Prison Should Be…

Off Topic
263

Not just through media. There are studies looking at gen X vs other generations. Gen X was easily the most antisocial, the most promiscuous, the most into drugs.

Lot of people complain about my generation, but you are looking at fringe portions of my generation that are into the hedonism. In reality my generation is the most isolated, bored, depressed generation (epidemiologically speaking).

My previous music teacher told was a gen X kid and he/his friends fit the exact stereotype I talk about, as did my cousin (gen X) although this is pure anecdote… I think there’s something to be said about media/trends and stereotypes as these representations exist for a reason.

Even if it didn’t encapsulate an absolute majority it represented enough to paint a repeat image through media, literature, events like woodstock '99. When was the last time you heard of teenagers burning an entire festival down to the ground?

Just look at the music back then… break stuff by Limp Bizkit was hugely popular. My generation a song like that wouldn’t take off… We aren’t angry anymore… we are depressed, sad and apathetic.

But I must say… if I had to choose between being gen Z or gen X I’d probably have to go with pre social media generation… And while I understand why PC became a thing, I’d prefer a world without it

Check out this popular song… It’s LITERALLY “all the kids are depressed”

The 90s had something similar with grunge… but this is different. Grunge also had an element of angst/anger.

264

I should clarify, I’m a millenial, which is the range you were speaking about originally for the angriest generation. I was just bringing up gen x because we knew better than to to piss them off.

If you did you’d have to go to the edge of the woods at dusk and offer a VHS copy (god help you if it was a dvd) of The Goonies or The Breakfast Club if you wanted to live.

2 Likes
265

Reading this makes me think much trouble can be avoided by:

  1. Containing sex mostly in marriage or always in “serious relationships”.
  2. Being discriminative with who we screw.
2 Likes
266

If you were cool, not a narc, we might smoke a bowl with you.

If not, we light your shoes on fire and laugh as you run away.

Smoldering footprints are inherently funny.

2 Likes
267

I mean, seriously. It’s pretty shocking to me that this even needs to be said. Don’t want to have to deal with a psycho? Avoid psychos. Don’t want to get baby-trapped? Get to know the character of the people with whom you consider intimacy. Don’t want to have to worry about giving an ex half your shit? Find someone with a strong work history and the qualifications to earn her own shit. Character. Look for someone with character.

7 Likes
268

So the main reasons I’m against child support

  • courts tend to favor the mother and set inflexible support fees
  • Funds (at least where I live) are not tracked, meaning many single parents can and do misuse those funds. Crazy to think someone could have a history of drug use (really common, esp methamphetamine in rural Australia), get child support payments and those payments aren’t tracked here… I don’t think your bank statement needs to be tracked… but how much money are you pulling out of ATM’s? Visits to liquor stores and tobacconists (noting cigarettes are like 50-60$/pack here if you don’t buy from the black market… everyone goes black market here now) and casinos absolutely need to be tracked (Australia has highest rate of gambling and methamphetamine addiction in the world for reference). Gambling losses are almost 2000$ per adult (average) per year here.
  • A lot of men face excessive payments that aren’t feasible to pay… Look at the median price of rent in Sydney, Australia and tell me a father can afford to pay a sizable child support check. If you miss payments you can be criminally charged. I’d argue the same for the women who pay child support here (and it may sometimes also be the case) but men are treated far more harshly here by divorce courts/courts in general…
  • Can lead to parent seeking full custody for financial gain

Aside from the latter… fix the first three issues and I’m on board with payments again. As is… similar to you I think neglectful parents/deadbeats who run away from the responsibility of raising their child/children should pay (financially) for their bad decision.

269

The main reason I am for child support:

I don’t want any of my tax dollars used to raise a child that another couple are solely responsible for the child being brought into this world. And I don’t care if the “father” feels he is being overcharged. I feel it is better for him to feel overcharged than me to be charged at all.

I am a firm believer in seedtime and harvest. You plant the seed, you own the harvest.

3 Likes
270

Yes, that’s what we agree on. What happens more frequently is a father who committed no legal wrong doing being on the hook for child support, including cases in which the women go on to reside with their new men.

Sometimes the charges are so high the men wind up jailed. There was even a case of a man who was malnourished because he couldn’t afford enough food.

