm sure you've seen them on the TV yourself

There are also those who make them selves effectively unemployable. They look like a bag of shite, smell and speak horribly. Anyone who they are sent to for an interview immediately think, no way I'm not employing you. I'm not talking about mentals here, I'm talking about those who do it deliberately and there are plenty of them.

This has two effects. They produce nothing for society and they leech from it. Feck they even create a new generation to keep the drain on the rest of us going.

I've had enough of it. If someone refuses to work, then give them fuck all money. Even if there's no jobs, get them to do something useful. Cut a pensioner's grass or something. we're already paying them, so let's get something back for it.

[Proper Bo]

I've just filled in another application for a job, you can't be talking about me:snooty:

[Chip Monk]

I've just filled in another application for a job, you can't be talking about me:snooty:
People who are actively seeking employment are an entirely different thing. It's the buggers who have dcided not to work. The "why should I bother" brigade.

[sArA]

I've just filled in another application for a job, you can't be talking about me:snooty:

Me too, and 2 more in process.......:snooty:


btw...I would rather not work at all, but JP might send the boys round so as I am running scared, I am looking...honest guv :shifty:

[DanB]

Me too, and 2 more in process.......


btw...I would rather not work at all, but JP might send the boys round so as I am running scared, I am looking...honest guv

[DanB]

:blink:

[Chip Monk]

I've just filled in another application for a job, you can't be talking about me:snooty:

Me too, and 2 more in process.......:snooty:


btw...I would rather not work at all, but JP might send the boys round so as I am running scared, I am looking...honest guv :shifty:
Come the revolution ... we have names.

[sArA]

Me too, and 2 more in process.......:snooty:


btw...I would rather not work at all, but JP might send the boys round so as I am running scared, I am looking...honest guv :shifty:
Come the revolution ... we have names.


But we have had the time to find the best sticks. :naughty:

[Chip Monk]

Come the revolution ... we have names.


But we have had the time to find the best sticks. :naughty:
Don't bring a stick to a handbag fight.

[maebach]

I feel alot like you towards refugees here in canada. they cant fucking speak, but they get a house, food and taken care of. Like WTF! PLus with the new rule, ($100 per kid a month if their under 6), you could fuck for 6 years and make $200 a month there, plus the fucking everything else.

[Chip Monk]

I feel alot like you towards refugees here in canada. they cant fucking speak, but they get a house, food and taken care of. Like WTF! PLus with the new rule, ($100 per kid a month if their under 6), you could fuck for 6 years and make $200 a month there, plus the fucking everything else.
Racist

[Gripper]

I feel alot like you towards refugees here in canada. they cant fucking speak, but they get a house, food and taken care of. Like WTF! PLus with the new rule, ($100 per kid a month if their under 6), you could fuck for 6 years and make $200 a month there, plus the fucking everything else.
Racist
Realist:)

[Chip Monk]

Racist
Realist:)
Thank you.

[thewizeard]

The biggest problem we have in the UK is people ripping of the welfare state and simply refusing to work. It's a drain on the decent people who just want to make a decent living and pay their way.

I'm a socialist, always have been, it's the way I was brought up. As such I very much believe in the concept of "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". That to me is morally correct. So if someone genuinely cannot work, then let's look after them. That's the type of society we want to be.

However more and more often I see people who just don't want to work. There are those who simply say "why should I work, I get as much on benefits and get my rent paid for me, save on travel cost etc. Fuck I wouldn't have as much to spend if I worked". I'm sure you've seen them on the TV yourself

There are also those who make them selves effectively unemployable. They look like a bag of shite, smell and speak horribly. Anyone who they are sent to for an interview immediately think, no way I'm not employing you. I'm not talking about mentals here, I'm talking about those who do it deliberately and there are plenty of them.

This has two effects. They produce nothing for society and they leech from it. Feck they even create a new generation to keep the drain on the rest of us going.

I've had enough of it. If someone refuses to work, then give them fuck all money. Even if there's no jobs, get them to do something useful. Cut a pensioner's grass or something. we're already paying them, so let's get something back for it.

Yes, and most of them live north of the border. :ph34r:

It's well known, that a capitalist society is dependent on having a large unemployed sector...it keeps the wages low.

This is not the biggest problem in the UK...and you know it!

[Chip Monk]

The biggest problem we have in the UK is people ripping of the welfare state and simply refusing to work. It's a drain on the decent people who just want to make a decent living and pay their way.

I'm a socialist, always have been, it's the way I was brought up. As such I very much believe in the concept of "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". That to me is morally correct. So if someone genuinely cannot work, then let's look after them. That's the type of society we want to be.

However more and more often I see people who just don't want to work. There are those who simply say "why should I work, I get as much on benefits and get my rent paid for me, save on travel cost etc. Fuck I wouldn't have as much to spend if I worked". I'm sure you've seen them on the TV yourself

There are also those who make them selves effectively unemployable. They look like a bag of shite, smell and speak horribly. Anyone who they are sent to for an interview immediately think, no way I'm not employing you. I'm not talking about mentals here, I'm talking about those who do it deliberately and there are plenty of them.

This has two effects. They produce nothing for society and they leech from it. Feck they even create a new generation to keep the drain on the rest of us going.

I've had enough of it. If someone refuses to work, then give them fuck all money. Even if there's no jobs, get them to do something useful. Cut a pensioner's grass or something. we're already paying them, so let's get something back for it.

Yes, and most of them live north of the border. :ph34r:

Which border would that be Nigel?

[Gripper]

The one by the watford gap.

[Chip Monk]

The one by the watford gap.
That seems unlikely, isn't Nigel a Dutch lad?

[Gripper]

Isn't Dutchland norf of watford??

[thewizeard]

The thing is, these sort of topics cause "infighting" which is not socialist policy but more ruling class say,.. Capitalist; divide and rule. Abuse is there for certain...One should begin at the top and not at the bottom where people are struggling to survive; maybe even trying to raise children.

and talking of borders...now playing on my radio, "Borders of Salt - Dan ar braz :)

[Skiz]

This reminds me of a sociology project I did in my early college years:

It was the first day of a group project researching the homeless. I was in my truck in the parking lot of an HEB (grocery store) when an obviously homeless woman came up and asked I had any work she could do like cleaning house, or washing clothes. She said that she would work for meals. Normally I would have blown her off but having this project I decided to dig a bit further.

Something about didn't add up to me. She seemed about fifty and was wearing a type of old suit. Her shoes looked a bit too nice as did her purse, but she was well weathered.

I asked her if five dollars would help and she said it would. I pulled a fiver from my wallet and asked (before I handed it to her) if she got many jobs working for food. She said "Some" and I then asked how many times in the past month would she estimate that she has worked for food?

"Not many"
"Five times?"
She replied that she didn't think it had been that many. I asked, "Two times"

She mustered a smile and almost a laughed as if she felt she had earned the five bucks in my hand already. "Okay, twice.

I asked her name and she inquired if I was "the law" to which I replied, "No, I'm just an ordinary taxpayer." ;)

She told me her name was Mary (probably bs. I could have yelled "Hey Mary" and a half a dozen women would have looked over)

We got to talking about the "sales pitches" of the homeless and how they attempt to make their living and why she chose this technique.

"A sign would never work, not for a woman. And you'd never catch me out on the freeway, and sure not with a sign. Wouldn't be five minutes before I'd have a cop on me."

I asked her how much she made on an average day and she seemed to get quite angry. For a moment I thought she was going to walk away from the five dollars I still had in my hand. She didn't though.

"Look buddy, I'm not working any kind of game. I'm like a lot of other people right now. I'm down you know. I'm just trying to make it, that's all."

Would she really work for meals?

"Damn right."

How about right now? Would she go to my place and clean it up after I gave her dinner? She was shaking her head before I had finished and I felt that she had heard that proposal before. "No, not today. I can't go right now because I have things to do."

I didn't ask her what things she had to do that couldn't wait. Figured she wouldn't tell me. Probably what she had to do was work that parking lot, offering to clean houses in return for meals.

Before she walked away, she did take the five dollars though.

[GepperRankins]

sorry :(

[Barbarossa]

This reminds me of a sociology project I did in my early college years:

It was the first day of a group project researching the homeless. I was in my truck in the parking lot of an HEB (grocery store) when an obviously homeless woman came up and asked I had any work she could do like cleaning house, or washing clothes. She said that she would work for meals. Normally I would have blown her off but having this project I decided to dig a bit further.

Something about didn't add up to me. She seemed about fifty and was wearing a type of old suit. Her shoes looked a bit too nice as did her purse, but she was well weathered.

I asked her if five dollars would help and she said it would. I pulled a fiver from my wallet and asked (before I handed it to her) if she got many jobs working for food. She said "Some" and I then asked how many times in the past month would she estimate that she has worked for food?

"Not many"
"Five times?"
She replied that she didn't think it had been that many. I asked, "Two times"

She mustered a smile and almost a laughed as if she felt she had earned the five bucks in my hand already. "Okay, twice.

I asked her name and she inquired if I was "the law" to which I replied, "No, I'm just an ordinary taxpayer." ;)

She told me her name was Mary (probably bs. I could have yelled "Hey Mary" and a half a dozen women would have looked over)

We got to talking about the "sales pitches" of the homeless and how they attempt to make their living and why she chose this technique.

"A sign would never work, not for a woman. And you'd never catch me out on the freeway, and sure not with a sign. Wouldn't be five minutes before I'd have a cop on me."

I asked her how much she made on an average day and she seemed to get quite angry. For a moment I thought she was going to walk away from the five dollars I still had in my hand. She didn't though.

"Look buddy, I'm not working any kind of game. I'm like a lot of other people right now. I'm down you know. I'm just trying to make it, that's all."

Would she really work for meals?

"Damn right."

How about right now? Would she go to my place and clean it up after I gave her dinner? She was shaking her head before I had finished and I felt that she had heard that proposal before. "No, not today. I can't go right now because I have things to do."

I didn't ask her what things she had to do that couldn't wait. Figured she wouldn't tell me. Probably what she had to do was work that parking lot, offering to clean houses in return for meals.

Before she walked away, she did take the five dollars though.

It sounds like you totally demolished whatever dignity she felt she'd still got left there. Well done.

[missie]

So if someone genuinely cannot work

example? :unsure:


we have a volunteer at my workplace who regularly comes into de-weed and tidy up our garden area, even though he has a prosthetic limb and mental health problems.

[Chip Monk]

So if someone genuinely cannot work

example? :unsure:


we have a volunteer at my workplace who regularly comes into de-weed and tidy up our garden area, even though he has a prosthetic limb and mental health problems.
Are you suggesting that everyone is capable of working?

[missie]

no, but almost everyone is capable of doing something.

(sorry yogi :unsure: )

[Chip Monk]

no, but almost everyone is capable of doing something.
So why would you ask me to post an exmple if you yourself acknowledge that there are people who cannot work?

Are you mocking me?

[Voetsek]

whats work?

[missie]

i'd never mock you, squire.
mainly cos i'm scared shiteless of you. :eek:



edit; not the devil boy, btw. :unsure:

[Voetsek]

Audrey rules

[Chip Monk]

Like I said, people should work if they can. You're absolutely right most people are capable of doing something. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, just putting a bit back in.

From each according to his means doesn't just refer to money.

However we must accept that there are those who simply cannot work and we must allow for them too. We really don't want to be the sort of society who has this attitude - "You have no money and you can't work, well fuck you." Just look at America.

[missie]

yups. I agree, but only if it has been proven they cannot work.

I get really angry about the fact my jobless pals can go to the pub whenever they want, yet I have to pay my frigging bills n taxes and work my arse off to do it. I've even tried doing the two job thing to raise more spending money, yet was taxed so harshly I had to give it up. :fist:

[j2k4]

Like I said, people should work if they can. You're absolutely right most people are capable of doing something. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, just putting a bit back in.

Amazingly similar to my thoughts on such matters, yet you describe yourself as a Socialist, and I am a Conservative...curious, that.

However we must accept that there are those who simply cannot work and we must allow for them too. We really don't want to be the sort of society who has this attitude - "You have no money and you can't work, well fuck you." Just look at America.

Now, that last is utter rubbish; it literally does not occur, and to that same end, welfare reform has been a roaring success; ask any liberal in this country.

Fact.

[Busyman™]

I'll just say that I love when people come around. :whistling

[Busyman™]

Like I said, people should work if they can. You're absolutely right most people are capable of doing something. It doesn't have to be earth shattering, just putting a bit back in.

