Asylum Seekers; Yay or Nay?

[Scouse]

I knew we were having a child but how the fuck are you meant to know how hard it is until they arrive? Of course you have to do it once your kid arrives, if you are a decent parent that is. You choose to have a kid like you choose to have a house which in turn means you *have* to have a job. Your reasoning is riddled with AIDS.

Just reread this - was away on one of my child-free weekends when you posted it.

What an absolute pile of toss m8. You know exactly how hard it is to have a child because A) you were one once and you knew what your parents do, B) you've seen other parents with their kids tearing their hair out, C) you've lost your mates to their families as, rightly, they've more important all-life-consuming-things to do than come out and have fun any more, D) a billion other things that aren't that hard to imagine.

You also need to have a house to live in, unless you think homelessness is a reasonable choice? But you can wear a condom, go on the pill, have the fucking thing aborted if those options didn't work. Having kids is an utterly avoidable lifestyle choice.

Fuck the bazillions of parents who have them and immediately become either "woe is me" or "you're missing out". I don't want to hear them whine about their choices. I chose NOT to have them but I don't lord it over them how great my life is and how much happier I am than them because I went "hey, you know what, my life has meaning without a brat" - because neither position is intrinsically better than the other - and the science backs that up.


I could go on for weeks because of the amount of sanctamonious pricks who say stuff like "you don't become a man until you've had kids" or try to assert some kind of superiority over people who've made different lifestyle choices (and I think they mainly do that because they need to justify their jealousy over the freedom of choice that the childless have). But live and let live eh? Kids are a lifestyle choice. And as long as people aren't saying "I deserve more than you because of my lifestyle choice" then I'm fine with whatever people want.

But if you're struggling to make ends meet because you had kids then tough titties tbh. Healthcare/Education > childcare any day.

 

[Scouse]

May come across as a bit ranty there. Only because I met one of those sanctamonious pricks today. She's my second cousin and for twenty years she's been saying "why don't you get married and have kids".

I finally pointed out that my current relationship has lasted longer than her last two marriages but held back from saying that her kid is a spoiled hateful little oik who I'm pretty sure does't even like her

 

[DaGaffer]

What an absolute pile of toss m8. You know exactly how hard it is to have a child because A) you were one once and you knew what your parents do, B) you've seen other parents with their kids tearing their hair out, C) you've lost your mates to their families as, rightly, they've more important all-life-consuming-things to do than come out and have fun any more, D) a billion other things that aren't that hard to imagine.

You don't half talk shite. A. Do me favour. No kid actually notices what their parents do for them, and certainly not what they spend on them, even when parents remind of the fact ad nauseum (file under "I didn't ask to be born" teenagers). B. Other parents, yes you see it, but like everything in life, seeing and experiencing are not remotely the same; watching a bungy jump isn't scary, doing a bungy jump is very scary. C. Yes, you may see that, and you may wonder about the fact that most of them say its worth it, unless you're a self-obsessed narcissist. D. See point B, imagining isn't doing.

But if you're struggling to make ends meet because you had kids then tough titties tbh. Healthcare/Education > childcare any day.

The logical flaw in your argument is that its a bad economic argument; childcare has been proven elsewhere (e.g. Germany, Scandinavia) to pay for itself. And for such a commie you aren't half a selfish cunt when it comes to societal welfare.

 

[Job]

Women should look after their own kids and men should be the bread winners...two income families just put the house prices up for everyone and singles can't buy a house, don't start me on the effects of treating your kids an an inconvenience that the government should chip in to help you keep them in playstations

 

[Ormorof]

What year is this?

 

[DaGaffer]

Women should look after their own kids and men should be the bread winners...two income families just put the house prices up for everyone and singles can't buy a house, don't start me on the effects of treating your kids an an inconvenience that the government should chip in to help you keep them in playstations

I know you're a bit of an idiot, but do you have to constantly prove it? "I know let's leave a skilled workforce at home because...I'm from 1932. It's alright though we can bring in chaps from the colonies instead. I hear there's a few heading our way from Mesopotamia"


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

 

[Job]

Ok, it doesn't have to be the woman, but one of you needs to adopt the role as parent, it's the never ending cycle of keeping up with the joneses and the increasing snobbery about being a home carer, every woman has to be frickin trying to climb the employment ladder and if you're not then you're a loser.
We now live in a society where it us preferable to work to buy more shit than look after your kids.
Even your reaction here shows how brainwashed we are to earning more money.

 

[Gwadien]

@Scouse you're a minority in this, and any governments should do what they can to help the majority and then consider the opposite minority; the fact of the matter is that with our (going for @Job approach here) carebear society we think that it's impossible for people who are trained in looking after kids to only be able to look after a very small amount - from the ages from like 9 months all the way up to 4-5 I think, it may even continue after this all the way up to child minders during primary school - its ridiculous.

I think if people are saying 'spent tax payers money on the issue so its cheaper to send kids to nursery and stuff' - I think they're wrong, but not the same reasons that Scouse pointed out.

1 adult will easily be able to look after a large herd of 4 year olds, new borns, perhaps not, but 4 year olds are largely self sufficient, if you do this, nurseries will make more money, charge parents less, and pay the staff more.

I haven't read up about it in detail, but I am aware that the ratios are some what ridiculous, considering as soon as you get to around 6-7 someone who went to University can suddenly control 30+.

I think you're just angry and ranting because this doesn't follow your usual socialist agenda. I fear you're being selfish, comrade.

 

[Gwadien]

Ok, it doesn't have to be the woman, but one of you needs to adopt the role as parent, it's the never ending cycle of keeping up with the joneses and the increasing snobbery about being a home carer, every woman has to be frickin trying to climb the employment ladder and if you're not then you're a loser.
We now live in a society where it us preferable to work to buy more shit than look after your kids.
Even your reaction here shows how brainwashed we are to earning more money.

Meh its also about practicalities, if you have a kid at a young age, you both have to work in order to move out of your parents house - there's no other two ways about it.

 

[Raven]

There is the argument that perhaps you shouldn't have a kid at an early age, if you can't afford it.

 

[Gwadien]

There is the argument that perhaps you shouldn't have a kid at an early age, if you can't afford it.

Shit happens, and it always has, difference is that 50 years ago my grandparents could still get a nice house and stuff on my grandads wage working in a power station.

Not now.

Give the tools for young families to be self sufficient, then you don't have to moan at them for being reliant on the state.

 

[Scouse]

No kid actually notices what their parents do for them, and certainly not what they spend on them, even when parents remind of the fact ad nauseum (file under "I didn't ask to be born" teenagers)

Kids aren't aware, but adults certainly are. Some humans have this uncanny thing called memory which can be looked back on and evaluated. I'm certainly hugely aware of what my mum gave up and how hard she worked after my dad died. So what if I've not "experienced" the exact emotional rollercoaster she went through? You know enough and have experienced enough to make a perfectly well-informed decision.

You're just repeating the conceit of parents - you guys chose that rollercoaster and those that choose not to have kids do it in the knowledge that the rollercoaster isn't worth the sacrfice for them. Who cares if parents find it worth it? People who've chosen not to have kids know that they wouldn't. - different people, different strokes, capiche?

C. Yes, you may see that, and you may wonder about the fact that most of them say its worth it, unless you're a self-obsessed narcissist

Yes, most. I know more than one set of parents who seriously wonder whether what they gave up was worth it. I know one pair that are utterly convinced it wasn't and feel that they only got their lives back when their kids left and are now happier than they've ever been.

But if we're calling all of those that don't want kids self-obsessed narcissists (which is a bit rich) then you could easily level other things at people who do - the many parents who think that people without kids must have empty lives, or that you're "missing out" (I've lost count the number of times I've heard that). It's because they had empty lives before they had them and I can tell them that they are 100% missing out now they've got them.

You just can't imagine how much you're missing out by having kids. Oh, well, you can imagine but that's not the same as actually experiencing a life of freedom. It's not remotely the same.

If memories do actually count then memories of the little sliver of life you got before the shits came along isn't much of a memory because all most people did was get drunk and fuck around in a desparate search to find the person they'd have kids with and as soon as they found that person they banged out a couple and instantly became different animals - full time supplicants to their children's needs.


But maybe we can decide that the childless aren't all self-obsessed narcissists and that parents aren't all weak-willed sanctamonious pricks. Perhaps they're simply different people who've chosen different lifestyles and neither is morally superior than the other?


Anyway - this is the actually interesting stuff:

The logical flaw in your argument is that its a bad economic argument; childcare has been proven elsewhere (e.g. Germany, Scandinavia) to pay for itself. And for such a commie you aren't half a selfish cunt when it comes to societal welfare.

I understand that completely, but we don't live in my socialist utopia (where childcare, education and healthcare would be free for all). We live in a Tory-voting 'democracy' in a horrendously unequal society with a finite amount of money to go around.

(Finite for the general public anyway)

Our "economically competent" Tory government must have decided that the maths don't add up or they'd do it, right? Instead they've decided that the finite (and shrinking) amount of money we have needs to go on education and healthcare.

