The Poor are Just Failures!

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Firstly, that’s not my opinion, but for the sake of argument / debate (and given that I’m not one to shy away from controversy) let’s just assume that it is… do you agree ?

You see, the poor seem to lack the skills, the competence, the will or the ability to remedy their situation.

It seems that the system provides the same opportunities to each and every one of us. Yet the poor just don’t seem to be bothered to take advantage.

They don’t take advantage of education… They are often difficult and more challenging to educate and they’re also very lazy and might not even be bothered to attend school at all.

As far as work is concerned their lack of education limits their progress, their inbuilt laziness means they struggle to hold down a jalf decent job and their poor attitude and limited communication skills holds them back.

And that’s the ones who can be arsed getting a job. Most of them would rather just smoke weed, drink booze and claim benefits.

On the face of it, most of these people are completely beyond help….

Maybe simply stopping benefits of any kind (apart from to those who are severely ill or disabled in some way) would force these layabouts to get off their backsides and contribute to society in some meaningful way ?

So what are your thoughts on this fine Sunday, before you tuck into your plentiful Sunday Roast ?

 

[Matesrates]

The benefits system probably needs an overhaul to deter those who simply don’t want to work, how you do that without penalising genuine cases will be the challenge.

Maybe some sort of community work while they’re claiming benefits would be beneficial to both them and the community.

 

[BigHandsOliverKahn]

If you only judge success by money.

 

[Chunkylad]

The benefits system probably needs an overhaul to deter those who simply don’t want to work, how you do that without penalising genuine cases will be the challenge.

Maybe some sort of community work while they’re claiming benefits would be beneficial to both them and the community.

Hypothetically if you did overhaul or even remove benefits then someone has to employ these lazy, uneducated poorly motivated individuals that BFC hypothesises?

Who is going to employ them? Small companies don’t have the time or energy to manage or encourage a demotivated thicky

There’s not enough large companies around now to swallow them up. So ultimately it’ll have to be the civil service which has traditionally been the home for the lazy, uneducated and problematic ( surely that’s got to get a run chase going???)

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

If you only judge success by money.

Well that’s an interesting thought… I suppose if you are happy being poor, then you are a success, because you’ve achieved your objective

 

[April13th1970]

They're not so much failures as "failed", failed by big business, failed by their political overlords (of all shades and political persuasions), failed by the benefits system, failed by their communities & failed by society generally

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

They're not so much failures as "failed", failed by big business, failed by their political overlords (of all shades and political persuasions), failed by the benefits system, failed by their communities & failed by society generally

That’s interesting, I think there’s probably 3 ways of looking at it, from one extreme to the other, which can be summed up…

1. The poor are failures
2. The poor are failing
3. The poor are failed

The benefits system probably needs an overhaul to deter those who simply don’t want to work, how you do that without penalising genuine cases will be the challenge.

Maybe some sort of community work while they’re claiming benefits would be beneficial to both them and the community.

A kind of ‘National Service Light Beer’ might well be the answer. Teach these feckless characters how to get out of bed in a morning, some decent life skills, a few outdoor pursuits perhaps… How to wire a plug, iron a shirt, put on a condom etc..

 

[Dark_Side_of_the_Lune]

I’ve known plenty of wealthy people who are utter failures in life.

 

[CCFskiver]

Much depends on how you define "poor" "failure" and "success" Many of the lazy thick feckless wasters Ive come across over the last 50 years or so have been the sons and daughters of the "rich" and "successful"

 

[CCFskiver]

Add rude and ignorant to that list of attributes.

 

[Malced]

I'm not engaging in this thread other than this comment.

This thread appears to be PR exercise to try and repair your image after I called you out for REPEATEDLY casting aspersions on the poor on the thread about ULEZ/Clean Air Zone charges. Some of the things you said were disgusting, sneering, and offensive in my opinion. But who knows, maybe I'll develop the same attitude when I'm sat in my shiny new EV tut-tutting at all those losers driving their dirty vehicles.

You said being a failure isn't an excuse to pollute.

You also said they needed to get educated.

When challenged you doubled-down and made many other sneering references about the less well-off. Well maybe I got through to you in some small way and you've reflected on your comments. I hope so.

But starting with 'Firstly, that's not my opinion' doesn't undo all you said to the contrary on the other thread. Not by a long chalk. Have a good day.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I'm not engaging in this thread other than this comment.

This thread appears to be PR exercise to try and repair your image after I called you out for REPEATEDLY casting aspersions on the poor on the thread about ULEZ/Clean Air Zone charges. Some of the things you said were disgusting, sneering, and offensive in my opinion. But who knows, maybe I'll get the sane attitude when I'm sat in my shiny new EV tut-tutting at all those losers driving their dirty vehicles.

You said being a failure isn't an excuse to pollute.

You also said they needed to get educated.

When challenged you doubled-down and made many other sneering references about the less well-off. Well maybe I got through to you in some small way and you've reflected on your comments.

But starting with 'Firstly that's not my opinion' doesn't undo all you said to the contrary on the other thread. Not by a long chalk. Have a good day.

Quit with the Faux Outrage you big wuss

 

[Matesrates]

Hypothetically if you did overhaul or even remove benefits then someone has to employ these lazy, uneducated poorly motivated individuals that BFC hypothesises?

Who is going to employ them? Small companies don’t have the time or energy to manage or encourage a demotivated thicky

There’s not enough large companies around now to swallow them up. So ultimately it’ll have to be the civil service which has traditionally been the home for the lazy, uneducated and problematic ( surely that’s got to get a run chase going???)

Perfect

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Much depends on how you define "poor" "failure" and "success" Many of the lazy thick feckless wasters Ive come across over the last 50 years or so have been the sons and daughters of the "rich" and "successful"

I think ‘poor’ is when you are failing or struggling to meet a comfortable standard of living.

 

[Matesrates]

Quit with the Faux Outrage you big wuss

This could be fun.

 

[Malced]

Quit with the Faux Outrage you big wuss

Ok -I'll leave it now. I'll read the comments on here later and I hope they'll largely reflect that poor are not failures unless you're judging success in monetary terms alone. And if that's a metric someone wants to use, then they can, but I don't agree with the word failure being associated with the outcome of an assessment of someone's financial position. It's too emotive and it's unreasonably harsh. We use it about ourselves if we feel we've let someone down, or our lives are at rock bottom for whatever reason, e.g. relationship break-up.
That's understandable as we're often our own worst critic, and we use the word when upset and emotional. But imagine if a politician referred to poorer people as a failures.

Having financial security to a greater or lesser degree isn't being a failure if you're on the lesser side. But I accept society classes people as successful if they're rich. They may have been successful in business, but if their business failed I wouldn't class them as a failure.

Some of the best people I know are quite poor. Someone who is carer, for example. They put others first. They are kind, selfless, and incredibly decent.They sacrifice their social life, hardly ever have a holiday, and yeah they drive a polluting banger of a car, and can't afford to buy a better one. The word failure isn't a word I could ever associate with them.

 

[Lala]

We all try to work with the hand we are dealt.
Good education doesn’t equate to intelligence.
There are failures in every spectrum of society, but I wouldn’t like to judge anyone as such unless I know their circumstances and experiences.

Infact I’d be hard pushed to call anyone a failure so it would take a certain set of facts.

 

[JOHNMAJORTOM]

wtf is this nonsense. maybe i will put my pensioner povety fist thru your stupid face. off course the pension i effingworked for thirty two yesars. k////d

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Ok -I'll leave it now. I'll read the comments on here later and I hope they'll largely reflect that poor are not failures unless you're judging success in monetary terms alone. And if that's a metric someone wants use, then they can, but I don't agree with the word failure being the associated with outcome. It's too emotive a word. We use it about ourselves if we feel we've let some down, or our lives are at rock bottom. Having financial security to a greater or lesser degree isn't being a failure if you're on the lesser side. But I accept society classes people as successful if they're rich. They may have been successful in business, but if their business failed I wouldn't class them as a failure.

Some of the best people I know are quite poor. Someone who is carer, for example. They put others first. They are kind, selfless, and incredibly decent.They sacrifice their social life, hardly ever have a holiday, and yeah they drive a polluting banger of a car, and can't afford to buy a better one. The word failure isn't a word I could ever associate with them.

Personally I think ‘Failure’ is a word we need to use much more and embrace. I think failure is something we need to man up about, to acknowledge and to learn to deal with.

Society as a whole has become far too flakey and this lefty compassion has gone way too far.

For example, they’ve even banned Sports Day or at least banned winning and losing just to avoid people being confronted with being a failure.

The Animal Kingdom (us included) is all built around the survival of the fittest and competence is a desirable attribute … Failure is not a desirable attribute.

 

[Shandypants]

If this extremely privileged, rich muthafucka is deemed a success I'm glad I'm a raging failure.

 

[Malced]

I thought you weren’t commenting flakey?

Personally I think ‘Failure’ is a word we need to use much more. I think failure is something we need to man up about, to acknowledge and to learn to deal with.

Society as a whole has become far too flakey and this lefty compassion has gone way to far.

For example, they’ve even banned Sports Day or at least banned winning and losing just to avoid people being confronted with being a failure.

The Animal Kingdom (us included) is all built around the survival of the fittest and competence is a desirable attribute … Failure is not a desirable attribute.

That’s why people are more attracted to successful partners…. I mean why on earth would you want to or create with a weakling?

All those things are considerations. For example, I think children should engage in competitive sports and experience the emotional side of that e.g. winning and losing. Where I would draw the line is classing the slowest runners as failures. There's no need and it's not appropriate.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

All those things are considerations. For example, I think children should engage in competitive sports and experience the emotional side of that e.g. winning and losing. Where I would draw the line is classing the slowest runners as failures. There's no need and it's not appropriate.

So what about people who are just total failures?

What do we call them?

Edit:

I’ll add to this…

Would it be fair to summarise by saying…

It’s possible that someone can Fail, but that someone should not ever be considered a failure ?

 

[Danny Ocean]

My sister who has spent 30 years teaching primary school kids told me that the biggest factor to success is the parents and the environment they grow up in. Then you can factor in the natural talents that you are born with, intelligence, physical motor skills, and certainly for women physical beauty. We are not born equal.

There are a few ways that you can become rich.

1) Get a well-paid professional job with a high barrier to entry such as a doctor, lawyer, top academic etc. Well, obviously you need to be born with a certain level of intelligence, without that it is impossible.

2) Get a well-paid job in a large company, or politics, civil service, and have a long career. Obviously, some intelligence is required, great social skills, plus connections.

3) Learn a trade that is physically based and has a high barrier to entry and is either risky, linesman on high voltage cables, deep sea diving welder, deep sea fisherman, etc. Or a limited number of high earners such as footballers etc.

4) Setting up a traditional business based on your skills, for example, if you are a plumber employ other plumbers etc. Need the ability to
work hard, a reasonable level of intelligence, and physical skills. Plus a reasonable amount of luck as you are only one big contract
or customer away from either success or if they don't pay losing a lot of money. If you have co-owners of a business not a falling out.

5) Entrepreneurship- invent the next Google, Apple, Uber etc, High risk, very few actually get rich, and most fail.

6) Finally if you are blessed with really good physical beauty there are ways to earn money with that.

Unfortunately, about 15% of the population have really low intelligence, and without physical beauty or outstanding physical attributes
will only ever earn money in a really low-level manual job where they are supervised.

Finally, even someone on minimum wage could be rich if they are frugal and work 7 days a week and invest their spare income
over 30 or 40 years time, especially if they have a partner that does the same. But the reality is that most do not have the discipline
to do that, and will instead pin their hopes on a lottery ticket.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

My sister who has spent 30 years teaching primary school kids told me that the biggest factor to success is the parents and the environment they grow up in. Then you can factor in the natural talents that you are born with, intelligence, physical motor skills, and certainly for women physical beauty. We are not born equal.

