- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 8,647
- Reaction score
- 3,150
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
100% agree...and now you can stand with me and fend off the arrows shot your way from the bleeding hearts who think that stupidity and irresponsibility being subsidized by taxpayers should continue as planned.
Everyone's always focusing on the kid's parents and not the kids when they talk about these things.
I don't care what hte parents have done - I don't feel it's moral to allow kids to suffer without food and clothing for their parent's poor decisions... the only thing I Might agree on is the housing thing but that's actually not extremely common. Most of the time the gov provides financial assistance for housing and other basics.
Exactly the opposite is happening. The reason these programs keep getting expanded is precisely because there is so much emphasis on the kids, and virtually none regarding the parents.
Is it true? If so, then why are we "needing" to keep expanding the programs? Shouldn't people doing better mean fewer and/or smaller programs necessary? (This is an ever-increasing issue, and is not really tied to economic trends of a given moment in time,btw)
Some programs, such as school lunches, are being expanded to the point that even some of the most ardent supporters admit they're 'helping' kids and families that honestly don't need help, but they're being expanded so all kids are as 'equal' as can be.
I'm not in support of eliminating these programs entirely, but I do believe that have expanded way beyond their legitimate need.
As long as sterilization is 100% voluntary... and voluntary does NOT include coercion by making it a requirement to get money/help... then that is entirely appropriate.Exactly. As I have said, provide welfare for the children who have already had the misfortune for being genetically selected to be born to lousy parent, but for the love of pizza, put stipulations on the funding such as sterilization.
I don't like to see anyone suffer needlessly, kids or adults, but I'm tired of the "...think of the children" mantra. A set of standards needs to be established somewhere, and adhered to, and by "not punishing the children" you are actually encouraging the parents... which only serves to create MORE kids in crappy circumstances.
But, where's the tipping point between lessening their harm and just giving more crap... and, while I'm sure not intentionally, actually encourage said destructive behavior while no longer relieving any additional harm whatsoever?The point is that a policy should accomplish what it is designed to accomplish with as few side effects as possible. Most of the effects of the proposed policy are not intended purpose of reducing birth rates. A policy should be tailored to specifically achieve its intent, rather than tossed against the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks. The pasta that falls is not merely ignored, it is actual people suffering real harm.
Take corporal punishment, as one example.If there were a license to have children no one would qualify because of the different personal standards everyone uses as a guideline to raising them. There are already laws protecting children from certain parental abuses and neglect but they are either skimpy in some areas or overly restrictive in others.
Take corporal punishment, as one example.
Some believe spanking in any form is abuse, no exceptions. Some people believe spanking is effective and appropriate, in moderation. Of course, there are others who take it way too far, yet believe they are right. Would this be on the test? Which answer is the "right" answer?
An animal will like whomever feeds it, regardless of treatment. You are "asking" for something that is automatic, as if it is the pet's decision to make - that's fantasy. You're creating a two-way street where none exists, anthropomorphizing.
You might be the Guardian of the animal, but - more importantly - you are its owner and therefore are responsible for it by law. Your imaginary position as "companion" is counter-productive to personal social development and absolutely secondary to the legal designation of owner.
Every person, child, learned values and situation is different. I agree that the laws have to set the socially acceptable limits of child rearing behavior, leaving a large leeway for interpretation. My father and mother used intimidation to correct me, knowing my mind was not mature enough to always understand the reasons for "NO". My sister and her husband believe in no discipline and "YES" to everything. But then again they raised a spoiled, rotten monster who stays in trouble and respects nothing.
I believe the OP is looking for a reason to exclude the poor from breeding in an effort to suppress welfare and poverty.
Yes, what I'm asking for is a natural response to being taken care of. I am aware of that. How is that anthropomorphizing?
I am not responsible for it because I own it. I'm responsible for it because she has needs and requires care.
How is it counterproductive for me to think of her as a companion? How is it socially harmful to do so? You do realize I'm aware she can't talk, right? People call dogs companion animals all the time, and cats really aren't any different if you get the way they communicate.
No way. Educational programs do almost nothing to reduce social programs like this,
As long as sterilization is 100% voluntary... and voluntary does NOT include coercion by making it a requirement to get money/help... then that is entirely appropriate.
Sounds like a great plan to a very relevant problem to me.
You're talking about an animal's natural response to being fed, regardless of care or even outright abuse. Pretending that the animal makes a decision to be your "companion" is - in fact and absolutely - anthropomorphizing.
You provide for the needs and care of all animals all the time, or just the ones you own?
Imaginary friends take the place of genuine social interaction with consequences and serve as a fantasy model for actual human interpersonal relationships. Pretending that one has a "friend", when one really only has an animal that likes to be fed, is damaging to ones psyche and cognition of real social interaction.
Animals will not love you if you abuse them, even if you feed them. Especially not cats. Try going to a shelter sometime. The abused animals will definitely take food from you, but they'll also try to hide or maul you if they haven't been rehabilitated yet.
To some extent, everything we do impacts all variety of creatures. But my responsibilities to my own cat are simply a lot more direct, and other humans besides me don't affect it as much.
Dude, what are you on about? Lots and lots of people have animals and view them as companions, while simultaneously managing to have plenty of meaningful human interactions. I am one of them. If you are saying that doesn't exist, you are accusing the majority of people of "living in a fantasy land" by having pets.
Yes they will. Your example, a shelter, is not the same as a private home. I should have included private space, consistent shelter and knowledge of other animals nearby. With those things, an animal will "love" and be a "companion" even to an abuser.
Thus, the defining relationship between you and your animal is ownership, not an obligation to help all animals.
Imaginary friends, through anthropomorphizing, is not healthy for ones social development.
That is coercion. Needy people trading their fertility for food is coercive.It would be voluntary. If they want a check, get sterilized. That is not coercion. They don't HAVE TO take the check.
Look, you keep doing the "what are you talking about" thing, so I'm just gonna make this simple one more time:
1. An animal DOES NOT consciously decide to be your "companion" based on anything about you whatsoever. Pretending one is special because an animal thinks so is pathetic.
2. Imaginary friends are counter-productive to the development of normal social interaction.
3. An obligation to animals, animal rights or any other incarnation of non-anthropocentrism is not an excuse or reason to own an animal. Blaiming the ownership of an animal on a need to help animals is a false claim. Many have such an obligation and do not own pets.
That is coercion. Needy people trading their fertility for food is coercive.
How are animals imaginary?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?