Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2015, 03:20 PM
 
Location: North America
14,204 posts, read 12,290,712 times
Reputation: 5565

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
Don't agree with that. The human race will die if it is not maintained. Birth rates are at a historical low in the western world and thus society needs to make sure that having kids isn't seen as a waste of time and money by most people. Don't get me wrong, there should be limits to how much parents are paid, but there is a huge difference between making it easier for responsible parents to raise their kids and subsidizing social ills like single parenting.
Adding incentives to make people have more kids has been failing since Augustus. Even the Chinese after they have relaxed their one child policy cannot seem to get people to have more children. I don't see that changing anytime soon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
If single parents are not paid child benefit, people will think twice before making themsevles into one. I am also sick and tired of this "think of the children" bull**** that these people keep hiding behind. I AM thinking of the children, by trying to prevent them from being raised by single parents who aren't as likely to take care of them. I would also argue that consistent failure to take care of your kids is a form of child neglect and that such parents should not have kids anyway. Have child protection take their kids, they won't be worse off then they would have been with the parents considering that the parent could not even afford them anyway or pissed the money away.

Like they did in the past? Logic never trumps biology. Don't kid yourself, they will still have those kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2015, 03:55 PM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,765 posts, read 2,794,508 times
Reputation: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin View Post
I am not really sure what any of what you just said has anything to do with single parenting. Are you saying some relationships fall a part because people can be ugly?
Yes and a myriad of reasons. Your law would discriminate against the differently attractive.

What if nobody wants to be with you?

But I guess you don't have that trouble so you can't conceive of that kind of suffering?

And so you want to make law to make people feel even worse about being alone.

Do you ever think of anyone but yourself?

Do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Inyokern, CA
1,609 posts, read 1,080,007 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
Yes and a myriad of reasons. Your law would discriminate against the differently attractive.

What if nobody wants to be with you?

But I guess you don't have that trouble so you can't conceive of that kind of suffering?

And so you want to make law to make people feel even worse about being alone.

Do you ever think of anyone but yourself?

Do you?
I totally reject your position/interpretation...whatever!

Some of the most beautiful people I know are not attractive to the human eye's first sight. They are beautiful inside as a terrific human being. Surface looks are just a shallow and first attraction. An intelligent person will see the beauty of the real person within. It is when you get to know a person you find that beauty. One even has to look within at the most attractive, first appearance person. Some of them are not worth taking a second look. If one rejects because of surface looks...that person can go look elsewhere and find another shallow person that's probably not worth much.

Whether handsome, beautiful or not attractive, it is the person within that must be evaluated...not the surface of any person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,765 posts, read 2,794,508 times
Reputation: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
I totally reject your position/interpretation...whatever!

Some of the most beautiful people I know are not attractive to the human eye's first sight. They are beautiful inside as a terrific human being. Surface looks are just a shallow and first attraction. An intelligent person will see the beauty of the real person within. It is when you get to know a person you find that beauty. One even has to look within at the most attractive, first appearance person. Some of them are not worth taking a second look. If one rejects because of surface looks...that person can go look elsewhere and find another shallow person that's probably not worth much.

Whether handsome, beautiful or not attractive, it is the person within that must be evaluated...not the surface of any person.
So your law will be "Make someone stay with you or fall in love with you or be punished by society."

Brilliant plan, Einstein! That doesn't discriminate against anyone! Not!

This is why this planet is doomed!

Edit: Whoops. I thought you were the OP. Disregard the reference to "your law".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Inyokern, CA
1,609 posts, read 1,080,007 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankapotomus View Post
So your law will be "Make someone stay with you or fall in love with you or be punished by society."

Brilliant plan, Einstein! That doesn't discriminate against anyone! Not!

This is why this planet is doomed!

Edit: Whoops. I thought you were the OP. Disregard the reference to "your law".
Egads! Do you understand the English language. How in the world did you screw that up so badly.:s mack:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 04:44 PM
 
Location: The Island of Misfit Toys
2,765 posts, read 2,794,508 times
Reputation: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Egads! Do you understand the English language. How in the world did you screw that up so badly.:s mack:
What do you mean?

The point is, the OP's would be unfair to people who can't find people to fall in love with them.

Also, what someone wants to be alone? What if they have a social issue and mental health issue? The OP is not thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 04:53 PM
 
4,983 posts, read 3,293,592 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by springazure View Post
Instead of punishing the single mom that CHOOSE HER CHILDREN??? How about punishing the non-existent fathers???? I can say that as a 20+yr single Mom, who now has 4 Adult Sons.
Her body her choice" stop blaming men or society because you can't afford the kid you CHOOSE to give birth to.

Women's rights and all that equality bull****.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 05:15 PM
 
10,029 posts, read 10,898,757 times
Reputation: 5946
We need to punish both. First, make welfare like unemployment where there is a limit and people have to take anything. In the case of single parents, after a second child born on welfare you are sterilized. This goes to both parents. We also need to stop glamorizing having kids without being married. It's a sin to have multiple kids with multiple people and instead of accepting it, not allow it. In the case of baby daddies, castrate them and put them to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Inland FL
2,532 posts, read 1,867,649 times
Reputation: 4234
Only married couples should be eligible for child benefits. Doing so would lower rates of illegitimacy and single parent households.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2015, 07:16 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,388,318 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou View Post
We need to punish both. First, make welfare like unemployment where there is a limit and people have to take anything. In the case of single parents, after a second child born on welfare you are sterilized. This goes to both parents. We also need to stop glamorizing having kids without being married. It's a sin to have multiple kids with multiple people and instead of accepting it, not allow it. In the case of baby daddies, castrate them and put them to work.
Welfare actually DOES have a 5 year lifetime limit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top