Families Should Have No More Than 2 Children In The Uk??

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:55 am

Odie;1127082 wrote: then why can you not put him on ignore?

another glitch?

Probably because she's a Moderator. Have you actually tried it before asking?

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:59 am

spot;1127075 wrote: ...................

Here, let me ask it again - this is all I wrote, it's all I asked, it's a perfectly reasonable query in the context of what I was querying:Why does only being allowed one increase the proportion of orphans? How are the proportion of orphans and the number of children in a family linked?

Go back and read post #26. You must have missed it.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:01 am

Kindle;1127089 wrote: Go back and read post #26. You must have missed it.

I think it might help if you check a dictionary before we proceed much further. The discussion was about orphans until you joined it. What you branched off into was abandoned children, followed for some reason of your own devising by infanticide.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:08 am

Idgie;1127098 wrote: Actually Spot, she was referring to you....why members can't put SPOT on their ignore list. For some reason the message comes up that you are a mod/administrator and cannot.

So the question is....are you still a mod even though we read your journal entry that you resigned? :-3

why thank you Idgie, didn't think he understood!;)

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:10 am

spot;1127092 wrote: I think it might help if you check a dictionary before we proceed much further. The discussion was about orphans until you joined it. What you branched off into was abandoned children, followed for some reason of your own devising by infanticide.

Sweet man, most people speak of children without parents as orphans. Most people do not verify common words in a dictionary when speaking with others. Usually people do not pick apart the sentences of others in a discussion, they deal in the substance of the discusssion. You do it different...... different than everyone else here. No one else wishes to follow your ground rules for a discussion, and, therefore there is no common ground and discussion with you is futile.

futile, adj

1) incapable of producing any result; ineffective; useless; not successful.

2) trifling; not important

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:29 am

JAB;1127118 wrote: No, I don't think the gov't should limit the number of children a person can have.

Yes, I think people should be responsible enough to know how many they can afford.

No, I don't think people should continue procreating to get more gov't assistance. Yes it does happen as I've known people that have used that excuse. No Spot, I can't cite a reference for it. You'll have to take my word for it and deal with it. If not, tough. And Yes, I think the amt. of aid one receives should be capped at some amt. with the receiver having to earn whatever else they need.

And as the 4th child to my mom, I'm glad these types of laws didn't exist.

((((hugs)))) to Jester and other 3rd, 4th, etc child.

:yh_clap:yh_clap I've got 4 myself. Excellent comeback JAB.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:36 pm

Idgie;1127098 wrote: Actually Spot, she was referring to you....why members can't put SPOT on their ignore list. For some reason the message comes up that you are a mod/administrator and cannot.

So the question is....are you still a mod even though we read your journal entry that you resigned? :-3Spot is no longer a Mod on this Forum and he wasn't lying on his journal Idgie.At the moment we have no idea why he cant be put on ignore and we are trying to find out.All I can suggest is that you contact Tombstone if there is any doubt and put your concern to him.Im sure this will be sorted out as soon as the problem is found babe.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:52 pm

Carolly;1127171 wrote: Spot is no longer a Mod on this Forum and he wasn't lying on his journal Idgie.At the moment we have no idea why he cant be put on ignore and we are trying to find out.All I can suggest is that you contact Tombstone if there is any doubt and put your concern to him.Im sure this will be sorted out as soon as the problem is found babe.

Has anyone actually tried it? Someone who knows what they're doing, for preference?

I'd be amazed if I can't be set on ignore. "For some reason the message comes up that you are a mod/administrator and cannot"? I don't believe it.

Carolly · Post by **Carolly** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:56 pm

spot;1127247 wrote: Has anyone actually tried it? Someone who knows what they're doing, for preference?

I'd be amazed if I can't be set on ignore. "For some reason the message comes up that you are a mod/administrator and cannot"? I don't believe it.Im afraid what they are saying is true Spot as other Members have tried also to check it out.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:58 pm

Carolly;1127252 wrote: Im afraid what they are saying is true Spot as other Members have tried also to check it out.

How careless. The system's not supposed to be capable of hanging on to residual flags.

My apologies everyone, I'm wrong.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:59 pm

Carolly;1126845 wrote: So .......what are your thoughts about this latest idea??

Families should have no more than two children - thinktank| News | This is London

I only wanted 2 children.......................... but I would love lots of grandchildren;)

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:01 pm

Kindle;1127107 wrote: Sweet man, most people speak of children without parents as orphans. Obviously they do. Children without parents are indeed orphans. Children who have been abandoned by their parents still have parents, they're not orphans. Most people, if they speak of abandoned children as orphans, are illiterate.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:10 pm

spot;1127261 wrote: Obviously they do. Children without parents are indeed orphans. Children who have been abandoned by their parents still have parents, they're not orphans. Most people, if they speak of abandoned children as orphans, are illiterate.

