Page 49 of 77 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 735 of 1148
  1. #721
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    In fact I am curious, while we see so much (often fully justified) criticism of the social services - we see little of people thanking government for supporting them. Do they have a sense of gratitude or a sense of entitlement. If someone buys me a coffee, I feel grateful and will obviously buy him a coffee next time we are out. If someone buys me a coffee and I can not afford to give anything in return, I would feel truly obliged to that person/people/organisation for taking care of me.
    Why don't you start by thanking all the volunteer workers in the ACF and FIDE, instead of criticising them

  2. #722
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,114
    Note that Centrelink refers to the "mutual obligation" with its clients. Social security is an entitlement which Centrelink is obliged to provide, for which recipients are obliged to meet the eligibility requirements. It's not a handout.

  3. #723
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,842
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    If someone buys me a coffee, I feel grateful and will obviously buy him a coffee next time we are out.
    If someone offered to buy me a coffee, then told me that I would only get a very small coffee and that to get it I would have to fill out complex forms to show that I passed a coffee-need test and grovel to a person I never knew asking for a coffee cup, I would not be nearly so grateful. Especially not if that someone also subjected me to a coffee-debt assessment process to determine if I had had too much coffee in the past, and then based on their inaccurate assessment methods asked me to give them coffee!

    It is not a nice system. It is one set up to tick the box of looking after people but in practice to do a shabby job of it.

  4. #724
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    If someone offered to buy me a coffee, then told me that I would only get a very small coffee and that to get it I would have to fill out complex forms to show that I passed a coffee-need test and grovel to a person I never knew asking for a coffee cup, I would not be nearly so grateful. Especially not if that someone also subjected me to a coffee-debt assessment process to determine if I had had too much coffee in the past, and then based on their inaccurate assessment methods asked me to give them coffee!

    It is not a nice system. It is one set up to tick the box of looking after people but in practice to do a shabby job of it.
    I can pay for my own coffee...so I would simply politely reject the coffee.

    But if I need coffee badly and can not pay for it myself, I would reconsider my approach and it would certainly change the way I feel about. Beggars are not choosers! This expression now makes perfect sense!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  5. #725
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,114
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I can pay for my own coffee...so I would simply politely reject the coffee.

    But if I need coffee badly and can not pay for it myself, I would reconsider my approach and it would certainly change the way I feel about. Beggars are not choosers! This expression now makes perfect sense!
    Welfare recipients are not beggars. They are entitled to support under our social security laws, provided they comply with the (onerous) conditions.

  6. #726
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    Welfare recipients are not beggars. They are entitled to support under our social security laws, provided they comply with the (onerous) conditions.
    I am talking about moral side. There is no law to govern sense of gratitude towards someone who is helping you out or at least offering help. And I would expect those who need this help more than others to obviously appreciate more than others.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #727
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,842
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I can pay for my own coffee...so I would simply politely reject the coffee.
    I wouldn't even be polite. The person is not making a genuinely and fully generous offer. They're making an absurdly qualified offer that allows them to posture that they are being generous, but that is not wholeheartedly generous. They are clearly more interested in feeling good about themselves than in how I, as the intended recipient, will feel about their attitude.

    But if I need coffee badly and can not pay for it myself, I would reconsider my approach and it would certainly change the way I feel about. Beggars are not choosers! This expression now makes perfect sense!
    Beggars may not be choosers but that doesn't mean they have to be thankers either. Not when the gift comes with so many unnecessary strings attached. One might (or might not) be insincerely grateful for the sake of ensuring such gifts were available in the future, but when a gift is offered with absurd conditions attached, and it's something that you need, there's no need to be grateful in a moral sense.

  8. #728
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I wouldn't even be polite. The person is not making a genuinely and fully generous offer. They're making an absurdly qualified offer that allows them to posture that they are being generous, but that is not wholeheartedly generous. They are clearly more interested in feeling good about themselves than in how I, as the intended recipient, will feel about their attitude.



