Organ Donation

[neems 2,406]

 

I worry about the future of working lurchers when I see the idiots on facebook and forums posting behaviour that is seen as barbaric, idiotic and paranoid on a daily basis. Of course there are idiots in every field but these can be countered when decent people answer but it seems that increasingly on forums I see post that I, and any decent people, find abhorrent. It seems that these are gaining acceptance and challenges to even the most paranoid rantings seem to be diminishing, rather there seems a growing acceptance by their peers. The worst are just the psychotic rantings of a few un-medicated souls but when those who are challenged or even get support we would seem to be in a dire place.

 

I would consider myself a decent person yet I take part in a sport that is seem by a very large portion of society as cruel and marginalised. Perhaps this very marginalisation is the problem, as those less likely to be wish to be linked to a pastime that is viewed as cruel and often involved in illegal activity the remainder become increasingly skewed to the more radical and less conformist members of society. This group by their very nature then become increasingly separate from normal society in a self-propelling downward spiral. Basically you end up with the dregs until the few remaining decent people are marginalised out of existence. I know there are still plenty of decent people involved in lurchers but alas feel that these are becoming a minority whose voice is getting lost in the cacophony of noise from the increasing tide from the fringes of our society. When those few remaining sensible voices no longer feel that they can voice their opinions I feel we are lost and that point seems to be approaching fast, even other country sports see us as yobbish thieves.

 

 

So have we lost so many of the decent normal members of society that could drown out the few psychotic idiots until we are fast approaching the point when the lunatics have taken over the asylum?

And why do you think you have such a right to be the judge of what is right, normal and decent? You must think that you are so perfect that you set some sort of benchmark and those who are not like you are paranoid lunatics. From what you have posted here you are an arrogant and judgemental person with delusions of grandeur. Could it be people form different opinions because they have had different experiences to you? Could it even be possible there are people out there who know more than you? I don't know if that is possible for you to comprehend but I suggest you give it a go.

 

 

life long middle class liberals are THE moral authority,they know best...because they just do.

[Truther 1,579]

I worry about the future of working lurchers when I see the idiots on facebook and forums posting behaviour that is seen as barbaric, idiotic and paranoid on a daily basis. Of course there are idiots in every field but these can be countered when decent people answer but it seems that increasingly on forums I see post that I, and any decent people, find abhorrent. It seems that these are gaining acceptance and challenges to even the most paranoid ranting’s seem to be diminishing, rather there seems a growing acceptance by their peers. The worst are just the psychotic ranting’s of a few un-medicated souls but when those who are challenged or even get support we would seem to be in a dire place.

 

I would consider myself a decent person yet I take part in a sport that is seem by a very large portion of society as cruel and marginalised. Perhaps this very marginalisation is the problem, as those less likely to be wish to be linked to a pastime that is viewed as cruel and often involved in illegal activity the remainder become increasingly skewed to the more radical and less conformist members of society. This group by their very nature then become increasingly separate from normal society in a self-propelling downward spiral. Basically you end up with the dregs until the few remaining decent people are marginalised out of existence. I know there are still plenty of decent people involved in lurchers but alas feel that these are becoming a minority whose voice is getting lost in the cacophony of noise from the increasing tide from the fringes of our society. When those few remaining sensible voices no longer feel that they can voice their opinions I feel we are lost and that point seems to be approaching fast, even other country sports see us as yobbish thieves.

 

 

So have we lost so many of the decent “normal” members of society that could drown out the few psychotic idiots until we are fast approaching the point when the lunatics have taken over the asylum?

 

Is it "normal" to support a bunch of violent lunatics that drag this country down, not to mention the endemic rape/pedophilia? I don't think so. Traitor

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

I worry about the future of working lurchers when I see the idiots on facebook and forums posting behaviour that is seen as barbaric, idiotic and paranoid on a daily basis. Of course there are idiots in every field but these can be countered when decent people answer but it seems that increasingly on forums I see post that I, and any decent people, find abhorrent. It seems that these are gaining acceptance and challenges to even the most paranoid rantings seem to be diminishing, rather there seems a growing acceptance by their peers. The worst are just the psychotic rantings of a few un-medicated souls but when those who are challenged or even get support we would seem to be in a dire place.

