NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - Blood pressure is rising in the public debate over a plan by one Louisiana representative offering what some might call a bizarre way to fight poverty.

Representative John LaBruzzo of Metairie wants to pay poor people to get sterilized and reward rich people for having children. His proposal is already fueling heated debate.

"How can these people qualify for food stamps with $40,000 cars that I can't afford and I'm paying taxes?" LaBruzzo asks. Since hurricanes Gustav and Ike, LaBruzzo says his constituents have been calling him, angry about people they say rely on the government for handouts. "We need to deal with this before it explodes," he says

So, he is toying with his own solution. He has come up with the idea of voluntary sterilization for the poor. As a reward, they would get $1,000 from the state government. "If we don't break generational welfare trend, lot of people feel taken advantage of, then another problem on our hands." LaBruzzo is also thinking about proposing tax incentives for people not on welfare to encourage them to have children. "So many people on the other side of the political spectrum are pro-choice. Well, let's give these people the ability to choose."

At this point, this is all in the planning phase. LaBruzzo has not filed an official bill. Julie Mickelberry with Planned Parenthood is hoping he'll find a more viable solution. "I think he needs to look at the root of the problems. Go back to addressing issues of education about unintended pregnancy and opening healthcare access and don't think have done enough of that in Louisiana," she says.

Mickelberry says LaBruzzo's ideas are more like bribery, not a long-term solution. "I know there are over 500,000 women in need of contraceptive services. We know 22% uninsured, so we need to be addressing those issues," she adds. "Some people do think reasonable option and think at least look at it," LaBruzzo says.

He is still gathering welfare data from Baton Rouge to determine whether his ideas would work. He says if it proves feasible, then he will file a bill in the upcoming legislative session.

For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

Didn't they outlaw this kind of thing, like, 40 years ago?

Of course it's racially motivated. People don't have "poor genes" and "rich genes".

Please don't let anyone on NSG support this. Please

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5



For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

Wow. People actually voted this shithead into a public office.

Wow. Just...wow. People like that both enrage and terrify me, at the same time.

Please don't let anyone on NSG support this. Please

I support th-

I can't. I really can't. Not even in the name of satire, and all that is holy, I simply cannot...

Please don't let anyone on NSG support this. Please

Actually.

I could support something like this.

Not this as it stands - because it is discriminatory, but a policy that rewards people choosing the sterilisation option. Drop the other half (the bit about rewarding rich people having kids).

I think he's full of shit - the whole 'cars I can't afford' thing is poison, but there might be underlying merit.

Anyone with any sense would have the two kids they want, or whatever, and then get paid to receive permanent contraception.


But then, I personally believe that our government should be administering chemical sterilising agents in our drinking water, and you should have to pass tests to get the antidote... so I was in a different demographic to start with...

No... just no.

We should certainly encourage people to have less children, because the world is over-populated. But the solution for this is things like better sex ed (hell, better education full stop), better access to contraceptives and so on.

Sterilization of certain aspects of the population who are perceived as having undesirable traits whilst encouraging increased procreation of other sections of the population perceived as having more desirable traits. This sounds familiar...

Didn't they outlaw this kind of thing, like, 40 years ago?

Of course it's racially motivated. People don't have "poor genes" and "rich genes".

I know Virginia used to have mandatory sterilization for the mentally disabled; the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell outlawed it. That was in 1927. It's possible, but I can't imagine that after that places still offered "voluntary" sterilization without getting in trouble.

No... just no.

We should certainly encourage people to have less children, because the world is over-populated. But the solution for this is things like better sex ed (hell, better education full stop), better access to contraceptives and so on.

Sterilization of certain aspects of the population who are perceived as having undesirable traits whilst encouraging increased procreation of other sections of the population perceived as having more desirable traits. This sounds familiar...

Heh... you ran into the same problem I did - you can't cite the precedent because... well, you know why...

I know Virginia used to have mandatory sterilization for the mentally disabled; the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell outlawed it. That was in 1927. It's possible, but I can't imagine that after that places still offered "voluntary" sterilization without getting in trouble.

Unfortunately, in Buck v. Bell (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200), 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the Court upheld the statute that authorized sterilzation of "mental defectives."

From Oyez (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1926/1926_292/):

The Court found that the statute did not violate the Constitution. Justice Holmes made clear that Buck's challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved but on the process of the substantive law. Since sterilization could not occur until a proper hearing had occurred (at which the patient and a guardian could be present) and after the Circuit Court of the County and the Supreme Court of Appeals had reviewed the case, if so requested by the patient. Only after "months of observation" could the operation take place. That was enough to satisfy the Court that there was no Constitutional violation. Citing the best interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia's in order to prevent the nation from "being swamped with incompetence . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Not one of Justice Holmes's better days. :$

Better precedent is Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/316/535.html), 316 U.S. 535 (1942), in which the Court overturned a statute that allowed the state to sterilize a person who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." You are right that this precedent only applied to involuntary sterilization, however. Although the Court found procreation to be a fundamental right protected by strict scrutiny, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate a "voluntary" incentive plan.

Personally I find the very idea naseauting, but I can see what GnI is getting at.

The best you can get in this vein is to have all care related to birth control and reproduction be free for everybody. Which isn't actually bad.

When will people realize that someone is always going to have to be at the bottom?

It's probably racially motivated, but looking at the plan...

Anybody that would voluntarily be sterilized in exchange for a thousand dollars is pretty stupid, seriously, do we really want that in our gene pool?

When will people realize that someone is always going to have to be at the bottom?

Damn straight. Who'd ever think something stupid like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."?

Damn straight. Who'd ever think something stupid like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."?

Your socialist views are not welcome here.

Damn straight. Who'd ever think something stupid like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."?

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, life is unfair, we can't all be rich who dates super model and have giant mansion to go home to. Some of us will go home alone to an apartment. Others will go home to a loving family, but in a trailer home. Others will go home to an un-loving, un-faithful wife, and they live in a mansion.

It's probably racially motivated, but looking at the plan...

Anybody that would voluntarily be sterilized in exchange for a thousand dollars is pretty stupid, seriously, do we really want that in our gene pool?

Wait... what... why?

I've had two children, and don't want any more. If someone wants to pay ME to get the chop....

How would that make me stupid?

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, life is unfair, we can't all be rich who dates super model and have giant mansion to go home to. Some of us will go home alone to an apartment. Others will go home to a loving family, but in a trailer home. Others will go home to an un-loving, un-faithful wife, and they live in a mansion.

Forgive me, I was just reading some literature by our Founders.

Like Samuel Bryan's, Letter of Centinel, No. 1 (http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/centinel01.html) (1787):

A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.

Silly stuff, I guess.

Wait... what... why?

I've had two children, and don't want any more. If someone wants to pay ME to get the chop....

How would that make me stupid?

That's true, I hadn't thought of that, but I think if you look around you could definitely get more than a 1000.

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5



For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

silly humans, always trying to find ways to suppress and destroy each other. :(

YAHH! I support! This is one of the "most smartestest" decisions ever made by a government official! We don't need poor people! Crush those silly commies and let's make the USA the richest nation [sic] on earth! Exclamation point.

When will people realize that someone is always going to have to be at the bottom?
Sigh. The topic is NOT about sex positions. Seriously, try to stay focused.

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, life is unfair, we can't all be rich who dates super model and have giant mansion to go home to. Some of us will go home alone to an apartment. Others will go home to a loving family, but in a trailer home. Others will go home to an un-loving, un-faithful wife, and they live in a mansion.
In re bolded part: See now, that's where you're wrong, because according to this dipshit politician, all we have to do is stop the poor from breeding and then when they're all extinct, everyone will be rich because only rich folks will be left. I mean, duh. It's so simple.

Obviously, you either didn't read the OP, or you disagree with this idiot's notions just like the rest of us.

If a person, for his or her own reasons, decides to be sterilized, that's his/her decision.

He's essentially offering a bounty for reproductive organs. Uncivilized.

What about poor people who have babies and *then* get sterilized when they feel they've had enough of them? Do they still get the bonus?

They should get a medal at least. I had the snip after I fathered my brood!

Damn straight. Who'd ever think something stupid like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."?


that simply translates as "you can't be snooty and look down on peons because they weren't born with a double barreled name and a title, and you were" nothing about not being born as bright or as rich as someone else.

Would you all be opposed if the government offered free sterilization programs? Or is it just the incentive that bothers you?

This person advocating this should be killed. Right now, publically. Drag him out on the Capitol building's front steps execute him by firing squad.

Would you all be opposed if the government offered free sterilization programs? Or is it just the incentive that bothers you?
If by "incentive" you mean the motive behind the suggestion, then that is what bothers me. That and the stupidity.

The motive is clearly prejudicial against the poor. It assumes that people can never get themselves out of poverty (with or without public assistance), and that the only way to reduce poverty is to eliminate the poor. In my opinion, it is only slightly more civilized than proposing to shoot the poor.

By the way, the prejudice of the proposal and the one who made it is highlighted by the fact that he is not just proposing to pay poor people not to reproduce but also to encourage rich people to produce more babies. I mean, come on, I ask you. Seriously.

Also, this proposal is nothing new. There have always been people who have gone about proposing to stop people who they don't want to live next door to from reproducing. Historically, in the US, this has been directed against the disabled and against black people. Guess who it's being directed towards this time?

And now let's take a look at the stupidity angle: He thinks he can breed poverty out of society? Really? No, wait, I made a mistake -- I used the word "thinks" in that sentence. What kind of a moron is this guy? Is he so dazzled by his own prejudices that he has no idea how money/wealth/poverty/the economy work?

So we've covered the prejudiced part and the stupid part, and finally, there's the stupidly prejudiced part of it all: He also seems to...fantasize?... that the root cause of poverty is having all these poor people around cluttering up the place. Get rid of them, and poof! problem gone. This raw diamond of idiocy is composed of equal parts brainlessness about economic issues and a bigoted assumption that people are poor because they are genetically inferior.

In all seriousness, if someone ever says anything like this while in the same room with you, throw a drink at them. It's the only appropriate response.

If by "incentive" you mean the motive behind the suggestion, then that is what bothers me. That and the stupidity.

The motive is clearly prejudicial against the poor. It assumes that people can never get themselves out of poverty (with or without public assistance), and that the only way to reduce poverty is to eliminate the poor. In my opinion, it is only slightly more civilized than proposing to shoot the poor.

By the way, the prejudice of the proposal and the one who made it is highlighted by the fact that he is not just proposing to pay poor people not to reproduce but also to encourage rich people to produce more babies. I mean, come on, I ask you. Seriously.

Also, this proposal is nothing new. There have always been people who have gone about proposing to stop people who they don't want to live next door to from reproducing. Historically, in the US, this has been directed against the disabled and against black people. Guess who it's being directed towards this time?

And now let's take a look at the stupidity angle: He thinks he can breed poverty out of society? Really? No, wait, I made a mistake -- I used the word "thinks" in that sentence. What kind of a moron is this guy? Is he so dazzled by his own prejudices that he has no idea how money/wealth/poverty/the economy work?

So we've covered the prejudiced part and the stupid part, and finally, there's the stupidly prejudiced part of it all: He also seems to...fantasize?... that the root cause of poverty is having all these poor people around cluttering up the place. Get rid of them, and poof! problem gone. This raw diamond of idiocy is composed of equal parts brainlessness about economic issues and a bigoted assumption that people are poor because they are genetically inferior.

In all seriousness, if someone ever says anything like this while in the same room with you, throw a drink at them. It's the only appropriate response.

Ahh. I just thought everyone was against someone voluntary sterilizing themselves; a free program with no money "reward" would be like the one that everyone can get except poor people could afford it. But ya the motive's pretty fucked up

I support this, but why not go further and kill anyone belowpoverty level? (sarcasm, people)

Meanwhile, back in reality-land, life is unfair, we can't all be rich who dates super model and have giant mansion to go home to. Some of us will go home alone to an apartment. Others will go home to a loving family, but in a trailer home. Others will go home to an un-loving, un-faithful wife, and they live in a mansion.
And others don't have a home, or live in a one-room hellhole. Just because we can't all live in mansions doesn't mean that the "bottom" should be as low as it is.

And others don't have a home, or live in a one-room hellhole. Just because we can't all live in mansions doesn't mean that the "bottom" should be as low as it is.

True, this.

Anybody that would voluntarily be sterilized in exchange for a thousand dollars is pretty stupid, seriously, do we really want that in our gene pool?

This, kind of makes sense.

Still cannot agree with it in the least though.

Looks like Alex Jones may be right on the eugenics issue... Just like it looks as if he was right about an economic collapse...

*waits to be called a conspiracist kook*

and others don't have a home, or live in a one-room hellhole. Just because we can't all live in mansions doesn't mean that the "bottom" should be as low as it is.

the market will savez us!

Voluntarily Sterilization for those that want it. No incentives, but no sanction.

The rewarding rich people for procreating part is shitty, in my opinion.

But if I could have my one or two kids, and then get paid to get sterilized, I'd totally do that.

I'm not a supporter of enforcing eugenics, but I'm in favor of financial incentives for people objectively genetically better (not necessarily rich - wealth weakly correlates to value) to have kids, and vice versa.


However, this is kinda 30 years too late. Today, eugenics are an extinct dinosaur of never developed science, as we're approaching understanding of human genome and the ability to precisely engineer the future generations.

Also:

"Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor!"

It's probably racially motivated, but looking at the plan...

Anybody that would voluntarily be sterilized in exchange for a thousand dollars is pretty stupid, seriously, do we really want that in our gene pool?

Considering the fact that neither my wife nor myself WANT children and we could use $1000 I fail to see the stupidity in the equation.

I thought we had moved past Eugenics?

I am not surprised as I think this guys district is also David Dukes district....

considering the fact that neither my wife nor myself want children and we could use $1000 i fail to see the stupidity in the equation.

qft.

Considering the fact that neither my wife nor myself WANT children and we could use $1000 I fail to see the stupidity in the equation.

Answer is easy, have a kid, sell it on the black market.

Answer is easy, have a kid, sell it on the black market.

And where do we go from there, eating the children of the poor?

Yes

Considering the fact that neither my wife nor myself WANT children and we could use $1000 I fail to see the stupidity in the equation.

You are willing to mutilate yourself for $1000? You could probably make a career at of that....

Yes

Wasn't it Monty Python that proposed to start a market for babies for dinner?

A Modest Proposal.

Irish babies are best.

Wasn't it Monty Python that proposed to start a market for babies for dinner?

...

Boy you're swift.

And people wonder why America's credibility has imploded...

babies don't implode.

babies don't implode.

Don't mind my friend here; the doctors forgot to give me his medication.

I gave it to the babies, they didn't implode.:eek:

Considering the fact that neither my wife nor myself WANT children and we could use $1000 I fail to see the stupidity in the equation.


Well, why don't they just offer free sterilization? Instead they are actively seeking poor people, to stop them from breeding. Its not about helping them out. Its about stopping them from being around, period.

...

Boy you're swift.

I hate puns, but I just totally giggled out loud. Damn you.

How about dumping toxic waste in poor neighborhoods, that way the poor that don’t die become mutants.

We can make them do all manual labor.






Joke of course.

...

Boy you're swift.

LOL, more like I remembered SOME british comedians had the idea, and only Monty Python was weird enough to do it :D If an American cmedian had made the proposal, I think his career would have ended overnight :P

Wow. People actually voted this shithead into a public office.

You're surprised? Look at the list of politicians humanity has voted into office in the past.

Well, why don't they just offer free sterilization? Instead they are actively seeking poor people, to stop them from breeding. Its not about helping them out. Its about stopping them from being around, period.

Not arguing with that, just with the person who said I would be stupid to accept money to be sterilized.

How about dumping toxic waste in poor neighborhoods, that way the poor that don’t die become mutants.

We can make them do all manual labor.

How are you going to force them to manual labor if they shoot you with their eye beams?

babies don't implode.

I bet they would if they were put in a decompression chamber.

You are willing to mutilate yourself for $1000? You could probably make a career at of that....

Um, mutilate? That's a bit strong for an operation that loads of people get and that prevents something that I would like prevented (little people with the distilled stubbornness of myself and my wife, as well as a high risk of learning disabilities, epilepsy, and autism running around calling me daddy).

Actually.

I could support something like this.

Not this as it stands - because it is discriminatory, but a policy that rewards people choosing the sterilisation option. Drop the other half (the bit about rewarding rich people having kids).

I think he's full of shit - the whole 'cars I can't afford' thing is poison, but there might be underlying merit.

Anyone with any sense would have the two kids they want, or whatever, and then get paid to receive permanent contraception.


But then, I personally believe that our government should be administering chemical sterilising agents in our drinking water, and you should have to pass tests to get the antidote... so I was in a different demographic to start with...

Curse you G'n'I, curse you!

Please don't let anyone on NSG support this. Please

I wouldn't get my hopes up. There are a lot of sick people out there who haven't given up on eugenics and racial hygiene...

I'm not a supporter of enforcing eugenics, but I'm in favor of financial incentives for people objectively genetically better (not necessarily rich - wealth weakly correlates to value) to have kids, and vice versa.


However, this is kinda 30 years too late. Today, eugenics are an extinct dinosaur of never developed science, as we're approaching understanding of human genome and the ability to precisely engineer the future generations.

The more we learn about the genome, the more we realize we don't know very much. It drives me nuts when some scientist announces that we've isolated "the" gene for trait X and the press picks it up like that's the end of the story, there's no metagenome, there's no developmental sequence involved, and there's no advantage to having alternate traits in a population. If we start deciding now which people have the "objectively genetically better" material we're going to end up with a race of tall blond blue-eyed people with no opposable thumbs who all drop dead from peanut allergies.

This legislator should have his kids taken away from him and raised by people on welfare until he gets the point.

Curse you G'n'I, curse you!

Someone had to say it, right?

Like I said- the whole sterilise-those-ones-but-help-these-ones motif fails for me, for historical precedence, if nothing else...

...but I'm honestly not convinced that everyone should be allowed to have children. Finding ways to factor out abusive tendencies, for example, seems like a positive move to me.

I don't agree with this clown's (no offence intended to LG) entire proposal, but - given the current population - optimising sterilisation doesn't seem like a big bad.

I wouldn't get my hopes up. There are a lot of sick people out there who haven't given up on eugenics and racial hygiene...
Hygiene is what prevents diseases, it's lack of hygiene which leads to sickness.

Heh... you ran into the same problem I did - you can't cite the precedent because... well, you know why...Godwin's law only applies to the Nazis, not all the lovely compulsory sterilization programs out there.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization)

They guy who thought of this shit really needs to die. Like, now.

The more we learn about the genome, the more we realize we don't know very much. It drives me nuts when some scientist announces that we've isolated "the" gene for trait X and the press picks it up like that's the end of the story, there's no metagenome, there's no developmental sequence involved, and there's no advantage to having alternate traits in a population.
Of course, the press will always exaggerate. But we're well advanced now. Just legalize experimentation on human genomes, and in a decade we'll at least be able to have vat-kept clones to scuttle for spare parts in case of emergency.
Genetic modification will be effective later, it needs to be developed to be mass-used - but you can't develop it if you never start.


If we start deciding now which people have the "objectively genetically better" material we're going to end up with a race of tall blond blue-eyed people with no opposable thumbs who all drop dead from peanut allergies.
Not at all. It's all about whom you worship. If you jack off on phantasies of some "aryan race", then, of course, yes.

If you worship HDI and GDP, however, and know the importance of variety, the result will be very different. Predominantly Asian, actually, but with all colors present, and with specialized variants for different duties - compact, physically tough pilots and tank drivers, large muscular builders and heavy-duty workers, economical low-needs high-endurance subcompact office plankton, various sizes for extremely dexterous maintenance specialists and scientists and engineers with maxed-out intelligence, servicepeople with never tiring legs and tongues, just versatile units...
So, on the contrary, genetic engineering will bring way more variety into our society.

And that's even without looking into more deep modification, such as hexadactylity and octadactility to improve the man-machine interface, and much more.

Is the problem really with people abusing the system and passing on thier parasite skills to thier children or is it with the welfare system itself, a system with few checks and balances that is set up to be easily abused. Sterilization is not the answer, perhaps the "teach a man to fish" philosophy could be better implemented by requiring recipients of welfare or any govt funds to prove they are worthy by meeting certain criteria. How about we privatise welfare and let the people decide their own fate? Some how, micro-lending is working around the rest of the planet and investors are actually profiting (All of these African and Indian recipients have considerably less resources than even our most poverty stricken). Lets revitalise that hard American work ethic from the industrial age that programs like social welfare have completly sapped all motivation from. We have become a country where a large percentage of our poor are afflicted by morbid obesity, what does this say about us Globally?

<snip>
We have become a country where a large percentage of our poor are afflicted by morbid obesity, what does this say about us Globally?
It says that, in the US, cheap food is high in fat.

I'll let someone else attack the rest of your post if they want to. Your post was clearly well-meaning but it has problems and is also not really what we are talking about.

Godwin's law only applies to the Nazis, not all the lovely compulsory sterilization programs out there.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization)

But it's not th sterilisation I'm responding to - its the combination of sterilisation with incentivised childbearing for others. The comparison of THAT policy to the untermenschen sterilisation/Aryan warbabies situation makes direct reference a godwin.

Or it says that our idea of poverty is relative since our poorist are still wealthier than many countries richest. Yes Muravets, who "needs to get out more" Fast food is cheap in America but you know whats cheaper? Fresh produce fron the local grocery store or even cheaper than that frozen or canned fruits and veggies, the obesity lies in laziness and poor decision making and perhaps a lack of social pressure to excercise and eat well. So humor me and lets pretend like people have a choice not to go to McDonalds (since it is the only place to eat here in he U.S. apparently, and nobody but me has ever set foot in a grocery store.) Your attacks are welcome, but an alternative solution would be constructive.

This is awful and totally inappropriate for the 21st century.

Or it says that our idea of poverty is relative since our poorist are still wealthier than many countries richest. Yes Muravets, who "needs to get out more" Fast food is cheap in America but you know whats cheaper? Fresh produce fron the local grocery store or even cheaper than that frozen or canned fruits and veggies, the obesity lies in laziness and poor decision making and perhaps a lack of social pressure to excercise and eat well. So humor me and lets pretend like people have a choice not to go to McDonalds (since it is the only place to eat here in he U.S. apparently, and nobody but me has ever set foot in a grocery store.) Your attacks are welcome, but an alternative solution would be constructive.

Not everyone has the same access to fresh produce. For a lot of people, fresh produce is something of a luxury-item, compared with things you can buy to feed a whole family in other sections of the store. Unfortunately, those products aren't cheap because marketforces work - they're cheap because they're not the same quality of nutrition.

Fastfood isn't the only problem in the American diet, although it IS more and more of a problem with two parents in a lot of families now HAVING to work, which makes 'grabbing something on the way home' a far more attractive prospect.

You're being very contentious, considering your attack on 'fat America' is a thread-hijack. You might want to think about toning down your virulence, a little.

Or it says that our idea of poverty is relative since our poorist are still wealthier than many countries richest. Yes Muravets, who "needs to get out more" Fast food is cheap in America but you know whats cheaper? Fresh produce fron the local grocery store or even cheaper than that frozen or canned fruits and veggies, the obesity lies in laziness and poor decision making and perhaps a lack of social pressure to excercise and eat well.

Don't you know? Laziness has nothing to do with it, just faith.
It's a high heresy and a mortal sin for white trash to:

- Live elsewhere than a basement or, most preferably, a trailer;
- Actually cook anything more complicated than fried eggs;
- Eat anything that is low in fat;
- Drive anything that isn't an American-brand 1960s gas-guzzler;
- Be able to hit anything smaller than a barnside with your gun;
- Know more than three countries outside U.S.;
- Drink less than a sixpack of beer daily;
- Under any circumstances, change your stance on anything;
- Read anything (even signs) - only TV is allowed;
- Even remember these ten commandments.

Don't you know? Laziness has nothing to do with it, just faith.
It's a high heresy and a mortal sin for white trash to:

- Live elsewhere than a basement or, most preferably, a trailer;
- Actually cook anything more complicated than fried eggs;
- Eat anything that is low in fat;
- Drive anything that isn't an American-brand 1960s gas-guzzler;
- Be able to hit anything smaller than a barnside with your gun;
- Know more than three countries outside U.S.;
- Drink less than a sixpack of beer daily;
- Under any circumstances, change your stance on anything;
- Read anything (even signs) - only TV is allowed;
- Even remember these ten commandments.

We actually had a dedicated thread on that specific subject not long ago - and, let us bear in mind, that's not even close to the topic of THIS thread - in which the same kind of stupid crap you're posting here was shown to be stupid crap.

If you have no clue what you're talking about, rather than wading in with this kind of idiotic flaming, feel free to shut the fuck up.

Is the problem really with people abusing the system and passing on thier parasite skills to thier children or is it with the welfare system itself, a system with few checks and balances that is set up to be easily abused. Sterilization is not the answer, perhaps the "teach a man to fish" philosophy could be better implemented by requiring recipients of welfare or any govt funds to prove they are worthy by meeting certain criteria. How about we privatise welfare and let the people decide their own fate? Some how, micro-lending is working around the rest of the planet and investors are actually profiting (All of these African and Indian recipients have considerably less resources than even our most poverty stricken). Lets revitalise that hard American work ethic from the industrial age that programs like social welfare have completly sapped all motivation from. We have become a country where a large percentage of our poor are afflicted by morbid obesity, what does this say about us Globally?

The largest, by which I mean most expensive, welfare program, the EITC, increases labor market participation. TANF, ie workfare, is limited to 5 years per person per lifetime. How have they sapped the will to work?

Or it says that our idea of poverty is relative since our poorist are still wealthier than many countries richest. Yes Muravets, who "needs to get out more" Fast food is cheap in America but you know whats cheaper? Fresh produce fron the local grocery store or even cheaper than that frozen or canned fruits and veggies, the obesity lies in laziness and poor decision making and perhaps a lack of social pressure to excercise and eat well. So humor me and lets pretend like people have a choice not to go to McDonalds (since it is the only place to eat here in he U.S. apparently, and nobody but me has ever set foot in a grocery store.) Your attacks are welcome, but an alternative solution would be constructive.

Food insecurity is linked to obesity. When money is scarce people eat low proced high fat and/or high calorie food. Source (http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger&obesity.htm)

Fresh produce and canned fruits is very expensive for poor families.

We actually had a dedicated thread on that specific subject not long ago - and, let us bear in mind, that's not even close to the topic of THIS thread - in which the same kind of stupid crap you're posting here was shown to be stupid crap.

If you have no clue what you're talking about, rather than wading in with this kind of idiotic flaming, feel free to shut the fuck up.

Why so aggressive? Just so you know, Sense of Humour Fair is still open in Caerbannog.

Why so aggressive? Just so you know, Sense of Humour Fair is still open in Caerbannog.

Not agressive, just intolerant of this stupid crap that people keep pushing. Poor people are poor because they're lazy... poor people are fat because they're lazy, etc. Even if you claim you said it in jest, you're replying to someone who clearly believes in such idiotic paradigms.

It's horseshit, and it doesn't deserve tolerance.

I've got a far better idea. Why don't we sterilize the rich and all those in high political office? Its perfectly logical: after all, most people who succeed in business or politics do so by being particularly aggressive and competitive and through bullying behaviour towards others. If my proposal is followed, the "douchebag" gene will be eliminated within a few generations*.

*The above post may not be entirely serious, but then again it might be

It's terrifying that these people can even be considered for political office, let alone elected. But then, this is the state that nearly gave us David Duke.

Not agressive, just intolerant of this stupid crap that people keep pushing. Poor people are poor because they're lazy... poor people are fat because they're lazy, etc. Even if you claim you said it in jest, you're replying to someone who clearly believes in such idiotic paradigms.
If people seriously thinks that someone could possibly actually believe in such paradigms, that's a sign of a problem.



It's horseshit, and it doesn't deserve tolerance.
Well, just for your future reference...

White Trash Test (academically approved) (http://www.fuali.com/test.aspx?id=35205d9c-5462-4324-926d-bc2d7ca95e98)

I am 75% White Trash.
http://www.fuali.com/testimage.aspx?img=684ebc32-9e92-4bee-b892-53f13c3e444f.gif
Total White Trash!
Born in a trailer, live in a trailer, die in a trailer. You are the epitome of white trashiness. Unfortunately, you have no clue what epitome means.


OK, I wasn't entirely honest that time.

But even answering seriously and totally honestly:

I am 60% White Trash.
http://www.fuali.com/testimage.aspx?img=afd15ee6-394a-490d-a006-e579d15398fa.gif
You may have been raised white trash, but you have escaped to find the other side. Even now your white trash traits sneak out, like drinking beer from the bottle at a restaurant.

Or it says that our idea of poverty is relative since our poorist are still wealthier than many countries richest. Yes Muravets, who "needs to get out more" Fast food is cheap in America but you know whats cheaper? Fresh produce fron the local grocery store or even cheaper than that frozen or canned fruits and veggies, the obesity lies in laziness and poor decision making and perhaps a lack of social pressure to excercise and eat well. So humor me and lets pretend like people have a choice not to go to McDonalds (since it is the only place to eat here in he U.S. apparently, and nobody but me has ever set foot in a grocery store.) Your attacks are welcome, but an alternative solution would be constructive.
I have no intention of pursuing an argument with a person who (A) is completely off the topic of this thread and (B) comes in with claims that are factually incorrect.

First off, tomatoes at $2.50-$4.00/lb (depending on the prices in a given region) are NOT less expensive than the "value menu" at a fast food restaurant. Pay attention to what you shop for in real life before making factual assertions.

Second, this thread is about whether the suggestion that the government should encourage poor people not to reproduce while encouraging rich people to produce more babies is bullshit or not.

If you want to participate in this thread, then respond to the OP. If you want to just attack the poor with ill-informed crap, then please start another thread.

Ignoring the other crap, and focusing on the underlying premise that suggests financial incentives for voluntary sterilization, then I don't really see much of a problem. Sterilization in itself is not a bad thing, only when its forced upon people.

I've got a far better idea. Why don't we sterilize the rich and all those in high political office? Its perfectly logical: after all, most people who succeed in business or politics do so by being particularly aggressive and competitive and through bullying behaviour towards others. If my proposal is followed, the "douchebag" gene will be eliminated within a few generations*.

*The above post may not be entirely serious, but then again it might be

So we wipe out the sucessfull, and that leaves who. Rednecks

So we wipe out the sucessfull, and that leaves who. Rednecks

Rednecks with money. *nod*

If people seriously thinks that someone could possibly actually believe in such paradigms, that's a sign of a problem.


Not only do they believe such paradigms but - as I already mentioned, even this little forum has had entire threads dedicated to such concepts.

We've even got one person hijacking the thread with it in this very thread.

If your post was humour, I apologise for my vehemence. I was wrong and I admit it.



My objection still stands - it's pure unscientific prejudice to push such paradigms - my objection is just not aimed at you.

Ignoring the other crap, and focusing on the underlying premise that suggests financial incentives for voluntary sterilization, then I don't really see much of a problem. Sterilization in itself is not a bad thing, only when its forced upon people.
So, in other words, as long as you ignore all the controversial aspects of it, then you don't see anything controversial? Nice. Thanks for completely bypassing the point.

If people want to get sterilized, well and good. If the government wants to encourage that with positive incentives, well and good, as long as they do the same for everyone.

Only that's not what this politician is suggesting, is it? No, he suggests only encouraging one social class to not reproduce while conversely encouraging another social class to reproduce more.

And you know what? I don't really feel motivated to ignore that aspect of the suggestion, since it's the most important part of it.

First off, tomatoes at $2.50-$4.00/lb (depending on the prices in a given region) are NOT less expensive than the "value menu" at a fast food restaurant. Pay attention to what you shop for in real life before making factual assertions.


I have a farmer's market really quite near me, where I can get some pretty fantastic prices on fresh produce, in season. I am well aware that not everyone has this luxury... and that, when I have to pick up my stuff through more conventional avenues, fresh produce is a premium item.

The sad truth is - that complete immunity to reality of cost, is one of the lesser weaknesses of the argument that Olesya espouses.

Only that's not what this politician is suggesting, is it? No, he suggests only encouraging one social class to not reproduce while conversely encouraging another social class to reproduce more.

And you know what? I don't really feel motivated to ignore that aspect of the suggestion, since it's the most important part of it.

I think it's stupid to encourage rich people financially to reproduce, but I see the merit in encouraging certain poor classes to not reproduce, since it may be effective at reducing overall poverty. Of course there are arguments against it, but I don't think it's extremely outrageous.

So, in other words, as long as you ignore all the controversial aspects of it, then you don't see anything controversial? Nice. Thanks for completely bypassing the point.

If people want to get sterilized, well and good. If the government wants to encourage that with positive incentives, well and good, as long as they do the same for everyone.

Only that's not what this politician is suggesting, is it? No, he suggests only encouraging one social class to not reproduce while conversely encouraging another social class to reproduce more.

And you know what? I don't really feel motivated to ignore that aspect of the suggestion, since it's the most important part of it.

You can't encourage everyone equally, for some the same amount of money means little, while for others that thousand dollars means food, bills, and anything else they can scrape out of it.

No incentives, no sanctions.

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5



For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

Ah, bad logic abounds.

First off, only people who abuse welfare to an extreme extent can afford things like $40,000 cars, $200 shoes, etc etc, and those people are usually subsequently caught. I imagine that very few people on welfare abuse it to begin with, and those that do usually don't do it to such an extent.

Secondly, even ignoring the potential racist element--which is most likely, given where this is happening--there's an extreme amount of absolute insanity about this, from the gall that presumes it could actually be enforceable(you'd have to literally force every single poor person to get sterilized, which would require nothing less than a full out police state and STILL wouldn't fully succeed) to the question of what would happen if a poor person would become rich, or if a rich person suddenly loses all of their money, to what qualifies as a definition for rich and poor, to what happens to middle class families, to how we maintain the population considering how few rich people there actually are, etc etc etc...

Seriously, I can't believe this is even being contemplated by anyone, let alone actually brought up in a house of legislature.

I agree with the basic premise that we should seek to eliminate the unruly underclass which tarnishes our society. However, I believe it would be unfair to increase taxation in order to attain that goal; doing so would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden upon tax-payers. Rather, we should slash social programs that subsidize the indolence of the poor; without this governmental support, they would either find adequate employment or else turn to crime as a mode of subsistence. When apprehended for their misdeeds, we would then be able to sterilize them as punishment for their wrongdoing. If, on the other hand, they take the former route and decide to be productive members of society, our nation would prosper due to an influx of cheap labor; indeed, it would even help alleviate our current economic difficulties. Furthermore, this would also rid our genetic pool of deviants who opt to "rebel" against society, who viciously lash out through theft or violence. Also, it would promote those who unquestioningly observe the law of the land, making it a "win-win" option.

I think it's stupid to encourage rich people financially to reproduce, but I see the merit in encouraging certain poor classes to not reproduce, since it may be effective at reducing overall poverty. Of course there are arguments against it, but I don't think it's extremely outrageous.
I already explained why the suggestion (and by extension, your support of it) is bullshit of a particularly heinous type in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14046296&postcount=31

You can't encourage everyone equally, for some the same amount of money means little, while for others that thousand dollars means food, bills, and anything else they can scrape out of it.

No incentives, no sanctions.
In other words, the government should leave people the hell alone when it comes to whether to have kids or not. Good idea! I support it!

I already explained why the suggestion (and by extension, your support of it) is bullshit of a particularly heinous type in this post:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14046296&postcount=31

Mind if I dissect it? Or do you have another post of yours that I MUST read before I do so?

So we wipe out the sucessfull, and that leaves who. Rednecks

Hmm...rednecks surely couldn't do worse in charge than businesspeople and our current crop of politicians

Hmm...rednecks surely couldn't do worse in charge than businesspeople and our current crop of politicians

It's these stupid redknecks who are responsible for these retarded politicians, since these politicians can just easily produce nationalistic right wing rhetoric that perfectly panders these idiots to ensure they get elected.

Ah, bad logic abounds.

First off, only people who abuse welfare to an extreme extent can afford things like $40,000 cars, $200 shoes, etc etc, and those people are usually subsequently caught. I imagine that very few people on welfare abuse it to begin with, and those that do usually don't do it to such an extent.

Secondly, even ignoring the potential racist element--which is most likely, given where this is happening--there's an extreme amount of absolute insanity about this, from the gall that presumes it could actually be enforceable(you'd have to literally force every single poor person to get sterilized, which would require nothing less than a full out police state and STILL wouldn't fully succeed) to the question of what would happen if a poor person would become rich, or if a rich person suddenly loses all of their money, to what qualifies as a definition for rich and poor, to what happens to middle class families, to how we maintain the population considering how few rich people there actually are, etc etc etc...

Seriously, I can't believe this is even being contemplated by anyone, let alone actually brought up in a house of legislature.
You only think this way (see bolded part, above) because you don't understand that wealth and poverty are genetically determined, like eye color. You foolishly think that people are poor because of social conditions, when this politician is clearly telling us that people are poor because they are genetically inferior and if you suppress their breeding, poverty will eventually disappear from the gene pool. Also, if you encourage the rich to have more kids, then there will be enough rich people to run society (though I have no idea who is going to mow their lawns or fix their roofs once all the poorer folks have become extinct).

Evidently, you need to start doing the same drugs as him, or you will never be able to get with this program.

It's these stupid redknecks who are responsible for these retarded politicians, since these politicians can just easily produce nationalistic right wing rhetoric that perfectly panders these idiots to ensure they get elected.

Ok...motion amended... sterilize the rich, politicians and rednecks:p

Ok...motion amended... sterilize the rich, politicians and rednecks:p

And be left with the pompous, whiney middle class? Ugh. You may as well just sterilize everyone and be done with it.

Mind if I dissect it? Or do you have another post of yours that I MUST read before I do so?
What? You're not actually proposing to read the argument you plan to attack, are you? Who are you and what have you done with Hydesland?

If you feel like spending your Sunday afternoon failing, knock yourself out.

You only think this way (see bolded part, above) because you don't understand that wealth and poverty are genetically determined, like eye color. You foolishly think that people are poor because of social conditions, when this politician is clearly telling us that people are poor because they are genetically inferior and if you suppress their breeding, poverty will eventually disappear from the gene pool. Also, if you encourage the rich to have more kids, then there will be enough rich people to run society (though I have no idea who is going to mow their lawns or fix their roofs once all the poorer folks have become extinct).

Evidently, you need to start doing the same drugs as him, or you will never be able to get with this program.

As always, Muravyets, your wit never fails to amuse. :)

And be left with the pompous, whiney middle class? Ugh. You may as well just sterilize everyone and be done with it.

Hmm...this is all too problematic. Lets abandon the whole idea, and sterilise the French instead. After all, no-one can possibly oppose that:p

The motive is clearly prejudicial against the poor.

No shit.


It assumes that people can never get themselves out of poverty (with or without public assistance)

This isn't a necessary assumption. Only that the majority cannot, which is true. People like to pretend that today in western society, class isn't an inhibiting factor, but it is, it really is. Until education is much more improved and far less discriminatory, the majority of those born working class will remain working class. It's nothing to do with genetics but a lot more to do with community/family pressure and traditions and discrimination in schools. I don't think it's impossible for people from impoverished neighbourhoods to be successful, far from it. Technically, I'm from a working class family, yet I'm now studying economics in London which, if I do well, will hopefully give me a successful future.


, and that the only way to reduce poverty is to eliminate the poor. In my opinion, it is only slightly more civilized than proposing to shoot the poor.


Again, I don't think this is an assumption that you need to make either. It's merely one of many options that may reduce poverty and thus ultimately increase revenue for the council that can go into improving education, which is a more important issue that needs to be addressed if you really want to fix poverty.

The rest of your post didn't really seem relevant to what I'm arguing.

Not one of Justice Holmes's better days.


Justice Holmes doesn't *have* good days. He almost never voted to strike down any laws at all-- he believed in complete majoritarianism, with basically no thought to minorities (not just racial, but on any topic. Any group of people comprising less than 50% of the opinion on a given law). His idea was that war was the most important thing to avoid, and if that meant allowing the majority to dominate politics, then it meant allowing the majority to dominate politics. Period, end of sentence, now all he had to do was find a way for the Constitution to justify his beliefs.

/Can't stand him

This is so sad. So so sad that it makes me laugh and then I feel sad and I die a little more on the inside... :(

No shit.



This isn't a necessary assumption. Only that the majority cannot, which is true.
Support this assertion of fact, please, thank you.

People like to pretend that today in western society, class isn't an inhibiting factor, but it is, it really is. Until education is much more improved and far less discriminatory, the majority of those born working class will remain working class. It's nothing to do with genetics but a lot more to do with community/family pressure and traditions and discrimination in schools. I don't think it's impossible for people from impoverished neighbourhoods to be successful, far from it. Technically, I'm from a working class family, yet I'm now studying economics in London which, if I do well, will hopefully give me a successful future.
Well done. You managed to discredit your own assertion in the same paragraph in which you made it. You open by saying the majority cannot lift themselves out of poverty, and you end by telling us how they can do it and how you believe it's possible. Do I need to say more? I will anyway.

You also agree with me that poverty has nothing to do with genetics. In light of that, justify your support for the OP pol's suggestion that poverty can be bred out of society. Since you state clearly that genetics has nothing to do with, explain how eliminating people who are currently poor is going to eliminate the problem of poverty going forward for society.

Again, I don't think this is an assumption that you need to make either. It's merely one of many options that may reduce poverty and thus ultimately increase revenue for the council that can go into improving education, which is a more important issue that needs to be addressed if you really want to fix poverty.
1) Do you have any explanation -- even just one of your own imagining -- to tell us HOW this measure could possibly contribute to the effects you claim, since, if poverty is NOT genetic (as you acknowledge) then removing the people it is currently affecting does nothing at all to stop it from affecting other people? Seriously, your argument is akin to saying, if the problem is that the rain is making people wet, the solution is to remove the people who are gettting wet right now and let others stand in their place.

2) Also, saying that this heinously unethical suggestion is just part of a broader approach to poverty does nothing to reduce the heinous unethicalness of the suggestion itself. Arguing that, "well, hey, it's not the only thing society could do" does not make the suggestion acceptable.

The rest of your post didn't really seem relevant to what I'm arguing.
Of course you don't think so. You would rather ignore the fact that the suggestion is not only grossly prejudiced but also based on complete ignorance of how economics work so that you can pretend you are being pragmatic in supporting it. But an argument that is not based on accurate facts about reality is not pragmatic, so by deciding that these aspects of the topic suggestion are not relevant, you have essentially shown that you do not care whether your argument has merit or not.

Well done. You managed to discredit your own assertion in the same paragraph in which you made it. You open by saying the majority cannot lift themselves out of poverty, and you end by telling us how they can do it and how you believe it's possible. Do I need to say more? I will anyway.


Did you read my post? I said some can, not the majority. I said that it wasn't impossible for people to get themselves out of their inherited poverty, that doesn't then mean that I then think it's likely the majority will.


You also agree with me that poverty has nothing to do with genetics. In light of that, justify your support for the OP pol's suggestion that poverty can be bred out of society.

Since you state clearly that genetics has nothing to do with, explain how eliminating people who are currently poor is going to eliminate the problem of poverty going forward for society.

You inherit more than genes when you are born. You inherit the upbringing in an area with negative social pressures, you inherit discrimination, you inherit many things that make it very difficult to get yourself out of poverty. As more and more people get born into this almost inescapable hole, it gets gradually larger, or it least its effects on the rest of the town begin to get felt more. This is not a solution to the problem, it is merely possible treatment, if you will, which will relieve pressure on the council and make it easier for them actually start working on a solution. I'm not one of these extreme libertarians that believe poor people are poor simply because they choose to be, or choose to be lazy.


1) Do you have any explanation -- even just one of your own imagining -- to tell us HOW this measure could possibly contribute to the effects you claim, since, if poverty is NOT genetic (as you acknowledge) then removing the people it is currently affecting does nothing at all to stop it from affecting other people?

It's fairly simple. If you see above as to why people born into poor families generally remain poor when they grow up, even if some don't, then reducing the amount of people born into this will likely stop growth in poverty or may even slightly reduce it. Again, I stress this is no solution, only a treatment.


2) Also, saying that this heinously unethical suggestion is just part of a broader approach to poverty does nothing to reduce the heinous unethicalness of the suggestion itself. Arguing that, "well, hey, it's not the only thing society could do" does not make the suggestion acceptable.


That wasn't the point. You argued that the idea is based on the belief that it is 'the only way to eliminate poverty', it isn't.


Of course you don't think so. You would rather ignore the fact that the suggestion is not only grossly prejudiced but also based on complete ignorance of how economics work so that you can pretend you are being pragmatic in supporting it. But an argument that is not based on accurate facts about reality is not pragmatic, so by deciding that these aspects of the topic suggestion are not relevant, you have essentially shown that you do not care whether your argument has merit or not.

That's some fancy rhetoric. Let me be more clear, the rest of your post:


Also, this proposal is nothing new. There have always been people who have gone about proposing to stop people who they don't want to live next door to from reproducing. Historically, in the US, this has been directed against the disabled and against black people. Guess who it's being directed towards this time?

Whether its been proposed before is not relevant particularly to its validity.

And now let's take a look at the stupidity angle: He thinks he can breed poverty out of society? Really? No, wait, I made a mistake -- I used the word "thinks" in that sentence. What kind of a moron is this guy? Is he so dazzled by his own prejudices that he has no idea how money/wealth/poverty/the economy work?

