22 kiddies by 14 babiemamas

[DucatiMonster696]

The problem is that someone innocent will pay for that guys mistakes. Either his bastards or taxpayers will pay.

The only way out is mandatory abortions/sterilization/BC

That is a false dilemma.

The best way out is to allow people to deal with the repercussions of their mistakes. After he is allowed to feel the brunt of his mistakes with the first or second babies and the mothers involved without having government interfering in his life or aiding his lifestyle he'd of gotten the clue really fast. Along with his parents and grandparents, etc before him who would have generational experiences to share in regards to doing without a big brother government watching over their shoulder correcting and/or aiding their lifestyle choices. Additionally so would the other women involved who would also realize that government wouldn't be there to force them to do the right thing or clean up their mess and thus they would be more apt to ensure that their end was covered and protected.

however what you are asking for in the end is more government to correct a problem that is/was caused by government, i.e. the welfare and aide system enabling such behavior. All of which comes at the high cost of everyone else handing over their individual rights especially in regards to being tax or regulated by government.

 

[thraashman]

How did a thread about 22 babies somehow end up with homosexuality being the subject?!

Ugh.

nehalem posted and everything he posts is inevitably about either how much he hates gays or how much he hates women.

 

[nehalem256]

nehalem posted and everything he posts is inevitably about either how much he hates gays or how much he hates women.

Being generous that excuses maybe the first 5... not the next 17

People get sterilized. Animals get put down. He should be put down like the animal he is.

:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

That is a false dilemma.

The best way out is to allow people to deal with the repercussions of their mistakes. After he is allowed to feel the brunt of his mistakes with the first or second babies and the mothers involved without having government interfering in his life or aiding his lifestyle he'd of gotten the clue really fast. Along with his parents and grandparents, etc before him who would have generational experiences to share in regards to doing without a big brother government watching over their shoulder correcting and/or aiding their lifestyle choices. Additionally so would the other women involved who would also realize that government wouldn't be there to force them to do the right thing or clean up their mess and thus they would be more apt to ensure that their end was covered and protected.

however what you are asking for in the end is more government to correct a problem that is/was caused by government, i.e. the welfare and aide system enabling such behavior. All of which comes at the high cost of everyone else handing over their individual rights especially in regards to being tax or regulated by government.

35-40% of women have been pregnant by age 20. Do you think these people are going to just suddenly magically figure out how to use BC?

 

[werepossum]

Yes, this page verifies your figure: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/worst-worst-2012-worlds-most-repressive-societies

Given the economies of those most repressive countries, I think it skewers nehalem's theory that authoritarianism produces higher economic growth. North Korea being the prime example of how this theory falls apart.

I realize there is a lot of authoritarianism in the world, but do any of you honestly think these severely repressed countries/governments have durability as severely repressive countries/governments in the long run? I don't.

I think Red China may, because Chinese culture favors obedience and putting the group/larger entity before the individual/smaller entity. Nation > province > city > family > immediate family > individual. But we'll see. Authoritarian nations in general don't produce high economic output, and while China has done very well in implementing economic freedom without other freedoms, they may yet hit the same reef as did the USSR.

In the mean while, the state of Tenn. (working taxpayers) is paying at least $7,000 USD per month or $84,000 USD per year to take care of his kids. The money that could be spend elsewhere and more worthwhile. In the comment section, this person wrote:

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of black folks, like other races, are thoroughly disgusted with this man.

That is a false dilemma.

The best way out is to allow people to deal with the repercussions of their mistakes. After he is allowed to feel the brunt of his mistakes with the first or second babies and the mothers involved without having government interfering in his life or aiding his lifestyle he'd of gotten the clue really fast. Along with his parents and grandparents, etc before him who would have generational experiences to share in regards to doing without a big brother government watching over their shoulder correcting and/or aiding their lifestyle choices. Additionally so would the other women involved who would also realize that government wouldn't be there to force them to do the right thing or clean up their mess and thus they would be more apt to ensure that their end was covered and protected.

however what you are asking for in the end is more government to correct a problem that is/was caused by government, i.e. the welfare and aide system enabling such behavior. All of which comes at the high cost of everyone else handing over their individual rights especially in regards to being tax or regulated by government.

Good points. We can't ethically starve his children because their father's a miserable human being, but we could certainly have popped his ass into prison and kept him there after the first few unsupported children.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

35-40% of women have been pregnant by age 20. Do you think these people are going to just suddenly magically figure out how to use BC?

That is a complete and utterly statist response.