 

I would consider myself a decent person yet I take part in a sport that is seem by a very large portion of society as cruel and marginalised. Perhaps this very marginalisation is the problem, as those less likely to be wish to be linked to a pastime that is viewed as cruel and often involved in illegal activity the remainder become increasingly skewed to the more radical and less conformist members of society. This group by their very nature then become increasingly separate from normal society in a self-propelling downward spiral. Basically you end up with the dregs until the few remaining decent people are marginalised out of existence. I know there are still plenty of decent people involved in lurchers but alas feel that these are becoming a minority whose voice is getting lost in the cacophony of noise from the increasing tide from the fringes of our society. When those few remaining sensible voices no longer feel that they can voice their opinions I feel we are lost and that point seems to be approaching fast, even other country sports see us as yobbish thieves.

 

 

So have we lost so many of the decent normal members of society that could drown out the few psychotic idiots until we are fast approaching the point when the lunatics have taken over the asylum?

Is it "normal" to support a bunch of violent lunatics that drag this country down, not to mention the endemic rape/pedophilia? I don't think so. Traitor

You're talking about politicians right?

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

 

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

 

 

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

 

 

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

[Born Hunter 17,763]

The State would certainly ban tobacco and alcohol if they could, they don't simply because they daren't. What the Government think is right and what society think is right are not often the same. We are continually 'educated' of the vices of alcohol and tobacco by the State, they don't want us doing it!

 

Taxing sugar and saturated fats to combat obesity and heart disease is wrong. The cause of any dietary linked disease or illness is lack of education and mental weakness, not the food. Why should those that are capable of enjoying sugar and saturated fats as part of a balanced diet be penalised as a quick fix scheme targeting people that either need educating or strengthening?

 

Saturated fats and sugar are not bad for you if consumed as part of a balanced diet! Even alcohol for that matter!

Edited November 10, 2015 by Born Hunter

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

 

 

Bit of a goalpost mover aren't we BGD...........When i pointed out the Russian communists starved millions of Ukranians to death you said "you cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" now you get uptight about a bit of sensible breeding?

 

If i carried a genetic fault that was likely to cause suffering to my kids/grandkids i wouldn't want to pass it on for them to suffer, who in their right mind would, and due to the failings of all governments, there's plenty of needy kids needing adoption, a win win really?

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

Bit of a goalpost mover aren't we BGD...........When i pointed out the Russian communists starved millions of Ukranians to death you said "you cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" now you get uptight about a bit of sensible breeding?

 

If i carried a genetic fault that was likely to cause suffering to my kids/grandkids i wouldn't want to pass it on for them to suffer, who in their right mind would, and due to the failings of all governments, there's plenty of needy kids needing adoption, a win win really?

What the feck has that got to with handing over your right to reproduce to the state? Can't defend your position so you drag up obviously tongue in cheek comments from god knows how long ago do you keep a little notepad of comments I make? I'm touched, I didn't know you cared

 

If you had a genetic fault and decided not to pass it on I'd applaud you choice because that's what it should be, a choice. The fact that you'd be happy with some faceless government department making that decision for you and everyone else is totally fecking bonkers!

 

Out of interest if you have kids did you get a full battery of genetic tests before deciding to have them?

[Truther 1,579]

The State would certainly ban tobacco and alcohol if they could, they don't simply because they daren't. What the Government think is right and what society think is right are not often the same. We are continually 'educated' of the vices of alcohol and tobacco by the State, they don't want us doing it!

 

Taxing sugar and saturated fats to combat obesity and heart disease is wrong. The cause of any dietary linked disease or illness is lack of education and mental weakness, not the food. Why should those that are capable of enjoying sugar and saturated fats as part of a balanced diet be penalised as a quick fix scheme targeting people that either need educating or strengthening?

 

Saturated fats and sugar are not bad for you if consumed as part of a balanced diet! Even alcohol for that matter!

 

When thatcher left downing street she and dennis signed a deal with some tobacco company to promote cigarette smoking in third world countries, i remember it well. Strictly speaking, she wasn't in power, but she did run the country for a good while, and must have had the same "profit before people" mentality, evil b*****d What about the scaremongering we had recently about vaping, your party did everything they could to put people off vaping, worried about peoples health, or worried about tobacco profits?

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

Bit of a goalpost mover aren't we BGD...........When i pointed out the Russian communists starved millions of Ukranians to death you said "you cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" now you get uptight about a bit of sensible breeding?

 

If i carried a genetic fault that was likely to cause suffering to my kids/grandkids i wouldn't want to pass it on for them to suffer, who in their right mind would, and due to the failings of all governments, there's plenty of needy kids needing adoption, a win win really?

What the feck has that got to with handing over your right to reproduce to the state? Can't defend your position so you drag up obviously tongue in cheek comments from god knows how long ago do you keep a little notepad of comments I make? I'm touched, I didn't know you cared

 

If you had a genetic fault and decided not to pass it on I'd applaud you choice because that's what it should be, a choice. The fact that you'd be happy with some faceless government department making that decision for you and everyone else is totally fecking bonkers!

 

Out of interest if you have kids did you get a full battery of genetic tests before deciding to have them?

 

 

I can, and have defended it, pretty well by your reaction Be more careful with your "tongue in cheek" comments before lecturing other people on moral dilemmas sunshine It appears you aren't against mass genocide/eugenics, depending who's doing it

 

Any responsible person wouldn't want to pass a genetic fault on, who'd risk it knowing a loved one would likely suffer? Guilt trip people into not breeding if they carry a genetic fault, morally better than guilt tripping people into donating organs because of your own failings, or more accurately putting profits before people intentionally imo?

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

The State would certainly ban tobacco and alcohol if they could, they don't simply because they daren't. What the Government think is right and what society think is right are not often the same. We are continually 'educated' of the vices of alcohol and tobacco by the State, they don't want us doing it!

 

Taxing sugar and saturated fats to combat obesity and heart disease is wrong. The cause of any dietary linked disease or illness is lack of education and mental weakness, not the food. Why should those that are capable of enjoying sugar and saturated fats as part of a balanced diet be penalised as a quick fix scheme targeting people that either need educating or strengthening?

 

Saturated fats and sugar are not bad for you if consumed as part of a balanced diet! Even alcohol for that matter!

 

When thatcher left downing street she and dennis signed a deal with some tobacco company to promote cigarette smoking in third world countries, i remember it well. Strictly speaking, she wasn't in power, but she did run the country for a good while, and must have had the same "profit before people" mentality, evil b*****d What about the scaremongering we had recently about vaping, your party did everything they could to put people off vaping, worried about peoples health, or worried about tobacco profits?

 

 

When we look at the actual legislation regarding tobacco and smoking it is only ever progressively working towards a ban and educating the masses as to the negative effects of smoking. If you see all the labels on packets, heavy taxation, health warning advertising, progressive restrictions on passive smoke and school education schemes on the negative effects of tobacco as 'the government wanting us to smoke' then we really do share very different concepts of logic.

 

I don't really care if Thatcher tried to boost the tobacco trade to third world countries two decades ago, it's irrelevant in this debate. And the government may be against vaping for all I know, it's not hard seeing as it hasn't been given the scientific scrutiny that tobacco has.

 

Everything is a conspiracy! LOL

[BGD 6,436]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

Bit of a goalpost mover aren't we BGD...........When i pointed out the Russian communists starved millions of Ukranians to death you said "you cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" now you get uptight about a bit of sensible breeding?

 

If i carried a genetic fault that was likely to cause suffering to my kids/grandkids i wouldn't want to pass it on for them to suffer, who in their right mind would, and due to the failings of all governments, there's plenty of needy kids needing adoption, a win win really?

What the feck has that got to with handing over your right to reproduce to the state? Can't defend your position so you drag up obviously tongue in cheek comments from god knows how long ago do you keep a little notepad of comments I make? I'm touched, I didn't know you cared

 

If you had a genetic fault and decided not to pass it on I'd applaud you choice because that's what it should be, a choice. The fact that you'd be happy with some faceless government department making that decision for you and everyone else is totally fecking bonkers!

 

Out of interest if you have kids did you get a full battery of genetic tests before deciding to have them?

I can, and have defended it, pretty well by your reaction Be more careful with your "tongue in cheek" comments before lecturing other people on moral dilemmas sunshine It appears you aren't against mass genocide/eugenics, depending who's doing it

 

Any responsible person wouldn't want to pass a genetic fault on, who'd risk it knowing a loved one would likely suffer? Guilt trip people into not breeding if they carry a genetic fault, morally better than guilt tripping people into donating organs because of your own failings, or more accurately putting profits before people intentionally imo?

People dying in a war and revolution isn't really the same thing as the state deciding who gets to have children pal no matter how much you try and twist it.

 

So let's get down into the detail of your idea then. What genes exactly would you consider too defective to pass on? Who would decide who gets to breed? Would you have to apply for a breeding permit before puberty? Force abortions for folk who breed without a permit? Sterilisation for people who fail the tests?

 

Notice you dodged the question of you voluntarily undergoing genetic testing before breeding don't practice what you preach?

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

The State would certainly ban tobacco and alcohol if they could, they don't simply because they daren't. What the Government think is right and what society think is right are not often the same. We are continually 'educated' of the vices of alcohol and tobacco by the State, they don't want us doing it!

 

Taxing sugar and saturated fats to combat obesity and heart disease is wrong. The cause of any dietary linked disease or illness is lack of education and mental weakness, not the food. Why should those that are capable of enjoying sugar and saturated fats as part of a balanced diet be penalised as a quick fix scheme targeting people that either need educating or strengthening?

 

Saturated fats and sugar are not bad for you if consumed as part of a balanced diet! Even alcohol for that matter!

 

When thatcher left downing street she and dennis signed a deal with some tobacco company to promote cigarette smoking in third world countries, i remember it well. Strictly speaking, she wasn't in power, but she did run the country for a good while, and must have had the same "profit before people" mentality, evil b*****d What about the scaremongering we had recently about vaping, your party did everything they could to put people off vaping, worried about peoples health, or worried about tobacco profits?

 

 

When we look at the actual legislation regarding tobacco and smoking it is only ever progressively working towards a ban and educating the masses as to the negative effects of smoking. If you see all the labels on packets, heavy taxation, health warning advertising, progressive restrictions on passive smoke and school education schemes on the negative effects of tobacco as 'the government wanting us to smoke' then we really do share very different concepts of logic.

 

I don't really care if Thatcher tried to boost the tobacco trade to third world countries two decades ago, it's irrelevant in this debate. And the government may be against vaping for all I know, it's not hard seeing as it hasn't been given the scientific scrutiny that tobacco has.

 

Everything is a conspiracy! LOL

 

 

Its not a conspiracy though is it BH, its hard fact that profit comes before people, the people you voted for are the worst offenders, and all disciples of that evil bitch, so very relevant imo.

[Truther 1,579]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what you're actually trying to say, in a long winded way, is that you are all for organ donation as long as it doesn't help a Muslim, Indian, Paki or other similar brown person. Haha.

There's plenty of white muslim converts mate, no doubt some will need transplants at some stage. But its not just that, as Wilf says they could do a lot more to improve health in general, clean the place up, agree to a sugar tax, ban f***ing tobacco, close all the Mc Donalds...ect, stop people carrying genetic faults breeding, or limit them to one child...........but no mate, their answer is to guilt trip everyone into allowing their organs to be used for spare parts to prop up their failings............Just state control.

So you want the state to control even more of your life? You want them to decide where you can eat, what you eat, whether you smoke or not and even if you get to fecking breed?

 

Jesus fecking Christ talk about nanny state!

Some things are just common sense, and justifiable for the greater good imo. Lots of things are banned, heroin for eg, we all know why, combined death toll from tobacco/alcohol exceeds 12 million every year, but we've been educated to accept it, makes you think?

I think what we put in our bodies is our business, by all means tax things to offset the cost to society but the state deciding what you to do your own body doesn't sit right with me.

 

As for your silly eugenics idea if you're happy handing over your reproductive rights over to the state you crack on. I can't see many sane people agreeing with you though me personally I can't think of a more fundamental freedom. Can you really call yourself a free man if you have to go cap in hand to the state asking for permission to pass your genes on?

Bit of a goalpost mover aren't we BGD...........When i pointed out the Russian communists starved millions of Ukranians to death you said "you cant make an omlette without breaking a few eggs" now you get uptight about a bit of sensible breeding?

 

If i carried a genetic fault that was likely to cause suffering to my kids/grandkids i wouldn't want to pass it on for them to suffer, who in their right mind would, and due to the failings of all governments, there's plenty of needy kids needing adoption, a win win really?

What the feck has that got to with handing over your right to reproduce to the state? Can't defend your position so you drag up obviously tongue in cheek comments from god knows how long ago do you keep a little notepad of comments I make? I'm touched, I didn't know you cared

 

If you had a genetic fault and decided not to pass it on I'd applaud you choice because that's what it should be, a choice. The fact that you'd be happy with some faceless government department making that decision for you and everyone else is totally fecking bonkers!

 

Out of interest if you have kids did you get a full battery of genetic tests before deciding to have them?

I can, and have defended it, pretty well by your reaction Be more careful with your "tongue in cheek" comments before lecturing other people on moral dilemmas sunshine It appears you aren't against mass genocide/eugenics, depending who's doing it

 

Any responsible person wouldn't want to pass a genetic fault on, who'd risk it knowing a loved one would likely suffer? Guilt trip people into not breeding if they carry a genetic fault, morally better than guilt tripping people into donating organs because of your own failings, or more accurately putting profits before people intentionally imo?

People dying in a war and revolution isn't really the same thing as the state deciding who gets to have children pal no matter how much you try and twist it.

 

So let's get down into the detail of your idea then. What genes exactly would you consider too defective to pass on? Who would decide who gets to breed? Would you have to apply for a breeding permit before puberty? Force abortions for folk who breed without a permit? Sterilisation for people who fail the tests?

 

Notice you dodged the question of you voluntarily undergoing genetic testing before breeding don't practice what you preach?

 

 

The Ukranians didn't die in a revolution or a war did they though, surplus to requirements so they were starved to death by the communists, you know "the party of the people" The communists even collected the dead bodies, people were surviving by eating the dead, there's a famous story about an old woman protesting about them taking the dead bodies away, "these are our bodies to eat, you have no right to take them" or something on those lines. Not that i think you're a communist, oh no

 

A bit more personal than i want to get really, but when the wife fell pregnant with our second son she was tested for carrying a certain genetic complaint, things turned out ok thankfully, true story.

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

 

 

The State would certainly ban tobacco and alcohol if they could, they don't simply because they daren't. What the Government think is right and what society think is right are not often the same. We are continually 'educated' of the vices of alcohol and tobacco by the State, they don't want us doing it!

 

Taxing sugar and saturated fats to combat obesity and heart disease is wrong. The cause of any dietary linked disease or illness is lack of education and mental weakness, not the food. Why should those that are capable of enjoying sugar and saturated fats as part of a balanced diet be penalised as a quick fix scheme targeting people that either need educating or strengthening?

 

Saturated fats and sugar are not bad for you if consumed as part of a balanced diet! Even alcohol for that matter!

 

When thatcher left downing street she and dennis signed a deal with some tobacco company to promote cigarette smoking in third world countries, i remember it well. Strictly speaking, she wasn't in power, but she did run the country for a good while, and must have had the same "profit before people" mentality, evil b*****d What about the scaremongering we had recently about vaping, your party did everything they could to put people off vaping, worried about peoples health, or worried about tobacco profits?

 

 

When we look at the actual legislation regarding tobacco and smoking it is only ever progressively working towards a ban and educating the masses as to the negative effects of smoking. If you see all the labels on packets, heavy taxation, health warning advertising, progressive restrictions on passive smoke and school education schemes on the negative effects of tobacco as 'the government wanting us to smoke' then we really do share very different concepts of logic.

 

I don't really care if Thatcher tried to boost the tobacco trade to third world countries two decades ago, it's irrelevant in this debate. And the government may be against vaping for all I know, it's not hard seeing as it hasn't been given the scientific scrutiny that tobacco has.

 

Everything is a conspiracy! LOL

 

 

Its not a conspiracy though is it BH, its hard fact that profit comes before people, the people you voted for are the worst offenders, and all disciples of that evil bitch, so very relevant imo.

 

 

Well that's not quite a fact is it, not as generally applicable as you are painting it to be anyway. It's not relevant because boosting tobacco exports has nothing to do with the laws on domestic tobacco use and the governments attitude towards it! The government not caring that some African has lung cancer as a result of the UK tobacco trade has nothing to do with their attitude towards domestic tobacco use. It's clear to me from all of the legislation we have on domestic tobacco use they want us to pack it up.

 

It's a moral double standard but that doesn't make me wrong.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Born Hunter