    Beggars may not be choosers but that doesn't mean they have to be thankers either. Not when the gift comes with so many unnecessary strings attached. One might (or might not) be insincerely grateful for the sake of ensuring such gifts were available in the future, but when a gift is offered with absurd conditions attached, and it's something that you need, there's no need to be grateful in a moral sense.
    They can always reject the offer. Nobody stops people rejecting Centerlink payments etc. I can recall a certain chess master offering chess lessons at fairly cheap price in an effort to get more students as he lost his main job, as far as applying for ''benefits'' was concerned - he was saying he would rather not.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #729
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,842
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    They can always reject the offer. Nobody stops people rejecting Centerlink payments etc. I can recall a certain chess master offering chess lessons at fairly cheap price in an effort to get more students as he lost his main job, as far as applying for ''benefits'' was concerned - he was saying he would rather not.
    Of course they can reject it, but in some cases the consequences will be severe. One doesn't have to be grateful for a bad alternative just because one could choose a worse one.

    Your idea seems to be that society is entitled to some kind of gratitude for supporting those without work in a niggardly fashion rather than not supporting them at all. It could just as easily be argued the other way around: that society should be thanking those who are poor and without work constantly for not taking up arms against it in revolution. Especially when unemployment is a structural feature of the economic system, not something that is ever going to go away entirely.

  10. #730
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,015
    I think Centrelink should just provide work for everyone who registers and is able to work. I think the system of outsourcing this to job providers has failed and i think the requirement to complete paperwork to 'prove' that jobseekers have completed so many applications per f.n. just makes liars out of people and makes them feel bad about themselves and resentful of their society. The biggest challenge to implementing this is probably the ACTU.

    I wish we could fund a UBI programme, but I'm not yet convinced that we can.

  11. #731
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Of course they can reject it, but in some cases the consequences will be severe. One doesn't have to be grateful for a bad alternative just because one could choose a worse one.

    Your idea seems to be that society is entitled to some kind of gratitude for supporting those without work in a niggardly fashion rather than not supporting them at all. It could just as easily be argued the other way around: that society should be thanking those who are poor and without work constantly for not taking up arms against it in revolution. Especially when unemployment is a structural feature of the economic system, not something that is ever going to go away entirely.
    I've heard this before, however in some societies with more poor people...revolutions just do not happen...I think its important to give people opportunities to change lives for the better. It is lack of such social lifts that lead to revolutions more than anything.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  12. #732
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    I think Centrelink should just provide work for everyone who registers and is able to work. I think the system of outsourcing this to job providers has failed and i think the requirement to complete paperwork to 'prove' that jobseekers have completed so many applications per f.n. just makes liars out of people and makes them feel bad about themselves and resentful of their society. The biggest challenge to implementing this is probably the ACTU.

    I wish we could fund a UBI programme, but I'm not yet convinced that we can.
    I have several stories about unions to share...probably will if there is a dedicated thread. One that is impossible to resist is how union was pushing people to go on strike even if they did not want to.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  13. #733
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,985
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I've heard this before, however in some societies with more poor people...revolutions just do not happen...I think its important to give people opportunities to change lives for the better. It is lack of such social lifts that lead to revolutions more than anything.
    If you extend Kevin's argument to include crime (as a type of revolution) then large numbers of poor people do lead to problems. You only have to look at the UK and the US compared to Australia. There is plenty of 'opportunity' in the US, but also plenty of crime.

  14. #734
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,955
    https://www.facebook.com/9News/video...Y1MjI1ODQ2NjY/

    This is what people do during working hours and disrupt public traffic...I trust they are all working and took unpaid leave off work to protest. Really tempted to go and throw some sausages at them. I hope that those who are proven to disrupt public transport are fined accordingly.
    And those who are receiving Job search benefits are reminded that this is not what job search involves!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  15. #735
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,114
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    https://www.facebook.com/9News/video...Y1MjI1ODQ2NjY/

    This is what people do during working hours and disrupt public traffic...I trust they are all working and took unpaid leave off work to protest. Really tempted to go and throw some sausages at them. I hope that those who are proven to disrupt public transport are fined accordingly.
    And those who are receiving Job search benefits are reminded that this is not what job search involves!
    While I don't agree with their aims, like everyone else they have the right to free speech and assembly. At least we are fortunate that protests don't lead to riots and loss of life, as we see in Europe and the Americas.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 5 guests)

  1. ER

Similar Threads

  1. China and totalitarianism
    By Patrick Byrom in forum Politics
    Replies: 498
    Last Post: 15-10-2019, 06:17 PM
  2. Use of the title "Dr" (sf welfare spending)
    By Ian Murray in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 14-05-2018, 02:37 AM
  3. Qualifications, meta-debates sf welfare spending
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-07-2017, 03:05 PM
  4. off-topic posts removed from welfare spending
    By MichaelBaron in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27-06-2017, 01:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •