Pay for your children, or get mandatory birth control!

[Diogenes]

See, RJP?

Asking plain questions is troll bait huh? Let's see:

Morality argument: By choosing to steal resources from me and other productive people, you have violated my property rights.

How does this not say specifically that those irresponsible parents have stolen resources from you and other productive people? How does this criteria for sterilization apply only to those irresponsible people? Or does your argument really do run as follows?

Because irresponsible progenitors stole your money by accepting govt handouts, unlike anyone else who also happened to accept govt handouts either for other purposes or for responsible child bearing, they should be sterilized.
There's no distinction between one and the other.

You haven't answered D Tibbets' questions either - Are those troll bait too? Next I'll ask how involuntary sterilization isn't a human rights violation.

I am more concerned with THESE sorts of human rights violations:





http://www.jsstudiosdesigns.com/images/ ... _large.jpg








Destitute, abused and neglected children, vs some parasite getting his nuts snipped? Not a tough call for me at all.

[Betruger]

"Think of the children". I especially like that last pic. I doubt you could find much difference between that face and a kid whose parents refused to buy it a pony.

[MSimon]

Well it is easy to get the kids out of the meth labs. Make it an over the counter drug (well maybe it was Benzedrine - same diff.). The way it used to be before the "moral" meddlers got involved.

The "improvers" of the human condition have a lot to answer for.

But "our intentions were good" is the excuse of all types of socialists.

I guess they never were exposed to religion. Pity. And what religious dogma am I referring to?

"The road to hell is paved....."

I'm against all faith based government programs. Economic Socialism AND Cultural Socialism. Not a very popular position. People get really agitated when you impugn their faith. I'm used to it.

[Diogenes]

"Think of the children". I especially like that last pic. I doubt you could find much difference between that face and a kid whose parents refused to buy it a pony.

Yeah, that was my first thought as well. Here is Diogenes, making the cheesy argument that usually comes from liberals.

The point is, many men have not the slightest interest in being a father, and it is in the best interest of
A. Society\Taxpayers
B. The Affected Children
C. The men themselves

to not be faced with this problem.

I see the dark side of these encounters. I know of (and have met) several men that have outstanding child support debt on 3 or more children from different mothers. They should have been snipped after they ignored the first court ordered child support demand.

Anyway, the last picture is the children's reaction to the news their mother is about to be arrested for methamphetamine usage, and they are to become wards of the state.

http://www.pe.com/reports/2008/methlega ... a8dce.html

[GIThruster]

They should have been snipped after they ignored the first court ordered child support demand.

Now you're talking about a different issue. You're using as example people who are actually guilty of not just irresponsibility, but guilty of a crime. That's not a representative group of the case you've been making, but still, your position is barbaric and out of touch with most of civilization. Apart from fascists, Nazi's and the like, I can't imagine who could possibly agree with forced sterilization. You're just way out of touch.

It simply does not matter that your points make sense. Sometimes, compassion and forgiveness NEED to trump justice. If you don't get this, I suggest you meditate on some of your own experiences with lack of responsibility, particularly those of your youth. Can you so easily cast the first stone?

[Betruger]

Anyway, the last picture is

an appeal to emotion.

You don't need to snip people's bodies if they don't have the means to reproduce. That means cut them off of govt aid, just as banks cut off unworthy clients.

[Diogenes]

Well it is easy to get the kids out of the meth labs. Make it an over the counter drug (well maybe it was Benzedrine - same diff.). The way it used to be before the "moral" meddlers got involved.

The "improvers" of the human condition have a lot to answer for.

But "our intentions were good" is the excuse of all types of socialists.

I guess they never were exposed to religion. Pity. And what religious dogma am I referring to?

"The road to hell is paved....."

I'm against all faith based government programs. Economic Socialism AND Cultural Socialism. Not a very popular position. People get really agitated when you impugn their faith. I'm used to it.

About that faith in the human ability to use drugs safely...









Who do you sue for the effects of such an "over the counter drug" ?

[Diogenes]

They should have been snipped after they ignored the first court ordered child support demand.

Now you're talking about a different issue. You're using as example people who are actually guilty of not just irresponsibility, but guilty of a crime.

