Guest Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Katy Hopkins has been banned from Twitter. Ha ha good evil bitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 On 17/06/2020 at 09:18, Stan said: Also Most people don't think like that. It's funny how it's always people who are well of saying things like this. If they were poor they would still want kids and would probably have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted June 21, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted June 21, 2020 Think I said it in another thread already but if you ask the same people what their opinion is on foreign aid they'll tell you we should look after our own first, then they'll proceed to tell you that helping impoverished British children doesn't fall into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted October 23, 2020 Author Administrator Share Posted October 23, 2020 His quality work continues after the shameful Tories voted against FSM for kids until March. On his Twitter he's literally collating all info and locations of cafes/bars across the country, who are already probably struggling to stay afloat, that are offering FSM for kids. Just unreal how much good work he's doing when people in charge can't/don't/won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted October 23, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 23, 2020 I don't really think it's in Rashford's personality to actually stand for election after he retires from football. The stereotype about footballers overall is that they're probably perceived to be too dumb or thuggish or overly-paid to successfully stand as an MP in the UK, so it got me wondering, has a former footballer ever stood in an election? Would Rashford pass the selection process and be elected (probably in a safe Labour seat) if he wanted to? Like I said, I doubt he'd choose to but mainly, has a former footballer ever gone into elected politics (not the House of Lords like Ian Botham for example) and would it ever be viable for one to go for it in future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan Posted October 23, 2020 Author Administrator Share Posted October 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: I don't really think it's in Rashford's personality to actually stand for election after he retires from football. The stereotype about footballers overall is that they're probably perceived to be too dumb or thuggish or overly-paid to successfully stand as an MP in the UK, so it got me wondering, has a former footballer ever stood in an election? Would Rashford pass the selection process and be elected (probably in a safe Labour seat) if he wanted to? Like I said, I doubt he'd choose to but mainly, has a former footballer ever gone into elected politics (not the House of Lords like Ian Botham for example) and would it ever be viable for one to go for it in future? I might be horribly wrong but I swear Sol Campbell went in to politics (and failed?) quite a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted October 23, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Stan said: I might be horribly wrong but I swear Sol Campbell went in to politics (and failed?) quite a few years back. Nah he did somewhere around 2017/2016? I am thinking. Only remember it because he was asked a question about whether Spurs fans would vote for him and he said something on the lines of "thats football this is something else" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber CaaC (John)+ Posted October 23, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, Stan said: I might be horribly wrong but I swear Sol Campbell went in to politics (and failed?) quite a few years back. Aye, he did. In February 2015, Campbell announced an (ultimately unsuccessful) ambition to become the Conservative Party nominee for Mayor of London in the 2016 election. Political career[edit] Since his retirement from football, Campbell has become increasingly vocal about British politics. In 2013, he said he liked "the mentality of Labour but the policies of the Conservatives".[122] In 2014, he criticised Ed Miliband's proposals for a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, calling it "madness".[123] He has also stated he is considering joining the Conservative Party and would be interested in helping the party gain more of "the black vote".[124] Campbell has criticised the racial diversity in The Football Association ("FA"), and he made newspaper headlines in March 2014 after claiming that institutional racism on the part of the FA meant he was never chosen to captain the England team during his playing career.[125] Campbell had been named as starting captain for England in a friendly against the United States in May 2005 under Sven-Göran Eriksson,[126] he was replaced with Zat Knight at half-time following an ankle injury.[127] In February 2015, Campbell confirmed his intention to run for the Conservative Party nomination for Mayor of London in the 2016 election.[3] In the list of four candidates chosen in July 2015, Campbell was not shortlisted.[128] During the 2016 referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of, or leave, the European Union, Campbell supported Brexit.