chem1st Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 To answer the question yes but only if you can afford to pay for them yourself instead of expecting everyone else to do it for you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/26/property-buyers-mortgage-rental Where the hell will they bring them up? Not in a house, that's for sure, perhaps a shared room in a house. Home-ownership has fell of a cliff, particularly for those under 35 (since Thatcher -ST) people can't get council housing, it's been demolished, it's oversubscribed. The social problems are here, and they are going to get worse. The murder rate continues to rise ST. The birth rate of native people is still falling and has been ST. Our nation is practically killing itself. The marriage rate has declined ST too. By the time people can afford a house in which to bring up a child, they have become infertile, or they give birth to disabled children. People need a place to live. People need to eat, people need to breed. But ST the places the nation once provided for workers to live have been privatised. New housing is not allowed, it might adversely affect property prices! We now have corvee style benefits and structural unemployment to ensure a supply of corvee labour for private business rather the interest of the nation state. Serfdom is alive and well. Best strategy for a young family in this god forsaken country would be to save up and leave these lands, buy some 5 acres in Russia/Argentina and live off the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I caught the end of one of the R4 progs 'First 1000 Days: A Legacy for Life' and one of the last comments was from a guy who mentioned that the 'question that daren't be asked' was.....(words to the effect of)...'if intelligent people are tending to have fewer babies, and the less-intelligent tend to have more, what will be the effect of human evolution?' Those of you who flatter yourselves that you're in the higher section of intelligence, are you really doing the world a service by not forwarding your genes? Do you really want the world to be populated by those who feature on the Kyle show? Think on. If that was the only factor affecting evolution, then maybe it might have some effect. If intelligence was shown to be purely genetic, then it might have some effect. If evolution happened over hundreds of years, instead of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, then I think it might have some bearing on human evolutionary future. But the trend, even amongst the so-called "less-intelligence" is towards greater "intelligence"* But humankind has catapulted itself into a state of metaevolution where 'fitness' goes out the window and we decide ourselves what traits are acceptable or not. *assuming a mutually acceptable definition of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Actually MOS is correct he is the peoples millionaire - explain how this is incorrect? Obviously you're not too well-versed in grammar either. It should say "the people's millionaire". It's the apostrophe! (Obviously MOS wasn't too sure where to put it either, so he left it out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Actually MOS is correct he is the peoples millionaire - explain how this is incorrect? Thanks denlin, but now I am confused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Actually MOS is correct he is the peoples millionaire - explain how this is incorrect. "People's" or "peoples'", given that it's possesive. C'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Obviously you're not too well-versed in grammar either. It should say "the people's millionaire". It's the apostrophe! (Obviously MOS wasn't too sure where to put it either, so he left it out). I have grade A English language and an apostophe replaces a letter, which letter does it replace? So my friend you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 If that was the only factor affecting evolution, then maybe it might have some effect. If intelligence was shown to be purely genetic, then it might have some effect. If evolution happened over hundreds of years, instead of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, then I think it might have some bearing on human evolutionary future. But the trend, even amongst the so-called "less-intelligence" is towards greater "intelligence"* But humankind has catapulted itself into a state of metaevolution where 'fitness' goes out the window and we decide ourselves what traits are acceptable or not. *assuming a mutually acceptable definition of intelligence. I agree. The programme (I wasn't listening fully) mentioned peacock's tails and from memory said that the peahen had showed a distinct preference for long tails on the peacocks, hence the long tail. Humans, however, hadn't shown such a preference for anything in particular, which is why so many different variants exist. And you're quite right, it takes many generations before a pattern emerges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I have grade A English language and an apostophe replaces a letter, which letter does it replace? So my friend you are wrong. Evidently you must have got your qualification last year, this year incorrect use of the apostrophe entitles you to an A*! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Obviously you're not too well-versed in grammar either. It should say "the people's millionaire". It's the apostrophe! (Obviously MOS wasn't too sure where to put it either, so he left it out). But are you sure about that SH'? I was about to change it due to your advice, but denlin has got me thinking, are you sure about that apostrophe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHsheff Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 "People's" or "peoples'", given that it's possesive. C'mon. Oh, c'mon - even the Man of Stradbrooke doesn't pretend to represent more than one people, surely! (though he's such a fantasist, maybe he does) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.