patrick.net

ch_tah2 says

I agree in theory. The problem is in practice, you are essentially telling the poor that they cannot have children.

Problems in implementation can be dealt with by improving the implementation. They are not obstacles that cannot be overcome.

Nor does this mean that poor people cannot ever become parents. It means that the poor, the bipolar, the homeless, etc. must get their together before becoming a parent. I have no problem with anti-poverty programs designed to address the root causes of poverty and to get people permanently out of poverty. I'm more than willing to pay taxes for that as I have stated many times.

ch_tah2 says

Furthermore, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. Thus, your licensing scheme is racist. Who knew you were such a raging racist, Dan?

That's called race baiting, and it's a sign of a weak position.

There was a case where standardized testing for fire fighters resulted in white, typically Irish, men being promoted because they did substantially better on the tests. The entire purpose of the test was to eliminate any bias and make the test fair and objective. But the city demoted the men afterwards because the city didn't get the results they wanted. This was morally wrong, legally discriminating against the white fire fighters on the basis of race, and it endangered the community by promoting unqualified people instead. Put simply, the city was being racist trying not to be racist.

Seeking race-specific results is racism. Having a level playing field is not. And yes, I'm a "fucking white male" and anyone who has a problem with that is a bigot. I don't care about race. I care about results. And equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are mutually exclusive. I will always pick the former.

FP says

Dan8267 says

, you lose an argument and declare victory.

You realize that I can say the same, right?

Yes, but in your case you would be wrong.

FP says

Please do not equate engineers to scientists (and by this I mean physicists). Entirely different way of thinking.

Not really. The work environment and length of time spent on projects differs vastly between scientists and engineers, but people in both fields tend to have similar world views, curiosity, and interests.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Furthermore, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. Thus, your licensing scheme is racist. Who knew you were such a raging racist, Dan?

That's called race baiting, and it's a sign of a weak position.

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

ch_tah2 says

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids licensing parenting just like there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Child Protective Services from taking children away from unfit parents. You might want to argue that there should be, but there is not. And even if there were, the Constitution can and sometimes should be amended.

Just because something is Constitutional does not mean it should be, and just because something is Unconstitutional doesn't mean it should be. The Constitution is not a religious book. It can be changed for the better.

Tom Woods interviews Paul Elam at this link

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/9/3/3/933441722ffa011e/woods_2017_01_24.mp3?c_id=13970865&expiration=1485295518&hwt=533849a4e62d106756c162d3bc8c7b39

Should I paste the transcript?

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids licensing parenting just like there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Child Protective Services from taking children away from unfit parents. You might want to argue that there should be, but there is not. And even if there were, the Constitution can and sometimes should be amended.

Just because something is Constitutional does not mean it should be, and just because something is Unconstitutional doesn't mean it should be. The Constitution is not a religious book. It can be changed for the better.

Actually, there are probably several amendments to the Constitution that your licensing scheme violates, but I was specifically referring to your plan which would disproportionately affect poor minorities. It's just ironic considering you seem to blame the white man for so many things, and then here you come and your plan would effectively wipe out a good percentage of minorities.

Dan8267 says

FP says

Please do not equate engineers to scientists (and by this I mean physicists). Entirely different way of thinking.

Not really. The work environment and length of time spent on projects differs vastly between scientists and engineers, but people in both fields tend to have similar world views, curiosity, and interests.

Still, they have different way thinking, different way of approaching problems.

FP says

Still, they have different way thinking, different way of approaching problems.

That has nothing to do with my original statement that you attempted to and failed to refute.

Dan8267 says

Scientists and engineers value curiosity, and that is a quality young children have. It's not the same thing as immaturity. Scientists and engineers still debate things at an adult level. Refute the central point of your opponent with evidence and reasoning. In value debates, make compelling arguments that your values are best and why, and what are the flaws and consequences of your opponent's. That's the difference between those who succeed and those who fail.

Declare victory for yourself means nothing.

Dan8267 says

As long as we don't confuse it with the SI unit for stupidity, the FP.

This illustrates well the difference. Engineer - originality limited to minor alterations of known concepts.

FP says

orinality limited to minor alterations of known concepts.

You mean like spelling?

Dan8267 says

That has nothing to do with my original statement that you attempted to and failed to refute.

On the contrary:

1. You wrongly stated that I have declared victory. I asked you where. You did not answer.

2. Equating scientists and engineers reveals that you don't understand how the former think. This disqualies you from passing an opinion on the subject.

Dan8267 says

You mean like spelling?

This is the best you could come up with? So sad.

Yes my spelling in English is bad. Especially when typing on a phone. I'll give you this - you are better English speller than me.

FP says

Dan8267 says

You mean like spelling?

This is the best you could come up with? So sad.

Honey, there is not argument that you have, so there is nothing to counter-argue.

But if your stupid, incoherent post is going to set up a good joke, I'm going to hit it out of the ballpark.

If you want me to take your seriously, warrant it.

Danny boy, I don't care how you take me. You fell for a simple tease like a silly teenage girl and then exploded like a complete idiot.

lostand confused says

Well in addition to that, sometimes when conception is by another man, the man "considered" as the father because of the lies is still forced to do whatever the fraud wants. No one cares he was defrauded , his heart broken, his life shattered-he still has to pay under threat of jail.

Every reasonable person thinks (or should) that is wrong.

And yes, women do have more choices after conception, but in general, they also have more responsibilities.

Plus, 99% of the time when a woman ends her responsibility, the man's responsibility ends too.

FP says

You fell for a simple tease like a silly teenage girl and then exploded like a complete idiot.

I exposed your stupidity. I didn't explode. It's pretty sad that you are so obsessed with trying to upset strangers on the Internet. Do you really have no life?

In any case, there is nothing you could say that would upset me. I simply do not give a damn what you think. I just like exposing idiots for what they are so that their stupidity doesn't spread. I'm not angry. I'm laughing at you.

There's a simple solution here.

Have the State force possession of the child to whichever party is financially capable.

1. Single mom keeps child. She can afford to raise it, so she does

2. Single mom cannot afford child, so The State steps in and forces custody to the father.

3. Neither party is capable of raising the child, so CPS steps in and The State takes custody, and the child is put for adoption

ch_tah2 says

Seriously? I can't tell if you are joking or if you've gone full SJW.

If someone can't tell if your batshit crazy or joking, that's on you.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Seriously? I can't tell if you are joking or if you've gone full SJW.

If someone can't tell if your batshit crazy or joking, that's on you.

But I always think you are batshit crazy...

FP says

1. How about some originaliy, or you also have engineering background?

Anyone who disrespects engineers is a moron. The whole world you live in was created by engineers.

A man has choices

1. Condom
2. Pull out
3. Abstain
4. Vasectomy

www.youtube.com/embed/8-JZhsEbj5c

And then there's reality. The women have no respect for them.

It's time to go now. I really think your time would be better spent on men receiving longer jail sentences or other actual issues. You guys really seem like men-SJWs with this crap.

Final tip of the day...stop having sex with women you hate, who are going to steal your sperm while you sleep and remove you from the birth cert while extorting you for millions! It will really improve your life.

The entire conversation goes awry when everyone assumes men and women should be equal.
Women willingly take the burden of motherhood. Men are doomed to share their resources with them.
It's not symmetric, nor will it ever be.
Men choice movement is like SJW for men.
Like communists and feminists before them, they act out of egalitarianism: but this is a road to hell.
People are not equal. Admit it and go on with your life.

Heraclitusstudent says

The entire conversation goes awry when everyone assumes men and women should be equal.

Women willingly take the burden of motherhood. Men are doomed to share their resources with them.

It's not symmetric, nor will it ever be.

Excellent point!

Men and women are biologically very different. They should have different roles and responsibilities.

Right?

Of course once you admit that men and women are not "equal" in every respect, the feminism does not make sense. Feminism is the radical notion that women are men.

So you have to either give men truly equal rights to women, or admit that there is a biological basis for differing responsibilities.

rando says

once you admit that men and women are not "equal" in every respect, the feminism does not make sense.

Yes. Feminism is a lie. Women are still the primary caregivers — for children, aging parents and ailing relatives. Which means they rely on men. You can't simply let men walk out for themselves. But women can't claim they are independent when so obviously they rely on men for so many things. And men should recognize they rely on women for care giving.

Heraclitusstudent says

But women can't claim they are independent when so obviously they rely on men for so many things. And men should recognize they rely on women for care giving.

Sounds like (gasp!) you are advocating traditional marriage, where wives should be the primary caregivers for children, and husbands should work to support their wives and children. And men have certainty that the children they support are their own.

That kind of talk can get you fired these days. Or expelled from a university. Or physically beaten by an angry mob of leftists.

Mandatory paternity testing at birth would solve the problem of uncertainty.

rando says

you are advocating traditional marriage

I'm not. Though certainly things were more simple when we had marriage and no contraception. Then no one had "choice" (except sex or not).
Now we have choices, and men complaining they are left behind. But if you let men act like teenagers, walking away and caring only for themselves, then de facto you leave behind a very imbalanced equation. It's a practical matter. Idealism has nothing to do with it.

I don't think caring for a kid can be seen as acting like a 'teenager', but in any case, fair has nothing to do with it.
Otherwise how do you suggest we ensure good support for children given that men have completely different incentives in the matter than women do?

I'm happy for the suffering. It's rightful comeuppance for people who sat idly by while The State pulled massive injustices for decades. Hopefully you learn your lesson; Freedom isn't free. You must speak out against all injustices always, lest they run out of people to ruin and you wind up in their sights, with noone left to fight for you. And you realize you only have yourself to blame

Heraclitusstudent says

People are not equal. Admit it and go on with your life.

But prior to this century:
1. Women who got pregnant outside marriage either:
1a. subject to intense pressure to get married to the male involved (as was the male)
1b. subject to massive social consequences (in order to protect THEIR estimated virtue, other women would insult and degrade them)
1c. were kicked out of the tribe.

Today none of the countervailing pressures exist: unwed mothers and their partners are not pressured (inc. by the authorities as well as peers) into marriage, there are few social consequences and women circle the wagons around unwed mothers, and they get food stamps and free housing and other benefits if they can't support a child from the tribe.

It's sexual utopia for women: Reproduce where and whenever, men have no say, no negative reaction from society and for many a boon.

This is why the "Home for Unwed Mothers" Dormitory idea in lieu of food stamps and Section-8 is the key.

If more 14-25 year old indigent or near indigent women knew the fate of unwed motherhood was living in a dorm, with healthy but bland industrial meals, a curfew, scheduled work and course hours, instead of getting a place of their own and money and credit to spent as they please, things would change damn fast.

If you are indigent, and refuse to go to the Dormitory, your kids get CPS'd since you can't provide them with shelter or food.

I do see that an abortion is a burden for the woman, so to make things fair-ish, it seems that the man should pay for the abortion.

Here are the four possible cases:

1. He wants it, she wants it. No problem, he accepts the responsibility.
2. He doesn't want it, she doesn't want it. No problem, kid will not exist.
3. He wants it, she doesn't want it. He's fucked.
4. He doesn't want it, she does want it. He's fucked.

So in 2 out of four cases, her choice is fulfilled, and he is fucked.

T L Lipsovich says

This is why the "Home for Unwed Mothers" Dormitory idea in lieu of food stamps and Section-8 is the key.

I like it.

rando says

Men and women are biologically very different. They should have different roles and responsibilities.

Right?

The asymmetry of the sexes makes perfect equality regarding reproduction impossible. Women will always, and should, have unilateral control over the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. However, we should still strive to achieve as close to equality as is physically possible, even in reproductive law. As such, men should have the same choice about whether or not to take on the very significant responsibility of parenthood. Becoming a parent should not be forced onto any person. It's quite clear what equality of law means in this matter. Both genders have the right to say no, and no means no.

And for the idiots on this thread, consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent anymore than dressing provocatively is consent to having sex. Consent is explicit and willful. It is never implied. Not in sex, parenthood, or anything else.

rando says

Feminism is the radical notion that women are men.

If you ask a hundred people to define feminism, you'll get a hundred different and contradicting answers. The word has become meaningless. I don't judge a woman or man who claims to be a feminist, because there is no way of telling what they mean. So I just ask them what specifically they mean.

I believe in equality under law. That's liberalism. If feminism is equality regardless of sex, then feminism is just a narrow subset of liberalism. We don't need a word for that. We should all be liberals. We should all believe in equality under law and equal legal rights.

Some people talk about social equality, but they never seem to be able to define what that is. Does social equality mean we all get invited to the same parties? Have the same chance of dating the homecoming queen or quarterback? If so, we'll never have social equality.

And then there are the bitter haters who use the word feminism to refer to their warped views and spitefulness. Those people are not defendable.