slickwitch Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well said, that man! If you don;t know what he's referring to; "Moral restraint was the means by which the higher ranks of humans limited their family size in order not to dissipate their wealth among larger numbers of heirs. For the lower ranks of humans, vice and birth control were the means by which their numbers could be limited - but Malthus believed that these were insufficient to limit the vast numbers of the poor." http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/essay.html Malthuis wrote that around 200 years ago! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, as the famous French philosopher Vanessa Paradis has often been heard to remark. It is a philosophy though, not a fact or even an empiricism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopsie Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 It is a philosophy though, not a fact or even an empiricism. And Queen Victoria had nine kids, which shows it's a load of bobar anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summer1955 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I disagree - if the only purpose of life on earth is procreation, then you've not really achieved anything save for replicated another generation. And 'I can't afford to have kids' is, far from a lie, one of the most sensible statements you can ever make - if more people thought like that there might be less of the social problems we see today. and if more people thought like this there may not be many more children at all as the only ones that would be able to realy afford them are the ones that have plenty of money and while you keep putting off having kids because you cant realy afford them by the time you can its probably too late if i had thought like that i would not have been able to have any kids as we never could realy afford to have them as most of my life have been on benefits of some sort and thats what i wanted out of my life a family as i was an only child and i hated it and swore that i would never stick at one child and dont believe anyone should unless they have to i dont believe now days though that you need to have eight kids but would not put someone down because they did have. i had 4 but thats because i only had boys and wanted a girl but after the last gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Buzz Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 And Queen Victoria had nine kids, which shows it's a load of bobar anyway. And suggests Prince Albert was long sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 And suggests Prince Albert was long sighted. . . . or not very quick on the draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archaeobard Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Good god, we all want a bigger house, I would also like a bigger car too. If I want these things i work a little harder Were condoms not available over the past 15 years. I'm sorry if I sound like some grumpy old 33yr old fart, but I have a 12 year old son and it is going to be very difficult (if he works) to be able to afford a home of his own, when he becomes a man. But then, there is another option, father a mini football team, to an army of women and get a free home madness I guess my sarcasm doesn't come across very well over the forum. I was harking back to a previous thread on the forum regarding overcrowding but you may not have read that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathom Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 And Queen Victoria had nine kids, which shows it's a load of bobar anyway. Plus some more bobar - the aristocracy kept on breeding until they had a brace of boys in each family due to preferential treatment for males under inheritance laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beansforyou Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I disagree - if the only purpose of life on earth is procreation, then you've not really achieved anything save for replicated another generation. And 'I can't afford to have kids' is, far from a lie, one of the most sensible statements you can ever make - if more people thought like that there might be less of the social problems we see today. Who said it was the only purpose? I'd be interested to see these figures for overpopulation, both in this country and worldwide, if you have them to hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happylady Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 RubyDazzler Are you saying people are wrong for complaining about this woman with the 8 kids? I think its time for the fathers of these children to begin to act like real men, and by that, I mean they should get jobs, contribute to the upkeep of their offspring and if the lady needs a bigger house, perhaps they could provide between them. Anyone can get a woman pregnant, but it takes a man to take responsibilty. Working people are getting taxed ever more, and are struggling more and more to make ends meet, people would like more of their own money to spend on themselves. If that makes me a bigot then so be it. I can fully understand where Hippylady is coming from, she is not a bigot, probably someone working her backside who, herself would probably like a bigger house To true Mr Busdriver. I've two kids both now independent. Me and hubby have worked our buts off, have a nice house and a nice lifestyle, however, we, like a lot of others, have worked for everything we have and apart from family allowance have never had a penny from the state and so far (touch wood) neither have our kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happylady Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 she was only asking for what she should be getting a decent home and why should she wait when it was not her fault that she was missed out why have a go at her being a scrounger when its not in context with the story, i think you just want to start another thread about people on benefits with lots of kids, scrounging you probably have a better life than her, so would you like to change places with her have all those kids the benefits, i think not. No, because I made damn sure I only had kids that I could afford. If my house needs repairs me and hubby have to pay for them. The fact is she got herself in the Star wanting everyone to feel sorry for her being missed out when she's got 8 kids at home. Why go to the paper, personally I think she's lucky to have a roof over her head at all and I'm sure when the Council had been informed of their error they would have got round to sorting her property out. Probably Council were waiting for the next months Council tax to come in so they could afford to pay for someone to come and carry out the repairs. Its simple if you want things to happen then find the means to make it happen yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now