Jump to content

About This Club

Our most gracious debating forum where all forms of politics can be debated, scrutinised and voted on. Here you can propose new laws, debate on current ones and scrutinise government policies. Everyone with a brain is welcome. No Korean Casinos welcome.

  1. What's new in this club
  2. I know that. I know exactly what you're saying. But there is no way to know for 100% certainty if someone is pregnant or not. They might look full-blown pregnant to you, but that doesn't mean they are. As I said already, I and many others have been 100% sure that a person was pregnant, only to find out that they weren't. The only people who are probably going to be able to tell if someone is pregnant with 100% accuracy are medical professionals.
  3. No one asking for regulations. All we're saying is businesses should have the right to refuse booze to full blown preggies. The ones that are hard to tell then that's different.
  4. This is the main issue imo. There's no real way to tell if someone is pregnant or not. You just have to take their word for it. I've seen so many instances where I or someone else could have sworn that someone was pregnant but it turned out they were not. It's not like people carry around ID cards that say whether or not they're pregnant. It's impossible to regulate.
  5. I had a friend that looked pregnant, but isnt. She is in her late 40's, has had four children and is a heavy drinker. She legit looks pregnant even though is having menopause symptoms. Again, I do not support pregnant women drinking, but if a woman LOOKS pregnant, but is not pregnant, she should be able to buy as much alchol as she wants.
  6. A lot of people are confusing businesses refusing to serve vs. forbidding pregnant women drinking. I will never want to see legislation forbidding drinking for pregnant women but what I would like to see is less legislation forbidding businesses the right of refusing to serve people. @Nox made a wonderful point. I work in retail and even if Greggs doesn't serve alcohol I wouldn't want to serve a pregnant woman alcohol because I wouldn't want to feel responsible for being part of what that woman is doing even if I don't believe in collective responsibility. @ragreynolds I do understand it's impossible to tell if a woman is pregnant at early stages of pregnancy however if a woman is obviously pregnant (4 months plus) then a business or a pub should have every right to refuse. I am fed up personally with government interfering with what a business does. Regulations hurt businesses, end of. If I owned a pub I should have every right to refuse a pregnant woman from drinking in my premises. For two key reasons. 1. Morals Pregnant women drinking is a no no. I wouldn't want to pour alcohol down a baby's throat. 2. Image If I owned a pub with pregnant women drinking there, that would deter customers from drinking in my establishment. They'd consider my pub a place where 'human trash' hangs out and they wouldn't want to drink there.
  7. Exactly what nox said. I used to refuse to sell cigarettes to pregnant women when I worked in a tobacco shop all the time. Hell, I refused business for much less. It essentially came down to this: If she wants to get her fix, she can get it elsewhere. That's her choice, and that's fine. But I won't have a part in it. I respect the choice of other businesses to do the same.
  8. Would you be willing to pour beer down an infant's throat? Would you be willing to give a beer to someone who you knew was going to feed it do a baby? Why is it different if the baby hasn't been born yet? I think it goes without saying that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone. This would extend to pregnant women, I imagine.
  9. Which is what I disagree with, a business isn't human, it is to provide a service and while those humans behind it get to choose what and who to sell too, the business itself doesn't without negative or positive feedback... Putting moral decisions in the hands of big business reduce your rights because you are no longer choosing. My comment about law was a flip away thing, if any of the things I mentioned were a problem, they would already be in place and if it is, in much stricter implements, a business is there to provide a service and make money that is it. If we treat businesses like we do already for our own errors it's just handing power over that really doesn't belong there. I agree with you though, it is unrealistic to assume and will cause more issues for the business and even if they could ban the sale of alcohol to pregnant women consumer rights and a whole lot of other shit would then kick in so what exactly is there to debate? They can say yes and no and I think that's all any business should do when it comes to this study.
  10. This isn't about restricting anyone's rights. In fact, it's about giving more rights to businesses. The government certainly shouldn't be making it law that you can't smoke or drink while pregnant, but I do think that individual businesses should be able to make their own decisions about who to offer their services to, for any reason. However, as I said in my original post, I think this discussion is kinda pointless in the first place because it's not something that could ever actually be implemented because businesses would have no way of knowing for sure whether or not someone was actually pregnant. So unless someone has a solution to that, I don't even see the point debating this.
