Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Eugenics

paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 4:31:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I posted this thread on a UK debating site, and thought it may be a good subject for you lot to discuss.

Eugenics for the UK

Now, before everyone starts ranting about Hitler and the Nazis, I would like to make it clear that eugenics can only work if a degree of compassion is exercised. I do not want everyone to have blond hair and blue eyes, and the only races I want to irrigate are Pikys and chavs. That said, nobody wants to live in a country full of foreigners. We live in a very over populated country that is bursting at the seams. You cant get on a train in the rush hour, the motorways are at a stand still at 6am, doctors and dentist appointments are like gold dust, and if you need an operation you have to book one before you get ill. It's my belief that we not only need less people, we need better people.

First of all I would stop all immigration, to give us time to evaluate exactly where we are. All industries are in to much of a hurry to employ foreigners, rather than to invest in training. I believe that if our unemployed indigenous people were given more of a chance, then we may have a smaller underclass. When and if it is time to start an immigration program, we can then let in people in with the skills we need, and only those that are prepared to accept and adopt our culture will be let in. That would most certainly mean NO MUSLIMS. I don't propose that we would throw out any foreigners that live here, unless they refuse to adopt the British traditional way of life. That would mean the banning of these stupid daytime pajamas some many of our Asian friends wear, and deportation of anyone that doesn't speak fluent English.

We live in a society where people that can't have children have to be Mr and Mrs perfect (or gay) to be able to adopt children, whereas if you can produce children naturally you can have as many sprogs as you want. This would almost certainly stop. I believe people should have to sit a simple test before having a child. Once they receive permission to have a child then they can then have one without additional tax implications, from there on in they would have to pay taxes accordingly. Without going any further, these two ideas have already reduced the population, and increased the quality of human beings we are to produce.

Of course, it's not just about the quality and quantity of human being we produce, we have to take into account the age mix. Society at present is hell bent on having everyone live to 110 years old, and this has some terrible implications. To be able to keep these people in care homes etc, we need to raise more taxes, and this means more people, and even worse, more foreigners. My proposal is to allow people to retire at 55 and give them a generous state pension. If everyone is humanly disposed of at the age of 70, this will save a fortune in NHS costs, free up property, reduce the likelihood of long lingering illnesses, and allow everyone to plan their finances properly. This one idea is the master stroke that most people would find hardest to accept, so if that didn't happen, I would propose that only palliative care be given to the over 60s, and euthanasia be given to anyone over the age of 50 who wants it. This wouldn't be as effective, however most people would accept it without argument.

I would also bring back hanging, but not just for murder. It's fact that criminals breed criminals, and therefore by eradicating them at source would surely reduce crime, and in turn the financial cost of crime.

In brief, these few measures could create a smaller and more manageable society, with less crime, and would eventually eradicate the cancer we call multiculturalism. We would be the envy of the world, and who knows, we may even get our empire back one day !!
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 4:56:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 4:31:04 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I posted this thread on a UK debating site, and thought it may be a good subject for you lot to discuss.

Eugenics for the UK

Now, before everyone starts ranting about Hitler and the Nazis, I would like to make it clear that eugenics can only work if a degree of compassion is exercised. I do not want everyone to have blond hair and blue eyes, and the only races I want to irrigate are Pikys and chavs. That said, nobody wants to live in a country full of foreigners. We live in a very over populated country that is bursting at the seams. You cant get on a train in the rush hour, the motorways are at a stand still at 6am, doctors and dentist appointments are like gold dust, and if you need an operation you have to book one before you get ill. It's my belief that we not only need less people, we need better people.

First of all I would stop all immigration, to give us time to evaluate exactly where we are. All industries are in to much of a hurry to employ foreigners, rather than to invest in training. I believe that if our unemployed indigenous people were given more of a chance, then we may have a smaller underclass. When and if it is time to start an immigration program, we can then let in people in with the skills we need, and only those that are prepared to accept and adopt our culture will be let in. That would most certainly mean NO MUSLIMS. I don't propose that we would throw out any foreigners that live here, unless they refuse to adopt the British traditional way of life. That would mean the banning of these stupid daytime pajamas some many of our Asian friends wear, and deportation of anyone that doesn't speak fluent English.

We live in a society where people that can't have children have to be Mr and Mrs perfect (or gay) to be able to adopt children, whereas if you can produce children naturally you can have as many sprogs as you want. This would almost certainly stop. I believe people should have to sit a simple test before having a child. Once they receive permission to have a child then they can then have one without additional tax implications, from there on in they would have to pay taxes accordingly. Without going any further, these two ideas have already reduced the population, and increased the quality of human beings we are to produce.

