|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 22:09:26 GMT
On the children thing... no actually, I disagree. One thing the world is not short of is people and children. The planet is infested with them to the extent that it can barely support the current population and certainly the current rate of population growth is unsustainable. So in my opinion having children is a luxury and a somewhat selfish one if you have more than a couple. People want children for entirely selfish reasons and I don't see why I should subsidise them, any more than they might want to subsidise my glider/car/boat etc. So no, encouraging families to have children when they can't support them is definitely A Bad Thing. That's quite a clumsy way of stating the case for limiting population growth! I don't think people are inherently selfish for wanting more than a couple of kids, we are after all only a few millennia into our evolution and old habits die hard! Most people do not think in binary terms like you over the decision to have kids. The reasons will be many and varied across a huge social spectrum. Despite what you may think benefits and not having any other hobbies are not the usual prime motivator! I'm unusual, we waited till we were fairly financially stable, in a home that could support a family without inflicting ourselves on our neighbours, we had a suitable vehicle to cart a dwarf and it's kit about, we were both settled and doing well at work - and in my wife's case completed her degree. All the above meant I was 35 before our child appeared on the scene. It doesn't make me a better or cleverer person than someone who has struggled to get by starting a family under different conditions than those we are fortunate to be in. Taking lots of other factors into account means I don't want another. I appreciate most that start or want a family and in particular to grow those families do so for totally different reasons, why can't you? Old habits die hard - yes absolutely. It is the primal and unthinking urge to procreate. The selfish gene and all that. As you say, folk start and families for all sorts of reasons but each and every one of those reasons is a selfish one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 22:34:24 GMT
That's quite a clumsy way of stating the case for limiting population growth! I don't think people are inherently selfish for wanting more than a couple of kids, we are after all only a few millennia into our evolution and old habits die hard! Most people do not think in binary terms like you over the decision to have kids. The reasons will be many and varied across a huge social spectrum. Despite what you may think benefits and not having any other hobbies are not the usual prime motivator! I'm unusual, we waited till we were fairly financially stable, in a home that could support a family without inflicting ourselves on our neighbours, we had a suitable vehicle to cart a dwarf and it's kit about, we were both settled and doing well at work - and in my wife's case completed her degree. All the above meant I was 35 before our child appeared on the scene. It doesn't make me a better or cleverer person than someone who has struggled to get by starting a family under different conditions than those we are fortunate to be in. Taking lots of other factors into account means I don't want another. I appreciate most that start or want a family and in particular to grow those families do so for totally different reasons, why can't you? Old habits die hard - yes absolutely. It is the primal and unthinking urge to procreate. The selfish gene and all that. As you say, folk start and families for all sorts of reasons but each and every one of those reasons is a selfish one. I suppose it was worth a try - never mind. Our daughter's sphere of influence isn't just restricted to her nuclear family, it's to her friends and their families in the village, her extended family, her Nursery careers and their management, our friends and their families and so on. Thankfully, 99/100 her presence on the planet is a positive one for all that meet her - hopefully that's how it will stay. Not bad for a selfish animal desire to procreate is it! A little light reading for you www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454514/gs-15-18-future-ageing-family-care-er09.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi44pak8OXRAhXHrRoKHasID1kQFgg6MAk&usg=AFQjCNGwybQ4Vs7VFFlYZVHUGUMwYyJlfg
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 22:59:50 GMT
I read the executive summary but it didn't really tell me anything I didn't know, raise any new questions nor propose any solutions. I suppose the only hint is that with the aging population, finding enough carers could be problematic. So if the conclusion is "let's have more children so they can look after us in our dotage" then once gain, I say that it is for purely selfish reasons.
Anyway this whole sanctity of life thing is something we need to address. What is the point of keeping people alive for years when they don't know their own names nor who any of the people around them are, have no quality of life etc. We spend a fortune keeping these people alive to satiate our own guilt, meanwhile people who could potentially have a long, happy and productive life to look forward to, kill themselves or at best have their lives ruined by mental illness, for which there are inhumanly scant resources available. Any intelligent person taking a dispassionate view would see that is a ridiculous situation, but as usual hysteria and populism win out.
Personally I want to be put down as soon as I need full time care, what is the point of life if you can't do anything useful or interesting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 23:07:15 GMT
Jesus! For an intelligent bloke you have a really bleak and one dimensional outlook on life! I guess you could try the Logan's run model, there would be more babies and no room for homosexuality though
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 28, 2017 23:22:00 GMT
As usual, participants in this "debate" (I use the term loosely) are incapable of presenting any counter-argument. Their only means of response is to attack the person presenting the viewpoint.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2017 23:27:29 GMT
Not at all, has your sense of humour taken a holiday? I couldn't do more than use a smiley
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 8:01:47 GMT
Personally I want to be put down as soon as I need full time care, what is the point of life if you can't do anything useful or interesting? I bet you won't when/if you get to that point. Anyway, I'm sure your estate will cover the £1000 + per week it costs and that will help employ a number of people. It's a win win... Regarding the personal attack thing, don't be such a twat!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 9:10:32 GMT
Personally I want to be put down as soon as I need full time care, what is the point of life if you can't do anything useful or interesting? I bet you won't when/if you get to that point. Anyway, I'm sure your estate will cover the £1000 + per week it costs and that will help employ a number of people. It's a win win... Regarding the personal attack thing, don't be such a twat! I thought Nick's posting has been a bit out of character for him, he doesn't usually use the personal attack card, I wondered for a moment if his account had been hacked by MJG.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 9:24:04 GMT
We disagree and accept that life is a rich tapestry of views.
Some know they are right.
In those instances disagreement is clearly an attack.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 9:30:09 GMT
One thing I will say without taking the piss, the keyword Nick missed as to why we have kids (and I'm surprised I need to spell it out) is that they enrich our lives. A mate of mine has a monopoly set housing collection, no kids and plenty of money in the bank. He works every hour O/T he can lay his grubby hands on, he's the type of bloke that would get hit on the back of the head by the coin he just dropped. He's 50 this year and has no kids. I've never gave him a hard time over his life choices but he's often ready to have a dig about over population and has similar ideas to Nick about the worth of kids. Another mate got pissed off with him at a leaving do when he was having another gentle dig at me as I was leaving to go home to the dwarf and my Mrs. He pointed out that although he may be materially better off than the rest of us but despite his money he could never buy a child's trust and love, could never enjoy the simple pleasures of teaching a child things that cost very little, things like learning to swim, riding a bike, experience the joy of first words, first steps, to be there when they fall, to reassure them everything will be OK when things are a little rough. He said the same as BP regarding his inevitable need for care at the end of his life, what good is a portfolio of houses apart from paying for a stranger to look after you when your last breaths are being taken? I thought it a little harsh but fair, we haven't had any more only selfish people have kid's stuff since that moment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 9:39:38 GMT
Don't worry about it. We are all entitled to an opinion, and thankfully on here, to express it.
Putting an opposing view is not an attack.
Disagreeing is not an attack.
I would suggest that criticising someone's life choices on no evidence, merely assumption, could be.