[129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 On 21/06/2020 at 18:50, RandoEFC said: Think I said it in another thread already but if you ask the same people what their opinion is on foreign aid they'll tell you we should look after our own first, then they'll proceed to tell you that helping impoverished British children doesn't fall into that category. They basically dont want to do anything to help anyone else. I can understand some of their reasons but if everyone did more to help others the world would be better. The way I look at it big businesses make insane amounts of profit. They dont pay their workers their full value. Now that is unfortunately the way the economy works and for the foreseeable is the way it probably will need to. How ever by taxing them higher tax and charging them for these things it balances it out. A bit of a simplified solution but I think the basis of it is right from what I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 Only pole climbing, disingenous, power hungry people go into politics. I'd hope Rashford would stay well away from politics, it's for the vain and arrogant only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 On 16/06/2020 at 17:57, Cicero said: In the end, its about personal responsibility. You'd wager an educated individual who has a high paying job is more responsible vs one that isn't educated and doesn't work or has a low skilled job. Not always. Some people have had some serious advantages in life to get them where they are. People on low wages have to manage their money very carefully and be very responsible. People on high wages dont. In fact most people I have met on high wages dont really have a clue what it is like to have to watch every penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted October 23, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 23, 2020 Why is it even an argument though? If an 8 year old child is hungry, why should they not get help because it's their parents' fault? It's not the child's fault. The argument that "it's the parents' responsibility, not the government's" is essentially predicated on punishing the child for having bad parents by not helping them. Honestly, think about it. You can't deny it. Kids that don't have parents looking after them properly are the ones that should be at the very top of the list for people we should be helping. Fair enough if their parents are hopeless wasters and you think they need to be punished for it, if that's your politics then don't give them support but punishing their kids is low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Artful Dodger Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 The libertarian, 'deserving poor' bullshit that Cicero comes out with is typical of the general American outlook, 'I'm alright jack'. They'd come out and advocate straight up Eugenics if they thought they could get away with it. These people are gaining more and more traction. I'm not a religious person but you know in the Bible where God floods the earth because everyone is such scum? I think we must be approaching that stage again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: Why is it even an argument though? If an 8 year old child is hungry, why should they not get help because it's their parents' fault? It's not the child's fault. The argument that "it's the parents' responsibility, not the government's" is essentially predicated on punishing the child for having bad parents by not helping them. Honestly, think about it. You can't deny it. Kids that don't have parents looking after them properly are the ones that should be at the very top of the list for people we should be helping. Fair enough if their parents are hopeless wasters and you think they need to be punished for it, if that's your politics then don't give them support but punishing their kids is low. 100 percent. At the end of the day it isnt the kids fault. Also I dont think there are that many people who would say to themselves. Well I could have kids but if I do i will be relying on the state to feed them and that would be wrong. Most people would still choose to have kids if they knew they could get state help. I dont think that someone who has a high paying job can say what they would do in the same circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 @RandoEFC I cant believe its 2020 and a first world country is debating whether we should be feeding kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 I seriously an convinced that right wing polices are very dangerous on a world level. I mean the right wing has been very influential in climate change, they have spread mass racism, they just make the world a worse place. One of my friends is moderately right. But more so that he thinks right wing polices are more realistic. But even he said if everyone in the world was left wing the world would be a good place but if everyone was right wing it would be horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted October 23, 2020 Subscriber Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said: @RandoEFC I cant believe its 2020 and a first world country is debating whether we should be feeding kids. 6th biggest economy in the world. Apparently, we can take the economic damage from Brexit for the sake of sovereignty, we can pay a private company £12bn to run a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (unsuccessfully) but we can't afford to help desperate asylum seekers because "we have enough people suffering here" but also we can't afford to help them either. Well we can afford it, we're just not going to because it's up to the parents to do it. But we're also not going to pay the parents a high enough minimum wage to allow them to comfortably feed their children. And also when that minimum wage is reduced by 33% because of the pandemic preventing some of those parents from going to work, we're still not going to help them feed their children during the holidays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 54 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said: Not always. Some people have had some serious advantages in life to get them where they are. People on low wages have to manage their money very carefully and be very responsible. People on high wages dont. In fact most people I have met on high wages dont really have a clue what it is like to have to watch every penny The argument I was implying was the correlation of income affecting fertility. Where statistics show that high income families/societies choose to have fewer kids than low income families/societies. This can be down to a magnitude of factors such as religion, values, marriage, or education. Or lack thereof. Which was my point of education leading to a better understanding of moral obligation. Choosing to have children, when you know you can't afford them, is a lack of personal responsibility. Mistakenly having children, when you failed to take protective measures and you know you can't afford them, is a lack of personal responsibility. Children are innocent. They should not be the ones who suffer when they are the future. 