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Without wanting to do down their contributions they are quite outdated now, it’s like reading Origin of Species and thinking that it represents the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