onewheeldave

A reminder that many homeless cannot access much of this, due to the bureaucracy involved and the fact that many homeless are, for example, on the autistic spectrum. In effect, the caring general public are placated by the fact that help is available, while, in reality, that help is not accessible by a large portion of the homeless.

I don't 'equate' humans and animals. The point I'm making (that you're evading with your strawman) is that if humanity didn't routinely imprison, abuse, torture and kill other species, it's pretty unlikely it would do so with it's own.

Many would say that it's the fact that humanity as a whole is happy to treat animals as objects- keeping them in horrific conditions, cutting off their bodyparts as desired, then killing them to eat, actually facilitates the killing of humans. If humanity wasn't running a (mainly underground) industry that tortures and kills billions of animals a year, it might start to lack the mindset that leads to so many human deaths from war, oppression and starvation. ('underground' because very few humans really know how animals are treated by the industry- for example, that most male pigs, as piglets, have their scrotum cut with a blade and their testicles pulled out by hand, with no anesthetic).

The article you quote is saying that people with learning difficulties should be allowed to work for less than minimum wage. It says that people with learning difficulties are currently blocked from employment by the minimum wage. It doesn't say how minimum wage is blocking people with learning difficulties from work though. Can anyone elaborate on how it blocks people from work?

Sanctions are going to get much worse. Prior to Universal Credit a jobcentre sanction would mean loss of JSA only (which is very bad in itself) but the victim would still be eligible for housing benefit and, if in receipt of working tax credits, that would also be unaffected. With Universal credit, pretty much all benefits are now lumped into one, so those currently claiming housing benefit/tax credits/child tax credits will have all those benefits administered as one payment by the jobcentre. If sanctioned, they will lose the lot, making sanctions under Universal Credit 2/3/4 times worse than they currently are. (And, for those naive enough to believe that only those guilty of 'not wanting work' get sanctioned- that is not the case. Many have been sanctioned for not attending jobcentre appointments they didn't know about, as the DWP sends it's mail by second class post, which guarantees that a portion of it's clients won't receive notice of the appointment until it has passed).

Only Supertramp can answer that. But, if it is, then it bears very little resemblance to the Icelandic referendum.

Could you provide a link to info on that please?

We don't have a representative political system. Iceland's population, recognising that status quo political systems are necessarily corrupt and unrepresentative, did something different- ---------- Post added 23-06-2017 at 12:39 ---------- They also put the former Prime Minister Geir Haarde on trial for his part in the financial crisis, which is as unusual as it is refreshing

What's labour go to do with this?

I'm not saying the new one didn't make cuts. Just that Iceland chose a very different way of handling things (they threw out the government and replaced it with a representative one).

Here's a wiki page on the 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Icelandic_financial_crisis_protests It sounds like the population rebelled (successfully), got rid of the old parliament, and, managed to go to extraordinary lengths to replace it with a government that was actually representative of the population.

Sounds like a very different type of 'austerity' to the one being inflicted on us though

Yes!!! For the 3rd time. In sharp to your claim, that I said- which refers to multiple existing definitions. Whereas my "an existing definition of SC" is singular, and specific (in that I quoted the actual and specific definition).

Again, and, as previously quoted, I said- which so clearly differs from what you're saying I said, that I think we must conclude you're referring to a different post of mine? In which case, now we both know that, we can presumably focus on the post I am talking about, the one which doesn't mention chimneys, and, which contains a definition of Santa (as follows)- which, I am claiming, can, by empirical experiment, be susceptible to being disproved.

That's not what I said- I selected one existing definition and then quoted that definition, and, gave the source of it. That particular definition doesn't mention chimneys. My point was, that once we actually pin down the characteristics of 'Santa' (or any other entity), it's often possible to devise an experiment that can disprove it.

Ironically, the one thing the definition of Santa Claus I used above didn't refer to, was chimneys

I was simply pointing out that, with existing definitions of Santa Claus, it is entirely possible to design empirical experiments proving he doesn't exist.

Regarding, in the Western philosophical tradition, the attributing of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence as God's defining characteristics. Many (most) of the arguments for God not existing are based on the fact that the consequences of those characteristics are measurable (for example, the 'Problem of Evil' argument). ---------- Post added 01-06-2017 at 11:03 ---------- It's very easy for you to define Santa as possessing characteristics that make it impossible to prove he doesn't exist, which is obviously fairly pointless. If however, we take an existing definition of Santa Claus, eg- "Santa Claus is said to make lists of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("good" and "bad", or "naughty" and "nice") and to deliver presents, including toys, and candy to all of the well-behaved children in the world, and coal to all the misbehaved children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of his elves, who make the toys in his workshop at the North Pole, and his flying reindeer, who pull his sleigh. He is commonly portrayed as living at the North Pole and saying "ho ho ho" often." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus then it is straightforward to devise an empirical experiment that could prove that Santa Claus (as defined above), doesn't exist.

The defining characteristics depend on who's talking about them. For example, where God's concerned, if it's a discussion amongst philosophers in the Western tradition, historically, the various factions (both those for and against God's existence) have agreed on omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence as being 3 defining characteristics. Having agreed on what it is they're actually talking about, each side would then precede to attempt to prove/disprove Gods existence on the basis of those characteristics and their consequences.

They do have defining characteristics.

Whether or not God, or Santa, can be proved to exist or not exist, rests entirely on the defining characteristics of God, or Santa, surely?

So I'm guessing that Santa is going to be defined in such a way that no experiment can show he doesn't exist?

Cos I'm thinking- if climbing down all chimneys on Christmas Eve is a defining characteristic of Santa, then it would seem fairly easy to disprove his existence, empirically, by setting up some kind of scientific measuring devices on a portion of the worlds chimneys on Christmas Eve. When he fails to appear for the chimneys in question, that would pretty much show that Santa, being the being who climbs down all chimneys, doesn't exist.

It's a lottery. Their admin is dire, and sanctions are rife. If, for example, you fail to attend an appointment because the letter arrives by 2nd class royal mail 2 days after the event, they'll take no account of that. I'd hope that, in 2017, they'd provide back up options like mobile texts- if so, take advantage (whilst ensuring you keep the letter option as well). Of the few people I know who went on JSA, some do OK, others suffer from DWP mistakes through no fault of their own. I can't say what the proportion is, hence why I call it a lottery. Good luck. Keep us informed.

By 'Santa', are we talking about the guy that supposedly climbs down every chimney on Christmas Eve to leave presents behind?