Pages: 1 2

 

2012-12-29 11:24:09
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4493
wait a minute is jay seriously trying to claim that your annual income relates to the amount of sex you have in any significant way?

what the fuck am i even reading.

your 'dickensian' image was telling, because that was the last historical era when such a 'correlation' held any water: back when the worst-off and lowest-classes didn't have access to or education about contraceptives or sex. all the rest, about the 'idle poor' basically lying around scratching their asses and mating like rabbits... is something straight out of a right-wing paranoiac sex fantasy.
2012-12-29 11:43:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England

aynrandroolz wrote:

wait a minute is jay seriously trying to claim that your annual income relates to the amount of sex you have in any significant way?

what the fuck am i even reading.

your 'dickensian' image was telling, because that was the last historical era when such a 'correlation' held any water: back when the worst-off and lowest-classes didn't have access to or education about contraceptives or sex. all the rest, about the 'idle poor' basically lying around scratching their asses and mating like rabbits... is something straight out of a right-wing paranoiac sex fantasy.
Amount of free time correlates to the amount of sex you have. It wasn't that difficult to understand, was it? I'm really having a difficult time understanding why the two of you find this line of thought offensive. The OP was a discussion about what was to be done about poor single mothers and the lack of fathers in poor childrens lives. Is it then unreasonable to discuss why there might be so many children being born into those situations? I find it interesting that the two children who grew up privileged become the most offended when the causes are discussed. Somehow it's more offensive for someone with experience to give his opinion than those with no experience and a head full of idealism and opinions gleaned from textbooks. Frankly, I find the opinions expressed by the two of you to be more offensive than anything I've said here. Who are you to pass judgement on others when your own knowledge base is colored so profoundly by the biases of your left leaning professors? My opinions aren't derived from right wing news sources, they are derived by personal experience.

You're right, the lower classes do have access to education about contraceptives and sex, just like they have access to the liberal arts education provided by society for their betterment. It doesn't mean they take advantage of it or pay attention or even care. Most don't, or there'd be more success stories for the liberal do-gooders to crow about when asking for increased funding.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-29 11:45:17
rdx-fx
...
+955|6830
Having one good parent with a decent income, is probably better for a child than having two shitty parents who believe in the "sanctity of marriage".
If you have an involved family that lives in proximity to each other, it is even better for the kids.

The whole subtext of 'sanctity of marriage' is short sighted. It's not all about a mother and father, married, living together.
One good parent (or two) and an involved family (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins) makes for a richer childhood.

From a parent's perspective, it's easier to raise a child with two involved parents.
More income, more time to spend with your kids, and more flexibility in general.
The parents don't even have to be living together or married, as long as they're both involved in the child's life.
2012-12-29 11:51:01
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
Let's do this again with the apparently offensive line excised.

Jay wrote:

You can't really. There are too many forces at work driving it in the other direction for it to be a remotely simple problem to solve (assuming that it is desirable to do so in the first place). Religious ties and the stigma of divorce are largely gone, and while they did the job of binding many families together whether they were actually functional or not, the stigma isn't going to return.

Then there was the sexual revolution and liberalization of sexual thought in society that led people to be more (openly) promiscuous. I'm not sure that it actually did raise levels of pre-marital sex, but it did make it more acceptable and less shameful. Added to this, you have feminism and suffrage which rightly defined women as equal to men and led them to expect all of the same things out of life that men had come to expect.

And lastly, and probably most relevant considering who is most likely to end up as a struggling single mother, government subsidies to the poor tend to punish married people receiving assistance in comparison to what a single mother can bring in by herself. The above three points are largely irrelevant; their largest effect was on the middle class. It's a situation where you have unmarriageable people having sex and begetting future unmarriageable children. I say unmarriageable because they largely have nothing to offer each other aside from bodily fluids. No education, no property, no hope. Why get married if there is no benefit? god obviously isn't going to strike them down for being promiscuous. If there was an easy solution to the problem, the problem would not exist. There have certainly been enough do-gooders meddling in the lives of the poor over the centuries for someone to find an answer if one existed.

Iceland seems to get by just fine with a ton of single mothers - the stigma is largely removed from bastards in their society. I'd say look to them for an answer, but I don't think their society is comparable to our own.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-12-29 12:23:57
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4493

Jay wrote:

aynrandroolz wrote:

wait a minute is jay seriously trying to claim that your annual income relates to the amount of sex you have in any significant way?

what the fuck am i even reading.

your 'dickensian' image was telling, because that was the last historical era when such a 'correlation' held any water: back when the worst-off and lowest-classes didn't have access to or education about contraceptives or sex. all the rest, about the 'idle poor' basically lying around scratching their asses and mating like rabbits... is something straight out of a right-wing paranoiac sex fantasy.
Amount of free time correlates to the amount of sex you have. It wasn't that difficult to understand, was it? I'm really having a difficult time understanding why the two of you find this line of thought offensive. The OP was a discussion about what was to be done about poor single mothers and the lack of fathers in poor childrens lives. Is it then unreasonable to discuss why there might be so many children being born into those situations? I find it interesting that the two children who grew up privileged become the most offended when the causes are discussed. Somehow it's more offensive for someone with experience to give his opinion than those with no experience and a head full of idealism and opinions gleaned from textbooks. Frankly, I find the opinions expressed by the two of you to be more offensive than anything I've said here. Who are you to pass judgement on others when your own knowledge base is colored so profoundly by the biases of your left leaning professors? My opinions aren't derived from right wing news sources, they are derived by personal experience.

You're right, the lower classes do have access to education about contraceptives and sex, just like they have access to the liberal arts education provided by society for their betterment. It doesn't mean they take advantage of it or pay attention or even care. Most don't, or there'd be more success stories for the liberal do-gooders to crow about when asking for increased funding.
would you possibly like a bigger crowbar with which to shoehorn in all those confused and irrelevant arguments? from poor people and sex to liberal arts education funding? it's embarrassing how desperate you are to make arguments personal... all the while squealing like a stuck pig that people are being remotely personal or are singling you out.

and what's the deal with 'you only have textbook experience'? i grew up in a single mother household, you mong. not that it matters a fuckin' dime when what people are calling out is your absurd argument. "amount of free time correlates to the amount of sex you have"? where the fuck is a dude with a science degree getting this sort of phoney empiricism from? i'd say the amount of sex you have PERHAPS has something to do with your lifestyle, but is more probably dictated by a basic inter-personal chemistry and individual-psychology based need/drive. every working couple, no matter whether they don't work at all or whether they work 11hour days, are gonna be able to find at least a 15 minute slice of time before sleep for some nookie. again, you have this image of poor and unemployed people sat around all day... boning. which is a little odd. to try and hide behind the mewling cry of 'oh i grew up poorer than you!' as some sort of 'evidence' or 'defense' is frankly pathetic... and boring. same old from you. make a ludicrous statement and then fall back on crass background generalizations and inane arguments. talk about liberal arts funding some more!
2012-12-29 13:34:47
rdx-fx
...
+955|6830

Jay wrote:

Iceland seems to get by just fine with a ton of single mothers - the stigma is largely removed from bastards in their society. I'd say look to them for an answer, but I don't think their society is comparable to our own.
I think the salient point is that a parent's investment of time, energy, and money directly influences the future prospects of their children.

As a parent, the largest investment in your child's future is time & patience.
A child's food, clothing, shelter, and security don't take much more than what you have to provide for yourself.
Having the time & patience to spend with your child is the more demanding task.


Issues of nationality, culture, religion, race, or class just cloud the core issue.
A child's future directly depends on a parent(or family) investing the time, energy, and/or money to give that child the tools to be a successful adult.
Education, ethics, values, discipline, reasoning skills, social skills, introductions to the right people, property, etc.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard