'Bunks for Drunks'
Finally a place where JBG can live in peace.
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
your dad was a drunk.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
There may be a reason that they are the "unsympathetic homeless."
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
"Bunks for Drunks" who the f**k makes up these nauseating rhymes? whats wrong with "stink of piss dirty twats get free shit for being off their faces and not giving a sh*t?"
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
what I don't understand is why people like this are rewarded, what kind of an incentive is it to live an upstanding life when these people can live better than some off the state by being costly to society?
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
the ability of people given plenty to hate with such fervour those given less is a genuinely amazing feature of Western civilisation. Congratulations guys!
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
I don't see why you have to get all emotional on us phang. It's purely an ecomonic decision; How best to deal with the casualties of our civilisation in a cost-effective manner.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
It costs £35k per year for an adult UK prison sentence, I suspect once you got into the swing of things you could probably get executions down to a few hundred pounds per victim. We might be able to lower costs further by mass burials or the use of gas. In the longer term mass sterilisation of those at risk groups (e.g. poor people, certain ethnic groups) as a preventative measure might be cheaper still. The point is if we're just looking at this in terms of economic costs, how far do we wish to take this? |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
dante, you must admit it doesn't seem "fair" that these people are felons, but they get treated better than some upstanding, and taxpaying, members of western culture. Why work, when the government will give you a house if you're a lazy bum, who does nothing but drink all day. I know the motivation is to save money, but it still pisses me off, money shouldn't be the motivation in all things, did anyone stop and think that this may not be the best way to treat these people?
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I know what you mean. It can seem wrong that people are getting free stuff simply because they've perhaps made some unwise choices (this is hardly the full story of course). But what do you suggest? I think we will always have people who will fall down into these sorts of personal problems for one reason or another. As a society we can ignore them, or punish them or we can offer a hand. The problem is that the first two tend to be expensive, in the long run. Of course, you can make the argument that this is a bad example, that people will be encouraged towards sloth and drunkeness by this generous support. And that could be true, but if we look at societies where there is much less of a safety net we see no absence of social problems of this sort. More generally, the levels of support given out in most countries (even where there is a welfare benefits system) is not high enough to make work seem unattractive for most. There are of course marginal cases (e.g. single mothers can sometimes face a net income loss if they commence work) but that's usually due to perversity in the benefits system and chronically low wages. Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
I guess what bothers me about this particular program is that there's no requirement to undergo any sort of treatment. Usually shelter is offered as a carrot to entice homeless alcoholics to enter rehab but this program is aimed at those who apparently refuse to enter treatment. It might be cheaper for the state to warehouse these people but it doesn't strike me as being particularly humane. Instead of drinking their lives away out on the streets we give them a place to drink that costs us less money overall and takes them off the streets and out of public view. Is this for their benefit or ours? |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
The joke of the matter is that it's so incredibly arbitrary. Some guy steals a bike, and because it was from walmart and cost $50 it's a misdameanor (not a felony), another person steals a bike that looks almost exactly the the same, but instead it's a K2 with Shimano parts and cost well over $4,000. One person spends 30 days in jail, the other person has to live as a second class citizen the rest of their lifes. Go go US legal system! It's doing such a great job for humanity. Thanks! I feel safe and protected knowing I exist in such a ****ed up bullshit kangaroo legal system where I feel that if I look at a cop wrong I may end up with a destroyed life. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
The thing I don´t understand about US law is that they look only at the crime itself, not by who or why it was committed.
The best example I saw was a guy doing life in Ohio, because he first stole a slice of pizza, then after a while a bottle of milk, and the thing he got life for was stealing a Mars bar. All crimes comitted, because the poor black mofo was HUNGRY for God´s sake. The governor´s commentary: ¨That´s how Ohio works, it´s like baseball. Three strikes and you´re out.´ I prefer Germany where they still have the ´MundRaub´ principle baked into their law system. It allows you to steal food if you are hungry, but no more than what you can put in your mouth... It goes all the way back to medieval law. Nice isn´t it. :) |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quick question: when did alcoholism become a desease and not just people who don't have the willpower to stop putting what is effectively a poison into their bodies.
As far as I know alcohol isn't actually physically addictive (like heroin?) or chemically addictive (like tobacco), so surely there's no excuse for addiction to it beyond your own shitness? |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Because alcoholism 9 of 10 times is a SYMPTOM of bigger problems. And willpower is a laugh. I could not open a pack of crisps on willpower alone. That word is used in vain by a lot of people.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
"Experts" of ackward calibre that work their way around to understanding just about everything. If we deduct it to a ridiculous extent, any issue one might have (killing his sister, eating his neighbour's dog, alcoholism) is just a symptom of bigger/other problems not caused by the person himself, so he's not really responsible for it, right? Yeah, they are "sick", but it's by far self-inflicted. Excess quantities of alcohol is a choice inevitably; you can either try to deal with your problems in different ways, or take the bottle. I intimately know a person that has had some problems in his life that you'd say, should he be alcoholic, his alcoholism would be a symptom of these bigger problems. Probably had he killed someone it would just have been a symptom too, not a choice. So it's funny games thinking about *why* some people with similar problems don't come up with a symptom like alcoholism, and some do. A matter of personal preferences (oh yeah, which are greatly designed by enviroment too, so we're kinda prisoners of our past if we go the skeptic disgustingly pedant psychological route). |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Well, being raised by an alcoholic and seeing from closeby the effect and path of alcoholism, an experience I sincerely hope you lack, I have to say you are wrong.
