Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sterilize the proles!

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    gcgirl wrote: »
    If we lived in a Ireland where child care was afforable I would love to be able to work but for Christ sake we need to do something about child care, And where guys don't walk out on their 3 kids & partner ! There are some of us trying to survive on what amounts to peanuts each week! Try bring up 3 kids on 260 euro's a week!
    What about a part-time job?


  • Options
    #63
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Dudess wrote: »
    What about a part-time job?

    Still would have to pay through the nose for child care!


  • Options
    #64
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    gcgirl wrote: »
    If we lived in a Ireland where child care was afforable I would love to be able to work but for Christ sake we need to do something about child care, And where guys don't walk out on their 3 kids & partner ! There are some of us trying to survive on what amounts to peanuts each week! Try bring up 3 kids on 260 euro's a week!

    Well claiming benefit after having three kids and the father walks out is not abuse of the system. The single mother benefits were designed to help in this situation. Having multiple kids for different fathers and constantly claiming benefits is abuse. Having a rent allowance apartment/flat and claiming benefits while your partner lives with you is abuse of the system.

    If the benefits system wasn't abused, maybe the amount per week would increase.


  • Options
    #65
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Yeah, I agree completely. However I think maybe SheroN's point was that gcgirl could still apply for a job (then again I could be wrong) that would pay more than the €260 a week benefits she's in receipt of.
    But to be fair, even if she were to get a full-time job (and that's probably not an option with three kids) the amount spent on childcare would reduce her weekly wage to only about €260 anyway.
    Childcare costs are apparently astronomical, and childcare workers get paid so badly.
    But gcgirl, what about child support? And does he pull his weight in minding them? Sorry to hear that happened to you too. Must be a horrific experience. Very best of luck anyway.


  • Options
    #66
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Basically i would rather have nothing to do with the guy now i would rather give him 2 fingers to child support! There are quite a few people who are a lot worse off then i, the amount of women that are coming out of abusive/controling relationships that have to start off from scrach! Not every one should be tarred with the same brush! Personally i think education is one step towards something and as for ASBO's how many come from your average2.2 children kind of family you'd be surprised!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Dinter wrote: »
    Think this is a great idea. I don't see it as eugenics as, as far as I can make out, it's across the board and not aimed at any one race.

    If it was to be introduced it would have to be adjudicated on a case by case basis but I think it's definitely worth implementing.

    Sick and tired of seeing revenues frittered away to pay for housing and benefits for people who deliberately and wilfully breed as a career path.

    Why facilitate it any longer?

    Eugenics is about stopping the 'weak' from being able to reproduce, to eliminate the seed of the 'weak'. It is not concentrated on race but based on perceived intellect and the 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

    This retired tory is talking about sterilising people to stop them 'inflicting' their 'weak seed' on society. He IS supporting eugenics.


  • Options
    #68
    humbert
    Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    I agree with the sentiment and I'm sure that's all it was.

    I also like the idea of benefits for one child. Can't support more then don't have them. Just put the money saved into building orphanages and work houses. The building industry gets a boost, the economy benefits, everyone wins!


  • Options
    #69
    Tha Gopher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Tha Gopher


    eo980 wrote: »
    Who exactly came over here and stole our 'healthiness?

    Oh jesus christ.


    Its not the Proles, the Poles, the Greeks or the Chinese hes after :rolleyes:
    *waffle* we still live in Catholic ireland *waffle waffle waffle*

    Oh god i love these people, I really do :D


  • Options
    #70
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    Surely the way things are going, sterilization is the only viable option? Otherwise society is going to get out of hand. Especially if a recession comes in hard on Eire. For the good of humanity something like this is necessary, the whole world is getting to a stage where population control is absolutely essential. We are almost too intelligent for our own good and unlike animals, our population will not even out in time. It's ironic that the greenie hippy types would probably be the ones opposing something like this and protesting and harping on about civil liberties, whereas in the long run it's helping society in general and the environment. I just don't think any polititians would have the balls to implement something like this for fear of being remembered as a naziesque tyrant. Unless we act now with something like this, much much harsher policies will be introduced in my lifetime for the good of the country and the world that will affect us all.


  • Options
    #71
    Dinter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭Dinter


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Eugenics is about stopping the 'weak' from being able to reproduce, to eliminate the seed of the 'weak'. It is not concentrated on race but based on perceived intellect and the 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

    This retired tory is talking about sterilising people to stop them 'inflicting' their 'weak seed' on society. He IS supporting eugenics.

    Sorry, I meant I've no problem with it as it wasn't being implemented without reason or aimed at a specific group.

    The group it was aimed at shouldn't be considered as weak at all. They guage the benefits and drawbacks in propagating their clutch of mewling, workshy children in much the same way I considered the CAO form. Then they go ahead and introduce another burden on society in the same way I chose to complete a masters.

