Yeah, then fuckers like you wouldn't be able to stereotype so easily.

Blue collar crime is more likely to be commited by unemployed people, but not by as much as you might think. Contrastingly, white collar crime is only ever commited by employed middle class and above people.

A king is about as likely to murder or rape as the lowest 'dole-scum' is.

Yeah, but I suppose you could say that with stereotypes...

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Herp derp.

Besides, seems like every time I go for a walk I get proven right.

I wonder if you'd still defend a chav if one had ever tried to mug you.

The funny thing about jobseekers' is that they don't pay you for looking for jobs, they pay you for finding jobs. As distinct from finding work. You go in with a list of jobs you've found.

A little fire can produce a lot of smoke too.

Oh hey another conservative cliche.

Not a cliche. I've been victim of an attempted mugging. It's not fun and doesn't give me a whole lot of respect for their plight.

It's really, really easy to lie and get the money without ever lifting a finger. My friend does it all the time. You can pretty much write this 'list' on the car journey to the centre.

I found myself stuck between hating myself for doing that, or hating myself for applying for jobs that I know I've no chance of getting and wasting people's time.

Needless to say, I didn't get any allowance for two years, then somehow became employed. On both these counts, I hate myself.

No. It's a cliche, assuming at a base level that the world should revolve around you.

It doesn't.

well done! that's a very grown-up thing to do, would you like a lollipop?

really? people with jobs pay for all that stuff too? well holy shit, i didn't know! thank you for enlightening me, you oblivious fucking retard.

my point was that you can sit on your high horse for as long as you like, but the painfully obvious fact remains that we're all in the same boat. we all pay for these things, even those on the dole. you really are blinded by your own sense of superiority if you think for one nanosecond that people on the bottom rung of the social ladder have it easy. your mentality is ugly and nauseating. i'd rather see Nick Griffin as PM than someone as dangerously deluded as you.

are you fucking serious? why would they need a car? well, to actually stand a chance at getting a job in the first place would be one simple answer. a lot of jobs nowadays prefer their employees to have some form of transport, either because it's out of town, it's needed in the job, the job moves from area to area, whatever, therefore having a car is a big boost.

that's one reason, there are more, but i'm not gonna play the cunt and sit here typing up a list of uses for a car to someone who already owns a car, just so they can go through it and think "i do that...i do that too...boy, i didn't know they did all this stuff, because i'm employed and i do it too!". this is ridiculously basic stuff, i'm not your nanny and i'm not here to teach you these things. if you didn't know that people out of work may need use of a car, then for Christ's sake, why are you even in this thread? just because they have no job, doesn't mean they sit in stasis all day until they decide to go out and rob some old lady, you fucking moron.

hey, guess what? i couldn't give a flying fuck what daddy did. i don't know your situation because you won't let on, instead you just defend yourself with more anonymity, so i'm left stabbing in the dark. do you know why i say that? because every single situation is different. how the fuck can i judge whether what you're saying is even worth considering in this thread when all you've told us is the bare basics? but you know what? i don't want to know. i have no idea why you brought up your family history in the first place. if you want to prove something, prove it yourself, don't use somebody else and try to pass it off as a good example to set for others. you. what have you done that's so fucking awe-inspiring? what have you done that makes you think you have the right to be the next Judge Dredd? i'd like to hear it.

hello Pauline Campbell-Jones.

haha, i smoke and have tattoos, but guess what? i wasn't rioting, and i have no intention to. do you still practice Phrenology or something? because that's how absurd you sound.

clearly you have no idea what you're blithering on about, but you'll carry on spouting this rancid pig swill because you'll never actually see sense due to your gloriously blinding ignorance. fucking pathetic, really.

people aren't nice, flower. people are complete wankers. get used to it, because obviously you're a very fragile person.

"i have no roof over my head, but hey! at least i'm not in some scorching desert!"

not how it works. if that was how it worked, people would be a hell of a lot more content with what they've got. then again, it's easy for someone that isn't struggling to get by to say "be grateful for what you've got, because it could be a lot worse". real easy.

isn't the best way to argue? what about not answering people in a debate? or totally ignoring valid points? or constantly saying "actually, you're wrong" whenever someone calls you out and then not backing it up with anything anyway? do they ring any bells, you fucking amnesic hypocrite?

do your research for you? fuck that, do it yourself. what are you, dole-scum or something?

well i think you should have made that little bit more clearer from the beginning. or did you just slip up and that was your way of trying to make a half-decent recovery? i'm leaning towards the latter.

oh my heart fucking bleeds. come back when you've grown some bollocks and realized that generalization due to one experience is like only walking uphill for the rest of your life because you were going downhill when it happened. so shortsighted it's incredible.

