Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Baby Boom? You mean the one that occurred as a major world crisis came to an end? As millions of men-at-arms returned to their homes following years in combat?

...and then went back to war across the world as the Commonwealth tore itself apart.

Was this an existential threat to Great Britain itself? I think we're operating on different senses of "regression". From my perspective, GB was in a recovery phase.

The wealth of Britain and its political influence have been in terminal decline since the start of WWII when the BEF was forced to abandon France.

This is my point, you think we're doing well here, but from a historical perspective we've fallen apart and essentially become a protectorate of the US - to the extent that our military has been entirely re-structured to support the US war machine and US political goals. The only upside is that being the US' bitch is much better than being China's bitch.

[Montmorency]

...and then went back to war across the world as the Commonwealth tore itself apart.

One war's as good as the next?

The wealth of Britain and its political influence have been in terminal decline since the start of WWII when the BEF was forced to abandon France.

This is my point, you think we're doing well here

!

You're incorrigible!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One war's as good as the next?

It wasn't just war, but economic collapse. The Commonwealth fell apart and British economy has never recovered - heavy industry, ship building... toast.

!

You're incorrigible!

You find my analysis unpalatable? Consider the relative economic output of the various areas of the UK now and 50 years ago - not just in terms of GDP but in terms of balance and overall levels of employment.

[Montmorency]

You find my analysis unpalatable?

Flawed in principle.

Without getting into the details of your economic theories yet again:

It'll happen when our society enters a period of regress.

What do you mean by "our society", then? Anyway, you believe that Britain will in the near future implement cash incentives to couples willing to produce offspring? Britain's population growth is still quite healthy...

Edit: And don't say that they already do through tax breaks, childcare allowments, and the like - everyone does that.

Could you imagine that there are many facets to growth and decline?

Russia and Japan's fertility rate issues, for instance, are in large part due to economic growth increasing the cost of living and education changing the attitudes of women towards marriage and child-rearing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Flawed in principle.

Without getting into the details of your economic theories yet again:

Because you don't accept that you get richer by making other people poorer?

OK - but how is ruling 1/4 of the globe down to virtually just these islands, having a virtual monopoly on certain minerals and cash crops down to being a net importer from other powers not an economic collapse?

What do you mean by "our society", then? Anyway, you believe that Britain will in the near future implement cash incentives to couples willing to produce offspring? Britain's population growth is still quite healthy...

This thing we have - "Western Civilisation" has a shelf life just like everything else, we just don't know what that shelf life is. I don't really think we'll enter an actual systemic collapse within my own lifetime, or not before I'm old an infirm certainly, but I can certainly imagine another global war in the next two to four decades.

Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.

Edit: And don't say that they already do through tax breaks, childcare allowments, and the like - everyone does that.

Prior to this current government the tax system was, it has been argued, skewed against married couples and towards single parents.

Could you imagine that there are many facets to growth and decline?

In terms of education, military strength, health, and economics we're not making positive growth over the long-term.

Russia and Japan's fertility rate issues, for instance, are in large part due to economic growth increasing the cost of living and education changing the attitudes of women towards marriage and child-rearing.

They're also symptomatic of an acknowledged cultural malaise that makes people not want to procreate.

[Beskar]

Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.

I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

[Montmorency]

OK - but how is ruling 1/4 of the globe down to virtually just these islands, having a virtual monopoly on certain minerals and cash crops down to being a net importer from other powers not an economic collapse?

Is it really an ongoing collapse in perpetuity?

Britain's population growth is negative without immigration - it is not healthy.

According to your ONS, the birth rate is rising - though admittedly that is partly a consequence of immigration, most of the risebeing attributable to immigrant mothers.

In terms of education, military strength, health, and economics we're not making positive growth over the long-term.

Economically, you're richer - period. Technologically, clearly stronger. Health? So good in some aspects that problems in others have been engendered. Militarily, you're still relatively powerful - isn't relative power what you're always on about?

They're also symptomatic of an acknowledged cultural malaise that makes people not want to procreate.

In Japan? I don't know...

