Man With 30 Kids Asks Judge For Break On Child Support Payments

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Man With 30 Kids Asks Judge For Break On Child Support Payments

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tennessee-man-30-kids

OK. All you believers that the state must force the social responsible behavior of paying taxes. Tell what the state must do in this case.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
    

    

 

                        Euthanize.....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10628
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Make him pay more. He

Make him pay more. He decided to pop out so many kids, he can suffer the consequences.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Make him pay

Vastet wrote:
Make him pay more. He decided to pop out so many kids, he can suffer the consequences.

What? He only works a minimum wage job. The state already takes half of that already in child support. So apparently he lives on $200 per week.

 

The state already takes half by law already in child support. So you want to take it all? So each of his kids get $3.00 a week instead of $1.50 and he doesn't eat. Will that solve the problem here???

 

I say sterilize him or send him to Canada.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What can they do to someone

What can they do to someone who hasn't broken any laws? If he doesn't pay child support he'll go to jail just like a socially irresponsible tax cheater.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10628
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:Make

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Make him pay more. He decided to pop out so many kids, he can suffer the consequences.

What? He only works a minimum wage job. The state already takes half of that already in child support. So apparently he lives on $200 per week.

It was his choice to dally, he alone bears responsibility.

Quote:

The state already takes half by law already in child support. So you want to take it all? So each of his kids get $3.00 a week instead of $1.50 and he doesn't eat. Will that solve the problem here???

It'll teach him and everyone else that there are consequences for your actions.

Quote:

I say sterilize him or send him to Canada.

And I say he belongs where he is, in the nation of irresponsibility. Paying everything he is required to in child support. He can get another job.
I live on 1/4th of his income. Not sympathetic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aside

This guy is clearly a loose cannon, and the only resolve you could reach is probably Prozac's suggestion,but this brings up a side note/question that always comes to my mind in child support issues.-

The child support/abortion bag. 

Most who are pro-choice believe that a woman's right to abort a pregnancy is her decision alone and the government or no one else has the right to tell her what she can do with her own body for whatever reasons because there is no line to be drawn as to what those reasons may be.  This also means that the decision to carry out the pregnancy is her's alone.

So if a man has no say in this matter, how is he to be held responsible for the forth-coming consequences of this decision? If it were against the law and the woman illegally aborted on her own, the man would not be held accountable if he supported her decision  nor would he be considered a victim of any sort if he were against it.

It just seems very lop-sided and unjust to me. Shouldn't a man have to support the decision to have a child if he is to be held accountable?

If you say "he should keep it in his pants" than aren't we making the male in any case out to be the sole perpetrator.  I ,for one, would like to have some say so in matters that will affect the rest of my life.

I'm sure this has been discussed here before but not since I have been here that I know of or remember

 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 Give him a state-funded

Sometimes I imagine a smart-ass king like Solomon devising and applying ingenious solutions to civil disputes. After all, the trend is to move away from jailing people to alternative forms of punishment, like public works. I regret this is impossible in America, where clogging the courts by suing people for money is a national sport, but one can always dream...

And king Solomon said: Give him a state-funded car full of baby supplies big enough for a sleeping bag and give his phone to all the women. If he doesn't respond to their call to come and change diapers on a baby, he should go to jail. And what about a vasectomy not to make any more children accidentally? (plus deposit in a sperm bank to shut up human rights activists)

Don't let the man run away from his 30-fold responsibility...

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1223
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Maybe he can get in on that

Maybe he can get in on that porno that Octomom is doing to pay her bills... 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10628
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
tonyjeffers wrote:So if a

tonyjeffers wrote:
So if a man has no say in this matter, how is he to be held responsible for the forth-coming consequences of this decision?

Which is clearly beyond this particular case. Noone can convince me that a guy with 30 kids didn't take an active role in reproducing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:tonyjeffers

Vastet wrote:
tonyjeffers wrote:
So if a man has no say in this matter, how is he to be held responsible for the forth-coming consequences of this decision?
Which is clearly beyond this particular case. Noone can convince me that a guy with 30 kids didn't take an active role in reproducing.

 

I tried tp make it clear that i wasn't speaking on the matter of the man in the OP.  That guy is no different than those  in the animal kingdom that pounce on any female in heat that he can manage to weasel his weasel into, then run off to the next leaving the female to raise her young.  I guess at least he hasn't resorted to killing the young offspring tho. 

Maybe it would be more accurate to label him a serial reproducer.

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The woman's right to decide

The woman's right to decide to abort or not is unfair to the male, but it's just tough shit.  That's nature and I accept the fact that it is the woman's right.

Birth defects aren't fair either.

Sometimes you just have to realize that reality is what it is.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
@tonyjeffers

Serial Anti-Killer?


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:The woman's

Watcher wrote:

The woman's right to decide to abort or not is unfair to the male, but it's just tough shit.  That's nature and I accept the fact that it is the woman's right.

Birth defects aren't fair either.

Sometimes you just have to realize that reality is what it is.

 

If you believe it is unfair, then why do you feel compelled to accept it?  I don't think it has anything to do with the facts of nature really.

What about all these little bitches that trick the man and get pregnant on purpose? I have an old girlfriend who admitted that she told the father of her kid that she had her tubes tied when they started going out.

Is he deserving of the burden of financial responsibility because he was a victim of treachery?

I'm just saying that if we are going to leave the decision solely upon the woman and not give the man any say in the matter, then that should be her decision and burden to live with.

The reality is that our laws prohibit the man to have a voice in any situation on the matter is bullshit. The only fact that I accept is that this bullshit will probably never change. If that is what you mean then I agree with you.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Your logic says that he

 Your logic says that he should be rich beyond the dreams of avarice because he got all this money from the government since he had all those kids.

You tell me why he isn't wealthy and I'll answer your question.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote: If you

tonyjeffers wrote:
 

If you believe it is unfair, then why do you feel compelled to accept it?  I don't think it has anything to do with the facts of nature really.

