Author Topic: ethical conundrums  (Read 1750 times)

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #25 on: 14 November, 2021, 07:04:14 am »
Is it wrong, when slow swimmers push out ahead of me when I'm turning, to maybe kick a bit hard when I pass them and fill their stupid faces with the finest chlorinated water?

Asking for a friend.

Debatable but if done in a way that balks does lead to lane rage.

There is nothing wrong with a length of butterfly ;D

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #26 on: 14 November, 2021, 09:02:51 am »

Am I wrong in feeling like this, or should I just be like "someone will always play the system" and get over it.

These feelings are not mutually exclusive is the simple answer.

My personal preference is to support organisations I feel are consistently there for those who need (eg emmaus, shelter) and accept that there will be freeloaders. Doesn't stop natural anger when you hear about the most egregious behaviour, why should it?

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #27 on: 14 November, 2021, 10:59:28 am »

And of course the 95% of billionaires who creatively adjust their money to avoid taxes are just being clever. Nothing to see here.


It's one of those famous irregular verbs, innit.
  • I make prudent financial plans/am sticking it to The Man*
  • You are not paying your fair share
  • He is Jimmy Carr**
* strike out words which do not apply
** other slebs with histories of dubious tax-related behaviour are available
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #28 on: 14 November, 2021, 12:45:25 pm »
Hi Rich. My slight concern with your conundrum is that you've been told by someone else - so it's second hand info at best.

Disabled people and benefits claimants are routinely scrutinised and judged for stupid things. Be a wheelchair user and get seen transferring or walking a few steps - someone might report them even though the DWP know person can walk a few steps sometime... I have two wheelchair using friends who are routinely reported to the DWP, one by a malicious neighbour who thinks friend 1 is a faker cos they moved their legs while in a wheelchair (common scrutiny issue). Friend 2 gets reported because he dares to challenge inaccessibility on the transport network.

I often get people whispering at me about how I'm clearly a legit disabled but A B or C is totally dodging the system. Sometimes I know A B or C and realise the outsider has no idea about their reason for claiming benefits and just has gossip or nastiness to explain why they think what they do.

How does your source know about this fraud? It strikes me as a bit dubious given foodbank food would probably save at most £20 a week and that wouldn't go far towards an expensive holiday. Most foodbanks have a limit of how often people can go, and others have referral systems (which in themselves can be problematic because not everyone can get a GP/jobcentre/social worker to refer them. And I suspect some foodbacks expect people to scam them cos scum. I remember school trips when they became "voluntary" to pay for, and one of my sister's richest friends' parents said "Well I'm not paying then". They were the type to have the only Tory signs all over their garden at election time! My mum was appalled, especially as she knew families on benefits were putting coins in jamjars to pay as much as they could for school trips. Some people are just horrible (and or Tories).

Even if Rich/someone was to report this to the foodback, they'd probably have to assume it was a malicious report given how prevalent malicious reporting is. Foodbanks will know you can't tell someone is poor because they keep themselves smart and clean and are very very ashamed or scared of social services taking their kids away etc.

If someone told me they were scamming a foodback or similar I'd probably ask them why were so selfish and remind them that many donations come from people rather than businesses and they're potentially stopping a legit poor person from getting food which is a pretty scummy thing to do... I probably wouldn't report them cos I don't think it's worth it, but I would avoid them from then on.

It is difficult tho, cos we want people not to be vile. Sadly some small % of people are vile and I think we're better off supporting the 99% legitimately needy rather than erecting more and more barriers to stop that 1% at increasingly diminishing returns and indeed reducing people claiming at all. Most social security is under-claimed, as in people who are legit, don't claim cos it's too hard.

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #29 on: 14 November, 2021, 03:10:15 pm »
You can't just walk into a food bank and be given food.  You have to be referred there.  So they've lowered themselves to have a stranger go through their affairs and declare them poor, lying all the way, or the story is fabricated.
And Darkness and Decay and the Coronavirus held illimitable dominion over all.

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #30 on: 14 November, 2021, 07:57:24 pm »
One of the problems is also what is food poverty.  I know several people who do run food banks but this is still anecdotal.

If you have mortgage, cars, HP, credit cards, etc and lose your bonus or one partner loses a job it is very easy to go from having disposable income to buy food to having literally no money left in the account the day after your salary has gone in.  Handing back the car, house, etc may also not be possible without major penalties.  hence people in BMWs do turn up at food banks.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #31 on: 14 November, 2021, 09:15:38 pm »
Which is also why anyone decrying poor folk for owning normal things like a smartphone or a television that works with transmissions after 2012 can get in the bin.

