Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves
Comments
-
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights -
Bob is a political unicorn in this case, but good to know.RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights -
I had a feeling this d push against a non governmental solution was mixed up in the left's hatred of religion and fear of losing abortion and condoms which are the sacraments of the religion of the leftSFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
Hence - why not both.
Seems to be a struggle to get an answer -
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days. -
There's more of us than you think. Plenty of Conservatives out there who aren't very religious and who have a more libertarian view on abortion. After the 1st trimester though things start getting a little more dicey with me.UWhuskytskeet said:
Bob is a political unicorn in this case, but good to know.RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights -
Does anyone after 1960s love abortion?SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights -
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from? -
And poverty was twice as high.SFGbob said:
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from? -
Just like their has been societal changes in smoking that reduced smoking rates. People's freedom to not be pressured to be married has reduced marriage rates.SFGbob said:
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from?
Just because someone has a child out of wedlock does not make them a bad person or a drain to society. -
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married? -
Poverty rates were higher because of the nature much of the work that was available. Subsistence farming, sharecropping. Jim Crow. No Social Security. Many of the people living in poverty then were old people who could no longer work. But I suspect that the poverty rates for married couples with children were still lower even then for those who were unmarried and with children.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
-
It's so cute how tight you are with Bob.RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights -
Can you respond without fucking strawman ass? I never said it made anyone a bad person. And the fact of the matter is that kids born out of wedlock are much more likely to grow up in poverty, drop out of school, end up committing crimes and spending time in prison. So you claiming that they aren't drain on society is just another example of you running your ignorant mouth.2001400ex said:
Just like their has been societal changes in smoking that reduced smoking rates. People's freedom to not be pressured to be married has reduced marriage rates.SFGbob said:
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from?
Just because someone has a child out of wedlock does not make them a bad person or a drain to society. -
I'll just leave this right here.SFGbob said:
Can you respond without fucking strawman ass? I never said it made anyone a bad person. And the fact of the matter is that kids born out of wedlock are much more likely to grow up in poverty, drop out of school, end up committing crimes and spending time in prison. So you claiming that they aren't drain on society is just another example of you running your ignorant mouth.2001400ex said:
Just like their has been societal changes in smoking that reduced smoking rates. People's freedom to not be pressured to be married has reduced marriage rates.SFGbob said:
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from?
Just because someone has a child out of wedlock does not make them a bad person or a drain to society.
-
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households.BennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response.
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. -
Wait what? So white liberals make overly racist statements but white conservatives don't? Ok!SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households.BennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response.
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. -
First of all dumbfuck the word was "overtly" not "overly" and second of all I have no doubt that there are white conservatives who make overtly racist statements in public today, it's rare but I'm sure it happens. The difference is what happens to them after they make those statements. They are shunned and ostracized. Meanwhile racists of all stripes can find a happy home in the Rat party as long as their racism is directed at Jews, and Conservative blacks and White people many of the biggest racists in the Rat party are in positions of power and influence.
Hell Al Sharpton is an honored figure in the Rat party and Presidents and Congressional Rat party leaders rub elbows with racist anti-Semites like Farrakhan. -
Care to provide a few examples of your assertion?SFGbob said:First of all dumbfuck the word was "overtly" not "overly" and second of all I have no doubt that there are white conservatives who make overtly racist statements in public today, it's rare but I'm sure it happens. The difference is what happens to them after they make those statements. They are shunned and ostracized. Meanwhile racists of all stripes can find a happy home in the Rat party as long as their racism is directed at Jews, and Conservative blacks and White people many of the biggest racists in the Rat party are in positions of power and influence.
Hell Al Sharpton is an honored figure in the Rat party and Presidents and Congressional Rat party leaders rub elbows with racist anti-Semites like Farrakhan. -
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. UnderstoodBennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 4 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff. -
Wedlock rates
It's less about getting married and more about having dual incomes or a roommate to share expenses. Shaming people for getting out of shitty relationships isn't going to change that. There should be a stigma for abandoning your kids, sure.SFGbob said:
Poverty rates were higher because of the nature much of the work that was available. Subsistence farming, sharecropping. Jim Crow. No Social Security. Many of the people living in poverty then were old people who could no longer work. But I suspect that the poverty rates for married couples with children were still lower even then for those who were unmarried and with children.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days. -
First of all you could stop subsidizing it which I've already said. That alone would help to re-establish some of the stigma that existed before. Second of all how about a cultural shift where it isn't seen as cool or acceptable behavior. Look at the way you guys here are defending people who make this very shitty choice.BennyBeaver said:
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. UnderstoodBennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff. -
How is out of wedlock births subsidized?SFGbob said:
First of all you could stop subsidizing it which I've already said. That alone would help to re-establish some of the stigma that existed before. Second of all how about a cultural shift where it isn't seen as cool or acceptable behavior. Look at the way you guys here are defending people who make this very shitty choice.BennyBeaver said:
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. UnderstoodBennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff. -
Seems to me that if you're married to someone you're more likely to have dual incomes and someone to share expenses. Marriage would tend to help with that arrangement would it not? I've had a lot of roommates only one wife. Could it be that getting married increases the likelihood that you'll find yourself in a situation where you're sharing expenses? I'm into shaming people for getting pregnant without being married. Not for getting out of shitty relationships.UWhuskytskeet said:Wedlock rates
It's less about getting married and more about having dual incomes or a roommate to share expenses. Shaming people for getting out of shitty relationships isn't going to change that. There should be a stigma for abandoning your kids, sure.SFGbob said:
Poverty rates were higher because of the nature much of the work that was available. Subsistence farming, sharecropping. Jim Crow. No Social Security. Many of the people living in poverty then were old people who could no longer work. But I suspect that the poverty rates for married couples with children were still lower even then for those who were unmarried and with children.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.SFGbob said:
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?RaceBannon said:
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days. -
Are you trolling me again with your stupidity? Btw, what was the point of your graph? Teen birth rates are falling. Have I said anything to the contrary of that?2001400ex said:
How is out of wedlock births subsidized?SFGbob said:
First of all you could stop subsidizing it which I've already said. That alone would help to re-establish some of the stigma that existed before. Second of all how about a cultural shift where it isn't seen as cool or acceptable behavior. Look at the way you guys here are defending people who make this very shitty choice.BennyBeaver said:
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. UnderstoodBennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff. -
You keep repeating that. I'm curious your answer.SFGbob said:
Are you trolling me again with your stupidity? Btw, what was the point of your graph? Teen birth rates are falling. Have I said anything to the contrary of that?2001400ex said:
How is out of wedlock births subsidized?SFGbob said:
First of all you could stop subsidizing it which I've already said. That alone would help to re-establish some of the stigma that existed before. Second of all how about a cultural shift where it isn't seen as cool or acceptable behavior. Look at the way you guys here are defending people who make this very shitty choice.BennyBeaver said:
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?SFGbob said:
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. UnderstoodBennyBeaver said:
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.SFGbob said:
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?BennyBeaver said:
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?SFGbob said:
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?BennyBeaver said:
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?SFGbob said:
If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.
If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.
1) Don't drop out of high school.
2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.
3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.
4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.
Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff.
Point is, the issue is already being solved. Not completely but over time teen pregnancy is being reduced drastically. Yes that's not a direct correlation to out of wedlock. But I contend a 16 year old getting pregnant contributes more to the problem you are discussing than a 27 year old woman in a relationship but not married. -
The point is you fucked strawman ass. Pathetic.
Btw, didn't one of you geniuses say that Sex Ed and "Free" birth control was the only way to accomplish this? -
I'm starting to get your schtick (yes I'm slow). If you don't like what you read, you just call it strawman.SFGbob said:The point is you fucked strawman ass. Pathetic.
Btw, didn't one of you geniuses say that Sex Ed and "Free" birth control was the only way to accomplish this?
And you didn't answer the question. Again. -
No, it's not that I didn't like what I read. It's the fact that what I read had nothing to do with anything I said. You do it all the fucking time. Which is why I believe you must be "trolling" me with your stupidity.2001400ex said:
I'm starting to get your schtick (yes I'm slow). If you don't like what you read, you just call it strawman.SFGbob said:The point is you fucked strawman ass. Pathetic.
Btw, didn't one of you geniuses say that Sex Ed and "Free" birth control was the only way to accomplish this?
And you didn't answer the question. Again. -
That question is not trolling you. Answer the question.SFGbob said:
No, it's not that I didn't like what I read. It's the fact that what I read had nothing to do with anything I said. You do it all the fucking time. Which is why I believe you must be "trolling" me with your stupidity.2001400ex said:
I'm starting to get your schtick (yes I'm slow). If you don't like what you read, you just call it strawman.SFGbob said:The point is you fucked strawman ass. Pathetic.
Btw, didn't one of you geniuses say that Sex Ed and "Free" birth control was the only way to accomplish this?
And you didn't answer the question. Again. -
Didn't think you'd answer the question.2001400ex said:
That question is not trolling you. Answer the question.SFGbob said:
No, it's not that I didn't like what I read. It's the fact that what I read had nothing to do with anything I said. You do it all the fucking time. Which is why I believe you must be "trolling" me with your stupidity.2001400ex said:
I'm starting to get your schtick (yes I'm slow). If you don't like what you read, you just call it strawman.SFGbob said:The point is you fucked strawman ass. Pathetic.
Btw, didn't one of you geniuses say that Sex Ed and "Free" birth control was the only way to accomplish this?
And you didn't answer the question. Again.
