Quote:
You've gone from spouting on about limiting children in order to control overpopulation (and you were the only person talking about that) to this idea that stopping additional dpb benefits after the third child would limit child birth. Honestly, what the fuck is it with you and this idea of limiting children? I started off by quoting that article and being very careful with my wording so as not to suggest that I think there should be a limit on how many children a family can have and you've taken it and come up with this idea that we're now talking about a formal limit on children! And where the fuck did you get this idea that anybody here is arguing that there is an overpopulation problem? It's almost as though you heard some grown-ups talking about population and you thought "I have some opinions on overpopulation!" and started to chime in. What a fucken dummy. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
A limit on DPB payments is a different topic from limits on how many children you can have. It is the latter subject that you were talking about. I notice now you're doing the lolspeed trick of arguing about what we're arguing about because you don't have anything intelligent to say. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
A limit on DPB payments will limit how many kids someone can have - limit as in restrict (just so your hs educated ass doesn't get confused again) Quote:
|
Quote:
We're [Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject ie. we as individuals] asked to be sustainable when it comes to the Earth's resources [people being asked to (not required!) recycle], I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same for population [Not forced, but ASKED (key difference)] Wow you are stupid. How do you even breathe? |
Wow - getting called stupid by someone who even CCS thinks is a moron. Care-factor = 0
|
Quote:
You = bowl of dicks |
Quote:
Pfft 'sif CCS is any kind of scholar. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Doesn't make him any less of a moron and now it makes you look twice as stupid. |
Quote:
Lemme guess? You're another 6th form drop out? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you want to try and backtrack your retardedness by mis-quoting, making massive assumptions, plain lying and talking shit then I cannot stop you. It seems to me that you are losing an argument that we are not even having. I didn't think it possible but here we are. |
Quote:
Wat? A disincentive discourages a targeted action. So if "THERE IS NO LIMIT IN EFFECT" Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Flailing pretty much sums up your post style at this point.
By the way, you should try asking someone to decrease the number of children they have before asking me to point out what is wrong with that statement. |
So you didn't suggest that people having too many kids be asked to be more sustainable with population?
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I did not suggest people with too many kids be asked to be more sustainable with population. I said: "We're asked to be sustainable when it comes to the Earth's resources, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same for population." Look, I realise that in your mind you think you have grip on the conversation and you're doing everything you can to sustain that delusion. But now I'm bored of having to repeat myself to you and reply to your stupid questions that have little to do with the subject matter. |
Quote:
Oh and this amused me: Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
People still drive in a bus lane but overall a lot of less people don't. That is the whole aim of a disincentive. To limit (reduce) the number of people doing this. |
Quote:
|
A reduction isn't the same as a limit. Unless you're retarded.
Another lolspeed trick you're employing: semantic argument. |
Many believe that language is a subjective perception.
And you invoke people into semantic arguments, CCS, and then step back and point as if you were never involved. |
Oh come on, guys. Stand back and just soak that sentence up. It's a work of art.
|
Uhhh... no, that's completely wrong. I invoke people into arguments? Like, I'm somehow forcing them to argue about things they don't want to argue about? What a load of fucking nonsense.
Look, I posted an article about a woman who is so poor she can't afford to give her children a decent life and now she's just had a sixth child and is whinging that the government hasn't done anything for her. I made some suggestions about how people in that position could be discouraged from having more children than they can handle (free tube tying!). It takes a special kind of retard - namely fixed_truth and a few others - to go from that to "You're suggesting that people be limited to how many children they have! That's population control! We don't even have an overpopulation problem!" Like I said, a special kind of retard. It's as though fixed_truth reads my post, feels like he needs to formulate an argument (because he certainly couldn't agree with me!) and despite thinking hard about it, can't come up with an argument. So instead he looks at the buzzwords and searches his memory banks. "Hmmm... population... birth... OMG, CHILD LIMITS TO CONTROL POPULATION! JUST LIKE RED FUCKING CHINA! Thanks buzzwords, you've saved the day again!" It's just a shame that people like Lolspeed and fixed_truth are too intellectually dishonest to actually debate what it is I've said and instead try to completely misinterpret my words. I guess it makes it easier to formulate an argument, but it's a most disingenuous way of doing it, isn't it? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So moving on.
If we're going to draw an arbitrary line at more than 3 kids being "too many", then how to make this a reality? I don't think that providing Govt. assistance only up to 3 kids is a very good idea. Yes it would limit . . . I mean curb some behaviour but at the same time it's unjust to all the kids in families with more than 3. I think the contraception incentive is a good idea but the crux of the issue is breaking the poverty cycle. This means limiting negative parent & peer influence so therefore investment in education and the right social services is the key. |
Quote:
It's true I might be intellectually dishonest, but it seems only in the context of you, CCS. |
Quote:
while i agree with your philosophy, the reality is the avenue that costs the least will be the path taken. in this regard, a discentive is easier to implement than education. :( |
Well the limited funds & resources issue is more about priorities, so yeah with this Govt. not much will change. And yeah a disincentive would be easier because then the Govt. doesn't have to actually do anything but shift the responsibility to the irresponsible. As mentioned a side-effect of this type of financial disincentive is that a lot of kids will suffer. I can't see it being endorsed by any child advocacy groups!
|
Quote:
|
Or if they can’t keep their legs closed, they shouldn’t come begging from me?
Just out of interest, what do you think is the purpose of the DPB? |
All times are GMT +13. The time now is 21:35. |
Powered by Trololololooooo
© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2024
Site paid for by members (love you guys)