Workshy - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39233350]Free sustenance, i.e. someone not having to pay or work for their water, food or shelter. I.e. it being some deluded "human right". [/QUOTE] No, what you are saying is that because we give people who are too disabled to work benefits to survive off of that means that we have to give everyone else those benefits as well, which is just mindblowing how dumb that logic is. You can flail around and rate people dumb all you want but it doesn't change the fact that your brilliant ideas to get disabled people to work involve shooting an already struggling economy in the knees all so someone who suffers from crippling pain most of his life is forced to do some charity work every day a doctor who's salary is payed by taxpayers decides he's able or else he loses his benefits and dies on the streets.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39233350]I'm not saying that. Those who are wholly incapacitated should still receive their benefits, but if they can work on some days then they should. People should work as much as they can for as long as they can and that's the way things should be.[/QUOTE] How old are you, exactly?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39231148] Either you keep a check on the disabled and make sure they do work when they are able to, and focus on making them able to, or you give everyone free sustenance. If you give everyone free sustenance, then no one would be working for that sustenance.[/QUOTE] Nope. If you give everyone free sustenance society in general gets better. [url=http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100]Have some reading, bub.[/url] But if you don't want to read, I'll summarize for you. A few things happened when everyone was given enough money to survive: Teenagers and new mothers were the only groups that worked less. This caused graduation rates to go up. Fewer people went to the hospital for work-related injuries because they could choose a job that suited them and that they could perform safely and efficiently. Under a Minimum Income program people don't need to avoid work for fear of having their income go over a certain threshold. They can work a few hours a week if that's all they are able to handle, and it will simply result in having a bit of extra money around. The current system has many disincentives to work. Your system, on the other hand, has many disincentives to live. Neither work. Mincome is worth another shot.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39233635]No, what you are saying is that because we give people who are too disabled to work benefits to survive off of that means that we have to give everyone else those benefits as well, which is just mindblowing how dumb that logic is. You can flail around and rate people dumb all you want but it doesn't change the fact that your brilliant ideas to get disabled people to work involve shooting an already struggling economy in the knees all so someone who suffers from crippling pain most of his life is forced to do some charity work every day a doctor who's salary is payed by taxpayers decides he's able or else he loses his benefits and dies on the streets.[/QUOTE] It's not dumb logic. Although it's most difficult for the wholly incapacitated, if you gave them a complete free ride then why shouldn't you guarantee free sustenance for everyone else? People should be paid to work, not to live. If there's no other way, then there is an inherent social obligation to pay for their sustenance but it's still unfair on the unemployed and working people. You either give someone a choice to work, when they're fit and able to (i.e. you observe to determine whether they are able to and pay a sub-set of the population to observe) and punish them for not working if they are able to (e.g. so you observe those who are seemingly getting better more often than those that are not; and you simply mandate working activities to the fit and well), or you give everyone a minimum income and guarantee that permanently and make work a choice for them. The latter won't work: there's no fantasy fairy-tale land where people are free from working. So the only option is to make them work and to do so, you punish them for not exercising their work ethic if it's free - at any time. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;39233709]How old are you, exactly?[/QUOTE] Why? [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;39234306]Nope. If you give everyone free sustenance society in general gets better. [url=http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100]Have some reading, bub.[/url] But if you don't want to read, I'll summarize for you. A few things happened when everyone was given enough money to survive: Teenagers and new mothers were the only groups that worked less. This caused graduation rates to go up. Fewer people went to the hospital for work-related injuries because they could choose a job that suited them and that they could perform safely and efficiently. Under a Minimum Income program people don't need to avoid work for fear of having their income go over a certain threshold. They can work a few hours a week if that's all they are able to handle, and it will simply result in having a bit of extra money around. The current system has many disincentives to work. Your system, on the other hand, has many disincentives to live. Neither work. Mincome is worth another shot.[/QUOTE] And it won't work. "“Government officials opposed [to Mincome] didn't want to spend more money to analyze the data and show what they already thought: that it didn't work,” says Hikel, who remains a strong proponent of guaranteed income programs." If everyone had a guaranteed income, there wouldn't be enough people to pay for that and so there would always be debt. Some people would be in poverty, other's lucky enough wouldn't. That system is just a fairy tale of some Venus project-stuff bullshit. It's a very negative ideal. It demotivates working values and reduces one's overall devotion to work. Read '[b]Their solution?[/b]' of my OP on the first page and you'll see why it's just a fantasy of the workshy.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39234862]Read '[B]Their solution?[/B]' of my OP on the first page and you'll see why it's just a fantasy of the workshy.[/QUOTE] That section of your OP is flawed because having work doesn't guarantee you can get out of poverty. There are a lot of people in society that work multiple jobs and barely make ends meet. Living for sustenance alone isn't living.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39229638] I don't have a problem with his race/him whining about it. It's him not working that bothers me. I often work up to 52 hours a week and he's just a layabout spouting his religious views whilst nurting his kids! It's people like him, who are not looking for work/dedicating themselves to work. Instead, they do a Youtube channel/some other silly thing instead when they should be queuing up begging for a job at McDonalds or Burger King.[/QUOTE] And what if he doesn't want to spend his life slaving away at ducking Burger King. Maybe he will gain video editing skills or some sort of debating skills that he can put on his CV. And you keep saying how these people live in fantasy worlds, well I think you're in your own little work-obsessed fantasy world too. The idea that everyone should be devoting their time to work 100% of the time is just what you would love. Who's going to make this person live how you want him to anyway. he could come back and tell you that he is giving back to society, he's spreading the word about his religion or something and so who are you to say it is a waste of time? your 53 hours of work doesn't give you a free pass to dictate other's lives

