If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
RFHall
This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a
problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept
children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or,
hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise
them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh
commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in
a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child
prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could
be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every
religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the
mind of every human on earth.
People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the
population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering
sexual demands, they may be right.
Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What?
Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to
watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of
the world, then, no, they don't.
RFHall
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
philosophy based on evidence
Julian
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>
> This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
> extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
snip sob story.
Do you propose to do anything other than whinge about it
or are you, perhaps, yet another blustering coward?
halfawake
Evelyn
> philosophy based on evidence
My friend, if everyone waited till they thought they could truly
afford children, there would be very few who had any.
Child prostitution exists not only because of poverty, but because of
sleazy and disturbed individuals who are attracted sexually to
children.
Improperly cared for children foraging through garbage, exists not
only through poverty, but also from the immaturity of adults, who
should be caring for them better, but who are barely able to take care
of themselves emotionally and practically, thus find the challenges of
parenting to be too daunting a task.
There is no one cause of anything of course. It is too complex a
problem. I agree that birth control would solve a great deal of it,
but there is no way that it would end the suffering of children in
general, nor would it stop those who are so immature and selfish that
they never even consider the dangers of having unprotected sex, much
less about the possible children their actions could create.
Ignorance is probably the root of a lot of it.
Do what you can in the world to help. Fix what you can, and be
content that you have done something when others have turned away.
It's really all you can do.
Evelyn
RFHall
<half...@nonewsisgoodnews.com> wrote:
>>
>***moron alert!***--->robert
Its ok, robert, your parents could probably afford you.
Keynes
Should people give others bad advice?
Is it their job to tell others what to do?
Perhaps if they had the power, they would
make others take their advice by law on pain
of punishment. This would be presumptuous,
from a person who feels himself wiser and
better than others to such a point that it were
his business to correct others without first
correcting himself.
How good you must be, so without fault
that you presume to guide others. You
must believe that. No doubt you wonder
why others cannot also perceive your
greatness. They must be stupid.
Or something.
RaaN
> philosophy based on evidence
You should expect a lot of knee jerk reactions to this bit of common
sense but if enough people in positions of influence repeated it then
it could eventually become the politically correct view and knees
would jerk accordingly.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Good of you to warn us about yourself especially if you consider that
any kind of an argument.
--
RaaN
RaaN
It's just a matter of propagating the idea until it becomes part of
the social morality so he has already done something about it.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Also cut carbon emissions.. or do you suppose that to be another
futile effort?
--
RaaN
RaaN
Don't drink and drive... you idiot.
--
RaaN
Julian
So you agree that the only people that should breed are the ones who want,
and are prepared to take by hook or crook, more resources than they need?
There is plenty for everyone on this planet and if it were for such
gluttons
who want to stock pile excessive resources for themselves
there would be no "poor."
Further I see no reason why "social moralities" should have much effect on
the usual bell curve of distribution... they never have in the past.
There will always be poor so stop wimping out and start shooting and
force-sterilising the "poor" for that is surely where you are heading.
Here.. allow me to suggest an anthem for your Utopia...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
Julian
I'm suprised you are concerned about carbon emissions
considering your tacit support for the introduction of
gas ovens to cremate the poor or have you a more
eco friendly way of disposing of the corpses?
Julian
halfawake
Actually they were quite poor when we started out, but for reasons you
probably can't understand, they have no regrets, and in fact I am
actually helpful to them now in their old age. However, if, for richer
or for poorer, your parents had refrained from having you, the world
would be a slightly sunnier place.
Now, back under the rock where you belong.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
Not at all. My knee may jerk in a particular direction but it does not
go that way based on which way the wind is blowing. Many people who
think the poor actually have a right to live their lives and have
families feel so on deep principle, and you assuming otherwise does not
advertise your otherwise demonstrated intelligence. It's one thing to
have an opposing view; it's another to impute comformity or
thoughtlessness to others without evidence.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
no, I don't consider it an argument, I consider it an exclamation
against something that I find abhorrent. I don't have to rationally
justify every reaction I have, especially when the cause is obvious.
halfawake
There are plenty of countries where that sort of view is already part of
the social morality, so perhaps you would prefer to live in China or
other countries where the population is controlled by force? You will
find that the places where such views are extant are ones where
noncomformity is harshly punished, not the opposite as you would like to
think.
halfawake
Although we are made of carbon, there is a slight difference between a
carbon emission and a living being. They do not have the same moral
issue at stake on the "cutting" side.
halfawake
Not to mention the fact that quite a few of our geniuses and saviors who
grew up in poverty never should have been born - their parents could not
afford them so off with them! They're out!!! Whoops! There goes Abe
Lincoln...... never should have been born, that street trash! Forget
about rags to riches - if you're in rags, you'll be sterilized; you can
live your life in poverty alone. Maybe if one day you can get enough
cash together to pay the fee to get a permission slip to have kids
they'll reverse your "poverty vasectomy." Ah brave new world.....
Robert
= = = = = = = =
duh
that...RFucking Hall...can't Do Anything but Whine...Because He can't Afford
to Buy Condoms!
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:KKadnevCR4KZPh7V...@bt.com...
duh
Stop Cutting Farts on This NewsGroup...!
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagw
duh
Smell Your Own...Carbon Emissions...!
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g62kep$47b$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
RaaN
You begin with a straw man argument and proceed into a series of
varied logical fallacies and finally end with a complete farce. Well
done.
--
RaaN
RaaN
I only said that he should expect knee-jerk responses not that yours
was, but if the shoe fits its up to you to wear it... and I said that
authoritative repetition could have the result of thoughtless
conformity to a new politically correct view. No one is saying the
poor do not have a right to live their lives or have families and so
forth. But if one cannot afford children... What do you propose?
Universal mothers allowance?
--
RaaN
RaaN
Very funny. It seems more obvious that if a person cannot afford
children they should not have them. Calling anyone a moron for this
seems to make you the real moron since it is almost a truism. And of
course you don't have to rationally justify your reaction just as I
suppose a person who cannot afford a child should have to justify
expecting the rest of society to pay them for having children. Having
children as a means to make a living off the government seems to me to
be much more abhorrent.
--
RaaN
RaaN
And your world wide solution to overpopulation entails rampant
procreation and everyone foots the bill?
--
RaaN
RaaN
Actually it has a greater moral edge since refusal to cut carbon
emissions will result in massive death.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Is this reductio ad absurdum just another rhetorical and irrational
exclamation?
--
RaaN
halfawake
back off, carbon being, back off.
<zhrrrrrrrrrrrr.............> [that's the sound of my spaceship taking
off]
"wheeeeeeee!"
you still here?
oh, fuck off.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
halfawake
I don't wear my shoe on my knee.
>and I said that
>authoritative repetition could have the result of thoughtless
>conformity to a new politically correct view.
>
Well, there is no reason to say that unless you think it is currently
happening, which I certainly don't. I don't see anyone repetitively
arguing that the poor should have as may kids as they like - or the
opposite for that matter. So why raise this? It is just a way of
distracting from the merits of the argument, whether that is your
intention or not. Better to argue on the merits, for better or worse.
>No one is saying the
>poor do not have a right to live their lives or have families and so
>forth. But if one cannot afford children... What do you propose?
>Universal mothers allowance?
>--
>RaaN
>
>
I propose that people are free to make those decisions themselves and we
could talk about what is reasonable without the suggestion that people
should decide on whether or not to have a family based on their income -
as if a child was a commodity and that it would be fine to live one's
life without a family, that it is just a matter of practicality. Having
a family is not merely a pragmatic issue and can't be approached that way.
I would agree that if someone can't afford basic necessities having a
lot of children would be unreasonable. But I would not run around
making generalities about who should or shouldn't have kids.
halfawake
I did not say that it was obvious that I was right; just that it was
obvious what I was reacting to; and obvious that I had a strong reaction
to it. Why does this person feel the need to come out and make a
statement like this, as if he is on high and he can look down upon the
poor and dictate right and wrong to them. I think it's sick, and it
smacks of real discrimination against those who are born into difficult
circumstances. One gets very close to saying that "those who are
inferior shouldn't be allowed to breed." To me his attitude is on the
border of that, if not masking that very view, and the smell of it makes
me ill.
