Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Wellyea, that's the sad reality. Government rules will force you to take any job there is, or you'll lose benefits.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Not in it's essence. I really believe that refusing certain jobs because they are destructive to our environment and add nothing to society except profits for the company shows wisdom.

Now I don't think that someone who just says 'meh I dont like work so I'll just live off benefits and not take any job at all' is wise, or contributing to society.
But if there is no meaningful job to be found, it's better to sit at home and get benefits, than to go along with the mainstream of destroying our planet for profitssss, and take any job you can, just to be employed. Employement is no higher goal in life, it's mostly just a means. You could just as well take a job in child pornography then, I hear it pays well.

Did you really just compare a factory job to the production of child pornography?

EDIT: You do understand the people working these factory jobs are the ones that pay the taxes that allow you to subsist on welfare, right?

[itisnotlogical]

Glad to know that because I worked fast food for a bit and currently looking forward to a retail job, I'm as bad as a child pornographer.

Wellyea, that's the sad reality. Government rules will force you to take any job there is, or you'll lose benefits.

What world do you live in where the economy works if people don't have jobs? The fact is, people need to do things so that other people can do things. Somebody needs to make shoes so that I can walk without cutting my feet up. Somebody needs to grow food so that people have things to eat. Most people who work, pay taxes so that you can be on welfare. Incidentally, "people avoiding jobs and sitting around on welfare all day" is the bogeyman in the US has used for decades to keep welfare programs to a minimum.

It's hilarious that you're so down on the consumer economy given that you're on the Internet on a computer, both luxury items that contribute to poor environmental practices and awful labor conditions in many sectors.

[martinuzz]

EDIT: You do understand the people working these factory jobs are the ones that pay the taxes that allow you to subsist on welfare, right?

You're overgeneralizing. I was not talking about just any factory job. There's plenty of useful factory jobs. I was talking about the cosmetics / excessive consumption / useless appliances industry.

Also, you realize those factory jobs can exists because there's welfare for those unable to find a job, right? The alternative is those people plunder your factory and steal your goods, just to be able to survive.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

You're overgeneralizing. I was not talking about just any factory job. There's plenty of useful factory jobs. I was talking about the cosmetics / excessive consumption / useless appliances industry.

Also, you realize those factory jobs can exists because there's welfare for those unable to find a job, right? The alternative is those people plunder your factory and steal your goods, just to be able to survive.

So people shouldn't have luxuries to spend their money on? We should all just sit in concrete rooms with the bare minimum of what we can craft ourselves from driftwood? I don't get where you're going with this.

I'm still reeling by the fact you compared working in a factory to the production of child pornography. You can't just chuck "(/sarcasm)" on it. We got that it was sarcasm, it's the comparison that's the problem.

That's not how the world works. For millenia the world didn't have welfare and it still carried on spinning. "Plundering" is called breaking and entering, mate. It's a crime.

[martinuzz]

I disagree, when the perpetrator has no other means of sustenance. Surivival is a human right.

Fun fact: In the Netherlands, the law was even altered through jurisprudence. If someone can prove his income is below so called 'social minimum', he is entitled to take food and drink from a store without paying. He/she can in that case not be accused of a crime. Thanks to vicar Visser of the Paulus church in Rotterdam. He was (retired now) a vicar / lawyer / social worker who dedicated his life to aiding homeless and poor, and fought many legal battles against the state.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

I disagree, when the perpetrator has no other means of sustenance. Surivival is a himan right.

You can disagree but that doesn't make it the case. It's still a crime whether you believe it is or it isn't.

Are you really saying that people are going to break into factories of "cosmetics / excessive consumption / useless appliances industry" and eat them? Why would they not just steal food instead? You're making no sense.

[itisnotlogical]

Also, you realize those factory jobs can exists because there's welfare for those unable to find a job, right? The alternative is those people plunder your factory and steal your goods, just to be able to survive.

No, those factory jobs exist because people buy the products that come out of whatever factory. The more money the business has, the more people they are able to hire and the more they can produce. This is why consumer spending is incredibly important to a functioning economy; if nobody spends, then nobody has a job because nobody's making money with which to pay employees.

Your comparison to child pornography is messed up regardless of whether it was sarcasm or not.

[martinuzz]

The major flaw is that it assumes rescources are infinite and the earth itself is an infinitly large garbage dump.

Perhaps my child pornography comparison was a bit too much. I basically just tried making the point that 'employment' isn't nescessarily a good thing, or a noble goal in itself.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

The major flaw is that it assumes rescources are infinite and the earth itself is an infinitly large garbage dump.

Perhaps my child pornography comparison was a bit too much. I basically just tried making the point that 'employment' isn't nescessarily a good thing, or a noble goal in itself.

As logical said, you're on a computer of some description posting on the internet. If you want to stop waste, go sell your computer (in fact, give it away so someone else can buy food with it), go into the woods and live the life of a hermit.

You compared the exploitation of a minor to the production of goods. Do you understand why that's bad?

[itisnotlogical]

The major flaw is that it assumes rescources are infinite and the earth itself is an infinitly large garbage dump.

Perhaps my child pornography comparison was a bit too much. I basically just tried making the point that 'employment' isn't nescessarily a good thing, or a noble goal in itself.

Do you know that all the energy you use comes from clean sources? What about the company that provides your Internet, are they commited to environmental friendliness? Whoever made the device you're posting from, what about them? Do you know what kind of labor produced the food you eat? Do you really have a leg to stand on to accuse random jobbos of crimes against Earth, Captain Planet-style?

[wierd]

were it so easy. (Yes, I would gladly take that life [hermit in woods] over this one; it is not permitted to me. The government has this thing about people doing that-- they fine the shit out of them, and make their lives miserable.)

[martinuzz]

A computer is a useful tool for communication and social mobility, and I would almost say, a nescessity in modern western society. You think you can find a job nowadays with a handwritten letter?
You cannot compare that to cosmetics. I don't wear a computer just to look pretty.
Still, I admit you can't compare cosmetics to child pornography either. I used a bad example.

Also, this

were it so easy. (Yes, I would gladly take that life [hermit in woods] over this one; it is not permitted to me. The government has this thing about people doing that-- they fine the shit out of them, and make their lives miserable.)

I would too, but there's laws against living off the land in a self sustaining way. Just not possible.

[wierd]

Indeed.  Indeed.

[scriver]

In Swedish, the word for vote is the same as the word for voice. Thus, limiting suffrage is the same as limiting our right to speak. Limiting it should be kept to minimum.

I don't really have a problem with felons losing their vote though, though I think they should regain it after some amount of years after their sentence is up (say 2-5). That way the majority who commit one crime and then does not repeat it regains their ability, while the career criminals are kept out of the system. Stop that I think there should be an ability to keep people with links to organised crime out of the system permanently (especially in places like the US where offices like Police Chief and Judges and what not is up for vote), and that corruption sentences should have similar consequences.

Oh, and lobbying should be a felony