Amazingly similar to my thoughts on such matters, yet you describe yourself as a Socialist, and I am a Conservative...curious, that.

However we must accept that there are those who simply cannot work and we must allow for them too. We really don't want to be the sort of society who has this attitude - "You have no money and you can't work, well fuck you." Just look at America.

Now, that last is utter rubbish; it literally does not occur, and to that same end, welfare reform has been a roaring success; ask any liberal in this country.

Fact.
Welfare reform in America? Pull-eaze.:frusty:

You'd think with our deficit that Congress would trim the fat, so to speak.

Fat chance.

I really need to be in office. People, unfortunately, don't like hearing the truth (a la Bill Cosby).

:devil:

[j2k4]

Now, that last is utter rubbish; it literally does not occur, and to that same end, welfare reform has been a roaring success; ask any liberal in this country.

Fact.
Welfare reform in America? Pull-eaze.:frusty:



Where have you been?

Welfare reform is a success.

That's all there is to it.

[Chewie]

I work in Croydon, South London. One of our Goods In staff left yesterday after less than three months but he's not much of a loss due to his work ethic - do as little as possible. His position had been vacant for about four months before he came.
In our Service department there has been a vacancy for two months.
Upstairs in the Parts Dept's Admin office, we've seen two people each spend a week in a clerical job since it became vacant in February.
The guy and HR girl doing the interviews talk openly about some of the people they have seen and it's no surprise that these positions have been hard to fill.
I don't think that £15,000-£20,000 a year is that bad.

It's tempting to suggest that those who do their best to not get offered the jobs that they apply for (in order to continue to claim dole/social etc), should lose their benefits but there is a line that must be drawn where dependents are involved.

In the case of a young child, reducing benefits handed to parents would likely affect that child adversely; when uncaring parents have less money to spend they invariably don't stop buying ciggies and lager in order to cope, but spend less on bills and essentials instead.
When I lived on a council estate I was amazed how busy the pub was when everyone seemed to be complaining about having to scrape to make ends meet.

Of course, intentionally unemployable young people still living with parents are a different matter - throw 'em to the lions.

[ahctlucabbuS]

I feel alot like you towards refugees here in canada. they cant fucking speak, but they get a house, food and taken care of. Like WTF! PLus with the new rule, ($100 per kid a month if their under 6), you could fuck for 6 years and make $200 a month there, plus the fucking everything else.

Meh. How is this bad? Should they rot on your streets instead? How could they then give anything back to society? $100 per kid/month is nothing compared to their future value. People equals money.


The thing is, these sort of topics cause "infighting" which is not socialist policy but more ruling class say,.. Capitalist; divide and rule. Abuse is there for certain...One should begin at the top and not at the bottom where people are struggling to survive; maybe even trying to raise children.


Well said.

[j2k4]

Of course, intentionally unemployable young people still living with parents are a different matter - throw 'em to the lions.

Better yet, use them to feed the poor and hungry. :)

[j2k4]

Meh. How is this bad? Should they rot on your streets instead? How could they then give anything back to society? $100 per kid/month is nothing compared to their future value. People equals money.


You're absolutely right about that.

People equals money right now, it seems; the problem is which direction the money is flowing.

Given the unfortunately wide-spread human inclination toward laziness, what if the children you demand we "invest" in grow up and stay on the dole, reproducing like rabbits, because they like the lifestyle?

[MagicNakor]

Honestly, I think refugees probably have a little more to worry about than learning perfect English, and Harper's "child care plan" doesn't apply to them.

:shuriken:

[Voetsek]

No free loading welfare spongers in south Africa unlike the UK soft touch

[DorisInsinuate]

I thought the world has been overpopulated for quite a while now, and the birth rate isn't slowing down. Getting people power should be the least of the problems.

[Busyman™]

As I said before, one step is to administer a birth control shot to women on welfare. They wanna get on their feet? Don't exacerbate the problem getting knocked up while off their feet.

Some are just in it for the money. It is not government's job to simply give you money.

Work or rot.

It's bad enough that hard working folk fall on hard times. That and the disabled. It should be governments job to help pull those folk up by the bootstraps but fuck an oppurtunist full-time freeloader.

Freeloaders need to be identified and cut the fuck off. That tough love will either spur a criminal, hard worker, or street beggar. Cut off the street beggar and you'll get one of the first two. Society and government should not have to pay a ransom to stop the beginnings of criminals.

I am guilty of giving food to bums whenever they say they are hungry. I wish I would stop that shit. I NEVER give money (anymore). I did when I was much younger.

As far as giving a bum a sandwich, I'd give spare change to working person if they needed it so I guess it's not a stretch. Thank goodness it doesn't come up often.

[Gripper]

Could you send me a tuna mayo on rye, please :)

[Chip Monk]

What's "rye please"?

[Busyman™]

Could you send me a tuna mayo on rye, please :)
Well you look close enough to a bum that I might oblige.:P

[Proper Bo]

Busyman: Robs microwaves from the rich, complains about the poor:smilie4:

[vidcc]

Welfare reform in America? Pull-eaze.:frusty:



Where have you been?

Welfare reform is a success.

That's all there is to it.

Come on busy...the war on poverty is over.....the poor lost ;)

[Chip Monk]

Dabblng with humour again. :no2:

[ahctlucabbuS]

Meh. How is this bad? Should they rot on your streets instead? How could they then give anything back to society? $100 per kid/month is nothing compared to their future value. People equals money.


You're absolutely right about that.

People equals money right now, it seems; the problem is which direction the money is flowing.

Given the unfortunately wide-spread human inclination toward laziness, what if the children you demand we "invest" in grow up and stay on the dole, reproducing like rabbits, because they like the lifestyle?

Responding to maebach's post regarding refugees, naturally there's a transition period until they learn the language. I fail to see the similarity between refugees and people taking advantage of the system. Refugees are by definition one of the marginal groups we're required to help.

Also, I refuse to make the assumption that children of people unwilling to work grow up to become non-workers themselves. If that were the general rule, the system would have failed horribly already! Think about it.


As I said before, one step is to administer a birth control shot to women on welfare. They wanna get on their feet? Don't exacerbate the problem getting knocked up while off their feet.

