should chavs be given vasectomies?
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5329212
"unemployed men should have vasectomies" say MP
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
"unemployed men should have vasectomies" say MP
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
(edited 5 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by nikki haley
"unemployed men should have vasectomies" say MP
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
That’s not really what he said.
He said that people shouldn’t have children that they can’t afford, which is a very valid point
Original post by cherryred90s
That’s not really what he said.
He said that people shouldn’t have children that they can’t afford, which is a very valid point
He said that people shouldn’t have children that they can’t afford, which is a very valid point
I totally agree with that.
The lower classes are the only ones knocking out children in anywhere near the numbers we need.
Is he suggesting we give up totally and outsource the replenishinment of our population completely to immigrants?
I think we should be told. 😁
Is he suggesting we give up totally and outsource the replenishinment of our population completely to immigrants?
I think we should be told. 😁
Original post by nikki haley
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5329212
"unemployed men should have vasectomies" say MP
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
"unemployed men should have vasectomies" say MP
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-promoted-theresa-role-11862840
They are unemployed because nowadays there are machines that will do the work of a hundred men.
Original post by Grosvenor888
They are unemployed because nowadays there are machines that will do the work of a hundred men.
indeed, technology keeps replacing the need for a human workforce and also greed is a factor - they can get cheaper workers in indonesia, china etc.
Ok this is the very definiton of 'fake news' the MP said that people should not have children they cannot provide for. I disagree with the statement but to cast a net out to sea and claim you've found a shark instead of a salmon is dishonest.
Secondly being unemployed and being a chav are not the same thing, a great number of people are unemployed who previously had employment but are out of it for some reason, mentally ill people may be unemployed, special needed people, the elderly, the infirm and sick, people who hold peculiar political views and don't want to participate in the system etc.
Thirdly yes chavs should be able to breed as we live in a liberal society where we do not arbitrarily restrict reproductive rights.
Finally, chavs are indeed terrible people, they litter, start fights, create noise pollution, set fire to bins and cause probably about 80 per cent of petty crime.
Secondly being unemployed and being a chav are not the same thing, a great number of people are unemployed who previously had employment but are out of it for some reason, mentally ill people may be unemployed, special needed people, the elderly, the infirm and sick, people who hold peculiar political views and don't want to participate in the system etc.
Thirdly yes chavs should be able to breed as we live in a liberal society where we do not arbitrarily restrict reproductive rights.
Finally, chavs are indeed terrible people, they litter, start fights, create noise pollution, set fire to bins and cause probably about 80 per cent of petty crime.
The chav bashing on here is shameful.
Original post by Wilfred Little
The chav bashing on here is shameful.
That's because some of us have experience. I was one. I grew up in those circles, my father was poor and my mother lived on welfare due to disability, fine parents they are (were in my father's case as he is dead) but we couldn't escape the people who moved in our 'social group'. Some of those people were not chavs, they just dressed the way and had funny ways of speaking, others were really nasty however, they hang round in groups causing all kinds of trouble.
I don't know why the middle class is so quick to defend chavs, us working lot are willing to turn them in to school for a second chance.
Original post by tashkent46
That's because some of us have experience. I was one. I grew up in those circles, my father was poor and my mother lived on welfare due to disability, fine parents they are (were in my father's case as he is dead) but we couldn't escape the people who moved in our 'social group'. Some of those people were not chavs, they just dressed the way and had funny ways of speaking, others were really nasty however, they hang round in groups causing all kinds of trouble.
I don't know why the middle class is so quick to defend chavs, us working lot are willing to turn them in to school for a second chance.
I don't know why the middle class is so quick to defend chavs, us working lot are willing to turn them in to school for a second chance.
Not sure what your point is.
Original post by Wilfred Little
Not sure what your point is.
How? Do I need to start posting in massive bold letters when I get to the point? Look at what I said at the end, working class people, the people who overwhelmingly have to live with chavs, are almost always the most critical of them. There are good reasons to be.
Original post by tashkent46
How? Do I need to start posting in massive bold letters when I get to the point? Look at what I said at the end, working class people, the people who overwhelmingly have to live with chavs, are almost always the most critical of them. There are good reasons to be.
It just said some are good some are bad.
The way you dress and speak is more than enough for lots of people on this website to call you a chav btw.
Original post by tashkent46
Ok this is the very definiton of 'fake news' the MP said that people should not have children they cannot provide for. I disagree with the statement but to cast a net out to sea and claim you've found a shark instead of a salmon is dishonest.
