Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I don't care remotely about the poor; give to charity if you want, but don't force me watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cll_ws)
    The adults that are birthing these children have probably come from a similar situation. Do you just feel sympathy for them up to a certain age?
    Yes they probably have. I feel sympathy for them being born into it and brought up into it-and if they cannot get out as adults-but not when they begin to be chips off the old block.
    (Original post by pandabird)
    You have a small amount of sympathy for the children born into those families?

    Give that girl a ****ing medal.
    I ask for no medal nor no approval, but thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    I would have the children taken away and put into middle-class homes if I'm honest. That would imbue them with better morals than their chavvy parents.
    Me too -prioritising those who couldn't have their own for whatever reason. I guess it's against human rights to stop people breeding or I would do that too. This idea of only providing money for 2 children is a good idea. Why should I be paying for people to have loads of useless kids?
    Offline

    2
    I am devoid of all sympathy for the poor. I am just unable to care.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    I don't believe that 'society' exists. I believe there are individuals, like Margaret Thatcher said. I'm fed up of the undeserving poor expecting me to wipe their arse for them.

    Does that make me callous?
    It makes you sound like a sack of ****
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    This may sound callous, but I honestly could not give a damn as to the poor.

    A lot of socialists today have posted vile statuses about the death of one of the greatest Britons of the 20th century, and I realised that the reason I get so incensed by it all is not because I'm angry at them, I've just realised that I don't share any of their values. I give to charity to the tune of £20 a month in terms of direct debits, so as far as I'm concerned I do my bit. I don't want to have my wages stolen however to pay for things I couldn't give a hoot about i.e. the welfare bill.

    I don't believe that 'society' exists. I believe there are individuals, like Margaret Thatcher said. I'm fed up of the undeserving poor expecting me to wipe their arse for them.

    Does that make me callous?
    You would give a hoot about those on social security (don't you dare use that vile, divisive American word) if they were not paid anything. This is because if they are not paid anything they will have no option but to cause a crime wave and they will target your property.

    Thatcher did great things for this country by rebalancing the economy away from failing, bloated industry. However, one of the effects of the Thatcherite economy is that there are not enough jobs to go around, and therefore there will always be structural unemployment.

    Your tax is a small price to pay (and it is a small price, have you seen the tax rates from before Thatcher?) to maintain order and stability in British society.

    Order and stability means investors consider Britain a safe place to put their money, which increases your quality of life.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If you don't care fine, do you need a thread to reassure your feelings?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Dragonborn)
    It seems all good and dandy and justified when you are on this end of the spectrum. What if you were poor, for reasons out of your control (e.g. lack of jobs)? Wouldn't you want help?
    Don't understand why I got negged. Come on, whoever it was, please tell me why this post was in any way a bad post which deserved a neg.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You have a thread where you ask if there should be an NHS for pets...so I smell a troll...however, the number of positive ratings on this is alarming.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You would give a hoot about those on social security (don't you dare use that vile, divisive American word) if they were not paid anything. This is because if they are not paid anything they will have no option but to cause a crime wave and they will target your property.

    Thatcher did great things for this country by rebalancing the economy away from failing, bloated industry. However, one of the effects of the Thatcherite economy is that there are not enough jobs to go around, and therefore there will always be structural unemployment.

    Your tax is a small price to pay (and it is a small price, have you seen the tax rates from before Thatcher?) to maintain order and stability in British society.

    Order and stability means investors consider Britain a safe place to put their money, which increases your quality of life.
    Social security? What a ****ing liberty. Our modern WELFARE state incorporates far more than securing the basics.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugarmouse)
    It's the reproduction that angers me. Having babies when you have no money-bring up children in squalor and/or-sponging off the government. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the kids that are born to parents who are skint, because it isn't their fault-also the subnormal intelligence and the low social mobility, negative socialisation processes-these folk don't have much chance.
    Breeders don't get my money.
    I'm not going to have kids (and have only ever had unprotected sex when I was sure that no child would come of it), primarily because I don't think it's ethical to bring another person into the world as it is, so I have some sympathy with your view, but it's not just the poor who, as you so charmingly and dehumanizingly put it, reproduce. It may be one thing to postpone having kids for a decade or so while you stash some dosh to provide for them, but if you were working in low-paid and possibly precarious jobs and expected to be doing so for the rest of your life (because, due to compounded disadvantage, you simply couldn't compete in the market other than as a bottom-feeder), would -- should -- you be prepared to give up entirely on the idea of having kids? Children are not just concatenations of atoms sucking up resources (although that they are!), they're also, at best, the product of loving relationships that tie society together. There's possibly no more fundamental human desire than the desire to reproduce, and when we've thrown off the natural limits of death and disease and absolute poverty, artificial limits probably do need to be introduced, but I don't think that saying the poor who have children should get no support is an acceptable solution or an acceptable limit (especially when you consider the support that the relatively rich get in child benefit and tax relief and whatnot).

