Now then...do exercise or have your benefits cut ??

GeorgeHowell

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

You have a caricutured ill thought out view of Left wing philosophy. I would read some books before you comment further. I plan to read one or two corkers on the Right wing and conservatism.

I don't want to spend too much time bandying words with someone who appears to be a Marxist obsessive, and accuses people who disagree with him of ignorance on the grounds that haven't read enough books. Books in themselves mean nothing -- some are excellent and some are rubbish. Save to say that in this context I'm not very interested in theories in books, but in what the damage the lefties are actually doing to modern Britain in practice, the theories that they espouse and act upon, regardless of whether they are supported by theories in books.

N1AK

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Would improved dopamine and energy levels gained though say exercise, combined with more self esteem be a good first step to getting out of that rut of apathy and powerlessness?

I don't know I'm not a psychologist who has studied the psychology of low self-esteem and/or un-aspirational individuals when forced to exercise; something I doubt anyone on this forum is or has sufficient knowledge to make up for not being.

I would however suggest that if someone has a self-worth problem then forcing them to do things may harden feelings of powerlessness.

If the logic you're playing devil's advocate for was so effective then all you'd need to do to solve Anorexia would be give the person big portions at meal times and not let them leave till they finish it all.

RevolvingDoor

I can't actually believe that there are some people on here defending this stupid idea.:rotfl:

keithrgj wrote: »

what about people who have just been made unemployed through redundancy or ill health and paid into the system for the last 30 years, are they scroungers stealing your or OUR MONEY

Exactly.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The archetypal example of what is (or should be) unacceptable is the unmarried mother frequently knocking out kids by different fathers, living in comfortable social housing, smoking, drinking, gambling, Sky TV, a holiday every year etc and it all paid for out of welfare. There are many other scenarios of the lazy, f e c k less, and workshy milking the system in this way. The left will try to pretend that it's all overblown and that such examples are very rare -- but they are not.

In that example I think the fathers should be forced to pay for their kids, IMO there are too many irresponsible fathers in this country that need to learn how to use a condom successfully.

But anyway, there are always going to be people who work the system just like there are people who cheat on their taxes or colleagues who get away with not working and rely on other people to pick up the slack. I still don't see why sending some overweight people to the gym for a few hours a week will change that.

GeorgeHowell

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I can't actually believe that there are some people on here defending this stupid idea.:rotfl:



Exactly.



In that example I think the fathers should be forced to pay for their kids, IMO there are too many irresponsible fathers in this country that need to learn how to use a condom successfully.

But anyway, there are always going to be people who work the system just like there are people who cheat on their taxes or colleagues who get away with not working and rely on other people to pick up the slack. I still don't see why sending some overweight people to the gym for a few hours a week will change that.

Realistically most of the fathers involved are likely to be workshy layabouts on welfare too, so if they pay, we pay anyway.

Why is it so terrible to incentivise obese inactive people to get some exercise ? Surely that's going to do them more good, physically and psychologically, than sitting watching Jeremy Kyle while filling their faces with junk snacks. Some of them might even find they enjoy it.

Why is there so much resistance to any idea about changing for the better the unproductive, unfulfilling, and empty life of this underclass ?

ILW

N1AK wrote: »

I don't know I'm not a psychologist who has studied the psychology of low self-esteem and/or un-aspirational individuals when forced to exercise; something I doubt anyone on this forum is or has sufficient knowledge to make up for not being.

I would however suggest that if someone has a self-worth problem then forcing them to do things may harden feelings of powerlessness.

If the logic you're playing devil's advocate for was so effective then all you'd need to do to solve Anorexia would be give the person big portions at meal times and not let them leave till they finish it all.

Maybe that would do the trick.
I believe that the way we pander and excuse peoples weaknesses can actually make the problem worse in many cases.

PaulF81

The thing is, the peasant class being fat in evolutionary terms is a good thing, as they will decrease fertility and life expectancy, thus removing themselves from our gene pool. Unfortunately, socialists think its a good idea to give the peasants child benefits and NHS treatments to deal with their poor personal choices (smoking, heavy drinking). I have coined a phrase for this socialist wrong-think. It's "reverse Darwinism" and flies in the face of the natural order of things.

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

The thing is, the peasant class being fat in evolutionary terms is a good thing, as they will decrease fertility and life expectancy, thus removing themselves from our gene pool. Unfortunately, socialists think its a good idea to give the peasants child benefits and NHS treatments to deal with their poor personal choices (smoking, heavy drinking). I have coined a phrase for this socialist wrong-think. It's "reverse Darwinism" and flies in the face of the natural order of things.

I have seen that term or something like it before -- reverse evolution -- because those with least enterprise, initiative, or motivation are tending to breed faster.

You rather wonder where these socialists think they are taking society, with their misguided and damaging notions.

RevolvingDoor

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Realistically most of the fathers involved are likely to be workshy layabouts on welfare too, so if they pay, we pay anyway.
Why is it so terrible to incentivise obese inactive people to get some exercise ? Surely that's going to do them more good, physically and psychologically, than sitting watching Jeremy Kyle while filling their faces with junk snacks. Some of them might even find they enjoy it.
Why is there so much resistance to any idea about changing for the better the unproductive, unfulfilling, and empty life of this underclass ?

Nice attitude, I wonder if you would class yourself as part of the underclass if you lost your job and had to claim benefits, if you have a job that is. Again, I have nothing against offering obese people on benefits free exercise sessions but it is the taking away of benefits if they don't comply that is the unethical (and highly stupid) part.

ILW wrote: »

Maybe that would do the trick.
I believe that the way we pander and excuse peoples weaknesses can actually make the problem worse in many cases.

Anorexia is a mental illness, not a weakness, just to be clear.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Books in themselves mean nothing -
Did you know that the working class read themselves into becoming an Intelligentsia??
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Intellectual-Life-British-Working-Classes/dp/0300153651
I think if the oppressed orders (financially milked in every way by tory corporate plutocracies) were to actually get their facts from BOOKS rather than the manfactured hate of the daily hate and other biased press, they would be in a better position to resist and campaign against them.
So exercise regimes on benefits taxpayer paid don't end up yet another futile exercise like the work programme etc etc.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

'Marxist Obsessive' LOL!!!!!!