In case you haven’t noticed, this planet is already seriously overpopulated, and overpopulation is more of a threat to us than climate change. Only antibiotic resistance is a more serious threat.
That doesn’t make logical sense, because if they’re not given big welfare payments they’d all starve to death?
Are you making that argument? You ended your statement with a question mark, not a period.
Do you think they would all starve to death?
If you do, is that why we must continue welfare as it stands today? Your previous post talked about the need to reduce the human population. Wouldn’t a swath of the population starving to death take care of that for you?
2 Likes
No it wasn’t a question - I often use a quote mark as an invitation for a reader to consider what I said. As to your point though - in these days of various methods of contraception, if two sex-mad individuals are stupid or irresponsible enough to have 22 sprogs, then they deserve to starve to death before they add to that tally. (?) lol
Thus that’s really your response to what I said here:
I’ll repeat: Sterilizing people is just the next big-government response to an issue that bothers you.
If the welfare system encourages 22 kids, that’s a problem with the welfare system. You’ve made a leap that the UK system encouraged that family to have so many kids, but nobody has made a valid case for that. Just assertion.
Would that family starve without the system? I wholly doubt it. Would that black USA family in the video above? Looks like they already are, in spite of welfare. Welfare should be assistance, not a way of life.
If a family can support a herd of kids, more power to them. Looks like that’s precisely the case with the UK family of 22 kids.
Put your sterilization scalpel away.
2 Likes
I find this thread replete with stupidity and twisted interpretations of the article. This family is not a burden to society…because they choose to not be so. They are not gaming the system.
The man is the sole bread winner (unless the older children have paying jobs and contribute to the household bills) and appears to be doing quite well enough to satisfy basic needs.
What else should a good baker do but have a cake in the oven at home at all times? 
Who was it, Margaret Sanger that wanted to abort all the black babies? Genocide by attrition.
Married couples should be allowed to have all the children they can afford. It is the morons that try to control them.
Put your loony-left indignation on hold for a while by coming down from the sanctimonious moral high ground and joining the rest of us in the real world. Out of curiosity though, how many sprogs more than 22 do you think irresponsible individuals like these parents should be allowed to have before they are compulsorily prevented from churning out even more to be nurtured, clothed, educated etc. thanks to the generosity of diligent taxpayers, whilst non-parasitic responsible (note that word?) couples reluctantly choose to not have any because they know they can’t afford them? Just a ball-park number will do - 26? 30? 33?
What, and you think a baker can afford to pay his business rates and other overheads including fuel for his ovens and wages, a big mortgage - it must be a big mortgage to finance a house with circa 20 bedrooms? - all the utility bills which go with a big house like that, local and federal taxes, food market expenditure, the list goes on, just on the profits from that bakery? Get a grip ffs!!
You need to get a grip on the fact that you’re guessing at other people’s financial workings and personal wealth. He may make enough as a baker to finance a castle.
BTW, Papa John bakes and sells pizza. He could likely buy you and everything you own…every day and still have money left over to buy everything I own.
Stop speculating…FFS!
1 Like
My grandmother was next to the youngest of 18 children, not counting the babies who didn’t make it; so maybe 20++++ children. NO WELFARE & they survived. When I asked her why people had so many kids way back then, she said, No TV.
1 Like
Would you bet even a small amount on any of that? No, nor would I. And speculation is an acceptable and commonly used form of messageboard discussion.
Don’t speak for me.
Speculating is not the same as stating facts. You present your speculation as the final word. This is what happens when morons have freedom.
If your broadcast tv is as dire as ours is, that would account for the exponential increase in today’s birthrates - well, that, and the ethnic propensities for having lots of sprogs. lol
18 plus, you say?? 
That’s a ‘No, I wouldn’t bet even a small amount on the possible scenario which I presented.’ then, is it? 
You answered for me when you said “No, nor would I.”
You seem to have a problem with comprehension of the English language.
I leave you to your on devices in further proving that you are among the morons.
‘Nor would I’ means ‘I wouldn’t either’, so that’s speaking for myself, not for you, moron.
Long before welfare, large families were quite common.
Asking a “would you” question of me and then saying “No, nor would I.” means that you answered for me (by saying “No”) and then said that you wouldn’t either (by saying “nor would I”).
As I said, you need lessons in comprehension of the English language. You’re a moron.
Feel free to have the last post here and claim you won something.
Goodbye!
Yeah, but there’s large, and there’s LARGE? But it does account for the multiplicity of childhood illnesses, especially the contagious ones; all of them being under one roof, if one member of the family catches something the others are bound to catch it too? Then there were illness which today would be cured by antibiotics. And stuff like rickets because of poor diet. We take an awful lot for granted these days, and we’re so lucky not to have lived then?
I’m not so small-minded as that. We seem to have got off to a bad start, and I apologize if I was the one who caused it. I know I get exasperated sometimes, but I never set out to antagonise anyone.