Tell that to a woman who is nine months pregnant.

Pregnancy is very hard on a woman's body.  It's not fair that men can reproduce without having to take the hit on their physical system like women have to do.  I was born without the sense of smell.  That's not fair.  What about my aunt that was born with Down Syndrome or nephew born heavily autistic? 

Not fair.  Not fair at all.

But life ain't fair.

Realizing that is called being an adult.

tonyjeffers wrote:
 

What about all these little bitches that trick the man and get pregnant on purpose? I have an old girlfriend who admitted that she told the father of her kid that she had her tubes tied when they started going out.

My advice would be don't fuck bitches. 

In life we all have to bear the consequences of our actions.  If you are not willing to accept the responsibility of fatherhood then don't have sex or get yourself snipped.

tonyjeffers wrote:
 

Is he deserving of the burden of financial responsibility because he was a victim of treachery?

Not fair, eh?

You see, you're missing an entire other person here.  That kid is not deserving of not having their father around to help raise them both financially and emotionally.

The grown man made the decision to engage in an activity that he knew had the possibility of resulting in a child.  That child did not decide to be born to those people.

As for the woman lieing that's fucked up.  But in something where the responsibilities are so huge, he'd have to be a retard to take her word for it.  I'm sorry your friend is an idiot.

tonyjeffers wrote:
 

I'm just saying that if we are going to leave the decision solely upon the woman and not give the man any say in the matter, then that should be her decision and burden to live with.

Once a woman is pregnant she's left with only one happy decision, and unfortunately for a lot of women they don't have that option.  Raising a child with the full support and love of the father.

If you think having a fetus removed from your womb or giving up your newly born baby for adoption won't rip your heart out, then I suggest you talk to some women that have done either one. 

The kind of cold hearted bitches that could shrug that off I wouldn't want to be with in the first place.

Sorry, Tony.  I agree with how you feel about it.  I wrestled with how unfair this fact of nature is for a long time.  But in an unfair situation, the most fair choice, is that the decision rests with the woman.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I'd say the women bear

 I'd say the women bear some responsibility too. Don't fuck a guy who is broke if you expect to get child support.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I'd

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I'd say the women bear some responsibility too. Don't fuck a guy who is broke if you expect to get child support.  

 

I agree. 

I still don't understand why some people fail to utilize birth control. In the case of one or two pregnancies, I can see where it could happen, due to the fact that birth control is not 100% foolproof yet. However, THIRTY KIDS ? ! Talk about some irresponsibility.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:If you

tonyjeffers wrote:

If you believe it is unfair, then why do you feel compelled to accept it?  I don't think it has anything to do with the facts of nature really.

What about all these little bitches that trick the man and get pregnant on purpose? I have an old girlfriend who admitted that she told the father of her kid that she had her tubes tied when they started going out.

Is he deserving of the burden of financial responsibility because he was a victim of treachery?

I'm just saying that if we are going to leave the decision solely upon the woman and not give the man any say in the matter, then that should be her decision and burden to live with.

The reality is that our laws prohibit the man to have a voice in any situation on the matter is bullshit. The only fact that I accept is that this bullshit will probably never change. If that is what you mean then I agree with you.

When two consenting adults, or educated teens for that matter have sex, they both know the score.  They can choose to take precautions or let desires make their decisions for them.  

This is a very simple matter of personal responsibility on the part of the male, and to a lesser extent, his parents who should have made sure he knew the score before he got his junk wet.  

When you decide to sleep with a woman there is a chance she will get pregnant regardless of any circumstances.  No birth control is 100% fool proof.  So crazy bitches trying to trick a man has nothing to do with anything.  He knew there was the possibility of pregnancy, so if she gives you the old "it's OK, I'm on birth control" you still have the option of strapping one on to be safer, just in case she's not responsible about taking her pills every day.  If he didn't take the precautions he had full power to take, then too bad so sad.

Sex for a man or a woman is a matter of CYA (cover your ass) or deal with the consequences.    For instance, a man says "it's OK baby we don't need a condom, I had a vasectomy" if she lets it happen and she gets the clap it's mostly her damn fault.  She could have told him to strap up or he's not getting any.

I sure as hell don't condone a woman trying to trap a man.  It's happened to me, and it was complete BS on her part.  But the fact is, every time I went in unprotected, I was NOT ignorant of the fact there was a possibility for pregnancy. 

Parents, tell your boys, assume chicks WILL try to get you at some point.  

 

As for the idiot with 30 kids.  The courts are damned if they do, damned if they don't.  If they take more money out of him and he can't afford to live, he'll go on welfare and quit work.  The kids are the number 1 priority of the courts.   It does the kids no good for them to punish this guy more who already makes next to nothing.  Sad but true.  Maybe someone should go around subconsciously planting the idea in the kids minds that they each punch him in the face, or kick him in the nuts when they get old enough.

"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
As another example of how

As another example of how reproduction is by nature unfair is that the number of women dying from childbirth is on the rise in the US.

MSNBC wrote:

Also mysterious was the death of Tim Davis’ 37-year-old wife, Elizabeth, who died a day after a vaginal delivery at a Danville, Va., hospital in September 2000.

She had a heart attack after a massive blood loss, Davis said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/

Yikes!  I'm glad I'm a man.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

                                                           I hate breeders of any sort.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: I

harleysportster wrote:

 

I still don't understand why some people fail to utilize birth control. In the case of one or two pregnancies, I can see where it could happen, due to the fact that birth control is not 100% foolproof yet. However, THIRTY KIDS ? ! Talk about some irresponsibility.

The rules of evolution predict people will behave in ways that would maximize the spreading of their seed. If 'responsible' behavior has no reward in terms of genetics, why should you expect people to behave this way? Nature has no morals. Look the male black widow spiders, they mate even though it means their own death. This is why 'taking all his money' won't work either. He does this because he can.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:harleysportster

 

My question is how can anyone claim to be concerned with child welfare, war, the enivironment, unemployment, low wages and still not support stopping this man with serilization or jail. Why is the only reponsible behavior forced on people taxes?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Don't let

Luminon wrote:

 

Don't let the man run away from his 30-fold responsibility...