Of course, it's not just about the quality and quantity of human being we produce, we have to take into account the age mix. Society at present is hell bent on having everyone live to 110 years old, and this has some terrible implications. To be able to keep these people in care homes etc, we need to raise more taxes, and this means more people, and even worse, more foreigners. My proposal is to allow people to retire at 55 and give them a generous state pension. If everyone is humanly disposed of at the age of 70, this will save a fortune in NHS costs, free up property, reduce the likelihood of long lingering illnesses, and allow everyone to plan their finances properly. This one idea is the master stroke that most people would find hardest to accept, so if that didn't happen, I would propose that only palliative care be given to the over 60s, and euthanasia be given to anyone over the age of 50 who wants it. This wouldn't be as effective, however most people would accept it without argument.

I would also bring back hanging, but not just for murder. It's fact that criminals breed criminals, and therefore by eradicating them at source would surely reduce crime, and in turn the financial cost of crime.

In brief, these few measures could create a smaller and more manageable society, with less crime, and would eventually eradicate the cancer we call multiculturalism. We would be the envy of the world, and who knows, we may even get our empire back one day !!

Mein Kampf: The Sequel, Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You

Basic plot summary: some whackjob takes over the UK, starts a eugenics program, starts WWIII (UK vs. everyone). UK gets p0wned and we let Putin keep them. Interbreeding with Russians finally makes British women more attractive, something scientists have thought was impossible for centuries.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 5:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 4:56:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:31:04 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I posted this thread on a UK debating site, and thought it may be a good subject for you lot to discuss.

Eugenics for the UK

Now, before everyone starts ranting about Hitler and the Nazis, I would like to make it clear that eugenics can only work if a degree of compassion is exercised. I do not want everyone to have blond hair and blue eyes, and the only races I want to irrigate are Pikys and chavs. That said, nobody wants to live in a country full of foreigners. We live in a very over populated country that is bursting at the seams. You cant get on a train in the rush hour, the motorways are at a stand still at 6am, doctors and dentist appointments are like gold dust, and if you need an operation you have to book one before you get ill. It's my belief that we not only need less people, we need better people.

First of all I would stop all immigration, to give us time to evaluate exactly where we are. All industries are in to much of a hurry to employ foreigners, rather than to invest in training. I believe that if our unemployed indigenous people were given more of a chance, then we may have a smaller underclass. When and if it is time to start an immigration program, we can then let in people in with the skills we need, and only those that are prepared to accept and adopt our culture will be let in. That would most certainly mean NO MUSLIMS. I don't propose that we would throw out any foreigners that live here, unless they refuse to adopt the British traditional way of life. That would mean the banning of these stupid daytime pajamas some many of our Asian friends wear, and deportation of anyone that doesn't speak fluent English.

We live in a society where people that can't have children have to be Mr and Mrs perfect (or gay) to be able to adopt children, whereas if you can produce children naturally you can have as many sprogs as you want. This would almost certainly stop. I believe people should have to sit a simple test before having a child. Once they receive permission to have a child then they can then have one without additional tax implications, from there on in they would have to pay taxes accordingly. Without going any further, these two ideas have already reduced the population, and increased the quality of human beings we are to produce.

Of course, it's not just about the quality and quantity of human being we produce, we have to take into account the age mix. Society at present is hell bent on having everyone live to 110 years old, and this has some terrible implications. To be able to keep these people in care homes etc, we need to raise more taxes, and this means more people, and even worse, more foreigners. My proposal is to allow people to retire at 55 and give them a generous state pension. If everyone is humanly disposed of at the age of 70, this will save a fortune in NHS costs, free up property, reduce the likelihood of long lingering illnesses, and allow everyone to plan their finances properly. This one idea is the master stroke that most people would find hardest to accept, so if that didn't happen, I would propose that only palliative care be given to the over 60s, and euthanasia be given to anyone over the age of 50 who wants it. This wouldn't be as effective, however most people would accept it without argument.

I would also bring back hanging, but not just for murder. It's fact that criminals breed criminals, and therefore by eradicating them at source would surely reduce crime, and in turn the financial cost of crime.

In brief, these few measures could create a smaller and more manageable society, with less crime, and would eventually eradicate the cancer we call multiculturalism. We would be the envy of the world, and who knows, we may even get our empire back one day !!

