I did, I took the doom and gloomers off ignore yesterday to see if it's worth leaving ignore off, it wasn't
SMH. Still not sure how my expressing support for Rawls’ theory of justice makes me a doom and gloomer or an extreme remainer* (neither of which I am), but who amongst men can know the mind of Noobie? * As I’ve explained multiple times but in common with many other facts and explanations you choose to ignore, I view the EU as the least worst option. I realise it’s a subtle viewpoint, but being a vocal advocate for something doesn’t necessarily equate to extremism. But I guess that is just an example of the “binary thinking” that Loz was deprecating a few posts back.
I don’t think it’s too late, communities still help each other out in a crisis, if not in everyday living. Does it become a problem with providing something to unemployed people etc when someone is no better off for working ? I seem to remember years ago even a low paid job was better than being on the dole ?
A girl I went out with for a while would not have been better off in full-time employment whilst bringing up four children in a four-bed townhouse. Nope. She checked. Still, that's a single example. I feel certain it is a unique case, or tremendously uncommon. Oh, yeah, there's my mate Jacqui, whose two unmarried daughters both dropped sprogs from teenage fathers so that they could get council flats. Still, apart from them, I am sure it never happens. A single person is possibly better off working, if they have access to affordable shelter (Hotel Mum & Dad ... house-sharing with five mates ... a des-res squat ...) but folks who want a "home of their own" without any waiting need kids and Gubmint. The alternative is finding a spouse with earnings potential (hard to find, when so much of the earnings of the potential spouse are spent in taxes so that people who don't want to wait can have homes). Nah. Things are fine as they are.
You would simply have replied that you weren't sure what the problem was. I'm on to you, Alan. I always have been : o D
My apologies zhed, rawls theory mostly concentrates on him repeating another theory that if had been invented back then, would have seen jesus do a meme on it. As I understand it goes like this and I've clearly copied from wiki that society should be structured so that the greatest possible amount of liberty is given to its members, limited only by the notion that the liberty of any one member shall not infringe upon that of any other member. Secondly, inequalities–either social or economic–are only to be allowed if the worst off will be better off than they might be under an equal distribution. Finally, if there is such a beneficial inequality, this inequality should not make it harder for those without resources to occupy positions of power – for instance, public office It is a wish list a.i. might achieve but not if humans are involved but that theory is pure magic for the post you placed where what ifs in the negative was the key tool of use To show there is no hard feelings I will give you a christmas gift that I have given to a few barristers this christmas
Yep, to the point couples, partners etc are chosing to have pets today rather than kids, is that cos gubmint hand out pets FOC you know free stuff ?
Once you put those monosyllabic posters on ignore.... this thread looks like people arguing with themselves.
