Single mothers
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Only if someone ties someone down and stuffs money in their mouth until they choke.
Right. The US defense budget doesn't count? The money I used to buy my guns doesn't count? Money doesn't make hit man work? Nobody was ever killed to take their money, or for the insurance? Do you really think the money is any less to blame than the gun? Hell, if that's true, most 'gun shot victims' are killed by blood loss. I mean. yeah, the hole was caused by the bullet, but lets be fair here. It's not even the guns fault, since the bullet did it. How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Christian Graus wrote:
To quote Lynyrd Skynyrd, a gun is made for killing, it ain't good for nothin' else.
Not all killing is bad killing, not all shooting is killing, and do I need to pull out the vasectomy quote? And who cares what LS says about anything? Your smart enough to know fame means nothing! Charlton Heston said guns are good, do you accept his word? He was a Famous Person, you know!
Christian Graus wrote:
to unfit parents who only have them for the money.
You are going to have to provide stats for that. I know there have been a couple of well publicized cases here, but that is like being too scared of terrorists to fly, but driving on the highway, your view on the stats is distorted.
Christian Graus wrote:
You've just utterly missed the point - well done.
You've just utterly side stepped the issue - well done. There are going to be babies. There are going to be poor people. Unless you plan on mandatory abortion for the poor, you are going to have poor babies. What are you going to do with them? Are you going to spend any money on feeding them, or are you going to let them die?
Christian Graus wrote:
If you take away the incentive to have kids, they'll have more kids to spite you ? Get real.
In your church, are people only supposed to have sex to make children? (that is against your argument, not your church) The times I've had sex to make children is a small part of the times I've had sex. In general, the incentive for having sex is sex. Babies just sort of happen. Some people never figure out why, and they are the ones you want to stop, but you won't.
Opacity, th
RichardM1 wrote:
How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Simple. Society works in a way that means I need money, and I can use it for all sorts of things. The only reason to have a gun, is to kill. Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
RichardM1 wrote:
He was a Famous Person, you know!
Gosh - you're fired up. I don't care that it was Lynyrd Skynyrd that says it, that doesn't make me believe it. I used a song lyric to present what seems self evident to me. I was being flippant.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are going to have to provide stats for that.
How does one generate stats ? You ask people if they had kids for money, does that work ? Let's try this. Where I live, I am in a good area, but because where I live is small, and because my home is on the edge of the country, and the next suburb over is basically the edge of the city, I live right by an area that is literally close to 100% long term unemployed and single mothers. These families tend to have four kids. I don't remember the last time I met someone who was paying for their own family by having a job, who had four kids. I know it's more common in the US, but the point is, where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family. So, it's reasonable to assume that the extra money is part of the motivation, or they at least don't care how many kids they have b/c I will pay for it. My wife has a deadbeat friend who lives on welfare. She has four kids. The eldest is nearly 16. She's thinking of having another so she doesn't get a 'pay cut'. My wife's aunt works at the local primary school. They had a careers day and all the kids looked confused. The boys said why work when they can go on the dole, and the girls said 'but I'll start having babies at 14 and go on the dole so I can get my own home'. The same aunt, spent half her wage on feeding and clothing kids who, at age 7, were left to their own devices and would show up to school in their night clothes, which would be soiled more often than not, and very hungry. On the night that benefits come in, these parents typically throw kids of this age a pack of chips and leave them in front of the TV while they go to the pub. I have first hand accounts of this. Some of the parents at my sons school are from this area, and are not much better than what I'm describing. S
-
RichardM1 wrote:
How much indirection are you willing to not see?
Simple. Society works in a way that means I need money, and I can use it for all sorts of things. The only reason to have a gun, is to kill. Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
RichardM1 wrote:
He was a Famous Person, you know!
Gosh - you're fired up. I don't care that it was Lynyrd Skynyrd that says it, that doesn't make me believe it. I used a song lyric to present what seems self evident to me. I was being flippant.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are going to have to provide stats for that.
How does one generate stats ? You ask people if they had kids for money, does that work ? Let's try this. Where I live, I am in a good area, but because where I live is small, and because my home is on the edge of the country, and the next suburb over is basically the edge of the city, I live right by an area that is literally close to 100% long term unemployed and single mothers. These families tend to have four kids. I don't remember the last time I met someone who was paying for their own family by having a job, who had four kids. I know it's more common in the US, but the point is, where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family. So, it's reasonable to assume that the extra money is part of the motivation, or they at least don't care how many kids they have b/c I will pay for it. My wife has a deadbeat friend who lives on welfare. She has four kids. The eldest is nearly 16. She's thinking of having another so she doesn't get a 'pay cut'. My wife's aunt works at the local primary school. They had a careers day and all the kids looked confused. The boys said why work when they can go on the dole, and the girls said 'but I'll start having babies at 14 and go on the dole so I can get my own home'. The same aunt, spent half her wage on feeding and clothing kids who, at age 7, were left to their own devices and would show up to school in their night clothes, which would be soiled more often than not, and very hungry. On the night that benefits come in, these parents typically throw kids of this age a pack of chips and leave them in front of the TV while they go to the pub. I have first hand accounts of this. Some of the parents at my sons school are from this area, and are not much better than what I'm describing. S
Christian Graus wrote:
Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
In the US, 0.7% of death were caused by guns in '05. 39%[^] from alcohol. Remove alcohol, remove dead people. The end. If you don't like the laws in the US, stay away.
Christian Graus wrote:
where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family
You make NZ sound pretty f'd up. How come you keep complaining about the US? Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare. Maybe CSS's argument about public schooling sucking is right, at least in Aus/NZ. But, either way, you are mistaking correlation with causality, and I won't even insult you for it. Height correlates positively with death rate (and vise versa - if you want to be tall, die), but age is the actual causal factor.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, I have no stats. I don't see how any could exist.
You think people will pump out babies for money, but overlook the possibility of getting grant[^] money[^] to study[^] it? :laugh: You still want to make the kid pay for the parents mistake. You are being as dogmatic about this as CSS gets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That what socialism does. It breeds domesticated degenerate sheep
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
To be unemployed, and to be able to spend all that time playing guitar and doing stuff with the family and friends. Bloody luxury! Mad Poke tongue Smile
ROTFL !!! The reality, of course, is that the poor have LESS time for their kids, because they are busy trying to make ends meet. Or, in the case of the bogans I speak of, they have plenty of time, but spend it watching TV and let their kids raise themselves. I see kids under 10 out well after dark, walking the streets, smoking, swearing at cars, etc, when I have to go to the store that is sadly in THAT neighbourhood.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!! The reality, of course, is that the poor have LESS time for their kids, because they are busy trying to make ends meet. Or, in the case of the bogans I speak of, they have plenty of time, but spend it watching TV and let their kids raise themselves. I see kids under 10 out well after dark, walking the streets, smoking, swearing at cars, etc, when I have to go to the store that is sadly in THAT neighbourhood.
Is most of Tassie like that? There must be wealthier areas of Hobart and country areas without government housing. There are plenty of areas in Sydney like you describe, you couldn't pay me enough to live there.
-
Nope, never heard that before in my life. To me, a haiku is a funny little poem with a specific number of syllables. Other than that, everything is negotiable.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Christian Graus wrote:
Removing guns, removes dead people. The end.
In the US, 0.7% of death were caused by guns in '05. 39%[^] from alcohol. Remove alcohol, remove dead people. The end. If you don't like the laws in the US, stay away.
Christian Graus wrote:
where I live, being on welfare is an indicator for having a large family
You make NZ sound pretty f'd up. How come you keep complaining about the US? Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare. Maybe CSS's argument about public schooling sucking is right, at least in Aus/NZ. But, either way, you are mistaking correlation with causality, and I won't even insult you for it. Height correlates positively with death rate (and vise versa - if you want to be tall, die), but age is the actual causal factor.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, I have no stats. I don't see how any could exist.
You think people will pump out babies for money, but overlook the possibility of getting grant[^] money[^] to study[^] it? :laugh: You still want to make the kid pay for the parents mistake. You are being as dogmatic about this as CSS gets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
In the US, 0.7% of death were caused by guns in '05. 39%[^] from alcohol.
Do people kill random strangers with alcohol ? Sure, some do, they drive drunk. Do they do it deliberately though ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Remove alcohol, remove dead people. The end.
I have no problem with that, I don't drink.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you don't like the laws in the US, stay away.
ROTFL !!! You know, I feel safe in America. That's not really the point. You brought up the gun thing.
RichardM1 wrote:
You make NZ sound pretty f'd up.
ROTFL !!!! NZ is, but what do you expect ? I am Australian.
RichardM1 wrote:
How come you keep complaining about the US?
I don't. I started talking about welfare in Australia. You brought up guns in the US.
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare
That's not even worth responding to.
RichardM1 wrote:
. Maybe CSS's argument about public schooling sucking is right, at least in Aus/NZ.
The vast majority of people in Australia go to public schools. I did.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, either way, you are mistaking correlation with causality, and I won't even insult you for it.
It's just a coincidence that the only people having large families, are people who don't have to pay for it, people who get PAID for it ? I've shown personal experience of such people where they self report that the money is a motivator, what more do you want ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You think people will pump out babies for money, but overlook the possibility of getting grant[^] money[^] to study[^] it? Laugh
No, of course not. But, I am saying that people are not going to actually report that they have kids for money, not that often. Most studies suffer from this problem, if what you study is what people tell you, how do you know what they say is true ? And you ignored all the evidence I presented. Way to go.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!! The reality, of course, is that the poor have LESS time for their kids, because they are busy trying to make ends meet. Or, in the case of the bogans I speak of, they have plenty of time, but spend it watching TV and let their kids raise themselves. I see kids under 10 out well after dark, walking the streets, smoking, swearing at cars, etc, when I have to go to the store that is sadly in THAT neighbourhood.
Is most of Tassie like that? There must be wealthier areas of Hobart and country areas without government housing. There are plenty of areas in Sydney like you describe, you couldn't pay me enough to live there.
Josh Gray wrote:
Is most of Tassie like that?
Dunno about most. The issue is, I live on the edge of the country. Driving towards town, the first thing I hit, is the edge of the city, on the side where they decided to move all the long term unemployed in to public housing, a long time ago. That just happens to be where the nearest shopping centre is. Yes, the area in question is known to be one of the worst in Hobart, but there's other wealthy areas right next to other poor ones. It's just a small place, I guess.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=haiku+zen&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=cb20b9497bbf5ddf[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I see how it is. Just want to ruin my fun Why so serious?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
At home, we have enclaves of fourth generation unemployed people, raising kids in poverty, whose best and most viable life option is to have a kid as early as possible ( I would guess median age at 15 ), so they get a baby bonus payment ( more money that their family ever sees in one place otherwise ) and a pension for life. Then I see them on TV, saying things like 'raising a child is not easy, we don't live a life of luxury'. No, you don't. But, that doesn't mean I should be paying for your life, not when you chose it. Now, IVF is taxpayer funded to people who want a kid without sex ( lesbians being the obvious one ). What the hell is going on ? And, the other issue is, the kids are rarely properly raised, and tend to turn out like CSS. So, there is no upside for society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Some of the generalizations in here are making me twitch. Having at least one decent parent is far better for a kid than simply a mother and father. If they're decent parents it doesn't particularly matter what sex they are, or what relation they are, they can raise a kid with a clue and some confidence. I know, as I've seen them do it. I've also seen over emphasis on traditional gender roles cause relationships to implode, explode, and on occasion result in a restraining order. So forgive me if I fail to agree with the mother and father angle. Of course, those Christian is referring to directly are not good parents, but there are those who not only manage but thrive in situations that a lot of people simply dismiss as lost causes.
-
Some of the generalizations in here are making me twitch. Having at least one decent parent is far better for a kid than simply a mother and father. If they're decent parents it doesn't particularly matter what sex they are, or what relation they are, they can raise a kid with a clue and some confidence. I know, as I've seen them do it. I've also seen over emphasis on traditional gender roles cause relationships to implode, explode, and on occasion result in a restraining order. So forgive me if I fail to agree with the mother and father angle. Of course, those Christian is referring to directly are not good parents, but there are those who not only manage but thrive in situations that a lot of people simply dismiss as lost causes.
