Politics

[Guest alex]

While I genuinely pity the kids in such a scenario I think it's a fucking massive liberty having that many kids when you can't afford to provide for them. And plenty people do that - start having kids at 15-16, and keep going without ever having a job. I don't know what the answer is but I think the current system actually encourages that sort of behaviour. It's a free ticket to housing, benefits, etc. We have to stop incentivising that sort of behaviour. For the sake of society and, ultimately, the planet's resources.

 

One of the few right wing/Sci-fi ideas I subscribe to as I've said before is global sterilisation with the antidote on licence - probably a few years away practically as well as ethically.

 

As you say any "punishment" at the monent takes it out on the kids rather than the breeders - maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

And any punishing measures only perpetuate social problems. I think Labour are partly to blame and I think the last Conservative government are too. They basically started it with their policies in the 80s that created the first generations of people who had little or no hope of finding work. Labour changed that to an extent but they probably made it a 'cushier number' on the dole. In a way that solves some social problems but it's obviously creating others at the same time. I'm not sure it'll ever be solved, short of the 'Brave New World' type of solution you give. I have no problem with your solution btw. Manc-mag mentioned it recently too and while, like him, it's way off my usual civil liberties / human rights standpoint, I think it's the human rights of the kids / future generations that should override ones desire to have kids without any concern for the consequences.

[NJS 4386]

While I genuinely pity the kids in such a scenario I think it's a fucking massive liberty having that many kids when you can't afford to provide for them. And plenty people do that - start having kids at 15-16, and keep going without ever having a job. I don't know what the answer is but I think the current system actually encourages that sort of behaviour. It's a free ticket to housing, benefits, etc. We have to stop incentivising that sort of behaviour. For the sake of society and, ultimately, the planet's resources.

 

One of the few right wing/Sci-fi ideas I subscribe to as I've said before is global sterilisation with the antidote on licence - probably a few years away practically as well as ethically.

 

As you say any "punishment" at the monent takes it out on the kids rather than the breeders - maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

And any punishing measures only perpetuate social problems. I think Labour are partly to blame and I think the last Conservative government are too. They basically started it with their policies in the 80s that created the first generations of people who had little or no hope of finding work. Labour changed that to an extent but they probably made it a 'cushier number' on the dole. In a way that solves some social problems but it's obviously creating others at the same time. I'm not sure it'll ever be solved, short of the 'Brave New World' type of solution you give. I have no problem with your solution btw. Manc-mag mentioned it recently too and while, like him, it's way off my usual civil liberties / human rights standpoint, I think it's the human rights of the kids / future generations that should override ones desire to have kids without any concern for the consequences.

 

The groundowrk certainly started in the 80s - though even when I was at school with a finish date minus 6th form of 1980, I can remember talk for a few years before that of the possibility of life as a "dole wallah" so maybe it was just a post-war inevitibility that we'd have mass unemployment as society changed.

 

I freely admit that Labour propogated Thatcher's policy in the area because as I said economics now seems to demand someething to keep wages low - maybe that's now been superceded by immigration so we could run with "full" employment again in the future. I also think that the ease of credit before the last two years contributed in giving people on low incomes a lifestyle that was really beyond them in harsh practical terms which now means people seeing people on benefits with plasmas etc which irks.

 

As a lefty I've always known that this area was troublesome - spending most of my life in the North East certainly exposes you to people who at times make you question why you should care about them but I think you have to get beyond that. Even with limitations on breeding, I've always found it hard to think of practical policies that would end the generations of "scum" we know exist but I'd like to think people will continue to try and not just wrote them off.

 

I think writing them off will lead to eventual serious civil unrest.

[AgentAxeman 178]

maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

 

 

maybe a tad harsh

 

why not issue food stamps? it would ensure the money provided goes on what it was intended for and not white lightning and tabs. and it would certainly be an incentive to get people away from the dependence lifestyle.

[NJS 4386]

maybe the Victorians had it right with the workhouses.

 

 

maybe a tad harsh

 

 

Well if the Yanks can use their vast prison population as slave labour then we could combine that with my other "idea" which I use to repond to paedo hysteria of taking all kids into camps at birth and releasing them at 16 to produce a prison/workhouse/education/slave labour utopia.

 

why not issue food stamps? it would ensure the money provided goes on what it was intended for and not white lightning and tabs. and it would certainly be an incentive to get people away from the dependence lifestyle.

 

Unfortunately it would have to be policed to a nazi level - you'd have traders in food stamps and street sellers selling cider for stamps so you'd have to tie them to people and shops against a record of purchases. Sounds good in theory though.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

 

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

 

 

Let me get this straight CT, are you admitting you are, like me, biased, or are you suggesting the fact that you are a 'dyed in the wool' tory does not affect your personal opinion?

 

Im saying that I dont let my political tilting get in the way of discussing policy details. I have said this to you on numerous occasions but you dont seem to comprehend it.

 

Even Tory and Labour back benchers dont agree with everything their partys say or do, just because their in that party.

 

Going back to the original Targets conversation, I started by asking for your inside opinion, NOT spouting that it was definitely the right idea.

 

Nothing wrong with bias but when Newcastle get thumped five nil off Liverpool, I dont claim we were the better side.

 

Well, either you are deluded, or you don't understand what bias is. Your political outlook will naturally temper any political discussion, how could it be any other way? You are no different to me in this respect apart from the fact you can't see it.

 

Theres a great deal of difference between tempering an outlook and bias.

 

Your accusations that Cameron will cut the NHS budget even though they have announced they wont is bias.

 

Your accusations that he is bullshitting about the Cancer drug fund, even though it is shortly to come into existance is bias.

 

Im surprised you cant see the difference to be honest.

 

You should look first of all at whether the idea is a good one first, not which party suggested it.

[AgentAxeman 178]

You should look first of all at whether the idea is a good one first, not which party suggested it.

 

 

Very true, however a lot of people on here (of both sides) are led by blind hatred.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Bridget elected onto Home affairs select committee.

[Guest alex]

Bridget elected onto Home affairs select committee.

You'll be telling passengers you know her well and what a sound lass she is no doubt

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Bridget elected onto Home affairs select committee.

You'll be telling passengers you know her well and what a sound lass she is no doubt

 

 

Only after she see's sense and switches sides I did notice a moment between her at Cameron at PMQ's the other week.

 

I am following her on twitter though to see what sort of stuff she comes out with. Hasnt knocked the budget yet. Must still be waiting for the email.

[The Fish 10857]

 

 

Bollox. Dont let that put you off. Quite a few posters on here simply cant address an issue without first putting the party bias glasses on. They slip into the politicians trick of old rhetoric and bluffaw! The more people posting about the issues of the day and giving their own honest opinion the better. But you tend to give other peoples opinion?

 

Cheap shot I give my own, ask others and look up issues that I dont have all the facts on. I personally think other informed opinions add to the discussion.

 

 

Im one of the few Tories on here "out of the closet" so of course my views will be in the minority to the younger more radical posters. However I come at the argument from an honest personal opinion first. So finally, FINALLY you admit bias

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry731449

You might remember this post from April where I said I was a dyed in the wool Tory. But hey, dont let facts get in the way.

 

See this is the sticking point for me. You say you're a dyed in the wool Tory, then claim to be the only person on here to be entirely objective.

 

facts are that you cannot possibly call yourself a dyed in the wool Tory, Labour or anything and then claim a lack of bias!

 

If you were a floating voter, then I'd say fair-dos, but you've insisted you're un-biased Tory. It's axiomatically impossible.

[ChezGiven 0]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

Edited June 24, 2010 by ChezGiven

[Guest alex]

You should look first of all at whether the idea is a good one first, not which party suggested it.

 

 

Very true, however a lot of people on here (of both sides) are led by blind hatred.

I'd like to think you two are sending yourselves up there. I doubt it somehow though

[The Fish 10857]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

[manc-mag 1]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

 

Annoyingly erudite as ever.

[Renton 21627]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

 

 

Politics is entirely subjective, or 'normative' as an economist might call it. It's based on values and beliefs, not provable facts. That CT can't see this is quite telling.

[ChezGiven 0]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

 

Annoyingly erudite as ever.

 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

 

 

Agreed, but politics these days is about the centre, not right and left therefore all parties and there policies are so much more the same than in years gone by.

 

That is a fact.

 

It should therefore be so much easier for anyone to look at an idea and judge it good or bad, without knowing or caring who thought it up.

 

Over the last 20 years there are examples of great ideas / policies from both parties that most of us now take for granted and agree with.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

 

 

See your just making stuff up now Fish. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and that you really do want to discuss politics, but your more interested in me than the budget etc etc etc.

 

I have said many times there are lots than Labour has done I agree with and lots that the conservatives have done that I dont agree with.

 

The fact that you choose to overlook this highlights your real agenda.

 

Shame.

[Guest alex]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

 

 

See your just making stuff up now Fish. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and that you really do want to discuss politics, but your more interested in me than the budget etc etc etc.

 

I have said many times there are lots than Labour has done I agree with and lots that the conservatives have done that I dont agree with.

 

The fact that you choose to overlook this highlights your real agenda.

 

Shame.

Have you provided any examples to back up the bit in bold though?

[The Fish 10857]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

 

 

See your just making stuff up now Fish. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and that you really do want to discuss politics, but your more interested in me than the budget etc etc etc.

 

I have said many times there are lots than Labour has done I agree with and lots that the conservatives have done that I dont agree with.

 

The fact that you choose to overlook this highlights your real agenda.

 

Shame.

 

My agenda?

 

My agenda has been to highlight your hypocrisy, which I did. That's all. I'm not some Machiavellian schemer, I just couldn't stomach "the most objective person on here" showing no objectivity.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

This debate about bias is bollocks since a fundamental truth about the right and left is that their philosophies and policies lead to different outcomes. Always have done, always will do.

 

The preference to have a redistributive, egalitarian society where built-in injustices (starting points) are actively addressed isnt a bias, its a principle.

I think the problem is that to call yourself objective AND a dyed in the wool Tory is a fallacy. I don't care if CT is a tory, it's that he espouses their policies, demonises anything Labour and then claims impartiality.

 

it's the hypocrisy, not the bias.

 

 

See your just making stuff up now Fish. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and that you really do want to discuss politics, but your more interested in me than the budget etc etc etc.

 

I have said many times there are lots than Labour has done I agree with and lots that the conservatives have done that I dont agree with.

 

The fact that you choose to overlook this highlights your real agenda.

 

Shame.

Have you provided any examples to back up the bit in bold though?

 

 

Im sure you of all people can go and get them should you wish

[Guest alex]

Pretty telling if you can't though.

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/2...cession-warning

 

G20 summit: Rifts in Toronto as US warns EU of double-dip recession risk

 

The 'Austerians' are being led by the puritanical Germans who see balanced budgets as virtuous, the 'Stimulants' have some traction with Obama now.

[spongebob toonpants 3997]

George Soros, who I believe has some sort of track record warning of the dangers of too much austerity

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currenc...-leave-EMU.html

 

Its going to be interesting if the Tory mantra of reassuring the markets changes when the markets decide recession is a comin'

[Renton 21627]

The Times pointed out that regionalised 'double dip' recessions can occur. Guess where this will affect in the UK?