UK General Election 2024 (or 25)

[Derek27]

Nobody's condoning abuse, Derek. And I concur: the blame is entirely the parents', not the poor mites conceived out of wedlock.

CS

You're being abusive yourself by suggesting parents are to "blame" for choosing not to get married. Marriage is a choice, you may have chosen it, you need to accept it's just your choice and not universally considered correct.

It's undeniably best for baby and it's life chances. That is a universal truth backed up by ALL of the statistics, here and overseas, Derek, so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that pointing out uncomfortable (for some) facts is somehow 'abusive'. There is an abundance of study data available online, and they ALL show that statistically, the best outcomes for children are those born within a stable, loving marriage.

Of course there are many unmarried couples giving a loving home and stable upbringing to children that fare very well in life, just as there are some horrendously abusive marriages; however the statistics show that families with the biological Mother and Father being united in Matrimony, creating a loving, stable environment and sharing the same surname as a single family unit, is the highest form of stability and commitment possible with the best outcomes for their offspring.

This is why most Western societies give tax breaks and other similar incentives and perks to married couples - it's something society benefits from and therefore has to be the benchmark, even though our increasingly secular British society is sadly getting married less often before childbirth. Legally, an unmarried Mother is single and any boyfriend is simply a 'partner', never a spouse.

I could go on about the hugely detrimental impact of a lack of male role model during a child's formative years, (this includes broken homes where marriages have broken down) and the huge percentage of our prison populations that were born illegitimately and lacked boundaries, being taught respect for others and self discipline; but I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't know, really.

Derek, Sorry if I've touched a nerve, buddy. My intention is simply to inform and debate. Facts remain such, however uncomfortable they might make some people feel.

CS

Statistics could make a case that children of a particular group, class, profession, etc. have a better upbringing. Take drug addicts for example, if their children have a poor upbringing it's most likely because of drug-taking, not because they're unmarried. You're simply using statistics to promote your own ideology.

And what about rape victims that have children but choose not to marry the rapist? In your previous post you apply the word "blame" to them!

[greenmark]

You're being abusive yourself by suggesting parents are to "blame" for choosing not to get married. Marriage is a choice, you may have chosen it, you need to accept it's just your choice and not universally considered correct.

It's undeniably best for baby and it's life chances. That is a universal truth backed up by ALL of the statistics, here and overseas, Derek, so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that pointing out uncomfortable (for some) facts is somehow 'abusive'. There is an abundance of study data available online, and they ALL show that statistically, the best outcomes for children are those born within a stable, loving marriage.

Of course there are many unmarried couples giving a loving home and stable upbringing to children that fare very well in life, just as there are some horrendously abusive marriages; however the statistics show that families with the biological Mother and Father being united in Matrimony, creating a loving, stable environment and sharing the same surname as a single family unit, is the highest form of stability and commitment possible with the best outcomes for their offspring.

This is why most Western societies give tax breaks and other similar incentives and perks to married couples - it's something society benefits from and therefore has to be the benchmark, even though our increasingly secular British society is sadly getting married less often before childbirth. Legally, an unmarried Mother is single and any boyfriend is simply a 'partner', never a spouse.

I could go on about the hugely detrimental impact of a lack of male role model during a child's formative years, (this includes broken homes where marriages have broken down) and the huge percentage of our prison populations that were born illegitimately and lacked boundaries, being taught respect for others and self discipline; but I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't know, really.

Derek, Sorry if I've touched a nerve, buddy. My intention is simply to inform and debate. Facts remain such, however uncomfortable they might make some people feel.

CS

Statistics could make a case that children of a particular group, class, profession, etc. have a better upbringing. Take drug addicts for example, if their children have a poor upbringing it's most likely because of drug-taking, not because they're unmarried. You're simply using statistics to promote your own ideology.

And what about rape victims that have children but choose not to marry the rapist? In your previous post you apply the word "blame" to them!

All I'd say is that noone should use that word as a pejoratve. I found that out the hard way. It is deeply offensive for a section of the community. Even though it is technically correct, by using it to insult someone you don't like, you denegrate people that had no choice about being technically, accurately described as a ********. There are numerous words in our wonderful vocabulary to traduce people we don't agree with.
Being punched in the face and attacked with a fence post made me realise it's a very incendiary word.

