Charl91

I was a student So I had a student loan to live on, the money I had saved up from work before University, plus my parents supported me through university, so it was more then enough. I plan on doing my teaching course next year, but rather then rush into it I thought I'd take a year out of the education system, get a job and see what the world of work was actually like. In hindsight, it probably wasn't the best idea...

I'm roughly the same. I'm working between 8 - 19 hours a week (it varies lots depending on my shifts), but probably averaging out at about 14 hours a week at minimum wage. Not claiming anything at the moment, but I'm going to have to look into the possibility since I'm down to my last £100 or so, and with my rent and ridiculous council tax bill (£850) my budget is negative £30 a week, and that's before I even buy food. I've always been used to being fairly well off, so it's been a bit of a culture shock, but like you said, it is manageable if you cut back or so (well, it would be if I claimed for anything); obviously new phones and Ipads etc. are out of the question, but that's fair enough. Hopefully this will be short term for me, but I can full sympathise with you - I can also appreciate it's a lot more difficult for older people to find jobs.

This basically sums up my feelings. Well said. It also helps seperate those who can't find a job with those who just can't be bothered to work. I suggested to a couple of guys on benefits I know that it would make sense for people on benefits to earn them on a minimum-wage basis (so about 10 hours a week) and they thought it was outrageous. Needless to say, they've both been unemployed for more then two years, even though they claim they're "honest job seekers" that can't find a job. I think it might be due to them not actually applying to any though....

You're right - I wasn't around in 1911 Now we have ASDA.

No, I probably wouldn't be. But then that's not much of an argument - I also wouldn't be around to be annoyed about it! Society is getting to the point where we wont be able to support many more people. If it's a choice between people starving and limiting the amount of children people have, then it's a no-brainer. People say it's inhumane, but that's only because they're too short sighted to see the alternative.

A little extreme. I do agree with food stamps, but only to the extent that it's a coupon of a certain value that has to be spent on food (not alcohol or cigarettes). If they want to spend all of it on monster munch, then that's fine with me.

Oh ok - sorry, I came in late to this conversation! I don't think benefits should be cut, but I do think they should be much better regulated.

^ As mentioned before, the benefit money is adequate enough so that you don't starve. I'm not knocking poor people. I'm as poor as they come.

If people are starving on benefits, then it's because - They have too many kids to support - Their accomodation is too expensive - They waste their money/don't know how to budget It's not because they don't get enough money. I'd also be starving if I spent all my money on alcohol and cigarettes.

I've said this before. Limit people on the amount of kids they have. People on benefits can easily afford to live, unless they live in a stupidly expensive house or have lots of kids. I'm in a situation where I would be better off quitting my job and living on benefits then I would be carrying on working (that's not even an exaggeration), so I really struggle to sympathise, in fact I envy those on benefits.

You can't just use a word completely and utterly wrongly and then claim it's alright because you've put it in quotation marks! Why use the word evolved, when you could use other entirely unrelated words such as "Brick" or "Octopus"? Hell, I might just start substituting the word vegetarian with "Dickhead" - it's ok though, because it's in quotation marks and people know what I mean! To summarise: Don't butcher our language.

I'm fine on fur, if it's a by product of animal was killed for food purposes (such as leather from cows, and I guess possibly rabbit too). Anything other than that though, I strongly dislike, especially the hunting of endangered species. For me, there's a big difference between killing an animal for food and killing it so you can look like a tiger.....

I disagree. There are people that do actually care about animal rights without being in either camps. There seem to be three types of people. On one hand, the extremists who think that everyone should wear clothes made out of grass and that eating animals should be punished by hanging (The OZ's). On the other hand, there's the emotionless psychopaths here who clearly don't give a toss about animals in the slightest because they think humans have a god given right to do whatever the hell they like to animals (eg. people like you). Then there's the people who actually do care about animal rights, but actually have a realistic/less extreme approach to both sides. Sadly this whole thread has been filled with crazy and unrealistic utopian ideas instead of realistic discussion on how animal rights could actually be improved....

Food poisoning. First time i've eaten at Burger King for years, and the last time I ever eat there. Was childminding at the time, and I spent the entire night either on the toilet or throwing up, till 5 in the morning. Now I have my first shift at my new job in a hour (so I can't really call in sick) and I still feel dreadful!

Yes, but as we have argued ad nauseum, most meat eaters (including me) don't have a problem with animals being killed for food - it's a natural process that is most likely what would happen to them in the wild anyway, and while it's not nice or kind, it's doesn't have to be unnessecarily cruel. The problem is we disagree on two points. You argue that it's for enjoyment purposes only, but most of us disagree, any more than eating vegetables is for enjoyment. You argue that it's cruel, while we argue that it's natural. We're never going to come close to seeing each others point of view on this, and animals will always be eaten untill we can synthetically grow meat. What I will argue is that regardless of how cruel you believe killing animals is, the way they are treated in their life-time before they are killed is many many times more cruel and inhumane, and it's in that area in which it is imperative that massive changes should be made.

^ This

Amazon. They accidently credited me with £102.99 for a replacement Kindle, even though they'd actually had already replaced my Kindle. I thought I would do the right thing and let them know. They kept me on hold for so long that it probably cost me £6 in phone bills, just to give them their money back.....

You're as bad as those conspiracy theorists.

Please don't tell me you're serious. If the birth rates carry on declining, then it might level out at 9 billion (which is probably still too many) - however, that's only if the decline in birth rate continues, so that's one of the more posivite outlooks, and even that isn't too positive. If it carrys on at the current rate, then by 2300 it will be 1.3 trillion. Since people are living longer, we also have about 5 births for every 2 deaths. I have done. Maybe you shouldn't just read the things which suit you.

Well, I disagree. While I don't agree with Oz's "everyone should go vegan" policy, I do think we should be reducing the amount of meat that we eat and that we should be treating animals humanely. Clearly you don't feel the same way, but I'd like to think most people are less self-centered. Only from starvation. How is that not a problem? Why not actually seek to tackle it before it comes to that?

You're right - however, I am fine with chicken nuggets, because it uses the bits that would probably otherwise be thrown away. Waste not, want not!

This is nothing to do with compromising with vegetarians. If you wanted animals to be treated humanely and to be kept in better living conditions, then the cost of meat would undoubtably go up. Basic supply and demand.

Yeah, I do think it's very important, not just for our future, but the future of every living thing on the planet.

Increase the price of meat and keep the animals in better conditions. Simples.

I might agree in the case of fox hunting, but I disagree that killing animals to eat is for pleasure purposes only. Eating meat is for survival purposes - just because you can get other nutrients from different places, doesn't change that fact that eating meat is natural for survival. It's not for pleasure purposes only as it gives us plenty of health benefits - Smoking is for pleasure purposes only, playing snakes and ladders is, eating meat isn't. The fact that some people prefer to get their protein/iron etc. from other sources is neither here nor there. I accept that we are part of nature, and I have no qualms about eating a cow in the same way that a lion has no qualms eating a Buffalo. It's how the food chain works. Killing animals of other species for food IS natural - it's the guilt about doing so which is not. I could criticise you for eating vegetables instead of not eating animals that have died naturally. If you eat an animal that has died of old age, then you are not actually killing anything, whereas if you are eating plants, then you are destroying a living organism (sentient or not). There's always someone that can go one step further. Why stop at only sentient living beings? Doesn't every living thing have the right to live?