The reason for such a thing is that it would inevitably result in a large number of single mothers on welfare. Technically speaking a complete D-bag IS free to "abandon" their offspring, they just don't get out of paying for it, since otherwise the government would have to in many cases. Personal freedom is about being allowed to make choices about things you are responsible for. It is NOT about being able to dump your responsibilities whenever you want without consequence.
THIS right here, was what was fishing for. The complete lack of accountability on a woman's part. If a woman is free to remove her offspring, WITHOUT her partner's consent, because it's her body, then she should take responsibility when she decides not to do so without the partner's consent, too. Why are you having a child when you're on welfare? Why are you even having a child without a spouse?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't decide "it's my body" when it's convenient for you, then turn around and tell a man "well you should be responsible if you're going to have sex, D-bag!"
I believe that life begins at conception, and am in favor of allowing contraceptives that don't include an abortificient effect. Because contraceptives prevent conception.
My position is not hypocritical like you assume. Nor is it fair for you to impute the specifically Catholic belief that contraceptives are wrong to all individuals who think that life begins at conception.
At this point it depends on what you mean by "abortificient effect". From what I understand, contraceptives don't actually prevent conception; the prevent implantation. As such the woman's body is never able to distinguish a fertilized egg from an unfertilized one, and both are washed away during her menstrual cycle. Now, that being said, I will assume there are in fact means of birth control for both genders that don't offend your moral sensibilities in some way. I would highly recommend you encourage the use of said contraception, and NOT loudly demand that abortion laws all be change to suit your particular morality. This is why I fundamentally prefer pro-choice: if you don't believe in abortions, you don't have to get one. The answer is not to unilaterally deny abortions to all women who disagree with you; the answer is to persuade them to choose not to have one. I personally believe abortion is better saved as a means of last resort. I would like it to still be an option for when a woman wants one, but we should still encourage a culture shift that minimizes the number of abortions that end up being needed (ie, use other means of birth control first).
I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
Ok in all fairness I don't feel like that is the purpose of child support at all. In the abstract, it would be wrong for two people to conceive a child, with the impression that they would share the costs, and then have one unilaterally back out on that implicit agreement with no strings attached. The only reason we end up going after men is that it's biologically easier for them to pull this maneuver; a man can just up and run off while the woman is still pregnant, at which point she has to the burden of either caring for the child or disposing of it in some way (abortion, adoption, dumpster in the street...) That's why I propose that we simply make the father assist in the process. I also think it would be productive to encourage further R&D on better male birth control methods - I believe more choice/options for everyone would be a good thing.
I am worried about the natural progression this line of argument is taking. I would rather we not allow discussion of the pros/cons of abortion to distract from the topic. Especially the alleged hypocrisy of one's deeply held beliefs on the matter, for or against. I foresee walking on dangerous ground...
...yet I would like to address one aspect of your reasoning, and hope it does not stray too close to sensitive subject matter. Please direct me to private message if it does: If personal freedom is so very important, and our society can't push moral sensibilities onto someone, why shouldn't a man be allowed the freedom to be a complete dirtbag (my opinion) and "abandon" a possible future offspring he never wanted nor asked for?
I just want to point this out to those who have been discussing "financial abortions" and the like, since the whole discussion has centered on balancing men's rights versus women's rights. The law pretty much only cares about the child.
I'd be totally okay with the idiot idea of the "financial abortion" (my eyes are rolling so hard it hurts) if those advocating for it would also advocate for government subsidized general childcare, everything from babysitting to doctor visits. If you agree to subsidize with your tax dollars the children you're allowing to essentially be abandoned, I am okay with your abandonment.
Why? The entire point is that, in a situation where a mother would be given absolute power to decide she doesn't want a child, why shouldn't the father? Why should the government pay for ANYTHING. If the mother wants the freedom of choice, she has to accept all the responsibility that comes with it.
Again I feel I need to clarify that I'm not advocating for this scenario. I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
That Princess Mononoke Pox is all kinds of awesome, and not a reference I would have ever considered before now, which imo, are the best gems to discover when you draft someone's cube.
Well, no one asked Indian people if they wanted to be colonised by the Brits...
There's also the teeny tiny issue of immigration happening under the legal framework designed to handle it. Yeah, some nazis whine about dark-skinned people but a lot more don't mind or actively welcome immigration.
A child molester, a necrophiliac, or a rapist views its actions as a sexual deviation rather than a form of assault. Which party do you think has invested more money into the progression of various sexual freedoms?
It would go on to suggest that the entire group of these people who view themselves as only sexual deviants would back the party that would inevitably come to their aid and protect them in some way.
Does that mean that every Democrat is a child molester, or a rapist?
Even if every racist was a Republican, not every Republican would be a racist.
