(Original post by Davij038)
Decisions made by our representatives will have effects on other countries does that mean non British citizens should have the right to vote in the U.K.? The crowning achievement of allowing women to vote is allowing women to have abortion on demand which I think is a wonderful example as to why women should not be allowed to vote. I think we’d all be better off if only married men in employment were able to vote.
I think you missed my point. The NHS takes away choice from people but it is better for everyone rather than letting people choose for themselves. It’s the same with defending traditional families , even if it what isn’t what some people want and even if it it always isn’t the most effective of systems, it is what works the best for the majority and society. Granting the same privileges to other types of family as the nuclear family is the same as if you privatised the NHS and let people choose it for themselves- it devalues it and allies it to be undercut and do naturally less people are going to want it.
A home for everyone is a home for no one.
If anything can be a family nothing can.
If anyone can be European/ whatever nobody can be.
I’m not saying for a moment that wives should stay with abusive husbands. That is obvious legitimate grounds for a divorce provided it cannot be worked through. But this is a minority of divorce cases.
Why should people be allowed to do whatever they want, particularly if it’s known to be destructive such as becoming morbidly obese? How dare anyone do such a disgusting and shameful thing, it’s sickening.
According to my number of posts I post an average of 2.5 posts every day, I don’t think that’s a lot. I also don’t watch TV and have a job which occasionally involves me commuting where I’m doing nothing.
As for you not saying it
A: well, you kinda did.
B: you’ve basically just admitted that you DO think about it but simply don’t care enough about to help them. One of the many masks of liberalism is that it masks selfishness as kindness and generosity.
The crowning achievement of allowing women to vote is the fact what women can vote; that they're allowed to have a say in how the country, of whom almost all live in, is run. This is the merit in itself. The actions of our government are clearly going to have a much more direct effect on the people who live here, overall, than those who live elsewhere. With regards to abortion: men
by a huge majority
support the right of women to have abortions so this isn't a voting issue exclusively for women. Also when the laws about abortion
were first relaxed women made up only 4%
of MPs in the House of Commons. If you wish to take this out on anyone it's male voters and male MPs, not women.
Your comparison between the nuclear family and the NHS is flawed because the NHS doesn't take away choice from people. If anything it only gives people more choices (especially those who are poor and cannot afford private healthcare). Treating non-nuclear families or non-traditionally inclined families the same way as nuclear families also isn't the same thing as privatising the NHS because you're not taking anything away from anyone. If you privatise the NHS you're taking healthcare away from millions. If a society accepts families which don't fit the nuclear model then all you're doing is accepting a different kind of family; you haven't stopped people from having a nuclear family and you certainly haven't stopped nuclear families from being accepted by a society/culture.
If a nuclear family works for a majority of people then by all means they should go for it. What shouldn't happen, however, is people with whom a nuclear family doesn't
work being either forced or shunned into one or rejected if they opt for a different kind of family. A society more open to different family models doesn't devalue a more traditional model or make people less inclined to have one. Why? Because that hasn't happened
. Traditional families make up a majority of all families in the UK and there are more now than there were 10 years ago. The number of single-parent families has also remained fairly constant
over the last 20 years. So clearly we haven't all packed our bags and said sod off to the tradtional family, have we? The only non-traditional family model which has grown in popularity is the cohabitating family model, which is essentially the same as a traditional family just without marriage.
The reason I mentioned opposition to divorce is because it's a social conservative belief (albeit a strong one) and that you had mentioned that social conservatism is health, or at least healthier than liberalism. It's good that you seem to accept some kind of divorce, at least.
With regards to the last part, I said it but I don't believe it. I don't know anything about your life outside of what you have written on this forum. My point was that if I put on a Davij038 thinking cap then suddenly I get to determine what kind of life you live because, clearly, you seem to have the capacity to know everything about someone solely on the basis of one thing, in this case whether someone plays video games or likes Marvel. Of course you don't and I was taking the piss out of that. If someone who I have never spoken with before tells me that they play video games or like Marvel then all I know about them is that they play video games or like Marvel.
Of course if I know more about a person and I'm aware that there are problems in their life (social, medical, etc) then I will do whatever I can to help them. What I won't
do is lecture someone I don't know about how they should live their life because I think I know what their life is like and think I know how they should live their life better than they do.