My own grandfather on my father's side escaped a murderous government in
turn-of-century Ukraine and managed to make it to the U.S. by ship with
practically no possessions. He worked hard and made just enough to
survive but did have the temerity to have and raise a family. If he had
followed the pragmatic prejudice of our local pedant, my father would
not have been born and neither would I. My father managed to grow up to
become a front rifle scout in WW II and one of the first to liberate
parts of France and Germany from the Nazis, so I guess it is okay that
he came into this world. The anti-poor philosophy is personal to me.
The "American Dream" which has nothing but a shadow left of it, was
created by millions of poor immigrants who believed they could come here
and create a better life for the next generation even though they were
poor. And they did.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = =
RaaN
Instead you run around making generalizations about how anyone should
have the right to have children ignoring the pragmatic consequences
and calling anyone a moron who sees the pragmatic concern as the most
important one when it comes to questions of life and death.
--
RaaN
halfawake
This feeds off the popular myth that there are thousands of poor lazy
people running around purposely having kids to get free money from the
government. Most poor people want to better their lot and take care of
their children and to use a left-field image like that to tar the poor
as lazy and corrupt when in fact the it is the greedy corporate pigs who
can't stop stealing all the wealth through unfair influence over
government and won't allow those lower down to have an even playing
field. The money is moving upwards as it always has, not being siphoned
off by crafty poor people. Reagan and Thatcher and their corrupt ilk
spread the false filthy image of greedy lazy poor people ripping off the
government. It's mostly bullshit, and harkens back to the social
lineage of Marie Antoinette, the lazy royalty and their descendents the
robber barons. The poor as always are turning the gears for the wealthy
and getting little of the reward.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
I hope you're enjoying putting words in my mouth. No, my solution is to
start by looking at an entire social order that is sick and unfair, and
then see what the real causes of problems are, without taking away the
rights of people to live their lives. Most people who can't afford to
take care of their family would logically restrict their family to one
or two kids. It is the conversatives and religious authorities who
promote large families among the poor for their own ideological reasons
- whether it is divine dictum or anti-birth control. If people were
allowed to rise to a higher level instead of the wealthy becoming
increasingly exponentially wealthier in our system, this problem would
correct itself. In the meantime, education, job creation. job training,
enterprise zones, and many other positive forces can be created which
are well known that would create niches for the whole society to
gradually rise up and afford their own expenses. This was happening in
the U.S. for years until Reagan got hold of the reigns and destroyed the
liberal social system that allowed each generation to do better than the
one before. Newt Gingrich continued his sick disestablishment of the
middle class support system and job opportunities for mid-level earners,
and we have verged on third-world disparate incomes ever since.
When I was growing up you could have an absolute expectation that if you
worked hard you would get promotions in decent jobs and gradually raise
the level at which your family lived and each generation would climb a
bit higher. No more.
halfawake
I was thinking in the same direction - cutting carbon good; cutting
people much more dicey.
Robert
= = = = = = = =
halfawake
No, absurd but not irrational.
Julian
There is no overpopulation problem....
there is plenty of space and resourses.
There is however an anger, greed and stupidity problem
as exemplified by you and your Hall mate but that isn't
a showstopper either.
RaaN
This doesn't address the basic principle that if one cannot afford
children one should not have them. The principle does not preclude
socio-economic change and the effort toward a more equal and
prosperous society but even in such a society one who cannot afford
children should not have children. Naturally when one can afford
children it no longer applies. You are speaking of how all people how
want to should be able to afford to have children and from this it can
be inferred that you agree at least until one can afford children one
should not have children.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Myth you say. I think you might be appalled at what you find if you
look. Regardless of why it is happening it does happen and it is
hardly a foundation for quality parenting when children are seen as
commodities. True the opportunities are not plentiful but does that
justify creating a greater burden on society and rearing children to
suffer? Certainly social and economic change is necessary and that in
order for people to be able to afford children. You have yet to
present an argument that actually refutes the principle.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Prevention of unnecessary human suffering in both cases no matter how
you slice it. We're not talking about diced soilent green here but
perhaps a means to prevent it.
--
RaaN
Julian
Society can afford children. Society cannot afford children that are
born of on ever receding gene pool of inbred greedy fat bastards.
But hey, don't let me stop you trying to replace survival of the fittest
with survival of the fattest.
RFHall
wrote:
Julian:
>So you agree that the only people that should breed are the ones who want,
>and are prepared to take by hook or crook, more resources than they need?
I see it as: to raise a child, one must feed, clothe, and educate the
child. These are resources one needs.
>
>There is plenty for everyone on this planet and if it were for such
>gluttons who want to stock pile excessive resources for themselves
>there would be no "poor."
The debatable part of this questionable tangent is the problem of
delivery of resources to the poor. The other side of this coin is the
decreasing resources that will become available to you, Julian. Have
you noticed the price of gas?
>
>Further I see no reason why "social moralities" should have much effect on
>the usual bell curve of distribution... they never have in the past.
>There will always be poor so stop wimping out and start shooting and
>force-sterilising the "poor" for that is surely where you are heading.
nope. I don't think that is a penalty for even child molesters or
child abusers who are parents. Would that come to your mind?
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
Realistic Idealism
Philosophy based on evidence.
RFHall
wrote:
robert:
>Not to mention the fact that quite a few of our geniuses and saviors who
>grew up in poverty never should have been born - their parents could not
>afford them so off with them! They're out!!! Whoops! There goes Abe
>Lincoln...... never should have been born, that street trash! Forget
>about rags to riches - if you're in rags, you'll be sterilized; you can
>live your life in poverty alone. Maybe if one day you can get enough
>cash together to pay the fee to get a permission slip to have kids
>they'll reverse your "poverty vasectomy." Ah brave new world.....
I doubt if a moral imperative can work retroactively. Abe was fed,
clothed, and educated as were all other geniuses and saviors (?) I can
think of. The angst that you are displaying in response to this
simple, and reasonable rule isn't uncommon and is indicative of the
small amount of thought which has been given to it.
RFHall
wrote:
robert:
>There are plenty of countries where that sort of view is already part of
>the social morality, so perhaps you would prefer to live in China or
>other countries where the population is controlled by force? You will
>find that the places where such views are extant are ones where
>noncomformity is harshly punished, not the opposite as you would like to
>think.
I can't help but wonder about your approach to this moral imperative.
People who must enact laws to enforce their position are people who
are self righteous in their opinions, and are usually rich (I must be
right, I'm rich), staunchly religious (Its the Word of God), or
fiercely independent (a little alienated). This doesn't apply to you,
I think.
Besides, China held the position of one child per couple, ill-equipped
to raise a child or not. That doesn't have the same effect as my
position.
RFHall
wrote:
robert:
>I hope you're enjoying putting words in my mouth. No, my solution is to
>start by looking at an entire social order that is sick and unfair, and
>then see what the real causes of problems are, without taking away the
>rights of people to live their lives.
I knew you were more than the *moron alert* that you started with.
>Most people who can't afford to
>take care of their family would logically restrict their family to one
>or two kids. It is the conversatives and religious authorities who
>promote large families among the poor for their own ideological reasons
>- whether it is divine dictum or anti-birth control.
There, you have let the cat out of the bag. A moral imperative,
opposite to my suggestion, and its influence on the world without
forcing anyone to do anything.
>If people were
>allowed to rise to a higher level instead of the wealthy becoming
>increasingly exponentially wealthier in our system, this problem would
>correct itself.
The wealthy becoming wealthier is nothing new. The possibility of you
or I becoming wealthy is the same as many of these wealthy people. In
the meantime, aren't you tired of seeing children born and starving in
squalor?
