[Archived] I'm a Dad, don't get it

[thenodrog]

Frivelous but unfortunately very shallow thinking.

You cannot deny that too many 'breeders' are having multiple children before they are 20 as a lifestyle choice. Their children are doing the same so that by the time they are 40 the first lot could be grandmothers 10/12 x over.

Compare that to the kids with drive, motivation and ability who excell in education, meet partners of similar ilk interested in forging ahead in their careers and who through circumstance frequently end up with one (usually spoilt I grant you) child by the time they are 35.

One lot pay lots of tax, the other lot don't. The system is skewed. It doesn't take Einstein to know that without war, plague or some apocolypse that this will end in tears. Basic arithmatic should be enough. You two aren't thick so go figure it out.

Reads like a synposis of Mein Kampf. You're getting in dangerous territory here Gordon.

The eugenics movement and why it has been discredited and now confined to a few crackpots on a football messageboard.

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled

Here's another good article which points out GK Chesterton narrowly saved Britain from eugenics laws in the last century. It says eugenics theories were taken up most enthusistically by one group - the Nazis of course. If they're not crackpots I don't know who are. .

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/sparkes.htm

Jim you've responded to my original post with nothing. Sweet FA in fact. Mind if I put you on the spot?

Like Colin you possess no original thought whatsoever you only have criticism based solely on your index finger, a computer mouse and an obscure agenda. So c'mon Jim, man up and pretend Gordy had won the last election and put you in place as his Chief Advisor. After you had closed all the motorways, resurrected steam trains what would you do about the problems I outlined? Apart that is from keeping your head down and hoping the tories win the next election.

Off you go now.

[jim mk2]

Read those articles. Eugenics are a century-old solution to a problem that no longer exists except to a few extremists. Nothing more to be said.

[Steve Moss]

Read those articles. Eugenics are a century-old solution to a problem that no longer exists except to a few extremists. Nothing more to be said.

Jim, perhaps I'm missing something but has anyone, including Theno, argued in favor of 'eugenics'? No one is focused on a particular physical characteristic. The focus of the discussion has been:

1. Behavior based. Should persons who demonstrate certain behaviors, such as pedophiles, be allowed to become parents?

2. Income based. Should dependent adults be allowed to have children who would themselves be dependent on the state for their support?

I'll attempt to create a fanciful hypothetical to illustrate my points:

In Jimland, ruled by the wise and benevolent (perhaps too much so for his own good) King Jim, there is a progressive benefits policy to take care of the needy. King Jim's country can provide food, shelter, medical care and a reasonable (though modest) stipend to allow a million of his unemployed/unemployable subjects to live a dignified, albeit minimalist, existence.

There is absolutely no budgetary capacity to increase King Jim's largesse. If he prints more money, he devalues purchasing power so fails to improve his grateful subjects' lot as a net matter. If he taxes more, the income producers (the tax base) will relocate to Thenoland (ruled by the coldly pragmatic King Theno whose only saving grace, in the view of King Jim, is that he supports the Rovers, the greatest football club to ever take the pitch located in the holy city of Blackburn to which both King Jim and King Theno are regular pilgrims). If he cuts other budget areas (such as the military), all King Jim will have done is: 1) put off the day of reckoning a generation or so until there are two million dependent subjects, at which time the hard math will again be front and center; and/or, 2) opened himself up to the predations of the Pune Pirates (a lot whom King Jim deems more despicable than King Theno) and, despite being fellow believers, King Theno's well oiled army and navy who gradually begins to demand tribute to avoid war, seizes the occasional valuable border town, and co-opt King Jim's trading partners causing further economic suffering to King Jim's subjects and further reducing King Jim's finances to the detriment of his subjects.

King Jim's ability to provide for his less fortunate subjects is, accordingly, finite (though he wishes it were infinite).

With finite resources, how does King Jim provide what is needed to the less fortunate? The benefit roll has to be kept to one million or fewer. If it increases he must by necessity fund a less than dignified existence for his needy subjects, starting with cutting medical benefits. This would obviously result in suffering for his dependent subjects.

One solution King Jim might consider is to make a bargain with his dependent subjects. He will adequately support them if they will submit to long term birth control. This has the advantage of ensuring that his million dependent subjects can live a dignified existence (and, hopefully improving their lot via education, etc. which is not hindered by providing for infants) while at the same time minimizing the prospect that King Jim's benefits' budget becomes insufficient to provide for their basic needs.

King Jim might further decree that those incarcerated for certain horrible offenses might be eligible for early release (perhaps after serving 85% of their sentence) if as a term of life time probation they agree to mandatory long term birth control (and in the case of pedophiles, chemical sterilization). They can go off the birth control anytime they like (i.e. not report for the annual/periodic injection) but they then must serve the 15% of prison time previously waived.

From my view, there is nothing about eugenics in King Jim's programs. He is not looking to preserve any master race or destroy any alleged inferior race. His motive would be to protect his country's social and financial health via a system of voluntary quid pro quo, mutual benefit.