    The negative socialisation processes, the poor education, the low social mobility, all of these things you rightly mention and more are societal problems that came to the fore with urbanisation during the Industrial Revolution, the creation of slums to fuel the factories (of which council estates are the modern form, neither particularly good places for bringing up children who will be likely to be able to compete economically with the more privileged, although every rule of course has its notable exceptions) -- they are not individual failings, we are all repsonsible. And we reap the rewards of the labour of the low-skilled in our own country and overseas (whence your money, made, yes, in our service and knowledge economy but also on the broken backs of "the breeders"), we are all part of the picture. So if you have sympathy for the kids whose fault it wasn't, perhaps you should have sympathy for the parents whose fault it wasn't either (and who were, if I remember the science correctly, themselves once pitiful kids). Judgement doesn't solve anything.

    The welfare state has a lot wrong with it, but what is most wrong is that we should have need for such an imperfect solution in the first place. Until we have anything better, our imperfect solution will have to stay. Philpott aside, the vast majority of people on benefits have no more children than anyone else. There will always be a proportion of people who take advantage, and I wish there were no need for us to institute a system that, like all big systems, has flaws and loopholes and failings, but there is.

    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Sometimes it seems to me as though welfare has replaced religion as the drug of choice for people; i.e. while at one time people used religion to escape their problems, now they use welfare to deal with their symptoms rather than finding a cure.
    Very possibly so, but just as state secularism doesn't eradicate the "soulless conditions" that cause people to turn to religion, nor does the emaciation of the state kill the ills that caused people to cling to its corpulence for comfort. If there's a cure for the condition of the poor, it won't be found by the patient on her sickbed. (Hmm, you may have to forgive the overblown metaphors. )

    (Original post by the bear)
    It makes you sound like a sack of ****
    Squelchy?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    In answer to your post, yes I think it makes you callous. By lacking empathy for others simply because you have never met them shuts you off from the world, and holds you captive in a small, self-interested bubble. It is universally difficult to find happiness and satisfaction thinking only of yourself, because these things are often only truly found through making a positive influence on the lives of others.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    I don't believe that 'society' exists. I believe there are individuals, like Margaret Thatcher said. I'm fed up of the undeserving poor expecting me to wipe their arse for them.

    Does that make me callous?
    Yes.

    Whatever your job is, the more highly paid it is, the more money is being pumped into you through either legal or illegal exploitation of less wealthy people. If you're a general city worker, let's say, a marketing manager, you rely on people buying your products to support you, you rely on builders to construct your office, you rely on paramedics to reach you if you suddenly have a heart attack, you rely on firemen to reach you if your building sets fire, you rely on street cleaners, sewage workers, low paid farmers, warehouse workers etc. I realise these people aren't all low paid, but they in turn rely on lower paid people to do things for them. Of course we are all part of an interconnected society. To say otherwise is simply you trying to justify to yourself that you aren't being callous. Society would not exist without the working class - the factory workers both third world and first world, the bus drivers, whatever. So show a little respect.

    Oh and FYI, this whole 'welfare state', 'sense of entitlement', 'freeloader' stuff is a crock of **** propagated by the media (AKA the daily mail) and the government. The numbers of 'freeloaders' are so insignificant, they account for very little of welfare budget, and pale in comparison to things like bankers bonuses. It's just a method of justifying the further deconstruction of the welfare state.

    Your jaded attitude to the poor is repulsive, quite frankly. Your wages aren't being 'stolen' by contributing to wider society, they're contributing to a better world. And if you think a better world is a bad thing, then you really are a psychopath.

