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

EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:TonyZXT wrote: In

DP


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Overall you have

EXC wrote:

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.

 

 



   

                    +1

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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:We need to get

 

EXC wrote:
We need to get [sic] population down ...

I'm sure you'll be missed. I'll forward your Dear John letter to the rest of humanity.

 

 

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well there are certain

Well there are certain states that have conjugal visitation rights.  I believe Cali is one just off the top of my head.

I don't see the US ever trying to implement any kind of reproduction restrictions in the foreseeable future.   We were sterilyzing undesirables before WWII.  But the Nazis kind of turned everyone's stomach on such social engineering.   Any politician suggesting anything of the sort would have his photo immediately photoshopped into a uniform of the third reich before he finished the sentence.

But the US isn't very crowded.  We aren't hurting like a lot of tiny countries or island nations.   Many of those are much more crowded than India which currently has around 1.3 billion citizens.

Also the US is the number 1 exporter of food so far.  We're rolling in the stuff.

Americans waste more water trying to live in arid areas than anything else.   Las Vegas, many places in arizona, nevada, cali, etc.

To be honest it's not how many humans exist that is the problem.   At all.   We could have 20 billion humans on this planet with no issue.  No real damage to the environment or disasterous depletion of natural resources.   It's our lifestyles that is the issue.

So why don't we address that instead of clamping down on reproduction so a smaller number of humans can live like bloated prima donnas at the expense of the rest of the ecosystem.

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:To be honest

Watcher wrote:

To be honest it's not how many humans exist that is the problem.   At all.   We could have 20 billion humans on this planet with no issue.  No real damage to the environment or disasterous depletion of natural resources.   It's our lifestyles that is the issue.

 

   So in order to correct the problem of foolishly wasted resources are you willing to live in an open air tent without heating or cooling ( summer in Texas is no picnic ),  rely on transportation that doesn't depend upon a finite supply of fossil fuels, grow all of your own food, etc, etc....?   How far are you willing to go ?

 

Watcher wrote:
So why don't we address that instead of clamping down on reproduction so a smaller number of humans can live like bloated prima donnas at the expense of the rest of the ecosystem.

 

    How do you personally define "bloated prima donna" ?

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   So in order to correct the problem of foolishly wasted resources are you willing to live in an open air tent without heating or cooling ( summer in Texas is no picnic ),  rely on transportation that doesn't depend upon a finite supply of fossil fuels, grow all of your own food, etc, etc....?   How far are you willing to go ?

Yeah.  Swamp coolers are much more efficient than the usual AC units if you need some kind of artificial cooling.

My ancestors lived in Texas and all over the Southern US for generations before AC was used.  I'm sure I can manage somehow.

The entire reason why we live the way we do is because that's the way we were raised.  If we weren't raised to be used to this stuff we wouldn't sit around feeling all miserable because we don't live that way.

I posit there IS A BETTER WAY.  There is no way this is the only way to go.  And it's unsustainable anyway.  Humanity is already living like we have more natural resources than we really have.  The rich countries are raping the poor countries of natural resources just to prolong this lifestyle.

But it aint' gonna last for much longer.

In a couple centuries people studying our time will probably be aghast at how we are living.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

How do you personally define "bloated prima donna" ?

Good question.  I've never personally tried to define the word.  But a family of 4 living in a house large enough to house 50 people, driving SUVs all over the place, and replacing those SUVs every three or four years, heated swimming pool, summer cabin, shit like that?

Yeah, you can stretch the term prima donna to fit that.

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


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

Double Post


TonyZXT
atheist
TonyZXT's picture
Posts: 174
Joined: 2007-09-30
User is offlineOffline
As far as the prison guard

As far as the prison guard thing... it does happen a lot in the lower security facilities.  I've witnessed it quite literally unfortunately (if ever I needed eye bleach, that was the moment.)  I wasn't serious about that point.  Just being difficult back to you.

I just fundamentally disagree with you on government.  If you're honest about comparing the US. to fascist states, it's not the same.  There are areas of our government, and people in it that are trying to push certain aspects of our laws to fascist territory, but it's not there.   As for the taxes, shit let's be real, our neighbors to the north pay something like 40% income tax and I've never heard one of them cry about it.  Not 100% on the accuracy of that, but that's what a Canadian friend told me.   Regardless, that's far more than the average person here pays.  You're going to have a real hard time convincing me that our tax laws make us a fascist state.

You insinuating that my rationale somehow characterizes mandatory inoculation as fascist is plain silly.  You think the Govts. of the world didn't have a rational argument for inoculations when they were wiping out epidemic fatal diseases like polio?  When they were keeping millions upon millions of kids per year from getting, spreading, and possibly dying of measles etc.?  If that kind of Govt. action is fascist then, yes please, I'll have my fascism with a side of NOT dying young from polio.  You think Govt's can be run for free, without collecting taxes?  If not, then clearly they can justify it, and you're essentially trolling.

I agree that the population is too high, nature is disappearing and something should be done about it.

Where we disagree is the approach that would have to be taken to correct it.  Or that society would even let anyone correct it.  Unless you have the resources and the will to take over the Govt. you are just talking about a very unrealistic hypothetical situation.

I stick to my previous point that people aren't even convinced it's a problem yet, let alone ready to make drastic sacrifices to change it.  Whether or not the fundies are one of many groups that have a vested interest in letting things go is nearly irrelevant to the bigger issue at this point.  Jebus knows if there's a worthwhile bone to pick with the fundies, I'm all 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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:But the US

Watcher wrote:

But the US isn't very crowded. 

We aren't hurting like a lot of tiny countries or island nations.   Many of those are much more crowded than India which currently has around 1.3 billion citizens.

Also the US is the number 1 exporter of food so far.  We're rolling in the stuff.

The fact is millions of Americans go to bed hungry because food costs too much. This is largely driven by the cost of land, water and oil.

Watcher wrote:

Americans waste more water trying to live in arid areas than anything else.   Las Vegas, many places in arizona, nevada, cali, etc.

Technology and infrastructure made it possible, such as the control of Colorado river. So it's not just people per acre. You need to have more infrastructure and better technology such as recycling to adequately support more population without massive environmental damage.

Watcher wrote:

It's our lifestyles that is the issue.

So why don't we address that instead of clamping down on reproduction so a smaller number of humans can live like bloated prima donnas at the expense of the rest of the ecosystem.

So suppose with all the environmental propaganda we get most everyone to become "green". Doesn't that just mean more resources to increase population? So anything we do as an individual  or society to improve the environment or the economy is just speeding up the treadmill. Guys like Mr. 30 kids will take advantage of you "going green" to have even more babies that require natural resources.

The same is true for any political system that should bring about better living conditions. Even if it works, these breeders will negate all the gains.

So I think you have to stop both wealthy people that are heavy users of the environment as well as guys like him that are also very hard on Mother earth. I don't know how anyone can call themselves concerned about the environment or the plight of the poor and not support what I'm saying.

 

 

“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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
TonyZXT wrote: You're going

TonyZXT wrote:

 You're going to have a real hard time convincing me that our tax laws make us a fascist state.

You insinuating that my rationale somehow characterizes mandatory inoculation as fascist is plain silly.  You think the Govts. of the world didn't have a rational argument for inoculations when they were wiping out epidemic fatal diseases like polio?  When they were keeping millions upon millions of kids per year from getting, spreading, and possibly dying of measles etc.?  If that kind of Govt. action is fascist then, yes please, I'll have my fascism with a side of NOT dying young from polio.  You think Govt's can be run for free, without collecting taxes?  If not, then clearly they can justify it, and you're essentially trolling.

I agree that the population is too high, nature is disappearing and something should be done about it.

Fascism is in the eye of the beholder apparently. I'm not trolling. I was told that mandatory birth control would be "fascism". I just want to understand how people decide this but that income tax and mandatory inoculations is not. They're all something the government forces individuals to do for the health and welfare of society. How is one torture and the others not? Can you explain please.

 

TonyZXT wrote:

Where we disagree is the approach that would have to be taken to correct it.  Or that society would even let anyone correct it.  Unless you have the resources and the will to take over the Govt. you are just talking about a very unrealistic hypothetical situation.

I stick to my previous point that people aren't even convinced it's a problem yet, let alone ready to make drastic sacrifices to change it. 

I agree it would take something like what China went through to get Americans to even consider this. We'll just have politics continue with why not enough jobs, why food and fuel costs too much, why the government is broke, etc... While guys like him make things worse. The fact is the media doesn't want to touch it so it's not discussed.

 

TonyZXT wrote:

Whether or not the fundies are one of many groups that have a vested interest in letting things go is nearly irrelevant to the bigger issue at this point.  Jebus knows if there's a worthwhile bone to pick with the fundies, I'm all over it

 

The fact is that religion has a vested interest in continuing human misery due to problems like overpopulation, poverty, etc... After all, they're selling the snake oil to kill the pain.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Why is it extreme

EXC wrote:
Why is it extreme punishment?

How is mutilation and a repression of freedom NOT extreme?
The people you speak of are largely volunteers. Very few nations actually practice forced castration.
Worse, a vasectomy can result in death. So you're not just mutilating and repressing people for engaging in a perfectly normal biological activity, you're also killing some of them.

"If you took all his money to pay for his kids, wouldn't his starvation be extreme punishment?"

So instead the kids should starve, eh?

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

This has absolutely nothing to do with your income tax fetish.

EXC is ethically bankrupt and hopelessly irrational in these subjects. He constantly makes ridiculous assertions despite having those assertions being proved wrong thousands of times in thousands of threads by thousands of people.

His arguments are comedic relief, nothing more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:How is

Vastet wrote:

How is mutilation and a repression of freedom NOT extreme?

How is taking my money to pay for this guys offspring not repression of my freedom? If I pay a lot in taxes to support this BS, I'm not free to do what I want. So you want people to be free to have kids they'll abuse and neglect? Such compassion you have.

Why is it not mutilation when we do it to dogs and cats?  It's obvious that its the thing a civil society should do.

Why don't we stop 'self-mutilation' when people decide to use birth control or sterilzation?

Vastet wrote:

 

The people you speak of are largely volunteers. Very few nations actually practice forced castration. Worse, a vasectomy can result in death.

I said nothing about castration. Just a vasectomy as a get out of jail card for this guy.

"http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/St-Wr/Vasectomy.html#b

The evidence is that this occurs rarely. But we do know a lot of children die of neglect and effects of hunger. Which do prefer?

 

Vastet wrote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with your income tax fetish.

Your argument in favor of income tax is that it is a user fee for services provided. If that were the case, this guy should have the biggest tax bill in America. Instead he has none and instead receives welfare from the state.

Your other other argument is that taxation is the price of civilization. Well this guy is behaving in a very uncivilized manner. But instead of the state forcing him to behave in less damaging ways, the state subsidizes his way with welfare.

So neither one of your arguments are worth shit. The real agenda here is to have poor choices subsidized by the state. All your solutions have massive moral hazards that encourage the behaviors that cause problems in the first place. You create a culture that tolerates and promotes this behavior.


Vastet wrote:

EXC is ethically bankrupt and hopelessly irrational in these subjects. He constantly makes ridiculous assertions despite having those assertions being proved wrong thousands of times in thousands of threads by thousands of people. His arguments are comedic relief, nothing more.

No, the people that argue against me are quite comedic. They claim they want to end religion. But religion is the opiate for human misery even if it is a placebo. So if you have human misery, you'll have people peddling snake oil to cure it. People telling us "this live sucks, but the next one is better."

And nearly all misery can be traced back to causes of overpopulation and the unprepared people having too many kids. So we regulate every other activity in civil society except this. So then we have human misery, then we have religion as the 'cure'.

So it's quite ridiculous to think religion could go away without addressing the root cause of human suffering. Or to think that if we just tax the rich more, the problems go away.

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"How is taking my money to

"How is taking my money to pay for this guys offspring not repression of my freedom?"

You're paying less than a dollar over a decade to pay for this and a million other children. Cry me a river over your lost freedom.
And take another look at the patriot act before you make any claim of freedom in the first place. You aren't free.

"Why is it not mutilation when we do it to dogs and cats?"

Who said it wasn't?

"It's obvious that its the thing a civil society should do."

Barbaric and facist, not at all civil. Since when are you caring for this person? You feed and shelter him like you would a cat? You take full responsibility for his actions, like any pet owner does? He depends on you for everything like the average pet?

Didn't think so.

" said nothing about castration. Just a vasectomy as a get out of jail card for this guy."

What exactly is the difference between the two procedures?
That's right, effectively there is no difference.
And what was the crime again?
That's right, there was no crime.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Your argument in favor of

"Your argument in favor of income tax is that it is a user fee for services provided. If that were the case, this guy should have the biggest tax bill in America. Instead he has none and instead receives welfare from the state."

No, he works a job. Welfare doesn't give anyone enough to cover child support for 5 kids, let alone 30. Your typical delusional comments is all you have. No evidence, merely ridiculous and patently false assertions.

Also, you don't have the intellect to understand taxes in general, let alone my position on taxes. You amuse me with your repetitive stupidity.

Nothing else you said was even worth commenting on.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:And take

Vastet wrote:

And take another look at the patriot act before you make any claim of freedom in the first place. You aren't free.

I never claimed I was free. Of course, overpopulation leads to competition for resources(in this case oil), leading to war, leading to the end of my freedom in the form of the patriot act and all the money to pay for this war. But not this guy's freedom is somehow sacred. Where the fuck do we get the oil for all these kids if we don't go to war to steal it?

 

 

Vastet wrote:

"Why is it not mutilation when we do it to dogs and cats?" Who said it wasn't?

So we should arrest people for animal cruelty that sterilize their pets. We should just let millions of stays beg for survival and create a health problem.

Vastet wrote:

"It's obvious that its the thing a civil society should do." Barbaric and facist, not at all civil.

Yes, a million other things government regulates but only this one is fascist.

Again it's your cultural bias showing. You didn't live throught the great Chinese famine obviously. You live in a country where overpopulation does not seem like a problem.

Vastet wrote:

Since when are you caring for this person?

The fact is people are caring and sharing when the feel that everyone has skin in the game, that everyone is contributing to the group. When people believe some people are able to work the system, compassion goes away. Allowing some people to not behave in a civil mannor means we can't have much of a civil society.

 

Vastet wrote:

And what was the crime again? That's right, there was no crime.

You seem to have the Judeo-Christian, 10 commandments view of crime and morality. Like it written down somewhere what is a crime and we can't judge things by the problems they create.

For a rational person, you should measure actions by the misery they cause, not some preconceived notions of freedom and morality. Just believing something is bad because it is new. I'm not out to punish people for moral failings, I'm saying if your going to have civil society then force all civil behaviors not just paying taxes.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I never claimed I was

"I never claimed I was free."

If you aren't free then under what authority do you get to claim a right to freedom?
And how is this guy free? He has to pay for 30 kids, ordered by the courts. Doesn't sound free to me.

"So we should arrest people for animal cruelty that sterilize their pets"

You're as good as a theist at taking things out of context.
Sure, provided the ownership of animals is criminalised as slavery was. Until then, as pet owners take absolute and complete responsibility for their pets, and said pets cannot be instructed so as to be capable of taking responsibility for themselves, such practices are necessary for society to function.

"Yes, a million other things government regulates but only this one is fascist."

Strawman. This isn't a discussion on every way governments are or can be facist, and I never made that claim.

"The fact is people ~snip~ a civil society."

And yet you argue to let this guy off of any financial responsibility for the 30 kids he's directly responsible for?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Can we say irony? "You seem

Can we say irony?

"You seem to have the Judeo-Christian, 10 commandments view of crime and morality. Like it written down somewhere what is a crime and we can't judge things by the problems they create."

Ridiculous. I am fully aware that it is the people who decide what is criminal and what is not. And the FACT is that there is NOTHING criminal about having 1, 2, 5, or 100 children. The day that changes, you'll have an argument. But it hasn't happened, and isn't likely to any time soon, so you don't.
Furthermore, making activities criminal merely increases the cost to society. Increasing education levels lowers birthrates without government intervention, which is something I'd have thought you'd be all for. As someone who hates government, are you sure want to increase its power? lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I thought  you were leaving

I thought  you were leaving the Earth because it is too crowded. Why did you come back, were there taxes in space or something?

While it is unconventional for one man to impregnate 11 women, the fertility rate of these women is only .6 above the total fertility rate, which is less than many sub-populations in the US. Mexican immigrants have a fertility rate that is .9 above the total and Amish Mennonites of which there are a quarter million have a fertility rate triple the national average. The fact there are only 12 people involved in this story shows how ridiculous it is to tie this issue to overpopulation.

Furthermore, the threat of overpopulation is resource consumption. Ironically you would limit the number of children poor people have and allow wealthy people to breed uncontrolled even though the amount of resources people consume is determined by wealth.

I believe your environmental/population concerns aside from being baseless are also bogus and your true concern is that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you want. You wouldn't want to pay to help these people in any way even if it costs less.    

 

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"I never

Vastet wrote:
"I never claimed I was free." If you aren't free then under what authority do you get to claim a right to freedom?

You have me confused again with right wingers that claim abosolute rights. The concept of absolute rights is BS. I am mearly making a claim about what it would take to greatly reduce human misery in a sustainable way. You leftist, high tax, welfare idea is a failure because of the massive moral hazards it creates. This guy is a prime example.

 

Vastet wrote:
And how is this guy free? He has to pay for 30 kids, ordered by the courts. Doesn't sound free to me.

It amounts to about $6 a week for each kid. He has been free in that he has been and continues to be allowed to impregnate as many women as he pleases. These women collect welfare payments and benefits for these kids.

Vastet wrote:

"So we should arrest people for animal cruelty that sterilize their pets" You're as good as a theist at taking things out of context. Sure, provided the ownership of animals is criminalised as slavery was. Until then, as pet owners take absolute and complete responsibility for their pets, and said pets cannot be instructed so as to be capable of taking responsibility for themselves, such practices are necessary for society to function.

So you do support forced "mutilation" as necessary for civil society. What is so sacred about humans that you can't allow human "mutilation". And should we let science decide if a vascetomy causes massive suffering? Do you have an studies that it does cause suffering?

Vastet wrote:

"Yes, a million other things government regulates but only this one is fascist." Strawman. This isn't a discussion on every way governments are or can be facist and I never made that claim. "The fact is people ~snip~ a civil society." ?

You're calliing it fascist. So I want a definition. Why can't I call not being able to eat because there is not enough to go around fascist?

You should to judge good and bad by the pleasure and pain it causes. And let objective science be the judge. There is no good that can come from letting this guy have more kids but pleanty of bad.

 

Vastet wrote:
And yet you argue to let this guy off of any financial responsibility for the 30 kids he's directly responsible for?

I don't argue to let him off any financial responsibility. He can't pay! Yet you think he should be free to have 30 more kids if he pleases. You have to enjoy seeing children suffer to take this position. Maybe if you experienced some extreme hunger, you wouldn't mind a little "fascism".

 

“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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Increasing

Vastet wrote:
Increasing education levels lowers birthrates without government intervention, which is something I'd have thought you'd be all for. As someone who hates government, are you sure want to increase its power? lol

So, you want there to be a reward(generous welfare benefits) for the behavior of not getting an education and having kids, and a punishment(high income taxes) for getting a good education. So what should we expect in this future?

I want there to be a punishment(vasectomy) for the behavior of not getting an education and having kids, and a reward(high take home pay) for getting a good education. So what should we expect in this future?

The problem is now that people least equipped and least financially able to raise children are the ones with the highest birthrate. So the solution ought to be don't allow people to have children until they complete their education and are financially able to take care of them. The problem is we let kids drop out and we let failed teachers and schools continue to take for the public coffers.

I despise the influence that irrational people like yourself and religious groups have upon government. But I would not hate a government that enforced a rational social contract.

 

“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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Furthermore,

Gauche wrote:


Furthermore, the threat of overpopulation is resource consumption. Ironically you would limit the number of children poor people have and allow wealthy people to breed uncontrolled even though the amount of resources people consume is determined by wealth.

Nope never said that. I want to raise taxes on natural resource consumption and eliminate income tax, this would force the rich to pay for the extra resources they use per capita. This would encourage conservation, recycling, education, investment and work. The fact is the rich could afford 'green' technology if forced, the poor can not afford the extra cost of going 'green'.

You do realize that the many rich get richer by taking advantage of the poor? 

I do think there needs to be an upper limit on everyone as long as there is lack of resources and environmental damage issues. But I do think you have to allow people that pay more in taxes to have more kids if they wish and can afford to. Making if fair would be tricky, but government can't sterilize their golden geese.

Gauche wrote:

I believe your environmental/population concerns aside from being baseless are also bogus and your true concern is that you get what you pay for and you pay for what you want. You wouldn't want to pay to help these people in any way even if it costs less.     

How could it possible cost less? You're creating a massive moral hazard by giving them any help without the guarantee they won't continue to behave this way. You're feeding the beast if the you think they government should help them without forcing sterilization. The problem just gets bigger for everyone.

“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
EXC wrote:Nope never said

EXC wrote:
Nope never said that.

What do you think you're saying right now?
Quote:
I want to raise taxes on natural resource consumption and eliminate income tax, this would force the rich to pay for the extra resources they use per capita.


Quote:
But I do think you have to allow people that pay more in taxes to have more kids if they wish and can afford to.


So you want to permit wealthy people to deplete resources at whatever scale and speed their level of wealth will allow and sterilize poor people who don't use lots of resources anyway because they can't afford to.

This is how I know your environmental concerns are not genuine. If they were you'd say wealthy people should be sterilized because their children use more resources than a dozen poor children.

EXC wrote:
How could it possible cost less?

I don't think it could possibly cost more because the cost of what you propose is incredibly high in more ways than one.

Aside from the higher cost in economic terms of policing and incarcerating people and performing medical procedures on them rather than providing them with education and preventative health care which is relatively cheap, there's also a social cost. This goes back to China, a country you praise for its rather brutal violations of human rights.

China has the most rapidly aging population on Earth a trend that may be irreversible. In some provinces men outnumber women nearly 2 to 1. The working age population in China will begin to shrink as early as 2013 reducing the country's overall GDP, and possibly the worst shooting spree in world history happened in Beijing in 1994, carried out by a man who was angry at the Chinese government because his wife died after being compelled to abort their second child.

The costs you would impose on society and the hazards you'd create are far worse than anything that exists now which is why no reasonable person will agree with you.

Beyond that, central to your argument seems to be the assertion these people receive some kind of government assistance but that wasn't even stated in the article you linked.

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Nope never said

Gauche wrote:

Nope never said that.


What do you think you're saying right now?

So you want to permit wealthy people to deplete resources at whatever scale and speed their level of wealth will allow and sterilize poor people who don't use lots of resources anyway because they can't afford to.

This is how I know your environmental concerns are not genuine. If they were you'd say wealthy people should be sterilized because their children use more resources than a dozen poor children.

You have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one that wants to tax natural resource usage and not allow the rich and corporations to own such resources.

What you have to look at is where is there are oversupplies, under-supplies, over-demands, etc... Set government policy accordingly.

Right now, we have an oversupply of unskilled labor leading to high unemployment and depression of wages for unskilled labor. This why even the poor should support what I'm saying because if there are fewer unskilled laborers looking for work, salaries for jobs like janitors, waiters, maids, etc... will go up and unemployment down.

Yes there is a problem of the rich over-consuming natural resources. So we need to take consumption of resources instead of taxing work and wealth creation. The rich can afford recycling and green technology. They just need to be forced. Raising income taxes ain't going to do this. They'll just pull their money out of the country and economy.

If we have a pay for what you use/pay as you go society, none of these concerns are an issue. We have a system now that is welfare for the poor and welfare for the rich/corporations as well.

Gauche wrote:


Aside from the higher cost in economic terms of policing and incarcerating people and performing medical procedures on them rather than providing them with education and preventative health care which is relatively cheap, there's also a social cost.

The problem is now that the education, medical and prisons systems are swamped with too many clients needing services and too few people able or willing to pay for them. I say it is necessary to reduce populations so that if you're going to have these services, they have the money to do the job right.

Gauche wrote:

This goes back to China, a country you praise for its rather brutal violations of human rights.

I don't praise their brutal violations of human rights. I'm saying they are the expected result of overpopulation. Culturally, they decided this present state was better than the mass famine of the past. There certainly are a lot of thing they've executed badly. But you must admit it is better than the alternative.

Maybe I could have the compassion of the Dali Lama, but the problem is guys like him are just going to take advantage of compassion.

I'm saying the USA and Canada are eventually going to economically and culturally decline until we do put limits on who and how many children people can have. Apparently, this right is so sacred to you that you're will to tolerate a lot of misery that goes with it. But you have no scientific evidence that this man would in any way suffer from having a vascetomy.

 

Gauche wrote:

China has the most rapidly aging population on Earth a trend that may be irreversible. In some provinces men outnumber women nearly 2 to 1. The working age population in China will begin to shrink as early as 2013 reducing the country's overall GDP, and possibly the worst shooting spree in world history happened in Beijing in 1994, carried out by a man who was angry at the Chinese government because his wife died after being compelled to abort their second child.

The costs you would impose on society and the hazards you'd create are far worse than anything that exists now which is why no reasonable person will agree with you.
 

Obviously you never lived through the Great Chinese famine. I'd prefer not to live(or die) through a Great American one. As it is now, we have millions of food insecure citizens. You're OK with this? How bad does it have to become before you would change your mind? Or is it just way too convenient to blame it all on Republicans?
 

Gauche wrote:

Beyond that, central to your argument seems to be the assertion these people receive some kind of government assistance but that wasn't even stated in the article you linked.

Are you really that naive that you don't think the mothers of the 30 kids are getting food stamps and other public assistance? You really think the children are not neglected? Or are they all getting along well with $4 week he can pay for each one?

What percentage of single mothers with fathers with minimum wages jobs do you think receive public assistance?

“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
EXC wrote:You have me

EXC wrote:
You have me mistaken for someone else. I'm the one that wants to tax natural resource usage and not allow the rich and corporations to own such resources.

Paying for resources that you use doesn't make them any less used. This is a question of the penalties you would impose for so called over consumption and who according to you is consuming too much.
Your basis for determining over consumption clearly has nothing to do with the amount of resources being consumed and you don't even pretend that it does. Those concerns are monetary not environmental.
EXC wrote:
The problem is now that the education, medical and prisons systems are swamped with too many clients needing services and too few people able or willing to pay for them.

There are more people in Western Europe than there are in the US yet there are less than half the number of incarcerated people and near universal access to health care. If people in the US want to reform those systems there are working models throughout the industrialized world and in some parts of the developing world that could be adopted and no reduction in population is necessary.
You however would place even more strain on these broken system by creating a new class of reproductive crimes.
EXC wrote:
I don't praise their brutal violations of human rights. I'm saying they are the expected result of overpopulation. Culturally, they decided this present state was better than the mass famine of the past. There certainly are a lot of thing they've executed badly. But you must admit it is better than the alternative.

The alternative would have been to experience the natural decline in fertility rate that started before the policy was introduced and continued through the 20th century as China further industrialized, smoothly and possibly without incident. So no.
EXC wrote:
Obviously you never lived through the Great Chinese famine. I'd prefer not to live(or die) through a Great American one.

The Chinese famine wasn't a result of population numbers outstripping food production capacity. It happened because of mismanagement.

EXC wrote:
Are you really that naive ...

I'm not naive enough to believe what you say without citations. There are single mothers who don't receive food stamps.

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Paying for

Gauche wrote:

Paying for resources that you use doesn't make them any less used.

What??? When the price of gas goes up, people drive less and look for alternative fuels. People suffer because of too much demand for a scarce resource. Without population controls the poor will suffer. Wars will be waged to fight because of scarcity.

 

Gauche wrote:

This is a question of the penalties you would impose for so called over consumption and who according to you is consuming too much. Your basis for determining over consumption clearly has nothing to do with the amount of resources being consumed and you don't even pretend that it does. Those concerns are monetary not environmental.
 

I think you need to let objective science decide who is consuming too much. I would say if people are suffering because of scarcity and environmental damage is occurring, we need to tax high consumption of the resource and limit the size of populations consuming the resource. Your not going to eliminate scarcity long term by any other means.

The problem is both monetary and environmental. The biggest problem now is too many people receiving from government and too few giving. What other solution is there except to limit the number of receivers?


 

Gauche wrote:

There are more people in Western Europe than there are in the US yet there are less than half the number of incarcerated people and near universal access to health care. If people in the US want to reform those systems there are working models throughout the industrialized world and in some parts of the developing world that could be adopted and no reduction in population is necessary.

They can afford it because the birth rate is low. How could a country like Haiti afford universal education and health care? Hell the USA can't. They have to reduce the birth rate before they could do that. Which is why it makes to sense to give aid to countries unless they have mandatory birth control. Then if they ever become like Northern Europe, take the controls off. But you're trying to put the cart before the horse, it won't work.

I don't think you necessarily need a reduction in population. Germany has a problem of too low a birth rate. It makes sense for them to encourage couples that can afford it to have more. What is happening in Europe is the more educated, secular class is being replaced by more uneducated, Muslim groups that encourage high birth rates. So Europe headed toward a future of bankruptcy, poverty and war with religion as the opiate.


 

Gauche wrote:

You however would place even more strain on these broken system by creating a new class of reproductive crimes.

Given the fact that there is no evidence that having a vasectomy causes physical or psychological trauma, hell people do it voluntarily. Why wouldn't this guy do it to get out jail?


 

Gauche wrote:

The alternative would have been to experience the natural decline in fertility rate that started before the policy was introduced and continued through the 20th century as China further industrialized, smoothly and possibly without incident. So no.

Where would they get the money to industrialize? All resources and money would need to go into buying food and fighting civil wars. Again you put the cart before the horse. And they still have a tremendous problem of not enough jobs, overcrowded roads, environmental destruction.

Gauche wrote:

The Chinese famine wasn't a result of population numbers outstripping food production capacity. It happened because of mismanagement.

There is always going to be mismanagement in any system especially one that is overburdened by too much demand. If you're a manager and there are shortages, you're going to horde what you can for yourself. When you have starving masses, a guy like Mao can take total advantage of them.

What happens when there is scarcity? Greed, hording and fighting. So isn't it best to eliminate the causes of scarcity in the first place?

EXC wrote:
Are you really that naive ...

I'm not naive enough to believe what you say without citations. There are single mothers who don't receive food stamps.

OK. If any these mothers can afford more kids on their own, let them. But this guy obviously can't so he's the one that needs to go to jail if any of his kids are neglected and in need of public assistance. Then tell him stay in jail or get a vasectomy.

 

“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
EXC wrote:What??? When the

EXC wrote:
What??? When the price of gas goes up, people drive less and look for alternative fuels.

That's an obvious truism that has nothing to do with this subject. You're talking about penalizing people for their use of resources. Have you forgotten about that?

This conversation has made me realize how prone to fabrication you are. You make up the past and the present and then insist it will happen in the future. These people use food stamps even though the article didn't say that. China would be in perpetual civil war without a one child policy. Why exactly? Nobody knows, nothing cited, not even a reason given. There's no way to argue with that.

For example you say the US can't implement universal health care because birthrates are too high. What do you base that on? No attempt has even been made and in stark contradiction to your statement, France has the best health care system in the world and the highest birthrates in Europe. Are you going to counter that with further prognostication?

 Concerning the Chinese famine I think you confuse what a famine is, with the cause of a famine. Too much demand is what a famine is and it can happen in populations of any size. In China it was caused primarily by radical changes to the agricultural system. You're not in any more danger of famine now than you'd be if the population were half the size.

Quote:
Researchers outside China, however, generally agree that massive institutional and policy changes which accompanied the Great Leap Forward were the key factors in the famine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

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: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:You have me

EXC wrote:
You have me confused again with right wingers that claim abosolute rights. The concept of absolute rights is BS.

So you have no argument. You have no right to freedom, and no valid complaint against having to pay taxes.

"You leftist, high tax, welfare idea is a failure because of the massive moral hazards it creates. This guy is a prime example."

Strawman.

"It amounts to about $6 a week for each kid. ~snip~ These women collect welfare payments and benefits for these kids."

Prove all these women are on welfare and will always be on welfare. Or be subject to more ridicule.
Btw, even if that $6 is accurate, and I have every reason to believe it isn't, he's still paying millions of times more per kid than you are.

"So you do support forced "mutilation" as necessary for civil society."

Nope. Pets aren't members of society.
The rest of your comment was based on a fallacious position, and is inherently irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You're calliing it fascist.

"You're calliing it fascist. So I want a definition. Why can't I call not being able to eat because there is not enough to go around fascist?"

Who is preventing you from eating? You have plenty of food available. Nothing about this comment has any factual basis.

"You should to judge good and bad by the pleasure and pain it causes."

Why can't I use other criteria that only you seem unable to use?

"And let objective science be the judge."

Sure.

"There is no good that can come from letting this guy have more kids but pleanty of bad."

Good and bad are subjective. You just totally lost. Everything. Good day.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:That's an

Gauche wrote:


That's an obvious truism that has nothing to do with this subject. You're talking about penalizing people for their use of resources. Have you forgotten about that?

I thought you cared about neglected children that need resources to eat and the environment. So less use of resources means less misery for humans and the environment right? Is that an outcome you want or not?

Gauche wrote:

This conversation has made me realize how prone to fabrication you are. You make up the past and the present and then insist it will happen in the future. These people use food stamps even though the article didn't say that.

