The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
cottonmouth
Well he is the first figure who comes to mind when i hear people talk about how human beings aren't "worth anything" and thus should be left to rot. How can anyone say, or even think, that another person is worthless? It beggars belief that people can be so cold and yes, sociopathic. And it seems there are too many people like that on TSR. I suppose it draws a lot of these kinds of people, who would never air their views in oublic and so get cheap thrills from doing it on an anonymous forum.


I can see both perspectives. Almost every person can perform a job, be it on a checkout at Tesco or sweeping the streets. Cotton, would you agree that some lazy people abuse the system, or do you not recognise this as fact?
Reply 81
Some cock i worked with last summer (loading a van - I hate undignified student jobs) explained to me how, if i got my girlfriend (of less than a month at that point) pregnant and got 5 kids out of her i could earn enough through hand outs that I wouldn't be required to work again, and would get a big free house. Considering the number of people at *un-named haulage company reminiscent of explosives* who had a similar life plan, the system clearly isn't doing its job.
I have nothing against benefits for those who are deserving - the sick (and the actually sick, not just the ones that new labour bribes to keep the unemployment figures down), carers, elderly.etc., and those genuinely seeking employment, but those who just want to sit around on their arses and do nothing shouldn't be entitled to a penny.
Reply 82
bikerx23
Some cock i worked with last summer (loading a van - I hate undignified student jobs) explained to me how, if i got my girlfriend (of less than a month at that point) pregnant and got 5 kids out of her i could earn enough through hand outs that I wouldn't be required to work again, and would get a big free house. Considering the number of people at *un-named haulage company reminiscent of explosives* who had a similar life plan, the system clearly isn't doing its job.
I have nothing against benefits for those who are deserving - the sick (and the actually sick, not just the ones that new labour bribes to keep the unemployment figures down), carers, elderly.etc., and those genuinely seeking employment, but those who just want to sit around on their arses and do nothing shouldn't be entitled to a penny.


^^^^^^ what he said. Perfect illustration of my point.
Tufts
I can see both perspectives. Almost every person can perform a job, be it on a checkout at Tesco or sweeping the streets. Cotton, would you agree that some lazy people abuse the system, or do you not recognise this as fact?


Yes, of course this occurs, this is life we are talking about, and life has a whole lot of lazy, undeserving people in it. But this is not an argument for reducing or restricting access to welfare for the people who don't abuse it. You can't take the fact that some people abuse the system to argue that a woman with 6 kids shouldn't be given a bigger house so that her kids can have at least some comfort, and room to do their schoolwork, and room outside to play, etc etc.

And tax fraud, tax evasion, white-collar crime accounts for far more stealing from the state's money pot, and yet its always the lower-class people who are demonisd in the press for getting an extra £100 a week they aren't entitled to, hile at the same time a businessman is getting £10000 times more than entitled to.
Reply 84
cottonmouth
Well he is the first figure who comes to mind when i hear people talk about how human beings aren't "worth anything" and thus should be left to rot. How can anyone say, or even think, that another person is worthless? It beggars belief that people can be so cold and yes, sociopathic. And it seems there are too many people like that on TSR. I suppose it draws a lot of these kinds of people, who would never air their views in oublic and so get cheap thrills from doing it on an anonymous forum.


This does not apply to me. Grace Haley, St Edmund Hall, law, on facebook.

Ill = useless. If its temporarily ill, they should have savings.

I don't believe in state pensions, at least not for people who have not lived through a world war. They have had 65 years to save up for retirement, if they didn't manage it they should have worked a bit longer.

You do not need a Dphil in physics to figure out how to screw the benefits system, especially not when they've had 5 generations to learn it. And don't be so insulting: Hitler was an authoritarian national socialist . That is the complete inverse of the libertarian right wing.

Why is it that people think humans have an automatic right to life? Why do those with no redeeming quality deserve compassion? What makes a human automatically worth something? Some people do not fulfill any purpose. If they do not fulfill any useful purpose then their existence should be permitted only if they support themselves; or at least if theycan be supported by those who do so through choice.
Reply 85
cottonmouth
You can't take the fact that some people abuse the system to argue that a woman with 6 kids shouldn't be given a bigger house so that her kids can have at least some comfort, and room to do their schoolwork, and room outside to play, etc etc.


What is she doing with 6 kids, if not abusing the system?
Reply 86
cottonmouth
Yes, of course this occurs, this is life we are talking about, and life has a whole lot of lazy, undeserving people in it. But this is not an argument for reducing or restricting access to welfare for the people who don't abuse it. You can't take the fact that some people abuse the system to argue that a woman with 6 kids shouldn't be given a bigger house so that her kids can have at least some comfort, and room to do their schoolwork, and room outside to play, etc etc.

And tax fraud, tax evasion, white-collar crime accounts for far more stealing from the state's money pot, and yet its always the lower-class people who are demonisd in the press for getting an extra £100 a week they aren't entitled to, hile at the same time a businessman is getting £10000 times more than entitled to.


Not if you take account of taxes they shouldn't have to pay in the first place, and look at the theft as a proportion of what that class of people puts into the states moneypot. Also you are not taking into account the amount of policing required to deal with crimes more commonly committed by those on benefits.

Why should the poor get to decide what the rich spend their money on?
bikerx23
Some cock i worked with last summer (loading a van - I hate undignified student jobs) explained to me how, if i got my girlfriend (of less than a month at that point) pregnant and got 5 kids out of her i could earn enough through hand outs that I wouldn't be required to work again, and would get a big free house. Considering the number of people at *un-named haulage company reminiscent of explosives* who had a similar life plan, the system clearly isn't doing its job.
I have nothing against benefits for those who are deserving - the sick (and the actually sick, not just the ones that new labour bribes to keep the unemployment figures down), carers, elderly.etc., and those genuinely seeking employment, but those who just want to sit around on their arses and do nothing shouldn't be entitled to a penny.



Not entitled to a penny would simply mean people didn't eat. You might argue that they would simply be force to find work, but finding work can be harder than you think. And don't sit there in your silver chair talkig down to people with things such as" Its easy getting a job. Go and sweep the streets", because it sounds pompous and anachronistically aristocratic.

The thing about your line of argument is that there seems to be the assumption that people on these sorts of benefits lead some kind of luxurious life. Sitting around all day watching tv is not luxurious. Sitting on a playstation all day is not luxurious. Smoking fags all day is not luxurious. Never getting to go on holiday to another country is not luxurious. Why do people spout the classic "They sit there watching sky on widescreen tvs etc etc" as though this means they are living the life of riley? Is that really what you people consider to be a good and luxurious lifestyle? Not me. I prefer foreign holidays, museums, expensive restaurants, mini-breaks at the weekends on the continent, etc etc. All things that the above can't do.

We don't need further punishment of these people. The punishment they already have is enough. Because if they believe there is nothing more to life, nothing more to this wolrd we live in, than Jeremy Kyle and a flatscreen with a playstation, then that is something to be lamented, pitied, cried for.
Reply 88
cottonmouth
Sitting around all day watching tv is not luxurious. Sitting on a playstation all day is not luxurious. Smoking fags all day is not luxurious. Never getting to go on holiday to another country is not luxurious.


Who said they lived a luxurious life :confused:

luxury = no.

laziness = yes.
Reply 89
cottonmouth
Not entitled to a penny would simply mean people didn't eat. You might argue that they would simply be force to find work, but finding work can be harder than you think. And don't sit there in your silver chair talkig down to people with things such as" Its easy getting a job. Go and sweep the streets", because it sounds pompous and anachronistically aristocratic.

The thing about your line of argument is that there seems to be the assumption that people on these sorts of benefits lead some kind of luxurious life. Sitting around all day watching tv is not luxurious. Sitting on a playstation all day is not luxurious. Smoking fags all day is not luxurious. Never getting to go on holiday to another country is not luxurious. Why do people spout the classic "They sit there watching sky on widescreen tvs etc etc" as though this means they are living the life of riley? Is that really what you people consider to be a good and luxurious lifestyle? Not me. I prefer foreign holidays, museums, expensive restaurants, mini-breaks at the weekends on the continent, etc etc. All things that the above can't do.

We don't need further punishment of these people. The punishment they already have is enough. Because if they believe there is nothing more to life, nothing more to this wolrd we live in, than Jeremy Kyle and a flatscreen with a playstation, then that is something to be lamented, pitied, cried for.


If my sky package was free I'd consider it a luxury. Things become a luxury when you don't have to pay for them. It isn't a necessity. LIVING isn't a necessity; one can just as easily starve. A breadcrumb is a luxury if its free.
allymcb2
This does not apply to me. Grace Haley, St Edmund Hall, law, on facebook.

Ill = useless. If its temporarily ill, they should have savings.

I don't believe in state pensions, at least not for people who have not lived through a world war. They have had 65 years to save up for retirement, if they didn't manage it they should have worked a bit longer.

You do not need a Dphil in physics to figure out how to screw the benefits system, especially not when they've had 5 generations to learn it. And don't be so insulting: Hitler was an authoritarian national socialist . That is the complete inverse of the libertarian right wing.

Why is it that people think humans have an automatic right to life? Why do those with no redeeming quality deserve compassion? What makes a human automatically worth something? Some people do not fulfill any purpose. If they do not fulfill any useful purpose then their existence should be permitted only if they support themselves; or at least if theycan be supported by those who do so through choice.


I didn't say you were politically like Hitler did i? You have the same eerie, cold manner that personified his eugenics-loving, sociopathic outlook. Here again, talking about why there is an assumption that there is an automatic right to life, and humans who should be fulfiling some sort of arbitrary purpose. Purpose to whom? You? Me? Society? I don't even know why bother to debate people who are so far gone.
allymcb2


Why is it that people think humans have an automatic right to life? Why do those with no redeeming quality deserve compassion? What makes a human automatically worth something? Some people do not fulfill any purpose. If they do not fulfill any useful purpose then their existence should be permitted only if they support themselves; or at least if theycan be supported by those who do so through choice.


And it's down to the likes of you to decide who is 'worthy' of life, I presume?
Reply 92
Is it just me, or is that fantastically metaphoric...

Reply 93
cottonmouth
I didn't say you were politically like Hitler did i? You have the same eerie, cold manner that personified his eugenics-loving, sociopathic outlook. Here again, talking about why there is an assumption that there is an automatic right to life, and humans who should be fulfiling some sort of arbitrary purpose. Purpose to whom? You? Me? Society? I don't even know why bother to debate people who are so far gone.


People should benefit whoever is paying for them. If they are paying for themselves that is the only person they need to benefit; if someone else is paying for them they need to benefit that person/ class of people.
Reply 94
naivesincerity
And it's down to the likes of you to decide who is 'worthy' of life, I presume?


Its the likes of whoever's tax payments exeed what they take from the state to determine what it should be spent on, since I am on TSR, you can probably predict that class of people does not presently include me.
allymcb2
Not if you take account of taxes they shouldn't have to pay in the first place, and look at the theft as a proportion of what that class of people puts into the states moneypot. Also you are not taking into account the amount of policing required to deal with crimes more commonly committed by those on benefits.

Why should the poor get to decide what the rich spend their money on?



A business man on £100,000 a year who steals millions is taking less proportionally than someone on benefits, because yes, the person on benefits is not putting anything in, and so technically, even taking one penny wrongfully would be proportionally worse than the businessman. But come the hell on. T he more damaging on is clearly the white-collar fraud. Why twist and turn as mucha s you can to wriggle out of the simple fact that white-collar crime costs more?

Oh, and your quaint point about police. They don't really do much in dealing with benefit fraud. They simply arrest people.

Do you know how much a complex fraud case costs a court to go through? They take months, years to complete.

Why should the poor decide what the rich spend their money on? What te hell are you talking about?
allymcb2
People should benefit whoever is paying for them. If they are paying for themselves that is the only person they need to benefit; if someone else is paying for them they need to benefit that person/ class of people.


Are you seriously suggesting that all the people who are employed and paying taxes have made that money privately and they pay out of their own privately earned money for benefit seekers? Most people in employment are payed by the state, one way or another. Are you going to call them scroungers too?
Reply 97
cottonmouth
Not entitled to a penny would simply mean people didn't eat. You might argue that they would simply be force to find work, but finding work can be harder than you think. And don't sit there in your silver chair talkig down to people with things such as" Its easy getting a job. Go and sweep the streets", because it sounds pompous and anachronistically aristocratic.

Feel free to go and read what I wrote - I said that I have no qualms with those who are actively seeking employment to be on benefits - considering how scarce jobs are where I live, I'm not about to go and tell people it's easy.

The thing about your line of argument is that there seems to be the assumption that people on these sorts of benefits lead some kind of luxurious life. Sitting around all day watching tv is not luxurious. Sitting on a playstation all day is not luxurious. Smoking fags all day is not luxurious. Never getting to go on holiday to another country is not luxurious. Why do people spout the classic "They sit there watching sky on widescreen tvs etc etc" as though this means they are living the life of riley? Is that really what you people consider to be a good and luxurious lifestyle? Not me. I prefer foreign holidays, museums, expensive restaurants, mini-breaks at the weekends on the continent, etc etc. All things that the above can't do.

Erm, most museums are free...

It's not the matter that people perceive these lifestyles as luxirious, more that they are indulging in a lifestyles that those who are "honest" and have jobs rather than sponging work hard to get those benefits - Considering the things you have listed which you prefer (completely agree, as it happens) are not the forte of the majority of the workforce, what they deem as a "treat" in the evenings IS to relax with their family and watch some television - the average wage simply isn't enough to live that sort of lifestyle, hence the majority would be envious of people getting the equivalent of their free time without working to secure it.

We don't need further punishment of these people. The punishment they already have is enough. Because if they believe there is nothing more to life, nothing more to this wolrd we live in, than Jeremy Kyle and a flatscreen with a playstation, then that is something to be lamented, pitied, cried for.

So, you're happy to pity, lament and cry for these people, whilst paying tax towards what you perceive as their futile existance?
bikerx23
Is it just me, or is that fantastically metaphoric...



Indeed. The fact that even right-wingers on here aren't ageeing with her should tel her she needs to can it. Not just to become a better person, but to acquire at least one friend.
allymcb2
Its the likes of whoever's tax payments exeed what they take from the state to determine what it should be spent on.


But there's no way to measure what someone has 'taken from the state'.
What about companies who take profits from people on benefits, and people payed by the state, for example?

Latest