Basil

  • Um....err......oh bugger!
  • Help me!
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #32 on: 14 November, 2021, 09:21:16 pm »
Which is also why anyone decrying poor folk for owning normal things like a smartphone or a television that works with transmissions after 2012 can get in the bin.

It would also seem that to claim UC, you must own a smartphone.
(Selfie on doorstep with today's copy of the local paper.)
Admission.  I'm actually not that fussed about cake.

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #33 on: 14 November, 2021, 11:58:32 pm »
Some foodbanks don't require referrals I don't know how rare that is tho.

My uncle runs a small foodbank in rural Ayrshire and did not affiliate with Trussell Trust cos that would cost them £1500 a year. They could buy a LOT of food for that money so decided to spend it on food and keep the project as cheap to run as possible. They set themselves up cos the nearest food bank was 20 miles and £5 bus fare away.

This foodback runs one afternoon a week at a church and has pre-prepared non perishable packs sent to a town centre welfare centre for collection by people who they find in dire need. The local supermarkets all now collect food and donations for them. It's very much "by local people, for local people".

There is this idea that people should sell all that they own before asking for help even though this often only helps for maybe a few weeks' worth of food etc.

barakta

  • Bastard lovechild of Yomiko Readman and Johnny 5
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #34 on: 15 November, 2021, 12:00:33 am »
Which is also why anyone decrying poor folk for owning normal things like a smartphone or a television that works with transmissions after 2012 can get in the bin.

It would also seem that to claim UC, you must own a smartphone.
(Selfie on doorstep with today's copy of the local paper.)

And a photo taken by someone else of you using your RIGHT hand to point at the street sign for your street... No option if your street signs are high or you don't have anyone to photograph you, or you're disabled and housebound.

Ob #FuckTheDWP who this week have accused 1 friend of missing a benefits renewal that friend had an extension for and is now stopping benefits AND claiming friend is in debt. I'm helping friend with ask nicely cos next step will be me setting fire to them.

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #35 on: 15 November, 2021, 06:36:43 am »
I have one, purely hypothetical :) Should I point out that the plural of conundrum is conundra? ;D

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #36 on: 15 November, 2021, 07:16:06 am »
I have one, purely hypothetical :) Should I point out that the plural of conundrum is conundra? ;D

No, because it's not. ;D

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-1114

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #37 on: 15 November, 2021, 09:14:23 am »
I have one, purely hypothetical :) Should I point out that the plural of conundrum is conundra? ;D

No, because it's not. ;D

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350-e-1114

I'll respectfully disagree but we could be here all day arguing :) so let's leave it at that.

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #38 on: 15 November, 2021, 09:30:36 am »
Just in case, when I started this thread, I did in fact check the dictionary for the correct plural.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #39 on: 16 November, 2021, 09:43:11 pm »
Which is also why anyone decrying poor folk for owning normal things like a smartphone or a television that works with transmissions after 2012 can get in the bin.

As I'm learning, modern life means that having a modern smart phone, contactable phone number and internet access seems to make things easier.

Pedaldog

  • Aka Pedaldog
  • Contemplating the ashes of experience.
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #40 on: 16 November, 2021, 11:10:21 pm »
a modern smart phone, contactable phone number and internet access seems to make things easier.

Y'mean Madjik?

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #41 on: 17 November, 2021, 09:30:46 am »
Modern life is also facilitated by electricity. Which is magic. Has anyone seen it? No.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets

Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #42 on: 17 November, 2021, 10:00:56 am »
I'm with ian on the lane etiquette, but I've got the feeling it differs with lanes.  In the slow or medium ones, it's normal to overtake slower swimmers.  Amongst the faster swimmers, it's standard to allow the person behind you to overtake with a brief pause at the end of lane, not force them to actually do the overtake.  Largely because it's quite hard to overtake in one length when both of you are already moving fast, but's it's only a 1-2 second pause when you can rely on them to turn, kick and pull away fast.

Maximises the irritation when a slower swimmer puts themselves in the fast lane and doesn't know or follow the common behaviour there, obviously.

ian

  • not a woman, not an american, not a vampire
Re: ethical conundrums
« Reply #43 on: 17 November, 2021, 11:55:51 am »
My pool typically has one wide lane, so a range of abilities and speeds (only at certain times does it have three lanes). Normally it's fine to overtake mid-length, but there is a minority of people who not only turn as you come up behind them, but they typically also swim miles from the edge of the lane and generally always seem to be in the way. Which is why, as part of my harsh but fair doctrine, they must be judged harshly.
Authoritarian Thought Leader, the Pol Pot of Powerpoint, the Stalin of Spreadsheets