Can you cite an example of something I've made up about the past? But I can make general predictions based on past outcomes. Half of all kids in USA receive food stamps.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-02-food-stamps_N.htm

So just at random the odds that none of them are on food stamps is 2^30. or 1 in 1, 073, 741, 824. Greater than lottery jackpot odds that you're correct. The consider the father has only minimum wage job and each kid only gets a few dollars a week. If these mothers he knocked up are so well to do, why do they need these few dollars?

Either these children are neglected or they are getting a fair sum of money from welfare. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Gauche wrote:

China would be in perpetual civil war without a one child policy. Why exactly? Nobody knows, nothing cited, not even a reason given.

Population preasures/lack of resources have already played a role in the conflicts with Tibet and Taiwan. The traditional Chinese culture encouraged people to have a lot of kids. So you do the math. What other outcome is there but poverty, war over resources, disease, etc...

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1021206?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699088701427


 

Gauche wrote:

For example you say the US can't implement universal health care because birthrates are too high. What do you base that on?

The problem overpopulation in the USA is not so much quantity as one of quality. The biggest problem with the economy is under supply of high skill/quality workers and a massive oversupply of low skill/low quality workers. Fixing the education system is only part of the problem. The long term problem is that people like this guy will swamp the system(health care and education) with too many children needing services with too little people, money and resources to provide them. The USA and the states are already going broke paying for partial universal health care, so it's not even reasonable to discuss universal health care at this point. Maybe if we stopped guys like him at some point we could afford it.

Gauche wrote:

No attempt has even been made and in stark contradiction to your statement, France has the best health care system in the world and the highest birthrates in Europe. Are you going to counter that with further prognostication?

Yes but their birthrate is still pretty low, so for now they can afford it. But the French population problem is one of quality not quantity.

But it's not a rational social contract to say have as many kids as you want and the rest of society is stuck with the bills.
 

Gauche wrote:


 Concerning the Chinese famine I think you confuse what a famine is, with the cause of a famine. Too much demand is what a famine is and it can happen in populations of any size. In China it was caused primarily by radical changes to the agricultural system.

 

Suppose the communists under Mao had not mismanaged the agriculture production. So the famine would not have been so severe, but then the population would have grown even more, right? So they'd be trying to feed an even bigger population with the same resources. You'd still have the famine. Only lowering birthrates through cultural change or laws is going to change things.

I don't think the USA needs to adopt a one child policy like China. What is irrational about the current system is that people with no children or few are forced to subsidize the choice of a number of irresponsible people like this guy. I think it is unsustainable and will lead to further decline in the ecomomy, culture and environemnt. The current system rewards irresponsible behaviors and punishes responsible behaviors. This needs to stop.

“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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Good and bad

Vastet wrote:
Good and bad are subjective. You just totally lost. Everything. Good day.

Winning and loosing are subjective. You're not my fucking judge either.

You've presented no evidence that having a vascetomy would cause suffering or trauma. I've presented evidence that is does not.

The fact is you are on the wrong side of history and science. If societies follow you ways, just a continuation of a world of suffering, poverty, war and cultural decline. With religion as the number one opiate.

 

“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
EXC wrote:I thought you

EXC wrote:
I thought you cared about neglected children that need resources to eat and the environment. So less use of resources means less misery for humans and the environment right? Is that an outcome you want or not?

You really don't get it. You should be glad I'm not in accord with your way of thinking because in my mind he's better than you are. You could reduce resource consumption and misery right now by dying but I don't want you to do it any more than I want some horny idiot strapped to a table and sterilized. If I absolutely had to choose for the sake of humanity I'd get rid of you and anyone who even kind of thinks like you long before I'd consider doing anything to that guy.
EXC wrote:
Can you cite an example of something I've made up about the past?

Yes you are making up the past about the Chinese famine being caused by out of control population growth and I already cited sources to show that you are.
EXC wrote:
Either these children are neglected or they are getting a fair sum of money from welfare. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

They might be on welfare. It's a distinct possibility. The problem for you is that they don't necessarily have to be on welfare. Don't get me wrong, I've already dismissed what you're saying about sterilizing people out of hand as ridiculous like everyone else has. I'm just not ignoring the fact that in order for it to even apply to these people they would have to use food stamps and you're just assuming that.
EXC wrote:
Population preasures/lack of resources have already played a role in the conflicts with Tibet and Taiwan.

I agree that population growth can play a role in exacerbating those problems but that doesn't mean the one child policy was responsible for preventing any wars. That's an enormous stretch. Fertility rates in China dropped by half in the decade before it was implemented, by then they were already beginning massive industrialization efforts.
EXC wrote:
The USA and the states are already going broke paying for partial universal health care, so it's not even reasonable to discuss universal health care at this point. Maybe if we stopped guys like him at some point we could afford it.

The US is supposedly the wealthiest nation on Earth that can afford a cold-war military budget, multi-theater wars, mass incarceration of its own citizens for non-violent offenses, and bailouts of any major industries that fail at taxpayer expense but health is just a little too expensive. Anyone can see that's a question of priorities.
EXC wrote:
Yes but their birthrate is still pretty low, so for now they can afford it. But the French population problem is one of quality not quantity.

But it's not a rational social contract to say have as many kids as you want and the rest of society is stuck with the bills.

The same system was in place when French birthrates were higher than US birthrates are now. If you're to be believed that was impossible.

Maybe if you didn't want to forcibly sterilize your fellow citizens they would have solidarity with you and you wouldn't think solidarity was irrational.

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: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Winning and

EXC wrote:
Winning and loosing are subjective.

Sometimes. Not this time.

Quote:
You're not my fucking judge either.

Sure I am. I can and do judge everyone. You are no exception.

Quote:
You've presented no evidence that having a vascetomy would cause suffering or trauma.

See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy

Expand: complications of vasectomy.

Quote:
I've presented evidence that is does not.

No, you haven't. Not in this topic anyway.

Quote:
The fact is you are on the wrong side of history and science.

