Yellow jacket freedom fighters spreading to London

kabayiri

Moby wrote: »

...
Now this is creepy....going through my posting history to find something to insult me over. That says a lot about you and what you are.:)
...

I agree with this. We don't need to turn this into a pseudo-court of law, sifting through mounds of previous posting evidence.

For one thing, people are entitled to change their mind. If I want to know a poster's current view, I am better off asking directly.

MobileSaver

Moby wrote: »

just because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours does not mean I'm 'whining'.

Well actually it does when all you are doing is complaining and not offering any constructive alternatives.

Moby wrote: »

I think the Scottish Govmt is doing a lot of good work on the advertising of alcohol, especially in increasing the pricing of the strong lagers. I also think a sugar tax should have come in years ago.

Why do you think people should not be responsible for their own actions?

Why should the rest of us be penalised because other people continually make poor choices in life?

zagfles

Moby wrote: »

Those tweaks that Govmt make are not working are they.... duh! and just because I have a viewpoint that differs from yours does not mean I'm 'whining'.

Yes it does, if you just complain without offering any solution. Which is all you were doing up to now...

Greater restrictions are part of the answer. I think the Scottish Govmt is doing a lot of good work on the advertising of alcohol, especially in increasing the pricing of the strong lagers.

So the poor should be priced out, and get even less choice than the rich, because some of them can't be trusted to make the right life choices. It might work I guess. We'll see if Scotland drink problem, which is massively worse that England's, is reduced to England's level.

I also think a sugar tax should have come in years ago.

Indeed. It has at last been introduced by those evil Tories, following Labour doing FA about it when they were in govt.

Facebook and other social media need much greater regulation. Gambling legislation needs to be tightened.

You really are an authoritarian aren't you?

Generally the chaos in financial markets and the economic downturn has cast a new light on Government’s role in markets. Public trust in the ability of markets to deliver efficiency and stability is being challenged I'm glad to say!

Markets do what markets do. They are there to trade, not to deliver stability etc. Sensible regulation is obviously required.

What we need is much greater intervention and international co-operation.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Brexit, Trump, rise in nationalism etc. I do agree actually but it's not likely, things are going the other way.

Capitalism needs to show it works for the benefit of people and has a responsibility to contribute towards the fabric of society and provide social capital. In other words a whole change in culture and a different emphasis as to what is valued.....e.g......those who care for your relatives when they are old are valued more highly than some scumbag parasite banker or accountant whose job is to shelter your money from the taxman!

Yeah great idea. We already have a care crisis in this country because the govt's preferred solution, which was in fact socialist, certainly progressive, practically a wealth tax, was probably the main reason they lost their majority in the last election. You want to make that crisis 100 times worse by paying carers like accountants and bankers. Brilliant.

badgerhead

zagfles wrote: »

You want to make that crisis 100 times worse by paying carers like accountants and bankers. Brilliant.

LOL that's clearly not the point that was being made. :rotfl:

zagfles

badgerhead wrote: »

LOL that's clearly not the point that was being made. :rotfl:

I was taking the p out of the point being made! The usual "isn't it terribly unfair" but no practical solution.

I'm fully expecting some trite virtue signalling soundbite like "they know the price of everything and value of nothing" rather than any workable solution.

Arklight

John_G_Jones wrote: »

Yes, I think it terrible that children are growing up in poverty, and think the parents need at the least a good hard slap for what they are doing. Sadly many people will have children that they can’t afford nowadays, and seem to feel no shame about it.

I don’t have a solution, I’ll just do my best to make sure that my children don’t do the same thing.

Fortunately the state will educate them, take money off better parents to pay for this, and take more money off better parents to cover their health care, the nation’s infrastructure and so on.

Are you blaming your parents for your lot, then, or did you actually get a good start in life and chose to mess it up after you left home?

My family were pretty poor, so my mother cleaned offices at night and my dad took on a second job at the weekends. They taught me good values and I left my run-down mining village to get a great degree, spend some time in th civil service doing my bit for the country and then moved into banking, where I’m please to be able to pay enough in taxes to subsidise people like you, who believe ai’m oppressing you.

And what do you want to be thanked for? You seem to be a net taker, not payer, and are hardly spreading joy to the world...

Your assertion that low income parents, the large majority of whom are in work need, "at the least a good hard slap," is as pathetic, bigoted and stereotyped, as it is repellent.

No, the income a person has is not indicative of their right to be on the planet. Try and think really hard about that concept. Do your best to understand it. Do much better, in other words.

MobileSaver

Arklight wrote: »

the income a person has is not indicative of their right to be on the planet. Try and think really hard about that concept.

The income a person has should be indicative of their right to have children though.

Try and think really hard about that concept and please let me know whether you agree or disagree.

Arklight

MobileSaver wrote: »

The income a person has should be indicative of their right to have children though.

Try and think really hard about that concept and please let me know whether you agree or disagree.

Try and explain to me how a child chooses the income of their parents.

Incidentally, many people are poor through no fault of their own. They may become sick, lose their job, or have to give up work to care for a family member. Any of these things can happen after they start a family.

Hard to believe that has to be explained, but there is so much prejudice and awful poor-shaming on this forum I suppose it does.

MobileSaver

MobileSaver wrote: »

The income a person has should be indicative of their right to have children though.

Arklight wrote: »

Try and explain to me how a child chooses the income of their parents.

That was not what was asked or asserted so I will ask again. Do you agree or disagree that parents who cannot afford to support children have the right to have children?

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically talking about bringing more children into the world and am not talking about unexpected change of circumstances to parents who already have children.

Arklight

MobileSaver wrote: »

That was not what was asked or asserted so I will ask again. Do you agree or disagree that parents who cannot afford to support children have the right to have children?

For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically talking about bringing more children into the world and am not talking about unexpected change of circumstances to parents who already have children.

Unless you are talking about sterilising the poor, then yes they have the "right" to have children.

The argument you may alternatively be groping for (giving you the benefit of the doubt) is whether poor people have the right to claim state support for their children.

As I already explained, the majority of poor parents are in work. They may also only have one kid.

Considering the fact that poor people are by definition, poor, they aren't reaping many rewards from the state in any case.