  11. Simple Answer: No. I think this can lead to far deeper issues in which the baby is more important than the mother. Of course you should not be drinking or smoking for that matter when you have a child, we know the detrimental impact both things can have and especially with drinking the outcome, however, restricting their right to buy something because you don't agree with it will genuinely lead to new problems we already face. It removes the decision from the pregnant lady based on your morals and I don't agree with that. We are already facing a similar dilemma where boots has increased its price for the morning after pill and reasons given are basically to police women into having safer sex or considering their options by increasing their price range, the way I see it is that you're making decisions on behalf of people because of your moral alignment and it is unsafe and it is dangerous to do so and while drinking while pregnant is also unsafe and dangerous to do so it is a different type and i think more detrimental, you're basically telling people, as big business, that they are unable to take care of themselves, make their own decisions and big business should do it for them, but as long as theyre paying for this service then what right, besides price hikes which will put you in a bad light, do you have to do that? It starts with junk food and contraception but where does it end? If anything, I think, like with all regulations, and these should be put on men, aswell, that a certain amount of alcohol can only purchased at a time,. We need to stop putting more emphasis on an unborn childs life when people, already here are dying because of somebodies drinking problem around it isn't given even half as much thought as it is to what women do with their bodies during the duration of a pregnancy, hell women arent given as much thought as their pregnancies are. Put regulations in place, it would genuinely protect us all. On the other hand though, we need to stop blaming big business for problems that have existed in our society for a long time, every single person can make a choice on what they want to put into their bodies and while advertising can help you make that decision, ultimately, it is your decision to do so. Advertising, yes, is there to make you want to buy unhealthy food, but it is also their to make you want to buy healthy food, it is there to make you drink and also to seek help to quit and in the end it is your decision which one you choose... If we keep blaming supermarkets and big business for all of our problems, we are just putting powers into their hands that we very much so have, we lose our ability to choose what we want to do. We remove all blame from us and put it into businesses that are just their to make money and will use our blame to fuel their own agendas.
  12. I dont think it's OK for a pregnant mother to drink, not in any form, but, if a pregnant woman wants to buy the alcohol, she should have that right to buy it. even if she does drink it, which again, I do not support AT ALL. but then I can see here, somewhere down the line, stores that sell alcoholic beverages may have people pregnancy test all women who are attempting to make a purchase, even if the drink isn't for them, themselves. That right there, would be a huge breach of privacy and a step in the wrong direction for society, maybe something so extreme wouldn't happen, but what if it did? This could raise a lot of discrimination suits, which would take away from the cause altogether, It very much is a possibility that this could happen at the words of one bleeding heart liberal. I think that they should have the right to deny sales to pregnant women if they want to, but it should be their right to choose, and the woman's choice of who she is really buying that alcohol for.
  13. This is a hard one. If there is scientific evidence that guarantees a baby will be harmed then I think that's where the place is for this discussion. However, if you're going to stop pregnant women drinking then surely you should also stop them smoking. Where do you draw the line? Should we stop them buying junk food since that's bad for you and could harm the baby? It's a hard thing to decide on. I do think that businesses should have the right to refuse their services (for the most part). I think that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they shouldn't have to, and I think that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a cake for a white nationalist convention, then they also shouldn't have to. The only time I think businesses should not be allowed to refuse all services is when you are talking about large corporations, and even then, I'm not fully against them refusing most services. I just don't think that the likes of Sony should have the ability to refuse someone the ability to purchase one of their game consoles. Ban them from a certain store for misconduct? Sure. But I think there are certain instances where it's not reasonable to let a business have 100% power. Give them 99% power. I just fear specific big businesses having so much power that they can directly impact what people can and can't do. That's part of the reason I think that there is room for certain regulations on the likes of Facebook and Google to force them to uphold full freedom of speech. Certain businesses get too big and too powerful, and when they get to that stage then there have to be some boundaries. As a Libertarian, I am for small government, and I fear the government having too much power. But I think it's just as valid to be concerned over businesses becoming that exact same thing that we Libertarians fear governments becoming. I do think that businesses should probably be allowed to refuse the sale of alcohol to certain individuals. Businesses already do this to rowdy/violent customers who are clearly very drunk, and they do it to people they cannot identify as old enough to drink. I think the issue with this situation though, would be in telling who is actually pregnant. Often times you would never know someone was pregnant, and sometimes you can't tell if they're just fat or if they're pregnant. There's no real way to know unless you asked them, and even then they could lie about it. It's not like people walk around with a 'proof of non-pregnancy' card. So I think that it's a thing that could never actually be introduced, even if I do think that businesses should be able to refuse the sale of the alcohol.
  14. This is a formal debate on the question of should private businesses such as pubs and supermarkets have the right to refuse to serve alcohol to pregnant women and should they also be encouraged to do so? Is refusing to serve them discrimination? Cast your votes before posting and then proceed to debate. In four weeks time this topic will lock, when that happens, we'll have another round where we vote again and see how this debate thread was successful or unsuccessful for each side of the argument. ___________________________ I came up with this debate because of new findings on the media that there isn't any conclusive evidence that moderate drinking is harmful for the baby. That doesn't mean it won't harm the baby either. _____________________ I shall be posting my views for the rights of businesses having the right to refuse as a fundamental right for them. I shall be posting that later on this day. I do believe is a question of freedom of businesses vs consumer rights. Let the debating begin.
  15. The right man won
  16. Does this house believes that capitalism is more beneficial than Socialism? Order, Order, The ayes to the right, 4. The No's to the left, 1. THE AYES HAVE IT, THE AYES HAVE IT _______________________________________________________________________________ You may discuss the results. Also more formal debates to come. If you wish to post a formal debate, check the standing orders of the house of RR rules.
  17. This is one of the reasons I don't particularly like social media, it follows you everywhere and anywhere and people who want to know more about you, can look at your thread be it new friends, future employees, anyone can and they can see stuff and judge your character based off it, even if it was past tweets or posts and the writer of these may not share the same thoughts or ideas that they did prior to it being seen on their page and it's a good way for people to make unfair assumptions about someone based off of that.
  18. We don't but the tabloids do and half of the stupid electorate do too.
  19. What people say on social media when they are younger should have no bearings on their current lives. Take social media out of the equation, just think about the stupid or joking remarks you've made amongst friends. Should those things impact your future life forever? The things said on social media are the exact same. The only difference is that they're up there forever (or until you remove them). I'm not a fan of Mhairi Black, but anyone judging her based on those old tweets can get to fuck. Even if she had only posted that stuff a year ago I wouldn't care. The only one of those that could even be considered 'bad' in my opinion, would be the one about nuns, but even then, it seems more like a joke than anything. Who cares? And there's certainly nothing wrong with swearing or slang or any of these other things. When we try and hold politicians to this standard where we think they're not supposed to act a certain way or say certain things, then suddenly we become detached from them. They are no longer genuine human beings. That's the biggest issue with politicians - the fact that almost all of them aren't genuine, and it's not because they're just nasty liars. It's because they have to be disingenuous as to not upset certain demographics. People need to get a hold of themselves and stop getting hung up on every single word that politicians say. I don't give a fuck if they swear or tell an offensive joke. Tell me about their actions. Tell me about their actual character, what they have actually achieved, how they treat the people around them. I don't care about a dumb tweet they made seven years ago.
  20. Anyone else that didn't participate can vote too! @SkyBlu @Retskrid @GAR @Tangytang @TokentheToken @ArseRaptor @C_O_T_O @collatz @Hanna
  21. I find it quite interesting that in 10 or 20 years time people who were active on social media as teenagers will end up in politics. There's one thing that scares me about politics and that is your life is put on scrutiny. So if there was a video of me downing beers on social media when I was 16 and swearing like a mad man that could come back and bite me in the arse. It's weird that how our normal life is our social media life and now there isn't really a massive barrier between that. It'll be weird that in 10 years time that most of the political scandals featured on the papers will be about MPs doing crazy things when they were teenagers. This is a great example with the Baby of the House in The Commons, SNP Member of Parliament for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, The Honourable Mhairi Black. Her old twitter feed is full of profanity and general teenager behaviour considering she became MP at 20. ______________ OPINIONS?
  22. You should tag everyone who participated in the original thread.
  23. I apologise for not making this thread earlier, I've been extremely busy. _________________ Here is the debating thread for reference. _______________ How this house voted before the debate. __________________________ The question is that this house believes that Capitalism is more beneficial than Socialism. Division! Clear the Lobbies! ________ The lobbies shall close on the 1st of September (considering the traffic is low). I am fully aware that it goes against the standing orders however I am looking to amend the times considering the lack of traffics. A proposition shall be put into a vote after a couple of more formal debates. @Seeker @Myvagmademedoit @Oppi @CleoSelene @bryanna
  24. POST POLITICAL MEMES post them ____ Here are some freshly harvested ones. They're freshly made, right from the stove. (Stolen basically, but current)
  25.  
×