I just proved you got this backwards. As you do most things.

Quote:
If societies follow you ways, just a continuation of a world of suffering, poverty, war and cultural decline. With religion as the number one opiate.

blah blah blah. More ridiculous and unsupported assertions from the resident fool.

You lost twice now. Care for a third humiliation?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3562
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
    Just euthanize the

 

   Just euthanize the serial breeder and feed his remains to his hungry children.  At least then he will finally be providing for their needs.

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:You really

Gauche wrote:

You really don't get it. You should be glad I'm not in accord with your way of thinking because in my mind he's better than you are. You could reduce resource consumption and misery right now by dying but I don't want you to do it any more than I want some horny idiot strapped to a table and sterilized.


 

Did I say, strapped to a table? I said he chooses, jail or sterilization. Jail is sterilization only worse. If society ever advances to the point were poverty, war and religion are on the ash heap of history, they'll consider your ways barbaric and mine rational. Because you're sentencing these kids to life of neglect and if they make it to adulthood a good chance of being in prison.

Gauche wrote:

If I absolutely had to choose for the sake of humanity I'd get rid of you and anyone who even kind of thinks like you long before I'd consider doing anything to that guy.



Gauche wrote:
Yes you are making up the past about the Chinese famine being caused by out of control population growth and I already cited sources to show that you are


You sited sources that that said there was "mismanagement" of agriculture. When has there ever not been mismanagement in government?


Gauche wrote:
Either these children are neglected or they are getting a fair sum of money from welfare. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

 

Gauche wrote:

I agree that population growth can play a role in exacerbating those problems but that doesn't mean the one child policy was responsible for preventing any wars. That's an enormous stretch. Fertility rates in China dropped by half in the decade before it was implemented, by then they were already beginning massive industrialization efforts .

OK then. If you don't have poverty, war, neglected children and all working parents can afford to kids, take the controls off. Europe and USA only need to stop situations where there is high likelyhood of child neglect.


Gauche wrote:

The US is supposedly the wealthiest nation on Earth that can afford a cold-war military budget, multi-theater wars, mass incarceration of its own citizens for non-violent offenses, and bailouts of any major industries that fail at taxpayer expense but health is just a little too expensive. Anyone can see that's a question of priorities.

 

The big problem right now is lack of health care workers and facilities. So suppose the government planned all this out to train doctors and nurses and build facilites. So everything is planned out except then number of people entering the system. These children from these highly disfunctional homes are far more like to end of in prison than medical school. So what is the point of all this planning if you just the system get swamped with children from uncivilized parents?

Gauche wrote:

The same system was in place when French birthrates were higher than US birthrates are now. If you're to be believed that was impossible.

But the present French culture is going to be replaced by a Muslim/immigrant culture that will have a high birthrate and will be unable to afford universal healthcare. Just a matter of time. And the French socialists will finance this cultural takeover. Insanity.


 

“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: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Sure I am. I

Vastet wrote:

Sure I am. I can and do judge everyone. You are no exception.

Right, kind of like how Christian fundies judge my lack of faith.

 

Vastet wrote:

complications of vasectomy.

Botched vasectomies, far from being normal except when you get a healthcare system overwhelmed with too many patients. But of course we can only blame this on Republicans and Capitalists and never overpopulation forces.

By your logic, vaccinations should be banned because in rare cases there are complications. To hell with any benefits to society.

 

Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:

The fact is you are on the wrong side of history and science.

I just proved you got this backwards. As you do most things.

How is that European socialism(aka the entitlement state) working out for you all in Greece? Seems like they've had enough there.

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Right, kind of

EXC wrote:
Right, kind of like how Christian fundies judge my lack of faith.

Kind of like how everyone judges everything.

Quote:
Botched vasectomies

Any surgical procedure can result in a botching. Which proves me right and you wrong.

Quote:
far from being normal except when you get a healthcare system overwhelmed with too many patients.

Naked assertion.

Quote:
How is that European socialism(aka the entitlement state) working out for you all in Greece? Seems like they've had enough there.

How is that capitalism working for you in the US? Seems like you've all had enough there.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:How is that

Vastet wrote:
How is that capitalism working for you in the US? Seems like you've all had enough there.

Our Socialist in chief said "the private sector is doing fine". It's the governments that are going broke. But we need to burden the private sector with more taxes to pay for this guy.

Is there any limits to your insanity. If this guy wanted 300 or 3000 kids? If the Octomom wanted 8 kids every 9 months?

The government is to provide them with an army of nannies, nurses, doctors, teachers. Take every available cent from the private sector and use every last natural resource to pay for them? Are there no limits to you insanity of political ideology?

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Our capitalist in

EXC wrote:
Our capitalist in chief said "the private sector is doing fine

Fixed.

Everything else is just laughable strawmen. *yawn*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Fixed.

Vastet wrote:
Fixed. Everything else is just laughable strawmen. *yawn*

No. That is you and Gauche's position, it is no strawman. If people wanted to have hundreds or thousands of babies(they can do now with technology as in the case of Octomom), the state should provide everything their offspring needs regardless of cost. That is your position, you're an ideologue. If it's not you could tell when the state should step in to prevent such situations.

 

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Fixed. Everything else is just laughable strawmen. *yawn*

No. That is you and Gauche's position, it is no strawman. If people wanted to have hundreds or thousands of babies(they can do now with technology as in the case of Octomom), the state should provide everything their offspring needs regardless of cost. That is your position, you're an ideologue. If it's not you could tell when the state should step in to prevent such situations.

 

 

You don't have the brains to understand that Gauche and I do not hold identical philosophies, so your assertion that you aren't creating strawmen was immediately disproven when you asserted we hold identical positions.

Not to mention the fact that after 4+ years of arguing, you're still saying the same BS I proved wrong 4+ years ago.

Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.