RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were.

RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 10:52:21 AM)
The special legal concessions granted to hetero. married couples were introduced over the years in recognition of the special and central, not to say vital, role that stable harmonious heterosexually oriented families are able to produce. Obviously I refer to the bringing up of children. Single mothers/Homosexual males do not have that influence regardless of what they believe, what their children believe and what the Liberals assert. The statistics on single mothers are quite clear on this. No doubt the same results will emerge in due course when more men bring up children.

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 10:56:09 AM)
My father has described to me the world he grew up in in the 30s, 40s and 50s and said that anyone telling you that the world then is better than now, ask them what they are taking. This was my father's wisdom as we shared a joint of his home grown stash.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 11:05:51 AM)
Well I wonder as I justlast Thursday finished repairing my shed for the nth time after those nice young men attempted once again to break it down and steal my motor bike. This once happened less than two weeks after I replaced a stolen bike. Your father probably meant many are materially better off. Cant argue with that. A very dangerous, not to say feral, under class exist in the inner cities tho'.

NorthernGent -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 11:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver My father has described to me the world he grew up in in the 30s, 40s and 50s and said that anyone telling you that the world then is better than now, ask them what they are taking. This was my father's wisdom as we shared a joint of his home grown stash. You're not wrong. Go back 70 years and there would have been one job open to the likes of me - down the mines. Life was simpler then, less choice = less to worry about but less choice also = less opportunity. 70 years ago the population were supposed to know their place and not move beyond it. Fuck that. I suppose if those from a working class background like to be under the thumb of authority then yeah it must conjure up a certain amount of nostalgia. For me, it's part of the reason why I want to see our monarchy, lords and all the upper class snobs kicked into touch - give them an inch and they'll take a yard, let the fuckers keep you down and they'll bury you into the ground.

sleazy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 2:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver My father has described to me the world he grew up in in the 30s, 40s and 50s and said that anyone telling you that the world then is better than now, ask them what they are taking. This was my father's wisdom as we shared a joint of his home grown stash. You're not wrong. Go back 70 years and there would have been one job open to the likes of me - down the mines. Whereas now there is its modern day equivalent, the call centre. Sure you can aspire to "better life" these days, but does a plasma tv, a playstation and a pizza delivered to the door actually make life better? My grandfather never used an indoor toilet in his life, but he was one of the happiest people I ever met. quote: Life was simpler then, less choice = less to worry about but less choice also = less opportunity. So as the thread started, lets allow the state to remove some of those tiresome choices, then the masses need not worry but can sit down for another round of singstar on the playstation. quote: 70 years ago the population were supposed to know their place and not move beyond it. Fuck that. But along with knowing their place it seems they also knew how to respect themselves as well as others. The working class were proud, to claim dole made a man less than he should be, for them pride was not a sin, but a virtue. Families stuck together through thick and thin, neighbours mucked in and helped each other where pride permitted, hell today I can only name my neighbours from wrongly delivered mail! quote: I suppose if those from a working class background like to be under the thumb of authority then yeah it must conjure up a certain amount of nostalgia. For me, it's part of the reason why I want to see our monarchy, lords and all the upper class snobs kicked into touch - give them an inch and they'll take a yard, let the fuckers keep you down and they'll bury you into the ground. It was those of the landed gentry, the "old money" that opened the pits and the mills, paid the miners and the weavers. Short of complete state ownership there has to be a "monied class" of some sort, lest we forget the UUSR, British Leyland, British Steel, I am sure any brit can list all the once proud industries that withered on the vine under state control.

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 2:56:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy It was those of the landed gentry, the "old money" that opened the pits and the mills, paid the miners and the weavers. Short of complete state ownership there has to be a "monied class" of some sort, lest we forget the UUSR, British Leyland, British Steel, I am sure any brit can list all the once proud industries that withered on the vine under state control. It was the landed gentry that stole the land in the first place. It was the landed gentry that paid women and children to work in the mines because they were cheaper than men. The landed gentry fought tooth and nail against any reform that emancipated the working class.

sleazy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 3:15:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy It was those of the landed gentry, the "old money" that opened the pits and the mills, paid the miners and the weavers. Short of complete state ownership there has to be a "monied class" of some sort, lest we forget the UUSR, British Leyland, British Steel, I am sure any brit can list all the once proud industries that withered on the vine under state control. It was the landed gentry that stole the land in the first place. It was the landed gentry that paid women and children to work in the mines because they were cheaper than men. The landed gentry fought tooth and nail against any reform that emancipated the working class. Twas the landed gentry that invested in the sciences, created the industrial revolution, mass public transportation, hospitals, doctors, even the package holiday! Twas the landed gentry that until recently acted as a check and balance against a government that had the power to ride roughshod over all oppostion and even stifled dissent in its own ranks. There has only ever been one economically succesful socialist state, and they were succesful because they created a "professional class" of business owners, industrialists, doctors, scientists, etc. and even they took longer than their much smaller "rebel state" that embraced capitalism and democracy despite the massive population difference

Dtesmoac -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 4:25:56 PM)
Merc The object was not to ban cheese adverts it was the deffinition of that some office suits came up with that resulted in cheese being on the list. How can you be free to make a decision if you only have access to a limited amount of the information? Companies provide their version of truth via adverts etc, this is often biased, how can it be a freedom to be provided with this informsation but not also have equal access to information on the negative impacts of those products? Seeks Check the history of victorian times and I think they occured before the (19)60s and you will find anachy, illigitemate births, & gin dependancy and other general "socal woes" to make the impact of the 1960s liberals look....well.......minimal. And yet the very term Victorian Values conjures certain moral standards. NG There have been research studies on the link between nutrition and learning in schools for many years and nearly all show that access to good nutrition and hydration significantly improves performance at school. From other posts I am of the view provide free high quality school meals for all children. The Jamie Oliver protests etc is a sideline, eventually the parents will give up on turning up to the school gates and throwing chips over the fence.......unless they are unemployed wasters in which case it will give them some good exercise and a sense of perpos (NG this is toungue in cheek). Result - direct targeting of childcare allowance, all children get one decent meal a day however crap their parents are, children are kept at school during lunch hours, employement for dinner ladies etc, concentration levels & performance go up, ...... children are trained to enjoy cabbage and lumpy custard. In the US some of the school meals are sponspored by companies and it is full of junk (not all). In the UK some of the vending machines are sponsored and when school tried to remove junk food the companies threatened them with legal action ...........what choice.

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 4:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Twas the landed gentry that invested in the sciences, created the industrial revolution, mass public transportation, hospitals, doctors, even the package holiday! Twas the landed gentry that until recently acted as a check and balance against a government that had the power to ride roughshod over all oppostion and even stifled dissent in its own ranks. There has only ever been one economically succesful socialist state, and they were succesful because they created a "professional class" of business owners, industrialists, doctors, scientists, etc. and even they took longer than their much smaller "rebel state" that embraced capitalism and democracy despite the massive population difference I think you ought to go back to your history books. Many of the people who invested in industry were the new rich. The landed gentry didn't invest in anything but land and the new rich copied them and built their own seats in the country. One of the reasons why Germany forged ahead of Britain is because they kept re-investing in indutry while the British used maney to gentrify themselves. But where did socialism come into it? This started out by saying the past wasn't that good. You trumpeted the achievements of the landed gentry as though we should be thankful that they exploited the poor. You seem to be saying we should be thankful to them for giving themselves a good education while the life expectency of the poor was drastically reduced through their exploitation. However, I think you will find that many of the big names in the industrial revolution were far more modest in birth and part of the midleclasses. Typical of Britain. Joseph Mallord William Turner, one of the greatest western artists ever, who if he had been born in any other European country, there would hbe a statue of him in every major city, was never honoured by his country. Probably because he was too lowly born and therefore unfit for consideration!

