[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why must the poor have no families/very small families all of a sudden in this point in history?
Sorry if I suspect this is more to reward the libertarian than the poor.
[/quote]
If you can’t afford a Lamborghini you don’t get one because your budget doesn’t allow it.
Yet when people can’t afford to have large families they do and the state steps in to take other people’s money to provide for them. And this is ok?
I’ll ask again…shouldn’t a per-requisite of having a family be the ability to take care of the family? Isn’t waiting to have a family when you are emotionally and fiscally ready much better than the other way around?
[/quote]
Reproduction is a biological imperative. It is one of the defining features of living organisms. It is nothing like purchasing an overly-valued consumer good whose true performance most would never see unless they rent out a race track I suppose.
And I question the culture that decided to color “fiscally ready” as being able to afford a tv in every room, and a mobile phone for every member.
[/quote]
No one is saying that. What is being proposed is that two parents be able to get by WITHOUT TAKING MY TAXES AND GIVING IT TO THEM. As long as they are providing food, clothing, shelter and love to child, I feel that child can (and should) thrive. It’s when they CAN’T provide these BASIC necessities that I have an issue.
Great. So was I. Looking back, I wasn’t any unhappier. Sure, I caught crap sometimes because I was obviously wearing my father’s hand-me downs (biker shirts)but I’ve never put much value into into being “hip” or “cool” anyways.
Sure, to some degree. But if they don’t, and? The poor managed to have far more intact families in the yesteryear.
No one is saying that. What is being proposed is that two parents be able to get by WITHOUT TAKING MY TAXES AND GIVING IT TO THEM. As long as they are providing food, clothing, shelter and love to child, I feel that child can (and should) thrive. It’s when they CAN’T provide these BASIC necessities that I have an issue.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t we take your taxes and give it to them? Are you unable to provide the things you just mentioned because you’re taxed? A side curiosity.
Great. So was I. Looking back, I wasn’t any unhappier. Sure, I caught crap sometimes because I was obviously wearing my father’s hand-me downs (biker shirts)but I’ve never put much value into into being “hip” or “cool” anyways.
[/quote]I’m glad that your father cared enough to give you his hand me downs. Mine walked out when I was three and never came back. The subsequent revolving door of assholes my mother fucked/married (there were plenty of both) included men who physically abused her and my brother and I. Including one psycho who would whip me with extension cords while reading from the bible to cast my demons away. My mother was too poor to leave any of these men, so in MY particular case, if my mother had become empowered JUST enough to feed us, cloth us and shelter us, my life would have been a hell of a lot better. But like I said, glad you had better experience with poverty than I did.[quote]
Sure, to some degree. But if they don’t, and? The poor managed to have far more intact families in the yesteryear.
[/quote]
And why do you think that is? I would submit for your consideration that it has to do with the ridiculous developments in family law which literally PAY women to divorce their husbands that it is a decline in morality. Humans are ultimately selfish creatures that will adapt to survive. If a woman’s survival is better if she stays married, then guess what? She stays married. If the divorcing her husband guarantees her a check every month, plus child support and a piece of his retirement, why WOULDN’T she seek that alternative? Even if it puts him on the street, she’ll still get paid.
I’m glad that your father cared enough to give you his hand me downs.[/quote]
I didn’t know my father until I was 14, and only then because the people my mother had left me with tracked him down so they could get rid of me. I was on my own as soon I hit 17.
I mean, setting my own situation aside, my poor white trash upbringing included equally poor families (intact families) who though poor in the material sense, were rich in spirit and genuine warmth. They were as happy, perhaps happier even, as the richest families. I would sooner call them neighbor than, say, the Kardashians.
And why do you think that is? I would submit for your consideration that it has to do with the ridiculous developments in family law which literally PAY women to divorce their husbands that it is a decline in morality. [/quote]
There we go, we agree to some extent. See, just because I believe in “zombie Jesus” doesn’t mean we can’t find some common ground. Let’s be friends?
And why do you think that is? I would submit for your consideration that it has to do with the ridiculous developments in family law which literally PAY women to divorce their husbands that it is a decline in morality. [/quote]
There we go, we agree to some extent. See, just because I believe in “zombie Jesus” doesn’t mean we can’t find some common ground. Let’s be friends?[/quote]
Common ground ALERT. Sloth I won’t fight you on the materialistic culture/narcissistic culture. The idea that this is because of freedom is where I disagree. In a way we may be more comfortable than ever before which has us with the ability to essentially “waste” our time with such crap. This forum for example. Our ancestors wouldn’t have had the amount of leisure time nor the luxury of being able to accomplish work while doing these types of things. Technology has afforded us the ability to meet our needs with much less labor.
