Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Phoney politics
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
I would add here that many people who find teenagers attractive are often superb role models and friends (and not necessarily lovers). And provide a terrific base for their adult years with advice, friendship and wisdom. |
|
Wyot |
Yes there is a mass of evidence that children growing up without a male role model is problematic for society.
This is not the same, of course, as saying that a single mum can't do a great job, or attacking anyone. But this sort of distinction is lost on many.
There is evidence that boys learn the boundaries of aggression and violence through a positive male role model, and girls are more likely to have positive personal relationships, and not end up - or put up - with remaining in abusive ones.
Whatever one's politics a social Conservative should make much of this reality and follow-up with policies accordingly; but few of them dare. |
|
Green Man |
Wyot wrote:
Starmer gave a speech yesterday saying that increasing production is now as important to him as redistribution.
So, not very important at all then?
How long has it been since a "labour" has shown interest in redistribution? (Prob on a tiny way Brown's clumsy tax credit system...)
Meanwhile a "conservative" party on social issues focuses on espousing trans rights; and never mentions the benefits of stable two parent families to society- which impacts millions.
Why is neither party what it pretends to be anymore?
The nuclear family is very important. When you school shooters or people on crime sprees most are from single parent families. On USA msm when an offspring commits a violent crime its nearly always their mother talking to the cameras. Even then the mums are indenial that their child is bad.
Even the Eric and Dylan who did the Columbine school massacre were from dysfunctional families. I read Sue Klebolds' book about and she the blames Eric Harris. |
|
Wyot |
Starmer gave a speech yesterday saying that increasing production is now as important to him as redistribution.
So, not very important at all then?
How long has it been since a "labour" has shown interest in redistribution? (Prob on a tiny way Brown's clumsy tax credit system...)
Meanwhile a "conservative" party on social issues focuses on espousing trans rights; and never mentions the benefits of stable two parent families to society- which impacts millions.
Why is neither party what it pretends to be anymore? |
|
|
|
