Doing my head in....

[Mr Mystery]

It doesn't say Cynical misanthrope on my profile for nothing.

Indeed not.

It says 'cynical misanthrope' because you don't know how to spell 'tosspot'

[Haighus]

That gel is awesome! He didn't really go into detail about how it worked, but it looks like it fast-tracks the clotting cascade. I wonder if it introduces it's own supply of some of the necessary factors?

As for optimism, I'm planning to work for the NHS. If I wasn't optimistic now I may as well just retire already and spare me the pain I get waaay to excited about things to be pessimistic anyway...

[Psychosplodge]

Nah, tosspot is a bit southern

- - - Updated - - -

I'm reminded of what a friend told me about their first day on a veterinary course. That everyone starts off excited, but a few months of putting peoples pets down everyday will soon beat it out of you.

[Haighus]

I suspect for me, it is more likely to be a few years of crap management in an NHS hospital that will beat the excitement out. I know medical staff who are still excited about the science and the patient care and interaction, but are so ground down with the s**t dropped on them that they are having a toss up between retiring early, finding a job elsewhere or moving out into a situation where they are self managing and contracting out services, even though that will work out as more personal work, at least they will be their own bosses.

[grimmas]

The trials of working in the public sector mate. Still plenty of enthusiastic people knocking around I've always found the maternity staff pretty positive and one of my current colleagues still does shifts in A&E because he likes it so much. I've always taken the mind over matter approach to public sector management (I don't mind and they don't matter). Granted I'm not NHS but I do have a fair amount of professional overlap it doesn't seem that different from any other public sector job in that respect.

[Denzark]

I can't believe I missed all this mass debate. I want to know what is a worse outlook in life - me thinking I don't want to fund any children whose survival entirely relies on people other than their parents providing the necessary finances, or 'parents' who pop sprogs without knowing 100% that they can take care of 100% of their needs without relying on outside finance?

- - - Updated - - -

PS not wanting poor people to have children they can't afford is not Eugenics - it is Economics.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

(it is eugenics)

(and very bad economics)

[40kGamer]

I can't believe I missed all this mass debate. I want to know what is a worse outlook in life - me thinking I don't want to fund any children whose survival entirely relies on people other than their parents providing the necessary finances, or 'parents' who pop sprogs without knowing 100% that they can take care of 100% of their needs without relying on outside finance?

- - - Updated - - -

PS not wanting poor people to have children they can't afford is not Eugenics - it is Economics.

I miss things all the time! One step away from the keyboard and poof!

I'm fine with a temporary security net to keep otherwise responsible families from crashing and burning, but supporting families indefinitely while they continue to have kids "just because it's their right and they want to" is bull****.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Funny thing is that there's more than enough money to go around a-here in the first world. It's just that as a society we've made a decision that some people get to have, well, most of it, and people at the bottom get to have basically none, and then we tell those most desperate that it's somehow their fault. Even a *slightly* more equitable distribution of wealth ameliorates most of these social "problems", as we saw in the Blair-Brown years where child poverty was trending downwards and unemployment was very, very low. And that Labour government was nobody (sane's) idea of anti-business or tax & spend.

It's all about priorities.

[Denzark]

I'm not a scientist. But according to Wikipedia: It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher rates of sexual reproduction for people with desired traits (positive eugenics), or reduced rates of sexual reproduction and sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics), or both

And that definition has got sweet fanny adams to do with affordability.

And actually only outlaying on what you can afford is massively sound economics.