Doesn’t mean the world is worse, just different. The idea that most of our history is male dominated because we didn’t give women the chance to do anything doesn’t mean that letting women now do things they want to will lead to doom. Again a different world.
A woman deciding that she wants to be on the Supreme Court instead of raising kids is not a bad thing. And we won’t run out of people who want to have kids or if we do it will be long after you and I recognize this planet.
And why do you think that is? I would submit for your consideration that it has to do with the ridiculous developments in family law which literally PAY women to divorce their husbands that it is a decline in morality. [/quote]
There we go, we agree to some extent. See, just because I believe in “zombie Jesus” doesn’t mean we can’t find some common ground. Let’s be friends?[/quote]
Common ground ALERT. Sloth I won’t fight you on the materialistic culture/narcissistic culture. The idea that this is because of freedom is where I disagree. In a way we may be more comfortable than ever before which has us with the ability to essentially “waste” our time with such crap. This forum for example. Our ancestors wouldn’t have had the amount of leisure time nor the luxury of being able to accomplish work while doing these types of things.
Doesn’t mean the world is worse, just different. The idea that most of our history is male dominated because we didn’t give women the chance to do anything doesn’t mean that letting women now do things they want to will lead to doom. Again a different world.
A woman deciding that she wants to be on the Supreme Court instead of raising kids is not a bad thing. And we won’t run out of people who want to have kids or if we do it will be long after you and I recognize this planet. [/quote]
Ah well, we agree to disagree. I’m tired. And, spending all my alt-tab time on one thread, again. Heck it’s not the thread even, I’m just all talked out for now on this issue specifically. When I get some time I would like to post to Thunder’s overarching topic instead of focusing on one specific issue. To that, the examination of Libertarian/Conservatism and its place in America, I like Patrick Deenen’s stuff.
Anyways, I do appreciate your ability to put up with me and keep it friendly, H.
As for angry, I hope we can be more friendly towards each other in the future. Good on you for making something of/for yourself despite the difficulties you faced (one much like my own) earlier in life. I’d just argue that abandonment and abuse was what your really NEEDED to escape. We did, and still can find, happy families amongst the poor.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
As for angry, I hope we can be more friendly towards each other in the future. Good on you for making something of/for yourself despite the difficulties you faced (one much like my own) earlier in life. I’d just argue that abandonment and abuse was what your really NEEDED to escape. We did, and still can find, happy families amongst the poor.[/quote]
Religion is a trigger for me. I’ll try to show more restraint/respect in the future. I will offer a similar deal with you that I made with Brett the police officer. I promised I wouldn’t type “fuck the police” any more and try and focus on issues. That doesn’t mean I don’t make posts that cast police in a bad light, I’m just not vulgar about it anymore. I’ll make the same concession here - I’ll try to restrain myself with the baiting. For the record, it isn’t just “Christianity” I don’t like, it’s all organized religion. God has nothing to do with what MAN wrote to control other men. IMHO
Anyway, I don’t want to derail this. Like I said, the older I get and as I go through more experiences with my own kids, my perspective is softening. I even had a few correspondences with Chris about “faith” that were pretty respectful. I see value in some of the “ritual” aspects of reflection and the “meditative” aspects of prayer. But I could never assign that to an external locus of control, it would always be (for me) about self discipline.
I just know what religion has done throughout history, and I remember what was done to me in the name of religion as a child and I think something that powerful is very dangerous. And the fact that I can logically pick it apart, but aside from that I don’t care one way or another what another person thinks. As long as it doesn’t affect me or mine.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I remember what was done to me in the name of religion as a child and I think something that powerful is very dangerous.[/quote]
And therein lies the problem. And also why someone would have to be daffy to argue with you…
Nah. It’s a terrible thing he had to experience that, and it’s best to be understanding when one learns such things about another person. About why they may be coming from where they’re coming from. Know what I’m saying? However, while my own experiences were apparently very similar, they were very much secular. Anyways, I choose to take no offense. And, I’m happy to know that Angry has gone on to do well in life. Further, I appreciate his reply very much.