These childrens parents have given up all rights to their kids...therefore, the children technically have no parents, they live in orphanages. I believe I was the first to bring up the term orphan, and sure as hell I am NOT illiterate. I believe you know what the intent of the post was, but you just had to pick it apart.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:46 pm

spot;1127261 wrote: ........... Most people, if they speak of abandoned children as orphans, are illiterate.

No they aren't ......and I challenge you to back up that statement of yours with footnoted references to studies or statistics that would prove your statement to in fact -be factual..and not just one of your stained opinions:p

Kindle · Post by **Kindle** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:48 pm

flopstock;1127346 wrote: No they aren't ......and I challenge you to back up that statement of yours with footnoted references to studies or statistics that would prove your statement to in fact -be factual..and not just one of your stained opinions:p

:-4 I think I love you.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:50 pm

spot;1127261 wrote: Obviously they do. Children without parents are indeed orphans. Children who have been abandoned by their parents still have parents, they're not orphans. Most people, if they speak of abandoned children as orphans, are illiterate.

An orphan (from the Greek ὀρφανός) is a child whose natural parents are absent or dead. One legal definition used in the USA is someone bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[1] Common usage limits the term to children, (or the young of animals) who have lost both parents.

Just saying:D

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:53 pm

Chezzie;1127354 wrote: An orphan (from the Greek ὀρφανός) is a child whose natural parents are absent or dead. One legal definition used in the USA is someone bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[1] Common usage limits the term to children, (or the young of animals) who have lost both parents.

Just saying:D

:D

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:03 pm

spot;1127247 wrote: Has anyone actually tried it? Someone who knows what they're doing, for preference?

I'd be amazed if I can't be set on ignore. "For some reason the message comes up that you are a mod/administrator and cannot"? I don't believe it.

'Someone who knows what they are doing?'

be amazed.

scholle-kid · Post by **scholle-kid** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:45 pm

i don't have a link because there are none in exsistence and i have no photo's but if i could think of a good reason i could take some photo's. but, I personally know woman with 13 kids and her reason is " now, that the ********* state of New Mexico stops the welfare money on a childs 5th birthday she has had to continue having kids to keep the money comming in." I heard her say that with my own ears. she is just 34 years old and figures to have at least 6 or 8 mors 'good years left '

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:02 am

CARLA;1127079 wrote: For record SPOT is no longer a MOD he has stepped down on his own accord.

I see Spot found his glasses and is back..!! :wah:

I thought Spot was kidnapped and being sent to a zoo. What happened to that? It was so peaceful here for a few days.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:13 am

shelbell;1127273 wrote: These childrens parents have given up all rights to their kids...therefore, the children technically have no parents, they live in orphanages. I believe I was the first to bring up the term orphan, and sure as hell I am NOT illiterate. I believe you know what the intent of the post was, but you just had to pick it apart.

There are words used in a literal context which have metaphoric extension. I take my meanings from the Oxford English Dictionary as an unimpeachable source and have done since I left school. An orphan is "A person, especially a child, both of whose parents are dead (or, rarely, one of whose parents has died).

The dictionary goes on to cover the metaphors, firstly with "In extended use: an abandoned or neglected child. Figuratively, a person or thing deprived of protection, advantages, benefits, or happiness previously enjoyed; something which has been abandoned or ignored" and provides examples - "A discontinued model of a motor vehicle, or a make which is no longer sold", "A word or line undesirably separated by a page break from the paragraph to which it belongs", "They are fighting what they call ‘orphan diseases’, a group of widely differing illnesses that have one thing in common: no one has done very much to develop drugs for them".

In the context offered in this thread I was puzzled at the "China already does this except they are only allowed one...that's why they have so many orphans" and asked how the two concepts were linked. It's been explained. A metaphoric use of "orphan" was intended, meaning "that's why they have so many abandoned girl children". We're in a storm in a teacup here. I asked what the link was in good faith and it's been supplied. Writing in metaphor isn't the clearest way of conveying a meaning especially when the explicit phrase is so much more informative.

As Chezzie so rightly pointed out, "Common usage limits the term to children, (or the young of animals) who have lost both parents".

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:19 am

Jester;1127585 wrote: Carla, I respect you and I do believe you, but I have a very difficult time believeing Spot has stepped down.

Your telling me then that he has no more access to the moderators forums then? Or works in the back ground of the system? Or is in anyway in discussion in moderator issues?

I put up a post about it at the time two weeks ago, I see no reason why you should disbelieve me.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:15 am

I believe Carla and Carolly have both informed you on this thread that Spot is no longer a Moderator.

