Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of that you can get with 2 kids, and the rest of it is either untrue or doesn't make sense. I remember your last thread of this kind. I believe it went from thinly veiled racism to blatant racism and was closed.
I remember your last thread of this kind. I believe it went from thinly veiled racism to blatant racism and was closed.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't remember starting any thread on this topic that was closed, and I certainly never spouted any racism. If you're calling me a racist, prove it or apologize.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't remember starting any thread on this topic that was closed, and I certainly never spouted any racism. If you're calling me a racist, prove it or apologize.
Perhaps it was a different poster with a VERY similar philosophy. I don't have time to look right now. If it wasn't you, sorry.
Because natural population growth comes with familial, cultural, and often religious obligations. It comes in the context of pre-existing relationships that make people happy and secure. That's a good thing and makes for a stronger society. Immigrants do not generally share family ties with the natives, nor do they feel any special solidarity with them, or responsibilities towards them.
Once again, I'm not arguing against immigration per se - there are valid reasons to favor certain kinds of immigration - but it's a poor substitute for natural population replacement and growth.
You also don't share any of those with your neighbors either. Seems like a poor analogy if you ask me. The fact is in the end the point is moot, until we can learn to either grow children outside of the womb for the sole purpose of making up for population loss or peoples life spans alter vastly to the fact having 3-4 kids will not be such a big deal, then population numbers will continue to fall. Kid's are not longer a financial investment but a massive financial burden and it makes wanting more then 1 or 2 on average non desirable.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't remember starting any thread on this topic that was closed, and I certainly never spouted any racism. If you're calling me a racist, prove it or apologize.
I'm afraid you're going to have to take this to the next level. First, look up the word "family". Then look up the word "culture". Each of these will give you several definitions from which to choose. Then, from the context of this discussion, make an educated guess in each case as to which of those definitions is the most relevant. Once that determination has been made, put the words together in order to form a separate and distinct concept. Make sure to get the order right: "culture" is modified by "family", not the reverse. Let me know what you come up with.
Meh, no thanks. If the OP of a thread can't be bothered to help out an interested participant, I'm not too into doing it either.
You also don't share any of those with your neighbors either. Seems like a poor analogy if you ask me.
I certainly do share those things with my neighbors - at least with some of my neighbors. And I share all of those relationships with any children I might have. That's the point. If we're going to add population to the country, a native born child has all of those connections to someone already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty
The fact is in the end the point is moot, until we can learn to either grow children outside of the womb for the sole purpose of making up for population loss or peoples life spans alter vastly to the fact having 3-4 kids will not be such a big deal, then population numbers will continue to fall. Kid's are not longer a financial investment but a massive financial burden and it makes wanting more then 1 or 2 on average non desirable.
This is nonsense. Family size is a cultural thing. It's a matter of how a society values children and family vis-a-vis other cultural goods. That has changed before and it will change again. We're fairly prosperous today: the time to increase the birthrate is in a time of prosperity. If instead we are forced to do it as a result of getting thrown back into a subsistence agrarian society, then we've missed our chance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
