| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2008 10:19:44 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. Just like responsible couples make every day. I can't afford any more children, so I won't have any more. It escapes me - why this sound reasoning for many couples in this world is somehow evil for others. Poor people don't get a pass on responsibility simply because they are poor. Liberals are the ones who think the underpriviledged are so needy and incapable of helping themselves that the great savior has to come in and resuce them. Conservatives think that each has the ability to care for themselves, they simply need the opportunity and the expectation to be responsible.
Lastly - if they had fewer children, then regardless how poor they were, they would be less poor. Having children is an act of responsibility. Period. |
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, you do realize that very nearly this exact argument was made by the Nazis about their poor, Jews, the handicapped and anyone else receiving care from the government, in the late 1930's, right? |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 10:23:01 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. |
Good grief... so do you, or do you not, support legislation that would prevent certain groups from impregnating each other, or otherwise getting rid of the child after conception? |
There is no legislation that currently encourages millions of couples to decide to no longer have children, yet somehow they responsibly come to that conclusion. Usually based on economics. |
Based on economics?
Are you cracked?
If the decision to have a child or not was based on economics, the human race would be long extinct. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 10:44:44 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Your proposal would create a de facto penalty for reproduction among the poor. |
Yes it would. Just like responsible couples make every day. I can't afford any more children, so I won't have any more. It escapes me - why this sound reasoning for many couples in this world is somehow evil for others. Poor people don't get a pass on responsibility simply because they are poor. Liberals are the ones who think the underpriviledged are so needy and incapable of helping themselves that the great savior has to come in and resuce them. Conservatives think that each has the ability to care for themselves, they simply need the opportunity and the expectation to be responsible.
Lastly - if they had fewer children, then regardless how poor they were, they would be less poor. Having children is an act of responsibility. Period. |
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, you do realize that very nearly this exact argument was made by the Nazis about their poor, Jews, the handicapped and anyone else receiving care from the government, in the late 1930's, right? |
Don't worry about invoking Godwin's Law, this discussion jumped the shark quite a bit ago. |
|
|
|
03/17/2008 11:41:35 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Would you have that "extra" child euthanized to take care of the problem? |
A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people ... from being a burden
on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.
by Dr. Jonathan Swift. 1729 |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 05:58:05 AM · #430 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Would you have that "extra" child euthanized to take care of the problem? |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people ... from being a burden
on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.
by Dr. Jonathan Swift. 1729 |
Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise! LOL!!! |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 07:12:19 AM · #431 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Based on economics?
Are you cracked?
If the decision to have a child or not was based on economics, the human race would be long extinct. |
And just how do you suppose millions of couples decide to not have any more children? It is usually based on economics. "We can't afford any more". I don't care if they refrain from having children by abstinance, contraception, or abortion. Just be responsible.
The folks who I think are cracked are the ones who are bent into forming my position into one that I have not staked out. I find it very disengenuious for the liberals here (who have as part of their Party Platform - "reproductive rights" = abortion) suddenly get accusatory of a conservative who supports that platform as being "facist". What then does that say about your platform? Is Hillary or Barak or Al Gore facists as well? They support reproductive rights (abortion) as do many of you liberals posting here. So stop being all high and mighty. It is transparent as hell.
My position is and always has been, that responsibility is required. Just like the rest of us working taxpayers must employ every day. No differences just because you are down on your luck. No excuses for generations of dependency on a social support system. No free ride to have multiple offspring that you cannot take care off.
No dodging the financial responsibility of siring offspring. Work for the benefits received - just like the rest of us have to.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 09:41:06 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by Flash:
And just how do you suppose millions of couples decide to not have any more children? It is usually based on economics. |
Please present at least one piece of evidence that this is so ... as far as I can tell, this is completely a "supposition" on your part ... |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 09:50:40 AM · #433 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Based on economics?
Are you cracked?
If the decision to have a child or not was based on economics, the human race would be long extinct. |
And just how do you suppose millions of couples decide to not have any more children? It is usually based on economics. "We can't afford any more". I don't care if they refrain from having children by abstinance, contraception, or abortion. Just be responsible.
The folks who I think are cracked are the ones who are bent into forming my position into one that I have not staked out. I find it very disengenuious for the liberals here (who have as part of their Party Platform - "reproductive rights" = abortion) suddenly get accusatory of a conservative who supports that platform as being "facist". What then does that say about your platform? Is Hillary or Barak or Al Gore facists as well? They support reproductive rights (abortion) as do many of you liberals posting here. So stop being all high and mighty. It is transparent as hell.
My position is and always has been, that responsibility is required. Just like the rest of us working taxpayers must employ every day. No differences just because you are down on your luck. No excuses for generations of dependency on a social support system. No free ride to have multiple offspring that you cannot take care off.
