How to deal with human waste

[Argus]

Well, maybe not easily.

It occurs to me that our society is absolutely chock full of human waste, and I don't meant hte stuff that comes out of the toilet. I think we can take as a given that anyone who is hmoeless is a dead loss to society, contributing nothing, and basically wasting their lives away. Career criminals are basically worse. Not only do they contribute nothing, but they cost society in a myriad of ways, including additional security and policing costs, the costs to try and imprison them, the costs of welfare they are on in beatween prison stays, the health costs of the people they harm, etc.

Of course, by definition, those on welfare are non-contributing, and inasfar as their lives go, they're wasting them. Their existance is largely pointless.

In the epast, societies didn't have the same degree of problems as these conditions weren't generally tolerated. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. Problem solved. If you stole, you were executed. Problem solved. Quick, nasty, but efficient. Our lax attitudes on this score has allowed the problem to enlarge and proliferate. There are far too many people in our society who are a waste of skin tissue, whose lives serve no purpose, who might as well be ground up into paste and fed to cows.

First, the problem of repeat criminals. I think by a certain point in your life many of these individuals have demonstrated they will never amount to anything, never hold a real job, and will always be on welfare and causing trouble. We don't want to lock them in prisons, most of them, for their crimes don't deserve that. Besides, prisons are expensive to maintain.

Prison farms, on the other hand, with reasonable accomodation, should be profitable. Tracking bracelets could ensure the individuals couldn't wander off too far. They could spend the rest of their lives productively picking fruit or harvesting potatoes on farms and spare society the expensves associated with them being on the loose. You could solve the homeless problem in the same way. They pick fruit or they don't eat.

As for welfare. Same thing goes. We have any number of jobs we need seeing to, from weeding along roads, to picking up garbage. We have a real need for daycare, so we could staff new ones with welfare mothers. Instead of ten welfare mothers sitting at home we could have three looking after the children and the rest out doing other work. Don't want to work? Don't eat. Problem solved.

[Michael Hardner]

Waste is generated, right ? It is created. Wouldn't a good option to be to reduce the amount of waste we create ?

[maple_leafs182]

maybe it's not the people that are the problem, maybe society is the problem, ever think of that?

Their is no wrong way to live.

[ToadBrother]

As for welfare. Same thing goes. We have any number of jobs we need seeing to, from weeding along roads, to picking up garbage. We have a real need for daycare, so we could staff new ones with welfare mothers. Instead of ten welfare mothers sitting at home we could have three looking after the children and the rest out doing other work. Don't want to work? Don't eat. Problem solved.

The 1850s called. They want their Poor Laws back. What's next, the return of the screw in prisons?

Edited January 22, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

Waste is generated, right ? It is created. Wouldn't a good option to be to reduce the amount of waste we create ?

Can you reduce it to zero?

Seriously, take a fellow, say John Smith. He's thirty seven with a grade 8 education, addicted to heroin, thirty four arrests, never held a job in his life... what else do you want to do with this wasted creature? He's beyond reform, isn't interested in reform, or a job.

Now multiply by several thousand, or maybe several tens of thousands.

[Argus]

maybe it's not the people that are the problem, maybe society is the problem, ever think of that?

Their is no wrong way to live.

The wrong way to live is living off others while giving nothing back - and not wanting to give anything back, not even making the slightest effort to give anything back.

[Argus]

The 1850s called. They want their Poor Laws back. What's next, the return of the screw in prisons?

I'm not opposed to corporal punishment.

[Sir Bandelot]

The wrong way to live is living off others while giving nothing back - and not wanting to give anything back, not even making the slightest effort to give anything back.

Hmm, sounds like Brian Mulroney

[August1991]

It occurs to me that our society is absolutely chock full of human waste, and I don't meant hte stuff that comes out of the toilet. I think we can take as a given that anyone who is hmoeless is a dead loss to society, contributing nothing, and basically wasting their lives away.

....

Of course, by definition, those on welfare are non-contributing, and inasfar as their lives go, they're wasting them. Their existance is largely pointless.

By definition? By whose definition?

Argus, the problem with your logic is that it could be you who is defined as "non-contributing". Some people believe that civil servants are parasites too.

-----

In the epast, societies didn't have the same degree of problems as these conditions weren't generally tolerated. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. Problem solved. If you stole, you were executed. Problem solved. Quick, nasty, but efficient.

You are wrong. In the past, there were many ways to help people. Families took care of their own.

But anyway, I would prefer to live as a poor person today than a slave in the so-called Roman Empire. Since when has the past been the arbiter of the future's civility?

First, the problem of repeat criminals. I think by a certain point in your life many of these individuals have demonstrated they will never amount to anything, never hold a real job, and will always be on welfare and causing trouble.

If you wanted to discuss the criminal justice system, why didn't you say so? And the last time I checked, crime statistics are falling by whatever measure. We live in a safer society now than 30 years ago.

As for welfare. Same thing goes. We have any number of jobs we need seeing to, from weeding along roads, to picking up garbage. We have a real need for daycare, so we could staff new ones with welfare mothers. Instead of ten welfare mothers sitting at home we could have three looking after the children and the rest out doing other work. Don't want to work? Don't eat. Problem solved.

Are more people on welfare now than 20 years ago? Do you have proof of that?

I would love to have a discussion about how we help poor people (including how the tax system treats them). Is that what this thread is all about?

Edited January 23, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

It occurs to me that our society is absolutely chock full of human waste, and I don't meant hte stuff that comes out of the toilet.

Fallen down lately?

You wouldn't have a speciality licence plate that reads D-FENS by any chance would you?

[ToadBrother]

I'm not opposed to corporal punishment.

I think Dickens wrote stories about you. Prescience, or did he just know your type?

[CANADIEN]

It occurs to me that our society is absolutely chock full of human waste, and I don't meant hte stuff that comes out of the toilet.

Actually, human beings are... human beings. Not waste. The opinions of some human beings, though, is waste... Your OP is a prime example.

But at least, I will hand it to you. None of the neo-conserative nonsense hypocrisy snout personal responsibility. With you it is very simple (and simplistic) - the value of a human being is linked to how much he/she does not offend your prejudice or how much he/she can be exploited.

Repeat criminals shoud be kept in jail... at least you got something right. But issues of pverty and homelessness are too complex, and too much of s human failure, to be solved with "if they are poor, let's exploit them" attitudes and ideas. We are talking about human beings here, and any idea, any proposal that begins with a denial of that is not worth the keyboard it is written on.

BTW, feel free to glorify the past. I won't. Throwing people in jail for debt, hanging them for stealing a loaf of bread, putting them in "poor houses" (really, a form of slavery) when they were down of their luck was, to use a term you feerly use when talking about foreign cultures, barbaric. Besides, it did nothing to solve poverty or homelessness. But then, the problem to you is not poverty or homelessness, it is that the poor and the homeless are not made into slaves for your benefit.

[CANADIEN]

The wrong way to live is living off others while giving nothing back - and not wanting to give anything back, not even making the slightest effort to give anything back.

And then, there are people whose contribution to society we could do before. What you contribute to this site is a prime example.

Treat people with dignity, as human beings, and most of them, even among those who at one point or another unemployed or homeless, will find a way to respond in kind. It is when we treat people like garbage that their lives becomes pointless.

[Argus]

But at least, I will hand it to you. None of the neo-conserative nonsense hypocrisy snout personal responsibility. With you it is very simple (and simplistic) - the value of a human being is linked to how much he/she does not offend your prejudice or how much he/she can be exploited,

Do you think it's a personal prejudice to be offended by career criminals and welfare lifers?

Repeat criminals shoud be kept in jail... at least you got something right.

Would you lock up someone like that guy in Toronto who was "arrested" by the Chinese grocer for stealing a plant? For life? Apparently he's never had a job since he got here, is a crack addict, and has scores of convictions. But do you lock him in a prison cell at enormous expense to the state and forget about him? My proposal has him on a more humane farm doing actual labour, not locked in a stone cell. How is my proposal more cruel than yours?

But issues of pverty and homelessness are too complex, and too much of s human failure, to be solved with "if they are poor, let's exploit them" attitudes and ideas

I said nothing about poverty. I didn't say "If you are too poor, or don't have x amount of money or property...". I spoke about criminals and welfare lifers whose lives are basically being wasted.

BTW, feel free to glorify the past. I won't. Throwing people in jail for debt, hanging them for stealing a loaf of bread, putting them in "poor houses" (really, a form of slavery) when they were down of their luck was, to use a term you feerly use when talking about foreign cultures, barbaric.

I wouldn't disagree. I didn't say it to "glorify" the past, but to point out that such human failings, laziness, criminality, used to be kept more in check. Now with our permissiveness it's right out in the open.