missturbation -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 6:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Well if sex education in schools is intended to stop Teenage pregnancy and limit the spread of STD's then by any standard it has FAILED. I agree - who are you fighting here? The problem is that Liberals wont recondsider their stance on the matter, they will encourage more of what is known by many to not work. Oh woe is me ! Ok colour me stupid but what have the liberals to do with it? I think the general tenor of my posts reveals at the very least that I am a hard line Right Winger. The problem I have is that I was alive and kicking when the permissive Liberal statutes were introduced,the 60s, I was alive and kicking when the consquences began to be implemented, the 70s and I am least still alive when it is apparent to all but Liberals that those 60's statutes were wrong and have had deleterious outcomes on social stability. Legions of immature teenage single mothers, Violent crime spiralling out of control. Prisons full to bursting. Rampant spread of STD's Billions spent on "education" and many many thousands leave school barely if at all able to read and write. General family breakdown resulting in high levels of psychological problems and disturbance. British taxpayer seemingly held to be responsible for all third world problems and hence a totally absurd immigration policy. The rise of political activism based on religious affiliation, here I refer to Islamic immigrants. Can a Christian backlash be far away ? NO. One thing that does puzzle me is why Hindus appear to be so "low profile". That is what Liberals have got to "do with it" Ok colour me even more stupid but do we not have a labour government at present? Do they not control what is taught in schools? Therefore surely you can not blame the liberals. Im also going to re-ask you the following since you seem to have avoided answering my questions. Tho' I find the thought of male homosexuality distasteful, my objection is to the <behind the scenes> lobby that at the moment seems to be able to push their own pro homosexual agenda and get it on to the statute books. An example is the recent change to the laws regarding inheritance, which favour homosexuals but not cohabiting siblings. Hang on a minute - surely homosexuals are entitled to the same entitlements as any other couple? Also if you are going to argue for cohabiting siblings, surely even before homosexuals had a change in the law it was unfair. A man and woman living together would have favouring inheritance rights over cohabiting siblings. If you are going to pick a cause and fight for it you cannot discriminate who has more rights just because you dislike homosexuals.

Sinergy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/7/2007 6:35:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Well if sex education in schools is intended to stop Teenage pregnancy and limit the spread of STD's then by any standard it has FAILED. The problem is that Liberals wont recondsider their stance on the matter, they will encourage more of what is known by many to not work. Oh woe is me ! Please clarify a stance on sex education and teenage pregnancy that has EVER worked in any society? Sex is a biological imperative. I had The Talk with my two kids. Explained what was involved, what could go wrong, what could be done about things if/when they went wrong, and told them we would deal with it together if it happened. Then I pointed out to both of them that they are in control of their own bodies and behavior, and wished them well. Sinergy

philosophy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/8/2007 5:59:55 PM)
...but Merc, this is a Daily Mail story. i could probably find an equivilant publication in the States that claims the US government is using fluoride in drinking water in a bid to use mass mind control on the population. The Daily Mail likes to find the worst possible spin on things, they claimed the EU was legislating for straight bananas...pure bunk, but it served their political agenda.

sleazy -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/8/2007 7:37:38 PM)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/01/njunk01.xml http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1950542,00.html (a less right wing press is hard to find!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4010481.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3632006.stm http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=773&id=1896152006 Aw, the heck with it, http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=junk+food+advertising+ban&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB Edited to add, I havent read any of the links, just the google summary, so they could well be pro or anti

LadyEllen -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 1:20:33 AM)
Miss - I think that Seeks was using liberal as an adjective rather than a noun. This thing about homosexual rights is interesting though. Whilst Seeks may be right to say that heterosexual marriage is the most effective structure for society, (though by no means is there sufficient evidence for that), the fact is that a considerable minority do not wish to live in that form of relationship, whether that be because they are gay, lesbian or prefer to cohabit, or even prefer a poly household perhaps. As you say, there is no valid reason to distinguish one type of relationship from another in terms of the rights of the partners and partnership, just as there is no evidence that any one form of relationship is more positive overall. Difference does not infer value comparison; after all, are we then to compare individuals based on race? The whole "heterosexual marriage is best" idea comes from the same redundant system of thought that infects the whole of society. And the vehemence with which those who cling to this system attack anyone straying from it, seems to me to be based on the idea that to allow any other idea is to in some way encourage people to be different. Newsflash - gay rights (and gay awareness) does not make men gay; they were gay already and all we are doing is affording them the rights which in former times, under the said system of thought, they were denied. Here's a thought. The people who cling to that redundant system were dead set against the likes of me being able to change my birth certificate. I was born male so whatever, I remain male for them. Now, the same people are dead set against rights for lesbians. Yet, under their first position I would be free to marry a woman in a lesbian relationship - proper marriage, rather than a civil partnership, with all the rights and privileges that affords. Rather then for them, that I can change my birth certificate so I can only marry a man as a lesser of two evils situation perhaps? E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 2:03:44 AM)
Missturbation, LadyE has just about summed it up and I think I did reply to your point giving some reasons why hetero married couples obtained certain financial privileges My attitude is that sexual orientation is a personal thing and within very broad limits people should "just get on with it" I wish the Gay lobby would sit down and "give it a rest" though, and certainly stop propogating the lie that most male homosexual activity takes place within stable loving relationships. he he he he he. With regard to traditional versus unconventional family arrangements and subsequent adjustment of any children, I believe that the data is rock solid as to which is best. I admit I have only formed this opinion by general reading and listening to "things" and I know many who espouse an opinion have an agenda, ie are selling their point of view ! When the "better outcomes for children" point is raised in a debate I have NEVER heard a liberal try to say it was untrue, they slide off and refer to other factors, usually poverty. Just adding that this is a gross insult to those poor people that do do a good job bringing up their children. But note that many who support the disastrous Liberal agenda of the last 40 years, and nearly all who have got it into Law, are economically privileged and totally unaware of the strains that their policies have inflicted on the poor people with whom they assert so much sympathy. Laura Norder stands and curtsies here.

LadyEllen -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 2:21:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to traditional versus unconventional family arrangements and subsequent adjustment of any children, I believe that the data is rock solid as to which is best. I admit I have only formed this opinion by general reading and listening to "things" and I know many who espouse an opinion have an agenda, ie are selling their point of view ! When the "better outcomes for children" point is raised in a debate I have NEVER heard a liberal try to say it was untrue, they slide off and refer to other factors, usually poverty. It is far too early to draw any conclusion on this. Gay/lesbian couples have only had at best a decade or so with the opportunity to raise children, and of course it is only the failures which draw attention in the likes of The Daily Mail. Meanwhile, we do know that het marriage down the centuries has mostly been stable because of the social stigma attached to its breakdown; with that stigma removed, the figures are in the region of 1/3 of marriages ending in divorce now, and that doesnt help children for definite. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 2:36:11 AM)
I do not idealise heterosexual marriage,in fact I dont idealise anything, but the effects on children of failed relationships or single parenting are I repeat well known. With regard to same sex parenting it seems to me that since men and women do have different approaches , taking the average as the point of reference, then something will be missing in the phsyche of children brought up by men or women only. I seem to remember reading that delinquency was more common in children brought up by women during the War. Other factors could have played a part here tho'.

meatcleaver -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 3:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I seem to remember reading that delinquency was more common in children brought up by women during the War. Other factors could have played a part here tho'. When I worked in the probation service, something like 90% of the youths passing through our office had absent fathers. It was something of a shock to come across a youth that had a father in his life and even more so if the father took an interest in his son.

LadyEllen -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 3:14:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I do not idealise heterosexual marriage,in fact I dont idealise anything, but the effects on children of failed relationships or single parenting are I repeat well known. I think this depends on the parent, the child and their circumstances. There are plenty of positive outcomes to such situations as well as negative, indicating that it is not the parenting situation itself which is the cause of either result. With regard to same sex parenting it seems to me that since men and women do have different approaches , taking the average as the point of reference, then something will be missing in the phsyche of children brought up by men or women only. Hmmm. I understand this conclusion as it is relates to the association that has been made between the proportion of AC delinquent boys and a corresponding absence in many of those instances of a male role model other than some "gangsta". However, interestingly the girls are delinquent in the same proportions, having been raised by women. It could be the same cause of course - absence of a male in the role of family disciplinarian, but I dont see this as particularly relevant in this case, as AC mothers are generally strong disciplinarians in their own rights. It also ignores incidentally, that in some intact heterosexual families the father is not the disciplinarian at all, and that delinquency occurs in such families too regardless of there having been male and female role models present. I seem to remember reading that delinquency was more common in children brought up by women during the War. Other factors could have played a part here tho'. Such as? You may be on to something?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Question for the Brits, and those that wish they were. (1/9/2007 5:59:02 AM)
LadyE: What is an AC person ? You appear to admit the correlation between social problems and single parents. Mindless discipline can be just as damaging as lack of discipline of any kind. I think the point is that many single parents live chaotic lives with no clear direction or focus and drift from relationship to relationship in a totally irresponsible way when the affects on any children are considered. I also believe that many women end up alone thru' circumstances out of their control, look after their kids, possibly meet other men, eventually settle down and all turns out OK. The general tendency is not like this in my OPINION. Also dont forget that children themselves can be tyrants and make life difficult for the women when she is considering a new partner. With regard to the "other factors during War" I simply thew that point in as a back stop in case any one responded that the stresses of War somehow may have percolated down to the "nippers" and affected their behaviour.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625