• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

All Things Being Equal

People who produce life contribute more to society than those who don't

  • True

    Votes: 13 24.1%
  • False

    Votes: 29 53.7%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 5.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Total voters
    54
I can't even believe you just typed that. What's Oprah done. Mother Teresa. Betty White. Should the barren just go out and off themselves?

This is such bull****.

So to you a bunch of women that were more in it for the money than to selflessly help people and be celibate because their religion called for it makes their contributions matter just as much? Great rebuttal.
 
Ive thought of not having children but it doesnt make me or anyone else a menace to society. Hell I'd be able to focus more on work, which could very easily make up for or surpass what one of my children could have contributed, especially if they ended up being a welfare mooching bum, which is becoming an increasingly popular occupation.

So you can't be a hardworker and a good father that instills your values in your children?
 
So to you a bunch of women that were more in it for the money than to selflessly help people and be celibate because their religion called for it makes their contributions matter just as much? Great rebuttal.

I've read this sentence five times and it still doesn't make any sense to me. :confused:
 
I've read this sentence five times and it still doesn't make any sense to me. :confused:

I believe he's trying to say that Oprah and Betty don't get credit, since they didn't pass on having children for religious reasons.
 
I believe he's trying to say that Oprah and Betty don't get credit, since they didn't pass on having children for religious reasons.

With taxes alone, Oprah probably contributes more to society than everyone who posts at this forum combined.
 
"all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not."

That would depend on the quality of child raised.
 
Well as cpwill said when you consider SSI it does help out. At the very least, anyone with a child contributes someone they will need to buy things for therefore injecting more into the economy. I honestly thing the two proponents of not having children are full of it, Boop has already stated she has had kids so she has at the very least done her part, and Mistress well..I don't know how Mistress contributes to society in any way???

The reason you don't know is because I don't get ****-faced and bash out typo-ridden screeds about how important I am in a desperate attempt to get the internet to take me seriously. ;)
 
The reason you don't know is because I don't get ****-faced and bash out typo-ridden screeds about how important I am in a desperate attempt to get the internet to take me seriously. ;)

Hey bro why you gotta hate?
 
Immigration has always kept the US afloat. We'd never have grown to the size that we have without immigration and if we hadn't grown to this size, the world would be a very different place, possibly one without a United States of America in it. And the integration fears that people have today are no different than the integration fears exhibited in Boston circa 1849

the trick being that integration fears for the Italians and Irish led to actual attempts to... integrate them. no effort is being made to integrate our hispanic immigrants; if anything, the impetus is in the opposite direction.

I have absolutely no worries about immigrant integration at all. The country adapts, as do the immigrants. They always have and they always will. That's an aside, though.

saying that our society has to survive, thrive, and rule because it has done so thus far was an argument that the ancient Romans and 19th Century British found appealing as well. I am less confident in our inevitability.

The main point is that a society is not dependent on birth rate. It is dependent on steady population growth.

and it's a worthy one. for example, we will probably see waves of European immigration in the future; as will Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Therefore, the actual act of procreation is not a necessity at all.

it is indeed - someone has to produce all those folks who grow up and immigrate; counting on continuous immigration is sort of like paying your debt by borrowing. it can only last for so long before you crash.

Thus, if we apply the same logic consistently, the statement "all other things being equal, illegal immigrants give more value to society than natural born citizens do" is just as true as "all other things being equal, those who have produced and raised children have given more value to society than those who have not".

If you agree with both statements, then your logic is consistent.

my only question then would be that the "all things being equal" tends to preclude "illegal immigrant" v (say) "legal immigrant" or "citizen". it is asking whether or not the benefit of an added member to society is worth the loss incurred by illegal immigration. immigrants tend to have higher birthrates, and they do need to be encouraged to come. but they also need to be encouraged to come legally, and integrate when they get here. else we haven't really propogated "our society", but rather another society that happened to have expanded intoour borders.
 
Children are a boon to our society. I only voted other because the value does not come from "producing life" but from raising good members of society.

I am unable to become anyone's biological father, but I think that in raising my kids, I am doing far more than anybody does simply by ****ing.

Being a good parent isn't about biology. It' about being there and being a good roll model.
 
People like to make procreation sound like a well planned endeavor. As I recall, my penchant for rutting brought children into my life. Is it the greatest achievement in my lifetime to date? Probably, but then I'm no Galileo Galilei.

Some of us will always ensure that there are future generations. Everyone procreating is not necessary.
 
the trick being that integration fears for the Italians and Irish led to actual attempts to... integrate them.

The existence of Little Italy, Southie, Chinatown, etc. shows that integration attempts never worked.

Integration occurs with the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants, not with the immigants themselves. You can't undo a lifetime of learning.

Many Americans today seem to have a highly romantacized view of past immigration where assimilation actually occured when it did not.


saying that our society has to survive, thrive, and rule because it has done so thus far was an argument that the ancient Romans and 19th Century British found appealing as well. I am less confident in our inevitability.

Of course I didn't say that. The only thing I said that could resemble that would be that our survival, thriving and rule would not be affected by immigration. I'm actualy quite certain that the US will eventually fall. It won't be immigration that causes it though. It will be the mistakes of our native population that leads to our downfall, IMO.

I also believe that we have survived, thrived and ruled because of immigration.


and it's a worthy one. for example, we will probably see waves of European immigration in the future; as will Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

If our native population doesn't screw us up so bad that nobody wants to come anymore, sure.



it is indeed - someone has to produce all those folks who grow up and immigrate; counting on continuous immigration is sort of like paying your debt by borrowing. it can only last for so long before you crash.

It is not a necessity in our society.

my only question then would be that the "all things being equal" tends to preclude "illegal immigrant" v (say) "legal immigrant" or "citizen".

Not at all. The only difference is the means by which they arrived here if all otehr things are equal. There's nothing precluded by making that the only distinction.

it is asking whether or not the benefit of an added member to society is worth the loss incurred by illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration does not cause any inherent loss in and of itself.

And many people who come here illegally end up becoming legal residents and even citizens who are more productive than the average citizen.

There is one characteristic that the vast majority of immigrants have (whether they are legal immigrants or illegal ones) that is not present in the majority of natural born citizens.

Immigrants are almost always the go-getter types. This is why so many immigrants are entrepreneurs who own their own businesses. They are willing to take big risks in order to get big rewards. Most native-born Americans do not have that drive, that determination. We are all too often complacent due to the fact that we grow up in relative comfort.

So, when we actually look at "all other things being equal" we actually have to consider the fact that we are discussing an exceptional native-born citizen in order to match teh personality traits of the average immigrant. And remember, illegal immigrants take an even greater risk than legal ones do.

My father is a prime example of the above. He ended up becoming a legal resident and citizen after he came here illegally. He has never really "integrated" with the US culture, being fully immersed in the Irish community here in Chicago, but he has certainly added to our society in a far greater way than the average American as an entrepreneur and small business owner. As someone who has known a great many immigrants in my life (both legal and illegal), I can say that his story is not all that uncommon.

He has certainly contributed more than many a citizen. His status as having been an illegal immigrant doesn't negate the benefit that he added to our society.




else we haven't really propogated "our society", but rather another society that happened to have expanded intoour borders.

That is what has always happened with immigrants. See: chinatown, southie, Little Italy, etc for examples.

Integration occurs in later generations.
 
Last edited:
The existence of Little Italy, Southie, Chinatown, etc. shows that integration attempts never worked.

Integration occurs with the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants, not with the immigants themselves. You can't undo a lifetime of learning.

Many Americans today seem to have a highly romantacized view of past immigration where assimilation actually occured when it did not.




Of course I didn't say that. The only thing I said that could resemble that would be that our survival, thriving and rule would not be affected by immigration. I'm actualy quite certain that the US will eventually fall. It won't be immigration that causes it though. It will be the mistakes of our native population that leads to our downfall, IMO.

I also believe that we have survived, thrived and ruled because of immigration.




If our native population doesn't screw us up so bad that nobody wants to come anymore, sure.





It is not a necessity in our society.



Not at all. The only difference is the means by which they arrived here if all otehr things are equal. There's nothing precluded by making that the only distinction.



Illegal immigration does not cause any inherent loss in and of itself.

