PDA

View Full Version : unmarried fathers



Lucena
19-04-2004, 11:39 AM
read this age article recently

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2004/04/16/1082055646134.html

what do you think Machiavelli? Anyone else?

It's certainly not such a big issue these days, maybe back in the 50s perhaps-
whaddya reckon? I don't think anyone cares much now

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 03:49 PM
<deleted>
Dont hold back, tell us what you really think. ;)

chesslover
19-04-2004, 06:27 PM
Dont hold back, tell us what you really think. ;)

I think Matt was drinking, and you should not crucify him for this. he is only human mate

Kevin Bonham
19-04-2004, 11:02 PM
Arndt has a fair bit of form on stuff like this. I thought her article suffered from a very poor level of distinction between two relevant issues:

* marriage vs parenthood by committed unmarried partners.
* marriage vs single parenthood, esp. deliberate.

If the first does really lead to less stable parenting/fatherhood this should have been demonstrated. I am not sure what is known about this, and even if marriage worked better than (relatively) committed partnership, then one would ask: is the difference down to the act of marriage, or is it down to the sorts of people who do marry being the sort of people who are more likely to stay together anyway?

I think the idea that Pat Rafter shouldn't have been Australian of the Year because of impending unmarried parenthood is even more ridiculous than the idea that he should have been Australian of the Year largely for being a tennis player with an excellent but far from all-time-great record. But I've had that rant before.

Fortunately for everyone I have no interest in being a dad so all this stuff does not really affect me. However if anyone actually has firm evidence about whether marriage still really works better than the best of the rest, I'd be interested to see it.

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 11:23 PM
I think Matt was drinking, and you should not crucify him for this. he is only human mate
I doubt it.
His post was in the middle of the day.
He normally only posts drunk late in the evenings.

Rincewind
19-04-2004, 11:31 PM
I doubt it.
His post was in the middle of the day.
He normally only posts drunk late in the evenings.

Also the spelling goes from poor to almost unreadable. ;)

PHAT
19-04-2004, 11:49 PM
FMD. Why was my post deleted? No swearing at all. No slander. I can see no reason why my calling for the desexing of irresponsible parents was deleted. This is twice now that savage imagry has been cut. It stinks. This censorship is weak as piss. :evil:

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 12:17 AM
obviously itd be ideal to have married parents(a strong marriage as opposed to the married couple where the father doesnt come home each night n beat his wife and kids) as it seems to be that the kid(lets say a guy) tends to have the better relationship with his mother in early yrs, up to pre-teen, then once theyre in their teens onwards they get the better relationship with the dad, dont ask me why, probably cause lil guys are more feminent when theyre young and turn right when they get older - but in any case, i dont think it matters too much if a kid only got one parent(if it was a girl then itd probably be best for the single parent to be a woman and if guy then guy parent)
so bsides that i dont think it matters whether a kids gotta mum n dad it aint gonna matter shit if youve only got a dad, and he also just happens to be filthy rich and famous, youd have plenty of money, so a fine environment, patty rafter would have a steady stream of gfs comin in n out(so ya might be able to pick up a few tips on womanizing at an early age) and it aint like hes gonna stay unmarried forever
who cares whether rafter isnt married? im sure the kid wont be complainin
and as for ideas that rafter shouldnt have gotten the australian of the year award for bein an unmarried father? <bzzzzt!>, it doesnt make my opinion of rafter go down at all, im sure the only ppl bitchin bout this would be a buncha fat ugly skanks on their periods - and if this is a question bout "are we settin a good example to the children that this is ok?" dyou really think most kids are gonna know bout this? i didnt til just now and im sure i aint alone

Lucena
20-04-2004, 03:48 PM
obviously itd be ideal to have married parents(a strong marriage as opposed to the married couple where the father doesnt come home each night n beat his wife and kids) as it seems to be that the kid(lets say a guy) tends to have the better relationship with his mother in early yrs, up to pre-teen, then once theyre in their teens onwards they get the better relationship with the dad, dont ask me why, probably cause lil guys are more feminent when theyre young and turn right when they get older - but in any case, i dont think it matters too much if a kid only got one parent(if it was a girl then itd probably be best for the single parent to be a woman and if guy then guy parent)
so bsides that i dont think it matters whether a kids gotta mum n dad it aint gonna matter shit if youve only got a dad, and he also just happens to be filthy rich and famous, youd have plenty of money, so a fine environment, patty rafter would have a steady stream of gfs comin in n out(so ya might be able to pick up a few tips on womanizing at an early age) and it aint like hes gonna stay unmarried forever
who cares whether rafter isnt married? im sure the kid wont be complainin
and as for ideas that rafter shouldnt have gotten the australian of the year award for bein an unmarried father? <bzzzzt!>, it doesnt make my opinion of rafter go down at all, im sure the only ppl bitchin bout this would be a buncha fat ugly skanks on their periods - and if this is a question bout "are we settin a good example to the children that this is ok?" dyou really think most kids are gonna know bout this? i didnt til just now and im sure i aint alone

why does it say last edited by barry cox-was something censored?

Kevin Bonham
20-04-2004, 03:54 PM
why does it say last edited by barry cox-was something censored?

I'd suggest a bit o' swearing got changed to <bzzzzzzt>.

arosar
20-04-2004, 04:11 PM
FMD. Why was my post deleted? No swearing at all. No slander. I can see no reason why my calling for the desexing of irresponsible parents was deleted. This is twice now that savage imagry has been cut. It stinks. This censorship is weak as piss. :evil:

I sympathise with Matty's frustration here. I think Bazza should take a coupla bottles of the chill pill.

AR

ursogr8
20-04-2004, 04:21 PM
I sympathise with Matty's frustration here. I think Bazza should take a coupla bottles of the chill pill.

AR

AR
Based on BroadZ broad-sides from WA and Bazza'a considered exemplary appoach over a long time, my vote would be on Bazza's judgement. Apart from Bazza's italian flocking he has not put a foot wrong.
starter

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 05:04 PM
AR
Based on BroadZ broad-sides from WA and Bazza'a considered exemplary appoach over a long time, my vote would be on Bazza's judgement. Apart from Bazza's italian flocking he has not put a foot wrong.
starter


BroadZ broad-sides? whadya mean by that?

ursogr8
20-04-2004, 05:12 PM
BroadZ broad-sides? whadya mean by that?

I was thinking of the quote attributed to you 1am 19 January 2004; for starters.

PHAT
20-04-2004, 05:43 PM
How come "...buncha fat ugly skanks on their periods..." - BroadZ, doesn't get cencored. It is moderately rough. What I said was no worse. In fact it was not as sexist as this quote.

Starter, unless you know what was censored, you cannot give unqualified support to my earstwhile club mate, BC.

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 05:44 PM
cant say it wasnt true tho yeh matty?

PHAT
20-04-2004, 05:52 PM
cant say it wasnt true tho yeh matty?

nah. But nor was what I said untrue. Desexing irresponsible parents is the go. All I said was that deserting fathers should have their playground ...... and that crap mothers should get similar treatment by ....

But hey, some fogies don't like the truth.

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 06:04 PM
nah. But nor was what I said untrue. Desexing irresponsible parents is the go. All I said was that deserting fathers should have their playground ...... and that crap mothers should get similar treatment by ....

But hey, some fogies don't like the truth.


did some of that get censored matty? seems kinda confusin, so we should desex irresponsible parents but they should have their playground?

PHAT
20-04-2004, 07:22 PM
did some of that get censored matty? seems kinda confusin, so we should desex irresponsible parents but they should have their playground? ...have their playground cut off

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:31 PM
AR
Based on BroadZ broad-sides from WA and Bazza'a considered exemplary appoach over a long time, my vote would be on Bazza's judgement. Apart from Bazza's italian flocking he has not put a foot wrong.
starter

Barry has been simply superb :clap: :clap:

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 10:37 PM
...have their playground cut off

right.....why was that censored?

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 10:41 PM
AR
Based on BroadZ broad-sides from WA and Bazza'a considered exemplary appoach over a long time, my vote would be on Bazza's judgement. Apart from Bazza's italian flocking he has not put a foot wrong.
starter



Barry has been simply superb :clap: :clap:


would someone please tell me what your all talkin bout?

PHAT
20-04-2004, 10:47 PM
right.....why was that censored?

Beacuse I siad that the removal of the said "cluster" should be performed with a "rusty baked bean tin lid."

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:50 PM
Beacuse I siad that the removal of the said "cluster" should be performed with a "rusty baked bean tin lid."

who needs "american psycho" when we have our very own "chess psycho" :p

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 10:52 PM
nah. But nor was what I said untrue. Desexing irresponsible parents is the go. All I said was that deserting fathers should have their playground ...... and that crap mothers should get similar treatment by ....

But hey, some fogies don't like the truth.


i wonder if its possible to stop a guy knockin someone up but theyd still be able to have sex and for it to be as good

PHAT
20-04-2004, 11:00 PM
i wonder if its possible to stop a guy knockin someone up but theyd still be able to have sex and for it to be as good

No, if the meat and two potatos are gone, the best they can hope for would be a reaming.

I think maybe my solution for the bad mothers might have lead to the deletion. ;)

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 11:12 PM
No, if the meat and two potatos are gone, the best they can hope for would be a reaming.

I think maybe my solution for the bad mothers might have lead to the deletion. ;)

what dyou mean by bad mothers? if you mean single mothers then single mothers are almost always single when they dont want to - why should they get punished for that?
and bad(assuming you mean single) fathers get hit with child support if theyve left the mother

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:32 PM
what dyou mean by bad mothers? if you mean single mothers then single mothers are almost always single when they dont want to - why should they get punished for that?


yes matt. stop generalising it

there are wonderful and innpocent mothers who are single becuase the man left them wirth the child. why is that the mothers fault? :mad:

Rincewind
20-04-2004, 11:32 PM
Sorry I was a little busy this afternoon/evening.

To set the record straight, I didn't delete Matty's original post. That was paulb. I edited Bill's quoting of it and censored some swearing in one of BroadZ's post.

Matt's original quote was full of colourful imagary and derogatory terms in a blend which Matt excels at reproducing with great alacrity. I don't know if I would have deleted out of hand or whether I would have reported it or wait for someone else to report it. However, I have no objection to its removal.

PHAT
20-04-2004, 11:32 PM
what dyou mean by bad mothers? if you mean single mothers then single mothers are almost always single when they dont want to - why should they get punished for that?


Ahh, grasshopper. :cool: You see what is not there and strike out at shadows.

Single mothers by deliberate design = bad
Single mothers by misfortune = sad

Bad mothers should be given a radical historectomy and circumcission and be sewn up.

Sad mothers deserve our sympathy and support.

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:36 PM
how long before this email from Matt gets deleted too :hmm:

and what is wrong wirh a woman deciding to have a child without a man????? it is her choice, and if she can suport the baby that is fine

Rincewind
20-04-2004, 11:39 PM
how long before this email from Matt gets deleted too :hmm:

and what is wrong wirh a woman deciding to have a child without a man????? it is her choice, and if she can suport the baby that is fine

You can't delete posts because you disagree with the opinion expressed. Provided it is expressed in an acceptable way. I think by the norms of this BB Matt's most recent post is not close to crossing the line.

