WTF...
You said you had a 2006 S65 AMG. That car in 2006 had an MSRP of $169,000. You say that's not nice?
Tell me.
Should I waste my time with you if you are going to jump to such asinine assumptions? I didn't read past your first paragraph of your long response, because the first was so asinine.
I'll come back and look over you post when I have time. Please stop wasting what time i have. How about some reasonable questions, without the stupid assumptions.
Let me know when your ready to stop being a Glob fly.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-23-2012 at 05:10 AM.
Well, forced sterilization for government aid... (assuming that said couple was "irresponsible".)
Same here WC.
It's an exchange. If they want the services, they must agree to actions that prevents it from happening again. Why is that wrong?
That people will voluntarily swap their fertility for a little bit of money is in itself a satanic bargain, but the most shocking thing to me is the power such a scheme would give the state over human reproduction.
Why not just order that women in this situation must have abortions if they want governmental aid? [/extremism]
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 01-23-2012 at 03:38 PM.
If only in your case...
I'm still waiting for the statistics you cite and never provide. Are we at least going to see those?
lol mouse with the troll bads
Tbh, you don't have to worry, one more kid and I'll be doing it voluntarily
Why do you have a problem with that? If people engage in protected sex, and the protection fails, why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions? Why should society subsidize their needs over their gambling? It is irresponsible and often abusive to bring a child into the world that you cannot take care of. Why shouldn't society take the measures necessary to help the innocent, and keep such an immoral act from occurring again?
What is for a rush, I play Russian Roulette with a revolver that somehow had 100 chambers. Only one had a bullet. Now in the 1 in 100 chance, I kill someone. Should I be coddled for my irresponsibility of thinking a 1:100 chance would never occur, or should I be tried for murder?
The consequences is the deterrent to help bring about responsibility that is sorely lacing in our society today.
Well if you are going to recommend eugenics then I say we start with you. Then again, we do need epsilons, partschanger.
Quite frankly, you are not fit for espousing that type of elitist trash. You get swept under with the tide.
Warning...
Because this got so long, I didn't proof read it. I don't very often anyway, but there are bound to be errors...
Is the system suppose to bet bigger and bigger, and not do anything to reduce poverty?
The war on poverty will soon be 50 years old. When will we do something that matters?
No Sherlock. Is it right for us to provide subsidies as a right, or should it be more like an insurance??
Absolutely not. this is why you piss me off. You go out of your way, to twist what I say. It is your MO as a regular thing. i find it very unethical.
Do women have spontaneous pregnancies without the help of a male sperm donor?
If the between the two that it took to make a baby, if they cannot support that baby on their own, then they are irresponsible.
It takes two to tango.
Then they shouldn't plant to have another mouth to feed, or risk having another mouth to feed.
Why do you coddle those who are irresponsible? Are you one of them?
Abstinence works.
I don't understand why this needs explaining.
The child is innocent, and should be helped. At the same time, the parents shouldn't get a free ride. The surgery gives pretty good assurance that this will not be a repeated action with this couple.
Already discussed.
You want to require people pay money because they are alive?
How dictatorial of you.
It's a great deal different. A choice is maintained. It is not mandatory. It is the cost to receive benefits.
Being the Glob Fly again i see.
Of course I change my lifestyle. Our government is at a point it cannot maintain all this social spending. Something has to be done.
Anytime a person has sex, unless they are unable to produce a child, the risk is there. If a couple is not capable of supporting a newe life in their midst, then they are irresponsible for their actions.
I suppose as gambling goes, you could stretch this to include that we should subsidize gamblers who blow their paycheck, certain that at some time they will win big.
Gambling is gambling. How can you sanitize it into something innocent?
How can it not?
Would you agree that most people receiving social subsidies have two or more children, and that most were conceived needing social benefits?
What happens when this is reduced to only one child, and others seeing this as a deterrent, take extra care not to have a child?
I see less applications for social benefits, hence, the spending goes down.
Bull .
Again, you are twisting what I say to the worse possible outcome. Aren't you the one that challenges the cost of the surgery vs. the cost of social benefits? I say the cost of surgery is cheaper than a second event, and you disagree...
These social benefits are likely going to last the life of the child. Of course the long term is expensive, and why we should do all we can to stop this drain of our treasury. Statistics show a vicious circle of poverty, that most of those born in poverty, remain in poverty.
You mean "do we not," right?
Yes we have these. Shouldn't we strive to become a better nation and reduce the needs of these programs?
There you go again... you Glob Fly...
I never said it would make them better parents.
You ever read the cons ution?
That happens all the time already.
It doesn't hold them accountable. It takes that responsibility away from them so they don't have to be accountable.
