Re: 'Unwed motherhood'

On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Due to the actions of national socialism which has so much in common
with the leftist agenda in the United States as well as the one child
policies in China that the left doeesn't go on and on about (they LIKE
socialist Chinese!) eugenics policies and limitations on parenting are
difficult to discuss or propose.

This is not really 'eugenics' in the strict sense.

Agreed. But that's my point: Even something that skirts on it, even
so slightly such as restricting the irresponsible from having children
they can't afford to take care of, would inflame public emotion based
upon those previous negative experiences.

Yeah. That's one terrible effect of the Nazis - of course, to large
extent, it's because of Jewish propaganda relentlessly demonisng
them..

I don't have anything against men being responsible for the children
they freely choose to have and retain equal rights to. If a man
marries and has children and he has equal shared parenting, he should
provide his share of finances for such children. This is different
than men getting an unreasonable bill for children they aren't allowed
to see.

Theoretically I agree. But the defence of the child-support system
always says that men have accepted responsibility just by being the
biological father, and is that not the standard you wish to apply to
women?

My proposal is simple: If someone whelps a sprog they cannot afford to
raise, there should be no welfare queen reward. Take away the kid, hit
both parents for "child" support to pay the bill,

If they can't afford to raise it, how are they supposed to pay
support? (My guaranteed income would of course largely solve this as
well as most other social problems.)

I'll be happy to answer that question. The reason often given for
welfare queens unable to pay support is that they're too busy
exploiting, er, raising their children to go to work. With the children
taken away, they will have free time to work. That's certainly the
logic applied to men but it would just be applied to women as well.

Well, make them work for the support of children they're not allowed
to parent - isn't that exactly what we object to when done to men?

And your so-called guaranteed income is just another form of welfare
which is now agreed by most, even Bill "gotta sign this to stay out of
jail" Clinton who signed off on welfare reform. Rewarding welfare
queens only generated greater irresponsibility while dragging the
middle class (which now overwhemling votes Republican, more on this
later) down.

All government services are forms of 'welfare'. As for the middle
class, it's Republican-supported corporatist policies that are largely
responsible for the assault on the middle class.

I know that my guaranteed income is flawed, but I consider it less
flawed than any alternative. Remember, the whole point of paying an
equal sum to everyone is precisely not to reward irresponsibility.

The argument goes that men's rights activists are out to take women's
children away from them and that society is anti-mother. I am not
making this up.

It's bullshit but you and he are trying to make it true, aren't you?

Only in terms of degree. A spoiled child may accuse their father of
"hating her" if he tells her to stop eating candy and do her
homework. It shouldn't be regarded as "anti mother" to expect women
to be responsible in their parenting choices and not require
continuous taxpayer bailouts.

Well, I think the difference then is only in terms of degree! This
policy is indeed about taking women's children away and demeaning the
role of mothers. That's a matter of fact, unlike the spoiled child's
complaint.

Actually, Society, women freak out over the idea of losing their babies,
even deservedly, more than men. Check out what happened with Brittany
Spears. And paying support to... a MAN! EEEK! Get all fragile objects
away from her! She's going to blow!

Yeah, that's really something we should celebrate.

Is that sarcasm?

I'm pretty sure ;)

Perhaps it would be better to get rid of the system rather than try to
turn it against mothers.

I never suggested turning the system against
mothers. On the contrary, the system itself wound up hurting women
even as it bent over backwards to accomodate them.

I don't think women are so stupid as to support a system that hurts
them. I don't see why you can't accept that women can be helped by
feminism.

Much like what
happened with the primary beneficiaries of leftism who are promised
the world at someone else's expense and once their loyalty is assured,
they are tossed off the back of the cart to the wolves: working class
white males, working class black males, working and middle class white
women, and finally even the citizens themselves.

That's what elites do, right-wing as well as left-wing.

The 'welfare state' doesn't do that; bad parents do, influenced by bad
culture.

The welfare state subsidizes bad parents and the bad culture. This is
kind of like absolving a person for murder if they hired a hitman to do
their dirty work for them.

Well, it doesn't do so intentionally, at the least.

And of course, negroes and mestizoes will never be white,
regardless of right-wing efforts to ignore that.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Is this a referral to the
right's claim for a desire for a "color blind" society?

