-
🇬🇧 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
European & African
Drug Discussion
Welcome Guest!
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules -
EADD Moderators: Shambles
Sick fuck kicks toddler, 2yo so hard it split her liver in two
- Thread starter Limpet_Chicken
- Start date
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
You planning on finding a bird with good taste in tunes like?
F.U.B.A.R.
Bluelight Crew
Eveleivibe
Ex-Bluelighter
xxxx
BecomingJulie
Bluelight Crew
Mental health issues don't usually appear suddenly overnight. There are usually warning signs. Sometimes it take a conscious effort of will to ignore them. Somebody could have spotted this about to happen before it happened, given the inclination; and somebody could have prevented it from happening, given the resources.
There's no reason why he couldn't have been found gainful employment in a field that would not have exposed him to dangerous situations. There are plenty of non-public facing rôles in laboratories and warehouses, that don't really require any empathy. Someone who genuinely lacked the capacity to understand what other people might be feeling, would never need to be put in a situation where they might cause harm to someone vulnerable; and someone who had just been so badly treated that they never learned what not suffering feels like would have the chance to learn.
But if we began treating our most vulnerable like human beings, then the not-quite-so-vulnerable might start getting jealous, wanting their potential recognised too. Finding jobs for disabled workers that suit the things they can do (which usually happens to be most of what everybody else can do) requires an investment. To the middle classes, it looks patronising; and to other workers, it looks like preferential treatment. It's much easier to ignore the problem and pretend it only affects other people. Paying out benefits seems to work out cheaper than investing in creating jobs. And a large pool of unemployed workers also tends to keep wages down. The ruling classes never factor in the social cost of people not having regular paid work. (I can't speak for anyone else, but my day job is literally the thing that keeps me sane. I have to get out of the house five days a week, and I have to earn the money I get as opposed to being given it. It also helps enormously that I genuinely enjoy the fuck out of what I do for a living. Otherwise, I could be lying in bed all day, smoking myself into oblivion; only ever leaving the house to sign on or score more smack. Well, why not? It's not as though I have to pay rent or a mortgage, or look after any dependents. And it would be very easy to convince myself that the world beyond the front door was a very scary place indeed. I just got very lucky, where thousands of others didn't, and I'm grateful for that every day.)
For the rich, none of this is a problem. They have the resources they need, and the means to pay for them. They can afford private medicine. They can lock themselves up in gated communities, where they needn't be bothered by poor people. And when something happens that creates a scapegoat, that is a positive benefit; as it basically means the working classes will turn on their own kind instead of them.
Without for a moment excusing what he did, I still think this guy was not just let down by the system, but let down on purpose.
There's no reason why he couldn't have been found gainful employment in a field that would not have exposed him to dangerous situations. There are plenty of non-public facing rôles in laboratories and warehouses, that don't really require any empathy. Someone who genuinely lacked the capacity to understand what other people might be feeling, would never need to be put in a situation where they might cause harm to someone vulnerable; and someone who had just been so badly treated that they never learned what not suffering feels like would have the chance to learn.
But if we began treating our most vulnerable like human beings, then the not-quite-so-vulnerable might start getting jealous, wanting their potential recognised too. Finding jobs for disabled workers that suit the things they can do (which usually happens to be most of what everybody else can do) requires an investment. To the middle classes, it looks patronising; and to other workers, it looks like preferential treatment. It's much easier to ignore the problem and pretend it only affects other people. Paying out benefits seems to work out cheaper than investing in creating jobs. And a large pool of unemployed workers also tends to keep wages down. The ruling classes never factor in the social cost of people not having regular paid work. (I can't speak for anyone else, but my day job is literally the thing that keeps me sane. I have to get out of the house five days a week, and I have to earn the money I get as opposed to being given it. It also helps enormously that I genuinely enjoy the fuck out of what I do for a living. Otherwise, I could be lying in bed all day, smoking myself into oblivion; only ever leaving the house to sign on or score more smack. Well, why not? It's not as though I have to pay rent or a mortgage, or look after any dependents. And it would be very easy to convince myself that the world beyond the front door was a very scary place indeed. I just got very lucky, where thousands of others didn't, and I'm grateful for that every day.)
