So, I talked to 3rd-generation welfare dependants overnight about their problem

[Akzle]

Well, tonight I will go home and enjoy the Lego Movie, since I enjoy it - I am right when I say it is good.

And therefore you would be wrong to say I am wrong.

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

[TheDemonLord]

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

Depends on the criteria you use for determining objectivity:

It's light comedy with a dash of social commentary, in the format of the Monomyth (probably the most well established and succesful format of all time) and ties in the experience of playing with Lego and the imaginative scenario that one creates as a child with the film (the bit I find most clever and enjoyable) Sprinkled with a little bit of the Toy Story idea of Toys moving by themselves when we aren't looking.

And yes - plenty of Marketing opportunities thrown in too - but its a film about a Company/product so that is to be expected....

[R650R]

Modern Welfarism is a control tool of the govt and Elite to mould society to its liking. And while were talking welfare lets not forget the handouts for the working via working for families. You know where you pay less tax than the single person next to you doing the same job just because there was nothing good on tv last winter... And its such a good handout that one guy I was working with didn't want a payrise or to do too much overtime as he would end up earning less. I wonder how many people have declined their WFF welfare handouts?????? prob zero....
Yes its good that you are raising the next generation but its classic example of how people who prob often don't NEED that money get it and allow that to influence their voting choice etc....

The job I have now, about 73 people applied for it, guess they were not as 'motivated' as me???????

There is a finite amount of decent paid jobs out there. Having an artificially smaller pool of available labour helps keep those jobs decently paid. You know what happens when people have no choice but to work at whatever job is available???? Go have a look at china or mexico. Modern welfare has effectively become the modern day union, its stopping the low skilled labour from working for below minimum wage or liveable levels.
From the days of the depression we know what happens when many people cant find work to feed their families, they will steal to survive.
I see modern welfare as like anti theft and robbery insurance for society. If we pay some unmotivated person $200 a week to do nothing, that's a lot cheaper than the insurance bill for break ins or the cost of police and justice dept chasing them for thieving.
I'm not saying all unemployed people steal or are dishonest but if you push people too far they will break and do stuff like that. Just look at the surge in shoplifting and petrol driveoffs in recent years as cost of living has gone up.
Now just imagine all the unemployed people suddenly having no money, only 'motivation'......

Really the problem starts with our education system and then our massive restrictions on free enterprise by local and central govt on people who could possible do their own thing business wise.
And then we all vote for politicians and parties who continue this system, so we are all complicit as much as the 'unmotivated' who accept a benefit.

[mashman]

except you saying it's good is a subjective opinion.
It's objectively crap.

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

[mashman]

Poofter....

Tasteless tart.

[mashman]

We know, lack of choice/freedom is common to communistic dictatorships (and those by any other name).

Can't wait for this current attempt at communism to be over.

[mashman]

Maybe there are a few billionaires who could warrant a Bullet, only after all the Dole Bludgers who refuse to work to earn their Dole have been dealt with

Yeah, but what if billionaire you shoot was going to go on and fund the cure for cancer that would have been found by a returning student that was once a long term doley.

I have no more backed up my Assertion than you have backed up yours - however a quick look at the violent crime stats for a selection of countries and then extrapolating those out - yeah, I would say it is much bigger than 0.1 % - as some quick maths for NZ (with our relatively low crime rates when compared to say SA) - it works out to about 4.5% - but that is only for recorded crime (so not including all the supposed unreported crime - which for some violent crimes is estimated as high as 50%)

You got a civilization in history that didn't display these behaviours as proof yet?

Oh I see, now you're moving on to violent crime. I must be doing something wrong as I can't get even 1% from the violent crime stats of the u.s. A far cry from the 50% your socially approved shit tinted specs seem to be offering. Also, of that 1%, are they violent more than 99.9% of their day?

If I risk my house and my livelyhood to start a business and through my leadership the business is succesful, why shouldn't I reap the rewards? Did my Employees mortgage their house to fund the business? Did they take any personal or financial risk to startup the Business?

Sounds like the sort of entitlement complex that ruins lives.

quod est necessarium est licitum

Indeed.

Perspective is a funny old thing

Only when you post.

[Akzle]

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

noones. Objectivity requires no subjecties.

It had enormous potential, and a half dozen gags that were so close to being funny. but it was so poorly executed that i now shit myself while trying to scrub it from my brain with various types of battery acid, a holesaw and a salad fork.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, but what if billionaire you shoot was going to go on and fund the cure for cancer that would have been found by a returning student that was once a long term doley.

Can you name a Nobel prize winner in Science who was a long term Doley (as discovery of a Cure for Cancer would surely be nobel prize winning, it is a reasonable comparison) - I had a quick look - the closest I could find was Michael Faraday - but he was simply born into a poor family, not on the Dole (not that social welfare existed in Faradays time), and not actually a Nobel prize winner (although find me a physicist who would argue he wasn't deserving of one....)

Oh I see, now you're moving on to violent crime. I must be doing something wrong as I can't get even 1% from the violent crime stats of the u.s. A far cry from the 50% your socially approved shit tinted specs seem to be offering. Also, of that 1%, are they violent more than 99.9% of their day?

Violent crime is a good approximation for Violence - I see you haven't cited an example of a society where people don't exhibit these behaviors, so by proxy confirming that they are widespread enough to be considered nearly universal... I did note that it was quick maths - I pulled the data from here: http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/...=TABLECODE7411 Tallied up the totals, and divided by 5 Million (lazy approximation of the NZ population) - However I will concede that re-looking at it, the biggest section (under Theft and related) doesn't differentiate between Theft involving Violence, and those that don't. - However I did predicate it with the caveat that it was quick maths, even without Theft however -it still is around 2% - which is means that your original claim of 99.9% is out by a factor of at least 20....

You will also note when I raised the 50% I did use the word 'supposed', which to the astute would confirm that I treat such a number with suspicion (because invariably it is as you say Socially approved shit tinting based on hear say)

Sounds like the sort of entitlement complex that ruins lives.

Can you provide a reason why someone who has taken a risk shouldn't be rewarded for it and conversely why someone who hasn't taken a risk be rewarded to the same degree as someone who has? Surely if that was the case the motivation for taking the risk in the first place (the reward) would mean that no one would take risks and society would stagnate.

Edit - Which funnily enough has been the downfall of nearly every Communist society... Funny that Human Nature and all....

Indeed.

I had a suspicion you would like that quote more than the other one - if only we had Lawyers that would remember that....

Only when you post.

Are you self aware enough to concede the irony of that retort?

[TheDemonLord]

Who subjective view are we taking as being objectivity today?

The real question is whose subjective view should we be taking as objective.

The answer comes in 2 parts:

1: Not Akzle's
2: Clearly Demon's

[mashman]

Can you name a Nobel prize winner in Science who was a long term Doley (as discovery of a Cure for Cancer would surely be nobel prize winning, it is a reasonable comparison) - I had a quick look - the closest I could find was Michael Faraday - but he was simply born into a poor family, not on the Dole (not that social welfare existed in Faradays time), and not actually a Nobel prize winner (although find me a physicist who would argue he wasn't deserving of one....)

So you write people off that haven't done anything yet, because you believe that they'll never do anything?

Violent crime is a good approximation for Violence - I see you haven't cited an example of a society where people don't exhibit these behaviors, so by proxy confirming that they are widespread enough to be considered nearly universal... I did note that it was quick maths - I pulled the data from here: http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/...=TABLECODE7411 Tallied up the totals, and divided by 5 Million (lazy approximation of the NZ population) - However I will concede that re-looking at it, the biggest section (under Theft and related) doesn't differentiate between Theft involving Violence, and those that don't. - However I did predicate it with the caveat that it was quick maths, even without Theft however -it still is around 2% - which is means that your original claim of 99.9% is out by a factor of at least 20....

You will also note when I raised the 50% I did use the word 'supposed', which to the astute would confirm that I treat such a number with suspicion (because invariably it is as you say Socially approved shit tinting based on hear say)

I don't exhibit these behaviours, neither do my neighbours. That does not mean that they don't want to kill me. That they don't, nor go on to kill anyone else, is a perfect example of everyday human behaviour. Remember, behaviour is situational... and to that end I won't rule out that my neighbour may never kill me as I know that they are capable of it. I'm surprised you feel the need to calculate such an obvious outcome... but as mentioned earlier, some people let their education do their thinking for them.

Big difference between 50% of people being violent and 0.1% being violent. Yet you still claim that decide that our predominant behaviour is violence?

Can you provide a reason why someone who has taken a risk shouldn't be rewarded for it and conversely why someone who hasn't taken a risk be rewarded to the same degree as someone who has? Surely if that was the case the motivation for taking the risk in the first place (the reward) would mean that no one would take risks and society would stagnate.

Edit - Which funnily enough has been the downfall of nearly every Communist society... Funny that Human Nature and all....

I did provide an example. You want rewarded because you have been told that you should be rewarded. I have also been told, repeatedly and always to my amusement, that I should be rewarded because of the effort I've put into some things, yet I don't require reward. Quite simply put, you have an entitlement complex and I don't. It's also a kind of control experiment given that we both have access to the same information. You choose entitlement, I choose to do the next thing for the sheer love of it.

I had a suspicion you would like that quote more than the other one - if only we had Lawyers that would remember that....

They're being paid not to. Remove the money and you'll see a drastic change in that behaviour .

Are you self aware enough to concede the irony of that retort?

Did you laugh at it?

[mashman]

noones. Objectivity requires no subjecties.

It had enormous potential, and a half dozen gags that were so close to being funny. but it was so poorly executed that i now shit myself while trying to scrub it from my brain with various types of battery acid, a holesaw and a salad fork.

Aha

Superaha Try this:



you've got a hinged noggin top aincha?

[TheDemonLord]

So you write people off that haven't done anything yet, because you believe that they'll never do anything?

Its more a case that the people who are going to do something big, are/where already doing something (Richard Branson, James Dyson, Peter Jones, David Starkey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.)

I don't exhibit these behaviours, neither do my neighbours. That does not mean that they don't want to kill me. That they don't, nor go on to kill anyone else, is a perfect example of everyday human behaviour. Remember, behaviour is situational... and to that end I won't rule out that my neighbour may never kill me as I know that they are capable of it. I'm surprised you feel the need to calculate such an obvious outcome... but as mentioned earlier, some people let their education do their thinking for them.

Big difference between 50% of people being violent and 0.1% being violent. Yet you still claim that decide that our predominant behaviour is violence?

I didn't say 50% of people, I said the unreported rates of come violent crimes is estimated as high as 50% (supposedly) - would you like a hat for your Strawman? What you have described between yourself and your neighbor is what we would expect in a highly social group, but to simply dismiss behaviour as not part of the human condition is silly.

I did provide an example. You want rewarded because you have been told that you should be rewarded. I have also been told, repeatedly and always to my amusement, that I should be rewarded because of the effort I've put into some things, yet I don't require reward. Quite simply put, you have an entitlement complex and I don't. It's also a kind of control experiment given that we both have access to the same information. You choose entitlement, I choose to do the next thing for the sheer love of it.

And We've been here before - you say entitlement, I say Risk/Reward - Does nature have a concept of Entitlement? It certainly has the concept of Risk/Reward (Evolution ring a bell?) and I say the history of Humanity is proof that it is no more a choice than it is programming in our DNA - we take risks because we are rewarded (both in physical terms and in chemical releases in the brain), it's also why Communism fails repeatedly.

But as I said here - you refuse to accept the overwhelming amount of both Historical and Scientific evidence attesting to some of the baser parts of the Human Psyche, simply on the grounds that you don't do it and neither does your neighbor, therefore it isn't right. We may have come a long way from our Cave dwelling predecessors - but one only has to look at what happens in PnG, or any of the African Civil wars to see how uncomfortably we are one step removed.

They're being paid not to. Remove the money and you'll see a drastic change in that behaviour .

And so Winning and the feeling of Vanquishing ones intellectual adversary count for nothing? if so - Why do people play Computer games (or argue on the internet)? Money may be part of it, but there are much deeper and much older evolutionary traits at work

Did you laugh at it?

I always laugh at what you post

(seriously - you walked right into that one)

[mashman]

Its more a case that the people who are going to do something big, are/where already doing something (Richard Branson, James Dyson, Peter Jones, David Starkey, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs etc.)

People do "big" things at different stages of their lives and as circumstances permit, is more where I'm coming from. If Billy boy had been busted for something, thus preventing him from holding Steve Jobs back, the world may well have been a much better place .

I didn't say 50% of people, I said the unreported rates of come violent crimes is estimated as high as 50% (supposedly) - would you like a hat for your Strawman? What you have described between yourself and your neighbor is what we would expect in a highly social group, but to simply dismiss behaviour as not part of the human condition is silly.

So you tainted your results and tell me I'm throwing in a Strawman? If no person is violent for 99.9% of their entire life, then, no wriggling by you, or any other expert for that matter, can state that our predominant behaviour is violence. What does everyone else do, that isn't fighting, during any war? Why, they are 99.9% peaceful for 99.9% of the time. As such, any literature stating that our predominant behaviour is violence should not be allowed to be published, the authors should be shot for, well, being thick, and the literature should be laughed out of print. I'd be interested to know how many would go to war if they weren't being paid to do so and had a well paid job back home?

And We've been here before - you say entitlement, I say Risk/Reward - Does nature have a concept of Entitlement? It certainly has the concept of Risk/Reward (Evolution ring a bell?) and I say the history of Humanity is proof that it is no more a choice than it is programming in our DNA - we take risks because we are rewarded (both in physical terms and in chemical releases in the brain), it's also why Communism fails repeatedly.

But as I said here - you refuse to accept the overwhelming amount of both Historical and Scientific evidence attesting to some of the baser parts of the Human Psyche, simply on the grounds that you don't do it and neither does your neighbor, therefore it isn't right. We may have come a long way from our Cave dwelling predecessors - but one only has to look at what happens in PnG, or any of the African Civil wars to see how uncomfortably we are one step removed.

I've proven it's entitlement. I've not just said it. Nature doesn't use money. All experiments null and void. Get over it. Next. I just gave you proof above. History has noted war, it did not mention what everyone did. Figure it out. Next.

And so Winning and the feeling of Vanquishing ones intellectual adversary count for nothing? if so - Why do people play Computer games (or argue on the internet)? Money may be part of it, but there are much deeper and much older evolutionary traits at work

Only if they wanted to win. blah blah blah, blah blah blah @another crack at establishing evolution as a driver for learned behaviour. It's smoke and mirrors.

I always laugh at what you post

(seriously - you walked right into that one)

In which case you have just answered your own question.

(yeah, really wasn't expecting anything like that).

[TheDemonLord]

People do "big" things at different stages of their lives and as circumstances permit, is more where I'm coming from. If Billy boy had been busted for something, thus preventing him from holding Steve Jobs back, the world may well have been a much better place .

My point here is that people who do big things are never idle on the dole - sure they may not achieve big success until later in life, but they were always trying/grafting, never sat on their arse expecting handouts from people.

So you tainted your results and tell me I'm throwing in a Strawman? If no person is violent for 99.9% of their entire life, then, no wriggling by you, or any other expert for that matter, can state that our predominant behaviour is violence. What does everyone else do, that isn't fighting, during any war? Why, they are 99.9% peaceful for 99.9% of the time. As such, any literature stating that our predominant behaviour is violence should not be allowed to be published, the authors should be shot for, well, being thick, and the literature should be laughed out of print. I'd be interested to know how many would go to war if they weren't being paid to do so and had a well paid job back home?

- makes argument against Humanities innate Violent tendancies.
- Suggests people who say humans are innately violent should be shot.

Q.E.D

As an aside - most combatants throughout history have not been paid - something about defending the lifestyle that you enjoy or the ones that you care about is worth more than money....

I've proven it's entitlement. I've not just said it. Nature doesn't use money. All experiments null and void. Get over it. Next. I just gave you proof above. History has noted war, it did not mention what everyone did. Figure it out. Next.

The only proving you have done is in your own mind - Nature doesn't use money, but it sure as shit does use reward (Right to feed first, Right to Mate with the Females, Increase Social Standing, the Right to lead the Pack) - so I ask again - Is there Risk and Reward in Nature? and if so why is it not entitlement in Nature? (the Alpha Male lion has the entitlement to feed first from the Kill, because he is the one that Risks his life in a fight to the death to defend his Pride)

Only if they wanted to win. blah blah blah, blah blah blah @another crack at establishing evolution as a driver for learned behaviour. It's smoke and mirrors.

Okay then - what about Smiling/frowning - even Blind Babies - who have never seen a smile or a frown, don't understand language to understand what a Smile or a Frown is - Frown when they are upset and Smile when they are happy.

What about Deaf Babies laughing and Babbling?

The desire to Win is probably one of the strongest of all Evolutionary traits - we even have phrases in the english language describing pointless competition for the sake only of winning (such as a Pissing contest)

Evolution is the driver for just about ALL behavior - but I have had this argument with you before - you simply refuse to believe the scientific and empirical evidence for this. The only conclusion I can find for this is that it would blow the house of cards that is your belief in a workable RBE to the ground, and so you hold onto an irrational belief, to protect your faith. It is from this point that the accusation of Zealotry is leveled.

In which case you have just answered your own question.

(yeah, really wasn't expecting anything like that).

Oh you can do better than that.