American History Is Not Libertarian History?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
122

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

His position is so ridiculous in that regard I can barely stand to respond. You can have him.[/quote]

Oh good grief. When something doesn’t fit your view you have your little whiny baby fits.

I didn’t say religion caused shit I said I don’t think it helps anything and pointed out why. Better access and use of contraceptives decreases the number of unwanted children. Guess who fights against these things?

Agree, disagree, or get out of the way. Don’t waste our time with posts that say nothing. Some people are trying to discuss things. Save the drive by insults for another day. You don’t make more money by being the first person to reach 1 billion posts.

123

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It happens to “traditional values” folks too.

It happens to non-traditional values folks MORE. That is inarguable.
[/quote]

Cite it then. Why don’t the states with large amounts of socially liberal people have higher single parent rates? All you’ve got is “well, blacks in red states.” The divorce rate is lower as well in those states where not as many people go to church. You really think it’s just blacks?

Franklin County Kansas where I am from has almost no minorities and is full of traditional values religious folks. And we have a lot of single parent families. Probably more percentage wise than many places that are more “progressive.”

This idea that the godless people who are ok with gays are leading to massive amounts of single parent families is patently absurd. [/quote]

YOU do some citing then. Don’t ask me to cite for my position while you get to toss around anecdotes about Kansas.
[/quote]

Oh here comes typical Push. Says something he can’t prove, gets asked for proof and then says nah you prove something.

You do this all the time. Just admit you can’t cite what you said and we will move on.*

*You won’t admit it because you’re lazy and when you get caught you like to save face by shifting the burden.

You made a statement. I asked you to prove it. In turn you asked me to prove…what exactly?

If it’s so inarguable why can’t you prove it?

124

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole scenario is down right ridiculous:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If a parent is raping his child? What if that child tells his neighbor? In the United States of America in 2015, he may report that to the police and CPS, which may then launch a lengthy investigation, during which the child may be raped many additional times. In a free society, that neighbor may launch his own investigation. He may conclude that his neighbor did rape his child. He may then kill his neighbor and adopt the child. If a jury is gathered, finds that the dead neighbor DID rape his daughter, and then punishes the man who killed him, then that society is fucked. [/quote][/quote]

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. [/quote]

If there is no moral reason to have a government law against sex with children it ceases to be molestation and becomes sex between consenting people. The law says children can’t consent thus it should be illegal and criminalised.

Should there be age of consent laws? You won’t say yes or no!
[/quote]

No, there should not be blanket age of consent laws. Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. If two eight year-olds manage to have sex, should they be imprisoned? Parents should be responsible for their children. Government should not be expected to have an answer for everything.

127

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thank God no one agrees with you Nick…[/quote]

I don’t follow. [/quote]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Once more: I do NOT agree with laws prohibiting child labor.
[/quote]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If a person can explain sex and its possible consequences, I’d say that person can consent to it. [/quote]

This whole scenario is down right ridiculous:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If a parent is raping his child? What if that child tells his neighbor? In the United States of America in 2015, he may report that to the police and CPS, which may then launch a lengthy investigation, during which the child may be raped many additional times. In a free society, that neighbor may launch his own investigation. He may conclude that his neighbor did rape his child. He may then kill his neighbor and adopt the child. If a jury is gathered, finds that the dead neighbor DID rape his daughter, and then punishes the man who killed him, then that society is fucked. [/quote][/quote]

Just want to add one to the list:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. [/quote]

128

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

His position is so ridiculous in that regard I can barely stand to respond. You can have him.[/quote]

Oh good grief. When something doesn’t fit your view you have your little whiny baby fits.

I didn’t say religion caused shit I said I don’t think it helps anything and pointed out why. Better access and use of contraceptives decreases the number of unwanted children. Guess who fights against these things?

Agree, disagree, or get out of the way. Don’t waste our time with posts that say nothing. Some people are trying to discuss things. Save the drive by insults for another day. You don’t make more money by being the first person to reach 1 billion posts. [/quote]

No need to get emotional, Harold. Just enjoy your time here and learn to deal with criticism. I pick on other folks too – lots of 'em – for dumb ideas and they don’t get all teary-eyed like you do. Sheesh.[/quote]

Lol. Some things never change. Push makes typical backhanded personal insult in the middle of discussion. Push gets called out because he says something he can’t prove. Push tells other person to figure it out themselves. Push throws out another insult and exits thread.

He’s got it practiced and well versed in his pursuit to hit 1 million posts. Why don’t you just leave so everyone who was talking can go back to it?

129

In a democratic society you will now have two choices:

  1. Social conservatism and a manageable welfare state
    or,
  2. Social liberaltarianism and an outright large and all-encompassing DADDY/Adult Child welfare state that will eventually consume itself (and everything around it).

Single parents and potential single parents are not voting to decrease the welfare state. Won’t happen. Nope. Get over it already. It is the daddy.

Childless (or, having had only 1.8 children) elderly aren’t voting for a decrease in the welfare state. Won’t happen. Nope. There is no longer an extended family of children and grandchildren to pool resources together in an effort to make sure “pop-pop” sees out his golden years in reasonable comfort. And with increasingly less children being born, this becomes more and more entrenched.

You can boo Thunder, even pelt him with rotten eggs. But he’s right, as much as y’all might hate it.

Don’t have to marry that baby’s mamma/daddy? Ok, fine, “liberty.” Now we all ‘marry’ her and play the part of daddy (financially speaking) through our taxes. And that is the only way it will EVER be.

Liberty now equals and will always equal (unless the social aspect is reexamined) having the state cover the mess of your hyper-individualistic socially liberal lives.

The state is the guarantor of actual freedom. The freedoms that matter. The freedom of sex, health, to care in our increasingly childless old age. Rofl, you think most people give two craps about the freedom to “have plenty of sex, but get stuck with my own husbandless/wifeless consequences.” That they actually are moved by the “freedom to contracept, educate, and career myself into an old age without the family structure built up to care for me in my doddering years” argument? Lol.

Those are the tyrannies, and you are the tyrants. The state is the subsidizer of freedom and individual. Without which the individual would be chained and shackled by nature.

130

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

Back in the good old days when we had the rule of thumb?

Oppressive religion serves a vital role in repressing a woman’s sexuality. Call it what it is. You cannot have one with out the other. There is no “equality” between men and women AND a god fearing, low divorce rate, low child born out of wedlock rate.

If you remove the shame and oppression of women, YET RETAIN THE LAWS THAT INCENTIVIZE DIVORCE (life long alimony, child support, automatic custody of kids, etc…) you are going to have a high divorce rate. Family law sets it up for a woman perfectly:

  1. get married
  2. get knocked up
  3. get divorced
  4. PROFIT

OR, for out of wed lock babies:

  1. meet dude with assets
  2. get knocked up
  3. decide to keep it (her being in charge of HER body and all)
  4. paternity test
  5. PROFIT

Hell, that even works with guys with no assets. The only difference is the state will garnish all of their wages so that they have to live in a cardboard box, while they make monthly payments to support their offspring. If they fail to make payments, they are incarcerated and the woman gets welfare.

We are PAYING women to have kids out of wedlock and/or breaking up families. There is literally no downside for them.[/quote]

Which is precisely why I have been saying are you sure increased government and not the freedom for people to do what they want didn’t cause some of these things to T-bolt.

131

Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?

Do you have an explanation for why in the area I live in the more conservative and religious areas have more single parents than the more progressive/less religious ones?

I mean it’s backwards from what we tend to think. The Bible Belt is the big area for divorce, welfare, single parent families, poverty, etc.

132

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. The suggestion that permitting children to work is the same as permitting child molestation is equally absurd.[/quote]

This.

One has to have a weak position to defend in order to pull out all the stops like this.

Dumb.[/quote]

So Push / Nick, you guys are okay with your neighbor coming onto your property, killing you (assuming they can), and claiming your kid if they think you’re molesting / raping them?

Am I following you both right? [/quote]

I believe that if he was correct and any jury found him guilty of something, that society is fucked(in America, he would likely be found guilty of something). If he was incorrect, then he murdered me and and kidnapped my child.

133

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.

135

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Thanks my friend. I did edit my above post if you would respond to it.

Do you think a teenager who gets pregnant prom night should be forced to marry the dad?

136

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?

Do you have an explanation for why in the area I live in the more conservative and religious areas have more single parents than the more progressive/less religious ones?

I mean it’s backwards from what we tend to think. The Bible Belt is the big area for divorce, welfare, single parent families, poverty, etc. [/quote]

Because they have tv, internet, and radio too. The culture sucks and its everywhere. It’s just where the progressives will be a bunch of old childless people on the government tit, the red states will have fatherless children on the tit. And I seriously question just how red the generation having those children today are.

137

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
H Factor,

Really, religion is the culprit? Back when people were materially poorer but held fast to traditional family norms, they were religious, were they not? Even more so than today, probably?

Birth control was also less available, too, right?

But fewer out of wedlock children and low divorce rates?[/quote]

I don’t think religion helps anything. And you didn’t mention anything about it (single parent families) being higher in “traditional value” red states (who ironically are largely welfare recipients as well).

Fewer out of wedlock children: Because we forced marriage on those who had babies. Now we wait for something crazy like…love?

Low divorce rates: Because people didn’t get divorced even when they were being cheated on and abused.

Are things really worse because we encourage a woman now to leave a man when he beats her? Really? [/quote]

You said religion contributes to/causes out of wedlock births. So, no, you didn’t say religion was neutral. But if what you say was true, religion would have caused a lot more back when people were more religious. But that didn’t happen.

And the explanation cant be the number of “trapped” spouses that weren’t fee to leave the marriage. While that no doubt happened some, it isn’t reasonable to think that is the reason marriage rates were so high then and so low now.

138

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Sloth:

When in your opinion is divorce acceptable?
[/quote]

When the vows made by each to the other are broken. Abuse and adultery. That’s it.[/quote]

Thanks my friend. I did edit my above post if you would respond to it.

Do you think a teenager who gets pregnant prom night should be forced to marry the dad? [/quote]

I think she should at least be able to sue the hell of him and his family for support. Of course, that requires strong government intervention…!

139

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I 110% agree. That’s the scenario I was asked about. The idea that allowing people freedom is going to make child molestation acceptable is fucking absurd. The suggestion that permitting children to work is the same as permitting child molestation is equally absurd.[/quote]

This.

One has to have a weak position to defend in order to pull out all the stops like this.

Dumb.[/quote]

So Push / Nick, you guys are okay with your neighbor coming onto your property, killing you (assuming they can), and claiming your kid if they think you’re molesting / raping them?

Am I following you both right? [/quote]

I believe that if he was correct and any jury found him guilty of something, that society is fucked(in America, he would likely be found guilty of something). [/quote]

How or what can a jury (how ever that would work) find him guilty of if there are no laws? Or vice versa, how can you be guilt of child molestation if there is no legal definition of child molestation?

Incorrect about what? His definition of abuse, societies definition, a legal definition? I honestly can not follow your position.

140

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Just want to add one to the list:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Some 13 year-olds are capable of consenting, while some 30 year-olds are not. [/quote][/quote]

You believe in God, right? Do you think puberty is an accidental and meaningless process? Some 13 year-olds are also smarter and more knowledgable than a large number of adults. Some 30 year-olds are mentally retarded and totally incapable of truly consenting to anything.