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.

Greebynog , by now at page 2 you should know the people im talking about , since first post are people that HAVE assistance from the system and chose to abuse it.

Having warhammer as hobby shows i have a good life? Lets see how it went for me.

ATM , i babysit + assemble / paint for commission , have been doing it for awhile now. And during summer
i teach swimming to people that i babysat and their friends.
When i take commissions , 80% of the time they would rather give me (for example) $200 worth of their army they are bored of instead of $100 cash. I paint their unwanted stuff and sell it to someone else that wants it for good price, and it goes on etc etc.

In other words warhammer for me have nothing to do with how "good" my life is.


@bloodofork: Basically you said " because the officials cannot weed out the abusers , its better to let it be so it wont effect the real needy ones"

Well thats fine, atleast you agreed its still not fair. Now i realize instead of whinning it doesnt do anything, nor we assume The officials have no ways
to weed abusers out.

Well for one, they can limit the amount of children that will receive the benefits. To say 2 per family, and only 1 if its single parent.
This will stop the reckless BREEDING that i stated in the first post and example of people DELIBERATELY making MORE children for the sake of
extra money given from government.


Remember China's one child policy? now that works.
What does canada do? their loop holes encourages the burden on the rest of the country EXPONENTIALLY .

Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

BloodofOrks wrote:Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

Well , let me explain alittle bit in details regarding that, because silly as this will sound...
it the truth.

China's 1 child policy did result in forced sterilization . But the difference is the culture itself.

The sterilization isnt so much " oops no condom! must do abortion now" no. For the chinese, it was mostly
aborting the FEMALE fetus. Because in their society , they feel males are more capable of taking care of them at their old age.


So again i'lll repeat:

they can limit the amount of children that will receive the benefits. To say 2 per family, and only 1 if its single parent.
This will stop the reckless BREEDING that i stated in the first post and example of people DELIBERATELY making MORE children for the sake of
extra money given from government.

should be implemented to counter this: "I'll make more babies since the government will give me money for each and all of them, more baby = more money"


Now im not sure if you know about Canadian rules , but essentially, government pays MORE than enough to support EVERY single
baby till they are 18.
Do you see why the parents dont mind breeding as many babies as they can now? They have NOTHING to lose, and everything to gain.

Okay, I'll spell this out for you. Children conceived out of wedlock are forcibly aborted by the Chinese government and often both the mother and father are forced to undergo surgery which renders them sterile. And as you have pointed out, since many parents want sons, they abort female fetuses which has resulted in a large gap in gender population which has resulted in a black market which buys and sells female children so that parents can guarantee that their son's will have a wife when they come of age. Policing reproduction results in human rights abuses. Period.

Also back up the claim about women having more kids for welfare dollars with some facts then it might warrant a response. As of this moment, all you've backed your statement up with is hearsay which is useless if we are going to have any sort of rational discussion about this topic.

Another thing, if you cut benefits for extra children, who suffers? The children. It's not their fault their parents are workshy layabouts.

For an interesting view of how all of you are right and all of you are wrong, work in an Inner London school.

People at all levels abuse systems an power, look ad a dictator, or wall street crooks, lieing salesmen and politics. So find me a group where some don't abuse the system. China has horrible human rights violations. It is a poor example. This everybodies fault but mine attitude is getting bad. Like I've said before You haven't seen poor till you visit a 3rd world country, or watch a family lose everything. You'd think conservitaves would be for abortion....

kind of late:
yes know i live a nice life and i can afford warhammer because i have a job
i work all day on the weekend and have no days off ever
and hero i would like it if you didnt insult conservitives
i can say alot worse of leftist
@greebynog: its funny you said that right know because there is this girl campaigning for free medical care for illegal immigrants

"I work all day on the weekend and have no days off ever."

You need a better work contract.

1.I didn't insult anybody. I offered that maybe they should take a hard look at themselves before judging, that maybe the problem is the people who sell drugs but the people who buy them. I could give a damn less about conservatives, but I'll be damn if I'll sit by and let somebody talk about knocking down homeless shanty towns and sterilising people to save 5 bucks on every paycheck.

2nd. An illegal person is still a person. They come, and rich cheap people hire them to do hard work. Would you let a man bleed and die because he doesn't have papaerwork. Don't blame them blame the people that hire them, "Illegaly" I might add.