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39234862]It's not dumb logic. Although it's most difficult for the wholly incapacitated, if you gave them a complete free ride then why shouldn't you guarantee free sustenance for everyone else? [/QUOTE] Um hmm I can't think of anything... Oh wait. Maybe it's because [h2]people with disabilities that make it impossible to be able to hold a job need benefits in order to survive.[/h2] Yeah that might be it. Do you really have to use this child-like logic of it being impossible to give disabled people what they need to survive without also giving such benefits to people who don't need them at all? And calling it a free ride is a disgusting insult towards people with these disabilities. Go ahead and tell RavenQ that he's getting a free ride. God you are just such an insufferable prick.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39235590]Go ahead and tell RavenQ that he's getting a free ride. God you are just such an insufferable prick.[/QUOTE] I'd quite happily switch places with him, though I doubt he'd say the same, or if it did happen, he'd change his ming pretty sharpish after realising just exactly how much pain i go through every damn day.

[QUOTE=Valnar;39235037]That section of your OP is flawed because having work doesn't guarantee you can get out of poverty. There are a lot of people in society that work multiple jobs and barely make ends meet. Living for sustenance alone isn't living.[/QUOTE] Then tough. People must work to survive. There should be no other way, as I've repeated many times throughout this thread. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=harryh11;39235454]And what if he doesn't want to spend his life slaving away at ducking Burger King. Maybe he will gain video editing skills or some sort of debating skills that he can put on his CV. And you keep saying how these people live in fantasy worlds, well I think you're in your own little work-obsessed fantasy world too. The idea that everyone should be devoting their time to work 100% of the time is just what you would love. Who's going to make this person live how you want him to anyway. he could come back and tell you that he is giving back to society, he's spreading the word about his religion or something and so who are you to say it is a waste of time? your 53 hours of work doesn't give you a free pass to dictate other's lives[/QUOTE] I've gave more to society and earned my free time. What has he done? He's just acted a layabout on benefits, scrounging on them whilst spouting his views of religion. I wouldn't mind if he worked to have that free time however, if he did all that if he earned that right. But he hasn't. He's taken that free time from the honest hard working taxpayer! [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;39235590]Um hmm I can't think of anything... Oh wait. Maybe it's because [h2]people with disabilities that make it impossible to be able to hold a job need benefits in order to survive.[/h2] Yeah that might be it. Do you really have to use this child-like logic of it being impossible to give disabled people what they need to survive without also giving such benefits to people who don't need them at all? And calling it a free ride is a disgusting insult towards people with these disabilities. Go ahead and tell RavenQ that he's getting a free ride. God you are just such an insufferable prick.[/QUOTE] That's the point. They aren't mandated to work. They get a free pass, because of their incapacity to work. But for everyone else, the standard unemployed, they are mandated to work because they have no such incapacity. Because of this, you get those who never have to work and those who do. Is it really fair on the unemployed if you're going to do this? Is it going to be that someone with some disability gets 12,000 per year to survive, without any need to work, while someone else who doesn't have a disability is given the choice to work or fall into the abyss of poverty? What I'm saying is, if the disabled one doesn't work they're still allowed to receive their sustenance and won't fall into poverty. Their income is guaranteed. For the unemployed scrounger however - the one who refuses to work - they are forced into poverty if they don't work, and therefore not necessarily given a guarantee of survival as the disabled one. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=RayvenQ;39235730]I'd quite happily switch places with him, though I doubt he'd say the same, or if it did happen, he'd change his ming pretty sharpish after realising just exactly how much pain i go through every damn day.[/QUOTE] I wasn't arguing about the pain you endure. I was arguing that if you get a free pass, without any mandate to work, then shouldn't the unemployed get that too? And why not give everyone - everyone - that free pass too?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39235820]Then tough. People must work to survive. There should be no other way, as I've repeated many times throughout this thread. [/QUOTE] So basically, you're espousing the view that people who are unable to work, or unable to work to a degree that would give them a livable age should be left to a life of poverty, starvation and dead just because they have physical or mental disabilities that they have no control over nor choice about having said impairments? That they should be ignored by those who are more fortunate and fully healthy and in better circumstances than those with impairments? If there's a word for what you are, it hasn't been invented yet, because Crazy doesn't cover it, it's a whole new level above crazy, and I'm talking Ancient Sparta that left babies to die because of percieved physical imperfections level crazy. You really need to take the phrase "walk a mile in another mans shoes" to heart. You are employed, fit and healthy, you have [B]no fucking idea[/B] what life is like for people like me, none at all. I get support because I am physically unfit to work, the unemployed get support because they are unable to find work, as for someone who is physically fit and healthy [B]and[/B] employed, explain to me please why somelike like that, such as yourself [I]needs[/I] support?

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39235888]So basically, you're espousing the view that people who are unable to work, or unable to work to a degree that would give them a livable age should be left to a life of poverty, starvation and dead just because they have physical or mental disabilities that they have no control over nor choice about having said impairments? That they should be ignored by those who are more fortunate and fully healthy and in better circumstances than those with impairments? If there's a word for what you are, it hasn't been invented yet, because Crazy doesn't cover it, it's a whole new level above crazy, and I'm talking Ancient Sparta that left babies to die because of percieved physical imperfections level crazy.[/QUOTE] You're taking my post out of context. I said that as a response to those that are fit and well for work. For the disabled, sure they should merely be elevated to standards to meet the rest. And for the wholly incapacitated, they should be observed less frequently than those that should/are likely to get better. So the scale of observation is relative to the likelihood of how well one manages their incapacity. And from that, work-related activities are given to them for them to exercise their work ethic upon -- a means to help get them to step into the world of work, after which once they're found to be able enough to stay there, then they are deemed unnecessary of the assistance. So it's just simply about getting as many as possible into the world of work and to make sure they work as much as they can for as long as they can.

Here's an idea, until you actually know what it is like tobe disabled or impaired, to any degree, shut the fuck up about "elevated to standards", "manages their incapacity." Also, please keep rating me dumb, because I'd have the idea of someone as closed minded as you actually agreeing with me, it'd drag me down to your level. Also how am I taking [quote]Then tough.[B] People must work to survive.[/B] There should be no other way, as I've repeated many times throughout this thread.[/quote] out of context, you're qite clearly saying anyone who cannot work, does not deserve to survive. Here's an idea, next time you pay your rent, after paying your rent, only allow yourself £56 per week to pay for everything else, fod, clothing, bills etc etc and see how [I]easy[/I] we get it. By the way, I do donate blood on a frequent and regular basis, but I suppose you'd only consider it "giving back" if i were drained near to death.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39235820] That's the point. They aren't mandated to work. They get a free pass, because of their incapacity to work. But for everyone else, the standard unemployed, they are mandated to work because they have no such incapacity. Because of this, you get those who never have to work and those who do. Is it really fair on the unemployed if you're going to do this? Is it going to be that someone with some disability gets 12,000 per year to survive, without any need to work, while someone else who doesn't have a disability is given the choice to work or fall into the abyss of poverty? What I'm saying is, if the disabled one doesn't work they're still allowed to receive their sustenance and won't fall into poverty. Their income is guaranteed. For the unemployed scrounger however - the one who refuses to work - they are forced into poverty if they don't work, and therefore not necessarily given a guarantee of survival as the disabled one. [/QUOTE] I seriously don't see how you're not getting this. I'm pretty sure people who are unemployed do in fact get benefits so long as they are seeking employment. Whether or not they actually seek employment is their choice. Someone who is disabled to the point of being incapable of working does not have this choice. They simply cannot hold employment. Stop comparing people who are simply unemployed with people who are disabled.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39236003] Stop comparing people who are simply unemployed with people who are disabled.[/QUOTE] Accoridng to him, the only people who are unemployed are people who are lazy, or hippies, people haven't got jobs because, y'know, the job market is awful, no, it must be because they are lazy hippies.