>IIn the meantime, education, job creation. job training,
>enterprise zones, and many other positive forces can be created which
>are well known that would create niches for the whole society to
>gradually rise up and afford their own expenses. This was happening in
>the U.S. for years until Reagan got hold of the reigns and destroyed the
>liberal social system that allowed each generation to do better than the
>one before. Newt Gingrich continued his sick disestablishment of the
>middle class support system and job opportunities for mid-level earners,
>and we have verged on third-world disparate incomes ever since.
What? You don't want to share the worlds wealth with everyone?
>
>When I was growing up you could have an absolute expectation that if you
>worked hard you would get promotions in decent jobs and gradually raise
>the level at which your family lived and each generation would climb a
>bit higher. No more.
What planet was that on. robert. robert. robert. When the resources
of the world are shared (free trade) the wealthy (you) are going to
have to surrender something. Two families to a house? One parent
stays home to raise the kids? Have a few of wives?
Julian
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:50:00 +0100, Julian <julia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Julian:
>> So you agree that the only people that should breed are the ones who want,
>> and are prepared to take by hook or crook, more resources than they need?
> I see it as: to raise a child, one must feed, clothe, and educate the
> child. These are resources one needs.
There are ample resources in this world.
The problem lies in greedy people stockpiling more than they need.
>> There is plenty for everyone on this planet and if it were for such
>> gluttons who want to stock pile excessive resources for themselves
>> there would be no "poor."
> The debatable part of this questionable tangent is the problem of
> delivery of resources to the poor. The other side of this coin is the
> decreasing resources that will become available to you, Julian. Have
> you noticed the price of gas?
>> Further I see no reason why "social moralities" should have much effect on
>> the usual bell curve of distribution... they never have in the past.
>> There will always be poor so stop wimping out and start shooting and
>> force-sterilising the "poor" for that is surely where you are heading.
> nope. I don't think that is a penalty for even child molesters or
> child abusers who are parents. Would that come to your mind?
I haven't noticed human being being particularly pervious to reason
and for the poor to be persuaded to overcome their natural urges
by reason is, I believe, far fetched. You would have to resort to
force to stop tham breeding.
Then, should you be able to exterminate the poor, you would resort to
another scapegoat to blame for your misery.
RFHall
<evely...@gmail.com> wrote:
Evelyn:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Its always a challenge to see
if a position I have reached is defensible, or needs continued
consideration. Your thoughts have influenced me.
>My friend, if everyone waited till they thought they could truly
>afford children, there would be very few who had any.
There is some truth to this idea in that I know several couples
personally who are not having kids due to their pursuit of the
american dream (a spectacularly enormous mortgage). Some are renting
our parts of the house to off-set this.
>
>Child prostitution exists not only because of poverty, but because of
>sleazy and disturbed individuals who are attracted sexually to
>children.
I know I introduced this subject. I introduced it because some
documentary I saw indicated that the children are willingly following
this course of survival, but may be they are just crazy, street
children.
>
>Improperly cared for children foraging through garbage, exists not
>only through poverty, but also from the immaturity of adults, who
>should be caring for them better, but who are barely able to take care
>of themselves emotionally and practically, thus find the challenges of
>parenting to be too daunting a task.
These are the parents who should be preached to.
>
>There is no one cause of anything of course. It is too complex a
>problem. I agree that birth control would solve a great deal of it,
>but there is no way that it would end the suffering of children in
>general, nor would it stop those who are so immature and selfish that
>they never even consider the dangers of having unprotected sex, much
>less about the possible children their actions could create.
If a moral imperative could diminish suffering, it would be worth the
effort.
>
>Ignorance is probably the root of a lot of it.
true, ignorance of "If one can't afford children, one should not have
children"
>
>Do what you can in the world to help. Fix what you can, and be
>content that you have done something when others have turned away.
>It's really all you can do.
I'm hoping you will consider mentioning this simple rule to your
friends, among other things. :)
RFHall
wrote:
Dear Keynes:
>Should people give others bad advice?
no. Not purposely. What do you think?
>Is it their job to tell others what to do?
It is everyone's job to try to think of better ideas.
>Perhaps if they had the power, they would
>make others take their advice by law on pain
>of punishment.
Not by me.
>This would be presumptuous,
>from a person who feels himself wiser and
>better than others to such a point that it were
>his business to correct others without first
>correcting himself.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye?
Was that Buddha or Jesus? :)
>
>How good you must be, so without fault
>that you presume to guide others. You
>must believe that. No doubt you wonder
>why others cannot also perceive your
>greatness. They must be stupid.
>Or something.
The question is: do you see wisdom in the rule or not?
Do you understand the rule?
Have you heard this rule anywhere else?
Surely you have rules that you live by?
Where did these rules come from?
Julian
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Oh puleeze...! Not again!!!
AN EPIDEMIC TERROR of the end of the world has several times spread over
the nations.
The most remarkable was that which seized Christendom about the middle
of the tenth century.
Numbers of fanatics appeared in France, Germany, and Italy at that time,
preaching that the
thousand years prophesied in the Apocalypse as the term of the world's
duration were about
to expire, and that the Son of Man would appear in the clouds to judge
the godly and the ungodly.
The delusion appears to have been discouraged by the church, but it
nevertheless spread rapidly
among the people.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx5.html#Ch.5,%20Modern%20Prophecies
Keynes
>The question is: do you see wisdom in the rule or not?
I don't see any wisdom in you.
Arrogance, yes.
I do not see that the world ought to be ruled by economics.
Our present economic system is corrupt and totally unfair.
For instance, the $4 cup of starbuck's is a week's wages in
many parts of the world. Why is the sweat of americans
worth so much more than the blood of third worlders?
What is the justification for that inequality? It's simply
a quirk of commerce, and a very unfortunate one. So why
take commerce as our god? It leads us to hell on earth.
These days the chickens are coming home to roost.
American jobs and factories are going to low wage places
where the people are just as clever and hard working as
we can be. They work cheap and we don't. It's a fact that
americans can't afford to pay for american labor anymore.
We have denuded ourselves of all our assets for just a
temporary price advantage. We can no longer support
ourselves or maintain our high standard of living.
The distribution of wealth in the USA is as skewed as
it was in 1929. No country can't survive that sort of
inequity. Then to say that having a family must be
dependent on one's income (which has been brutally
suppressed and squeezed by the oligarchy) is just more
criminal economic thinking, not reason, not reasonable,
but blind self-satisfied arrogance by those who can afford
to think in those terms.
I think that those who want children ought to have them,
and those who don't want children ought not to be compelled
to have them. That means birth control, and abortion if
necessary. What we don't need are children who are unwanted
and unloved.
Children can always be supported. They can wear the skins
of bankers and CEO's, and eat their flesh. It would just be
a fair turn about, wouldn't it?
Evelyn
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:22:03 -0700 (PDT), Evelyn
>
It wasn't too long ago I had this discussion with my own son, who with
his wife, were considering whether or not to have children. My son
is an intelligent fellow, and his arguments covered all the same
points. I resolved his doubts with a single suggestion. I asked
him to take an informal poll of all his various friends who already
had children and ask them if they regretted it. Not a single one
did. They all swore that their children were the most precious and
valued beings in their lives. None would trade their kids for a
bigger house a smaller mortgage, a collection of toys or cars or
whatever. Not only did that say a great deal about my sons choice
of friends, but it also convinced my son that perhaps a child might
not be an altogether bad idea, even considering their financial
position, the state of the world today etc. etc. etc. Now, a mere
two years later, my new baby grand daughter is the joy of his life.
He has one of those "Ergo" baby carriers and the little one is carried
with him every minute when he is home doing this or that. They are
such wonderful and loving parents and they both are very happy they
decided to have her.
I think that if one puts too much effort on telling other people what
they should or should not do, one risks being ignored. Remember the
old adage about a "word to the wise" being sufficient. If one pushes
an idea one tends to get ignored. Those who are inclined to listen
and to decide things rationally will do so. Those who are hell bent
to run to their own destruction dragging all those who depend on them,
simply won't listen. Laws don't help much, religion doesn't help
much, people do what they are going to do ruled by their own ignorance
and conflicting emotions. It is the nature of human beings to do
so. It is what Buddha called "Samsara" and what moved him to try to
help us be more aware of our actions.
Human beings have been known to come from all sorts of circumstances,
and I can tell you that in my life and times I have seen wealthy
people who certainly could afford children, and who were horrible
parents, yet who raised good kids in spite of themselves. I have
also seen the reverse. I have also seen people who were poor, but
loved their children dearly and raised them to the best of their
ability and they turned out wonderful. I have seen rich kids, given
every advantage including love, who ran their lives into ruin. I
have seen kids who were very nearly street children, unwashed, unfed,
uncared for, who grew up to be wonderful productive caring members of
society.
There are no rules. Should's and shouldn'ts don't apply because
people don't listen. There is only yourself and what you personally
do with your own life.
Buddhism is all about personal responsibility and if one takes
personal responsibility for ones actions and ones life, and the
results of it, it is all you can do. Telling others what they should
and shouldn't do will quickly degenerate into exactly what the others
in this thread have been trying to explain to you. It comes down to
force when people don't do what you want them to do, and that is most
definitely not a good thing. Take a look at China with orphanages
filled with baby girls as people limited to one child, would often
prefer a son.
Better to realize that the big problem in the world is ignorance and
do your best to alleviate it. Be an example. Do whatever good you
can in this world. There are always wrongs to be righted and children
who are unwanted and circumstances that aren't fair. Don't torture
yourself, just do the best you can.
Evelyn
Noah Sombrero
> The wealthy becoming wealthier is nothing new. The possibility of you
> or I becoming wealthy is the same as many of these wealthy people. In
> the meantime, aren't you tired of seeing children born and starving in
> squalor?
I haven't been to Africa lately.
--
Noah Sombrero
possum
"RFHall" <real...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:488590d9...@news.seanet.com...
your position, as far as i can see it, is shouting the
message from every available rooftop.
the counter- reaction to attempted conditioning has already
been pointed out.
if there's more , spit it out. otherwise your position
remains, contrary to your claim that it is rarely mentioned,
in the same region as the pontificating on behaviours that
people should or should not do that you can hear wherever 2
or more self-satisfied people gather together, with nothing
to distinguish it, in spite of the trappings of a moral
imperative and a nominal philosophical basis, which
incidentally, gives every sign that in the event you
expounded it here, wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
no problem, we enjoy trolls here.
got anything else besides free trade and preaching?
possum
possum
"RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c89e7ff-1c74-48a3...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 2:27 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com>
> I said that
> authoritative repetition could have the result of
> thoughtless
> saying the
> poor do not have a right to live their lives or have
> families and so
> forth.
i think the proposition is that the poor SHOULD NOT exercise
their rights to have families, which is pretty semantic hair
splitting with regard to rights, which are in themselves, a
limited concept of the complex reality involved in this life
process.
>But if one cannot afford children... What do you
propose?
> Universal mothers allowance?
heheh! good one. we thought we could do better, but have
made a lot of mess.
smaller families tend to result in better off, better
educated societies, especially where the women are educated.
where do we want to be, and how do we get to there from
here? ('we' being humanity)
the 'should not' route is full of unpleasant pitfalls, and
the one thing the poorest and weakest get more than their
fair share of, is the brutally 'unpleasant'.
possum
> --
> RaaN
possum
> On Jul 21, 2:30 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>If one can't afford children, one should not have
>> >>>children.
>>
>> >>>This simple statement could be called a moral
>> >>>guideline. It seems
>> >>>extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely
>> >>>mentioned.
>>
>>
>> >>Do you propose to do anything other than whinge about
>> >>it
>> >>or are you, perhaps, yet another blustering coward?
>>
>> >It's just a matter of propagating the idea until it
>> >becomes part of
>> >the social morality so he has already done something
>> >about it.
>> >--
>> >RaaN
>>
>> already part of
>> the social morality, so perhaps you would prefer to live
>> in China or
>> other countries where the population is controlled by
>> force? You will
>> find that the places where such views are extant are ones
>> where
>> noncomformity is harshly punished, not the opposite as
>> you would like to
>> think.
>>
>
> And your world wide solution to overpopulation entails
> rampant
> procreation and everyone foots the bill?
raan, you do know it's possible for a woman to get pregnant
from having sex once, so i don't see that 'rampant' is at
all necessary, and it just makes you sound jealous. : )
as for everybody footing the bill, you could be on to
something there, because it seems to be that there are some
entities that are very adept at passing the bill on to
everybody else, and the system is set up that way.
possum
> --
> RaaN
possum
> On Jul 21, 2:31 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, realis...@seanet.com (RFHall)
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> >>>If one can't afford children, one should not have
>> >>>children.
>>
>> >>>This simple statement could be called a moral
>> >>>guideline. It seems
>> >>>extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely
>> >>>mentioned.
>>
>> >>could truly
>> >>afford children, there would be very few who had any.
>>
>> >>but because of
>> >>sleazy and disturbed individuals who are attracted
>> >>sexually to
>> >>children.
>>
>> >>exists not
>> >>only through poverty, but also from the immaturity of
>> >>adults, who
>> >>should be caring for them better, but who are barely
>> >>able to take care
>> >>of themselves emotionally and practically, thus find
>> >>the challenges of
>> >>parenting to be too daunting a task.
>>
>> >>too complex a
>> >>problem. I agree that birth control would solve a
>> >>great deal of it,
>> >>but there is no way that it would end the suffering of
>> >>children in
>> >>general, nor would it stop those who are so immature
>> >>and selfish that
>> >>they never even consider the dangers of having
>> >>unprotected sex, much
>> >>less about the possible children their actions could
>> >>create.
>>
>>
>> >>can, and be
>> >>content that you have done something when others have
>> >>turned away.
>> >>It's really all you can do.
>>
>>
>> >Also cut carbon emissions.. or do you suppose that to be
>> >another
>> >futile effort?
>> >--
>> >RaaN
>>
>> Although we are made of carbon, there is a slight
>> difference between a
>> carbon emission and a living being. They do not have the
>> same moral
>> issue at stake on the "cutting" side.
>>
>> Robert
>
> Actually it has a greater moral edge since refusal to cut
> carbon
> emissions will result in massive death.
what scale does death have to be on in order to matter?
google earth the amazon for example.
do we tell the indigenous people of the sparcely populated
rainforest that they are too relatively poor to have
children, and should die out, or move to the city slums,
where we really tut about them breeding, so that money can
be made out of logging, building roads for that purpose,
destroying and polluting the forest so that we can get cheap
garden furniture at our just in time supermarkets, and deny
them their universal mothers allowance with a shrug - too
bad, business is business?
possum
> --
> RaaN
>
possum
>>
>> >>>> If one can't afford children, one should not have
>> >>>> children.
>> >>>> This simple statement could be called a moral
>> >>>> guideline. It seems
>> >>>> extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely
>> >>>> mentioned.
>>
>>
>> >>> Do you propose to do anything other than whinge about
>> >>> it
>> >>> or are you, perhaps, yet another blustering coward?
>>
>> >> It's just a matter of propagating the idea until it
>> >> becomes part of
>> >> the social morality so he has already done something
>> >> about it.
>>
>> > the ones who
>> > want,
>> > and are prepared to take by hook or crook, more
>> > resources than they need?
>>
>> > were for such
>> > gluttons
>> > who want to stock pile excessive resources for
>> > themselves
>> > there would be no "poor."
>>
>> > have much
>> > effect on
>> > the usual bell curve of distribution... they never have
>> > in the past.
>> > There will always be poor so stop wimping out and start
>> > shooting and
>> > force-sterilising the "poor" for that is surely where
>> > you are heading.
>>
>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVql9RLP34
>>
>> and saviors who
>> grew up in poverty never should have been born - their
>> parents could not
>> afford them so off with them! They're out!!! Whoops!
>> There goes Abe
>> Lincoln...... never should have been born, that street
>> trash! Forget
>> about rags to riches - if you're in rags, you'll be
>> sterilized; you can
>> live your life in poverty alone. Maybe if one day you
>> can get enough
>> cash together to pay the fee to get a permission slip to
>> have kids
>> they'll reverse your "poverty vasectomy." Ah brave new
>> world.....
>>
>
> Is this reductio ad absurdum just another rhetorical and
> irrational
> exclamation?
it might seem so if you accept the 'affordability' premise
in terms of monetary wealth as the supreme value and
approach with pure logic.
possum
> --
> RaaN
>
Noel Friesen
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>
> This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
> extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>
> problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept
> children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or,
> hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise
> them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh
> commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in
> a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
>
> The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child
> prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could
> be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every
> religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the
> mind of every human on earth.
>
> People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the
> population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering
> sexual demands, they may be right.
>
> Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What?
> Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to
> watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of
> the world, then, no, they don't.
>
> RFHall
> http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
> philosophy based on evidence
Ahh, eugenics. Are you also proposing that wealthier children are more fit?
I'm thinking maybe conditions are too soft for wealthier families which has
to be allowing less competitive traits to propagate.
So here's my proposal: An exchange program where any wealthy family with
more than one child has to send at least one of their children to live in
the third world while hosting a child from another family in a poorer
nation.
It's win-win you see. Either the wealthier families genetic stock is forced
to compete and prove its viability or wealthier people will take more of an
interest in making sure the rest of the world is prosperous as well.
Julian
It's hard to get in the place is stuffed to the gunnels
with "welfare moms."
Noel Friesen
biased against you the strategic thing to do for you and yours is to have
more children whether you can afford them or not. Over time there will be
so many more of your kin than theirs the tables just might turn.
Prosperity does not mean nutrition. Prosperity is a working strategy which
may or may not include nutrition.
RaaN
It's not an extreme position. My parents were middle class and
managed to afford having 5 children without ever needing any charity
or governmental assistance, and you wouldn't consider them fat greedy
bastards, nor especially inbred. ...at least you'd better not. So get
over your ridiculous exaggerations and see the principle for what it
is. A sensible, rational, prudent and humane directive. To phrase it
another way: Do not have children until you can afford them. Now get
back to your incomprehensible scribbling already and let the adults
talk. :P
--
RaaN
RaaN
I said massive death, not total extermination. You really need to
learn to think in other then black and white terms.
--
RaaN
RaaN
The arrogance is your own if you seriously think you presented an
argument against the principle. What you have written has nothing to
do with the simple common sense principle that if one cannot afford
children one should not have them. Or should they just do what they
want regardless of the consequence and let the rest of society,
including others who can ill afford to do so, bear the burden and
responsibility of caring for their children? Certainly there are
gross inequities and all people very much ought to be able to afford
to have children, but this actually bears out the principle without
contradicting it.
--
RaaN
RaaN
When one has children one cannot in fact afford it is no longer a case
of it being only yourself and what you do with your life since it does
involve other people, charities and government assistance, to say
nothing of the fact that it concerns the child or children
themselves. Your son and his friends obviously could afford to have
children opting to trade off other luxuries so they still adhere to
the principle. Were your son and his partner unemployed and broke and
without prospect would you really still be so adamant that he choose
to go ahead and have a child he cannot afford and suppose that it is
entirely up to him and his partner without concern for the consequence
to the child and the society that must then bear that burden? Don't
those it affects the most have the right of a say in the matter or
especially in the case of the yet to be conceived child, to be
represented by more objective advocates? True it is important to
recognize the bigger problems in the world such that there are in fact
people who actually cannot afford to have children and certainly
should be able to. The only hope is rationality and enlightenment
as anything else simply serves to foster more ignorance and suffering.
--
RaaN
Julian
I must admit I'd be very inpressed if they managed to do that with out the
healthcare, education, and other infrastructure that society provides.
Julian
Yes, dear.
RaaN
> "RFHall" <realis...@seanet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:488590d9...@news.seanet.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:34 -0400, halfawake
It is all fine and dandy to claim the principle has a nominal
philosophical basis and that it does not stand up to scrutiny without
actually countering it with any relevant and non-fallacious argument.
So far there has not been one coherent argument against the principle
that the originator of the thread or indeed I have not been countered
as fallacious or irrelevant to the principle itself but that in some
cases actually bolstered it. Is it Trolling to expect rationality?
Had he encountered rational thinking individuals he would not have
encountered any argument but perhaps extensions of his position along
with possible factors to address those concerns that precipitate from
the subject. In fact that is just what he did get only it seems that
the respondents themselves have been unaware of it. Too much time
playing brain dead maybe. :)
--
RaaN
RaaN
Ah you are making sense and not bothering to try to argue the
principle as such. I heartily agree, there are "should"s that ought
to be attended to that could tend to make the should not irrelevant,
mainly that people "should" be able to afford to have children if they
want.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> "RFHall" <realis...@seanet.com> wrote in message
This is the kind of thing one should expect on a Zen board rather than
people taking troll bait and reacting with conditioned minds that can
be found anywhere else.
--
RaaN
possum
provided a link to his 'realistic idealism' website,
appended a 'philosophy based on evidence' sig, and proposes
a missionary advertizing blitz until the message has sunk
in. he has given a principle, a very thin method, and some
smoke and mirrors, and got the ng arguing. it's difficult
to counter what hasn't been put forward, and the onus is on
the troll. : )
going on the 'universal maxim' itself ( and isn't the word
'one' just a little unfortunate in the context of
procreation?) Ev has already pointed out that approaching
the question of whether to have a child rationally, results
for most people in the answer 'No' for most people...not
just on affordability either... list the pros and cons...it
doesn't work. people still decide to go ahead, and rejoice
in their decision afterwards.
it's not always a decision. these little ones have a way of
getting themselves born regardless...and when they do, guess
what? your rationality is,,,err,,, changed...
what do you suppose is going on there, really...?
going on this maxim, and that's all we're given to go on,
could have all sorts of nasty consequences if taken up
politically, as julian has pointed out - realistically,
people do what they 'should not do' and where do you go from
there?
who defines affordability, and what does it mean exactly?
that's a big question in itself...
and then there is the question of biological imperatives,
and practicalities. do you suppose somebody who can barely
afford to buy food will buy condoms or abstain? no food,
and no sex and no children because whitey says they
shouldn't, it's common sense and stands to reason?
realistically, in that position, i'd most likely say
fuck'em!
possum
possum
lol! i'm making sense for a change, _and_ we heartily
agree. : )
possum
RaaN
> "RaaN" <raan2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Realistically but not Ideally huh?
--
RaaN
duh
Your Spaceship go Faster...?
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g63sle$lei$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> back off, carbon being, back off.
>
> <zhrrrrrrrrrrrr.............> [that's the sound of my spaceship taking
> off]
>
> "wheeeeeeee!"
>
> you still here?
> oh, fuck off.
>
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = =
duh
Way Things Are...and Expects things to Be the Way He Wants them To
Be...until the Next time He thinks...!
"RaaN" <raan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
duh
Mind...When it comes to Serious Questions...!
"duh" <d...@huh.com> wrote in message
news:48854b5a$0$25527$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
> Julian...Why would You ask Such a Stupid Question...? You Know Damn Well
> that...RFucking Hall...can't Do Anything but Whine...Because He can't
> Afford to Buy Condoms!
>
> "Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KKadnevCR4KZPh7V...@bt.com...
>> RFHall wrote:
>>> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>>>
>>> This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
>>> extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>>
halfawake
>On Jul 22, 1:59 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RaaN wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 21, 2:27 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RaaN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 20, 4:25 pm, realis...@seanet.com (RFHall) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
>>>>>>extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>I don't wear my shoe on my knee.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and I said that
>>>authoritative repetition could have the result of thoughtless
>>>conformity to a new politically correct view.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, there is no reason to say that unless you think it is currently
>>happening, which I certainly don't. I don't see anyone repetitively
>>arguing that the poor should have as may kids as they like - or the
>>opposite for that matter. So why raise this? It is just a way of
>>distracting from the merits of the argument, whether that is your
>>intention or not. Better to argue on the merits, for better or worse.
>>
>>
>>
>>>No one is saying the
>>>poor do not have a right to live their lives or have families and so
>>>forth. But if one cannot afford children... What do you propose?
>>>Universal mothers allowance?
>>>--
>>>RaaN
>>>
>>>
>>I propose that people are free to make those decisions themselves and we
>>could talk about what is reasonable without the suggestion that people
>>should decide on whether or not to have a family based on their income -
>>as if a child was a commodity and that it would be fine to live one's
>>life without a family, that it is just a matter of practicality. Having
>>a family is not merely a pragmatic issue and can't be approached that way.
>>
>>I would agree that if someone can't afford basic necessities having a
>>lot of children would be unreasonable. But I would not run around
>>making generalities about who should or shouldn't have kids.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = = = = = = =
>>
>>
>
>Instead you run around making generalizations about how anyone should
>have the right to have children ignoring the pragmatic consequences
>and calling anyone a moron who sees the pragmatic concern as the most
>important one when it comes to questions of life and death.
>--
>RaaN
>
>
the question is *whose* concern. I would maintain that the freedom to
think for oneself and make decisions is paramount over the pedantic
considerations of those who would like to control others' most personal
choices, pry into their bedrooms and their bank accounts and preach to
them from on high. BTW, you exaggerate your case when you say that I
call *anyone* a moron who see "the pragmatic concern as the most
important one." I only called one person a moron, and that was because
of his attitude as much as his content. I also think it is being too
kind to characterize this particular topic as a "pragmatic concern." It
DOES amount pragmatically to espousing the doctrine that poor people
should not have families. That is onerous no matter how you try to
slice or perfume it.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
halfawake
>On Jul 22, 2:19 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RaaN wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 21, 2:30 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RaaN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 20, 4:41 pm, Julian <julianlz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>RFHall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
>>>>>>>extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>snip sob story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you propose to do anything other than whinge about it
>>>>>>or are you, perhaps, yet another blustering coward?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It's just a matter of propagating the idea until it becomes part of
>>>>>the social morality so he has already done something about it.
>>>>>--
>>>>>RaaN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>There are plenty of countries where that sort of view is already part of
>>>>the social morality, so perhaps you would prefer to live in China or
>>>>other countries where the population is controlled by force? You will
>>>>find that the places where such views are extant are ones where
>>>>noncomformity is harshly punished, not the opposite as you would like to
>>>>think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Robert
>>
>>= = = = = = =
>>
>>
>
>This doesn't address the basic principle that if one cannot afford
>children one should not have them.
>
It's not a principle, it's merely an opinion, and an onerous one in mine.
>The principle does not preclude
>socio-economic change and the effort toward a more equal and
>prosperous society but even in such a society one who cannot afford
>children should not have children.
>
Your opinion only, not a fact.
>Naturally when one can afford
>children it no longer applies. You are speaking of how all people how
>want to should be able to afford to have children and from this it can
>be inferred that you agree at least until one can afford children one
>should not have children.
>--
>RaaN
>
>
I do not agree. Many couples start out poor but take a track on which
they expect to raise their children and raise their standard of living
at the same time. If they waited until they were sure they could afford
it, it would often be too late to have a family. And there are other
considerations to having children than economic ones. Your view is
amazingly cold-hearted. It is not the way I see the world.
halfawake
>On Jul 22, 2:12 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RaaN wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 21, 2:28 pm, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>RaaN wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 20, 6:06 pm, halfawake <halfaw...@nonewsisgoodnews.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>RFHall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This simple statement could be called a moral guideline. It seems
>>>>>>>extremely reasonable and rational, yet it is rarely mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Perhaps, in antiquity, having children one couldn't afford was never a
>>>>>>>problem. There was probably always room for the extra, unkept
>>>>>>>children in the slave markets, the streets, the sex mongers, or,
>>>>>>>hopefully, the families who were afluent enough to properly raise
>>>>>>>them. It still would have been advantageous if this were the eleventh
>>>>>>>commandment, or something Buddha talked about, or even, a footnote in
>>>>>>>a parable of Jesus. At any rate, one doesn't see it then, or now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The implications of this simple rule are enormous. Starvation, child
>>>>>>>prostitution, poverty, crime, human suffering, all these things could
>>>>>>>be drastically reduced if this simple rule were shouted from every
>>>>>>>religous and secular media till it became common sense and reached the
>>>>>>>mind of every human on earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People will say that this goal is impossible. If one imagines the
>>>>>>>population on earth to be little better than animals with overpowering
>>>>>>>sexual demands, they may be right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Other people will say this is descriminatory toward the poor. What?
>>>>>>>Poor people don't have the right to have children? Unless you wish to
>>>>>>>watch children shuffling and suffering through the garbage dumps of
>>>>>>>the world, then, no, they don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>RFHall
>>>>>>>http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
>>>>>>>philosophy based on evidence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>***moron alert!***
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>robert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Good of you to warn us about yourself especially if you consider that
>>>>>any kind of an argument.
>>>>>--
>>>>>RaaN
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>no, I don't consider it an argument, I consider it an exclamation
>>>>against something that I find abhorrent. I don't have to rationally
>>>>justify every reaction I have, especially when the cause is obvious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Very funny. It seems more obvious that if a person cannot afford
>>>children they should not have them. Calling anyone a moron for this
>>>seems to make you the real moron since it is almost a truism. And of
>>>course you don't have to rationally justify your reaction just as I
>>>suppose a person who cannot afford a child should have to justify
>>>expecting the rest of society to pay them for having children. Having
>>>children as a means to make a living off the government seems to me to
>>>be much more abhorrent.
>>>--
>>>RaaN
>>>
>>>
>>This feeds off the popular myth that there are thousands of poor lazy
>>people running around purposely having kids to get free money from the
>>government. Most poor people want to better their lot and take care of
>>their children and to use a left-field image like that to tar the poor
>>as lazy and corrupt when in fact the it is the greedy corporate pigs who
>>can't stop stealing all the wealth through unfair influence over
>>government and won't allow those lower down to have an even playing
>>field. The money is moving upwards as it always has, not being siphoned
>>off by crafty poor people. Reagan and Thatcher and their corrupt ilk
>>spread the false filthy image of greedy lazy poor people ripping off the
>>government. It's mostly bullshit, and harkens back to the social
>>lineage of Marie Antoinette, the lazy royalty and their descendents the
>>robber barons. The poor as always are turning the gears for the wealthy
>>and getting little of the reward.
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>
>Myth you say. I think you might be appalled at what you find if you
>look.
>
"...if I look?" I grew up in poor neighborhoods. My father's parents
were exceedingly poor. I lived through what you would prevent with your
cold-hearted view - families bettering themselves AND their children
through hard work, even though they started off with the odds against
them. You on the other hand clearly have no idea what you are talking
about, or else your view is skewed by your absolutist philosophy. I
know from seeing it in front of my eyes both the bad and noble ends of
the spectrum of living the working-class lifestyle. Most of the
families I grew up with could not afford all the things they wanted or
needed. A lot of families did without. And yet those people had a lot
more nobility than the careless people who don't have to ever worry
about money.
>Regardless of why it is happening it does happen and it is
>hardly a foundation for quality parenting when children are seen as
>commodities.
>
That is how YOU are looking at them, not their parents. I never saw
that in the poor neighborhoods my family lived in. NEVER. There are a
few examples of this that show up in the newspapers and in conservative
political speeches, but they are very rare in the real neighborhoods in
which people struggle daily to get by.
>True the opportunities are not plentiful but does that
>justify creating a greater burden on society and rearing children to
>suffer? Certainly social and economic change is necessary and that in
>order for people to be able to afford children. You have yet to
>present an argument that actually refutes the principle.
>--
>RaaN
>
>
The principle itself is wrong, that is why it cannot be refuted. It is
just an opinion and cannot be backed up or refuted except by more opinion.
halfawake
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:50:00 +0100, Julian <julia...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Julian:
>
>
>>So you agree that the only people that should breed are the ones who want,
>>and are prepared to take by hook or crook, more resources than they need?
>>
>>
>I see it as: to raise a child, one must feed, clothe, and educate the
>child. These are resources one needs.
>
>
>>There is plenty for everyone on this planet and if it were for such
>>gluttons who want to stock pile excessive resources for themselves
>>there would be no "poor."
>>
>>
>The debatable part of this questionable tangent is the problem of
>delivery of resources to the poor. The other side of this coin is the
>decreasing resources that will become available to you, Julian. Have
>you noticed the price of gas?
>
>
you blame that on the poor and not the oil companies? Get your head out
of your ass.
>>Further I see no reason why "social moralities" should have much effect on
>>the usual bell curve of distribution... they never have in the past.
>>There will always be poor so stop wimping out and start shooting and
>>force-sterilising the "poor" for that is surely where you are heading.
>>
>>
>nope. I don't think that is a penalty for even child molesters or
>child abusers who are parents. Would that come to your mind?
halfawake
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:36:22 -0400, halfawake <epste...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>robert:
>
>
>>Not to mention the fact that quite a few of our geniuses and saviors who
>>grew up in poverty never should have been born - their parents could not
>>afford them so off with them! They're out!!! Whoops! There goes Abe
>>Lincoln...... never should have been born, that street trash! Forget
>>about rags to riches - if you're in rags, you'll be sterilized; you can
>>live your life in poverty alone. Maybe if one day you can get enough
>>cash together to pay the fee to get a permission slip to have kids
>>they'll reverse your "poverty vasectomy." Ah brave new world.....
>>
>>
>I doubt if a moral imperative can work retroactively. Abe was fed,
>clothed, and educated as were all other geniuses and saviors (?) I can
>think of. The angst that you are displaying in response to this
>simple, and reasonable rule isn't uncommon and is indicative of the
>small amount of thought which has been given to it.
>
>
>http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
>Realistic Idealism
>Philosophy based on evidence.
>
>
I'm just against facist principles in general, such as social control of
the people by the wealthy and powerful.
herbzet
RFHall wrote:
> If one can't afford children, one should not have children.
Right -- one should get an abortion.
--
hz
halfawake
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:19:16 -0400, halfawake <epste...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>robert:
>
>
>>I hope you're enjoying putting words in my mouth. No, my solution is to
>>start by looking at an entire social order that is sick and unfair, and
>>then see what the real causes of problems are, without taking away the
>>rights of people to live their lives.
>>
>>
>I knew you were more than the *moron alert* that you started with.
>
>
>>Most people who can't afford to
>>take care of their family would logically restrict their family to one
>>or two kids. It is the conversatives and religious authorities who
>>promote large families among the poor for their own ideological reasons
>>- whether it is divine dictum or anti-birth control.
>>
>>
>There, you have let the cat out of the bag. A moral imperative,
>opposite to my suggestion, and its influence on the world without
>forcing anyone to do anything.
>
>
>
>>If people were
>>allowed to rise to a higher level instead of the wealthy becoming
>>increasingly exponentially wealthier in our system, this problem would
>>correct itself.
>>
>>
>The wealthy becoming wealthier is nothing new. The possibility of you
>or I becoming wealthy is the same as many of these wealthy people. In
>the meantime, aren't you tired of seeing children born and starving in
>squalor?
>
>
>
>>IIn the meantime, education, job creation. job training,
>>enterprise zones, and many other positive forces can be created which
>>are well known that would create niches for the whole society to
>>gradually rise up and afford their own expenses. This was happening in
>>the U.S. for years until Reagan got hold of the reigns and destroyed the
>>liberal social system that allowed each generation to do better than the
>>one before. Newt Gingrich continued his sick disestablishment of the
>>middle class support system and job opportunities for mid-level earners,
>>and we have verged on third-world disparate incomes ever since.
>>
>>
>What? You don't want to share the worlds wealth with everyone?
>
>
>>When I was growing up you could have an absolute expectation that if you
>>worked hard you would get promotions in decent jobs and gradually raise
>>the level at which your family lived and each generation would climb a
>>bit higher. No more.
>>
>>
>What planet was that on. robert. robert. robert. When the resources
>of the world are shared (free trade) the wealthy (you) are going to
>have to surrender something. Two families to a house? One parent
>stays home to raise the kids? Have a few of wives?
>
>
>
No; a reasonable contribution from the wealthy and the corporate
benefactors of our natural resources and labor would allow the continued
training and upward mobility of all classes of society and the world.
What planet are YOU on? What I said above was absolutely true in the
50s through the 70s in the U.S. and only halted when Reagan and his
cronies stopped funding the public sector. If you aren't in touch with
this reality, that's not my fault. Go read a book and stop talking out
of your ass.
halfawake
lord, yes.
robert
- - - - - -
halfawake
>halfbaked...when You say..."you still here? oh, fuck off"...Does that Make
>Your Spaceship go Faster...?
>
>
doesn't hurt.
robert
=========================
RaaN
It may seem that way to you but...
> It seems that...The Great Zen Master RaaN...Is having Trouble Accepting the
> Way Things Are...and Expects things to Be the Way He Wants them To
> Be...until the Next time He thinks...!
>
> <RaaN...@notmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > This is the kind of thing one should expect on a Zen board rather than
> > people taking troll bait and reacting with conditioned minds that can
> > be found anywhere else.
> > --
> > RaaN
...it may actually be self referential.
--
RaaN
RaaN
That's just you projecting and characterizing again, as well as self
admittedly reacting due to some prior bias. The principle is sound
and does not imply that poor people need remain poor as if being poor
were a necessary life condition by which a person may be intrinsically
identified. Add to the principle this: No one should have to be so
poor as not to be able to afford to have children. There really is no
argument here. I have not sliced nor perfumed anything. You are
weaving straw men and getting righteously indignant at them to no
avail. I hope I've already said enough on this subject not to feel
the need to deal with your particular psychological difficulty in this
matter.
--
RaaN
RaaN
Often children are put to work at a young age in poverty stricken
families and that is an example of treating children as commodities.
Another example is how I see for myself far too many unwed teen
mothers who continue to have even more children in order to secure
housing and social assistance. They can't afford to have children but
the government and local charities do. Are we to suppose that form
these families will sprout well adjusted noble heroic individuals?
What is more likely? As to the rest of your account moving as it may
be it really only serves to illustrate why one should not have
children one cannot afford regardless of supposedly compensatory
sentimental and nostalgic rewards of supposed nobility by fellowship
in suffering. Virtue certainly is not the exclusive quality of the
poor nor is being poor a necessary factor and the opposite may be just
as likely if not moreso. Heroes and noble sentiments can be found at
all levels of economic wealth as can camaraderie and mutual support
just as their opposites. If one wants a family one can apply the same
diligence to see to it one can at least afford one however humbly and
without demanding or expecting society take responsibility for ones
own decision.
> >True the opportunities are not plentiful but does that
> >justify creating a greater burden on society and rearing children to
> >suffer? Certainly social and economic change is necessary and that in
> >order for people to be able to afford children. You have yet to
> >present an argument that actually refutes the principle.
> >--
> >RaaN
>
> The principle itself is wrong, that is why it cannot be refuted. It is
> just an opinion and cannot be backed up or refuted except by more opinion.
>
> Robert
You could say the same of any moral principle thus implying that your
moral principle that having children is a right that should not be
refuted on the basis of economics is itself merely another opinion.
Since that is your position there is no further discussion possible.
However it is plainly obvious if you agree that human suffering is to
be prevented that it is not merely a matter of opinion to make a case
from that having thus agreed on what may also be a matter of opinion.
It is doubtful that you disagree that human suffering is to be
prevented so there is foundation upon which argument can be built.
Your admonishment then that the principle I refer to as such is merely
a matter of opinion is without merit. Your typifying my position as
an absolutist philosophy even less so. And the idea that I am cold
hearted does not even merit a retort. Once again you are resorting to
your manipulative rhetorical quarreling tricks instead of debating
rationally. You really should be ashamed but then that's just my
opinion I suppose. :P
--
RaaN
RFHall
wrote:
robert:
If you have this reaction, I'm sure there are others with the similar
reaction. I think its a wild, over reaction, and I'll tell you why.
>
>I did not say that it was obvious that I was right; just that it was
>obvious what I was reacting to; and obvious that I had a strong reaction
>to it. Why does this person feel the need to come out and make a
>statement like this, as if he is on high and he can look down upon the
>poor and dictate right and wrong to them.
No one is looking down on the poor. Many "poor" people can feed,
clothe, and educate their children. If being concerned about
starving, poverty stricken, diseased children is being "on high", then
I would be guilty (sic).
>I think it's sick, and it
>smacks of real discrimination against those who are born into difficult
>circumstances.
Nothing will be withheld from people who can't afford children. This
is a voluntary program like following any rule that makes sense.
>One gets very close to saying that "those who are
>inferior shouldn't be allowed to breed." To me his attitude is on the
>border of that, if not masking that very view, and the smell of it makes
>me ill.
You will have to explain your use of the word "inferior". You are
opposed to a moral imperative due to your fear that it will become
law. I certainly would not recommend that. The purpose of this
imperative is to be in opposition to the moral imperative that
"everyone go forth and multiply and the Lord will provide". The Lord
isn't always providing, apparently.
>
>My own grandfather on my father's side escaped a murderous government in
>turn-of-century Ukraine and managed to make it to the U.S. by ship with
>practically no possessions.
Apparently your Grandfather had enough resources to pay for this
journey and have some left over when he arrived.
>He worked hard and made just enough to
>survive but did have the temerity to have and raise a family.
Apparently he didn't leave your father starving, naked, or uneducated.
> If he had
>followed the pragmatic prejudice of our local pedant, my father would
>not have been born and neither would I.
I think your Grandfather, your father, and yourself were born with
great anticipation and preparation.
>My father managed to grow up to
>become a front rifle scout in WW II and one of the first to liberate
>parts of France and Germany from the Nazis, so I guess it is okay that
>he came into this world. The anti-poor philosophy is personal to me.
It is not an anti-poor philosophy.. however, you are using it as a
springboard for your own philosophical position. You have left the
point. It isn't a matter of being poor, or inferior. "Not being able
to afford a child" is poor, but "poor" doesn't mean not being able to
afford a child. "Not being able to afford a child" does not mean
someone is inferior. Two talented teenagers in junior high should not
be encouraged to have children.
>The "American Dream" which has nothing but a shadow left of it, was
>created by millions of poor immigrants who believed they could come here
>and create a better life for the next generation even though they were
>poor. And they did.
Responsibility should be part of the dream of humanity. Parental
responsibility is all I am suggesting.
RFHall
<evely...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Buddhism is all about personal responsibility and if one takes
>personal responsibility for ones actions and ones life, and the
>results of it, it is all you can do.
All I'm asking is parental responsibility.
>Better to realize that the big problem in the world is ignorance and
>do your best to alleviate it.
This is why I'm promoting:" If one can't afford children, one should
not have children."
You heard it here first.
Julian
And don't the poor suffer enough already without having to be faced
with a long and lonely old age with no one to care for them?
Julian
> Julian...Your non Reply must Mean.You're an Expert at the Art of Zen No
> Mind...When it comes to Serious Questions...!
Is that.... Doh!
Julian
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Evelyn
> <evely...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Buddhism is all about personal responsibility and if one takes
>> personal responsibility for ones actions and ones life, and the
>> results of it, it is all you can do.
> All I'm asking is parental responsibility.
That is too much to demand...
what make you think you are owed anything whatsoever?
You want people to come down hard on those with nothing
and yet here you are (presumably not with nothing)
asking for yet more from others.
Julian
You are neglecting, by accident or design, the huge benefit that the
poor provide to the rich. Without a substantial supply of poor people
wages for the menial and grusome tasks that the rich want performing
for them would rise in accordance with the supply/demand market thingy.
I suspect that any profit the rich gain from exterminating people who have
the misfortune to require assistace would be matched, perhaps even exceded,
by the greater cost of the grunt labour they wish to purchase.
On at least one occasion, the black death in Britain, when vast numbers
of poor perished, wage inflation for labour went balistic casuing the rich
untold grief... since the poor were then able to more than just a
subsistence
and horror or horrors... began to accumulate wealth of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt
You should learn from history unless you want to repeat it.
Julian
And another thing.. in the UK, for example, vastly disproportionate
ammounts of the national wealth and land are in the hands of a very
few people whose total effort in obtaining it ammounts to them having
the great (mis?)fortune to be born of ancestors who were merely the most
sucessful, violent, thieves from millenia ago. I think there is an equally
valid (ie. invalid) case to be made that they and their DNA is, at best,
superflous.
Keynes
>RaaN wrote:
>
>>True the opportunities are not plentiful but does that
>>justify creating a greater burden on society and rearing children to
>>suffer? Certainly social and economic change is necessary and that in
>>order for people to be able to afford children. You have yet to
>>present an argument that actually refutes the principle.
>>--
>>RaaN
>>
Burden on society?
Who is a burden - one who has too little,
or one who has too much? Who is the parasite
but the one taking the shares of hundreds or thousands
for himself? The poor are poor by design of the rich.
It's their plan. And they have the gall to piss on the
poor for their lack of sustenance. If you're looking
for careless, ignorant, spitefully hateful character,
look to the rich. They are the destroyers of the
peace of society.
halfawake
yes, I'm biased in favor of advocating for the permanent underclass
created by greedy corporations and soulless rich people, rather than
punishing the poor and wagging my finger at them.
>The principle is sound
>and does not imply that poor people need remain poor as if being poor
>were a necessary life condition by which a person may be intrinsically
>identified. Add to the principle this: No one should have to be so
>poor as not to be able to afford to have children. There really is no
>argument here. I have not sliced nor perfumed anything. You are
>weaving straw men and getting righteously indignant at them to no
>avail. I hope I've already said enough on this subject not to feel
>the need to deal with your particular psychological difficulty in this
>matter.
>--
>RaaN
>
>
you can ignore my psychology altogether, in fact I would fuckin
appreciate it. just deal with the issue or drop it.
robert
halfawake
you know this for a fact? you interviewed them all? where did you SEE
them....?
I am not in favor of teens having kids at all for any reason. I am
talking about poor families, people who are married and want to have a
family. If you are talking about real or imaginary teens who want to
live off the state - which I think is a greatly overexaggerated category
- I think their parents, or whoever else is around should keep them
under control. That is a totally different issue, as they are minors.
So let's keep it straight, okay?
Your straw man is wearing out. That was not the original topic - it was
whether "people who can't afford children should have them," not whether
teens should get pregnant and have kids at a young age. Obviously I am
not in favor of that, and have not been talking about that.
For God's sake.
Robert
========================
halfawake
for sure; this view seems to want to take the poor out of the world
altogether, by not allowing them to have families.
robert
= = = = = = = =
RaaN
This is a conflation of the subject. It is not a matter of poor
versus rich, it is a matter of affording ones own children.
Incidentally your typification of the wealthy as careless, ignorant
and spitefully hateful is itself ignorant, careless and spitefully
hateful. Either you are rich or the wealthy have no monopoly on these
traits.
--
RaaN