BREAKING NEWS: FBI updates crime statistics. It is now 13/56

submitted by Tarrock from twitter.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Just a tip: put ">" before the quoted part of text you want to respond to make it look

like this

Continuing:

How is the most permanent the solution the best? In any situation? If the solution is bad, then making it permanent is even worse.

I mean in the sense that at any moment someone could not use a condom, skip their pill, or just ditch their wife and all of the money we've poured into this program would be a loss. If you write someone a check for $10,000 to get snipped unless they go out of their way for corrective surgery that person is never having kids.

Marriage rates are plummeting because men are afraid to get divorced under the current laws. By "change alimony laws", I meant end alimony. If we made it harder to get divorced, it's just a fact that there will be less divorce..

Marriage rates are plummeting because marriage is seen as something not worth doing. By making it a more strict contract that won't help with the single parent-household rates. I'm not saying this is the worst idea ever, I'm simply saying it won't do anything.

If that's true, then end welfare anyway. Apparently they don't care whether or not they receive that payment, so why are we giving it to them?

You misread that. I'm saying you can't simply keep fining someone who has no money. You can't really use negative financial penalties against people with no money. This is something we've all experienced with car insurance. If some shitbox civic from the 90s without insurance hits you, you're not going to bother chasing them down because you can't get blood from a stone. I'm applying the same logic to this problem. But again, removing welfare is just a utopian goal. You have no way forward to accomplish this. It's all pie in the sky rhetoric. We're infinitely closer to my lunatic idea than we are ending welfare.

That's literally the opposite of voluntary, it's incentivized.

No. It really is not. My state has incentives for electric cars. Nobody is putting a gun to your head when you purchase a Tahoe.

Seriously, what you're describing is exactly how the program was run before

I'm suggesting voluntary vasectomies with incentives. That's not the same thing.

Why do you think that program would ever come back?

Because human rights are subjective and we allow women to murder tens of thousands of babies a year anyways. I don't want to go off in the weeds on this topic but "human rights" are literally whatever we say they are.

"undesirables"

Yes, children born into a high statistical chance of being wastes of society should be discouraged. You can grasp your pearls all you want but please don't give me this childish view of the world. The less children being born to single mothers the better this country would be. It's already happening with down syndrome children, what I am saying is not that controversial.

Literally end it. Just cancel the program. You already told me it's not going to effect anyone on it, anyway.

Again, please research realpolitik. What you're saying is a non-starter. You have no way of accomplishing this goal beyond empty rhetoric. Also you misunderstood me on that last part. You might as well say "End suffering" while you're at it because you have no way to push this policy.

You act like your solutions are practical

Says the person who thinks we're just going to "end" welfare. Buddy stop. My solutions are magnitudes more practical than yours. Write men checks for getting vasectomies.

but you haven't demonstrated that any of your solutions will even achieve what you claim they will.

I have time and time again. Less children being born to single parents would improve the community.

No, it's literally one of the easiest things we could do. That's like.. printing posters..

This is a child's interpretation of politics.

I want to help people and make their lives better.

As do I. Don't have children irresponsibly and it improves everyones lives and the community around them.

You just want to totally annihilate the parts of society that you don't like.

You just described prison.

If that's true, then show me that your policies will do what you say they will.

Vasectomies and increased propagation of abortion and contraceptives will leads to less children being born. I simply don't understand what you're not understanding in this.

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

You're still assuming that decreasing the population is an end in itself to be achieved. Not me. I want to increase population. More people --> more prosperous society. Evidence would suggest that.

You're a moral relativist. I'm not. Moral relativism leads to the propagation of real evil, and for that reason it's inexcusable.

Why does so much of your argument hinge on keeping welfare in place? You seem to agree with me that it's an useless and destructive policy. So tell me how we can stop it. I say end the program.

I'm not a realpolitik-ian. I'm a liberal. Pragmatism means nothing if you can't tell me what goals you want to achieve. So far, I'm getting that you want government sterilization and welfare, which I am not willing to support.

Less children being born to single parents would improve the community.

So make more parents get married. Don't make less children.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You're still assuming that decreasing the population is an end in itself to be achieved.

Reducing single parent households is my goal. I don't have this weird view that "more people = good".

I want to increase population. More people --> more prosperous society. Evidence would suggest that.

The overwhelming majority of developed nations have birthrates under replacement. What you are saying is patently false.

You're a moral relativist.

I'm a fan of realpolitik. I'm not interested in moralizing about what's "evil" or not. I want policies that can be put into place realistically to be done so actual society can be improved and not some fantasyland. I'm not interested in grandstanding for the purposes of someone's ideological ego.

Why does so much of your argument hinge on keeping welfare in place?

Because that's what's going to happen.

So tell me how we can stop it.

You cannot. My whole argument surrounds this. You have no plan to end welfare outside of empty rhetoric. And that's because it's impossible. It's a political loser. It's so outside the overton window it might as well not exist.

Pragmatism means nothing

That's the first accurate thing I've read from you.

So make more parents get married.

And all attempts to increase marriages since the 60s has failed. You bring nothing to the table except failed old ideas that accomplish nothing while the ships bow is already beneath the water. I'd actually respect a more Fascistic-argument from you that we're just going to force men to marry women they knock up. At least that would be something new and not just the same losing talking points.

Don't make less children.

Preventing people from being born is not immoral. If contraceptives and vasectomies is baby genocide then you hold an extremist view on the matter.

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

Reducing single parent households is my goal.

Mine too.

The overwhelming majority of developed nations have birthrates under replacement.

They didn't become developed with low birth rates.

I want policies that can be put into place realistically to be done so actual society can be improved and not some fantasyland.

Me too.

Because that's what's going to happen.

As long as people like you continue to enforce it, it will.

You have no plan to end welfare outside of empty rhetoric. And that's because it's impossible. It's a political loser. It's so outside the overton window it might as well not exist.

The whole system will collapse if we don't. It can't be sustained.

You bring nothing to the table except failed old ideas that accomplish nothing

The failure has been to let my "old ideas" go out of fashion in the first place..

I'd actually respect a more Fascistic-argument from you that we're just going to force men to marry women they knock up.

As a Liberal, I would never suggest that. As a woman, I fear being forced to marry a man who has impregnated me.

If contraceptives and vasectomies is baby genocide

Hormonal birth control acts as an aboritifacient. It has the power to kill a fertilized egg (which is a child in its first stage of life).

Barrier methods and permanent sterilization only prevent the egg and sperm from meeting. That means no life is created in the first place. So nothing has been killed.

But it's still a sin.