|
|
#71
12-20-2018, 09:15 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Nexii Vanadis <Gravity> | Nexii's Erotic Adventures
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#73
12-21-2018, 12:35 AM
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#77
12-21-2018, 10:44 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
<Millenial Snowfkake Utopia>
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#78
12-21-2018, 11:43 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
To me it seems like someone from a shit background (in our capitalist society -- you blame marxism for their plight) that has kids at 20 without a stable partner, doesn't have to be the end of human civilization. That's kind of choice. To me, the problem we should rounding up -- if were just going to go prescribing death to certain people "to teach them a lesson" (lol?) Maybe we should round up liars and dushonest people. I mean their the problem right? there the reason you cant just trust wtf people say and trust them to act honoribly. I think rounding up anyone proven to be dishonest and punishing them according to the degree of offense makes more sense. Their liars and theives anyway. It's against the law to fraud and lie under oath so don't give me that civil rights crap. What's that? that sounds horrible? Oh that's right -- its important in conservatives mind to preserve people's right to lie cheat and steal for money (if done in a socially acceptable way). Thats something that doesn't need changed. What needs changed is these god damn single mothers with a few kids having temerity to live!...Even the ones that prove to be a net benefit to the tax system in the long run -- fuck em. Its not worth the risk someone might actually get more money then they pay in! | |||
|
|
||||
|
#79
12-21-2018, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
I dont get mad at a dog for barking, but i've listened to quite a bit of critique about how alot of this family busting, and promoting of the "nobility" of single motherhood started as a concerted effort of using government subsidies to incentivize black women using black men as disposable sperm donors with the support of the welfare/child support system. Once proven successful in the black community, this effirt was then expanded to include the rest of us.
If we abolished child support, and withheld welfare stipends for only the most abject cases of need, such as widowing, or unavoidable incarceration, I think we could turn the trending phenomenon of single motherhood around, but why would the government do that? From what I understand the government generally takes a rake of 2 to 3% on monthly child support withholding garnished for mothers. Sure, occasionally the law decides against and for the father in cases where extreme neglect can be proven, but by and large the feminine priveledge is still very much alive in our family court system, so I dont see this changing. Furthermore, why would it change? Strong nuclear families are much more difficult to indoctrinate. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#80
12-21-2018, 12:32 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
I seriously doubt that any woman is more inclined to behave irresponsibly because she thinks the state will just take care of her. that's a silly argument. what is true though is that in the absence of state susbsidy there would be greater social pressure on women and more importantly men to behave responsibly. men are responsible for providing for their children and women are responsible for selecting responsible men to father their children. Men and women are inherently irresponsible though, so what do we do? shame men and women for destructive behavior rather than exalting it and dismissing the consequences. social pressure needs to be amplified to a level that it provides sufficient deterrent or we end up the the dreary world of state-sponsored solutions, which ultimately demand surrender of liberties.
__________________
<Millenial Snowfkake Utopia>
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
