patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,962 comments by 13,851 users - porkchopXpress, stereotomy online now
invite responseComments 1 - 16 of 16 Search these comments
1
ThatGuy
2020 Jun 2, 9:49pm
They cant survive without assistance...
So the logical conclusion is that to prevent their suffering,
both mother and child should be put in a cage and thrown in the river.
Change my mind.
So the logical conclusion is that to prevent their suffering,
both mother and child should be put in a cage and thrown in the river.
Change my mind.
2
richwicks
2020 Jun 2, 10:07pm
richwicks
2020 Jun 2, 10:07pm
ThatGuy says
What was done before Roe vs. Wade doesn't matter.
When a woman has a child today, that's a CHOICE in all cases. Well, maybe 99.9% of cases - maybe some poor woman has been turned into a sex slave.
The point is, the woman has made this decision to have the child, if the child is suffering, it was HER DECISION that caused it.
Unwed mothers placed on public assistance, are placed on public assistance to make them dependent on the state, to make them loyal to it for that check. The state isn't trying to alleviate suffering. The state doesn't care how much people suffer - they only seek power.
What part of this don't you understand?
www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8
The state - it's freaking evil. Cream hasn't flowed to the top for a LOOOOOONG time.
They cant survive without assistance...
So the logical conclusion is that to prevent their suffering,
both mother and child should be put in a cage and thrown in the river.
Change my mind.
What was done before Roe vs. Wade doesn't matter.
When a woman has a child today, that's a CHOICE in all cases. Well, maybe 99.9% of cases - maybe some poor woman has been turned into a sex slave.
The point is, the woman has made this decision to have the child, if the child is suffering, it was HER DECISION that caused it.
Unwed mothers placed on public assistance, are placed on public assistance to make them dependent on the state, to make them loyal to it for that check. The state isn't trying to alleviate suffering. The state doesn't care how much people suffer - they only seek power.
What part of this don't you understand?
www.youtube.com/embed/RM0uvgHKZe8
The state - it's freaking evil. Cream hasn't flowed to the top for a LOOOOOONG time.
3
steverbeaver
2020 Jun 2, 10:13pm
steverbeaver
2020 Jun 2, 10:13pm
As good as they sound, the only way these kind of sound principles will ever come about is by nonpolitical means.
4
Patrick
2020 Jun 2, 10:23pm
Patrick
2020 Jun 2, 10:23pm
richwicks says
The father of the child should also have the right to a decision. If he decides he does not want it, and she refuses an abortion, then he should not be liable for paternity payments.
The point is, the woman has made this decision to have the child, if the child is suffering, it was HER DECISION that caused it.
The father of the child should also have the right to a decision. If he decides he does not want it, and she refuses an abortion, then he should not be liable for paternity payments.
5
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 12:52am
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 12:52am
ThatGuy says
But the converse: When it wasn't available, illegitimacy rates were almost nothing. It was only when some larger, richer states began adding unwed mothers to the welfare rolls, that illegitimacy began to increase.
Once the Federal Government agreed to pay unwed mothers and it expanded to the whole country, it skyrocketed, especially among some minorities, where they are the MAJORITY of births.
Illegitimacy is established as far as statistics can, to lead to crime, poor educational or economic achievement, drug abuse, and mental illness. It's not debatable. It cuts across ethnic and class lines too. The results are stunning when you look at them. You know it's bad when the Left starts a term called "Two Parent Privilege"
Since we already know what happened before aid was available to unwed mothers, by removing it as an option, illegitimacy will all but disappear. I suspect within a decade. Poor people aren't stupid.
PRIVATE Charity can do the rest.
Some say, the sexual revolution would have made it necessary. But what if the social and economic support of illegitimacy was a major CAUSE of the Sexual Revolution, allowing women the "Freedom" not to have to select one good, reliable, healthy man, because worst thing that can happen? All the men, through their income taxes, will pay for my lifestyle choice.
So the logical conclusion is that to prevent their suffering,
both mother and child should be put in a cage and thrown in the river.
But the converse: When it wasn't available, illegitimacy rates were almost nothing. It was only when some larger, richer states began adding unwed mothers to the welfare rolls, that illegitimacy began to increase.
Once the Federal Government agreed to pay unwed mothers and it expanded to the whole country, it skyrocketed, especially among some minorities, where they are the MAJORITY of births.
Illegitimacy is established as far as statistics can, to lead to crime, poor educational or economic achievement, drug abuse, and mental illness. It's not debatable. It cuts across ethnic and class lines too. The results are stunning when you look at them. You know it's bad when the Left starts a term called "Two Parent Privilege"
Since we already know what happened before aid was available to unwed mothers, by removing it as an option, illegitimacy will all but disappear. I suspect within a decade. Poor people aren't stupid.
PRIVATE Charity can do the rest.
Some say, the sexual revolution would have made it necessary. But what if the social and economic support of illegitimacy was a major CAUSE of the Sexual Revolution, allowing women the "Freedom" not to have to select one good, reliable, healthy man, because worst thing that can happen? All the men, through their income taxes, will pay for my lifestyle choice.
6
richwicks
2020 Jun 3, 1:01am
richwicks
2020 Jun 3, 1:01am
Kenji says
No, Patrick is correct.
Either both parents have joint responsibility to keep it, or if the decision is one person's alone, they should have to assume complete responsibility.
Condoms are not 100% effective, abstinence is. The pill is over 99% effective.
What really ought to be done is legalize Vasalgel:
https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasalgel/
It's been used in India for over 40 years, it's approved for veterinary use (cheaper than castration and an outpatient procedure), and it's super cheap (the syringe is more expensive than the injection itself) and it's 100% reversible in animal studies and it's 100% effective in animal studies.
Feminists oppose it, the FDA won't approve it. I think the government is purposely pushing for dependence.
Patrick saysrichwicks saysThe point is, the woman has made this decision to have the child, if the child is suffering, it was HER DECISION that caused it.
The father of the child should also have the right to a decision. If he decides he does not want it, and she refuses an abortion, then he should not be liable for paternity payments.
Condom.
No, Patrick is correct.
Either both parents have joint responsibility to keep it, or if the decision is one person's alone, they should have to assume complete responsibility.
Condoms are not 100% effective, abstinence is. The pill is over 99% effective.
What really ought to be done is legalize Vasalgel:
https://www.parsemus.org/projects/vasalgel/
It's been used in India for over 40 years, it's approved for veterinary use (cheaper than castration and an outpatient procedure), and it's super cheap (the syringe is more expensive than the injection itself) and it's 100% reversible in animal studies and it's 100% effective in animal studies.
Feminists oppose it, the FDA won't approve it. I think the government is purposely pushing for dependence.
7
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:03am
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:03am
Patrick says
How about the child?
Many Social Revolutionaries insist that we start shaming kids by calling them "Two Parent Privileged'
Why don't we say: Every Kid has a right to Two Parents. This is the leftist answer for other things ("Right to Food Security, Right to Education").
Historically, we have provided this right by refusing to support a woman who refused to marry:
"Brunhild, you must find a husband for yourself and your child, or I will find one for you will accept - or be gone from the village. Funkenberg is not where food is unlimited."
The father of the child should also have the right to a decision. If he decides he does not want it, and she refuses an abortion, then he should not be liable for paternity payments.
How about the child?
Many Social Revolutionaries insist that we start shaming kids by calling them "Two Parent Privileged'
Why don't we say: Every Kid has a right to Two Parents. This is the leftist answer for other things ("Right to Food Security, Right to Education").
Historically, we have provided this right by refusing to support a woman who refused to marry:
"Brunhild, you must find a husband for yourself and your child, or I will find one for you will accept - or be gone from the village. Funkenberg is not where food is unlimited."
8
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:03am
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:03am
Patrick says
How about the child?
Many Social Revolutionaries insist that we start shaming kids by calling them "Two Parent Privileged'
Why don't we say: Every Kid has a right to Two Parents. This is the leftist answer for other things ("Right to Food Security, Right to Education").
Historically, we have provided this right by refusing to support a woman who refused to marry:
"Brunhild, you must find a husband for yourself and your child, or I will find one for you will accept - or be gone from the village. Funkenberg is not where food is unlimited."
Seriously, how greedy is it to assume your neighbors have an obligation to pay for you to have out of wedlock children? How morally disgusting is it to say "Pay for me, or the kid suffers and it's YOUR FAULT for not paying for MY CHOICE?" That's blackmail.
Again, they give free or nearly free birth control. I have never heard of any city or college campus where free condoms weren't given on demand. Various groups give out free Birth Control; Hollywood Stars can donate.
This society claims to put kids first. But it refuses to impose penalties on people who knowingly, with easy options at reach to prevent it, bring into the world children they can't afford. Why can't we have some responsibility. What about the responsibility not to impose a 18-year, expensive cost on society because too lazy to use easily accessible and free/minimal cost birth control?
MEDICAID also pays for Birth Control, so the "I'm so poor I can only afford an iPhone and $150 Nikes, but not Condoms or Pills" doesn't fly.
The father of the child should also have the right to a decision. If he decides he does not want it, and she refuses an abortion, then he should not be liable for paternity payments.
How about the child?
Many Social Revolutionaries insist that we start shaming kids by calling them "Two Parent Privileged'
Why don't we say: Every Kid has a right to Two Parents. This is the leftist answer for other things ("Right to Food Security, Right to Education").
Historically, we have provided this right by refusing to support a woman who refused to marry:
"Brunhild, you must find a husband for yourself and your child, or I will find one for you will accept - or be gone from the village. Funkenberg is not where food is unlimited."
Seriously, how greedy is it to assume your neighbors have an obligation to pay for you to have out of wedlock children? How morally disgusting is it to say "Pay for me, or the kid suffers and it's YOUR FAULT for not paying for MY CHOICE?" That's blackmail.
Again, they give free or nearly free birth control. I have never heard of any city or college campus where free condoms weren't given on demand. Various groups give out free Birth Control; Hollywood Stars can donate.
This society claims to put kids first. But it refuses to impose penalties on people who knowingly, with easy options at reach to prevent it, bring into the world children they can't afford. Why can't we have some responsibility. What about the responsibility not to impose a 18-year, expensive cost on society because too lazy to use easily accessible and free/minimal cost birth control?
MEDICAID also pays for Birth Control, so the "I'm so poor I can only afford an iPhone and $150 Nikes, but not Condoms or Pills" doesn't fly.
9
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:25am
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 1:25am
Frances Perkins was FDR's Labor Secretary. She opposed welfare to unwed mothers, as she had worked in, and set up, Unwed Mothers homes.
10
PeopleUnited
2020 Jun 3, 4:28am
PeopleUnited
2020 Jun 3, 4:28am
When you subsidize something, you get more of it. This is why we have more abortion, more poverty, more unwed mothers (often with multiple children and partners). The list goes on. Stop subsidizing these things and they will no longer be as big of a problem.
11
ignoreme
2020 Jun 3, 5:15am
I don’t think unwed mothers is the problem, it’s vagabonds.
Why do we allow people to be homeless? Why do we allow people to not support their children (both men and women)?
If you have a child, you must support that child, both the mother and the father. If you cannot find something to do we will find something for you.
You do not have a right to be homeless. If you are living on the streets, harassing people and committing crime, we will house you and feed you. No drugs. If you are ill we will treat you, otherwise you will work. There is no choice.
People act like it’s cruel to force people to do things against their will. I disagree. It’s cruel to look at people who are suffering and not give a shit. People on drugs or with mental illness can’t make good choices. The solution for them isn’t to wag your finger and tell them they should have had abortions.
Why do we allow people to be homeless? Why do we allow people to not support their children (both men and women)?
If you have a child, you must support that child, both the mother and the father. If you cannot find something to do we will find something for you.
You do not have a right to be homeless. If you are living on the streets, harassing people and committing crime, we will house you and feed you. No drugs. If you are ill we will treat you, otherwise you will work. There is no choice.
People act like it’s cruel to force people to do things against their will. I disagree. It’s cruel to look at people who are suffering and not give a shit. People on drugs or with mental illness can’t make good choices. The solution for them isn’t to wag your finger and tell them they should have had abortions.
12
WookieMan
2020 Jun 3, 5:33am
WookieMan
2020 Jun 3, 5:33am
PeopleUnited says
This pretty much sums up the conversations going on here. It's really not all that debatable. When you give something with no expectation of repayment or penalty, there will be more and more of what's handed out. Not everyone will go get an abortion or go on food stamps just because, but if it's an option, it's going to get used by the useless lazy.
I don't think many people realize how lazy our society is now. I think a lot of people just have a job to socialize and have friends. It's not really about production. I feel like the government should demand and pay for every high school student to start a simple business their senior year in high school. Give them $1k. Everyone has to do it or they don't graduate. Understand bank statements. If they leverage the $1k to start their business, they then under stand loans, debt and interest. Supply and demand if you're selling a product. Or if selling a service learn to market yourself. Too many people are walking around with zero fucking clue how life and our economy all functions. When you produce and then give away 20-30% of your income because people are lazy fucks, it's eye opening.
Lock up the crazy people like we used to. Don't have a kid if you cannot afford to feed and house them. Work if you're not disabled. Not too hard.
When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
This pretty much sums up the conversations going on here. It's really not all that debatable. When you give something with no expectation of repayment or penalty, there will be more and more of what's handed out. Not everyone will go get an abortion or go on food stamps just because, but if it's an option, it's going to get used by the useless lazy.
I don't think many people realize how lazy our society is now. I think a lot of people just have a job to socialize and have friends. It's not really about production. I feel like the government should demand and pay for every high school student to start a simple business their senior year in high school. Give them $1k. Everyone has to do it or they don't graduate. Understand bank statements. If they leverage the $1k to start their business, they then under stand loans, debt and interest. Supply and demand if you're selling a product. Or if selling a service learn to market yourself. Too many people are walking around with zero fucking clue how life and our economy all functions. When you produce and then give away 20-30% of your income because people are lazy fucks, it's eye opening.
Lock up the crazy people like we used to. Don't have a kid if you cannot afford to feed and house them. Work if you're not disabled. Not too hard.
13
HeadSet
2020 Jun 3, 12:32pm
HeadSet
2020 Jun 3, 12:32pm
We are working toward this:
A unproductive or low productive mass in society supported by welfare and other government checks
Slavery in the form of illegals and cheap overseas labor to produce items so those getting gov checks have something to buy.
A unproductive or low productive mass in society supported by welfare and other government checks
Slavery in the form of illegals and cheap overseas labor to produce items so those getting gov checks have something to buy.
14
WookieMan
2020 Jun 3, 1:06pm
WookieMan
2020 Jun 3, 1:06pm
HeadSet says
I'd agree. The other layer is shitty parenting with no accountability. Your kid fucks up now, they just kick him out of school to keep the standardized testing at appropriate levels so they don't lose funding.
I on the other hand take my kid to Mt. Rainier, Mt St. Helens and Mt. Hood with 4 days off of school over labor day and I absolutely get shit on by the principle. Fuck off. I'm enriching my kids. Eat some god damn rat poison land whale. 99% of the kids in my district will never go to Costa Rica. Half will barely knock off 20% of the lower 48 in their lifetime. But I'm made out to be a piece of shit because my kid misses school, doing things that make them better.
Our society has lost its way.
We are working toward this:
A unproductive or low productive mass in society supported by welfare and other government checks
Slavery in the form of illegals and cheap overseas labor to produce items so those getting gov checks have something to buy.
I'd agree. The other layer is shitty parenting with no accountability. Your kid fucks up now, they just kick him out of school to keep the standardized testing at appropriate levels so they don't lose funding.
I on the other hand take my kid to Mt. Rainier, Mt St. Helens and Mt. Hood with 4 days off of school over labor day and I absolutely get shit on by the principle. Fuck off. I'm enriching my kids. Eat some god damn rat poison land whale. 99% of the kids in my district will never go to Costa Rica. Half will barely knock off 20% of the lower 48 in their lifetime. But I'm made out to be a piece of shit because my kid misses school, doing things that make them better.
Our society has lost its way.
15
PeopleUnited
2020 Jun 3, 8:14pm
PeopleUnited
2020 Jun 3, 8:14pm
WookieMan says
No offense man, I agree with you that travel and culture is more valuable than most school days. Still, reading this comment I can’t help but think these are “white peoples problems.” I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. I never traveled more than a few hours from home until college and even then it was infrequent and on the cheap.
Oh how I wish I was one of the lucky ones whose parents could do such things. Most of my friends have no idea what it is like to live in poverty. So as much as we can agree that paying people to not work, and rewarding single mothers with bigger welfare checks is a lose-lose scenario for society, there has to be some recognition that many people don’t have the luxury of enriching their kids with extensive travel. Many people consider going out for a cone at Dairy Queen a luxury. The closest some people can come to travel is reading or watching a movie about exciting locations.
It is sad really that people like Bezos, Soros, Gates, and Zuck can literally buy, go and do as they please while the majority live off the scraps thrown to us.
I on the other hand take my kid to Mt. Rainier, Mt St. Helens and Mt. Hood with 4 days off of school over labor day and I absolutely get shit on by the principle. Fuck off. I'm enriching my kids. Eat some god damn rat poison land whale. 99% of the kids in my district will never go to Costa Rica. Half will barely knock off 20% of the lower 48 in their lifetime. But I'm made out to be a piece of shit because my kid misses school, doing things that make them better.
No offense man, I agree with you that travel and culture is more valuable than most school days. Still, reading this comment I can’t help but think these are “white peoples problems.” I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. I never traveled more than a few hours from home until college and even then it was infrequent and on the cheap.
Oh how I wish I was one of the lucky ones whose parents could do such things. Most of my friends have no idea what it is like to live in poverty. So as much as we can agree that paying people to not work, and rewarding single mothers with bigger welfare checks is a lose-lose scenario for society, there has to be some recognition that many people don’t have the luxury of enriching their kids with extensive travel. Many people consider going out for a cone at Dairy Queen a luxury. The closest some people can come to travel is reading or watching a movie about exciting locations.
It is sad really that people like Bezos, Soros, Gates, and Zuck can literally buy, go and do as they please while the majority live off the scraps thrown to us.
16
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 8:27pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2020 Jun 3, 8:27pm
Most youth don't get shit out of their travels. It's mostly an excuse to drink & fuck, and they come out more ignorant after the trip than before, because partying with other college students isn't exactly very informative about daily real life abroad.
* It was a trifling problem before the 1960s, since most States and all Federal Welfare refused aid to Never Married Single Mothers
* Aid was restricted to widows, families with young children where the breadwinner was incompetent, and those abandoned by their spouse (which required multiple third person testimony as proof).
* The States/Colonies, both before and after the founding of the United States, including Thomas Jefferson, always delineated between the deserving and undeserving poor.
Keep in mind these programs existed even before birth control was cheap, socially acceptable (or Legal!), and widely available. There is absolutely no excuse today.
Finally, the Racialists claim that White Middle and Working Class support for Welfare declined after the New Society, but was higher before then, so it's anti-Black Racism. In reality, it was the assignment of benefits to Unwed Mothers that caused the turn from supporting Welfare as people began to see not just Widows or Abandoned Women getting benefits, but divorced or never-married Hobags collecting benefits.