The BBC has no leftist bias at all.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Screenshot-20210701-104637-Chrome.jpg


Yikes
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
FFS you are so narrow minded. If everyone in poor areas suddenly had 1, 2 or zero children it wouldn't improve their prospects or lifestyle in any way that will really make a difference. Their areas aren't suddenly inundated with investment, jobs aren't created, housing doesn't improve, schools don't improve, none of the things that are required to lift areas out of poverty happen because people have slightly less children.

I'll just quote my original entry into this thread because it was bang on.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right so keep breeding and compounding the problem of your own collective making. Too hard for you to comprehend the bigger picture so you play the race card! Absolutely typical of those that make these problems try and deflect the blame to everyone's racist against us because they won't give us stuff for free and make us work for it.
 
The Running Man said:
Screenshot-20210701-104637-Chrome.jpg


Yikes
Click to expand...

Another thing I get tired of .. random statements on how to save the planet! It seems to me that climate change is kinda important yet there is no absolute statement of where the "blame" lies and what we should do about it. I can't help but think that the respective governments of the world are too terrified to actually publish that information and would rather let the public go on believing that recycling and having one less child will solve all the worlds problems. There is only so much the public can do, the rest is down to the government and to industry, and yet they seem to be avoiding the media attention.
 
The_Arbiter said:
It's been known for a while now women are chasing careers instead of children in many cases, UK's birth rates are dropping, whether this is a direct result i don't know. It could be interesting if we could filter out the single mums in council estates from the figure and see what we can draw from those stats. Either way, i agree with you, children are not a right, they're a privilege.



Pretty much. I have zero confidence in the media now. Some outlets have focussed so hard on scaring people during a time where education is needed more than ever.
10k people dying everyday, just we forgot to mention that more people were starving and dying when things were all dandy.
Click to expand...

Generally, birth rates falls occur when women's education levels, incomes and career opportunities rise. S Korea is a spectacular example of this.

I'd guess that, like nearly everything, it's really a local, rather than national phenomenon. There's probably some decent numbers on births by socioeconomic background/ income, but I don't have the time to read all that.

As to the covid vs famine deaths: people care when next door burns down more than when a house in another city does. It's just human nature...
 
pp111 said:
Another thing I get tired of .. random statements on how to save the planet! It seems to me that climate change is kinda important yet there is no absolute statement of where the "blame" lies and what we should do about it. I can't help but think that the respective governments of the world are too terrified to actually publish that information and would rather let the public go on believing that recycling and having one less child will solve all the worlds problems. There is only so much the public can do, the rest is down to the government and to industry, and yet they seem to be avoiding the media attention.
Click to expand...

Well the guardian propose a position that we should have fewer children, yet state that immigration is good as it creates new jobs.

Wouldn't having more children then also create more jobs?

Or is more jobs bad if it means we are impacting climate change? Its difficult to keep up with this narrative.

But the birth rate here is already much lower than in say Africa so wouldn't this type if article be better focused in their international outlook for African readers? As an example.

And shouldn't the articles be aimed at other ethnicities in as far as I am aware white British birth rate is lower than most others anyway?

Screenshot-20210713-111015-Chrome.jpg
 
The Running Man said:
So why are the guardian targeting the groups with the lowest fertility rates and attempting to guilt them into even fewer children while pushing how positive immigration is?
Click to expand...

Today's news sells well. Guardian are no better than the Daily Mail when it comes to logical, fair, news, only my opinion of course. Different stories may make that argument less or more correct.
 
The Running Man said:
Well the guardian propose a position that we should have fewer children, yet state that immigration is good as it creates new jobs.

Wouldn't having more children then also create more jobs?

Or is more jobs bad if it means we are impacting climate change? Its difficult to keep up with this narrative.

But the birth rate here is already much lower than in say Africa so wouldn't this type if article be better focused in their international outlook for African readers? As an example.

And shouldn't the articles be aimed at other ethnicities in as far as I am aware white British birth rate is lower than most others anyway?
Click to expand...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that these questions are in good faith.

Firstly, the "Guardian's position" as you put it, is the one that people have been facing up to for some time. The world as a whole is overpopulated, so yes, we should have fewer children. I for instance have had no children and one of the reasons why is because I think there's already too many people and I understand that each child, especially in the western world uses an awful lot of resource to make to it adulthood and continues to do so throughout their lives. I'd rather worry about my consumption rather than feeling like I was denying kids theirs. On the other hand, we have a capitalist economic system that like a shark, needs to swim and grow or drown. That needs man power and wealth creation and for that, (some types more than others) immigration is a necessity. These two POVs are not as diametrically opposed as you suggest.

Economic activity does on the whole, impact climate change. So yes, more jobs, worse for the environment. The challenge is to mitigate this.

The Guardian, as far as I know, doesn't produce editorial which is specifically targeted at African readers.

Lastly. The article isn't directed at any specific ethnicity, including white British as that would be intrinsically racist. I am assuming that you think it is and/or are suggesting it should be and that is just clumsy? Or are you actually suggesting it would be a good idea to target non-white folk (as opposed to everyone) in an attempt to persuade them to have less children?
 
pp111 said:
At a tangent here, I am sick and tired of the media grasping hold of any study or scientific result as if it is gospel. They undermine their own credibility and that of science. Anyone can declare themselves a scientist and carry out a study. There are scientific bodies that filter out the valuable results from the chaff. The problem is the media ignore the filtering and directly publish whatever chaff that meets their own agenda. The moment the media say "scientist..." or "study...", I switch off completely. My first question on any such news report is who are these scientists, what is their background, who has accredited their work and does the scientific world accept their results. Without that information it's just another Trumpism.
Click to expand...

o9ajzhawbtdkegstqex6.png
 
inogen said:
On the other hand, we have a capitalist economic system that like a shark, needs to swim and grow or drown. That needs man power and wealth creation and for that, (some types more than others) immigration is a necessity. These two POVs are not as diametrically opposed as you suggest.
Click to expand...

That just isn't true, Capitalism is driving automation because it maximises profit and minimises cost to the consumer, which is the opposite of needing more man power.
 
inogen said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that these questions are in good faith.

The Guardian, as far as I know, doesn't produce editorial which is specifically targeted at African readers.

Lastly. The article isn't directed at any specific ethnicity, including white British as that would be intrinsically racist. I am assuming that you think it is and/or are suggesting it should be and that is just clumsy? Or are you actually suggesting it would be a good idea to target non-white folk (as opposed to everyone) in an attempt to persuade them to have less children?
Click to expand...

When you target multiple ethnicities you would usually use graphics , models etc that represent those demographics.

Watch adverts on TV, how many of them have an all white cast?

Now look at the article and ask yourself, who is this article aimed at?
 
potatolord said:
Generally, birth rates falls occur when women's education levels, incomes and career opportunities rise. S Korea is a spectacular example of this.

I'd guess that, like nearly everything, it's really a local, rather than national phenomenon. There's probably some decent numbers on births by socioeconomic background/ income, but I don't have the time to read all that.

As to the covid vs famine deaths: people care when next door burns down more than when a house in another city does. It's just human nature...
Click to expand...

This is far more it than the lazy thinking, black and brown people should have less babies and so get themselves out of poverty nonsense. Women stop having babies or have fewer babies because they have other options. These opportunities open up because their is better schools and collages, more well paying jobs in their area, their area gets investment. If you are unfortunate to live in a very deprived area not having kids isn't going to fix those problems, it might help get a few out but it still leaves the vast majority exactly where they were.
 
VincentHanna said:
2 articles in a period of 9 years.

What an unbearable and relentless campaign that is...
Click to expand...

Screenshot-20210701-104618-Chrome.jpg


There's more...

Irs been a targeted campaign repeating the same message to the sametarget audience over a period of a decade to surreptitiously influence a group of people to have fewer children.

However, as we know the targeted group already have one of the lowest fertility rates in the uk. So what is the agenda here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom