But since they're putting the posters up in our part of the world, care to share?
kodokan
Probably because there's not much call for it in Lausanne, where he lives, and I can't find anything about it in the French 20 minutes (I've good French - rubbish search skills, mind you, so it could be that).
Yes. It IS a discussion innit?
Of course - the other posters are not encouraging this discussion.....?
I trying to up my Posts on this Forum - and this is how its done.... innit?
I'm sure Dorian wouldn't need to worry about things like these
[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doriangray_1945.jpg)
Your belief that this is wrong (which i agree with) could be equally offensive to your comment that there is no God (which I also don't believe doesn't exists) but do we want a society that has the freedom to express itself at the expense of others or one that controls what we can and can't say.
Sounds a bit like this forum, where the argument is that people need to have thicker skins. All those disabled people need to toughen up?
As long as taxpayers are supporting anyone or anything, they have a right to question what they are supporting, and why they are supporting it. That goes for free health care for all, free schooling for the unpleasant underclasses, welfare payments, bank bailouts and wars.
The status of those disabled people who are reliant upon financial support provided by the state/canton should not be exempt from such discussions, no matter how distasteful the subject may seem to right-thinking people.
Ignore the issue, allow frustrations to build up, and who knows what could result?
These things need airing in the sunlight, not shoving behind the bookcase like an annoying piece of lint.
If the posters lead to such debate, then they are serving the interests of democracy, whether some people are offended by the notion or not.
And yes, I do find them shocking and offensive.
But that's hardly the point, is it?
Please don't change words and then attribute them to me.
I NEVER said anything was 'wrong'. I said the posters in discussion are offensive. I then said this does not compare to poster re the existence of God. Belief in a God is as such, a belief, and one should not be offended if someone else questions it. Furthermore, given that belief in such God is spread by advertising through prostelysation, how hypocritical to then find it offensive that someone would advertise otherwise.
I will repeat, they are not the same issue. And please don't confuse 'offensive' with 'wrong'. I support people's right to express whatever they want, but if it's callous, then I will call it offensive. Offensive does not apply to choice of thought and my philosophical/scientific critique of such thought. I don't find public criticism of a political or religious (not much difference in practice) offensive.
Disability is a condition. One that most people can deal with and lead a 'normal' life through support from society. It is not a choice.
I hate those posters! I have a physical handicap myself that nobody is aware of. I therefore can tell from own experience that handicapped people are handicapped every day by other people, that they suffer a lot of violence because they can't defend themselves. There is no reason to make additional bad jokes about handicapped people. I feel deeply hurt and shocked by those posters.
Therefore: Remove/distroy those posters right away, paint them with whatever you think is appropriate!
By the way: Did you know that Swiss men that can't do military service because of their handicap pay a yearly fine from age 20 til 35 (end of "service age")? I havent' heard of any other country in the world that levies such a fine. If it was China or North Korea - but Switzerland...
Or respond intelligently, making the point that supporting those with disabilities (not to mention the sick, the old and the destitute) is a human duty, and an entirely reasonable thing for decent people to do, whatever the financial cost (bearing in mind that we aren't exactly living in Burkina Faso here).
Defacing posters only makes us look like illiterate, inarticulate barbarians.
Sure, it is not THE point, but it is A point. This kind of provocational debate simply lacks style. Or it is a take-over from Messrs Christoph Blocher, Bortoluzzi and Fredy Heer. True, in times when in Germany, SPD politician Herbert Wehner spoke about those from CDU/CSU as "Geistige Terroristen" (terrorists-in-spirit) ..... ehmm, not terrorists in whisky ! , political debate in Switzerland was calm and boring. The Blocherites went to success by finding an open market for a more confrontational and more provocational and harsher style than what was in use in this country before. So, no, the aspect is important.
I don't see how anyone can discuss this with any respect or merit, I don't see any advantage whatsoever for stopping the disabled people's payments/benefits. it's utterly and absolutely disgusting!!
I mean how can we as a human society become so obsessed with money, that we want to make other people's harder than it actually is?? What has the world come to? These disabled people are human beings like us, with feelings, needs, aspirations and dreams, in fact they actually have more needs than your average joe, and for anyone to even propose this, I find it sick!! if we can't support our weak and vulnerable, than how can we expect to be treated in a fair and adequate way if something (god forbid) ever happens to us!!
What an absolute disgrace!!!
given the local democracy, i wonder if it's possible for the disabled/elderly/whatever requiring charity to simply apply to the gemeinder/kanton and who would then petition the local population to donate for the support rather than fund these through general taxes?
Interesting idea - that would sort out the sheep from the goats, or rather the genteel old dears on hard times from the drunken, foul-mouthed layabouts swigging meths and cursing at children.
kodokan
A) general taxes are paid to the Canton, and not to the union
B) the disabled have to apply locally (Gemeinde/Kanton)
C) the rents (AHV) is a federal thing, but administered by the Cantons
D) "simply" is wrong, as Cantons + Union permanently struggle to shift costs up and down to each other
E) each Gemeinde gets parts of the General taxes, so that a rich Gemeinde has more on offer than a poor one, Zollikon about 250% of Schlieren for example
F) no government, neither the Federal one, nor a Cantonal or a Municipal one can ask for donations, they can use the taxes according to their wisdom, and if people do not agree, there are some ways to act
you're missing my point: rather than fund disability through taxation, each case can be directly funded by local or cantonal population at the discretion of each member of the community.
yup. i'm sure there ought to be a role for the church too...
Sorry, but that would be horrible. People depending on private "discretion". Sympathetic folks getting 1000 CHF and not so sympathetic ones only 200 CHF. People asking for help in good weather getting more than those begging for help in bad weather. No, no, no, beggary is not the way to go. No, this would be a return to the middle ages.
sorry, nobody mentioned weather or begging.
i understand that currently all applicants are assessed. all i'm saying is give power directly to the people who will pay to make that choice.
what difference would that make? at days end the disabled need support
(e.g. money, healthcare service) and it needs to be paid. if Bern/CH, canton, gemeinde, town... i dont care.
It is crystal clear your comment is useless without a link.
The assessments are made to fixed criteria and rules and rights and laws. "Directly to the people" means that people in need would again as in the middle ages depend on the charitable mood of "the people" (individuals). Risking that the people think they already pay enough, and make the choice not to pay anything at all.