Even if we could claw the money back you can't make that initial spend in the first place as you'd have to cut healthcare or education budgets to free up the up-front cash to spend on it. (The vast majority of people on here want £100bn spending on Trident so we'll ring-fence that eh?)

So, no. I'm not a selfish cunt. Parents are. They've made their choice but they want an easier life and they think that cutting social welfare spending for other people is the way to go because, you know, "kids".

But fuck that - kids was their choice - so it's their pain to deal with. That's how it is in this economy.

Unless, of course, you want to unite behind me and push for a better social and societal deal for all - systemic change. Eh comrade?


As for @Job's post:

I know let's leave a skilled workforce at home because...I'm from 1932.

I agree with your "women know your limits" point (@Job, really? You should know better - or maybe you're just not good at following through better alternatives to your ideas?)

But I do agree with his point that a single breadwinner used to earn enough to put a roof over a family and food on their table. What predictably happened with the empowerment of women (which is a good thing) is that that addtional skilled labour pool has been used to drive wages down so much that a single breadwinner just doesn't cut it any more (the profits went up the chain instead).

So now you have two people out at work yet unable to pay for the necessary childcare. Their life choice has become a bit untenable in this economy. Which is wrong* - a single wage should be enough for the necessities - two wages for extravagances because of the sacrifice one of those parents have made in giving up raising their child full-time. And something should be done about that. So we're back to my "utopia"...




Anyway. Queue the cheap seats with accusations of filibustering and "omg textwall" from people who can't (or don't want to) follow an argument...

*edit: unless you're Raven and think economics should trump such a basic function of all life. (Do you really think people should change rather than the economic system?)

 

[DaGaffer]

There is the argument that perhaps you shouldn't have a kid at an early age, if you can't afford it.

And the average age of mothers reflects that; its got 10 years older in the last 30 years.

 

[Raven]

*edit: unless you're Raven and think economics should trump such a basic function of all life. (Do you really think people should change rather than the economic system?)

What are you wittering on about now? I didn't say never have kids, I said people could choose not to have them so young. If you haven't got the means to look after a child then you should not have them. Why should I pay for someone elses lifestyle choice?

 

[Gwadien]

*edit: unless you're Raven and think economics should trump such a basic function of all life. (Do you really think people should change rather than the economic system?)

So you're criticising the economy for not allowing families to have children and a decent economic position but at the same time criticising families who think that having children is a necessity?

I'm kind of confused with what you're saying, to me, where you and Raven are coming from are very similar places, id even consider your position even more selfish than Raven.

Basic function of life includes reproduction

 

[Scouse]

So you're criticising the economy for not allowing families to have children and a decent economic position but at the same time criticising families who think that having children is a necessity?

Yes. Neither's mutually exclusive.

You should be free to choose to have a child (which ISN'T a necessity) - and our economy should be designed to support you if you make that choice.

Currently our economy is not set up like that. It could be. But it isn't.

And the average age of mothers reflects that; its got 10 years older in the last 30 years.

Agree. But I understand that there's knock on effects with the genetic health of children. Overall kids get a better parenting experience (because more experienced adults make better parents on the whole) but there's the possibility we're creating a genetic timebomb for the future...

 

[Gwadien]

Yes. Neither's mutually exclusive.

You should be free to choose to have a child (which ISN'T a necessity) - and our economy should be designed to support you if you make that choice.

Currently our economy is not set up like that. It could be. But it isn't.

So you're saying that in the current economy we shouldnt bother trying to help people with families?

But in another economy we would.

Bare confused fam.

 

[Scouse]

So you're saying that in the current economy we shouldnt bother trying to help people with families?

No. Clearly I'm saying (over many posts - don't just look at a single post Gwad - I've been in this thread from the start) that in this economy we're faced with choices - and ponying up for childcare gets sacrificed in the interests of health and education.

Yes, it'd be lovely to be able to do it all. But what would you cut instead?

 

[DaGaffer]

Kids aren't aware, but adults certainly are. Some humans have this uncanny thing called memory which can be looked back on and evaluated. I'm certainly hugely aware of what my mum gave up and how hard she worked after my dad died. So what if I've not "experienced" the exact emotional rollercoaster she went through? You know enough and have experienced enough to make a perfectly well-informed decision.

You're just repeating the conceit of parents - you guys chose that rollercoaster and those that choose not to have kids do it in the knowledge that the rollercoaster isn't worth the sacrfice for them. Who cares if parents find it worth it? People who've chosen not to have kids know that they wouldn't. - different people, different strokes, capiche?