Mein Kampf: The Sequel, Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You

Basic plot summary: some whackjob takes over the UK, starts a eugenics program, starts WWIII (UK vs. everyone). UK gets p0wned and we let Putin keep them. Interbreeding with Russians finally makes British women more attractive, something scientists have thought was impossible for centuries.

I can only presume that

A) You didn't read the first paragraph
B) You don't have an open mind
C) You don't have the same problems across the pond
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 7:15:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"we may even get our empire back one day!"

LMAO its a sure sign you've gone off the rails when you are pining for the days imperialism.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 8:14:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 7:47:18 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I really don't know if this is meant to be a joke. If it is, lol. If not, you have mental issues.

======================

It's not a joke. What part of my thread do you disagree with, and why. Please note, I only accept logical arguments, as a modern society has little room for the emotive
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 8:28:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 7:47:18 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I really don't know if this is meant to be a joke. If it is, lol. If not, you have mental issues.

He/she is probably just a little retarded...
I wonder if they think they should be allowed to breed.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 8:42:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 8:28:55 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 6/12/2015 7:47:18 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I really don't know if this is meant to be a joke. If it is, lol. If not, you have mental issues.

He/she is probably just a little retarded...
I wonder if they think they should be allowed to breed.

If your not retarded enough to debate the point yourself, please attempt to question my reasoning, but no emotive answers please.

Thank You
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:13:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 5:03:39 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:56:55 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 6/12/2015 4:31:04 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
I posted this thread on a UK debating site, and thought it may be a good subject for you lot to discuss.

Eugenics for the UK

Now, before everyone starts ranting about Hitler and the Nazis, I would like to make it clear that eugenics can only work if a degree of compassion is exercised. I do not want everyone to have blond hair and blue eyes, and the only races I want to irrigate are Pikys and chavs. That said, nobody wants to live in a country full of foreigners. We live in a very over populated country that is bursting at the seams. You cant get on a train in the rush hour, the motorways are at a stand still at 6am, doctors and dentist appointments are like gold dust, and if you need an operation you have to book one before you get ill. It's my belief that we not only need less people, we need better people.

First of all I would stop all immigration, to give us time to evaluate exactly where we are. All industries are in to much of a hurry to employ foreigners, rather than to invest in training. I believe that if our unemployed indigenous people were given more of a chance, then we may have a smaller underclass. When and if it is time to start an immigration program, we can then let in people in with the skills we need, and only those that are prepared to accept and adopt our culture will be let in. That would most certainly mean NO MUSLIMS. I don't propose that we would throw out any foreigners that live here, unless they refuse to adopt the British traditional way of life. That would mean the banning of these stupid daytime pajamas some many of our Asian friends wear, and deportation of anyone that doesn't speak fluent English.

We live in a society where people that can't have children have to be Mr and Mrs perfect (or gay) to be able to adopt children, whereas if you can produce children naturally you can have as many sprogs as you want. This would almost certainly stop. I believe people should have to sit a simple test before having a child. Once they receive permission to have a child then they can then have one without additional tax implications, from there on in they would have to pay taxes accordingly. Without going any further, these two ideas have already reduced the population, and increased the quality of human beings we are to produce.

Of course, it's not just about the quality and quantity of human being we produce, we have to take into account the age mix. Society at present is hell bent on having everyone live to 110 years old, and this has some terrible implications. To be able to keep these people in care homes etc, we need to raise more taxes, and this means more people, and even worse, more foreigners. My proposal is to allow people to retire at 55 and give them a generous state pension. If everyone is humanly disposed of at the age of 70, this will save a fortune in NHS costs, free up property, reduce the likelihood of long lingering illnesses, and allow everyone to plan their finances properly. This one idea is the master stroke that most people would find hardest to accept, so if that didn't happen, I would propose that only palliative care be given to the over 60s, and euthanasia be given to anyone over the age of 50 who wants it. This wouldn't be as effective, however most people would accept it without argument.

I would also bring back hanging, but not just for murder. It's fact that criminals breed criminals, and therefore by eradicating them at source would surely reduce crime, and in turn the financial cost of crime.

In brief, these few measures could create a smaller and more manageable society, with less crime, and would eventually eradicate the cancer we call multiculturalism. We would be the envy of the world, and who knows, we may even get our empire back one day !!

