|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 09 2024 04:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Technically it's a new offer for 3 debates from Trump for Harris to accept or decline. Former President Donald Trump told reporters at a press conference that he has agreed to three debates in September hosted by Fox, NBC and ABC. He said CBS will also host a debate between the vice presidential candidates. www.nbcnews.com Can Harris agree to just the 2 debates moderated by real news organizations, and decline the Fox one? I imagine that is what Trump is hoping for, then he can use that excuse to refuse the other debates aswell.
And heck with the Fox being first I wouldn't put it past him to do that and then chicken out of the other 2.
|
On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote: But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day. oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification. Thank you for asking.
My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service.
Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly.
Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country.
In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there.
|
I'd avoid the weird stalker guy Jesse Waters (who once let out the air of the tires of a co worker to get a chance to drive her home..and bang her.. since she refused dating a married men with children beforehand)
|
On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote: But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day. oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification. Thank you for asking. My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service. Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly. Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country. In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there. Maybe they're lines you shouldn't try to be drawing, because we're not a village of 200 people that needs to be running the numbers on procreation in order to feel like we're not going extinct. Having children is not a basic responsibility, it's a choice to start a family. You're trying to find a way to basically measure the value of a life by measuring their baby-making status, and as you say, you're not opposed to a measure that reduces the democratic power of non-childbearers accordingly. We're "apoplectic" for taking issue with it, and therefore we're in league to destroy America. But you're in the camp that says it's okay for people to be disenfranchised for either exercising basic freedoms, or by factors outside their control. I find that quite unreasonable.
Overall, I think it's just difficult to start a conversation with a hope of it going anywhere when one party thinks it's a nationalistic duty to have children. That's a pretty warped conceit imo.
Honestly, if you've convinced yourself that there are people out there who "lust" to destroy this country, and that not having as many babies as possible is their plan for doing so, you're fucking delusional.
|
On August 09 2024 04:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Technically it's a new offer for 3 debates from Trump for Harris to accept or decline. Former President Donald Trump told reporters at a press conference that he has agreed to three debates in September hosted by Fox, NBC and ABC. He said CBS will also host a debate between the vice presidential candidates. www.nbcnews.com Can Harris agree to just the 2 debates moderated by real news organizations, and decline the Fox one? She could try, but technically that would be a counteroffer for Trump to choose to accept or decline with no obligation to his previous offer.
Like if I offer you $300k, a 2020 Honda, and require you take possession of a storage unit full of my hoarder grandparents knick-knacks for your house. Then you counter with "just 300k and the 2020 Honda". I'm under no obligation or expectation to accept your counteroffer even though it only contains things I offered you in the first place.
|
On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote: But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day. oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification. Thank you for asking. My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service. Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly. Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country. In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there. Maybe they're lines you shouldn't try to be drawing, because we're not a village of 200 people that needs to be running the numbers on procreation in order to feel like we're not going extinct. Having children is not a basic responsibility, it's a choice to start a family. You're trying to find a way to basically measure the value of a life by measuring their baby-making status, and as you say, you're not opposed to a measure that reduces the democratic power of non-childbearers accordingly. We're "apoplectic" for taking issue with it, and therefore we're in league to destroy America. But you're in the camp that says it's okay for people to be disenfranchised for either exercising basic freedoms, or by factors outside their control. I find that quite unreasonable. Overall, I think it's just difficult to start a conversation with a hope of it going anywhere when one party thinks it's a nationalistic duty to have children. That's a pretty warped conceit imo. Again, it is never, ever, going to happen. Changing voting classes would require a Constitutional amendment.
Having looked it up, "Vance's" "idea" (it's not originally his, and I struggle to call it an idea) was essentially to add votes to families per child. Even in fantasyland this is retarded as we would be prone to political factions based on childmaxxing. For the same reason we can't give a million time more voting power to someone who paid a billion in taxes than someone who paid a thousand. Much better and fairer, but alas still imperfect would be a binary condition - pay taxes, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Bear children, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Finish national service, right to vote. Didn't, no right to vote. About half of households pay taxes. A maximum of about half of the population are capable of bearing children. Once you've reached universal suffrage, there is no way back because the second half is never going to vote to voluntarily take their own right to vote away and give it to only the first half.
Whether you like it or not, you are a member of at least one nation as a human being, and as a human you have a responsibility to continue yourself and the system that created you. And therefore just as you didn't deride paying taxes or national service as some kind of petty "nationalistic duty" you shouldn't deride having a family either. A nation is not simply something with a government that exists to give people shit and tell them what to do and how to think in exchange for power over them. The responsibilities of the individual come first. Family should absolutely not be a political issue, both (all) parties should be radically pro-family.
On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote: Honestly, if you've convinced yourself that there are people out there who "lust" to destroy this country, and that not having as many babies as possible is their plan for doing so, you're fucking delusional. There are people who want to destroy the country who have children. And there are people who want to destroy the country and don't have children. In the latter case, it's often related due to springing from a more fundamental hate of themselves or loathing of authority and their surroundings. (There are even people without children who don't want to destroy the country.)
The former would not have much reason to be upset by childless people losing voting rights - because, having children themselves, they could continue to use their political freedom to achieve the ends they have in mind, of destroying the country or what have you. That's why I was only referring to the childless ones - they would be wont to remind us of their entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something that they have nothing invested in.
|
On August 08 2024 23:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Another nickname for JD Vance is trending: Vladimir Futon. I'm kind of a fan of Jorkin Dapenis Vance
|
Northern Ireland22040 Posts
On August 09 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 00:09 Mohdoo wrote: This whole situation is so fascinating. Republicans are legitimately very not ok with the couch jokes and the general "weird" jokes. This isn't even some kind of "did I trigger you, snowflake!?!?!?" operation like right wingers were using for so long. Its not like the goal is just to make them as upset as possible.
Before and during the Trump presidency, there was an enormous emphasis placed on "triggering libtards" and other such things. The whole idea of offending and upsetting left wing people was a huge focus in major news network coverage too. And that was a focused, direct, intentional effort.
Compare that to this whole couch and weird thing. Its playful, silly, and inherently non-serious. Democrats are highlighting how weird many perspectives of Trump and Vance have. And how weird they are as people. But I never would have expected the right wing would respond this way. I could understand this level of outrage if it was cutting a lot deeper, leaning into it in a more aggressive way, or just putting more focus on "triggering" or "offending" them. But that's what makes this all so goofy.
Now that I am typing this out and thinking about it more, what if THAT is actually what is so offensive to them? What if the part of this that is so infuriating is the realization that they are actually being mocked and people actually think they are dumb and weird?
I'll try to be more direct: When you realize someone isn't *trying* to be condescending, but more so legitimately thinks you are weird and non-serious, it doesn't feel like a brawl anymore. It starts to feel more like when a parent is trying to de-escalate a tense situation when their kid is having a tantrum. Realizing they are being viewed that way *GENUINELY* is probably what makes this burn so much. This is one of those times I wish I could pull a Kamala and be unburdened by what had been, or more accurately, by what I know. I don't know how you couldn't know this, but conservatives are used to be being mocked and slandered by the most influential parts of the culture for decades. It's so strange that libs feel like they've caught onto something here, I think this is more akin to something thst makes them feel good and it helps to believe that their opponents are extra offended by it. I think it has some resonance only because the charge ir hilarious when compared to the people making the accusation lol. It goes right along with the never stated but always present left-wing assumption that anyone who still believes things that became unpopular 5 minutes ago is a bad person. But this dust up is flavor of the week, without the backing of any sort of concrete source, so it makes the whole thing more ambiguous. I think the lack of a concrete underpinning (true or not) makes it feel different. I don’t think anyone is particularly extolling the virtues of some novel attack avenue, more pleasantly surprised that they’ve (possibly) retread one that actually might be effective.
You fling enough shit at the wall, and it should stick. Whereas in Trump’s case he has an almost unique ability that it doesn’t, teflon walls in that man’s domicile if you will.
Even then I’m not sure whether this angle actually lands, but hey
|
On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote: And there are people who want to destroy the country and don't have children. In the latter case, it's often related due to springing from a more fundamental hate of themselves or loathing of authority and their surroundings. (There are even people without children who don't want to destroy the country.)
The former would not have much reason to be upset by childless people losing voting rights - because, having children themselves, they could continue to use their political freedom to achieve the ends they have in mind, of destroying the country or what have you. That's why I was only referring to the childless ones - they would be wont to remind us of their entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something that they have nothing invested in.
That's a rather amusing opinion, I think. Cause it's coming from a person from Korea, the country with the lowest birth rate in the world and thus it's a pretty safe bet to assume you don't have a child and you are in the group that reminds others of your entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something they have nothing invested in. Even if you've fathered a child, I would still be unable to fathom why you would deem yourself worthier than your peers just because you have popped a little squeak into existence. You haven't even popped it yourself, you just took part in impregnating a woman. It is just plain ridiculous to state that childless people invest nothing or do not enrich societies. Isaac Newton had no children. I mean, Jesus Christ had no children. Need I state more? Plato. Joan of Arc. Beethoven. Leonardo da Vinci. Tesla was also childless. Let me expand a little. Einstein had children. Yet do you think him being father is a greater boon to humanity than General and Special relativity, the frameworks that our whole existence is mostly based upon? What I think is that laughable arguments like "you have no child, you're a social burden," are attractants for the most uneducated crowd that disgusting con-men who dub themselves politicians prey upon.
|
|
Northern Ireland22040 Posts
On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote: But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day. oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification. Thank you for asking. My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service. Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly. Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country. In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there. Maybe they're lines you shouldn't try to be drawing, because we're not a village of 200 people that needs to be running the numbers on procreation in order to feel like we're not going extinct. Having children is not a basic responsibility, it's a choice to start a family. You're trying to find a way to basically measure the value of a life by measuring their baby-making status, and as you say, you're not opposed to a measure that reduces the democratic power of non-childbearers accordingly. We're "apoplectic" for taking issue with it, and therefore we're in league to destroy America. But you're in the camp that says it's okay for people to be disenfranchised for either exercising basic freedoms, or by factors outside their control. I find that quite unreasonable. Overall, I think it's just difficult to start a conversation with a hope of it going anywhere when one party thinks it's a nationalistic duty to have children. That's a pretty warped conceit imo. Again, it is never, ever, going to happen. Changing voting classes would require a Constitutional amendment. Having looked it up, "Vance's" "idea" (it's not originally his, and I struggle to call it an idea) was essentially to add votes to families per child. Even in fantasyland this is retarded as we would be prone to political factions based on childmaxxing. For the same reason we can't give a million time more voting power to someone who paid a billion in taxes than someone who paid a thousand. Much better and fairer, but alas still imperfect would be a binary condition - pay taxes, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Bear children, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Finish national service, right to vote. Didn't, no right to vote. About half of households pay taxes. A maximum of about half of the population are capable of bearing children. Once you've reached universal suffrage, there is no way back because the second half is never going to vote to voluntarily take their own right to vote away and give it to only the first half. Whether you like it or not, you are a member of at least one nation as a human being, and as a human you have a responsibility to continue yourself and the system that created you. And therefore just as you didn't deride paying taxes or national service as some kind of petty "nationalistic duty" you shouldn't deride having a family either. A nation is not simply something with a government that exists to give people shit and tell them what to do and how to think in exchange for power over them. The responsibilities of the individual come first. Family should absolutely not be a political issue, both (all) parties should be radically pro-family. Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote: Honestly, if you've convinced yourself that there are people out there who "lust" to destroy this country, and that not having as many babies as possible is their plan for doing so, you're fucking delusional. There are people who want to destroy the country who have children. And there are people who want to destroy the country and don't have children. In the latter case, it's often related due to springing from a more fundamental hate of themselves or loathing of authority and their surroundings. (There are even people without children who don't want to destroy the country.) The former would not have much reason to be upset by childless people losing voting rights - because, having children themselves, they could continue to use their political freedom to achieve the ends they have in mind, of destroying the country or what have you. That's why I was only referring to the childless ones - they would be wont to remind us of their entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something that they have nothing invested in. Who is deriding having a family? What on Earth are you talking about?
As per the bolded you can’t conceive people don’t like how society is constructed and what to change it?
Fuck me we’re getting into Stretch Armstrong territory, indeed he might struggle with this.
|
This is some crazy quiverfull shit from Oblade. Need to have children to vote? Need to "pay taxes" to vote? A billionaire getting more votes because thats "more fair"
Do you actually believe this? Where did you grow up? You must be hanging out in some hellscape of society
|
I'm surprised you guys could actually make any sense of that nonsense. Looks like the Russian troll farms are already running out of conceivable talking points and now he's resorted to reaching deeper down into their bag of tricks and bring out... whatever this is.
|
Joe Rogan is a right-wing conspiracy theorist whose idiotic podcast helps distribute misinformation at lightning speed... but there may be a silver lining to him having such an enormous conservative fan base: He just announced that he supports RFK Jr. over Trump, for president. Rogan's endorsement may actually have an effect on pulling away votes from Trump's side in favor of RFK Jr., especially since some key states will likely swing within a 3% voter shift. If some Trump voters actually switch to RFK Jr. because of Joe Rogan, then that would be stunningly useful in a karmic justice kind of way. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/4818724-joe-rogan-supports-rfk-jr-over-trump-harris/amp/
|
On August 09 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Joe Rogan is a right-wing conspiracy theorist whose idiotic podcast helps distribute misinformation at lightning speed... but there may be a silver lining to him having such an enormous conservative fan base: He just announced that he supports RFK Jr. over Trump, for president. Rogan's endorsement may actually have an effect on pulling away votes from Trump's side in favor of RFK Jr., especially since some key states will likely swing within a 3% voter shift. If some Trump voters actually switch to RFK Jr. because of Joe Rogan, then that would be stunningly useful in a karmic justice kind of way. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/4818724-joe-rogan-supports-rfk-jr-over-trump-harris/amp/ Great, so all the right-wingers who thought RFK was such a great candidate during the Democratic primary can vote for him themselves. Good news for all.
|
On August 08 2024 21:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Apparently, Republicans are calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim" because Walz wanted to make sure that all menstruating students have access to tampons at school. It's a legitimate issue for students, as teachers know all too well. In other words, Walz is a compassionate human being who cares about children and education, and conservatives are the opposite.
Mocking Harris for laughing, and mocking Walz for paying attention to kids' needs, like food and menstrual products... Nice job, Republicans! This is getting into the weeds of Minnesota politics but the thing that they try to turn into an issue is that all bathrooms had to have the menstral products. Republicans in the house tried to add an admentment that it would be just for womens bathrooms and the DFL voted that down.
This is because if it was limited to womens bathrooms you couldn't have them in locker rooms, neutal gender bathrooms, and other places if it was specifically limited to womens bathrooms.
I'm surprised that the GOP is running through the entire playbook of op-o research that minnesota gop has tried to make stick all these years. If you want to hit someone hard you wait until the honeymoon period is over and then go after them. The Minnesota national guard has made repeated statements supporting walz over the years (and its walz not waltz like vance keeps saying for some reason) on this issue. Hes allowed to say that he retired with the rank he retired with and being deployed in support of an invasion is participating in that invasion. people die behind the lines the same as people on the lines.
Vances campaign this week to stalk harriz/walz is fucking embarrassing. No one is showing up and no one wants to be there.
|
United States41238 Posts
Tampons aren’t that expensive. If.you put them in all bathrooms but don’t refill the dispenser in the men’s room often I really don’t see the big deal. What sort of savings were they hoping to realize from specifying which bathrooms should have stocks?
|
On August 09 2024 09:48 Sadist wrote: This is some crazy quiverfull shit from Oblade. Need to have children to vote? Need to "pay taxes" to vote? You cannot imbalance rights and responsibilities in society at large.
On August 09 2024 09:48 Sadist wrote: A billionaire getting more votes because thats "more fair" This is the opposite of what I wrote.
On August 09 2024 06:12 JoinTheRain wrote: Even if you've fathered a child, I would still be unable to fathom why you would deem yourself worthier than your peers just because you have popped a little squeak into existence. You haven't even popped it yourself, you just took part in impregnating a woman. Yes, it's a logistical nightmare, to be fair the original proposition deals with family units as such - presumably meaning stepparents' voting power would be boosted, divorcees' probably decreased.
On August 09 2024 06:12 JoinTheRain wrote: It is just plain ridiculous to state that childless people invest nothing or do not enrich societies. Isaac Newton had no children. I mean, Jesus Christ had no children. Need I state more? Plato. Joan of Arc. Beethoven. Leonardo da Vinci. Tesla was also childless. Let me expand a little. Einstein had children. Yet do you think him being father is a greater boon to humanity than General and Special relativity, the frameworks that our whole existence is mostly based upon? What I think is that laughable arguments like "you have no child, you're a social burden," are attractants for the most uneducated crowd that disgusting con-men who dub themselves politicians prey upon.
That is a great argument. If I see someone who makes the claim that it's impossible for a childless person to contribute to society, or even to their family, I will tell it to them. Nonetheless, there is a collective responsibility to have children. It may not necessarily distribute to every single individual. Just as if you have a group of 10 bystanders who witness a crime, no single bystander need intervene or call the police. Yet if everybody sits on their hands, they have collectively failed. If two people intervene only to get killed along with the original victim, the group has failed also. It's shared.
On August 09 2024 14:03 Sermokala wrote: The Minnesota national guard has made repeated statements supporting walz over the years (and its walz not waltz like vance keeps saying for some reason) on this issue. Could you cite two of these statements? Legitimately all I can find is his former comrades and the guy who replaced him trashing him.
|
On August 09 2024 14:25 KwarK wrote: Tampons aren’t that expensive. If.you put them in all bathrooms but don’t refill the dispenser in the men’s room often I really don’t see the big deal. What sort of savings were they hoping to realize from specifying which bathrooms should have stocks?
Also, if I came across tampons in my bathroom, I would just leave them alone. They're not applicable to me, personally.
Kind of like what I currently do, at home... the bathrooms I use contain tampons, because my wife uses them.
It's no big deal. This is such a nontroversy.
|
On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2024 00:13 NewSunshine wrote:On August 09 2024 00:07 oBlade wrote: But I can't personally condemn a notion that upsets people who want to destroy a country, by suggesting that they shouldn't have a say in its future. People who don't have children are not a monolith of people who "want to destroy a country" by not having children. That's probably the most vile thing I've read all day. oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification. Thank you for asking. My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service. Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly. Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country. In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there. If you're going to alter how much an individual's vote is worth, then a more obvious "public good" would be to give people greater voting power based on their demonstrable intelligence and/or understanding of politics and economics. Childless cat-loving professors of political science should probably have more voting power than redneck inbreds who dropped out of school to shoot guns in the military, assuming what you're looking for are more intelligent political outcomes.
|
|
|
|