Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Funny thing is, the majority of the people doing the bitching, are probably the ones exploiting it.

biccat likes maths homework?

The monster!

KingCracker wrote:Examples are examples. You saying that everyone on welfare is lazy, is the same as saying what my examples were. Do people abuse the welfare system? Yes, they make it to easy not to. That doesnt mean that some people that are on, dont actually need it.

Yes examples are examples, but you're intentionally using inflamatory examples in an attempt to paint me as a racist, I think we can all see that.

I didn't say that recipients don't need the welfare money, I said they're lazy. Those are not mutually exclusive states.

MrDwhitey wrote:biccat likes maths homework?

Math, not maths. I don't know why that bugs me so much about you guys.

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:Are going to explain how, or do you just have no adequate reply?

I know you read the rest of my post; I had a fantasy game, which unfortunately got interrupted by a family emergency. Everything's good now.

Glad to hear it.

But welfare isn't a public good because it's not provided to all members of the public, it's a necessarily limited resource, the consumption of which leads to a lower availability of the good for others.

Please note that I never said that it was a public 'good', but a public 'service'. And yes, this service is available in potentia to anyone who requires it in order to survive. At least, that's the theory.

Don't get me wrong, I think our welfare system needs massive root-and-branch reform - we spend more on welfare than we do on our national defence, which is itself still fairly formidable for a nation of our size. I'd like to see those amounts reversed, though I doubt that's possible any time soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Math, not maths. I don't know why that bugs me so much about you guys.

It's probably our decadent European socialist pluralisations. Plurals! Plurals for everyone!

I assume you prefer your words to be ruggedly individual.





In all seriousness, we say 'Maths' because the word refers to Mathematics, which has an 's' on the end of it.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:
Math, not maths. I don't know why that bugs me so much about you guys.

It's probably our decadent European socialist pluralisations. Plurals! Plurals for everyone!

I assume you prefer your words to be ruggedly individual.

We cut out extraneous letters, like stray u's that occasionally sneak their way into our words.

Albatross wrote:In all seriousness, we say 'Maths' because the word refers to Mathematics, which has an 's' on the end of it.

But it isn't plural! Unless there's a mathematic.

Wikipedia informs me that this is a "metonymic shift in the plural-to-singular direction." Whatever the feth that means.

So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

biccat wrote:
Wikipedia informs me that this is a "metonymic shift in the plural-to-singular direction." Whatever the feth that means.

I would presume that it means that it uses a plural form to indicate a variance of content, whilst still being a singular concept. That is just a rough guess, mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, it turns out that metonomy is a similar concept to synecdoche. Huh. I had a feeling I should have known what that meant - my first instinct was that it was a term in semiotics...

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

And your assumption that anyone who discusses or feels bad about the death of one can't be aware of and also feel bad about the other.

So yeah, someone in this discussion IS clueless...

I'm fairly bemused by the idea that Lt. Michael Murphy has been 'forgotten'...

Albatross wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think our welfare system needs massive root-and-branch reform - we spend more on welfare than we do on our national defence, which is itself still fairly formidable for a nation of our size. I'd like to see those amounts reversed, though I doubt that's possible any time soon.

Even if you omit education, that's true of every developed nation. In fact, its probably true of most nations.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think our welfare system needs massive root-and-branch reform - we spend more on welfare than we do on our national defence, which is itself still fairly formidable for a nation of our size. I'd like to see those amounts reversed, though I doubt that's possible any time soon.

Even if you omit education, that's true of every developed nation. In fact, its probably true of most nations.

According to this... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_11bc1n_40#ukgs302

...we currently spend 181Bn on The NHS and Welfare, and 47.2bn on defence. That just seems... Odd.

On a moderation note, please take discussions of welfare and social supports into another thread.

And to clarify, posting to express disinterest or unconcern in a thread memorializing a dead person is considered both off topic and rude.

One can mourn (at least a little) the loss of a talented and famous artist while still caring about the deaths of soldiers and other heroes. Pretending that one precludes the other is foolish and inflammatory.

Albatross wrote:
According to this... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_11bc1n_40#ukgs302

...we currently spend 181Bn on The NHS and Welfare, and 47.2bn on defence. That just seems... Odd.

Its really not, the US spends about 5% of its GDP on the military, and about 15% of its GDP on welfare. That 15% number might actually be only federal expenditures as well, which would mean the actual number is higher.

biccat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Examples are examples. You saying that everyone on welfare is lazy, is the same as saying what my examples were. Do people abuse the welfare system? Yes, they make it to easy not to. That doesnt mean that some people that are on, dont actually need it.

Yes examples are examples, but you're intentionally using inflamatory examples in an attempt to paint me as a racist, I think we can all see that.

I didn't say that recipients don't need the welfare money, I said they're lazy. Those are not mutually exclusive states.

MrDwhitey wrote:biccat likes maths homework?

Math, not maths. I don't know why that bugs me so much about you guys.

Math and maths are both contractions of mathematics so are both equally valid and equally wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I think our welfare system needs massive root-and-branch reform - we spend more on welfare than we do on our national defence, which is itself still fairly formidable for a nation of our size. I'd like to see those amounts reversed, though I doubt that's possible any time soon.

Even if you omit education, that's true of every developed nation. In fact, its probably true of most nations.