[Greyblades]

Economically, you're richer - period. Technologically, clearly stronger. Health? So good in some aspects that problems in others have been engendered. Militarily, you're still relatively powerful - isn't relative power what you're always on about?

Technology and health: true, but diminished when even the utterly insignificant luxemburg can claim the same since the 1930's.
Economic and military: uh-uh, the days of being able to match the 2 other top navies combined and having europe worrying, about british goods being cheaper and more pleantiful than anything they can do, are long over. Relatively, we've gone from superpower to playing america's occasionally favoured pet and being continually undermined by the EU.

Being a British nationalist has double dose fluroxetine and access to a suicide hotline as a requirement.

In Japan? I don't know...

Dude they're not even allowed uncensored porn over there, of course they're miserable.

[spankythehippo]

Currently in Japan, the government is pushing people to make babies, with incentive bonuses and the like. Considering the aging population and the sexlessness of the younger generation, this poses a very serious problem.

Well, that's what I heard from family a while ago. I haven't followed up on it. I revoked my citizenship, so I don't particularly care (although I probably should *sigh*).

[Ironside]

They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.

Eh not really. The development would be to further the preferential treatment linked to the child itself. Married couples that get children are getting too few and restricting the benefits only to marriage would be counter productive.

[rory_20_uk]

The Empire may have helped the colonies to a degree, but the main purpose was to help the UK. We, as far as possible for as long as possible, kept all the good bits at home. Heavy industry and ship building fell apart when other countries started doing the higher value activities - and of course we were responding to the threat by increasing the labour costs which helped ensure a decline became a collapse.

The Commonwealth has declined, but not terminally. Would it be able to cause a new Pax Britannia? Of course not. Could it serve a function? Probably - a loose grouping of countries who would speak with one voice on some issues (of course not all). Probably 95% soft power, but that is just a reality.

The need for productive units is of course there, but increasingly manufacturing jobs are undertaken by robots. Where we might have had a few thousand employees in car plants we now have a handful.

The decline occurs when upkeep of what you've got overwhelms the system: focusing on benefits for all, extending the length (not quality) of life and placing worker safety over productivity.

When Brunel built his "groundbreaking" tunnel near Bristol a few hundred workers died. Worse odds than the trenches of WW1. Now one workerr chips a nail and everything stops. If others don't work to these rules you've got a problem. Overheads are going up just as doing productive things are going down.

We are not quite a protectorate of the USA merely as we can't rely on their helps unless it benefits them. Our forces are designed to fit in with theirs. It is also designed to fit in with all those of NATO and probably others. Just because it fits with America does not make it bad. I personally think we should redesign our Armed forces to be like their Marines in a relatively small force but unified and set up to be good on the sea and transiently hold coastal areas and give up on the pretensions of big land units.

Where the population growth comes from is not an issue. How those persons view themselves is. If they grow up viewing themselves as English / British all well and good. We have a problem if the majority hold increased fealty to ancestral homelands. From the persons I have interacted with, Eastern Europeans often become "English" in a generation with a few residual customs. This is far less often the case from elsewhere.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh not really. The development would be to further the preferential treatment linked to the child itself. Married couples that get children are getting too few and restricting the benefits only to marriage would be counter productive.

Marriage is about creating stable family units - not just making babies. That's the purpose of the institution at a sociological level.

[Sir Moody]

yes but Ironsides post was referring to you saying

They'll create an inducement to procreation - so heterosexual couples who stay together will get preferential treatment.

He is right - if they want to promote "baby making" they aren't going to promote marriage - they will offer incentives to new parents via the children since it would cover Married, Unmarried, Single and Adoptive parents - if you need a population boom, restricting the incentive to one segment of society is counter productive

not a problem we are likely to see for a while - we are already overpopulated as is...

[Catiline]

I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

Britain probably could feed itself - currently we import about 40% of the food consumed and export about 10% of that total. So we're producing a net 70% of current consumption. But, of course, food consumed doesn't equate to food needed, as a quick look at the fatties on the high street demonstrates. In extremis it could be done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I disagree, Britain isles are supporting a population far beyond its means, like a Rome except with 21st century grain ships coming from EU and the USA. A population reduction and emigration would be a good thing. Canada and Australia are two nice alternatives I would consider.