And many people who come here illegally end up becoming legal residents and even citizens who are more productive than the average citizen.

There is one characteristic that the vast majority of immigrants have (whether they are legal immigrants or illegal ones) that is not present in the majority of natural born citizens.

Immigrants are almost always the go-getter types. This is why so many immigrants are entrepreneurs who own their own businesses. They are willing to take big risks in order to get big rewards. Most native-born Americans do not have that drive, that determination. We are all too often complacent due to the fact that we grow up in relative comfort.

So, when we actually look at "all other things being equal" we actually have to consider the fact that we are discussing an exceptional native-born citizen in order to match teh personality traits of the average immigrant. And remember, illegal immigrants take an even greater risk than legal ones do.

My father is a prime example of the above. He ended up becoming a legal resident and citizen after he came here illegally. He has never really "integrated" with the US culture, being fully immersed in the Irish community here in Chicago, but he has certainly added to our society in a far greater way than the average American as an entrepreneur and small business owner. As someone who has known a great many immigrants in my life (both legal and illegal), I can say that his story is not all that uncommon.

He has certainly contributed more than many a citizen. His status as having been an illegal immigrant doesn't negate the benefit that he added to our society.






That is what has always happened with immigrants. See: chinatown, southie, Little Italy, etc for examples.

Integration occurs in later generations.

it is late here and I have to crash.

so I'll leave you with this.

You are correct to note that first-generation rarely fully integrates. Usually their kids are bilingual, and their children are raised normal fully American never thinking of themselves as anything but so on and so forth. Usually recent immigrant children do well for themselves, especially since they have the ability to bridge both worlds, and be ambassadors to each within the economy.

That's not happening with Hispanics. The Hispanic population get's worse off by the third generation, not better. They are poorer, and generally we don't teach them much English. We keep them from integrating.
 
That's not happening with Hispanics. The Hispanic population get's worse off by the third generation, not better. They are poorer, and generally we don't teach them much English. We keep them from integrating.

Integration is not really what this article is about, though. It seems that the main problem is the fact that more and more kids are born to single mothers. A problem that is also extremely serious in the Black community.
 
That's not happening with Hispanics. The Hispanic population get's worse off by the third generation, not better. They are poorer, and generally we don't teach them much English. We keep them from integrating.

There is one glaring flaw in using that source for your argument. The problems faced by hispanics are not caused by a lack of assimilation. They are actually caused by assimilation.

Reread the last paragraph:

Since 1965, when then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New Deal liberal, warned that the growing number of single mothers in urban areas was a ticking time bomb, the number of children born out of wedlock in the U.S. has more than doubled, with some of the sharpest increases among Hispanics. It’s no coincidence that their children and grand children are now paying the price. The consequences of the decline of traditional marriage are widespread indeed.

If it was caused by a lack of assimilation, there would be a stagnation, not a decline. The old country values of Hispanics are one's that are very socially conservative. Old school Catholic. The fact that this is occurring in the third generation is a sign that these old world values are being discarded in favor of the more "modern" American views.

In short, your own source proves the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. Assimilation is not always a good thing. Especially when the values of the country that is immigrated to have been on the decline for decades.

The difference in the outcomes between back in the day and now has nothing to do with a difference in willingness to assimilate between past immigrants and current immigrants, and has everything to do with how our own culture has changed over time.

In this particular case, we'd be better off if there was less assimilation occurring and a stronger desire to hold on to the values of the old country.
 
:) you are mistaking "adapting to our welfare system" with "assimilation. hell, Somali Pirates have adapted to the British welfare system - that doesn't make them culturally anglican.
 
:) you are mistaking "adapting to our welfare system" with "assimilation. hell, Somali Pirates have adapted to the British welfare system - that doesn't make them culturally anglican.

Somali Pirates adopted the British tradition of privateering
 
:) you are mistaking "adapting to our welfare system" with "assimilation. hell, Somali Pirates have adapted to the British welfare system - that doesn't make them culturally anglican.

Ah, you are confusing the actual cause of these unwed pregnancies with welfare. You don't need to be a single mother to be on welfare. You do need to **** to become a single mother though. I don't think they are ****ing welfare. :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom