Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Ten Kids By 10 Different Mothers


juvenal

Recommended Posts

Well he is so drop dead gorgeous that I am not surprised so many women are apparently throwing themselves at him.

And obviously quite a catch:

"She says the couple are planning to move into a refurbished two-bedroom cottage in Newcastle in two weeks, at the expense of taxpayers."

I could not afford to get myself into a two bedroom cottage, no one is going to pay my rent. If you think about it, who exactly is the stupid one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And obviously quite a catch:

"She says the couple are planning to move into a refurbished two-bedroom cottage in Newcastle in two weeks, at the expense of taxpayers."

I could not afford to get myself into a two bedroom cottage, no one is going to pay my rent. If you think about it, who exactly is the stupid one.

That's what a lot of the moaners on here don't quite get. This man is being simply ultra successful in the only game that counts - gene survival. He has ten different pair matches, AND gets the community to provide the resources to see them all reach adulthood. Fantastic. Well, scum as well, but still fantastic in terms of the long game.

If you were planning how to 'win' at life, and you didn't inherit wealth, great brains, or some other MAJOR differentiator, this should be the winning plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have a grudging respect for him. He simply doesn't give a flying ****** about anything and he must leave Richard Dawkins scratching his high forehead as he muddles through the implications.

[sewell]

It's actually the logical extension of the Tracy Emin-esque Brit-art, a sort of post-post-modern-avant-garde performance piece cleverly revealing the inequities and absurdities embedded within a Welfare State monster never envisaged by that nice Nye Bevan.

[/sewell]

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what a lot of the moaners on here don't quite get. This man is being simply ultra successful in the only game that counts - gene survival. He has ten different pair matches, AND gets the community to provide the resources to see them all reach adulthood. Fantastic. Well, scum as well, but still fantastic in terms of the long game.

If you were planning how to 'win' at life, and you didn't inherit wealth, great brains, or some other MAJOR differentiator, this should be the winning plan.

ALl very well and good, but in nature, unless he was an EXTREMELY powerful alpha male both mentally and physically, he would not be able to keep 10 breeding females to himself.

He clearly aint, so the taxpayer funds the differentiation of the species.

Morlock and Eloi.

Tell me I'm wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

ALl very well and good, but in nature, unless he was an EXTREMELY powerful alpha male both mentally and physically, he would not be able to keep 10 breeding females to himself.

He clearly aint, so the taxpayer funds the differentiation of the species.

Morlock and Eloi.

Tell me I'm wrong

You're wrong. Nature doesn't always require alpha males to be the successful ones. Think of a worker bee that slaves away but never breeds - their work supports the offspring of one queen, and a small number of male breeders. The male breeders aren't 'alpha males' - in fact, pretty useless buggers.

You are all worker bees. He is the breeder bee. He doesn't HAVE to protect his brood mates, as society does that for him. And yes, differentiation may happen over time, but that is a different :huh: argument.

I still say this boy has - unknowingly -hit on the genetic jackpot for our generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but we aint bees. We're monkeys. Monkeys, like other higher mammals, kill the young of a defeated male and mate with the mothers, they need to stay in charge until the young can fend for themselves. OK, theres a little bit of sneaky poking from the non alpha males - but generally they're in big trouble if they're caught and the Alpha has as much opportunity as he likes - giving his sperm a better chance.

Its all to do with DNA complexity see - it doesn;t really matter with lower orders, like bacteria, plants, even bees - because they're DNA is so bloody simple and solid that one bees sperm is pretty much the same as the next. Thats why they all live in communities that share so much DNA that infighting doesn't exist - they only compete against other communities/species. Its also why they are radiation proof - (well nearly, but you know what i mean)

More complex/delicate/prescriptive DNA like ours need to be kept pure by competition on a behavioural/social level - its evolution working on a higher level than "the bird with the stubby beak couldn't stab the fish"