Yes - but we used to import from what were either client states or Imperial territories - now we import from what are, at best, semi-friendly states.

[Ronin]

Catholic Hospital: ohhh you're gonna sue us? well fetuses aren´t people then.

the moral steadfastness of this bunch is amazing.

[Goofball]

Nonsense. Evil must be stopped not with violence, but with greater goodness. Homosexuals are welcomed in church, as are tax cheats, adulterers, sex offenders, theives, mass murderers, violent video game players, bullies, illegal file sharers, torturers, gossips corporate embezzlers, abortionists, gamblers, users of pornography, alchoholics, terrorists. Those people are not defined by their sins unless they allow themselves to be. Their vices are what make them need a better relationship with God and are not celebrated - but those labels are not who they are just because they are driven to do those things. We don't kill these people (myself included, thankfully), we invite them into a more peaceful and understanding relationship with God and the world around them. There are a number of Gay people at Mass with us on Sundays. When my wife and I were living together before we got married we felt equally ashamed. Feeling shame isn't a bad thing, even when it is a result of something that you are driven to do.

My view of government is, of course, different from my spiritual views. I believe that someone can damn themselves for their sins spiritually. It doesn't make them innefective employees or bad neighbors.

Sorry hope I am misunderstnding you. For a minute there it seemed as if you were implying that homosexual was not only evil, but criminal, by likening homosexuals to mass murderers, sex offenders, and thieves.

Are you saying that being born with a certain sexual preference puts a person in that category?

[Ronin]

I guess the pope reads this forum.

Pope announces resignation.

when asked what he plans to do next Ratzinger simply said:
'I´m going to Disneyland'

[Greyblades]

"After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to an advanced age are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,"

Indeed, I hear that the guilt of the church is a heavy burden for an old man to bear.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sorry hope I am misunderstnding you. For a minute there it seemed as if you were implying that homosexual was not only evil, but criminal, by likening homosexuals to mass murderers, sex offenders, and thieves.

Are you saying that being born with a certain sexual preference puts a person in that category?

Homosexuality is very similar to alcoholism and other self destructive sins. It is your right to be an alcoholic and many people are predisposed to it. It is self destructive and a negative force in society. Not a crime, I don't believe in many crimes, but it is an affront to God as I understand it. I think that not having children is a sin. I don't particularly want them myself and it isn't a crime, but it is most certainly socially and morally wrong by my religious standards.

In a way, yes. I view anything pushes people further from God as a sin. I view sin on a static landscape. In a way, all sins are the same. We have different punishments for different crimes based on their severity, but thew wrongness of sins is on a flat line. You can be forgiven as easily for lying as you can for murder, but the temporal or criminal penance is markedly different.

I do not think that personal failures should result in criminal prosecution unless they cause serious harm to someone else.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess the pope reads this forum.

Pope announces resignation.

when asked what he plans to do next Ratzinger simply said:
'I´m going to Disneyland'

Old age accompanied with poor health isn't fun, I hope he's alright.

[Montmorency]

I do not think that personal failures should result in criminal prosecution unless they cause serious harm to someone else.

Sin is sin. Some transgression begs not the cloth, but the knife.

[Greyblades]

...Homosexuality is not self-destructive, the only destruction comes from the intolerance from others and those convinced by religion that what they are is evil.

[Beskar]

Homosexuality is very similar to alcoholism and other self destructive sins. It is your right to be an alcoholic and many people are predisposed to it. It is self destructive and a negative force in society.

Wow... you clearly haven't got the foggiest clue what you are on about.

1) Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism.
2) Homosexuality is not self-destructive.
3) It isn't a negative force in society.

You want to know what a negative force in society? Bigotry. What bigoted people do is go around telling people they are scum. They victimize, punish and discriminate people for things which don't even affect them. They cannot stand the thought of people being happy for who they are, whether is it the colour of their skin, their sex, their sexual preference. They are people who snoop around in other peoples bedrooms, getting an authoritarian hard-on over imposing their ill-conceived beliefs on others to try to make themselves feel better, a self-congratulatory slap-on-the-back.