PHAT
20-04-2004, 11:43 PM
how long before this email from Matt gets deleted too :hmm:

and what is wrong wirh a woman deciding to have a child without a man????? it is her choice, and if she can suport the baby that is fine

No, it ain't "fine", it is a deliberate act that puts the child(ren) into an "at risk" catagory. Single parent families do it very very tough. And their average outcomes are poor.

chesslover
20-04-2004, 11:51 PM
No, it ain't "fine", it is a deliberate act that puts the child(ren) into an "at risk" catagory. Single parent families do it very very tough. And their average outcomes are poor.

so you are denying the woman's right to have a child without a man. If she can support the baby that is her choice and must be respected

your insistence that a child be brought up only with the confines of a relationship is just silly. Do the parents have to be married or is defacto ok???? and what about if they started off in a relationship and the man left - is that the poor woman's fault

stop trying to generalise and cast single female parents in a bad light :mad:

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 11:56 PM
Ahh, grasshopper. :cool: You see what is not there and strike out at shadows.

Single mothers by deliberate design = bad
Single mothers by misfortune = sad

Bad mothers should be given a radical historectomy and circumcission and be sewn up.

Sad mothers deserve our sympathy and support.



i dont think ive ever heard of a case where the mother is single delibrately and is not lookin for someone to be with - if the mother is single delibrately then isnt it the norm where the husband/father was a regular dickhead and she told him to [leave]?
can ya give me an example of what would constitute a 'bad' mother and bein a lil more specific than being single by deliberate design?

PHAT
21-04-2004, 12:34 AM
i dont think ive ever heard of a case where the mother is single delibrately and is not lookin for someone to be with


You are young and mixing with your cohorts are not yet of the age where such nonsence starts to occur.


can ya give me an example of what would constitute a 'bad' mother and bein a lil more specific than being single by deliberate design?

I know several femmes who have deliberately embarked on a campaign of one-night-stands to conceive. They had/have no intention of being "coupled" with a man. Dispicable course of actions. It is not good to inflict a childhood that has a missing parent and only half of a family tree.

PHAT
21-04-2004, 12:39 AM
so you are denying the woman's right to have a child without a man.

Yep


your insistence that a child be brought up only with the confines of a relationship is just silly.

Nope, it is applying a minimum standard.


stop trying to generalise and cast single female parents in a bad light :mad:

I have not generalised to "single mothers", I have specifically indicated a particularly vile sub section.

BroadZ
21-04-2004, 01:05 AM
You are young and mixing with your cohorts are not yet of the age where such nonsence starts to occur.



I know several femmes who have deliberately embarked on a campaign of one-night-stands to conceive. They had/have no intention of being "coupled" with a man. Dispicable course of actions. It is not good to inflict a childhood that has a missing parent and only half of a family tree.

in cases like those id agree with you matty - thats just <wrong>

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 01:57 AM
I know several femmes who have deliberately embarked on a campaign of one-night-stands to conceive. They had/have no intention of being "coupled" with a man. Dispicable course of actions. It is not good to inflict a childhood that has a missing parent and only half of a family tree.

Can't say I'm too big a fan of this process either. But I can think of worse. For instance married couples who have children not out of love for the future children, nor out of love for each other, but so that they will have someone to support them when they get older. If anything should be illegal that would be my nomination, except that it's virtually impossible to police.

As for the deliberate single parenthood case I don't think it should be illegal but I would be happy to see it, at least, not encouraged.

I doubt it occurs anywhere near as often as John Laws et al would like us to believe.

Lucena
21-04-2004, 01:21 PM
Beacuse I siad that the removal of the said "cluster" should be performed with a "rusty baked bean tin lid." :eek: :eek: :hand:

PHAT
21-04-2004, 05:13 PM
But I can think of worse. For instance married couples who have children ... so that they will have someone to support them when they get older.


In 80% of the world that is a necessity. There is no pension.

But of course, you won't need children either - we have them for you, bludger.



As for the deliberate single parenthood case I don't think it should be illegal but I would be happy to see it, at least, not encouraged.


It shold be illegal, even if it cannot be policed. Reason: it sends a message that it is not socially acceptable.



I doubt it occurs anywhere near as often as John Laws et al would like us to believe.

John Laws = Total Bastard. A self serving megalomaniac with no wisdom for his years. Hello world - you would be better off if he dropped dead tonight.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 05:35 PM
In 80% of the world that is a necessity. There is no pension.

