Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Thanks Tree1Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 26th, 2011, 03:05 AM   #1
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,845
GWV original post.



Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
There are several peoples from different nationalities and countries that are quickly outpacing us intellectually (among other ways as well).



For a lack of better terms, the stock of human beings being produced in the US (not to mention other places in the world) is digressing, in my opinion, and have been over the past 20-40 some years. This, to me, has been the de-evolution (i.e. to our detriment) of the human species not the pro-evolution (i.e. the betterment) of our species.



I believe we should be striving to better ourselves, not only on an individual level but collectively as well as we move forward in life. This includes mating with those who will produce strong healthy children who will be our next educators, leaders, scientists, and politicians that will go on to do great things. However, as the last 20-40 years has shown, the last couple generations of people have been nothing but a huge disappointment in my opinion.



Far too many people are procreating who should not be because they simply cannot psychologically or financially handle it, and those people and their children end up becoming a burden upon society; but I digress, as that is an entirely separate discussion.



TS


Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1309032522' post='339473

[quote name='GWV' timestamp='1309016954' post='339437']Your reply on both quotes is ignorantly skewed (i.e. straw man)...



One not need be poor to not be in a proper financial position to raise a child,the cost of which has been growing and coming a lot closer to $300,000 to raise a child to 18 as of late.



There are a lot of poor and middle-class families that have stable lives, nevertheless they are psychologically and/or financially not in a position to raise a healthy child into a productive law abiding citizen.



There are people in this world with nice homes, paid off cars, etc. but still, based on their debt to income ratio, logically cannot afford to raise a child. Hence poor or somewhat wealthy people are just not financially ready to raise a child; especially if they have other hopes or aspirations (e.g. a second home, specific travel plans, home renovations, ideas of moving to another state, changing jobs, going back to school, etc.).



Psychologically does not mean mentally disabled (er, handicapped is probably more what you were thinking). People need to be ready, psychologically, I mean really ready to handle the physical and emotional (i.e. psychological) tolls that having and raising a child will have. History has shown that there have been those who believe they are ready but after a few months or even a few years they realize they were wrong and simply give up on that child.



Your problem fayt is that you failed to look beyond the rim of your rose colored glasses in order to gaze upon the larger understanding of what it means to be parents and the social and legal responsibilities that go along with it; as well as the psychological and financial responsibilities as well.



Troy


It doesn't makes sense you have to include I'm not "looking beyond the rim of my rose colored glasses".You didn't state anything new that I didn't already wrote in my last post...


You didn't wrote [sic] anything of the kind.



Quote:
...because I've already mentioned people with the lack of revenue raise [sic] children after people who are in poverty or poor. Lack of revenue or poor people are still financially incapable to raise children GWV. So just what's your main point or what do you believe should happen about those people lacking the revenue to properly raise a child?


As the saying goes, the writing is on the wall. I mean really fayt, isn't the answer obvious? If you do not have the financial resources (which goes hand in hand with one's psychological state - i.e. ability to handle the stress of work, the ability to pay bills without freaking out while still maintaining a standard of living, etc.) to raise a child who will become a healthy, intelligent and productive member of society rather than a public charge - than those who lack financial resources should not be having children. It's not only an eventual further burden on their already financially strapped situation, but it eventually bleeds over onto the rest of the "village" to help raise that child through government subsidies, etc.



Quote:
Me stating disabled isn't the write [sic] choice of words nor would I say handicapped. It's People who are just mentally incapable of raising children.


And how do you define "mentally incapable" regarding your point of raising children?



Troy

[/quote]
Fayt is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 08:27 AM   #2
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,845
I define it the same way you would. In any case I suggest GWV that it's better to move towards improving everyone lives within this country financially, than saying unfortunately poorer people shouldn't have children. Would you agree?
Fayt is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 09:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
I define it the same way you would. In any case I suggest GWV that it's better to move towards improving everyone lives within this country financially, than saying unfortunately poorer people shouldn't have children. Would you agree?


I agree that everyone is entitled to a better life through equal opportunities towards financial success, however that is not (and historically has not) been the case in human society.



People are not born equal, but we are all afforded the same equal opportunities towards the same end: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...to include financial success (which is subjective since we all have differing levels of what we deem financially successful based on our comfortability level with whatever chosen lifestyle we choose). It's how what we do and the choices we make that determines how much of that life, liberty and happiness...and financial success...that we attain and enjoy.



Being able to support oneself is very important to one's success and the success of society collectively, yes?



Yet is it not even more important to not only be able to support oneself and another if you take on that responsibility of bringing another person into the world until they can make their own success?



Financially the issue is responsibility and logical choices when it comes to wanting a family and having and raising a child (which includes single parents by choice), no?



If a poor couple had stable jobs and maintained the financial responsibilities without going beyond their means and were capable of having a child without utilizing public assistance, I would have no problem with that. However, if that same couple wanted to have a second child just so the first child could have a sibling, or they merely wanted another child, yet clearly could not financially support a second child, would you not agree that that would be an irresponsible choice?



When you have a segment of society making irresponsible choices, like having more children than they can financially afford, it then becomes a burden upon the community they live in. That is a hindrance to financial success and stability of not only the family having more children they cannot afford, but also the community (e.g. increased use of welfare and other subsidies, overcrowded classrooms, juvenile delinquency, etc.) is it not?



Having a child is a HUGE responsibility, and not just to the child him/herself...but to the community too. It's a choice that should never be taken lightly; and the irresponsibility of choosing to have a child when one clearly should not be having them glorified on nationalized television (e.g. octo-mom, teen moms on MTV, etc.) certainly doesn't help this issue either.



Bottom line, we need to go back to holding people more accountable for their decisions, to include having children they shouldn't be having. How we do that, I do not have an immediate answer for at this moment. I have ideas, but I will reserve those for the time being. Let's just see where we go from here first...



Troy
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 10:07 AM   #4
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
I agree that everyone is entitled to a better life through equal opportunities towards financial success, however that is not (and historically has not) been the case in human society.



People are not born equal, but we are all afforded the same equal opportunities towards the same end: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...to include financial success (which is subjective since we all have differing levels of what we deem financially successful based on our comfortability level with whatever chosen lifestyle we choose). It's how what we do and the choices we make that determines how much of that life, liberty and happiness...and financial success...that we attain and enjoy.



Being able to support oneself is very important to one's success and the success of society collectively, yes?



Yet is it not even more important to not only be able to support oneself and another if you take on that responsibility of bringing another person into the world until they can make their own success?



Financially the issue is responsibility and logical choices when it comes to wanting a family and having and raising a child (which includes single parents by choice), no?



If a poor couple had stable jobs and maintained the financial responsibilities without going beyond their means and were capable of having a child without utilizing public assistance, I would have no problem with that. However, if that same couple wanted to have a second child just so the first child could have a sibling, or they merely wanted another child, yet clearly could not financially support a second child, would you not agree that that would be an irresponsible choice?



When you have a segment of society making irresponsible choices, like having more children than they can financially afford, it then becomes a burden upon the community they live in. That is a hindrance to financial success and stability of not only the family having more children they cannot afford, but also the community (e.g. increased use of welfare and other subsidies, overcrowded classrooms, juvenile delinquency, etc.) is it not?



Having a child is a HUGE responsibility, and not just to the child him/herself...but to the community too. It's a choice that should never be taken lightly; and the irresponsibility of choosing to have a child when one clearly should not be having them glorified on nationalized television (e.g. octo-mom, teen moms on MTV, etc.) certainly doesn't help this issue either.



Bottom line, we need to go back to holding people more accountable for their decisions, to include having children they shouldn't be having. How we do that, I do not have an immediate answer for at this moment. I have ideas, but I will reserve those for the time being. Let's just see where we go from here first...



Troy


I don't totally disagree with your argument, I too agree that having a wild amounts of children is being glorified in the media and I also agree that it's beneficial to not only the child but also society if parents put a little more thought into having children, but here's where we might disagree GWV. As of today, in 2011, the surest way to become wealthy in the U.S (maybe also Britain) is to be born to wealthy parents. The surest way to be poor is to have poor parents. Social mobility, that is creating conditions in which a poor person can become wealthy or the ability to move between classes, for better or worse (depending on merit, in part) has been rolled back from its highly fluid levels in the 1940 1980 years to a to a rigidity last measured in the 1920s as America was sliding in to the Great Depression. Out of the 35 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (OECD), we the U.S. are the lest social mobile.



Between 1 out of 5 or 7 Americans children lives in poverty. So where I'm trying to get at GWV is the best way to reduce this wealth problem we have between the rich and poor in this country, to better reduce the problem of parents having the lack of revenue to properly support their children.



http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...e-poverty-line
Fayt is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 10:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV' timestamp='1309108512' post='339560
I agree that everyone is entitled to a better life through equal opportunities towards financial success, however that is not (and historically has not) been the case in human society.



People are not born equal, but we are all afforded the same equal opportunities towards the same end: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...to include financial success (which is subjective since we all have differing levels of what we deem financially successful based on our comfortability level with whatever chosen lifestyle we choose). It's how what we do and the choices we make that determines how much of that life, liberty and happiness...and financial success...that we attain and enjoy.



Being able to support oneself is very important to one's success and the success of society collectively, yes?



Yet is it not even more important to not only be able to support oneself and another if you take on that responsibility of bringing another person into the world until they can make their own success?



Financially the issue is responsibility and logical choices when it comes to wanting a family and having and raising a child (which includes single parents by choice), no?



If a poor couple had stable jobs and maintained the financial responsibilities without going beyond their means and were capable of having a child without utilizing public assistance, I would have no problem with that. However, if that same couple wanted to have a second child just so the first child could have a sibling, or they merely wanted another child, yet clearly could not financially support a second child, would you not agree that that would be an irresponsible choice?



When you have a segment of society making irresponsible choices, like having more children than they can financially afford, it then becomes a burden upon the community they live in. That is a hindrance to financial success and stability of not only the family having more children they cannot afford, but also the community (e.g. increased use of welfare and other subsidies, overcrowded classrooms, juvenile delinquency, etc.) is it not?



Having a child is a HUGE responsibility, and not just to the child him/herself...but to the community too. It's a choice that should never be taken lightly; and the irresponsibility of choosing to have a child when one clearly should not be having them glorified on nationalized television (e.g. octo-mom, teen moms on MTV, etc.) certainly doesn't help this issue either.



Bottom line, we need to go back to holding people more accountable for their decisions, to include having children they shouldn't be having. How we do that, I do not have an immediate answer for at this moment. I have ideas, but I will reserve those for the time being. Let's just see where we go from here first...



Troy


I don't totally disagree with your argument, I too agree that having a wild amounts of children is being glorified in the media and I also agree that it's beneficial to not only the child but also society if parents put a little more thought into having children, but here's where we might disagree GWV. As of today, in 2011, the surest way to become wealthy in the U.S (maybe also Britain) is to be born to wealthy parents. The surest way to be poor is to have poor parents. Social mobility, that is creating conditions in which a poor person can become wealthy or the ability to move between classes, for better or worse (depending on merit, in part) has been rolled back from its highly fluid levels in the 1940 1980 years to a to a rigidity last measured in the 1920s as America was sliding in to the Great Depression. Out of the 35 34 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (OECD), we the U.S. are the lest social mobile.



Between 1 out of 5 or 7 Americans children lives in poverty. So where I'm trying to get at GWV is the best way to reduce this wealth problem we have between the rich and poor in this country, to better reduce the problem of parents having the lack of revenue to properly support their children.



http://theeconomicco...he-poverty-line


Not sure you're going to like my answer to your question, but I do believe that sometimes in order to go forward you sometimes have to step backwards.



Population control for starters.



For one thing there are too many unwanted children being born into a system so thick with red tape, it's next to impossible for infertile or willing couples or individuals to adopt them. Therefore adoption should remain legal and be made more available as a choice of responsibility (not as a measure of birth control, as some people have argued). Clearly the teens glorified on MTV having children should not be having children (i.e. children having children is patently irresponsible). Also, the red tape smothering the adoption process should be thinned out so the millions of children waiting for someone to care for them and raise them can be made more possible.



Another aspect of population control is better regulation and control over immigration. There are far too many illegal immigrants abusing the 14th Amendment (which was never meant to grant citizenship to those under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, only those of the United States) to get access to so many things that have been denied to American and naturalized citizens, as well as legal residents. For example, many classrooms across the country are becoming overcrowded which limits the access to those schools. Same goes for scholarship and other subsidized opportunities....if you have too many people wanting the same thing, that thing becomes a scarce resource limiting the options of those seeking it.



Finally I have had a the idea for quite some time that reasserting the need to hold people more accountable for their choices and actions, especially when it comes to having children, is paramount in all this. When it comes to the HUGE responsibility of having a child, not only to the child but society, I believe people should prove that they are psychologically and financially ready to have a child in much the same manner a couple would have to go through in order to adopt a child. If they cannot do that, then they should not be allowed to have a child until proven otherwise. I know that's a bit extreme, but what else can we really do in a society where meth addicts are popping out kids, for example, and the courts are impotent to do anything about it (i.e. take the kids away and put them in a better home), then those kids grow up to repeat the same behavior (e.g. just like the cycle of abuse where studies have shown that children subjected to abuse often grow up to become abusers themselves), which ends up being a furthering burden upon society (in more ways than one).
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 05:32 PM   #6
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 33,134
How would a couple be prevented from having a child?
imaginethat is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 06:59 PM   #7
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 40,775
Good question.



As far as what GWV is imtimating, I obviously will disagree with most of his conclusions. And illegal immigration is a far cry from a big part of the problem. Single mothers and their kids make up a huge percentage of who is living in poverty. No one in this country should work hard every day and not be able to have their basic needs met from their efforts. If you want to eradicate pvoerty in this country, sterilizing the poor isn't the way to do it. Revamping the entire welfare system ending all the need for that much beaurocracy and emplyees, and then instituting and Basic Income Guarantee would certainly change things dramatically.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 07:14 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 2,465
How would one compel sexually responsible behavior? Would all people be forcibly placed on birth control at puberty?
KnightOfSappho is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 08:14 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
How would a couple be prevented from having a child?


That is a good question for which I have no immediate answer.



Troy
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 26th, 2011, 08:23 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Good question.



As far as what GWV is imtimating, I obviously will disagree with most of his conclusions. And illegal immigration is a far cry from a big part of the problem.


Clearly you know not of the immigration problem in this country and deny the facts



Quote:
No one in this country should work hard every day and not be able to have their basic needs met from their efforts.


Yet it is a reality of life that that is not a reality.



Quote:
If you want to eradicate pvoerty [sic] in this country, sterilizing the poor isn't the way to do it.


These are your words, not mine; just for clarification (wouldn't want to accuse you of committing a straw man fallacy).



Quote:
Revamping the entire welfare system ending all the need for that much beaurocracy and emplyees,[sic] and then instituting and Basic Income Guarantee would certainly change things dramatically.


Won't work...



Maybe you should think about making more meaningful changes, like rescinding bad public policies like Bill Clinton's revamping of TANF that did more harm than good to women and their children in need.



Troy





gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
healthy, procreating, wealthy

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Imposing higher tax rates on the wealthy can have unintended consequences Truth Detector Current Events 7 December 15th, 2012 03:50 AM
Dems propose tax on wealthy to fund health care CNN Current Events 9 July 12th, 2009 07:40 AM
Housewives make their men healthy and wealthy KateTheGreat Philosophy 49 June 4th, 2007 06:09 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.