Lorde gives $20,000 to feed hungry kids

Forums › Off topic › Lorde gives $20,000 to feed hungry kids

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583411 30-Jun-2016 15:14

Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.

But I'm sure you're 100% keen on reaping the benefits of living in a safe well-functioning society.

Perhaps not.

I would not describe a society in which children require strangers to feed them as "well-functioning" personally.

I would not describe a society containing many selfish individuals with no sense of social responsibility for others less fortunate them themselves "well functioning" personally.

I won't automatically blame poor upbringing by their parents as reason for their greed and lack of empathy - tempting though that is - as such sociopathic behaviour can be the result of mental deficiency.

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1583413 30-Jun-2016 15:15

So who would decide this? What would be the criteria for this notion?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583414 30-Jun-2016 15:18

MikeB4:

So who would decide this? What would be the criteria for this notion?

Mike Hosking. Facebook likes.

Davy

196 posts

Master Geek

#1583423 30-Jun-2016 15:44

Fred99:
Geektastic:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.

But I'm sure you're 100% keen on reaping the benefits of living in a safe well-functioning society.

Perhaps not.

I would not describe a society in which children require strangers to feed them as "well-functioning" personally.

I would not describe a society containing many selfish individuals with no sense of social responsibility for others less fortunate them themselves "well functioning" personally.

I won't automatically blame poor upbringing by their parents as reason for their greed and lack of empathy - tempting though that is - as such sociopathic behaviour can be the result of mental deficiency.

Very well said Fred99. I really don't like the view that children are any less than whole individual people in our community with human rights that a civilized society ought to confer upon them without a second thought.

Food, shelter, education, being safe from harm - as a community we should surely guarantee these. To me these are the bare minimum. I don't understand how anyone can assert that children should lack any of these just because of their parents' or caregivers' circumstances.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1583432 30-Jun-2016 16:02

I guess that's a nice gesture on Lourde's part... but it smacks a little bit of a publicity exercise to me - it could have just as easily been donated anonymously.

I'm sure the hungry kids appreciate it though!

...but while I'm in a "Grinch" kinda mood, isn't this precisely the kind of thing that we all do each and every day as part of the cost of living in a civilised society?

According to the Treasury Website, the latest published annual tax take was $66b, of which 64% was spend on Health & Welfare. ($15b and $28b respectively)

So - every individual that earns more than $117.5k per annum, pays PAYE of $31.25k, of which $20,000 is spent providing for the less fortunate in our society every year.

None of them bother with a press release though.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583466 30-Jun-2016 16:53

I don't think it was a press release. I think she just donated to an appeal and posted a brief message with her pledge. I think it was completely sincere. She may have made an error of judgement because she may now be besieged with begging letters and scams (I hope not) but it struck me very much as an ordinary person just wanting to help out, except she happens not to be so ordinary anymore. I think she is young and that is why she opened herself up in this way, which other celebrities probably wouldn't do. I don't think she merits criticism for wanting to help.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583471 30-Jun-2016 17:01

6FIEND:

According to the Treasury Website, the latest published annual tax take was $66b, of which 64% was spend on Health & Welfare. ($15b and $28b respectively)

Just to clarify that, below is a pie chart for the "28 billion spent on welfare".

The large aqua segment is National superannuation, which I'd argue shouldn't be lumped in with "social welfare", doing so was part of a devious ongoing plot by past governments.

Black is DPB - possibly the most relevant one to this thread. Massive huh?

Pinky-red (hey - was that intentional?) at 9 O'clock is the unemployment benefit. There you can really see how the "bludgers" are really crippling the country - eh?

Blue below that is accommodation supplement - considered by some to be a benefit to tenants, quietly known by others as being the biggest taxpayer-funded rort in history (I expect that segment is now double that size - those figures are a few years out of date.

Jaxson

8017 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1583497 30-Jun-2016 17:34

Fred99:

Jaxson:

As others have said, this is the endless argument, of which contributors beliefs and personalities will see them fall somewhere along the scale

It's not an endless argument. That's implying it's "pointless" or "futile".

You've misinterpreted this from the point I was trying to convey. Apologies for any ambiguity.

It's endless in that you're never going to get the whole of society thinking the same way on this matter.

Taken slightly differently, it's also a case of governments at any one time are always going to be more focussed towards one end of the scale or the other, and this varies over time, like a wobble through time leaning one way or another.

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583505 30-Jun-2016 17:53

Fred99:

I would not describe a society containing many selfish individuals with no sense of social responsibility for others less fortunate them themselves "well functioning" personally.

I won't automatically blame poor upbringing by their parents as reason for their greed and lack of empathy - tempting though that is - as such sociopathic behaviour can be the result of mental deficiency.

Ad hominem, somewhat.

Are you suggesting those of us on the autistic spectrum are mentally deficient?

Logic trumps empathy every time for many with AS conditions.

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583506 30-Jun-2016 17:56

6FIEND:

I guess that's a nice gesture on Lourde's part... but it smacks a little bit of a publicity exercise to me - it could have just as easily been donated anonymously.

I'm sure the hungry kids appreciate it though!

...but while I'm in a "Grinch" kinda mood, isn't this precisely the kind of thing that we all do each and every day as part of the cost of living in a civilised society?

According to the Treasury Website, the latest published annual tax take was $66b, of which 64% was spend on Health & Welfare. ($15b and $28b respectively)

So - every individual that earns more than $117.5k per annum, pays PAYE of $31.25k, of which $20,000 is spent providing for the less fortunate in our society every year.

None of them bother with a press release though.

If she is really concerned, perhaps the entire royalties for her next album can go to a trust set up to feed children.

Her net worth is in excess of $250 million already, after all...!

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1583510 30-Jun-2016 18:10

I recall in the news about the Auckland housing not-crisis that one woman who was waiting for Housing NZ to get her a place had TEN children. I can't imagine that anyone with that many offspring would be able to support them without a government handout. I have no idea if any of the children's father(s) were contributing. Yes, this is an extreme case of over-breeding and not all people choose to have so many children in NZ.

I'm a man born in 1970 and am childless by choice.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583513 30-Jun-2016 18:17

vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

So, if you were in charge, only rich people would be allowed to have kids?

And presumably rich people with (or expecting) children would not be allowed to have a car accident or illness or whatever?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583529 30-Jun-2016 19:09

Geektastic:

Are you suggesting those of us on the autistic spectrum are mentally deficient?

Logic trumps empathy every time for many with AS conditions.

Sounds more like an excuse than a condition to me.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583530 30-Jun-2016 19:10

frankv:
vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

So, if you were in charge, only rich people would be allowed to have kids?

And presumably rich people with (or expecting) children would not be allowed to have a car accident or illness or whatever?

They'd be able to insure against that possibility.

vexxxboy

4237 posts

Uber Geek

#1583536 30-Jun-2016 19:22

frankv:

vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

So, if you were in charge, only rich people would be allowed to have kids?

And presumably rich people with (or expecting) children would not be allowed to have a car accident or illness or whatever?

never said that , i just said that if you cant provide the basics for a child , then dont have one. Big difference.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9