On your previous figures children are a massively bad investment. So someone who was intending to have children primarily for this purpose would be better off going CBC, saving themselves a lot of dough, investing it wisely (or even remotely so) and retiring on their own money.


But of course, you won't need children either - we have them for you, bludger.

Again you contradict yourself, if CBCs are as rolling in it as you say then why will we need to bludge off your pension? :rolleyes:


It shold be illegal, even if it cannot be policed. Reason: it sends a message that it is not socially acceptable.

You don't give any evidence that laws of that kind work, so why don't I just flatly assert that they don't, and may even be counterproductive?

The "educate society" defence was used by moral ultra-conservatives to argue for keeping gay sex illegal in Tasmania up until 1997 although there had been no prosecution for over 15 years. Rather than sending a message that gay sex is socially unacceptable the message that the Tasmanian citizens took from that was that homophobic bigotry disguised as a "health issue" is unacceptable. Indeed the law ended up "educating" the state into the most progressive GLBTI laws in the country.


John Laws = Total Bastard. A self serving megalomaniac with no wisdom for his years. Hello world - you would be better off if he dropped dead tonight.

It is my pleasure to concur in this assessment. :lol:

Rincewind
21-04-2004, 05:53 PM
But of course, you won't need children either - we have them for you, bludger.

By the time Kevin retires ther pension will be very little if anything at all. The baby boomers funded the easy retirement of the previous generation. Unfortunately those figures no longer stack-up. The grey army has grown too large.

PHAT
21-04-2004, 06:48 PM
On your previous figures children are a massively bad investment. So someone who was intending to have children primarily for this purpose would be better off going CBC, saving themselves a lot of dough, investing it wisely (or even remotely so) and retiring on their own money.


Your "wise" investment cannot be posible without a work force to produce your profits for you. That work force will be my kids, you bludger.



Again you contradict yourself, if CBCs are as rolling in it as you say then why will we need to bludge off your pension? :rolleyes:


No, CBCs [childless by choice] are not rolling in it. They spend most of their money selfishly on goods and services for themselves. There is relatively little going toward producing the next producers, you bludger.



The "educate society" defence was used by moral ultra-conservatives to argue for keeping gay sex illegal in Tasmania up until 1997 although there had been no prosecution for over 15 years.


Just because the "educate society defence" was used unsuccessfully for a dubious purpose, it does not mean that it will not ever work in some better cause. Eg. drink driving laws. Only 1 in a few thousand infringements are ever identified and prosecuted. However, the message got through and lives were and continue to be saved.

Garvinator
21-04-2004, 07:09 PM
Reason: it sends a message that it is not socially acceptable.

laws and rules dont work unless they are enforced and there are consequences.

chesslover
21-04-2004, 07:20 PM
It is my pleasure to concur in this assessment. :lol:

I listen to Laws but like Jones better. I like the way he articulates and his passion which is more geniuine than Laws. A paper had Jones as one of the most powerful men here, and he even forced Bob Carr to fire the police commisioner Ryan as a result of his attacks on Ryan

Do you get Jones in Tassie land

chesslover
21-04-2004, 07:25 PM
By the time Kevin retires ther pension will be very little if anything at all. The baby boomers funded the easy retirement of the previous generation. Unfortunately those figures no longer stack-up. The grey army has grown too large.

they had artciles a couple of months ago in Daily Tele. They estimated the cost of brining up a child till 18. I think it was a huge amount - almsot $1million but not sure

And at the end there is no gurantee thaat the child will look after you when you are old.

better off investing the money in a diversified managed fund and then you can look after yourself when you are old

this is if you are only having a child so they look after you when you are old

arosar
21-04-2004, 07:27 PM
What about Zamanek? Any1 here listen to that fella? I used to listen to him when I was in high-school man...what a riot!

AR

PHAT
21-04-2004, 07:30 PM
laws and rules dont work unless they are enforced and there are consequences.