You're indirectly making the false presumption that those stats (which may or may not be correct) which you are quoting have developed on their own in a vacuum and thus using it as the basis for supporting more government intrusion and action in the lives of Americans.

Here's a hint the stats we see today in regards to illegitimate pregnancy rates are a reflection and a result (be it indirectly or direct) of past and current government action through policies which have continued to exacerbate the situation of social and moral decay in society. This has happened due to government's attempt to remove all personal responsibility in society at the cost of stifling individual choice, and liberty in society. Which means that attempting to cure the problem (the welfare system creating a foundation for reckless behavior as we see with this man who was be able to father 22 illegitimate kids) of government intervention is a prime example of attempting to put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it instead of starving it of oxygen.

 

[lagokc]

I think Red China may, because Chinese culture favors obedience and putting the group/larger entity before the individual/smaller entity. Nation > province > city > family > immediate family > individual. But we'll see. Authoritarian nations in general don't produce high economic output, and while China has done very well in implementing economic freedom without other freedoms, they may yet hit the same reef as did the USSR.

Confucianism in action. It's held them back economically before because merchants were considered the lowest thing you could be and knowing math was disgraceful because it was related to being a merchant. They do seem to have some of the bugs worked out though.

Good points. We can't ethically starve his children because their father's a miserable human being, but we could certainly have popped his ass into prison and kept him there after the first few unsupported children.

Just to play devil's advocate. We ethically starve children in Africa, why is it so different that they're located in a less distant region?😕

 

[nehalem256]

That is a complete and utterly statist response.

You're indirectly making the false presumption that those stats (which may or may not be correct) you are quoting have developed on their own in a vacuum and thus using it as the basis for supporting more government intrusion and action in the lives of Americans.

Here's a hint the stats we see today in regards to illegitimate pregnancy rates are a reflection and a result (be it indirectly or direct) of past and current government action through policies which have continued to exacerbate the situation of social and moral decay in society. This has happened due to government's attempt to remove all personal responsibility in society at the cost of stifling individual choice, and liberty in society. Which means that attempting to cure the problem (the welfare system creating a foundation for reckless behavior as we see with this man who was be able to father 22 illegitimate kids) of government intervention is a prime example of is attempting to put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it instead of starving it of oxygen.

Excaerbate being the key word. The situation of social and moral decay exists without respect to government action.

Eliminating welfare is not going to magically make people act morally again. It is not going to make people suddenly stop like fucking.

 

[nehalem256]

Good points. We can't ethically starve his children because their father's a miserable human being, but we could certainly have popped his ass into prison and kept him there after the first few unsupported children.

How is that any different than mandatory sterilization for people having children with more than 2 partners?

Other than the fact that prison costs more money?

 

[lagokc]

Eliminating welfare is not going to magically make people act morally again. It is not going to make people suddenly stop like fucking.

It's funny, you've got one party that says contraception is wrong and another party that says personal responsibility is wrong. It's no surprise so many kids are getting the message, "do what you want and don't take precautions either."

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Excaerbate being the key word. The situation of social and moral decay exists without respect to government action.

You're not asking the most important question, "Why does it exist at the current rate we see today and why is it increasing at the relative rate to other periods of time?" and most importantly "How has government played a role in this situation."

Eliminating welfare is not going to magically make people act morally again. It is not going to make people suddenly stop like fucking.

I've never said that it would magically overnight end and cure the reckless behavior of some people in our society that is your assertion. I however do understand and will openly admit that it could take many years (possibly a longer period of time then we have had the policy of government sponsored welfare) to correct the damage which has been and is continuing to be inflicted in society via these a system that creates a scenario by which a man and 14 other women are able to produce 22 children and then burden taxpayers (who are forced via taxation and added regulations) into dealing with the situation via government action.

Of which you have agreed via your previous posts, that the status quo is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet instead of reducing the layers of complexity to the problem you've latched onto the idea that ceeding more individual rights and power over government would be a solution.

Basically you are stating that we should double down on the same train of thought of "good intentions" that got us to this point today and which has created systemic policies which do not work to curb such reckless behavior (as per the OP's post) but instead work to facilitate the creation of new layers of government and new levels of unintended consequences. And that frankly is not IMHO a viable solution because it just up's the level of direct and indirect consequences and inserts more problems into the equation of the tangle web of good intentions gone awry which can be found in the story we are talking about here.

 

[werepossum]

Confucianism in action. It's held them back economically before because merchants were considered the lowest thing you could be and knowing math was disgraceful because it was related to being a merchant. They do seem to have some of the bugs worked out though.