I'll be the third person to confirm that Jester. Therefore, Spot no longer has access to, or any knowledge of what happens in, the mod area.

mrsK · Post by **mrsK** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:50 am

Betty Boop;1127684 wrote: I believe Carla and Carolly have both informed you on this thread that Spot is no longer a Moderator.

I'll be the third person to confirm that Jester. Therefore, Spot no longer has access to, or any knowledge of what happens in, the mod area.

I will 2nd that .

As far as I know Spot cannot use the mod area & does not know what is spoken about in the mod area.

He is no longer a mod to my knowledge.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:57 am

spot;1127680 wrote: I put up a post about it at the time two weeks ago, I see no reason why you should disbelieve me.

Because you are spot, my dear.... so this must be part of a master plan of some sort..:sneaky:

Some day I'm going to make nomad tell the fg world just who was most often the biggest supporter of the rights of the very folks who call spot villian... why nomad, you ask? because no one will believe him and it will still have been said out loud..

I certainly hope that spot is roaming the programming halls of fg and tinkering with things from time to time, even if he no longer lets himself get bashed around in the moderator pits..:-4..

shazzoom · Post by **shazzoom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:37 am

Spot i will say one thing:-

Whether the children or abandoned or orphaned it still amounts to the same thing,, they have no access to their natural parents. (Abandoned due to them not wanting them ie mostly girls) and (Orphaned due to death of parents).

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:36 am

Phew! Hot in here, isn't it!

I think what comes across very strongly is that people in general react very badly to being told how many children they may or may not have. Short of compulsory sterilisation and/or judicial murder it would be impossible to enforce.

So no limits on the number of kids we can have. Yaay! Any females wanting babies form an orderly queue outside my door and I'll see what I can do to help.:-4

Unfortunately we live in a finite world. There is only so much room, there are only limited resources. Sooner or later our population will reach the point where there are not enough resources to go round. German bloke called Malthus spotted his a few hundred years ago. He pointed out that there were four guys who turned up on horses to reduce the population:

Plague, Famine, Death and War.

If we don't control our population, they will.

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:41 am

Jester;1127585 wrote: Carla, I respect you and I do believe you, but I have a very difficult time believeing Spot has stepped down.

Your telling me then that he has no more access to the moderators forums then? Or works in the back ground of the system? Or is in anyway in discussion in moderator issues?

Jester, i don't think you would think I would lie to you would you dear?

What they are saying about Spot no longer being a mod is true!

Hope6 · Post by **Hope6** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:48 am

As for the welfare issue, its not only the folks on welfare who keep having children no, but i know some people personally who have had babies because of what they can get from welfare, it's passed on from one generation to another, i've heard older women telling younger women all about what they can get if they have a baby, and guess what? it wasn't to long after that, they had a baby!

as for China we have had organizations here in the US for a while that would help you go to China and adopt those orphaned or abandoned whatever you want to call them, baby girls, we thought something about a foreign adoption before we had Jacob because with the abortion rate and with so many single mothers now keeping their children too, it's very hard to adopt infants in America!

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:17 am

shazzoom;1127784 wrote: Spot i will say one thing:-

Whether the children or abandoned or orphaned it still amounts to the same thing,, they have no access to their natural parents. (Abandoned due to them not wanting them ie mostly girls) and (Orphaned due to death of parents).

Just so.

Perhaps you might also like to concede that my initial question was innocuous and legitimately based on what you'd posted.

shazzoom · Post by **shazzoom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:51 am

spot;1127861 wrote: Just so.

Perhaps you might also like to concede that my initial question was innocuous and legitimately based on what you'd posted.

You may think what u wrote was harmless,, but a few years ago i saw a documentary on chinas forgotton children, which included girls and disabled children that china parents didnt want because of the 1 child per parent rule it really was upsetting to watch and it brought about lots of people from other countries trying to adopt chinas unwanted children.

The thing is what they all failed to understand is without girls how on earth are they supposed to reproduce future generation of chinese children without girls.

Anyhow enough said on china.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:09 am

shazzoom;1127784 wrote: Spot i will say one thing:-

Whether the children or abandoned or orphaned it still amounts to the same thing,, they have no access to their natural parents. (Abandoned due to them not wanting them ie mostly girls) and (Orphaned due to death of parents).

That is not true of abandoned children.

shazzoom · Post by **shazzoom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:16 am

oscar;1127897 wrote: That is not true of abandoned children.

Well im not sure that the girls given up for adoption would like anything to do with their parents. But i guess thats upto them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:20 am

shazzoom;1127901 wrote: Well im not sure that the girls given up for adoption would like anything to do with their parents. But i guess thats upto them.

Then you know nothing of adopted children.

shazzoom · Post by **shazzoom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:24 am

oscar;1127904 wrote: Then you know nothing of adopted children.

We speaking of china here not in general.

Unless u are a chinese orphan i think we both best keep of subject.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:29 am

shazzoom;1127908 wrote: We speaking of china here not in general.

Unless u are a chinese orphan i think we both best keep of subject.

Any thread is public.... I will say what i like. If you don't like it, ignore it. I was merely pointing out to you that not all abandoned children do not see their parents and at that moment in time, you had no idea as to if i were indeed refering to Chinese Children. Or are you assuming that you now know what others think or indeed what their education in the matter is?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:32 am

Hope6;1127812 wrote: As for the welfare issue, its not only the folks on welfare who keep having children no, but i know some people personally who have had babies because of what they can get from welfare, it's passed on from one generation to another, i've heard older women telling younger women all about what they can get if they have a baby, and guess what? it wasn't to long after that, they had a baby!

as for China we have had organizations here in the US for a while that would help you go to China and adopt those orphaned or abandoned whatever you want to call them, baby girls, we thought something about a foreign adoption before we had Jacob because with the abortion rate and with so many single mothers now keeping their children too, it's very hard to adopt infants in America!

it happens here to Hope, people having kids just so they can stay on welfare......drives me nuts as we the working class, pay their dues!

friend down the street, had 4 kids for god's sake, by the same man, she lives just with the 4 kids!.......welfare pays them well for 4, plus her rent etc........nice way not to have to go out into the working world and actually make a living!:mad:

shazzoom · Post by **shazzoom** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:34 am

oscar;1127913 wrote: Any thread is public.... I will say what i like. If you don't like it, ignore it. I was merely pointing out to you that not all abandoned children do not see their parents and at that moment in time, you had no idea as to if i were indeed refering to Chinese Children. Or are you assuming that you now know what others think or indeed what their education in the matter is?

Well i was talking about chinese children and replying to spot.

You can say what u bleeding well like, u arent a friendly person are you.

goodbye.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:39 am

shazzoom;1127917 wrote: Well i was talking about chinese children and replying to spot.

You can say what u bleeding well like, u arent a friendly person are you.

goodbye.

My reaction was based purely on the way you have reacted to others.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:56 am

THAT'S ENOUGH !:-5:-5

everyone has the right to their opinions without being bullied or harassed!:mad:

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:23 am

shazzoom;1127917 wrote: Well i was talking about chinese children and replying to spot.

You can say what u bleeding well like, u arent a friendly person are you.

goodbye.There is an ignore feature to this site that you can use on any member you deem unpleasant - who is not a moderator(excepting spot of course.. but we'll figure that out yet:wah:)

anyhoot, since you are relatively new here, I figured I'd make sure you are aware of it.:-6

now, back to topic..

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:40 am

In an ideal situation 2 children would be great but out of all of Sam and Jennas friends only 2 sets of parents are still together, when people break up many want a child with their new partner. Between Jim and I we have 6 children

The people I know with larger families do not have the holidays and luxurys that others have but they seem to be happy with their lot. I personally would love to have more children but I also understand that cut backs would have to be made.

I think on the whole most people I talk to are responsible in the fact that they are stopping at having one child due to financial restrictions.

And just think after having numerous labours your bits would be like a bucket after, I suppose that'd take care of the contraception for most guys!:sneaky:

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:40 am

oscar;1127923 wrote: My reaction was based purely on the way you have reacted to others.

Others Oscar? do you mean Spot? As far as i can see Shaz answered a question from spot perfectly innocently, she is quite new to the forum and therefore isnt aware of spots posting style. (i have only just begun to understand his posts myself:o) From then on she has only had to defend her posts and explain herself, ,,,, honestly! for having an opinion:rolleyes:

I invite a friend of mine to this forum, raving about how good it is and how friendly,, and what does she do? land herself in this thread!!:rolleyes::yh_rotfl While i am well aware Shaz can hold her own,, i hope her initiation isnt enough to put her off:sneaky:

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:41 am

SuzyB;1127980 wrote: In an ideal situation 2 children would be great but out of all of Sam and Jennas friends only 2 sets of parents are still together, when people break up many want a child with their new partner. Between Jim and I we have 6 children

The people I know with larger families do not have the holidays and luxurys that others have but they seem to be happy with their lot. I personally would love to have more children but I also understand that cut backs would have to be made.

I think on the whole most people I talk to are responsible in the fact that they are stopping at having one child due to financial restrictions.

And just think after having numerous labours your bits would be like a bucket after, I suppose that'd take care of the contraception for most guys!:sneaky:

hi suzy:D:-4 hope ye ok:-4