That's probable another thread in itself, but in short, if the hammock or easy chair is no longer available, people will stand up.
Like I said earlier. They shouldn't be gambling.
Maybe I should put it this way. Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose.
Why do you act as if people have the right to be irresponsible, then expect the tax payer to make up for their mistakes?
It doesn't matter. Irresponsibility should be treated as a stigma. Not something to be coddled.
I don't know that it will. It just keeps then from needing the assistance for more children.
Glob fly mode again.
if you want to see them, you find them.
And... what do we have to show for it, but more and more social spending yet.
I see...
You think the term and the story are the same thing.
I don't recall why I used that term. Was it in a related thread, or link of that thread?
It doesn't matter. Once again, you are taking me out of context. No surprise though. It's you M.O.
Just applying it to things you have said in the past.
Really?
That's not why we had a housing bubble burst.
That's not why jobs are going overseas.
That's a separate issue.
I'm not advocating we go back to that lifestyle. Just promote that level of personal responsibly.
You don't believe in deterrents?
How many thing do you not do, that you might otherwise do, because to be caught, has unpleasant actions?
Not all will, but there is a recognized cycle in poverty.
Why should I prove things that everyone already knows?
Want me to prove 2+2=4... That the world is round... Want me to prove that oil and water don't mix without an emulsifier?
Ooops...
That last one is probably over your head, and I might have to prove it to you.
I didn't need to read 11 pages of Ankle Biting to say this:
Poster of the Year.
Scoreboard es.
WC came back strong!
Fair enough.
So your solution to poverty is deny reproduction to poor families?
The war on poverty entails providing means so such people can get out of poverty, by productive means and a string economy, not using eugenics.
We don't provide subsidies as a right. As a matter of fact, people under welfare have a requirement to obtain a job within 2 years or they lose the benefit.
Further proof you have no idea what the current services provides and what are their requirements.
What pisses you off is the fact that you didn't think these things through or you don't know much of anything you're talking about. When somebody (in this case, me) actually points out the stupidity or lack of thought and research of your contentions, they're just the messengers.
Sure, but your suggestion that a vasectomy would prevent further reproduction doesn't jive. As a matter of fact, it doesn't work at all. Tied tubes would be closer to what you're looking for, but then you fall in my caveat pointed above.
You contention that people (poor or not) plan conceiving a kid in every instance is a complete disconnect from reality. I don't coddle anybody, I merely point out what the real world looks like.
No it doesn't. Not in the real world anyways. Unless you're advocating that government should enforce it...
But it doesn't give an assurance. The surgery is reversible, right?
And how is this surgery teaching them to be "responsible"? Right, it doesn't.
So tough luck it is. Extreme.
I didn't write the healthcare law nor agree with it. Not sure when *I* walked into this picture.
That said, this is no different than the government demanding you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not, they'll charge you a fee as a punitive measure.
Here, the government would be demanding you to have a surgery, and if you do not, they'll deny the aid you need as a punitive measure.
I don't see where the difference lies, tbh
So if you're capable of getting by with less, why not these people?
Wait, you're saying that only those that can afford to raise a child should have sex?
Not quite sure where gambling entered this discussion, but it's a terrible analogy.
No, I wouldn't agree with that. Would you care to back that up?
What's the deterrent? They're still getting the aid.
The bolded part is bull , I've asked you to back that up, and you still come back empty handed.
As far as the red part, I've been asking you for these statistics. Where are they?
Sure we do. Your surgery does absolutely nothing towards that though. If you were advancing an idea of better or more efficient job programs, or a way to get out of this overall ty economy, I would completely agree with you that those are things that help reduce the need for these programs.
I already official statistics from the department of agriculture that show that usage of these programs match the overall state of the economy.
Sure you did: "some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse". How is this surgery removing these children from this alleged parental abuse? Right, it doesn't.
Please quote where the cons ution dictates these "responsibility standards".
Like what?
you were just telling me how it makes them accountable... I'm glad we finally agree.
But the hammock is there. You're not denying the aid.
The byproduct of losing at gambling isn't a human life. Terrible analogy.
And the claim that people have a "right" to be "irresponsible" is entirely yours, and one that I don't particularly share.
Responsibility is something you learn and teach. It has little to do with stigmas or coddling. A better education is something else that would help address this concern, not surgery requirements.
So the surgery doesn't address your concern at all. Expected.
So we just have to take your word for it?
Actually, recipients of welfare were on the decline until the economy went into recession.
Social spending comes in a lot of different flavors, but it obviously increases when the economy is in the ter.
What's inexcusable is how you keep talking and talking about these programs when you know absolutely nothing about them.
