The girl that never ages.

[Walsingham]

I decided last week that I'm frankly an elitist. A paternal elitist, but elistist.

 

So you fly around in a space ship that is represented as a bunch of lines and trade commodities at various planets and space stations?

 

Basically, yes. Except the spaceship is my curveball logic, and the commodities are your face.

[Whipporwill]

Natural selection involves survival and reproduction. Deformed mutants kept alive by our high technology don't get dates.

 

Being stupid is kind of a turn-off, too.

[213374U]

Deformed mutants kept alive by our high technology don't get dates.

And you know this... from your extensive experience with deformed mutants kept alive by technology? Or are you one yourself, perhaps?

 

 

Being stupid is kind of a turn-off, too.

How would you know?

[Rosbjerg]

Natural selection involves survival and reproduction. Deformed mutants kept alive by our high technology don't get dates.

 

Being stupid is kind of a turn-off, too.

 

Well the female or male will under all circumstances choose the best available mate.. If the stupid person is your best bet then that's who you go for. If no one is available, as is the case for many animals, then you don't get to pass on your genes.

 

For humans this a bit different as we don't have to compete for very limited resources, in the same way animals do, which again allows for a greater diversity in the quality of possible mates.

[Whipporwill]

Well the female or male will under all circumstances choose the best available mate.. If the stupid person is your best bet then that's who you go for. If no one is available, as is the case for many animals, then you don't get to pass on your genes.

 

For humans this a bit different as we don't have to compete for very limited resources, in the same way animals do, which again allows for a greater diversity in the quality of possible mates.

 

Let's say that people with quality A have a one out of five chance of reproducing, while people without it have a three of five percent chance. Let's also start with equal levels in the population and say that it always breeds true. To make things simple, we'll assume the quality only appears in one sex, and say that everyone that reproduces has two children of that sex.

 

First generation: A 20, O 20. Total: 40

 

Four out of twenty A people breed, twelve out of twenty O people breed.

 

Second generation: A 8, O 24. Total: 32

 

We'll round up the fractions. Two A people breed, Fifteen O.

 

Third generation: A 4, O 30. Total: 34.

 

Already A has become in danger of disappearing in the next generation.

 

 

Let's start over, but add another quality, B. B is initially quite rare, but grants a four of five percent chance.

 

First Generation: A 20, B 2, O 20. Total 42.

Second Generation: A 8, B 4, O 24. Total 36.

Third Generation: A 4, B 8, O 30. Total 42.

Fourth Generation: A 2, B 14, O 32. Total 48.

Fifth Generation: A 2, B 24, O 42. Total 68.

 

A has dropped to insignificance. Note what is happening with B.

 

Sixth Generation: A 2, B 40, O 54. Total 96.

Seventh Generation: A 2, B 64, O 66. Total 132.

 

A still exists only because we are still rounding up. Doubtless the B and O people are wringing their hands over the fact that there are still people born with quality A. Note as well that while the O population will continue to increase, they will become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population over time.

 

Conclusion. Any inheritable property that grants a reproductive advantage compared to the population at large will tend to increase compared to the population at large. Any such property that confers a reproductive disadvantage will tend to decrease compared to the population at large. This is true even if the absolute number of members with that property are increasing.

[Gorth]

'A' must be Intelligence

[213374U]

Conclusion. Any inheritable property that grants a reproductive advantage compared to the population at large will tend to increase compared to the population at large. Any such property that confers a reproductive disadvantage will tend to decrease compared to the population at large. This is true even if the absolute number of members with that property are increasing.

Nice. You have used fairly arbitrary proportions in your "reproductive chance", and you are assuming that there are inheritable traits nowadays that both impede and encourage reproduction in human beings. You are also assuming that an A parent will have an A child and so on. It's cool to simplify things for the sake of an explanation, but when you're trying to make theoretical predictions, it just doesn't cut it. Not saying that your conclusion is wrong per se, just that the premises are wrong as they intend to represent mankind at present. Care to try again?

[Humodour]

Conclusion. Any inheritable property that grants a reproductive advantage compared to the population at large will tend to increase compared to the population at large. Any such property that confers a reproductive disadvantage will tend to decrease compared to the population at large. This is true even if the absolute number of members with that property are increasing.

Nice. You have used fairly arbitrary proportions in your "reproductive chance", and you are assuming that there are inheritable traits nowadays that both impede and encourage reproduction in human beings. You are also assuming that an A parent will have an A child and so on. It's cool to simplify things for the sake of an explanation, but when you're trying to make theoretical predictions, it just doesn't cut it. Not saying that your conclusion is wrong per se, just that the premises are wrong as they intend to represent mankind at present. Care to try again?

 

Actually that sounds like a fairly feeble attempt to reject his working.

 

For instance:

 

you are assuming that there are inheritable traits nowadays that both impede and encourage reproduction in human beings.

 

You honestly find that assumption difficult to understand?

[213374U]

Actually that sounds like a fairly feeble attempt to reject his working.

Wow, krez. You are in computer science, aren't you? I would assume that computer scientists are supposed to have a decent grasp of basic calculus. All he has shown is that, after choosing the coefficients carefully, a convergent sequence [(2/5)^n] is *drumroll*... convergent. Further, he also concluded that a divergent sequence [(8/5)^n] is... ZOMG! divergent!

 

His whole argument hinges on the coefficients he made up, for which he offered no justification whatsoever. That's not very rigorous.

 

 

You honestly find that assumption difficult to understand?

Difficult to understand? Nope. Difficult to prove? Absolutely. Remember that it's one of the fundamental premises he bases the whole "analysis" on. Go ahead, if it's so evident, show us yourself.

[Walsingham]

Natural selection involves survival and reproduction. Deformed mutants kept alive by our high technology don't get dates.

 

As a premature baby, kept alive only through the good grace of the NHS, AND debonair orc about town, I'm living proof this assertion is false.

[Whipporwill]

213374U seems to be asking me to prove the existence of sexual selection. I don't quite know what to say to that.

 

As for the rest of the thread, I'll simply ask: Do YOU find stupidity or deformity or whatever-it-is you're worried about sexy or unsexy? And do you think you're much different from the rest of the world in that regard?

[Rosbjerg]

As for the rest of the thread, I'll simply ask: Do YOU find stupidity or deformity or whatever-it-is you're worried about sexy or unsexy? And do you think you're much different from the rest of the world in that regard?

 

Yeah I think I'm different from a quite a few people in that regard. I've seen new mothers, that I would under no circumstances, under any condition, ever want to be associated with. But as I said everyone will find the best available partner and you need to be either very shy or very deformed not to get a girl/guy in the end.

 

Ask yourself, have you ever been with someone you didn't really find attractive at all just because she was sweet or you were a little desperate? I'm sure most will say yes, because the drive in all of us to be with someone is quite strong and if nothing better is available we tend to compromise with our tastes..

[Walsingham]

I find stupidity a lot less sexy than deformity. Although that could be self-reinforcing, because my main selling point isn't my looks. Hence I tend to assume I won't be able to pull someone who's a bimbo.

[Atreides]

I think at this stage culture's more of a determinant than genetics. There are some cultures where it's encouraged to have less kids than another or vice versa.

 

For example immigrants into places like Europe.

[213374U]

213374U seems to be asking me to prove the existence of sexual selection. I don't quite know what to say to that.

Meaning what? That you give up?

 

Because, you see, when people with cystic fibrosis can live to adulthood (with the associated reproductive chance this entails), as can people with Duchennne muscular distrophy, I don't know what to say to convince you. Short of massive congenital problems, it's rather uncommon to find a genetic disease that will always prevent the sufferer from passing it down. This is largely attributable to the advances of science. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

As for the rest of the thread, I'll simply ask: Do YOU find stupidity or deformity or whatever-it-is you're worried about sexy or unsexy? And do you think you're much different from the rest of the world in that regard?

Yeah, thanks for portraying me as a nazi eugenist. My day ain't complete until someone does.

 

To answer your question, yeah. I find stupidity to be a bit of a turn-off, most of the time. But if the girl is hot enough to be worth the effort of enduring a few hours of inane chatter, chances are I'd hit it all the same. Even though my standards aren't exactly high, I have my limits too. However, it's highly debatable whether "stupidity" is an inheritable genetic trait, though. Deformity, I don't know. Depends on what's deformed, I suppose. Hemophilia doesn't exactly deform people, anyway.

[l'Incendiario]

it's not the government's job to determine if you can become a parent, but it is their job to prevent you from staying one, if you can't cope with it and no other relatives can pitch in.

Maybe if it were more difficult to become a parent, there might be some more thought about it.

 

It seems to me that a lot of parents are accidental, and have put little -- or no -- thought into providing for another human being.

 

The parlous state of adoption and foster care seems discredit your assumption that it is desirable or even possible to clean up the mess ex post facto.

 

If your concern is that a system cannot be created that is fair and just, I would caution you against emotion. To cite a trivial example, consider the automobile drivers license. Eveyone can get one. There is no wealth requirement; you don't need to own a Mercedes Benz before you sit the exam. The only pre-requisite is that drivers must have a basic ability to drive by meeting minimum standards of vision, hearing, coordination responses and cogent thought processes, etc, that allow them to navigate local traffic conditions. (Driving in Samoa is different to Finland is different to London is different to New York City is different to Chicago, etc.) To continue the illustration, if you have bad vision, you are perfectly able to get a license as long as you wear corrective lenses.

Be careful who you say that around... it's now considered a "right" to have babies.

I think it is a right..

Why? How many offspring do individuals have a "right" to have? What about the rights of those who cannot reproduce (by normal means), either by disease (low motility or barrenness) or by gender (homosexuality)? How do these "rights" equate universally? How can it be a right if it isn't available to everyone, equally? If you think about it, you are already (passively) setting arbitrary restrictions on people whose only crime was to be less fortunate in their birth, situationally speaking. (Now THERE'S some irony.) Wouldn't it be fairer to consider these restrictions logically, and implement a fair system based on ethical standards, rather than just accept the lottery of babies born to the significant proportion of parents that do not want them, don't have the first idea how to care for them, and are not motivated to find out?

 

Don't these potential people have equal rights to acceptable parents? Wouldn't it make sense to vet the parents instead of penalizing the children of them, considering they are completely innocent victims (as innocent as anyone can be, ethically speaking, in any situation: they did not ask to be born!) and society can, if it chooses, interdict before the abuse takes place. Abuse that will lead ineluctably to further societal evils. In other words, we cannot (as a group) fix the mess afterwards, but we can intervene beforehand to reduce the likelihood of harm.

 

I just thought your remark deserved some comment.

[River]

Be careful who you say that around... it's now considered a "right" to have babies.

I think it is a right.. it's not the government's job to determine if you can become a parent, but it is their job to prevent you from staying one, if you can't cope with it and no other relatives can pitch in.

 

So, my hard earned tax dollars are supposed to support all the parents on welfare who thought it their "right" to have children, then failed to support them, for whatever reason?

 

Or, are my dollars supposed to go to support the ones that the government has to take from the unfit parents who never should have had them in the first place (because as it turns out, said parents either cannot or will not support these children)?

 

How about the children that are born to parents who simply use them as a means of increasing their monthly payments from the government?

 

The ones born because mommy wanted to trap daddy into marrying her? Or mommy was too damned lazy to use birth control ("I went down to the clinic to get put on birth control, but I found out I was pregnant"- here's a clue: go BEFORE you decide to have sex)? Or daddy didn't use a condom because "it just doesn't feel the same"? Or the orphans that are in society because the abusive daddy killed mommy and is currently serving a life term? How about the children of serial rapists and killers sitting on death row that are allowed conjugal visits with whatever "jailhouse groupie" they've charmed into marrying them?

 

In the USA, I know a man that currently has seven children by six different mothers in five different states. He dropped out of high school and has no marketable skills, so can only work minimum wage jobs- when he does work. When he gets a job, it lasts until one of the states catches up to him and attempts to make him pay some of the tens of thousands of dollars he owes in back child support. Then he quits and moves on. He has lived in nine states in the last five years and has worked seventeen different jobs (none of these jobs has lasted longer than the ninety days it takes the various states to locate him), when he wasn't busy collecting welfare. His wife (God only knows why he chose to marry this one!) bitterly complains that after "all the bitches get theirs, nothing is left for my kids" (she was unaware of the other children until after she married him, she says). He is mean, abusive and useless, yet she refuses to leave him, after all, he did choose to marry her, so he must love her! And, not only are he, his wife and their two children on welfare (they are up at midnight on the first day of the month waiting for food stamps so they can go shopping- usually the food stamps are gone within the first two weeks), the other five mothers and their children are collecting those monthly checks (welfare, food stamps, free medical care- every dime they can get their grubby little fingers on). Some of these people have been receiving government support for over ten years (one for sixteen)! This should infuriate you, as you are the one(s) picking up the tab! PLEASE! Not only do her poor children suffer in this hell, my dollars support some useless ******* because he cannot keep his **** in his pants- or wear a condom! These people do NOT have the right to have children and I should NOT have to support yet another generation of abused and neglected children just because they thought they DID have that right! Through my personal knowledge of the family, I have become aware that she was abused & neglected, as was her mother- and now her children are suffering needlessly because she can "suffer just as long as he can" and "this time, he will change, he promised"! Why does she still have them? I don't know- maybe because the social workers are overworked and underpaid, maybe because they have no "real" evidence of abuse and neglect, maybe the court systems are too backed up, maybe there aren't enough foster homes to go around, and people only want to adopt "caucasion, healthy infants" (unless they are trying to make a public statement about their own generosity, in most cases)- you get the picture... What I do know is that these poor children will continue this pattern- the boy will grow up thinking it's okay to beat the **** out of women and the girl will grow up thinking it's okay to be beat. Then, they'll decide it is their "right" to reproduce.

