King Heffy Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, Bob Long said: People in the west and other industrialized nations don't have more kids because you don't need to. It's not a Justin thing ffs. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?most_recent_value_desc=true Yep. The countries with high birth rates certainly don't have economies we should be envying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 45 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Damn that JT. When I was younger and my parents asked me to save some of pocket money, 5 cents a week, half of it at that time, to contribute to children suffering in Africa, they just added it to the money they gave, it was a teaching moment. Anyway I asked why, when the people there are so poor, some times starving, do they have so many so many kids. Mum replied that having children was one, if not the only joy they had in their lives. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 If you live in a 3rd or 4rth world country you have very, very poor health care. A lot of kids die at birth, and shortly there after. A lot don't make it into the teen years. People were having a lot of kids in the hopes that 2 out of the 7 or 9 would live long enough to help their aging parents. Sad/cruel irony is -- as their health care improves so does their survival rate, yet it takes decades for societies to realize the don't need to keep having al those kids. So part of the world is not having enough kids and part of the world is having to many kids. 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 On 1/18/2024 at 7:55 PM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said: Not sure which thread this most closely relates to, but since dude is calling out our politics, I figure this thread is as good as any. https://globalnews.ca/news/10235406/sean-strickland-interview-rant-anti-lgbtq-trudeau-toronto-ufc/ I wonder if there's enough in dude's tirade for someone to mount a "hate speech" prosecution against him? While I don't agree with Strickland's comments, I think it's weird to bring up tweets from years ago, and I don't think the reporter is being honest. To have "no problem" with not having grandchildren? To want kids, but not want grandkids, I don't buy that. Feels like this is all about reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 minutes ago, Master Mind said: While I don't agree with Strickland's comments, I think it's weird to bring up tweets from years ago, and I don't think the reporter is being honest. To have "no problem" with not having grandchildren? To want kids, but not want grandkids, I don't buy that. Feels like this is all about reputation. Really? I know that if I had a child I would want them to be happy and have love in their life first and foremost. Sure I’d also want grandchildren if possible, by other means if they chose, but that would be their business not mine. Exactly the same if they were a heterosexual couple. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Hmmm.....seems like someone is blaming immigrants for all of our problems.... Where have I seen that before? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Really? I know that if I had a child I would want them to be happy and have love in their life first and foremost. Sure I’d also want grandchildren if possible, by other means if they chose, but that would be their business not mine. Exactly the same if they were a heterosexual couple. It sounds like you agree with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 13 minutes ago, Master Mind said: It sounds like you agree with me. Good deal! I’m ok with the reporters answer though. His job is to ask questions and I’d probably be disappointed in a reporter that spent more time answering questions than asking them. Not a big deal to me in any case as I’m not a fan of the sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 9 minutes ago, 4petesake said: Good deal! I’m ok with the reporters answer though. His job is to ask questions and I’d probably be disappointed in a reporter that spent more time answering questions than asking them. Not a big deal to me in any case as I’m not a fan of the sport. Sure, but I think someone asking questions should also answer them honestly. I'm nitpicking, but just because I've seen this mentality floating around on other social medias. If people can't even be honest about wanting grandchildren without being labeled some kind of phobic, good luck having any form of meaningful discussion. Instead it just feels like some are more concerned with their online reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Sure, but I think someone asking questions should also answer them honestly. I'm nitpicking, but just because I've seen this mentality floating around on other social medias. If people can't even be honest about wanting grandchildren without being labeled some kind of phobic, good luck having any form of meaningful discussion. Instead it just feels like some are more concerned with their online reputation. I suppose, but what if “no problem” was his honest answer? But I do agree that if he had answered “of course I wish that I could have had grandchildren” he shouldn’t be labelled homophobic, that would be ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 12 minutes ago, 4petesake said: I suppose, but what if “no problem” was his honest answer? But I do agree that if he had answered “of course I wish that I could have had grandchildren” he shouldn’t be labelled homophobic, that would be ridiculous. That's what I'm saying, I don't believe that would be his honest answer haha While that seems ridiculous, if a parent is disappointed that their child is gay because of the lack of grandchildren aspect, I'm sure neither of us would be surprised if many people called that parent homophobic. Similar if a parent was disappointed that their child was trans because of the grandchildren and name change aspects, you'd very likely see them labelled as transphobic. And yes there are other ways to have kids, but I'm basing the disappointment on it being more difficult/improbable to have grandkids in those scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 3 hours ago, Gurn said: If you live in a 3rd or 4rth world country you have very, very poor health care. A lot of kids die at birth, and shortly there after. A lot don't make it into the teen years. People were having a lot of kids in the hopes that 2 out of the 7 or 9 would live long enough to help their aging parents. Sad/cruel irony is -- as their health care improves so does their survival rate, yet it takes decades for societies to realize the don't need to keep having al those kids. So part of the world is not having enough kids and part of the world is having to many kids. And the solution to that problem is... Immigration. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Master Mind said: That's what I'm saying, I don't believe that would be his honest answer haha While that seems ridiculous, if a parent is disappointed that their child is gay because of the lack of grandchildren aspect, I'm sure neither of us would be surprised if many people called that parent homophobic. Similar if a parent was disappointed that their child was trans because of the grandchildren and name change aspects, you'd very likely see them labelled as transphobic. And yes there are other ways to have kids, but I'm basing the disappointment on it being more difficult/improbable to have grandkids in those scenarios. If grandchildren are important to someone, it would make sense to have more than one child, avoiding this issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Master Mind said: That's what I'm saying, I don't believe that would be his honest answer haha While that seems ridiculous, if a parent is disappointed that their child is gay because of the lack of grandchildren aspect, I'm sure neither of us would be surprised if many people called that parent homophobic. Similar if a parent was disappointed that their child was trans because of the grandchildren and name change aspects, you'd very likely see them labelled as transphobic. And yes there are other ways to have kids, but I'm basing the disappointment on it being more difficult/improbable to have grandkids in those scenarios. I guess it boils down to how the disappointment is dealt with that decides if it’s homo/transphobic or not. Disappointment is a feeling after all and no one can tell us how to feel. And again you could be disappointed that your heterosexual children decide not to have kids but ultimately it’s none of your business. A parent can be disappointed but still be loving and supportive of any number of things in their child’s life. If someone in my family had come out as gay my mom would have been disappointed but loving and supportive, my dad would have been a lot more than disappointed and probably disowned them, at least in his earlier life. In his later years he became a more accepting , loving person. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, Sapper said: Want to blame someone ? Blame right wing governments and policies.... And i mean both libs and cons Those great times Millhouse is raving about was a time when one income supported a family and most had pensions even before the CPP came into being. One income families can afford to and did have ... More kids Capitalism demands maximized business profit which can only be fully achieved by lower wages and benefits. Companies may have to cut a price or two if sales slow but labour can be outsourced to cheaper places so easily Heck most buy Canada items used are made in China The delicate balance between workers rights and pay vs owners profits are heavily slanted to business now In 2023 we saw 2 records broken.... Consumer debt hit the highest we have ever had and corporate profits hit record growth and highs. Only the most politically blinded can't see the link 50 years ago one pay made it .... Many families had the other spouse take small part time jobs to make extra..... Now that person must work full time as with their partner just to survive.... No one is left for those part time day jobs..... Thus business needs those foreign workers to stay open. Since 1950 with anti union legislation both cons and Liberals have destroyed the working calls and Millhouse has ZERO interest in fixing it. He the same as Trudeau want only to toss enough crumbs at people so they can say they did something My grandfather use to say the real inflation test was the bread test. Take your wage and item cost in any year and calculate how long it takes you to work to earn it. Forward a decade or 2 and do the same In 2000 I bought a house for 125k. My tlyesrlt wage was 45k. That means the house cost approx 2.8 years of my full wages to buy In 2020 that same job pays 60k and that house would cost 750k. It takes that same worker 12.5 years wages to buy the same house working the same job You can't drop that house back down to 140k as.that drop would bankrupt nearly every house owner You can't raise wages by 4 x as that would bankrupt the company Cutting immigration and axing carbon tax will do ZERO to fix it Building a million new homes without significantly raising wages won't do anything to fix it as.it just means a million more new homes few can afford The fix is to legislate production back into Canada and give workers and employers the same equal rights to strike or lock out so they can again find that balance in wages and profits that both can live with Millhouse ..... Saying you want to go back to 1950 only workers when we reign in these obscene billionaires How are you going to 'legislate' production into Canada? Sounds like the government offering incentives to companies (a.k.a taking our money from us & handing it over), like they did with VW & that multibillion dollar EV plant deal (which didn't gain the best public reaction). You can't legislate companies to accept a disadvantageous position in a global economy, they'll just leave Canada. Or Small businesses (that don't have the power/luxury of relocation) will