Yes that $1.50 per week per child is just so damn important. Or do we just make food free so he can have another 30?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: My question is

EXC wrote:

 

My question is how can anyone claim to be concerned with child welfare, war, the enivironment, unemployment, low wages and still not support stopping this man with serilization or jail. Why is the only reponsible behavior forced on people taxes?

It's that nasty freedom thing. He has the freedom to be as stupid as he wants. We have the freedom to hold him responsible for his actions. We give the government the freedom and ability to help others. 

I never thought I'd be more libertarian and freedom loving than you and Beyond Saving.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
What are they going to

What are they going to charge him with, fucking too much? It goes without saying the extreme excess of this man's behavior is offensive. Had he the wherewithal or intention to support 30 children I would still find it obscene, and he obviously doesn't.

There's a difference between people who act irresponsibly because they're stupid like the people in this story and people who are irresponsible because of conviction that they be unencumbered by any obligation to their fellow citizen. That's why I count this fellow as better than a tax cheater and I don't believe he should be maligned by comparison to such rabble.

If the state is going to do anything, why don't they educate people about contraception and provide access to it, or would that be too much like helping?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10628
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote: My question is

EXC wrote:

 

My question is how can anyone claim to be concerned with child welfare, war, the enivironment, unemployment, low wages and still not support stopping this man with serilization or jail. Why is the only reponsible behavior forced on people taxes?

Why don't you draft a law and present it to your congressman instead of bitching about consequences of actions that are not currently illicit?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:   Why don't

Vastet wrote:

 

 

 Why don't you draft a law and present it to your congressman instead of bitching about consequences of actions that are not currently illicit?

 

    Being an atheist isn't illicit behavior either yet how many threads have we atheists here participated in where we just bitched about the effects of religion on society ?   I'm not aware of any forum members who then went about drafting any laws and submitting them to their congressman.

  Personally, I don't really care what happens to the pathetic serial breeder or his illegitimate offspring but I'll still offer my opinion and even bitch about if it I feel inclined to do so and after I've bitched about that I may even bitch some more... 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10628
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
There's a bit of a

There's a bit of a difference. EXC is demanding rather extreme forms of punishment for something that is not criminal.
Rarely has someone here actually suggested that religious folk be locked up and sterilised simply for practicing a religion. Or anything else for that matter.
Bitching about something crosses the line into fascism in this circumstance. So my response was geared to get EXC to try it and fail miserably, like all fascists do, rather than be about me bitching about his bitching.

Fact is that there is no justification for such an extreme response.
The women he had kids with were equal partners in this. Perhaps they should all be locked up and sterilised.
The kids inherited his genes, maybe they should too.

One thing is blatantly obvious, and that is should EXC ever gain any real power, he'll be assassinated within a week.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There's a bit

Vastet wrote:
There's a bit of a difference. EXC is demanding rather extreme forms of punishment for something that is not criminal. Rarely has someone here actually suggested that religious folk be locked up and sterilised simply for practicing a religion. Or anything else for that matter. Bitching about something crosses the line into fascism in this circumstance. So my response was geared to get EXC to try it and fail miserably, like all fascists do, rather than be about me bitching about his bitching. Fact is that there is no justification for such an extreme response. The women he had kids with were equal partners in this. Perhaps they should all be locked up and sterilised. The kids inherited his genes, maybe they should too. One thing is blatantly obvious, and that is should EXC ever gain any real power, he'll be assassinated within a week.

 

     Well, I must admit I suggested that the worthless sperm donor be euthanized but that's mostly because I would like to see this person eliminated from the gene pool.  That's my personal feeling but of course I won't be doing any political advocating for such an outcome. 

 

 ( oh yes, I like that you brought up the significant point that the baby mommas were equally culpable for this mini population explosion.  What a disgusting display of a lack of impulse control.  )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It's that

jcgadfly wrote:

It's that nasty freedom thing. He has the freedom to be as stupid as he wants. We have the freedom to hold him responsible for his actions. We give the government the freedom and ability to help others. 

I never thought I'd be more libertarian and freedom loving than you and Beyond Saving.

Except his freedom imposes a burden on everyone else. Even if one is a libertarian/conservative against all welfare, they children are likely to grow up to criminals, homeless and use a not natural resouces. Since we already live on a crowded planet, his freedom is a big problem for everyone.

BTW, I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians don't belive in social contracts(only every man for themselves), they believe in special rights for themselves. Libertarians believe in things like private land ownership which I'm opposed. Basically they are just like Rebublicans and Democrats believing in special rights for themselves at everyone else's expense.

Again I'm against something for nothing, so what political group represents me? None. Politics is all about getting something for yourself at others expense.

I'm for helping the poor with job training as long as they agree to limit family size. If you're going to grant special rights like the right to breed then no social contract can work. You can't have relationships where some people give and the others just take.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There's a bit

Vastet wrote:
There's a bit of a difference. EXC is demanding rather extreme forms of punishment for something that is not criminal.

Why is it extreme punishment? People get vasectomies all the time and don't report massive pain. Don't you think the suffering of these children and then the suffering of society and the environment is far, far worse? If you took all his money to pay for his kids, wouldn't his starvation be extreme punishment?

We lock people in prison all the time. Not only can they not have kids, they can't even have sex! All you do is give the guy a bill for his kids, when he can't pay it you say vascetomy or prison. Guess which "extreme form of punishment" he would choose?

If you consider this punishment, why can't I consider income tax to pay for his 30 kids a punishment?

 

Vastet wrote:
Fact is that there is no justification for such an extreme response. The women he had kids with were equal partners in this. Perhaps they should all be locked up and sterilised. The kids inherited his genes, maybe they should too. One thing is blatantly obvious, and that is should EXC ever gain any real power, he'll be assassinated within a week.

At what point do income tax rates to pay for this kind of BS become fascism and slavery to the state?

The justification that China has is the Great Chinese famine, sure there are a lot of abuses there, but they decided it was better than the alternative.

Vastet is culturally myopic, he lives in a country with vast resources and a small population, so it can now afford the welfare state by harvesting its resources. If he and his countrymen had suffered through a famine, they'd feel differently.

Actions need to be judged according to the suffering/pleasure reduction they cause, not cultural and religious biases. The justification for anything needs to be pleasure vs. pain.

P.S. I don't hear much about assassination in China. The people that wouldn't like it are too poor to do much about it. I don't want power, I just want a much more rational world.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It's that nasty freedom thing. He has the freedom to be as stupid as he wants. We have the freedom to hold him responsible for his actions. We give the government the freedom and ability to help others. 

I never thought I'd be more libertarian and freedom loving than you and Beyond Saving.

Except his freedom imposes a burden on everyone else. Even if one is a libertarian/conservative against all welfare, they children are likely to grow up to criminals, homeless and use a not natural resouces. Since we already live on a crowded planet, his freedom is a big problem for everyone.

BTW, I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians don't belive in social contracts(only every man for themselves), they believe in special rights for themselves. Libertarians believe in things like private land ownership which I'm opposed. Basically they are just like Rebublicans and Democrats believing in special rights for themselves at everyone else's expense.

Again I'm against something for nothing, so what political group represents me? None. Politics is all about getting something for yourself at others expense.

I'm for helping the poor with job training as long as they agree to limit family size. If you're going to grant special rights like the right to breed then no social contract can work. You can't have relationships where some people give and the others just take.

That's the freedom we have to hold him responsible for his actions, remember?

Since you're so concerned about living on a crowded planet I'm surprised you didn't advocate killing his kids. You also don't seem to object to rich folks breeding like rabbits as long as they can afford it. Again, against your view of wanting to limit overcrowding on the planet.

You still haven't explained how he's not wealthy from all that government money he got from all those kids. That's why he had them (according to your ideology), right?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Since you're

jcgadfly wrote:

Since you're so concerned about living on a crowded planet I'm surprised you didn't advocate killing his kids.

Why do you think we have war? Isn't it a lot about the fact that we live on a finite planet so with population pressures we inevitable end up fighting over control of land, water, oil, minerals, etc... So the way I see it anyone that doesn't support rational controls on population growth is preventing solutions to the problem of war, crime, disease, hunger, species extinction, etc... A sin of omission if you will.

jcgadfly wrote:

You also don't seem to object to rich folks breeding like rabbits as long as they can afford it. Again, against your view of wanting to limit overcrowding on the planet.

In general, there is not a problem of high birth rates among the rich. There is also not the problem of them going on Public assistance. However, they are high users of natural resources per capita. So, I think they need to pay large fines for having a lot of kids and leaving a large footprint on the environment and also have an upper limit on how many they can have as well.

jcgadfly wrote:

You still haven't explained how he's not wealthy from all that government money he got from all those kids. That's why he had them (according to your ideology), right?

Never said such a thing. I'm sure they all are getting lots of food stamps and other such assistance. The guy only works minimum wage. He's maxed out on the percentage of income the state can take from him. He is poor as dirt, apparently the state gives him just enough to eat and make more sperm so we can all keep paying for this insanity.

The goal of public assistance is not to make poor people wealthy. It is to enable for them to survive just enought to be dependant on Democrats so they'll stay in power.

 

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3640
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Since you're

jcgadfly wrote:


Since you're so concerned about living on a crowded planet I'm surprised you didn't advocate killing his kids.

 

   Statistically speaking, that's a problem that will most likely be solved by other black males.  Social pathology and all that stuff....


 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Since you're so concerned about living on a crowded planet I'm surprised you didn't advocate killing his kids.

Why do you think we have war? Isn't it a lot about the fact that we live on a finite planet so with population pressures we inevitable end up fighting over control of land, water, oil, minerals, etc... So the way I see it anyone that doesn't support rational controls on population growth is preventing solutions to the problem of war, crime, disease, hunger, species extinction, etc... A sin of omission if you will.

jcgadfly wrote:

You also don't seem to object to rich folks breeding like rabbits as long as they can afford it. Again, against your view of wanting to limit overcrowding on the planet.

In general, there is not a problem of high birth rates among the rich. There is also not the problem of them going on Public assistance. However, they are high users of natural resources per capita. So, I think they need to pay large fines for having a lot of kids and leaving a large footprint on the environment and also have an upper limit on how many they can have as well.

jcgadfly wrote:

You still haven't explained how he's not wealthy from all that government money he got from all those kids. That's why he had them (according to your ideology), right?

Never said such a thing. I'm sure they all are getting lots of food stamps and other such assistance. The guy only works minimum wage. He's maxed out on the percentage of income the state can take from him. He is poor as dirt, apparently the state gives him just enough to eat and make more sperm so we can all keep paying for this insanity.

The goal of public assistance is not to make poor people wealthy. It is to enable for them to survive just enought to be dependant on Democrats so they'll stay in power.

 

 

 

1. So you've brought out war as a population control measure? What is your problem with this guy again? He's making more soldiers for you.

2. The fact that the rich don't have a high birth rates doesn't change my objection that you wouldn't have a problem if they did because they can afford to.

3. I accept that you are backing off on your earlier assertion (perhaps in another thread) that poor people only have kids to get more assistance.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 1. So

jcgadfly wrote:

 

1. So you've brought out war as a population control measure? What is your problem with this guy again? He's making more soldiers for you.

War is natures way of doing population control. I'm not in favor of it, I'm a hedonist, so I'm against anything that causes misrery without increasing pleasure. I'd rather see population control done by rational means rather than let nature do it the old way with war, disease and starvation.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. The fact that the rich don't have a high birth rates doesn't change my objection that you wouldn't have a problem if they did because they can afford to.