There are a few ways that you can become rich.

1) Get a well-paid professional job with a high barrier to entry such as a doctor, lawyer, top academic etc. Well, obviously you need to be born with a certain level of intelligence, without that it is impossible.

2) Get a well-paid job in a large company, or politics, civil service, and have a long career. Obviously, some intelligence is required, great social skills, plus connections.

3) Learn a trade that is physically based and has a high barrier to entry and is either risky, linesman on high voltage cables, deep sea diving welder, deep sea fisherman, etc. Or a limited number of high earners such as footballers etc.

4) Setting up a traditional business based on your skills, for example, if you are a plumber employ other plumbers etc. Need the ability to
work hard, a reasonable level of intelligence, and physical skills. Plus a reasonable amount of luck as you are only one big contract
or customer away from either success or if they don't pay losing a lot of money. If you have co-owners of a business not a falling out.

5) Entrepreneurship- invent the next Google, Apple, Uber etc, High risk, very few actually get rich, and most fail.

6) Finally if you are blessed with really good physical beauty there are ways to earn money with that.

Unfortunately, about 15% of the population have really low intelligence, and without physical beauty or outstanding physical attributes
will only ever earn money in a really low-level manual job where they are supervised.

Finally, even someone on minimum wage could be rich if they are frugal and work 7 days a week and invest their spare income
over 30 or 40 years time, especially if they have a partner that does the same. But the reality is that most do not have the discipline
to do that, and will instead pin their hopes on a lottery ticket.

You forgot

7. Crime - Selling Drugs (for example) …

Probably the career choice for a significant majority of folk these days.

 

[Wizaard]

Ok -I'll leave it now. I'll read the comments on here later and I hope they'll largely reflect that poor are not failures unless you're judging success in monetary terms alone. And if that's a metric someone wants to use, then they can, but I don't agree with the word failure being associated with the outcome of an assessment of someone's financial position. It's too emotive and it's unreasonably harsh. We use it about ourselves if we feel we've let someone down, or our lives are at rock bottom for whatever reason, e.g. relationship break-up.
That's understandable as we're often our own worst critic, and we use the word when upset and emotional. But imagine if a politician referred to poorer people as a failures.

Having financial security to a greater or lesser degree isn't being a failure if you're on the lesser side. But I accept society classes people as successful if they're rich. They may have been successful in business, but if their business failed I wouldn't class them as a failure.

Some of the best people I know are quite poor. Someone who is carer, for example. They put others first. They are kind, selfless, and incredibly decent.They sacrifice their social life, hardly ever have a holiday, and yeah they drive a polluting banger of a car, and can't afford to buy a better one. The word failure isn't a word I could ever associate with them.

Yet current Government policy is all about demonising the poorest in society.

Do the poor affect most peoples' lives? Not half as much as the rich and powerful.

 

[Danny Ocean]

You forgot

7. Crime - Selling Drugs (for example) …

Probably the career choice for a significant majority of folk these days.

Yes, doing something illegal. But you still need a reasonable level of intelligence not to get caught, and be able to spend your money.

 

[Dark_Side_of_the_Lune]

I thought you weren’t commenting flakey?

Personally I think ‘Failure’ is a word we need to use much more and embrace. I think failure is something we need to man up about, to acknowledge and to learn to deal with.

Society as a whole has become far too flakey and this lefty compassion has gone way too far.

For example, they’ve even banned Sports Day or at least banned winning and losing just to avoid people being confronted with being a failure.

The Animal Kingdom (us included) is all built around the survival of the fittest and competence is a desirable attribute … Failure is not a desirable attribute.

That’s why people are more attracted to successful partners…. I mean why on earth would you want to procreate with a perceived weakling / failure?

Some women choose sandal and sock wearers though. It’s complicated.

