Rational madman, You blocked me so why are you commenting on my posts? Anyway, Do you want results or do you want the status quo. It isn't my problem that people commit suicide for being called out because of their own negative behaviors. That's on them and no one else.
How to end single motherhood
Posts
Total:
96
You know what makes me want to commit suicide? Working my ass off, sometimes 7 fucking days a week, playing by the rules, paying outrageous endless taxes only to see them go to irresponsible people who play the victim card when 75% of them have only themselves to blame for their suck ass shitty lives. Kinda makes life for those who play by the rules utterly fucking pointless. Why even try? And on top of all of that we are to blame for all the worlds problems. So no IDGF anymore. You want to kill yourself then fucking do it. It will save me the person who plays by the rules and pays taxes some money. I am done with the sob stories and the victim card BS. I have problems of my own that I have to man up and deal with every fucking day. And I can guarantee no one but none gives a shit and I don't expect anyone to give a shit. Why should they? Boo friken hoo I have to deal with life.
-->
@sadolite
You are correct. Single motherhood is taught to be a virtue and so is irresponsible behavior IE: the welfare state rewards it with a check every month. The more irresponsible the bigger the check.
There will always be people looking to exploit any system or any benefits, but for the most part nobody glorifies single motherhood except for anti abortion activists.
Society believes in a social safety net for children who are born into circumstances that would condemn them to lack of resources and opportunity (no access to food, shelter, healthcare or education) simply for being born through no fault of their own. That is why we have welfare and you have to prove a need for it. I can't imagine the morality of a person who advocates to make innocent children suffer the consequences of their parent's irresponsibility or misfortune by taking away what little they receive.
-->
@zedvictor4
Overpopulation is a fictitious problem.
Yes.
Simultaneously, this is true and also a fictitious statement.
I'm sure the contradiction is being used rhetorically, but this makes no sense.
Though one assumes that there is a limit to sustainability.
I suppose. However, I'm not suggesting that there's no limit. First we'd have to identify which resource's sustainability is being affected by population size. The ones particularly significant for survival (food, water, fertile land, etc.) are in no particular danger. When the Earth's population can fit comfortably in the West Coast of the United States, or Texas, space is certainly no concern. The water cycle, ground water, rivers, glaciers and even oceans with effective filtration and irrigation systems ensures the hydration of billions. And food can be bred or synthesized.
So yes, overpopulation is fictitious, and in my judgement just used as a pretext to pull off one's best Thanos impression.
Of course the best way to end single motherhood.Is an effective State contraception and abortion system.
"Effective" and "State" in the same sentence? You've lost me.
Oh.....But then you've got to appease all those meddling GOD botherers.
But they're at least consistent in their stance. Pro-choice, which mirrors my position, when expressed by the left-wing isn't really pro-choice. They're just pro-abortion until they arbitrarily decide when it's off-limits.
-->
@Wylted
Unfortunately now many people are incapable of feeling shame
I don't see any defense contractor feeling shame when they receive government handouts in the form of massive contracts, even if people die over it. I don't see any oil tycoon or Wall Street banker feeling shame when the government bails them out to the tune of billions of dollars. These are people who are millionaires but have no problem looking for financial assistance from the government.
I understand what you are saying, but to expect people to feel guilty for taking what's offered or provided by government, when they feel government often screws them over and doesn't protect them does not seem very reasonable. I would imagine many people on welfare feel they are deserving for some reason, just like the rich people getting handouts do. I have not seen any of them convey shame, have you?
-->
@Unpopular
I don't see any defense contractor feeling shame when they receive government handouts in the form of massive contracts,
They shouldn't. They are doing a job and getting paid for
even if people die over it. I don't see any oil tycoon or Wall Street banker feeling shame when the government bails them out to the tune of billions
They should.
I understand what you are saying, but to expect people to feel guilty for taking what's offered or provided by government, when they feel government often screws them over and doesn't protect them does not seem very reasonable.
Not guilt, shame. Those are two distinct things. When I tell people here about my embarrassing past, this to work past my shame. My therapist said being open with things we are ashamed of, helps us to stop feeling shame.
I also was just mentioning a problem with the welfare state. It was a criticism of the government's actions. If you can get food stamps and it will help you feed your kid, than it is unethical not to get them.
I would imagine many people on welfare feel they are deserving for some reason, just like the rich people getting handouts do. I have not seen any of them convey shame, have you?
They shouldn't feel entitled or deserving. If anything that makes them less appreciative of the help, and does them no good.
I haven't attached a moral statement as to whether people should feel shame asking for subsidies. I have only pointed out, shamenis not enough to prevent some people from abusing the system, so the system needs to adjust for that.
-->
@Unpopular
Then I as the taxpayer get to tell the parents how every single dollar they receive will be spent and on what. No more checks with no strings attached. No checks, just food and housing and what the children need. Not one dime of it spent on anything for the parent. That is my compromise.
-->
@sadolite
Then I as the taxpayer get to tell the parents how every single dollar they receive will be spent and on what. No more checks with no strings attached. No checks, just food and housing and what the children need. Not one dime of it spent on anything for the parent. That is my compromise.
Fortunately, that isn't how it works. Anti-war liberals still have their tax dollars spent on the military whether they like it or not. LGBT people still have their tax dollars go toward religious groups that discriminate against them whether they like it or not. We don't get to specify where every one of our tax dollars goes under any circumstance, so I don't know why you think your feelings and outrage somehow matters more than everyone else's.
On balance society also believes in a safety net for adults. That is why we have social security, homeless shelters, unemployment and FEMA. In addition to moral obligations, it creates safer conditions for society. If poor, desperate people are fed and housed they are less likely to commit crimes. Hopeless people don't have much to lose.
-->
@Wylted
Defense contractors are paid far in excess of the labor they are putting into their jobs. It's often based on corruption through artificially inflated costs and other deceptive measures. But I'm saying we typically shame those who abuse the system if they're poor. We might resent the rich who do so, but we do not portray them as parasites who should be sterilized even if they take more taxpayer money or use it in more egregious ways like buying a third home. Forget just the ultra rich like bankers - what about all the cops and firefighters engaged in overtime scams, where they defraud taxpayers a ton of money through lies about their work schedule... are we going to sterilize them too? Or just those who apply for food stamps?
I generally agree with what you are saying about shame, but wanted to point out that maybe we have bigger fish to fry in the white collar crime and tax evasion arena than is worth getting all fired up over some single mother getting rent subsidies in a shitty neighborhood. I feel conversations like this are meant to distract from those larger issues by creating division among the lower classes. The OP didn't even try to hide using it as an excuse to complain about brown people.
-->
@Unpopular
"On balance society also believes in a safety net for adults. That is why we have social security, homeless shelters, unemployment and FEMA. In addition to moral obligations, it creates safer conditions for society. " Ya tell that to the people who live in the countless war zones across this country. The safety net you speak of is a complete failure and unsustainable. You haven't even begun to see the suffering this safety net is going to cause. This country is now 30 trillion in debt. In ten more years there will be no safety net. But hey, keep doling it out until the end and blame me the taxpayer and the guy who plays by the rules.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Feel like debating this idea? 4 rounds. You go first. 10k plus characters (I'd prefer 12k characters, but I write a lot). 1 weeks time for writing cases/rebuttals. If that's all good for you, I'd be down.
-->
@Athias
Well.
Suggesting that pro-choice is therefore always pro-abortion is disingenuous, especially when you're attempting to theo-politicize a personal human social dilemma.
I'm pro-choice and have no moral issues with early term abortion, though this does not necessarily make me pro-abortion.
Questioning "State" and "effective" is really just jumping on the media bandwagon, slagging off whosoever might currently be in power.
We are all "State", and sure, legislation is a protracted process, and rightly so.
On the other hand, we are not all singularly religious, so although a singular church maybe consistent in it's stance, it is not always representative of a State, and should not be allowed to dictate either Government policy, or the right of an individual to choose.
Religion should be no more than the Sunday morning club.....Though with all that bigotry , I know that's a lot to ask for.
-->
@Wylted
Murdering Babies.
Is an emotional plea.
No decent person wants to murder babies....Check your dictionary Mr Overblow.
Terminating an unwanted pregnancy, is a rational response to a real situation....And the provision, availability and parameters of induced abortion, should dictated by a State protocol.
The morning after pill is best bet...No different to pissing it naturally down the pan.
Spontaneous abortion as it is known.
-->
@zedvictor4
emotional plea.
No decent person wants to murder babies....Check your dictionary Mr Overblow.
No republican is looking to actually control women's bodies, so when liberals claim they do, with a straw man, I think it is okay to strawman in response.
The person I responded to, said that republicans want to control women's bodies.
-->
@Wylted
Republicans is a generalization....So if that is what they said then they were incorrect.
Those that seek to control, are at the two extremes of politics....I support neither.
And those that seek to pontificate at the extremes, often have a tendency towards extreme religious ideology or extreme liberal ideology.
Like most, I make up the moderate core.
Well.Suggesting that pro-choice is therefore always pro-abortion is disingenuous, especially when you're attempting to theo-politicize a personal human social dilemma.
Athias:
Pro-choice, which mirrors my position, when expressed by the left-wing isn't really pro-choice.
I'm pro-choice and have no moral issues with early term abortion, though this does not necessarily make me pro-abortion.
And late term abortion?
Questioning "State" and "effective" is really just jumping on the media bandwagon, slagging off whosoever might currently be in power.
Whoever is in power is irrelevant when your objection is to the State.
We are all "State"
No, "we're" not.
On the other hand, we are not all singularly religious, so although a singular church maybe consistent in it's stance, it is not always representative of a State, and should not be allowed to dictate either Government policy,
Aren't you undermining your previous statements? First, you suggest that "we're all [the] State" and then you suggest that legislation is a rightfully "protracted" process. So what is your objection to a prominently religious State participating in a protracted process?
or the right of an individual to choose.
Yes, but the left wing does not sustain this consistently. Should "early term" or "late term" really qualify an individual's choice?
Religion should be no more than the Sunday morning club.....Though with all that bigotry , I know that's a lot to ask for.
The State is a breeding ground for the bigoted--not necessarily the religious. Take your pick among the clubs.
I gave this some thought. You will never solve any social problem 100 %. The idea is to reduce the negative behavior and keep it to a minimum. There will always be irresponsible fucking assholes and there is nothing you can do to stop an irresponsible asshole from being a irresponsible asshole short of killing them. You can however reduce the number of irresponsible assholes. Again you can never eliminate any negative social behavior 100%. There will always be a percentage of irresponsible assholes who just don't give a fuck until the end of time. One way to reduce single motherhood.> Its not the only way and it could be combined with other ways. In this so called modern society that claims to be so enlightened and its never ending push for fairness I propose the following to promote fairness. As it stands now, "WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RAPE", woman control the birth of all children, men have no say in it. If an unmarried woman becomes pregnant it is lectured that she has the right to choose weather or not that baby will be born. The man has no say in it. I propose to make things fair men should have the right to choose weather or not they want to accept financial responsibility for that child. That is fair. If a baby is conceived while the couple is married then there is no argument for the man, you pay if she decides to keep it. Furthermore if you get divorced, any attempt to not pay child support will result in chain gang work under state supervision. The alternative to not paying needs to be so bad that choosing not to isn't an alternative. I believe this would reduce single motherhood substantially among unmarried woman. And would also reduce dead beat fathers. I know that's mean. Allowing 70% of all children to be born into single parent homes and having a welfare system in place that promotes it is 1000 times meaner.
-->
@sadolite
Ya tell that to the people who live in the countless war zones across this country. The safety net you speak of is a complete failure and unsustainable. You haven't even begun to see the suffering this safety net is going to cause. This country is now 30 trillion in debt. In ten more years there will be no safety net. But hey, keep doling it out until the end and blame me the taxpayer and the guy who plays by the rules.
I do not dispute that safety nets have had their problems, but that does not mean we are better off without them. When people are in dire circumstances with nothing to lose, they are more likely to commit crime. Without homeless shelters you have squatters and loiterers. Without food banks you have people robbing to put food in their kid's stomachs. Without unemployment you have people kicked out of their homes, affecting the housing market, freezing to death. Without social security you have old people dying in the street, we already have problems caring for the elderly. We have chosen, Democrats and Republicans, to use safety nets to care for the weakest and most vulnerable people in society. Democrats would like more services provided, but even conservatives agree that human beings, specifically Americans, are worthy of provisions provided for by our society as a collective. We should question where our money goes, and focus more on the rich who exploit and evade their financial responsibilities and break the law to amass a vast amount of wealth, rather than focus on shaming the poor who have close to nothing and all kinds of other problems.
-->
@Unpopular
I am not against safety nets at all. I despise no strings attached to that safety net. If one is going to be a burden on society they should have no say in how the help they receive under the safety net will be administered.
-->
@Wylted
Actually the court ruled I did have primary custody. There really is nothing the court can do about somebody just taking off with the kids though, especially if they hide their location
I think you can sue your ex wife for taking off with the kids. Then you get the kids back.
It will harm poor people, whether it was intended tomorrow not, and laws that are harmful are equally evil, no.matter if the intent is intentional or not.
I think this law would require poor people (and other people) to stick with their kids so their kids have a higher chance of breaking the cycle of poverty that single parenthood has caused.
Poor men can't afford lawyers to defend them from.accusations of being deadbeats.
I think our legal system provides poor defendants with free lawyers. Otherwise you would see evil rich men murder people they don't like, blame it on a guy who couldn't afford a lawyer, and get away with murder while the innocent poor guy suffers. This almost never happens in our justice system, as 96% of people who are in jail for murder deserve it and the 4% that don't are presumed guilty as that is what the evidence found.
On top of that it is unethical even if it worked like intended
I don't know how else deadbeat parents can be punished, although I've kindof modified my stance to only punish deadbeat parents of a kid 5 years of age or older, which would exclude people that get abortions and people that set their kid up for adoption.
-->
@blamonkey
I don't like the idea of debates anymore for 2 reasons:
1) Both sides try and win rather than learn from their opponent. Concessions are rare. Both people are focused on winning instead of getting smarter.
2) They only have a certain amount of time to respond. My parents turned off DART at home so I go somewhere else to respond. I might not be able to respond all my points at once.
It is because of this that I prefer messaging and forums over formatted debates. If you want to DM me, I'm happy to talk about my ideas, although they have modified since I originally made this post. I do think something has to be done about single motherhood though and how to prevent it.
My parents turned off DART at home so I go somewhere else to respond.
No wonder forced sterilisation doesn't seem a completely bananas idea to you tbh.
-->
@TheUnderdog
think you can sue your ex wife for taking off with the kids. Then you get the kids back
The kid is 18 jow, but no. I went there. Court orders her to let me see him and then she disappears again and hides.
I think our legal system provides poor defendants with free lawyers. Otherwise you would see evil rich men murder people they don't like, blame it on a guy who couldn't afford a lawyer, and get away with murder while the innocent poor guy suffers. This almost never happens in our justice system, as 96% of people who are in jail for murder deserve it and the 4% that don't are presumed guilty as that is what the evidence found.
I am not saying that rich people can get away with murder. Poor people not having lawyers is not the issue. It is more about bail money. A poor person can either plead guilty to a misdemeanor they did not commit and avoid jail time, or plead innocent to a crime they are innocent of and wait for 6 months in jail. The consequences of this are obvious.
-->
@Wylted
A poor person can either plead guilty to a misdemeanor they did not commit and avoid jail time, or plead innocent to a crime they are innocent of and wait for 6 months in jail. The consequences of this are obvious.
How about poor people convicted of a crime don't have to wait 6 months in jail? Let them live in their own house until they are brought to court and if found guilty, then they go to jail.
-->
@TheUnderdog
How about poor people convicted of a crime don't have to wait 6 months in jail? Let them live in their own house until they are brought to court and if found guilty, then they go to jail.
Yeah, what bad could happen from letting Dylan roof stay on the streets until trial
-->
@Wylted
There was evidence and multiple witnesses that confirmed Roof did the murder. What's wrong with sending Dylan Roof to court a mere hour after he did his murders? The court is there for any victim who needs it right after the crime gets committed. The constitution guarantees a fair and speedy trial.
Ya wanna hear a funny story. There was a point in time, I guess I was about 21 or 22, but I'd had the ingenious idea that I'd not bring identification out with me going clubbing anymore because that way if I was arrested I'd not end up in court, the cops wouldn't be able to identify me. Fighting a lot, ya know. Irish rite of passage. Nearly got held in contempt of court once, but that's another funny story. But anyway so it comes to a test of my idea, I get arrested and into the cell and cops have no idea who I am, it's all going as planned. And sleep sound as a baby, I'm really onto something here I'm thinking. Well, eventually the cops come to get me, out of the cell, into the office or whatever, and there's my old dad waiting. Needless to say, I was disgusted. So I pulled out my cock and pissed on the desk of the first smug looking cop I saw naturally. Then I fought my dad in the street for blowing my cover. At one point I elbowed him right into the face while he was driving us home, nearly had him crash the car and kill us both. But my point is, I love my dad lol.
-->
@badger
Fathers day is coming up. He probably saved you from being detained indefinitely until they figure out who you were LOL
-->
@Wylted
Thanks for the reminder.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your parents turned off a debate site so you couldn't access it? Why? I could only dream of getting either of my kids to show the slightest interest in their own lives let alone take the time to make complete sentences amounting to a response to a question.