You said this same thing two days ago. Like i said I don't need your responses as youa re not my intended audience.
I still want to know how you know what people think of eugenics as a whole. You run a poll of some group or something?
I think the whole "eugenics or not" discussion is a bit off topic. WC would agree that it likely leads to less births in the poor population; the semantics seem extraneous.
My big issue is that, if people were to have babies when they weren't financially ready, they would be labeled irresponsible per WC. Now, WC said they could possibly be tried due to child negligence/abuse, but that would seemingly severely increase the scope of child protective services greatly.
It's inhumane. Sterilization is an extreme measure to take. I think Newts idea of putting these kids to work manditorily through some school function would be better. Incentivizing business to build nearer to inner cities is another route. A lot of them are ignorant of their ignorance. It is an ugly cycle. I say fix the cause rather than the effect in this particular case.
Hey WC, Fuzzy is kinda descriptive as a first name don't you think? I notice he
doesn't do much of the later (think) and when he tries it is "fuzzy".
This is implicit as part of your argument as Fuzzy deftly points out. Throwing lipstick on a pig changes nothing.
I'll be glad to answer that if and when I decide to start my very own "Agloco's Extreme Views" thread.
I still don't see any extreme.
Can you make an specific examples of this? One thing that is very clear is when ones rebuttals come down to a gross characterization and subsequent dismissal after refusing to address specific arguments throughout the course of the argument is that either:
a) you do not understand what i am saying or
b) that you refuse to admit that you are wrong.
I will leave the answer to that for the individual to judge.
Here you try and characterize the entirety of my argument without any specifics and you deign to call what I say fuzzy? Hypocrite much.
Francis Galton SPECIFICALLY created the eugenics movement. The etymology of the word specifically has a latin derivative of the words 'eu' and 'genos.' Francis Galton specifically endorsed the curbing of reproductive rights of the lower classes via sterilization. WC's proposal specifically curbs the reproductive rights of the poor via sterilization.
What do i get for refutations? Drivel like your bull . So you and WC can go ahead and have your circle jerk over a proposal that only deserves being aired at a Klan meeting and i will continue to respond to you with all of the contempt and scorn you deserve.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 02-02-2012 at 09:20 PM.
Did you miss the part where he advocates sterilization as a condition of receiving aid?
Yes, the cycle needs to be fixed. Have any good ideas? You can't just put them to work. You can create opportunity and incentive, but that;'s about it.
You mean fuzzy logic, that seams soaked?
No, he is trying to use the ignorance of the past and apply it to today. Those who advocated it on poor people then did so for different reasons. The talk sounded similar, but it isn't at all. They advocated all poor. Now that I consider extreme.
At least I am not for aborting babies with genetic anomalies. Now that is eugenics.
Once again dumbing it down to a singular. If you don't want to shoot someone in the head but you want to stab them in the heart that still makes you want to kill someone even if not in every way.
If you want to limit the breeding capabilities of a certain class of people but do not want to kill conceived babies still makes you support eugenics even if in not every way.
And what ignorance of the past am i culpable of?
Of course, and I disagree. But to WC, it's a more "fair" option than just denying aid outright.
Most people would just say, "Why not stop aid outright after X amount of children?" But to WC, that's not a good answer because of two reasons:
1) the couples can still have children, which one can assume is a negative outcome if they can't afford them now
2) by denying aid outright, you are affecting the innocent child as much as the couple. By volunteering to be "responsible" by eliminating one's right to reproduce, the couple realizes they are beyond their means, and so the government is willing to support this "last" child.
Now, I think there are some huge glaring problems with such a plan. But WC is going by a more current working definition of eugenics, which involves genetics and not genus. The reduction of a class' ability to reproduce is a side effect, not a goal. And one could play Devil's Advocate and argue that the lower class are already at a disadvantage when it comes to a maximum amount of children they could afford.
The argument I've been making against it is that I would never want my government mandating any form of sterilization in exchange for aid, because it's draconian and would most likely lead to an abuse of power. As well, I don't think WC is thinking about all the resources needed to enact and police such a policy.
Ultimately though I don't think WC is coming from a bad place. I think he's just trying to think way too far out of the box in order to solve a problem that is t as widespread as he thinks it is.
There's apparently a lot of things he didn't think through. I've wasted enough of my time pointing them out though.
A problem that isn't new, been studied for a long time, has well established causes, and plenty of well specified attack vectors, none of which include eugenics/sterilization. And I know you agree with this, since you've said as much.
I'm glad to see you understand my points.
No matter how you scice it, eugenics comes down to genetics. Not sure what you are going by for your definition of genus, but it is still a genetic variation. There is absolutely no consideration of anything biologically inherited with my idea.
Like anything, should you commit to something you cannot care for?
Then I say cut it off completely. Let the charities, or state resources care for people instead of uncle Sam and his Nanny of a sister.
It is a huge amount of spending. We need to reduce federal spending any way we can.
Is it a huge amount of spending?
According to a 2010 report from the Urban Ins ute and the Brookings Ins ution, in 2009 less than 10 percent of federal budget outlays were devoted to children. To put this another way, in 2007 total public spending (federal/state/local) on children was $10,642 per child while public spending on older adults was $24,300 per adult. More shockingly, perhaps, is the finding that children's share of domestic federal spending shrank by 6 percentage points between 1960 and 2009 while spending on the nonchild portions of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid doubled. Is this the result of societal at udes that devalue children or the fact that senior citizens are a strong and mobilized voting bloc?
As pointed out repeatedly, the OP has no idea where the welfare money is going and why his proposal does very little, if anything, to solve the problem he's trying to address...
Capable adults on welfare need to be dealt with also. Just because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I am unaware.
You are really an annoying Glob Fly, talking out your ass like that. I get really tired of your lies, slander, and stupid assumptions.
Being like that, do you have any friends in the real world? Always accusing instead of asking?
Is it a huge amount of spending? You shot the messenger and never answered, proving CF right once again.
Where are your numbers? Shouldn't I be calling you a Glob Fly, slanderous liar with stupid assumptions?
Let's see them.
You start with a false premise and ask me to answer a question.
Go away.
Your "solution" has everything to do with how much the government spends on children. Perhaps you need to re-think what your premise is.
With that said, is it a huge amount of spending?
OP back scrambling and on the defensive... who would've thought...
ElNono
I've been up all night, and I'm not taking the time right now. If you think you can contain yourself and make serious attempts of dialog, I will attempt a debate with you again another time.
what? you been helping her pack?
It gets a little tiresome to have replete do what you did here, and others do rather frequently. I blame it for the reason we never get anywhere in reducing the deficit and debt. Sure, it's a small percentage of the deficit, fut it is a huge amount of money we can fint. Sure, it isn't "the solution," but to get back to not over spending, we need to put most or all programs on the chopping block and cut out what we can.
With your complaint, which I see effectively as, "it doesn't do enough to matter, so don't do it," is why we never trim anywhere. It will take several little budget cuts to get us where we need to be. There is no single magic bullet.
To start with, this doesn't matter for the discussion at hand. I however wonder how they came up with those numbers. I'll bet it's the added programs like earned income credit in a way that didn't consider the child's portion for example.
You're right in the aspect that I don't have an intimate understanding of these programs. That doesn't mean I don't see there is a great deal of spending that can easily be reduced here. Again, we need to shave money off the federal expenditure, where we can.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