No dodging the financial responsibility of siring offspring. Work for the benefits received - just like the rest of us have to. |
I know in my case, the decision to not have more kids was not economically based. If, as you suggest, that decision is made for economic reasons, then, the rich should have a good deal more children. Bill Gates should have 20 or 30 kids by now and be working on more by your reasoning.
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then?
You have repeatedly said in this thread that people should be penalized for having children if they do not meet certain financial criteria and that is how you propose to break the "cycle of dependence". That is the very definition of Social Darwinism, which is, at its core Eugenics and that same reasoning was at the core of the Nazi drive to exterminate the Jews, poor, or others who were dependent on state support. I doubt this one idea makes you a Fascist, since Fascism goes well beyond that one aspect, but it does not place you in good company.
Your weak claim that liberals, are "pro-abortion" is misleading and simply not true. It's referred to as "pro-choice" for a reason. You would remove that choice.
Another thing for you to consider: What of these children you seem to despise as the scourge of your pocketbook? Would you simply leave them out in the woods to starve? Drop them off in a dumpster? Just simply ignore them and let them suffer? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 10:11:09 AM · #434 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I don't care if they refrain from having children by abstinance, contraception, or abortion. Just be responsible. |
Oh, PLEASE explain to me how on any level refraining from having children by abortion is responsible.
Dude, this is why you have *ZERO* credibility.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 10:16:06 AM · #435 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My position is and always has been, that responsibility is required. Just like the rest of us working taxpayers must employ every day. No differences just because you are down on your luck. No excuses for generations of dependency on a social support system. No free ride to have multiple offspring that you cannot take care off.
No dodging the financial responsibility of siring offspring. Work for the benefits received - just like the rest of us have to. |
You'd sing a different tune if all of a sudden your child was stricken with a terminal disease that required way more financial assets than you had any way of getting.
Sometimes life happens beyond your control, and comprehension, and circumstances deal you a really shitty hand.
Talk about being high and mighty!
Get over your condescending attitude like you have ultimate control over what happens in life.
ETA: By your own stance on the way of the world, you should know better.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 10:36:14.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 10:35:01 AM · #436 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The folks who I think are cracked are the ones who are bent into forming my position into one that I have not staked out. |
Outlining unlikely scenarios of concentration camps popping up throughout the midwest might be hyperbole, but consider that your ideas have been compared to fascism by three separate posters, and to the specific fascism of Nazism by two. There are enough such comparisons out there, and they usually result in eye-rolling, so perhaps this fact alone should make you pause.
If you are indeed not a fascist, and you had no intention of suggesting that the state should sponsor a program that prohibits certain economic classes from procreating, why not just say so? You've refused to do that when given at least half a dozen chances.
Either you are incapable of advancing your position coherently, you are refusing to do so, or you are actively baiting people in hopes of making them look foolish. None of that is working. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 10:37:50 AM · #437 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Either you are incapable of advancing your position coherently, you are refusing to do so, or you are actively baiting people in hopes of making them look foolish. None of that is working. |
Nope!
It is just continuing to allow us to continue to shoot already weak and ridiculous ideas right out of the air.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 03:25:59 PM · #438 |
| we could reform the civilian conservation corps and solve global warming at the same time... |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:15:39 PM · #439 |
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I know in my case, the decision to not have more kids was not economically based. Perhaps you are the exception. I highly suspect that you know of family and/or friends that have stopped having children due to some measure of econimics. If, as you suggest, that decision is made for economic reasons, then, the rich should have a good deal more children. Bill Gates should have 20 or 30 kids by now and be working on more by your reasoning. Never did I say it was the ONLY criteria. Simply that is was A criteria by which many many responsible persons decide that they can no longer comfortably support a larger family and thus choose one of several methods to insure that no more children are born to them.
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then? Sure. I even personally know one. But those parents made the necessary sacrifices to financially provide for it without it becoming a ward of the state. Just like many many families do that have "oops" babies.
You have repeatedly said in this thread that people should be penalized for having children if they do not meet certain financial criteria and that is how you propose to break the "cycle of dependence". That is correct. That is the very definition of Social Darwinism, which is, at its core Eugenics and that same reasoning was at the core of the Nazi drive to exterminate the Jews, poor, or others who were dependent on state support. I doubt this one idea makes you a Fascist, since Fascism goes well beyond that one aspect, but it does not place you in good company.I have no idea nor specific understanding of Social Darwinism, nor any implied application to how the jews were treated in Germany during WWII. To apply the very same method that your own family and friends apply to insure no more unwanted pregancies is somehow social darwinism, then I guess we are all guilty.
Your weak claim that liberals, are "pro-abortion" is misleading and simply not true. It's referred to as "pro-choice" for a reason. You would remove that choice. Not at all. You still have choice. You simply cannot take for granted nor be rewarded for making a irresponsible one. Just like the rest of us get penalized when we make irresponsible choices. It is called responsibility and accountability.
Another thing for you to consider: What of these children you seem to despise as the scourge of your pocketbook? Would you simply leave them out in the woods to starve? Drop them off in a dumpster? Just simply ignore them and let them suffer? Not once have I suggested such and it is disengenuious for you to portray my position that way. My personal approach to that delimina is to support community organizations (Rescue Missions, International Red Cross)through donations outside of the Federal/State tax system. Organizations that specifically minister to the needs of women and children including those from abusive homes. For you to define my view as "despising the scourge of my pocketbook" does not quite square with my actions - does it? |
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:31:18 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then? Sure. I even personally know one. But those parents made the necessary sacrifices to financially provide for it without it becoming a ward of the state. Just like many many families do that have "oops" babies.
|
What of those families who have nothing left to sacrifice? Or suffer a financially crippling tragedy post conception or even post-birth? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:32:10 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
And just how do you suppose millions of couples decide to not have any more children? It is usually based on economics. |
Please present at least one piece of evidence that this is so ... as far as I can tell, this is completely a "supposition" on your part ... |
My evidence is all around you. If you think that I said that everyone stops having children when they can no longer afford them, then you have misread my posts. I have written that responsible people make a choice of when they want to start/stop having children and econimics is part of that decision. The economics of their lifestyle, future plans regarding housing/career/retirement. It all plays a role in the decision. No where have I said that someone could not have children. Only that they need to be responsible for thsoe they have. If they cannot, then extended family needs to be. You must know at least one family where the parents of the parent(s) is raising the grandchildren. That in my opinion is accountability. And supporting evidence of one set of parents (the grandparents) that will be discouraging any more children until the economic situation improves. Is this really foriegn to you? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:36:48 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then? |
Originally posted by Flash:
Sure. I even personally know one. But those parents made the necessary sacrifices to financially provide for it without it becoming a ward of the state. Just like many many families do that have "oops" babies. |
Very nice in theory, but what about people who are not in a position to make these sacrifices.....then what?
You would punish them for a genuine mistake, or an understandable human error......from one of God's ultimately flawed children?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You have repeatedly said in this thread that people should be penalized for having children if they do not meet certain financial criteria and that is how you propose to break the "cycle of dependence". |
Originally posted by Flash:
[That is correct. |
Why and for what reason do you suggest this, yet give to charities and missions to help support these same programs?
And.....who decides who and in what manner the punishment is meted out, and what punishment would that be?
Originally posted by Flash:
Not at all. You still have choice. You simply cannot take for granted nor be rewarded for making a irresponsible one. Just like the rest of us get penalized when we make irresponsible choices. It is called responsibility and accountability. |
Penalized how? Cite a specific example!
Originally posted by Flash:
Not once have I suggested such and it is disengenuious for you to portray my position that way. My personal approach to that delimina is to support community organizations (Rescue Missions, International Red Cross)through donations outside of the Federal/State tax system. Organizations that specifically minister to the needs of women and children including those from abusive homes. For you to define my view as "despising the scourge of my pocketbook" does not quite square with my actions - does it? |
Okay.....let's take this one apart piece by piece.
You support organizations outside the federal & state tax system.......but yet ones that vicariously support the very same actions you do not.
Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?
Also......you're quite obviously a sexist as well, since your focus is on the women and children, and though I'm sure you'll state that you never specifically stated such, as your typical obfuscation tendencies will do, you're now blaming this whole problem on men.
And......you're cherry-picking again.
I'm still waiting, as are others, to hear this outline of your punishment plan, and I'm waiting to hear your take on genuine error.
You had no comment on my irresponsible behavior that gave us a beautiful daughter.......don't you want to tell me how irresponsible I was and how if a child was something I could afford how I should have just up and adopted one since it would be my duty as a socially responsible American and child of God?
Rather than irresponsibly contribute to the overpopulation of the planet?
What's my punishment? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:37:14 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
You have repeatedly said in this thread that people should be penalized for having children if they do not meet certain financial criteria and that is how you propose to break the "cycle of dependence". That is correct. That is the very definition of Social Darwinism, which is, at its core Eugenics and that same reasoning was at the core of the Nazi drive to exterminate the Jews, poor, or others who were dependent on state support. I doubt this one idea makes you a Fascist, since Fascism goes well beyond that one aspect, but it does not place you in good company.I have no idea nor specific understanding of Social Darwinism, nor any implied application to how the jews were treated in Germany during WWII. To apply the very same method that your own family and friends apply to insure no more unwanted pregancies is somehow social darwinism, then I guess we are all guilty.
|
The difference is that you seek to legislate reproduction. Just like the Nazis who sought to prevent from procreating, those who did not fit their criteria for the Master Race. Only, in your case, it would be the Master Class. Really just a rose by another name.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:39:22 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then? Sure. I even personally know one. But those parents made the necessary sacrifices to financially provide for it without it becoming a ward of the state. Just like many many families do that have "oops" babies.
|
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What of those families who have nothing left to sacrifice? Or suffer a financially crippling tragedy post conception or even post-birth? |
Hey......we both can't ask the same question.......he'll accuse us of ganging up on him!
