Organ Donation

[Truther 1,579]

But wouldn't the natural assumption that the thatcher worshippers we have running the show now have the same moral code as her? Didn't camerons mate (ex mate) say cameron belonged to some hooray henry club that's main purpose was to keep wealth out of the hands of the working class, well that and snorting coke and indulging in bit of pig f***ing

 

Multinationals and super rich individuals making a profit out of the people of this land, yet they pay little or no tax, then your party try and stop working tax credit when we already have working people using food banks A direct result of your party, and others, policies, allowing a flood of cheap immigrant labour in to keep wages down? How much hard proof do we need that profit always comes before people, despite risks to health?

 

They care very little about the herd mate, the only time anything positive gets done is to protect the interests of the ruling minority.

[mackay 3,067]

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?

 

I can relate to your comments, and I too have concerns about my future and the future of this country.

Difference being ?, it's folk like you that concern me.

[Born Hunter 17,646]

But wouldn't the natural assumption that the thatcher worshippers we have running the show now have the same moral code as her? Didn't camerons mate (ex mate) say cameron belonged to some hooray henry club that's main purpose was to keep wealth out of the hands of the working class, well that and snorting coke and indulging in bit of pig f***ing

 

Multinationals and super rich individuals making a profit out of the people of this land, yet they pay little or no tax, then your party try and stop working tax credit when we already have working people using food banks A direct result of your party, and others, policies, allowing a flood of cheap immigrant labour in to keep wages down? How much hard proof do we need that profit always comes before people, despite risks to health?

 

They care very little about the herd mate, the only time anything positive gets done is to protect the interests of the ruling minority.

 

An assumption that ignores the obvious observations. It's an assumption based on your set in stone hypothesis that 'they're definitely out to get us' as supported by all the statements above but which cannot so simply be applied to what we are talking about. I don't care about any of that, none of it has anything to do with the governments attitude on domestic tobacco use!

 

Observation of the governments attitude towards domestic tobacco use is clear...... it's progressively restrictive and inhibiting! Quite starkly contrary to your assertion that they want us to all die from tobacco and alcohol abuse!

 

I have no dog in this race, despite your continued use of 'your party'. I'm being objective and drawing conclusions with no bias. You however aren't, you have your hypothesis, that may very well fit for some situations, and just apply it blindly to everything. It doesn't at all fit with the governments actual actions on the topic of domestic tobacco use. If they wanted us to all smoke ourselves to death then they would be far more liberal with the associated laws. They want it banned but daren't rock the boat too much for fear of the backlash. Issues like these are too sensitive to be bold on, that's why it's a progressive strategy.

 

And don't kid yourself that I think they want it banned because they worry about my health, I've not touched on the reasons they want it banned, just that it's clear that they do and the reason why they haven't restricted it in the same way they have other substances.....

[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 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?

 

I can relate to your comments, and I too have concerns about my future and the future of this country.

Difference being ?, it's folk like you that concern me.

 

 

Folk like him are irrelevant,they're just weak links and won't be around forever.

 

They have an unworkable dream,whether they pull it off or not it's the end of them.

[BGD 6,385]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As amusing as it is to get lectures on genocide from a literal fascist it'd be nice if you replied to the post you're quoting

 

I wonder where your ideal eugenics program would stop, would the Department of Breeding decide who you were partnered with?

If you're happy handing that freedom and responsibility over to the state crack on but you'll find you're in a tiny minority.

 

Glad everything worked out ok for you but going by your philosophy it was irresonsible of you to even consider getting your wife pregnant before getting the full battery of genetic tests. Why did you decide not to practice what you preach?

[neems 2,406]

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

[Truther 1,579]

 

But wouldn't the natural assumption that the thatcher worshippers we have running the show now have the same moral code as her? Didn't camerons mate (ex mate) say cameron belonged to some hooray henry club that's main purpose was to keep wealth out of the hands of the working class, well that and snorting coke and indulging in bit of pig f***ing

 

Multinationals and super rich individuals making a profit out of the people of this land, yet they pay little or no tax, then your party try and stop working tax credit when we already have working people using food banks A direct result of your party, and others, policies, allowing a flood of cheap immigrant labour in to keep wages down? How much hard proof do we need that profit always comes before people, despite risks to health?