A law against sperm hunting has legs. There are laws against; conspiring to bombing XYZ, distilling spirits, selling babies, and people are caught and fined/gaoled. These laws are notoriously difficult to police, yet they stay on the books and our society, buy and large have taken notice.

Sperm hunting is a despicable social crime and it ought to be on the statue books - just like pedaphilia.

chesslover
21-04-2004, 08:18 PM
you talk about women hunting men to have sex and have kids

why cant a woman just go to the sperm doner clinic and have a child that way. much safer

provided that she can support the child I have no probs. I think that law also allows it

what right do you then have to dictate and infringe on the personal choice of women

Are you pro abortion or anti abortion matt? where do you stand on the woman's right to choose????

PHAT
21-04-2004, 08:54 PM
1 you talk about women hunting men to have sex and have kids, why cant a woman just go to the sperm doner clinic and have a child that way. much safer

2 what right do you then have to dictate and infringe on the personal choice of women

5 Are you pro abortion or anti abortion matt? where do you stand on the woman's right to choose????

1. because the guidelines for dispensing sperm do not, I believe, allow single women to access the service

2. I have no right , but society does.

3. Abortion is not an issue in my mind. Although a foutus is human is is not a human.

Rincewind
21-04-2004, 09:03 PM
I can't see what Matt is getting so hot under the collar about. I can't see too much of a child welfare problem with sperm hunter (which is a bit of a misnomer as most women in nightclubs need to practice sperm-dodging, not hunting).

Anyway, the issue I think is the infringed rights of the unwitting fathers. Provided the kids are to be cared for by the mother there is no issue with child welfare. Doesn't matter how many dodgy stats you produce, women are allowed to have kids.

If the father knows the score then OK, if not, then yes it is wrong.

Garvinator
21-04-2004, 09:16 PM
I can't see what Matt is getting so hot under the collar about. I can't see too much of a child welfare problem with sperm hunter (which is a bit of a misnomer as most women in nightclubs need to practice sperm-dodging, not hunting).

Anyway, the issue I think is the infringed rights of the unwitting fathers. Provided the kids are to be cared for by the mother there is no issue with child welfare. Doesn't matter how many dodgy stats you produce, women are allowed to have kids.

If the father knows the score then OK, if not, then yes it is wrong.

but also when men have sex without use of condoms, they have to accept the responsibilities for where and when they ejaculate.

Rincewind
21-04-2004, 09:43 PM
but also when men have sex without use of condoms, they have to accept the responsibilities for where and when they ejaculate.

They could be told that the woman has taken care of contraception. They are still taking a huge risk, especially if the sex is casual but it can happen.

They could be using a condom that has been tampered with.

If you are saying that men should always and only use condoms they supply themselves and know have not been tampered with then I think that is beyond the currently accepted norms.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 11:18 PM
Your "wise" investment cannot be posible without a work force to produce your profits for you. That work force will be my kids, you bludger.

Consensual trade is not bludging.


No, CBCs [childless by choice] are not rolling in it. They spend most of their money selfishly on goods and services for themselves.

Not necessarily. I know CBCs who have more money than they know what to do with on very average incomes, wisely managed. If I ever start earning any decent amount consistently I will surely be among them. Everything I get over about $20K gets stashed.


Just because the "educate society defence" was used unsuccessfully for a dubious purpose, it does not mean that it will not ever work in some better cause. Eg. drink driving laws. Only 1 in a few thousand infringements are ever identified and prosecuted. However, the message got through and lives were and continue to be saved.

But that is down to the strength of the deterrent, even if the risk is small. There is no way that is comparable to unenforceable paper laws. It's true that a law doesn't have to be very enforceable to scare most people into compliance.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 11:24 PM
I listen to Laws but like Jones better.

Disclosure: You are a Telstra shareholder. :p


Do you get Jones in Tassie land

Not sure if parrots fly that far south or not. Don't think so.

Garvinator
22-04-2004, 12:24 AM
It's true that a law doesn't have to be very enforceable to scare most people into compliance.

i think this is a reply to matt more than you kevin, but the quote came from you. As usual it is the small minority who make life difficult and/or more unpleasant for the majority.

