Rees-Mogg: increased usage of food banks 'uplifting'

[Glaucus]

To be absolutely clear on the meaning of the above: The majority of Labour and LibDem voters think that wealthy people should be penalised even if it does not help them. That kind of thinking is alien to me. But I think it fuels a lot of hatred of JRM who, to all evidence, appears to be one of our more honest politicians and highly loyal to his constituents.

that's your failing not there's, the me me me issue.
you cant see why people think its better to help society with rises than keep it for themselves?
seeing as most lib dem supports are either in higher education and expect to be resonantly well off, or are well off. Then yes its hardly surprising that they wont personally benefit and in most cases be worse off.

 

[Participant]

that's your failing not there's, the me me me issue.
you cant see why people think its better to help society with rises than keep it for themselves?

No because competition and capitalism drives improving standards of living through equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome for the lazy proletariat who'd have everything handed to them on a plate and create zero wealth accordingly.

 

[Glaucus]

No because competition and capitalism drives improving standards of living through equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome for the lazy proletariat who'd have everything handed to them on a plate and create zero wealth accordingly.

what are you even on about, who for a start has said anything about equal opportunity, and well off in no way means everything is handed to you on a plate, far from it. Just another myth people like to believe to make themselves feel better usually due to their bad choices The amount of peopel who have everything handed to them on a plate is extremely small.

 

[dowie]

I think his views on abortion and gay marriage are rather more abhorrent than this comment re: food banks. Frankly quite a lot of the issues re: food banks is financial illiteracy and careless planning/no planning by the people who end up in the situation where they need to use them.

It's a bona fide Roman Catholic position. I don't agree with it but, like MookJong, I'm not upset by him taking that position.

What if a muslim politician stated that their personal belief is that people should be killed for leaving Islam? Does the fact it is a bona fide Islamic position absolve them of their ****ty beliefs?

 

[sports_brah]

It's easy to throw these things around in abstract terms, but the nitty gritty is people would have to die, you just seem to get all emotional when it's an unborn foetus *shrug*

My personal opinion is the woman has the ultimate right to do what she wants with her body and what's in it. We have a cut off point which is fair enough, balancing the time to make such a decision against the level of the foetus's development and ability to independently survive.

I don't see rogmun saying we should reduce population, what does it matter what others say.

And even if it was agreed that we needed to thin the population looking at the young and unable first.....kind of the world Hitler wanted.

And regarding your balance, the time is just strange. If the foetus would become a child, then surely interference is the removal of a child? Just as you sticking a knife in me prevents me from getting older? Its just an arbitrary time.


Then again I guess its usually the poor and less educated that have abortions so its all good. /sarcasm

 

[mmj_uk]

It looks like the Guardian have edited their headline, does posting a misleading title that people will spam all over the internet without actually reading the article and then later subtly changing it to be more accurate class as fake news?

 

[Tuppy_Glossop]

What if a muslim politician stated that their personal belief is that people should be killed for leaving Islam? Does the fact it is a bona fide Islamic position absolve them of their ****ty beliefs?

I won't be getting upset by it.

 

[RDM]

Then again I guess its usually the poor and less educated that have abortions so its all good. /sarcasm

According to Freakanomics it is actually a good thing poor and less educated people have access to abortion, it reduces the crime rate...

 

[sports_brah]

According to Freakanomics it is actually a good thing poor and less educated people have access to abortion, it reduces the crime rate...

Elitism at its finest. Let's promote the poor to get rid of their young so we don't have to trouble ourselves at educating them and make peoples lives better.

What ho, they are demanding more? Better import people to lower the wage. Worse curse word is social mobility..

 

[stewski]

No because competition and capitalism drives improving standards of living through equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome for the lazy proletariat who'd have everything handed to them on a plate and create zero wealth accordingly.

In China Im sure they agree!

 

[stewski]

It looks like the Guardian have edited their headline, does posting a misleading title that people will spam all over the internet without actually reading the article and then later subtly changing it to be more accurate class as fake news?

was the headline Jihadi mogga on the eve of an election?

 

[RDM]

Elitism at its finest. Let's promote the poor to get rid of their young so we don't have to trouble ourselves at educating them and make peoples lives better.

What ho, they are demanding more? Better import people to lower the wage. Worse curse word is social mobility..

Educating women and giving them access to contraception and abortion is one way of improving people's lives. It allows women to put off having children until they choose and are more prepared to deal with them. Less deprivation, less poverty which then leads to less crime too.

 

[sports_brah]

Educating women and giving them access to contraception and abortion is one way of improving people's lives. It allows women to put off having children until they choose and are more prepared to deal with them. Less deprivation, less poverty which then leads to less crime too.

No, it leads to less children, decreased fertility rates and the eventual importation of people to replace the massive deficit caused by the quarter million a year flushed away.

And no I don't think society is better or healthier for it.

And I think there IS a compromise for both sides of making people happier, educated and more fulfilled. An option that is rapidly vanishing over time.

 

[enkoda]

I would like to see the abortion limit reduced to 8 weeks and only for cases of rape and incest. Quarter of a million babies are aborted every year, that's whats abhorrent

What about cases where the pregnancy/birth could kill the woman? What's abhorrent is men, usually brought up in some form of religion that has suppressed the rights of women, giving special privilege to an unborn foetus while removing the rights of women to do what they want with their own bodies.

 

[Vonhelmet]

No, it leads to less children, decreased fertility rates and the eventual importation of people to replace the massive deficit caused by the quarter million a year flushed away.

And no I don't think society is better or healthier for it.

And I think there IS a compromise for both sides of making people happier, educated and more fulfilled. An option that is rapidly vanishing over time.

Forcing women who don't want to have children or who aren't ready or able or even willing to provide for them is a great way to produce poorly looked after children and to tie their mothers up when they could be doing something they actually want to do and could be doing well. Looking after children is hard enough when you want to do it, never mind when you don't.

I'm not advocating abortion as contraception for the lazy, but to suggest that allowing it is the reason for the importation of cheap labour and wage deflation is absurd.

 

[Werewolf]

No, it leads to less children, decreased fertility rates and the eventual importation of people to replace the massive deficit caused by the quarter million a year flushed away.

And no I don't think society is better or healthier for it.

And I think there IS a compromise for both sides of making people happier, educated and more fulfilled. An option that is rapidly vanishing over time.

A population where women have access to birth control and abortions tends to be far more productive and have children who are better educated and better looked after than one where women are forced to have children they don't want and frequently end up being unable to get the education that is a cornerstone of the ability to function in a modern society

I used to find it odd how often the very same people who are most vocal about being anti birth control and abortion were also very fast to criticise women who a lot of children, or needed help with them, right up until I noticed the fact that many of those people also seemed to have a strong undercurrent of resentment towards women at which point it made much more sense when looked at as a way of controlling them (keep them stuck rearing children and reliant on their husband for all their financial needs).
This is most obvious in the likes of the US states where there are regular attempts to reduce a woman's rights, including one recent one where they tried to make it so the husband or father (if no husband was around) needed to give approval for an abortion.

 

[hurfdurf]

Anyone who is anti abortion but doesn't believe the state must look after children to a significant minimum level must really hate women and children.

 

[Trusty]

Abortion is a difficult one. One half of me says, of course women should be allowed to choose, but the other half says, Tanisha from the block should be a stronger women and say no to Liam the lout who wants to spill his beans up her without a condom.

 

[h4rm0ny]

that's your failing not there's, the me me me issue.
you cant see why people think its better to help society with rises than keep it for themselves?

The explicit question in the survey is that it doesn't help society. The scenario is that introducing a higher tax on high earners doesn't raise any extra money. Presumably because it is balanced by people seeking work abroad. Whether or not it would is immaterial. The survey asks what you would do if it were true. And the results show that a majority of Labour supporters are in favour of greater taxing of high earners even if there's no gain. I'll re-emphasise this point because I don't want a reply about whether or not a 50p tax rate would raise more money or not. It's irrelevant. The question asks if it is true that penalizing high earners doesn't actually result in extra money, would you do it anyway. It's a question of morality. I find the answer - that so many people simply want to punish, regardless of whether that's useful or not, repugnant.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Abortion is a difficult one. One half of me says, of course women should be allowed to choose, but the other half says, Tanisha from the block should be a stronger women and say no to Liam the lout who wants to spill his beans up her without a condom.

All of me says we urgently need to increase sex education and encourage girls to practice contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions. Abortion as contraceptive is wrong in so many ways. Hell, I'll set aside my capitalist dogma and advocate for free contraception for all women if it helps.