John Ward: tit for tat for the tit
I think there is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have let ugly little rhetorical turds trip from their mouths while living off state handouts.
And for looking like one of the more unsettling grotesques from The League of Gentlemen.
(Via Lynne Featherstone)
Posted on March 25th, 2008 at 8:29 am
| See also • Ginsberg’s Theorem* again • The Mainstream Media and Alisher Usmanov: Fair and Balanced • Emotional placebo |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Tories |
• |
Do you have your own idea for dealing with people who produce endless children whilst living off benefits? How do you feel about that little shite from Tyen & Wear who has fathered seven children by seven girls?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/5138444.stm
Shouldn’t their children at least be fostered and their benefits revoked? This is surely an example of sociopathy without fear of the consequences. I’m from the humanist camp but you can’t let people do this to children. Its child abuse. Its also awful for society- check out Stephen Levitt:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
Do you have your own idea for dealing with people who produce endless children whilst living off benefits?
Personally, I have some ideas for dealing with people who write dehumanising sentences like that.
Please don’t hold back. I’m a big boy and I can assure you that I can take anything you can throw at me without blubbing.
‘Dehumanising’ suggests that I consider such people to be less than human. That is not true. I believe them to be lacking in human empathy for the fate of the children that they bring into the world but that is not the parent’s fault. They are products of the system seeking a better life for themselves in the only way they know. That is not an excuse for them to create lives to be ruined by their neglect and selfishness, however. You must balance the suffering of hypothetical children against their parent’s liberty. Parenting is a privilege, not a right.
How do you feel about that little shite from Tyen & Wear who has fathered seven children by seven girls?
First up, how do you know those seven girls aren’t some of the best mothers in the country with families and support groups to help them? How do you know it’s child abuse? For all you know those children might have good lives regardless of how their father goes about. They might need intervention from social services and I hope that happens as and when but it’s got nothing to do with the father.
Shouldn’t their children at least be fostered and their benefits revoked?
No. Because a) they might not need to be fostered (see above) and b) I never saw the logic in making poor people poorer as a tool of policy.
I believe them to be lacking in human empathy
Not just them, I think.
‘Dehumanising’ suggests that I consider such people to be less than human.
I think it was the reference to “endless children” which made (and makes ) me consider that you thought of them as less than human. But tha parents, too, of course. Just breeding and living on the state. Try thinking of other people as people, hmmm?
Incidentally, my practical recommendation for this gentleman is that he carry out a statistical analysis with regards to the problem in which he is enjoined to discover:
(a) what proportion of benefit spending goes on paying support to children in familes larger than the national average ;
(b) what proportion of press coverage of benefits issues goes on stories about paying support to children in familes larger than the national average.
We may then be in possession of information allowing us to judge the full extent of this apparently dreadful problem. Or perhaps of information allowing to judge what the problem really is.
First up, how do you know those seven girls aren’t some of the best mothers in the country with families and support groups to help them?
They are single mothers, therfore they are likely to be surviving on benefits. Not that this is an indictement but you can’t deny that its a good start in life for the child or the mother. I don’t believe that children should be without at least one full time parent until the age of five or so in the absence of the Swedish model.
This bloke clearly isn’t involved in raising any of his children and yet he’s also unemployed at the age of 21. He should be paying thousands every month in child support. You’re right that making poor people poorer is pointless and inhuman so I think he should be put to work in the fields in return for his benefit cheque.
My fostering comment was inappropriate as it assumed that the mothers were incapable for which there is no evidence.
As for breeding and living on the state, I beleieve part of being human is being a part of society. If your actions are sociopathic you are being inhuman and society must take action to limit the damage caused by your actions. Maybe through tying benefits to community service or participation in education and retraining programs. Do you think these people should be left to continue their way of life?
I appreciate your point that undue column inches get dedicated to this topic but that’s no reason for ignoring it. It should be an opportunity to reveal the red-top and Daily Heil hyperbole for what it is and to sieze an opportunity to identify progressive solutions to such issues.
Cock! I still can’t get the hang of html tags.
:~(
Do you think these people should be left to continue their way of life?
Well, I’m not sure you should be, to be honest, since you strike me as a danger to society. However, the humane and pragmatic guideline here is - it depends on the size of the problem.
