View Poll Results: A license to have children?

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    31 25.41%
  • No

    85 69.67%
  • Undecided

    6 4.92%
Page 37 of 80 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 792

Thread: A license to have children [W:81]

  1. #361
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,175

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    An animal will like whomever feeds it, regardless of treatment. You are "asking" for something that is automatic, as if it is the pet's decision to make - that's fantasy. You're creating a two-way street where none exists, anthropomorphizing.

    You might be the Guardian of the animal, but - more importantly - you are its owner and therefore are responsible for it by law. Your imaginary position as "companion" is counter-productive to personal social development and absolutely secondary to the legal designation of owner.
    Yes, what I'm asking for is a natural response to being taken care of. I am aware of that. How is that anthropomorphizing?

    I am not responsible for it because I own it. I'm responsible for it because she has needs and requires care.

    How is it counterproductive for me to think of her as a companion? How is it socially harmful to do so? You do realize I'm aware she can't talk, right? People call dogs companion animals all the time, and cats really aren't any different if you get the way they communicate.

  2. #362
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Every person, child, learned values and situation is different. I agree that the laws have to set the socially acceptable limits of child rearing behavior, leaving a large leeway for interpretation. My father and mother used intimidation to correct me, knowing my mind was not mature enough to always understand the reasons for "NO". My sister and her husband believe in no discipline and "YES" to everything. But then again they raised a spoiled, rotten monster who stays in trouble and respects nothing.

    I believe the OP is looking for a reason to exclude the poor from breeding in an effort to suppress welfare and poverty.
    Sounds like a great plan to a very relevant problem to me.

  3. #363
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Yes, what I'm asking for is a natural response to being taken care of. I am aware of that. How is that anthropomorphizing?
    You're talking about an animal's natural response to being fed, regardless of care or even outright abuse. Pretending that the animal makes a decision to be your "companion" is - in fact and absolutely - anthropomorphizing.

    I am not responsible for it because I own it. I'm responsible for it because she has needs and requires care.
    You provide for the needs and care of all animals all the time, or just the ones you own?

    How is it counterproductive for me to think of her as a companion? How is it socially harmful to do so? You do realize I'm aware she can't talk, right? People call dogs companion animals all the time, and cats really aren't any different if you get the way they communicate.
    Imaginary friends take the place of genuine social interaction with consequences and serve as a fantasy model for actual human interpersonal relationships. Pretending that one has a "friend", when one really only has an animal that likes to be fed, is damaging to ones psyche and cognition of real social interaction.

  4. #364
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    No way. Educational programs do almost nothing to reduce social programs like this,
    The fact that the average American family is now made up of 2.6 people and not 6-7 kids + adults, refutes this argument.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #365
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    As long as sterilization is 100% voluntary... and voluntary does NOT include coercion by making it a requirement to get money/help... then that is entirely appropriate.
    It would be voluntary. If they want a check, get sterilized. That is not coercion. They don't HAVE TO take the check.

  6. #366
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Sounds like a great plan to a very relevant problem to me.

    I don't know what the ethical answer is except that nature has a particularly harsh way of correcting over population of species that use up resources as evidenced in Sudan and other poor areas of the world. I figure eventually they'll go from "NO Abortion" and promoting large families to the extreme of sterilizing children at birth to reduce the population.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #367
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,175

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    You're talking about an animal's natural response to being fed, regardless of care or even outright abuse. Pretending that the animal makes a decision to be your "companion" is - in fact and absolutely - anthropomorphizing.
    Animals will not love you if you abuse them, even if you feed them. Especially not cats. Try going to a shelter sometime. The abused animals will definitely take food from you, but they'll also try to hide or maul you if they haven't been rehabilitated yet.

    You provide for the needs and care of all animals all the time, or just the ones you own?
    To some extent, everything we do impacts all variety of creatures. But my responsibilities to my own cat are simply a lot more direct, and other humans besides me don't affect it as much.

    Imaginary friends take the place of genuine social interaction with consequences and serve as a fantasy model for actual human interpersonal relationships. Pretending that one has a "friend", when one really only has an animal that likes to be fed, is damaging to ones psyche and cognition of real social interaction.
    Dude, what are you on about? Lots and lots of people have animals and view them as companions, while simultaneously managing to have plenty of meaningful human interactions. I am one of them. If you are saying that doesn't exist, you are accusing the majority of people of "living in a fantasy land" by having pets.

  8. #368
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Animals will not love you if you abuse them, even if you feed them. Especially not cats. Try going to a shelter sometime. The abused animals will definitely take food from you, but they'll also try to hide or maul you if they haven't been rehabilitated yet.
    Yes they will. Your example, a shelter, is not the same as a private home. I should have included private space, consistent shelter and knowledge of other animals nearby. With those things, an animal will "love" and be a "companion" even to an abuser.

    To some extent, everything we do impacts all variety of creatures. But my responsibilities to my own cat are simply a lot more direct, and other humans besides me don't affect it as much.
    Thus, the defining relationship between you and your animal is ownership, not an obligation to help all animals. See, I have an obligation to help all animals, and I do so whenever possible (eg. buying flea collars for cats that are not mine, building enclosures for cows that are not mine, etc); yet, I do not own a pet. An obligation to serve animals does not lead to being a owner, owning a pet does.


    Dude, what are you on about? Lots and lots of people have animals and view them as companions, while simultaneously managing to have plenty of meaningful human interactions. I am one of them. If you are saying that doesn't exist, you are accusing the majority of people of "living in a fantasy land" by having pets.
    Imaginary friends, through anthropomorphizing, is not healthy for ones social development.

  9. #369
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    03-11-13 @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    420

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Just addressing a few points that stuck out to me.

    For one WIC does help but is ineffective at providing enough support to children and infants of parents either unable to work or who receive just enough to pay rent, hopefully electric. By 4-6 months the formula allottment is insufficient and most use foodstamps to supplement that time period befiore baby food is implemented. You cannot live off of the WIC foods for very long. It is there to make sure the poorest children living off of budgeted foodstamps (between $200-$300 for obne child, $400-$500 for 2 and $600-$700 for 3 children) rnabling the parents to buy enough essentials like milk which is nearly $4/gallon here while a 24 pack of soda remains at $4-$7 per case depending on brand or generic. Reducing benefits for only certain foods doesnt help the kids much if what the parents get per month is essentially cut in half by food choice restrictions when most dont make it through the month soley on foodstamps as is.

    The EITC has helped my family thid year and last. Last year or actually 2011, my husband amd I were both employed fulltime making $20,000 combined and we made $10,000 off of the EITC. We only received Medicaid for the kids at the time. March of 2012 our hours were severely cut and if not for the EITC we would have been homeless this year due to no fault of our own. We made $12,000 in 2012 combined! Paying out of pocket child care of $500/month and $700 in rent no less! We sold everything we owned and are back at square one in 2013 with a $7000 EITC and a McJob. We arent unable or unwilling to work its just that being low-skilled (which would have been the case children or not. We cant afford college!) We are expendable for taking care of our premature 3lbs newborn or asthmatic son hospitalized for RSV, or for just climbing a little too hifgh on that ladder. Weve been letgo for all three. The latter was when my husband finally got offered health care options, paid 2 week vacations each year, and paid sick leave, only to be fired DURING his paid vacation. After 6 years we shoukld at least get unemployment... Uh no. We moved when he made assistant manager and the unemployment office wanted to know why he "quit" his former position in Ohio. Same job, same position, different locale and no unemployment. The EITC is the only fallback these families have at times.

    Um free housing is a myth. There are pathetically low subsidies sometimes for a month maybe 2 but section 8 has been closed in the majority of states for years now! If people get housing it can be from HUD which isnt free jiust cheap or from charities if selected.

    Having Huningtons or CF doesnt mean the child will be born with the disorder in fact my best friend has CF and a son without CF because both parents must be carriers in order to produce a CF child and having CF doesnt make one a carrier automatically either. My aunt was disease free when my cousin was born with microcephaly (a very rare genetic disorder carried and passed on by the mother) its the first and only instance of the disease in my family. So rules of reproduction based on genetics isnt a very useful tool when all is said and done.

    Poor kids often grow up with high morals and familial support. Many people have grown up poor to become rich or selfsufficient later on in life. Many remain poor. In the argument of parenting both rich and poor can fail. Is Michael Jackson or OJ simpson really more deserving of fatherhood than my husband? Or Britany Spears and and Nicole Richie better equipped to support their children than I am? Financially sure but imagine Snookis babies emotional problems... The argument doesnt work because socioeconomics are not the sole determinents of good parenting.

  10. #370
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,175

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Yes they will. Your example, a shelter, is not the same as a private home. I should have included private space, consistent shelter and knowledge of other animals nearby. With those things, an animal will "love" and be a "companion" even to an abuser.
    Why do you think foster homes exist for animals? Often, it is to rehabilitate frightened or aggressive animals who have been abused, so they can be adopted out to a person who may not be able to deal with an animal with those sorts of issues. They will eat, but it takes a lot of time and specific effort to get them to change their behavior towards people. They won't simply start liking you just because you provide food.

    It is a proven reality that a lot of animals do have emotions, though the breadth of them is usually more limited than humans to varying degrees depending on the species. Cats and dogs do display and feel affection, anxiety, depression (which often comes when their primary caretaker is absent, even if they are still being cared for by someone else), and loyalty. I find it strange that you of all people would deny that animals have any feelings at all.

    Thus, the defining relationship between you and your animal is ownership, not an obligation to help all animals.
    What are you talking about? When did I say anything about an obligation to help all animals? And how does providing care make me own a living creature?

    Imaginary friends, through anthropomorphizing, is not healthy for ones social development.
    People with pets tend to be happier and calmer, as well as having certain health benefits like better blood pressure. You're wrong.

Page 37 of 80 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •