I think people would rather be hypocrites then state their wrongs

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 76
#61
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Christen
Okay so what happens when someone commits a heinous crime? Don't they then lose that so-called "unalienable" right to "Liberty" and have to go to prison?
We (collectively as a society) must determine what action is necessary to best protect the rights of the criminal AND the rights of other citizens.

What if you have the right to "Life" but you break into somebody's home and threaten them.
All humans have a right to life.  If social mechanism fail to protect your right to life, you will instinctively protect yourself.  Disputes between citizens are adjudicated by social mechanisms.

Aren't they legally allowed to kill you in self-defense, making you lose your right to life because you were irresponsible and tried to put another life at risk?
Killing another citizen is rarely your best option.

Does "-all humans-" include those who are irresponsible and those who abuse their rights?
Yes, even children and lunatics have inalienable human rights.
Topic's author
#62
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
Joe Walsh is pro life and against the death penalty.
Do you think I care?
I am pro choice and against the death penalty. When the people don't have to resort to aborting then I would be pro life but the circumstances for people is not good so I remain at my position. 
#63
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why are you pro choice?  If you don’t want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption.
Topic's author
#64
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
Why are you pro choice?  If you don’t want the kid, you can set the kid up for adoption.
Mainly because the time off work can result in worse outcomes for a poorer household. Since 6 months is a long time it is more than likely someone having financial problems having a baby would make it worse. 

#65
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Mainly because the time off work can result in worse outcomes for a poorer household.  Since 6 months is a long time it is more than likely someone having financial problems having a baby would make it worse. 

The husband/boyfriend isn't pregnant, and since they shouldn't be allowed to commit smash and dash, they would be providing an income for the pregnant woman and the child in the event that the pregnant woman can´t work.
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
...they shouldn't be allowed to commit smash and dash...
Fix this first, then we'll talk.
Topic's author
#67
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
The husband/boyfriend isn't pregnant, and since they shouldn't be allowed to commit smash and dash
Your should doesn't matter to what does happen unless of course you have measures to prevent this. 
 they would be providing an income for the pregnant woman and the child in the event that the pregnant woman can´t work.
Like I said in a poorer household more often than not the wife/girlfried would also have to work which would mean either the husband/husband gets lucky with a high wage (isn't likely) or they will be both financially worse for having a child because both of them are not working and of course the financial burden that is a child. So basically the poor family is screwed during and after the pregnancy given how much money is lost. 

#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Like I said in a poorer household more often than not the wife would also have to work which would mean either the husband gets lucky with a high wage (isn't likely) or they will be both financially worse for having a child because both of them are not working and of course the financial burden that is a child. So basically the poor family is screwed during and after the pregnancy given how much money is lost. 
What if the mother automatically received $20,000.00 per year per-child.

That would probably solve the "abortion problem" overnight! [LINK]
Topic's author
#69
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
What if the mother automatically received $20,000.00 per year per-child.
Depends on the spending habits. If that worked why not give every poor money? I don't think that works because a part of being poor is being bad with money. So adding more money would mean they would lose but they might eventually how to use money. Poor people vary but I think most are poor because they are bad with money. This like 1 thing I agree with Shapiro on. 

#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
DATA.  YOU NEED DATA.  FIND SOME DATA.

What do you mean "most poor people are bad with money"?  Based on what?

Paul Niehaus, one of GiveDirectly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up — and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes.

Niehaus says for him, the most interesting results from the new research were the improvements in mental health. Getting money made people happier, less stressed out. [LINK]

UNICEF provided the equivalent of $1 million to the pilot, and Davala and Standing gave the local government regular updates on the success of the pilot every three months.

Their research showed that the vast majority of those who took part in the study used the additional income to invest in other income-generating opportunities, like livestock.

The money also allowed children to pursue their education, instead of working to help make ends meet at home. The overall indication of the pilot, was that it could give people the ability to bring themselves out of poverty, and raise a healthier, better-educated populace. [LINK]

Topic's author
#71
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
DATA.  YOU NEED DATA.  FIND SOME DATA.

What do you mean "most poor people are bad with money"?  Based on what?

Paul Niehaus, one of GiveDirectly's founders, does think cash can have long-lasting effects. He points to a similar study in Uganda where the government gave people money and people's incomes went up — and stayed up, even years later. People had used the money to start small businesses, like metal working or tailoring clothes.

Niehaus says for him, the most interesting results from the new research were the improvements in mental health. Getting money made people happier, less stressed out. [LINK]

UNICEF provided the equivalent of $1 million to the pilot, and Davala and Standing gave the local government regular updates on the success of the pilot every three months.

Their research showed that the vast majority of those who took part in the study used the additional income to invest in other income-generating opportunities, like livestock.

The money also allowed children to pursue their education, instead of working to help make ends meet at home. The overall indication of the pilot, was that it could give people the ability to bring themselves out of poverty, and raise a healthier, better-educated populace. [LINK]
Okay. I don't really want to find data because it isn't a debate. I would if I already have the data but I have to sieve through stuff.



#72
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Your should doesn't matter to what does happen unless of course you have measures to prevent this. 
My measure to prevent this is to ban smash and dash.

Like I said in a poorer household more often than not the wife/girlfriend would also have to work which would mean either the husband/husband gets lucky with a high wage (isn't likely) or they will be both financially worse for having a child because both of them are not working and of course the financial burden that is a child.
The husband can find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.  It can be achieved and according to the University of Georgetown, there are 30 million jobs that pay $55000 or more per year in the US that don´t require a college degree.  There are way more jobs avaliable that pay $30000 a year or more if they are fine with that amount of money.  They just need to do research on high paying jobs that don´t require a college degree and pick a better job.  Work smart, not inherently hard.  The husband picks a job he likes, gets paid way more than working at McDonalds, they can afford the costs of pregnancy.  Then they can set the kid up for adoption if they want.
#73
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to fix smash and dash within society, first it has to be a crime.  Then, effective birth control can be implemented to reduce the odds of it happening.
Topic's author
#74
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
My measure to prevent this is to ban smash and dash.
Do you have a more palatable name?
The husband can find a better job that doesn't require a college degree
A big ask. What makes you sure it is possible?
 It can be achieved and according to the University of Georgetown, there are 30 million jobs that pay $55000 or more per year in the US that don´t require a college degree.
I am guessing those jobs are only available in certain areas and require certain skills. The poor person would require to travel their every time he has work or live there. Living there is not an option given they are poor and the certain skills requires them to know what to do. This would mean in they would have to spend their free time working to this goal. Possible.
They just need to do research on high paying jobs that don´t require a college degree and pick a better job.  Work smart, not inherently hard.  The husband picks a job he likes, gets paid way more than working at McDonalds, they can afford the costs of pregnancy.  Then they can set the kid up for adoption if they want.
I guess. You make it sound so easy but it is easier for you to say that since you are not going through it. 
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
My measure to prevent this is to ban smash and dash.
How do you propose enforcing such a law?

The husband can find a better job that doesn't require a college degree.
Are you aware that the #1 job for non-college graduate men in America is "driver" (truck, taxi, delivery)?

Are you aware that these jobs will be eliminated by self-driving-cars?

8 days later

#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
Are you aware that these jobs will be eliminated by self-driving-cars?