This is a repetition of stuff you have already said.

So we've covered the prejudiced part and the stupid part, and finally, there's the stupidly prejudiced part of it all: He also seems to...fantasize?... that the root cause of poverty is having all these poor people around cluttering up the place. Get rid of them, and poof! problem gone. This raw diamond of idiocy is composed of equal parts brainlessness about economic issues and a bigoted assumption that people are poor because they are genetically inferior.

I do not believe poor people are genetically inferior, so your argument that this assumption is stupid is not relevant to what I'm saying, since it isn't a part of my premise.

In all seriousness, if someone ever says anything like this while in the same room with you, throw a drink at them. It's the only appropriate response.

Rhetoric and was clearly not intended to be debated.

There's obviously just so much to object to in this post, but I'm going to ignore it for the moment - identifying you instead as 'evidence' of something I was discussing earlier... and focus on a couple of spcifics:

I agree with the basic premise that we should seek to eliminate the unruly underclass which tarnishes our society. However, I believe it would be unfair to increase taxation in order to attain that goal; doing so would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden upon tax-payers. Rather, we should slash social programs that subsidize the indolence of the poor; without this governmental support, they would either find adequate employment or else turn to crime as a mode of subsistence. When apprehended for their misdeeds, we would then be able to sterilize them as punishment for their wrongdoing. If, on the other hand, they take the former route and decide to be productive members of society, our nation would prosper due to an influx of cheap labor;


For which we'd lack employment...


...indeed, it would even help alleviate our current economic difficulties. Furthermore, this would also rid our genetic pool of deviants who opt to "rebel" against society, who viciously lash out through theft or violence. Also, it would promote those who unquestioningly observe the law of the land, making it a "win-win" option.

Which assumes that those who rebel against society, or are violent or criminal... are the poor...

I'm not a supporter of enforcing eugenics, but I'm in favor of financial incentives for people objectively genetically better (not necessarily rich - wealth weakly correlates to value) to have kids, and vice versa.Objectively better is impossible. 'Better' is inherently subjective.

First off, only people who abuse welfare to an extreme extent can afford things like $40,000 cars, $200 shoes, etc etc, and those people are usually subsequently caught. I imagine that very few people on welfare abuse it to begin with, and those that do usually don't do it to such an extent.Not to mention that simply because somebody has a $40,000 car or $200 pair of shoes doesn't mean they can afford them. The massive credit market in the U.S. is what mostly can be thanked for this.

Muravyets, I'm not sure why you're going down this route of it's effectiveness or not anyway, you and I both know that even if it did work, you would still view it as immoral.

Not to mention that simply because somebody has a $40,000 car or $200 pair of shoes doesn't mean they can afford them. The massive credit market in the U.S. is what mostly can be thanked for this.

Indeed. It's something people tend to forget about.

And be left with the pompous, whiney middle class? Ugh. You may as well just sterilize everyone and be done with it.

So which one are you--one of the elite rich, one of the elite rich politicians, or a redneck?

So which one are you--one of the elite rich, one of the elite rich politicians, or a redneck?

The lazy student class.

[QUOTE But then, I personally believe that our government should be administering chemical sterilising agents in our drinking water, and you should have to pass tests to get the antidote... so I was in a different demographic to start with...[/QUOTE]

So how do you they aren't?
Cue: The Twilight Zone Music

For which we'd lack employment...

Not so. Unemployment is mostly due to burdensome governmental regulations; by eliminating social programs and providing for a fluid labor market, we would be able to combat unemployment while simultaneously driving down prices. Moreover, the sterilization program would preclude future generations of people who would refuse to find a job and would insist upon draining society's resources from coming into existence.

Which assumes that those who rebel against society, or are violent or criminal... are the poor...

Indeed; there is a very strong correlation between violent crime and poverty. Granted, those who embezzle funds and commit similar white-collar crimes should also be sterilized, but the savage elements of society tend to be the poor.

Not so. Unemployment is mostly due to burdensome governmental regulations;


No, it isn't.


..by eliminating social programs and providing for a fluid labor market, we would be able to combat unemployment while simultaneously driving down prices.


'..by eliminating social programs and providing for a fluid labor market...' what you actually create is a culture of transients that is too slow to react to actual employment opportunity, and too unstable to remain.

What you would END UP with, would be a different kind of 'social program', because it's essential to keep a pool of workers near where the work is. That type of 'social program' formed the backbone of feudal society.


Moreover, the sterilization program would preclude future generations of people who would refuse to find a job and would insist upon draining society's resources from coming into existence.


Half right - it would stop people being born.


Indeed; there is a very strong correlation between violent crime and poverty.


A halftruth - there is a very strong correlation between REPORTED violent crime and poverty. Futhermore - being violent isn't limited to poverty, nor is it the cause of poverty - indeed, it is often a route OUT of poverty.

Correlation doesn't equal cause.


Granted, those who embezzle funds and commit similar white-collar crimes should also be sterilized, but the savage elements of society tend to be the poor.

Speculation. Perhaps spontaneous violence is more common where stresses are higher, but violence has never been the preserve of just one class or caste.

No, it isn't.

And yet virtually every single country which has implemented neo-liberal economic reforms has seen its unemployment rate fall sharply. Is that a mere coincidence?

What you actually create is a culture of transients that is too slow to react to actual employment opportunity, and too unstable to remain. What you would END UP with, would be a different kind of 'social program', because it's essential to keep a pool of workers near where the work is. That type of 'social program' formed the backbone of feudal society.

Well, the feudal model had some redeeming characteristics; by ensuring that laborers consume a minimal amount of resources (due to their physical proximity to their place of employment) and are productive, prices for most goods will decrease sharply and economic growth will accelerate. Also, due to their dependency on their employer, they would not be "unstable"; rather, they would be subservient and dependable (at least more so than poor workers currently are, knowing that hard-working American tax-payers will help them if they lose their job). Moreover, if you claim they are transient (that is, that they do not form permanent connections to any one company or location), then they will swiftly react to actual employment opportunities.

A halftruth - there is a very strong correlation between REPORTED violent crime and poverty. Furthermore - being violent isn't limited to poverty, nor is it the cause of poverty - indeed, it is often a route OUT of poverty.

I am unconcerned with the cause of violence; criminals may concoct a whole host of justifications for their brutal behavior and may even have the temerity to blame society for their own faults. Moreover, the rich don't secretly sneak out at night to engage in violent behavior; it is a fair assumption that reported violent crime is very similar to actual violent crime, barring outrageous conspiracy theories.

Correlation doesn't equal cause.

Indeed. Genetic deficiencies may both render one unsuccessful and imbue one with a proclivity towards violence. Thus, a lurking variable may be at play, as per my supposition.

Speculation. Perhaps spontaneous violence is more common where stresses are higher, but violence has never been the preserve of just one class or caste.

Criminal behavior is more prevalent among the lower classes even though it is not exclusively restricted to them.

Ah, bad logic abounds.

First off, only people who abuse welfare to an extreme extent can afford things like $40,000 cars, $200 shoes, etc etc,

Or people who bought a $40,000 car when they had a good job and then LOST said job . . .

And yet virtually every single country which has implemented neo-liberal economic reforms has seen its unemployment rate fall sharply. Is that a mere coincidence?


In absence of evidence that that is the ONLY change operating on such a country, yes.


Well, the feudal model had some redeeming characteristics; by ensuring that laborers consume a minimal amount of resources (due to their physical proximity to their place of employment) and are productive, prices for most goods will decrease sharply and economic growth will accelerate. Also, due to their dependency on their employer, they would not be "unstable"; rather, they would be subservient and dependable (at least more so than poor workers currently are, knowing that hard-working American tax-payers will help them if they lose their job). Moreover, if you claim they are transient (that is, that they do not form permanent connections to any one company or location), then they will swiftly react to actual employment opportunities.


You seem to be making holes in your OWN arguments now. If I leave you alone long enough, I'll eventually find you gnawing on your own shinbone in a pile of broken rhetoric.

How can they be both consuming 'minimal resources' and able to rapidly 'react to actual employment'?

History has shown us that the model you imagine (which, historically, is called serfdom) leaves you with an underclass that own little or nothing, are basically bound to one location, and are basically beholden to one employer for whatever he/she/it is willing to do to support them.

And - while slavery IS economically a great idea, it's a shitty social policy.


I am unconcerned with the cause of violence; criminals may concoct a whole host of justifications for their brutal behavior and may even have the temerity to blame society for their own faults. Moreover, the rich don't secretly sneak out at night to engage in violent behavior; it is a fair assumption that reported violent crime is very similar to actual violent crime, barring outrageous conspiracy theories.


Speculation speculation speculation. Of course you're unconcerned with the causes of violence - it would hurt your argument. So you'll invent knowledge... how do you KNOW people above the poverty line (Curious - why DO you divide people into 'the poor' and 'the rich'? Where's your middle-ground?) aren't commiting violent crimes? I think it's a fabrication.

As for whether reported crime equates to commited crime - we KNOW those figures are drastically different, simply by looking at rape statistics. You don't need a conspiracy theory.


Indeed. Genetic deficiencies may both render one unsuccessful and imbue one with a proclivity towards violence. Thus, a lurking variable may be at play, as per my supposition.


Genetic deficiency renders one unsuccessful?

That's a curious assertion - you're really going to argue that the wealthier one is, the 'better' one is... and at a genetic level, no less?


Criminal behavior is more prevalent among the lower classes even though it is not exclusively restricted to them.

True on both counts. Which makes your earlier argument so much horseshit.

Or people who bought a $40,000 car when they had a good job and then LOST said job . . .

That too.

I honestly don't see where people are getting this idea that everyone on welfare is a horrible abuser of government funds. I had a health teacher a couple years ago back when I was in ninth grade(was that really already seven years ago? :eek: ) who ranted about this, and I asked him to provide some actual examples and proof for what he was claiming.

I got an in-school suspension. :rolleyes:

Didn't they outlaw this kind of thing, like, 40 years ago?

Of course it's racially motivated. People don't have "poor genes" and "rich genes".

But in the eyes of the far right, its your fault if your poor. That's why the government shouldn't pay for wellfair or health care. Of course that breaks down when you look at those who are born poor, so they need to fill a gap in their callous, inhumane philosophy.

And with an economic crisis and imigrants taking jobs, plus two wars against dark skinned people, I'm not suprised if we're seeing a swing back towards the good old days. Also, the southern racist must be increasingly scared by the prospect of a black president, so their fighting back any way they can.:headbang:

But it's not th sterilisation I'm responding to - its the combination of sterilisation with incentivised childbearing for others. The comparison of THAT policy to the untermenschen sterilisation/Aryan warbabies situation makes direct reference a godwin.Favoring one social group over another isn't exclusively Nazi either. The one child policy in China has been loosened for families of Academics, for instance. The way the thing would function according to the guy is more similar to that than the Mother's Cross the Nazis handed out. That made no differentiation of income or educational background, whereas both the one child policy and this do.

That too.

I honestly don't see where people are getting this idea that everyone on welfare is a horrible abuser of government funds. I had a health teacher a couple years ago back when I was in ninth grade(was that really already seven years ago? :eek: ) who ranted about this, and I asked him to provide some actual examples and proof for what he was claiming.

I got an in-school suspension. :rolleyes:

Should have challenged that punishment all the way up the food chain.

Singapore actually does this. Including rewarding the rich. For similar reasons. (they want to encourage Chinese to have kids and discourage others).

I disagree on several levels. One we need the population growth. Once the population pyramid starts looking like a straight line or worse a reverse pyramid. you tend to have a decline in a civilization. You will see this in China in about 20 years BTW.

We need people on the bottom to do those sorts of jobs. with out the garbage workers, and the labors society can not support those on the top.

Also this plan will backfire severely. The future Rich College students would eat this program up. 1,000 dollars to spend + no worries about pregnancy, this is the sort of thing I could imagine 30% of a college campus doing. especially those with conservative upbringing in regards to birth control.

Why not just make having sterilization a condition of welfare payouts...

if you want to keep your balls, you don't ask the govt for money, it would also solve the mexican anchor babies problem since once the family is in the US due to having a US citizen baby all the rest of the family arrive to be with it, and carry on popping out even MORE babies. Now mex culture is latin culture where virility is prized and machoness is measured in the number of rug rats running around. no balls means no virility, means a very non-macho man, who would rather bugger off home to mexico with his balls intact.

There, hows that for the rabid racist ravings of a eugenic-y nutter? I'm sure the arayan supremist groups would love the plan :D

Justice Holmes doesn't *have* good days. He almost never voted to strike down any laws at all-- he believed in complete majoritarianism, with basically no thought to minorities (not just racial, but on any topic. Any group of people comprising less than 50% of the opinion on a given law). His idea was that war was the most important thing to avoid, and if that meant allowing the majority to dominate politics, then it meant allowing the majority to dominate politics. Period, end of sentence, now all he had to do was find a way for the Constitution to justify his beliefs.

/Can't stand him

Meh. I don't want to create a real side debate here and Holmes is far from my favorite Justice, but you overstate your case against him.

I direct you to Holmes's dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Beyond being one of the best summaries of theory of the marketplace of ideas, the thinking behind this dissent is hardly "majority rules and minority be damned."

Wasn't it Monty Python that proposed to start a market for babies for dinner?

please read more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

Ah well... at least I got the fact it was a british citizen (Albeit irish) that made the proposal right :D

Did you read my post? I said some can, not the majority. I said that it wasn't impossible for people to get themselves out of their inherited poverty, that doesn't then mean that I then think it's likely the majority will.
Your inability or unwillingness to connect the dots of your own arguments makes it tiresome to talk with you.

1) You said that the majority cannot do it.

2) Then you said that poverty is NOT genetic. That means that it is not a congenital condition of any person affected by it.

3) Therefore, the reason many people do not lift themselves out of poverty must not be from some inherent lack of ability of their own, but must be from some other circumstance/condition/effect that is preventing them from doing so.

4) Therefore, IN REFERENCE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS WHETHER THE THREAD'S TOPIC SUGGESTION IS BULLSHIT OR NOT, there is NO CONNECTION between the genetics-based argument of the topic suggestion and some people's inability to escape poverty.

Get it yet?


You inherit more than genes when you are born. You inherit the upbringing in an area with negative social pressures, you inherit discrimination, you inherit many things that make it very difficult to get yourself out of poverty. As more and more people get born into this almost inescapable hole, it gets gradually larger, or it least its effects on the rest of the town begin to get felt more. This is not a solution to the problem, it is merely possible treatment, if you will, which will relieve pressure on the council and make it easier for them actually start working on a solution. I'm not one of these extreme libertarians that believe poor people are poor simply because they choose to be, or choose to be lazy.
1) So is it your argument that people are only poor because they learn to be, and if people who have learned to be poor don't have kids, then they won't have anyone to teach how to be poor in future? Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but that might even be more nonsensical than the topic suggestion.

2) I notice that it also has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE TOPIC SUGGESTION. You claimed that you see nothing wrong with the topic suggestion. Now you are "explaining" your position in a way that has nothing to do with the topic suggestion. Does this mean that what you really meant to say was that you would think the topic suggestion was not that outrageous IF it was entirely different from what it actually is?

Or is the problem that you cannot actually find anything in the topic suggestion to defend, so you're trying to change the topic by introducing a new argument (which is just as bad as the topic one, btw)?


It's fairly simple. If you see above as to why people born into poor families generally remain poor when they grow up, even if some don't, then reducing the amount of people born into this will likely stop growth in poverty or may even slightly reduce it. Again, I stress this is no solution, only a treatment.
It is neither a solution nor a treatment. It is a nonsensical suggestion. Follow:

-- If poverty is not genetic then it is caused by something external to the people who are affected by it.

-- You claim that poverty is a cycle of behavior/lifestyle learned by upbringing, but what, in your imagination, actually causes poverty in the first place? What external condition is it that puts some people into a position to learn these bad habits? What causes people who were born and raised in more affluent social classes to fall into poverty and then not be able to get out again, even though they presumably were not raised to be poor?

-- And RETURNING THE TOPIC SUGGESTION because it is the topic of the conversation: Remember that the topic suggestion is NOT reducing population overall. It is REPLACING population from one class with population from another class. So, since we'd still have the same number of people in the country, explain what it is that will stop all those children of rich people from becoming poor, given that rich people can and do slide into poverty even now.

The reason I'm leading you through those points is to try to clue you that there is no connection between the condition of poverty and the kinds of people who are in that condition. Anyone can become poor, and it is NOT a matter of mere habit if a person cannot escape poverty.

That wasn't the point. You argued that the idea is based on the belief that it is 'the only way to eliminate poverty', it isn't.
Really? Kindly show me in the information provided by the OP where the topic suggestion includes other measures for combatting poverty.

You claimed that I was making "assumptions" (when what I was actually doing was interpreting the OP's information), but your argument is entirely based on you assuming facts that are not in evidence. Where are these other measures that you think exist in this Louisiana politician's mind, hm?

That's some fancy rhetoric. Let me be more clear, the rest of your post:


Also, this proposal is nothing new. There have always been people who have gone about proposing to stop people who they don't want to live next door to from reproducing. Historically, in the US, this has been directed against the disabled and against black people. Guess who it's being directed towards this time?

Whether its been proposed before is not relevant particularly to its validity.
FALSE because its invalidity can be proven by its history of failure and abuse. An idea that has never had anything but bad results is not going to magically have good results just because a new bigot has floated it. Also the current bigot's claims about his motives for floating the idea can be undermined by placing it and him in their historical/cultural context. Therefore, on two points, talking about the history of the idea IS relevant. You fail again.

And now let's take a look at the stupidity angle: He thinks he can breed poverty out of society? Really? No, wait, I made a mistake -- I used the word "thinks" in that sentence. What kind of a moron is this guy? Is he so dazzled by his own prejudices that he has no idea how money/wealth/poverty/the economy work?

This is a repetition of stuff you have already said.
Not precisely. Before I was talking about the practical ways in which the notion of breeding poverty out of society does not work. In this one I am commenting on the stupidity of the person who thinks it will work.

So we've covered the prejudiced part and the stupid part, and finally, there's the stupidly prejudiced part of it all: He also seems to...fantasize?... that the root cause of poverty is having all these poor people around cluttering up the place. Get rid of them, and poof! problem gone. This raw diamond of idiocy is composed of equal parts brainlessness about economic issues and a bigoted assumption that people are poor because they are genetically inferior.

I do not believe poor people are genetically inferior, so your argument that this assumption is stupid is not relevant to what I'm saying, since it isn't a part of my premise.
Very well then, but that brings us back to the point I made above, namely that you started out by saying there was merit in the topic suggestion and now you are trying to defend that position by positing a position that IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from it.

Regardless of the flaws in your own argument, the fact that you must present an entirely different argument rather than talk about the topic suggestion, strongly supports my assertion that the topic suggestion is indefensible.

Do you have anything further to say in defense of the topic suggestion, or can I chalk that one up as conceded?

In all seriousness, if someone ever says anything like this while in the same room with you, throw a drink at them. It's the only appropriate response.

Rhetoric and was clearly not intended to be debated.
Yes, you're right about that one.

And that, dear friends, is how you absolutely decimate an opponent.

Eh, seems like it could be an interesting idea. Getting rich idiots to pay for their child's upkeep directly rather than using a tax system to get the rich idiots to pay for the poor idiot's children.

Muravyets, I'm not sure why you're going down this route of it's effectiveness or not anyway, you and I both know that even if it did work, you would still view it as immoral.
So? I am allowed to attack the topic on as many fronts as I please.

NOT ONLY is the topic suggestion bigoted and grossly unethical (which makes it bad), it is ALSO impractical and unworkable (which makes it stupid).

What's your complaint about that argument of mine? Is it because you cannot deny the immorality of the topic suggestion and also cannot defend it on pragmatic grounds because it just doesn't work, and thus you have no option left but to concede that it is a bad idea and that you didn't know what possessed you to say it had merit, and you just wish you didn't have to do that?

*snip brillant rebuttal*

:hail:

And that, dear friends, is how you absolutely decimate an opponent.

Really? I thought they effectively countered more than one argument in ten.

You are willing to mutilate yourself for $1000? You could probably make a career at of that....

Not just any mutilation. A vasectomy would mean that if I had already had kids and didn't want any more, I'd never have to worry about causing a pregnancy again.

And I would get paid for this? Sounds like a good deal to me.

Did I miss something in original topic, where is that genetics-based argument? It seemed to me that whole point of sterilization idea, was that parents weak economic situation can carry over to children, resulting more poor (note: im not arguing if its true or false). What did I miss?

Your inability or unwillingness to connect the dots of your own arguments makes it tiresome to talk with you.

1) You said that the majority cannot do it.

2) Then you said that poverty is NOT genetic. That means that it is not a congenital condition of any person affected by it.

3) Therefore, the reason many people do not lift themselves out of poverty must not be from some inherent lack of ability of their own, but must be from some other circumstance/condition/effect that is preventing them from doing so.

4) Therefore, IN REFERENCE TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS WHETHER THE THREAD'S TOPIC SUGGESTION IS BULLSHIT OR NOT, there is NO CONNECTION between the genetics-based argument of the topic suggestion and some people's inability to escape poverty.


And I never, ever, ever, ever, said genetics has anything whatsoever, in anyway shape or form, to do with anything at all. What are you talking about? I said that the majority of people who live in poverty in western society will end up impoverished in the same way, I then qualified it by saying it is however (well duh) not impossible to escape. You then, with the pedantry I'd expect from a fucking 4 year old, went "neena neena look you said it was impossible but then you said it wasn't impossible", totally missing the point of my post.


1) So is it your argument that people are only poor because they learn to be,

Where the fuck do people keep pulling this "only" shit from. I said that your class is a serious inhibiting factor, which pretty much every competent sociologist and economist will agree with. Only complete, idiotic extreme libertarians, argue that class is not a major factor, and that it's mainly down to being 'too lazy'.


and if people who have learned to be poor don't have kids, then they won't have anyone to teach how to be poor in future?

If there are less people subject to societal and family pressures and discrimination in education, then there are less poor people in future. It's not simply "learning to be poor".


2) I notice that it also has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE TOPIC SUGGESTION.

So what? You called what I said earlier bullshit, and defended it citing that particular post, thus I addressed it where it was relevant to what I was saying.


You claimed that you see nothing wrong with the topic suggestion.

Not at all, again, I cannot believe you even have the audacity to accuse me of not reading posts, this is so far off the mark of my point, as is with most of your post. In fact, most of the time I'm arguing with you, I'm actually correcting the strawman you're arguing against, rather than any particular point against what I'm saying.


Now you are "explaining" your position in a way that has nothing to do with the topic suggestion. Does this mean that what you really meant to say was that you would think the topic suggestion was not that outrageous IF it was entirely different from what it actually is?


All I said was that the very basic premise, financial incentives for the poor to be voluntarily sterilized, is not in itself a bad thing. You and I already know that doesn't mean everything the OP is saying is right, and I never said otherwise.


It is neither a solution nor a treatment. It is a nonsensical suggestion. Follow:

-- If poverty is not genetic then it is caused by something external to the people who are affected by it.

-- You claim that poverty is a cycle of behavior/lifestyle learned by upbringing, but what, in your imagination, actually causes poverty in the first place?

What external condition is it that puts some people into a position to learn these bad habits? What causes people who were born and raised in more affluent social classes to fall into poverty and then not be able to get out again, even though they presumably were not raised to be poor?


All sorts of things, hence this not being a solution, only an alleviation.


-- And RETURNING THE TOPIC SUGGESTION because it is the topic of the conversation: Remember that the topic suggestion is NOT reducing population overall. It is REPLACING population from one class with population from another class. So, since we'd still have the same number of people in the country, explain what it is that will stop all those children of rich people from becoming poor, given that rich people can and do slide into poverty even now.


If you come from a wealthier class, the likelihood of poverty is rapidly decreased.


The reason I'm leading you through those points is to try to clue you that there is no connection between the condition of poverty and the kinds of people who are in that condition. Anyone can become poor, and it is NOT a matter of mere habit if a person cannot escape poverty.


No it's not only a matter of the condition of poverty, but as I've said, class is an inhibiting factor, yes FACTOR. That doesn't mean there are no other causes.


Really? Kindly show me in the information provided by the OP where the topic suggestion includes other measures for combatting poverty.


Again, you knew when you cited that post that you were addressing something that I said, which was support for one very basic premise in the OP. Thus I didn't dissect that post specifically to defend the OP, but to defend myself, since it apparently rendered what I said 'bullshit'. I'm not saying the OP suggested other measures, I'm saying there is no reason that you must not allow other measures when implementing that particular one.


FALSE because its invalidity can be proven by its history of failure and abuse. An idea that has never had anything but bad results is not going to magically have good results just because a new bigot has floated it. Also the current bigot's claims about his motives for floating the idea can be undermined by placing it and him in their historical/cultural context. Therefore, on two points, talking about the history of the idea IS relevant. You fail again.


Well cite a specific case then, where something similar to what I, not the OP, was suggesting.


Not precisely. Before I was talking about the practical ways in which the notion of breeding poverty out of society does not work. In this one I am commenting on the stupidity of the person who thinks it will work.


Well, it's still just you calling this guy an idiot. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to argue against.


Very well then, but that brings us back to the point I made above, namely that you started out by saying there was merit in the topic suggestion

No, only a very basic premise present in the OP.


and now you are trying to defend that position by positing a position that IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from it.


Not entirely, it's just not as extreme, which is something you already knew. You decided to cite this post as a rebuttal of my position, thus I addressed it defending that position, not the OP's, so even if it is entirely different, you shouldn't be complaining, since I never claimed to be fully defending the OP.


Regardless of the flaws in your own argument, the fact that you must present an entirely different argument rather than talk about the topic suggestion, strongly supports my assertion that the topic suggestion is indefensible.


I don't care about that.

So? I am allowed to attack the topic on as many fronts as I please.


But its pointless, since its effectiveness doesn't change your position on the morality of this.


What's your complaint about that argument of mine? Is it because you cannot deny the immorality of the topic suggestion and also cannot defend it on pragmatic grounds because it just doesn't work, and thus you have no option left but to concede that it is a bad idea and that you didn't know what possessed you to say it had merit, and you just wish you didn't have to do that?

Keep dreaming.

And that, dear friends, is how you absolutely decimate an opponent.

Too bad that opponent no longer exists, except the pile of straw on the ground that is left.

And I never, ever, ever, ever, said genetics has anything whatsoever, in anyway shape or form, to do with anything at all. What are you talking about? I said that the majority of people who live in poverty in western society will end up impoverished in the same way, I then qualified it by saying it is however (well duh) not impossible to escape. You then, with the pedantry I'd expect from a fucking 4 year old, went "neena neena look you said it was impossible but then you said it wasn't impossible", totally missing the point of my post.



Where the fuck do people keep pulling this "only" shit from. I said that your class is a serious inhibiting factor, which pretty much every competent sociologist and economist will agree with. Only complete, idiotic extreme libertarians, argue that class is not a major factor, and that it's mainly down to being 'too lazy'.



If there are less people subject to societal and family pressures and discrimination in education, then there are less poor people in future. It's not simply "learning to be poor".



So what? You called what I said earlier bullshit, and defended it citing that particular post, thus I addressed it where it was relevant to what I was saying.



Not at all, again, I cannot believe you even have the audacity to accuse me of not reading posts, this is so far off the mark of my point, as is with most of your post. In fact, most of the time I'm arguing with you, I'm actually correcting the strawman you're arguing against, rather than any particular point against what I'm saying.



All I said was that the very basic premise, financial incentives for the poor to be voluntarily sterilized, is not in itself a bad thing. You and I already know that doesn't mean everything the OP is saying is right, and I never said otherwise.



All sorts of things, hence this not being a solution, only an alleviation.



If you come from a wealthier class, the likelihood of poverty is rapidly decreased.



No it's not only a matter of the condition of poverty, but as I've said, class is an inhibiting factor, yes FACTOR. That doesn't mean there are no other causes.



Again, you knew when you cited that post that you were addressing something that I said, which was support for one very basic premise in the OP. Thus I didn't dissect that post specifically to defend the OP, but to defend myself, since it apparently rendered what I said 'bullshit'. I'm not saying the OP suggested other measures, I'm saying there is no reason that you must not allow other measures when implementing that particular one.



Well cite a specific case then, where something similar to what I, not the OP, was suggesting.



Well, it's still just you calling this guy an idiot. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to argue against.



No, only a very basic premise present in the OP.



Not entirely, it's just not as extreme, which is something you already knew. You decided to cite this post as a rebuttal of my position, thus I addressed it defending that position, not the OP's, so even if it is entirely different, you shouldn't be complaining, since I never claimed to be fully defending the OP.



I don't care about that.

But its pointless, since its effectiveness doesn't change your position on the morality of this.

Keep dreaming.

Let's see if I get this right, you are only making a hypothetical defense of a position that is not the topic of this thread and which should be kept completely isolated from reality and history.

And, it's not fair for Muravyets to attack your hypothetical on hypothetical grounds.

Who is the one that is dreaming?

Let's see if I get this right, you are only making a hypothetical defense

Hypothetical, how is it hypothetical?


of a position that is not the topic of this thread and which should be kept completely isolated from reality and history.


What?


And, it's not fair for Muravyets to attack your hypothetical on hypothetical grounds.


No, I didn't say anything about fairness. I was merely asking why she was targeting a specific area of my argument, when it doesn't effect her position on it anyway.

Should have challenged that punishment all the way up the food chain.

Pfft. No one would've listened.

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5



For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

No...Its smells like political suicide to me. But it isn't racism...really..its elitism.

Olmedreca;14049585']Did I miss something in original topic, where is that genetics-based argument? It seemed to me that whole point of sterilization idea, was that parents weak economic situation can carry over to children, resulting more poor (note: im not arguing if its true or false). What did I miss?
You missed the part where the politician making the suggestion* also suggests coming up with rewards/incentives for rich people to breed MORE. Apparently, that idiot thinks he can solve the poverty problem by replacing poor people with rich ones, because, apparently, poor people are born poor and rich are born rich and both will always stay that way because they are born that way. You know, genetically.


(* I'm so lazy I can't be bothered to go back to page one to look up how to spell his name.)

And I never, ever, ever, ever, said genetics has anything whatsoever, in anyway shape or form, to do with anything at all. What are you talking about? I said that the majority of people who live in poverty in western society will end up impoverished in the same way, I then qualified it by saying it is however (well duh) not impossible to escape. You then, with the pedantry I'd expect from a fucking 4 year old, went "neena neena look you said it was impossible but then you said it wasn't impossible", totally missing the point of my post.

Where the fuck do people keep pulling this "only" shit from. I said that your class is a serious inhibiting factor, which pretty much every competent sociologist and economist will agree with. Only complete, idiotic extreme libertarians, argue that class is not a major factor, and that it's mainly down to being 'too lazy'.

If there are less people subject to societal and family pressures and discrimination in education, then there are less poor people in future. It's not simply "learning to be poor".

So what? You called what I said earlier bullshit, and defended it citing that particular post, thus I addressed it where it was relevant to what I was saying.

Not at all, again, I cannot believe you even have the audacity to accuse me of not reading posts, this is so far off the mark of my point, as is with most of your post. In fact, most of the time I'm arguing with you, I'm actually correcting the strawman you're arguing against, rather than any particular point against what I'm saying.

All I said was that the very basic premise, financial incentives for the poor to be voluntarily sterilized, is not in itself a bad thing. You and I already know that doesn't mean everything the OP is saying is right, and I never said otherwise.

All sorts of things, hence this not being a solution, only an alleviation.

If you come from a wealthier class, the likelihood of poverty is rapidly decreased.

No it's not only a matter of the condition of poverty, but as I've said, class is an inhibiting factor, yes FACTOR. That doesn't mean there are no other causes.

Again, you knew when you cited that post that you were addressing something that I said, which was support for one very basic premise in the OP. Thus I didn't dissect that post specifically to defend the OP, but to defend myself, since it apparently rendered what I said 'bullshit'. I'm not saying the OP suggested other measures, I'm saying there is no reason that you must not allow other measures when implementing that particular one.

Well cite a specific case then, where something similar to what I, not the OP, was suggesting.

Well, it's still just you calling this guy an idiot. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to argue against.

No, only a very basic premise present in the OP.

Not entirely, it's just not as extreme, which is something you already knew. You decided to cite this post as a rebuttal of my position, thus I addressed it defending that position, not the OP's, so even if it is entirely different, you shouldn't be complaining, since I never claimed to be fully defending the OP.

I don't care about that.
You pedal backwards very nicely.

I am not going to quote you to yourself. The thread is not that long and no one at this point will have any trouble finding your original post to make their own judgment about it.

For myself, I stand by my reading of it that you were speaking in support of the topic suggestion. You acknowledged that it was elitist, prejudiced and unethical but still claimed that its core concept was good. On that basis, I attacked your argument.

And I am satisfied that my attack was completely on target, now that you have so eloquently explained that you were only supporting "a very basic premise present in the OP" which is exactly what the basic premise that I have denounced as elitist, prejudiced, unethical and impracticable. So, thank you for confirming exactly what I thought from the beginning.

But its pointless, since its effectiveness doesn't change your position on the morality of this.
Tough. I get to make all the arguments I can think of, and on this topic I've thought of two: It's unethical AND it doesn't work. You are wasting your time complaining how "pointless" you think it is of me to point out that such an idea is doomed to failure.

Keep dreaming.
Oh, I wouldn't waste my time dreaming of something I know I can never have. I know that you are one of those people who will never concede anything, no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.

Too bad that opponent no longer exists, except the pile of straw on the ground that is left.
Hehe, nice try. I stand on the record of the thread.

Let's see if I get this right, you are only making a hypothetical defense of a position that is not the topic of this thread and which should be kept completely isolated from reality and history.

And, it's not fair for Muravyets to attack your hypothetical on hypothetical grounds.

Who is the one that is dreaming?
Hydesland wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to defend the topic suggestion AND claim that he's not doing so simultaneously. He wants to talk about the topic suggestion AND his own arguments simultaneously AND interchangeably -- I suppose so that no matter what rebuttal is offered for one, he can claim he was talking about the other. And he wants to argue about "a basic premise" AND focus minutely on specific words in other people's posts, ignoring their whole arguments, so that he can claim they are not on point or are strawmen.

He will keep this up for days if I keep playing with him. Soon, he'll start lobbing personal insults, too. Watch.

Really? I thought they effectively countered more than one argument in ten.
I would be interested to know which of his counters you think have been effective and why.

Just as a reminder, Uncle Adolph got his eugenics ideas from American and British eugenicists. We started that stuff in the "good guy" nations.

I would be interested to know which of his counters you think have been effective and why.

I think you'll find this was an etymology joke...

Just as a reminder, Uncle Adolph got his eugenics ideas from American and British eugenicists. We started that stuff in the "good guy" nations.

True. Scary, but true.

I think you'll find this was an etymology joke...
I got the etymology part. It was the joke part I missed. Though admittedly my math is bad -- I've already lost count of how many points/counter-points there have been between me and H.

Just as a reminder, Uncle Adolph got his eugenics ideas from American and British eugenicists. We started that stuff in the "good guy" nations.

True. Scary, but true.
Yep, and apparently, that's one scary zombie monster that still staggering around the US.

I got the etymology part. It was the joke part I missed. Though admittedly my math is bad -- I've already lost count of how many points/counter-points there have been between me and H.

I'm guessing the joke was that Neesika was saying your post was supermegacool, and totally destroyed the opposition, and the other poster (late, brain melted, can't remember who...) was making a humourous comparison between the received meaning of 'decimation' and the literal meaning....

I'm guessing the joke was that Neesika was saying your post was supermegacool, and totally destroyed the opposition, and the other poster (late, brain melted, can't remember who...) was making a humourous comparison between the received meaning of 'decimation' and the literal meaning....
Yeah, yeah, I got that. I'm actually being even nerdier than you on this one on account of I was thinking "Hey, did he even make ten points for me to have 'decimated' him at all, and if he did and he effectively countered more than one out of ten of my attacks, WHICH ones, dammit????" :D

You missed the part where the politician making the suggestion* also suggests coming up with rewards/incentives for rich people to breed MORE. Apparently, that idiot thinks he can solve the poverty problem by replacing poor people with rich ones, because, apparently, poor people are born poor and rich are born rich and both will always stay that way because they are born that way. You know, genetically.



They tried introducing an incentive in Australia for people to breed more. It's called the "Baby Bonus". You have a kid, you get paid $5000. This led to a lot more poor people and uneducated teens having babies. Now, they means-test it so that only poor people can get it. Which has led to a surge in young low SES people having babies.

Personally, I think that bearing children should be a personal choice. We should not be discouraging or encouraging people to have children. Things like sole parent pension should be available, but parents should be more accountable for where this money goes. Parents who are working should get subsidised child care, not those who are being paid tax dollars to stay at home with their child.

In relation to the OP and the issue, I don't understand how this man could come to this conclusion that sterilising poor people will remove them from the population. We will continue to have poor people as long as we have people who are unmotivated, lazy, lacking in information to make better choices, or who are just unlucky.

Yeah, yeah, I got that. I'm actually being even nerdier than you on this one on account of I was thinking "Hey, did he even make ten points for me to have 'decimated' him at all, and if he did and he effectively countered more than one out of ten of my attacks, WHICH ones, dammit????" :D

Well, that's it - it wasn't about any literal ten points, at all.

Well, I could be wrong, I guess. I was that one time... :D

They tried introducing an incentive in Australia for people to breed more. It's called the "Baby Bonus". You have a kid, you get paid $5000. This led to a lot more poor people and uneducated teens having babies. Now, they means-test it so that only poor people can get it.

Personally, I think that bearing children should be a personal choice. We should not be discouraging or encouraging people to have children. Things like sole parent pension should be available, but parents should be more accountable for where this money goes. Parents who are working should get subsidised child care, not those who are being paid tax dollars to stay at home with their child.
Sounds reasonable to me. And I would be happy if the government wanted to fund medical care providers who not only offer sterilizations and abortions along with pre-natal and infant care, but also offer education to the public about all options available to women and men for making reproductive choices, and who offer them equally to ALL people without regard for class or income level.

But of course, that goes against the plan of the topic idiot from Louisiana, because what if, you know, rich people didn't want to have more kids after all? :eek2:

Sounds reasonable to me. And I would be happy if the government wanted to fund medical care providers who not only offer sterilizations and abortions along with pre-natal and infant care, but also offer education to the public about all options available to women and men for making reproductive choices, and who offer them equally to ALL people without regard for class or income level.

But of course, that goes against the plan of the topic idiot from Louisiana, because what if, you know, rich people didn't want to have more kids after all? :eek2:

Oh yes, I agree completely. I don't think that the government should interfere with reproductive choices, except to make as much information available as possible.

I agree with the basic premise that we should seek to eliminate the unruly underclass which tarnishes our society. However, I believe it would be unfair to increase taxation in order to attain that goal; doing so would impose an onerous and unnecessary burden upon tax-payers. Rather, we should slash social programs that subsidize the indolence of the poor; without this governmental support, they would either find adequate employment or else turn to crime as a mode of subsistence. When apprehended for their misdeeds, we would then be able to sterilize them as punishment for their wrongdoing. If, on the other hand, they take the former route and decide to be productive members of society, our nation would prosper due to an influx of cheap labor; indeed, it would even help alleviate our current economic difficulties. Furthermore, this would also rid our genetic pool of deviants who opt to "rebel" against society, who viciously lash out through theft or violence. Also, it would promote those who unquestioningly observe the law of the land, making it a "win-win" option.

...damn it, I can't tell if this is serious or not! When I get sick my sarcasm-meter is the first thing to go.

...damn it, I can't tell if this is serious or not! When I get sick my sarcasm-meter is the first thing to go.
I originally thought he was being sarcastic, but subsequent arguments with GnI (I think it was; sorry for being fuzzy, G; it's late, as you said) indicate that he's either serious or a damned talented parodist.

That too.

I honestly don't see where people are getting this idea that everyone on welfare is a horrible abuser of government funds. I had a health teacher a couple years ago back when I was in ninth grade(was that really already seven years ago? :eek: ) who ranted about this, and I asked him to provide some actual examples and proof for what he was claiming.

I got an in-school suspension. :rolleyes:

I suspect many people who claim rampant welfare abuse, like many people who claim extraordinary rates of false rape accusations, have had little to no experience with it. The Myth of the Welfare Queen is a fairly good place to start.

What the hell is an in-school suspension? Is it like Saturday school, where they make you come in on the weekend and stare at the wall for two hours?

I originally thought he was being sarcastic, but subsequent arguments with GnI (I think it was; sorry for being fuzzy, G; it's late, as you said) indicate that he's either serious or a damned talented parodist.

Hehe... it's so late no one can remember who anyone is... :D

I'm inclined to think he must be a parody, but that's mainly because I tend to find it hard to believe people who actually make those kinds of arguments would choose NSG over other... more... accomodating venues.

Personally, I think that bearing children should be a personal choice. We should not be discouraging or encouraging people to have children. Things like sole parent pension should be available, but parents should be more accountable for where this money goes. Parents who are working should get subsidised child care, not those who are being paid tax dollars to stay at home with their child.

Such a hugely important and frustrating point. In order for social programs to be more than a band-aid over a shotgun wound, government needs to change the way it determines who "deserves" financial help. Parents on welfare who actually find decent jobs and have any hope of lifting themselves from poverty are immediately faced with an end to the free child care which makes full-time employment possible. And the current welfare-to-work program (at least in California) doesn't count college classes as "work", so an impoverished individual trying to become financially independent has no opportunity to receive the education s/he needs to find a stable job with livable wages. I could go on and on, but I won't.

I suspect many people who claim rampant welfare abuse, like many people who claim extraordinary rates of false rape accusations, have had little to no experience with it. The Myth of the Welfare Queen is a fairly good place to start.

Too be fair, the myth of widespread welfare abuse has become so widespread that large numbers of those on welfare believe in it.

What the hell is an in-school suspension? Is it like Saturday school, where they make you come in on the weekend and stare at the wall for two hours?

From what I recall it's where one has to go to school but can't interact with classmates or teachers. They get their regular assignments and work in one room all day. Like suspension in the social isolation without it being like extra vacation.

Actually.

I could support something like this.

Not this as it stands - because it is discriminatory, but a policy that rewards people choosing the sterilisation option. Drop the other half (the bit about rewarding rich people having kids).

I think he's full of shit - the whole 'cars I can't afford' thing is poison, but there might be underlying merit.

Anyone with any sense would have the two kids they want, or whatever, and then get paid to receive permanent contraception.


But then, I personally believe that our government should be administering chemical sterilising agents in our drinking water, and you should have to pass tests to get the antidote... so I was in a different demographic to start with...

As many fucking idiots that choose (or not so much choose) to reproduce I can see the wish for such but I still can not get to the point of giving the government the ability to control reproduction

Such a hugely important and frustrating point. In order for social programs to be more than a band-aid over a shotgun wound, government needs to change the way it determines who "deserves" financial help. Parents on welfare who actually find decent jobs and have any hope of lifting themselves from poverty are immediately faced with an end to the free child care which makes full-time employment possible. And the current welfare-to-work program (at least in California) doesn't count college classes as "work", so an impoverished individual trying to become financially independent has no opportunity to receive the education s/he needs to find a stable job with livable wages. I could go on and on, but I won't.

how dare you suggest that a solution to poverty is education? Don't you know that poor people are poor because they deserve it? If they didn't want to be poor, they'd do things to get out of poverty, like get an education!

Such a hugely important and frustrating point. In order for social programs to be more than a band-aid over a shotgun wound, government needs to change the way it determines who "deserves" financial help. Parents on welfare who actually find decent jobs and have any hope of lifting themselves from poverty are immediately faced with an end to the free child care which makes full-time employment possible. And the current welfare-to-work program (at least in California) doesn't count college classes as "work", so an impoverished individual trying to become financially independent has no opportunity to receive the education s/he needs to find a stable job with livable wages. I could go on and on, but I won't.

The situation in Australia, where I am from, is terrible. It makes it so hard to improve skills or get a job, because in many 2 income families, one income goes almost directly to childcare, so its more profitable for single parents to be on the pension since they pay $5-ish per child thanks to government subsidy. And uni courses you have the HECS (actually I think its called HELP now) but for TAFE courses there is no similar subsidy.

It sucks because poor people have no real incentive to get a job. And then the government uses them as a scapegoat when the economy goes bad or when they "have" to hire skilled migrants from overseas.

I would be interested to know which of his counters you think have been effective and why.

Um, you are the they in question. Decimate has a specific meaning and was being misused as YOU countered more than one argument in ten.

You pedal backwards very nicely.


Oh god, you can't be serious.


For myself, I stand by my reading of it that you were speaking in support of the topic suggestion.

I was speaking in support of a basic premise present, I have always said that, I have never said I supported the whole topic suggestion.


You acknowledged that it was elitist, prejudiced and unethical but still claimed that its core concept was good.

I never actually used those words.


On that basis, I attacked your argument.


Using a post originally addressed at the OP, and not me, but then as soon as I started to defend my position instead of the OP's, you whined about me not defending fully the OP's position, when I obviously wasn't intending to.


And I am satisfied that my attack was completely on target

Then you are deluding yourself.


, now that you have so eloquently explained that you were only supporting "a very basic premise present in the OP" which is exactly what the basic premise that I have denounced as elitist, prejudiced, unethical and impracticable. So, thank you for confirming exactly what I thought from the beginning.


What do you mean "now"!?!?! I said that in the very first post I made in this thread, Jesus Christ.


Tough. I get to make all the arguments I can think of, and on this topic I've thought of two: It's unethical AND it doesn't work. You are wasting your time complaining how "pointless" you think it is of me to point out that such an idea is doomed to failure.


But the fact that you aren't making any arguments to do with its morality, indicates to me that you're objection is completely based on your own completely subjective ethical perception, thus you can't defend it in any empirical or logical way.


Hydesland wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants to defend the topic suggestion AND claim that he's not doing so simultaneously. He wants to talk about the topic suggestion AND his own arguments simultaneously AND interchangeably -- I suppose so that no matter what rebuttal is offered for one, he can claim he was talking about the other. And he wants to argue about "a basic premise" AND focus minutely on specific words in other people's posts, ignoring their whole arguments, so that he can claim they are not on point or are strawmen.

He will keep this up for days if I keep playing with him. Soon, he'll start lobbing personal insults, too. Watch.

Please don't tell me you're going to start talking about me with TCT in an insanely circle jerkish manner.

Wouldn't it be better for the economy to sterilise the rich? So when they die, rather than have some spoilt brat given all the money it goes back into the system.

http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=9068198&nav=0RY5



For some reason, I can't help but think that this is aimed at the African American community in La. Think about it, in Louisiana, specifically New Orleans, the poor are black. So, the poor will being paid to not have babies. It seems very fishy to me.

Hold it right there. It seems fishy? But only if we bring race into it? Please tell me that is not what you are saying here.

Wouldn't it be better for the economy to sterilise the rich? So when they die, rather than have some spoilt brat given all the money it goes back into the system.

Ah, but you forget a key point. We live in a totally equal opportunity society in which poverty, poor schooling and suchlike have no impact on life chances. The fact that certain people get rich can only be the result of a special "Supermen" gene. Similarly, the persistence of poverty in families can only be the result of a "Government dependence" gene that absolutely determines that the individual will be stupid and lazy. If you eliminate the "Supermen" gene, or, indeed, fail to strive for the elimination of the "government dependence" gene through sterilization, the latter gene will become so widespread that governmental power will progressively expand and a form of fascist government will develop. And clearly thats wrong, because thats the sort of immoral and ludicrous system of government that seriously proposes such ideas as eugenics.

Ah, but you forget a key point. We live in a totally equal opportunity society in which poverty, poor schooling and suchlike have no impact on life chances. The fact that certain people get rich can only be the result of a special "Supermen" gene. Similarly, the persistence of poverty in families can only be the result of a "Government dependence" gene that absolutely determines that the individual will be stupid and lazy. If you eliminate the "Supermen" gene, or, indeed, fail to strive for the elimination of the "government dependence" gene through sterilization, the latter gene will become so widespread that governmental power will progressively expand and a form of fascist government will develop. And clearly thats wrong, because thats the sort of immoral and ludicrous system of government that seriously proposes such ideas as eugenics.

Bwahahahahah!

Shit you are funny.;)

Such a hugely important and frustrating point. In order for social programs to be more than a band-aid over a shotgun wound, government needs to change the way it determines who "deserves" financial help. Parents on welfare who actually find decent jobs and have any hope of lifting themselves from poverty are immediately faced with an end to the free child care which makes full-time employment possible. And the current welfare-to-work program (at least in California) doesn't count college classes as "work", so an impoverished individual trying to become financially independent has no opportunity to receive the education s/he needs to find a stable job with livable wages. I could go on and on, but I won't.

The situation in Australia, where I am from, is terrible. It makes it so hard to improve skills or get a job, because in many 2 income families, one income goes almost directly to childcare, so its more profitable for single parents to be on the pension since they pay $5-ish per child thanks to government subsidy. And uni courses you have the HECS (actually I think its called HELP now) but for TAFE courses there is no similar subsidy.

It sucks because poor people have no real incentive to get a job. And then the government uses them as a scapegoat when the economy goes bad or when they "have" to hire skilled migrants from overseas.
These two approaches actually have the same result -- both end up maintaining a permanent underclass by discouraging honest efforts of individuals to get out of poverty. Both are disgraceful, in my opinion.

I find it bitterly ironic that in the US, we are discussing a politician who says he wants to stop children being born into poverty -- but he would rather do it by stopping people from having children rather than by removing the obstacles that make it impossible for parents to raise their family income. Bastard.

Um, you are the they in question. Decimate has a specific meaning and was being misused as YOU countered more than one argument in ten.
OOOOHHHH. I get it now. :D

I was confused because I was giving him credit for that one time where he figured out that a closing rhetorical flourish of mine was not a point that needed a response. So I gave him one point, and I thought you were giving him another, but you weren't. ;)

Oh god, you can't be serious.
No conversation with you can ever be really serious.

I was speaking in support of a basic premise present, I have always said that, I have never said I supported the whole topic suggestion.
Yes, I know, and as I've told you three times now, the basic premise that you so vehemently insist you support is just a bad as all its other parts. In fact, it is arguably the worst part because it is the part that makes the politician's bigoted attitudes applicable in real life. So, since the worst part of it is the part you declare that you support, it doesn't really help you to point out all the fiddly bits of scum around the edges that you say you don't support.

As I said before, I understand that you would like to remove your precious "basic premise" from its elitist, racist context because you think that purifies it somehow, but it doesn't because, (a) it's bad all on its own and (b) its context is not so easily dumped.

But carry on. I like watching you dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

I never actually used those words.
Was I attributing a direct quote to you? No? Oh, okay then.

Using a post originally addressed at the OP, and not me, but then as soon as I started to defend my position instead of the OP's, you whined about me not defending fully the OP's position, when I obviously wasn't intending to.
In other words, as soon as you started trying to move your goalposts and change the subject without finishing addressing the original subject, I called you on it and, boo-hoo, that's not fair?


Then you are deluding yourself.
^^ Warning shot ahead of the first salvo of personal remarks?

What do you mean "now"!?!?! I said that in the very first post I made in this thread, Jesus Christ.
You keep insisting that you said something other than what you said. When it comes to "I said/you said" arguments over what this or that person's post meant, I leave it to other readers to decide whose interpretation is correct.

In this instance, I am confident that I read you remarks correctly. Your repetitive but non-elucidating objections do nothing to change my interpretation, especially since you keep telling me that the part of the topic suggestion you do support is precisely the part I thought you were supporting. In other words, that you keep telling me that I'm right at the same time that you yell at me that I'm wrong.

But the fact that you aren't making any arguments to do with its morality, indicates to me that you're objection is completely based on your own completely subjective ethical perception, thus you can't defend it in any empirical or logical way.
Did you get that sentence special delivery from the Bullshit Emporium?

Also, trying to change the subject yet again! Since you failed to get off the spot of supporting the topic suggestion by trying to make the conversation be about you instead of the topic, now you're trying to make it be about me? Trust me, that tactic won't help you either.

A) I have stated more than once the reasons I believe the topic suggestion is "grossly unethical," a phrase which in this context is functionally synonymous with "immoral."

B) No one has challenged me on that, so what need is there to argue it further? When someone does try to challenge it, I will answer those challenges with arguments. Feel like having a go? Or are you flagellating yourself enough already?

C) I will leave it to some philosophy major or professor to explain to you the problems with assuming, as you do above, that (1) the validity of an ethical/moral view is affected by its objectivity or subjectivity; (2) that a individual's subjective take on ethics/morals is necessarily not logical or not derived from empirical evidence/testing/experience; (3) that empiricism is a valid test of ethics/morals. Those are the three problems I can spot just from a cursory reading. I'm sure there are more in that gold nugget.

Please don't tell me you're going to start talking about me with TCT in an insanely circle jerkish manner.
OK, I won't tell you that. And I take the bolded part as shot-across-the-bow number two, warning of the personal attacks to come from you.

Isn't it Great how an idea the Victorians invented in Britain took about 150 years to make it to the USA :)

No conversation with you can ever be really serious.


And no conversation with you can ever be any more than trying to correct your strawmen and your conflating of my arguments.


Yes, I know

Then don't say: "I stand by my reading of it that you were speaking in support of the topic suggestion. " That's all I'm trying to get you to do in this specific spot, I'm not saying that to suggest that my premise may be more or less moral because it doesn't include everything in the OP, so stop trying to spin it into me making an argument for its moral legitimacy. It isn't, I'm saying it so you stop demanding that I try to defend parts of the OP I was never trying to defend. If you again try to spin this into me making an argument for the moral strength of the argument, then you are such a deceitful spinner that you would even make Bill O'Reilly throw up in disgust.


As I said before, I understand that you would like to remove your precious "basic premise" from its elitist, racist context because you think that purifies it somehow

Nope, I'm not actively trying to remove anything, all I'm saying is that you should stop expecting me to defend stuff from the OP I never intended to.


Was I attributing a direct quote to you? No? Oh, okay then.


But I never even used equivalent words, I never described it in such a way that you could state that this is my position on it, it may be, but that's besides the point, since you constantly decide what my position is even when you don't know.


In other words, as soon as you started trying to move your goalposts and change the subject without finishing addressing the original subject, I called you on it and, boo-hoo, that's not fair?


Hahahaha! Ok, this is the last time I do it, if you still respond with this utter nonsense, I will discontinue this line of NON-debate: when you cited that post, you were citing it as a rebuttal to my post, not specifically the original subject, thus I wasn't moving my goalposts away from anything, since I was never trying to defend fully the OP in the first place. IF I was originally trying to defend fully everything in the OP, AND THEN decided that I wasn't trying to in response to that post you cited, THEN I would have been moving my goalposts, but I wasn't.


^^ Warning shot ahead of the first salvo of personal remarks?


I'm not going to censor that conclusion just because you claim it's personal, even though it obviously doesn't actually offend you.


You keep insisting that you said something other than what you said. When it comes to "I said/you said" arguments over what this or that person's post meant, I leave it to other readers to decide whose interpretation is correct.

In this instance, I am confident that I read you remarks correctly.

Well again, I can only conclude that you either do not read my posts, did not understand my posts, or are deliberately deluding yourself. But also for the others to decide, here is my original post:

Ignoring the other crap, and focusing on the underlying premise that suggests financial incentives for voluntary sterilization, then I don't really see much of a problem. Sterilization in itself is not a bad thing, only when its forced upon people.

Here you can see I'm only focusing on the very basic underlying premise of financial incentives for voluntary sterilization. This has been my position from the start, if you claim otherwise, then you're going to have to claim that I was in fact lying with that post, and prove that I was trolling.


Your repetitive but non-elucidating objections do nothing to change my interpretation, especially since you keep telling me that the part of the topic suggestion you do support is precisely the part I thought you were supporting.

Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have whined about me supporting something 'entirely different' from the OP.


Did you get that sentence special delivery from the Bullshit Emporium?

Also, trying to change the subject yet again!

Trying to change the subject!?? That particular subject was started by me making a post as an aside to the main debate, asking why you're addressing it's effectiveness. So it was always about you with subsequent responses to that.


A) I have stated more than once the reasons I believe the topic suggestion is "grossly unethical,"

Where, in the original post you cited? Because in that there were no arguments as to why it was immoral, merely assertions that it IS immoral. The arguments you made were about why it's based apparently on faulty assumptions and why it doesn't work. Unless it's in another post you made. In that case, don't whine about me not reading it, I did ask if there was any other posts you made that I SHOULD read before debating with you.


B) No one has challenged me on that, so what need is there to argue it further?

Huh? So it was in another post? I'll try to challenge it then if you direct me to it.


C) I will leave it to some philosophy major or professor to explain to you the problems with assuming, as you do above, that (1) the validity of an ethical/moral view is affected by its objectivity or subjectivity

You cannot have a valid ought statement, calling it valid is meaningless, you can only call the empirical or logical premiss it's based on valid or not.


; (2) that a individual's subjective take on ethics/morals is necessarily not logical or not derived from empirical evidence/testing/experience

It can be derived from a valid premise, but the process of deriving the ought statement cannot be objective or logical in itself (naturalistic fallacy etc...).


; (3) that empiricism is a valid test of ethics/morals.

I don't believe there is such a thing as empirical ethics/morals, so I obviously do not believe you can test the statements empiricism. But I do believe you can test the empiricism of the premise it is based on.


Those are the three problems I can spot just from a cursory reading. I'm sure there are more in that gold nugget.


Too bad I didn't make any of those assumptions.


OK, I won't tell you that. And I take the bolded part as shot-across-the-bow number two, warning of the personal attacks to come from you.

Oh please, you were already making it more than personal when you decided to bitch about me in third person in a patronising manner to TCT.

Isn't it Great how an idea the Victorians invented in Britain took about 150 years to make it to the USA :)
No, no, that's not true. We got it when it was new. We've been having these arguments for 150 years. Isn't that great? Sigh.

I support both measures. In general middle class and rich people's kids achieve more, while poor people's children are more likely to fail, and become a burden on taxpayers.

Of course, an in depth analysis might find that the incentive for the rich/middle class is infeasible, but I'm fairly sure that sterilization of the poor, could result in a decrease in government liability for various social programs. In the end you're helping everyone out, as the people who want to get sterilized will, and then won't have to worry as much about contraceptives, and their possibility of failure.

And no conversation with you can ever be any more than trying to correct your strawmen and your conflating of my arguments.
Meow, meow. Pss-pss-pss. Here, kitty.

Then don't say: "I stand by my reading of it that you were speaking in support of the topic suggestion. "
Too late.

That's all I'm trying to get you to do in this specific spot, I'm not saying that to suggest that my premise may be more or less moral because it doesn't include everything in the OP, so stop trying to spin it into me making an argument for its moral legitimacy. It isn't, I'm saying it so you stop demanding that I try to defend parts of the OP I was never trying to defend. If you again try to spin this into me making an argument for the moral strength of the argument, then you are such a deceitful spinner that you would even make Bill O'Reilly throw up in disgust.
I never did that. I've been arguing the issue pragmatically. Or did you already forget the posts in which you complained about me doing that?

Nope, I'm not actively trying to remove anything, all I'm saying is that you should stop expecting me to defend stuff from the OP I never intended to.
Yeah, stuff like its context.

But I never even used equivalent words, I never described it in such a way that you could state that this is my position on it, it may be, but that's besides the point, since you constantly decide what my position is even when you don't know.
Twist, squirm, weasel. You present an argument. I respond to it. Unable to counter my response, you bitch about my wording. Sad.

I also like the way you allow that I may be representing your argument accurately, but you still don't like how I'm doing it. :D

Hahahaha! Ok, this is the last time I do it, if you still respond with this utter nonsense, I will discontinue this line of NON-debate:
Feel free to quit getting kicked around any time you like. I'm only doing this because you seem to want to.

when you cited that post, you were citing it as a rebuttal to my post, not specifically the original subject, thus I wasn't moving my goalposts away from anything, since I was never trying to defend fully the OP in the first place. IF I was originally trying to defend fully everything in the OP, AND THEN decided that I wasn't trying to in response to that post you cited, THEN I would have been moving my goalposts, but I wasn't.
:D You're trying to deny moving goalposts by moving the goalposts of what constitutes moving goalposts. :D

I'm not going to censor that conclusion just because you claim it's personal, even though it obviously doesn't actually offend you.
And who is now deciding what the other person's position on something is?

Well again, I can only conclude that you either do not read my posts, did not understand my posts, or are deliberately deluding yourself. But also for the others to decide, here is my original post:

Ignoring the other crap, and focusing on the underlying premise that suggests financial incentives for voluntary sterilization, then I don't really see much of a problem. Sterilization in itself is not a bad thing, only when its forced upon people.

Here you can see I'm only focusing on the very basic underlying premise of financial incentives for voluntary sterilization. This has been my position from the start, if you claim otherwise, then you're going to have to claim that I was in fact lying with that post, and prove that I was trolling.
A) That is not the whole of your original stated position. Cherrypicking yourself is a cute tactic.

B) Who said you were lying in this thread? Who said you were trolling in this thread? Not I.

Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have whined about me supporting something 'entirely different' from the OP.
What I actually said was that you were attempting to defend the OP by presenting an argument entirely different from it, and I pointed out that this was not effective.

Trying to change the subject!?? That particular subject was started by me making a post as an aside to the main debate, asking why you're addressing it's effectiveness. So it was always about you with subsequent responses to that.
And I have never done anything but talk about the topic of the main debate, but I guess you missed all those references to the "topic suggestion," even the ones I put in solid caps so you wouldn't miss them, in which I stated specifically that I was referring back to the topic suggestion because it is the topic of the thread.

Where, in the original post you cited? Because in that there were no arguments as to why it was immoral, merely assertions that it IS immoral. The arguments you made were about why it's based apparently on faulty assumptions and why it doesn't work. Unless it's in another post you made. In that case, don't whine about me not reading it, I did ask if there was any other posts you made that I SHOULD read before debating with you.


Huh? So it was in another post? I'll try to challenge it then if you direct me to it.
No, it's in the one post I told you to read. Guess you didn't really read it, eh? I'm not surprised.

You cannot have a valid ought statement, calling it valid is meaningless, you can only call the empirical or logical premiss it's based on valid or not.

It can be derived from a valid premise, but the process of deriving the ought statement cannot be objective or logical in itself (naturalistic fallacy etc...).

I don't believe there is such a thing as empirical ethics/morals, so I obviously do not believe you can test the statements empiricism. But I do believe you can test the empiricism of the premise it is based on.

Too bad I didn't make any of those assumptions.
So you say.

And another off-topic tangent. You seem to be having a problem staying focused in this thread.

Oh please, you were already making it more than personal when you decided to bitch about me in third person in a patronising manner to TCT.
"More than personal", eh? So, critiquing a person's argument to another person in the same thread is now a personal attack -- oh, no wait, a more than personal attack. Mm-hm. Sure.

I would be interested to know which of his counters you think have been effective and why.

psst, Mur, "decimate" means "reduce by 1 tenth" :p

psst, Mur, "decimate" means "reduce by 1 tenth" :p
Pssst, NA, I know that. *smacks NA over head with high-heeled shoe.*

Pssst, NA, I know that. *smack over head with high-heeled shoe.*

Oh baby. You know I like you in heels.

Um, you are the they in question. Decimate has a specific meaning and was being misused as YOU countered more than one argument in ten.

That one in ten thing is an archaic use of the word.

Look at this crap, it's not even addressing the topic at all any more. Just a load of he said she said nonsense. Why does this always happen with you. I don't know if I can be bothered with this irrelevance any more.

Look at this crap, it's not even addressing the topic at all any more. Just a load of he said she said nonsense. Why does this always happen with you.
It happens because your arguments are crap, lacking substance.

I don't know if I can be bothered with this irrelevance any more.
Don't feel you need to continue. Like I said, I'm only doing because you seemed to want to. By all means go find something more fun to do.

It happens because your arguments are crap, lacking substance.


No, it happens, because instead of actually addressing my arguments, you spend most of your time trying to catch me out by making it seem like I'm contradicting myself.


Don't feel you need to continue. Like I said, I'm only doing because you seemed to want to. By all means go find something more fun to do.

But some of the stuff in your last post is just, so wrong, so very wrong.

No, it happens, because instead of actually addressing my arguments, you spend most of your time trying to catch me out by making it seem like I'm contradicting myself.

But some of the stuff in your last post is just, so wrong, so very wrong.
If you want to tell yourself that's what just happened here, then do what you need to to get through the day. The reading audience will make up their own minds about it.

If you want to tell yourself that's what just happened here, then do what you need to to get through the day. The reading audience will make up their own minds about it.

No, I doubt the reading audience have enough patience to read through the whole debate. They instead will probably take your mischaracterizations of my argument as well as your faulty assumptions as true.

No, I doubt the reading audience have enough patience to read through the whole debate. They instead will probably take your mischaracterizations of my argument as well as your faulty assumptions as true.

That's OK, I'm sure those grapes were sour anyway.

:tongue:

No, I doubt the reading audience have enough patience to read through the whole debate. They instead will probably take your mischaracterizations of my argument as well as your faulty assumptions as true.
:D You're so funny. :D

Anyway, I gotta go to the supermarket before it starts raining again. It's been a little slice of heaven, as always, H. Later.

Sure. And euthanize the handicapped. If poor.
:D

Can't Feed em. Don't Breed em.

But you could make it possible for contraceptive companies to sue the Catholic church over their banning of the use of such items. Universally available contraception would certainly help the problem.

It's not a bad idea. If the poor have less babies than they are less likely to live in poverty.

This thread delivers.

The only thing more entertaining than a politician proposing a sterilize-the-poor program is watching some desperate "libertarian" types trying frantically to justify said program.

Please don't let anyone on NSG support this. Please

Who here supports Planned Parenthood? Margaret Sanger would have jumped on this OP with hearty agreement being a devoted eugenicist who advocated forced sterilization, for the poor and the mentally deficient in particular, who she believed were likely to produce "subnormal" offspring for the purpose of improving society's overall gene pool.

Nor was she too shy about admitting it:

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge."

Some other gems can be found here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

In her "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children", published in 1934, she wrote "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit... no permit shall be valid for more than one child."

But such thoughts can be seen here all the time and most are not offended. But ol' Maggie gets even better!

In 1939 Sanger created the "Negro Project", which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through her Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers (including Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr.), doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. "The mass of significant Negroes", read the project’s report, "still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes is in that portion of the population least intelligent and fit."

Find this shocking? Too hard to believe? Apparently she did to since she recognized its extreme "Progressive" nature even then: "We do not want word to go out," she wrote to a colleague, "that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

How about this one?

"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan." - Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366

Anyone have any outrage for an organization based on weeding out the unfit classes in the guise of women's empowerment? I am certain that many of you will say that Maggie has no effect on the present day institution. Really? Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EatmoUdpoFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4cM7x_o4M

For those who will discredit the source, here is Planned Parenthood's response and attempt to discredit the exposure of their racism:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/308723.html

Feel free to discount the history of the organization and the targeting of minority communities but Planned Parenthood is just as bad as the ass clown in the OP.

This thread delivers.

The only thing more entertaining than a politician proposing a sterilize-the-poor program is watching some desperate "libertarian" types trying frantically to justify said program.

A true Libertarian would not support or justify this program. A true Liberal would but not a true Libertarian.

Wow, and it just keeps getting better...

Please, tell me more about how women's rights lead to women being forcibly sterilized, and how organizations which provide health care to women are the ones seeking to take away women's right to choose their own health care!

Who here supports Planned Parenthood? Margaret Sanger would have jumped on this OP with hearty agreement being a devoted eugenicist who advocated forced sterilization, for the poor and the mentally deficient in particular, who she believed were likely to produce "subnormal" offspring for the purpose of improving society's overall gene pool.

Nor was she too shy about admitting it:

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge."

Some other gems can be found here:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

In her "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children", published in 1934, she wrote "no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit... no permit shall be valid for more than one child."

But such thoughts can be seen here all the time and most are not offended. But ol' Maggie gets even better!

In 1939 Sanger created the "Negro Project", which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through her Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers (including Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr.), doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. "The mass of significant Negroes", read the project’s report, "still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes is in that portion of the population least intelligent and fit."

Find this shocking? Too hard to believe? Apparently she did to since she recognized its extreme "Progressive" nature even then: "We do not want word to go out," she wrote to a colleague, "that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

How about this one?

"Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan." - Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366

Anyone have any outrage for an organization based on weeding out the unfit classes in the guise of women's empowerment? I am certain that many of you will say that Maggie has no effect on the present day institution. Really? Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EatmoUdpoFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA4cM7x_o4M

For those who will discredit the source, here is Planned Parenthood's response and attempt to discredit the exposure of their racism:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/308723.html

Feel free to discount the history of the organization and the targeting of minority communities but Planned Parenthood is just as bad as the ass clown in the OP.

Meh. Recycled lies and half-truths. link (pdf) (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact-margaret-sanger.pdf), link (http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/planned-parenthoods-statement-on-margaret-sanger/)

And Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't share your contempt for Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger -- guess he was a racist too. link (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm)

I support comprehensive sex education and rewarding those on welfare if they get sterilized. Not forced sterilization of course and no rewards for rich people having kids.

How about also the welfare recipients that want help from the govt for their kids first need to pass sex education and childcare classes, but with that comes free health care, child care and job training/placement services.

Wow, and it just keeps getting better...

Please, tell me more about how women's rights lead to women being forcibly sterilized, and how organizations which provide health care to women are the ones seeking to take away women's right to choose their own health care!

What? No one told you that the anti-choice, anti-equal pay, religious fundies were who really had women's best interests at heart?

Didn't they outlaw this kind of thing, like, 40 years ago?

Of course it's racially motivated. People don't have "poor genes" and "rich genes".

I think you are reading way too much into this. It is not about racism or genetics. This is about people not having children that they cannot afford to raise. I see nothing wrong with this.

Wow, and it just keeps getting better...

Please, tell me more about how women's rights lead to women being forcibly sterilized, and how organizations which provide health care to women are the ones seeking to take away women's right to choose their own health care!

Who said women's rights lead to women being forcibly sterilized? Was Sanger and Planned Parenthood the only voice for women's rights?

This might be getting better as you say but your reading comprehension most certainly is not. Once again fact can be thrown out through misrepresentation.

Meh. Recycled lies and half-truths. link (pdf) (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/fact-margaret-sanger.pdf), link (http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/planned-parenthoods-statement-on-margaret-sanger/)

And Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't share your contempt for Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger -- guess he was a racist too. link (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm)

I am quite amazed that Planned Parenthood's own website and statements don't mention her love of eugenics or racist past. Quite hard to believe.

I return you now to your arguments on the meaning of "decimate".

I am quite amazed that Planned Parenthood's own website and statements don't mention her love of eugenics or racist past. Quite hard to believe.

If you had actually read what I linked or actually cared about the facts, you would know that the links I cited directly rebut the insinuations and lies you were peddling.

But I guess all that matters is a few out-of-context quotes from Wikipedia and an ambush call to some poor fundraiser in Idaho who doesn't denounce someone for wanting to give money.

I also love the condescending way in which you have characterized black leaders who worked with Sanger, such as W.E.B. DuBois and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., as mere dupes unwittingly working for a racist agenda. Yeah, you're a real epitome of racial justice. :rolleyes:

If you had actually read what I linked or actually cared about the facts, you would know that the links I cited directly rebut the insinuations and lies you were peddling.

I am always amazed when quoting someone is called "peddling lies".

But I guess all that matters is a few out-of-context quotes from Wikipedia and an ambush call to some poor fundraiser in Idaho who doesn't denounce someone for wanting to give money.

Would you care to put the Negro Project in context for me? Or tell me how you would react when confronted by some racist trying to abort black babies?

I also love the condescending way in which you have characterized black leaders who worked with Sanger, such as W.E.B. DuBois

DuBois was a socialist and a lover of facism. I will let his history and words condemn him as well. But not right now.

and Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., as mere dupes unwittingly working for a racist agenda.

And yet he was.

Yeah, you're a real epitome of racial justice. :rolleyes:

I am. You are not. The mere fact that DuBois and Powell were black in no way removes them from criticism. They are human in my eyes and are capable of being dupes and capable of human frailty. They worked with an admitted, and well documented, racist whose goal was to keep the lesser classes (Negroes and other "lesser" classes) from multiplying.

Does this make them the epitome of racial justice?

Uh, actually I'm just testing to see if my system is back on line.

Sure. And euthanize the handicapped. If poor.
:D


We're gonna....

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor, tonight!

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor, tonight!

I think you are reading way too much into this. It is not about racism or genetics. This is about people not having children that they cannot afford to raise. I see nothing wrong with this.

No, it is not.

Seriously, this is my constant complaint this summer: People do not read the goddamned threads that they are responding to.

The politician quoted in the OP clearly states that he not only wants to pay poor people to get sterilized. He also wants to reward rich people for having more babies. His harebrained notion for reducing poverty is to replace poor people with rich people.

There are tons of things wrong with that, the elitist prejudice being only one of them.

Uh, actually I'm just testing to see if my system is back on line.

So is Smiling Frogs. His system seems to be giving him more trouble though.

So is Smiling Frogs. His system seems to be giving him more trouble though.

My system is fine, combating the voices in your head is the issue here.

My system is fine, combating the voices in your head is the issue here.
Such a cute little troll.

In 1939 Sanger created the "Negro Project", which aimed to get blacks to adopt birth control. Through her Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers (including Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr.), doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project’s racist intent is beyond doubt. "The mass of significant Negroes", read the project’s report, "still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes is in that portion of the population least intelligent and fit."

Find this shocking? Too hard to believe? Apparently she did to since she recognized its extreme "Progressive" nature even then: "We do not want word to go out," she wrote to a colleague, "that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."


I am always amazed when quoting someone is called "peddling lies".

Would you care to put the Negro Project in context for me? Or tell me how you would react when confronted by some racist trying to abort black babies?

DuBois was a socialist and a lover of facism. I will let his history and words condemn him as well. But not right now.

And yet he was.

I am. You are not. The mere fact that DuBois and Powell were black in no way removes them from criticism. They are human in my eyes and are capable of being dupes and capable of human frailty. They worked with an admitted, and well documented, racist whose goal was to keep the lesser classes (Negroes and other "lesser" classes) from multiplying.

Does this make them the epitome of racial justice?

Yes, your contempt for one of the founders of the NAACP and some of the great leaders of Black America doesn't reflect doubt on your view at all. Martin Luther King, Jr., was, no doubt also either a dupe or a racist.

Regardless, your own initial statement as to what the Negro Project was hardly merits your alarm. Yes, the Negro Project sought to encourage the use of birth control by black Americans. How horrifying. :eek::rolleyes:

But don't let inaccuracies and mischaracterizations get in the way of your trying to discredit an entire cause based on 70-year-old allegations.

EDIT: Note that I am not saying that Sanger, DuBois, Powell, or King are infallible and/or can't be criticized. It's just when you are alleging the existence of a racist conspiracy against Black America, it is relevant that the alleged conspirators involve some of the greatest black leaders of that time.

My system is fine, combating the voices in your head is the issue here.

Apparently not, n00b.

We're gonna....

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor, tonight!

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor, tonight!

My retort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY

that is all.

I am always amazed when quoting someone is called "peddling lies".When you quote someone out of context it is, especially when the goal is to make it appear as though they said something significantly different than what they actually said.

Unfortunately, in Buck v. Bell (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=200), 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the Court upheld the statute that authorized sterilzation of "mental defectives."

Sorry, all I know about the case I learned from reading a roadside plaque. I'll trust your assessment.