Mein Kampf: The Sequel, Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You

Basic plot summary: some whackjob takes over the UK, starts a eugenics program, starts WWIII (UK vs. everyone). UK gets p0wned and we let Putin keep them. Interbreeding with Russians finally makes British women more attractive, something scientists have thought was impossible for centuries.

I can only presume that

A) You didn't read the first paragraph
B) You don't have an open mind
C) You don't have the same problems across the pond

I'm not a racist, but.... (things racists say)

I'm not Hitler, but... (things "literally Hitler" says)
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:59:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.
Source 7 speaks of EU migrants, not non-European ones.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 9:59:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:59:07 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.
Source 7 speaks of EU migrants, not non-European ones.
Excuse me, source 8.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 10:21:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...

Not a strong argument, but at least it wasn't personal abuse.

Most of the immigrants in the UK do work, however we are paying millions to sit on their back sides. How about we train the underclass to work, and then the immigrants can stay at home.

With regards to the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of the UK public want it back. I have no interest in it being the ultimate deterrent either. People who commit heinous crime breed children who do the same. Society is better off without them. Attempting to rehabilitate them rarely works, and it is very expensive. My plane would almost eliminate these scumbags, and save the country a fortune.

Please don't bother to post links or quote figures, opinion makes a far better debate, and isn't boring
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 10:26:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

=====================

Culturally it has been a train crash. Where ever there is an area of mass immigration, there is a slum. Cultures rarely mix, wherever you live. We are tribal/pack animals, and resentment is inevitable. Personally I dislike foreigners no matter what country they come, and I include the Scotts and the Welsh, albeit I don't mind them to much when living in there country of origin.
Romanii
Posts: 4,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 10:31:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 10:21:32 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...

Not a strong argument, but at least it wasn't personal abuse.

Most of the immigrants in the UK do work, however we are paying millions to sit on their back sides. How about we train the underclass to work, and then the immigrants can stay at home.

With regards to the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of the UK public want it back. I have no interest in it being the ultimate deterrent either. People who commit heinous crime breed children who do the same. Society is better off without them. Attempting to rehabilitate them rarely works, and it is very expensive. My plane would almost eliminate these scumbags, and save the country a fortune.

So what happens if a guy has murdered someone *after* they're past the age of reproduction? Should we also put their kids to death, since they will inevitably be criminals as well?


Please don't bother to post links or quote figures, opinion makes a far better debate, and isn't boring

Lolll
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol


Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.


Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 11:49:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol

At least I didn't C/P :P



Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.

Let's agree to disagree on the former, and, well, we agree on the latter.



Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 11:54:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 11:49:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol

At least I didn't C/P :P

You could and I wouldn't have cared :p




Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.

Let's agree to disagree on the former, and, well, we agree on the latter.

Ok. The reason it would is because violent criminals, if they get the same penalty anyway, would just kill the victim to reduce the number of witnesses. But you can't agree on that because you don't believe in RCT :p




Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 11:56:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 11:54:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:49:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol

At least I didn't C/P :P

You could and I wouldn't have cared :p

I know.





Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.

Let's agree to disagree on the former, and, well, we agree on the latter.

Ok. The reason it would is because violent criminals, if they get the same penalty anyway, would just kill the victim to reduce the number of witnesses. But you can't agree on that because you don't believe in RCT :p

I disagree with rational choices made by people willing to commit death row-level crimes. But, for instance, I accept RCT in cases of gun rights deterring thieves, etc.





Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 12:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 11:56:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:54:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:49:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol

At least I didn't C/P :P

You could and I wouldn't have cared :p

I know.





Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.

Let's agree to disagree on the former, and, well, we agree on the latter.

Ok. The reason it would is because violent criminals, if they get the same penalty anyway, would just kill the victim to reduce the number of witnesses. But you can't agree on that because you don't believe in RCT :p

I disagree with rational choices made by people willing to commit death row-level crimes. But, for instance, I accept RCT in cases of gun rights deterring thieves, etc.

A new study found that higher gun ownership reduces firearm crime because people who use firearms are more likely to think about the crime. Also most death row crimes are 1st degree murder... So they actually plan their crime. A lot of the deterrence studies are written by DP opponents, so even if it does deter crime, you can oppose the DP for racial, financial, and moral reasons






Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 12:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 12:02:37 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:56:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:54:00 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:49:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/12/2015 11:30:31 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Looks familiar, lol

At least I didn't C/P :P

You could and I wouldn't have cared :p

I know.





Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Yeah this part is wrong, but executions for less heinous crimes would actually increase the crime rate.

Let's agree to disagree on the former, and, well, we agree on the latter.

Ok. The reason it would is because violent criminals, if they get the same penalty anyway, would just kill the victim to reduce the number of witnesses. But you can't agree on that because you don't believe in RCT :p

I disagree with rational choices made by people willing to commit death row-level crimes. But, for instance, I accept RCT in cases of gun rights deterring thieves, etc.

A new study found that higher gun ownership reduces firearm crime because people who use firearms are more likely to think about the crime. Also most death row crimes are 1st degree murder... So they actually plan their crime. A lot of the deterrence studies are written by DP opponents, so even if it does deter crime, you can oppose the DP for racial, financial, and moral reasons

If someone strongly convinces me the DP deters crime, I'd become pro. Because deterrence makes up for financial/racial/moral stuff. Plea bargains+deterrence > financial, I have no idea about racial, and since I'm, to use DQC's words, an "eco-moralist", if the DP deters homicides its moral.







Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2015 12:17:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/12/2015 10:21:32 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 6/12/2015 9:31:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'll just address all your points.

Immigration

According to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, "illegal immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of [American] economy." [1] Immigration is just trade of labor--in this case, it would be free trade of labor, and free trade almost always benefits the economy. The same applies to labor; allowing the free movement of people will cause the economy to expand, not contract. Many vocal anti-immigration advocates have begun to concede that immigration is a net positive for the economy. Their estimates suggest that immigration"both legal and illegal"have a net benefit of $22 billion each year. Newer calculations have found a benefit of $36 billion each year. [2] A 1% increase of immigrants as a share of a city"s population reduces prices by 0.5%. [3] This would reduce inflation, and increase overall demand and consumption, thus spurring economic growth. Immigration in the UK has been associated with lower housing prices which means the housing sector of the economy would also grow due to more immigration. [4]

Execution for Less Heinous Crimes

Information on the death penalty's rate of deterrence is low. However, it's unlikely that the death penalty has deterred homicide rates, since 88% of the criminologists disagree with rational choice theory in the case of the death penalty, and it's unlikely that it deters crime. [5] The criminologists surveyed were Fellows of the American Society of Criminology, winners of the ASC's highest awards, and presidents of the ASC.

"Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime " and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little emperical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either." [6]

If the DP fails to deter homicide rates, it is highly unlikely that it deters other, minor crimes.

General Eugenics

Immigration, and non-British ethnic contributions to British society have been immense, and there's no denying that. [7-9] So, the net benefits of multiculturalism and immigration in the UK outweigh the harms.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. Ibid.
7. Joan Ferrante. Sociology: A Global Perspective. p. 259.
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...

Not a strong argument, but at least it wasn't personal abuse.

Most of the immigrants in the UK do work, however we are paying millions to sit on their back sides. How about we train the underclass to work, and then the immigrants can stay at home.

With regards to the death penalty. The overwhelming majority of the UK public want it back. I have no interest in it being the ultimate deterrent either. People who commit heinous crime breed children who do the same. Society is better off without them. Attempting to rehabilitate them rarely works, and it is very expensive. My plane would almost eliminate these scumbags, and save the country a fortune.

Retribution is useless and unnecessary, if you ask me.


Please don't bother to post links or quote figures, opinion makes a far better debate, and isn't boring
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 9:11:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"...if you need an operation you have to book one before you get ill."

Too funny. That is the future here in the US under Obamacare.

My answer to the UK and the US, it is not Eugenics, it is less Socialism!
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2015 11:40:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Instead of eugenics there should be a limited number of birthing licenses each month, auctioned off eBay style.

This will ensure only those with ample disposable I one can breed. Immigrants are always poor so they will dwindle in population. Those few immigrants who are successful will be allowed to reproduce, effectively breeding better immigrants.

The proceeds from the auctions can then be used to offset the existing cost of lazy immigrants and poor people in general.

The restriction of reproductive freedom will act as a deterrent so that only the truly desperate will want to immigrate. Thus we are not shutting out the desperate underclass needed to work undesirable minimum wage, black an gray market jobs.

This is a far superior proposal to an expensive and cumbersome eugenics program.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 4:23:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/13/2015 11:40:33 AM, Raisor wrote:
Instead of eugenics there should be a limited number of birthing licenses each month, auctioned off eBay style.

This will ensure only those with ample disposable I one can breed. Immigrants are always poor so they will dwindle in population. Those few immigrants who are successful will be allowed to reproduce, effectively breeding better immigrants.

