I'm not saying all homosexy couples abuse their adopted children, but here's one more pair of dudes busted for filming porn with their adopted children

submitted by iamonlyoneman from nypost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. The more complicated you make a system the harder it is to enforce justly. That is why unflinching cruelty has to be dealt out at times because violence is the most simple order one can make to establish order to put it simply.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What?

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All regulations are at some point are enforced by violence. How new to this are you?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How exactly do you need violence to enforce a rating system? If they don't comply they don't get the kid. If they try to kidnap a kid that is an entirely different problem.

And enforcement does not require cruelty.

You are all over the board and not making any sense.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah alright, that new to the job then. It's good that you're asking questions.

I'm mostly just agreeing with how libraratarians frame police officers and taxation to eventually be controlled by the violence of others to be enforced and applying it to any social constraint, it's a very drawn out and autistic argument if you want me to go through it but it's basically a way to balance out social good and inconvenience of others.

The state has to be more violent than criminals to maintain order, it's just common sense so to use a subjective word like cruelty is inappropriate to the argument I'm making (yes I know I used it).

While we're onto the idea of social inconvenience given the relative rarity of gay adoption I think an outright ban is better for the whole social system. The social welfare network is strained already and to create your system would take social workers that could be finding children homes instead running and maintaining a niche network of potential potent parents with a known risk level, to begin with.

At this point, you're on the level of trans activists arguing for a minuscule percentage of a percentage. Sometimes it's okay for people to be left by the wayside to protect the integrity of the majority and in that the future.