Trash!

[Lord Kangana]

I'm pretty certain that once a child is brought into the world that it matters not anymore about the parents, but about the child? Are we going to punish everyone for their parents mistakes? This is descending very rapidly into an infinite irony loop Daily Mail column written by Enfields finest.

[Worthy4England]

I'm pretty certain that once a child is brought into the world that it matters not anymore about the parents, but about the child? Are we going to punish everyone for their parents mistakes? This is descending very rapidly into an infinite irony loop Daily Mail column written by Enfields finest.

Indeed, that's why we're putting measures in place that protect those children that come into the world, by removing the possibility that they might go hungry, because their parents can't afford them.

[thebish]

so - having a kid without a license leads to castration and/or abortion?

If castration (and sterlilization?) is the penalty - then there appears to be no room for said perpetrator getting a well-paid job in the future and thus earning his/her reproduction licence... which would seem like quite a damning penalty - especially if you broke the law in your teenage years (say - before leaving school).


anyway - I realise this has taken us wayyyyyyyyy too far to be dragged back - but you did rather drag us off the point.

the argument was absolutely not originally about economics - it was about "evil" children.

it was this:

HP said some people are "born evil"

several people then said - yes so some people should not be allowed to reproduce (evil-ness - said Bobo - was either nature or nurture - either way the parents' fault!) Bobo concluded that evil people should not be able to breed - "simples".

I asked how the criterion would be set to determine who these evil people were who would produce (or raise) evil children.

(Bobo has not responded)

but you did: and you made it about taxes-paid and about being able to support a child - which is a whooooooooole different argument...

[Worthy4England]

What about the feckless rich who abdicate child rearing and their parental responsibility to au pairs, nanny's and tennis coaches?

As long as the welfare state doesn't have to pay for it, then that's fine.

Who says they won't?

This thread started off about today's youth showing no respect and having no thought for the consequences of their actions. Does this have a glass ceiling?

No not at all, we're just minimising the risk that the state has to pay for kids as far as possible, at source. IF someone has kids and they've been in gainful employment for 50% of their working lives, then absolutely fine, we'll help them pay in line with state benefits for those not very well off.

If they've never bothered to get of their buttholes, then they won't get a license to breed in the first place. Simples.

[Gary the Enfield]

What about the feckless rich who abdicate child rearing and their parental responsibility to au pairs, nanny's and tennis coaches?

As long as the welfare state doesn't have to pay for it, then that's fine.

Who says they won't?

This thread started off about today's youth showing no respect and having no thought for the consequences of their actions. Does this have a glass ceiling?

No not at all, we're just minimising the risk that the state has to pay for kids as far as possible, at source. IF someone has kids and they've been in gainful employment for 50% of their working lives, then absolutely fine, we'll help them pay in line with state benefits for those not very well off.

If they've never bothered to get of their buttholes, then they won't get a license to breed in the first place. Simples.

Aaaaahhh, but I said the Feckless Rich. What about those who have inherited wealth?

[Worthy4England]

What about the feckless rich who abdicate child rearing and their parental responsibility to au pairs, nanny's and tennis coaches?

As long as the welfare state doesn't have to pay for it, then that's fine.

Who says they won't?

This thread started off about today's youth showing no respect and having no thought for the consequences of their actions. Does this have a glass ceiling?

No not at all, we're just minimising the risk that the state has to pay for kids as far as possible, at source. IF someone has kids and they've been in gainful employment for 50% of their working lives, then absolutely fine, we'll help them pay in line with state benefits for those not very well off.

If they've never bothered to get of their buttholes, then they won't get a license to breed in the first place. Simples.

Aaaaahhh, but I said the Feckless Rich. What about those who have inherited wealth?

The licensing conditions will take inherited wealth into account...

[Worthy4England]

Well that passed the final couple of days befoe kick-off nicely...

[Prufrock]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. What are we going to call this,eu-conomics? I know that I have read posts on this very forum from members involved in this debate on how they during the jobs crisis of the 80s worked harder than their peers to get a good job, how they hoisted themselves up the economic ladder, well what if somebody had decided their parents weren’t affluent enough to give birth to them? Remember, there is always someone richer, paying more taxes, who could claim to be paying for your kids. What of all the great people who have risen out of abject poverty, taken that greatest of motivators and used that injustice to drive their lives. A close friend of mine comes from a family of six (including parents) supported only by his fathers low income. He has just got a 2:1 from the fourth best university in the world (apparently). Are we saying his parents shouldn't have been allowed to have him? Why should I, or you, or your friend pay for the milk of a kid whose parents made the financially irresponsible decision to have him? Because that’s what we do, that’s what society does, we are better than our instinct for individual self-preservation.

[BWFC_Insane]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. What are we going to call this,eu-conomics? I know that I have read posts on this very forum from members involved in this debate on how they during the jobs crisis of the 80s worked harder than their peers to get a good job, how they hoisted themselves up the economic ladder, well what if somebody had decided their parents weren’t affluent enough to give birth to them? Remember, there is always someone richer, paying more taxes, who could claim to be paying for your kids. What of all the great people who have risen out of abject poverty, taken that greatest of motivators and used that injustice to drive their lives. A close friend of mine comes from a family of six (including parents) supported only by his fathers low income. He has just got a 2:1 from the fourth best university in the world (apparently). Are we saying his parents shouldn't have been allowed to have him? Why should I, or you, or your friend pay for the milk of a kid whose parents made the financially irresponsible decision to have him? Because that’s what we do, that’s what society does, we are better than our instinct for individual self-preservation.

This.

[TANGODANCER]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru? Maybe accepting that intelligence and education levels, and thus levels of responsible behaviour aren't and never will be a level playing field amongst all factions of society. Maybe promoting sex education to include the fact that pregnancy amongst kids too young to realise its folly may prevent themselves from having any real form of life because of it. For kids to have any chance at all they need guidance, something they aren't going to get from being born and brought up with the notion that having three kids by seventeen and living on social security is a career choice. That's no form of life either for them or the poor kids who follow. Promoting some form of responsibility is hardly dictating, more a form of hopefully improving things by accepting the wrongs and trying to right them surely? You don't have to be religious to accept that right and wrong exist in equal proportions in the world.

[Bruce Rioja]

A close friend of mine comes from a family of six (including parents) supported only by his fathers low income.

Oh my. Share with me again, how much was Cameron pilloried by the likes of you for his 'last week I was talking to.......' type claims?

[thebish]

A close friend of mine comes from a family of six (including parents) supported only by his fathers low income.

Oh my. Share with me again, how much was Cameron pilloried by the likes of you for his 'last week I was talking to.......' type claims?

indeed - though what BWFCI writes might actually be true....

and I'm not sure it was BWCI doing the pillorying - the phrase "the likes of you" is a bit vague..... (I could apply the phrase "the likes of you" to all manner of things and throw it at you - and you would rightly ask me to address what YOU had actually said/done - not an imaginary category of people that I had made up.)

[Prufrock]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru? Maybe accepting that intelligence and education levels, and thus levels of responsible behaviour aren't and never will be a level playing field amongst all factions of society. Maybe promoting sex education to include the fact that pregnancy amongst kids too young to realise its folly may prevent themselves from having any real form of life because of it. For kids to have any chance at all they need guidance, something they aren't going to get from being born and brought up with the notion that having three kids by seventeen and living on social security is a career choice. That's no form of life either for them or the poor kids who follow. Promoting some form of responsibility is hardly dictating, more a form of hopefully improving things by accepting the wrongs and trying to right them surely? You don't have to be religious to accept that right and wrong exist in equal proportions in the world.

To all these problems you mention, how many of them, and in what way, is handing out 'breeding licences' going to help?

[Prufrock]

A close friend of mine comes from a family of six (including parents) supported only by his fathers low income.

Oh my. Share with me again, how much was Cameron pilloried by the likes of you for his 'last week I was talking to.......' type claims?

indeed - though what BWFCI writes might actually be true....

and I'm not sure it was BWCI doing the pillorying - the phrase "the likes of you" is a bit vague..... (I could apply the phrase "the likes of you" to all manner of things and throw it at you - and you would rightly ask me to address what YOU had actually said/done - not an imaginary category of people that I had made up.)