So how does Democratic policy support paedophilia, necrophilia and rape in a manner similar to Republican policy supporting racial inequality?
I don't even like Democrats but what you're doing is just silly. Linking conservative policy to racism isn't remotely new. If that makes you mad you'd be way better off linking liberal policy to racism than going on about whatever else. A legit good job could be made out of that.
Actually, linking pedophiles to Democrats isn't remotely new, either. Democrats are known for being soft on crime, their understanding of environment causing their "condition" and yes, their non-traditionalist views of sexuality, relationships, and social norms.
But we don't make a thread discussing it, because it's RIDICULOUS, just like linking Racism to Republicans. As half the people on this thread have been trying to explain.
I'm not sure what the alternative would be unless we're talking about a Star Trek-like far future where there is infinite food and infinite power available for free, in which case I guess the answer should be "no", you should not "have to" have a job just to survive if food is infinitely available.
Small nitpick
It does not have to be infinite sources and power. There just needs to be more energy and resources then the human races needs.
The problem is that this will be a long gradient of less and less work needed until we get to that star trek society. What do we do in the mean time? I think we should really think about making the requirements for a livable wage be lessened. Maybe we have gotten to the point were only 30 hours a week are needed from most humans to run our society smoothly.
You mentioned new industries that brought with it lots of jobs and I agree this will continue to happen. Yet these new industries exist and unemployment is not going down. The reason is that these new jobs cannot keep up with the downward pressures of replacing human labor with machine labor.
You're drifting into the other thread, there... but your point about the gradual scale down of necessary time devoted to survival is valid.
However, there are still people who spend their entire day just surviving, while others are willing to work FAR more than 40 hours a week to be better off than just surviving. There are still finite resources, and I for one want to make the best of them. We aren't monsters, so it's not in our best interests to be completely heartless, but you can't deny that it's a tax upon the system as a whole to carry someone who doesn't contribute, hasn't contributed in the past, or won't contribute in the future. Can we absorb this tax where necessary? Absolutely. And we should to a point. Can we do it indefinetely? Not while there aren't enough resources produced for everyone. And we shouldn't have to.
Ah, thank you for the name. And let me redefine: I don't mean the specific number is too much. We have no idea what the maximum capacity of this planet is. However, when 90% of that population is a tumor, I don't see how robots can magically provide the resources to sustain them without themselves consuming infinitely more resources than are available.
I'm picturing a rocket trying to lift itself, but carrying too much dead weight. It needs more fuel to lift that dead weight, but then needs more fuel to lift the added weight of the fuel it added, and so on.
The real issue is that you are distorting the hypothetical to justify yout conclusion. In this game I can just re-change the hypothetical to fix your new perceived problem.
For example the machines are run completely of renewable energy and in the scenario there is 100 times more energy available everyday than is needed to sustain the humans. Now what.
The point of the hypothetical that you are trying to avoid is what really matters the human or the job? If all humans could live comfortably without work how should we view them.
Apparently Dechs Kaison is incapable of seeing them any other way than worthless.
This is not some new hypothetical. It is basically star trek before long space flight is invented.
In that scenario: Congratulations! The only scenario where utopian society works is when there are unlimited resources and unlimited access to them... until the machines figure out we've enslaved them and, again, kill us all.
Snap back to reality (Oh there goes gravity) and we find that almost every object with mass on my hypothetical rocket has to have a necessary function within the system. It can only lift so much dead weight before the entire system fails.
And it's likely too much. They will probably die, and thus "decrease the surplus population!" Problem solved.
This is typically called a Malthusian fallacy. Can you show that it is too much?
Even if it was my thought experiment still stands.
Imagine if the world had 1 trillion people and only needed 100 billion jobs.
Ah, thank you for the name. And let me redefine: I don't mean the specific number is too much. We have no idea what the maximum capacity of this planet is. However, when 90% of that population is a tumor, I don't see how robots can magically provide the resources to sustain them without themselves consuming infinitely more resources than are available.
I'm picturing a rocket trying to lift itself, but carrying too much dead weight. It needs more fuel to lift that dead weight, but then needs more fuel to lift the added weight of the fuel it added, and so on.
An environment can only sustain a certain population. Machines dont have access to infinite resources, do they? Populations correct themselves (sometimes painfully) on the eternal path to equilibrium.
Or the machines strip the planet and everyone dies. Zerio is a balanced equation, too. Down with machines! They'll kill us all!
I did not say that the population was infinite. I gave a finite number.
And it's likely too much. They will probably die, and thus "decrease the surplus population!" Problem solved.
Because I'm assuming there aren't enough food and products being made. That seems more reasonable to me than assuming there are.
Well in the book machines did all the labor. So the entire world was feed. Everyone had clothes and houses.
We are going to reach a point when the amount of people needed to complete jobs are fraction of the total population. It might be 100's of years, but it will happen. What do we do then?
An environment can only sustain a certain population. Machines dont have access to infinite resources, do they? Populations correct themselves (sometimes painfully) on the eternal path to equilibrium.
Or the machines strip the planet and everyone dies. Zero is a balanced equation, too. Down with machines! They'll kill us all!
So you are another one who doesnt care about a whole level of workers.
How hard is it to understand, even with an education, there will be less and less jobs because of automation. Soon even the best and brightest wont be able to find work due to automation. What we are seeing now, is just the tip of what is going to happen.
Now we are making machines to eliminate 10-30 jobs, tomorrow it will be machines replacing 50-100 jobs. Educated or not, skilled or not, a machine will replace you down the road.
I can give two cents, I am on the back side of my employment time. I did my time, got my degrees and changed careers 3.5 times in my life time. But those that are just entering the work force now are going to be hurting, educated or not.
It doesn't matter whether or not I care about them. The REALITY is that unskilled labor WILL be replaced and there's not a (sane) thing you can do about it.
Are you honestly suggesting that we get rid of the machines in the auto industry, for example, and go back to assembly lines, all paid at "fair livable wages" which, if I recall correctly, you put at something like $13 an hour?
Go read the thread again. I said from the beginning, living wage should be the poverty level. Also its based on a full time job.
Fine. Whatever. A lower wage, then. My point was that intentionally keeping America in the stone age while still paying these 5-100 unskilled workers a minimum wage (or more) that is higher than other countries is complete madness.
It's not the responsibility of corporations to provide a certain quota of jobs. People aren't owed a job just because they are a citizen. It has nothing to do with caring or not caring about people. It's just recognizing the reality of the situation. You can't force companies to give away money to people for jobs they don't need.
What you seem to want essentially boils down to government assistance. Either the government creates and pays for all these factories that employ these people, or the government subsidizes corporations who do. Either way the government is basically paying the salary of these people. And I don't think that makes any sense on a large scale.
It has nothing to do with owing anyone anything. If the trend continues, unemployment rates will be up around 25%-35% simply because of automation in the work place. There just will not be enough jobs to go around for the population of the country.
In a short 25 years, America has gone from having entry level, 'high school' jobs to get some working experience, to erasing them because of the demands of the population.
Either way the government is going to have to either take care of these people, or do away with these people. There is no other choice.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue in favor of, here. Do you want to hold back progress just so Tiny Tim can have a job and feel good about himself even if he has absolutely no skills whatsoever? Or are you in favor of a total welfare state?
Men should have some obligations, and some decision-making power. As of right now they have the former but not the latter. We need a solution that give men some options, but not without letting them completely off the hook.
To be clear, the reason child support law exists in its current form has absolutely zero to do with either women's rights or men's rights. It has everything to do with children's rights. The child will get better food, clothing, education, etc., if it has two parents supporting it rather than one. From what little I remember of parent/child law (learned it for the bar and then forgot it as quickly as possible), this is how almost all decisions are made. The rights of the parents mean basically jack squat, the court will look to the best interest of the child as the overriding factor.
I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it's an idea that's very deeply entrenched in family law right now. I just want to point this out to those who have been discussing "financial abortions" and the like, since the whole discussion has centered on balancing men's rights versus women's rights. The law pretty much only cares about the child.
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
So you are another one who doesnt care about a whole level of workers.
How hard is it to understand, even with an education, there will be less and less jobs because of automation. Soon even the best and brightest wont be able to find work due to automation. What we are seeing now, is just the tip of what is going to happen.
Now we are making machines to eliminate 10-30 jobs, tomorrow it will be machines replacing 50-100 jobs. Educated or not, skilled or not, a machine will replace you down the road.
I can give two cents, I am on the back side of my employment time. I did my time, got my degrees and changed careers 3.5 times in my life time. But those that are just entering the work force now are going to be hurting, educated or not.
It doesn't matter whether or not I care about them. The REALITY is that unskilled labor WILL be replaced and there's not a (sane) thing you can do about it.
Are you honestly suggesting that we get rid of the machines in the auto industry, for example, and go back to assembly lines, all paid at "fair livable wages" which, if I recall correctly, you put at something like $13 an hour?
THIS right here, was what was fishing for. The complete lack of accountability on a woman's part. If a woman is free to remove her offspring, WITHOUT her partner's consent, because it's her body, then she should take responsibility when she decides not to do so without the partner's consent, too. Why are you having a child when you're on welfare? Why are you even having a child without a spouse?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't decide "it's my body" when it's convenient for you, then turn around and tell a man "well you should be responsible if you're going to have sex, D-bag!"
I am worried about the natural progression this line of argument is taking. I would rather we not allow discussion of the pros/cons of abortion to distract from the topic. Especially the alleged hypocrisy of one's deeply held beliefs on the matter, for or against. I foresee walking on dangerous ground...
...yet I would like to address one aspect of your reasoning, and hope it does not stray too close to sensitive subject matter. Please direct me to private message if it does: If personal freedom is so very important, and our society can't push moral sensibilities onto someone, why shouldn't a man be allowed the freedom to be a complete dirtbag (my opinion) and "abandon" a possible future offspring he never wanted nor asked for?
Why? The entire point is that, in a situation where a mother would be given absolute power to decide she doesn't want a child, why shouldn't the father? Why should the government pay for ANYTHING. If the mother wants the freedom of choice, she has to accept all the responsibility that comes with it.
Again I feel I need to clarify that I'm not advocating for this scenario. I'm trying to put focus on the fact that we're all too willing to force a man to "take responsibility" as punishment for his "sinful hedonistic lifestyle" but it's sexist if the shoe is on the other foot. It feels like an episode of Maury, where the potential father is boo'd no matter what the outcome.
That Princess Mononoke Pox is all kinds of awesome, and not a reference I would have ever considered before now, which imo, are the best gems to discover when you draft someone's cube.
I covet this. Exactly what I was picturing when I saw the card spoiled. Terrible original artwork, made 100x better by the talented Poxy.
Also jealous of your Beta Mind Twist, jmw23. Congratulations on that pickup, particularly!
Actually, linking pedophiles to Democrats isn't remotely new, either. Democrats are known for being soft on crime, their understanding of environment causing their "condition" and yes, their non-traditionalist views of sexuality, relationships, and social norms.
But we don't make a thread discussing it, because it's RIDICULOUS, just like linking Racism to Republicans. As half the people on this thread have been trying to explain.
You're drifting into the other thread, there... but your point about the gradual scale down of necessary time devoted to survival is valid.
However, there are still people who spend their entire day just surviving, while others are willing to work FAR more than 40 hours a week to be better off than just surviving. There are still finite resources, and I for one want to make the best of them. We aren't monsters, so it's not in our best interests to be completely heartless, but you can't deny that it's a tax upon the system as a whole to carry someone who doesn't contribute, hasn't contributed in the past, or won't contribute in the future. Can we absorb this tax where necessary? Absolutely. And we should to a point. Can we do it indefinetely? Not while there aren't enough resources produced for everyone. And we shouldn't have to.
I am SO happy I didn't let anyone spoil it. I pushed through it in three days.
In that scenario: Congratulations! The only scenario where utopian society works is when there are unlimited resources and unlimited access to them... until the machines figure out we've enslaved them and, again, kill us all.
Snap back to reality (Oh there goes gravity) and we find that almost every object with mass on my hypothetical rocket has to have a necessary function within the system. It can only lift so much dead weight before the entire system fails.
Ah, thank you for the name. And let me redefine: I don't mean the specific number is too much. We have no idea what the maximum capacity of this planet is. However, when 90% of that population is a tumor, I don't see how robots can magically provide the resources to sustain them without themselves consuming infinitely more resources than are available.
I'm picturing a rocket trying to lift itself, but carrying too much dead weight. It needs more fuel to lift that dead weight, but then needs more fuel to lift the added weight of the fuel it added, and so on.
And it's likely too much. They will probably die, and thus "decrease the surplus population!" Problem solved.
An environment can only sustain a certain population. Machines dont have access to infinite resources, do they? Populations correct themselves (sometimes painfully) on the eternal path to equilibrium.
Or the machines strip the planet and everyone dies. Zero is a balanced equation, too. Down with machines! They'll kill us all!
Fine. Whatever. A lower wage, then. My point was that intentionally keeping America in the stone age while still paying these 5-100 unskilled workers a minimum wage (or more) that is higher than other countries is complete madness.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue in favor of, here. Do you want to hold back progress just so Tiny Tim can have a job and feel good about himself even if he has absolutely no skills whatsoever? Or are you in favor of a total welfare state?
Right you are, bitterroot, but in the above scenario (ignoring the morality of pro-life vs. pro-choice for the purposes of this thread) this decision is being made before there is a child with rights at all. Pro-choice focuses solely on the rights of the mother.
In the mirror, pro-life scenario, the child would be the focus from the time of conception, and thus the father would be under the same restrictions as the mother. That is, absolutely no opt out clause, and the FULL parental rights that come with that responsibility.
It doesn't matter whether or not I care about them. The REALITY is that unskilled labor WILL be replaced and there's not a (sane) thing you can do about it.
Are you honestly suggesting that we get rid of the machines in the auto industry, for example, and go back to assembly lines, all paid at "fair livable wages" which, if I recall correctly, you put at something like $13 an hour?