The best thing I can say about this thread is it's giving me such a boner for MA it's unbelievable.

You're taking this ridiculously personally MA. Got some personal projections into this? Are you on the dole yourself? What haven't I been answering in your debate?

The reason I mentioned my family, I think, was very clear. It shows that someone CAN get their own way out of that situation with good, hard, work. My family came from Yorkshire, from large families who weren't exactly well off. Now, why don't you tell me about your background?

The point about smoking / tattoos is that if you're so fucking tight on money on this handouts, why spend it on such expensive luxuries? Surely you should be rationing until you're better off? I lose pity for people who claim they're strapped for cash and then go buy expensive luxuries. Or maybe I'm missing some logic here, and those tattoos will help you get a job! Oh wait.

Same with the car. Why not just save some money for when you really do need it, when you're employed? I know exactly what I use it for, and I know that for many applications I could use a bus instead, if I was trying to save money.

I mentioned my job because, as made blindingly obvious by the quote I answered, it was suggested that it was easy for me to tell people to 'lower their standards' because I was unemployed myself.

And obviously I'm not generalising by one experience, I was giving an example. This sort of stuff happens all the time in my area, half the time I hear it outside my window. Like I said.

And obviously there must be people on the dole who don't act like this. It just seems like the majority, certainly most people I've come into contact with, fit the same unfortunate stereotype, and these are the people who are rioting. Why would I use the phrase 'dole-scum' as all encompassing when I've told everyone before in this thread that I have a couple of friends on the dole? Why would I be friends with someone who I think is a scumbag? Logic please.

Besides, I've answered everyone in this debate, that's why this thread is going on for so fucking long.

You're overly angry and you're lacking logic. Maybe you should go outside and riot! You'd fit in right with the crowd!

Of course, the only people who could possibly disagree are the dole-scum themselves.


Ah yes, the famous “bootstrapping” approach.


More ad hominem. Fantastic.


Anecdotal evidence. Strongly compelling?


It seems like the majority; this does not make it the majority, nor should you assume so.


Pfft.

Okay, I can't believe it's me of all people saying this but you two need to take it down just a notch, I don't want to get involved or take a side but I'm pretty sure the veins on your foreheads are about to 'splode.

personally? just because i think you're an obnoxious shit, doesn't mean i'm taking it personally. i like to call people out as what they are while knowing they won't like it.

i was out of work between jobs at one point, yes. in the end i did find work and have still got that job, but the area i live in is terrible for unemployment. i know a lot of these people and their situations, but they won't accept charity and hate pity. they may be nearing the bottom for the time being, but that doesn't mean to say that they'll bow or curtsy to someone just because they have a job. that's called self respect, and they try their damnedest to keep hold of that.

that's why i know most of the shit you come out with is complete and utter wank, and it amazes me that anyone could actually believe these insane perceptions you have on people who simply have no work. there are bad examples, of course, but what you're doing is tarring them all with the same brush.

when i was out of work i thought it couldn't have happened at a worse time. i thought it would be a long time before i managed to grab something, but i got off lucky. it wasn't long before i found this shitty factory job and i stuck with it. and yet i don't preach to others with that condescending "think yourself lucky, it could be worse" tripe. if anything, the reason i feel so strongly towards this subject is because i struggle myself, and i have a job. i have no rich relatives, no investments, no safety nets in general. if i fuck up, that's it. game over.

for you to say that those who are jobless have some form of easy life is ignorance at it's peak. i've been there, there is no pot of gold waiting for you at the end of each week. it's completely shit, and i never want to go back there. that's why i know you're a fucking bullshitter, trying to pass your hearsay and speculations off as fact or even worthy of being considered. do your research.

here's a few points you haven't yet answered:

there you go. all better?

fucking hell, pay attention, because you missed the point yet again. you know when i said:

well, i didn't want to know about who did what in your family, or their history or any other drivel, because i couldn't really give a shit less. what i wanted was proof from you. what have you done that makes you think you have the right to judge people so harshly? also, what have you done that's supposed to be so inspiring to the jobless?

you found a job? not good enough. someone tried to mug you and you're still crying about it? not good enough. you'll have to do a lot better than that, because they're pretty embarrassing reasons, and yet they're the only reasons you've mentioned. it's disgraceful, to be honest, for you to think that you have the right, like some 'free pass', to be such a hard-nosed cunt when it isn't you that's struggling and you have such feeble reasons to support it.

so, what, you want all those without jobs to only pay for the bare basics until they find work? is that really a good idea? fuck it, just herd them into pens and start culling them. might be a better idea.

how they spend their money is not your concern. a lot of these people are older and obviously wiser than you are, and yet you seem to want to treat them like they're all scammers, criminals or spongers. why? so what if someone pays for a tattoo? or smokes cigarettes? how in the grand fuck is that anything to do with you? you're stepping into oppression, here.

let me just reiterate:

get a car once you're employed, but you may not get employed without a car. public transport does not cut it. i've tried that many times before. public transport is unreliable, simple. if you can't get to work because the buses have stopped running or turn up late because the train was delayed, your boss and co-workers aren't going to be very happy, and you could easily disrupt a whole days work. there are plenty of other people out there, so you've got to play it safe, and you'd better be dead or dying if you're gonna turn up late or not at all.

well whoopifuckingdoo. so was i, and yet i don't say it. these people are not the problem, it's as simple as that.

but in this scenario, when you use a personal experience as an example for why you find it hard to 'respect their plight', you're judging all of them the same as that one individual. tarring them all with the same brush. generalizing.

the only way you couldn't have been generalizing is if you wasn't using that experience as an example as to why you have 'difficulties' with them. but, obviously you were:

like i said before, saying 'dole-scum' and then quickly following it up with "oh i didn't mean all of them" isn't clear enough. it would have been logical for you to make that abundantly clear from the beginning. you keep whining about logic, why don't you go right on ahead and display some yourself?

really? you mean you didn't blatantly ignore this post:

maybe the reason this thread is going on for so fucking long is because you aren't even putting up a half decent defense. it seems to me that every time someone pokes a hole in your argument, you quickly patch it up with more ignorance or just totally ignore it in the hope that it'll go away and people will forget about it. we're not fucking stupid, but nice try, babe.

this is who i am, sweetcheeks. suck my dick or punch me in the face, both feel just as good.

but at the end of the day, you're talking shit and will not take 'no' for an answer. that isn't a debate, that isn't even an argument, that's someone who has no intentions of changing their stance at all, in the hope that we'll eventually start bargaining with them like some spoiled child in the supermarket. because, after all, you're right.

Another relevant Guardian article: http://gu.com/p/3xb2d

England rioters: young, poor and unemployed
Guardian data project reveals link between economic hardship and those taking part in last week's riots

Maybe you're missing my point. The 'bad examples' you talk about are the ONLY ones I'm talking about, but what annoys me is that it SEEMS like a majority. I'm NOT tarring everyone with the same brush, and I've made some clear distinctions.

Also, I've already addressed all of those 'additional points' which you listed. Let's see;

so really, you only have two qualifying points in your little list, and even those are not as simple as you make them out to be. different people and different situations can't just be lumped into separate categories. this isn't a game, this is life, and these are peoples lives. take off your black & white goggles and see the shit that we are in.
- I've already said that there are people in different situations. That was part of my argument throughout.

there's no effect if there's no cause. basically, something sparked this whole fiasco, and it escalated. when a person is unhappy, they will only take so much shit before they bite back. change that one unhappy person to a portion of a pissed off nation, and of course things are gonna fuck up royally. but why were they unhappy in the first place? why did it get to the point where they stepped outside the law? yeah, some people joined in for pathetic reasons and took advantage of the situation, but that's herd behaviour. it doesn't excuse their crimes, but it doesn't mean they are totally to blame for this grand shit storm either. open your eyes.
- You answered this one all by yourself. "A little fire can produce a lot of smoke too."

my point was that you can sit on your high horse for as long as you like, but the painfully obvious fact remains that we're all in the same boat. we all pay for these things, even those on the dole. you really are blinded by your own sense of superiority if you think for one nanosecond that people on the bottom rung of the social ladder have it easy.
- Yes, we all pay for these things. Except individuals in work have to pay higher taxes, and pay for things with their own money. And they have to work for that money. Like I said.

