• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Romney praises socialised medicine

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Your utopian world sounds great? When does the next space ship leave? I'd like to sign up.
You might be better served with a time machine.



And remember that back when out-of-wedlock births were low there was very limited birth control and no legal abortion.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,093
3,628
126
Who holds getting cancer as a moral viewpoint?
Collectivism is political. If people weren't so god damn power hungry and stopped trying to impose on others, you'd already have UHC available somewhere in this country. Whether you could afford it or not is a separate question.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
I will stop trying to forcing my moral views on other when they stop forcing me to pay for theirs.

Seems fair.
Just because someone has a child when they are not married does not mean that child will be on welfare.

I know a married couple, 5 kids, and they have been on welfare for close to 20 years. The state has paid for every one of the children to be born, and food stamps for those 20 years.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,728
2,576
126
I would suggest preventing people from having children out of wedlock to begin with.
What if a couple doesnt want to get married (for whatever reason) but wants to live together forever and have children?

You can see why your views are dumb and could never work. So with that said you may as well just abandon your views for more realistic ones.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Collectivism is political. If people weren't so god damn power hungry and stopped trying to impose on others, you'd already have UHC available somewhere in this country. Whether you could afford it or not is a separate question.
Who would provide that UHC?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Just because someone has a child when they are not married does not mean that child will be on welfare.

I know a married couple, 5 kids, and they have been on welfare for close to 20 years. The state has paid for every one of the children to be born, and food stamps for those 20 years.
So you are suggesting we need more than just 3 rules.

What if a couple doesnt want to get married (for whatever reason) but wants to live together forever and have children?
So they want to be married in a practical sense, but not legally. Why not just get married then?

You can see why your views are dumb and could never work. So with that said you may as well just abandon your views for more realistic ones.
Incorrect. I posted a graph that clearly show my views have worked in the past. Considering advances in birth control technology and the legalization of abortion it is even easier for my views to work now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,504
23,441
136
I would suggest preventing people from having children out of wedlock to begin with.
How do we go about preventing them? I'm interested to hear your plan. If I remember correctly in the past you were willing to have police come and arrest women to forcibly abort their children. Is that how we would accomplish this too?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Really? Playing obtuse i see.
When someone uses that phrase it's sometimes thought of in degrees. Do rules come before treatment? Who ultimately makes decisions? Will it be the provider or patient or algorithmic regulations from DC?

It was a fair question that I didn't want to ask in a leading way aimed at what I assumed to be an adult mind and therefore not directed at you.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
So you are suggesting we need more than just 3 rules.



So they want to be married in a practical sense, but not legally. Why not just get married then?



Incorrect. I posted a graph that clearly show my views have worked in the past. Considering advances in birth control technology and the legalization of abortion it is even easier for my views to work now.
Thats not how it works.

You cant decide your outcome ahead of time, then go looking for data that supports that, and finish with an unprovable conclusion.

Ive done this for others, so Ill do it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
How do we go about preventing them? I'm interested to hear your plan. If I remember correctly in the past you were willing to have police come and arrest women to forcibly abort their children. Is that how we would accomplish this too?
Typically you arrest people after the crime has been committed.

Do you have any problems arresting men who rob stores?

Does the fact that people still do rob stores mean we should legalize robbery?

EDIT: And note what I am proposing was commonplace for centuries. Seems like those people had some ideas on how to do it successfully.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,504
23,441
136
Typically you arrest people after the crime has been committed.

Do you have any problems arresting men who rob stores?

Does the fact that people still do rob stores mean we should legalize robbery?

EDIT: And note what I am proposing was commonplace for centuries. Seems like those people had some ideas on how to do it successfully.
Oh, well if we did something in the past we should definitely keep doing it now. I'm going to go grab a bull to sacrifice to Zeus.

So your plan is to arrest parents who have children out of wedlock? What do you do with the kid? Foster care?
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Typically you arrest people after the crime has been committed.

Do you have any problems arresting men who rob stores?

Does the fact that people still do rob stores mean we should legalize robbery?

EDIT: And note what I am proposing was commonplace for centuries. Seems like those people had some ideas on how to do it successfully.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

An apt description.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
Oh, well if we did something in the past we should definitely keep doing it now. I'm going to go grab a bull to sacrifice to Zeus.

So your plan is to arrest parents who have children out of wedlock? What do you do with the kid? Foster care?
Hey welcome to the party eski!

Im proposing debtors prison.

What do you think?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,504
23,441
136
Hey welcome to the party eski!

Im proposing debtors prison.

What do you think?
I think that we toss the parents in jail for their indiscretion. Most importantly though we throw the women in some much worse prison than we throw the men into because women won't go on dates with nehalem256.

As for the kids I think they should become the legal property of the first adult (male!) to come across them. Put them to work in some salt mines, or maybe fine point sewing as they have little fingers that can do detail work more easily. Children labored in factories for a long time, that means it's a good idea.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
What we need is personal responsibility, not only to ourselves, but also to the community.
Which is exactly what I am calling for. If you want the community to help care for you, then you should be expected to behave in a certain fashion.

So your plan is to arrest parents who have children out of wedlock? What do you do with the kid? Foster care?
I would hope that most people would have the sense to not have children out of wedlock in this situation. But yes the child would then go to foster care. There are many couples looking to adopt children.


This has to be a record number of flip flops by a politician.
There must be something in the water in Massachusetts.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,504
23,441
136
I would hope that most people would have the sense to not have children out of wedlock in this situation. But yes the child would then go to foster care. There are many couples looking to adopt children.
Oh? Well there are currently somewhere around 150,000 children in the US awaiting adoption this very minute. If you know people who are looking to adopt, please forward them this information immediately.

Children placed into foster care are massively more likely to be incarcerated, involved with crime, or otherwise economically indigent. Yeah, we should totally increase the foster care rolls. (not to mention the other horrifying implications of 'go get an abortion or go to jail')

Most of your ideas are stupid, but this one was REALLY stupid.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Oh? Well there are currently somewhere around 150,000 children in the US awaiting adoption this very minute. If you know people who are looking to adopt, please forward them this information immediately.

Children placed into foster care are massively more likely to be incarcerated, involved with crime, or otherwise economically indigent. Yeah, we should totally increase the foster care rolls. (not to mention the other horrifying implications of 'go get an abortion or go to jail')

Most of your ideas are stupid, but this one was REALLY stupid.
Most of the children placed into foster care are probably placed there after they are older and their birth parents have already screwed them up.

Adopting children out at birth will prevent their birth parents from screwing them up. Given that their mother is not only having a child out of wedlock, but is doing it when its illegal, I do not exactly have high hopes for her raising children well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY