Drug addicts paid £200 to not have children.

[butchersapron]

First he's the leader of a cult, and now he is channelling his own spirit and using it to attack you by the proxy of people replying to you. Have you ever seen his like before?

Finally unmasked.

 

[moon23]

"Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population.

"The way in which these effects are produced seems to be this. We will suppose the means of subsistence in any country just equal to the easy support of its inhabitants. The constant effort towards population... increases the number of people before the means of subsistence are increased. The food therefore which before supported seven millions must now be divided among seven millions and a half or eight millions. The poor consequently must live much worse, and many of them be reduced to severe distress. The number of labourers also being above the proportion of the work in the market, the price of labour must tend toward a decrease, while the price of provisions would at the same time tend to rise. The labourer therefore must work harder to earn the same as he did before. During this season of distress, the discouragements to marriage, and the difficulty of rearing a family are so great that population is at a stand. In the mean time the cheapness of labour, the plenty of labourers, and the necessity of an increased industry amongst them, encourage cultivators to employ more labour upon their land, to turn up fresh soil, and to manure and improve more completely what is already in tillage, till ultimately the means of subsistence become in the same proportion to the population as at the period from which we set out. The situation of the labourer being then again tolerably comfortable, the restraints to population are in some degree loosened, and the same retrograde and progressive movements with respect to happiness are repeated".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population

Read some of these articules, you will find them interesting

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C214

 

[moon23]

Finally unmasked.

Witch scum, worse then Lib Dem.

 

[moon23]

never thought i'd say this, but good posts moon.

I have printed this post and will forever frame it.

 

[i_got_poison]

Are you posting this stuff for a bet?

Ah well no reply to my taking your bizarre post apart with a mere 30 seconds effort.

now you're not even trying. you're posting for attention, reminiscent of a kid who needs to pee and holds his hand up in class.
if that's what it is butch, why don't you just do it where you are? if your mind is anything like your appearance, no one
will know the difference.

 

[frogwoman]

begone. destrpyer of worlds, lord of the underworld!!

 

[butchersapron]

is it really alarming? we're running out of resources. no one can deny this simple fact. note, it's only in the west, this problem exists. as most of the world
never had these things to begin with and are in abject poverty as a result.

Never had what things you incoherent ape? Only in the west what problems exists? Never had the resources which were and are being used to develop and sustain western lifestyles? Yes they did, that's exactly where most of the resources are plundered from. Only in the west a population 'problem' exists? The west is exactly where population levels are falling below replacement levels, it's precisely in the poor areas that they're soaring.

Get cracking.

And this

to plunder is to deprive someone of something, which infers they never had use of the resources in the first place.

is not only bizarrely wrong, it's also not any sort of reply.

 

[frogwoman]

get thee behind me, satan.

 

[i_got_poison]

Read some of these articules, you will find them interesting

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C214

i read the first one on burying malthus to save malthusianism. the criticism and the critques were so spurious and the article so badly written, some of the idiots
on here could've claimed authorship.

i get that malthus is a thoroughly reprehensible figure with opinions that are best left unsaid. but that doesn't preclude him, from ever, voicing a correct opinion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i get that malthus is a thoroughly reprehensible figure with opinions that are best left unsaid. but that doesn't preclude him, from ever, voicing a correct opinion.

Do you 'get' that Malthus was wrong?

 

[Streathamite]

now you're not even trying. you're posting for attention, reminiscent of a kid who needs to pee and holds his hand up in class.
if that's what it is butch, why don't you just do it where you are? if your mind is anything like your appearance, no one
will know the difference.

aaaand hey presto! bang on time, i_got_poison is getting bitchslapped in the debate, and he takes refuge in (laughably poor) insults.
God, you're so shit at this, and so predictable!

 

[frogwoman]

He's superior though. He's in government.

 

[Streathamite]

begone. destrpyer of worlds, lord of the underworld!!

fiery cross time, or is this actually Book Of Revelations season?
(though I REALLY can't see BA as Old Horny!)

 

[frogwoman]

better ask witchfinder general i_got_poison, he's the one who's saying (or appears to be saying) butchers is basically have us all reply to him by proxy.

earlier you couldn't bring yourself to quote my post and respond directly. instead you chose veiled attacks through posters i was responding to.

 

[Blagsta]

No. It is the secondary responsibility of the social services and other safeguarding agencies to pick up the pieces and do the best they can if, for whatever reason, the natural parents fail to adqeuately care for their child, something for which the primary responsibility is theirs.

No, you said it is fairly and squarely the parents. It isn't. It is also the responsibility of GPs, social services, midwives, health visitors etc. I thought you were a legal expert? You mus be familiar with Every Child Matters and the Children's Act 2004, surely?

If you are arguing that the responsibility of the social services and other safeguarding agencies is greater than that of the parents, or even equal to that of the parents then you are arguing that social services and other safeguarding agencies must have a say in the conception decision ... because they would then need to be able to ensure that they were in a position to adequately care for the child about to be born.

Why are you so reluctant to assign any personal responsibility to individuals? Do you really think the State should be so responsible for all aspects of everyone's lives?

a straw man, yesterday

 

[Blagsta]

umm, don't you think - what with humankind being fallible, and living messy lives, and all that - that in many individual cases it may not be as clear cut as that? THAT deprivation, lack of role models, poor education etc may all play their part in pregnancies happening that shouldn't happen but do?

It's not just with messy lives. Anyone like a GP or teacher etc that a child comes into contact with has a legal duty of care to that child. I'm surprised db doesn't know this.

 

[detective-boy]

You haven't infringed their rights, but your doctrine of pre-emptive intervention sets up the possibilty for it.

I. Have. No. Doctrine. Of. Pre-emptive. Intervention. For. This. Situation.

Why do you find this so bloody difficult to understand? Deal with what I actually SAY in the words that I actually POST, not what you gues / would like me to think / do.

How many times do I need to state it: it is a PRINCIPLE. I make no suggestion at all about whether or how it could or should be enforced. Because I can't see how it could be fairly and effectively enforced.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes that's correct, we don't condemn people for possibly causing harm. In the real world it is very rarely black & white whether will or won't be done, so you monitor children closely and intervene in the first sign of harm.

Sorry. That's both stupid and wrong. It must be better to prevent harm if there is an opportunity to do so rather than wait for harm to happen and then react to it. Would you really argue that we should stop doing all those things that we do to prevent harm before it happens in other situations?

 

[butchersapron]

...follow the logic through here. What is the action that is required to prevent harm? Sterilisation. Just admit it. We can all see it. Your posts make no sense without that being the assumption behind them - whether you're prepared to come out and say it or not.

 

[Blagsta]

I. Have. No. Doctrine. Of. Pre-emptive. Intervention. For. This. Situation.

Why do you find this so bloody difficult to understand? Deal with what I actually SAY in the words that I actually POST, not what you gues / would like me to think / do.

How many times do I need to state it: it is a PRINCIPLE. I make no suggestion at all about whether or how it could or should be enforced. Because I can't see how it could be fairly and effectively enforced.

What use is a principle with no grounding in reality?

 

[detective-boy]

I thought you were a legal expert? You mus be familiar with Every Child Matters and the Children's Act 2004, surely?

I've never claimed to be a "legal expert". My expertise is in applied policing and an aspect of that concerns a significant amount of (but by no means all) law.

I am perfectly familiar with Every Child Matters and the Children's Act 2004, thank you. They are the legal and procedural basis for the secondary responsibility of GPs, social services, etc. to care for children in situations where the parents have failed in their primary duty to do so (and in situations where the parents do not have direct influence and control, such as schools, etc.).

Have you never heard of s.1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933, legislation which puts the primary responsibility of the parents and carers on a statutory basis?

Tell me, why DO you argue that the parents should have no responsibility at all for the welfare of their child?

 

[detective-boy]

What use is a principle with no grounding in reality?

Are you really suggesting that there should be no principles, ethical, moral or whatever else, unless they can be, and have been, reduced into law?

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you really suggesting that there should be no principles, ethical, moral or whatever else, unless they can be, and have been, reduced into law?

i'm suggesting that you have difficulty understanding other people's posts and instead of answering them you respond to questions they haven't asked.

 

[Streathamite]

How many times do I need to state it: it is a PRINCIPLE. I make no suggestion at all about whether or how it could or should be enforced. Because I can't see how it could be fairly and effectively enforced.

what earthly good is a principle that can't have any realistic chance of a tangible transfer to a concrete reality?
e2a: Bugger blagsta got there first. GAAH!!

 

[Blagsta]

I've never claimed to be a "legal expert". My expertise is in applied policing and an aspect of that concerns a significant amount of (but by no means all) law.

I am perfectly familiar with Every Child Matters and the Children's Act 2004, thank you. They are the legal and procedural basis for the secondary responsibility of GPs, social services, etc. to care for children in situations where the parents have failed in their primary duty to do so (and in situations where the parents do not have direct influence and control, such as schools, etc.).

Have you never heard of s.1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933, legislation which puts the primary responsibility of the parents and carers on a statutory basis?

You do often claim to be a legal expert db. When anyone disagrees with you, you resort to an argument from (your own) authority.

You argued that responsibility is fairly and squarely with the parents. It doesn't, it also rests with teachers, GPs etc, who have a legal duty of care.

Tell me, why DO you argue that the parents should have no responsibility at all for the welfare of their child?

I'm not. This is a straw man. I guess integrity in debate is too much to ask from you?

 

[Blagsta]

Are you really suggesting that there should be no principles, ethical, moral or whatever else, unless they can be, and have been, reduced into law?

oh, look another integrity free post

 

[Streathamite]

Are you really suggesting that there should be no principles, ethical, moral or whatever else, unless they can be, and have been, reduced into law?

surely it's more the case that there's no point in having principles/beliefs/values which exist purely in the abstract.

 

[detective-boy]

You do often claim to be a legal expert db.

No. I have never claimed to be "legal expert". That is an outright lie. Please withdraw it.

You argued that responsibility is fairly and squarely with the parents. It doesn't, it also rests with teachers, GPs etc, who have a legal duty of care.

MORE lies. I have NEVER said that the ONLY responsibility for the welfare of a child is the parents. I have said the PRIMARY responsibility is the parents. You have totally ignored them and have only talked of the responsibility of others.

And, in any event, we have not been talking about the welfare of an existing child. We have been talking about the responsibility of ensuring that a child is only CONCEIVED when it is anticipated that it will be possible to provide an adqeuate level of care for it when it is born. My argument is that THAT is the principal responsibility of the parents. More so, in fact, than the responsibility for the welfare of a child once born is unless you want to get into a situation where GPs, social services, etc. get involved in a meeting with the parents and decide whether conception should be allowed.

I guess integrity in debate is too much to ask from you?

Judging by the extent of your lies and misrepresentation, you clearly wouldn't recognise integrity in debate if it stood up and slapped you.

 

[detective-boy]

surely it's more the case that there's no point in having principles/beliefs/values which exist purely in the abstract.

The don't exist purely in the abstract. Does our society not encourage parents to only have children when they are in a position to provide and care for them now?

 

[Blagsta]

No. I have never claimed to be "legal expert". That is an outright lie. Please withdraw it.

You claim to be an expert and hate being challenged.

MORE lies. I have NEVER said that the ONLY responsibility for the welfare of a child is the parents. I have said the PRIMARY responsibility is the parents. You have totally ignored them and have only talked of the responsibility of others.

No, you said "fairly and squarely". Actually, under the Children's Act 2004, Children's Services have the statutory duty to improve the well being of children. Teachers, GP's, social workers, drug workers etc all have a legal duty to put the child first, regardless.

And, in any event, we have not been talking about the welfare of an existing child. We have been talking about the responsibility of ensuring that a child is only CONCEIVED when it is anticipated that it will be possible to provide an adqeuate level of care for it when it is born. My argument is that THAT is the principal responsibility of the parents.

So it's not the responsibility of, say, the council to ensure that housing is adequate? (for example)

More so, in fact, than the responsibility for the welfare of a child once born is unless you want to get into a situation where GPs, social services, etc. get involved in a meeting with the parents and decide whether conception should be allowed.

This is exactly where you're heading with your argument.

Judging by the extent of your lies and misrepresentation, you clearly wouldn't recognise integrity in debate if it stood up and slapped you.

I believe that's called projection.