|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 13:18:07 GMT
Sorry , I am missing your point. Happy parents don’t need sticks or carrots from government to stay living together. You are therefore presumably proposing to try to make unhappy parents continue to live together by making divorce harder (although I assume you mean somehow encouraging cohabitation - divorce certificate if living apart surely doesn’t matter ) or by tax or benefit changes? What have I misunderstood? It has been established that children do better in nuclear families so therefore nuclear families should be encouraged . People do not have the right to be happy . Marriages with children should be harder to divorce than childless ones . You should presume that couples with children should accept a responsibility and obligation to those children and therefore should make more effort to stay together . You seem to presume that children are quite happy when their parents divorce if they were unhappy in the marriage . |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 13:19:45 GMT
Isn’t conventional nuclear fantastically expensive though (even ignoring the issue of what to do with waste) which presumably makes your new factories even more uneconomic?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 13:24:59 GMT
Sorry , I am missing your point. Happy parents don’t need sticks or carrots from government to stay living together. You are therefore presumably proposing to try to make unhappy parents continue to live together by making divorce harder (although I assume you mean somehow encouraging cohabitation - divorce certificate if living apart surely doesn’t matter ) or by tax or benefit changes? What have I misunderstood? It has been established that children do better in nuclear families so therefore nuclear families should be encouraged . People do not have the right to be happy . Marriages with children should be harder to divorce than childless ones . You should presume that couples with children should accept a responsibility and obligation to those children and therefore should make more effort to stay together . You seem to presume that children are quite happy when their parents divorce if they were unhappy in the marriage . I agree kids from happy nuclear families may on average do better than kids from other arrangements. But we don’t need sticks or carrots to force happy families to stick together. Why do you think that kids from unhappy nuclear families held together by state sticks or carrots will do better than kids from other arrangements? You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on divorce. Is there much difference for the child whether parents are living apart divorced or living apart but still legally married? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 13:29:33 GMT
It has been established that children do better in nuclear families so therefore nuclear families should be encouraged . People do not have the right to be happy . Marriages with children should be harder to divorce than childless ones . You should presume that couples with children should accept a responsibility and obligation to those children and therefore should make more effort to stay together . You seem to presume that children are quite happy when their parents divorce if they were unhappy in the marriage . I agree kids from happy nuclear families may on average do better than kids from other arrangements. But we don’t need sticks or carrots to force happy families to stick together. Why do you think that kids from unhappy nuclear families held together by state sticks or carrots will do better than kids from other arrangements? You seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on divorce. Is there much difference for the child whether parents are living apart divorced or living apart but still legally married? Now you are back to the false claim that I said ‘ force’. A nuclear family is not a nuclear family if the parents live in different places . Are you being deliberately obtuse? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 13:39:15 GMT
Not sure what we are misunderstanding ?
Happy parents don’t need state sticks or carrots to stay together.
You are if I have understood you trying to use state sticks and carrots to make unhappy couples stick together? My question was why do you think that is in the child’s interest.
One of the sticks you propose to use to encourage unhappy parents to stick together is to make divorce harder. My question was what does this achieve if it is simply a choice between parents living apart and being divorced and parents living apart but still being legally married ? Making divorce harder seems to do nothing to preserve your nuclear family or help the child- it just changes the legal status of separated parents. Not sure I understand why you think this is worthwhile?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 13:46:29 GMT
Not sure what we are misunderstanding ? Happy parents don’t need state sticks or carrots to stay together. You are if I have understood you trying to use state sticks and carrots to make unhappy couples stick together? My question was why do you think that is in the child’s interest. One of the sticks you propose to use to encourage unhappy parents to stick together is to make divorce harder. My question was what does this achieve if it is simply a choice between parents living apart and being divorced and parents living apart but still being legally married ? Making divorce harder seems to do nothing to preserve your nuclear family or help the child- it just changes the legal status of separated parents. Not sure I understand why you think this is worthwhile? This is leftie speak . “When you make a commitment to become an official couple and have children on this basis , it’s ok because that will make you happy . Any attempt at encouraging the parents to stay together equates to ‘ forcing ‘, carrot and sticks and making the children unhappy by default . “ Is that about right ? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 13:53:01 GMT
Ok. It looks to me you are trying to use the power of the state (either through carrots or sticks) to drive couples who otherwise would split to stay together. If that wasn’t your aim, do say. I questioned whether keeping unhappy parents together is really in the interests of the child.