    No child has a chance of being a healthy or productive member of society when their very reason to exist is to keep their slothful, indolent and immoral "parents" in Johny Blue and cheap lager. Why then allow them to gain from our sentimentality?

    As they aren't weak, just lazy and greedy, I don't see how it's a question of eugenics.

    Also this isn't a rant on people who find themselves in these circumstances through misfortune. However benefits would be far more appropriate and measurable to all who need them if we weren't carrying thousands of parasites with us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,482 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    beans wrote: »
    Well not quite all of them, but certainly those who insist on raising multiple kids on state benefits.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=543688&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow



    So time to send the tox-van around to persistant welfare-offenders house for a bit of the aul chemical castration then?

    Don't all families (even well to do working families) get state benefits i.e. child welfare?

    Then again he is a Tory.


  • Options
    #73
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    Great idea, needs to be more farreaching tho, we cant risk any of them escaping once the 'purification' begins.

    MachineGunVan FTW

    seriously tho this guy is speaking sense, and its a message that will find favour with the general population, some people will decry it loudly, while we all know they are trying to gauge what the level of public support is for the policy, as some warped sense of social concience has them questionin the Obvious benefits of this move


  • Options
    #74
    beans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    ^ That should have read '...solely on state benefits' for clarity

    Didn't an Irishman once write an essay on solving overpopulation through a program of cannibalisation?


  • Options
    #75
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Eugenics is about stopping the 'weak' from being able to reproduce, to eliminate the seed of the 'weak'. It is not concentrated on race but based on perceived intellect and the 'survival of the fittest' mentality.

    This retired tory is talking about sterilising people to stop them 'inflicting' their 'weak seed' on society. He IS supporting eugenics.
    I disagree. He doesn't like the idea of unfit parents having lots of kids - fair enough I think.


  • Options
    #76
    Spyral
    Closed Accounts Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Spyral


    This retired tory is talking about sterilising people to stop them 'inflicting' their 'weak seed' on society. He IS supporting eugenics.

    the UK already has eugenics... 90% of babies with downs syndrome are aborted there... proper eugenics would be to sterilise the parents however, not to kill the child..


  • Options
    #77
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Tha Gopher wrote: »
    Oh jesus christ.


    Its not the Proles, the Poles, the Greeks or the Chinese hes after :rolleyes:



    Oh god i love these people, I really do :D

    Have you ever tried to get one ?? Its difficult in both Ratunda & Hollo's St The Coombe i think is the best place to get one!


  • Options
    #78
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Don't all families (even well to do working families) get state benefits i.e. child welfare?

    Then again he is a Tory.

    All parents get Child benefits including Gerry Ryan, Bono ect ect ! I'd say it would be funny to see who pops down to the post office in Dalkey/Killiney on the first tuesday of the month and also they get the early childcare payment too!!


  • Options
    #79
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    yes, all children get an allowance from the state, its meant to be an assistance to the parents in raising their kids, it is not designed to be an income for the parent at the expense of the child.

    ye're not too bad back home yet, they brought in this $5K baby bonus over here, there is beginning to be a backlash against these types of 'Ferral Bogens' and now they are talkin about usin vouchers instead of cash for a lot of the Bastards, the telly has em on all the time, fcukin walkin knackerfactories is all these girls are.


  • Options
    #80
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Dudess wrote: »
    I disagree. He doesn't like the idea of unfit parents having lots of kids - fair enough I think.
    I agree.


  • Options
    #81
    Malice
    Registered Users Posts: 15,065 ✭✭✭✭Malice


    I think that it's funny how it's a legal requirement to have a licence to own a dog or a television but not a child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    Sounds fine to me. Constant propagating of the ignorant, ill-educated, welfare-claiming, slack-jawed knack underclass should be made a crime anyway.

    You'd trust the Irish government to decide who the "ignorant, ill-educated, welfare-claiming, slack-jawed knack underclass" are?


  • Options
    #83
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    Dudess wrote: »
    I disagree. He doesn't like the idea of unfit parents having lots of kids - fair enough I think.

    Eh, do you really think that people who have '5 kids from 3 different fathers' are people that represent a significant part of society? What this tory is saying is grossly misleading.

    Just some of his rants:
    • "With over-population being the root cause of so much that negatively impacts Planet Earth, the very last thing the world needs is to encourage excessive breeding."
    • Children become just a means toward that end, and are of themselves of little if any further significance in this new society.
    There is no sincere sentiment or concern from this tory and he is only using examples, that are very much isolated, as reason for his rant on people he deems 'little if any further significance in this new society.' It made me laugh also that he thinks benefits can encourage a comfortble lifestyle without working. Does he have any idea have much people actually get? **** all. I am not condoning people sponging but sometimes it is lazy to just dismiss people who are on benefits as spongers.


  • Options
    #84
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Eh, do you really think that people who have '5 kids from 3 different fathers' are people that represent a significant part of society? What this tory is saying is grossly misleading.

    Just some of his rants:
    • "With over-population being the root cause of so much that negatively impacts Planet Earth, the very last thing the world needs is to encourage excessive breeding."
    • Children become just a means toward that end, and are of themselves of little if any further significance in this new society.
    There is no sincere sentiment or concern from this tory and he is only using examples, that are very much isolated, as reason for his rant on people he deems 'little if any further significance in this new society.' It made me laugh also that he thinks benefits can encourage a comfortble lifestyle without working. Does he have any idea have much people actually get? **** all. I am not condoning people sponging but sometimes it is lazy to just dismiss people who are on benefits as spongers.
    Nope, all spongers tbh. I know a girl, got herself knocked up and now lives off benefits rent free in her parents home. Planned pregnancy by her, sting for the guy who got trapped with it.

    I think they should all be taken out to a remote island and nuked, their children can be handed over to the people who are looking to adopt (a huge waiting list from what I've been told). It's a complete win/win situation, for both society and the children themselves.


  • Options
    #85
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    rb_ie wrote: »
    Nope, all spongers tbh. I know a girl, got herself knocked up and now lives off benefits rent free in her parents home. Planned pregnancy by her, sting for the guy who got trapped with it.

    I think they should all be taken out to a remote island and nuked, their children can be handed over to the people who are looking to adopt (a huge waiting list from what I've been told). It's a complete win/win situation, for both society and the children themselves.

    So you know one person. What's that to the general population. We all know people that are just schemers by nature. If ever, and absolutely doubt it would ever happen, that benefits were taken away from women with children it would have repercussions not just for the 'scheming parents' and their children but for others too. What about the single mother on benefits? Or the mother who can't get a job because she is priced out of childcare? What about parents who are sick and disabled?


  • Options
    #86
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    So you know one person. What's that to the general population. We all know people that are just schemers by nature. If ever, and absolutely doubt it would ever happen, that benefits were taken away from women with children it would have repercussions not just for the 'scheming parents' and their children but for others too. What about the single mother on benefits? Or the mother who can't get a job because she is priced out of childcare? What about parents who are sick and disabled?
    Nuke 'em.

    All drains on society afterall.


  • Options
    #87
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    While we're at it lets nuke all the D4's too!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #88
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    While we're at it lets nuke all the D4's too!:rolleyes:
    Eh?Where do they come into it at all?


    I'm talking about the Final Solution to societies problems, pick out the weak or the "runts" as I like to call them, take them to camps special areas and gas slaughter make use of them for things such as medical experiments, hard labour etc.

    Obviously the weakest would just have to be killed outright as they'd be a drain on the new system if allowed live, but I think it'd work quite well, don't you?

    For obvious reasons the cherrypicking would start on the northside, because you could basically just park a few buses on the quays and make a public announcement that there's free naggins and john players and that all they have to do is get on the bus to collect them. Quick and easy and a good start to the campaign tbh.


  • Options
    #89
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    rb_ie wrote: »
    Eh?Where do they come into it at all?


    I'm talking about the Final Solution to societies problems, pick out the weak or the "runts" as I like to call them, take them to camps special areas and gas slaughter make use of them for things such as medical experiments, hard labour etc.

    Obviously the weakest would just have to be killed outright as they'd be a drain on the new system if allowed live, but I think it'd work quite well, don't you?

    Oh yes, I completely agree with you. If only there were more like yourself we could bring back a new wave of nazism.


  • Options
    #90
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    Oh yes, I completely agree with you. If only there were more like yourself we could bring back a new wave of nazism.
    Exactly. Sure they may be societies waste, but they're useful for something be it experiments or hard labour, or even as fuel for the fire.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    rb_ie wrote: »
    Eh?Where do they come into it at all?


    I'm talking about the Final Solution to societies problems, pick out the weak or the "runts" as I like to call them, take them to camps special areas and gas slaughter make use of them for things such as medical experiments, hard labour etc.

    Obviously the weakest would just have to be killed outright as they'd be a drain on the new system if allowed live, but I think it'd work quite well, don't you?

    For obvious reasons the cherrypicking would start on the northside, because you could basically just park a few buses on the quays and make a public announcement that there's free naggins and john players and that all they have to do is get on the bus to collect them. Quick and easy and a good start to the campaign tbh.

    My god you're right. you could use the dead bodies as an efficient fuel!


Advertisement