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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maxisuper)
    Only the smartest, healthiest, strongest, nicest (best qualities etc.) should be allowed to have children, for the next century or so. The earth can't cope with current population, better in the long run for humanity
    would agree though nice is subjective.

    I don't think everybody has an automatic right to have a child anyhow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wsxcde)
    have been, but people are so much more intelligent today right, even though our brains are the same as they were in the 1970s. So I dont see that you've got any legs to stand on for your opinion that it's not in people's nature to pathologise meer difference tbh.

    If you think some people are naturally superior to others and would like to stop me posting in threads like this maybe meet me irl
    sand we can have a friendly sparring match over it, let nature decide who is strongest, after all natural selection got us this far. I'd be happy to meet you.
    no, i just think you're not as smart as you think you are.....

    and people do pathologise difference..so what? i'm saying difference is not enough to make something a medical condition. again, if you're smart you'd know that basic fact. just you say you have plenty of issues, but then they show, that's all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Any UK citizen who travels overseas should get mandatory foreign culture training before they get a passport.

    sorry, but people like this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...bai-beach.html - should have no right to travel overseas.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    That having children is pointless and damaging. Obviously it's personal choice but we live in such a child-centred society that it's looked at as unnatural to be child-free.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    That we have no right to cast judgement on other human beings, no matter what, and that prison should be an absolute last resort and used only for public protection and rehabilitation, not punishment. No action should be criminal unless it causes direct harm to another person, and crimes that can be repaired purely via financial means should only be dealt with via financial means.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    That we have no right to cast judgement on other human beings, no matter what, and that prison should be an absolute last resort and used only for public protection and rehabilitation, not punishment. No action should be criminal unless it causes direct harm to another person, and crimes that can be repaired purely via financial means should only be dealt with via financial means.
    Really? No matter what? So in no situation ever is judgement okay? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    That we have no right to cast judgement on other human beings, no matter what, and that prison should be an absolute last resort and used only for public protection and rehabilitation, not punishment. No action should be criminal unless it causes direct harm to another person, and crimes that can be repaired purely via financial means should only be dealt with via financial means.
    prison in itself is a punishment......
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Unemployment benefits should be cut off. Completely. Except for those unfit to work (disabled, mentally ill etc)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIS200)
    Unemployment benefits should be cut off. Completely. Except for those unfit to work (disabled, mentally ill etc)
    And how exactly are people trying to find work supposed to do in the mean time? Starve? Become homeless? You know food and rent costs money right?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TIS200)
    Unemployment benefits should be cut off. Completely. Except for those unfit to work (disabled, mentally ill etc)
    So (to clarify, not necessarily saying you'll disagree):

    If you worked hard to get good grades in school. Worked full time to self fund a course afterwards. Six months after completing it get a job in the desired field, work hard at the job, which contributes to society for five years. Unfortunately, there are cuts to the sector and you are made redundant. You survive by being frugal, using savings you've accumulated. You apply to many jobs of all types, at least one a day, seek professional advice to improve your application and interview technique and sell things, do as many of jobs as you can, sign up to various temp agencies. But after six months you reach a point where you can't sustain yourself any more - you don't have enough for rent and bills.

    You're saying in that stage you would think it right that you should become homeless and receive no support?

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    And how exactly are people trying to find work supposed to do in the mean time? Starve? Become homeless? You know food and rent costs money right?
    (Original post by kpwxx)
    So (to clarify, not necessarily saying you'll disagree):

    If you worked hard to get good grades in school. Worked full time to self fund a course afterwards. Six months after completing it get a job in the desired field, work hard at the job, which contributes to society for five years. Unfortunately, there are cuts to the sector and you are made redundant. You survive by being frugal, using savings you've accumulated. You apply to many jobs of all types, at least one a day, seek professional advice to improve your application and interview technique and sell things, do as many of jobs as you can, sign up to various temp agencies. But after six months you reach a point where you can't sustain yourself any more - you don't have enough for rent and bills.

    You're saying in that stage you would think it right that you should become homeless and receive no support?

