TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

Gullscorer wrote:I know all about parental leave entitlements, but in the real world many women, including well-paid female doctors who would otherwise be working long hours, still choose to raise their kids themselves in the early years. Of course family finances and earnings are a big factor, but having kids is still a choice people make.

Having kids is a choice and a privilege, not a right, nor do I agree it should be a right if it's paid for out of my taxes: Housing Benefit, Child Benefit, parental leave, and the rest. Contraceptives have been available for decades: if people can't afford to have kids they should not be having them, and benefits should be reserved for those who have temporarily fallen on hard times - just my opinion!

However, it's an established fact that the NHS doctor crisis has arisen concomitantly with the growing male/female doctor imbalance. Redressing this imbalance would help, as would greater contributions by doctors towards the costs of their education and training.

You have the right to hold an opinion , of course, but the opinion expressed here does come across a tad heartless. Agreed having children is a choice and a privilege, but it is also a right as well, I say this because of at least two couples I know, one; miscarried on 5 occasions, and another eventually fell pregnant via IVF only to miscarry, and seeing the utter devastation, and seeing the want of these two couples to have their own children, to love and bring up only to be denied by a cruel twist of nature, makes it a right.

The choice, privilege and right to have children should not be denied anyone, child birth should never become something only for the those lucky enough, to be in a comfortable position financially, no couple wanting children should ever be forced into sitting down with their accountant or financial advisor to see if they can afford it.

Children as I'm sure we're all aware are born for many different reasons, some planned or even unplanned into loving homes, some no doubt are for benefits, some via the crime of rape even, but "no" child ever asks to be born "no" child has the ability to say no I don't want to come into the world.

When child is born, that child should never be denied a safe, warm and loving home, food, clothing or education, just because one couple decide not to have children, it does not and should never mean the couple next who did have children should be denied financial help and support for their children, I'm happy for a proportion of my tax to go towards helping families with child care costs, the only difference is, I'd like to see benefits for child care costs paid in vouchers to exchanged for cloths, food and schooling costs, rather than paid in cash, which can, and in some cases does end being spent in the pub.

forevertufc wrote: You have the right to hold an opinion , of course, but the opinion expressed here does come across a tad heartless. Agreed having children is a choice and a privilege, but it is also a right as well, I say this because of at least two couples I know, one; miscarried on 5 occasions, and another eventually fell pregnant via IVF only to miscarry, and seeing the utter devastation, and seeing the want of these two couples to have their own children, to love and bring up only to be denied by a cruel twist of nature, makes it a right.

The choice, privilege and right to have children should not be denied anyone, child birth should never become something only for the those lucky enough, to be in a comfortable position financially, no couple wanting children should ever be forced into sitting down with their accountant or financial advisor to see if they can afford it.

Children as I'm sure we're all aware are born for many different reasons, some planned or even unplanned into loving homes, some no doubt are for benefits, some via the crime of rape even, but "no" child ever asks to be born "no" child has the ability to say no I don't want to come into the world.

When child is born, that child should never be denied a safe, warm and loving home, food, clothing or education, just because one couple decide not to have children, it does not and should never mean the couple next who did have children should be denied financial help and support for their children, I'm happy for a proportion of my tax to go towards helping families with child care costs, the only difference is, I'd like to see benefits for child care costs paid in vouchers to exchanged for cloths, food and schooling costs, rather than paid in cash, which can, and in some cases does end being spent in the pub.

Absolutely brilliant! Totally agree with this. I did try to make this sort of point a while back earlier in this thread but this was better articulated and to the point. A benefits card or vouchers to pay for food, domestic bills, goods, essentials, basics and neccesseties but not cash. That would actually sort out the ones popping out kids for the money also but at the least it would ensure benefits are going where they should.

To play the emotional 'help the poor children in need' card demonstrates a naïve and shallow misunderstanding of the issues. Allow me to be equally simplistic: the fact is that there are too many people in the world, and too many people in this country. This already imposes burdens upon our infrastructure, our economy, our housing stocks, our schools and our NHS. It is totally irresponsible for people to continue to have children when they can't afford it and to expect others to pay for their kids. And it doesn't help matters when there is a huge and growing gender imbalance in favour of women in our education system and in the NHS for the reasons I've already given. To redress this imbalance would help to alleviate some of the problems, but there also needs to be a profound shift in societal attitudes if we are to avoid problems in the future. When populations in any species become too big, nature has a way of fighting back; if we don't solve the problems, nature will do it for us. Alas, I don't have all the answers.

Added in 21 minutes 27 seconds:
Israel boycott: This is outrageous: the government expects us to follow state-imposed sanctions against other countries and criminalises those who break its rules, and now it is to ban boycotts by public bodies at a local level against Israeli goods from illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian lands, which is completely at odds with their declared desire for evolution and local democracy. The Israelis produce specious and mendacious arguments that their record on human rights is wonderful, especially when compared with their neighbouring countries, and predictably accuse their critics of anti-Semitism. But those critics include many brave Jewish Israeli citizens, and they will not be silenced. And neither will those who oppose this latest government attack on our freedoms and our democracy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 74006.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/britain-ban-b ... 42177.html

Gullscorer wrote: When populations in any species become too big, nature has a way of fighting back; if we don't solve the problems, nature will do it for us.

This is almost word for word what Samuel L. Jackson says in Kingsman.

He is a step ahead of you though, instead of saying that only rich people should be allowed to breed he plans to solve climate and population issues by killing all of those horrid poor people.

Jerry wrote: This is almost word for word what Samuel L. Jackson says in Kingsman.
He is a step ahead of you though, instead of saying that only rich people should be allowed to breed he plans to solve climate and population issues by killing all of those horrid poor people.

Please read my comments again carefully and in context. I have never advocated killing anyone, nor have I advocated withholding support from children in need. I do believe we should tackle the causes of problems as well as the symptoms, but I have said I don’t know all the answers.

Jackson is an actor playing a fictitious villain in ‘Kingsman’. The words he speaks are not his. For you to imply that I might take the same obnoxious stance as this fictional villain is to resort to an ad hominem attack which indicates a paucity in your own contribution to the debate. However, I shall be delighted to see you prove me wrong.

Gullscorer wrote: Please read my comments again carefully and in context. I have never advocated killing anyone, nor have I advocated withholding support from children in need. I do believe we should tackle the causes of problems as well as the symptoms, but I have said I don’t know all the answers.

Jackson is an actor playing a fictitious villain in ‘Kingsman’. The words he speaks are not his. For you to imply that I might take the same obnoxious stance as this fictional villain is to resort to an ad hominem attack which indicates a paucity in your own contribution to the debate. However, I shall be delighted to see you prove me wrong.

Where exactly did I say that you advocated killing people? I said that a character in a film (and thanks for patronisingly pointing out his fictional nature) advocated this.

Neither did I say you wanted to withhold support from children. Your earlier comments implied that you believed that only the better off should procreate not that existing children should have no support.

And thanks for helping me win Gullscorer bingo this week, I had you down for your trademark use of the "ad hominem" phrase.

"Where exactly did I say that you advocated killing people? I said that a character in a film (and thanks for patronisingly pointing out his fictional nature) advocated this."
Yes, but why did you say it? I think we know why. Patronisingly? I kind of expected a word such as that from you; says more about yourself than about anything else. 'Helpfully' would have been better, since many people may not have seen or even heard of the film.

"Neither did I say you wanted to withhold support from children. Your earlier comments implied that you believed that only the better off should procreate not that existing children should have no support."
No they didn't. ("if people can't afford to have kids they should not be having them") Many young people put off having kids until they can afford it. This is simply common sense. I also said there are too many people in the world, which is true: this country is no longer self-sufficient in food, whilst many people around the world endure famine and starvation. Please explain how you think my comments, taken in context, imply what you say.

"And thanks for helping me win Gullscorer bingo this week, I had you down for your trademark use of the "ad hominem" phrase."
I always aim for accuracy and precision in my choice of words. I think I got it just about correct here. If it quacks like a duck...

Gullscorer wrote: "Neither did I say you wanted to withhold support from children. Your earlier comments implied that you believed that only the better off should procreate not that existing children should have no support."
No they didn't. ("To play the emotional 'help the poor children in need' card demonstrates a naïve and shallow misunderstanding of the issues.") Please explain how you think my comments imply what you say.

"Having kids is a choice and a privilege, not a right, nor do I agree it should be a right if it's paid for out of my taxes: Housing Benefit, Child Benefit, parental leave, and the rest. Contraceptives have been available for decades: if people can't afford to have kids they should not be having them"

Here you go.

Added in 4 minutes 15 seconds:

Gullscorer wrote:"Where exactly did I say that you advocated killing people? I said that a character in a film (and thanks for patronisingly pointing out his fictional nature) advocated this."
Yes, but why did you say it? I think we know why. Patronisingly? I kind of expected a word such as that from you; says more about yourself than about anything else. 'Helpfully' would have been better, since many people may not have seen or even heard of the film.

Just a bit of lighthearted banter, do you ever wonder if you take yourself a little bit too seriously?

Added in 2 minutes 31 seconds:

Gullscorer wrote: I kind of expected a word such as that from you; says more about yourself than about anything else.

"And thanks for helping me win Gullscorer bingo this week, I had you down for your trademark use of the "ad hominem" phrase."
I always aim for accuracy and precision in my choice of words. I think I got it just about correct here. If it quacks like a duck...

Pot and kettle?

Many young people put off having kids until they can afford it. This is simply common sense. I also said there are too many people in the world, which is true: this country is no longer self-sufficient in food, whilst many people around the world endure famine and starvation.
As for light-hearted banter, in addition to a correct choice of words, perhaps it would be wise to first consider whether jocularity is or is not appropriate? Of course, nobody gets it right all the time, not even me. ( ) Anyway, thanks for lightening up my day..

Gullscorer wrote:Many young people put off having kids until they can afford it. This is simply common sense. I also said there are too many people in the world, which is true: this country is no longer self-sufficient in food, whilst many people around the world endure famine and starvation.
As for light-hearted banter, perhaps it would be wise to first consider whether jocularity is or is not appropriate? Anyway, thanks for lightening up my day..

My pleasure. :~D

What's your stance on social housing G/S? I ask only because there are many people out there, certainly here in Guernsey who can't afford to buy a house and are, instead, "given" a house (paying a token rent) by the state.

The more fortunate in society should help the less fortunate, most people believe this, and it's no bad thing that such a stance should be formalised and institutionalised so that the less fortunate are given rights to such help, to give them the freedoms to put their lives back on track.

But in such a society, freedoms and rights should be accompanied by duties and responsibilities, something many people choose to forget. Housing the homeless is fine, but supporting young women who get themselves pregnant knowing they will be housed or will avoid prison, or lazy fathers with a dozen kids knowing they will never earn enough to keep them, are really issues we must not ignore.

Some common sense on the alleged gender pay gap::
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/beli ... ough-jobs/
http://judgybitch.com/2015/05/04/the-wa ... d-spoiled/

Gullscorer wrote: But in such a society, freedoms and rights should be accompanied by duties and responsibilities, something many people choose to forget. Housing the homeless is fine, but supporting young women who get themselves pregnant knowing they will be housed or will avoid prison, or lazy fathers with a dozen kids knowing they will never earn enough to keep them, are really issues we must not ignore.

Totally agree with your sentiment there, but, and we must all heed the warning, do not fall into the trap of tarring everyone with the same brush, there's a young family that live just up the road from me who have 5 children, all well clothed, clean and happy children, the husband works 6 days a week, I wonder how many people, or whether you your good self would label her as a benefit mum.

But my main point here in answer to yours, and this leads back to my post yesterday. No child wants or has the choice to be born, no child can choose it's parents or family.

No child should have to suffer because he/she was born to a benefits mum or lazy father, that's why to repeat, I'd give benefits for the children in the form of vouchers that are specific, and can only be exchanged for the items listed on the vouchers.

Please don't let it be Clinton.. http://www.cotwa.info/2016/03/when-man- ... n-for.html
The truth about the gender 'pay gap': http://www.businessinsider.com.au/stati ... men-2016-3
The top three lies..
Systemic sexism: (Good to hear Karen referring to the finding that five out of six men in British prisons wouldn't be there if men were treated as leniently in sentencing terms as women for the same crimes). This was first revealed by William Collins: http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=215
On the WEP: http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/beli ... the-girls/

Moral principles:
What they won't tell you:
Equal justice? https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/e ... -berriman/
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/beli ... old-girls/