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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
A government program has to be the absolute worst way to try and eliminate poverty.
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.
Poverty in America today is almost solely a function of personal behavior and most social programs act as vehicles that keep people in poverty.
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.
El oh El.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?
Answer the question
No. Invalid question. Axe a better question and you might get an answer.
See?
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret.
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
A government program has to be the absolute worst way to try and eliminate poverty.
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.
Poverty in America today is almost solely a function of personal behavior and most social programs act as vehicles that keep people in poverty.
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.
El oh El.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?
Answer the question
No. Invalid question. Axe a better question and you might get an answer.
See?
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret.
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
I found it funny that Race had to seek out backup. Now he parrots the backup. The leader has become the minion.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
A government program has to be the absolute worst way to try and eliminate poverty.
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.
Poverty in America today is almost solely a function of personal behavior and most social programs act as vehicles that keep people in poverty.
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.
El oh El.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?
Answer the question
No. Invalid question. Axe a better question and you might get an answer.
See?
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret.
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
I found it funny that Race had to seek out backup. Now he parrots the backup. The leader has become the minion.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
No. If the government allowed smoking in bars. They'd light up right next to you. Go to a tribal casino or go to a conservative state in the middle of the country you dumbbell.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
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 left
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.
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.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
Bob is a political unicorn in this case, but good to know.
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.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.
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.
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.
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?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.
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.
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.
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?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
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?
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.
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.
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.
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.
Just because someone has a child out of wedlock does not make them a bad person or a drain to society.
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.
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
Comments
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?
And you call me stupid?
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
Hence - why not both.
Seems to be a struggle to get an answer
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.
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?