I still say labour want to breed their own voters - at the taxpayers expense

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the focus of this article is a little off. The question should be, how can this ugly, unemployed, incapacitated little layabout find 10 girls willing to let him make them pregnant? The simple answer is that the State has taken on the role of the father for countless children and there are a large numbers of mothers who like it that way. For the mothers involved in this case they don't need to even consider this guy's suitability as a father. In fact, they'd probably find the idea of it quite shocking. Instead they value the 'independence' at other people's expense that giving birth hands to them on a plate. The secure income and comfortable accommodation that comes courtesy of the public purse is something that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

It's virtually impossible to have any sympathy with this irresponsible bloke but he is a symptom of a system that is eroding the fabric of society. Should he want to be a good father (as most men do) he would have few legal rights to even be involved in the upbringing of his children should the mother not wish him to. He would be totally unable to provide his family with the kind of secure accommodation that the State hands out like sweeties. With a low-paid, unskilled working class wage he would struggle to provide a standard of living even beginning to equate to standard available on benefits. In many respects the mothers are just as much the victims of the system too. With no qualifications, no job prospects and no aspirations they are taking what seems to be the best option available to them.

The solution? Ditch the call to 'End Child Poverty'. I do not want to see anyone in poverty but by choosing this mantra successive governments have allowed some mothers to hold a metaphorical gun to the taxpayer's head and turned babies into passports to better standards of living. Rather than solve the problem of child poverty this strategy has created an incentive, such as the case above, to make it worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's all those liberal lefties who didn't like the idea about having to show you are a responsible adult before you are allowed to copulate then? <_<

On a cost benefit basis would it not have been better to offer him a couple of grand if he got the snip ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what a lot of the moaners on here don't quite get. This man is being simply ultra successful in the only game that counts - gene survival. He has ten different pair matches, AND gets the community to provide the resources to see them all reach adulthood. Fantastic. Well, scum as well, but still fantastic in terms of the long game.

If you were planning how to 'win' at life, and you didn't inherit wealth, great brains, or some other MAJOR differentiator, this should be the winning plan.

Surely the mothers are the ones who won - they get priority on housing lists/benefit + child benefit + child tax credits. He just takes disability benefit and depends on the whim of his latest conquest as to whether he gets to stay in her taxpayer funded house.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reverse eugenics we are undertaking in this country must lead to serious problems in future.

This being the key point.

As an average earner I contribute about £15,000 (say) per year in taxes of various sorts. Over a (say) 40 year working life that amounts to £600,000.

So to keep this chap and his offspring you need 3 people working full time at average mean wages for their entire lives.

Actually though it's worse than that: since the working life is 40 years but the reproductive cycle is 20 years then even if the offspring reproduce "normally" and claim benefits then it's really 6 people working full time just to support this one family.

Worse still this chap's offspring are likely to reproduce much more quickly than your average working family, which means that the requirement for 6 workers per family will (perhaps) double every 20 years so that hypothetically come 2050 you'd need 24 workers per family.

Clearly such a ratio is unsustainable and the logical conclusion is that left unchecked the working and middle classes will be exterminated (either by emigration, asymilation or simply bread out of existance) and the country will consist almost entirely of the decendants of benefit claimants who survive by a combination of scavenging rubbish tips, prostitution and fighting over what's left of the country's mineral wealth. See e.g. Zimbabwae, DRC etc, etc (not exactly comparable but a good indication of what we have to look forward to).

Don't know what the answer is, but I hope for all our sakes we find it soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can pay smokers and fat people to be responsible why not serial shaggers ? ;)

Not against the principle, it's the implementation of these things that is impossible.

If you wait until a bloke like this has already got (say) 3 kids by different girls then overall you won't save much, because not many of these a4seholes impregnate more than 3 women, he's an exception. To have a real impact, you'd have to offer the money at about age 16 before most of these babies are made, and you'd have to offer it to everyone, girls included (tube-tying), you could hardly have the offer open to worthless chavs only, who would decide who was eligible?

Overall though, I think it's not a bad idea.

How about 5k to have your tubes tied or a vasectomy at 16? Those with prospects of making a decent life mostly won't take this offer. Some with brains will use 2k to store some sperm or eggs and pocket the rest to aid their studies or start their lives. With luck the morons would take up the offer in droves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reverse eugenics we are undertaking in this country must lead to serious problems in future.

+1

The gadgies are breeding like rabbits and the educated, civilised people aren't. A few generations down the road and you wont be able to move for d!ckheads in a burberry caps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the news this morning there was a piece on a starving child in Africa, the mother had another on the way. If you cannot feed one child, why have another? What is the imperative here?

Recently I saw that after a decade of starvation, the population in Ethiopia has actually increased. It makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the focus of this article is a little off. The question should be, how can this ugly, unemployed, incapacitated little layabout find 10 girls willing to let him make them pregnant? The simple answer is that the State has taken on the role of the father for countless children and there are a large numbers of mothers who like it that way. For the mothers involved in this case they don't need to even consider this guy's suitability as a father. In fact, they'd probably find the idea of it quite shocking. Instead they value the 'independence' at other people's expense that giving birth hands to them on a plate. The secure income and comfortable accommodation that comes courtesy of the public purse is something that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

It's virtually impossible to have any sympathy with this irresponsible bloke but he is a symptom of a system that is eroding the fabric of society. Should he want to be a good father (as most men do) he would have few legal rights to even be involved in the upbringing of his children should the mother not wish him to. He would be totally unable to provide his family with the kind of secure accommodation that the State hands out like sweeties. With a low-paid, unskilled working class wage he would struggle to provide a standard of living even beginning to equate to standard available on benefits. In many respects the mothers are just as much the victims of the system too. With no qualifications, no job prospects and no aspirations they are taking what seems to be the best option available to them.

The solution? Ditch the call to 'End Child Poverty'. I do not want to see anyone in poverty but by choosing this mantra successive governments have allowed some mothers to hold a metaphorical gun to the taxpayer's head and turned babies into passports to better standards of living. Rather than solve the problem of child poverty this strategy has created an incentive, such as the case above, to make it worse.

Excellent post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the focus of this article is a little off. The question should be, how can this ugly, unemployed, incapacitated little layabout find 10 girls willing to let him make them pregnant? The simple answer is that the State has taken on the role of the father for countless children and there are a large numbers of mothers who like it that way. For the mothers involved in this case they don't need to even consider this guy's suitability as a father. In fact, they'd probably find the idea of it quite shocking. Instead they value the 'independence' at other people's expense that giving birth hands to them on a plate. The secure income and comfortable accommodation that comes courtesy of the public purse is something that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

It's virtually impossible to have any sympathy with this irresponsible bloke but he is a symptom of a system that is eroding the fabric of society. Should he want to be a good father (as most men do) he would have few legal rights to even be involved in the upbringing of his children should the mother not wish him to. He would be totally unable to provide his family with the kind of secure accommodation that the State hands out like sweeties. With a low-paid, unskilled working class wage he would struggle to provide a standard of living even beginning to equate to standard available on benefits. In many respects the mothers are just as much the victims of the system too. With no qualifications, no job prospects and no aspirations they are taking what seems to be the best option available to them.

The solution? Ditch the call to 'End Child Poverty'. I do not want to see anyone in poverty but by choosing this mantra successive governments have allowed some mothers to hold a metaphorical gun to the taxpayer's head and turned babies into passports to better standards of living. Rather than solve the problem of child poverty this strategy has created an incentive, such as the case above, to make it worse.

And that is the difference between conservatism and socialism. Its a political difference between poor people give them money and it will get better, and poor people need to improve themselves. Its a carrot vs Stick. Most of the uk population believe in the carrot over the stick, they believe in love and support over no support. They see the poor as poor, rather than lazy and opportunist,
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 440 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.