    Xxx

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    what about
    1) family member support
    2) charity support
    3) friend support
    ?
    government taxation is legitimised theft (not even as a matter of opinion - it's a fact; try and distinguish government from a popular yet feared band of thieves), and clearly, theft is bad, so the ultimate aim of a government, if it is to exist (which I believe is necessary for some very minor and fundamental tasks of a political society), must keep taxation at its absolute minimum, e.g. to have some kind of legal/judicial system, bureaucracy of government legislative execution, police and military services and a parliament. why do I have to pay for people who have nothing to do with me on an economic level? literally - is there any kind of responsibility logically derived from my actions relating to their situation? if someone fails, is it someone else's burden or problem to pay the tab? I don't accept that reasoning, and I certainly don't accept this as the role of a national government that is meant to simply make sure we have liberty and equality *under the law*, not in terms of outcomes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    what about
    1) family member support
    2) charity support
    3) friend support
    ?
    government taxation is legitimised theft, and clearly, theft is bad, so the ultimate aim of a government, if it is to exist (which I believe is necessary for some very minor and fundamental tasks of a political society), must keep taxation at its absolute minimum. why do I have to pay for people who have nothing to do with me on an economic level? literally - is there any kind of responsibility logically derived from my actions relating to their situation? if someone fails, is it someone else's burden or problem to pay the tab? I don't accept that reasoning, and I certainly don't accept this as the role of a national government that is meant to simply make sure we have liberty and equality *under the law*, not in terms of outcomes.
    1) not everyone has a family or a family that could financially support them.
    2) since charities rely on donations there will never be a guarantee that the charities can cater to everybody who needs help because there will never be a guarantee that people donate.
    3) Not everyone has friends, or friends who could or would be willing to support them.


    To be honest I don't really care whether you think it's theft, what I care about is that the government makes sure that nobody in this country is left to starve or fall homeless. To me that is a lot more important than whether or not you have more disposable income to spend on luxuries. Your words quite clearly come from a selfish place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    1) not everyone has a family or a family that could financially support them.
    2) since charities rely on donations there will never be a guarantee that the charities can cater to everybody who needs help because there will never be a guarantee that people donate.
    3) Not everyone has friends, or friends who could or would be willing to support them.


    To be honest I don't really care whether you think it's theft, what I care about is that the government makes sure that nobody in this country is left to starve or fall homeless. To me that is a lot more important than whether or not you have more disposable income to spend on luxuries. Your words quite clearly come from a selfish place.
    you're not answering my question - why should I pay for people's problems? your ideal is that I pay for it, but would you put a gun to my head to make me pay for somebody's living if they fail to continue doing it themselves? if you don't support this, why do you support a government doing this for you/in your name? and whether you want to call me selfish or not, I am simply being objective. and calling me selfish doesn't prove me wrong in my principles or reasoning.

    if I could help people with ease in a manner that does not damage me, I would. but taxation does damage me and my choices, dignity and liberty. I have given homeless people money a lot in my time because I had spare change that wasn't going to be spent on anything important, and that is an example of a non-damaging form of voluntary grass-roots charity, but taxation is going to mean that I will basically have to lose almost half my paycheque.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    you're not answering my question - why should I pay for people's problems? your ideal is that I pay for it, but would you put a gun to my head to make me pay for somebody's living if they fail to continue doing it themselves? if you don't support this, why do you support a government doing this for you/in your name? and whether you want to call me selfish or not, I am simply being objective. and calling me selfish doesn't prove me wrong in my principles or reasoning.

    I think that we as a society have a moral responsibility to ensure the well being of everyone in society. That is my opinion and you may not agree with it, and that's fine.

    That is why I think you, and everyone and myself including should pay taxes. So that there is a guaranteed source of money to go towards important things that keep our society running and our people fed and sheltered and in good health.

    That gun analogy was quite frankly ridiculous and I won't entertain it. I thought you were more intelligent than to stoop to that.

    I'm not trying to prove you wrong by calling you selfish. It is my opinion that you are selfish if you put yourself and what you want always before others. We are all selfish in some respects, myself included because no one is perfect. But some selfishness I just cannot stand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I think that we as a society have a moral responsibility to ensure the well being of everyone in society. That is my opinion and you may not agree with it, and that's fine.
    where does this public/moral responsibility come from? parental responsibility comes from the act of voluntarily giving birth or reproducing. legal/contractual responsibility comes from the act of signing/assenting to a contract. where does moral/public responsibility come from if not from actions? how else can you logically progress from the origin to the result (the duty/responsibility)? you can't just look at something and say "you are responsible for this!" when there is no derivation from the non-agent and the situation.

    That is why I think you, and everyone and myself including should pay taxes. So that there is a guaranteed source of money to go towards important things that keep our society running and our people fed and sheltered and in good health.
    but why should people, logically, be entitled to other people's money, when, logically, this other person did not earn it by any rational criterion?

    That gun analogy was quite frankly ridiculous and I won't entertain it. I thought you were more intelligent than to stoop to that.
    ...it wasn't an analogy. if I refuse to pay taxes, the police will eventually come to my house and either say "come with us where we will make you spend your life in a cage, or we will get reinforcements to assault you if you resist and put you in that cage through force" - in this country, the police aren't armed with guns - their armed with batons, handcuffs and other kinds of things - if I said government taxation was a baton to your head would that make you more secure in the understanding?

    I'm not trying to prove you wrong by calling you selfish. It is my opinion that you are selfish if you put yourself and what you want always before others. We are all selfish in some respects, myself included because no one is perfect. But some selfishness I just cannot stand.
    so there is some selfishness that you are willing to deploy violence towards? does selfishness cause violence to others? nope- so why are you wanting to use violence to combat non-violence? don't you believe in peace? how is peace not more important than public entitlement/selfishness? I've *never* understood, for example, how it isn't selfish that people on the left are allowed to vote for a party that will give them more free money from other people's pockets (e.g. greens, labour, perhaps lib dems in some respects in particular) but then it *is* selfish to say "I'll make my own money and you can make your money. when is my money/property yours, and why?" (the individual-based perspective, or what you called "selfishness").
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    where does this public/moral responsibility come from? parental responsibility comes from the act of voluntarily giving birth or reproducing. legal/contractual responsibility comes from the act of signing/assenting to a contract. where does moral/public responsibility come from if not from actions? how else can you logically progress from the origin to the result (the duty/responsibility)? you can't just look at something and say "you are responsible for this!" when there is no derivation from the non-agent and the situation.



    but why should people, logically, be entitled to other people's money, when, logically, this other person did not earn it by any rational criterion?



    ...it wasn't an analogy. if I refuse to pay taxes, the police will eventually come to my house and either say "come with us where we will make you spend your life in a cage, or we will get reinforcements to assault you if you resist and put you in that cage through force" - in this country, the police aren't armed with guns - their armed with batons, handcuffs and other kinds of things - if I said government taxation was a baton to your head would that make you more secure in the understanding?



    so there is some selfishness that you are willing to deploy violence towards? does selfishness cause violence to others? so why are you wanting to use violence to combat non-violence? don't you believe in peace? how is peace not more important than public entitlement/selfishness? I've *never* understood, for example, how it isn't selfish that people on the left are allowed to vote for a party that will give them more free money from other people's pockets (e.g. greens, labour, perhaps lib dems in some respects in particular) but then it *is* selfish to say "I'll make my own money and you can make your money. when is my money/property yours, and why?" (the individual-based perspective, or what you called "selfishness").

    Moral responsibility to me is more philosophical than something so simple as contractual responsibility if you've signed a rent lease. It is more to do with personal opinions and what an individual believed to be morally right or wrong.

    I really just couldn't give less of a **** about the majority of what you wrote. No matter that you say I think people not starving is more important than if you can easily just go to the shop and by an xbox with your untaxed money.

    If I was less ill I might have bothered talking to you but really at this point with someone as dramatic as you I cannot be arsed. I'm sure someone who can be arsed will chime in any minute now so have fun with that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Moral responsibility to me is more philosophical than something so simple as contractual responsibility if you've signed a rent lease. It is more to do with personal opinions and what an individual believed to be morally right or wrong.
    how can you adequately fuse a subjective or non-calculable opinion into a mandatory and absolutely-binding law of the land, though? in my opinion, this is why our laws contradict so often, e.g. when one group can do x but another group can't even though he logic is the same. to differentiate, we have rational and normative laws against violence for when a person starts that violence, and laws against theft for when a person steals, but for taxation? well shoot, "taxation's different 'cause it's different...". this isn't to say I don't respect democracy, but democracy isn't a measurement of who is "correct" or "moral", but rather a measurement of who is "powerful" in our system.