For the rich, none of this is a problem. They have the resources they need, and the means to pay for them. They can afford private medicine. They can lock themselves up in gated communities, where they needn't be bothered by poor people. And when something happens that creates a scapegoat, that is a positive benefit; as it basically means the working classes will turn on their own kind instead of them.
Without for a moment excusing what he did, I still think this guy was not just let down by the system, but let down on purpose.
F.U.B.A.R.
Bluelight Crew
Castration is the only sensible answer. Forcibly prevent people like that from procreating and they will all have died out in a generation. However, what do we do in this namby pamby politically correct bullshit society? We give them extra benefits for every little spawn of satan they produce, as well as a house - and, more often than not, disability payments for ADHD, ADD, Autism, insert made up excuse for shitty parenting etc. (just been reading the Daily Mail 
)
)
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
The child benefit one is something I'm pretty torn over.
On the one hand I don't want to see a kid starving and homeless just because their parents are useless cunts, but on the other hand I'm really against people getting a free house and being paid to shit out weans that they don't give a fuck about, creating the next generation of useless bastards.
Fuck knows what you do about it without fucking over some innocent kid. Implement a China style policy? One wean only if you're unemployed? But then what do you do when the second kid inevitably comes along? Take it into care? Ok, that stops the parent from being rewarded for having another kid but then there's the cost of care and the likely shit life that kid will have.
I can't think of a way to not reward the parents while also not punishing the kids. Perhaps corporal punishment. They get to keep the kid, they get to keep the benefits but they get the shit kicked out of them every Sunday until the kid is 16.
On the one hand I don't want to see a kid starving and homeless just because their parents are useless cunts, but on the other hand I'm really against people getting a free house and being paid to shit out weans that they don't give a fuck about, creating the next generation of useless bastards.
Fuck knows what you do about it without fucking over some innocent kid. Implement a China style policy? One wean only if you're unemployed? But then what do you do when the second kid inevitably comes along? Take it into care? Ok, that stops the parent from being rewarded for having another kid but then there's the cost of care and the likely shit life that kid will have.
I can't think of a way to not reward the parents while also not punishing the kids. Perhaps corporal punishment. They get to keep the kid, they get to keep the benefits but they get the shit kicked out of them every Sunday until the kid is 16.
F.U.B.A.R.
Bluelight Crew
Yep, 'tis somewhat of a dilemma - this is why chemical castration for useless fuckwits is the only answer (and this is only semi tongue in cheek... ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
)
)
ColtDan
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 24,876
Castration is the only sensible answer. Forcibly prevent people like that from procreating and they will all have died out in a generation. However, what do we do in this namby pamby politically correct bullshit society? We give them extra benefits for every little spawn of satan they produce, as well as a house - and, more often than not, disability payments for ADHD, ADD, Autism, insert made up excuse for shitty parenting etc. (just been reading the Daily Mail
Spot on.
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
Yep, 'tis somewhat of a dilemma - this is why chemical castration for useless fuckwits is the only answer (and this is only semi tongue in cheek...
Maybe we make birth control mandatory if you already have one kid that you can't afford? I'm sure there's all sorts of reasons why that's a bad idea but I'm struggling to think of them, other than side effects of the pill I suppose.
Ideally we'd want to develop a contraceptive pill that lasts two weeks and works on both males and females. Then when you go to sign on you get made to take your pill.
As an aside, I would fully support mandatory contraceptives for the entire population. Only when you can prove that you have the means and the ability to raise a kid properly are you allowed to come off it. Contraceptives in the water supply, and you have to go to your doctor for the antidote. My dystopian society would be the best dystopian society.
