NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion > Politics
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 9th February 2011, 16:30     #81
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Derp.

If you don't think that this would limit the number of kids these people would have, then why the fuck suggest it as a solution!?!
*sigh* It wouldn't limit the number of children people have. I didn't say it would limit the number of children people have. It is a disincentive, that is all.

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.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 17:20     #82
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
You've gone from spouting on about limiting children in order to control overpopulation (and you were the only person talking about that)
O RLY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
to this idea that stopping additional dpb benefits after the third child would limit child birth.
Here's a crazy idea. Maybe there's a difference between setting a limit and limiting something? "(v. t.) A restriction; a check; a curb; a hindrance."
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSS
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.
Grown-ups? You're the most whiny, name-calling, temper-tantruming 'grown up' on here
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 17:21     #83
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
So your solution is to promote child birth amongst low income families and then get the tax payer to help fund them?

That's a dumb idea.
That's not my solution.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 17:42     #84
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
O RLY?
I put him in the same boat as you - a moron talking about population and thinking it's the same subject as what the Herald article referred to.

Quote:
Here's a crazy idea. Maybe there's a difference between setting a limit and limiting something? "(v. t.) A restriction; a check; a curb; a hindrance."

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:
Grown-ups? You're the most whiny, name-calling, temper-tantruming 'grown up' on here
In terms of having an adult thought process, you're definitely down at kindergarten level.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:02     #85
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
I put him in the same boat as you - a moron talking about population and thinking it's the same subject as what the Herald article referred to.
Oh so I was responding to someone now? Like I said you're wrong saying that I was "the only person talking about that".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
A limit on DPB payments is a different topic from limits on how many children you can have.

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:
Originally Posted by CCS
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.
It takes two to tango. Shame
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:04     #86
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
O RLY?
Let me break down my quote so you can understand it:

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?

Last edited by GM : 9th February 2011 at 18:07.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:10     #87
fixed_truth
 
Wow - getting called stupid by someone who even CCS thinks is a moron. Care-factor = 0
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:10     #88
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
O RLY?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
You've gone from spouting on about limiting children in order to control overpopulation (and you were the only person talking about that)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
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.
These 2 quotes do not relate to each other. Were do I say anything about over population? Where do I say anything about limiting children?

You = bowl of dicks
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:11     #89
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Wow - getting called stupid by someone who even CCS thinks is a moron. Care-factor = 0
You care enough to post, perhaps you're still feeling sore about being owned like a little bitch in the polling thread.

Pfft 'sif CCS is any kind of scholar.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:21     #90
MadMax
Stuff
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocos
Not yet, no. However population growth is not necessarily a good thing - it's a matter of finding a balance. On the other hand, capaitalist economics are based on continual population growth...
the number of workers that we need to import speaks volumes on this subject.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:26     #91
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Oh so I was responding to someone now? Like I said you're wrong saying that I was "the only person talking about that".

So, looking back on your comments it looks as though he was right, and you were wrong.

Doesn't make him any less of a moron and now it makes you look twice as stupid.

Last edited by GM : 9th February 2011 at 18:27.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 18:55     #92
fixed_truth
 
YUO=LAME

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
These 2 quotes do not relate to each other. Were do I say anything about over population? Where do I say anything about limiting children?
You stated that poor people are having too many children and it is an unfair burden on society. You then suggest that people be asked to be more sustainable with population. How is this not asking them to limit children? (and remember kids, we're talking about limit as in restrict or curb). How can people having too many children populate more sustainably without decreasing the number of kids the have?

Lemme guess? You're another 6th form drop out?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:00     #93
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Oh so I was responding to someone now? Like I said you're wrong saying that I was "the only person talking about that".


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)
No it won't. It won't restrict in any way, shape or form how many kids they can have. It will provide a FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE. That is all. What part of this do you not understand? Curtail peoples' benefits and they can still have children regardless so THERE IS NO LIMIT IN EFFECT.


Quote:
It takes two to tango. Shame
The problem here is that I'm Krumping and you're all like "durrrrrr duuuururrrr ddddduuuuuuurrrrr let's tango duuuuurrrrrr!"
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:00     #94
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
You care enough to post, perhaps you're still feeling sore about being owned like a little bitch in the polling thread.

Pfft 'sif CCS is any kind of scholar.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:02     #95
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Rolling eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
Lemme guess? You're another 6th form drop out?
Ironic coming from you.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:09     #96
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
You stated that poor people are having too many children and it is an unfair burden on society. You then suggest that people be asked to be more sustainable with population. How is this not asking them to limit children? (and remember kids, we're talking about limit as in restrict or curb). How can people having too many children populate more sustainably without decreasing the number of kids the have?
"decreasing the number of kids you have? wtf?

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:10     #97
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
No it won't. It won't restrict in any way, shape or form how many kids they can have. It will provide a FINANCIAL DISINCENTIVE. That is all. What part of this do you not understand? Curtail peoples' benefits and they can still have children regardless so THERE IS NO LIMIT IN EFFECT.

Wat? A disincentive discourages a targeted action. So if "THERE IS NO LIMIT IN EFFECT"
Quote:
Originally Posted by dictionary
Limit (v. t.) A restriction; a check; a curb; a hindrance."
then how exactly is it a disincentive if in effect people aren't having less children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
The problem here is that I'm Krumping and you're all like "durrrrrr duuuururrrr ddddduuuuuuurrrrr let's tango duuuuurrrrrr!"
Niggah please. You're way too white to dance.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:13     #98
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM
"decreasing the number of kids you have? wtf?
You suggested that people having too many kids be asked to be more sustainable with population. Does this not involve them having less kids?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:14     #99
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
Ironic coming from you.
What's ironic about that?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:17     #100
GM
 
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:22     #101
fixed_truth
 
So you didn't suggest that people having too many kids be asked to be more sustainable with population?
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)]
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.

Last edited by fixed_truth : 9th February 2011 at 19:23.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:23     #102
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
lol this isn't that game on who's line is it anyway where you can only respond in a question.

If you've got an opinion on the matter then speak up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:46     #103
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
So you didn't suggest that people having too many kids be asked to be more sustainable with population?
*sigh* after your ninja edit

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.

Last edited by GM : 9th February 2011 at 19:48.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 19:47     #104
crocos
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rince
has Sue Bradford got nothing better to do?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4636...etition-appals
(and LOL at Stuff's spelling error in the URL/page title)
, Bradford.

Oh and this amused me:
Quote:
The Rock programme director, Brad King[...]
Apparently Saus got a new job...
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N

وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 20:26     #105
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Wat? A disincentive discourages a targeted action. So if "THERE IS NO LIMIT IN EFFECT"
How can you not understand this? How can you be this stupid? You must be trolling right now.

Quote:
then how exactly is it a disincentive if in effect people aren't having less children?
The same way that a fine is a disincentive for driving in the bus lane. But people still do it.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 21:45     #106
crocos
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
You must be trolling right now.
You're willing to give him that much credit?
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N

وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 21:46     #107
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
How can you not understand this? How can you be this stupid? You must be trolling right now.
The same way that a fine is a disincentive for driving in the bus lane. But people still do it.
I've got my suspicions that you're trolling me.

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.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 22:16     #108
chiQ
Frag-muff
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
People still drive in a bus lane but overall a lot of less people don't.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 23:27     #109
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
A reduction isn't the same as a limit. Unless you're retarded.

Another lolspeed trick you're employing: semantic argument.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 23:30     #110
Lightspeed
 
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 23:35     #111
chiQ
Frag-muff
 
Oh come on, guys. Stand back and just soak that sentence up. It's a work of art.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2011, 23:45     #112
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Rolling eyes

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?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 06:06     #113
Jodi
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
I hope you're not going to do a classic Lolspeed trick and start arguing about what we're arguing about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 08:11     #114
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
A reduction isn't the same as a limit. Unless you're retarded.

Another lolspeed trick you're employing: semantic argument.
Well I did give a dictionary definition that supports this usage. But yes we are arguing semantics now. Ima leave it here.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 09:59     #115
fixed_truth
 
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.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 10:49     #116
Lightspeed
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
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.
You take arguments in a particular direction. If you need evidence, there's a forum called NZGames.com. You'll find arguments there that devolve into semantics and you'll find a common theme. A poster by the alias CCS.

It's true I might be intellectually dishonest, but it seems only in the context of you, CCS.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 12:37     #117
tilde
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
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.
i think a more pertinent aim would be breaking the poverty cycle with the limited funds and resources available in govt coffers at the time.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 13:56     #118
fixed_truth
 
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!
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 14:03     #119
GM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
shift the responsibility to the irresponsible.
I think the colloquial phrase for that is: Wake up call.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2011, 14:36     #120
fixed_truth
 
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?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)