But then, the problem to you is not poverty or homelessness, it is that the poor and the homeless are not made into slaves for your benefit.

Seriously, some of these people would be better off as slaves. It's hard to say a life of scrambling in alleys, snatch and grabbing small items to sell for your desperately needy daily fix, or rooting through garbage for food and newspapers to use to insulate you against the cold is better than working on some sort of prison farm.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Treat people with dignity, as human beings, and most of them, even among those who at one point or another unemployed or homeless, will find a way to respond in kind. It is when we treat people like garbage that their lives becomes pointless.

Liberal drivel, and dishonest drivel at that. I'm not speaking about people who "at one point or another are unemployed or homeless" and that is patently clear. I'm speaking about criminals with forty or fifty convictions, who haven't held a job in decades. I'm speaking about people who grew up on welfare, applied for their own welfare at eighteen, and have been on welfare for a dozen years since then, with no intention, hope, desire of ever getting off welfare, getting an education, getting job skills or a job. In the United States there are entire slums filled with such people, for whom the phrase "the underclass" was coined, people whose parents, grandparents were all on welfare, and whose children and grandchildren will be on welfare.

[Argus]

I think Dickens wrote stories about you. Prescience, or did he just know your type?

Which is more cruel, in terms of punishing a relatively lower level offense like purse snatching - the Singpore method of giving someone a dozen blows of the cane, or our method of sticking them in a concrete cell in a prison filled with brutal, thuggish, violent people for months at a time?

Mind you, what we usually do, because we can't AFFORD to do that very much, is to let them go again within a couple of days.

Then of course, we see them back again in a few weeks or months, having been caught doing the same thing.

Anthony Bennett has been a chronic thief since he got off the plane from Guyana thirty years ago. He's a crack addict with a rap sheet as long as a small phone book and has been plaguging the hard working shopkeepers in Chinatown for years. Why can society do nothing about this man other than keep putting him through the revolving door of the system (at extraordinary cost) every few months?

Maybe a little corporal punishment would work better than what we're now doing. It could hardly do worse, and would certainly be less expensive.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Argus

[CANADIEN]

Do you think it's a personal prejudice to be offended by career criminals and welfare lifers?

I was referring to your prejudice against non-whites, Muslims, French-speaking Canadians, gays, among other groups.

Would you lock up someone like that guy in Toronto who was "arrested" by the Chinese grocer for stealing a plant? For life? Apparently he's never had a job since he got here, is a crack addict, and has scores of convictions. But do you lock him in a prison cell at enormous expense to the state and forget about him? My proposal has him on a more humane farm doing actual labour, not locked in a stone cell. How is my proposal more cruel than yours?

. In case you didn't notice, I was reffering to the one idea you have right. Those in jail should pay for at least some of their upkeep.

I said nothing about poverty. I didn't say "If you are too poor, or don't have x amount of money or property...". I spoke about criminals and welfare lifers whose lives are basically being wasted.

Typcal Argus... "I did not mean what I meant". Bizarre, but in your intial piece of drivel noone can find the word "lifer" next to "welfare".

Seriously, some of these people would be better off as slaves. It's hard to say a life of scrambling in alleys, snatch and grabbing small items to sell for your desperately needy daily fix, or rooting through garbage for food and newspapers to use to insulate you against the cold is better than working on some sort of prison farm.

Seriuosly, you are hilarious. There is a reason, a very good reason, while Western country abolished slavery in the 19th century. But hey, you are welcome to volunteer to be a slave for a while.m

Edited January 23, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Liberal drivel, and dishonest drivel at that.

Your drivel has anything liberal in it.

I find it interesting that there is nothing from you about real solutions - like minimum wage at high enough a level that people working full would not have to go to the food bank. Affordable day care services (with PAID employees). Support for private and community projects that offer affordable home ownership to people with low revenue (like Habitat for Humanity or Toronto's Options for Homes. Better and affordable transit. The list is long.

[ToadBrother]

Your drivel has anything liberal in it.

I find it interesting that there is nothing from you about real solutions - like minimum wage at high enough a level that people working full would not have to go to the food bank. Affordable day care services (with PAID employees). Support for private and community projects that offer affordable home ownership to people with low revenue (like Habitat for Humanity or Toronto's Options for Homes. Better and affordable transit. The list is long.

From what I can tell, his "solutions" amount to mid-Victorian era Poor and Penal Laws. In essence, he wants to pretty much move the clock about 150 years.

