Mr Mystery is confused...

+++Redacted+++

Did you read my previous statement?

I was writting edditing it before you post appeared.

Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tzeentch's Dark Agent

Yeah, Denzark, you totally dropped the ball there dude. You should apologise.

In my experience of playing Warhammer it seems to attract a lot of people with mental health issues, so you really shouldn't go around openly slagging them off for not having mental fortitude....

Seriously...

*facepalm*

---

I think not baby puppy.

I notice that no one decided to pick up on the point that ERW writes off Breast/penis enlargement as cosmetic and pointless. Again, I reiterate that to someone who has body issues that lead them to that point, their self disgust and loathing is equal to that so eloquently described by Gotty - their problem is as pressing to them as that of transgender. A girl who has been slagged off for being 'flat' all her life is likely to be in as much mental pain as someone agonising that they happened to be sprogged the wrong sex.

In my experience of life, there are many people whose lack of socialisation compared to societal norms, seek to write it off with a syndrome. Ie 'he's not a naughty little child whose parents should have disciplined him, he's got ADHD! Get out the ritalin' Etc Etc.

I'm not saying this is true in all cases, of course not. But just as I find this to be true, I wonder if TDA's experience of warhammer attracting a lot of people with mental issues - is actually people with socialisation issues. Maybe TDA you are actually writing off your prejudices by just conveniently boxing off lonely smelly geeks as having a mental illness. Who knows? I am not aware in 23 years of playing this game, of an increased amount of mentally ill players versus societal levels of mental illness- although I am aware of persons not within societal norms generally - ie the 'geek' subculture.

Actually I will apologise if it seemed like I was saying all mental illness is actually a lack of mental fortitude - yes it is not a case of MTFU. I encounter mental illness in my work - I have clinically depressed people working for me. I have regular breifings on battlefield stress and PTSD. We no longer hide these things away, we recognise and treat them.

However, It is a medical fact that not all trans persons have the medically recognised Gender Identity Disorder as diagnised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - ie the Bible of Psychiatry syptoms. Even the Trans population do not agree whther it is societal, genetic, or a mental illness. Not all transgender persons are mentally ill.

So therefore I still think the NHS should concentrate on life saving stuff, cancer treatments, heart attack rates improvements, eliminating MRSA.

I also think it rich for Foreigners who don't contribute to the NHS to state that said organ of government should fund one or other treatments in priority to others.

Well, for instance, I personally know about 4 or 5 people with diagnosed Autism that play Warhammer, one of which being my step-brother. So I'd appreciate it if you did not slander off him or his disability.

Ta.

I'm not discussing this further. I'm trying to enjoy a day off here and I have to respond to complaints...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

I notice that no one decided to pick up on the point that ERW writes off Breast/penis enlargement as cosmetic and pointless.

---

*cough*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

Good morning chums! Hope we're all bright eyed and bushy tailed!

Currently lounging in bed, and for some reason, thinking about why Nursery places are so damned expensive. You see, in Britain at the moment it's the height of political fashion to lay the blame for the financial climate at the door of those on benefits, simply (and grossly unfairly for the most part) painting them as work shy layabouts. Not that there's a great deal of non-anecdotal evidence to back those assertions.

Anyway, I happen to know a number of young families where both parents working just doesn't add up. Pour quoi? Childcare costs are astronomic, to the degree that many jobs would literally cover the additional cost and reduction in benefits, rendering the whole idea moot.

Then my brain ticked over, and would like to know that since we can offer free education to all from the age of 5-18 in the UK, why not include 3-5 year olds as well? Kids I know at that age are potty trained, and have a couple of free days of nursery already.

Sure it costs money from the tax payer, but think of the benefit to all involved. Kids would start school better socialised, and used to a formalised learning environment. This is only a good thing. Parents are then freed up to work, and again contrary to the media inflicted opinion, most want to work. Means they earn their money, and the benefit bill reduces a bit.

I know I've grossly oversimplified the matter, but for the above reasons, free nursery for all kids simply makes sense, no?

---

I think what will be more telling is when/if the government brings in a bill to limit the maximum amount of child benefits that are available. Currently, there are two rates a higher one for the first born (which is transferrable to subsequent children upon their 18th birthday) and a lower one for the rest. With the proposed plan this would limit the amount of cash for this, it would also therefore reduce the demand for child care places and therefore reduce the cost per child. Afterall it is oft said that a Morgan is more expensive by the time you pick it up then when you order it as the demand for them is so high.

I refute the claims that "most want to work" as there is no solid evidence to show this. I know of cases where this is the case, and have mentioned them on here previously, similiarly I know of cases where this is not the case and having additional children is the game plan to earn more money.

I think the simple test would be to see which is more expensive to the tax payer. Is it cheaper to keep these people at home looking after their children or is it cheaper to provide them with the opportuinity to work.

There is one thing that I think people forget. Having children is a privalge and not a right. I do not see why those who choose not to have them, or are unable to should be made to pay for those which do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychosplodge

*cough*

---

I already spoke to her about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshade

I think what will be more telling is when/if the government brings in a bill to limit the maximum amount of child benefits that are available. Currently, there are two rates a higher one for the first born (which is transferrable to subsequent children upon their 18th birthday) and a lower one for the rest. With the proposed plan this would limit the amount of cash for this, it would also therefore reduce the demand for child care places and therefore reduce the cost per child. Afterall it is oft said that a Morgan is more expensive by the time you pick it up then when you order it as the demand for them is so high.

---

There should be no additional benefits after the first two. As Wolfie said, people have no RIGHT to children. We are already over populated, having two and no more should provide a slow population decline to a more sensible population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshade

I refute the claims that "most want to work" as there is no solid evidence to show this. I know of cases where this is the case, and have mentioned them on here previously, similiarly I know of cases where this is not the case and having additional children is the game plan to earn more money.

---

I personally know of tow people who do this. The SO has told me many times about a third of the girls she went to school with had this as a life plan.