|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 08:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican legislators in Colorado will not authorize funding for a program that gives free IUDs to low-income women — an effort that many believe was responsible for hugely driving down teen births.
Colorado has recently experienced a stunning decline in its teen birth rate. Between 2007 and 2012, federal data shows that births declined 40 percent — faster than any other state in the country.
State officials attributed part of this success to the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, which provided free IUDs to low-income women seen at 68 family planning clinics across the state. Last year, state officials estimated that young women served by those family planning clinics accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate.
An anonymous donor had previously funded the program, but Democrats in the Colorado Senate added $5 million to the state budget to keep the program going in the future. That effort died in a Republican-controlled state Senate committee late last week, putting the program in peril.
As the Denver Post reported, the IUD program in Colorado "faced resistance from fiscal hawks who consider the spending redundant and social conservatives who believe IUDs cause abortions, a point rejected by the medical community."
Colorado officials, meanwhile, have vowed to keep moving forward with the program regardless of the roadblock. Source All you ever need is abstinence right? right? To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund".
You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists.
What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children?
+ Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway.
|
On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 08:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican legislators in Colorado will not authorize funding for a program that gives free IUDs to low-income women — an effort that many believe was responsible for hugely driving down teen births.
Colorado has recently experienced a stunning decline in its teen birth rate. Between 2007 and 2012, federal data shows that births declined 40 percent — faster than any other state in the country.
State officials attributed part of this success to the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, which provided free IUDs to low-income women seen at 68 family planning clinics across the state. Last year, state officials estimated that young women served by those family planning clinics accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate.
An anonymous donor had previously funded the program, but Democrats in the Colorado Senate added $5 million to the state budget to keep the program going in the future. That effort died in a Republican-controlled state Senate committee late last week, putting the program in peril.
As the Denver Post reported, the IUD program in Colorado "faced resistance from fiscal hawks who consider the spending redundant and social conservatives who believe IUDs cause abortions, a point rejected by the medical community."
Colorado officials, meanwhile, have vowed to keep moving forward with the program regardless of the roadblock. Source All you ever need is abstinence right? right? To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole. How about Liechtenstein? Are there any 3rd-world wastelands near it? No? Then maybe this whole dichotomy of it either "being free-market with lots of people languishing in poverty while a few get rich" or "being socialist and everyone gets at least something" is kinda bullshit.
do you know what cause and effect is or do you actually have no idea why you benefit from there being free access to IUDs
free IUDs -> less unwanted pregnancies -> less money spent on food stamps and TANF and welfare programs in general, less highschool dropouts, low-income women find it easier to hold down jobs and pursue education -> more educated workforce and less welfare spending -> better society for everyone
plan B is not always easily accessible for people with poor means of transportation, plus plan B is not a first line of defense
|
On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole.
You daft? Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, et. al. are rich precisely because of their economic models and policies. Where do you think wealth comes from? Are you that dense you think it just magically 'is' and some countries steal it from other countries, and you didn't even explain how. Osmosis and diffusion is what I got from you. It's absurd on its face. Marxists are always so dense.
Similarly, you seem to equate our current distribution of resources as the model of Lockeanism, which is laughable, and is always the argument made. There has to be a massive 'redistribution' of properties based on these principles of Lockeanism, of rightful possessor and owner. Of course, this little tidbit never gets any mention by Marxists because it shatters their little imaginary world where they play the 'gotcha' by comparing apples to peach cobbler. Indeed, people negotiate non-coercive (please define *fair*) contracts all the time under all sorts of different disparate economic stratums. If you have value to someone else, that is an extremely strong point of negotiating. Anyways, that's besides the point.
You know why the countries around Singapore are poor and miserly as you put it? They were communist shitholes and in some cases still are. Then you have outliers like Singapore and Taiwan who went a different direction and guess what, they're not shitholes, they're wealthy. Your hand waving is ludicrous as is your wanton ignorance of what makes a person poor, what makes a person rich, and where wealth comes from.
If you actually want to help bring people out of poverty stop advocating socialism and communism. They've never, in human history brought us from poverty to prosperity. Can some local institutions do fine? Sure. I subscribe to some local farmer coops, but you don't run industrial society this way. It also says as much about you that you think competition is anathema to prosperous society, when every empirical data around you tells you otherwise. Why be so blind? You for monopolies?