According to this... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2012UKbn_11bc1n_40#ukgs302

...we currently spend 181Bn on The NHS and Welfare, and 47.2bn on defence. That just seems... Odd.

I like that site. I have one question; What the hell does "social exclusion" mean within the welfare bill?

While she certainly is not my cup of tea as she doesn't scream nearly enough ( ) I can for sure appreciate the loss of an incredible voice and talent. R.I.P

Deleted for both rudeness and irony overload.

reds8n

CT GAMER wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

And your assumption that anyone who discusses or feels bad about the death of one can't be aware of and also feel bad about the other.

So yeah, someone in this discussion IS clueless...

Want to know the difference between these two?
The soldier is in a profession where death is an expected risk. The comparison is therefore not only biased but rather judgemental, and effectively states "This human life is worth waaaaaaaaay more than this one!"

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

Army Pfc. Cesar Cortez
Died February 11, 2012 (same day as Whitney Houston)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

And your assumption that anyone who discusses or feels bad about the death of one can't be aware of and also feel bad about the other.

So yeah, someone in this discussion IS clueless...

Want to know the difference between these two?
The soldier is in a profession where death is an expected risk. The comparison is therefore not only biased but rather judgemental, and effectively states "This human life is worth waaaaaaaaay more than this one!"

A: So what if it is judgmental
B:Some of us feel that some lives are more valuable than others..

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

And your assumption that anyone who discusses or feels bad about the death of one can't be aware of and also feel bad about the other.

So yeah, someone in this discussion IS clueless...

Want to know the difference between these two?
The soldier is in a profession where death is an expected risk. The comparison is therefore not only biased but rather judgemental, and effectively states "This human life is worth waaaaaaaaay more than this one!"

That soldier's life is worth more than Houston's. He saved the lives of the men in his squad.

THe only thing Houston saved was her career.

The obscene amount of ignorance toward what any of these people actually did and how they would feel about the remarks made about them is staggering. Especially amusing is the metric that people who also killed people are better becuase they also saved people is used and immediately discarded in an absolute disdain for human life.

Part of the idiocy of the remarks, besides just being factually wrong often, is this false dichotomy that you have to choose one or the other when all the people listed had value and were somebodies family member. Only a fool would not understand that some people are more well known in the world than others. If Army Pfc. Cesar Cortez wanted to be a celebrity he picked the wrong profession, and if he joined the military just to be worshiped by people with a military fetish he went into the wrong job as well. My guess would be that neither are true and if he was a decent person he would find your attempt to use his memory to denigrate another human being and spit on the ideas he swore uphold abhorrent.

The only people making value judgements are the people who keep throwing hissy fits. No one said she was any better than others so why some need to come in make a defense of an argument that was never made boggles the mind. You have become that which you are arguing against.

Whitney isn't known for rehab, she is known for being one of the most famous and popular singers in modern history, with a once in a generation voice that could blow doors off their hinges.

If a soldier starts to think they are better than the civilians the voluntarily chose to protect and swore an oath to protect, they need to start to do some rethinking of why they are there in the first place. If you wanted to be better than others you shouldn't join an organization that is designed to be at the service of the country and it's people. If you want to be famous and to feel superior there are other better places to be.

A soldiers life isn't worth more than hers, and her life isn't worth more than a soldiers life. I find the whole idea of a soldier being deified and worshiped in this way more disrespectful than the people who acknowledged that a talented person that was well known passed away. You sully their memory by holding up ideas that betray the ones they swore oaths to uphold.

I say all this as someone who is pro-military and never owned a single Whitney Houston product, or was even a big fan.

Thank you, Ahtman, for articulating what I've been trying to figure out how to say ever since these irritating macros started hitting the internet.

Monster Rain wrote:Thank you, Ahtman, for articulating what I've been trying to figure out how to say ever since these irritating macros started hitting the internet.

I heartily concur.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Thank you, Ahtman, for articulating what I've been trying to figure out how to say ever since these irritating macros started hitting the internet.

I heartily concur.

Indeed.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Thank you, Ahtman, for articulating what I've been trying to figure out how to say ever since these irritating macros started hitting the internet.

I heartily concur.

Indeed.

Word. I find the levels military fetishism amongst some of the posters of this site to be slightly disturbing and a little pathetic, to the extent that I have written a song about it. I have entitled it 'War Porn', because frankly, that seems to describe the phenomenon fairly accurately.

Hear, hear.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:So she died...and?

disgusted by all the media attention.
Here´s the reason for you who are still clueless:

And your assumption that anyone who discusses or feels bad about the death of one can't be aware of and also feel bad about the other.

So yeah, someone in this discussion IS clueless...

Want to know the difference between these two?
The soldier is in a profession where death is an expected risk. The comparison is therefore not only biased but rather judgemental, and effectively states "This human life is worth waaaaaaaaay more than this one!"

EDIT: Got it! Michael Murphy is a 'born hero' yes. in school he chose to protect a weak boy whom always fell prey to bullyists. in the University he aimed that he will be the people's protector... yes. in and outside the congress.
he was born to do the right thing.

alrite this site has almost no fans of Whitney Houston. but for anyone being her 'bane' . what will you reacts if a group of her fans (usually gays) protested against your 'expressions' ?

Albatross wrote:
Word. I find the levels military fetishism amongst some of the posters of this site to be slightly disturbing and a little pathetic

Agreed.