|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On February 01 2017 23:53 farvacola wrote:I was referring to a specific segment of Christianity, namely those that follow the "prosperity gospel," that literally demonizes poverty as an outward representation of God's judgment of a person. Trump's personal clergy is a prosperity gospel preacher from Florida in fact. In any case, this ain't the thread for it; the point is that judging the poor without a religious justification is definitely more of a European thing 
Is that a real thing?
I mean, Jesus literally said 'give your money and possessions to the poor'.
:/
|
No, that's definitely a real thing. "Prosperity Gospel" consists of evangelical preachers saying "God wants you to be rich." It's sort of the logical termination of the "Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", which suggests that Calvinist Protestants work harder than Catholics because Calvinists believe that prosperity is a visible sign of invisible salvation.
|
The wikipedia on it is pretty well sourced, here ya go.
The who's who of the movement is a laundry list of, in my opinion, some of the most harmful people in western society.
|
Yeah it makes absolutely no sense at all to call that Christianity in any way, unless you think literally doing the opposite of Jesus 'said' is good Christianity.
The who's who of that movement must be a goldmine for cognitive bias psychologists.
|
It was a predominant ideology of the robber barons in the gilded age era of USA. The idea behind it was that god wills it and so wealth and righteousness are equated with each other to justify themselves. In any case I see a trend recently of disparaging the homeless and poor which wasn't so evident in the past. From the Americanised insult of "hobo" to seeing random people being rude to people serving them; it's actually rather strange to see how culture has changed for the worse recently.
In any case it is ridiculous to say people are homeless because they are lazy. That viewpoint makes no sense. And it is a disgusting attitude to have.
|
On February 01 2017 21:06 Simberto wrote:
I think the main difference in your opinions are that Shield thinks people are homeless because they are lazy, while Jock assumes that there are often other reasons for that.
In my opinion, i really don't think that laziness is the main origin of homelessness. Being homeless is just so incredibly shitty that i think most people would rather work than be homeless. Thus, there must be some other reason that they do not. This reason can be mental illness, which you both agreed was a valid reason. It can be some other problem like drug addiction. It can be a downward spiral of events where you are homeless and stink because you have no place to wash, thus you don't get a job because no one hires people who are homeless and smell bad, thus you stay homeless and keep on smelling bad.
If we now assume that the main reason for homelessness is not willingness to change, but some problem that prevents change, it is both compassionate and ultimately reasonable to give aid to those people. This does empathically NOT mean just giving them money. They obviously have some sort of problem that can not simply be solved by just money, and probably also lack the necessary skills to use that money to escape their situation. It also does not mean just giving them a quality of life equivalent to what they could earn with lower wage jobs, because i agree that this would reduce the willingness to change your situation a lot.
It means finding a way to provide:
a) basic necessities like food and shelter (without those, you are basically incapable of concentrating on anything but how to acquire those)
b) counseling and aid towards getting out of that situation.
c) job trainings and assistance in getting that.
Welfare should always have the ultimate goal of having people being able to stand on their own feet again, instead of just keeping them kind of comfortable. Money is bad at doing this, but the things that do help also cost money.
This is a comment that I mostly agree with.
On February 01 2017 21:26 bardtown wrote:
The irony of Shield is that he is right wing when it benefits him (it's your fault you're homeless!) and left wing when it benefits him (EU redistribution of wealth to eastern Europe). At least stick to your views consistently.
The irony of bardtown is he lacks basic intelligence to understand that there is no 100% right wing or 100% left wing person. For example, I think I'm right wing in terms of economy, but in terms of social liberties, I'm a modest liberal. However, some people in the west might be more liberal than me. Either way, the point is this isn't binary. That's why you have centre left, centre right, etc.
What the fuck do you mean by EU redistribution of wealth to Eastern Europe anyway? I don't depend on EU's subsidies if you mean that. I support freedom of movement within the European Union though.
On February 01 2017 21:38 Jockmcplop wrote:
Simberto says it very well. I'm not advocating giving homeless people money, I'm saying there should be a system in place to help them get off the streets, and there was before it was destroyed by the tory cuts to local councils. It was one of the first things to go, exactly because of the criminally selfish attitudes of those like Shield, who would rather assume a blantant falsehood than have to think about how much luck plays a part in life.
And of course homelessness's main cause isn't laziness, that's too much reading The Sun or The Daily Mail that causes that attitude. Its just wrong.
I think you need to go back to school and study logical reasoning. That's a very dumb statement to make. In fact, someone can sue you for such accusation that they are compared to criminals. The Sun and The Daily Mail aren't my newspapers either. You don't have to read them to have a personal opinion.
|
Oh stop it.
You're going to sue me?
As Dangermousecatdog says, its a disgusting attitude.
|
And what are you going to do about my attitude? Write a letter to the queen? :D
Stop being a vocal leftie and start responding constructively. Simberto already confirmed what you and I agreed on. People who are incapable to work should get welfare.
People who are lazy shouldn't get welfare. There's nothing disgusting here. It's the way of life. If you don't like it, go to North Korea and discover the "wonderful utopian" society that you seem to ask for.
|
So how do you propose homeless people, er, "stop being lazy" and get to work? It's rather hard to get a job interview without an address or suit or vocational skills. And they have no money to send themselves back to school, that's a Catch-22. And there's no shortage of employers who feel as you do (that poverty is a result of moral failure), so even if they overcame all of those barriers, they're still at a severe disadvantage.
|
Back in Europe, there are a lot of countries which provide public schools which are FREE. That's how you get educated without being rich and I agree education should be as accessible as possible. If you want higher education, then the UK has SLC which gives you a loan with a modest interest. If you don't earn 21,000 GBP per year or so, you don't pay anything until you have this income.
As far as "ok, how do I get a job?" goes for homeless people, I don't know because I didn't have to deal with that. It might depend on specific countries, but mine offers jobs in the public sector. So, that's a start. You don't have to do it all life, but it could give you a start so you can stand on your feet properly and apply for better jobs when you can.
Edit: What I mean by public sector in this case is government funded jobs.
Edit #2: I think this should be the aim of welfare.
|
![[image loading]](http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article9738295.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Nigel-Farage-speaks-at-the-EU.jpg)
Is it okay to laugh? :D
|
On February 02 2017 03:54 Shield wrote:Back in Europe, there are a lot of countries which provide public schools which are FREE. That's how you get educated without being rich and I agree education should be as accessible as possible. If you want higher education, then the UK has SLC which gives you a loan with a modest interest. If you don't earn 21,000 GBP per year or so, you don't pay anything until you have this income. As far as "ok, how do I get a job?" goes for homeless people, I don't know because I didn't have to deal with that. It might depend on specific countries, but mine offers jobs in the public sector. So, that's a start. You don't have to do it all life, but it could give you a start so you can stand on your feet properly and apply for better jobs when you can. Edit: What I mean by public sector in this case is government funded jobs. Edit #2: I think this should be the aim of welfare.
The homeless population is slmost entirely comprised of mentally ill people, people addicted to drugs, ex-army personel who are effectively dumped on the street etc in short some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Even vulberably housed people who end up on the street run the risk of never leaving if they're homeless for more than two weeks simply becsuse they're exposed to the toxic environment of violence and drug abuse.
Suggesting people live in that kind of squalor do so because they are lazy is ridiculous. How could you endure that and not be motivated to get yourself out of it without being mentally ill or have the system stacked against you.
Yes, many people will have got there by making mistakes (and many more from being abused and let down by others), but I'm not about to shut someone out to a (short) life of misery because they made a mistake.
Edit: ex-cons who have paid their debt to society and refugees or immigrants who are fleeing persecution in their home countries or who are victims of human trafficing are also big portions of the homeless population.
Have a little sympathy?
|
Do you have source to back up your conclusion that most homeless people are mentally ill people? It's a general question, I'm not trying to be rude.
I think there is still some misunderstanding and we keep agreeing on similar things expressed in different words. Mentally ill people need to get welfare because it's likely to be outside their control. People who choose welfare over work consciously for no good reason are lazy and welfare shouldn't be a job model for them. They should be discouraged to continue in this case. Eventually you run out of money if you support this model. I don't know what's so hard to understand here. We either speak different languages or you just refuse to accept a simple truth.
|
There is no misunderstanding. You just made a stupid comment.
What compassion? I do my job and get paid, if I stop to give money to every homeless in the UK, I will be poor soon. It's their fault for failing in life.
It's not hard to go on Google Scholar and do a search with the words 'homeless' and 'mental illness', 'alcoholism', 'veteran', etc. The chance that the homeless person you pass in the street is not to some extent incapacitated by abuse, traumatic brain injury or any number of mental health issues is close to zero, so your claim to care about those who are is completely incompatible with the statement above. Simple.
|
Now you're the one making stupid comments. Alcoholism is a CHOICE. Gambling and ending up on the street is a CHOICE. So, it's their fault for failing indeed. As an adult, you should know there are consequences and this one is within your control.
Of course, this shouldn't be brutal and they should be offered some temporary help/welfare to have a start, but they shouldn't permanently depend on the government.
Edit: I sometimes see smoking beggars on the streets. How should I have compassion? Aren't they supposed to buy food instead?
|
No one is asking that you give away all your money to the next homeless you see in the streets Shield. It's just that the assertion that homeless people are homeless because they are lazy is just ridiculous. Yes, you sometimes see homeless who appear to be smoking, or even having dogs. No one is suggesting that you personally donate to them. Who would want to be homeless? You don't need to be educated to have a minimum wage job; to assert that the homeless desire to be homeless, to live without shelter in the rain or cold, to rely on soup kitchens for food, to wear the same stinking clothes all day, to suffer the disdain of people like you, to suffer total social standing; who would want to live like that? You believe that the homeless are homeless due to alcoholism and gambling and therefore not lazy. Wouldn't they need a job to lose that money in the first place? At this point, you are just making up reasons to hate on the homeless. You say that they can get a job. You can't get a job without a bank account nowadays, and you can't get a bank account without a fixed abode. The fact that I see such an increase in homeless in London, where the police would normally chase them off the streets can only be attributed to that the conservatives have no interests in promoting the interests of the poor and vulnerable.
|
Okay, let's clarify first. I don't hate homeless people. As stated, some of them have understandable reasons to feel sympathy with them. However, some of them have reasons related to their own bad choices such as alcoholism (bardtown mentioned it). Such people should be helped, but also criticised to encourage more responsibility from them or other people so mistakes are not repeated. I'm sorry to hear that a bank account is required, but I can't confirm or deny that because I've not checked. I think it's best to leave topic as it is and let people discuss news.
|
I mentioned it in a long list of factors and you latched onto it because you understood that your initial statement was indefensible and wanted a diversion. Note that alcoholics often have underlying issues, too. Discipline is necessary to tackle addiction, but it is not for you to judge and make assumptions about the man on the street that you know nothing about.
As far as news goes:
Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
This was, of course, inevitable, but given that people in this thread had argued that the commons would never back Article 50 it should be posted. Any other result would have had appalling consequences.
|
|
|
I think you guys should calm down a bit. Instead of trying to shout at each other, try to convince each other of your positions. Instead of insulting each other, try to educate the other when you feel they are lacking.
If you stopped seeing each other as opponents that need to be punished, you could have a much better discussion here.
Also, yes, at some point drinking alcohol is a choice. But at some point, it is an addiction, and that is really hard to get rid of. Addictions are illnesses. Gambling is similar.
And a lot of people make bad choices from time to time. You shouldn't be stuck in a shitty situation forever because you made a bad decision once.
Just look at the amount of people who are constantly smoking. This is a similar situation to people on drugs. You start smoking when you are 15 an stupid, and if you are unlucky, you are addicted for the rest of your life, and it becomes increasingly harder to get rid of. This is the whole business model of tobacco companies.
And if you are even more unlucky, you might not only get addicted to something socially accepted like tobacco, you might get addicted to something that ruins your whole life and ends you on the street. Yes, those people made a bad decision at some point, and could have went a different way at some point in their lives. But i think it is reasonable to offer some compassion to try to help them out of their situation, too.
I think the "Good welfare makes people stop being on welfare" quote is rather good, even if i am not a fan of reagons politics. But i also think that that means that you (as a society) actually DO something that helps them, and not just not do anything and hope for the best, or let them keep suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
