TonyG

You must be so proud...

__________________
If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you?

----

http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

For_England

No, I think corporations are wonderful and should continue to run our lives, and that people like Sean Gabb who say their power should be 'smashed' are really repressed Nazis.

NickIrons

I'm sure I caught it on CNN about three or four years ago,
but it was a survey of American schoolkids, I suppose
about primary stage, not too sure, but when asked "Where
does a steak come from" about 40% replied "The Supermarket"
So no surprise really...
One of those ad links actually said "We peel our own
potatoes".................

timwlandon

Overpopulation is the root cause of plague, pestilence, famine, pollution, war, global warming, ozone depletion, species depletion, shortage of houses & carspace but not jobs. Of course when a country succeeds in stabilising its population, there will be a higher proportion of old people. We must welcome this and learn to cope with it. Rejuvenating our population is not a valid argument for immigration from countries which haven't learned self-restraint. That would corrupt our better culture, and reckless countries must be forced to deal with their problem at source, not export it.

If we pass laws limiting family size, many illegal immigrants would quit, and the vast queue of asylum seekers would halve. We need such laws anyway because the selfish culture which produces big families in an overpopulated world, plus the squabbling for parental attention, produces competitive not cooperative children. People with 0 or 1 or perhaps 2 children should be paid to have more.

A thousand years ago much physical & mental talent was needed to rear a dozen children, and it was a noble thing to do in a world short of people. Medicine & social security have made it easy. Some untalented people do it to prove themselves. Therefore the laws I am proposing would improve talent as well as culture, without explicit eugenics which many negative voters would reject.

I think a legal minimum separation between children is better than a maximum total number. Then toddlers will get the undivided parental attention which they need, and transgressing parents can be caught when they have only had two children.

It would be hard to enforce such a law unless endorsed by a big majority in a single issue referendum. No political party can have such a controversial law in its manifesto, least of all UKIP, which is the party of individual liberty versus state regulation. But UKIP alone has a procedure whereby a few million signatories can compel a referendum. I think enough Brits would sign up for a referendum on family size limits. The first paragraph of this article shows why I think this is reason enough to vote UKIP. And of course there are many other reasons.

timwlandon

The ultimate good is happiness, which is perhaps advancement in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of motives. Laws of most countries evolved through many centuries of pressure from people who felt unhappy about certain previous laws. Only after this process did religions invent fairy tales about the origins of laws. Murder is wrong, not because God said thou shalt not kill, but because people would feel frightened if it were allowed.

A millenium ago when women had to bear children throughout their short adult lives, just to keep the population steady against the onslaught of plague, pestilence, famine & war, it was right to disallow abortion of foetuses. In today's overpopulated world, parents should be allowed to abort their children painlessly right up to the age of two, which is the earliest at which children might understand & be frightened by the law.

The really useful & happy people are those who think about their duties & achievements, not their rights. Rights are an issue for people who want to milk society, not contribute to it, and who are struggling to belong, which is low in Maslow's Hierarchy. This is their own fault for not seeking a psychiatric cure, and their parents' fault for not loving them properly as infants. It is not usually the fault of society which they blame. They often campaign for their own rights by proxy, pretending to be campaigning for the rights of poorer people. But the poorer people may well not want those rights, as in the case of the Fair Trade Campaign which throws them out of work. Anti-abortionists would find it hard to get a foetus to agree that it should have the right to live. I know, because I remember being an unusually bright foetus, conducting scientific experiments to my mother's great discomfort. Many anti-abortionists are motivated by a wrong subconscious belief that they themselves are innately undesirable people who should be culled. They are campaigning by proxy for their own right to live. Undesirable? Yes. Innately? No. Should be culled? Not after the age of two.

TannyD

But how would you make the adjustment from who you are now to being someone who doesn't care that much about supporting themselves?

How would it affect you on a moral level or do you think that you would easier adjust to becoming a "scrounger"?

12 kids to a council house, how would that work? What number of bedrooms would the property have?

And what would happen if we all just gave up and took that attitude and stopped supporting ourselves or at the very least actively looking for work...

__________________
Ignore/Avoid List: youcanhandlethetruth.

TannyD

Anyone going to continue this thread on?

__________________
Ignore/Avoid List: youcanhandlethetruth.

Unionist

OK.

I don't see the population level as being a problem and if anything we have too few births in this country now (which will contribute to an ageing population and great pressure on health and pensions). We are a trading nation and import a lot of food - so what? What is important is that we produce the goods and services that others want.

There is a problem with the welfare system though. As unattractive as it may be to most of us, it does become a way of life for some and indeed creates its own perverse incentives. At one time welfare was considered a last resort and a matter of personal shame - cruel for those who needed it but at least it was less likely to be abused. Now the welfare system is more extensive, effectively anonymous (with more dispersed families/communities) and people are encouraged to think of it in terms of 'rights' and 'entitlements'. In these circumstances it will be abused.

__________________
---
Forum social groups:
Internationalists | Ubuntu Users

whypatcondellisntfun

Please. Somebody tell me this person is a troll. Please. I need to know that people really do not hold nonsensical, sickening, half-wit, perverse, idiotic, depraved views like this.

__________________
"I have set and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on grounds of his origin" - Enoch Powell

C_steam

Sorry, no can do. Resign yourself to the fact that you share the same planet with him.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.