More ad hominem. Fantastic.
- That wasn't ad hominem, that was a general point. Don't buy luxuries then complain that you're strapped for cash, because then you only have yourself to blame.

how they spend their money is not your concern. a lot of these people are older and obviously wiser than you are, and yet you seem to want to treat them like they're all scammers, criminals or spongers. why? so what if someone pays for a tattoo? or smokes cigarettes? how in the grand fuck is that anything to do with you? you're stepping into oppression, here.
- I can't even believe this. It's nothing to do with oppression. My point is, don't splash out on a bunch of luxuries you don't need AND THEN EXPECT TO CONVINCE ME YOU'RE NOT GIVEN ENOUGH MONEY. I'm pretty sure I'd be broke too if I decided to buy a bunch of things I wanted in one month. But I wouldn't then be obnoxious enough to complain that I wasn't getting paid enough at work.

but at the end of the day, you're talking shit and will not take 'no' for an answer. that isn't a debate, that isn't even an argument, that's someone who has no intentions of changing their stance at all, in the hope that we'll eventually start bargaining with them like some spoiled child in the supermarket. because, after all, you're right.
- I'd be happy to change my mind if someone brought up an argument compelling enough. It just hasn't happened yet.

i've been there, there is no pot of gold waiting for you at the end of each week.
- But was it bad enough for you to have to steal to support yourself? Would you consider the hardship to be extenuating circumstances for someone committing crime?

it's disgraceful, to be honest, for you to think that you have the right, like some 'free pass', to be such a hard-nosed cunt when it isn't you that's struggling and you have such feeble reasons to support it.
- So I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Now who's flying into the zone of oppression? I could say exactly to same thing. What gives you such a right to criticise my point of view?

You seem to keep getting stuck on this, so I'll explain again:

What seems to be a majority is not necessarily a majority. From what you've told us, you live in an area with a high crime rate, and you let your personal experience color your opinion, on top of media bias and public opinion.


...No, I'm pretty sure accusing him of being dole-scum and then accusing him of frivolously spending his benefits on luxuries is ad hominem. Possibly strawmanning too.

At last, someone is speaking reasonably. Yes, undoubtably my personal experiences somewhat effect the way I think, but that's the case for everyone. Unfortunately, there's no statistics of who's frauding and who's genuine, for obvious reasons. So you have to go by what's available, which makes these riots so damned depressing. So many idiots jumped on the bandwagon, and I know no honest, hard-working person would take part in that. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

None of those remarks were aimed directly at him. I simply said that people who frivolously spend their benefits on luxuries and then complain about their lack of money are stupid. Which I see as common sense, and yet I'm getting argued with about it. Figures. :p

Edit: Fuck it, I can't word it right. I'll leave this to someone else.

So everyone who partook in the riots is dishonest and a slacker? And you know this for certain?

Alcar...

i really can't be fucking arsed to keep doing this. responding to you is beginning to feel like a chore. you seem to concentrate on the little things people get wrong and refuse to look at the big picture, which is what we're talking about. your concept is just all fucked up.

so forgive me for not wanting to type a huge bastard novel again, but i honestly don't see the point so i'll try and keep it short and sweet.

then make more distinctions, because all i can see is DOLE-SCUM R BAD. the mere fact you used that term isn't a good sign, anyway. it's a horrible term. no good whinging about people not understanding your point when you're the only one making these points, they all seem to express the same thing.

your whole argument needs more clarity, it's very confusing as to where your stance is, and how extreme it is. one minute you're saying that they're "everything that's wrong with the country", then that you're only concerned about the bad examples. but you didn't make that clear from the beginning. we can only go by what's put in front of us, so if you don't say it or it isn't clear, it's likely to get lost, forgotten or just go unnoticed.

no it wasn't, not when i made that reply.

i never said "a little fire can produce a lot of smoke too". WoF said that, to you, and it was said after i made that point. my point was aimed at you also, and you didn't answer it, as did no one else. this is the first time you've acknowledged it, and have decided to answer it by recycling someone else's answer, once again.

sigh.

so what are you saying? that people out of work have it easier than those in work? what? i mean, maybe i'm just a fucking stupid cunt or something, because i don't have a bastard clue what you're trying to say, it's all contradictory. when i say that you're generalizing and/or judging many due to the actions of a few, you reply with something along the lines of "not all of them, just the bad ones". then when i say that the majority do not have it easy, you reply with something like "Except individuals in work have to pay higher taxes, and pay for things with their own money. And they have to work for that money", which means that you're once again judging them all for something they cannot help, which is either contradictory seeing as you say you're not judging them all in the same light, or completely void because it's something that can't be changed by the people in general, and yet you seem to be blaming them. you can't say you're only talking about a few, then pull something like that out which throws them all into the firing line again. where the fuck do you stand? what is your argument exactly?

whatever it is, it's still bullshit. you can't base any sort of argument off "they buy things and then complain they have no money". who does this? Tom, Dick or Harry? does every single jobless person in the country do it? is it some kind of ritual? are they cast out if they don't spend all there money and then start moaning?

you talk such shit. so, by your reckoning, any jobless person that smokes and has tattoos will spend all their money on 'luxuries' and then proceed to complain about being skint. they are also prone to suddenly rioting, mugging, stabbing people to death and "tricking out their cars to look like shit", have no need for a vehicle and do nothing but sit on their arse all day.

wow.

ARGH THEY ALL SPEND THEIR MONEY ON SHIT AND THEN COMPLAIN TO MEEE OH GOD OH GOD

again, you're treating certain peoples behaviour as if it's something they all have to do to qualify for being out of work. not everyone does this. see the couple of paragraphs above. god help me.

for the umpteenth time, you're judging a lot of people over the behaviour of a few. see what i mean? how can you say something like this, and then declare that you're only talking about the piss-takers? because there's piss-takers everywhere and in everything, they aren't rare and aren't exclusive to the unemployed. you make these loud, wild statements as if they're all to blame, when they're not. maybe you should just stop using these terrible 'examples' altogether, and come up with something that has a bit more substance.

UGH

http://www.ladyspeak.com/wp-content/...born-child.jpg

says the person who said in the very same post:

does that answer your question?

oh god, i knew that was coming.

i can criticize you all i want, because i disagree with you and that's my opinion. you can do the same just like everyone else. in my opinion, you don't have the clarity or basic understanding of unemployment and its differing situations to judge so harshly. anyone can do that, but are they listened to? no.

i can sit here and declare that all pubs should lower their prices, but i don't know nearly enough about their situation, therefore i don't have the basic knowledge or understanding and have no right to preach to them about how they should run their business, i just won't be taken seriously. it's exactly the same sort of thing. get it?

fuck this, i'm sick of having to explain basic concepts to you. the uses of a car, whether someone has the right to do something or not. i feel like i'm not making any mark on you at all and it's starting to get frustrating. you just keep on bulldozing through, i can't be fucking bothered.

MA, maybe you should have actually read my earlier posts. I made this distinction from one of my first posts in this thread...

Notice how I talk specifically about the rioters and the people acting inappropriately.

Look, I think this is the root of this, right here. I'm not saying that every jobless person that spends money on smoking and tattoos will complain about being skint. I'm saying that only the jobless people who spend money on smoking and tattoos and then complain (verbally and by action... such as rioting) about being skint are the ones who annoy the fuck out of me, and it tends to be those I see a lot of. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

Well obviously they're dishonest, because I don't hear about many of them turning themselves in for taking part. As for the slacker thing, well, I had this worked out.

1) Sources people are posting show that the riots took place in areas of worst unemployment rates. No, I'm not saying that every unemployed person took part, and that there were no employed people taking part. The figures point to a hypothesis that at least most of the people who rioted, were unemployed.

2) No person with half a brain who seriously values future (or current, as the case may be) employment would ever get risk getting caught or spotted taking part in a riot, and getting a criminal record, unless perhaps they'd just be adding to one they already have.* People have already pointed out in this thread how much more difficult it is to get a job with a criminal record. People also weren't stealing necessities; I don't think an argument of 'people HAD to steal to stay alive' can fly here.

3) The conclusion to draw from point one and two is that either the guilty party were either far too swept up in the chance to get free stuff and cause some mayhem that they didn't consider future repercussions (aka, they're stupid and selfish), or that they were never interested in getting a job in the first place, so figured they had little to lose. Yes, there are probably other factors here, and I'd like to hear them, maybe it can restore my faith in people a little. But it seems to me that the most likely people to take part in the riot are the slackers, via this logic.

*On a side note, I hate how this system works. It's extremely unfair for people who genuinely want to turn a new leaf, and practically encourages repeat offenders by giving them no better option. This is probably one of the other big problems in the UK, I think.

I'm sorry, you what?

To commit a crime with even a hope of getting away with it, surely you have to, on some level, be dishonest?

Surely everybody is, on some level, dishonest?

If they aren't they're like Jesus or Mary Makillop or something.

Well yeah, this I agree with. I don't get why Alcar brought it up, to be honest. Although you could say that some people are more dishonest than others, and I suppose most criminals would fall into that category.

T'was because of your sweeping generalisations.

Couldn't help myself.

Alcar...

Okay so

Rioters, who evidently don't trust the institution (Because they're rioting dur hur) are dishonest for not turning themselves in to that same institution?

Umm...

Yep, they should totally turn themselves in and further themselves from ever getting a job. Sounds right, I guess.