It's an interesting question. If you're rich are you entitled to greater use of earth's natural resources? I don't like the idea that because one is rich you can buy mother nature. But it you contribue more than others to the well being of society, perhaps you should be allowed to have more children.

I think after you a single child, you should show you have adequate resources to care for the child before being allowed to have any more. We already put people in jail for child neglect or failure to pay child support. I think you tell people pay up for you kids or get sterilized or jail. So I don't see how this is punishment. I want to end child abuse. This is the law we need now, perhaps in the future modify it.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. I accept that you are backing off on your earlier assertion (perhaps in another thread) that poor people only have kids to get more assistance.

When did I say that.

What I say is welfare and all these leftist solutions create a massive moral hazard, an incentive for bad behaviors. You have people with little ability to care for children having them. Your solution is to give them a reward for this behavior. You don't solve the problem, you just spread the  problem onto the rest of society. People that behave this way continue this culture.

Same thing with employment. The reason businesses can pay low wages is an oversupply of unskilled labor. But you don't want to do things that could fix the problem like mandatory birth control and job training, fixing schools, stop illegal immigrants. Instead, you want minimum wage and unions which create massive moral hazards and unintended consequences that make the problems worse. Business has less incentive to hire low skill people, you make the problem of oversupply problem worse.

You're like a doctor that just prescribes pain killers but never eliminates the causes of disease. All you do is kick the can down the road.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

1. So you've brought out war as a population control measure? What is your problem with this guy again? He's making more soldiers for you.

War is natures way of doing population control. I'm not in favor of it, I'm a hedonist, so I'm against anything that causes misrery without increasing pleasure. I'd rather see population control done by rational means rather than let nature do it the old way with war, disease and starvation.

jcgadfly wrote:

2. The fact that the rich don't have a high birth rates doesn't change my objection that you wouldn't have a problem if they did because they can afford to.

It's an interesting question. If you're rich are you entitled to greater use of earth's natural resources? I don't like the idea that because one is rich you can buy mother nature. But it you contribue more than others to the well being of society, perhaps you should be allowed to have more children.

I think after you a single child, you should show you have adequate resources to care for the child before being allowed to have any more. We already put people in jail for child neglect or failure to pay child support. I think you tell people pay up for you kids or get sterilized or jail. So I don't see how this is punishment. I want to end child abuse. This is the law we need now, perhaps in the future modify it.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. I accept that you are backing off on your earlier assertion (perhaps in another thread) that poor people only have kids to get more assistance.

When did I say that.

What I say is welfare and all these leftist solutions create a massive moral hazard, an incentive for bad behaviors. You have people with little ability to care for children having them. Your solution is to give them a reward for this behavior. You don't solve the problem, you just spread the  problem onto the rest of society. People that behave this way continue this culture.

Same thing with employment. The reason businesses can pay low wages is an oversupply of unskilled labor. But you don't want to do things that could fix the problem like mandatory birth control and job training, fixing schools, stop illegal immigrants. Instead, you want minimum wage and unions which create massive moral hazards and unintended consequences that make the problems worse. Business has less incentive to hire low skill people, you make the problem of oversupply problem worse.

You're like a doctor that just prescribes pain killers but never eliminates the causes of disease. All you do is kick the can down the road.

 

I'll take point 3 first and work on the others later.

When did you say that?  You mean besides just now?

My solution is not to give people money to keep them in poverty. My solution is to take people out of poverty by letting the government guarantee people shelter, health care, education and food (neither party will do that though it could be done with sensible spending cuts and tax increases on the unproductive rich).

Your solution to poverty seems to be killing poor people. Should we have mandatory conscription for those who make below a certain dollar amount per year? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: My solution

jcgadfly wrote:

 

My solution is not to give people money to keep them in poverty. My solution is to take people out of poverty by letting the government guarantee people shelter, health care, education and food (neither party will do that though it could be done with sensible spending cuts and tax increases on the unproductive rich).

But if there are no condition like job training and limiting family size, all you've done is create a reward for irresponsible behaviors. You're enabling this guy to go out and do more. I claim that lack of resourses is then the controlling the upper limit on family size.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Your solution to poverty seems to be killing poor people. Should we have mandatory conscription for those who make below a certain dollar amount per year? 

I guess if you buy into the argument that a sperm is person, then yes I'm killing them. I want a world with no poor people, then nature won't kill them with starvation and other problems with poverty. I could argue that you're killing them or making them suffer because you want them born into a world where no one has the resources they need.

Like I said, society should decide if someone has the resources to have more children after one. If not, they need to pay up, self-sterilize or jail. There probably needs to be an upper limit on the middle class and rich as well if is there is lack of a resources and environmental damage from industrialization.

Why do you think this is so cruel? Isn't jail already forced sterilization(no sex)? So  we already 'sterilize' tax evaders. So why the problem?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

My solution is not to give people money to keep them in poverty. My solution is to take people out of poverty by letting the government guarantee people shelter, health care, education and food (neither party will do that though it could be done with sensible spending cuts and tax increases on the unproductive rich).

But if there are no condition like job training and limiting family size, all you've done is create a reward for irresponsible behaviors. You're enabling this guy to go out and do more. I claim that lack of resourses is then the controlling the upper limit on family size.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Your solution to poverty seems to be killing poor people. Should we have mandatory conscription for those who make below a certain dollar amount per year? 

I guess if you buy into the argument that a sperm is person, then yes I'm killing them. I want a world with no poor people, then nature won't kill them with starvation and other problems with poverty. I could argue that you're killing them or making them suffer because you want them born into a world where no one has the resources they need.

Like I said, society should decide if someone has the resources to have more children after one. If not, they need to pay up, self-sterilize or jail. There probably needs to be an upper limit on the middle class and rich as well if is there is lack of a resources and environmental damage from industrialization.

