is pc human suicide

The point is it's not a question of giving people the right ... it's a question of taking people's rights away. It's very dangerous to start considering that we should take people's natural human rights away.

Exactly. And that's one of the things the welfare state is there for...

 

Although in fairness it's not doing the best job exactly, is it?

 

What do you mean? It's not perfect, not by a long way. But it's doing an incredible job.

 

Sigh.. if you wanna believe that. Personally i think it's a good concept that's steadily crumbling and contributing to destroying society in this country, but i know you have your own ideas on the matter. It's a truth that humanity causes destruction to the planet, and it's a truth that we are vastly overpopulated across the entire planet, hence all the destruction damage and suffering animals, enviroment, and humanity suffer. This is what happens when happy liberal ideas are allowed to run without check, just as Iraq under Sadam and Zimbabwe's Mugabe are examples of far right ideas running without check.

I've already stated my beliefs about our welfare state helping prop up many families who are not prepared to work or contribute to society in a previous thread. We disagreed with each other on this, but i still see all the evidence i need with my own eyes to support my belief. I'm not saying i have all the answers, but i'm saying that the system has been allowed to be abused, and this has contributed to the decline of social morality and benefit.

 

I'm not really sure I follow ... are you suggesting it's destructive to our society to have agencies whose purpose is to protect children from abuse?

 

it is dstructive if people take advantage of it.

 

I think you know full well that i'm not saying that, but it's a beautifully emotive piece of word twisting. Worthy of a politician, in fact.

I'm saying that encouraging families to sponge off benefits is bad for society, both financially, and morally. The way the system has crumbled and been mismanaged has openly encouraged those who wish to abuse the system. Obviously it still works for many honest people, but the balance is tipping. Do we really need another generation of kids brought up to believe the government will look after them if they can't be bothered to find a job? I don't think so.

 

This is going a bit off topic and was something of a non-sequitur in the thread if you weren't talking about state provision of child protection agencies whose job it is to protect children from abusive parents.

Here's an interesting quote from a Wikipedia article with references to academic sources which demonstrate that the welfare state is not deleterious to a country's economy. In that other thread I remember challenging you to provide data which indicate that the "balance is tipping" and that provision of welfare services is "destroying society" other than hearsay, assertion and the old chestnut "the evidence of my own eyes".

But yeah, the topic is not really moral and economic arguments for the welfare state but eugenics and human evolution, if you want to propose the abolition of state-provided services on moral and economic grounds perhaps you can start another thread?

 

I'm really not that interested, thanks. It's a non-sequitur to keep going on about being off-topic when really my comments were pertinent asides, if anything. Actually the topic is entitled "Is PC Human Suicide?". Hardly a carefully defined topic.

You hold a lot of faith in wikipedia. If you were to have kids, would you look there to see how to bring them up? I've had more than my fair share of internet debates or arguments in the past to get bored with endless "evidence" giving. Linking to a website does not provide any evidence at all, especially as 90% of internet facts are complete lies, and most debators would only go and poo-poo whatever website the info came from anyway. Personally, I'd rather trust my eyes and ears, frankly. I'm not interested in "proving" myself right, i know the points i make are right, that's why i make them in the first place. I'm only amazed that you have never made any of these social observations yourself.

Just out of interest, are you intending, or would you like to get into politics officially?

 

As I pointed out, I quoted the wiki article because it provides references to academic publications whose studies have used economic data to demonstrate that there is no detrimental effect on a country's economy from providing welfare services, in fact they seem to indicate a slight economic benefit. So I think the points you make about "internet facts", while often true, are not really applicable to the sourced evidence I provided.

Fair enough. I would just warn against making assumptions and presumptions without looking into the data which could support or deny these opinions you hold. It is quite often the case that such selective interpretations of personal experiences, hearsay and "social observations" are often skewed and biased according to prejudices that people may not even be aware they have. I would suggest that we should doubt "the evidence of our own eyes" and what we hear from others and always attempt to base our opinions on available evidence rather than groundless assertions.

 

I'm sorry but i'll always trust my senses and intellect over the internet and government or corporation-backed statistics and information. Actually, i'm not remotely sorry. But i'm glad you took no offense at what i said.

My politics question wasn't entirely sarcastic incidentely. Would you be interested in that sorta thing?

 

I'm starting to feel like Jeremy Paxman.

 

No, I've never been interested in becoming a politician ... not sure how to take that!