 

They care very little about the herd mate, the only time anything positive gets done is to protect the interests of the ruling minority.

 

An assumption that ignores the obvious observations. It's an assumption based on your set in stone hypothesis that 'they're definitely out to get us' as supported by all the statements above but which cannot so simply be applied to what we are talking about. I don't care about any of that, none of it has anything to do with the governments attitude on domestic tobacco use!

 

Observation of the governments attitude towards domestic tobacco use is clear...... it's progressively restrictive and inhibiting! Quite starkly contrary to your assertion that they want us to all die from tobacco and alcohol abuse!

 

I have no dog in this race, despite your continued use of 'your party'. I'm being objective and drawing conclusions with no bias. You however aren't, you have your hypothesis, that may very well fit for some situations, and just apply it blindly to everything. It doesn't at all fit with the governments actual actions on the topic of domestic tobacco use. If they wanted us to all smoke ourselves to death then they would be far more liberal with the associated laws. They want it banned but daren't rock the boat too much for fear of the backlash. Issues like these are too sensitive to be bold on, that's why it's a progressive strategy.

 

And don't kid yourself that I think they want it banned because they worry about my health, I've not touched on the reasons they want it banned, just that it's clear that they do and the reason why they haven't restricted it in the same way they have other substances.....

 

 

You honestly think dave and co are sitting round thinking of ways to stop people smoking and drinking, for their own good Any government not pushing the anti tobacco angle would look like a set of profiteering, uncaring monsters, they take advice from health bodies, they just cant ignore it, much as they would like to.

 

Who said they want us to die from tobacco and alcohol abuse? Their aim is to make a profit out of it, not kill us all off ffs.........tobacco is the perfect drug for them, it doesn't make the worker ants unable to do their job, very very addictive, and kills you off in your 60's in general, savings on pensions But i'll agree to disagree, dave and his mates are doing their best to safeguard the nations health out of the goodness of their hearts, its obvious.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but after singing the praise's of UKIP for weeks, maybe months? you voted for the cons, hence my use of "your party" or don't you understand the concept of voting for someone? Its not my fault you feel the need to defend these uncaring animals is it? I wouldn't like the job either, considering the material you have to work with

[Born Hunter 17,646]

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

In 300 years we will be engineering our own genetic future..... hereditary faults will be predominantly solved in the lab, not through more conventional natural selection or selective breeding. The selection process, whether considered an advanced form of 'natural' or not, will be largely affected by us rather than the complex methods of nature....

 

Outrageous statement maybe, but it's just the next step on the evolutionary ladder..... We've been fighting natural selection for millennia, it could be argued that it's the nature of such intelligent species.

[BGD 6,385]

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

Free health checks and encouraging those with nasty genetic disorders not to pass them on I have no problem with. The words "offer" and "recommend" make your proposal a lot more palatable, it's when people start talking about actually banning certain people from reproducing that it starts getting mental, that's a slippery slope I'm sure we'd all rather not go down

Edited November 10, 2015 by BGD

[Born Hunter 17,646]

 

 

But wouldn't the natural assumption that the thatcher worshippers we have running the show now have the same moral code as her? Didn't camerons mate (ex mate) say cameron belonged to some hooray henry club that's main purpose was to keep wealth out of the hands of the working class, well that and snorting coke and indulging in bit of pig f***ing

 

Multinationals and super rich individuals making a profit out of the people of this land, yet they pay little or no tax, then your party try and stop working tax credit when we already have working people using food banks A direct result of your party, and others, policies, allowing a flood of cheap immigrant labour in to keep wages down? How much hard proof do we need that profit always comes before people, despite risks to health?

 

They care very little about the herd mate, the only time anything positive gets done is to protect the interests of the ruling minority.

 

An assumption that ignores the obvious observations. It's an assumption based on your set in stone hypothesis that 'they're definitely out to get us' as supported by all the statements above but which cannot so simply be applied to what we are talking about. I don't care about any of that, none of it has anything to do with the governments attitude on domestic tobacco use!