Last edited:
Eveleivibe
Ex-Bluelighter
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
You have some forms of disability though, if I'm not mistaken. So you're perfectly entitled to your life of benefits. Tbh, I wouldn't allow more than one kid though even in those cases (haha, I wouldn't allow it. As if I'm in charge) because I don't think it's fair to go "Right, that's me had another kid now where's my money?" even if you are disabled, but I also don't think it's fair to not allow any kids at all, so I'd let you have the one lol.
BecomingJulie
Bluelight Crew
It's not the mothers you should be punishing -- they've suffered enough already. Punish the irresponsible idiots who think that just because they don't have to carry it inside them, they can get away with it. I should imagine that staying out of prison would be a powerful motivation for men to wear a Durex. Of course, we also need male LARC; but that's unlikely to come about from private companies who are only interested in making the next weight control, hair loss or erection enhancing drug. (House bricks don't meet the "R", before anyone suggests that 
)
I'd also scrap child benefit altogether -- but with the cutoff date advertised well in advance, so as not to surprise anyone -- and introduce tax concessions for child-free cohabiting partners (married or otherwise). As well as proper sex and relationships education in schools and no religious opt-out.
)I'd also scrap child benefit altogether -- but with the cutoff date advertised well in advance, so as not to surprise anyone -- and introduce tax concessions for child-free cohabiting partners (married or otherwise). As well as proper sex and relationships education in schools and no religious opt-out.
ColtDan
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 24,876
Its her choice as well isn't it? Somebody who pumps out 15 kids that she cant afford shouldnt be punished? Bollocks.
F.U.B.A.R.
Bluelight Crew
I reckon having any more than two kids ought to be means tested. Let's face it, having any more than two kids is stupid/reckless/careless/selfish/irresponsible IF you ain't got the means to support them. No fucker needs more than 2 kids these days - any more is just putting an unnecessary strain on yourself and society (whether you can afford 'em or not)...
(Yes, I've only got two kids... )
(Yes, I've only got two kids...
)
BecomingJulie
Bluelight Crew
Once there was such a thing as long-acting reversible contraception for men, it would be feasible to offer an immediate financial incentive to users.
Also, means testing creates social stigma and always ends ends up costing more than it saves.
Also, means testing creates social stigma and always ends ends up costing more than it saves.
parttime crackhead
Bluelighter
Eh, what? I'm talking about punishing them both equally because they are both equally responsible. In what way have the mothers "suffered enough already"?
I did say that ideally a contraceptive that worked on both is what I'd be after, so that I wasn't punishing females unfairly.
I don't know if I've misunderstood your point but it just sounds like a solid piece of irrational man hating.
There are long acting reversible contraceptives available for women. Is it not feasible to offer an immediate financial incentive for them now? Or have they suffered enough, it's just the men that should be punished? If you're shouting wait until we can treat both equally then fair enough, but I don't think you are.
This isn't really about money for me. It's more about the kids themselves. I don't care if it costs more than it saves if it saves kids from growing up in a jakeball family with 6 siblings and a pair of feckless parents (that's if the dad doesn't fuck off, or was ever there in the first place)
BecomingJulie
Bluelight Crew
The pregnancy, the birth, the burden of responsibility .....
Though, if you were to point out that watching your child grow up is a terrible thing to miss out on, I would be unable to disagree with you.
I prefer to call it "Reverse Stockholm Syndrome", but yeah, I might be a little bit biased against the old side.
No, that was exactly what I meant. It really wouldn't be fair to disadvantage approximately half the human race. Particularly not if the half that think not getting free money to take medication is the disadvantage then take out their frustration on the half having to put up with the side effects of the medication .....
In the long term, it will save a lot more than it costs.
One Thousand Words
Bluelighter
You could always make a compulsory parenting exam and licensing system before being granted child assistance. Make it available to all parents no matter what their income. It could be like a car licence where points are deducted for not reading to them before bed are forcing them to support shit sporting teams for the rest of your life just because your da did.
Would solve a lot of problems in Manchester and Leeds.
Would solve a lot of problems in Manchester and Leeds.