While the above is fanciful, I think it does adequately describe the social and financial problems of a dependent benefits culture. We as a society can help. But our resources are not infinite. This means, as a practical matter, that the needs of dependent citizens must be kept at or below the level of our ability as a society to support them.

[colin]

You have proven again that reasoned constructive thought is beyond you. I asked you for a contribution yet again all you manage is the usual mocking criticism without offering any alternatives whether viable or otherwise. I replied to your request so you really should reply to mine. Unfortunately all you can offer are your terribly fey 'Dear Boy' Noel Coward style whimsical retorts containing no trace of original thought or valid option whatsoever. This appears to be a constant in just about all the topics you choose to debate reply to. I suggest that you may as well not bother if you cannot offer anything more than your usual cop out.

Crivens! Your blood pressure must be off the scale. If you don't want to debate the subject and just hurl insults, that's fine by me. I'll treat it as a cop-out by you. Good night Sheldon. And thank you for the Noel Coward compliment.

[thenodrog]

Crivens! Your blood pressure must be off the scale. If you don't want to debate the subject and just hurl insults, that's fine by me. I'll treat it as a cop-out by you. Good night Sheldon. And thank you for the Noel Coward compliment.

How can I. You have proved for as long as you've been coming on here that you are incapable of debate and capable only of criticism.

[thenodrog]

Just as an aside Steve and accepting that there are no other options (e.g. Smossland etc) you haven't told us where would you choose to live? Jimland or Thenoland ?

[Amo]

I'd rather go to Butlins.

[SouthAussieRover]

I'd rather go to Butlins.

I'd rather go to Pontins.

[Steve Moss]

Just as an aside Steve and accepting that there are no other options (e.g. Smossland etc) you haven't told us where would you choose to live? Jimland or Thenoland ?

I would be loyal to the land of my birth.

[jim mk2]

. This means, as a practical matter, that the needs of dependent citizens must be kept at or below the level of our ability as a society to support them.

Dear Mitt,

As the gap between richest and poorest has widened over the past 30 years (see graph below), I would suggest that a humane society (not unfortunately the US at present) is easily able to afford to look after its most unfortunate citizens.

Yours in socialism,

Barack

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/separate-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap-20110223-141311-132.html

[colin]

How can I. You have proved for as long as you've been coming on here that you are incapable of debate and capable only of criticism.

And yet you still get drawn in. How someone of your superior intelligence falls for it year after year is beyond me.

Goodnight Sheldon

[Steve Moss]

Dear Mitt,

As the gap between richest and poorest has widened over the past 30 years (see graph below), I would suggest that a humane society (not unfortunately the US at present) is easily able to afford to look after its most unfortunate citizens.

Yours in socialism,

Barack

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/separate-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap-20110223-141311-132.html

Wow.

The rich have got richer. A lot richer. The horror.

Oh wait. Even the poor have gotten richer, though the author attempts to confuse that fact with "most income groups have barely grown richer since 1979. But the top 1 percent has seen its income nearly quadruple. . ."

Nice adjective to avoid the issue that most income groups have improved, albeit not as rapidly as the top 1%. Which sort of proves that a rising tide does lift all ships, though admittedly some not as much as others.

But I have a thought for you, Jim. If I get a 10% raise, should I really care that my boss quadrupled his wealth? I think it is a win-win and won't penalize the risk takers. And I don't think I should be laying claim to other people's property merely because they have more of it.

And I agree the USA could do a better job of taking care of its neediest citizens. But don't avoid the main point. All wealth is finite. Even the wealth of the USA cannot save everyone. Even if you combine my income plus 10% and my boss's quadrupled wealth and all persons similarly situated to us, that still results in a finite number. With finite resources to bring to bear, we need to look at humane and dignified efforts to control demand for those resources.

And so I ask you, what hardship is society imposing or moral wrong is it inflicting by insisting that its dependent citizens be placed on birth control during the period they are receiving benefits? I don't see it.

It is not an issue of socialism or capitalism or any other form of government. It is simple logic.

[thenodrog]

Dear Mitt,

As the gap between richest and poorest has widened over the past 30 years (see graph below), I would suggest that a humane society (not unfortunately the US at present) is easily able to afford to look after its most unfortunate citizens.

Who cares when according to that chart everybody is getting wealthier? It's just some are getting wealthier than others. Only someone whose view is clouded by dogma would object. (apologies to Steve. I responded befofe I read your last post. Much the same observation though. Jims poisoned chalice has in fact been all win win.)

The thing you fail to grasp Jim is that all people are not equal. Some adapt to conditions better than others. In ancient times physical strength and speed were the difference between eating and starving, now it's rather more down to intelligence. You yourself are very dismissive of other posters inability to spell or string words together coherently which in a way is an admission by youself that people are simply not all equal.

Tell me Jim where you work/worked was everybody paid the same? Did you look at your superiors with envy but care not a jot for the lower paid secretaries, clerks, cleaners etc? On a favourite hobby horse of yours from history do you not think Stevenson or Brunel deserved significant wealth? How about the bankers who backed them? Were they all evil too?

And yet you still get drawn in. How someone of your superior intelligence falls for it year after year is beyond me.

ditto Noel.

[dave birch]

I took this from the ABC (Australia) website:

"The New Zealand government has sparked anger among some MPs and rights activists with a suggestion convicted child killers be ordered not to have children.

The government is drafting a discussion paper on tougher measures to prevent child abuse.

Social development minister Paula Bennett says one possibility is to enact legislation or empower courts to remove babies at birth from parents who are convicted child killers or abusers.

Ms Bennett says last year nearly 150 children were taken away from their parents within a month of birth due to safety fears.

She says each case required a separate court order.

Ms Bennett says the discussion paper will look at other options.

"If you have killed or seriously abused a child, maybe we should tell them that any future children will be removed at birth," she said.

"That they can't work with or be in a house with children."

She says the government is not considering forced sterilization.

Peter Dunne, leader of United Future - one of the government's support parties - says the idea harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany and has no place in a democratic society.

The Green Party and a poverty action group say courts already have the power to take children out of dangerous situations."

There are some familiar references in there as well.

[thenodrog]

I took this from the ABC (Australia) website:

"The New Zealand government has sparked anger among some MPs and rights activists with a suggestion convicted child killers be ordered not to have children.

The government is drafting a discussion paper on tougher measures to prevent child abuse.

Social development minister Paula Bennett says one possibility is to enact legislation or empower courts to remove babies at birth from parents who are convicted child killers or abusers.

Ms Bennett says last year nearly 150 children were taken away from their parents within a month of birth due to safety fears.

She says each case required a separate court order.

Ms Bennett says the discussion paper will look at other options.

"If you have killed or seriously abused a child, maybe we should tell them that any future children will be removed at birth," she said.

"That they can't work with or be in a house with children."

She says the government is not considering forced sterilization.

Peter Dunne, leader of United Future - one of the government's support parties - says the idea harkens back to the days of Nazi Germany and has no place in a democratic society.

The Green Party and a poverty action group say courts already have the power to take children out of dangerous situations."

There are some familiar references in there as well.

Godwins Law's brought into play yet again by the feeble minded. That Peter Dunne must be sub-human to put the interests of the guilty before those of the victims. Chemical or physical castration must be a better option in dealing with convicted child killers/abusers than a. a length of rope or b. sending the child stealer round.

[Steve Moss]

Social development minister Paula Bennett says one possibility is to enact legislation or empower courts to remove babies at birth from parents who are convicted child killers or abusers.

Ms Bennett says last year nearly 150 children were taken away from their parents within a month of birth due to safety fears.

She says each case required a separate court order.

Ms Bennett says the discussion paper will look at other options.

I think Ms. Bennett should become Prime Minister. Common sense in a politician is a rare thing.

[colin]

Godwins Law's brought into play yet again by the feeble minded. That Peter Dunne must be sub-human to put the interests of the guilty before those of the victims. Chemical or physical castration must be a better option in dealing with convicted child killers/abusers than a. a length of rope or b. sending the child stealer round.

Peter Dunne, who has am MA in Political Science is now "feeble minded" & a "sub-human" because has the unmitigated audacity to hold an opinion with which you disagree. This without (presumably) you have ever met him, talked to him, or had any other sort of contact with him. Again, well done. Your ability to hurl insults has once again exceeded expectations.

[thenodrog]

Peter Dunne, who has am MA in Political Science is now "feeble minded" & a "sub-human" because has the unmitigated audacity to hold an opinion with which you disagree. This without (presumably) you have ever met him, talked to him, or had any other sort of contact with him. Again, well done. Your ability to hurl insults has once again exceeded expectations.

Thanks but you don't need to praise me Colin. You know and I know that I'm right so thats that.

[colin]

Thanks but you don't need to praise me Colin. You know and I know that I'm right so thats that.

If you think that was praise you are even more self-deluded than I thought. You may think that you are right. I don't think you are and I will continue to express my opinion. And putting a smilie face at the end changes nothing.

Toot toot old bean!

[thenodrog]

And yet you still get drawn in. How someone of your superior intelligence falls for it year after year is beyond me.

ditto Noel.

If you think that was praise you are even more self-deluded than I thought. You may think that you are right. I don't think you are and I will continue to express my opinion. And putting a smilie face at the end changes nothing.

[jim mk2]

But I have a thought for you, Jim. If I get a 10% raise, should I really care that my boss quadrupled his wealth? I think it is a win-win and won't penalize the risk takers.

I guess fairness is an alien concept to some folk. I assume that you are a member of the 1 per cent and not the organisation below representing the hard-working downtrodden who have been exploited by the privileged and the rich since the beginning of time. Greed is good eh, Mr Gekko ?

http://wearethe99per...om/Introduction

[Steve Moss]

I guess fairness is an alien concept to some folk. I assume that you are a member of the 1 per cent and not the organisation below representing the hard-working downtrodden who have been exploited by the privileged and the rich since the beginning of time. Greed is good eh, Mr Gekko ?

http://wearethe99per...om/Introduction

I'm definetly not part of the 99% as defined by the authors of that website. By what I view as normal standards, I'm part of the top 10%.

And Jim, as much as I admire your passion, I suspect that you and I have radically different views of what is "fair".