Garvinator
22-04-2004, 12:25 AM
I listen to Laws but like Jones better. I like the way he articulates and his passion which is more geniuine than Laws. A paper had Jones as one of the most powerful men here, and he even forced Bob Carr to fire the police commisioner Ryan as a result of his attacks on Ryan


I always wonder when i hear shock jocks on the radio, who is paying their salaries and who do they have contracts with.

Rincewind
22-04-2004, 10:44 AM
Not sure if parrots fly that far south or not. Don't think so.

What about the Swift Parrot, the Green Rosella (does that qualify as an oxymoron) and the Orange-bellied Parrot? They're all found in Tasmania more than anywhere else. ;)

In fact, the Green Rosella is particularly a stay at home type and not seen much on the mainland if at all.

Also several of the cockatoos and Rainbow Lorikeets grace your shores. ;)

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2004, 02:34 PM
What about the Swift Parrot, the Green Rosella (does that qualify as an oxymoron) and the Orange-bellied Parrot? They're all found in Tasmania more than anywhere else. ;)

As is the Ground Parrot. Only young green rosellas are green anyway, the mature adults are closer to yellow.


Also several of the cockatoos and Rainbow Lorikeets grace your shores. ;)

Rainbow Lorikeets are only vagrants here, extremely rare at present. Apart from yellow-tailed blacks and sulphur-crests, all the remaining cockatoos in Tasmania are either extinct from the state, vagrants/aviary escapes or introduced from the mainland.

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2004, 02:49 PM
I always wonder when i hear shock jocks on the radio, who is paying their salaries and who do they have contracts with.

Shows like "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" are good ones to spot things like that on. So many items passed off as news that are actually and obviously ads.

Rincewind
22-04-2004, 09:51 PM
Shows like "Today Tonight" and "A Current Affair" are good ones to spot things like that on. So many items passed off as news that are actually and obviously ads.

The critical viewer will also spot the occasional plug in the mainstream news. :(

PHAT
22-04-2004, 10:50 PM
but also when men have sex without use of condoms, they have to accept the responsibilities for where and when they ejaculate.

Exactly right. If you want to sew wild oats, don't complain whem they start sprouting.

PHAT
22-04-2004, 10:53 PM
They could be using a condom that has been tampered with.

Forget it. Frangers are like wearing a raincoat in the shower. Besides, pH2 and digestive enzymes are the best spermicide.

PHAT
22-04-2004, 11:00 PM
Consensual trade is not bludging.


With proper guidence, the next gerneration will not be doing any trade with your subset of our generation. Starve scumbag and die alone in a big cold house in a urine soked bed.

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2004, 12:29 AM
With proper guidence, the next gerneration will not be doing any trade with your subset of our generation.

Even with my limited faith in human nature, I doubt that any generation would be so stupid as to listen to your irate and extremist "guidance", which is even more self-serving than you portray me to be.


Starve scumbag and die alone in a big cold house in a urine soked bed.

Why thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day. :D

Rincewind
23-04-2004, 01:11 AM
Why thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day. :D

Have you started studying Law? ;)

PHAT
23-04-2004, 06:38 AM
... I doubt that any generation would be so stupid as to listen to your irate and extremist "guidance", which is even more self-serving than you portray me to be.
First, even I don't listen to my irate and extremist guidance. Secondly, nothing is more self-serving than CBC - it dosen't even give ones own genes a go. :eek:


Why thank you, that's the nicest thing anybody's said to me all day. :D

I don't doubt it :lol:

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2004, 07:42 PM
Secondly, nothing is more self-serving than CBC - it dosen't even give ones own genes a go. :eek:

Many people's reasons for wanting to perpetuate their own genes are inherently selfish or at least self-indulgent anyway, so ... :hand:

In any case, there are other ways to support the continuation of some of one's own genes than parenthood. Not that I necessarily do any of these - just pointing out a limitation of your argument.