 

Observation of the governments attitude towards domestic tobacco use is clear...... it's progressively restrictive and inhibiting! Quite starkly contrary to your assertion that they want us to all die from tobacco and alcohol abuse!

 

I have no dog in this race, despite your continued use of 'your party'. I'm being objective and drawing conclusions with no bias. You however aren't, you have your hypothesis, that may very well fit for some situations, and just apply it blindly to everything. It doesn't at all fit with the governments actual actions on the topic of domestic tobacco use. If they wanted us to all smoke ourselves to death then they would be far more liberal with the associated laws. They want it banned but daren't rock the boat too much for fear of the backlash. Issues like these are too sensitive to be bold on, that's why it's a progressive strategy.

 

And don't kid yourself that I think they want it banned because they worry about my health, I've not touched on the reasons they want it banned, just that it's clear that they do and the reason why they haven't restricted it in the same way they have other substances.....

 

 

You honestly think dave and co are sitting round thinking of ways to stop people smoking and drinking, for their own good Any government not pushing the anti tobacco angle would look like a set of profiteering, uncaring monsters, they take advice from health bodies, they just cant ignore it, much as they would like to.

 

Who said they want us to die from tobacco and alcohol abuse? Their aim is to make a profit out of it, not kill us all off ffs.........tobacco is the perfect drug for them, it doesn't make the worker ants unable to do their job, very very addictive, and kills you off in your 60's in general, savings on pensions But i'll agree to disagree, dave and his mates are doing their best to safeguard the nations health out of the goodness of their hearts, its obvious.

 

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but after singing the praise's of UKIP for weeks, maybe months? you voted for the cons, hence my use of "your party" or don't you understand the concept of voting for someone? Its not my fault you feel the need to defend these uncaring animals is it? I wouldn't like the job either, considering the material you have to work with

 

 

Your first sentence is in complete defiance of my last! LOL, it's like you didn't even read it.

 

Singing the praise of UKIP..... haven't we been through this before? I never once, to the best of my memory, thrashed the UKIP bandwagon like you seem to insinuate. I could relate to their politics, that I have never denied and quite explicitly stated that I hadn't decided if they would get my vote over the Cons. The concept of voting I get, you support a party, it doesn't make them your party, just the one that you gave your support to..... I can't believe I'm having to explain this.... Sometime in life you have to make decisions, it's not then your fault if despite your best effort events turn out for the worst.

 

LOL, I'm not defending anybody, I think banning alcohol and tobacco is completely cuntish! In case you don't get the implication of that, it means I think the Cons attempt to legislate against foods and alcohol etc is an infringement of my freedom. It wasn't defence of 'my party', it was an alternate and rational explanation to your conspiracy!

 

Their aim is to get us addicted to tobacco to maximise our profitability........ hmm back to the observable facts, FYI they're not hypothesis to explain the observations...... the government have continually and rightfully demonised smoking through education and advertising which has had the effect of reducing the volume of smokers......... cracking job they're doing of making us profitable eh!

 

They want it banned because it's clearly the right thing to do from a strategic political view but it's too sensitive a issue to be bold with! The electorate don't like their civil liberties being messed with but at the same time want the government to protect them. The answer, as usually the case, is to act but progressively so as not to suffer heavy backlash....... they aren't doing it for our health, they aren't doing it to make money, they're doing it because its politically the savvy thing to do when you consider the complexity of the politics.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Born Hunter

[neems 2,406]

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

In 300 years we will be engineering our own genetic future..... hereditary faults will be predominantly solved in the lab, not through more conventional natural selection or selective breeding. The selection process, whether considered an advanced form of 'natural' or not, will be largely affected by us rather than the complex methods of nature....

 

Outrageous statement maybe, but it's just the next step on the evolutionary ladder..... We've been fighting natural selection for millennia, it could be argued that it's the nature of such intelligent species.

 

 

That's possible not by any means definite,I'd have more faith in more basic methods,at least for now.

 

People have worked within the natural order performing rites and rituals that were a form of eugenics for at least as long as they've fought against it.

[Truther 1,579]

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

Free health checks and encouraging those with nasty genetic disorders not to pass them on I have no problem with. The words "offer" and "recommend" make your proposal a lot more palatable, it's when people start talking about actually banning certain people from reproducing that it starts getting mental, that's a slippery slope I'm sure we'd all rather not go down

 

 

Unless it was banning muslim breeding, then i'm sure most of us would go down that slippery slope, except muslims and traitors like

 

Can't reply to the other post, here's my answer

 

"Fascist" Scraping the bottom of the lefty barrel out of desperation now eh

 

I think Neems puts it fairly well, looks like he missed "intentional inbreeding" being outlawed though, but i don't suppose the would be a problem in Neems England, or mine either

 

I did practice what i preach, did it not occur to you a potential problem could arise after you had 2 kids already? Simple answer was i wasn't aware from the beginning genius.

[Born Hunter 17,646]

 

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

In 300 years we will be engineering our own genetic future..... hereditary faults will be predominantly solved in the lab, not through more conventional natural selection or selective breeding. The selection process, whether considered an advanced form of 'natural' or not, will be largely affected by us rather than the complex methods of nature....

 

Outrageous statement maybe, but it's just the next step on the evolutionary ladder..... We've been fighting natural selection for millennia, it could be argued that it's the nature of such intelligent species.

 

 

That's possible not by any means definite,I'd have more faith in more basic methods,at least for now.

 

People have worked within the natural order performing rites and rituals that were a form of eugenics for at least as long as they've fought against it.

 

 

Mate, I'm not as against your view as you might think. Just stating how I see events are to unfold. We have gradually defied the conventional natural laws of selection with advancements in medicine and society. We have progressively replaced the selection criteria with ones we have greater control over. Eventually our understanding of bioengineering will allow us to control our own future in a way only seen in Sci-Fi now!

 

That of course makes us very dependant on ourselves......

[BGD 6,385]

 

 

Eugenics doesn't have to be this ridiculous overly stringent practice,offer free health checks for everyone,recommend those who fail don't have biological children,give them an opportunity to adopt instead,or if one partners healthy use surrogates/donors,make all of this accessible to normal people.

 

Pay the top 5% to have as many kids as they'll have.

 

We're degenerating,were will be in 300 years if this continues?

 

Free health checks and encouraging those with nasty genetic disorders not to pass them on I have no problem with. The words "offer" and "recommend" make your proposal a lot more palatable, it's when people start talking about actually banning certain people from reproducing that it starts getting mental, that's a slippery slope I'm sure we'd all rather not go down

 

 

Unless it was banning muslim breeding, then i'm sure most of us would go down that slippery slope, except muslims and traitors like

 

Can't reply to the other post, here's my answer

 

"Fascist" Scraping the bottom of the lefty barrel out of desperation now eh

 

I think Neems puts it fairly well, looks like he missed "intentional inbreeding" being outlawed though, but i don't suppose the would be a problem in Neems England, or mine either

 

I did practice what i preach, did it not occur to you a potential problem could arise after you had 2 kids already? Simple answer was i wasn't aware from the beginning genius.

 

Not scraping the bottom of any barrel just using the word that best decribes your ideology, it isn't an insult unless you think you're somehow wrong

 

So you've changed your mind then? Now you don't think people shouldn't be allowed to have kids they should just be encouraged not to? Some might call that backpedaling but I'll call it progress

 

You said she was tested for a genetic complaint, if you had been practicing what you preach you both would of been entirely cleared of all genetic defects before even trying for a baby, surely.

[WILF 44,479]

The ONLY time the state has a right to pull a person up on what they are doing is if that action is directly harming someone or something else.

Up to that pint people should be given responsibility to decide/provide for themselves.

 

See, it falls down when the state offers to take away huge chunks of your responsibility in exchange for huge chunks of your money.......it leads us to this discussion which argues exactly what we are prepared to let them decide.

 

The obvious cure is that they should demand the bare minimum, we should give them the bare minimum and take back responsibility for our habits, our vices, our offspring and our life.

 

We are at a bad place at the moment IMHO