Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Whats always quite comical when this topic gets “discussed” for want of a better word is the absolute lack of any mention of the rights of a father
How come mens rights pretty much ONLY seem to be relevant when the right to pay for a child is being discussed?
And then people seem surprised when fathers actually act like an irrelevant and unimportant part of a childs life lol
DUH! :lol: :lol: :lol:
I’m totally shocked
REALLY shocked I am
He was a COMEDIAN? He was about as funny as having a tonsolectomy performed via your anus without any anaesthetic
I think I am going to grieve his passing tho now…….
OOPS, nope, it was just a burp :lol: :lol: my mistake :D
OMG I cant believe someone wheeled out the “its a drain on the health serivice” twaddle lol
Some people will sink to any level to try and fashion what they think is a reasonable arguement out of total manure :D:D:D
How much of a “drain” will the non aborted little foetus be on the NHS for the following 9 months? How much of a drain on the school system for the following 16 years? How much of a drain on the NHS’ dental services? How much of a drain on their GP? How much of a drain on public services such as rubhish disposal, playgroups, social services and even the police when its a teenager and in typical single parent offspring stylee starts working on their criminal degree and asbo collection?
Yet you think one friggin abortion is MORe of a drain on public funds than all of that? HAHAHA, some people :lol: :lol: :lol:
This rights stuff is a bit screwed up really and heavily slanted towards letting women do whatever they want without having to ever take much in the way of personal responsibility
They already have the right to not HAVE a foetus inside their body which can quite easily be achieved by keeping their knickers on and not fucking people
If they DO choose to fuck someone and are too pissed to take proper precautions they should seeing as we live in a world seeking “equality” have an equal amount of rights regarding that foetus as the father does
Failing that, if the woman wants sole and unquestionable right to decide IF a child should be born then the father should have an equal right to decide if he wants to pay for the little b’stard seeing as he has no choice in whether the collection of unwanted cells gets to form into a future illiterate single parents happy slapping burglar or prostitute
The thing is tho we DID have this “reward” not that long ago called the married persons tax code which was then scrapped and the money distributed through social services instead
The pros and cons tend to be selectively seen, ignored/liked or disliked depending on someones political stance but in a nutshell
paying married couples extra via a tax code is easy to implement, it costs hardly anything in administration BUT it also applies to people who are married AND are earning massive amounts of money
Whereas paying it through a social services with everyone on the same tax code can be means tested so the rich dont qualify but also requires thousands of civil servants wage bills merely to hand the money back out
Realistically we only need two forms of taxation, income tax with a floating code and VAT with variable percentages for each type of item, but although that would be SUCH a cheap way of collecting tax it would also be far too transparent for a governments liking which would make increasing the level of taxation that much harder when you only had two places to alter rather than hundreds you can gradually sneak up when nobody is looking
This is what we get when you live in a touchy feely left wing dictatorship tho
Personally I reckon that we need to look into a reliable and easily reversible method of steralising all girls over the age of 12 then have them apply a year in advance when they want to procreate before its reversed in which time they and their partner will have to have parenting classes and have their ability and means to support a child examined before its granted
At least then ALL children will be born by choice to parents with at least some idea on what raising a child entails and the ONLY thing it would stop is accidental pregnancies or ones undertaken on a whim or during a drinking session
I also think that benefits should ONLY be paid for a maximum of 2 adults and three kids especially where that family has always or mostly been unemployed, after all working couples dont magically get a payrise everytime they knock a kid out do they? So why should non working couples?
They might enjoy a bit of bondage tho :D
The thing is its never going to happen, and theres no way to penalise (as if they havent done enough “PENILising” anyway) the mothers without negatively affecting their bastard offspring (thats not swearing btw, its a proper word used properly :D:D:D
And its STILL locking the gate after the “whore’se has bolted so to speak as taxing them WONT make them not a mother will it?
To address a problem logically you have to look at ALL the ways people arrive in it, not just the ones each particular paper will brainwash the moronic majority with, and we end up with women in this predicament (or should that be postDICKament?) in a variety of ways not limited to
arriving here pregnant or with a child claiming ASSylum or immigrating here
just shagging about so they can get a council house and never have to work
having a child because they dont see anything more promising in their future
accidental pregnancy and moral/religious problems with abortion or adoption
a couple planning a child UNTIL pregnancy occurs then the bloke (wisely) does a linford
the father dies (probably from the shock of seeing how fat she gets)and countless other reasons
The ONLY way to avoid the majority of those is to make pregnancy a planned occurence, research contraceptive methods and find a form of steralisation thats easily reversed then steralise ALL women over the age of 12
Then they would have to apply to have it reversed AND be able to prove they are not only capable of raising a child, are having one for the right reasons but also have some degree of ability to afford to raise a child as would their partner they plan to have the child with
After they’ve bred their little arses off she could then be resteralised until she applies again when their ability to raise a child would be examined again now they already have the financial burden of one child
This way ALL breeding would be purely by CHOICE, no accidents, and it would be protecting the rights of the CHILDREN to be born to at least reasonably decent parents
After all, we have to jump through loads of hoops JUST to drive a car, but any drooling retard is allowed to have a kid, where are the kids rights protected in that?
With all rights come responsibilities, and its about time people started to take responsibility for their breeding habits
Well having ridden a motorbike for several years, a bicycle since I was old enough to and a car for the last few decades I much prefer to get from A to B in comfort and dryness with music, a fag and a drink and without having to feel like a cat on a hot tin roof worrying if the next vehicle is going to have my name on it
I cycle purely for exercise and for the same reason I dont crap in the woods due to having a toilet, have a colour rather than a black and white TV, and buy my food rather than hunting and skinning it myself I drive rather than ride
Its called progress :D
I think the most obvious thing there is why wasnt the moronic tofu eating batty boy bicycle riding tree hugger wearing reflective clothing?
Its actually the other way round a lot of the time, cyclists and motorcyclists think the world owes them something, as tho the entire rest of the world should be looking out for THEIR safety rather than them actually doing so themselves
On the whole cyclists are far worse than motorcyclists, but thats probably more to do with them never having a test, not being identifiable and not being required to pay insurance to use the roads
But many bike riders of any sort DO frequently overtake blindly and then blame someone else for their own idiocy
Ad for the “lower emissions” comment, well LOL LOL LOL, someone is a bit gullible innit?
If the entire world swapped to bicycles instead of cars it wouldnt make the slightest difference to the emissions or global warming lol
Some people will believe absolutely anything it seems :D:D:D:D
BECAUSE they USE the roads DUH!
Bit obvious that one really
IF you DONT use something its unreasonable to be expected to pay for it, if you DO use it then it isnt unreasonable to be expected to pay for it
A better question is why should non bicycle owning car and motorbike drivers have to foot the bill for millions upon millions of pounds worth of cycle paths that are not only of no use to them, but also hinder them using their cars on the roads they are already over charged for using?
Cyclists contribute nothing towards the roads, as such nothing should be spent on encouraging the tossers to use them, theyre pedestrians, they HAVE contributed towards the footpaths so THATS where they belong
Otherwise lets just stop taxing motorists too, let everyone whether they use the roads or not pay equally for the roads, thats fair innit?