Distind wrote:
Some of the generalizations in here are making me twitch.
Generalisations typically exist because they are generally true. One expects that people who would be good single mothers, are more likely to breed without financial incentive.
Distind wrote:
Having at least one decent parent is far better for a kid than simply a mother and father.
True. I see pairs of parents that are caricatures, too. My wifes deadbeat friend is married and I know single mothers who have done a great job. They tend to have jobs. Being on welfare tends to be more of an indicator than not being married, in my experience.
Distind wrote:
So forgive me if I fail to agree with the mother and father angle.
Fact is, the best way to raise kids, is with a mother and father providing two positive gender roles. That doesn't mean some non traditional families don't do a decent job, or some male/female bond pairs fail to be decent parents.
Distind wrote:
Of course, those Christian is referring to directly are not good parents, but there are those who not only manage but thrive in situations that a lot of people simply dismiss as lost causes.
My core point really is that, no matter what the family, if you have kids, you should pay for them, and if the state pays, people have kids for the money.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
In the US, 0.7% of death were caused by guns in '05. 39%[^] from alcohol.
Do people kill random strangers with alcohol ? Sure, some do, they drive drunk. Do they do it deliberately though ?
RichardM1 wrote:
Remove alcohol, remove dead people. The end.
I have no problem with that, I don't drink.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you don't like the laws in the US, stay away.
ROTFL !!! You know, I feel safe in America. That's not really the point. You brought up the gun thing.
RichardM1 wrote:
You make NZ sound pretty f'd up.
ROTFL !!!! NZ is, but what do you expect ? I am Australian.
RichardM1 wrote:
How come you keep complaining about the US?
I don't. I started talking about welfare in Australia. You brought up guns in the US.
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare
That's not even worth responding to.
RichardM1 wrote:
. Maybe CSS's argument about public schooling sucking is right, at least in Aus/NZ.
The vast majority of people in Australia go to public schools. I did.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, either way, you are mistaking correlation with causality, and I won't even insult you for it.
It's just a coincidence that the only people having large families, are people who don't have to pay for it, people who get PAID for it ? I've shown personal experience of such people where they self report that the money is a motivator, what more do you want ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You think people will pump out babies for money, but overlook the possibility of getting grant[^] money[^] to study[^] it? Laugh
No, of course not. But, I am saying that people are not going to actually report that they have kids for money, not that often. Most studies suffer from this problem, if what you study is what people tell you, how do you know what they say is true ? And you ignored all the evidence I presented. Way to go.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do people kill random strangers with alcohol ? Sure, some do, they drive drunk. Do they do it deliberately though ?
While I have been in CA, there have been 2 major cases of people purposefully driving their cars into crowds, each killing around 10 people and hurting 10s of others. IIRC, alcohol was involved, and so was intent. Do I randomly kill strangers with my guns? No. If you are not willing to take cars from people for the same reason, why should you take guns?
Christian Graus wrote:
I have no problem with that, I don't drink.
Huh. You don't want people to take your money, but you are OK with taking other people's guns and alcohol. I'm still seeing a trend here.
Christian Graus wrote:
ROTFL !!!! NZ is, but what do you expect ? I am Australian.
Sorry, Tasmania. I forgot which island you lived on. :-O
Christian Graus wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
How come you keep complaining about the US?
I don't.
You mean you aren't in this thread. You complain about the US much more than I complain about New Zealand Albania let me check my notes, oh Australia.
Christian Graus wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe you have the indicator backwards, maybe having big families is an indicator of lack of education, a major factor in going on welfare
That's not even worth responding to.
WTF, Christian? You make one of the most elementary errors of statistical analysis, and you won't even address it? That means you look at the data to support your argument, and aren't listening to what else it could say, not to mention understanding correlations vs causality.
Christian Graus wrote:
The vast majority of people in Australia go to public schools. I did.
While I actually put that in as a swipe at CSS from the other thread, you do bring up a good point. Clearly, Oz public schools are fail these people by teaching them to come up with the wrong solution to the cost benefit equation.
Christian Graus wrote