I must say, my posts in this thread are a fine piece of work.

6/7/2012 4:19:26 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather let children starve to death than be taxed an extra few cents on my income! " "

good lord. yep that is the only option.

cute bible verse. I dont recall Jesus saying he thinks the Roman army should be used to take from the rich to give to the poor. I dont go to church often so I may have missed that.

Proverbs 14:23
All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.

Thessalonians 3:10
"The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."

6/7/2012 8:14:19 PM

Quote :

"conservative news networks"

yes all of those conservative news networks. number beyond reckoning

6/7/2012 8:20:35 PM

Quote :

"good lord. yep that is the only option."

what is the other option?

hint: it isn't bootstraps

6/7/2012 8:29:19 PM

you are right. I cant imagine how the species survived before we had taxes and government. I suppose we didnt have any poor children back then.

6/7/2012 8:33:01 PM

Quote :

""The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.""

But she IS working now... doing solo porn and stripping!

But yeah, that isn't enough money... she either needs to become a SI swimsuit model or a hardcore porn star to be able to sustain 14 children without a husband.


[Edited on June 7, 2012 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2012 8:34:58 PM

didn't this woman get artificially inseminated?

6/8/2012 9:18:56 AM

yes?

6/8/2012 9:26:57 AM

Quote :

"you are right. I cant imagine how the species survived before we had taxes and government. I suppose we didnt have any poor children back then."

i think a much higher perentage of babies and kids died of starvation back then.

6/8/2012 10:05:18 AM

Quote :

"cute bible verse. I dont recall Jesus saying he thinks the Roman army should be used to take from the rich to give to the poor. I dont go to church often so I may have missed that."

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).

Specifically was addressing a Judean tax revolt, and yes Caesar did have welfare programs. You can also consult Romans 13 for Paul's assertion that Earthly authorities share a mandate from God.

That being said, the Bible is fictiotious horseshit written by goat herders with active imaginations but saddening prejudice and superstition.

Quote :

"Proverbs 14:23 All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty."

That was true back when the unaided work of a single man was actually in high demand. And I can take you plenty of places in the world and the US where you can work hard all day and barely be paid enough to feed yourself.

Quote :

"Thessalonians 3:10 "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.""

That says nothing of those unable to work because of a lack of jobs.


[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2012 10:52:51 AM

Quote :

"you are right. I cant imagine how the species survived before we had taxes and government. I suppose we didnt have any poor children back then."

We didn't have many. They were either aborted, culled, or died of starvation before puberty. Those that survived usually begged, sold their bodies, or were worked in manual labor until death.

[Edited on June 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2012 10:58:47 AM

How many times do we have to have this conversation? Life sucked, we made it suck less with regulations. Regulations appeared as a response to life sucking, not out of a vacuum by greedy Rockerfellers that just wanted a way to consolidate power over the masses.

6/8/2012 11:13:42 AM

Quote :

"i think a much higher perentage of babies and kids died of starvation back then."

Yes because of lack of govt. lol Also a lot died of polio too.

^so life got better mainly because of regulations? I would have gone with technology.

[Edited on June 9, 2012 at 8:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2012 8:37:36 AM

I agree. Technology definitely helped poor children be much more productive at their jobs...and if you're gonna be working 12 hours a day, you might as well be extra productive!

6/9/2012 10:16:33 AM

^haha, I bet you dont realize you backed into making a point.

MORE govt is certainly the answer. I say we go to a complete govt controlled system. It has eliminated hunger and the poor the N. Korea, Venezuela, and all parts of China. Great points

6/9/2012 4:09:16 PM

Well, you've convinced me that all government regulation should be abolished.

6/9/2012 6:32:28 PM

not at all, but to say that the only way to prevent children from starving is through govt is ridiculous. btw, how is that working out?

6/9/2012 6:44:12 PM

I feed my child a steady diet of free market with a dollop of laissez-faire for desert.

6/9/2012 6:50:37 PM

^^ I'm open to hearing alternatives as to how children born to shitty poor parents who can't afford to buy them food can feed their children sufficiently without any need for government assistance.

6/9/2012 7:06:53 PM

I would LOVE to hear about an alternative.

6/9/2012 7:38:04 PM

^^,^ couple of history majors I see.

Hell if you just want to look at efficiency alone, charities would be a much better choice.

6/9/2012 11:43:52 PM

... says the guy with no evidence on the internet.

6/10/2012 8:10:51 PM

You can always put the kids up for adoption. Last I heard people were paying big money for adoptable children.

6/11/2012 12:35:32 AM

Now is the time to grab a bargain on an adopted child. This recession has flooded the market. Inventories are piling up.

6/11/2012 3:07:33 AM

Quote :

" says the guy with no evidence on the internet. "

Evidence of what? That families in the US feed their children before we had food stamps or that charities are more efficient? haha, seriously kid?

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/11/generation-unwed-motherhood

This is a good article if you dont want to be poor. I also wonder why the numbers are getting worse? It could be that Bush was president or just maybe that the govt does influence behaviors with their tax/reward policies. Or do you need evidence of that as well?

6/11/2012 11:01:51 AM

nm, found older data:
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

Bottom line: people didn't feed their kids and charities didn't work. Children just died more and we didn't live nearly as long. Fuck anyone who wants to go back to 1800s policies.

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason : live]

6/11/2012 11:11:38 AM

You're too lazy to do the dirty work yourself, so you want to put a gun to the head of people and make them do "good" for you.

Go make the world a better place, you selfish, lazy assholes. If you're not willing to, then why should anyone else?

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2012 11:17:44 AM

No one is exactly as successful as the amount of "work they put in". There's advantages, disadvantages and plain rich people fucking over poor people. It boggles my mind that anyone can think that it's not moral to try to offset this bullshit.

You don't need to respond with how awesome anarcho-capitalist utopia would be at taking care of poor people and children.

6/11/2012 11:28:20 AM

There's exactly one moral system: one where you don't use force against other people.

Force doesn't suddenly become moral when you call it "government".

6/11/2012 11:34:09 AM

Quote :

"Fuck anyone who wants to go back to 1800s policies. "

You do understand that societies evolve over time. Are you seriously trying to argue that it was the 1800 POLICIES that held the life expectancy at 40 vs say THE FUCKING 1800s. Im sure there was a group of really smart people saying if govt had more power we could live to 85, and everyone else just said fuck it, ill die at 40?

"American mortality did not experience a sustained and irreversible decline until about the 1870s."
The birth of food stamps apparently

"Conventional explanations for the fertility transition have involved the rising cost of children because of urbanization, the growth of incomes and nonagricultural employment, the increased value of education, rising female employment, child labor laws and compulsory education, and declining infant and child mortality. Changing attitudes toward large families and contraception, as well as better contraceptive techniques, have also been cited. Recent literature suggests that women were largely responsible for much of the birthrate decline in the nineteenth century -- part of a movement for greater control over their lives."

This still holds true, unless you PLAN on someone else paying for your kids and yourself. Like say OCTOMOM

"The mortality decline since the late nineteenth century seems to have been the result particularly of improvements in public health and sanitation, especially better water supplies and sewage disposal. The improving diet, clothing, and shelter of the American population over the period since about 1870 also played a role. Specific medical interventions beyond more general environmental public health measures were not statistically important until well into the twentieth century. It is difficult to disentangle the separate effects of these factors. But it is clear that much of the decline was due to rapid reductions in specific infectious and parasitic diseases, including tuberculosis, pneumonia, bronchitis, and gastro-intestinal infections, as well as such well-known lethal diseases as cholera, smallpox, diphtheria, and typhoid fever."

Good thing we outlawed those diseases.

Great article, thanks.

6/11/2012 11:36:37 AM

Quote :

"Good thing we outlawed those diseases."

I suppose you think someone just invented a cure for it and magically the diseases disappeared, right?

The government did the lions share of the work to eliminate those diseases for everyone, poor and rich, and are also to thank for the sanitation improvements mentioned in what you quoted. The laws they made solved those problems, so in effect, they kind of did "outlaw those diseases".

