SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

I massively regret telling everyone at school what he had done.

There's a few things I regret at school (mostly where I'd been a cunt, but didn't feel like I was being one at the time). Hindsight eh? You do those things and learn from 'em - it's just growing up.

 

[Tom]

I recall being about 11, asking a mate of mine why he was adopted, and he told me his parents "didn't want me". It didn't really mean much at the time but I think about it sometimes now.

 

[old.Osy]

Because there's far too many fucking humans on this planet already - so we shouldn't be funding more through taxation.

If you can't afford to have kids, don't fucking have them.

I'd support your social protection suggestion for a single kid (and I support better funded education, better school meal provision etc. etc.) - but if you have more than one kid I'd support you having to give it back for being a drag on the planet.

Look, certains nations are way behind the growth curve. Over here it's 1.9, so me with 2 daughters, I'm barely breaking even.

You're simplistically making it about "can't afford, too much humans", giving me a rinsed argument that's not yours originally.

It's not about the money - It's about ensuring that if we do reproduce, at least we produce worthwhile members of the society - and giving kids (and mums) all chances for that to realize as a goal as that is the _ONLY_ smart thing to do.

Bigger picture and all.

 

[Scouse]

Look, certains nations are way behind the growth curve. Over here it's 1.9, so me with 2 daughters, I'm barely breaking even.

We don't need to maintain the population - we need to reduce the population. So a two-parents one-child policy, to me, seems eminently sensible.

If you're barely breaking even, how much better off would you be if you only had one kid? It wouldn't be completely negligable.

You're simplistically making it about "can't afford, too much humans", giving me a rinsed argument that's not yours originally.

Why is it a rinsed argument that's not mine? I've held the position that there are too many humans for more than 30 years. Had it before I went to University, my studies only strengthened my resolve and the various crises that have made themselves abundently clear in the past 30 years are caused largely by our overconsumption.

I felt this way long before Mr Attenborough went public:

All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people

...(I genuinely think you should have a look at the article @old.Osy)...

Furthermore - you know it's my position that it's shit that we live in a capitalist society structured economically the way it is. The fact that it's hard for people is not good. But tough titties - the environment must come first - so the one-child don't-fund-more position trumps the financial pain that people get themselves into through personal choice. You've done it to yourself. It was your choice - don't expect everybody else - and the planet - to pick up your bill.

It's not about the money - It's about ensuring that if we do reproduce, at least we produce worthwhile members of the society - and giving kids (and mums) all chances for that to realize as a goal as that is the _ONLY_ smart thing to do.

I agree with this. I said so in my post. I want to see much much better funded education, well funded university, well funded health services.

For one child.

For two - parents should get taxed more. Tough shit.

Bigger picture and all.

I am thinking of the bigger pictures - both the survival of the species and better societies. Not wanky self-inflicted family dynamics.

 

[old.Osy]

We don't need to maintain the population - we need to reduce the population. So a two-parents one-child policy, to me, seems eminently sensible.

If you're barely breaking even, how much better off would you be if you only had one kid? It wouldn't be completely negligable.


Why is it a rinsed argument that's not mine? I've held the position that there are too many humans for more than 30 years. Had it before I went to University, my studies only strengthened my resolve and the various crises that have made themselves abundently clear in the past 30 years are caused largely by our overconsumption.

I felt this way long before Mr Attenborough went public:

...(I genuinely think you should have a look at the article @old.Osy)...

Furthermore - you know it's my position that it's shit that we live in a capitalist society structured economically the way it is. The fact that it's hard for people is not good. But tough titties - the environment must come first - so the one-child don't-fund-more position trumps the financial pain that people get themselves into through personal choice. You've done it to yourself. It was your choice - don't expect everybody else - and the planet - to pick up your bill.


I agree with this. I said so in my post. I want to see much much better funded education, well funded university, well funded health services.

For one child.

For two - parents should get taxed more. Tough shit.


I am thinking of the bigger pictures - both the survival of the species and better societies. Not wanky self-inflicted family dynamics.

Point is, by not supporting mothers and children (set aside the overpop argument for a while), you're churning out more and more near-useless members in the society, with diminishing hopes of finding solutions, and instead compounding the issue in the first place.

Un-educated people will live out their life span without seeing the bigger picture. If you educate and support the existing influx, a solution may be found sooner.

Western countries will not adopt China like one-child policies, so your point is moot and at best naive.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

It's my daughters first day in Reception tomorrow. She's both nervous and excited, and has so many ideas of what she's going to do. But then she is 21 and this teacher training stuff is very new to her...

 

[Scouse]

Point is, by not supporting mothers and children (set aside the overpop argument for a while), you're churning out more and more near-useless members in the society, with diminishing hopes of finding solutions, and instead compounding the issue in the first place.

Un-educated people will live out their life span without seeing the bigger picture. If you educate and support the existing influx, a solution may be found sooner.

I agree. I've done so twice. I don't know why you keep on about it.

Western countries will not adopt China like one-child policies, so your point is moot and at best naive.

Naive? Let me quote David again:

All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people

We're fucked if western countries don't sort the overpopulation problem out. It's not naive - it's madness to not fix the issue. Having more kids is self-defeating.

 

[Embattle]

Western governments?

 

[Scouse]

Western governments?

Needs to be global, but economics sorts out the growth countries. We still need to sort out the most consumptive part of the population - i.e. us.

Nigeria per capita CO2 - 0.6 metric tonnes.

United States? 14.7.

 

[Embattle]

Yes if you now include CO2 parameters then sure.

 

[Scouse]

Yes if you now include CO2 parameters then sure.

All consumption. Energy, goods, services, food. Everything.

CO2 is just an example (an easy one). But westerners consume more of everything.

 

[MYstIC G]

View: https://youtu.be/m5aWtcx02ZI

 

[Scouse]

Too good for the music thread:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAcYS-_8L2s


*boggle*

 

[Embattle]

All consumption. Energy, goods, services, food. Everything.

CO2 is just an example (an easy one). But westerners consume more of everything.

My point being it seemed focused on purely population, now the extra parameters got added.

 

[Scouse]

My point being it seemed focused on purely population, now the extra parameters got added.

Am I missing something? Are the reasons overpopulation is so destructive not obvious?

 

[Scouse]

Topical:

Therese Coffey's views on abortion concerning, charity says

The new health secretary has opposed extending abortion rights but has said the law would not change.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

View: https://archive.org/details/william-shatner-rocket-man

 

[Ormorof]

View: https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1567229706231062530


The dumb Illuminati is taking over?

 

[Gwadien]

View: https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1567229706231062530


The dumb Illuminati is taking over?

The ERG has been running the UK since 2010.

They're the reason why we had the vote, then they got their victory and full power when Cameron resigned.

 

[Raven]

She ran for PM and had some support.

That's where we are.

 

[Gwadien]

She ran for PM and had some support.

That's where we are.

So what, the ERG running the show is some remoaner propaganda?

 

[Raven]

So what, the ERG running the show is some remoaner propaganda?

Pardon? Where did I say anything of the sort?

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Gwadien]

View attachment 46864

Funny though, only 2 weeks ago I was talking with my brother about satellite phones becoming mainstream.

 

[Raven]

Everything, including internet, will be satellite by the end of the decade.

 

[Gwadien]

We'll all merely be paying to live in Elon Musk's world.

 

[Scouse]

If fucking hope not. The giant thundercunt is raping the night sky.

 

[Ormorof]

What nothing in the bad taste joke thread yet i am disappointed

 

[Scouse]

What nothing in the bad taste joke thread yet i am disappointed

I was whatsapping a mate about paedo andrew and the institution and made this one:

Spoiler

"Sharing Platter"

??

 

[Tom]