    I really just couldn't give less of a **** about the majority of what you wrote. No matter that you say I think people not starving is more important than if you can easily just go to the shop and by an xbox with your untaxed money.
    but I am not a public servant. I am surely an independent citizen in my own right. I do not need to serve others to possess my rights and my dignity. if I am to pay taxes, I will pay them on what is voluntary to the most reasonable degree; I will and would pay for taxation when it is based on police protection, the court system, the funding of the parliament etc, but there is no consent on my part to paying for things which make no rational-legal sense like welfare. it's not consequentialistic but it makes logical sense to declare "this person worked for this amount of money. therefore, we can see that clearly this money belongs to this person and not that person."

    If I was less ill I might have bothered talking to you but really at this point with someone as dramatic as you I cannot be arsed. I'm sure someone who can be arsed will chime in any minute now so have fun with that.
    1) "ass", whether you literally pronounce it in a southern-english dialect, is still spelt "ass" and not "arse"; would you spell "grass" (assuming you pronounced it with an "ah" sound) "grarse" under this logic?
    2) that's absolutely fair enough - I'm not fighting you, I simply enjoy understanding why people believe in what they believe, and you seem to have, unfortunately, lashed back at me for it. I'm not well either - I've been in bed all day.

    and for the record - please don't assume that just because I'm a male (like most people here) that means I play video games (based on your xbox comment) because that seems clearly sexist. I haven't played an xbox (or any kind of console) in a very long time.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    how can you adequately fuse a subjective or non-calculable opinion into a mandatory and absolutely-binding law of the land, though? in my opinion, this is why our laws contradict so often. we have rational and normative laws against violence for when a person starts that violence, and laws against theft for when a person steals, but for taxation? well shoot, "taxation's different 'cause it's different...". this isn't to say I don't respect democracy, but democracy isn't a measurement of who is "correct" or "moral", but rather a measurement of who is "powerful" in our system.



    but I am not a public servant. I am surely an independent citizen in my own right. I do not need to serve others to possess my rights and my dignity. if I am to pay taxes, I will pay them on what is voluntary to the most reasonable degree; I will and would pay for taxation when it is based on police protection, the court system, the funding of the parliament etc, but there is no consent on my part to paying for things which make no rational-legal sense like welfare. it's not consequentialistic but it makes logical sense to declare "this person worked for this amount of money. therefore, we can see that clearly this money belongs to this person and not that person."



    1) "ass", whether you literally pronounce it in a southern-english dialect, is still spelt "ass" and not "arse"; would you spell "grass" (assuming you pronounced it with an "ah" sound) "grarse" under this logic?
    2) that's absolutely fair enough - I'm not fighting you, I simply enjoy understanding why people believe in what they believe, and you seem to have, unfortunately, lashed back at me for it. I'm not well either - I've been in bed all day.
    Aren't you doing the exact same thing I've seen it spelt arse for years, it's the British way of spelling and pronouncing it. You can spell and pronounce it how you want, I don't really care.

    Get well soon. I think I'm probably going to vomit again so, ta-ta.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesthehustler)
    ah someone after my own heart i did write a manuscript for an english class and got given six counseling sessions admittedly torture using droplets of acid in to the eyes and a hand in a deep fat fryer oh and drowning someone in cement at one point too
    Without sounding patronising (honestly I'm genuinely not trying to be a ****), have you considered further counselling?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Sausages are better than bacon.

    I have genuinely experienced considerable discrimination due to this belief. I'm currently a social pariah living a lonely existence with my pet knife and my sausages waiting for time to overcome me.

    Seriously though, I'm not sure if it is just "hurr durr bacan lad durr hurr" bandwagoning or I am genuinely in the massive minority here.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.