• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Parenting license

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This writer says: I went to Brussels. I didn't feel like I was in Europe. Because in Bruxelles the spoken language is Arabic.

That has nothing to do with the point of "foreigners making many children because money"
Another instance of you changing the topic when cornered.

Also, mind your own business.
I don't mind Brussels at all. There 103 nationalities there. I love it.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I see no difference at all in the amount of children between rich and poor folks. :shrug:
That's just another one of those things you say and pretend to be true.
Honestly...in Italy I don't see many millennials having children.
they cannot afford them.

The only ones who make them are wealthy millennials and the citizens of foreign background (I know...you will say this is racist to say).
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
That has nothing to do with the point of "foreigners making many children because money"
Another instance of you changing the topic when cornered.

Also, mind your own business.
I don't mind Brussels at all. There 103 nationalities there. I love it.
She says there is only one nationality. The Arab one.

What I meant is that there are certain ethnic groups who are very prolific in Europe.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
She says there is only one nationality. The Arab one.

She is either wrong or lying.
Also, "arab" is not a nationality.

What I meant is that there are certain ethnic groups who are very prolific in Europe.
A more correct way to phrase this might be that there are certain ethnic groups that are more targeted.

The most immigrants coming to Belgium are in fact Europeans.


The majority of migrants in Belgium are European (54%), followed by people from Africa (25.8%), Asia (15.6%), America (4.2%) and Oceania (0.1%). Moreover, the majority of migrants in Belgium come from middle-income countries (50.5%), followed by migrants from high income countries (about 45%) and finally, a very limited portion from low income countries (about 5%).

These are all public figures. It's very easy to look them up.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
A more correct way to phrase this might be that there are certain ethnic groups that are more targeted.

The most immigrants coming to Belgium are in fact Europeans.


The majority of migrants in Belgium are European (54%), followed by people from Africa (25.8%), Asia (15.6%), America (4.2%) and Oceania (0.1%). Moreover, the majority of migrants in Belgium come from middle-income countries (50.5%), followed by migrants from high income countries (about 45%) and finally, a very limited portion from low income countries (about 5%).

These are all public figures. It's very easy to look them up.
Yes, but the difference is that Europeans kinda blend in, in the society...they speak French, and they are totally invisible.
There are groups who do anything to highlight they don't feel like Belgians.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Honestly...in Italy I don't see many millennials having children.
they cannot afford them.


Furthermore, young Italians choose not to marry or marry late because of career considerations and education. This is a more pronounced phenomenon in Italy than in other European countries.

So it's not about money. It's about wanting careers and how becoming a mother is perceived as an obstacle to that.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes, but the difference is that Europeans kinda blend in, in the society...they speak French, and they are totally invisible.

Backtrack more, why don't ya.

No, they don't all speak French. Most in fact don't. These are also people from Poland, Hungary, Roemenia, etc etc etc.
And these people live in Brussels also, among those 103 nationalities.

So to repeat: when that woman says they are all "arabs", she is either wrong or lying. The majority of them ARE NOT.


Also, they are "invisible" only because they are white caucasians. People like you "see" the skin color.
I can guarantee you that if you would compare the group of east europeans with the arabs, then A LOT MORE of the arabs speak french. Almost by default, you can assume they speak french. With the east europeans, it is the other way round. You're lucky if they speak a bit of broken english.

There are groups who do anything to highlight they don't feel like Belgians.
Yeah, the biggest group of all being Belgians themselves, especially those on the extreme right. :tearsofjoy:


Spare me your extreme right populist rethoric which consists of nothing but misinformation at best and pure lies at worst.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member

Furthermore, young Italians choose not to marry or marry late because of career considerations and education. This is a more pronounced phenomenon in Italy than in other European countries.

So it's not about money. It's about wanting careers and how becoming a mother is perceived as an obstacle to that.
The truth is that the euro-system is a nightmarish system and people here are wise enough not to create new victims of this system through procreation.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The truth is that the euro-system is a nightmarish system and people here are wise enough not to create new victims of this system through procreation.

The problem is the EU, which has become a banking sewer. I think that sooner or later, the Europeans will get tired and do what Miss Trunchbull does here...in this movie:
Again with the pet-peeve ranting that has nothing to do with the point under discussion.

