[chapman.]

Africa should be decimated.

[Nick100]

(Original post by chapman.)
I don't think we see eye to eye. I do not care about people's feelings. We as a society care too much, this is why we have fallen behind in every area of life. China built a heathrow size airport in 8 months. We can't build half a runway in 2 years. We need this.

So cut off the welfare. Why is sterilisation necessary if their welfare is cut off? And we haven't fallen behind in every area of life; we are richer, freer and have cleaner air than the Chinese. Our government's policies are the only things holding us back; if we cut down the size of the state then we would excel. The solution you propose doesn't address the real cause of our problems.

[chapman.]

(Original post by Nick100)
So cut off the welfare. Why is sterilisation necessary if their welfare is cut off? And we haven't fallen behind in every area of life; we are richer, freer and have cleaner air than the Chinese. Our government's policies are the only things holding us back; if we cut down the size of the state then we would excel. The solution you propose doesn't address the real cause of our problems.

Why would I care how clean air is? If I want clean air I'll go camping tah. Richer? Why should I care about dirt poor peasants who I wouldn't touch for money. Freer? Oh no some people are killed.
At least china except the movement forwards as a nation is more important than the individual.
Which brings us back to why it's more important to look at improvements to society from sterilisation, rather than everyone focusing on the wanton despairs of those afflicted.

[Gangee]

Troll

[Nick100]

(Original post by Alistair122)
Cutting off benefits doesn't solve anything- it merely makes the problem worse. More people in poverty with less help to achieve a better job than their parents, will result in more people slumping into poverty and exaggerating the problem.

People don't "slump into poverty" when they are free. Historically every generation since the industrial revolution has become richer than any generation that has ever preceded it usually without any government support or despite bad government policy. Politicians would like us to believe that only the government can solve our problems; it allows them to maintain power.

By no means I am saying that the idiot that started this thread is right, more the exact reverse; more help should be given to the children of workless parents to allow them to climb up the social ladder to a point where they will no longer need state help.

More help? From where? Half of the country's income goes to the welfare state; the amount spent on it per UK citizen is in excess of the income of the average human - how can we possibly give these people more help? They have been given every opportunity to succeed; free education, free healthcare, security, they live in one of the richest countries in the world, how can they possibly need more?

[chapman.]

(Original post by Gangee)
Troll

Be quiet, this is a Place for me to post ideas that stimulate thinking, if you don't like it carry on your merry way.

[Nick100]

(Original post by chapman.)
Why would I care how clean air is?

Because you need to breathe it? Are you going to camp for your entire life? And camping in China isn't exactly healthy given that the government views the country side as a place to dump toxic waste.

Richer? Why should I care about dirt poor peasants who I wouldn't touch for money.

Surely you must care about your own wealth?

Freer? Oh no some people are killed.

If you don't care about your freedom why are you protesting the actions of the government? Why don't you just bend over and accept their policies?

At least china except the movement forwards as a nation is more important than the individual.

A nation is pointless if it does not serve individuals. If a nation serves some at the expense of others it is damaging to its citizens.

Which brings us back to why it's more important to look at improvements to society from sterilisation, rather than everyone focusing on the wanton despairs of those afflicted.

Why not cut off their welfare instead? They can't be a drain on society if the government isn't giving them money (unless they commit crime but we punish that anyway).

[Tahooper]

(Original post by chapman.)
Does anyone else think it should be introduced? If anything it is the one thing Hitler got right.

Have any of you really thought that everyone deserves a chance to breed? Like the people on Jeremy Kyle for a start - the ones who scrounge off benefits. They'll have 10 children, and then THEY will scrounge. It's an infestation in Britain! How much money could be saved and put to better use if those 5+ children scroungers were sterilised and unable to plague the world with any more of their children.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Never heard of VW or the Autobahn?


Sterilising children for their parents actions is a complete joke.

[Nick100]

(Original post by najinaji)
I love how most people's reaction to this is saying that we should cut benefits...

So instead of people not being able to have children, they'll be able to have children who starve. I don't know how many of you have studied history (or current affairs) to any extent, but people don't simply stop having children because they're too poor to afford them. See Africa.

The goal isn't just to stop people having children for the evulz; it's to stop them from being a drain on other people in society. If someone can only consume as much as they can produce then they aren't a drain on society.

And in parts of Africa having children generally leads to a higher quality of life; in very poor areas they are a source of labour for the family (rather than just a mouth to feed) while in slightly richer areas they are investment where one cannot afford a pension.

[chapman.]

(Original post by Nick100)
Because you need to breathe it? Are you going to camp for your entire life? And camping in China isn't exactly healthy given that the government views the country side as a place to dump toxic waste.



Surely you must care about your own wealth?



If you don't care about your freedom why are you protesting the actions of the government? Why don't you just bend over and accept their policies?



A nation is pointless if it does not serve individuals. If a nation serves some at the expense of others it is damaging to its citizens.



Why not cut off their welfare instead? They can't be a drain on society if the government isn't giving them money (unless they commit crime but we punish that anyway).

I'm not planning on living in a city. I'm not planning on being poor. I'm not protesting against the government - I merely suggested an extra law. A nation is weak if It places too high a stead in those individuals. For example, if china moves people out of homes, but creates jobs and a way of being economically steady for ten times as many, who are you to fight for those moved? What if those who gain jobs, some need money for medicine for their sick children?

Big picture is key.
The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, Russia did it, Germany did it, the us did it and now china does it.
It's the way of the world, you've been mollycoddled.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Nick100)
People don't "slump into poverty" when they are free. Historically every generation since the industrial revolution has become richer than any generation that has ever preceded it usually without any government support or despite bad government policy. Politicians would like us to believe that only the government can solve our problems; it allows them to maintain power.



More help? From where? Half of the country's income goes to the welfare state; the amount spent on it per UK citizen is in excess of the income of the average human - how can we possibly give these people more help? They have been given every opportunity to succeed; free education, free healthcare, security, they live in one of the richest countries in the world, how can they possibly need more?

Unfortunately we can't blame the poor for the financial crisis, which the tabloids seem to be trying to do these days. Due to globalisation an the developments in technology, there are simply not enough low skilled jobs in the economy, which can be seen by wage differences in this country. So to develop as an economy, more skilled and intelligent workers are needed, but when one in three children are in poverty, educating them becomes a difficult task, hence the need for support through child benefits, EMA etc. These help allow and motivate poorer children to continue in education, and should allow for a more skilled workforce, leading to, in the long run, more equal wages without the need for the state to redistribute wages. If you genuinely believe that there are enough jobs, why would somebody take an unpaid placement at Poundland?

[najinaji]

(Original post by Nick100)
The goal isn't just to stop people having children for the evulz; it's to stop them from being a drain on other people in society. If someone can only consume as much as they can produce then they aren't a drain on society.

I never argued otherwise.

And in parts of Africa having children generally leads to a higher quality of life; in very poor areas they are a source of labour for the family (rather than just a mouth to feed) while in slightly richer areas they are investment where one cannot afford a pension.

Well yes, but if one in a poor position simply refused to have children, then they would die off and no one would have to inherit that position in their place. If, say, the poorest 10% died off, there would be more land, more food and resources to go around, and there would be less starvation.

[Nick100]

(Original post by najinaji)
I never argued otherwise.


Well yes, but if one in a poor position simply refused to have children, then they would die off and no one would have to inherit that position in their place. If, say, the poorest 10% died off, there would be more land, more food and resources to go around, and there would be less starvation.

Yes but if everyone died off there would also be less starvation. Nobody wants to live poor and die young and alone hence why they have children. There is no reason for the bottom 10% to have to die off; the only things preventing them from lifting themselves out of poverty are corrupt, kleptocratic governments.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by chapman.)
If you disagree that doesn't make me an idiot.

No, but on this topic it does. I don't want to get into an argument with you but the idea of this level of intolerance towards someone based purely on their income shows great misunderstanding and ignorance, and I feel that this thread was created merely for effect.

[chapman.]

(Original post by Alistair122)
No, but on this topic it does. I don't want to get into an argument with you but the idea of this level of intolerance towards someone based purely on their income shows great misunderstanding and ignorance, and I feel that this thread was created merely for effect.

I'm not basing it on income. I used income as an example.
Believe what you want, I'm allowed to create debate using a topic I feel will create a good one.

[Barden]

(Original post by Tommyjw)
introduce better education into contraception

surely that's flogging a dead horse though?

we all get the same sex education in school, yet we don't all end up having accidental children and being riddled with STDs...

in fact my school actually forgot to show my year group how to use condoms... yet somehow i've managed to not fall into and perpetuate the underclass... neither did any of my peers (and no, despite being a TSR user, I am not a virgin )

[najinaji]

(Original post by Nick100)
Yes but if everyone died off there would also be less starvation. Nobody wants to live poor and die young and alone hence why they have children. There is no reason for the bottom 10% to have to die off; the only things preventing them from lifting themselves out of poverty are corrupt, kleptocratic governments.

Well yes, but hypothetically, if the birth rate of the African population declined dramatically, there are two possibilities. Either the government would hoard even more money, or the standard of living would rise. In a country like the UK, the latter would likely happen. However, because people are unlikely to simply cut off their own bloodlines, the government would have to intervene to achieve this result.

I'm not supporting the OP's position per se, but I can see the logic behind it.

[chapman.]

(Original post by najinaji)
Well yes, but hypothetically, if the birth rate of the African population declined dramatically, there are two possibilities. Either the government would hoard even more money, or the standard of living would rise. In a country like the UK, the latter would likely happen. However, because people are unlikely to simply cut off their own bloodlines, the government would have to intervene to achieve this result.

I'm not supporting the OP's position per se, but I can see the logic behind it.

All I want is for people to see the logic.
I'm using this for my debate in school and I wanted to trial.

[Nick100]

(Original post by Alistair122)
Unfortunately we can't blame the poor for the financial crisis, which the tabloids seem to be trying to do these days.

I don't blame them for the crisis. The responsibility for that lies with politicians.

Due to globalisation an the developments in technology, there are simply not enough low skilled jobs in the economy, which can be seen by wage differences in this country.

That is not accurate; unless all economic demands have been met there is always a job to be done - unemployment is caused by political factors influencing the economy - it is not caused by economic development itself. It also isn't the case that people remain unskilled for their entire lives; people develop skills and become valuable employees over the course of their lives.

So to develop as an economy, more skilled and intelligent workers are needed, but when one in three children are in poverty, educating them becomes a difficult task, hence the need for support through child benefits, EMA etc.

But the "poverty" which they are in is only relative; they have more wealth than their ancestors did. And over £1200/citizen/year is spent on education.

These help allow and motivate poorer children to continue in education, and should allow for a more skilled workforce, leading to, in the long run, more equal wages without the need for the state to redistribute wages. If you genuinely believe that there are enough jobs, why would somebody take an unpaid placement at Poundland?

But what is the motivation to do well if one can earn a living by popping out kids? If benefits were cut off there would be an economic motivation for children to do well at school rather than (or in addition to)... whatever you're using to motivate them.

The state does not need to redistribute wages; its attempts to "help" people and "help" the economy have only created problems. The reason people have to do things like take unpaid placements at Poundland is because the government has made it illegal to hire someone for less than the minimum wage and now people must gain skills by working for free before they can get a good job.

Finally, you didn't answer my question - where are we going to get additional help from if we're already spending half of the country's output on the welfare state?

[najinaji]

(Original post by Alistair122)
No, but on this topic it does. I don't want to get into an argument with you but the idea of this level of intolerance towards someone based purely on their income shows great misunderstanding and ignorance, and I feel that this thread was created merely for effect.