fold. Which leads us to subsidizing companies, but then in a way your just robbing peter to pay paul. Axing the carbon tax would help many. Its not just you filling up that's more expensive, its going to be a cost increase across the board. Every company/service/exc uses FF burning equipment, and who's going to pay that cost? Companies can't survive at a loss. The additional cost in fuel for the truck to deliver groceries to the store, the expenses for your company to operate equipment/vehicles/heat at work, exc. The cost of builders to get materials transported/manufactured, exc. And at the end of the day all those cumulative 'small' costs are going to be passed down the line & felt most by the consumer/working class person living near margins. Lowering immigration is a long game, maybe it got out of hand at some point which has hurt the housing market in the present, but even the result of cutting the numbers tomorrow will take time to set in. Additional supply couldn't hurt, and foreign investment (kinda a different issue anyway) has been a problem around here, but there are many factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 3 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: How are you going to 'legislate' production into Canada? Sounds like the government offering incentives to companies (a.k.a taking our money from us & handing it over), like they did with VW & that multibillion dollar EV plant deal (which didn't gain the best public reaction). You can't legislate companies to accept a disadvantageous position in a global economy, they'll just leave Canada. Or Small businesses (that don't have the power/luxury of relocation) will fold. Which leads us to subsidizing companies, but then in a way your just robbing peter to pay paul. Axing the carbon tax would help many. Its not just you filling up that's more expensive, its going to be a cost increase across the board. Every company/service/exc uses FF burning equipment, and who's going to pay that cost? Companies can't survive at a loss. The additional cost in fuel for the truck to deliver groceries to the store, the expenses for your company to operate equipment/vehicles/heat at work, exc. The cost of builders to get materials transported/manufactured, exc. And at the end of the day all those cumulative 'small' costs are going to be passed down the line & felt most by the consumer/working class person living near margins. Lowering immigration is a long game, maybe it got out of hand at some point which has hurt the housing market in the present, but even the result of cutting the numbers tomorrow will take time to set in. Additional supply couldn't hurt, and foreign investment (kinda a different issue anyway) has been a problem around here, but there are many factors. Keep in mind the carbon tax is a provincial thing here in BC - the Feds only slap it on to provinces that don't already have one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 The deal puts Nunavut in line with the other 2 territories. Yukon (2003) and NWT (2014) have already done this. The implementation starts in April and will take 3 years to complete. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/nunavut-signs-historic-agreement-to-take-control-of-land-waterways-and-mineral-rights/ Nunavut signs historic agreement to take control of land, waterways and mineral rights 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: Keep in mind the carbon tax is a provincial thing here in BC - the Feds only slap it on to provinces that don't already have one. Well BC isn't cheap as it it, the joke is BC = bring cash for a reason. Van's housing market is the most expensive in NA (which has a knock on effect as you move inland), exc. Us already dealing with a more expensive living isn't a great defense for it imo. Other parts of Canada will now feel a harder squeeze & even for us here products that are shipped/manufactured elsewhere will likely become a tad more expensive. Edited January 20 by Smashian Kassian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 10 hours ago, Master Mind said: That's what I'm saying, I don't believe that would be his honest answer haha While that seems ridiculous, if a parent is disappointed that their child is gay because of the lack of grandchildren aspect, I'm sure neither of us would be surprised if many people called that parent homophobic. Similar if a parent was disappointed that their child was trans because of the grandchildren and name change aspects, you'd very likely see them labelled as transphobic. And yes there are other ways to have kids, but I'm basing the disappointment on it being more difficult/improbable to have grandkids in those scenarios. "I want" "Disappointed" I guess if your thoughts about your kids lives are about what you want or something you didn't get, then maybe that's a problem for some people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 9 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said: How are you going to 'legislate' production into Canada? Sounds like the government offering incentives to companies (a.k.a taking our money from us & handing it over), like they did with VW & that multibillion dollar EV plant deal (which didn't gain the best public reaction). You can't legislate companies to accept a disadvantageous position in a global economy, they'll just leave Canada. Or Small businesses (that don't have the power/luxury of relocation) will fold. Which leads us to subsidizing companies, but then in a way your just robbing peter to pay paul. Axing the carbon tax would help many. Its not just you filling up that's more expensive, its going to be a cost increase across the board. Every company/service/exc uses FF burning equipment, and who's going to pay that cost? Companies can't survive at a loss. The additional cost in fuel for the truck to deliver groceries to the store, the expenses for your company to operate equipment/vehicles/heat at work, exc. The cost of builders to get materials transported/manufactured, exc. And at the end of the day all those cumulative 'small' costs are going to be passed down the line & felt most by the consumer/working class person living near margins. Lowering immigration is a long game, maybe it got out of hand at some point which has hurt the housing market in the present, but even the result of cutting the numbers tomorrow will take time to set in. Additional supply couldn't hurt, and foreign investment (kinda a different issue anyway) has been a problem around here, but there are many factors. As much as I hold the Liberal government responsible for much of the country's problems Canada mimics what happens in the USA. Our overall debt problem is even worse than the USA and that country will have to deal with it whether voluntarily or not just as we will. When the credit crunch comes debt financing will disappear. Politicians of all persausion love printing money. What do they do when that option is gone? It will put all government spending on the table. Taxes will increase, social benefits will decrease and government employment will drop. The scope of government will be limited. This situation will be much worse for Canada as the USA is far more productive and rich. Trudeau has famously said he does not care about government debt. I suspect he was thinking that GDP growth would increase his revenue to compensate debt servicing. GDP growth has flat lined for 3 years now. Not working. When times get tough the Americans take care of their own. Both Trump and Biden have done dirty deals against Canada. Whoever is running the USA will likely do the same. It is not in American interest to have a strong Canada. Canada will have to craft an industrial policy by necessity. It will have to be financed. Since I think PP is the next PM I suspect he will pull all stops from development and export of Canadian energy. If he does that will provide the money required to finance a built in Canada industrial strategy. The Liberals have done a decent job of funding technology R&D in Canadian universities. What hasn't happened enough is that research morphing into lots of jobs. IMHO that is a starting place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 14 hours ago, Master Mind said: While I don't agree with Strickland's comments, I think it's weird to bring up tweets from years ago, and I don't think the reporter is being honest. To have "no problem" with not having grandchildren? To want kids, but not want grandkids, I don't buy that. Feels like this is all about reputation. I dont care to touch on Strickland's words as he has done enough to bring negative views to a sport and art that I love. There is no angle to spin it that the reporter did anything close to as bad as baring Sean's true colours shows. I know the fighter well. He needs help and is volatile, I hope he has support. But I wanted to touch on something as a non-breeder. The idea that breeders believe that their children should continue the bloodline. It's common but what a sad thing. I mean, even if your child is gay, they could still adopt... if for some reason, they agree to an idea they must produce more familly partially for the grandparents. So... 'no problem with not having grandchildren' isn't the full thought. Adoption doesn't seen considered in the statement. As you point out it is probably true that( most?) people that have children of their own want/expect those children to do the same. I find that awful and hope that breeders in the future just enjoy raising their kid without that expectation/demand. The reason I believe this is due to our human nature of tribalism. It will eventually be the end of us. All this, us verus them that causes so much hurt in the world. It starts with bloodline, doesn't it? many would commit crimes against others just for familly even if they know they are in the wrong. The implication that adoption is not the 'real grandchildren'...is that some sort of narcissism? The child must look like me, be like me, have genetics that are so important to the legacy of...me. Not, really making a point to you MM, you just made me think. I know that I am ignorant to all this as a non-breeder but wanted to share my perspective. I know this is how it has always been. I have a big family and love them. I would die for them, as most would for their own. But, as I said. I don't think humankind will make it. We are so advanced and intelligent, still we suffer. Something that used to keep us alive and safe in our history will one day be our downfall. The tribe. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: "I want" "Disappointed" I guess if your thoughts about your kids lives are about what you want or something you didn't get, then maybe that's a problem for some people. Everyone has expectations for their children in some form or another. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 10 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Everyone has expectations for their children in some form or another. Or hope. Not everyone has requirements for grandkids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 3 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Everyone has expectations for their children in some form or another. I would say that everyone has some sort of expectaions for all those they keep in their lives. And, of course parents do. My point was...should they? will it be part of our evolution to get away from the tribalism, for our own survival? What if all humans prioritized friendships over familly? would there be any wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishopshodan Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 I gotta go to the gym.. @Maninthebox Are you just making a downvote with the 'kwat' emoji or are you actually confused? Use your words if it is the latter and I'll get back to you later. A down vote is fine too..if that's how you are using it. I have been called idealistic and have no problem with that. The way we do things, treat each other, is getting worse. Maybe time for different angles... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.