Just to play devil's advocate. We ethically starve children in Africa, why is it so different that they're located in a less distant region?😕

We only starve children in Africa if one accepts that we have responsibility for the entire world; I reject that argument. However, we certainly have responsibility for children inside our own country, or at the very least those legally inside our country.

How is that any different than mandatory sterilization for people having children with more than 2 partners?

Other than the fact that prison costs more money?

I have a problem with altering someone's body for their misdeeds; I do not have a problem with removing someone's freedom for their misdeeds. It is merely what one considers an appropriate amount of power for the government to have.

 

[Remobz]

No wonder the Homos hate "breeders"

 

[lagokc]

We only starve children in Africa if one accepts that we have responsibility for the entire world; I reject that argument. However, we certainly have responsibility for children inside our own country, or at the very least those legally inside our country.

Why do we certainly have responsibility to all the children inside our own country? It seems like if women have children they know they can't care for then it's their own responsibility and no fault of the taxpayer. Certainly it would be much cheaper to provide socialized contraception than it would be to feed, school, and later incarcerate millions of children.

 

[werepossum]

Why do we certainly have responsibility to all the children inside our own country? It seems like if women have children they know they can't care for then it's their own responsibility and no fault of the taxpayer. Certainly it would be much cheaper to provide socialized contraception than it would be to feed, school, and later incarcerate millions of children.

I'd argue that this is part of the social contract. When we have income or property, we pay our taxes which support those unable to work, with the understanding that if we become unable to work, others will support us. We are not in a social contract with Africa, but in forming a nation we are in one together.

With respect to socialized contraception, I doubt that would do much to help. Contraception is exceedingly inexpensive and does nothing to change the reality that having a child outside of wedlock provides housing and a government income. But beyond that - if we aren't responsible for birth control, what SHOULD we be responsible for?

 

[lagokc]

I'd argue that this is part of the social contract. When we have income or property, we pay our taxes which support those unable to work, with the understanding that if we become unable to work, others will support us. We are not in a social contract with Africa, but in forming a nation we are in one together.

Becoming unable to work temporarily for reasons outside your control isn't exactly the same as choosing to carry a child to term in order to live off the state permanently. Apples and oranges.

 

[werepossum]

Becoming unable to work temporarily for reasons outside your control isn't exactly the same as choosing to carry a child to term in order to live off the state permanently. Apples and oranges.

Oh, I agree. But from the child's standpoint it is the same; the child cannot choose whether to be born to deadbeat parents.

 

[lagokc]

Oh, I agree. But from the child's standpoint it is the same; the child cannot choose whether to be born to deadbeat parents.

So offer to feed the child the woman has under the condition that she get her tubes tied and has no more. Seems like the balanced thing to do and would keep up her part of the social compact.

 

[werepossum]

So offer to feed the child the woman has under the condition that she get her tubes tied and have no more. Seems like the balanced thing to do.

That works for me.

 

[nehalem256]

You're not asking the most important question, "Why does it exist at the current rate we see today and why is it increasing at the relative rate to other periods of time?" and most importantly "How has government played a role in this situation."

Its called the sexual revolution.

I've never said that it would magically overnight end and cure the reckless behavior of some people in our society that is your assertion. I however do understand and will openly admit that it could take many years (possibly a longer period of time then we have had the policy of government sponsored welfare) to correct the damage which has been and is continuing to be inflicted in society via these a system that creates a scenario by which a man and 14 other women are able to produce 22 children and then burden taxpayers (who are forced via taxation and added regulations) into dealing with the situation via government action.

Of which you have agreed via your previous posts, that the status quo is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet instead of reducing the layers of complexity to the problem you've latched onto the idea that ceeding more individual rights and power over government would be a solution.

What right am I ceding to the government exactly? The right to have bastard children with a dozen women? That is no more a "right" than punching someone in the face.

Basically you are stating that we should double down on the same train of thought of "good intentions" that got us to this point today and which has created systemic policies which do not work to curb such reckless behavior (as per the OP's post) but instead work to facilitate the creation of new layers of government and new levels of unintended consequences. And that frankly is not IMHO a viable solution because it just up's the level of direct and indirect consequences and inserts more problems into the equation of the tangle web of good intentions gone awry which can be found in the story we are talking about here.

Basically I am saying that "hoping" that morality will spring make into being is insanity.

The morality present in the OP story is no different than the morality present on the average college campus, except that this guy appears to suck at using condoms(or doesn't care about using them).

If you think you can reverse the sexually liberated lifestyle... well can I interest you in a bridge?

EDIT: In short how do you restore morality without the force of government?

 

[lagokc]

EDIT: In short how do you restore morality without the force of government?

