It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eugenics and deliberate economic persecution of vulnerable people in United Kingdom.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Firefly_
 


There will always be people who develop mental health problems. Some maybe inpaired enough as to not be able to work for only six months, some 5 years, some 10 years, some for life, from all walks and classes in society. There will always be people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities, some of which are probably the result of toxins from industrial and millitary persuits.

No matter how many ways they try to combat it, there will always be these kinds of people. You cannot eradicate them because they keep on coming as long as people are born.

All these groups have a right to a life of dignity on a level with the rest of society. It is a fundamental human right.

If anyone is crazy enough to think that "culling" groups like this is going to make us a richer country, man you are so wrong. It will just be continual cruelty and get us nowhere.

The worrying trend of a very sharp and significant increase in mental illness is, I believe, a very direct symptom of a society that is not human friendly; that serves only the needs of the machine of state at the expense of the human beings this machine is meant to serve.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 

How we take care of people who are mentally ill, or mentally or physically disabled in any way is a sign of a sound and civilised society if done well. When it fails and these very important people are let down, it is a sign of a corrupt and worthless society that deserves the misery it will bring on itself.
If only Mr C would take pride on taking care of vulnerable people at home, instead of puffing his war mongering chest out in pride of his overseas conquests and supposed aid that probably causes more harm than good, then perhaps we could be very proud of ourselves intead of shocked and astounded at the abuse the disabled are suffering all around our country because of penny pinching, expenses claiming (£30 000 on a new kitchen I believe) people.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I have seen first hand the anxiety and to a point almost blind panic these proposed changes have caused.

To someone who suffers from an anxiety or depressive mental illness, something as simple as filling in a simple form can cause almost complete physical and mental shutdown. I have a friend with depression/anxiety who, since these changes were announced has been in tears almost everyday in fear and worry.

Whilst I agree people do con the system and need weeding out, it's simply not the case that everyone on benefit is a wouldbe criminal sponging off the state as the msm and ptb are trying to instill in our minds.

A more thoughtful and delicate system needs introducing to handle mental illness cases, maybe even a stand-alone mental illness benefit rather than an all encompassing incapacity benefit.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
What makes me want to vomit is this Cameron knows at least in part the suffering of carers & the disabled due to his own 6 year old son afflicted by Ohtahara syndrome, leading to the poor lads demise at age 6.

What sort of sick monster then goes on to make it even harder for people affected by god knows what to go on living?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

I am very interested to learn as to why you are more interested in trying to prove one word that is open for debate in my post as a wrong conclusion


Because when you say that the government is practicing eugenics then you are saying that those policies are a deliberate attempt to eradicate a group of people; you do not frame the effects of policy as unintended, if tragic side effects but as a malicious, premeditated intention; whether that’s what you mean or not.

To you “eugenics” might just be a casual word to throw in but the effect is to stifle debate by characterising those that support the actual policy (that of assessing benefit claimants) as supporting pseudoscientific state genocide.


than you are about the fact that people with mental health problems are killing themselves because they cannot handle what is being put upon them by government policy.


You haven’t really said much on that subject either, save that you don’t like it.

I don’t like it either, but there is an issue to be dealt with; what are your thoughts on a solution bearing in mind that it needs to be practical and affordable?

It’s very easy to point out when someone is doing something wrong but it is another thing entirely to say what they should be doing.


It is not my fault there are benefit cheats. I am not a benefit cheat. But I am having to suffer with the stress of what I deem to be an unfair and "loaded" examination and interview that wants the outcome to be that I will have to by force do things I am not able to do if I am to have a home and a meal to eat.

That is wrong. You may think that is ok.


I’m not passing any judgement on the assessment themselves, as I said my disagreement with you is over the eugenics thing.

I am inclined to take the opinion of the professionals in that the assessment may need to be changed however I am still aware of the figures; we do have budget problems and there has been an unusual rise in the number of people claiming incapacity so I am also inclined to believe that some should and can be do.

This brings me back to the eugenics bit, having someone take the issue to such extremes does not help me or those like me understand anything about what should be done.


I have read Lang, Carl Jung, Maslow, Freud, etc.


Without wanting to do down their contributions they are quite outdated now, it’s like reading Origin of Species and thinking that it represents the modern science of evolutionary biology.

To say that psychology is not a science and that there are no facts in psychology is simply not true. Experiments are conducted according to the scientific method, clear patterns are found, facts are determined.

Are you dismissing conditioning, the neural control of behaviour, the effects of experience on the physical structure of the brain? Are there no patterns to human behaviour in your opinion? How can we understand the mind, brain and behaviour if psychology is bunk?


Like with the famous experiment where a panel were ordered to give electric shocks to an individual and most, in the belief it was really happening, did administer the shock, where as some did not. Two different responses from different kinds of people.


But that doesn’t mean there is nothing to learn or that no patterns can be observed. If you observe a group and 95% exhibit a specific behaviour then there is evidence to suggest that there is a pattern, of course if 95% do the same thing then there is a pattern regardless of whether 5% did not fit it. There is no requirement for it to be universal; people respond to the same medical treatment in different ways but that doesn’t make biology a pseudoscience.

The Milgram experiment, which is what I assume you’re referring to, did demonstrate a pattern and it did provide an insight into human behaviour with regards to authority.

The fuzziness comes in how you interpret these results and patterns, but that is true of any science and does not take away from their scientific validity.

reply to post by teapot
 



Please provide supporting information about service increases. I would suggest any such information is hyperbolic! Fact is, services are being cut


Now yes but I was talking about over the previous decade.

Over this period services have indeed increased, for example spending on health between 97 and 08 increased by ~£103bn (public).

www.statistics.gov.uk...

On crime;

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.parliament.uk...

You can claim the figures have been cooked but then we come to an impasse where anything that contradicts the claim that crime is going up is immediately dismissed as being cooked.

Perhaps we can agree that the figures do show crime going down whether or not you agree that they are an accurate reflection of crime.


Whilst it is true there is an unacceptable amount of fraudulent claims for incapacity benefits as opposed to unemployment benefits, the system itself has created this problem. If unemployment benefits were on a par with incapacity benefits, fraud would be considerably reduced. By creating degrees of destitution rather than a level playing field for all state dependents, the state itself encourages dishonesty.


I agree, I think we should put solid effort into determining a minimum living income and make sure no one falls below that.

However I do think that there does need to be different levels; someone who refuses to work does not deserve to be given a TV licence for example but someone who cannot work does not deserve to have it taken away. Personally I think that, very broadly, we should have a basic survival rate for the habitually unemployed (food, shelter, access to education etc) and a basic living wage (survival plus normal luxuries) for those who have no control over their circumstances (disabled, those recently laid off etc).

The question does have to be asked though, is any of this affordable?


Dismissing increases in self harm even to the point of suicide as being merely a by product of necessary spending reviews implies complicit acceptance that the state has the right to act with moral impunity.


I’m not dismissing them nor do I think they should be but at the end of the day if you’ve only got so much to go around you only have so much to go around.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


I know this, I am in no way supporting this I am completely against it. But the fact is, the less people alive to claim benefits, as far as the government is concerned, the better. They simply dont care about individual lives, unless it is their own.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Elliot
 


I know what you are saying, but in my experience the english people are no better than the people at the top. Given the chance they WILL exploit the weak for their own gain, and many do. Yes I know not all english are like that but it really is the minority that are not. I used to think it was just me, but I have seen many people go through similar things to myself. There are many predators in society, and they are not all rich, and the best ones always have a convincing cover.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The United States of America isn't any different. Funny how all countries have become more or less the same type of beast. They all want to take from the poorest and weakest of society. In the USA people on disablity and social securit have not seen an increase in 2 years. The government keeps talking about cuts in these programs. I heard about people who after hearing there was no increase who would try to commit suicide.
The governments are really playing a dangerous game here. Cutting benefits will definitely cause people with mental health problems to get worse needing more medication and more help. Is there one decent country out there anymore?
What if we all revolt against our countries?
FDR once said:


"True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

www.memorable-quotes.com...
This is something to think about are our countries becoming less democratic and more like dictatorships?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join