Jimothy Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Go on and find us something more reliable then. Amazingly newspapers don't normally run stories about beggars living off a few quid a day, the outrage of that doesn't sell many papers. And when Ken posts articles from less high profile reporters you'll shoot him down, laugh and tell him it's crap, and ask what about those earning hundreds a day. Well you know what, what about them both? Because they're both problems in their own way. But it's typical of your attitude to see the worst and assume everyone is the same.
Rincewind Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 It was a quote from a copper in the LM, in which he said, "anecdotally, I hear of beggars earning £200 a day.." What kind of evidence is 'anecdotally'? Hearsay from a council spokesman who speaks on behalf of the council leader.
MooseBreath Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Amazingly newspapers don't normally run stories about beggars living off a few quid a day, the outrage of that doesn't sell many papers. And when Ken posts articles from less high profile reporters you'll shoot him down, laugh and tell him it's crap, and ask what about those earning hundreds a day. Well you know what, what about them both? Because they're both problems in their own way. But it's typical of your attitude to see the worst and assume everyone is the same. I think you're wrong. Poverty does sell. That was what we were talking about before Buce brought up this beggar thing. If there was a significant problem with homeless people not being given enough to survive then I'm sure we'd hear about it, and we'd see the evidence littering the streets. Obviously I doubt all beggars are making £200 every day, but I've provided a form of evidence that some do some of the time and despite repeated requests for anybody to provide any evidence to the contrary, nobody has provided anything. A reasonable person therefore makes his conclusions based on what evidence is available.
Buce Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 The difference is that there are no reliable stats showing how much beggars do take, so anecdotal evidence is the best there is. While child poverty is taken and measured very seriously so we don't need to rely on these obviously biased studies.Tbh, Moose, I really don't know why we bother: I try not to dislike you (regretably, I don't always succeed) because it's not in my nature, but we have fundamentally different opinions on what society should be; In a nutshell, my idea of how society should be is, 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'; you appear to see society as a form of social darwinism, the law of the jungle.We should just accept that we'll never agree, and make better use of our time.
Rincewind Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 However right you are. You know you're wasting your time, right? I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion. One last try. http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Ex-RAF-serviceman-Lincoln-kept-alive-portable/story-17573783-detail/story.html Another cockup by the DWP would you agree? An update. He won his appeal it seems as it is a story from a while back.
leicsmac Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Tbh, Moose, I really don't know why we bother: I try not to dislike you (regretably, I don't always succeed) because it's not in my nature, but we have fundamental opinions on what society should be; In a nutshell, my idea of how society should be is, 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'; you appear to see society as a form of social darwinism, the law of the jungle. We should just accept that we'll never agree, and make better use of our time. Pretty much this. Though I'd add that relying on Darwinism at an economic and social level is responsible for a.) some improvements in human development, as competition is something that is necessary sometimes for advancement, and b.) the eventual downfall of civilisation (or indeed the extinction of humanity itself) if we continue to adhere to it blindly and without considering how big a problem might get that it might need a combined response, as the fate of 98% of all species that have inhabited Earth will attest.
Stadt Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Well, yeah.... But £200 a day?! Do I get more if I've got a dog? I wish my teachers brought their pets, they'd be more interesting probably
sphericalfox Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 A while back, you were pertectly happy to accept 'anecdotal evidence' that beggars earn £200 a day. As and when it suits your political bias, eh? He also called academics bolloxs. Whatever suits his trolling on that particular day I suppose.
Webbo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Pretty much this. Though I'd add that relying on Darwinism at an economic and social level is responsible for a.) some improvements in human development, as competition is something that is necessary sometimes for advancement, and b.) the eventual downfall of civilisation (or indeed the extinction of humanity itself) if we continue to adhere to it blindly and without considering how big a problem might get that it might need a combined response, as the fate of 98% of all species that have inhabited Earth will attest. Darwinism/evolution has created the society why would it destroy it? Humanity will always find ways to survive.
leicsmac Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Darwinism/evolution has created the society why would it destroy it? Humanity will always find ways to survive. Really? As I said, ask 98% of other species that have inhabited Earth about how well that works...the silence is your answer. Evolution is superb for perpetuating life and ensuring dynamic change in that life resulting in various new species. It's also good within individual species to allow them to adapt to changes their environment. Up to the point where there is too drastic a change and everyone dies. Humanity is perhaps the first species to have inhabited this planet that could avert this process through knowledge and technology, resulting in our species becoming practically extinction-proof. But if we continue to perpetuate the idea consistently that evolutionary principle should be applied to social and economic development at all times, then we may well end up facing a problem that needs a global solution divided rather than as one species, which would end up being fatal. It's a long term problem, I know; such an issue might not arise for decades, centuries, even possibly millenia. But when the time comes, if we act like the other species that have lived here, we'll die like them, too.
Webbo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Really? As I said, ask 98% of other species that have inhabited Earth about how well that works...the silence is your answer. Evolution is superb for perpetuating life and ensuring dynamic change in that life resulting in various new species. It's also good within individual species to allow them to adapt to changes their environment. Up to the point where there is too drastic a change and everyone dies. Humanity is perhaps the first species to have inhabited this planet that could avert this process through knowledge and technology, resulting in our species becoming practically extinction-proof. But if we continue to perpetuate the idea consistently that evolutionary principle should be applied to social and economic development at all times, then we may well end up facing a problem that needs a global solution divided rather than as one species, which would end up being fatal. It's a long term problem, I know; such an issue might not arise for decades, centuries, even possibly millenia. But when the time comes, if we act like the other species that have lived here, we'll die like them, too. When you compare it to artificial systems of living like communism/socialism it compares very well.
MooseBreath Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Tbh, Moose, I really don't know why we bother: I try not to dislike you (regretably, I don't always succeed) because it's not in my nature, but we have fundamental opinions on what society should be; In a nutshell, my idea of how society should be is, 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'; you appear to see society as a form of social darwinism, the law of the jungle. We should just accept that we'll never agree, and make better use of our time. I expect I'll probably get tired of going round in circles someday, but for now I enjoy the opportunity to discuss topics, which are usually a bit too sensitive to discuss in the real world, in a generally good natured manner with a range of participants with a variety of perspectives. I don't think I've ever fundamentally changed my mind on something because of what I've read on here, but I've definitely reconsidered some aspects of my views. For example even ken has made me think again about to what degree the average homeless person can reasonably be expected to simply sort themselves out. I certainly don't dislike you, ken or anyone else on here just because I don't agree with them. Fundamentally I think we all want the same things, we just have different opinions on how it can be achieved. Some of you seem to view the social safety net as a warm blanket next to roaring fire where people can give up and live in comfort forever. I prefer to see it as a trampoline, it saves you from hitting the floor but soon sends you on your way again, hopefully back up to a better place and if not, you'll just have to keep trying.
Guest Bilo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Well, I'm off to an election hustings on Friday night. Barring a massive shock, it's a two horse race between UKIP and the Tories up here. I need to prepare some questions. This should be fun!
leicsmac Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 When you compare it to artificial systems of living like communism/socialism it compares very well. I'll say for the third time: it does up until the point where there is a global response needed and it doesn't come, viz. trouble. Come on Webbo, you're a smart guy - you KNOW the point I'm making here. We need balance between the two ideologies, as they're both useful in differing situations. I expect I'll probably get tired of going round in circles someday, but for now I enjoy the opportunity to discuss topics, which are usually a bit too sensitive to discuss in the real world, in a generally good natured manner with a range of participants with a variety of perspectives. I don't think I've ever fundamentally changed my mind on something because of what I've read on here, but I've definitely reconsidered some aspects of my views. For example even ken has made me think again about to what degree the average homeless person can reasonably be expected to simply sort themselves out. I certainly don't dislike you, ken or anyone else on here just because I don't agree with them. Fundamentally I think we all want the same things, we just have different opinions on how it can be achieved. Some of you seem to view the social safety net as a warm blanket next to roaring fire where people can give up and live in comfort forever. I prefer to see it as a trampoline, it saves you from hitting the floor but soon sends you on your way again, hopefully back up to a better place and if not, you'll just have to keep trying. That's reasonable enough. I do enjoy debating with most everyone on here, and it is interesting to see so many different perspectives - even (especially) those you might not agree with.
Rincewind Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 Well, I'm off to an election hustings on Friday night. Barring a massive shock, it's a two horse race between UKIP and the Tories up here. I need to prepare some questions. This should be fun! I'm sure whatever you ask you will not know if they have answered when they answer your question.
Guest Bilo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I'm sure whatever you ask you will not know if they have answered when they answer your question. Quite possibly. Just got to hope they aren't allowed off the hook with the general questioning.
Webbo Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 I'll say for the third time: it does up until the point where there is a global response needed and it doesn't come, viz. trouble. Come on Webbo, you're a smart guy - you KNOW the point I'm making here. We need balance between the two ideologies, as they're both useful in differing situations. From the dawn of civilisation, and probably before, there's always been an apocalypse just around the corner used to control our behaviour and yet we're still here. Since the fall of communism and the risk of all out nuclear war declining it's been global warming. As the evidence fails to live up to the rhetoric another potential end to civilisation will appear. Keep a bit of scepticism and live for today. Life's too short to worry about what might happen.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 From the dawn of civilisation, and probably before, there's always been an apocalypse just around the corner used to control our behaviour and yet we're still here. Since the fall of communism and the risk of all out nuclear war declining it's been global warming. As the evidence fails to live up to the rhetoric another potential end to civilisation will appear. Keep a bit of scepticism and live for today. Life's too short to worry about what might happen. I found a theory, a couple of months ago (can't remember where) that suggests mankind will be wiped out by robots, within the next five thousand years. I believe he was a Professor of some sort. I shan't let it worry me.
leicsmac Posted 5 April 2015 Posted 5 April 2015 From the dawn of civilisation, and probably before, there's always been an apocalypse just around the corner used to control our behaviour and yet we're still here. Since the fall of communism and the risk of all out nuclear war declining it's been global warming. As the evidence fails to live up to the rhetoric another potential end to civilisation will appear. Keep a bit of scepticism and live for today. Life's too short to worry about what might happen. And yet, the ten thousand years that recorded civilisation has existed for is a blink of an eye when compared to the history of the Earth as a whole, having all happened in a reasonably temperate interglacial period in between two glacial periods (which is anything from halfway to five-sixths completed, if the studies of previous such periods are anything to go by). There are long term threats to humanitys existence that are not only documented - they are guaranteed to happen on a relatively short geological timescale - however such a timescale is a long time in terms of human lifetime or even that of documented civilisation itself. Of course, you're right in that worrying about the future too much probably isn't healthy - life is indeed too short...but it would be nice to see our species actually use the intelligence that it has and not fall into the same trap as most of its predecessors have.
Buce Posted 6 April 2015 Posted 6 April 2015 Tory candidate defects to UKIP: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32194270
johnny the fox Posted 6 April 2015 Posted 6 April 2015 Tory candidate defects to UKIP: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32194270 will probably be arrested tomorrow,..
The Longstop Posted 6 April 2015 Posted 6 April 2015 Sorry lads missed this thread. Here's this year's blog. Plenty of local Leicester politics as usual. Thanks for all your support. https://leicesterlongstopper.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/13-years-of-hurt-remastered-for-2015/
Alf Bentley Posted 6 April 2015 Posted 6 April 2015 Sorry lads missed this thread. Here's this year's blog. Plenty of local Leicester politics as usual. Thanks for all your support. https://leicesterlongstopper.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/13-years-of-hurt-remastered-for-2015/ Come clean! Are you MooseBreath or The People's Hero?
sphericalfox Posted 6 April 2015 Posted 6 April 2015 Sorry lads missed this thread. Here's this year's blog. Plenty of local Leicester politics as usual. Thanks for all your support. https://leicesterlongstopper.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/13-years-of-hurt-remastered-for-2015/ The irony of a Labour PR machine in comparison to a Tory government desperate to maintain a grip of the media through it's Rupert & Co partners is laughable. We've already seen Cameron try to decide how and what format the debates occur, and given that the Tories have put great efforts in securing a top PR man to drive their key messages and drill the soundbites into their media training, it makes that blog a pile hypocritical horseshite. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-the-masterminds-behind-the-scenes-10147551.html
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.