[Crazyskier]

You're being abusive yourself by suggesting parents are to "blame" for choosing not to get married. Marriage is a choice, you may have chosen it, you need to accept it's just your choice and not universally considered correct.

It's undeniably best for baby and it's life chances. That is a universal truth backed up by ALL of the statistics, here and overseas, Derek, so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that pointing out uncomfortable (for some) facts is somehow 'abusive'. There is an abundance of study data available online, and they ALL show that statistically, the best outcomes for children are those born within a stable, loving marriage.

Of course there are many unmarried couples giving a loving home and stable upbringing to children that fare very well in life, just as there are some horrendously abusive marriages; however the statistics show that families with the biological Mother and Father being united in Matrimony, creating a loving, stable environment and sharing the same surname as a single family unit, is the highest form of stability and commitment possible with the best outcomes for their offspring.

This is why most Western societies give tax breaks and other similar incentives and perks to married couples - it's something society benefits from and therefore has to be the benchmark, even though our increasingly secular British society is sadly getting married less often before childbirth. Legally, an unmarried Mother is single and any boyfriend is simply a 'partner', never a spouse.

I could go on about the hugely detrimental impact of a lack of male role model during a child's formative years, (this includes broken homes where marriages have broken down) and the huge percentage of our prison populations that were born illegitimately and lacked boundaries, being taught respect for others and self discipline; but I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't know, really.

Derek, Sorry if I've touched a nerve, buddy. My intention is simply to inform and debate. Facts remain such, however uncomfortable they might make some people feel.

CS

Statistics could make a case that children of a particular group, class, profession, etc. have a better upbringing. Take drug addicts for example, if their children have a poor upbringing it's most likely because of drug-taking, not because they're unmarried. You're simply using statistics to promote your own ideology.

And what about rape victims that have children but choose not to marry the rapist? In your previous post you apply the word "blame" to them!

There are always innumerable exceptions to any rule, Derek. In this matter however, the factual evidence of countless studies is undeniable.

I was actually agreeing with your assertion that the children of such unions are in no way to blame, whether you choose to apportion 'blame' to the increasing number of parents having children out of wedlock or not.

CS

[Crazyskier]

It's undeniably best for baby and it's life chances. That is a universal truth backed up by ALL of the statistics, here and overseas, Derek, so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that pointing out uncomfortable (for some) facts is somehow 'abusive'. There is an abundance of study data available online, and they ALL show that statistically, the best outcomes for children are those born within a stable, loving marriage.

Of course there are many unmarried couples giving a loving home and stable upbringing to children that fare very well in life, just as there are some horrendously abusive marriages; however the statistics show that families with the biological Mother and Father being united in Matrimony, creating a loving, stable environment and sharing the same surname as a single family unit, is the highest form of stability and commitment possible with the best outcomes for their offspring.

This is why most Western societies give tax breaks and other similar incentives and perks to married couples - it's something society benefits from and therefore has to be the benchmark, even though our increasingly secular British society is sadly getting married less often before childbirth. Legally, an unmarried Mother is single and any boyfriend is simply a 'partner', never a spouse.

I could go on about the hugely detrimental impact of a lack of male role model during a child's formative years, (this includes broken homes where marriages have broken down) and the huge percentage of our prison populations that were born illegitimately and lacked boundaries, being taught respect for others and self discipline; but I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't know, really.

Derek, Sorry if I've touched a nerve, buddy. My intention is simply to inform and debate. Facts remain such, however uncomfortable they might make some people feel.

CS

Statistics could make a case that children of a particular group, class, profession, etc. have a better upbringing. Take drug addicts for example, if their children have a poor upbringing it's most likely because of drug-taking, not because they're unmarried. You're simply using statistics to promote your own ideology.

And what about rape victims that have children but choose not to marry the rapist? In your previous post you apply the word "blame" to them!

All I'd say is that noone should use that word as a pejoratve. I found that out the hard way. It is deeply offensive for a section of the community. Even though it is technically correct, by using it to insult someone you don't like, you denegrate people that had no choice about being technically, accurately described as a ********. There are numerous words in our wonderful vocabulary to traduce people we don't agree with.
Being punched in the face and attacked with a fence post made me realise it's a very incendiary word.

I'm reminded of the epic Game of Thrones 'Battle of the Bastards' with Ramsay Bolton (formerly Snow) and Jon Snow - amazing TV!

CS

[Derek27]

I was actually agreeing with your assertion that the children of such unions are in no way to blame, whether you choose to apportion 'blame' to the increasing number of parents having children out of wedlock or not.

CS

Yes, but you said the parents are to blame, which includes women that have been raped. And as you know, you're the only one apportioning blame to anyone.

And I concur: the blame is entirely the parents', not the poor mites conceived out of wedlock.

CS

[Derek27]

A UK man travelled all the way to Ukraine to see a dentist.

[Crazyskier]

I was actually agreeing with your assertion that the children of such unions are in no way to blame, whether you choose to apportion 'blame' to the increasing number of parents having children out of wedlock or not.

CS

Yes, but you said the parents are to blame, which includes women that have been raped. And as you know, you're the only one apportioning blame to anyone.

And I concur: the blame is entirely the parents', not the poor mites conceived out of wedlock.

CS

Would you prefer the word, 'responsible' rather than 'to blame'? I'm happy to settle for that

CS

[Derek27]

I was actually agreeing with your assertion that the children of such unions are in no way to blame, whether you choose to apportion 'blame' to the increasing number of parents having children out of wedlock or not.

CS

Yes, but you said the parents are to blame, which includes women that have been raped. And as you know, you're the only one apportioning blame to anyone.

And I concur: the blame is entirely the parents', not the poor mites conceived out of wedlock.

CS

Would you prefer the word, 'responsible' rather than 'to blame'? I'm happy to settle for that

CS

Fair enough. So now you think women who've been raped and given birth are irresponsible for getting raped before marrying their rapist?

[Crazyskier]

Yes, but you said the parents are to blame, which includes women that have been raped. And as you know, you're the only one apportioning blame to anyone.

Would you prefer the word, 'responsible' rather than 'to blame'? I'm happy to settle for that

CS

Fair enough. So now you think women who've been raped and given birth are irresponsible for getting raped before marrying their rapist?

I'm talking about broad-reaching studies and statistics to prove a point and general principle.I think I've made the point well enough for most people to understand.

CS

[Derek27]

Would you prefer the word, 'responsible' rather than 'to blame'? I'm happy to settle for that

CS

Fair enough. So now you think women who've been raped and given birth are irresponsible for getting raped before marrying their rapist?

I'm talking about broad-reaching studies and statistics to prove a point and general principle.I think I've made the point well enough for most people to understand.

CS

I was responding to what you actually said, not what you were talking about, which only you know.

Statistics are just raw figures. They don't explain the reasons behind them, and sadly people make up reasons that suit their agenda.

No man gets into a rage and on the verge of beating up his wife or child and suddenly thinks, "Shit, I'm married, better behave responsibly I suppose". If two people were really committed to each other it shouldn't be necessary to have a legally binding contract like business partners or landlords and tenants. If statistics show that married couples behave more responsibly, it's not because they got married, it's most likely the other way around - responsible people are more likely to get married. Has no bearing on unmarried couples.

[Archangel]

This campaign video from Leave.eu has aged well hasnt it

https://www.indy100.com/politics/leave- ... video-lies

[Derek27]

This campaign video from Leave.eu has aged well hasnt it

https://www.indy100.com/politics/leave- ... video-lies

[Derek27]

New government initiative to tackle anti-social behaviour such as vandalism. They want communities to decide how culprits get punished, including cleaning up the damage in bright orange jumpsuits so people can see them being punished and humiliated.

Why not introduce that for MPs who lie to parliament, bully their staff, watch porn in parliament, grope their staff, etc. What's more serious?

I've never been caught setting fire to a park bench, but if I had been, at least I wouldn't have had the humiliation of 3 hours and 20 minutes questioning live on TV.

[Derek27]

Got it wrong, it's the victims that should "have a say". I hope hanging, drawing and quartering is on the list of options.

[Derek27]

If you have a heart attack on the street you'll be dead by the time an ambulance gets to you, but at least you'll die knowing that the guy who dropped the litter you're lying in will be punished within 48 hours. If you're lucky you might get a chance to tell somebody how you'd like them to get punished.