Posts: 2,060
Threads: 86
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
13
10-19-2020, 12:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2020, 12:20 PM by ChamonixBaggie.)
Just gonna ignore this bit then? Standard
"Instead of rolling your eyes at the question, "when did the right care about the vulnerable" why don't you actually have a go at answering it?"
Just admit that you can't explain how cutting public services (or in this case, letting vulnerable children go hungry) benefits anyone except those who get slightly richer from the subsequent tax breaks (which is about 1-3% of the population). The Tories are the enemy of personal improvement and social mobility.
ps enlightened self interest means that by serving others, you ultimately serve your own interests, not the other way around.
Posts: 6,354
Threads: 201
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation:
11
(10-19-2020, 12:06 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: enlightened self interest means that by serving others, you ultimately serve your own interests, not the other way around.
Yes Dear, it's the basis for the free exchange of goods and services which - and not by magic - funds the state's largesse.
You'd be far worse off without us evil bastard entrepreneurs.
Posts: 2,060
Threads: 86
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
13
Does attempting to be patronising make you feel better?
Judging by your statement, you're the one who really doesn't understand what enlightened self interest is. I'd guess you're confusing the concept with a different one.
Still dodging the question as well...I'm sure the hungry kids are glad the entrepreneurs are doing well.
Posts: 6,354
Threads: 201
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation:
11
(10-19-2020, 02:45 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: Does attempting to be patronising make you feel better?
With you? Yes.
Posts: 5,966
Threads: 38
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
39
Nigel Farage to the left of the current Government. Indefensible, spin this one Proth.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/...9403961346
Posts: 6,354
Threads: 201
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation:
11
Spin what? Is it really such an outrageous assumption that parents should feed their kids?
Posts: 5,966
Threads: 38
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
39
10-22-2020, 10:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-22-2020, 10:20 AM by Ted Maul.)
So, providing basic meals to starving kids in the middle of a pandemic equates to the countrywide downing of tools by parents? How have you figured that out.
What rational argument is there for wanting kids to go hungry? Like it or not, some of these parents can't feed their kids what then? Shockingly children that get fed do better in school.
What you're doing when faced with hungry children is saying "fuck 'em"... I'm genuinely interested as to why.
Posts: 5,836
Threads: 177
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
16
(10-22-2020, 10:20 AM)Ted Maul Wrote: So, providing basic meals to starving kids in the middle of a pandemic equates to the countrywide downing of tools by parents? How have you figured that out.
What rational argument is there for wanting kids to go hungry? Like it or not, some of these parents can't feed their kids what then? Shockingly children that get fed do better in school.
What you're doing when faced with hungry children is saying "fuck 'em"... I'm genuinely interested as to why.
I've not really kept up with this but I guess there would be some element of means testing to this? I sort of agree with Proth (and similarly with his post on free prescriptions) although it's easier with administration it's a massive bill to pick up if it's a free-for-all when it comes to such benefits.
Posts: 5,966
Threads: 38
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
39
(10-22-2020, 10:23 AM)Fido Wrote: (10-22-2020, 10:20 AM)Ted Maul Wrote: So, providing basic meals to starving kids in the middle of a pandemic equates to the countrywide downing of tools by parents? How have you figured that out.
What rational argument is there for wanting kids to go hungry? Like it or not, some of these parents can't feed their kids what then? Shockingly children that get fed do better in school.
What you're doing when faced with hungry children is saying "fuck 'em"... I'm genuinely interested as to why.
I've not really kept up with this but I guess there would be some element of means testing to this? I sort of agree with Proth (and similarly with his post on free prescriptions) although it's easier with administration it's a massive bill to pick up if it's a free-for-all when it comes to such benefits.
They know how little it would cost to provide school meals to those who need them most. 2.2m is the figure quoted by Marcus Rashford.
Any parent that can feed their kids, still will.
The extent of the bill is no argument given the amounts the current mob have spaffed on shite, ferry companies with no ferries for example.
Posts: 6,354
Threads: 201
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation:
11
(10-22-2020, 10:20 AM)Ted Maul Wrote: So, providing basic meals to starving kids in the middle of a pandemic equates to the countrywide downing of tools by parents? How have you figured that out.
What rational argument is there for wanting kids to go hungry? Like it or not, some of these parents can't feed their kids what then? Shockingly children that get fed do better in school.
What you're doing when faced with hungry children is saying "fuck 'em"... I'm genuinely interested as to why.
Having worked in a city homelessness and benefits advice unit during a recession I've seen abject poverty up close and personal. In the vast vast majority of cases parents still manage to feed themselves and their kids.
If you find a (literally) "starving kid" you'll find a multiplicity of child neglect. How giving a feckless parent a food voucher is going to stop that I don't know.
It is not unreasonable to expect parents to feed their kids.
|
