The lot of S'poreans...

[Tigerslayer]

I am basing it on a few things but the term First World is subjective in itself I suppose.

But you do not have to look too far to see there are several figures which suggest that it is indeed a developed country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index

i'm not sure how this whole discussion can be flawed based on that. The fact that you agree first world infrastructure only validates my opinion that parents should behave responsibly when planning kids so that they have enough resources to take advantage of some of that infrastructure.

The things I listed are what i would consider to be basic human rights and if a parent cannot from the outset achieve those things I would again opine that it is irresponsible to expand the family.

[Waiting4Skyrim]

........
Having said that , this group has the highest suicide rate, very self centered and very insecure........

Can you share source of data for said group with highest suicide rate?

[Mad Scientist]

It is interesting how you and SMS are to new posters. You both seem to pick and choose what you read from a post to fit your own assumptions.
So far in less than 20 posts I have been insinuated as an advertiser (jokingly or not), called shallow, and probably worst of all… a mistake on the behalf of my parents.

If you disagree then fine, I am always open to a debate. But what is with these personal insults?

WOW !! Did I invoke , revoke or provoke your lateral thinking ?
This thread started three pages before I jumped in. Hence you assumption that I am here to hang you dry is Totally Misplaced .
I would not care less if others having a dig at the locals. That is what they perceived and I think they are absolutely spot on.
If you assume every newbies who join the forum, myself and SMS are here to have a go at them then you are again totally misplaced.
First of all , I am not one of the moderators whereby they are binded by the code of ethics running this forum which I have not a single clue what they are.
Secondly I do not own this forum. I joined this forum many moons ago just to help out what I do know and if I can make someone life a little bit better, I will try my best. Most of my posts are on the same platform and above board.
If you think my comments or post is a direct personal attack towards you then I think you fit in just nice with some of our sub continent friends.
The problem are when newbies comes in and cannot get the answer they readily wanted or the facts given is so painful to accept, they started brandishing me or SMS or many regulars here as abusive, personal attack etc... Try going to other boards and see if you can understand their English without the vulgarities and obscene language written in the same tone.
I stepped in on this thread and queried both of you because both your post and waiting4skyrim are being perceived as having a go at large family that equate to financial stability. Correct me if I am wrong. Your assumptions which I am not sure how and where you based it upon, now has a caveat on it which means what ? "I am not sure, maybe I am wrong , oops did I make this assumption or what the hell am I blabbering about"
Other forumers seems to think the same way.
Now you are going in circles and making me dizzy.
And for waiting4skyrim > why should I share with you my info if you cannot even give me a direct answer to my earlier posts.
Do not bother to reply as you are in defensive mode right now which will result in slinging match which I am not too concern to be involved.
Just a small words of advise for both of you, if you make a statement back it up with something concrete. Not hearsay , rumours or your mental superiority. I do not have that mental prowess to argue anymore as I can see this discussion is leading towards oblivion.
Others might perceived it differently .

[Tigerslayer]

And for waiting4skyrim > why should I share with you my info if you cannot even give me a direct answer to my earlier posts.

Is this not ever so slightly hypocritical since you just glazed over every answer I gave to your 10 question post only to address the last line?

Edit to add: Address should be in the loosest possible term since i could not understand half of what you are trying to say to me.

Do you need to be bounded by a code of ethics before you call someone shallow or instantly class them as a 'mememe' group of society?

I would expect anyone with intelligence, which you clearly show to other posters, to at least give someone a chance to explain before slamming them with prejudices.

Anyhow your point about joining the discussion on page three hardly exonerates you from targeting newbies since it is the same page as my first post in this thread.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Edit to add: Address should be in the loosest possible term since i could not understand half of what you are trying to say to me.

Now you know how the rest of us feel about your posts.

[Tigerslayer]

Ok this is getting a little tiresome and obviously you're are both intent on quashing any sensible debate. Especially since you are now answering on behalf of the entire forum ('the rest of us').

In a last attempt to salvage some kind of topical discussion...

SMS what is it that you do not understand from my points? What do you find so inconsistent?

Perhaps I can clarify whatever it is that seems to throw you off.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Nobody is intent on doing anything. Most don't have a clue what you are on about, that all. Additionally, my English grammar is nothing to write home about. I've admitted that years ago, often enough on here, I use words out of tense and haphazardly at best. The barnyard animals never bother to correct me so this ole farmboy has survived with what I've got. Additionally, I'm not a high flyer, but actually came up the hard way......

TS, to be honest, it is your whole premise that the kids are disadvantaged due somehow in part to meager family resources. You probably weren't born into a family with a silver spoon in your mouth, but I get the distinct impression you were not disadvantaged in your youth.

My reasoning for that conclusion? Had you been disadvantaged, you would have learned how to turn that disadvantage into an advantage. You would have learned to be street smart. If you are like lots of "so called" disadvantaged, they often have much more drive and ambition to get out of their straits and become somebody. Obviously not all do, (and lots of highly educated don't make it either) but in a country where there are no ghetto's and such (seeing you were using Singapore at your target country), every child has the same opportunities. So, with the many and various help groups out there (I know, as I help administer some of them through the Peoples Association and local Resident's Committee of which I am a member), even those from the poorest households has the opportunity and ability to get ahead and to pull themselves out of their "position" and gain respect in today's society.

So based on my observations, I have to disagree with you because you are basing your whole argument on your personal feelings and personal feelings cannot be quantified.

sms

[Tigerslayer]

SMS i am not talking about your grammar, I am talking about you continually saying 'most on here', 'the rest of us' and 'noone here' when telling me that you do not understand what i am trying to say. I appreciate you having a voice but not as a spokesperson for the rest of the forum.

I do not believe my background is relevant, how I got here, where I am (apart from being in Singapore) and how hard I may or may not have had to fight to be here are inconsequential. The impression you get is only your own assumption.

Even people in a 'ghetto' have an opportunity to pull themselves out. I do not believe that it makes it any less sad that these situations exist.

I also find it hard to understand the defense of a family that choose to bring in as many kids as they like to the world when they are already struggling. Is there any limit to your opinion?

For example to go back to a similar question asked by mad scientist.. To what extent would you be comfortable to watch a family expand on an income of $2k... 6 kids is ok to both of you from the sound of it... 10?... 15? 20 kids still ok?

Or would you still say that fine as it will make each one stronger?

To me kids shouldn't have to needlessly 'fight to pull themselves out'. If parents were more responsible with their choices then a family that struggled with 6 could have been comfortable with 4. Again not to target large families this is just addressing the number which was presented earlier in the thread.

Finally you are right it is a personal opinion. This is something I myself have said many times and have not tried to hide.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Good for you.

[Tigerslayer]

aaaaaaaaand back to single sentence ignore all the point replies. Ok I give up. I'll leave this thread alone for a while.

[ksl]

+1
I agree to a certain extent with TS.

The government here offer cash incentives for every child born, however in certain circumstances it could still be a problem..

It takes a great deal of self discipline and individualism to break away from the poor end of society, we normally say only the strongest survive, forgetting that the disadvantaged are normally very street wise and compare the punishment with the crime. In UK we have a great deal of crime against the social services, though the ones involved are smart enough to weigh up the pro's and cons's and also avoid tax.

Singapore is of course a 1st world country and is comparable to developing countries like the USA and UK, though experience and expertise is obviously well placed. All countries rarely stop developing, some are just slower than others...in two generations Singapore has leaped ahead of everyone, which is undoubtedly frustrating for many from supposedly first world countries.

Most will suffer the Hill Billy mentality it comes with the turf wherever one lives!

[sundaymorningstaple]

1st world country and is comparable to developing countries like the USA and UK,

[k1w1]

For example to go back to a similar question asked by mad scientist.. To what extent would you be comfortable to watch a family expand on an income of $2k... 6 kids is ok to both of you from the sound of it... 10?... 15? 20 kids still ok?

Or would you still say that fine as it will make each one stronger?

To me kids shouldn't have to needlessly 'fight to pull themselves out'. If parents were more responsible with their choices then a family that struggled with 6 could have been comfortable with 4. Again not to target large families this is just addressing the number which was presented earlier in the thread.

Do you know any Catholics? I went to school with plenty of kids who had more than 12 siblings. Not sure how this affects anyone except the people in the families - especially if they're not sponging off welfare or neglecting the children.

[ksl]

1st world country and is comparable to developing countries like the USA and UK,

All Countries are always under development for the better, though UK tend to be slow to adapt, the Underground for example is old and out dated 1850's and main railway infrastructure is chaos, and never on time! How many generations does it take to see improvement?

[JR8]

1st world country and is comparable to developing countries like the USA and UK,

All Countries are always under development for the better, though UK tend to be slow to adapt, the Underground for example is old and out dated 1850's and main railway infrastructure is chaos, and never on time! How many generations does it take to see improvement?

If Stamford Raffles had built the MRT in the 1860's, what do you think we might think of it now? Small, aged and cramped?

Compare apples and apples. There is simply not the facility to upgrade the transport infrastructure like SG, where they'd bulldoze their archirtectural heritage to knock 5 minutes off a daily commute.