I also questioned whether making it harder to legally split through divorce makes any difference to the child if the alternative is simply for the parents to live apart while legally remaining married.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jun 10, 2024 14:00:08 GMT
Haven't posted on this forum for a long time but thought I would give it a go. There does appear to be a c 50% chance that Trump will be reelected in USA and the "populists" (please don't lets focus on labels) are doing well in Europe. It feels most likely here that Labour will win the coming election. With such a difficult inheritance, I am not convinced they will be able to make much progress on improving the country, so feels like there MAY be an opportunity for the populists here in 2029. . It's the opposite. This country is like a broken business ripe for takeover. People take over crap and poorly managed businesses because they give the greatest opportunity for improvement. You move in as the new manager of a company run by an idiot and look around and instantly you would see many stupid things where a quick change in procedure would give the bottom line a big boost. The object of the game is to make the biggest difference between what it was running like when you buy the business and how it is running once you have fixed it and sold it. If it were perfectly managed then any change would go the other way and make it less well performing. That being said, I still believe Labour could easily make an already shit job a whole load worse. We have no idea cos Starmer is keeping his mouth talking meaningless slogans, just like Rishi does. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 14:01:34 GMT
Ok. It looks to me you are trying to use the power of the state (either through carrots or sticks) to drive couples who otherwise would split to stay together. If that wasn’t your aim, do say. I questioned whether keeping unhappy parents together is really in the interests of the child. I also questioned whether making it harder to legally split through divorce makes any difference to the child if the alternative is simply for the parents to live apart while legally remaining married. It looks to me that you are being both presumptuous and obtuse . I’m suprised that a leftie is against the power of the state though. Im not surprised that a leftie would support parents renaging on a commitment to their children though and making every excuse to support anything than allows them to do it . I am also not surprised at a leftie repeatedly being obtuse about the meaning Nuclear family . |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 14:11:59 GMT
Not sure that post added much beyond abuse and evasion Bentley. You avoided answering either question.
Ok let’s move on
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 14:14:57 GMT
Not sure that post added much beyond abuse and evasion Bentley. You avoided answering either question. Ok let’s move on You posted repeated misrepresentations and obtuseness and you accuse me of abuse and evasion. It was pointless trying to have a reasonable debate with a leftie . |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 10, 2024 14:21:21 GMT
Not sure that post added much beyond abuse and evasion Bentley. You avoided answering either question. Ok let’s move on There is a pertinent point though. The idea of legal marriage is to create a stable foundation for children. So entering into that agreement and having children is a commitment and a responsibility. Being unhappy at any given point and making it easy to escape those commitments and responsibilities can pile a burden on the state which in effect piles a burden on everyone else who may take their responsibilities more seriously. Considering what one is doing all the way along the line is important and making it easy means that that consideration is at best fleeting. Many couples have 'moments' the children must expect more than a 'moment' disrupting all. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 14:23:39 GMT
Not sure that post added much beyond abuse and evasion Bentley. You avoided answering either question. Ok let’s move on There is a pertinent point though. The idea of legal marriage is to create a stable foundation for children. So entering into that agreement and having children is a commitment and a responsibility. Being unhappy at any given point and making it easy to escape those commitments and responsibilities can pile a burden on the state which in effect piles a burden on everyone else who may take their responsibilities more seriously. Considering what one is doing all the way along the line is important and making it easy means that that consideration is at best fleeting. Many couples have 'moments' the children must expect more than a 'moment' disrupting all. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 14:27:27 GMT
Very few couples split up because of a “moment” Sandy but relationships entered into in good faith sometimes founder and it is not clear that it is in the interests of children for the state to seek to intervene to keep parents together if they don’t want to be and of course many kids are born from much more casual relationships at the start.
As I think we have seen, making divorce harder seems to achieve very little for either the parents or the child so what policies would you advocate the state adopt to seek to preserve unhappy nuclear families (if indeed you think this is desirable)?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 10, 2024 14:32:50 GMT
Very few couples split up because of a “moment” Sandy but relationships entered into in good faith sometimes founder and it is not clear that it is in the interests of children for the state to seek to intervene to keep parents together if they don’t want to be and of course many kids are born from much more casual relationships at the start. As I think we have seen, making divorce harder seems to achieve very little for either the parents or the child so what policies would you advocate the state adopt to seek to preserve unhappy nuclear families (if indeed you think this is desirable)? That seems like just opinion as we know not why couples split up but we know it is increasing and that it is easier. I am not suggesting interference and I do not think anyone else is but making it easy for couples to part, and in fact in some instances making it economically more advantageous, is not good for children. Splitting up is bad for children, staying together may also be bad, so it is not a good choice but the pressure, however it is applied, should advanatge a stable family unit. |
|