Is there a serious problem with loads of people fathering huge numbers of children that create an intolerable burden on the taxpayer? I don’t believe for a moment that there is (note: I spent a lot of years working in Social Security and would imagine I have seen more claim forms than most people have). Hence I don’t consider it a problem that needs addressing - in contrast to ignorance, stupidity and the desire to persecute poor people, which are substantial problems in the society in which we live.
You’re keen to parade your social crusader credentials but you don’t give any detail as to what you think should be addressed in society today. Personally my objections are too many to mention here but I think the war on terror, fiscal inequality, appalling social and public services and - the biggest and baddest- climate change, are all issues of enormous import to the future of our civilisation. I haven’t heard anything of substance from you yet apart from a glib proposal to get someone to work out some statistics; a patently fatuous proposal as if he can’t use a condom he probably can’t even spell ’statistics’, let alone do the simple maths involved.
So, are you all hot air or do you actually have any real solutions to the problems you whine about? Apart, that is, from turning allegedly ‘inhuman’ proposals back on their proposers- which, by the way, makes you just as inhuman as me by your own standards. Not a little hypocritical, yesno?
I think I’ve proposed that problems I don’t consider serious don’t require solutions, let alone drastic ones. That should be clear enough. It’s not remotely clear to me why I should need to identify any other problems in order to make this point.
Nor have I paraded any “social crusader credentials”, nor have I suggested that our errant father perform any tasks at all, statistical or otherwise. I have, however, suggested that you might care to do so.
You seem to have difficulty identifying subjects and objects, let alone locating a sense of proportion or one of humanity. Or of irony.
You wrote:
“I spent a lot of years working in Social Security and would imagine I have seen more claim forms than most people have). Hence I don’t consider it a problem that needs addressing - in contrast to ignorance, stupidity and the desire to persecute poor people, which are substantial problems in the society in which we live.”
Sounds like blowing your own horn to me.
You also wrote:
“Incidentally, my practical recommendation for this gentleman is that he carry out a statistical analysis with regards to the problem in which he is enjoined to discover:
(a) what proportion of benefit spending goes on paying support to children in familes larger than the national average ;
(b) what proportion of press coverage of benefits issues goes on stories about paying support to children in familes larger than the national average.
We may then be in possession of information allowing us to judge the full extent of this apparently dreadful problem. Or perhaps of information allowing to judge what the problem really is.”
So that’ll be you wrong on both accounts. Yesno?
You abuse amuses me greatly. I am having fun!
Sounds like blowing your own horn to me.
Does it? It sounds to me like I’m saying I used to work in Social Security and have seen a lot of claim forms. Presumably you think that people take jobs in that sector in order to demonstrate their “social crusader credentials”? That would be absurd and yet I can see no other reasonable interpretation of your comment.
So that’ll be you wrong on both accounts. Yesno?
The answer is of course “no” (although this “yesno” business, which you are presumably young enough to find impressive, is a little boorish). You didn’t understand who the passage referred to the first time and nor have you understood it the second time, even though it was explained to you.
In neither instance was it harder than obvious.
Are you saying that you didn’t start working in Social Services to help people? If you did I would interpret this as a “crusading” life choice because you certainly didn’t embark on that career path for the enormous financial rewards, the aesthetic wonder of a swollen bureaucracy or the delights of working with the less fortunate sections of the general public. The only other option is that you drifted into it by sheer chance but I am giving you the benfit of the doubt, yesno? ;~)
I think, with regard to your second point, that you are implying that the target of the passage was, in fact, myself and not the bloke from Tyne & Wear. In the context of your use of the pronoun ‘this’, as in “my practical recommendation for THIS gentleman is…”, you are referring- in the context of your predication “…my practical recommendation for…” to the subject of the previous posts and not myself. You also have not “explained” anything more than your own ire by throwing around cryptic references to “objects” and “subjects”. So less of the smug condemnations of my English comprehension and a little more effort to communciate clearly, hey? If you believe you have something of value to convey- and the fact that we ae engaged inthis dialogue would suggest you do (although I’m struggling to find it)- it would seem rational to do so as efficiently and clearly as possible.
Not sure I follow your second paragraph, but as to the first.
Are you saying that you didn’t start working in Social Services to help people?
I didn’t start working in Social Services at all. Different people altogether.
And while you may find it hard to imagine that somebody may have been in a position where they applied for the first job they saw and got it, many other people will, I suspect, find the concept less testing to their imaginations.
Shit, I’m talking to two different people!
I hadn’t spotted that. I feel a bit dim now.