34 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said: The libertarian, 'deserving poor' bullshit that Cicero comes out with is typical of the general American outlook, 'I'm alright jack'. They'd come out and advocate straight up Eugenics if they thought they could get away with it. These people are gaining more and more traction. I'm not a religious person but you know in the Bible where God floods the earth because everyone is such scum? I think we must be approaching that stage again. You can't help yourself can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 @Cicero I dont believe for a second that people on higher incomes have a better understand of morals. A lot of wealthy people do bad things to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said: @Cicero I dont believe for a second that people on higher incomes have a better understand of morals. A lot of wealthy people do bad things to make money. I'm sure they do. Except I'm not arguing that. The discussion is whether education plays a part in someone's decision to have children when it's referenced to the correlation of income affecting fertility. Again, there is a wide variety of factors that are in play here. But despite every factor, if it falls down to the inability to care for the child, its a lack of personal responsibility and your moral obligation to not only that child, but to society. It's already been proven that education often leads to an enhancement in an individual's decision making. Believing it is your moral duty to have children be it from cultural values, religion, or marriage, despite the ability to afford them, is a lack of personal responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storts Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 4 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said: Only pole climbing, disingenous, power hungry people go into politics. I'd hope Rashford would stay well away from politics, it's for the vain and arrogant only. Incorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Cicero said: I'm sure they do. Except I'm not arguing that. The discussion is whether education plays a part in someone's decision to have children when it's referenced to the correlation of income affecting fertility. Again, there is a wide variety of factors that are in play here. But despite every factor, if it falls down to the inability to care for the child, its a lack of personal responsibility and your moral obligation to not only that child, but to society. It's already been proven that education often leads to an enhancement in an individual's decision making. Believing it is your moral duty to have children be it from cultural values, religion, or marriage, despite the ability to afford them, is a lack of personal responsibility. Isn’t the discussion about Marcus Rashford trying to make sure that kids get fed. Also with COVID I don’t think you can put a lot of people’s current economic situation onto personal responsibility... which by the way, I’m really not sure you should be doing in the first place. That’s a bit of an abhorrent way to think about people and “getting what they deserve” - but me being dismissive of that sort of bullshit aside... These kids didn’t choose to be born and they didn’t choose to be hungry. They’re kids. Hungry kids that the government should be making sure aren’t going hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 I've not got much else to add that hasn't already been said in the thread about Rashford. The only thing I'd love to happen, as a show of respect, is to award him Sports Personality of the Year. The award should be exactly about what it says on the tin, personality. And Rashford has shown us all his, delivering with actions, rather than just words, what he is all about. I don't think there is a Sportsman or woman in the UK that can achieve something quite as great as what Rashford has this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 I hate the idea of 'foreign aid iz bad buz you have to look after your own first'. Well that isn't the point of foreign aid, it's essentially a tool to keep less fortunate countries close creating a working partnership. Foreign aid is also better than brain draining a country of their best and brightest minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 27 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Isn’t the discussion about Marcus Rashford trying to make sure that kids get fed. Also with COVID I don’t think you can put a lot of people’s current economic situation onto personal responsibility... which by the way, I’m really not sure you should be doing in the first place. That’s a bit of an abhorrent way to think about people and “getting what they deserve” - but me being dismissive of that sort of bullshit aside... These kids didn’t choose to be born and they didn’t choose to be hungry. They’re kids. Hungry kids that the government should be making sure aren’t going hungry. What the fuck are you actually on about? Look at my very first post in this thread before you attempt to skew my viewpoint on the matter with your ridiculous false conclusion fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.