Birth control shots? I take it these won't be voluntary... I take it "land of the free" should only apply as long as your income meets a certain standard? It's quite an obvious thing to say, but.... more often than not people are on welfare for a reason. Naturally their situation may foster depression, worthlessness, and even apathy - among other things. Often the problem is just as much within the system as within the person. Instead of suggesting horrendous non-humanitarian practices like birth control shots and what not, these people should be helped to take a step up from their situation. What you're suggesting would certainly do no good at all...

Of course there are freeloaders in every society, but assuming as a rule that people on welfare, or people of general marginality are such seems quite far fetched imo.

I guess it comes down to the question if one assumes people are inherently good, or if they're inherently bad. Of course that assumtion doesn't take into account outer factors. What I'm trying to say is that often people seems so eager in blaming the victim that they forget about the larger society in which that person belongs. For instance, it's all too easy to blame the homeless for his plight. By doing so you're implying that you are in control of your destiny, just as the homeless rotting on the street were responsible for his faith - while of course disregarding the rules of the game in which we all are a part; Society.

So, instead of beeing so eager at blaming the victim, perhaps you should take a look at the higher order of things, and try to change that which do not work. Regarding the homeless in the US, personally I think you should all quit assuming that he choose to live like an animal, and face the facts staring you in the face; Most of them obviously have problems. I guess it's an inevitable side effect of living in an extreme individualistic society...



The thing is, these sort of topics cause "infighting" which is not socialist policy but more ruling class say,.. Capitalist; divide and rule. Abuse is there for certain...One should begin at the top and not at the bottom where people are struggling to survive; maybe even trying to raise children.

[Chip Monk]

ahctlucabbuS,

Excellent post, I enjoyed reading that.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Thank you.

Did I silence all, or were the subject simply exhausted?

[Busyman™]

As I said before, one step is to administer a birth control shot to women on welfare. They wanna get on their feet? Don't exacerbate the problem getting knocked up while off their feet.

Birth control shots? I take it these won't be voluntary... I take it "land of the free" should only apply as long as your income meets a certain standard? It's quite an obvious thing to say, but.... more often than not people are on welfare for a reason. Naturally their situation may foster depression, worthlessness, and even apathy - among other things. Often the problem is just as much within the system as within the person. Instead of suggesting horrendous non-humanitarian practices like birth control shots and what not, these people should be helped to take a step up from their situation. What you're suggesting would certainly do no good at all...

Of course there are freeloaders in every society, but assuming as a rule that people on welfare, or people of general marginality are such seems quite far fetched imo.

I guess it comes down to the question if one assumes people are inherently good, or if they're inherently bad. Of course that assumtion doesn't take into account outer factors. What I'm trying to say is that often people seems so eager in blaming the victim that they forget about the larger society in which that person belongs. For instance, it's all too easy to blame the homeless for his plight. By doing so you're implying that you are in control of your destiny, just as the homeless rotting on the street were responsible for his faith - while of course disregarding the rules of the game in which we all are a part; Society.

So, instead of beeing so eager at blaming the victim, perhaps you should take a look at the higher order of things, and try to change that which do not work. Regarding the homeless in the US, personally I think you should all quit assuming that he choose to live like an animal, and face the facts staring you in the face; Most of them obviously have problems. I guess it's an inevitable side effect of living in an extreme individualistic society...
Huh?

Did you read what I wrote...at all...ta lla?

Who said about blaming the victim? Who said folks on welfare are victims?

The birth control shots would be voluntary. How could they not be?

Do you think the government would tie the woman down, kicking and screaming, jab her with a needle.....then hand her a welfare check?:O

So say gubment doesn't give the birth control shot, she's getting welfare checks, and then.......she has a baby.

Now she has a harder time going to work and the gubment pays more money. She's outta commision (so to speak) even longer and will receive more money for a longer period of time.

That seems to works great now.

Nice going.

[Seedler]

Protest and cut the welfare money down to $5/month.

[SpatulaGeekGirl]

Protest! Protest! Freedom for the masses!!

[ahctlucabbuS]

Huh?

Did you read what I wrote...at all...ta lla?

Who said about blaming the victim? Who said folks on welfare are victims?

The birth control shots would be voluntary. How could they not be?

Do you think the government would tie the woman down, kicking and screaming, jab her with a needle.....then hand her a welfare check?:O

So say gubment doesn't give the birth control shot, she's getting welfare checks, and then.......she has a baby.

Now she has a harder time going to work and the gubment pays more money. She's outta commision (so to speak) even longer and will receive more money for a longer period of time.

That seems to works great now.

Nice going.


I am guilty of giving food to bums whenever they say they are hungry. I wish I would stop that shit. I NEVER give money (anymore). I did when I was much younger.


Did you read what you wrote? My blaming the victim comment were aimed at that quote. You didn't flat out say you were blaming the victim, true.... However it's easy to infer so, with your comment in the context of this thread (freeloaders). You're obviously not considering possible outer factors. How many were mentally ill again? Right, I forgot, you think mental illness is a form of voluntary character flaw.

I recognise some people abuse the system, but the problem with this thread, as I've hinted to, is that people are far too eager to generalise and condemn a system based solely on those few individuals. A discussion on the subject is all good (and I'm all for fairness in the system), but don't degrade people of sincere marginality. The system is there as a safety net, and it would be a far cruder world to live in without it.

Regarding the homeless, if nothing you should open your pockets (more mental health facilities for instance). Instead you're spending how much on the military, and other money sinks that far exceeds whatever you're wrongly handing to freeloaders.

As for birth control shots. It can't possibly be voluntary if the woman is refused the check should she not comply, now can it? It may be passive force, but you're still taking her freedom. As I stated, it would end up with segregation based on income.

Then again, most governments in the western world is concerned with raising the number of births. So, you should only be so lucky to have a kid born to a mother on welfare, who will wipe your ass a few years down the road. :no2:

[Busyman™]

I am guilty of giving food to bums whenever they say they are hungry. I wish I would stop that shit. I NEVER give money (anymore). I did when I was much younger.


Did you read what you wrote? My blaming the victim comment were aimed at that quote. You didn't flat out say you were blaming the victim, true.... However it's easy to infer so, with your comment in the context of this thread (freeloaders). You're obviously not considering possible outer factors. How many were mentally ill again? Right, I forgot, you think mental illness is a form of voluntary character flaw.