You can't even stick to the issues you yourself bring up.
You make a claim, you get evidence that counters it and in "response" you move on to the next claim (or fall back on the usual bs claims) without acknowledging any point made.

It's becoming a very predictable pattern in every discussion you participate in.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
It will be funded by the State, of course.
The State has lots of money. Instead of wasting it on stupid and idiotic wars created by the American Democratic Party...it can fund a new ministry.
:)

As I said, through the Ministry of Infancy and Motherhood.
Which will not have a controlling authority of course. But a supporting force for motherhood, mothers who really have the parental vocation will be supported by the State. :)
Agencies of the State will hire thousands of psychologists and other professional to ascertain the conditions


Well... nothing penal.
The measure is dissuasive, not punitive. Civil trials for the child's custody will take care of it.

That means that nothing will happen if it happens one time. But at the second time, the child will be taken into the Social Service's custody.

:)
The problem with Government bureaucracies is they may start out with good intent, but eventually they become self serving. Professionals, who are civil servants, make less than their counter parts in the private sector. They will compensate this lack of money, with power; regulatory power. While to have a career path, in government, that can last an entire career to retirement and pension, means growth and room for promotions. This often has little to do with the mission, but is more about company politics; Unions. Each new law, regulation and red tape will require more workers, which often becomes the drive of the agency's growth model. The mission to the children and parents get sorts of lost, until the Agency is more of a problem than a solution.

For example, the EPA in the USA, came up with regulation that required small fisherman have an Observer on board to monitor their fishing. The kicker was the small boat captain had to pay their salary of $70,000 per year. There goes their profit. This law was an extortion under the guise of caring about the fish. The Supreme Court threw it out, but it took a few years of legal fees to have justice. I can see the Agency, eventually, taking brides or adding loopholes, for rich, unfit parents, to have children.

If Trump gets elected, he is going to make Elon Musk his minster of a "new" Department of Government Efficiency; DGE, to fight slime with slime. As the DGE grows, Musk, can already see $2 Trillion in savings, that was caused by overall bureaucratic growth and all the waste that follows. The Government does not have any money of its own, that it earns. It steals it from the tax payer, who then get stuck with the bill. In the USA, the taxpayers are also stuck with the National debt due to Government taking unsecured loans and not asking the tax payers. Any plan for a ministry of parenting, should consult the tax payers, first, since the public servants, come second, behind those who write the check; tax payers. Public Servants are not the Overlords, they think they are; steal and harass. This is government mafia.

The old fashion way was better. This involved churches and other places of worship. This approach was free and was more volunteer based, where moral pressure was applied for parents to do the right thing. If not, the volunteers could also act as a charity. That was not about bureaucratic power. Your idea is good, but government should be the last place to turn, since they are rip off. In the USA, the government gets about a -20% rate of return on the tax payers' dime. because of the interest on the debt, and waste, about 20 cents to the dollar is ripped off due the bureaucratic power bloat.

Having children triggers instincts in the parents, that make them the best caregivers. It is easier for most new parents to take care of their own children than their neighbor's children, full time, where instinct is lacking. Those Professionals will be more like highly educated baby sitters mercenaries, who get paid and also get to go home at night and leave the job at work. Parent do not have it they easy. They may not have the same empathy for the full time parent, who has to pay to do this, and cannot leave and go home.

I am not sure a part time baby sitter, telling the parents how to raise children is optimized, unless the rule is all such employees, need to have/had children, to show they real real life experience and not just book smarts. A professional who has no children and who believes in abortion of the unborn, should raise yellow flags (not red flags), even if they have a Phd. One would not hire a Passivists to be the head the DOD, during war time; DEI political appointments. That would destroy moral and add problems; Secret Service.
 
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that goes both ways. :shrug:

Still don't have a clue how you think this relates to human rights.
Are you saying you feel like you should have more rights, or a priority claim, for these resources then others?
ok I'm not a math person, but if y = 4000, and 4000 is the 'resources,' and x =2, and '2' is each population unit, then there are 2000 units of 2 that can take up those resources evenly.. If you add any more, than everyone has to use less resources. Everyone then would have to 'right' to less
 
Top