6/11/2012 12:46:02 PM

Quote :

"The government did the lions share of the work"

At first I was like



But then I was like

6/11/2012 1:02:06 PM

Compelling argument...

It would be nice if it has more evidence and less cliched memes

like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_Act

6/11/2012 1:06:14 PM

I think you are suggesting I think that no govt is the answer or that the govt does not provide ANY good. That isnt the case.

However, you seem to feel that if the govt did not do these things they simply wouldnt get done.

Im not sure how much govts were pumping into research during the 1800s. A lot of discoveries were done by practicing physicians. A lot of these diseases have been around for centuries and through SEVERAL types of govt. No I would think technological advances, again, help smart people uncover more information about things and address the issues better. But im sure you will say govt creates all advances as well, which is fine. I dont care to continue going in circles with you.

For a kinda funny story (now that it worked out) go google Edward Jenner and how he tested his theory.

^^no joke. lol

Yes, there is a ROLE for govt. Mandating vaccines def helps society. However, they did NOT do the lions share on creating these vaccines. Do you give me "the lions share" of the credit for creating the automobile bc I drive one?

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2012 1:12:47 PM

Quote :

"I think you are suggesting I think that no govt is the answer or that the govt does not provide ANY good. That isnt the case. However, you seem to feel that if the govt did not do these things they simply wouldnt get done. "

You're trying to reframe the argument. You stated that the government had nothing to do with those diseases being eradicated and the increase in life expectancy. This shouldn't even be up for debate, it had a huge role and was the driving force behind solving those problems.

We aren't talking about "what could have happened" or "what the government's role should be" or anything like that. We're talking about what DID happen and what the government DID do.

Additionally finding a cure and research was a very small part of getting rid of these problems. Implementing and distibuting the cure was the hard part. It's easy to figure out "we shouldn't live near waste" or "here's the vaccine for X" one person can do that. Creating a sewage system and distributing the vaccine are things that are much harder and much more expensive, and that is what the government did.

Quote :

"Do you give me "the lions share" of the credit for creating the automobile bc I drive one?"

No, that's a terrible analogy. I'll make it better, I give a lion's share of the credit for creating the automobile to Ford, because he got it to everyone, I don't give it to Ferdinand Verbiest because he invented the first steam powered engine.

The research was a very small part of a much larger effort to erradicate those diseases.

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2012 1:28:06 PM

Quote :

"No, that's a terrible analogy. I'll make it better, I give a lion's share of the credit for creating the automobile to Ford, because he got it to everyone, I don't give it to Ferdinand Verbiest because he invented the first steam powered engine. "

Model T was a steam powered engine?

So the actual CURE was a small part of erradicating a disease. Got it. Thanks.

My point was in response to someone pointing out that people died earlier in the 1800s vs today and the idea that was all because of govt assistance. And that simply passing a law to end hunger or end a disease doesnt do the job. If so why not let the govt outlaw cancer and pass a law for free cancer vaccines. That will certainly CURE cancer right?

[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2012 1:59:32 PM

Quote :

"My point was in response to someone pointing out that people died earlier in the 1800s vs today and the idea that was all because of govt assistance. And that simply passing a law to end hunger or end a disease doesnt do the job. If so why not let the govt outlaw cancer and pass a law for free cancer vaccines. That will certainly CURE cancer right?"

I lost track of the number of strawmen in this blurb.

6/11/2012 2:05:38 PM

Yeah, it's not even worth arguing with him when he does that. He just takes what you say and extrapolates it to the zillionth degree and then asks you why you hold such a ridiculous position. Like when people say that allowing gay people to marry will eventually make marrying your toaster legal.

6/11/2012 4:50:52 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: ^haha, I bet you dont realize you backed into making a point."

Explain it to me.

6/12/2012 2:49:25 PM

PM sent

6/12/2012 7:16:27 PM

Just think...In thirteen years we'll probably be supporting her grandkids too!

6/14/2012 3:03:45 PM