The cost of the valueless - what to do with the dregs of society

people dont have to be productive, useful, anything.

it's just too much of a slippery slope, when you start picking who is worthy and who is not.

the thing is, our society can afford this burden, and by paying these people off we keep them from ripping our society apart. I know it's annoying that we have to be touchy feely apathetic but humanity on a whole is less violent now than it ever has been in a historical perspective. crime is at historical lows.

the thing is in 20 years maybe people in your percentile are now the new unemployed, just the same as the example you gave above. technology is going to make many human labors obsolete over the next century, we dont all have to work to survive anymore so maybe it's time we figure out how we're going to handle that.
 
adam is a job creator

think of all the people involved with taking care of his sorry ass. teachers, social workers, prison guards, police officers, paper pushers, administrators, etc...

he must keep dozens of people directly employed through the sheer volume of his fuckups

truly, if we had more people like this man, unemployment would be near 0%

we must clone him; it's the only way to save the economy
 
there always has to be a bottom 10%, if you cut them off guess what, someone just slid down the tottem pole

all we can do is our best to encourage them not to breed


edit: do you think we should euthanize the elderly who are draining the medical system with EOL(end of life) expenses? you think Adam costs us, you've got no idea mister, grandpa can be 8k+ a month
 
Last edited:
Dynamo said:
adam is a job creator

think of all the people involved with taking care of his sorry ass. teachers, social workers, prison guards, police officers, paper pushers, administrators, etc...

he must keep dozens of people directly employed through the sheer volume of his fuckups

truly, if we had more people like this man, unemployment would be near 0%

we must clone him; it's the only way to save the economy
Click to expand...

I think this falls foul of the broken window fallacy

I know you're being ironic :)
 
P Masta Flex said:
there always has to be a bottom 10%, if you cut them off guess what, someone just slid down the tottem pole
Click to expand...

This was what I was going to come at you with on your previous post.

How do we know that to be the case? Subsistence societies did not have a "bottom 10%" who were completely worthless. They killed them off.

You will always have a bottom 10% but they don't need to be an entirely useless fucking underclass who simply produce more of themselves. The people I'm talking about can be traced through several generations of the same shit.
 
We need to make a place for them. A nice place where we can take the Adams of the world and concentrate them in one area. I call this idea a "concentration camp".
 
Yeah, I've also always thought the poor and "valueless" in society are mostly offset by the rich but valueless in society.

This poor kid could easily be switched at birth with Paris Hilton and go on to be the next Paris Hilton or maybe with the money, the next Steve Jobs.

It sucks when people decide one day to make an imaginary line and seperate themselves out from the rest, then take away the other group's rights and humanity. Ah hell, it ain't you day is it? You is being opressed, and pretty soon the ovens are going 24 and 7 and the rest of the world is trying to stop you.

It's easy to think people to death, but hard to think people to life.
 
but seriously, it is a difficult question. there are a bunch of people running around who got really shit luck in the birth lottery, winding up with terrible genetics and miserable home environments. they seem destined for failure from the start, it's hard to imagine otherwise for people with sub-80 IQs who are born into poverty.

i think maybe identifying these people early on and teaching them practical laboring skills instead of trying to provide them with a dumbed down normal education would be the best thing we could do. maybe designate them with a certain status that entitles them to first choice at certain jobs deemed appropriate (like janitorial work, general labor, farm work, etc...) it would keep them employed with something they were capable of succeeding at and make them less likely to wind up on the dole or in prison at least.
 
SecretSquirrel said:
Yeah, I've also always thought the poor and "valueless" in society are mostly offset by the rich but valueless in society.

This poor kid could easily be switched at birth with Paris Hilton and go on to be the next Paris Hilton or maybe with the money, the next Steve Jobs.

It sucks when people decide one day to make an imaginary line and seperate themselves out from the rest, then take away the other group's rights and humanity. Ah hell, it ain't you day is it? You is being opressed, and pretty soon the ovens are going 24 and 7 and the rest of the world is trying to stop you.

It's easy to think people to death, but hard to think people to life.
Click to expand...

The rich but valueless don't cost the taxpayer very much. Indeed so long as they're paying taxes they're liking helping more than you or I. I don't like Paris Hilton but I'm pretty sure she's paid more into the public pot than I have, which is sad in all kinds of ways.

And though you make a salient point about drawing imaginary lines I am at least quantifying mine, and people will be judged on their deeds rather than race, colour, sexual orientation or whatever.
 
Dynamo said:
but seriously, it is a difficult question. there are a bunch of people running around who got really shit luck in the birth lottery, winding up with terrible genetics and miserable home environments. they seem destined for failure from the start, it's hard to imagine otherwise for people with sub-80 IQs who are born into poverty.

i think maybe identifying these people early on and teaching them practical laboring skills instead of trying to provide them with a dumbed down normal education would be the best thing we could do. maybe designate them with a certain status that entitles them to first choice at certain jobs deemed appropriate (like janitorial work, general labor, farm work, etc...) it would keep them employed with something they were capable of succeeding at and make them less likely to wind up on the dole or in prison at least.
Click to expand...

But then you've gone Brave New World all over their asses and these people have been given no chance to aspire to more in a cutesy Forrest Gump feel-good story.

I'm not sure if I have a problem with that, however.
 
Lobster said:
This was what I was going to come at you with on your previous post.

How do we know that to be the case? Subsistence societies did not have a "bottom 10%" who were completely worthless. They killed them off.

You will always have a bottom 10% but they don't need to be an entirely useless fucking underclass who simply produce more of themselves. The people I'm talking about can be traced through several generations of the same shit.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's the point I conceded to, we need to stop them from breeding. I cant in good conscience support sterilizing anyone but there are birth control methods that are long term and irreversible during that term. making them mandatory to receive benefits is a must in my mind.
 
This whole thread is just pissing in the wind. A sweeping change like the one you're suggesting would only happen with a complete societal and governmental revolution. The constitution couldn't even be amended to accommodate your new rules, it would have to be scrapped and a new one drafted. Finally, you'd need tremendous support from the population. One out of five of us need to be put to death, and Lobster will be the judge. Sure, I'll vote for that, and so will everyone I know. :rolleyes:

You've gone to a lot of work thinking this up, how many people do you think you'll convince? You could have invested this free time doing ANYTHING you wanted, and you chose to write your own shittier version of Mein Kampf. What would you say to the judge that sentences YOU to the ovens because you wasted so much of all of our time?
 
Vanster said:
This whole thread is just pissing in the wind. A sweeping change like the one you're suggesting would only happen with a complete societal and governmental revolution. The constitution couldn't even be amended to accommodate your new rules, it would have to be scrapped and a new one drafted. Finally, you'd need tremendous support from the population. One out of five of us need to be put to death, and Lobster will be the judge. Sure, I'll vote for that, and so will everyone I know. :rolleyes:

You've gone to a lot of work thinking this up, how many people do you think you'll convince? You could have invested this free time doing ANYTHING you wanted, and you chose to write your own shittier version of Mein Kampf. What would you say to the judge that sentences YOU to the ovens because you wasted so much of all of our time?
Click to expand...

I hardly think someone who posts on TW as much as you can put forward the argument about "better uses of ones time".

But of course it's not a sketched out policy ready to be put forward to constitutional amendment. It's a thought exercise while I wait for a pie to bake on a Saturday afternoon.

Now that I think about it, however, I don't believe this would need a constitutional amendment. The state already kills people, the constitution does not provide an absolute protection to life.

Also your figure of 1/5 is way off. This is more like 1/500.
 
do you not generally wish well for your fellow man? I dont know, I generally try to do things that bring me happiness and if I can do the same for others as well, without great sacrifice, I enjoy doing that too.

..but I spend a lot of time trying to put myself in other people's shoes in my line of work so I suppose I've had a chance to develop some semblance of a soul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top