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 9:42:28 GMT
One thing I will say without taking the piss, the keyword Nick missed as to why we have kids (and I'm surprised I need to spell it out) is that they enrich our lives. A mate of mine has a monopoly set housing collection, no kids and plenty of money in the bank. He works every hour O/T he can lay his grubby hands on, he's the type of bloke that would get hit on the back of the head by the coin he just dropped. He's 50 this year and has no kids. I've never gave him a hard time over his life choices but he's often ready to have a dig about over population and has similar ideas to Nick about the worth of kids. Another mate got pissed off with him at a leaving do when he was having another gentle dig at me as I was leaving to go home to the dwarf and my Mrs. He pointed out that although he may be materially better off than the rest of us but despite his money he could never buy a child's trust and love, could never enjoy the simple pleasures of teaching a child things that cost very little, things like learning to swim, riding a bike, experience the joy of first words, first steps, to be there when they fall, to reassure them everything will be OK when things are a little rough. He said the same as BP regarding his inevitable need for care at the end of his life, what good is a portfolio of houses apart from paying for a stranger to look after you when your last breaths are being taken? I thought it a little harsh but fair, we haven't had any more only selfish people have kid's stuff since that moment I'm afraid the greedy marketing ethos we live with these days has had a bad effect on family life in general. When you look at some of the Eastern cultures and even our culture in Victorian England, we'd typically have 3 generations in the same household. Mum would be at home bringing up the kids and keeping an eye on Grandad/Grandma. Dad would be out at work to pay for the house and upkeep of the family. Grandad/Grandma was entertained by the kids. No strangers involved and the estate stayed with the family. In a nutshell, we have been conned.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jan 29, 2017 9:56:32 GMT
Talking of children and their parents (as seen in the latest edition of Private Eye): goo.gl/photos/d9TrUfJkyAAidx2N7 Reading Gazza's post just above, a similar scenario with a bus driver in the garage I used to work at working all the overtime he could, 13 days out of 14 at work, overtime each of those days on top of his own shift, so he could afford a fancy new Volvo. His workmates pointed out when is he going to have time to enjoy driving it? However, Britain is overpopulated. How about getting rid of the 'worst 20%' ?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Jan 29, 2017 10:52:46 GMT
Talking of children and their parents (as seen in the latest edition of Private Eye): goo.gl/photos/d9TrUfJkyAAidx2N7 Reading Gazza's post just above, a similar scenario with a bus driver in the garage I used to work at working all the overtime he could, 13 days out of 14 at work, overtime each of those days on top of his own shift, so he could afford a fancy new Volvo. His workmates pointed out when is he going to have time to enjoy driving it? However, Britain is overpopulated. How about getting rid of the 'worst 20%' ? Worst from who's point of view? I'd start with Daily Mail readers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jan 29, 2017 11:07:35 GMT
One thing I will say without taking the piss, the keyword Nick missed as to why we have kids (and I'm surprised I need to spell it out) is that they enrich our lives. A mate of mine has a monopoly set housing collection, no kids and plenty of money in the bank. He works every hour O/T he can lay his grubby hands on, he's the type of bloke that would get hit on the back of the head by the coin he just dropped. He's 50 this year and has no kids. I've never gave him a hard time over his life choices but he's often ready to have a dig about over population and has similar ideas to Nick about the worth of kids. Another mate got pissed off with him at a leaving do when he was having another gentle dig at me as I was leaving to go home to the dwarf and my Mrs. He pointed out that although he may be materially better off than the rest of us but despite his money he could never buy a child's trust and love, could never enjoy the simple pleasures of teaching a child things that cost very little, things like learning to swim, riding a bike, experience the joy of first words, first steps, to be there when they fall, to reassure them everything will be OK when things are a little rough. He said the same as BP regarding his inevitable need for care at the end of his life, what good is a portfolio of houses apart from paying for a stranger to look after you when your last breaths are being taken? I thought it a little harsh but fair, we haven't had any more only selfish people have kid's stuff since that moment They may well enrich your lives but they often don't enrich mine - depends on whether the parents are letting them run around screaming whilst feigning deafness etc. Some kids are a pleasure to be with as you say. But my point remains that when you say "kids enrich our lives" you are saying "I want kids because they enrich my life" which is a selfish reason. I'm not sure if you meant "everybody's life" or "me and the misses life" but anyway, if you were, please don't speak for me on this matter. Anyway if you want to have kids that is fine, just don't expect me to consider you or any other parents to be heros for doing it, thus deserved of special treatment and/or funding from me. As for making out my life is somehow hollow because I don't have any kids, that is just you trying to con yourself into thinking you did the right thing. And also pretty harsh on those many people who would love to have kids but can't for various reasons.
|
|