BF2S Forums Would it be unreasonable to ask?

lol the day when you have to consider if it is reasonable to ask...

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=95468

Assuming you are still talking about unreasonable from an ethical standpoint and not a feasible standpoint my answer is the same.

The OP is sufficiently different and fleshed out enough so that combined with the age of the other thread it warrants the possibility of discussion.

OrangeHound wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Just a thought that went through my mind today, but would it be unreasonable to make people who collect unemployment and welfare to submit to random drug testings?

Now I don't think he government has a right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body but when you are collecting a check from the government I think you should at least make an agreement to not to not spend your money on things like crack.

Also would it be unreasonable to ask people who are on welfare to not breed and create more of them. Seriously if you cannot support yourself why would you create more of you?

Maybe a bit heartless but it would teach people a lesson about responsibility right?

You are missing the point of the welfare state ... it is not, in general, about responsibility or even helping people get back on their feet again.  It is a political move that demonstrates that the Almighty Government cares, and (to a lesser extent) it reduces crime.

Overall, in my opinion, welfare is nothing more than modern slavery.

Is this the idea of the welfare state as a whole?

Because over here, when you sign on you have to prove you are looking for a job, are offered subsidised education/retraining etc, and many opportunities of work.

So if you meant that in a global sense,

OH wrote:

You are missing the point of the welfare state ... it is not, in general, about... helping people get back on their feet again.

Is fairly incorrect.

OFC, if you mean the US system, i have no idea how it works over there.

OrangeHound wrote:

Overall, in my opinion, welfare is nothing more than modern slavery.

Slavery of the employee or of the employer?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

waste of time and money to chase people.

Here look at Texas where they spent big bucks to try and catch cheating athletes

$6 Million to Catch 4 People (this cite is a body building site but I read this article in the newspaper about a two months ago.

I have no reason to doubt that testing welfare recipients would have similar results.

Better to institute mandatory job training and upgrading than waste time and money testing for drugs. All that will do is make some drug testing lab rich and become a stream of pay offs to crooked politicians that give the contract to the lab. In Texas the politician that backed the legislation for testing high schoolers said that catching only 4 people meant that the program was an effective deterrent - I bet the lab gives him money to say that.

When we had drug testing for the sports teams back in High School all of the people who were on the teams stopped using drugs. Maybe it does work as a deterrent.

You know even if a mom is a crack whore it doesn't mean her kids should starve because "its right" to cut her off welfare for using drugs. And the other part of the op dealing with birth control and/or sterilization is straight out of the 1930's eugenics movement. So no, not reasonable.

The poor make too easy a target for populist rhetoric. The OP might be more interesting if it discussed drug testing for bail out company employees. I know that GM and other companies that get govt contracts have mandatory employee drug testing at the companies expense. I know a girl who got a one patch shaved off her scalp in order to work for GM.

Now I would support drug testing of bail out company employees. I remember the 1990s and the stories about all the cocaine being done on Wall street, I'm sure that hasn't changed.

"Sorry mister million dollar bonus baby no more coco puffs for you." Now that is something that I could definitely support

OrangeHound wrote:

it is just enough to keep them from needing/wanting a mainstream job, but not enough to really "live" in a free way.

lol

You're going to blame the drug dealer for keeping someone hooked?

It is a personal choice that does not resemble slavery to anything but their own lack of motivation.

OrangeHound wrote:

From your perspective, perhaps.  But, an opportunity for freedom can exist for a slave, yet he will never attempt to follow that opportunity simply because he doesn't know how to escape.  For example, if a slave doesn't know about the Underground Railroad, how is he supposed to escape and still live to see next week?

If what I suppose you could call a "human" had even the idea of freedom beaten out of him, why does it need freedom to be happy? It's like asking if a dog is happy because a dog doesn't know how to read or laugh. The dog may not understand the full depth of life that we like to believe we grasp, but if it never understands anything else then how can that be a bad thing?

OrangeHound wrote:

Well, that is the situation in the inner city and impoverished sub-cultures in America.  They have no vision for anything better, thus they are trapped by whatever vision they have in front of them.  Sure, to you and I, we can see options ... but ... well, it may seem hard to understand, but there are whole neighborhoods that see crime, drugs, fame (sports/music) or social services as their only options.  They have no vision greater than that.  They have no mentoring that is powerful enough to lead them to another alternative.

They do not see themselves as trapped by your own admission - they only lack the analytical skills to realize their many avenues out, instead only recognizing the few shoved in their faces. I refuse to believe that crippling stupidity and lack of creativity is correlated to your original station in life.

If we're going after welfare people. Then I'd say that we should test all cops, all teachers, all politicians, all pilots, all bankers, every one at the federal reserve, anyone who handles more than $1 million, all professors, and may be all right wing talk show hosts (sorry Rush) just to make sure that when these guys pick on the poor that they are not being hypocrites. After all, their use of drugs could have much more detrimental consequences for society that a welfare recipient.

In fact, I say give the welfare recipients free narcotics, I would rather that they be medicated and in their homes than roaming the streets looking to rob someone to get their next high because some populist retard with a wild hair up his a$$ thought it would be cool cut people off of welfare.

Picking on the poor is too easy, too safe, too populist and its cowardly easy. These people have no political clout, but go after the groups I mentioned above and see what happens.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

If we're going after welfare people. Then I'd say that we should test all cops, all teachers, all politicians, all pilots, all bankers, every one at the federal reserve, anyone who handles more than $1 million, all professors, and may be all right wing talk show hosts (sorry Rush) just to make sure that when these guys pick on the poor that they are not being hypocrites. After all, their use of drugs could have much more detrimental consequences for society that a welfare recipient.

In fact, I say give the welfare recipients free narcotics, I would rather that they be medicated and in their homes than roaming the streets looking to rob someone to get their next high because some populist retard with a wild hair up his a$$ thought it would be cool cut people off of welfare.

Picking on the poor is too easy, too safe, too populist and its cowardly easy. These people have no political clout, but go after the groups I mentioned above and see what happens.

Last I checked all those groups actually provide a service and earn their pay.