Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
blackrose

Attenborough has betrayed the living world...

Featured Posts

Perhaps it's time for a pandemic to thin is out a bit!πŸ˜€πŸ˜€πŸ˜€πŸ˜€P.S. That Jenny Agutter photo has certainly got my urge to breed awakened!!!

Edited by Ian F B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I suspect what's happening is that more developed countries are seeing a slowdown whereas in Africa, Asia and South America they continue to spit them out for fun.Β 

If they are spitting it out, Β there shouldn't be a problem.....

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gareth E said:

I suspect what's happening is that more developed countries are seeing a slowdown whereas in Africa, Asia and South America they continue to spit them out for fun.Β 

No, they 'spit them out' for precisely the same reason that our Victorian forefathers/mothers used to 'spit them out'. With a high child mortality rate and low life expectancy it is in their interests to do so. Who is going to look after a 52 year old Somalian (that being pretty much what their life expectancy is) if he/she hasn't produced any children? Answer, no-one. You were the one who earlier advocated families taking care of one another, this is clearly a side effect you didn't consider. No-one gives birth for 'fun', (the sex side of it may be another matter:)) but people only have kids because of the benefits of doing so, and in the Third World, they are your pension.

Β 

In the developed countries we have no need to procreate at the same rate because more of us survive and, to your horror, our Governments supply us with our pensions. Nothing toΒ  be smug about really because we also consume massively more planetary resources than Third World citizens whilst living to a ripe old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No, they 'spit them out' for precisely the same reason that our Victorian forefathers/mothers used to 'spit them out'. With a high child mortality rate and low life expectancy it is in their interests to do so. Who is going to look after a 52 year old Somalian (that being pretty much what their life expectancy is) if he/she hasn't produced any children? Answer, no-one. You were the one who earlier advocated families taking care of one another, this is clearly a side effect you didn't consider. No-one gives birth for 'fun', (the sex side of it may be another matter:)) but people only have kids because of the benefits of doing so, and in the Third World, they are your pension.

Β 

In the developed countries we have no need to procreate at the same rate because more of us survive and, to your horror, our Governments supply us with our pensions. Nothing toΒ  be smug about really because we also consume massively more planetary resources than Third World citizens whilst living to a ripe old age.

I'm not horrified by pensions, they are one of the very few payments the government makes to individuals where there's a clear correlation between contributions made and subsequent payments. I quite like that actually. Many European countries base their entire welfare systems on this type of thinking. In Spain for example, if you lose your job, you'll receive 75% of your salary from the government for a maximum of 9 months while you look for another job, then you'll receive nothing. This seems fair, there are jobs around. Someone earning 100,000 Euros a year was paying a lot more tax than someone earning 15,000 Euros a year, so why should they both get the 80 quid a week on offer in Britain? .

Β 

Shouldn't a significant contributor to a progressive taxation system expect the system to work both ways?Β 

Β 

As for people in developed countries having no need to procreate, you're quite right, with a notable exception. When Tony Blair decided to end child poverty, with the measure being relative poverty as a percentage of average family income, he opened the door to career mothers (and fathers) without a care in the world, and ensured this, and the associated social problems, in perpetuity. Β  Β  Β Β 

Edited by Gareth E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

ain't she got ugly feet?

She does yes, but considering that she started out as a Ballet Dancer her feet are actually in quite good knick. Most of that damage is probably caused from regularly wearing high heel.Β 

Β 

If you want to give some one nightmares search online for images of ballet dancers feet. They all dance constantly on completely crippled feet - I'm not sure that any human on earth has a higher pain threshold than a ballerina.Β 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Unfortunately time is not our friend :

Β 

Image result for tv programme midwives jenny agutter

Β 

Image result for tv programme midwives jenny agutter

Has she got her arm in a sling?Or is her bra strap slipping,will we ever know??😎😎😎😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gareth E said:

I'm not horrified by pensions, they are one of the very few payments the government makes to individuals where there's a clear correlation between contributions made and subsequent payments. I quite like that actually. Many European countries base their entire welfare systems on this type of thinking. In Spain for example, if you lose your job, you'll receive 75% of your salary from the government for a maximum of 9 months while you look for another job, then you'll receive nothing. This seems fair, there are jobs around. Someone earning 100,000 Euros a year was paying a lot more tax than someone earning 15,000 Euros a year, so why should they both get the 80 quid a week on offer in Britain? .

Β 

Shouldn't a significant contributor to a progressive taxation system expect the system to work both ways?Β 

Β 

As for people in developed countries having no need to procreate, you're quite right, with a notable exception. When Tony Blair decided to end child poverty, with the measure being relative poverty as a percentage of average family income, he opened the door to career mothers (and fathers) without a care in the world, and ensured this, and the associated social problems, in perpetuity. Β  Β  Β Β 

You do understand how the State Pension works, don't you? because the highlighted sentence would suggest that perhaps you don't. To help you out you will find that someone on say, just above minimum wage at Β£8500 pa will pay 12% of their wage which works out at about Β£1000 pa. Someone on say, Β£42,000 pa will also pay 12% which equates to aboutΒ  Β£5000 pa. Both of these workers will qualify for the new State Pension of Β£164.35 per week (provided they have a full NI record) despite the higher earner having paid thousands more into the system, how 'Socialist' is that? And you agree that it is a fair system????:huh: (I do as well but then I don't have any agenda relating to Socialists).

Β 

Whilst being no fan of Blair, it seem implausible to me that social problems started in 1997. I distinctly remember coming across them throughout a career going back to the early 1980's and, breaking news, there were happening even before then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You do understand how the State Pension works, don't you? because the highlighted sentence would suggest that perhaps you don't. To help you out you will find that someone on say, just above minimum wage at Β£8500 pa will pay 12% of their wage which works out at about Β£1000 pa. Someone on say, Β£42,000 pa will also pay 12% which equates to aboutΒ  Β£5000 pa. Both of these workers will qualify for the new State Pension of Β£164.35 per week (provided they have a full NI record) despite the higher earner having paid thousands more into the system, how 'Socialist' is that? And you agree that it is a fair system????:huh: (I do as well but then I don't have any agenda relating to Socialists).

Β 

Whilst being no fan of Blair, it seem implausible to me that social problems started in 1997. I distinctly remember coming across them throughout a career going back to the early 1980's and, breaking news, there were happening even before then.

The point being that you only get a full state pension if you have a full record of contributions. One of the very few British government payments that depends on contributions made, most unfortunately.Β 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 19:42, Gareth E said:

The point being that you only get a full state pension if you have a full record of contributions. One of the very few British government payments that depends on contributions made, most unfortunately.Β 

The UK State Pension scheme is the epitome of Marxist theory,"..From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs..."since it takes more from the wealthy but delivers the same benefits to all, so whilst denigrating Socialists you must clearly be a Marxist:unsure:.Β 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On β€Ž09β€Ž/β€Ž11β€Ž/β€Ž2018 at 17:14, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What I'm suggesting is that when people propose 'population control' what they really want is population control of 'others'. There are never too many of 'us' it is always too many of 'them'. It makes little difference to the planet itself what trivial group is supposed to be responsible for the overpopulation, it is humanity itself that is the problem, and we are all part of it and have therefore contributed to it. It's a bit like obesity, you don't wake up one morning and say,"B*gger me, where did all that weight come from overnight", with the overpopulation it is something that has been building up for decades, even going back to Victorian families of 10 children and more.

Β 

There are two parts really to your argument, the first part is that the drug industry is precisely that, an industry out to make profits. There is no real interest in pharmaceuticals in curing anything, the money is to be made in treating illness since that is what brings in the long term income, if you cure an illness where is the income in that? If they can keep people alive to continue treatment, then they will do so. The drug companies themselves however, have no real input into the euthanasia debate(other than supply the drugs for people to kill themselves with), it is mainly driven by the Church and politicians. Yes, it would be far more humane if, knowing that we are heading for a long,slow and painful death we could choose our own moment to opt out but it is politicians, not drug companies that are going to address that, eventually.

I agree with everything you've said here.. except I don't think you got my drift about not extending life. I wasn't proposing euthanasia (i.e. deliberate killing/suicide) but I was suggesting that we should be able to draw a line under life extending treatment when as individuals we have 'had enough'... but then I suppose some might see that as suicide, so I maybe it can be lumped in with the euthanasia debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 20:43, cereal tiller said:

I would say that Mz Agutter is still Beautiful?just look at those Eyes and her Countenance.....

Let's be honest,it's quite difficult to look your best in a wimple!!!!!!I do agree that she still has a certain inner beauty that does shine out of her eyes.πŸ˜‡πŸ˜‡πŸ˜‡πŸ˜‡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Γ—

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.