 

[Matesrates]

I started out extremely poor, forged my way to having plenty of money, nice cars, lovely houses, holidays, living the dream. Then it all went wrong and now I’m poor again. So I guess you could say I started out a failure and ended up on, but I’ve never been on benefits.

 

[Lala]

I have been poor, for sure. I chose prioritising my kids upbringing over chasing promotions and bringing up latch key kids. I’ve always worked however.

I feel successful as a parent and that’s what mattered more to me than career or money.

Surely success or failure is a personal judgment based on your own goals in life.

 

[Lala]

I started out extremely poor, forged my way to having plenty of money, nice cars, lovely houses, holidays, living the dream. Then it all went wrong and now I’m poor again. So I guess you could say I started out a failure and ended up on, but I’ve never been on benefits.

I don’t think anyone starts out a failure.

 

[Shandypants]

I have been poor, for sure. I chose prioritising my kids upbringing over chasing promotions and bringing up latch key kids.

I feel successful as a parent and that’s what mattered more to me than career or money.

Surely success or failure is a personal judgment based on your own goals in life.

When my son was born my wife went from full time and dropped her hours to 9.30 to 2pm so he was never a latch key kid. It made us considerably poorer in a financial sense but considerably richer on ternms of lifestyle experience and our son is now 25 and has turned into a great lad. That'll do for me, I didn't miss those fancy holidays abroad we went crabbing in Brixham Harbour, walking in the lakes and Yorkshire dales. It was the best decision we ever made, material wealth isn't worth much when reflecting on your life, whereas remembering crabbing in Brixham has just brought a smile to my face!

 

[Malced]

Yet current Government policy is all about demonising the poorest in society.

Do the poor affect most peoples' lives? Not half as much as the rich and powerful.

I've no idea what you're referring to. It's far too much of a sweeping statement and it's written from a fairly strong anti-government perspective.

There's lots of government influenced things I don't agree with e.g. zero hours contracts, and there's lots I agree with e.g. the cost of living financial support payments for those on benefits.

There may be one or two politicians that have used some demonising language in some circumstances, but to say the government policy is all about demonising the poorest in society is completely unreasonable and comes from a place of extreme political bias. So I can't debate that. There's no point.

 

[Malced]

I have been poor, for sure. I chose prioritising my kids upbringing over chasing promotions and bringing up latch key kids. I’ve always worked however.

I feel successful as a parent and that’s what mattered more to me than career or money.

Surely success or failure is a personal judgment based on your own goals in life.

Exactly. And that hits the nail on the head about why I find it very distasteful when some people label others as failures.

 

[Lala]

When my son was born my wife went from full time and dropped her hours to 9.30 to 2pm so he was never a latch key kid. It made us considerably poorer in a financial sense but considerably richer on ternms of lifestyle experience and our son is now 25 and has turned into a great lad. That'll do for me, I didn't miss those fancy holidays abroad we went crabbing in Brixham Harbour, walking in the lakes and Yorkshire dales. It was the best decision we ever made, material wealth isn't worth much when reflecting on your life, whereas remembering crabbing in Brixham has just brought a smile to my face!

Yep. I’ve always worked full-time ( until partial retitement ) but the last promotion I got or even went for was 1998 !

That’s because bringing up the girls took a lot of my emotional and mental energy and time, and other jobs required more of me that I wasn’t prepared to give.

My success is based on my contentment and serenity and the relationship I have with my girls and grand daughter and I wouldn’t change that for a Brewsters millions

To me success value is a very individual thing.

 

[poolfaninwigan]

Add rude and ignorant to that list of attributes.

There are plenty of rude ignorant RICH people.

 

[seasideone]

There are plenty of rude ignorant RICH people.

There are plenty of rude ignorant people - of all wealth levels.

 

[Wizaard]

I've no idea what you're referring to. It's far too much of a sweeping statement and it's written from a fairly strong anti-government perspective.

There's lots of government influenced things I don't agree with e.g. zero hours contracts, and there's lots I agree with e.g. the cost of living financial support payments for those on benefits.

There may be one or two politicians that have used some demonising language in some circumstances, but to say the government policy is all about demonising the poorest in society is completely unreasonable and comes from a place of extreme political bias. So I can't debate that. There's no point.

Top policy objective. Stop the boats. Demonising immigrants who have absolutely no impact on any of our lives, unlike Charlotte Owen, Michelle Mone, Nadine Dorries etc, all literally stealing a living from us.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Exactly. And that hits the nail on the head about why I find it very distasteful when some people label others as failures.

It’s not quite that simple though really.

Because it’s all well and good for people to set their own goals in life, but what happens when they are relying on the rest of us to fund them.

So in terms of their contribution or reliance on others, then essentially they’re failures surely… ?

 

[CCFskiver]

I think ‘poor’ is when you are failing or struggling to meet a comfortable standard of living.

Then you need to define "comfortable"

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Then you need to define "comfortable"

No I don’t… It defines itself.

 

[seasideone]

No I don’t… It defines itself.

Im not sure it does - as what I find a comfortable level of living is different to other people and visa versa???

 

[Malced]

It’s not quite that simple though really.

Because it’s all well and good for people to set their own goals in life, but what happens when they are relying on the rest of us to fund them.

So in terms of their contribution or reliance on others, then essentially they’re failures surely… ?

No. No. No.

It’s not at all in my mindset to look at anyone and define them as a failure. I don’t understand why we need to do that or want to do that.

 

[Lala]

There will be people who will always be reliant on others, in some way.
Actually most people are in one way or another, and that doesn’t have to mean financially.

That does not define being a failure at all.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

No. No. No.

It’s not at all in my mindset to look at anyone and define them as a failure. I don’t understand why we need to do that or want to do that.

Because they need to pull their socks up. So they need to be told they’re a failure and realise it’s not good enough.

What about the pot smoking parent, who doesn’t work / won’t work, fails to provide for their kids, can’t be arsed getting their kids to school in a morning and lives off benefits?

Failure, Failing or Failed ?

 

[CCFskiver]

No I don’t… It defines itself.

I disagree. How about defining "success"

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

There will be people who will always be reliant on others, in some way.
Actually most people are in one way or another, and that doesn’t have to mean financially.

That does not define being a failure at all.

So essentially we are kind of all reliant upon each other in one way or another?

That’s great in theory, but what do we do about the complete piss-takers?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I disagree. How about defining "success"

Comfortable is by definition “as much as is needed or wanted”

 

[Matesrates]

In my careers I’ve met many people claiming benefits, and imo, most of them are claiming them fraudulently. Some I know for sure are doing it, they’ve readily admitted it, some are just a judgement, quite simply, there doesn’t seem anything at all wrong with them. I’m not talking about people who have lost their job and are looking for a new one, I’m talking about those claiming benefits long term, and very happy to continue to do so.

 

[Lala]

So essentially we are kind of all reliant upon each other in one way or another?

That’s great in theory, but what do we do about the complete piss-takers?

There are piss takers Bifster, I definitely agree with that.
I suppose we would have to look at each and every individual case to see why they are the way they are. I don’t think you can say they are a failure until you know the reasons why they choose to avoid responsibility, or if it is a choice.

That’s why I don’t think we can generically define the failure of a life without all the individual facts. And although they may be deemed to have failed in one particular area, they may succeed in others. Maybe we are all part success and part failure.

I‘m not keen on failure by definition though to describe a whole person.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

In my careers I’ve met many people claiming benefits, and imo, most of them are claiming them fraudulently. Some I know for sure are doing it, they’ve readily admitted it, some are just a judgement, quite simply, there doesn’t seem anything at all wrong with them. I’m not talking about people who have lost their job and are looking for a new one, I’m talking about those claiming benefits long term, and very happy to continue to do so.

But as Lala says, they aren’t failures .. in fact arguably they’re quite innovative to be honest. I actually quite admire their ingenuity to be honest.