It's their belief that such a thing is possible. We can't get those
sorts of people to behave like white men because mostly they jus
taren't capable of it - even when we try to force them to, as we used
to.

I don't think the right wing "ignores" it. The right wing merely argues
that a society that condemns racism shouldn't be practicing it.

Condemning 'racism' is the problem. It's just one more thing the
ruling class wants to force on us, while they of course are insulated
from its bad effects.

The foster system is poorly run but consider who runs it: mostly women
and probably feminists doubling on staff at DV shelters.

So what's your plan to improve it?

I appreciate the question and put a great deal of thought into it hence
my long time in replying.

<snip>

OK, your ideas are probably sound, but again your promotion of an
increased role for foster care seems inconsistent with your desire to
'get big brother out of' child-rearing. But I suppose that only goes
for married two-parent families, which are perfect by definition ...

This is incoherent. Acknowledge that no parent should have to raise
children all by themselves is not the same as saying parents should
have no role.

As supporters of the Patriot act argued: If you obey the law, then you
have nothing to fear. :-)

And we have the Patriot act because of politics like yours.

Once you get big brother into everyone's homes, they decide what role
people are going to have. I don't doubt they'll have a role. It will
just be one that the government has dictated to them.

Yes, I agree. People should be left alone. Proposals such as this one
violate that principle.

And yet, I've explicitly voiced my disagreement with all of that. So I
guess it's OK to shove those in my mouth??

Versus what you just tried to shove in my mouth above?

And what was that?

I said that was the case with the left. As I said before, the
concept of socialism from the beginning wasn't necessarily bad and
even likable. Why not make a system that's more egalitarian and
supportive of people?

Why not? I don't know why people oppose the concept!

Unfortunately, getting all that power into someone's centralized hands
tends to corrupt as the saying goes. It's a real puzzle that needs to
be solved first. Would you let a surgeon just cut into you in the
hope they can make you immortal without first knowing exactly what
they're doing? There's a saying that socialism wasn't invented by
scientists because scientists experiment on rats first!

First, socialist policies do not require the gov't have any more
power! I said this in my essay on the basic income. Republicans may
claim to be against 'big government', but it's not power they dislike
but the use of power to do stuff they don't like. Second, political
decisions are reversible, unlike surgery.

I'm amusing that the notion of "give the unwed mother what she wants, a
baby is at stake!" logic isn't applied to the war in Iraq and Afghanstan
where they're ready to cut bait and leave millions to die because they
claim to care about the lives that are lost.

So what's your strategy to 'win' the wars there and prevent 'millions'
of deaths? Now (presuming a volunteer army) I have no problem having
soldiers die in a good cause, but not just to satisfy right-wing egos.

Versus satisfying left wing egos?

Much of the reasons why the war is hard to fight is due to left wing
egos that insist upon PC solutions such as: "If an Islamicist rants
about killing infidels on a military base and pouring boiling oil down
their throats then it would be racism to report it. After he yells
Allahu Akbar! and shoots at people, the most important question should
be: How is he a victim?"

Yes, that is a problem. But we're not going to solve it by continuing
the course we're on, which is what the politicians will do.

Fight a REAL war in Iraq and Afghanistan and most of these problems
would go away quickly. Require all the people to show biometric ID for
traveling outside of curfew and lock 'em up if they don't. If a
neighborhood has higher rates of violence and/or collaborations with
terrorists, then don't fix their stuff so quickly while rewarding
neighborhoods who do cooperate with law enforcement. When a homeowner
sees that his livelihood depends upon cooperation with The Great
Satan, it's amazing how much more smoothly stuff runs!

The question is, do we want to invest the resources it would take to
do that? I don't think we do, and therefore should just get out
instead.

As I've said before, if we really care about using the military to
improve people's lives, why don't we overthrow North Korea? That's
actually feasible and would make a huge difference to the people
there. But we have to keep them around as an enemy, don't we?

A Democrat administration tried that and failed. And indeed, we've
lived with that Democrat started situation for more than 50 years...
The answer to your question may be that China might balk and then we'd
have a bigger problem.

Failed, only because they wouldn't try hard enough, which includes the
use of nuclear weapons if necessary.

that a household of married parents is always a better
environment, which is absurd.

"Always" (your word) is what makes your sentiment that
you're trying to attribute to me absurd, Andrew Usher.
Try again.

Typical strawman: Put an absolute term in the other person's mouth (via
assuming it's there) and then argue against it.

I did not actually put it in his mouth; it was only a suggestion as to
what his argument logically implied.

If his argument implied always there would be no need to state it
explicitly.

Not everyone is perfectly logical, and so it's not reasonable to say
that everyone will grasp all the logical consequences of an argument
without needing to state them.

He has a point but marriage is an indispensable tool to establish
paternity. Without it, if all children lived in The Village, society
would collapse overnight.

Marriage no longer serves that function today, does it?

Au contrare! Marriage is like the rust holding the old union-built GM
hulk together! This is why socialists are desperate to import new
racist voters, silly! They alienate and destroy their own
electorate! Like a virus!

I have no idea what this means.

Libertarians are especially UNLIKELY to promise a rose garden. They
merely argue that a free market is the most efficient management
system. Where their ideology falls short, even for that limited
ideal, is trying to make a free market work for sidewalks and roads.

Libertarians do ignore all potential problems with their system. They
can do this because no real examples exist. No, they may not use the
same language as socialist utopians do, but they still suffer from the
same flaw.

Most leftists have given up ever imagining their utopia other than
cynical grabs at power or to emulate other socialist republics at a
shallow level (such as national healthcare like NHS, Canada.)

Yes, I know it's more important to you to proudly avoid imitating
'socialist republics' than to have decent health care for regular
people.

Hahahaha!

WHICH regular people? The working class whites they bash as stupid
racists and seek to tax their health benefits to pay off other
voters? Or the young people facing jail sentences for failing
to buy a government approved plan?

Single-payer is the only reasonable system, and it gives equal care to
everyone and involves no jail sentences.

And it won't
be the rich simply because Marx failed to consider that the rich could
simply manipulate even a socialist state to enable them to profit from
such a scheme!

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised of Marx did realise it, at least on
some level, being a Jew.

But on the other hand, the western European nations they strive to
emulate don't seem to be as... diverse as the United States and as
immigration changes the demographics of those countries they become more
and more dysfunctional, literally, like the USA. You REALLY need "free
healthcare" in the North Parisian suburbs. Especially after the riots.

Why do you think that is? If it happens both in the US and in Europe
it sure as hell isn't 'socialism'.

My point is that even in socialist Europe, they are tossing the locals
to the wolves because it always evolves to the elite retaining power
at the expense of the people. After they get done buying votes from
that group of people, they toss them to the wolves in favor of another
group.

Yes, I know. But this problem isn't _caused_ by socialism. Its
fundamental cause is the class divide between the rulers and the
ruled; I don't know if any stem can get rid of that.

I'm more pragmatic in recognizing that socialism has good ideas but
implimenting those ideas introduces unmanagable dangers that doesn't
make it worth it.

What dangers, specifically, that we don't already have?

Andrew Usher
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unwed motherhood
    ... We should be looking to get rid of this sort of government ... both parents for "child" support to pay the bill, ... The 'welfare state' doesn't do that; bad parents do, ... There's a saying that socialism wasn't invented by ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: OT: The Fear Merchants
    ... The positive part of the message is that, with the right organization (law, politics, industry), individual self-interest can ultimately serve the common good. ... Capitalism "goes with the flow" of human nature, socialism doesn't. ... America", all were supported by selected theories like these. ... The world view that these narrow backgrounds instill support the policies that get inflicted on the world. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: World Democracy Emergency
    ... I support it because it, in the long run, gives a better society for ... many countries by politicians who are strongly opposed to socialism. ... on their own and it was that which destroyed Nazi Germany. ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: Help "in kind" instead of cash
    ... I do not support socialism, ... When I was about to lose my apartment too, my mother let me move into ... Blah blah blah blah blah. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: OT: The Fear Merchants
    ... The positive part of the message is that, with the right organization (law, politics, industry), individual self-interest can ultimately serve the common good. ... Capitalism "goes with the flow" of human nature, socialism doesn't. ... America", all were supported by selected theories like these. ... Yet you will find those who still say more neo-liberal policies are the answer, ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)