2 Likes
271

There are multitude of legal decisions that result in a very poor outcome. Merely operating in the bounds of the law hardly assures a good life outcome. Sow a questionable seed and you still own the harvest, even if you did it within the bounds of the law.

272

If my interpretation of your post is correct, then it shows exactly why family “law” is unjust and a primary reason why men are on a marriage strike.

273

It sure is. If you father a child that you are unwilling to support until they reach adulthood, you should be sterilized. That would be justice.

1 Like
274

That would be justice, which I didn’t refer to.

There is no justice in punishing an innocent person.

275

The only other “justice” pertains to the child (the product of the action.)

276

Justice that can be served by father custody, not kidnapping and charging for it, and creating mother-headed homes and, while we’re at a prison thread, resultant criminality.

1 Like
277

annnnnd as I’ve said before

If you can’t afford (financially, emotionally or physically) to have kids… don’t have kids…

I understand it’s entirely unreasonable to force abstinence on an entire cohort of people… But reversible sterilization in this day and age is 100% viable! I don’t think it’d lead to higher rates of promiscuity.

Promiscuity is by and large a byproduct of attitude/culture. We can take the pill for example. The idea is the pill led to far higher rates of people “screwing around”… In Australia the pill came out in 1961 but it was STRICTLY restricted to women who were married, had kids and didn’t want more kids

The pill didn’t become commercially available until the early-mid 1970s in Aus, yet societal attitudes towards sex had been changing to integrate a more permissive framework from the late 1950’s onward. Demand for better contraceptives was high (from activists, scientists and the likes) from the 50’s onwards. A cultural shift regarding sex had already begun, the pill hastened the turnover but it was a BYPRODUCT of the sexual revolution and not necessarily the cause

All I have to do is show you rates of teen pregnancies, surveyed numbers of reported sex partners (when surveys were anonymous) and it really didn’t change much from the late 50s through to the 70s. As a matter of fact avg number of lifetime sex partners amusingly peaked in the 40-50’s and as such so did record numbers of teen pregnancies and subsequently… kids in orphanages…

The pill did what it was supposed to, dropped the rate of teen pregnancy down quite significantly. Attitudes towards sex by the time the pill came out for widespread commercial use were already lax. Major negative consequences eventuated from marketing the pill over time though. There were some positives no doubt, the product would have been best left restricted to certain demographics.

I tend to believe the sexual revolution kickstarted in the 50’s… and the seeds were sewn in the 1920s secondary to changes ongoing in society (technological/medical advancements, resistance towards the status quo at the time etc). Unfortunately the change in society has largely been maldaptive… but let’s not forget many people were unhappy under the “old ways” which is what led to revolution unfolding in the first place.

My point is… you could sterilize people… or you could take away all contraception and I don’t think much would change aside from perhaps less traditional penetrative sex (or loopholes…) because cultural attitudes towards sex are permissive

You need to change the culture around sex and reproduction here. Make it so that it’s absolutely unacceptable for a man to leave a woman after getting her pregnant… It used to be customary a man marries a woman if he got her pregnant (although those marriages didn’t always work out).

I am an advocate for selective breeding at this point in time, even if it’s mean… As you’ve said biblical times enforced natural selection. I agree, although some did die needlessly (get a cut that gets infected etc) but people who were genetically prone to issues were largely weeded out. We some form of decent selection again, and we need a sense of community as a population again

I live on a farm, and I hardly know my neighbours… How sad is that.

1 Like
278

Once it goes before the court, you are stuck with the outcome until it revisited in court. Live with it.

279

Or avoid it, and don’t deal with it, as men are doing by avoiding women altogether.

I get your point though.

280

The majority of fathers who fall behind on child support are earning below the poverty line. You think these men can handle any type of custody? Who is going to take care of the child? They lack the resources. These people (men/women) should not people having children.

Again, test and those who fail…Sterilization.

2 Likes
281

The pill came out, yet we are paying 421 billion dollars in bastard taxes.

I am going to look into this, though no-fault divorce happens to middle class men.

No! But their ex-wives can’t either.

Beats me. Which is why I agree with harsh measures like…

2 Likes
282

My point wasn’t so much Biblical, it was the lack of social support. As in: “You can’t fix stupid.” But only in modern times could “stupid” be saved from themselves. “Stupid” in the 19th Century and before, could likely result in your death. At least the odds were against them.