What do you think the odds are of getting an answer? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:41:38 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Your weak claim that liberals, are "pro-abortion" is misleading and simply not true. It's referred to as "pro-choice" for a reason. You would remove that choice. Not at all. You still have choice. You simply cannot take for granted nor be rewarded for making a irresponsible one. Just like the rest of us get penalized when we make irresponsible choices. It is called responsibility and accountability.
|
So, if things were your way, it'd be essentially "Kill your unborn child or lose benefits." How compassionate. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:41:53 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Ever hear of an "Oops Baby"? What about the couple where the main breadwinner loses his job or becomes unable to work? What then? Sure. I even personally know one. But those parents made the necessary sacrifices to financially provide for it without it becoming a ward of the state. Just like many many families do that have "oops" babies.
|
What of those families who have nothing left to sacrifice? Or suffer a financially crippling tragedy post conception or even post-birth? |
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. And based on my experience with responsible persons in this situation, they would not want to further burden themselves nor their family. Even with social support - to be expected to perform a service for the benefits received, is hardly in my opinion akin to state sponsored eugenics or equal to as you claim Social Darwinism or even fascism. Further, once this family gets back on their feet (weeks, months later) then they can proceed with their life any way they want. They can have 30 children for all I care - or none. Just be accountable for the ones you make. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:44:00 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My evidence is all around you. If you think that I said that everyone stops having children when they can no longer afford them, then you have misread my posts. I have written that responsible people make a choice of when they want to start/stop having children and econimics is part of that decision. The economics of their lifestyle, future plans regarding housing/career/retirement. It all plays a role in the decision. No where have I said that someone could not have children. Only that they need to be responsible for thsoe they have. If they cannot, then extended family needs to be. You must know at least one family where the parents of the parent(s) is raising the grandchildren. That in my opinion is accountability. And supporting evidence of one set of parents (the grandparents) that will be discouraging any more children until the economic situation improves. Is this really foriegn to you? |
Dude, do you even HAVE children?
What on earth makes you think that such decisions are regularly governed by facts, economics, and environmental factors?
Having children, or not, is way more of a decision that is done with the heart, not the head.
If our decision to have our daughter would have been made with our heads instead of our hearts, she wouldn't be here.
We selfishly, and with all our hearts, wanted to have our own child. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:46:54 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the interest of time and space I am inserting my comments in bold into your post.
Your weak claim that liberals, are "pro-abortion" is misleading and simply not true. It's referred to as "pro-choice" for a reason. You would remove that choice. Not at all. You still have choice. You simply cannot take for granted nor be rewarded for making a irresponsible one. Just like the rest of us get penalized when we make irresponsible choices. It is called responsibility and accountability.
|
So, if things were your way, it'd be essentially "Kill your unborn child or lose benefits." How compassionate. |
Or not get pregnant in the first place. How about if we actually try to prevent it to begin with? Is that not socially responsible? If abortion is the issue for you, then avoid that option by using sound prevention practices. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:48:39 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. |
That's all fine and dandy. So, this happens and then the same family irresponsibly has another child. They have no extended family. What are you actually proposing to do ? and then they have another child. What now ?
You've described what you think people should do, what should happen when they don't do it ?
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:49:27 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It happens. First I would expect family to assist. In those instances where family cannot, then those are the exceptions and must be supported. But, once this tragic situation is realized, they should not be encouraged nor rewarded for having more. And based on my experience with responsible persons in this situation, they would not want to further burden themselves nor their family. Even with social support - to be expected to perform a service for the benefits received, is hardly in my opinion akin to state sponsored eugenics or equal to as you claim Social Darwinism or even fascism. Further, once this family gets back on their feet (weeks, months later) then they can proceed with their life any way they want. They can have 30 children for all I care - or none. Just be accountable for the ones you make. |
You really don't live in the real world.
On what level is someone outside of the immediate couple responsible for a relative's mistakes or lack of responsibility?
You are so clueless it's scary!
You can pick your friends who may decide to support and help you, but you cannot opt out of being blood related, or marriage related to a deadbeat.
Show of hands of people who have deadbeat relatives?
And you're saying that's our social responsibility?
Your elitism is right up there with my father's.....oh wait! He's not my dad any more 'cause he disowned my dumb ass when I ran into trouble a few years back.
You want to have him punished for that?
Or was that okay since I didn't ebd up on the taxpayer dole? |
|