Edited January 23, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Argus]

I was referring to your prejudice against non-whites, Muslims, French-speaking Canadians, gays, among other groups.

Ahh, you're refferring to my insisting on judging all on the same standards of behaviour, regardless of race, creed or colour? Yes, I'm aware that bigots such as yourself think that visible minorities are too inferior and backward to ever be held to the same standards as whites, but your bigotry is your problem. Why you insist on inserting it into every thread is a little beyond me.

Typcal Argus... "I did not mean what I meant". Bizarre, but in your intial piece of drivel noone can find the word "lifer" next to "welfare".

I meant what I said, not what you interpreted me (probably deliberately) as saying. I don't need to support an argument you have posited me making. Fight your straw men elsewhere.

Seriuosly, you are hilarious. There is a reason, a very good reason, while Western country abolished slavery in the 19th century.

Which was?

Edited January 23, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Your drivel has anything liberal in it.

I find it interesting that there is nothing from you about real solutions - like minimum wage at high enough a level that people working full would not have to go to the food bank.

The problem with your Socialist sollutions is they don't work. Higher minimum wages = fewer jobs = more poverty.

Affordable day care services (with PAID employees).

Unaffordable given the rates that must be paid to "early childhood educators" since the liberals have decided no one can actually look after children - even mothers - without having gotten a diploma or degree somewhere.

This is just a variation of your first sollution. Raise the rates and provide fewer jobs. Only this one is "Raise the rates and provide fewer daycare spaces".

Support for private and community projects that offer affordable home ownership to people with low revenue (like Habitat for Humanity or Toronto's Options for Homes

I'm supposed to help people pay for houses they don't have the skills, education or money to own while still paying for my own house? Who's helping me? Oh, nobody.

Better and affordable transit.

A seriously good idea! But given the lefties decided anyone who works for a transit company has to be paid at least $60k a year (the sleepy TTC Token takers make $27 hr) completely unaffordable. Again, a theme which runs through almost all your "solutions".

[CANADIEN]

Ahh, you're refferring to my insisting on judging all on the same standards of behaviour, regardless of race, creed or colour? Yes, I'm aware that bigots such as yourself think that visible minorities are too inferior and backward to ever be held to the same standards as whites, but your bigotry is your problem. Why you insist on inserting it into every thread is a little beyond me.

Coming from the person who keeps referring to non-Whites as savages, bemoans the absence of white-only neighbourghoods, gets into a fit every time he heaars about gays. And I am the bigoted one? I have seen more proof of the existence of the easter Bunny than example of your alleged equal standard.

I meant what I said

... and there is still no instance of the words welfare and lifers appearing together in your original posting.

Which was?

That you do not know why slavery was an evil institution says a lot about you.

Edited January 23, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The problem with your Socialist sollutions is they don't work. Higher minimum wages = fewer jobs = more poverty.

Far better to have WORKING people stand in line at the food bank, right. But I forgot, we are beyond that. Now we should reinstate slavery.

Great. I volunteer you for the experiment.

Edited January 23, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Argus]

Coming from the person who keeps referring to non-Whites as savages, bemoans the absence of white-only neighbourghoods, gets into a fit every time he heaars about gays. And I am the bigoted one?

Unquestionably a bigot. Also a liar whose habit of snivelling every time your simple-minded arguments aren't accepted is as tiresome and boring as your habit of making up positions and attributing them to others.

That you do not know why slavery was an evil institution says a lot about you.

You're the one who mentioned it. I merely asked you to flesh out your knee-jerk statement.

That you CAN'T says a lot about you.

[CANADIEN]

Unquestionably a bigot. Also a liar whose habit of snivelling every time your simple-minded arguments aren't accepted is as tiresome and boring as your habit of making up positions and attributing them to others.

Excuse me while I am laughing at your self-description.

You're the one who mentioned it. I merely asked you to flesh out your knee-jerk statement.

That you CAN'T says a lot about you.

Excuse me. I was under the delusion that the evil of slavery was something evident enough that it did not need to be explained. Perhaps I should explain why 1 + 1 = 2 as well?

But since you insist...

Slavery is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. The property of others... Not like a human being, but like a piece of furniture, or chattel. That concept that a human being is a property is sufficient proof of the evil of the slavery, in and by itself.

You of course are free to think slavery is not so bad after all. And to volunteer to prove it through your own example.

Edited January 24, 2010 by CANADIEN