    99% of the poor are not undeserving. They are simply born into a society where people like you make up the dominant class.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    This may sound callous, but I honestly could not give a damn as to the poor.
    An essay you might like on lifeboat ethics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by faber niger)
    I'm not going to have kids (and have only ever had unprotected sex when I was sure that no child would come of it), primarily because I don't think it's ethical to bring another person into the world as it is, so I have some sympathy with your view, but it's not just the poor who, as you so charmingly and dehumanizingly put it, reproduce. It may be one thing to postpone having kids for a decade or so while you stash some dosh to provide for them, but if you were working in low-paid and possibly precarious jobs and expected to be doing so for the rest of your life (because, due to compounded disadvantage, you simply couldn't compete in the market other than as a bottom-feeder), would -- should -- you be prepared to give up entirely on the idea of having kids? Children are not just concatenations of atoms sucking up resources (although that they are!), they're also, at best, the product of loving relationships that tie society together. There's possibly no more fundamental human desire than the desire to reproduce, and when we've thrown off the natural limits of death and disease and absolute poverty, artificial limits probably do need to be introduced, but I don't think that saying the poor who have children should get no support is an acceptable solution or an acceptable limit (especially when you consider the support that the relatively rich get in child benefit and tax relief and whatnot).

    The negative socialisation processes, the poor education, the low social mobility, all of these things you rightly mention and more are societal problems that came to the fore with urbanisation during the Industrial Revolution, the creation of slums to fuel the factories (of which council estates are the modern form, neither particularly good places for bringing up children who will be likely to be able to compete economically with the more privileged, although every rule of course has its notable exceptions) -- they are not individual failings, we are all repsonsible. And we reap the rewards of the labour of the low-skilled in our own country and overseas (whence your money, made, yes, in our service and knowledge economy but also on the broken backs of "the breeders"), we are all part of the picture. So if you have sympathy for the kids whose fault it wasn't, perhaps you should have sympathy for the parents whose fault it wasn't either (and who were, if I remember the science correctly, themselves once pitiful kids). Judgement doesn't solve anything.

    The welfare state has a lot wrong with it, but what is most wrong is that we should have need for such an imperfect solution in the first place. Until we have anything better, our imperfect solution will have to stay. Philpott aside, the vast majority of people on benefits have no more children than anyone else. There will always be a proportion of people who take advantage, and I wish there were no need for us to institute a system that, like all big systems, has flaws and loopholes and failings, but there is.

    Very possibly so, but just as state secularism doesn't eradicate the "soulless conditions" that cause people to turn to religion, nor does the emaciation of the state kill the ills that caused people to cling to its corpulence for comfort. If there's a cure for the condition of the poor, it won't be found by the patient on her sickbed. (Hmm, you may have to forgive the overblown metaphors. )
    There's nothing in your post I disagree with (other than calling up my usage of the term 'reproduce' then using it yourself) but of the bit I have bolded/italicised, I don't know. As I don't harbour the desire to have kids, and do not come from a poor background-I'm far removed from that situation and won't pretend I have the power of empathy with someone I am nothing like.
    I know it's a fundamental desire, and I think it's about time we changed that, especially when the desire outweighs logic and resources are drained but nothing put back into society (as an extreme).
    We pretend we're more 'advanced' than other animals, when the essentials considered, we have this same priority. We'd be better off if on the whole, we considered kids more carefully.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly you haven't studied what it was like it Britain before the Liberal welfare reforms. Sure it was nothing on the scale of the later welfare state in the mid 20th century, but welfare is still necessary. It has benefits for the well-off too, including more skilled workers and less disease.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just give them bread and an education. Everything else is a luxury they should pay for themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People go on about people being wrong to have children when they are poor. There are lots of families out there who were OK financially, had children then became poor due to redundancy, illness, bereavement or some other misfortune. People generally don't choose to be poor and most of the poor people I know are doing their best to get out of their situation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugarmouse)
    There's nothing in your post I disagree with (other than calling up my usage of the term 'reproduce' then using it yourself) but of the bit I have bolded/italicised, I don't know. As I don't harbour the desire to have kids, and do not come from a poor background-I'm far removed from that situation and won't pretend I have the power of empathy with someone I am nothing like.
    I know it's a fundamental desire, and I think it's about time we changed that, especially when the desire outweighs logic and resources are drained but nothing put back into society (as an extreme).
    We pretend we're more 'advanced' than other animals, when the essentials considered, we have this same priority. We'd be better off if on the whole, we considered kids more carefully.
    Fair enough, however, if you're talking about resources, just think how many more times greater the amount of resources a rich child will consume are as compared with a poor child (and then even more so with a poor child in the Third World). If you're talking about resources, the rich have as much responsibility as the poor, if not more.

    I agree with a lot of the rest of what you say though, which is why I'm not going to have children myself (or perhaps our lack of concern with propagating ourselves, as it were, is simply reflective of a decadent West in decline, I wouldn't like to say ). But, as you say, the human animal is not a rational creature -- even those of us who like to think otherwise are ultimately swayed by these instincts and desires -- so however much there may or may not be an intellectual case for rationalising reproduction, people will keep on ****ing regardless and the kids will keep on coming, this applies to the rich as much as the poor (although the rich may have other diversions and enjoy gobbling resources themselves too much to consider bringing another life onto the planet, and may only want a single or small number of heirs for reasons of economics and ego). You admit that you don't have much empathetical power, and, whilst I think that given the right circumstances it can like all traits be built, you're honest to admit that; empathy can only go so far with any of us, I probably don't have enough empathy with the rich (although I do have some since it so happens that I do know a fair few wealthy people, as well as very poor people), but it's an important human emotion nonetheless, even more so I imagine in the type of tribal societies in which we evolved to live. Obviously any rational system would be sustainable in the long-term, you're right, but our entire society isn't rational in those terms, so I think we have bigger problems if that's our goal. I don't see how industrial civilisation could ever be sustainable without being inhumanly authoritarian. Even with the one-child policy, China's population is still growing (partly but not wholly because there are lots of exceptions for the well off).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by faber niger)
    Fair enough, however, if you're talking about resources, just think how many more times greater the amount of resources a rich child will consume are as compared with a poor child (and then even more so with a poor child in the Third World). If you're talking about resources, the rich have as much responsibility as the poor, if not more.

    I agree with a lot of the rest of what you say though, which is why I'm not going to have children myself (or perhaps our lack of concern with propagating ourselves, as it were, is simply reflective of a decadent West in decline, I wouldn't like to say ). But, as you say, the human animal is not a rational creature -- even those of us who like to think otherwise are ultimately swayed by these instincts and desires -- so however much there may or may not be an intellectual case for rationalising reproduction, people will keep on ****ing regardless and the kids will keep on coming, this applies to the rich as much as the poor (although the rich may have other diversions and enjoy gobbling resources themselves too much to consider bringing another life onto the planet, and may only want a single or small number of heirs for reasons of economics and ego). You admit that you don't have much empathetical power, and, whilst I think that given the right circumstances it can like all traits be built, you're honest to admit that; empathy can only go so far with any of us, I probably don't have enough empathy with the rich (although I do have some since it so happens that I do know a fair few wealthy people, as well as very poor people), but it's an important human emotion nonetheless, even more so I imagine in the type of tribal societies in which we evolved to live. Obviously any rational system would be sustainable in the long-term, you're right, but our entire society isn't rational in those terms, so I think we have bigger problems if that's our goal. I don't see how industrial civilisation could ever be sustainable without being inhumanly authoritarian. Even with the one-child policy, China's population is still growing (partly but not wholly because there are lots of exceptions for the well off).
    Yes I agree, I've no issue with the using of any resource as long as the 'product' using the resources has some use, it's that simple . Those who have children with a reason not as simplistic as 'I love kids' or ' I want a council house' are more likely to put a lot of their own resources (not just money!) into bringing that child up well-I'm using an extreme example and I am aware that it's not always the case, but I see this so often in my studies, in the fact that my partner works in a field directly linked to it, and in some of the places I've lived/studied that it's a close to home issue as well as philosophically troublesome for me
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    This may sound callous, but I honestly could not give a damn as to the poor.

    A lot of socialists today have posted vile statuses about the death of one of the greatest Britons of the 20th century, and I realised that the reason I get so incensed by it all is not because I'm angry at them, I've just realised that I don't share any of their values. I give to charity to the tune of £20 a month in terms of direct debits, so as far as I'm concerned I do my bit. I don't want to have my wages stolen however to pay for things I couldn't give a hoot about i.e. the welfare bill.

    I don't believe that 'society' exists. I believe there are individuals, like Margaret Thatcher said. I'm fed up of the undeserving poor expecting me to wipe their arse for them.

    Does that make me callous?
    You don't understand what it's like to have nothing. Although I do believe that we are all a result of our own actions I understand what it's like to have no money and how easy it is to feel trapped in a struggle to pay bills and eat, feeling like there is no way I can out of the situation I'm in. Then it gets depressing and you get to a point where you don't give a damn because you feel like you can't do anything and then things really go down hill. Although I can make full of rice and potatoes now..
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.