Homosexuality is not self-destructive in anyway, such as being Black/White/Inbetween is not self-destructive, or being a Woman is not self-destructive. People who think so should actually have a hard think and come up with a credible reason why homosexuality is bad outside of a book from the bronze age.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow... you clearly haven't got the foggiest clue what you are on about.

1) Homosexuality is nothing like alcoholism.
2) Homosexuality is not self-destructive.
3) It isn't a negative force in society.

You want to know what a negative force in society? Bigotry. What bigoted people do is go around telling people they are scum. They victimize, punish and discriminate people for things which don't even affect them. They cannot stand the thought of people being happy for who they are, whether is it the colour of their skin, their sex, their sexual preference. They are people who snoop around in other peoples bedrooms, getting an authoritarian hard-on over imposing their ill-conceived beliefs on others to try to make themselves feel better, a self-congratulatory slap-on-the-back.

Homosexuality is not self-destructive in anyway, such as being Black/White/Inbetween is not self-destructive, or being a Woman is not self-destructive. People who think so should actually have a hard think and come up with a credible reason why homosexuality is bad outside of a book from the bronze age.

You are advocating for the Catholic church to give up the bible. I am not a bigot inparticular. Sure, I harbor some level of cultural bigotry but I've never met a human being who didn't. I don't like to make people feel like scum, but I do recognize self harmful social effects of things like alcoholism, use of pornography, prostitution, drug use, uncharitable thoughts, glorification of violence, etc. Sins of the heart and mind which do not directly hurt anyone but the abuser. Do I condemn people who engage in these activities, no but I condemn the actions. Am I above them? No - I myself have been known to do some of these things.

As I type this, my wife and I are in South Beach at a gay hotel called "Lords". I try not to dismiss anyone or make them feel alienated, but that doesn't mean I condone their actions.

[Beskar]

I am not a bigot inparticular.

That's a good thing! Bigotry is very bad and it is very overlooked when people do a list of things bad for society, when it is the number one thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a good thing! Bigotry is very bad and it is very overlooked when people do a list of things bad for society, when it is the number one thing.

Some amount of bigotry is as natural as breathing air. We need to not allow it to cloud our opinions of the individual. With that said, it is not wrong to fight unhealthy ideas with healthy ideas. Again, i believe in gutting our legal code and our government's hold over us and allowing people to exercise their free will to the maximum extent - let the natural consequences dissuade us from bad actions. This does not stop me from determining which actions and thoughts i view as unhealthy for the individual, it would just stop society from binding free will in law.

[Goofball]

Oh, this is just too perfect (sorry, couldn't figure out how to enlarge the pic. Click on it to view. It's worth it):

[Fragony]

Some amount of bigotry is as natural as breathing air. We need to not allow it to cloud our opinions of the individual. With that said, it is not wrong to fight unhealthy ideas with healthy ideas.

Not for you to decide what a healthy idea is and what's not. Gay people are just gay. It's mostly about tax-benefits heterosexual couples get but gay couples don't. If they both work for a living where's the honosty in that, nobody (well almost nobody) is asking for any more recognision. Those that do are wrong imho, but such activism is rare

[Strike For The South]

We've made such a mockery out of what marriage was supposed to be about, it really doesn't matter who gets married at this point.

I say let the gays get married and make it a federal law so we can do it once and be done with. I am growing so tired of this "o woe is me" crap coming from a section of LGBT movement. On the scale of social justice gay marriage represents an absolute 0 and is nothing more than a product of the new notion of marrying for love. The family unit is the bedrock of any stable society and it's breaking under the strain of all the little Kings clamoring that their needs aren't being met.

Putting such a premium on being "happy" is harmful.

I'm not advocating forcing gays into heterosexual relationships, all I am saying is that I get turned off by the way the message is presented. I want gays to live together and grow old together but marriage as a whole is a broken institution and to act as if it would be some great hammer blow for justice is an insult to justice.