Some people just shouldn't be allowed to have offspring

That's why you should be required to pass a simple test before you have kids...
1-Are you Responsible?
2-Are you employed?
3-Can you afford this without going on Welfare?

If any of the above are no, NO KIDS!

 

ahh, those whacky brits. peace loving and kind. just out for a bit of fun!

 

Does being responsible mean they have the ability to use a spell check?

 

Just seen this on the news tonight! I am sooo embarrassed

 

ha ha ha it's the complete opposite here. But with the average welfare income about two times minimum wage (£6.08/$9.34 per hour!!) what do you expect! I sometimes wonder why I bother working 60 hours a week. Suppose someone has to pay the tax to pay for their carefree lifestyle.

Anyhow, who's to say these people in the video were on welfare? But as it was the unemployment blackspot of Preston, the chances are they were. Preston, Lancashire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15018247

 

When I post before 6am, no telling what will slip by my tired mind.....

fixed, TNX!

and NO I do not have kids.
When you work 70+ hrs a week, and your on the road weeks for at a time, some things you just have no time for.... well like kids....
and new stats today, $225,000.00 to raise a 1 child thru college...... no thank you!

 

I don't have kids, either. I want one of these stickers:

 

What a load of sanctimonious rot, this "outrage" at this sport. We, who bludgeon the minds of 8 year olds hour after hour day after day with violent movies, television and games all targeted precisely to that age group. And to every age group from about 4 upwards to infinity. Had some article mentioned somewhere that the present day Australian Aborigines practice something like this with their 8 year olds in games dating back centuries it would have gone completely unnoticed.

Aside from the lack of protective padding, the sport appears totally harmless; I'd even say, since its objective does not include gore or death (unlike what movies, TV & games portray) that its young participants benefit from the sport: it builds competitive confience, it builds physical endurance and, most of all, since it's conducted according to rules, it instills the exercise of discipline and restraint in something inherently chaotic, something we all could use a lot more of. And there's no age too young to start building confidence, ability and strategic thought.

And you'd have to think twice before clamping heavy protective gear on the little wrestlers: their bodies are light and flexible; the encumbering weight of incorrectly designed (such as merely scaled scaled down adult gear) could make injury MORE likely, not less likely.

But I think even with proper protective gear some here would still put up a sanctimonious pose, pretending shock and then buying a couple of Star Wars light sabers for their 8 year old kids for Christmas presents, oblivious to what they're doing.

 

I think it's more to do with the exploitation and/or commercialisation of the kids in that 250 blokes were drinking and betting on the outcome of the fight. That is not harmless fun between two young boys of the type you'd get at a small regional karate competition!

What next? mud wrestling for 8 year old girls? This fight was WRONG on so many levels!

 

I agree. It's not the 8 year olds who are sick, it's society as a whole. Violence is so pervasive it almost doesn't register, certainly not as a 'problem' of any sort. It's seen as entertainment. Not much has changed since the days of Roman gladiators.

 

Well it is England, I think next will be baby dungeon torture.

 

Or maybe tie them to the back of a pickup and drive them out of town? We all have our bad sides - Just sayin

 

Could be worse. Could be Texas.

 

No, I disagree. I'll challenge you (not to a fight ) as follows:

For every specific thing you can name as a discrete objection, I'll name identical (and even worse) things we do that are NOT regarded as a problem.

For example, lack of protection. I addressed that in my original response, but to go further, we pack 8 year olds into schoolbuses every day without so much as a seat belt. That we omit protection elsewhere doesn't justify not using it here, but as I said earlier, truly proper protection is not obvious, and there's a risk that using "common sense" protection could in fact increase the chance of injury, not lessen it. The video clip doesn't depict, to my eye, physical action that might call for protection anyway - it's strictly grappling, wrestling, done according to rules designed to prevent harm.

Financial exploitation. I agree, that's wrong, but that's wrong in any context; it isn't the thing that sparks outrage here. In any case, it isn't clear that financial exploitation is in fact going on, just betting. And betting ISN'T wrong, if conducted fairly.

It teaches violence. First of all, our culture is so saturated with violence as "savior" and "force for justice" in every entertainment venue it cannot be seriously raised as an objection. But I contend this sport does NOT teach violence, far from it. Wrestling, particularly wrestling according to Hoyle, so to speak, is the OPPOSITE of violence. It's an athletic art, that teaches the disciplined and skillful application of immobilizing physical force sufficient to prevent the opponent from immobilizing you first, and to do so WITHOUT HARM. There's no violence in that equation. Physical skill and strategic thought are the factors employed, not even superior strength (or bulk) come into play since both opponents are as closely physically matched as possible. Its a game of wits, not of brawn, even though brawn is what's used to apply the wits that win.

They're too young. Too young for what, exactly? What aspect of all that I've described is inappropriate below a certain age? And your threshold of "too young" won't match you neighbor's, so by what authority do you adjudicate the discrepancy?


I'll concede that at first glance I was repulsed. But as I gave it some thought, I realized all the reasons I had to be repulsed by it weren't rational, just subjective.

Now there very well could be reasons against it I haven't thought of that would change my mind. And that's my challenge: come up with them.

 

True, but we are killing our bad guys.

 

School bus safety studies generally don't find the use of seat belts to outweigh the risks of seat belt use on school buses.

Perhaps you can cite a better example.

Tom

 

I guess if you are playing russian roulette, you might make it safer to only limit it to a couple of rounds instead of three. The first safety rule is not to do it if it can be avoided. To me that's hard to argue. So the real question is should it be allowed or banned, not are there validated safety measures.

Ever hear of the Black Sox? Michael Vick? Was there any evidence that Vick did not conduct his dog fights fairly. Wrong question in my mind. It's youth exploitation, not financial exploitation that is the issue.

Bad assumptions lead to bad conclusions. There was a time that being gay was considered a moral defect by the vast majority. That did not make it right. Same here. How do we get out of this "saturation". Answer, by continuing to do the right thing. I object to this 8yr old vs 8 yr old and will continue to do so. It may be a couple of centuries before we realize how, but so be it. Bad assumption to think that we are stuck with this forever.

By establishing laws. What is the right age for driving cars? What is the right age for drinking? What is the right age for unregulated fighting? What is the right age for regulated fighting? (Different issue as to the "correctness" of a particular age, but little question that a mandated age is the only enforceable means).

If you don't agree, I'll put my 8 year old in a cage against your 8 year old to determine who's right.

 

There's one for every occasion.

It should be remembered that offsetting the cost of raising a child is the fact that if you're lucky (or do it right) they might actually start paying you back.

I know someone who's seen and regularly sees the effects of irresponsible parents. In fact they've also seen the effects of irresponsible social workers who allowed a mentally retarded parent to "raise" a child.

 

From the perspective of potential long term damage to a child,
I wonder which form of vicarious child rearing is more damaging,
little boy combat or little girl beauty pageants?