BWFCi had nowt to do with it. Bruce 'deserves a licence to reproduce' Rioja can't figure out how to quote properly

As for his point, David Cameron was riduculed for using examples of individuals to represent an entirety, for instance his oft mocked 'black man' who thought immigration was out of control, ie 'even one of those immigrant sorts thinks it's bad therefore everyone must think so'. All I did was give an example of one person who is 'good for this country' who would never existed under the fourth Reich, I wasn't arguing that my example proves everyone poor will go on to get a great degree from a great uni.

[Bruce Rioja]

and I'm not sure it was BWCI doing the pillorying

I apologise to BWFCI for my misquoting there. Prufrock... WTF?

[Prufrock]

They, not just Cameron, Clegg as well was guilty of it were mocked because they used these examples to try to seem like 'one of the people', and used them constantly. Gordy thought about using this trick but settled instead on calling them bigots. I'm not sure how the idea itself of using an analogy of an individual to illustrate a broader point is risible in itself ?

[TANGODANCER]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru? Maybe accepting that intelligence and education levels, and thus levels of responsible behaviour aren't and never will be a level playing field amongst all factions of society. Maybe promoting sex education to include the fact that pregnancy amongst kids too young to realise its folly may prevent themselves from having any real form of life because of it. For kids to have any chance at all they need guidance, something they aren't going to get from being born and brought up with the notion that having three kids by seventeen and living on social security is a career choice. That's no form of life either for them or the poor kids who follow. Promoting some form of responsibility is hardly dictating, more a form of hopefully improving things by accepting the wrongs and trying to right them surely? You don't have to be religious to accept that right and wrong exist in equal proportions in the world.

To all these problems you mention, how many of them, and in what way, is handing out 'breeding licences' going to help?

Too silly a notion to even answer.

[thebish]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru?

where has Pru promoted this "do as you like, say what you like" world? I must have missed it. I thought Pru was often accused of wanting to restrict the good old "British freedom of speech" by not wanting people to refer to others as "pakis" or "wogs" or "gypos" or "eyeties" - or of spoiling peoples' fun by objecting to racially stereotyped Irish jokes.

he can't be accused of both surely?? what on earth do you mean?

[thebish]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru? Maybe accepting that intelligence and education levels, and thus levels of responsible behaviour aren't and never will be a level playing field amongst all factions of society. Maybe promoting sex education to include the fact that pregnancy amongst kids too young to realise its folly may prevent themselves from having any real form of life because of it. For kids to have any chance at all they need guidance, something they aren't going to get from being born and brought up with the notion that having three kids by seventeen and living on social security is a career choice. That's no form of life either for them or the poor kids who follow. Promoting some form of responsibility is hardly dictating, more a form of hopefully improving things by accepting the wrongs and trying to right them surely? You don't have to be religious to accept that right and wrong exist in equal proportions in the world.

To all these problems you mention, how many of them, and in what way, is handing out 'breeding licences' going to help?

Too silly a notion to even answer.

but it is precisely the argument into which you clumsily stumled....

[TANGODANCER]

Setting aside my amazement at the outrageously crass notion of one part of society dictating to another that it is better qualified to reproduce, for whatever reason, I'm astounded at some of the people who even countenance this being a good idea. .

Maybe more one section of society caring enough to get a grip of the blatant promotion of sex as the ultimate end in that " do as you like, say what you like" world you're always promoting Pru?

where has Pru promoted this "do as you like, say what you like" world? I must have missed it. I thought Pru was often accused of wanting to restrict the good old "British freedom of speech" by not wanting people to refer to others as "pakis" or "wogs" or "gypos" or "eyeties" - or of spoiling peoples' fun by objecting to racially stereotyped Irish jokes.

he can't be accused of both surely?? what on earth do you mean?

You obviously haven't read many of Pru's views on other threads then. You've never heard him say that people should be able to do and say as they like? Really?