[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:
Ending the welfare state does not make people smart, or change basic instincts.
No, that is not the argument.
It is basic instinct to act in accordance with economic realities. Change those economic realities with respect to welfare and all of the sudden people will change their mind how they feel about abortion, for example.
Read my post above, then go to library and read until the voices in your head quiet. What the hell do basic insticts and economic realities have in common? By your theory, everyone would wait until they finished graduate school and were well on their way in their professional career, before having children. Yet, that is not what is happening. The reality is, poorly educated, desperate people frequently make bad decisions. Another reality is that excited hormones tend to make people slightly mentally retarded.
Educate and equip, that is the solution. Translation: teach more than abstinence in high school and hand out condoms like they were candy.[/quote]
What a novel idea, wait until you are both mentally and financially stable until you have kids. It is due to those who display such responsibility who are actually bailing out those less intelligent with their tax money towards welfare. If my money is used to help those who act foolishly, I think I should have a say in how those people are dealt with.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
What the hell do basic insticts and economic realities have in common? By your theory, everyone would wait until they finished graduate school and were well on their way in their professional career, before having children.
Use some common sense.
Valuations are individual and subjective.
Not everyone can get a graduate degree nor do most people need a graduate degree. Do they need not have children?
You ask what basic instincts and economic realities have in common:
most people try to not put themselves in situation where they become worse off than they would have been otherwise. We call this SELF INTEREST. All economic activity strives toward the self interest of the actor. How can it not be basic instinct to want to be better off tomorrow than one is right now?
Knowing certain information gives us an advantage with respect to action and typically we would not purposefully act contrary to that information and put ourselves in a worse situation than we are right now. That is fundamentally economic and self interest.[/quote]
I agree with you in the macro, but not in the micro. The error in your theory is that you assign way too much cognition to the average citizen. In other words, your statements assume that people KNOW (sorry only way to add emphasis) what’s economically in their best interest. Society errs in big and small ways in these decisions. Hell, I bet you, an obviously educated and moderately bright individual have zigged economically when you should have zagged. God knows I have…and I’m brilliant (sorry can’t help myself). So, take the average individual in the 50th percentile of intelligence, who thinks that buying a TV with a credit card is a good idea, deprive him/her of real, meaningful education about economic realities and they are as likely as not to make bad decisions. What I am trying to say in my Forest Gump kind of way is that economic realities can be incredibly sophisticated, nuanced things for people who cannot find Florida on a map.
Unless you are willing to create a society in which the consequences for bad decision make are catastrophic, and sometimes they are already, eliminating the safety net is reckless. It’s like saying the way to cure the common cold is to get rid of cough medicine. Sure, cough medicine only treats symptoms, but sometimes symptoms need treating until we can find a cure.
[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
It’s like saying the way to cure the common cold is to get rid of cough medicine. Sure, cough medicine only treats symptoms, but sometimes symptoms need treating until we can find a cure.
[/quote]
The human body can cure the common cold on it’s own, it doesn’t need cough syrup.
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
First, you don’t know anyone with way more knowledge than me. Second, if seventh grade social study’s texts lie it is in the watering down of American history and painting it in a light most favorable to us.
So then why would you cite it as a source of truthful information if you were aware of the lies contained therein? You are unethical at best and at worst a plain liar.
Promoting lies is lying. Why should we take anything you say seriously from here on out? You are nothing more than a liar.[/quote]
You should take what I say seriously, because doing so will win you great fortune and fame. If you read my post above, I did not cite anything as a source, I wrote sarcastically that I was going to buy all of you a particular text (that also, incidentally, was written for effect; don’t look for a book in your mailbox.) Just because a text presents a watered down version of history, doesn’t mean the events within the text didn’t take place. There are multiple resources detailing the events of the Great Depression; the event that I was referring to and which precipitated the New Deal. We know the New Deal took place, because people who have never had the misfortune of needing its services keep railing against it. I have a feeling, before our current economic crisis is over, there will be fewer of those people. I am always impressed with how quickly boot-strappers are able to change their tune from railing against social welfare to railing against the government for how inefficiently it doles out said welfare when they are the ones in need. If your response is “I would never need those services, I make good decisions,” ask yourself what bad decisions the workers at the plants in Detroit made. Perhaps it was being loyal to a company for twenty years and losing their life savings they had invested in their 401K.
The number of teenage moms has increased in recent years â?? and one Chicago high school has reportedly become a shocking example of that, revealing that one in eight of its female students are pregnant.
Of the 800 female students at Paul Robeson High School in Chicago, Ill., 115 are expectant mothers, CBS2Chicago.com reported Thursday.
The staggering number can be attributed to various factors inside the home â?? not the school â?? principal Gerald Morrow told the station.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.[/quote]
We’ve been there, done that. The social experiment was called Eugencics which was designed to eliminate the spread of defectic genetic traits. The program was aimed at the mentally ill and insane. It was eventually shut down, but not before aproximately 65,000 women were forcibly sterilized.
[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.
We’ve been there, done that. The social experiment was called Eugencics which was designed to eliminate the spread of defectic genetic traits. The program was aimed at the mentally ill and insane. It was eventually shut down, but not before aproximately 65,000 women were forcibly sterilized.
[/quote]
I believe it was Oklahoma that forcibly sterilzed repeat offenders. Held unconstitutional way, way long ago. That was the “license to procreate” day in school. Skinner v. OK, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). I forget who it was who was sterilizing mentally retarded individuals.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.
We’ve been there, done that. The social experiment was called Eugencics which was designed to eliminate the spread of defectic genetic traits. The program was aimed at the mentally ill and insane. It was eventually shut down, but not before aproximately 65,000 women were forcibly sterilized.
I believe it was Oklahoma that forcibly sterilzed repeat offenders. Held unconstitutional way, way long ago. That was the “license to procreate” day in school. Skinner v. OK, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). I forget who it was who was sterilizing mentally retarded individuals.[/quote]
It was a nationwide program. Michael Crichton actually wrote about it in the prologue to his book “State of Fear.” Everyone was on board and it was seen as the humane thing to do. Crichton holds it out as an example of the bad things that happen when science and politics are mixed.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.
We’ve been there, done that. The social experiment was called Eugencics which was designed to eliminate the spread of defectic genetic traits. The program was aimed at the mentally ill and insane. It was eventually shut down, but not before aproximately 65,000 women were forcibly sterilized.
I believe it was Oklahoma that forcibly sterilzed repeat offenders. Held unconstitutional way, way long ago. That was the “license to procreate” day in school. Skinner v. OK, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). I forget who it was who was sterilizing mentally retarded individuals.[/quote]
[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
BackInAction wrote:
I would love for people to have to get licenses (it would be better for the children cause they would be ready), but I can’t see that passing. No politician really wants to bring this problem up which is a shame cause I personally believe it’s the cause of tons of problems in the world (environmental, resources, wars, etc).
The only way I think would have a chance of working would be some type of forced sterilization of the masses without them knowing. Perhaps distributing something in the water that will bring fertility rates down. This is the only humane way I could think of controlling the population. Now, I didn’t say this was a good way, it’s just the only way I see it working.
We’ve been there, done that. The social experiment was called Eugencics which was designed to eliminate the spread of defectic genetic traits. The program was aimed at the mentally ill and insane. It was eventually shut down, but not before aproximately 65,000 women were forcibly sterilized.
I believe it was Oklahoma that forcibly sterilzed repeat offenders. Held unconstitutional way, way long ago. That was the “license to procreate” day in school. Skinner v. OK, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). I forget who it was who was sterilizing mentally retarded individuals.
It was a nationwide program. Michael Crichton actually wrote about it in the prologue to his book “State of Fear.” Everyone was on board and it was seen as the humane thing to do. Crichton holds it out as an example of the bad things that happen when science and politics are mixed.
[/quote]
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), upheld forcible sterilzation of the mentally retarded. Not directly overturned by Skinner, either. Very interesting.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
While I believe a license to procreate would be an awesome idea (of course, I would be permitted unlimited crotch critters due to my intellect and charm), it’s just not going to happen.[/quote]
How about we just stop paying people to have illegitimate children or children they cannot afford?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:
While I believe a license to procreate would be an awesome idea (of course, I would be permitted unlimited crotch critters due to my intellect and charm), it’s just not going to happen.
How about we just stop paying people to have illegitimate children or children they cannot afford?
[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
I would also like to know, are you from some strange planet where people have babies for the $270 per month they stand to gain in cash assistance? Have you ever visited a public housing facility? Would you have children so you could move IN to one?
[/quote]
You’re joking, right? What about the study they did some time ago? What about interviews with young women that you see on TV, where they clearly state they want to get pregnant so they can get welfare?
[quote]Scuba19 wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I would also like to know, are you from some strange planet where people have babies for the $270 per month they stand to gain in cash assistance? Have you ever visited a public housing facility? Would you have children so you could move IN to one?
You’re joking, right? What about the study they did some time ago? What about interviews with young women that you see on TV, where they clearly state they want to get pregnant so they can get welfare?[/quote]
Wow, it is hard to argue with “the” study “they” did some time ago. Also, what do you so suppose we do with an individual so uninformed that they think the money they stand to get from public assistance will offset the expense of raising a newborn and result in a net financial gain? What is always lost in the argument is what do you do with the children? Are we prepared to be a nation that allows children to starve to death because their parents make bad decisions? One of the benefits of being an extremely wealthy nation is that we don’t have to deal with watching children starve. There is plenty of that going on in the world, we don’t have to add to it.
It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.
You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.
Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.
It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.
You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.
Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.[/quote]
It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.
You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.
Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.
This could pass for some damn good ‘slam poetry’.[/quote]
It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.
You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.
Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.[/quote]
Not sure if it’s “brilliant” enough for Pwrlifters standards.
If more people would become homos, there’d be fewer kids. I already have 3 (one adopted) so there’s no advantage to me turning homo, so quit dreaming Iron Dwarf!
I think we need to applaud our leaders for making homo marriage and home relationships more mainstream, as this will leave more spaces for hunting and fishing, while Adam and Steve prance around in their lace undies and smoke crack in the cities.