There is nothing immoral about casual sex, what is immoral is having children that you can not care for.

The problem isn't that people are having sex. The problem is that women are choosing to have children rather than use birth control. If you stopped policies that involve giving women more welfare for having more children then at the very least you'd get them to stop having children with men who can't pay child support and start getting knocked up by men that can afford child support. It's not a complete solution but it takes some of the burden off the innocent taxpayer.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Its called the sexual revolution.



What right am I ceding to the government exactly? The right to have bastard children with a dozen women? That is no more a "right" than punching someone in the face.



Basically I am saying that "hoping" that morality will spring make into being is insanity.

The morality present in the OP story is no different than the morality present on the average college campus, except that this guy appears to suck at using condoms(or doesn't care about using them).

If you think you can reverse the sexually liberated lifestyle... well can I interest you in a bridge?

EDIT: In short how do you restore morality without the force of government?

You need to walk away from the notion that government action (via mandates, regulations, taxation, subsidies etc) is the center for restoring morality or ethics in society. History has demonstrated this view to be completely false in the light of all the historical atrocities committed by almost every government around the world and from the beginning of recorded time itself. Especially when those actions were committed for the "Greater Good". In fact that view is no different and just as false as when someone is espousing the view that morality and ethics springs from religion and/or religious (be it willing or forced) observance of **insert random religion here** and understanding.

In the end both are false appeals toward authority that do not fly in the face of reason and sound thinking. Of the aforementioned said ability to be able to make actual sound and reasonable judgements that have a moral and ethical basis actually requires an individual to have a clear understanding of his/her own actions and consequences both direct and indirect. Is necessary for them to have in order for them to be able to proceed to and grasp at a solid moral and ethical understanding and thus proceed to lay down actual long lasting foundations of positive societal change for themselves or others around them.

However that individual will not get to that point because of the false belief that government (or a religious institution/belief) grants or forces onto them the understanding of morality or ethics. You get there by the only way humans truly learn and that is often by committing and learning from your own mistakes and dealing with the consequences of those mistake and adapting to correct your actions. Or if you are a truly intelligent person and a thoughtful person you get there by witnessing or learning about the mistakes committed by others society and applying those lessons to yourself or passing along those lessons to others willing to listen.

Absent that any other attempts to force morality and ethics, especially when dealing with individuals who have a absence of clear and sound judgement, ends up with a world full of fools who have not learned anything of value. Fools I might add who have to constantly be told what to do, when to do it and/or additionally will also need someone else come in and clean up for them continuously because they keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Meanwhile nothing will change and in fact society will grow progressively worse in its decay as time progresses as less and less individuals are given or allowed true freedom (i.e. the ability to succeed and most importantly fail) so as to deny them the ability to actually develop a real understanding of morality and ethics for themselves, let alone for their community as a whole.

 

[zsdersw]

Yeah, so in other words children will starve.

Less than are starving now.

Why is Somalia on the list? I thought it was suppose to be a libertarian uptopia 😀

What's an "uptopia"?

Do you really think that a society that has "people" father children with 14 babiemamas has any durability as civilized societies in the long run?

The situation outlined in the OP is a statistical outlier.

And besides it doesn't matter to you. If the countries survive in the long run you will just redefine what constitutes "long run"

No more than you'd redefine what constitutes "survive" if they don't make it.

 

[nehalem256]

Less than are starving now.

Given that there would appear to be ZERO starving children in the US now that is a clear impossibility

What's an "uptopia"?

Ah, sounds like someone is all butt-hurt that their list of "authoritarian" states got BS called on it.

The situation outlined in the OP is a statistical outlier.

And what is your point?

Take the case of 29-year-old Jennifer Stepp, who lives in Reading, Pa. Like 14 million other people in the U.S. who live in families headed by single mothers, she's poor. And she faces incredible odds.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

Not a statistical outlier. Having children out-of-wedlock is terrible for society. I think if anything I was being too generous.

 

[zsdersw]

Given that there would appear to be ZERO starving children in the US now that is a clear impossibility

There are, in fact, not 0 starving children in the US now. There are many. http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx

Ah, sounds like someone is all butt-hurt that their list of "authoritarian" states got BS called on it.

North Korea is on that list and is definitely not BS.. so are many of the others. If anyone is butt-hurt it's you.

And what is your point?

That a guy who fathers 22 children via 14 women is nowhere within sight of a common situation.

Not a statistical outlier. Having children out-of-wedlock is terrible for society. I think if anything I was being too generous.

Having children out of wedlock is one thing, 22 children by 14 women is another.