danot Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 So you clearly want to live in a Nanny State where people must do what they are told (because it's "right")!Show me where I say that. Posted by Karis Whatever happened to personal freedom? Personal freedom to discriminate you mean?.. we''re all free to discriminate Karis. You have the same freedom as the nasty kid in the school play ground. Posted by Karis Oh, that's right, it was crushed in this insane PC world we are living in which has massive double standards. Like an awful lot of posters on SF... I don't follow you. The only double standards I see in our society, are those created by society... so who are you pointing the finger at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 I DO have to accept everything, and i can NOT discriminate, its the law!! the consequences will be me having my collar felt by the police.You don't have to accept anything at all. You are free to do what ever you want to do. The consequences of your actions are another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 You don't have to accept anything at all. You are free to do what ever you want to do. The consequences of your actions are another matter entirely. Breaking the law isn't an option though is it. What it amounts to is something worse than a nanny state but a dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 There are also a number of conditions associated with older fathers, which you have omitted to mention, in your attempt to derail yet another thread, so I shall do it for you! Perhaps compulsory vasectomies should be performed on all men at the age of 40? You're argument might have some credibility if I was suggesting older women should be sterilised-I highlighted older females to illustrate the ridiculous nature of such a notion, rather than suggest they were a problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Breaking the law isn't an option though is it. What it amounts to is something worse than a nanny state but a dictatorship.Breaking the law is one of my many options Graham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Nonsense, for years there has been a media storm about the perils of leaving motherhood too late, the inherent risks and declining fertility. There may well have been, but I'm talking of the discussions about banning, not the media coverage surrounding it. It's perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about cousins, older women (and men) and people with hereditary conditions having children, as I've said already on this thread, but the issue of banning has only arisen due to the people involved in this current discussion and the culture they represent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 ..but there's been little serious consideration given to banning older women having children or individuals with hereditary diseases, it only appears to have become a hot potato now it involves people of an alien culture. That's not it at all though bro. It's not because they're foreigners, it's because they're having children with their cousins. The numbers will have gotten much higher as more and more people from cultures where cousins often marry move to Britain. It's simply that the rate of consanguineous marriages is much higher amongst people from around the persian gulf and south asia than it is amongst people in Britain. So much so that in many of those places genetic screening is mandatory for couples wanting to conceive. So as more people from these places immigrate to Britain, the number of consanguineous marriages in Britain goes up, as well as the corresponding rate of birth defects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Breaking the law is one of my many options Graham. Wouldn't that make you like "the nasty kid in the school play ground" you spoke about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 Wouldn't that make you like the playground bigot you spoke about?How does having the option to break the law liken me to a the "playground bigot"?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted September 5, 2010 Share Posted September 5, 2010 How does having the option to break the law liken me to a the "playground bigot"?. When you said this. According to you if B&B owners break the law, they are bigots. But you have just said breaking the law is one of your many options. "It isn't the B&B owners prerogative... don't be silly. It is in actuality, the standard to which society allows certain B&B owners to discriminate, based on their personal bigoted views." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.