So you never heard the tale but you you had an opinion on it... par the course, I guess.
Like what?
Yeah, really. And the problem wasn't that the bubble burst, the problem was that there was a bubble to begin with. Bursting is going to happen sooner or later. And the bubble was entirely on rich folk gambling other people's money. Jobs were going overseas before the recession. They've been going overseas for many years.
But your argument is silly. Welfare existed back then too, it was just paid by the states. They actually were a substantial part of each state's spendings. This idea that welfare didn't exist back then is ridiculous. It's only gotten bigger and bigger simply because we have a whole lot more of people, because instead of each individual state taking care of it, it all went to the federal government, and because the economy is undergoing a rather critical moment.
Oh, I believe in deterrents. I just don't see how this surgery deters anybody from stop being "irresponsible". I actually contend that it doesn't at all. Considering you've just agreed that it doesn't hold people accountable, then I have to suppose you agree with this too.
But there isn't. There's the cycle of poverty as an economic theory, which basically destroys your idea that this castration surgery helps break that cycle at all. As a matter of fact, it backs up my contention that help in the form of jobs and education is what breaks that cycle.
I KINDA get where WC is coming from. WC, correct me if I'm wrong.
WC thinks that outright DENYING aid to families is somewhat wrong, as that means the child, an innocent, would suffer. So, instead, he offers a one-time out: to families that are willing to neuter themselves, they can receive government aid to help out this last child.
Assuming they get out of debt and no longer need government payments, they are free to reverse the procedure.
While I don't agree with the plan, I can somewhat see where WC might think it "better" than just cutting off payments after a certain amount of children. The big problem I see is that if these couples are as irresponsible as he claims them to be, then would they voluntarily submit to being neutered in order to support their children?
I'd say one difference is that you can't choose to stop being alive (and don't get all smart on me about this, you know what I meanThat said, this is no different than the government demanding you to purchase health insurance, and if you do not, they'll charge you a fee as a punitive measure.
Here, the government would be demanding you to have a surgery, and if you do not, they'll deny the aid you need as a punitive measure.
I don't see where the difference lies, tbh
), but you could choose not to have children.
Holy ! ELNono comes back with a Right hook!
With your commentary, are you in the Peanut Gallery?
OK, ElNono wannabe... Twisting my words...
Neuter suggests removal of the sexual reproductive organs. Please don't stoop to ElNono's level. I do like you, believe it or not. Please don't give me cause to see you as an unethical ass like ElNono.
Otherwise, yes, you are correct.
Absolutely.
Then it could cons ute Child Abuse, and Children's services can step in. It's not uncommon for the courts to take kids away from parents.
That's really not necessarily what would happen. They may rely on family, friends, church, etc. for help.
You say that as if that is all I think will reduce poverty. If we could deny poor people to reproduce, it would help reduce poverty. Not because they are poor, but because of the general culture being poor causes.
There you go being extreme again... Eugenics... Why doesn't it surprise me?
There are several types of programs that fall under welfare, and they don't all require that. What about food stamps? Section 8 housing? Other too.
Bull .
Proof you don't know.
Contrary to your belief, you are exposing your own ignorance.
I'm advocating bot the man and woman of the child have surgery so they cannot repeat the sin of bringing a child into the world they can't support. Their either both have the procedure, or neither. I'm sure we can find mitigating cir stances, but in general, both will need to have the procedure done for the government aide. If one refused, I'm sure some legal option like forfeiture of assets, garnishments, etc. can make be punishment enough. If not, maybe even jail time. i will assume there will be a problem with these guys who go around impregnating women, then play no fatherly roles. I'm not advocating this yet, but maybe they do deserve castration, like LnGrrrR rewords my point.
I would appreciate it if you stopped being an unethical ass, and stop misstating my points.
I know that not all children are planned. Still, if people have greater cause to be sexually responsible, it will make a change in statistics.
I don't think you know what the real world looks like. You keep suggesting I advocate things that I don't. I think your viewpoint is very biased.
WTF...
Are you suggesting that if you practice abstinence, you can have a child?
My God.
Why would they do that, under what reasonable stipulations would be? This would be an automatic disqualifier if they had another child and found it had been reversed. I will suggest the right thing to do would be to make it an offense that could lead to jail time also.
There is a world of difference, and I can't believe you don't see the difference.
We have a choice to put ourselves in a situation that can lead to having a child, or not. Are you suggesting we should commit suicide if we don't want to pay for health insurance? after all, how else would a choice to be born or not, as ex-post-facto, be addressed?
Better than not having aide available, isn't it?
I know. It's above your head.
I have a pretty good cushion of money. people who need government aide do not. I can afford new car payment. Can they? I can afford another child, can they? Before you try to say it isn't right to compare a car to a baby, I suggest you remember it isn't right to expect other people's money.
Yes, it effectively comes to that.Wait, you're saying that only those that can afford to raise a child should have sex?
If you don't understand how having protected sex isn't like gambling, then I don't know what to say.
What is terrible, if tax payer dollars being used in social programs that we shouldn't have. We can no longer afford such a drain on society.
Not going to take the time. Maybe you should consider food stamp statistics though.
OMG...
Really...
Are you that daft?
Other people see what happens, and there will be a drop in people who recklessly have children. Are you suggesting that irresponsibility is so rampant, it can't be tempered?
I already realize that even if I back it up, you will still find fault. I've known that about you for some time already. That's why I don't go out of my way to respond to you.
Have you looked? Read stories about the poverty cycle?
Wow... This is getting long. Going to start snipping...
WTF do you liberals think job programs are the answer? They are very costly for the numbers that do get help, and it does nothing to address the general at udes people develop growing up in poverty. Work ethics and education are a different topic. Do you realize you are agreeing with me on the idea this aide is lasting a lifetime? You are advocating more government aide. Aren't you tired of more and more programs sucking up tax payer dollars? I am.
Does that mean they don't make a difference?
Being the Glob flu again and again.
How do you make that to read I said it makes them better parents?
Again... After the first innocent child losing in this lottery of birth, the parents will not easily be able to do it to a second innocent life.
It doesn't, and I didn't say there is a responsibility clause.
One of my poor statement due to not proof reading. Congress has the right to allocate money for the general welfare. I will argue that what has been happening is in violation of "promoting the general welfare."
"General Welfare" has a specific meaning, and it isn't welfare.
It makes some people more responsible, as not to put themselves in such a position. Others, will never be more responsible, no matter what you do.
Only with a catch.
Sorry you don't see the point.
Yes, but how do you make that happen? If I knew how to address the root problem of lack of teaching responsibility, I would. What is your solution?
The surgery does what I want to do. Sorry you refuse to understand.
One welfare statistic, of how many? Also, correlation does not equal causation. We had other things going on too, like a recovering economy.
Again. Look at the Food Stamp statistics.
Sorry that I believe the programs should be used as an insurance. Not a way of life. Yes, I do understand them. I also understand that some require people to sell off all their assets and become poor before they help. That isn't right either.
Yep, you are spinning again. Your MO.
Again, I don't recall the Reagan story. However, the term I have a pretty good understanding of.
Why are you making them out to be the same?
Why?
Why are you being so asinine?
Writing enough already. I have seen a Welfare Queen, and heard of others through people I know. Surely, you read before where I mention the girl I was having sex with until she found out I had a vasectomy? She was really a welfare queen. Wish I had a house as nice as Section 8 provided her with. She already had 4 kids three years apart, and needed another to stay on her benefits.Like what?
Really...
You mean consumers didn't drive the market?
It was different. And no, it didn't get bigger and bigger because of population. If that was it, the per capita spending would have remained relatively level. I'm complaining that it was taking such a dramatic increase as a percentage of taxes.
Less children to maintain the cycle.
You do not understand how tying reproductive rights to government aid is not eugenics? I guess I am not surprised considering that you think that Hitler was a good leader.
You say
and you still cannot figure it out?
You disgust me intellectually, ethically and morally.
It's actually much more macabre than that. He contends that children born in poverty will remain in poverty and require aid (something he claims to have statistics on, but never presented when requested to). From this asinine idea, he then concludes that by denying poor people to have children, one would fight poverty (through what boils down to eugenics).
There's a special case in economics known as the 'cycle of poverty' (you can google it if interested), which is fairly well understood, including the factors that keep people in such cycle. Those factors are primarily lack of resources (jobs) and lack of access to education. It's patently clear that fighting poverty in general has everything to do with aiding in attacking those factors, and none with government eugenics.
The problem Cobra has is that he doesn't even know that current welfare programs already mandate obtaining a job or losing the welfare. He just sees the social spending increasing and completely overlooks the reasons for such growth. Reality dictates that when the economy goes to the ter, more people end up signing up for aid, and that when the economy was doing well, the amount of aid requested was on the decline. For example, Congress has been extending unemployment benefits for a long time now.
I have no problem if you take the position that government must stop extending those benefits now. Debatable. But arguing that such people are required to undergo surgery if they happen to conceive an unplanned kid? Re ed and it doesn't attack the problem itself. Then there are the complete disconnects from reality, like thinking people will suddenly stop having sex.
BTW, related:
Eugenics: America's Past Genocide of Poor Minorities
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