Yes, most. I know more than one set of parents who seriously wonder whether what they gave up was worth it. I know one pair that are utterly convinced it wasn't and feel that they only got their lives back when their kids left and are now happier than they've ever been.

But if we're calling all of those that don't want kids self-obsessed narcissists (which is a bit rich) then you could easily level other things at people who do - the many parents who think that people without kids must have empty lives, or that you're "missing out" (I've lost count the number of times I've heard that). It's because they had empty lives before they had them and I can tell them that they are 100% missing out now they've got them.

You just can't imagine how much you're missing out by having kids. Oh, well, you can imagine but that's not the same as actually experiencing a life of freedom. It's not remotely the same.

If memories do actually count then memories of the little sliver of life you got before the shits came along isn't much of a memory because all most people did was get drunk and fuck around in a desparate search to find the person they'd have kids with and as soon as they found that person they banged out a couple and instantly became different animals - full time supplicants to their children's needs.


But maybe we can decide that the childless aren't all self-obsessed narcissists and that parents aren't all weak-willed sanctamonious pricks. Perhaps they're simply different people who've chosen different lifestyles and neither is morally superior than the other?


Anyway - this is the actually interesting stuff:

I understand that completely, but we don't live in my socialist utopia (where childcare, education and healthcare would be free for all). We live in a Tory-voting 'democracy' in a horrendously unequal society with a finite amount of money to go around.

(Finite for the general public anyway)

Our "economically competent" Tory government must have decided that the maths don't add up or they'd do it, right? Instead they've decided that the finite (and shrinking) amount of money we have needs to go on education and healthcare.

Even if we could claw the money back you can't make that initial spend in the first place as you'd have to cut healthcare or education budgets to free up the up-front cash to spend on it. (The vast majority of people on here want £100bn spending on Trident so we'll ring-fence that eh?)

So, no. I'm not a selfish cunt. Parents are. They've made their choice but they want an easier life and they think that cutting social welfare spending for other people is the way to go because, you know, "kids".

But fuck that - kids was their choice - so it's their pain to deal with. That's how it is in this economy.

Unless, of course, you want to unite behind me and push for a better social and societal deal for all - systemic change. Eh comrade?


As for @Job's post:

I agree with your "women know your limits" point (@Job, really? You should know better - or maybe you're just not good at following through better alternatives to your ideas?)

But I do agree with his point that a single breadwinner used to earn enough to put a roof over a family and food on their table. What predictably happened with the empowerment of women (which is a good thing) is that that addtional skilled labour pool has been used to drive wages down so much that a single breadwinner just doesn't cut it any more (the profits went up the chain instead).

So now you have two people out at work yet unable to pay for the necessary childcare. Their life choice has become a bit untenable in this economy. Which is wrong* - a single wage should be enough for the necessities - two wages for extravagances because of the sacrifice one of those parents have made in giving up raising their child full-time. And something should be done about that. So we're back to my "utopia"...




Anyway. Queue the cheap seats with accusations of filibustering and "omg textwall" from people who can't (or don't want to) follow an argument...

*edit: unless you're Raven and think economics should trump such a basic function of all life. (Do you really think people should change rather than the economic system?)

Scouse, I know full well what "not having kids" is like; I was 45 when I had my first ffs, more than old enough to see both sides of the argument, and yes have the same pitying/jealous look from parents when me and my ex took off for our next exotic holiday. So I think I'm fairly well qualified, certainly more than you, and probably more than most people, to take a balanced view on this. I don't generally hold with parents looking down on the "child-free" (a phrase loaded with subtext right there), because I've been that guy, and each to their own. My arguments for childcare come from a coldly rational standpoint, because I'm also fortunate that being an older parent I can afford to be a "sole breadwinner" and fulfil Job's bucolic fantasies of Ye Olde Worlde nuclear family. My wife doesn't have to work, but its utterly fucking stupid that society wastes the economic resources its spent a fortune on through decades of education to keep them at home looking after kids. Its inefficient.

 

[Gwadien]

No. Clearly I'm saying (over many posts - don't just look at a single post Gwad - I've been in this thread from the start) that in this economy we're faced with choices - and ponying up for childcare gets sacrificed in the interests of health and education.

Yes, it'd be lovely to be able to do it all. But what would you cut instead?

I have read all your posts and you do seem to be extremely critical of parents, and I don't think I'm the only one who's getting that vibe.

But fair enough, back to your question.

Health is also an option, if we didn't have people smoking, over eating, going out on bikes and getting theirselves killed, drinking too much alcohol, then we could save billions of the NHS.*

Education too, you criticise child care yet you support Education. They're the same sport old chap. Nurseries are amazing for kids, there's a massive difference between parents that send their kids to nursery and those that stay at home.

As I say though, my answer isn't to get the state to pay for this early education. It's to remove the ridiculous laws which carebear too much.

My child minders was a family friend and frankly it was great, but so not by the letter.

*Devils Advocate

 

[DaGaffer]

Agree. But I understand that there's knock on effects with the genetic health of children. Overall kids get a better parenting experience (because more experienced adults make better parents on the whole) but there's the possibility we're creating a genetic timebomb for the future...

Meh, its all going to be Gattaca in another 30 years anyway. No point worrying about it.

 

[Scouse]

I think I'm fairly well qualified, certainly more than you, and probably more than most people

So I'm less qualified than most eh?

I won't bite

Its inefficient.

I agree. But systemic economic change or STFU tbh.

 

[Trem]

Shit happens, and it always has, difference is that 50 years ago my grandparents could still get a nice house and stuff on my grandads wage working in a power station.

Not now.

Give the tools for young families to be self sufficient, then you don't have to moan at them for being reliant on the state.

No, the difference is that 50 years ago if you had a kid at a young age it was seen as shameful (in my nans case anyways), well maybe her case is a bit different. She banged an American soldier, so there you have it I'm....erm......a quarter American, explains a lot I guess.

 

[DaGaffer]

So I'm less qualified than most eh?

I won't bite

By definition. You haven't sat on both sides of the fence. I have.

 

[Job]

Meh its also about practicalities, if you have a kid at a young age, you both have to work in order to move out of your parents house - there's no other two ways about it.

That's exactly my point, families with working partners can borrow more and push most people out of the housing market...so everyone joins in to keep up, and soon children are an inconvenience so you can all keep the rich rolling in it, while you both work your asses off to pay over inflated house prices....do we need social engineering? No, just stop looking down on parents who choose their kids before bedrooms and conservatories.

 

[Gwadien]

No, the difference is that 50 years ago if you had a kid at a young age it was seen as shameful (in my nans case anyways), well maybe her case is a bit different. She banged an American soldier, so there you have it I'm....erm......a quarter American, explains a lot I guess.

In your case, yeah, in my families case, no - There was no social support there, and my ancestry isn't exactly landed aristocracy...

A close family friend works his bollocks off, he has a kid, he's 2 years older than me, and he can't even rent a house, I mean, what kind of system is that.

Frankly, it just supports my theory of the political parties subduing the under classes re-iterating their underclass position - Here's more money, sorry people that vote, what's that? you're upset with benefit scroungers? we'll cut some benefits, but not all! We have to keep them pacified, it's the easiest way to deal with the (necessary?) removal of working class jobs under Thatcher, and moving to a more tertiary economy.

That's exactly my point, families with working partners can borrow more and push most people out of the housing market...so everyone joins in to keep up, and soon children are an inconvenience so you can all keep the rich rolling in it, while you both work your asses off to pay over inflated house prices....do we need social engineering? No, just stop looking down on parents who choose their kids before bedrooms and conservatories.

Sometimes Job, you make good posts, but you're really bad at putting your point across in the correct manner.

It's kind of the problem with Ring Wing politics - They may have good points, but they're awful at putting them across, whilst the Left have really bad points but are good at putting them across

 

[Job]

I quite simply could not make my thoughts any clearer than that without waffling,
I leave you to fill in the obvious or the posts end up unreadable and I'm sue mist people here who write page long posts could insert 'I blow gorillas' in the middle and no one would notice....also I'm frickin typing on a phone.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's exactly my point, families with working partners can borrow more and push most people out of the housing market...so everyone joins in to keep up, and soon children are an inconvenience so you can all keep the rich rolling in it, while you both work your asses off to pay over inflated house prices....do we need social engineering? No, just stop looking down on parents who choose their kids before bedrooms and conservatories.

This isn't what's pushing people out of the housing market; lack of supply is pushing people out of the housing market. Basically you've got it ass-backwards; couples have to work to get the mortgage to pay for the overinflated house price. People not working doesn't make houses more affordable (except in a general "economy collapses" kind of way).

 

[Trem]

removal of working class jobs under Thatcher, and moving to a more tertiary economy.

What working class jobs did Thatcher remove? Before you rant about the miners have you ever seen a poor ex-miner? I fucking haven't.

So pray tell, which working class jobs did she remove?

 

[Scouse]

By definition. You haven't sat on both sides of the fence. I have.

You said than most, not you. And I still don't accept it. It's not experiential rocket science. It's everyday life...