3rd. This isn't a leftest or rightwing thing, We're dealing with whole groups of people,The homeless, the poor, people who live in the ghetto, Illegal immergents, and refugees, have all been grought up in this thread as the cause of hardships. That is always a first step down a dark road.

Left wing and right wing are just different ideas about the same issue. It doesn't make us mortal enemies, whose party wants to ruin the world.

Simple Lunahound:
There is no justice.

There is JUST US.

Man may make laws, but he cannot make justice.
(and I'm not a believer, so this isn't a pro-god' reference.).

An example for you, annecdotal sure, but a good one. There is a homeless bloke in New Cross (SE London, where I live) that has been homeless and begging in the same spot for the entire time I have lived here (about three years). I say hi to him every day, and give him any spare change, and if I have time, I stop for a cigarette and a chat. About four years ago he was made homeless suddenly due to a truely horriffic event in his personal life. Broke and traumatised he turned to drink. After around two years he stopped drinking and tried to sort his life out. The only accomodation he could get was a squat (no references for landlords, no deposit), from which he applied for jobs too numerous to mention. With no qualifications, a huge gap in his CV, no decent clothes to wear to interviews etc he was turned down for everyone. Then the council got an eviction order, back o the streets for Dave. The house stands empty to this day by the way. Now he's back to square one, no address to put on job applications, no money, no prospects. He desperately wants to help himself, but is hamstrung at every opportunity, and is constantly harrassed by the police, often being arrested and held for hours at a time before being realeased with no charge, never being told why what he had done wrong.

If you feel sorry for the guy, let him move in with you, buy him some clothes, and help him find a job. Instead of giving him your spare change. As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and he's eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life." For the record, I have encountered these type of people, and a majority of the time all they do is feed you a line so you will give them more money. Why not follow this guy around one day (making sure he doesn't see you) and find out if he really is off the "sauce"? There are programs and services they can avail themselves of if they truly want off the streets.

Another thing, if you cut benefits for extra children, who suffers? The children. It's not their fault their parents are workshy layabouts.

Putting limits on how many children a family can claim for benefits/aid is not wrong and will not cause the children to starve. The parents refusing to work, or find a job, will cause the children to starve. The children won't even starve then if people would report the parents for child neglect. Then they will become wards of the state and get the care and attention they deserve.

Um, Luna, China "one child policy" has never been demonstrated to have actually controlled China's population. Not only that, but it has resulted in the forced sterilization of tens of thousands and who knows how many forced abortions. I wouldn't go around promoting a system of government controlled reproduction.

Then stop buying products made in that country.

Luna is NOT saying poor people, refugees, and such do not deserve aid from the government. Luna is talking about the people who deliberately abuse the system so they do not need to improve their lifestyle and continue to suck benefits away from those who do need them.

im a teen so i cant complain about my work
since its on the weekend
but right know i dont have anything to say because what i thinks has already been said

Thank you Ironhide T-T you seem to be the only 1 that understood my posts.

And you worded way better than i did <3

sexiest_hero wrote:

2nd. An illegal person is still a person. They come, and rich cheap people hire them to do hard work. Would you let a man bleed and die because he doesn't have papaerwork. Don't blame them blame the people that hire them, "Illegaly" I might add.

An illegal person is a person, but by entering the country, I don't know, "ILLEGALY" they are breaking the law. If everyone speeds, then should we remove the speed limit? As to your question about the bleeding, I would have to think about it.

1) I am not legally obliged to help ANYONE. As long as I don't stop at all and walk right past, I am not in the wrong legally.
2) It is against my morals to let someone bleed to death.
3) If I do help, something wrong could happen and I could get sued by the man's family.
4) If I am sued, I will have to pay the family and my career could be endangered, as in never be able to practise medicine in my forseeable future and have to find another career I want to invest time into.
5) College is expensive.

I would probably help him out in the end, but it would take perhaps a minute to do so.

@garret
I'm a teen also, I work on thursday sand weekends because of university. During the summer I do some construction work to supplement my paycheck and I still cannot afford warhammer.

1) I am not legally obliged to help ANYONE. As long as I don't stop at all and walk right past, I am not in the wrong legally.
2) It is against my morals to let someone bleed to death.
3) If I do help, something wrong could happen and I could get sued by the man's family.
4) If I am sued, I will have to pay the family and my career could be endangered, as in never be able to practise medicine in my forseeable future and have to find another career I want to invest time into.
5) College is expensive.

So, you'd rather you had a career in medicine, and the man dies? Personally, I'd go for a lesser job, and we both live.

This is the kind of attitude that will bring our society to ruin. If everyone only looked out for themselves, then the only outcome I can see is that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

halonachos wrote:
I would probably help him out in the end, but it would take perhaps a minute to do so.

It seems that you skipped over this part.^^^^^^

But to answer your question about the whole career thing.

A) I help fellow out, he sues, I can't get a job in medicine, learn from my mistake, never help anyone again, saved 1 person.
B) I help fellow out, he's happy, I get a career in medicine and can help even more people and am even more capable of doing so, saved 1 person + future.
C) I let him bleed to death, regret it, but get medical degree and dedicate my life to helping others in order to make up for letting the guy die, save +future.
D) I let him bleed to death, I have no black marks against me in terms of medicine, I enter the medical field and help people, save +future.
E) I tell him to bleed faster, he lives miraculously.
F) I tell him to bleed faster, he dies.
G) I tell him to bleed faster, and I then get hit by the ambulance coming to help him.

Those are all options and some possible outcomes. So, there are utilitarian beliefs here, but a person IS a person so...(see last post for answer)
I would always hope for outcome B

Alright, that's fair enough - chalk any misplaced annoyance up to differences between our respective countries. I still have difficulty getting my head around the fact you guys have to pay for hospital care, for example.

Do you not have a good samaritan law over your way then ?

Yes, we have a good samaritan law, but if a hospital sees that you could be a higher potential risk to malpractice, then they wouldn't hire you. So, no career for you despite the good samaritan law.

Ambulances are free and they are medical care.

What's up with all this drowning of squirels and raccons? Sounds a bit Dahmerish to me. Why don't you just grab it by it's tail and bash it's head against the wall?

I'm appalled at the anti rodentism.

GG

IIRC, Good Samaritan Laws in the US are different from those in most European countries. Last country I was in (Germany), anyone could provide aid and not have to be worried about being prosecuted.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

To Summarize:

The details of good Samaritan laws/acts in various jurisdictions vary, including who is protected from liability and in what circumstances.[3] Not all jurisdictions provide protection to laypersons, in those cases only protecting trained personnel, such as doctors or nurses.[4] In some cases, laypersons are only protected when rendering aid in narrow circumstances, such as during a declared public health emergency.

@Ironhide

I have a choice about buying products from China? Oh my. Seriously, I oppose China's human rights violations not China or its citizens. I was criticizing Luna for romanticizing a public policy which results in millions of people being mistreated, not trying to start an embargo on China.

Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

Hey, America has a peerless record if you don't count things that happened before the 21st century.

As to the good samaritan thing, you gotta love the whole consent area. They poke fun at it in "The Incredibles" for goodness sake.

It is sad that when I was in EMT training the first two things we learned were 1) History of the career and 2) Legal matters. Its hard to want to help someone if they are going to sue you for doing so.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

And thats why the US should pull out of Europe. We are plainly evil, and for the good of humanity should pull all our forces back to the US and US waters.

Yes, america should pull itself out of the world. No more foreign military bases, all US factories will be demolished and rebuilt in america and then 15ft walls will be built around the borders. When the world falls into decay and pleads for help, our leaders will look up and whisper...no.

The watchmen FTW!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

Nope. But seeing as I spent a fair amount of time during the last four years protesting many of the "spots" being added to the record you certainly don't blame me right?

Nope, you're just a barbaric, bloodthirsty, idiotic american just like the rest of us my friend.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Like the US has a spotless record on Humand Rights at the moment?

I doubt there's any country with a spotless record.

Yes, america should pull itself out of the world.

I believe "Splendid Isolation" has been tried before. It doesn't work.

That said if you were willing to keep your Zac Efrons, Cyrus' etc we'd be very grateful.

Only if you can keep your madonnas and Beckhams.

Japan tried isolation and it worked until an american named Perry sailed in there and said open seys mee.