 

ALL parents should have to undergo parenting classes BEFORE they reproduce. They should be able to take care of themselves BEFORE they reproduce, as well as see to the needs of the children AFTER they reproduce. They should have the ability to care for them, love them, feed them, clothe them and put a roof over their heads. They should expect their governments (and society) to help them in circumstances beyond their control (death, injury, accidents & unforseen illnesses , job layoffs, etc), but they should not be allowed to take advantage of government welfare and assistance programs that are put in place for those who need them just because it is their "right" to have babies. There are generations of families on welfare (in the USA, in this case), for instance. WHY? And, most of all, WHY do I have to support them? When did that become MY responsibility?

Edited September 13, 2009 by Rosbjerg
circumventing language filter

[Rosbjerg]

Maybe if it were more difficult to become a parent, there might be some more thought about it.

 

It seems to me that a lot of parents are accidental, and have put little -- or no -- thought into providing for another human being.

 

The parlous state of adoption and foster care seems discredit your assumption that it is desirable or even possible to clean up the mess ex post facto.

 

If your concern is that a system cannot be created that is fair and just, I would caution you against emotion. To cite a trivial example, consider the automobile drivers license. Eveyone can get one. There is no wealth requirement; you don't need to own a Mercedes Benz before you sit the exam. The only pre-requisite is that drivers must have a basic ability to drive by meeting minimum standards of vision, hearing, coordination responses and cogent thought processes, etc, that allow them to navigate local traffic conditions. (Driving in Samoa is different to Finland is different to London is different to New York City is different to Chicago, etc.) To continue the illustration, if you have bad vision, you are perfectly able to get a license as long as you wear corrective lenses.

 

You know, I made that comparison once too.. Then I realized how utterly fallible the argument is..

 

When you think about it, does the driver licence really prevent accidents? It's still the most unsafe mode of transportation, even with this system in place.

 

And with a birth licence you pretty much assume that it's going to be a good system and that it will filter out the bad seeds. Problem is a lot of potential great parents are gonna get hit by it.. What should the critirias be? Who should determine them? How do we enforce them?

It's gonna be legislate nightmare as well and any law that impedes so seriously on such a fundamental human thing as having a child is, in my honest opinion, going to fail so hard that you'll hear the cries of injustice three lightyears away.

 

A great example is a law that was just passed here in Denmark that made in almost completely illegal to carry weapons of almost any design at any time.. Now we have 2 cases of two random law-abiding citizens who had 1-2 boxcutters in their car as they were driving from work, the knives were needed at their job, and now stand to go to prison for 60 days because of it.. One of whom had a boyhood dream of becoming a police officer, but now that's impossible because he forgot to take the boxcutter out of his car as he was driving home.. Are these the kind of laws you want? One mistake and the goverment takes away your right to have kids.

 

Because you do realize that it's impossible to do something on that scale case by case, there are gonna be some inflexible laws which the social workers has to follow and if you don't live up to enough of them then the hammer falls.. Regardless of how great you are in the other areas..

 

 

I think it is a right..

Why? How many offspring do individuals have a "right" to have? What about the rights of those who cannot reproduce (by normal means), either by disease (low motility or barrenness) or by gender (homosexuality)? How do these "rights" equate universally? How can it be a right if it isn't available to everyone, equally? If you think about it, you are already (passively) setting arbitrary restrictions on people whose only crime was to be less fortunate in their birth, situationally speaking. (Now THERE'S some irony.) Wouldn't it be fairer to consider these restrictions logically, and implement a fair system based on ethical standards, rather than just accept the lottery of babies born to the significant proportion of parents that do not want them, don't have the first idea how to care for them, and are not motivated to find out?

 

Don't these potential people have equal rights to acceptable parents? Wouldn't it make sense to vet the parents instead of penalizing the children of them, considering they are completely innocent victims (as innocent as anyone can be, ethically speaking, in any situation: they did not ask to be born!) and society can, if it chooses, interdict before the abuse takes place. Abuse that will lead ineluctably to further societal evils. In other words, we cannot (as a group) fix the mess afterwards, but we can intervene beforehand to reduce the likelihood of harm.

 

I just thought your remark deserved some comment.

 

So by your logic we shouldn't bother with free speech then, because there are some amongst us that can't communicate?

 

I think Benjamin Franklin said it pretty well "You have the right to pursue happiness, but you have to catch it for yourself." .. Having a right to do something doesn't imply in itself that everyone must be capable of doing it. You have the right to own property, but maybe you are too poor to do so, should the government then confiscate all lands because of you?

 

You see where this is going?

 

And in regards to you wanting to help children as they are innocent victims of bad parents.. Again I'm sorry, but that's just not possible without some really serious government invasion into your privacy from you hit puberty till you die (I mean people can get kids when they are 50 today so we need to keep check on you until you hit meta-pause!). I consider myself a pretty big socialist Democrat, but even I think this would be waaay out of line.

 

ALL parents should have to undergo parenting classes BEFORE they reproduce. They should be able to take care of themselves BEFORE they reproduce, as well as see to the needs of the children AFTER they reproduce. They should have the ability to care for them, love them, feed them, clothe them and put a roof over their heads. They should expect their governments (and society) to help them in circumstances beyond their control (death, injury, accidents & unforseen illnesses , job layoffs, etc), but they should not be allowed to take advantage of government welfare and assistance programs that are put in place for those who need them just because it is their "right" to have babies.

 

This is a more acceptable solution actually, making in mandatory for coming parents to attend some classes on basic parenting.. In this way there's a chance social workers can also see a problem arise before it gets out of hands.. Having worked with neglected kids I can tell you that most will do quite well (albeit a little later than their peers) as long their parents realizes that they need to take some responsibility before the kids hit to their teens and that usually happens actually..

 

There are generations of families on welfare (in the USA, in this case), for instance. WHY? And, most of all, WHY do I have to support them? When did that become MY responsibility?

 

It became your responsibility when you became a citizen of your country.. it's a package deal, you get a lot of benefits, but also some bad deals. That's part of the arrangement, luckily for you, you live in a democracy, so you have to opportunity to fix what you think is wrong with the system..

[213374U]

When you think about it, does the driver licence really prevent accidents? It's still the most unsafe mode of transportation, even with this system in place.

LOL

 

Do you really think that if we didn't require driving licences for people to drive there wouldn't be immensely more accidents than there are now? Licences are meant to accredit people as having a basic set of skills required for the task they want to perform, they do not accredit infallibility.

 

 

? One mistake and the goverment takes away your right to have kids.

Yeah. One mistake that means bringing to life a new human being. No big deal huh?

 

You see, that's the typical example of how we have become so dependent on the Nanny State to wipe our asses for us that the notion of even taking remote responsibility for our actions is alien to us.

 

 

Regardless of how great you are in the other areas..

Stephen Hawking may be awesome at creating a theoretical model of the universe, but there's no way in hell I'd let him drive a truck. Tough luck.

 

 

So by your logic we shouldn't bother with free speech then, because there are some amongst us that can't communicate?

 

I think Benjamin Franklin said it pretty well "You have the right to pursue happiness, but you have to catch it for yourself." .. Having a right to do something doesn't imply in itself that everyone must be capable of doing it. You have the right to own property, but maybe you are too poor to do so, should the government then confiscate all lands because of you?

 

You see where this is going?

Uh, when my pursuit of happiness entails stepping on someone else's toes, it's usually ILLEGAL for me to "pursue happiness". You know, what with judges frowning upon rape and all. Same as when it burdens the rest of society because of my lack of foresight or maturity. We live in society, which means this ain't "free for all".

 

I think you have failed to consider this from the worst VICTIM's standpoint: the child. Laziness ("it would be too much work for the govt") is no excuse not to do the right thing.

[Rosbjerg]

When you think about it, does the driver licence really prevent accidents? It's still the most unsafe mode of transportation, even with this system in place.

LOL

 

Do you really think that if we didn't require driving licences for people to drive there wouldn't be immensely more accidents than there are now? Licences are meant to accredit people as having a basic set of skills required for the task they want to perform, they do not accredit infallibility.

 

Of course not, I mean that even with the system in place there are still accidents, as I said.. But as I implied it's a pretty far leap from a drivers licence to a birth licence even if both are rights.

 

? One mistake and the goverment takes away your right to have kids.

Yeah. One mistake that means bringing to life a new human being. No big deal huh?

 

You see, that's the typical example of how we have become so dependent on the Nanny State to wipe our asses for us that the notion of even taking remote responsibility for our actions is alien to us.

 

So you think it's less of a nanny state when the government decides whether or not you can have kids, opposed to you deciding for yourself? .. really?

 

Regardless of how great you are in the other areas..

Stephen Hawking may be awesome at creating a theoretical model of the universe, but there's no way in hell I'd let him drive a truck. Tough luck.

 

Well at least we have a great system in place to make sure he never gets a drivers licence.. but are you just as sure that he'll be a horrible parent?

 

So by your logic we shouldn't bother with free speech then, because there are some amongst us that can't communicate?

 

I think Benjamin Franklin said it pretty well "You have the right to pursue happiness, but you have to catch it for yourself." .. Having a right to do something doesn't imply in itself that everyone must be capable of doing it. You have the right to own property, but maybe you are too poor to do so, should the government then confiscate all lands because of you?

 

You see where this is going?

 

Uh, when my pursuit of happiness entails stepping on someone else's toes, it's usually ILLEGAL for me to "pursue happiness". You know, what with judges frowning upon rape and all. Same as when it burdens the rest of society because of my lack of foresight or maturity. We live in society, which means this ain't "free for all".

 

I think you have failed to consider this from the worst VICTIM's standpoint: the child. Laziness ("it would be too much work for the govt") is no excuse not to do the right thing.

 

You can do better than that.. Having kids isn't illegal, raping is.. I'm not impeding on your rights when I have kids. If my kids break the law then I get punished and if they are old enough, they get punished. You want to punish me for the off-chance that my kids might one day impede on your rights? Where do we stop if we take this road.. ?

[213374U]

Heh, I wanted to apologize. It's bad form to go "lol" at folks when one is attempting to maintain any semblance of an adult conversation. So, yeah, sorry about that. It was uncalled for.

 

 

Of course not, I mean that even with the system in place there are still accidents, as I said.. But as I implied it's a pretty far leap from a drivers licence to a birth licence even if both are rights.

No official intervention on private activity is ever meant to guarantee a 0% mishap rate. It is, however, a cost-effective means of reducing unwanted consequences. The fact that it would not be perfect does not invalidate its usefulness. Certified surgeons, pilots, lawyers, anything - there's always room for error in human activity. Can you imagine the chaos it would be if anyone could operate a brain tumor? Why, then, we allow anyone to create life, and further, to shape it?

 

 

So you think it's less of a nanny state when the government decides whether or not you can have kids, opposed to you deciding for yourself? .. really?

No, that's not how it works. See, it's more like, "this and that are my rights, even though I did nothing to earn them or prove I am sensible enough to exercise them wel, or even understand what they mean. And it doesn't matter anyway as, if I screw up, Nanny State will be there to clean up my mess. As it should be."

 

Dissolution of responsibility.

 

 

Well at least we have a great system in place to make sure he never gets a drivers licence.. but are you just as sure that he'll be a horrible parent?

No, I'm not sure he'd be a terrible parent. Just pointing out the fact that it takes a very specific set of skills to do certain things, and any and all other aspects of a person have no bearing whatsoever on that, no matter how outstanding they may be.

 

I can't be sure either than a crackhead, wife-beating mugger will be a bad parent... but hey, it's his "right", right?

 

 

You can do better than that.. Having kids isn't illegal, raping is.. I'm not impeding on your rights when I have kids. If my kids break the law then I get punished and if they are old enough, they get punished. You want to punish me for the off-chance that my kids might one day impede on your rights? Where do we stop if we take this road.. ?

You got it backwards... rape is illegal BECAUSE it involves a necessary violation of another's personal integrity. That's why, no matter how great an applicant may think he is, no rape licences are ever issued. Banning pregnancy is not what it's being discussed, ensuring a minimum competence at parenting is.

 

Whether your children will break the law and cause me some trouble is irrelevant, as the law already provides for that. Bad parenting shapes a person, and currently, it's only in extreme cases (extreme neglect, abuse...) that there are applicable legal provisions - always of a reactive nature, as opposed to a proactive approach to prevent incapable parents from causing irreparable harm to their own children.

 

Of course, in a mediocracy, that **** won't fly.

[Walsingham]

River, you give an interesting example of an obvious phenomenon. I was quite surprised that you didn't choose one of the many examples we have in the UK, where state provision is stronger. But anyway...

 

There are three reasons why i'm not bothered by your example:

 

1 - I don't support childcare for the parents. I support it for the kids. Or, more accurately still, I support it for me. I believe that bloody awful childhoods lead to poor social skills and poor mental powers. Given that I get tooth-spittingly furious when anyone talks in a film theatre, I need to combat this tendency whenever possible.

 

2 - Despite that chap's actions being possible, how many people do it? Very few.

 

3 - At least the oversexed fethwit didn't murder anyone.

[River]

It became your responsibility when you became a citizen of your country.. it's a package deal, you get a lot of benefits, but also some bad deals. That's part of the arrangement, luckily for you, you live in a democracy, so you have to opportunity to fix what you think is wrong with the system..

 

I do not agree with you in regard to that comment. Not many people have a choice when it comes to which country they are citizens of. Most people are citizens of a country by birth, not by choice (and before you suggest that if I do not like the country that I might be a citizen of, why don't I just move to another one, let me ask you this: Have you ever tried to emmigrate to another country? The red tape can keep you busy for a lifetime!).

And, unfortunately, I alone cannot fix what is wrong with the system (although I certainly strive every day to try to have some positive effect). Too many people are ready to sit and ***** about what is wrong with the system, but very few are willing to actually get off their collective rears and do anything about it.

[Gorth]

Some of us are wearing down our third country by now...

[River]

River, you give an interesting example of an obvious phenomenon. I was quite surprised that you didn't choose one of the many examples we have in the UK, where state provision is stronger. But anyway...

 

There are three reasons why i'm not bothered by your example:

 

1 - I don't support childcare for the parents. I support it for the kids. Or, more accurately still, I support it for me. I believe that bloody awful childhoods lead to poor social skills and poor mental powers. Given that I get tooth-spittingly furious when anyone talks in a film theatre, I need to combat this tendency whenever possible.

 

2 - Despite that chap's actions being possible, how many people do it? Very few.

 

3 - At least the oversexed fethwit didn't murder anyone.

 

You are quite right! For example, the UK will provide welfare to parents of children until the youngest child is twelve! What a perfectly good reason not to get off your *** and get a real job! And when baby is getting close to that magic age of 12, pop out another! Much of my work is done in the USA, so I am quite familiar with the absurdity of the systems in both Europe and the United States.

 

In answer to your other comments:

 

I only support childcare for the children, as well. Unfortunately, most of the money does not goto the children, parents spend it on themselves. Daddy likes to have his bear and ciggies before baby gets nappies. And, mommy is stressed and needs a new outfit so she can feel better about herself. They both need a night out on the town to relax and unwind. Who could blame them, what with a house full of kids under the age of ten?

 

2. You would be amazed at the number of men who have children by multiple women and accept no responsibility. I see them day in and day out and I stopped being surprised, shocked or even amazed many years ago! You would also be surprised at the number of people who have children to use them as leverage for welfare payouts and benefits- as a meal ticket, so to speak. The more babies, the bigger the paycheck!

 

3. No, he hasn't yet, but that can be of little comfort to the wife that he abuses both mentally and physically, especially when he is standing above her pounding her head into the floor- even if she is too scared or stupid to leave him. He has put a gun to her head and pulled the trigger (fortunately, it wasn't loaded, at least not that time). What do you think will happen when the day comes that she refuses his demands for sex or even the bank card so he can go buy the aforementioned beer and ciggies? All it takes is one bad day... And, of course, his attorneys will say that he was a victim himself, abused as a child and let down by society, it really wasn't his fault, it is our fault, we (society) failed him and made him broken. Bull****!

Edited September 16, 2009 by River