Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by nehalem256, Dec 17, 2012.
LOL Tell that to fucking lawyers the LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE divorces!
[Raises hand] Point of fact - bastard children have nothing to do with the point of the article you quoted.
"Bastard" means the child's parents weren't legally married. Your article talks about children living not living with their two biological parents.
Clearly the problem is living with a 'parent' that is not related to the kid. Many kids who are not bastards live with such a parent (parents previously separated, divorced or one died.
"Bastard" has nothing to do with it, nothing at all.
And what is the best way to ensure that a child will live with both parents for his whole life?
To have the parents legally married before he is born and to eliminate no-fault divorce.
This is what society did for 100s of years.
By having an overbearing and controlling mother who provides the child with his/her needs coupled with a controlled father?
You will have to be more specific what you mean by the bolded. But it sounds like you are wrong
Divorce is: I don't want the pressure of solving a problem. So let's just avoid them LOL!!!
Fixed that for you.
Wow...so much hate and ignorance about divorce and family life exists in this thread - its quite pathetic. Divorce is not simply the "result of not wanting to solve problems" in a marriage. Perhaps you should go volunteer at the nearest foster home, Boys/Girls club, etc. and talk to some of these "bastard children". Eventually they will tell you about how they really live and about their families. You will find that none of what you speak about is as simple as it seems. Yes, there are a lot of social ills that one can be against - but NONE of that is necessarily the fault of the child or of both parents. It is often a symptom and not a cause of much larger ills in society. Divorce is not something to be taken lightly - but in many cases it is the only way to make the best of a bad situation.
Every child deserves a loving home with a two married, loving, biological parents. However, as a child of divorced parents that works with many of these "little bastards" on a daily basis- the OP can go pound sand. His outdated/outmoded sense of morality belongs in the dark ages and should stay there.
That's what our grandparents did, and "our" here means everyone's (for the most part.)
The proper way to be selfish is to not get married in the first place, once you have children perhaps the avenues of selfishness should be legally cut off from you.
Nehalem, we let you stay here didn't we? You trying to squash any attempts at competition?
You know whenever I see a nehalem thread I always think of this:
Except without the eventual redemption of the main character of course.
Although kids without parents are at higher risk of everything bad there's no way to enforce a rule like this anyway without massive mass killings.
(1) You do realize in the case of bastard children there was no marriage to begin with and hence no divorce.
(2) What about your experiences with foster homes Boys/Girls clubs etc tells you that have bastard children is not bad?
(3) While I am sure you could make an argument for divorce being the less of 2 evils. What possible argument is there for it being socially acceptable to have bastard children?
What is "outdated/outmoded" about it? Do children need 2 parents less? Are adults somehow inherently less capable now of getting married* before having children and staying married?
What positive is there in it being socially acceptable to have bastard children?
*Given the easy access to birth control and legality of abortion they should be vastly more capable of waiting until marriage to have children.
So when ~5% of children were bastards in the 1950s there were massive mass killings?
Why are we not taught about Eisenhower's genocide?
He said enforce it.
You could put in the minimum effort of reading the responses in your own thread.
At least you are full on, out front, with your trolling now.
The Democrats appear to be serious about resurrecting the assault weapons ban because it might potentially keep children from dying. Despite the fact that 10 years of the previous ban provide no belief this will occur.
At least my plans likely would protect children.
Is Barack Obama trolling America?
The government is able to enforce many laws without killing. I see no need to respond to ridiculous hyperbole.
Especially when society as recently as 60 years ago was able to enforce something similar to what I propose.
Sure. The patriarchy was in full force back then.
By the way, this thread is you going full A420.
Is this what you want for everyone, nehalem?
If so, you're a dumbass... and it will never cease to amuse me to see your dream never become reality.
So what is your point? Other than that Feminist "values" apparently lead to girls being sexually molested.
And really if you think your modern values are so good for society... shouldn't you be able to explain why having bastard children is a good thing?
Have you ever read a A420 thread?
You mean a world where less children are abused, sexually molested, and grow up in poverty?
Crazy idea huh.
Lol glad to see you aligning with the resident misogynist.
No, but the idea that taking us back to the 50s is required to do so is incredibly stupid... and guaranteed never to work.
You clearly have no idea how societies work.