Looking for examples on Google and Yahoo yielded few. I used what I could find that seemed relevant. What should a picture which represents a dead beat father look like? The crime examples are as close as I could find to something that could be represented by a picture.

That's not a representative group of the case you've been making, but still, your position is barbaric and out of touch with most of civilization. Apart from fascists, Nazi's and the like, I can't imagine who could possibly agree with forced sterilization. You're just way out of touch.

Well, since you can't imagine, i'll give you a clue. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme court. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".[


As for forced sterilization, two points.

1. If they know that's the penalty before the fact, then it is THEY who should be blamed if they take the risk and end up losing the gamble. (That's how we handle crime currently.)


2. How about You and other people who feel like being empathetic (to the assholes that created the children, but not the children themselves) pay the full measure of the bill for indulging these people and stop lecturing others who neither want to pay the bill nor indulge the behavior ?

It simply does not matter that your points make sense. Sometimes, compassion and forgiveness NEED to trump justice. If you don't get this, I suggest you meditate on some of your own experiences with lack of responsibility, particularly those of your youth. Can you so easily cast the first stone?

Yeah, no problem. My father ran out on us and left my brother and sisters to go to the orphanage, while I have been quite dutiful to my own Children. I've seen the issue from both sides and I believe I have a better grasp of the issue than most critics. Needless to say, I have a low threshold of tolerance for "get your rocks off and split" with a side order of "damned if I care what happens to the children."

You have enormous sympathy for the perpetrator, but precious little for the victim, and you think *I'M* barbaric.

[GIThruster]

No Dio, I don't sympathize or empathize with the deadbeats, and as I've mentioned before, I spent years working with homeless youth. That doesn't mean I think you have a viable option, anymore than I think taking a hand is proper punishment for theft, or stoning for adultery. I think theft and adultery are both crimes that ought to be punished, just as any deadbeat dad or mom should be punished, but civilized punishment does not include mutilation of any kind.

[Diogenes]

Anyway, the last picture is

an appeal to emotion.

They all are. But they are also appeals to reason, just in picture form.

You don't need to snip people's bodies if they don't have the means to reproduce. That means cut them off of govt aid, just as banks cut off unworthy clients.

Great plan in theory. In practice, i'll wager a huge chunk of the (probably non tax paying) electorate will demand that they be fed anyway.


Really, the point is moot. We will never adopt such an idea, though it is quite sensible. I would settle for just making the enablers pay the bills and leave the rest of us out of it. On second thought, that does nothing about the children who are their victims. I guess such children will just have to continue being victimized till the current system collapses.

[Betruger]

ugly druggie pics

Search for posts by "Isochroma".

You don't need to snip people's bodies if they don't have the means to reproduce. That means cut them off of govt aid, just as banks cut off unworthy clients.

Great plan in theory. In practice, i'll wager a huge chunk of the (probably non tax paying) electorate will

refuse to let sterilization legislation pass.

Really, the point is moot. We will never adopt such an idea, though it is quite sensible.

To you. Mutilating people is sensible to you.

I would settle for just making the enablers pay the bills and leave the rest of us out of it. On second thought, that does nothing about the children who are their victims. I guess such children will just have to continue being victimized till the current system collapses.

Straw man and appeal to emotion.

[Diogenes]

No Dio, I don't sympathize or empathize with the deadbeats, and as I've mentioned before, I spent years working with homeless youth. That doesn't mean I think you have a viable option, anymore than I think taking a hand is proper punishment for theft, or stoning for adultery. I think theft and adultery are both crimes that ought to be punished, just as any deadbeat dad or mom should be punished, but civilized punishment does not include mutilation of any kind.

Usage of the term "Mutilation" is an emotional argument designed to call up mental pictures of amputations or some other grisly thing. If you are going to refer to a vasectomy as being a "Mutilation" then you should refer to every other type of medical surgery as a "Mutilation."

Is an appendectomy a mutilation? Is a tonsillectomy a mutilation? Is an abortion a Mutilation? Well, actually yeah, but a lot of people have no problem at all with THAT sort of mutilation. In fact they consider it "barbaric" if you don't allow people to perpetrate such mutilations, but that's another topic.


So okay, ignoring the emotional propaganda engendered by use of the "Mutilation" word, What sort of punishment do you suggest for dead beat fathers? (and actually, i'm not so interested in punishing them as I am in making sure they take care of their responsibilities to their children.)

[Diogenes]

ugly druggie pics

Search for posts by "Isochroma".

You don't need to snip people's bodies if they don't have the means to reproduce. That means cut them off of govt aid, just as banks cut off unworthy clients.

Great plan in theory. In practice, i'll wager a huge chunk of the (probably non tax paying) electorate will

refuse to let sterilization legislation pass.

Really, the point is moot. We will never adopt such an idea, though it is quite sensible.

To you. Mutilating people is sensible to you.

First of all, it's not mutilation. That is YOU arguing with emotion.

Second of all, Is it my fault that others lack the knowledge and comprehension that I have?

I would settle for just making the enablers pay the bills and leave the rest of us out of it. On second thought, that does nothing about the children who are their victims. I guess such children will just have to continue being victimized till the current system collapses.

Straw man and appeal to emotion.

How am I misstating the opposition argument? Actually, I haven't HEARD an opposition argument other than "I don't like that Idea."

As for my statement being an appeal to emotion, If it is, it is likewise true.
The current system victimizes children. TRUE.
The current system will probably continue till it collapses. TRUE.

It also represents my perception of what is likely to occur.

[Betruger]

Usage of the term "Mutilation" is an emotional argument designed to call up mental pictures of amputations or some other grisly thing

Wrong. That's a fault of my english as second language. The point is you're screwing around with people's bodies; a sovereign thing by any measure, without their consent, and by WW's criteria without rational justification.

Second of all, Is it my fault that others lack the knowledge and comprehension that I have?

narcissistic, not comical nor even accurate troll

Next,
Assuming you're arguing the same as WW, you've got no basis other than "I like the idea", since it's just as effective to simply cut off govt aid to those who don't pass criteria. Criteria arbitrarily set in some conjunction of public's vote and legislator's inspiration. Wink wink nudge nudge.

Next
You're basically saying it's ok to make appeals to emotion. IOW refuse to leave appeals to emotion out of debate.

Next
Picking the first thing wrong of the bunch (in your scheme of human rights violation "for their own good"), your system would victimize those deadbeats. Victimize to an arguably small degree, and arguably outweighed by a greater good. But victimize no less, since those people are ENABLED by the govt's bad policies in the first place. Which the public bears responsibility for tolerating via voting power (or lack of sensible use thereof).

So instead of fixing the root cause, you want to preserve and stick a band aid on top of that faulty circumstance (govt aiding proven irresponsibles), and on top of that the band aid is a violation of human rights. More big govt for no good reason. There's pretty much nothing good about what you're arguing. It fails in the abstract and in practice. It's unethical, unfeasible, and totally ignores simple realities like this whole situation being due to the entitlement and complacency culture (rewarded and reinforced by spendthrift govt) prevalent in much of the USA.

And then there's your debate methods which I just don't have patience for. My last reply - find someone else who has the interest and patience for dealing with you. I came to the USA specifically to get away from people like you.

I'd point to Tom Ligon as probably the best articulation of the real source problem and corresponding solution, but from what I think I saw (admitting I never had patience to read thru it) of your replies, you simply shrug that -the very ESSENCE of the USA- off. So I was right from the start: you're unamerican. Which is fine, go start your own country and leave the rest of us alone.

[Diogenes]

Usage of the term "Mutilation" is an emotional argument designed to call up mental pictures of amputations or some other grisly thing

Wrong. That's a fault of my english as second language. The point is you're screwing around with people's bodies; a sovereign thing by any measure, without their consent, and by WW's criteria without rational justification.

Hey dude! Ever hear of a thing called PRISON? Apparently punishment for a crime trumps that "Sovereign body" thing.

And yes, "Mutilation" is nothing but an emotional argument.


Anyway, I now have an explanation of why you couldn't seem to comprehend my responses. I really need to keep my points simpler so people can understand them easier. I'm working on it.

Second of all, Is it my fault that others lack the knowledge and comprehension that I have?

narcissistic, not comical nor even accurate troll

Next,
Assuming you're arguing the same as WW, you've got no basis other than "I like the idea", since it's just as effective to simply cut off govt aid to those who don't pass criteria. Criteria arbitrarily set in some conjunction of public's vote and legislator's inspiration. Wink wink nudge nudge.

This is not true. Threatening deadbeat fathers with having their vasa deferentia snipped would be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than cutting off the welfare checks. In many cases, the women are the collectors of welfare, and the men actually work at jobs. It will bother the men not very much for the women to lose their welfare benefits. It will bother the men GREATLY to face the scalpel.

Next
You're basically saying it's ok to make appeals to emotion. IOW refuse to leave appeals to emotion out of debate.

I am saying that an appeal to reason AND emotion make the best argument that people will actually heed. I am also saying, on some issues it is impossible to separate the reason and emotion due to the nature of the argument.

Next
Picking the first thing wrong of the bunch (in your scheme of human rights violation "for their own good"), your system would victimize those deadbeats. Victimize to an arguably small degree, and arguably outweighed by a greater good. But victimize no less, since those people are ENABLED by the govt's bad policies in the first place. Which the public bears responsibility for tolerating via voting power (or lack of sensible use thereof).

"Victimize" the deadbeats? By this logic, Jailing people for larceny "victimizes" them. The fault with this logic is that people can chose their outcome, so in that respect they are responsible for that outcome. They "victimize" themselves. If society is victimizing them in any way, it is by allowing them to believe they can get away with it.

So instead of fixing the root cause, you want to preserve and stick a band aid on top of that faulty circumstance (govt aiding proven irresponsibles), and on top of that the band aid is a violation of human rights. More big govt for no good reason. There's pretty much nothing good about what you're arguing. It fails in the abstract and in practice.

"Wise you are indeed to know that something will not work without ever having tried it. "

As for human rights, you apparently have more regard for the rights of the irresponsible to have their fun than for the people who work and support the deadbeat's and their own children. You also have little regard for the rights of a child who grows up with the sucky chances in life that he was presented with as the consequence of momentary pleasure of his father and mother.

It is a shame that those who would force this burden on others cannot be made to carry it completely by themselves.

It's unethical, unfeasible, and totally ignores simple realities like this whole situation being due to the entitlement and complacency culture (rewarded and reinforced by spendthrift govt) prevalent in much of the USA.

It is VERY ethical. FAR MORE ethical than creating a string of unwanted children living in poverty. There is likewise no issue with it's feasibility in practice, except for dealing with the same trouble makers that oppose capitol punishment, or criminal punishment in general. But you are partially correct about it being one of the results of entitlement spending by government.

And then there's your debate methods which I just don't have patience for.

I would be pretty impatient too if I was getting my clock cleaned every time I encountered a particular individual. Eventually I would figure out that I need to do a better job arguing my position, or better yet, figuring out what the best position is so that I can more easily defend it.

My last reply - find someone else who has the interest and patience for dealing with you. I came to the USA specifically to get away from people like you.

Yeah, i'm a bad guy, and you're appealing to emotion again. *I* am like those bad people in your home country, though you don't really know me, and don't really know what I'm like. Sure thing dude.

I'd point to Tom Ligon as probably the best articulation of the real source problem and corresponding solution, but from what I think I saw (admitting I never had patience to read thru it) of your replies, you simply shrug that -the very ESSENCE of the USA- off. So I was right from the start: you're unamerican. Which is fine, go start your own country and leave the rest of us alone.

A foreigner lecturing me on what is Un-American? Well, the most American thing in the world is not taking shit from foreigners who want to come here and tell us how to run things. If your notions and culture are so much better, take those ideas and make them work where YOU were born.

I was born here. I grew up here. My family is a mix of Native American and Northern European. I grew up in poverty, and now live quite well. I was given nothing tangible by my parents and worked for those things which I now have. I learned the lessons that the REAL America has to offer. I learned that enabling people is the opposite of helping them. It only serves to keep them in their pathos.

You are right about one thing. It is not worthwhile for you to have any further conversations with me. At least not till you do some growing up.