So now you're making up stuff regarding mental illness. Where'd you get that shit from?
You still haven't explained how I inferred that a female welfare recipient is being blamed by taking a birth control shot. The shot has no bearing on whether she's a freeloader or not.:ermm: That's something you made up.

I recognise some people abuse the system, but the problem with this thread, as I've hinted to, is that people are far too eager to generalise and condemn a system based solely on those few individuals. A discussion on the subject is all good (and I'm all for fairness in the system), but don't degrade people of sincere marginality. The system is there as a safety net, and it would be a far cruder world to live in without it.

I degraded no one of sincere marginality. The system in America is not supposed to be a generational source of income. It is supposed to be there to get folks jump started and out of the system.

Regarding the homeless, if nothing you should open your pockets (more mental health facilities for instance). Instead you're spending how much on the military, and other money sinks that far exceeds whatever you're wrongly handing to freeloaders.

Again, for those who can work then want to work......

As for birth control shots. It can't possibly be voluntary if the woman is refused the check should she not comply, now can it? It may be passive force, but you're still taking her freedom. As I stated, it would end up with segregation based on income.

I've explained how it is voluntary. Checks from the government should not be a basic tenet of life, ya know. It is not a basic freedom of life to draw welfare will-nilly with no rules. That line of thinking is why the system is shit.

Then again, most governments in the western world is concerned with raising the number of births. So, you should only be so lucky to have a kid born to a mother on welfare, who will wipe your ass a few years down the road. :no2:
Not I, said the rabbit.

If anything, sparsely populated areas need to be built up. Just the southern part of my county alone is getting 1800+ new homes built. We don't need to raise the number of births.

You sorta miss the point in spouting off some classism statements. A woman on welfare with children has a harder time than one without. Now I'm not saying if a woman already has a child that she should not receive welfare. I'm saying that the government should try to ensure that a woman on welfare is not making her own problem worse (and ours, the taxpayers) by having kids while trying to get on her feet.

That is one of main points of the welfare system. It is to help those that are able bodied, do for themselves.

I think governement should be able to regulate welfare in this manner....especially when it increases in length and amount if it wasn't regulated.

What can a woman say? "I should be able to have kids while on welfare and receive more welfare for those kids."

Nuh-uh.

Every woman I know personally that either had a kid when they were young and/or struggling really bad financially has told me that having a kid under those circumstances slowed them down even though their child was a blessing and most of these woman never hit the welfare system.

They either had family to fall back on or worked umpteen jobs.

I can't imagine a logical defense for a woman in the system.

[Gripper]

/moved to the drawing room.

[Mr JP Fugley]

/moved to the drawing room.
Please, no. Then people stop discussing it and just post set-pieces from their agendas.

[Gripper]

OK I'll take that back then :)

[Mr JP Fugley]

OK I'll take that back then :)
Cheers mate.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Busyman, I agree with you on this one point - A woman on welfare is not really suited to take care of a child. It's your method for taking care of the problem I can't take seriously. But, you know, never mind beating a dead horse and all.

As a side note, birth rates in the developed world are steadily declining, thus giving birth (no pun intended) to a number of problems, of which ass wipings are only one of many. You know, I'm glad this were left in the lounge....

[Busyman™]

Busyman, I agree with you on this one point - A woman on welfare is not really suited to take care of a child. It's your method for taking care of the problem I can't take seriously. But, you know, never mind beating a dead horse and all.

As a side note, birth rates in the developed world are steadily declining, thus giving birth (no pun intended) to a number of problems, of which ass wipings are only one of many. You know, I'm glad this stayed in the lounge....
I don't get what's wrong with the method? I mean you wrote alot but explained nothing. It's easy to write a well thought out post that many can cheer but where be de substance?

Regarding what's in bold, my method doesn't solve the problem. It's only a drop in the bucket in helping to solving the problem.

Ffs, you mention declining birth rates as a side note as if to say "oh man, we can't have welfare recipients being responsible.":stars:

[Seedler]

Welfare...we should just get rid of it.

[ahctlucabbuS]

We don't need to raise the number of births.


The side note were intended at this statement, and was more of a quick way to end the post as I couldn't be arsed to write at length in the middle of the night.

Of course welfare recipients should be responsible, they're not, however, taking control of their lives with a birth control shot up their arses. Can't you see the freedom and individual autonomy taken away by such measures?

My posts were largely opposing generalizations and degradation of marginalized groups based on the actions of the few. These topics tend to degrade into a downward comparison self esteem fest, in which the people making the more insidious claims often are not of a too high a status themselves - kicking people below themselves to feel more valuable. While of course failing to grasp the fact that there are far deeper money sinks out there which goes to causes of more questionable character, and the fact that all plight need not necessarily lie within the individual of such marginalized faith - often within the system which tend to favour people of specific stature. Of course if you believe people on the streets deserve to be there, failing to see the underlying causes (like mental illness for instance) they will serve as a self fulfilling prophecy of human waste. Heck, I'm not trying to be the messiah here, I just believe there are more humane ways to handle the issue, and that every person deserve some respect, and a welfare check (if nothing else) without beeing treated like some animal.


On a side note, I can't believe I wrote 'stayed' in my previous post.

[MagicNakor]

I'm at work, so this is going to have to be really short..

You can force women getting welfare onto birth control just as soon as you force men getting welfare onto birth control. It's an act that requires two. So, say, five years for the USA? Unlikely, but we may as well speculate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

:shuriken:

[Mr JP Fugley]

It's easy to write a well thought out post that many can cheer but where be de substance?

A post can only be called excellent if it makes good, substantiated points and it is also well constructed. The reader doesn't have to agree with everythng that is said to recognise that a person has achieved this. There are some posts which deserve "good point", there are some which deserve "well written" there are a few which are "excellent".

The fact that you posted the above says more on your ability to understand, than it does about the quality of his excellent post. Your predictable quasi-"hood" bunkum is at best tedious and at worst offensive.

[Busyman™]

We don't need to raise the number of births.


The side note were intended at this statement, and was more of a quick way to end the post as I couldn't be arsed to write at length in the middle of the night.

Of course welfare recipients should be responsible, they're not, however, taking control of their lives with a birth control shot up their arses. Can't you see the freedom and individual autonomy taken away by such measures?

My posts were largely opposing generalizations and degradation of marginalized groups based on the actions of the few. These topics tend to degrade into a downward comparison self esteem fest, in which the people making the more insidious claims often are not of a too high a status themselves - kicking people below themselves to feel more valuable. While of course failing to grasp the fact that there are far deeper money sinks out there which goes to causes of more questionable character, and the fact that all plight need not necessarily lie within the individual of such marginalized faith - often within the system which tend to favour people of specific stature. Of course if you believe people on the streets deserve to be there, failing to see the underlying causes (like mental illness for instance) they will serve as a self fulfilling prophecy of human waste. Heck, I'm not trying to be the messiah here, I just believe there are more humane ways to handle the issue, and that every person deserve some respect, and a welfare check (if nothing else) without beeing treated like some animal.

Mmk, then the above in bold isn't adressing anything that I've said. Cool.

Now how is it that government is taking control of a person's life merely due to a shot. What about the doling out of money?:blink:

A person certainly has the individual autonomy of getting a welfare check.

[Busyman™]

I'm at work, so this is going to have to be really short..

You can force women getting welfare onto birth control just as soon as you force men getting welfare onto birth control. It's an act that requires two. So, say, five years for the USA? Unlikely, but we may as well speculate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

:shuriken:
Men can't have babies. Women don't need to have sex to get pregnant.
First things first.

Anything else?

No one yet has said anything as to how it would be wrong for women to take the shot.

[ahctlucabbuS]

The side note were intended at this statement, and was more of a quick way to end the post as I couldn't be arsed to write at length in the middle of the night.

Of course welfare recipients should be responsible, they're not, however, taking control of their lives with a birth control shot up their arses. Can't you see the freedom and individual autonomy taken away by such measures?

My posts were largely opposing generalizations and degradation of marginalized groups based on the actions of the few. These topics tend to degrade into a downward comparison self esteem fest, in which the people making the more insidious claims often are not of a too high a status themselves - kicking people below themselves to feel more valuable. While of course failing to grasp the fact that there are far deeper money sinks out there which goes to causes of more questionable character, and the fact that all plight need not necessarily lie within the individual of such marginalized faith - often within the system which tend to favour people of specific stature. Of course if you believe people on the streets deserve to be there, failing to see the underlying causes (like mental illness for instance) they will serve as a self fulfilling prophecy of human waste. Heck, I'm not trying to be the messiah here, I just believe there are more humane ways to handle the issue, and that every person deserve some respect, and a welfare check (if nothing else) without beeing treated like some animal.

Mmk, then the above in bold isn't adressing anything that I've said. Cool.

Now how is it that government is taking control of a person's life merely due to a shot. What about the doling out of money?:blink:

A person certainly has the individual autonomy of getting a welfare check.

Would the individual have anything to say in the matter? No, because money is power. You'd effectively get one class of people denied to take part of the most humane/natural activity - reproduction - simply because the people in power say so. If you read my posts, I believe that there are more to individual marginality than simply individual differences. If you don't want people to reproduce under marginalized conditions, you'd better make sure you provide for the lesser "classes" by raising their standard of living.

In the same vein, It's not too difficult to grasp that the groups in power have much to lose by granting marginalized groups the same means to success.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating illegitimate welfare, but from a point of view that people on welfare generally have a valid reason, society obviously needs to provide effective means to solve those reasons if it are to oppose welfare checks to the needing.

What I'm hinting at, is how you look at the differences in society. Is it a, more or less conscious, attempt by people in power to secure their own stature - or is it the marginalized individual's failure to raise their living standard to the same level? With that question in mind, remember that the earth would not be able to support every human beeing with that same quality of life....

So, again with the large picture of things, I'm not simply commenting on your question of birth control shots per se. Such a proposal is too far out there to even be considered by any group in power, given the massive uprising it would have (I'd hope).

[MagicNakor]

Men can't have babies. Women don't need to have sex to get pregnant.
First things first.

Anything else?

No one yet has said anything as to how it would be wrong for women to take the shot.

I was unaware that the majority of women on welfare were also participating in in vitro fertilization. Or perhaps there have been a spike of virgin births? Or is it merely a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Aside from infringing on a woman's right to say what can or cannot go into her own body, there are several medical issues with hormonal birth control. Pills tend to have fewer issues than shots.

:shuriken:

[Busyman™]

Mmk, then the above in bold isn't adressing anything that I've said. Cool.

Now how is it that government is taking control of a person's life merely due to a shot. What about the doling out of money?:blink:

A person certainly has the individual autonomy of getting a welfare check.

Would the individual have anything to say in the matter? No, because money is power. You'd effectively get one class of people denied to take part of the most humane/natural activity - reproduction - simply because the people in power say so. If you read my posts, I believe that there are more to individual marginality than simply individual differences. If you don't want people to reproduce under marginalized conditions, you'd better make sure you provide for the lesser "classes" by raising their standard of living.

It sounds to me like you are cool with generational welfare then. Classes of people are not being denied reproduction. Where'd you get that from? Those women, while receiving welfare money would get the shot. Marginalized conditions is not synonymous with welfare recipients. Get it through your head. My mother never went on welfare but she worked her ass off under marginalized conditions. She is better off now and so am I.

In the same vein, It's not too difficult to grasp that the groups in power have much to lose by granting marginalized groups the same means to success.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating illegitimate welfare, but from a point of view that people on welfare generally have a valid reason, society obviously needs to provide effective means to solve those reasons if it are to oppose welfare checks to the needing.

Yeah, one of those reasons is the fault or inaction of the individual on welfare.

What I'm hinting at, is how you look at the differences in society. Is it a, more or less conscious, attempt by people in power to secure their own stature - or is it the marginalized individual's failure to raise their living standard to the same level? With that question in mind, remember that the earth would not be able to support every human beeing with that same quality of life....

Is that to say there isn't a job out there for everyone? Mmk, I agree. Of course not everyone can have a quarter-acre and a simgle family home too. :1eye:

So, again with the large picture of things, I'm not simply commenting on your question of birth control shots per se. Such a proposal is too far out there to even be considered by any group in power, given the massive uprising it would have (I'd hope).
Yup, the large picture of things is that people should help themselves. By no means do I advocate getting rid of welfare. However, the way you talk is to shout at government for the inaction of those needing help.

I can tell you that right now in DC, for instance, people actually flock there from other areas because of it's welfare program.

I already know of a bigger picture regarding folks on welfare. Things like the influx of drugs are part of it. However, my way addresses the issue of removing a barrier that holds many back from bettering themselves and is actually pretty easy to implement. Your way simply is to simply allow generational welfare to continue at it's current state and pace....blame government for most of it as if the jobs are simply nonexistent.

Either my scope on the matter is one thing at a time. Government should have the right to require a shot to women before receiving welfare. Government will sure as hell will have to pay for that baby. If she does not want to receive welfare, government does not require a shot.

I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.:pinch:

[Busyman™]

Men can't have babies. Women don't need to have sex to get pregnant.
First things first.

Anything else?

No one yet has said anything as to how it would be wrong for women to take the shot.

I was unaware that the majority of women on welfare were also participating in in vitro fertilization.

Me too. Where'd you get that from.

Or perhaps there have been a spike of virgin births?

When, in B.C.?

Or is it merely a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

The goose can have baby, and in this case, the gander can't. The goose also receives medical dispensation to have the baby (doctor gets paid). The goose also recives dispensation for caring of the baby. Oh and I forgot, dispensation gets started in the first place 'cause the goose had the baby.....no matter who is caring for her/him.

Aside from infringing on a woman's right to say what can or cannot go into her own body, there are several medical issues with hormonal birth control. Pills tend to have fewer issues than shots.

:shuriken:
Those issues would be addressed just like they currently are. By a doctor.:stars: It is not infringing on her right. She can refuse. I thought I said that already.:dry:

[MagicNakor]

I was unaware that the majority of women on welfare were also participating in in vitro fertilization.

Me too. Where'd you get that from.

Or perhaps there have been a spike of virgin births?

When, in B.C.?


From:


Men can't have babies. Women don't need to have sex to get pregnant.

You want women to be rendered temporarily infertile so they can receive welfare. Why not have it both ways? Babies can't be created without viable sperm.

:shuriken:

[ahctlucabbuS]

Yup, the large picture of things is that people should help themselves. By no means do I advocate getting rid of welfare. However, the way you talk is to shout at government for the inaction of those needing help.

I'd guess you'd only need to step out your front door to see proof of the inaction in action.

I'm not cool with generational welfare, and I don't believe it works that way (for the most part). There are other ways to handle it than involuntary birth control. If you read my post, I'm saying society have a responsibility to better the conditions, and to provide more opportunities for people to better themselves.

If your mother worked under difficult times, more power to her.



Marginalized conditions is not synonymous with welfare recipients. Get it through your head. My mother never went on welfare but she worked her ass off under marginalized conditions. She is better off now and so am I.

True.
Welfare recipients are however marginalized, given their previous history which proceeded their need for welfare (physical/psychological illness etc. etc.). People on welfare are further living marginalized simply by beeing poor. Under such circumstances I'd guess it would be quite hard to advance in life, which as I see it one should work to better. Of course there are people who will never be able to work, people I believe, society have a duty to take care of (and no, not a duty to take care of their fertility).


I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.

I don't see what you are getting at. The part in red is how I picture it would get if birth control were implemented. So, yes, you would get one class of people denied reproduction; people on welfare :whistling

As long as many people live of substantian wealth, money they will never ever have use for - then that society, which foster such hording of resources, have a duty to take care of people at the bottom. The earth can't foster every one of us living as large as the few.

Did you also know that capitalism works best under conditions of some unemployment, working as a buffer against increased wages? Needless to say there will always be people at the bottom, and a society which foster such should take care of those, it in fact, are dependent upon. So capitalism must take its share of responsibility then - you can't simply reduce the issue completely to the individual.


Edit, I can't agree more regarding abuse of the system. Obviously if enough people abused it - it would break. Just thought I'd make that clear once and for all.

[Cheese]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects (http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/depoprovera_ad.htm) and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.

Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.

I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented.

[ahctlucabbuS]

:lol:

Good point.

[Mr JP Fugley]

:lol:

Good points.
Agreed, but not quite an excellent post.

[Zequabie]

The thing is life is like a game, there's competitors. Inevidably there's going to be winners and losers. No one or the other. The Government enables these people by giving them the necessities of life, with-out labor and not knowing when to stop the wagon, so to speak. The real messed-up part of it all is that most of these people don't seem to have any self respect or pride (in a being too proud sense) for that matter. It's like they don't want better for themselves and there family. Speaking of family, most of these people or not educated at all. Don't know much about life (I know that's a broad-statement but I grew up in the ghetto so I kinda know what I talking about), so what are they suppose to teach there kids. Work etiquette? lol. What ends up happening is that the child becomes a teen. Having no structure or discipline and start wanting what mom or dad can't provide an start on the journey of crime-life.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way to handle this issue, I mean let's be rational. It's human nature the world is filled with greedy, selfish people. It's hard to work around it.

[j2k4]

The thing is life is like a game, there's competitors. Inevidably there's going to be winners and losers. No one or the other. The Government enables these people by giving them the necessities of life, with-out labor and not knowing when to stop the wagon, so to speak. The real messed-up part of it all is that most of these people don't seem to have any self respect or pride (in a being too proud sense) for that matter. It's like they don't want better for themselves and there family. Speaking of family, most of these people or not educated at all. Don't know much about life (I know that's a broad-statement but I grew up in the ghetto so I kinda know what I talking about), so what are they suppose to teach there kids. Work etiquette? lol. What ends up happening is that the child becomes a teen. Having no structure or discipline and start wanting what mom or dad can't provide an start on the journey of crime-life.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way to handle this issue, I mean let's be rational. It's human nature the world is filled with greedy, selfish people. It's hard to work around it.


Important points, well-presented.

Whatever focus exists is very narrow; possibilities are limited, action is ineffectual.

Those on the outside console themselves with the existence of government-administered "benefits" and strive mightily to keep their hands clean and themselves safe.

[Busyman™]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects (http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/depoprovera_ad.htm) and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

True dat. It ain't 100%. That was known. Still give 'em the shot. And....

Those issues would be addressed just like they currently are. By a doctor.:stars:

The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.

Agreed. That's why I like the shot as the method.

Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.

So no welfare check then?

I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented.
Fault of government or the individual?

[Cheese]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there is no magical shot that would safely prevent pregnancy and it is unlikely there will be one anytime soon. The depo injection (which I assume people are thinking of here) is not suitable for all women, has lots of fun side effects (http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/depoprovera_ad.htm) and should only be taken for a limited period of time (around 5 years). What happens if someone who is genuine seeks welfare but has been on the depo-injection for an extended period of time? Also, the depo injection is not 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

True dat. It ain't 100%. That was known. Still give 'em the shot. And....


The pill wouldn't work as someone could just "accidentally" forget to take it if they wanted to "accidentally" get pregnant. The coil wouldn't work either, it can be removed. As it stands, the only 100% method to prevent pregnancies would be to administer hysterectomies to all the women on welfare. Obviously this is not reversable once she manages to get a job.

Agreed. That's why I like the shot as the method.

Even if someone did invent a magic shot, would a woman be able to object to the shot due to their religion? If so, then I predict a sudden surge in convertions to the Catholic church. I'm sure there are numerous other exceptions that could be exploited by those that abuse the system but would have to be in place.

So no welfare check then?

I'd also predict a rise in sexually transmitted infections within the welfare class if this rather silly idea was ever actually implemented. Fault of government or the individual?
Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis.

[Mr JP Fugley]

The sectarianism you pointed out may also be a problem.

Oh and the Nazism, that could present a problem too.

[Busyman™]

I'd guess you'd only need to step out your front door to see proof of the inaction in action.

I'm not cool with generational welfare, and I don't believe it works that way (for the most part). There are other ways to handle it than involuntary birth control. If you read my post, I'm saying society have a responsibility to better the conditions, and to provide more opportunities for people to better themselves.

If your mother worked under difficult times, more power to her.

Marginalized conditions are however synonymous with welfare recipients, given their previous history which proceeded their need for welfare (physical/psychological illness etc. etc.). People on welfare are further living marginalized simply by beeing poor. Under such circumstances I'd guess it would be quite hard to advance in life, which as I see it one should work to better. Of course there are people who will never be able to work, people I believe, society have a duty to take care of (and no, not a duty to take care of their fertility).

Marginalized conditions "can relate" to welfare recipients. They are not exclusive. To the rest...uh yeah...ok. An able bodied person that doesn't want to work should be marginalized. Easy availability of benefits tends to create freeloaders. Effort is relaxed. Urgency is nonexistent. The shot would not create a solution for effort or urgency. It would help remove a barrier. Does effort and urgency jump in due to a baby? Sometimes.....and offset by government. Another check on the way.


I don't see what the issue is. The thing you've said that addressed that (in red) has been proven wrong. You talk this "because the people in power say so" while at the same time asking the people in power for money then that the recipients are being marginalized.

I don't see what you are getting at. The part in red is how I picture it would get if birth control were implemented. So, yes, you would get one class of people denied reproduction; people on welfare :whistling

Oh ok, welfare people, not poor people. Glad that was cleared up. Didn't know that was a class of people either.

As long as many people live of substantian wealth, money they will never ever have use for - then that society, which foster such hording of resources, have a duty to take care of people at the bottom. The earth can't foster every one of us living as large as the few.

Ok, ok and there are bad people in the world and so forth.....

Did you also know that capitalism works best under conditions of some unemployment, working as a buffer against increased wages? Needless to say there will always be people at the bottom, and a society which foster such should take care of those, it in fact, are dependent upon. So capitalism must take its share of responsibility then - you can't simply reduce the issue completely to the individual.

Who did?

Edit, I can't agree more regarding abuse of the system. Obviously if enough people abused it - it would break.
Anything can break. Wait.

[Busyman™]

Fault of government or the individual?
Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis.
So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".

[Cheese]

Women are already suing the makers of Depo-Provera due to some of the side-effects, I doubt any government is going to allow themselves to be held liable for such interesting side-effects as bone loss and weakened immune systems (and we don't really have any idea of the long-term effects of this method). Leaving aside the moral argument, it looks like you'll have to wait until a more viable method of contraception becomes available for your idea purely on a health-risk basis. So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".
None without potenially harmful side-effects, just look at the box of any of these contraceptives (when I worked in a sexual health clinic we were required to tell young people of all the potential side-effect of the injection, pill and the coil, they're not nice). Sorry, but your "idea" is horribly unworkable given current contraceptive options. When (more of an if really) they invent a contraceptive that doesn't fuck women up (pun) then you would only have the moral argument to surmount. Still, if you are willing to ignore the moral ramifications and potential health risks to women then you have a wonderful idea.

[ahctlucabbuS]

Marginalized conditions "can relate" to welfare recipients. They are not exclusive. To the rest...uh yeah...ok. An able bodied person that doesn't want to work should be marginalized. Easy availability of benefits tends to create freeloaders. Effort is relaxed. Urgency is nonexistent. The shot would not create a solution for effort or urgency. It would help remove a barrier. Does effort and urgency jump in due to a baby? Sometimes.....and offset by government. Another check on the way.


True. Post clarified to reflect its intended meaning.

[Busyman™]

So women are suing the makers of a drug. Mmk. I guess clinics get sued all the time. This doesn't sound new.

I thought there was more than one "shot".
None without potenially harmful side-effects, just look at the box of any of these contraceptives (when I worked in a sexual health clinic we were required to tell young people of all the potential side-effect of the injection, pill and the coil, they're not nice). Sorry, but your "idea" is horribly unworkable given current contraceptive options. When (more of an if really) they invent a contraceptive that doesn't fuck women up (pun) then you would only have the moral argument to surmount. Still, if you are willing to ignore the moral ramifications and potential health risks to women then you have a wonderful idea.
The idea is wonderful anyway. :snooty:

Yeah from what I see, drugs in general have potential harmful side effects. I do hate the fast talking disclaimers when I hear an advertisment on the radio.
The same goes for those fucking commercials. Why don't they say "may cause death" to shorten it. People that wanna take herpes medication will flock to it anyways.

Herpecin may cause itchy scalp, shortness of breath, and a painful death. Talk to your doctor if any of these symptoms arise.:pinch:

[Seedler]

Herpecin may cause itchy scalp, shortness of breath, and a painful death. Talk to your doctor if any of these symptoms arise.:pinch:

:pinch: Indeed.

But also very :glag:.