Why do you think this is so cruel? Isn't jail already forced sterilization(no sex)? So  we already 'sterilize' tax evaders. So why the problem?

 

1. You want to have the conditions but not provide for them. Expecting the poor to pay for them isn't going to solve the problem. Ever heard of unfunded mandates?

2. Who brought up sperm as people? I'm talking about you wanting to conscript the poor into the military so they can be part of the natural population control called war that you seem to dig. If they're dead they can't breed, right? Rich man's war - poor man's fight, huh?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: 2. Who

jcgadfly wrote:

 

2. Who brought up sperm as people? I'm talking about you wanting to conscript the poor into the military so they can be part of the natural population control called war that you seem to dig. If they're dead they can't breed, right? Rich man's war - poor man's fight, huh?

When did I say I wanted to "conscript the poor"??? Or that I "dig" war. War is the inevitable outcome of people like you and the religious right's objections to any rational population control. If there aren't enough resources to go around, what else is going to happen except people will fight over them? You put too many rats in cage, they fight. It not what I want, it is how nature works.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

2. Who brought up sperm as people? I'm talking about you wanting to conscript the poor into the military so they can be part of the natural population control called war that you seem to dig. If they're dead they can't breed, right? Rich man's war - poor man's fight, huh?

When did I say I wanted to "conscript the poor"??? Or that I "dig" war. War is the inevitable outcome of people like you and the religious right's objections to any rational population control. If there aren't enough resources to go around, what else is going to happen except people will fight over them? You put too many rats in cage, they fight. It not what I want, it is how nature works.

Well you seem to think war is natural and that the it would solve the problem of the poor. 

I'm for rational population control. I wish you'd bring up one. Your's seems to be "If you're poor you can't have kids. If you're poor and already have kids you can't get help unless you agree to be sterile."

Meanwhile you have no problem with the rich building family dynasties with kids, grandkids, etc. How are you reducing the number of rats inthe cage again? Oh, I see...it's just the poor rats 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Well you

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Well you seem to think war is natural and that the it would solve the problem of the poor. 

I think your just making shit up about me because you can't counter with reason or science. War doesn't solve the problem because we've had both war and poverty since about the time life began. What we haven't had is a way to end war and poverty if people would only use reason and science.

You're answer seems to be let this guy have another 30 kids, then if they are poor blame it all on the '1%'.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm for rational population control. I wish you'd bring up one. Your's seems to be "If you're poor you can't have kids. If you're poor and already have kids you can't get help unless you agree to be sterile."

Not quite. It's if your poor and you need public assistance to adequately take care of your kids, you can't have any more until you prove that you can. If you're way behind on child support, get serilized or go to jail.

jcgadfly wrote:

Meanwhile you have no problem with the rich building family dynasties with kids, grandkids, etc. How are you reducing the number of rats inthe cage again? Oh, I see...it's just the poor rats 

Well aren't these people going to pay a huge portion of the taxes that go to support this guy's offspring? So shouldn't you want a lot of rick folks if they pay the tax bill instead of you? The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes you know.

I don't think the that rich pay enough for their high use of natural resources. But if they pay more than their share of tax and they don't ask you for any money for their kids, should you care that much? But I still think even for the rich that are paying a lot in taxes there should be an upper limit on the number of kids because of the damage overpopulation does to the environment.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 

Well you seem to think war is natural and that the it would solve the problem of the poor. 

Quote:

I think your just making shit up about me because you can't counter with reason or science. War doesn't solve the problem because we've had both war and poverty since about the time life began. What we haven't had is a way to end war and poverty if people would only use reason and science.

You're answer seems to be let this guy have another 30 kids, then if they are poor blame it all on the '1%'.

No my answer is making him take responsibility for his kids as opposed to chemically hacking off his dick. My answer is helping this guy get an education and a job so he can pay for his kids instead of jailing him and letting the women and kids fend for themselves.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm for rational population control. I wish you'd bring up one. Your's seems to be "If you're poor you can't have kids. If you're poor and already have kids you can't get help unless you agree to be sterile."

Quote:

Not quite. It's if your poor and you need public assistance to adequately take care of your kids, you can't have any more until you prove that you can. If you're way behind on child support, get serilized or go to jail.

And you only hold to that for poor deadbeats? Why?

jcgadfly wrote:

Meanwhile you have no problem with the rich building family dynasties with kids, grandkids, etc. How are you reducing the number of rats inthe cage again? Oh, I see...it's just the poor rats 

Quote:

Well aren't these people going to pay a huge portion of the taxes that go to support this guy's offspring? So shouldn't you want a lot of rick folks if they pay the tax bill instead of you? The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes you know.

I don't think the that rich pay enough for their high use of natural resources. But if they pay more than their share of tax and they don't ask you for any money for their kids, should you care that much? But I still think even for the rich that are paying a lot in taxes there should be an upper limit on the number of kids because of the damage overpopulation does to the environment.

Actually no, As a member of the working class I'm paying the majority of the taxes for rich and poor. You want to relieve my tax burden? Get Romney,his brethren and the corporations to pay their damn taxes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4512
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Actually no,

jcgadfly wrote:

Actually no, As a member of the working class I'm paying the majority of the taxes for rich and poor. You want to relieve my tax burden? Get Romney,his brethren and the corporations to pay their damn taxes.

You paid more taxes than Romney? Somehow I doubt that.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Actually no, As a member of the working class I'm paying the majority of the taxes for rich and poor. You want to relieve my tax burden? Get Romney,his brethren and the corporations to pay their damn taxes.

You paid more taxes than Romney? Somehow I doubt that.

As a percentage of income, you're damn right I did.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
What would a realistic

What would a realistic solution, punishment or deterrent to this look like?  Most of the exchange in this thread has been about unrealistic punishment for something that is not as yet considered a crime.

Unfortunately I'm not sure a realistic one exists.

 

One "more realistic" hypothetical:

At the point a man has kids by 5 different mothers (or 7, 10 or whatever number becomes the consensus limit) he MUST keep child support paid/keep the kids off welfare (not including medicaid) or he is deemed as putting an irresponsible burden on the taxpayers of the state.

He then has to undergo a significant period of counsel ling AND either:

A) Maintain full time employment plus do a set amount of community service per month.

B) Maintain full time employment and go to school (GED, College, Tech. School) for a set amount of credit hours per period  

C) Go to school full time and preform a set amount of community service.

He should have to fulfill his obligations of either supporting the kids or A,B or C til the last one turns 18.  Upon satisfactory sign off of counseling completion by the counselor, community service can include public speaking to school children on reproductive responsibility.  Failure to comply means jail time.

Even though this is far more realistic than most suggestions I've seen, I don't think this would work.  If a guy is lazy, just a messed up individual or mentally ill, they will more than likely go on welfare/ apply for disability (whether scamming or not) and claim their disability prevents them from fulfilling the courts orders.  Beyond that they may just say F it and let a warrant get put on them, and sooner or later, go to jail.  Either way the kids, and the taxpayer loses out.

 

I think overpopulation is a huge potential (likely) problem the world is going to face, but I can't see any law concerning sterilization of offenders in a democracy.  Maybe in a real world sense this guy deserves to be, but a democratic govt. can't reasonably go around doing that to people.  

A ton of social pressure should be put on these types of guys, they should be outed in social media, the news media should shine a spotlight on them.  Given how common it is for guys to have kids by 4-5+ mothers society should take a stand on the practice.  Cases like this should be graphically shown to kids as part of sex education as well.  Other than someone beating some sense into these dudes in a dark alley, I don't know what else can realistically be done.  

 

"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: No my

jcgadfly wrote:

 

No my answer is making him take responsibility for his kids as opposed to chemically hacking off his dick. My answer is helping this guy get an education and a job so he can pay for his kids instead of jailing him and letting the women and kids fend for themselves.

I think to adequetly take care of 30 kids, you'd need an income of like $500,000 after taxes. There are pleantly of college grads that can't even get a job at $50,000. It's ridiculous to assert this can be done in this extreme case.

What if he refuses to go to school and study? Sterilization or jail?

What if the union teachers that teach him fail to give him any useful job skills, can they be fired?

jcgadfly wrote:

And you only hold to that for poor deadbeats? Why?

There are people with low incomes that can take care of one or 2 kids. I think you'd have to have a social worker evaluate every situaltion where there may be child neglect because of poverty. Some people with low incomes spend their money on their kids, some on themselves.

And like I said there still needs to be an upper limit on everyone like the religions nuts with the 20 kids in Arkansas.

jcgadfly wrote:

Actually no, As a member of the working class I'm paying the majority of the taxes for rich and poor. You want to relieve my tax burden? Get Romney,his brethren and the corporations to pay their damn taxes.

You have no data from a reliable source to back this up. There is a problem with wealthy individuals and cooporations not paying for the services they receive. But this could easily be eliminated if we had user fees instead of income tax.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
TonyZXT wrote:I think

TonyZXT wrote:

I think overpopulation is a huge potential (likely) problem the world is going to face, but I can't see any law concerning sterilization of offenders in a democracy.  

Maybe in a real world sense this guy deserves to be, but a democratic govt. can't reasonably go around doing that to people.

Guess what we already do. What is incarceration and the death penalty? No access to sex = No kids. Death = No kids.

We already incarcerate people for not paying child support. So just call it a get of jail card.

Democracies with a safety net for the poor are inevitable going to be forced to do this or go broke. The ones that don't can not compete economically.

 

TonyZXT wrote:

A ton of social pressure should be put on these types of guys, they should be outed in social media, the news media should shine a spotlight on them. 

They don't posses empathy or social conscienceness at all. This guy is just a breeding zombie.

TonyZXT wrote:

 Given how common it is for guys to have kids by 4-5+ mothers society should take a stand on the practice.  Cases like this should be graphically shown to kids as part of sex education as well. 

And what is the lesson? Have as many kids as you want and the government foots the bill. If you do study and work the government takes much of it in income tax and child support. So if you want to be a breeder, who is to stop you?

 

I don't know why it seems like to you some kind of torture. Tons of responsible people voluntarily do it every day and they lead happy fulfilled lives without more kids. We tell drunk/bad drivers you can't drive and take their license and car. We can force men to join the army and kill other people. We isolate people with infectious diseases.

Every other activity a citizen can do that could potentially adversely affect society or harm others requires permission or a license from the government. So why have this one exception?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Guess what we

EXC wrote:

Guess what we already do. What is incarceration and the death penalty? No access to sex = No kids. Death = No kids.

We already incarcerate people for not paying child support. So just call it a get of jail card.

You honestly don't see the difference between stopping people from breeding as a side effect of being incarcerated and what I said?  Or are you deliberately being difficult?  Not only do we not imprison for the purpose of excluding someone from breeding (you knew that) but incarceration doesn't stop people from breeding.  In jails and prisons all over the country there are female guards... it's much more common than you think for them to get knocked up inside.  Also 6 states allow conjugal visits.

EXC wrote:

 Democracies with a safety net for the poor are inevitable going to be forced to do this or go broke. The ones that don't can not compete economically.

Yeah, ok.  smh

EXC wrote:

They don't posses empathy or social conscienceness at all. This guy is just a breeding zombie.

This was the least of everything I suggested.  It wouldn't be effective on the majority of them, but everyone else paying attention would see how unacceptable society sees the behavior, thus spreading the sentiment and putting more social pressure out in the public consiousness that it's wrong.

I also think you underestimate how powerful it can be for someone who is a complete ass or who does something shitty to see the social outrage at their actions.  I've seen real self centered jerks forced to completely reevaluate their outlook based on seeing backlash on Twitter and/or Facebook.  Again, not intended to be a solution but if it raises awareness of the problem and starts conversation that's a good thing.

EXC wrote:

And what is the lesson? Have as many kids as you want and the government foots the bill. If you do study and work the government takes much of it in income tax and child support. So if you want to be a breeder, who is to stop you?

Isn't it obvious?  There are a few important lessons.  Reproductive responsibility, the impact on society, impact on the taxpayers, impact on the mother/family, impact on the fatherless children (statistics regarding fatherless kids) etc..  I'm literally scratching my head trying to figure out where you got that that's the lesson from what I said.  Again I sense you are just trying to be difficult.

 

EXC wrote:

So if you want to be a breeder, who is to stop you?

I disagree with the underlying premise that a democratic society/gov't can make a logical argument of where to draw the line without a current population crisis.  In which case they may default to 1 like China did, or go with 2 or 3.  Besides that if I remember China doesn't stop you from having a second, you just have to pay very high taxes if you do.  Without that current population crisis, what would a rational argument of where to draw the line be?  Especially considering that opinions and study results on the severity and likelihood of overpopulation vary greatly.   If such a rational argument can't be presented then what you're talking about is nothing more than fascism, and I'm not even going to bother discussing it.

 

EXC wrote:

I don't know why it seems like to you some kind of torture. Tons of responsible people voluntarily do it every day and they lead happy fulfilled lives without more kids. We tell drunk/bad drivers you can't drive and take their license and car. We can force men to join the army and kill other people. We isolate people with infectious diseases.

Every other activity a citizen can do that could potentially adversely affect society or harm others requires permission or a license from the government. So why have this one exception?

 

For the same reason that overpopulation ends up being one of the most touchy political subjects you can bring up.  Because when someone tries to draw the line beyond which people shouldn't be allowed to breed it ends up being a shit-storm.  Most people seem like they would rather roll the dice and see if we top out at 15Billion, than be told they can't have more than x kids.  That or they wouldn't consider limits without a current crisis, like I said.

In the end, it's about the reality of our societal norms.  Unless you're an isolationist and thus unconcerned with what society does, you are part of a society, and that society will be governed by laws based on societal norms.   That's reality.  Forcing sterilization on people is not something our society is ok with.  If I were put in charge tomorrow, would I make this guy get clipped?  Yes, but I wouldn't pretend to know where to draw the line... just that 30 is definitely over it. 

"They always say the same thing; 'But evolution is only a theory!!' Which is true, I guess, and it's good they say that I think, it gives you hope that they feel the same about the theory of Gravity and they might just float the f**k away."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
TonyZXT wrote: In jails and

TonyZXT wrote:

 In jails and prisons all over the country there are female guards... it's much more common than you think for them to get knocked up inside.  

I highly doubt that many female guards get knocked up by male prisoners. I know the reverse happens but this behavior is illegal. Your logic doesn't make sense. It's like saying we shouldn't lock up murderers because some murderers still murder while there in prison. How about just changing prison so there is no murder or sex going on?

I think the main point of prison is to protect society.

TonyZXT wrote:

It wouldn't be effective on the majority of them, but everyone else paying attention would see how unacceptable society sees the behavior, thus spreading the sentiment and putting more social pressure out in the public consciousness that it's wrong.

I also think you underestimate how powerful it can be for someone who is a complete ass or who does something shitty to see the social outrage at their actions.  I've seen real self centered jerks forced to completely reevaluate their outlook based on seeing backlash on Twitter and/or Facebook.  Again, not intended to be a solution but if it raises awareness of the problem and starts conversation that's a good thing.

Social pressure may have been effective when we had close knit communities in the past. But now, people are very transient and the Internet is hardly a tool for social shame. Look at all the trolls and bad behavior that goes on online.

TonyZXT wrote:

Isn't it obvious?  There are a few important lessons.  Reproductive responsibility, the impact on society, impact on the taxpayers, impact on the mother/family, impact on the fatherless children (statistics regarding fatherless kids) etc..  I'm literally scratching my head trying to figure out where you got that that's the lesson from what I said.  Again I sense you are just trying to be difficult.

The lesson is there are few negative consequences for the individual. Society bails you out with welfare. Are any of the guy's kids starving? It's like paying taxes, you can say all day how good it is for society and 'our' children to pay your taxes. But at the end of the day someone's got a put a gun to people's heads to make them pay. Talk is cheap, people can figure that out.

TonyZXT wrote:

Without that current population crisis, what would a rational argument of where to draw the line be? 

Overall you have to keep the population at a point where there is no too much competition for jobs and natural resources causing high unemployment and environmental damage. As it is now, we have to make difficult choices between land and water for humans vs. land and water for endangered species. We need to get population down to where this difficult choice is not necessary. Down to where we don't have overcrowded roads, schools, etc..

On and individual level, we need to decide a minimum standard for how much food, shelter, clothing, education needs to be spent on each child. If the parents don't have the resources for what they already have and require public assistance, no more kids until they can.

 

TonyZXT wrote:

If such a rational argument can't be presented then what you're talking about is nothing more than fascism, and I'm not even going to bother discussing it.

Well then everything the government does is fascism. Why isn't tax collection fascism? Why isn't mandatory inoculations fascism? Shutting down unsanitary businesses? Stopping prostitution and drug use?

TonyZXT wrote:

For the same reason that overpopulation ends up being one of the most touchy political subjects you can bring up.  Because when someone tries to draw the line beyond which people shouldn't be allowed to breed it ends up being a shit-storm. 

Well what is the line on how high taxes can go? Of course people are going to fight over it. But I would say if children are going hungry and there is no more land and water to grow more food without destroying habitats of endangered species we are over the line. Nature is doing population control for us.

TonyZXT wrote:

Forcing sterilization on people is not something our society is ok with.  

Yes I know especially the religious right. They support policies that increase human suffering, then they are the placebo for they suffering, what a racket. It will probably take a great famine like China's to change the consciousness unfortunately.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca