Benefit myths and those who fall for them

[Maltin]

Then I should stop posting on this thread, if I were you. It's pretty clear we're arguing to cross purposes, and I think the time and energy we'd have to devote just to reach some common ground on which we could all agree would be unlikely to be worth it. Perhaps we'll encounter each other on a thread somewhere that is on a topic we can at least see each other's point of view on, given a clear day and sufficient altitude.

I'm happy to stop arguing I can see yours and butchersapron's point and I have no reason to disagree with the general nature of it.

 

[butchersapron]

No, that post doesn't. The fact that you can't read a basic post suggests that there is no point discussing this with you anymore.

Yes it does. If you want to duck out, go on. Pathetic.

 

[Maltin]

Yes it does. If you want to duck out, go on. Pathetic.

Go on then, humour me, o wise one. Dazzle me with your skills how it proves your point.

 

[butchersapron]

Go on then, humour me, o wise one. Dazzle me with your skills how it proves your point.

Just did oddball.

 

[Maltin]

Just did oddball.

Yes, of course you did dear. As some would say, pathetic.

 

[shifting gears]

There's some excellent info and sources in this thread, wonder if the OP would consider renaming the thread?

I only stumbled across it by chance looking at latest threads - wouldn't want someone to miss out on valuable info because they thought, as someone suggested earlier, it was a thread about shagging your mate's sister.

Ps that's not what I was doing here, roight?

 

[butchersapron]

Good idea.

 

[existentialist]

Either that, or someone starts a new thread and picks out all the useful info and stats, minus the iffier bits of debate...

 

[shifting gears]

Either that, or someone starts a new thread and picks out all the useful info and stats, minus the iffier bits of debate...

Not a bad plan but too much hassle for me (posting on phone)

That would however leave the withering ripostes to Maltin's argument (some of the judicious use of italics actually made me lol haha) to fester in this thread and frankly they were equally as interesting as some of the actual figures/sources etc!

 

[DexterTCN]

There's some excellent info and sources in this thread, wonder if the OP would consider renaming the thread?...

To what?

How?

 

[Maltin]

I've posted it.

What was the response to you posting it? Are you still facebook friends?

 

[butchersapron]

To what?

How?

Pm a mod with a suggestion - benefit myths and those who fall for them as an example and they might do it, you can't yourself.

 

[DexterTCN]

What was the response to you posting it? Are you still facebook friends?

We're not friends, only acquaintances. She did not respond which is for the best.

 

[smokedout]

I have no agenda, unlike you and butchersapron. As I constantly keep repeating, my only stance was to point out that the table didn't really dispel any myths, in my opinion.

it does, it demolishes the lie that people on benefits are better off than people in work - this lie has been used to drive welfare reform and should have been what the TUC flagged up

 

[Maltin]

it does, it demolishes the lie that people on benefits are better off than people in work - this lie has been used to drive welfare reform and should have been what the TUC flagged up

How do you think it does that? What is the key thing in the table (shown in post 2 on this thread) that demonstrates this for you?

 

[DexterTCN]

Thanks to Ed for changing the title.

 

[teuchter]

How do you think it does that? What is the key thing in the table (shown in post 2 on this thread) that demonstrates this for you?

 

[smokedout]

How do you think it does that? What is the key thing in the table (shown in post 2 on this thread) that demonstrates this for you?

I thought you'd read the actual survey results now?

 

[existentialist]

Some more facts - departments spends and how much ACTUALLY goes on soi-disant "shirkers"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/data...dec/04/public-spending-uk-2011-12-interactive

 

[weepiper]

http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-andreou/2013/01/welfare-debate-and-end-reason

What's that, Channel-4-News-lady-outside-the-tube-station? You work in a shop? Not for long. Soon, you will get your wish fulfilment. In a way. You won't have to resent those who don't get up to go to work. You will join them; with the added bonus of having the government that made you unemployed call you vermin. It may not be economic growth, but it is an opportunity for personal growth, don't you think?

 

[BigTom]

http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-andreou/2013/01/welfare-debate-and-end-reason

Thanks for that link - that's a great piece, @sturdyalex is worth following if you're on twitter. I remember IDS saying that he had faith the work programme was working when presented with the evidence it wasn't, faith based policy making. Not just scum, but idiots too.

 

[weepiper]

yep, I have promptly followed him

 

[SpineyNorman]

I have no agenda, unlike you and butchersapron.

Everyone has an agenda. It's only ever a problem when one party in a debate refuses to render theirs explicit...

 

[Maltin]

I thought you'd read the actual survey results now?

The survey results aren't the same thing as the table

 

[existentialist]

Everyone has an agenda. It's only ever a problem when one party in a debate refuses to render theirs explicit...

Actually, I have an agenda, too. To some extent, all this fucking around with benefit rates is, to my purely selfish mind (given that I'm not a benefit claimant), a sideshow. What really gets up my nose is the insinuation that the nation is thick enough to be led by the, er, nose by such blatant, transparent, and nasty propaganda.

And what really gets up my nose is the apparent evidence that quite a lot of otherwise intelligent people seem to be falling for it.

 

[Maltin]

Everyone has an agenda.

Really?

 

[existentialist]

Really?

Yes, really. Consciously, or unconsciously, none of us come to anything without some kind of prejudice or ideological cant.

 

[Blagsta]

Really?

Yes. We all have values, a world view, a framework. It comes from somewhere.

 

[Maltin]

Yes, really. Consciously, or unconsciously, none of us come to anything without some kind of prejudice or ideological cant.

No, they are not the same thing.

Yes, I agree, everyone is prejudiced to an extent, but this is not the same thing as having an agenda.

a·gen·da
[uh-jen-duh]
noun, formally a plural of , agendum but usually used as a singular with plural , a·gen·das or a·gen·da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda?s=t

prej·u·dice
[prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing.
noun
1.an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
verb (used with object)
6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.
Idioms
7. without prejudice, Law. without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice?s=t

As the above notes, an agenda suggests that you have a plan for something. A prejudice is a feeling formed without knowledge.

 

[butchersapron]

What's my hidden agenda then Maltin. You've identified it to yourself - now name it publicly.