Preserving the family

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jafl, Jun 7, 2009.

  1. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    For the most part New Orleans is a welfare city. The government has been given the role of the father and the proper family structure is absent due to divorce and illegitimacy.

    Did the absence of functional families contribute to New Orleans’ inability to properly prepare for and recover from Katrina? If people do not function within family groups because these groups are dysfunctional or absent altogether, can they function as productive members of larger groups (neighborhood, church, school) and society as a whole (city, state, country)?

    Didn’t Katrina simply exacerbate the social pathologies (crime, sloth, selfishness) that had already been put in motion by the breakdown of the family? Should maintaining the proper family structure be the first and foremost preparation for any kind of emergency or disaster? To what extent should the government be involved in preserving families?
     
  2. Fn/Form

    Fn/Form Function over Form

    524
    1
    Absence of personal responsibility by citizens (families or not, doesn't matter) allowed all kinds of shysters and idiots to take the reins of the city. The rest is history.

    As far as preparedness... many prepared like they should have. They left. It is said that 80-90% left the city. The remaining 10-20% cannot be said to represent the city in whole or part.

    As far as recovery... there will always be a need to develop a port city, but how far people will go to develop N.O. is much more complex than the "family" theory. Rooting up again from what's become job- and home-away-from-home, reluctance to commit so much personally/Federally to an unstable geographical region, reluctance to start all over after coming back, etc.

    Again, most people left before the storm, and what was left behind was a bunch of riff raff devoid of any social control. So they let go... law of the jungle.

    Government has no friggin business "preserving families" or legislating anything more than basic morality. To "preserve" or legislate more than that is hurtling down the slippy slope to socialism and a sure sign that the canary in the coal mine is dying.

    Family structure is a symptom of what's going well, not a goal or an end-all.

    If the people cannot preserve their self (and consequently, the family), it is time for the country to crumble and fall. And it will fall, no matter the artificial intervention of the state. It is only a matter of taking a direct route or a long, scenic route to the same end.
     

  3. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Hurricane Katrina: The Race and Class Debate - Monthly Review

    Weren’t most of the people that did not evacuate New Orleans poor, and aren’t divorce and illegitimacy the prime factors in determining whether someone is poor or not?

    Your family structure determines a great deal about your income and property, and how much income and property you have will determine how well you can face natural disaster.

    How many welfare recipients who left New Orleans are still welfare recipients wherever they are living now?

    If only the riff raff remained and this made up 20% of New Orleans’ population, this figure speaks volumes about American society.

    What do you consider to be basic morality? If a woman produces a bastard child that will drain society’s resources, does society/government have any right to legislate against the woman’s behavior?

    Which it is doing at an ever more rapid pace. Statistics published a few months ago show that 40% of all children born in the U.S. in 2008 were illegitimate.
     
  4. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    How about mandatory periodic (quarterly?) drug testing to receive benefits? It's not a cure-all, but IMO it couldn't hurt... of course WHAT exactly to do with/for/to the person after a positive result? idk... I'm NOT without compassion, but there does come a time when personal responsibility trumps circumstance-of-birth.

    When I worked on a govt. job site there were 'random' (yeah, right :rolleyes: ) drug tests... my name was on the list 'randomly' every time :rolleyes: :mad: not that I was worried, and I did get PAID for the time, but it did feel a bit like persecution.
     
  5. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Quarterly? Monthly at least and this would include every person in the recipient’s household over the age of 10. A positive test for any member of the household would result to immediate and total loss of all benefits paid for by the taxpayers for every member of the household- including AFDC, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, public K-12 school and college financial aid.

    Of course we’d stop a lot of welfare simply by stopping illegitimacy. To this end I would require any person applying for benefits on behalf of any person under the age of 25 to document the identify of that person’s father and then show either that child support is up to date or the father is in jail or has been castrated.

    But then the drastic measures that I propose wouldn’t be necessary if society didn’t condone illegitimacy and no-fault divorce.
     
  6. Fn/Form

    Fn/Form Function over Form

    524
    1
    The prime factor is personal responsibility. Divorce, single mothers, etc. are often a consequence of lack of personal responsibility, not the other way around.

    I do agree that a positive family structure helps with personal responsibility, but you're lumping a whole lot of people into a generalization... not a safe assumption.

    Probably most of them.

    New Orleans is almost unique in its history, demographic, and personality, and you absolutely cannot paint the entire U.S. with the same, broad brush. If you knew the town, you'd know your idea is laughable.