May I ask why you disagree with not having children if you don’t have the money to support them?
Original post by Caledonite
May I ask why you disagree with not having children if you don’t have the money to support them?
You already did
I don't think it is as simple as he makes out, say I have a child with my (hypothetical) wife and the two of us are both in long term employment and have savings. My wife loses her job because her boss is sexist, or maybe our parents are suddenly ill and we need to pay medical and travel expenses and care costs, or maybe an infinite number of reasons arises meaning we can no longer afford to support our children. We didn't choose that, but circumstances have made us too poor to support them.
Now I guess you're going to say that's not the case in point and I should limit my example to people who chose to have children without means of support. I am going to hold my breath and say 90 per cent of those people did not want or plan a pregnancy in the first place, in which case the only option was abortion which would be immoral to compel. For those who did plan to have children without means of support I agree with his statement somewhat but we need to look at history to see why it is false.
Historically families were much larger despite being poorer. Why was this? Surely if you can't afford children you shouldn't have any? Well for one children died earlier so they had to so let's rule that out. The other incentive was economic, children often do a lot of house hold work that frees time for the parents, in that sense having children is a prudent financial investment!
The other reason is I don't believe the government should decide who has a right to have a child, I think the care system already does a terrible job in that respect and it convinces me that it isn't up for the task.
And finally, children are not just about money or support, for some people having a child is what makes them happy. Should it not be a human right for everyone to be able to reproduce freely and in a safe way?
If we're going to consider the sterilisation of Britain's underclass, why not consider sterilising all supposed "refugees". Both ideas are far-fetched and immoral perhaps (not really) but they are worth discussing.
I think Europe should've implemented this policy. All young, fit, virile unmarried men over the age of 18 submit themselves for mandatory sterilisation (NOT castration) if they wish to become a citizen of that country. I specify unmarried men because married men (especially those with kids) have more financial obligations (in theory) and are less likely to engage in crime. The burden of fatherhood will force them to become tax-paying citizens.
Why not just ban them outright? The limp-wristed politicians and the bleeding heart altruists get to sleep well at night while the indigenous population can at least take comfort in the knowledge that the interlopers won't replicate to the point of unsustainability. Many men will be disgusted at the prospect of having their fertility stripped from them and may be willling to return to their country of origin.
There is of course the problem of all those untethered, nihilistic men with little to live for running amok but at least they will die off without reproducing. It's always darkest before the dawn (no racial pun intended lol)
Obviously I didn't put much thought into this idea but I think I'm on to something.
Btw, this isn't about ethnic cleansing, I'm mixed myself lol
I think Europe should've implemented this policy. All young, fit, virile unmarried men over the age of 18 submit themselves for mandatory sterilisation (NOT castration) if they wish to become a citizen of that country. I specify unmarried men because married men (especially those with kids) have more financial obligations (in theory) and are less likely to engage in crime. The burden of fatherhood will force them to become tax-paying citizens.
Why not just ban them outright? The limp-wristed politicians and the bleeding heart altruists get to sleep well at night while the indigenous population can at least take comfort in the knowledge that the interlopers won't replicate to the point of unsustainability. Many men will be disgusted at the prospect of having their fertility stripped from them and may be willling to return to their country of origin.
There is of course the problem of all those untethered, nihilistic men with little to live for running amok but at least they will die off without reproducing. It's always darkest before the dawn (no racial pun intended lol)
Obviously I didn't put much thought into this idea but I think I'm on to something.
Btw, this isn't about ethnic cleansing, I'm mixed myself lol
Original post by tashkent46
You already did
I don't think it is as simple as he makes out, say I have a child with my (hypothetical) wife and the two of us are both in long term employment and have savings. My wife loses her job because her boss is sexist, or maybe our parents are suddenly ill and we need to pay medical and travel expenses and care costs, or maybe an infinite number of reasons arises meaning we can no longer afford to support our children. We didn't choose that, but circumstances have made us too poor to support them.
Now I guess you're going to say that's not the case in point and I should limit my example to people who chose to have children without means of support. I am going to hold my breath and say 90 per cent of those people did not want or plan a pregnancy in the first place, in which case the only option was abortion which would be immoral to compel. For those who did plan to have children without means of support I agree with his statement somewhat but we need to look at history to see why it is false.
Historically families were much larger despite being poorer. Why was this? Surely if you can't afford children you shouldn't have any? Well for one children died earlier so they had to so let's rule that out. The other incentive was economic, children often do a lot of house hold work that frees time for the parents, in that sense having children is a prudent financial investment!
The other reason is I don't believe the government should decide who has a right to have a child, I think the care system already does a terrible job in that respect and it convinces me that it isn't up for the task.
And finally, children are not just about money or support, for some people having a child is what makes them happy. Should it not be a human right for everyone to be able to reproduce freely and in a safe way?
I don't think it is as simple as he makes out, say I have a child with my (hypothetical) wife and the two of us are both in long term employment and have savings. My wife loses her job because her boss is sexist, or maybe our parents are suddenly ill and we need to pay medical and travel expenses and care costs, or maybe an infinite number of reasons arises meaning we can no longer afford to support our children. We didn't choose that, but circumstances have made us too poor to support them.
Now I guess you're going to say that's not the case in point and I should limit my example to people who chose to have children without means of support. I am going to hold my breath and say 90 per cent of those people did not want or plan a pregnancy in the first place, in which case the only option was abortion which would be immoral to compel. For those who did plan to have children without means of support I agree with his statement somewhat but we need to look at history to see why it is false.
Historically families were much larger despite being poorer. Why was this? Surely if you can't afford children you shouldn't have any? Well for one children died earlier so they had to so let's rule that out. The other incentive was economic, children often do a lot of house hold work that frees time for the parents, in that sense having children is a prudent financial investment!
The other reason is I don't believe the government should decide who has a right to have a child, I think the care system already does a terrible job in that respect and it convinces me that it isn't up for the task.
And finally, children are not just about money or support, for some people having a child is what makes them happy. Should it not be a human right for everyone to be able to reproduce freely and in a safe way?
Thanks for your decent answer! I’m not looking to start an argument, I was just genuinely curious. You said 90% of those who can’t support their children did not want or plan a pregnancy in the first place. This makes me think that a possible solution is to heavily promote contraception to low-income areas where this type of thing is more likely to happen. Posters, billboards, door-to-door etc. What do you think?
Do you really disagree with the attitude that people should not have children that they cannot provide for?
My friend's mother is an inspirational role model and an amazing parent- she was a teenage mother, brought up two children with health problems on her own, worked long hours as a waitress to financially provide for her family, never claimed any income support or housing benefit, encouraged her children to avoid criminals and aim high in terms of both education and careers.
Her son is now a prison officer, her daughter a postgraduate student.
Her age, marital status and bank balance were all irrelevant- she provided for her children in every way possible yet says she should have done more.
My friend's mother is an inspirational role model and an amazing parent- she was a teenage mother, brought up two children with health problems on her own, worked long hours as a waitress to financially provide for her family, never claimed any income support or housing benefit, encouraged her children to avoid criminals and aim high in terms of both education and careers.
Her son is now a prison officer, her daughter a postgraduate student.
Her age, marital status and bank balance were all irrelevant- she provided for her children in every way possible yet says she should have done more.
Original post by tashkent46
Ok this is the very definiton of 'fake news' the MP said that people should not have children they cannot provide for. I disagree with the statement but to cast a net out to sea and claim you've found a shark instead of a salmon is dishonest.
Secondly being unemployed and being a chav are not the same thing, a great number of people are unemployed who previously had employment but are out of it for some reason, mentally ill people may be unemployed, special needed people, the elderly, the infirm and sick, people who hold peculiar political views and don't want to participate in the system etc.
Thirdly yes chavs should be able to breed as we live in a liberal society where we do not arbitrarily restrict reproductive rights.
Finally, chavs are indeed terrible people, they litter, start fights, create noise pollution, set fire to bins and cause probably about 80 per cent of petty crime.
Secondly being unemployed and being a chav are not the same thing, a great number of people are unemployed who previously had employment but are out of it for some reason, mentally ill people may be unemployed, special needed people, the elderly, the infirm and sick, people who hold peculiar political views and don't want to participate in the system etc.
Thirdly yes chavs should be able to breed as we live in a liberal society where we do not arbitrarily restrict reproductive rights.
Finally, chavs are indeed terrible people, they litter, start fights, create noise pollution, set fire to bins and cause probably about 80 per cent of petty crime.
Yes, they should. Culled even.
The people here defending chavs probably didn't grow up in an environment where they had to deal with them in school or work.
The people here defending chavs probably didn't grow up in an environment where they had to deal with them in school or work.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