The proceeds from the auctions can then be used to offset the existing cost of lazy immigrants and poor people in general.

The restriction of reproductive freedom will act as a deterrent so that only the truly desperate will want to immigrate. Thus we are not shutting out the desperate underclass needed to work undesirable minimum wage, black an gray market jobs.

This is a far superior proposal to an expensive and cumbersome eugenics program.

=========================================

There is definitely some sense in what you say. In the UK people can have as many children as they want, knowing that the state will throw endless amounts of money at them. The people without large incomes are the ones with the big families. This is because the more kids they have, the more money they get. The more affluent people, who generally make better parents, have the least amount of children because they are busy with their careers. It's a crazy system, and one that needs addressing.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 9:47:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 4:23:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 6/13/2015 11:40:33 AM, Raisor wrote:
Instead of eugenics there should be a limited number of birthing licenses each month, auctioned off eBay style.

This will ensure only those with ample disposable I one can breed. Immigrants are always poor so they will dwindle in population. Those few immigrants who are successful will be allowed to reproduce, effectively breeding better immigrants.

The proceeds from the auctions can then be used to offset the existing cost of lazy immigrants and poor people in general.

The restriction of reproductive freedom will act as a deterrent so that only the truly desperate will want to immigrate. Thus we are not shutting out the desperate underclass needed to work undesirable minimum wage, black an gray market jobs.

This is a far superior proposal to an expensive and cumbersome eugenics program.

=========================================

There is definitely some sense in what you say. In the UK people can have as many children as they want, knowing that the state will throw endless amounts of money at them. The people without large incomes are the ones with the big families. This is because the more kids they have, the more money they get. The more affluent people, who generally make better parents, have the least amount of children because they are busy with their careers. It's a crazy system, and one that needs addressing.

My family has 6 (8 but two have died off) branches and I have three siblings. My family is also quite well off. I also would not consider my mother a good parent, as I and nannies are basically raising my siblings.

So.... try again?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:51:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 9:47:27 AM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 6/17/2015 4:23:49 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
At 6/13/2015 11:40:33 AM, Raisor wrote:
Instead of eugenics there should be a limited number of birthing licenses each month, auctioned off eBay style.

This will ensure only those with ample disposable I one can breed. Immigrants are always poor so they will dwindle in population. Those few immigrants who are successful will be allowed to reproduce, effectively breeding better immigrants.

The proceeds from the auctions can then be used to offset the existing cost of lazy immigrants and poor people in general.

The restriction of reproductive freedom will act as a deterrent so that only the truly desperate will want to immigrate. Thus we are not shutting out the desperate underclass needed to work undesirable minimum wage, black an gray market jobs.

This is a far superior proposal to an expensive and cumbersome eugenics program.

=========================================

There is definitely some sense in what you say. In the UK people can have as many children as they want, knowing that the state will throw endless amounts of money at them. The people without large incomes are the ones with the big families. This is because the more kids they have, the more money they get. The more affluent people, who generally make better parents, have the least amount of children because they are busy with their careers. It's a crazy system, and one that needs addressing.

My family has 6 (8 but two have died off) branches and I have three siblings. My family is also quite well off. I also would not consider my mother a good parent, as I and nannies are basically raising my siblings.

So.... try again?

===================================

I can't actually understand what you said, so I will try and interpret it. You are saying your mother isn't a good parent because she uses a nanny. I don't think that makes her a bad parent, that makes her a privileged parent. I am sure if I could afforded a nanny, I would have had one, but I don't like children.

My point is that rarely does a good or affluent parent parent raise a criminal or a chav. The vast majority of chavs have chavs as parents, and the same can be said for out and out criminals. Don't bother to give me an exception, because there is an exception to everything. If we can breed the underclass out out of society, just imagine how much nicer everything would be. Low crime, no go zones, and no lazy bar stewards sitting on their backsides collecting benefits.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:10:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem with eliminating the undesirables is that after you eliminate them all you might find your self on bottom as thus are part of the new undesirables.............to be eliminated.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:29:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:10:34 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The problem with eliminating the undesirables is that after you eliminate them all you might find your self on bottom as thus are part of the new undesirables.............to be eliminated.

=============================================

There always has to be a bottom, but there also needs to be road sweepers, dustman, and shop assistants. My plan isn't to eliminate the working class, it's to eliminate the UNDERCLASS