You know how wealth concentrates? Via political power. You know the wealthiest counties and districts in the US? They're all in the little DC, Virgina, Maryland corridor. Go back in history and this trend is the same in every nation and every Empire. Even progressives like Gabriel Kolko understood this.
I advocate policies that enrich society, not engender it to poverty like you do.
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 08 2015 08:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 07:25 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 07:09 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 06:15 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:08 JinDesu wrote:
I think what Militron is going for, correct me if I'm wrong, is that NY should be split into the red part and the blue part. The blue part can have the S.A.F.E. law and the red part can be as hick as they want. That's called secession. I don't think it's popular in the US, there was some kind of war about it. In the UK however we're fine with letting Scotland choose if it wants to leave after years of rule by a government the Scots never voted for. Eye of the beholder. You call it secession, I call it independence. You call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. Tomato, tomato, etc. etc. Abraham Lincoln was a rabid nationalist, so of course his view will be one of iron domination. Governments do not let their tax slaves easily go - lots of lost money and power in that, and as Governments go, that's their MO - to acquire money and power. In any event, empirically, city-states were much more conducive to modern values than large Nation-States and Empires. All the bitching about how 'hicks' and rural folk holding back this enlightened urban utopia's, yet it never crosses these peoples minds that they could have what they want without strong opposition by just letting them go politically. I mean, it isn't rocket science. However, it isn't about that - it's always about control and domination. A seething hatred for different ways of life and values than their own. In many regards the people so admonished, they're so much alike. Why can't folk just let folk govern themselves? God forbid such an idea should become popular! You're the one who treated secession as a dirty word. The British just gave the Scots the right to secede ffs. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 07:04 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:48 darkness wrote:On May 08 2015 06:46 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 06:44 darkness wrote:
As long as UKIP has no chance to do anything, and if EU referendum is discarded, then I guess I'm happy as a foreigner in the UK. EU referendum pretty much has to happen but I think the chance of voting to leave is pretty low. Well, hopefully because the EU really helps people like me to actually feel more or less on par with British citizens' rights in the UK. I know some of British nationalists wouldn't like that but no one chooses their citizenship anyway. Edit: I haven't used the welfare system at all despite what UKIP likes to tell about Bulgarians and Romanians.  You're welcome to it if you need it, friend. The idea that you could simply leave the EU, or unilaterally negotiate your own special snowflake membership terms, is kind of silly honestly. The threat of a referendum has been used as a stick to beat the other parties with by UKIP and their success pushed it into popular politics but there has yet to be a plan for what would actually be done if the UK voted no. I don't think a referendum would be held by any party who didn't expect to win it (with win being a stay vote), the clusterfuck resulting from having to actually do anything would deter a party from risking it. You're okay with Scotland leaving the UK, but not the UK leaving the EU. I don't know if the UK is the best example. Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 05:48 always_winter wrote:On May 08 2015 04:42 mordek wrote:On May 08 2015 03:16 always_winter wrote:
Lol I had initially read the plausible bit as agreement with my conclusion, when in fact it seems you're suggesting the finding of this survey is plausible. Might be time to step out of that bubble. If you're suggesting a majority of Americans would prefer a gay president over an overly religious one, I'm afraid you're disconnected from reality.
If you're expecting me to back that up with empirical data (was this a joke or....?), I'm definitely not going to. Feel like that kinda goes without saying. Could just be me. I like to have context. Much love. Anecdotally, I'm an evangelical Christian from Indiana who is comfortable with a gay president so there's that. But yes, all of us are the same over hurr in the sticks  Realistically, truthfully, unequivocally, non-anecdotally, the study posited Americans are MORE comfortable with a gay president than an evangelical. If you're actually telling me that you'd be more comfortable with a gay president than one who shares your faith and likely maintains a similar worldview, then you're either lying to dispute a straw man's argument or are are truly one in a million. I'm done derailing this thread with such nonsense. One love. Not everybody's a single issue voter. Keep that in mind even with your comical attribution of "overly religious" people. Both sides have voters with issues where one stance is where they stop reading.
Britain could vote out of the EU. But no politician anywhere wants to try and make that actually happen because of the incredible complexity of the situation. Britain has become part of the European economy, labour and products move freely across that border. The idea that you could simply decide to stop being part of the EU overnight, or for that matter renegotiate it unilaterally so there is one rule for you and another for every other EU nation is silly. They are too integrated to simply walk away. It'd be like tearing a limb off, you won't get a clean break.
But you completely misrepresented my views anyway. I'm fine with democratic secession. I just think it's likely to be a clusterfuck. I think Scotland leaving would have been a clusterfuck.
|
On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:On May 08 2015 08:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source All you ever need is abstinence right? right? To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway.
That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place.
If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money.
It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one.
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one.
Why not just euthanise the poor?
|
On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place.If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one.
How old are you again? I'm sensing a distinct lack of experience with other human beings.
|
On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:On May 08 2015 09:24 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
To be fair, absitinence IS all you ever need. IUD's don't stop STD's, abstinence does. Abstinence is also free. Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor?
What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes?
If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid.
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:30 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
Not breathing air is also a good technique to stop STD's. Sex is not essential. Breathing is. I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor? What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes? If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid.
I'm also pro euthanasia. If you can't afford to not be poor maybe you don't deserve to live. Think about it.
|
On May 08 2015 12:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Sex is not essential. Breathing is.
I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor? What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes? If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid. I'm also pro euthanasia. If you can't afford to not be poor maybe you don't deserve to live. Think about it.
Can you be serious please for one second? Because I am.
|
United States42738 Posts
On May 08 2015 12:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:03 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Sounds like you are against freedom.
Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor? What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes? If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid. I'm also pro euthanasia. If you can't afford to not be poor maybe you don't deserve to live. Think about it. Can you be serious please for one second? Because I am.
Forced sterilisation of the poor until they prove their means to you and get your permission to have children is not good public policy.
|
On May 08 2015 12:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:45 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Sex is not essential. Breathing is.
I'm not some social conservative against birth control because it's the devil or something stupid like that. I'm not even against birth control. I'm against the constant attacks on personal responsibility. I really don't like the idea of handing out free anything. Because nothing is really free. Sounds like you are against freedom. Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free. Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor? What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes? If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid. I'm also pro euthanasia. If you can't afford to not be poor maybe you don't deserve to live. Think about it.
What does euthanasia have to do with 'deserving to live'?
|
On May 08 2015 12:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 12:06 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 12:03 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 12:00 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:51 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2015 11:49 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 11:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2015 11:17 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 10:58 IgnE wrote:On May 08 2015 09:56 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Those IUD's don't just magically appear. They cost money. Just because the end-user isn't the one that pays doesn't mean they're free.
Life isn't free. Abstinence is. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why should I have to pay for police, the criminals should have to pay for it....
I pay for police so they protect me. I get nothing from paying for someone else's IUD. On May 08 2015 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
So lets say no one wants to pay for it because 'they' should (a reasonable position on it's face). Well they get pregnant anyway, they wan't to use plan B but don't want/can't to pay $50+ for it, so they say fuck it. Well now they need healthcare for the pregnancy. So maybe you say "they should pay for that too", well yeah they should but you can't get blood from a stone so they don't. You could deny them and their unborn child healthcare because they should be paying for it themselves?
Well let's say they make through to giving birth are we going to deny them hospital entry and treatment for birth? Let's say they gave birth at home. Now you have an unintentional child, likely unwanted. Do you want to pay for anything for that innocent child or is the idea to just let them fend for themselves?
Or instead you could just make birth control easily accessible and prevent the pregnancy in the first place saving far more money in the long run.
Unwanted children are a fact of life, you can pay up front to prevent them from being created, you can pay to raise them after they are born, or you can just leave them to themselves and turn a blind eye. You seem to prefer to leave unwanted children to struggle on their own instead of providing access to birth control to save money. Which seems devoid from the real world consequences.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people who can't save up a mere $50. It doesn't even have to be coming up with $50 at the drop of a hat, it can be over quite awhile. Just do it ahead of time. Lots of people have "rainy day funds", well they can have an "unwanted pregnancy fund". You seem totally oblivious, so let's just skip to the part where the kid exists. What do you want to do with the kid? Healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc? If the parents don't want to or can't provide those things what do you want to do with or for those children? + Show Spoiler +IIRC you don't pay for anything anyway. That kid shouldn't exist in the first place. Someone who can't save up $50 is either lying and secretly wants a kid, or isn't all there mentally and probably can't legally consent to sex in the first place. If I'm gonna pay for birth control, birth control should be mandatory. That way instead of having a kid be the free (from the teenage mother's point of view) course of action, having a kid would actually be impossible without money. It's actually a decent idea. Then kids aren't going to be raised by parents who don't care. You'll actually have to want a kid to get one. Why not just euthanise the poor? What's the problem? You're pro birth control arent you? Isn't one of the most common arguments in favor of it that it helped prevent kids from being born into bad homes? If you can't afford to have an IUD taken out, you probably can't afford to adequately raise a kid. I'm also pro euthanasia. If you can't afford to not be poor maybe you don't deserve to live. Think about it. Can you be serious please for one second? Because I am. Forced sterilisation of the poor until they prove their means to you and get your permission to have children is not good public policy.
We already have forced vaccination. We already have anti-drug laws. Clearly the public has some authority over what people do with their own body.
It wouldn't be just poor people who'd have mandatory birth control either, everyone would. Rich, poor, black, white, everyone. I don't think you'd even need some licensing system or whatever. People can get the sterilization reversed whenever they like. The hassle of getting that done will be enough to keep people who aren't serious about having kids from doing so.
On May 08 2015 12:13 oneofthem wrote:
sort population by productivity. delete bottom 20% rows
Man, you really love those content-less posts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sort population by productivity. delete bottom 20% rows
|
On May 08 2015 11:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole. You daft? Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, et. al. are rich precisely because of their economic models and policies. Where do you think wealth comes from? Are you that dense you think it just magically 'is' and some countries steal it from other countries, and you didn't even explain how. Osmosis and diffusion is what I got from you. It's absurd on its face. Marxists are always so dense. Similarly, you seem to equate our current distribution of resources as the model of Lockeanism, which is laughable, and is always the argument made. There has to be a massive 'redistribution' of properties based on these principles of Lockeanism, of rightful possessor and owner. Of course, this little tidbit never gets any mention by Marxists because it shatters their little imaginary world where they play the 'gotcha' by comparing apples to peach cobbler. Indeed, people negotiate non-coercive (please define *fair*) contracts all the time under all sorts of different disparate economic stratums. If you have value to someone else, that is an extremely strong point of negotiating. Anyways, that's besides the point. You know why the countries around Singapore are poor and miserly as you put it? They were communist shitholes and in some cases still are. Then you have outliers like Singapore and Taiwan who went a different direction and guess what, they're not shitholes, they're wealthy. Your hand waving is ludicrous as is your wanton ignorance of what makes a person poor, what makes a person rich, and where wealth comes from. If you actually want to help bring people out of poverty stop advocating socialism and communism. They've never, in human history brought us from poverty to prosperity. Can some local institutions do fine? Sure. I subscribe to some local farmer coops, but you don't run industrial society this way. It also says as much about you that you think competition is anathema to prosperous society, when every empirical data around you tells you otherwise. Why be so blind? You for monopolies? You know how wealth concentrates? Via political power. You know the wealthiest counties and districts in the US? They're all in the little DC, Virgina, Maryland corridor. Go back in history and this trend is the same in every nation and every Empire. Even progressives like Gabriel Kolko understood this. I advocate policies that enrich society, not engender it to poverty like you do.
You seem to have a hard time comprehending that there is more to the world than anarchocapitalism and marxism. On a european political scale i am pretty far from a marxist. I like social democracies with private ownership of the means of production with taxation and regulation to ensure a governmental guaranteed dignified existence for every human being in the society. I am a proponent of a basic income.
You still do not understand that under your model not everyone can be a winner, not everyone can be a perfectly located trade hub, a historically grown independend tax haven with outside protective powers or some other unique lucky arrangement.
I never said that i do not want competition at all, i want it limited. I do not want to give up on humans that fail. I do not want to give up on humans that have no value to the current holders of capital.
On a related topic: Millitron can you answer my question what you think about government issued disability benefits?
|
On May 08 2015 12:13 oneofthem wrote:
sort population by productivity. delete bottom 20% rows
rank 'em and yank 'em :3
Edit: also, what if you missclick and sort ascending instead of descending? Que horrible....
|
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer.
|
On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer.
Although only against them in theory, not in practice.
|
On May 08 2015 12:14 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2015 11:45 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 10:59 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:54 Wegandi wrote:On May 08 2015 09:41 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:11 puerk wrote:On May 08 2015 09:01 Gorsameth wrote:
All you ever need is abstinence right?
right? What becomes of our world when we can not even trust our teenagers to always do the responsible most counterinstinctual thing? @Millitron why would you think that? cultures and people can be very varied even at close proximity. i guess you advocate some "if you don't like it here and are the minority leave"-attitude? and more to the general point: why do you think larger than family sized political organisations ever evolved? people saw value in them. just because you do not see it, doesnt mean it is absent for everyone. i agree that historically grown political entities sometimes feel very ill fitted and slow to adapt, because they hardly ever change. so they could be improved upon by redistricting. i am still not sure if you are categorically against involuntary wealth transfers or if you see that there might be a general good possible with structurally stronger regions helping out weaker ones? Larger-than-family sized political organizations evolved out of fear, or greed. Either "Lets group up and rob all these dumb farmers." or "Lets group up and fight off these bandits." Neither of these are real problems anymore. So big capital decides where you can live and where you can not, as you can only provide a living for yourself when you get a job? We then all live clustered around harbors, mines and factories like people in the 3rd world. Grouping up is a general advantage, not only against violent intruders, but also in negotiation situations like infrastructure development and competition for employment related investment. Just think for a moment about how it works out if every little town becomes independend, the currently poor ones will fail even worse, the richest wont care, and all the rest will either join the rich through luck and competition, or fall down to the poorer and poorer. On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:
Also, the "if you don't like it here and are the minority, leave"-attitude is the exact one you're defending. You're arguing in favor of NYC ruling with an iron fist right now; you see that right?
I'm ok with taxation if it's to pay for really basic stuff that directly benefits everyone, and doesn't have a privately-run alternative. So police, fire dept, roads, things like that. Anything else, nope.
How about disability benefits, unemployment benefits, general financial support for people in need? On May 08 2015 09:29 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2015 09:29 Shiragaku wrote:
Condoms are also pretty good at stopping STDs Abstinence is even better. Bending the rules of physical foundations of biology to make diseases impossible and pregnancies only possible through rational deliberation would be even better, but equaly as realistic. That's actually not true puerk. City-States in order to survive have to adopt very liberal economic doctrines (e.g. free-trade, low-tax rates, low regulatory environments (do not read this as pollute pollute pollute, but things like licensing, fees, etc.), etc.), which in turn makes these entities more well-to-do. Why do you think Italian city-states initiated the renaissance and were the wealthiest entities in Europe? Why do you think German culture produced more institutions of worth (museums, music, architecture, etc.) during their city-state time than when they became unified/nationalized? Look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong, all these so-called tax-havens of Europe like Liechtenstein that have higher per capita-income than places like France, Germany, etc. You're simply either delusional, or ignorant of history to say that a devolution to city-statism would make people poorer. What makes people poor are large centralized Nation-States, that concentrate wealth in the political classes from an enormous geographical territory and population. Never mind the stifling of competition, and yes, more 'nations' would mean more competition which means better economic outcomes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I specifically stated that some towns will be better of. The notion that i was actually arguing is that the wealth gap will grow even further. By picking the winners and telling me: look how much fun the richest in a time of widespread misery had! We should totally go back to that system because i consider myself a prospective winner. You consistently advocate policies for the rich to get richer and for the poor to get poorer and more disenfranchised but pretend to be advocating something that will make it better for everyone. Just drop the pretending and be honest with us..... On May 08 2015 Wegandi wrote:
Self-governance is the ideal. Anyways, for practical purposes (and I really dislike this in principle) a plurality would probably have to suffice for it to not to be a clusterfuck, but I suppose you wouldn't need that if folk who wanted to form their own governments could simply 'opt-out' of their current institutional chains without the need for anyone who doesn't want to be a part to be so, but that runs into problems of right of ways and isolating folk which wouldn't be a problem if there were contractual agreements like what ATM's and the like use (reciprocity of infrastructure), though this wouldn't really be a problem if all infrastructure was private so there would be no conflict of use. I'm under no delusion though that, that would be a reality any time soon, so hence the plurality bit. Also, who said I had some objective truth? You're the one who wants disparate peoples to be subjugated under a central authority - the burden is up to you to argue this arrangement is both just and practical, not me. You are the one wanting to overthrow the system your parents born you into therefore accepting the social contract on your behalf. I recognize your wish for greatness, but i value equity of outcome and dignity over principalistic "might makes right". That whole paragraph you wrote ignores everything we know about actual people in actual situations of need. People can not negotiate fair contracts for things they need in a world where wealth already exists and is distributed in a most uneven fashion. Nobody ever starts with a clean state in an empty world, and our methods of governance and social structuring have to take that into account. Either we go for a system of pure competition where you can adore your Singapores while ignoring all the failures and misery going on around it, or we can try to reduce inequalities by empowering institutions to transfer wealth. Neither approach is dishonest or categorically wrong, i prefer the latter because i do not care as much about the value of winning over others, but more about the value of winning as a society as a whole. You daft? Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein, et. al. are rich precisely because of their economic models and policies. Where do you think wealth comes from? Are you that dense you think it just magically 'is' and some countries steal it from other countries, and you didn't even explain how. Osmosis and diffusion is what I got from you. It's absurd on its face. Marxists are always so dense. Similarly, you seem to equate our current distribution of resources as the model of Lockeanism, which is laughable, and is always the argument made. There has to be a massive 'redistribution' of properties based on these principles of Lockeanism, of rightful possessor and owner. Of course, this little tidbit never gets any mention by Marxists because it shatters their little imaginary world where they play the 'gotcha' by comparing apples to peach cobbler. Indeed, people negotiate non-coercive (please define *fair*) contracts all the time under all sorts of different disparate economic stratums. If you have value to someone else, that is an extremely strong point of negotiating. Anyways, that's besides the point. You know why the countries around Singapore are poor and miserly as you put it? They were communist shitholes and in some cases still are. Then you have outliers like Singapore and Taiwan who went a different direction and guess what, they're not shitholes, they're wealthy. Your hand waving is ludicrous as is your wanton ignorance of what makes a person poor, what makes a person rich, and where wealth comes from. If you actually want to help bring people out of poverty stop advocating socialism and communism. They've never, in human history brought us from poverty to prosperity. Can some local institutions do fine? Sure. I subscribe to some local farmer coops, but you don't run industrial society this way. It also says as much about you that you think competition is anathema to prosperous society, when every empirical data around you tells you otherwise. Why be so blind? You for monopolies? You know how wealth concentrates? Via political power. You know the wealthiest counties and districts in the US? They're all in the little DC, Virgina, Maryland corridor. Go back in history and this trend is the same in every nation and every Empire. Even progressives like Gabriel Kolko understood this. I advocate policies that enrich society, not engender it to poverty like you do. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that there is more to the world than anarchocapitalism and marxism. On a european political scale i am pretty far from a marxist. I like social democracies with private ownership of the means of production with taxation and regulation to ensure a governmental guaranteed dignified existence for every human being in the society. I am a proponent of a basic income. You still do not understand that under your model not everyone can be a winner, not everyone can be a perfectly located trade hub, a historically grown independend tax haven with outside protective powers or some other unique lucky arrangement. I never said that i do not want competition at all, i want it limited. I do not want to give up on humans that fail. I do not want to give up on humans that have no value to the current holders of capital. On a related topic: Millitron can you answer my question what you think about government issued disability benefits?
Sorry. I didn't see the question. I'm not sure what exactly I think about them. I really don't like the whole robin hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" idea. Probably not a good idea to just let people starve though. Maybe they could incentivize charity, so people will be more likely to give the disabled money under their own free will, instead of having it forcibly transferred?
Though about your point about a "governmental guaranteed dignified existence", I don't really think living on welfare is any more dignified than being a beggar on the streets. It's not as obviously shameful, but it's functionally identical.
|
On May 08 2015 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's against them, several dozen or so pages back myself and GH had the exact same question in which the response "perhaps they should die." or something similar was the answer.
If you are making the "utilitarian" argument "$50 for BC is way cheaper than a pregnancy." Then you are already dangerously close to that answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