    IMO, basic morality is mostly summed in the widely-accepted, common laws of our country. The Constitution, criminal law, health and safety codes, etc. I may not agree with every single law, but most of it I do. I GUARANTEE YOU, IF EVERYONE LIVED BY THESE BASIC LAWS WE COULD ALL GET ALONG. Married or not. But even "good" people pick and choose which laws they obey at which times... "family" people and "bastard" people alike.

    Society/government only prolongs the misery if they try to step in and legislate more than that. They are treating the SYMPTOMS, and NOT THE DISEASE. The disease must be treated at the personal level, a personal decision to be responsible for their self; committed to understanding society and undertaking their part in it--not a parasite of it. It doesn't matter if your parents were married, divorced, never knew each other, or whatever. Personal responsibility is the key issue. On the whole, stable families and societies would follow.
     
  7. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Then explain how and why the U.S. has gotten progressively worse (crime, drugs, bad schools) since no-fault divorce became the law of the land. Human beings will not restrain themselves so for society’s sake they must be restrained by society, religion and law. Society no longer cares, religion has been regulated into impotence and the law actively promotes the breakdown of the family.

    How so? I am merely explaining the situation as I see it. A 40% illegitimacy rate fully proves the accuracy of my assumption. Society no longer upholds the family and the family has dissolved.

    If the 20% of the population that didn’t look out for themselves is taken as being impoverished, then maybe NO is unique- few places in the U.S. have a 20% poverty rate. But that is not my point. New Orleans amply demonstrates the connection between the dissolution of the family and poverty. This connection is not NO-dependent. It exists everywhere. NO simply concentrates it like a giant centrifuge.

    That doesn’t tell me anything. What about abortion and adultery and prostitution and Sodomy?

    On the contrary. Things like welfare actively promote immorality because people can sleep around, produce a bastard child and not have to take personal responsibility for their actions. Government action isn’t a symptom of societal decay; it is an active causative agent of that decay. My next door neighbor has 3 children by 3 different men- only one of which she was married to (the second of which had a wife in another state and the third is an old man who was seeking a VA disability which his bastard child would be entitled too long after he is dead). If she wasn’t getting welfare for the first two, I doubt that she would have slept around to get the third.

    Society has no right to demand that the right decision is made at the personal level? You cannot propose personal responsibility as the panacea for societal decay and then allow society no way to make people be personally responsible.
     
  8. Herbalpagan

    Herbalpagan Well-Known Member

    252
    0
    I do not think that divorce, illigitimate birth, race or socio economic back ground has anything to do with what a person becomes. There are many instances of people over coming these issues.
    It is lack of personal responsibility that chooses the results. Granted, envoronment has a lot to do with how you feel about personal responsibility.
    The government creating a "welfare" nation and requiring NO personal responsibility is what has created the problem.
    I am not without compassion, and anyone can get down and out in rough times, but to offer onyl a hand out continuously and no other choice or to not demand a change, is only making slaves/addicts of people in this situation. The old adage is "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a life time" is very true in this case. Those people in NO new that a hurricane was coming and could have left to an out of town shelter. They chose to take a chance and not go. Those people, when transfered to another situation could have found jobs in the new location, taken up offers of education and a new life. They chose not to. Why, because it was so much easier to accept a hand out. When you create a generation of lazy people, it takes a generation to turn that around.
    I do not feel badly for these people in this day and age...they have free access to media to know that there are other ways of life. Most have access to free education to change their situation.
    In almost every community accross the nation, there are "programs" to help young unwed mothers make other choices. They choose not to take advantage of this. For poor people, there is abortion or adoption for free...they choose to take the easy way out. The government has supported these decisions and now there is a generation of welfare addicts. But they are addicts thru personal choice, not because of race or illegitamacy. JMO
     
  9. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    "The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families... How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality if, from their earliest infancy, they learn their mothers live in habitual infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant infidelity to their mothers?"

    John Adams
     
  10. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    The effects of these things on people’s lives have been documented.

    Poverty and the Single Parent - Associated Content

    In 2003 27.5% of the children in the U.S. lived with an unwed parent. 83.5% of these unwed parents were mothers. 42.3% of the children being raised by an unwed mother were living in poverty.

    The Effect of Marriage on Child Poverty

    When the first war on poverty program took effect in 1965 20.7% of America’s children were living in poverty. By 1996 that figure was still 19.8%.

    In 1960 only 12% of American children lived with an unwed parent.

    Only 8.2% of the children who live with both parents live in poverty. 35.2% of children who live with an unwed parent live in poverty.

    Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure

    “The least amount of communication and structure the family provides, the more likely the child will engage in delinquent activities.”

    “Children who are rejected by their parents, who grow up in homes with considerable conflict, or who are inadequately supervised are at the greatest risk of becoming delinquent.”

    Children of divorce: rapists and other criminals

    “All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on
    crime or delinquency.”

    “A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in the past year.”

    “A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. (Mackey and Coney 2000, p. 352)

    “A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded, ‘[A]n increase of 13% in female-headed households would produce a doubling
    of the offense rate.’ (Osgood and Chambers 2000, p. 103)”.

    Other studies indicate that 60% of rapists came from unwed mother homes. 70% of “violent” people likewise came from unwed mother homes.

    Boys who live in a single-parent home are twice as likely to end up in jail as boys who live with both parents even when other factors (race, education, income etcetera) are taken into consideration.

    Another study shows that 53% of the inmates in state prison grew up in single parent homes. And another study shows that the juvenile delinquency rate in a neighborhood is directly proportional to the number of single-mother households that are in that neighborhood.

    Don’t tell me that divorce and illegitimacy have no effect.
     
  11. sailaway

    sailaway Well-Known Member

    1,922
    0
    Well said Herbalpagan:cool:
     
  12. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Except that the facts do not match the Pagan’s rhetoric.
     
  13. Fn/Form

    Fn/Form Function over Form

    524
    1
    The US has been going downhill since the '50s. Hedonism became king and reigns today. Divorce is a symptom of that decline, not a cause. I believe divorce exacerbates the problem, but it is not the cause.

    As for "must be restrained by society, religion and law"... I can't even respond to that and won't. A quote like that is what this country was freed from when it was born... freedom from being restrained ultimately by society, religion or many laws.

    People are more educated and have access to more life tools than ever before... in society, religion and law. But betterment of mankind is not the order of the day. What people lack is the personal responsibility to heed what they already know and use their richness of life and access to resources for the true betterment of mankind. Rather, hedonism and its distraction rules the day.

    Mexico has a lot of laws, strong religious identity, and is known to have one of the LOWEST divorce rates in the entire world along with a very strong family identity. Why are so many Mexicans coming to the U.S.?

    Most, if not all, of the first world countries have significantly higher divorce rates than third world countries.

    I can name a lot of other countries with very strong religious, legal and marital systems, but are still labeled as "third world". The cause of your consternation with the people of today, jafl, is more than a single set of categories such as divorce, poverty and illegtimacy.

    Again, illegitimacy, poverty and divorce are symptoms of the problem, not THE problem.

    It should tell you a lot, if you are listening. There's a lot of law out there that I said I believe in. Pretty well defined.

    Abortion. On one hand, abortion is hotly contested, as it should be in a "free" country that yet "protects the rights of people". It really defines the tension we should have between true freedom (extreme: anarchy) and government (extreme: fascism, socialism, etc.).

    On the other hand, I believe abortion is a litmus test for our society. I can't say I'm encouraged by today's test results.

    Adultery, prostitution, sodomy... I'll add divorce and poverty in there... are choices of personal freedom. I don't agree with them as an intentional life choice, but they're personal choices that government has no business intruding into. Again, this is one of the biggest reasons why many of the founders of this country separated from England.

    You are mistaking symptoms for causes.

    It's like saying lawyers are to blame for the litigation crisis that's choking our country. No one ever thinks about the JURY OF THEIR PEERS that awards the stupid judgments of stupidly gigantic sums. It isn't the lawyers, it's our PEERS that feed the plaintiffs and their lawyers. The blame is with your countrymen, jafl, not with the government or the systems it has enacted. Can't you see that?

    To boot, your beloved government "action" is what created welfare. You also want the same government "action" to curb the consequences of welfare. Not going to happen... it's like a rooster trying to use the fox to catch the hens for him. The fox'll get the hens, alright... and the rooster.

    jafl, society has already demanded the right decision to be made at a basic, personal level. That's where common law revered and established from ages past has come from.

    We don't need more law, we need people to WAKE UP and live responsibly by the laws already on the books. Our people are anesthetized by myriad things. The problem is that the solutions to waking them up are as varied and time-consuming as the myriad ways they are anesthetized.

