Chip

iTrader: (3)

JJ, under my rules people like me and you would be silly to stay overweight, as we'd lose access to the NHS, its only those who are morbidly obese who would actually be put into secure hospitals to be cured, well twice, then executed on the 3rd offence.

JjCoDeX75

Couldnt you just make me one of your ministers, and then I can simply act like any other politician in history, and be an utter hypocrite!!!!!


Yum - macdonalds could be the new politicial scandal equivalent to nazi sex stories!!!!

JJ

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Ministers?
I dont think you quite understand how the system would work if you are under the impression there would be ministers.

JjCoDeX75

Surely you dont intend to do all the work yourself?!?!

When on earth would you make time to run a country on your own? You would never get that Nova of yours sorted

JJ

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

JJ you are forgetting that every Dictator has his evil minions to do the dirty work and keep order while said dictator is on his expansive royal yacht or in chips case racing round the buckingham race track sorry i meant palace grounds in said nova or clio

mk5tom

Hi, I don't really post on here but this is quite an interesting topic. In theory, yes I think most drugs should be legal and eveyone should be held fully responsible for their actions. If you go out stealing to pay for it then you should be sent straight to prison or other suitable punishment (cannon fodder?), no questions/excuses. If you have a job to pay for it and taking it doesn't affect your perfomance or anyone else etc then whats the problem?

Unfortunatlely most people are just not capable of this and need the goverment to tell them it's bad and illigal to stop them... Take meow meow for example, loads of younger poeple thought that because it was legal, it was alright to take it, rather than the fact that they were taking a random chemical that hadn't had any long term research and testing done on it. It might be safe, it might not, but I wouldn't base my reasoning on whether or not to take it on if it was legal to buy. Loads of chemicals are legal but I wouldn't recommend taking them for fun.

Just because the govenment hasn't had time to legislate against something doesn't mean it's ok to do, your own judgement should come into it.

Drugs imo, aren't the problem, its scum bags, vunerable people and the mentally ill that need to be dealt with properly/helped.
Drug use is pretty much in every culture throughout the world and I can't see it ever stopping and it's not always detrimental, theres a lot of cerimonial/cultural uses too.

One thing I don't have any sympathy for are the coke addicts/smack heads etc here in the western world as they have all the oppertunities in the world compared to the poor farmers, traffickers etc that are forced into the trade to meet our western demand.

I do drink, I'm not into weed and to be honest am pretty much willing to try anything once, as long as I deem the risks etc to be worth taking. I think everyone should be able to make their own choice as long as I/the rest of soceity don't have to pay for the consequences. Our nanny state seems to have taken peoples awareness of this and has resulted in a country full of scrounging, self obsessed racist morons...Anyway, I'm sure most will disagree.

Oh yeah, sorry Chip but I think your solution its a bit harsh!

JjCoDeX75

Can I be an evil minion instead then? I just dont want to go on a fucking diet!

JJ

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

slaughtering thousands in your afternoons off burns energy JJ so that would solve your wieght problem

Tom, as you say people are too fucking stupid for their own good mostly hence needing to not be allowed to do certain things. Chips ideas may be harsh but they would work

benjaminsarmy

there are slimming tabs available

Chip

iTrader: (3)

My ONLY motivation is the evolution of the english population.

I wouldnt be abusing any priveldges and I wouldnt be living in a palace, I would be living by the same rules as everyone else would, my rules are good enough for all men, not just some.

benjaminsarmy

yer but look at the yanks

mk5tom

tbh, if you can't control how much food you eat, then taking any sort of addictive drugs isn't going to be a good idea! I'm all for banning the obese from the NHS, although killing them is ott.

mrjenrst

Fucking hell! I've heard it all now
A topic about drugs has turned into chip's wet dream of dictatorship in the uk pf at it's best

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The yanks will need to find their own leader, its only this country I care about, im a patriot.

JjCoDeX75

Are we also going to therefore punish poor spelling?

Your above statement does have a sniff of Marxism about it. I prefer massive capitalism! Stuff + more stuff = hurrah!

JJ

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Bear in mind that they would be cured of obesity twice before they were killed for becoming obese a third time.

Its VERY rare for anyone who is morbidly obese and then gets down to their recomended weight to put lots of weight back on again even once, as once they have experienced life at a reasonable size they are unlikely to want to return to being in that state.

99% of people who are obese would prefer not to be, under my regime they will get that chance with the very best of help.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

No, but there may be a punishment for people who are so stupid that they cant tell the difference between poor spelling an an obvious typing mistake.


In many ways you will find similarities with original nazi ideology, but none at all with the later stuff that was all very unpleasant after the evil bastards got in charge.

mk5tom

If it's all about improving the human race Chip, how about manditory sterilization for the long term unemployed... if you can't afford to look after yourself then you sure as hell can't afford to bring up a child properly!

JjCoDeX75

Yes - I sidestepped that particular comparison because I was sure that you were not intending anything quite that unpleasant.

My only observation would be that people have to die of something - you will probably find that all the people that you free from the burden of obesity will be selfish and die of something equally (or even more) expensive to treat, such as cancer etc.

JJ

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

chip the only flaw is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and being a mere human like the rest of us im sure youd eventually go corrupt.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

thats already in his manifesto if youve read some of his other threads in the past

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Ive covered sterilisation in other topics, but ALL women will be sterilised after their eggs are removed and put into storage.
If they wish to have a child, they simply apply for a child license and assuming they meet the criteria, such as sufficient education and health standards being met, then they will be allowed access to an egg., if they wish to put forward a particular donor for the sperm, such as a long term partner, then they will just need to fill out a form and their sperm will be the one used if they meet the requirements too, if they dont have a partner, they will be able to choose from approved sperm from donors. There is nothing wrong with a single parent family providing all criteria are met.

mrjenrst

Of course you can bring the child up properly 99% of the time, what a completly stupid comment to suggest lack of money determine's the child's upbringing!

benjaminsarmy

selfish ant ya
lol

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Dieing of cancer would only be expensive to the system if it was eligable people who suffered, so for example anyone who chooses to smoke, would of course not be eligable for treatment at all for cancer, as its something they have chosen to actively encourage so they need to fund treatment for it themselves if they then change their mind and decide that despite trying to get it by smoking, they dont want it after all.
Anyone who got cancer they hadnt tried to get, would recieve the maximum possible care that the country could afford to give.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

No im just a realist, I realise my own resources are finite, and my loyalty is to england, I have nothing against places like wales or the USA etc, but if I were to divert some attention to those, then I wouldnt be able to focus properly on england.

JjCoDeX75

Inref to the screening of people prior to having kids - Yuk - think of the paperwork!!!!!

Though I do agree with the general principal of controlling volume of people!

I dont believe that people should be screened prior to having children - there is a whole argument about genetic diversity that should probably be discussed on another day. Needless to say that any attempted control of the gene pool (which is what you are suggesting) can lead to undesirable consequences.

I would simply enforce compulsory sterilisation after any couple had two children. there of course would be exemption to those unfortunate enough to have triplets etc- I wouldnt terminate kids - (too much paperwork!).

The added benefit of my way is that statistically, kids in big families tend to have lower IQs than those from small families apparently! This will mean that as my proposed modified version of your policy may have the desired effect of improving the overall quality of the english, but still allowing genetic diversity!


DISCUSS!

JJ

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

all very well except why should my taxes pay for it??? People shouldnt be allowed to breed unless they themselves have arranged suitable finances to pay for it.

and yes money has everything to do with it. this society runs on money and that includes every product a child needs except love.

JjCoDeX75

the trouble is that once your system has taken effect, and most have given up smoking and obesity as sports, you are left with a few things that can kill you. the point I am making is that just because someone doesnt cost the NHS money by dieing of obesity related problems, there is no guarantee that they will die of something cheaper to treat! furthermore, the longer they last, the more they cost us on drugs etc just to live day to day!!!

JJ

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Your idea would go against peoples right to have as many children as they can demonstrate they have met the criteria to be allowed to bring up.
There would be nothing wrong with having 4 children in a farming family with adeqete land etc, if people have sufficient resources to raise 4 children they would be allowed to.
It would be wrong to have 2 children born to a good family, and 2 to a non qualified family, when all 4 could have had a good home.

I believe the paperwork would be less that is currently caused by people having kids they wouldnt be entitled to have who play truant etc

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The money saved by the abolition of the unemployed benefits we currently pay would adequetly fund this IMHO

NO ONE would get benefits under the new system other than people so disabled they arent capable of performing ANY useful rule, and I believe the number of people falling under that banner is tiny, its only mental health patients basically, anyone physically disabled would still have a job.
And the number of mentally ill would fall massively of course because of the drop in abused children and the drop in drug abuse.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Money wouldnt be a problem as everyone would have enough money to be able to fund at least one child.

Either through their wages, or their disability benefit, not having a job would be failure to comply with breeding regulations anyway, so no one would ever get to the stage of being accepted to have a child who couldnt afford to support it initially at least.

mk5tom

I'm sure a lot of people can, but theres also a lot of people who have kids without any thought as to how they are going to pay for their upbringing and so rely on the government ie the tax payer to pay for them. I'm all for benefits etc for when they are needed/deserved but the abuse of our current system is a joke.
I do want to have kids one day, and when I do I'll make sure I can afford to first as opposed to expecting everyone else to pay.
No offence but thats my opinion, "accidents" happen but that doesn't really explain how we have the highest teenage pregnacy rates in Europe.

JjCoDeX75

Aaahhh but I am going for the long game - note my second point in which I am trusting the theory that smaller families will enjoy a greater chance of high IQ, thus improving over a number of generations.

Additionally, I am told that some people actually want children! I suspect that these people will revolt in your tyranny rather fast!

I do admit that there is merit in your proposals nonetheless!

Interesting aside - there are theories that the whole reproduction thing is incredibly sensitive, and minor messing can lead to significant problems! Apparently, the number of males v females only needs to be upset by a matter of a few % to essentially screw our future all together. I believe it is this possibility that prevents any significant inteference!

JJ

Fiddy

Chip, you have a lot of fucked up logic, and some of your opinions/veiws at first glance, seem harsh, but to be fair, if you think about it, a lot of it actually makes sense.

mrjenrst

warren i can see what your getting at mate and i agree but on the flip side is it not what's been drummed into people to bang a few kids out and play the system? If your not working you have give back in my eyes. An 'unpaid job' to recieve a wage when signing on. Would make sense. It would work out a lot less than the minimum wage but it would encourage people to work.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

thats only being drummed into the "benefit class". the rest have some moral fibre and self respect so do everything they can to work and pay for themselves.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

That statistic is one that is slanted by the number of "10 kids but no sure who the fathers are" families where kids are brought up badly.

People would be allowed the number of kids they could bring up well, so no such definiency should exist to any great extent (there will OF COURSE be exceptions and mistakes will be made and tolerated, people are unpredictable in nature and no system can ever hope to be perfect, but the aim isnt perfection, its improvement)


Revolt wont get them their eggs back, but hard work certainly would, so if they are clever, they'll work hard and be allowed kids


Of course as they are all based on logic and a genuine care for society, both of which would be new concepts in british politics.


Gender balance wouldnt be effected, the section on the form which states "Which gender do you require" and has the answers "Boy/Girl/Any" would take care of that ,as anyone who's love for a child would be influenced by gender would of course fail to meet the selection criteria for becoming a parent, so only the "any" would be allowed to breed in all but exception circumstances (such as a known heriditory condtion effecting only males etc)

mrjenrst

That's down to lack of education and a cushty life on the dole.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

My logic only seems fucked up because its actually genuinely logical and based on caring about the advancement of england, and you are more used to the current system which isnt logical and is based on the advancement of politicians and their friends.