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

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1583861 1-Jul-2016 09:01

networkn:

I you read again my post said that the slums WILL become a reality I did NOT say they are now

Neither Labour nor National, nor Greens nor Maori party will do away with Welfare, so as long as that is true, the poverty in NZ will not in the foreseeable future match that of India or any of the other *truly* poor parts of the world.

I am not getting into a comparison thing with you, but my sister and my brother in law are both humanitarian workers in the poorer parts of the world for MANY years.

I believe both of them would (and have) laughed out loud at the concept of "poverty" (By Global Standards) in New Zealand.

We don't employ such a low standard in NZ for assessing such things.

As to Lorde's contribution, good on her. But she, and people like her, shouldn't have to. The parents of hungry kids are clearly not up to the job (for whatever reasons and there may be many) so we can't allow the kids to suffer due to the failings of the parents. As we already know very well, that just makes it multi-generational problem...and that ends up FAR more expensive in the long run.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583876 1-Jul-2016 09:06

Fred99:

Geektastic:

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.

That's not ad hominen, at all.

As for ASD and use of "logic", that logical thought process should be based on facts - no?

Fact is that human beings are social creatures, so if you want to use logic, think about what behaviours might be needed for the good of the community you live in.

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. My definition of what is needed for the good of the 'community' (whatever that is) is highly unlikely to agree with about 90% of everyone else!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583894 1-Jul-2016 09:37

Geektastic:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. My definition of what is needed for the good of the 'community' (whatever that is) is highly unlikely to agree with about 90% of everyone else!

That's probably because you consistently express misanthropic opinions. That's anti-social behaviour - but there you were trying to tell me that people with ASD used logic to compensate for a a deficiency in empathetic instincts.

I suggest it isn't working very well.

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#1583900 1-Jul-2016 09:50

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I repeat what others have said.

You can say that it is the parents responsibility, and I agree. But if that parent chooses to shirk that responsibility, either deliberately or through poor budgeting skills, some kids will go hungry.

So you say "WE have to feed the children". That feeds the children, but lets the parents off the hook.

I don't have an answer, but I am somewhat in the camp of removing children from a home where the parents are not providing the necessities of life. This should not be done lightly, perhaps make a child eligible for extra food in school for a long enough period of time for the parents to get there act together - and if they don't then remove the child until they do.

We need to give the parents a chance to fix the problem, but there have to be consequences if they don't.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583902 1-Jul-2016 09:52

Geektastic:
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.

Brilliant concept! We agree on something!

But, really, this would be needed by everyone, not only those who plan to have children. And not only the rich. So I think that it should be mandatory. In which case, rather than force people to contribute to the profits of insurance companies, the money should be collected by the Govt. I'm going to name this brilliant concept "Social Welfare". Are you Michael Joseph Savage perhaps?

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583904 1-Jul-2016 09:58

Paul1977:

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I repeat what others have said.

You can say that it is the parents responsibility, and I agree. But if that parent chooses to shirk that responsibility, either deliberately or through poor budgeting skills, some kids will go hungry.

So you say, we have to feed the children. That's feeds the children, but lets the parents off the hook.

I don't have an answer, but I am somewhat in the camp of removing children from a home where the parents are no providing the necessities of life. This should not be done lightly, perhaps make a child eligible for extra food in school for a long enough period of time for the parents to get there act together - and if the don't then remove the child until they do.

We need to give the parents a chance to fix the problem, but there have to be consequences if they don't.

I said I was out, but I couldn't help replying to this.

As someone who was removed from the care of my parent as a child, and what happened to me afterward, I can personally assure you, it would have been better to be at home.

There are a fair number of people that would fall into the category of failing to provide the necessities of life for kids, and given the high standards that many in this thread have of what constitutes "nessecities", that number would be very high. Where do all these kids go ? Juvey? Foster Parents?

I also don't have the answers, however, I believe that part of the benefit being supplied on a card which is only accepted at places that sell food, can't be traded, resold etc, would probably help. Would it alienate some people? Sure? Do I care much? Nope.

In the meantime, *I* support initiatives like eat my lunch, which I actively encourage people to do as well.

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583912 1-Jul-2016 10:03

frankv:

Geektastic:
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.

Brilliant concept! We agree on something!

But, really, this would be needed by everyone, not only those who plan to have children. And not only the rich. So I think that it should be mandatory. In which case, rather than force people to contribute to the profits of insurance companies, the money should be collected by the Govt. I'm going to name this brilliant concept "Social Welfare". Are you Michael Joseph Savage perhaps?

Having grown up in a household with VERY little money, but with a single parent who did her best (sometimes falling well short), from the outside it would look like my mother should not have had kids. In reality, she raised us with good morals, a balanced view of the world (as best she could provide), with a good work ethic, and to understand the value of money.

You don't need to be rich to raise good kids, and families can survive with a lot less than some people think they can. Some families will have temporary or not temporary struggles, but this doesn't mean they should have had kids.

There are some of the dregs of society that CLEARLY shouldn't. I think it's about the initital and perhaps ongoing intent (or motivation) by the parents.

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Paul1977

5007 posts

Uber Geek

#1583914 1-Jul-2016 10:05

networkn:

Paul1977:

I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I repeat what others have said.

You can say that it is the parents responsibility, and I agree. But if that parent chooses to shirk that responsibility, either deliberately or through poor budgeting skills, some kids will go hungry.

So you say, we have to feed the children. That's feeds the children, but lets the parents off the hook.

I don't have an answer, but I am somewhat in the camp of removing children from a home where the parents are no providing the necessities of life. This should not be done lightly, perhaps make a child eligible for extra food in school for a long enough period of time for the parents to get there act together - and if the don't then remove the child until they do.

We need to give the parents a chance to fix the problem, but there have to be consequences if they don't.

I said I was out, but I couldn't help replying to this.

As someone who was removed from the care of my parent as a child, and what happened to me afterward, I can personally assure you, it would have been better to be at home.

There are a fair number of people that would fall into the category of failing to provide the necessities of life for kids, and given the high standards that many in this thread have of what constitutes "nessecities", that number would be very high. Where do all these kids go ? Juvey? Foster Parents?

I also don't have the answers, however, I believe that part of the benefit being supplied on a card which is only accepted at places that sell food, can't be traded, resold etc, would probably help. Would it alienate some people? Sure? Do I care much? Nope.

In the meantime, *I* support initiatives like eat my lunch, which I actively encourage people to do as well.

I agree, it's not a great solution and as I said the parents should be given every opportunity to sort the situation (and they should be given help). I also agree that benefits shouldn't just be cash (but then you have people complain that that doesn't teach good budgeting and just perpetuates the poverty cycle).

But if you've got parents (and I'm not suggesting this is the majority of beneficiaries) who buy several packets of smokes a week but don't properly feed their children (even after being given help to sort it out), then what should be done?

networkn

Networkn
32246 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583917 1-Jul-2016 10:09

I agree, it's not a great solution and as I said the parents should be given every opportunity to sort the situation (and they should be given help). I also agree that benefits shouldn't just be cash (but then you have people complain that that doesn't teach good budgeting and just perpetuates the poverty cycle).

But if you've got parents (and I'm not suggesting this is the majority of beneficiaries) who buy several packets of smokes a week but don't properly feed their children (even after being given help to sort it out), then what should be done?

As I have said before (my comments on this are about 9 or so posts above in reply to MikeB4), the current generation are a lost cause, they aren't willing to change. I believe the card where food is the only thing purchasable would be a stop gap. Budgeting is still a requirement (Since not all money is cash and there are non-food items required in every household).

The kids at school are getting a MUCH better education on topics to break the cycle, and in some cases that IS having an effect on the current generation.

Those who fall into the extremes are beyond help, I believe we need to protect those kids as best we can, by providing them with the necessities their parents simply will not.

No matter what, there will always be the fringe who will do anything to game the system, unfortunately, nothing we can do to stop them as long as we give people free will.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1583952 1-Jul-2016 11:10

frankv: But, really, this would be needed by everyone, not only those who plan to have children. And not only the rich. So I think that it should be mandatory. In which case, rather than force people to contribute to the profits of insurance companies, the money should be collected by the Govt. I'm going to name this brilliant concept "Social Welfare". Are you Michael Joseph Savage perhaps?

Hehehe, nicely put :)

After all, (private) insurance is just socialism but only of the risk and not of the reward.

Twitter: ajobbins

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583963 1-Jul-2016 11:32

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. My definition of what is needed for the good of the 'community' (whatever that is) is highly unlikely to agree with about 90% of everyone else!

That's probably because you consistently express misanthropic opinions. That's anti-social behaviour - but there you were trying to tell me that people with ASD used logic to compensate for a a deficiency in empathetic instincts.

I suggest it isn't working very well.

It is possible to be misanthropic AND something else. The human mind is a complex thing.

Geektastic

17935 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583964 1-Jul-2016 11:35

Wouldn't simply providing meals at school solve this problem?

If you're going to socialise it, that seems to me to be a way of ensuring you meet the aim of feeding children as well as avoiding handing taxpayer's cash to those parents who will not use it as it was intended.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1583975 1-Jul-2016 11:41

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. My definition of what is needed for the good of the 'community' (whatever that is) is highly unlikely to agree with about 90% of everyone else!

That's probably because you consistently express misanthropic opinions. That's anti-social behaviour - but there you were trying to tell me that people with ASD used logic to compensate for a a deficiency in empathetic instincts.

I suggest it isn't working very well.

shall we keep medical conditions and or disabilities out of the debate. Using them in this way...not cool

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583985 1-Jul-2016 12:09

MikeB4:

Fred99:

Geektastic:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole. My definition of what is needed for the good of the 'community' (whatever that is) is highly unlikely to agree with about 90% of everyone else!

That's probably because you consistently express misanthropic opinions. That's anti-social behaviour - but there you were trying to tell me that people with ASD used logic to compensate for a a deficiency in empathetic instincts.

I suggest it isn't working very well.

shall we keep medical conditions and or disabilities out of the debate. Using them in this way...not cool

I can't agree with that - not when it's been brought up in a discussion which is broadly related to social issues, and the disorder apparently used to justify anti-social comments/behaviour.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18605 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583986 1-Jul-2016 12:12

Geektastic:

Wouldn't simply providing meals at school solve this problem?

If you're going to socialise it, that seems to me to be a way of ensuring you meet the aim of feeding children as well as avoiding handing taxpayer's cash to those parents who will not use it as it was intended.

Yes! Absolutely. So why doesn't this head-up-the-backside government finally just do it instead of punishing future generations for having ideologically incorrect parents?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

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