People don´t wake up and think ´Let´s start drinking today´. Ofcourse there are some people that slide into drinking because they simply have nothing better to do, but most of em just can´t hack life, and take to the bottle because it numbs them or gives them that little bit of relaxation that will get them to the next day. If you cannot see that in those cases it is the symptom of a greater problem I do not know how to explain it to you. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
people who have never suffered any kind of dependency or mental illness always seem to assume that because some people can kick themselves out of it, everyone can. This is not the case. A few years ago, I had that lovely old suicidal depression thing going on (which I know I've mentioned to a few people on here); I mostly worked myself out of it because I was a little too self-aware to think that the cycle of theft, truancy and self-harm I'd let myself fall into was a good thing. It took about nine months, maybe a year, between my realising that it had to stop and that actually happening - not because of my own 'shitness', but because I was in such a bad way that I kept slipping into old patterns. Actually, this forum was a major help in that because even though my posting was pretty much of the standard you'd expect from a mentally ill 15-year-old, it gave me something constructive and safe to do.
One of my good friends told me a few months ago, while very emotional, loose-tongued and drunk, that on the back of particularly unpleasant relationship issues they'd attempted suicide about a year before. They've been on heavy anti-depressants since then and have had monthly therapy sessions for the last few months. It's helping, but it's unlikely it would have started had their parents not found them unconscious on the floor of the bathroom. I know a girl who has been perpetually ****ed on booze and weed since the age of 15. After being top of her class - on course for 12 A*s at GCSE and quite possibly an Oxbridge education - up to this point, she dropped out at 16 with 6 GCSEs. Her parents are rich and disinterested, so they haven't intervened and she hasn't needed to get a job. When her friends have tried to intervene, it's been to no success. She doesn't listen, and she gets angry at the suggestion that she has any kind of problem at all. She doesn't get invited to that many parties, just because people don't want to make it too easy for her to get at booze. When she does go to those parties, she's not a happy drunk. She cries, she mourns her life, she falls asleep huddled in the corner of the room. The next day she wakes up, goes home, and starts drinking. You don't need chemicals to **** yourself up almost irretrievably. For the drunks in the bunks, their lives are being made better. They have shelter, food, and something to do other than drink. They aren't being pressured to stop drinking, bcause if they were they'd just leave and go back on the streets, although help is made available for those who are able to take it. Don't you dare judge these people for the position they're in - if they've failed rehab six times, can we perhaps, just perhaps, assume that control is out of their hands? |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
However, all of this "understanding" issue is completely separate from the idea whether someone should be held responsible for their crimes. If someone kills ten people, and we find out they had some sort of mental defect which contributed to their behaviour, it's not like we would set the person free, would we? That line of reasoning would mean the only people who were put in prison would be people who committed crimes for no reason. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
If only for a statistical reason. There´s always a number of ´fails´, be it in production figures, human beings or internet availability.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, I do have personal experience of "problems", not alcoholism, though, as I didn't pick alcohol as the solution for my problems (which would have made alcoholism a "symptom" probably). edit - forgot this: Quote:
Which brings me to a famous (or notorious) Finnish band of three brothers that were in the media labeled as the Eura (a town) Daltons due to their excessive criminal record and repeative crimes. Later on (if I remember correct, during their trials), a movie was made of the "Dalton brothers", after which a horde of "professional understanders" appeared to show their support to the poor kids who had obviously been wronged badly because they had ended up mugging people, attempting to rob banks, and trying to pull out gas station automats with a car. Yeah, it's not their fault they're criminals, the society made them! (the same applies to some cases of alcoholics and drunks here; it's not the poor guy's fault he's addicted to drugs or booze, the society caused him to feel bad). There was this person, Sanna Sillanpää, who opened fire at fellow hobbyists in a firing range, wounding and killing people. She was found to have had a troubled childhood and these mental defections. She spent a few months in locked up therapy, and was then released to "normal" life with therapy. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Indeed not. With Phang here.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
For me anyways it was mainly the ´In this case they have all chosen to refuse treatment on many occasions. ´ part I disagreed with.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
Dependency is not something where person A's success reflects badly on person B's failure. Hell, it's not something where person B's failure reflects badly on person B's failure. Some people recover from cancer, some people don't - we don't castigate the latter group for not having a hardy enough immune system, or for not being god enough at chemotherapy or whatever the hell else. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Or we could decide to accept that not everyone will 'make it' in society. Some will choose a different, more destructive path. If these people don't want certain types of help that is their right and their choice. |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
what the **** are you talking about
i've been advocating the "bunks for drunks" throughout the whole ****ing thread it's been my entire point because these people can't be helped through rehab, so we should at least give them food and shelter, like we give to all the other people shat on by society are you some kind of idiot |
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Seeing as I drink enough to be considered an alcoholic and answer 27 out of 30 of those AA questions in the affirmative can I get a free apartment please? :(
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Can I move into your cardboard box then? I happen to be the other group of people shat on by society but I was evicted for budget reasons.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Oh well I´ll lease it with option to buy, or property turnover after 25 consecutive paid terms, then.
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
However, my point was solely that your statement remarking on the mental health of these people was shit. Firstly, psychological dependance does not equate to mental illness. You seem to want to remove the factor of choice from their lives and with it any responsibility these people should shoulder for their choices so made. Secondly, society owes these people NOTHING. The focus of societal policy should always be to care primarily for people interested in self help and self improvement. By saying that these people are incapable, as a result of mental illness, to make these decisions for themselves you are removing their right to live as they so choose. My point was that if you are going to do that why not just go the whole hog and forcibly cure them? It's equivalent to treatment other people suffering from mental illnesses receive after all. In short your mealy-mouth, self involved diatribe about why we should be interfering in the choices of others is repulsive to me. As an example: Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
self-important? crawl the **** out of yourself. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
You called?
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
|
Re: 'Bunks for Drunks'
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:07. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018