OP applied for benefits and was denied so this is how he lashes out

[QUOTE=Captain Forever;39236061]OP applied for benefits and was denied so this is how he lashes out[/QUOTE] More likely he got a power trip from being a supervisor of a McDonalds or some shit and he thinks this gives him the insight to claim that spending untold amounts of taxpayer money on shoving people who have been declared unable to work by the government into a system to constantly try to find a moment where they can at all work, which will result in a massive deficit and probably get every single person who thought it was a good idea removed from any position of power.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39233350]Free sustenance, i.e. someone not having to pay or work for their water, food or shelter. I.e. it being some deluded "human right".[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] Check number 25.

Keep shooting for the stars op.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;39235960]Here's an idea, until you actually know what it is like tobe disabled or impaired, to any degree, shut the fuck up about "elevated to standards", "manages their incapacity." Also, please keep rating me dumb, because I'd have the idea of someone as closed minded as you actually agreeing with me, it'd drag me down to your level. Also how am I taking out of context, you're qite clearly saying anyone who cannot work, does not deserve to survive. Here's an idea, next time you pay your rent, after paying your rent, only allow yourself £56 per week to pay for everything else, fod, clothing, bills etc etc and see how [I]easy[/I] we get it. By the way, I do donate blood on a frequent and regular basis, but I suppose you'd only consider it "giving back" if i were drained near to death.[/QUOTE] Calm down, I'm not saying that you should be thrown in poverty for your incapacity. I merely stated that if you're going to let a disabled person survive if they don't work and not let someone who's unemployed not survive if they're unwilling to work, then you're cultivating a huge barrier between the two -- i.e. that disabled are more valuable and therefore, more eligible for sustenance by innate right, than the unemployed. So if you're going to do that, do it for the rest too. My point with regards to "elevating to a standard" was about allowing the disabled to work as well as the rest, to make it more fair. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;39236003]I seriously don't see how you're not getting this. I'm pretty sure people who are unemployed do in fact get benefits so long as they are seeking employment. Whether or not they actually seek employment is their choice. Someone who is disabled to the point of being incapable of working does not have this choice. They simply cannot hold employment. Stop comparing people who are simply unemployed with people who are disabled.[/QUOTE] They receive benefits if they are looking for work - that's for the non-disabled unemployed. If they don't look/want to work, they are punished and will lose those benefits (i.e. they will lose their sustenance). So if they are unwilling to work, they will be let go of and will fall into poverty if there's no one else available for them to lay on top of. And I'm comparing the circumstances of [b]people[/b]. Are you advocating that the unemployed are less deserving of their right to sustenance than the disabled? That the disabled should receive their sustenance, and therefore survive, if they don't for work, while the unemployed non-disabled people lose their sustenance and therefore, not enabled the means to survive if they don't work? [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Levithan;39236116][url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] Check number 25.[/QUOTE] It's only true for a few exceptional circumstances, however if you are ordinary and unwilling to work then free sustenance is not your human right. [i]"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security [b]in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.[/b]"[/i] So if they simply didn't want to work -- and if none of the exceptions applied to them (i.e. not being able to find work if there was no work available, disability, etc), they are do not have the lawful right to free sustenance.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39236380] They receive benefits if they are looking for work - that's for the non-disabled unemployed. If they don't look/want to work, they are punished and will lose those benefits (i.e. they will lose their sustenance). So if they are unwilling to work, they will be let go of and will fall into poverty if there's no one else available for them to lay on top of.[/QUOTE] Are you seriously comparing an able man refusing to work to a disabled man being unable to work? [QUOTE=livelonger12;39236380]My point with regards to "elevating to a standard" was about allowing the disabled to work as well as the rest, to make it more fair.[/quote] Oh my god... Ok get this through your head. If a disabled person could simply be "elevated to the same standard" as an able person then that would mean they are not disabled.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39236493]Are you seriously comparing an able man refusing to work to a disabled man being unable to work? Oh my god... Ok get this through your head. If a disabled person could simply be "elevated to the same standard" as an able person then that would mean they are not disabled.[/QUOTE] Yes, because if the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the unemployed man isn't allowed to survive if he doesn't work, then you're saying that the disabled man is more worthy of survival than the unemployed man. It doesn't matter whether he can earn more money or whatever, do better things or simply more than the disabled man, that's not the point. The point is that the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the man who has no work ethic isn't. You've essentially got a gun pointed to the head of a fit and healthy unemployed man and no gun pointed to the head of a disabled man. The disabled man doesn't have to worry about that gun, while the fit and healthy unemployed man can get shot if he doesn't exercise a willfulness to work. And yes, the "elevation of standards" can occur, i.e. disability/care provision that's necessary for the disabled person to do the same work that they otherwise couldn't had those provisions not taken place, as the non-disabled person. That doesn't mean they're not disabled. More so, it would mean that they're less mobile/more dependent on tools/care.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39236380]Calm down, I'm not saying that you should be thrown in poverty for your incapacity. I merely stated that if you're going to let a disabled person survive if they don't work and not let someone who's unemployed not survive if they're unwilling to work, then you're cultivating a huge barrier between the two -- i.e. that disabled are more valuable and therefore, more eligible for sustenance by innate right, than the unemployed. So if you're going to do that, do it for the rest too. My point with regards to "elevating to a standard" was about allowing the disabled to work as well as the rest, to make it more fair. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] They receive benefits if they are looking for work - that's for the non-disabled unemployed. If they don't look/want to work, they are punished and will lose those benefits (i.e. they will lose their sustenance). So if they are unwilling to work, they will be let go of and will fall into poverty if there's no one else available for them to lay on top of. And I'm comparing the circumstances of [b]people[/b]. Are you advocating that the unemployed are less deserving of their right to sustenance than the disabled? That the disabled should receive their sustenance, and therefore survive, if they don't for work, while the unemployed non-disabled people lose their sustenance and therefore, not enabled the means to survive if they don't work?[/QUOTE] You're silly. The unemployed can be healthy individuals capable of searching for new work. Comparing disabled and incapacitated individuals to healthy people is wrong, so stop. How can you "make it more fair" when the disabled person has had such an unfair life already? How old are you anyway, 21?

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39236569]Yes, because if the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the unemployed man isn't allowed to survive if he doesn't work, then you're saying that the disabled man is more worthy of survival than the unemployed man. It doesn't matter whether he can earn more money or whatever, do better things or simply more than the disabled man, that's not the point. The point is that the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the man who has no work ethic isn't. You've essentially got a gun pointed to the head of a fit and healthy unemployed man and no gun pointed to the head of a disabled man. The disabled man doesn't have to worry about that gun, while the fit and healthy unemployed man can get shot if he doesn't exercise a willfulness to work. And yes, the "elevation of standards" can occur, i.e. disability/care provision that's necessary for the disabled person to do the same work that they otherwise couldn't had those provisions not taken place, as the non-disabled person. That doesn't mean they're not disabled. More so, it would mean that they're less mobile/more dependent on tools/care.[/QUOTE] How does giving a disabled person the help they [B]need[/B] in order to survive mean they are more worthy than someone who doesn't need the help? Does a neighborhood that is riddled with crime become more worthy because a more significant police presence is placed there instead of a suburb that has practically 0 crime? And on any note, I believe that someone who is physically able to work but chooses not to seek employment despite the threat of starving to death should be looked into and given help because that sounds like something someone suffering from severe depression would do.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39236569]Yes, because if the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the unemployed man isn't allowed to survive if he doesn't work, then you're saying that the disabled man is more worthy of survival than the unemployed man. It doesn't matter whether he can earn more money or whatever, do better things or simply more than the disabled man, that's not the point. The point is that the disabled man is allowed to survive if he doesn't work while the man who has no work ethic isn't. You've essentially got a gun pointed to the head of a fit and healthy unemployed man and no gun pointed to the head of a disabled man. The disabled man doesn't have to worry about that gun, while the fit and healthy unemployed man can get shot if he doesn't exercise a willfulness to work. And yes, the "elevation of standards" can occur, i.e. disability/care provision that's necessary for the disabled person to do the same work that they otherwise couldn't had those provisions not taken place, as the non-disabled person. That doesn't mean they're not disabled. More so, it would mean that they're less mobile/more dependent on tools/care.[/QUOTE] How dense are you? The disabled man is barley even living with the sustenance they recieve, as RayvenQ has stated multiple times. An unemployed man can find more work easily than a disabled person. An employer is more likely to hire a healthy person over someone with a disability. Would you hire me as a worker in your Mcdonalds if I had no arms? Or would you rather hire that applicant with both arms, a perfect candidate to work the deep fryer? You're saying completely different things now than when you started this.

I like how livelonger12 is trying to guilt trip us now. If he had his way both the physically disabled and physically able people who don't work would be left on the streets to die. I think you are a truly disgusting example of a human being livelonger12. He doesn't even care that making a system that forces irrecoverably disabled people to look for work or lose their benefits at the supervision of doctors would hemorrhage money from the economy, all that matters to him is that they either work or die. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] I'm done this time. You can go ahead and masturbate to your broken logic by yourself. I'm not going to argue with someone who is beyond reason and I suggest that nobody else waste their time with livelonger12 either.

op must get a boner reading atlas shrugged the disabled are goddamn PARASITES!!!

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39236721]How does giving a disabled person the help they [B]need[/B] in order to survive mean they are more worthy than someone who doesn't need the help? Does a neighborhood that is riddled with crime become more worthy because a more significant police presence is placed there instead of a suburb that has practically 0 crime? And on any note, I believe that someone who is physically able to work but chooses not to seek employment despite the threat of starving to death should be looked into and given help because that sounds like something someone suffering from severe depression would do.[/QUOTE] I've already stated that your emphasizing that the disabled are more worthy of their access to sustenance than the unemployed, i.e. the unemployed can fall into poverty while the disabled cannot. "You've essentially got a gun pointed to the head of a fit and healthy unemployed man and no gun pointed to the head of a disabled man. The disabled man doesn't have to worry about that gun, while the fit and healthy unemployed man can get shot if he doesn't exercise a willfulness to work." [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=itchyflakes;39236762]How dense are you? The disabled man is barley even living with the sustenance they recieve, as RayvenQ has stated multiple times. An unemployed man can find more work easily than a disabled person. An employer is more likely to hire a healthy person over someone with a disability. Would you hire me as a worker in your Mcdonalds if I had no arms? Or would you rather hire that applicant with both arms, a perfect candidate to work the deep fryer? You're saying completely different things now than when you started this.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that if you're going to let disabled people have no worries about the sustenance, then do the same for the unemployed. To omit the unemployed from having a guaranteed income, you're essentially saying that the unemployed has to prove their dedication to society while the disabled does not. Why not do the same for the disabled? If you want an economy to focus on the production of videogames, then why not just focus all the investments of money into that area and make it so that even job seekers aren't eligible for sustenance. Why not make it so that only those in a videogame job are the only ones that are eligible for sustenance, such that everyone else shall starve on the streets because they couldn't prove their worth to what society wanted.

[QUOTE=livelonger12;39218207]All the focus of Zeitgeist, TVP, The Free Charter and the likes merely sway to dismantle your work ethics. Do not succumb to these as they will try to prevent you from having the life of an ordinary honest and hard working citizen and who is well behaved and punctual.[/QUOTE] praise putin [editline]15th January 2013[/editline] you're a terrible person.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;39236883]I like how livelonger12 is trying to guilt trip us now. If he had his way both the physically disabled and physically able people who don't work would be left on the streets to die. I think you are a truly disgusting example of a human being livelonger12. He doesn't even care that making a system that forces irrecoverably disabled people to look for work or lose their benefits at the supervision of doctors would hemorrhage money from the economy, all that matters to him is that they either work or die. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] I'm done this time. You can go ahead and masturbate to your broken logic by yourself. I'm not going to argue with someone who is beyond reason and I suggest that nobody else waste their time with livelonger12 either.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying that people should work as much and for as long as possible, to survive. If they cannot work due to a disability, then a benefit should fill in the differences. Otherwise, when fit and able to, they should work. And if they refuse - note, I have stated that they should be more frequently and closely observed by the system if they begin to manage their incapacity better/heal - in future occasions, they should be punished (i.e. money for their sustenance declined) till they realize that they must work on all occasions when they are deemed fit and well. However, if you are to give the disabled no fear over their sustenance such that they are guaranteed that sustenance, then you should also do this for the unemployed. I.e. you give everyone free sustenance. But I've already informed you many times throughout this thread that this is just a fantasy of the workshy (i.e. just some kind of Zeitgeist/TVP crap). If it was widespread, the economy would collapse and no one would work. Then money would be useless and there would be no sustenance. So the only other option is to make the disabled work when they're found to be fit and well, i.e. on good days to make them work on those days. And then to make them take treatment that's found to make them more workable than before. So you get as much work out of them as possible. For the rest, you make them work for a living. And that's how things should be!

You could be working in the time you're using to give dumbs to people who disagree with you. Are you a PARASITE SECOND-HANDER or are you living in the real world????