    You will not wake them up with more laws... either they will not feel it because they will do whatever you say to keep the welfare money flowing... or they will find someone (politician) who will give them what they want in turn for the empowerment he receives from their loyalty. They will use the very tool you hope to use--government action--to beat you at your own game, for they are many, and they and their mindless supporters outnumber you. I think you already know this, because it's what's been happening for a long time, now.

    The REAL, trillion dollar question is--the REAL dilemma that makes you so concerned, jafl--is THIS QUESTION:

    HOW DO WE RELATE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY?

    The answer is, there isn't a single, governmental method that will allow you to force the greater balance of our country to get back in touch with reality. I believe we as a country are too far out of touch with reality... to deal with reality.

    There are crucibles that have forced our nation to come to its senses. Fear is the most common factor of those crucibles. Revolutionary War, Civil War, Great Depression, WWII, Sept. 11th, etc. Terrible as they were, times such as those forced us to reckon with the fears induced by reality. However, we get fat, dumb and happy, and again we slip into a fantasy world. We have been put in a crucible several times... but...

    What is it going to take to bring us out of this one? Or will we ever recover? One thing is for sure, it will not be a governmental action that will save us. We're too far gone, too far corrupted for that to happen. I don't think we are yet too deeply self-anesthetized to wake up, but I hope we are at the bottom of a pendulum swing and hopefully on the way back up. Maybe we will never get the benefit of another crucible... who knows?

    The best we can do is the same as others in those crucible times. We do our best to bring the people around us back into touch with reality. We already have a system of government that will serve us better than any other government, we just have to use what we already have and cut off the excess that's been put on it. Personal responsibility--exercising what we already have and pruning it back to efficiency. Not more law.
     
  14. Herbalpagan

    Herbalpagan Well-Known Member

    252
    0
    I said that everyone has the choice and the option to make their choices. The facts DO speak otherwise, but that does not mean it MUST happen that way. An alcoholic can decide not to drink, a drug addict can decide not to take more drugs, are you telling me that people who have the choice, the options and the knowledge can not make the right choice simply because they are illegitimate, poor and from a broken home? That's crap.

    In truth, it's best if a child is raised in a two parent home with a stay-at-home parent, safely tucked behind a white picket fence in small town America. Unfortunetely, there are many serial killers who came from that. They had a choice to make good decisions or bad, and all the wonderful, moral upbringing didn't help.

    Life is a crap shoot, but when it comes down to it, we are all responsible for the choices we make.
     
  15. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    You are ignorant at best, if not flat out stupid at worst. You make no sense. You complain about America going downhill because of hedonism, but then insist that individuals can exercise self-restraint well enough to not need society, religion or government.

    Do you not know what hedonism is? Hedonism is the self-indulgent pursuit of pleasure as a way of life. It is practiced by libertines, gluttons and lechers. Its synonyms include debauchery and sensualism- neither of which cant exist in the face of human self-restraint. They exist because will not naturally exercise self-restraint.

    America’s Founding Fathers knew enough about human nature to know that humans are self-centered, self-serving despicable creatures. They did not believe humans could exercise self-restraint. They did not expect humans to always make decisions that are best or morally right. You have some very wrong-headed ideas about what the American Revolution was designed to accomplish. It was not meant to overturn the existing social order; it was not a revolt against law and order. It was not a “let’s get government off our backs” movement.

    “The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right”- Alexander Hamilton, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

    “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint”- Alexander Hamilton.

    “I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints”- Edmund Burke, British MP, statesman and supporter of the American cause during the Revolutionary War.

    "...Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights?"- Edmund Burke.

    For the jobs that American welfare recipients won’t take.

    So? Do these third world countries have our juvenile delinquency rate or our murder rate? What are you trying to show?

    Your point is? As I pointed out in my previous post when you take factors such as income, race and education into consideration divorce and illegitimacy are prime causative agents for poverty and criminal behavior.

    Do the unborn count as people?

    My mother was physically unable to carry a baby to term. I was supposed to be stillborn. However, I was born 10 weeks premature, weighing less than 3.5lbs and managed to survive with 1960s-era medical care (namely 2 months in an incubator). But yet I have encountered leftists on the net who insist that I had no right to live because I could not survive outside the womb without medical intervention. And yet babies that are more premature than I was can survive.

    Again, you are not telling me anything. Are you pro-life or pro-abortion?

    Poverty is the result not the cause of sexual immorality. If you are a child of an unwed mother you are 4 times more likely to be living in poverty than a child who lives in the setting of a functioning family is.

    And when they lead to failing schools and juvenile delinquency? What people like you don’t understand is that personal actions on the part of individuals can and often do have detrimental effects on society as a whole, therefore society has every right to one, declare that your personal individual actions are immoral and two, implement steps to prevent you from taking such personal individual actions.

    Prove it.

    Welfare is the creation of the government, but in a democratic government government action cannot take place without the consent of the governed- in the case of welfare that consent came from people who wanted to destroy society by destroying the family.

    Again, it took majority consent of the governed to create welfare and if that majority were to realize the error of its ways it could back the dismantling of welfare.

    Then why does society have/condone/encourage so much divorce, illegitimacy, Sodomy, crime and welfare?

    Except some of the laws that were meant to enforce personal responsibility have been struck down by the courts. Prime examples: laws restricting the sale of birth control to married couples- meaning sex is not longer confined within the bounds of marriage, thus we have high rates of divorce, adultery and illegitimacy; laws against abortion, which again makes sex outside of marriage possible since no one has to take responsibility for any baby their immorality produces and laws denying marriage rights to Sodomites- again allows sex outside of marriage.

    Laws saying that the fathers of welfare recipients must be identified and demanding that they either pay child support, go to jail or be castrated would not reduce the illegitimacy rate?
     
  16. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Then explain how and why so many people make the wrong choice.

    You cannot expect a child, or even a teenager or young adult, to always know right from wrong and thus always make the best choice for themselves and their offspring, let alone what’s best for society. They will mimic the behavior that they are exposed to and conclude that that behavior is morally OK. This is why welfare queens usually spit out welfare bastards that go on to produce welfare grand-bastards and great-grand-bastards.
     
  17. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Your documentation for this is what?

    Ted Bundy - An American Psycho and Famous Serial Killer | Famous Serial Killers
    Ted Bundy, raised by a single mother.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/nyregion/04chambers.html
    Robert Chambers, the Preppy Killer, raised by a single-mother.

    wcr:03/14/2005 -- Police killer raised Catholic
    Mass killer James Roszko was raised by a single parent from the time he was 12 years old.

    Hawaii Reporter: Hawaii Reporter
    Q: “Can you explain why there has been such an upsurge in serial killings?”

    A. “And the indicators are that we are looking at an era of violence that is consistent with the breakdown of the American family. We're seeing a lot more single-parent families, a lot more dysfunctional families and broken families. Along with that we're seeing a kind of across the board desire to resist authority as a result of the sequence of the 1960s and '70s when more and more people were challenging government, and challenging our society, and more or less doing their own thing and not towing-the-line as young people did in the '30s, '40s and '50s. You have all these people in the '60s and '70s and on into the 1990s looking out for themselves.”

    More killers may come from both-parent settings, but this is only because (for the moment) single-parent households are not in the majority. But single-parent households likely produce killers at a higher rate.
     
  18. Fn/Form

    Fn/Form Function over Form

    524
    1
    Very good! You are re-stating what I said and reinforcing my point!

    YES, I believe they are hedonistic and going downhill because of it.

    YES, I believe they cannot exercise self-restraint due to their self-administered intoxication. Remember the parts about anesthesia and them not being able to wake up?

    BTW, don't attach your personal negative or positive connotations to a neutral philosophy such as hedonism and expect others to assume your connotations.

    You entirely dismiss the fact I brought up hedonism and the fact that the balance of our country lacks self restraint and likes to have it so.

    You entirely dismiss the fact I say I value law and the order it brings.

    I can not and will parley with you if you continue to rail without regard to my comments taken as a whole.

    By those statistics I simply show that your god factors (divorce, illegitimacy, poverty) are not the basis for wealth and well-being.

    You began this topic with a statement to the effect that the disintegration of the family unit is the lynchpin of humanity. Now you introduce many other factors later in the conversation... well, BRAVO, that's what we've been trying to tell you, that "family" is not the god factor. That is my point and others' point.

    I grew up poor as dirt. Sometimes no electricity, and without electricity there's no running the well pump, so no water. An open sewage line beside the house. No phone, no health insurance. No air conditioning until I was 19 or so, and no heating for the first few years we lived in that shotgun ranch house in southeast TX. You just piled covers on and bundled up like an Eskimo. Basically a single mother, basically squatters on 100 acres we didn't pay rent on half the time (rent was only $100 a month from 1984-2001). I even remember going once or twice to get government cheese and powdered milk at a welfare center. My mom didn't like going at all, but we had to do that or not eat at all. She never did go on welfare, but possibly would have if our lives truly depended on it. Our hardship was mostly due to the lazy, irresponsible father we had. He wasn't even around until I was in my mid teens... my mother separated from him twice that I can remember. No one in the previous five generations had a college degree, and one set of grandparents were divorced, adulterating drunks. By your estimation I and my siblings should be derelicts of the fourth order.

    All of us'n kids have all been to college... every single one of us. We paid for it without any help. We five kids are now two registered nurses, an ag engineer, a civil/ocean engineer and a police officer, with four-year degrees, some with two four-year degrees. Spouses are degreed, as well. 90% of us churchgoers, homeowners, politically active, not a single one of us with a criminal record, bankruptcy, etc. We are part of the backbone of the nation, we are among the salt of the earth.

    What made us break your mold? My mother, a high school dropout, always did the right thing. She taught us CHARACTER. She homeschooled us when she realized we were going to be just the way ol' jafl expected us to be. She was embarrassed for our life situation, but she chose to remain financially poor while creating priceless wealth by raising great kids. I was poor as dirt as a kid, but I wouldn't trade those years with my mother and siblings for anything. BTW, she got her degree at a state university after raising us, and she is now attempting a law degree. All paid for by her.

    And what is your fascination with my status as pro-life or pro-abortion, and how does it apply to this conversation?

    Well, there you have it. At least part of you is an elitist, legislating from afar, based on your statistics and detached observations of trends and places you've never been or never really tried to understand.

    I do not believe people are held captive by statistics or family history. My family proves that.

    Personal actions are not equal to personal responsibility. You know that.

    I do believe that it takes something momentous in life to change the ways of those who are anesthetized or otherwise content with the pathetic or mediocre. I don't believe legislation is the answer, it never has been.

    Already have. I'm trying to tell you the horse is already out of the gate, but you don't seem to agree.

    Again, the people are too asleep and the government too hackneyed to realize the errors of their ways. And with the current administration, it's only going to get worse. Look at Illinois... all I can say is, WOW.

    I grew up near a big city. I work as a police officer smack dab in the middle of a metro area. My jurisdiction covers two counties. I work mainly in the downtown district that includes part of the "bad" part of town. It is all proof positive that legislation beyond common law does NOT work, no matter how good the intentions. The horse is already out of the gate by the time you think you need to close it with "legislation".

    More legislation is not the answer... we have enough of that. Beating on the poverty/welfare crowd some more is not the answer to our national woes.

    The answer is people waking up and making changes in their own, personal lives. It usually takes fear to make that change, like I said in my last post.

    I thought you already knew the "answer" to that question. It's the whole "America’s Founding Fathers knew enough about human nature to know that humans are self-centered, self-serving despicable creatures" comment you made earlier.

    I don't agree with your comment. There are a lot of great people out there, but those people seem to be in the minority these days, whether barely the minority or the minority by a great margin, I don't know. I lean toward them barely being the minority, seeing the election results of the last few elections. Most of them have lost heart, though.

    Yeah, I don't agree with most of the laws you mention. They're stupid, because the horse is already out of the gate. People will be what they are going to be, regardless of laws made in excess of common law. You can't legislate morality. It's a lost cause, and a messy one, at that.

    I don't believe in welfare, so I don't believe in the controls you want to enact for welfare.

    I believe "welfare" concept is best kept local. The locals should take care of their own and police their own. They'll know who is willing to work for their assistance and who is not, they'll keep tabs and decide who is worthy of help and who isn't.
     
  19. jafl

    jafl Well-Known Member

    78
    0
    Hedonism is not a neutral philosophy for the simple fact that people don’t all have the same idea of what pleasure is. Someone who only wants sex when it comes within a monogamous marriage will see sex outside of such marriage as bad; pleasure for these people means lover later rather than lust now. But anyone who wants immediate gratification of their physical desires by getting sex wherever and whenever they can will see monogamous marriage as a bad thing that goes against what they want to believe.

    People who are in favor of marriage don’t have any more self-restraint than anyone else does, but unlike everyone else they are restrained by society, religion or law.
     
  20. The_Blob

    The_Blob performing monkey

    4,230
    4
    the World isn't Hell... but you can see it from here. :eek: :rolleyes: ;)