Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6686

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
correlation does not imply causation.

Growing up with a single parent is much better than living with 2 parents who fight each other all the time.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
It's a social issue that needs to be taken care of by society, not by government.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
correlation does not imply causation.

Growing up with a single parent is much better than living with 2 parents who fight each other all the time.
This.
"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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
It's a social issue that needs to be taken care of by society, not by government.
And this.

/thread
"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
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Fathers disappear from households across America
It's the rapture!





(ok sorry, srs mode)
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Well since everyone is here and it's either this or the gun threads

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Nicole Hawkins‘ three daughters have matching glittery boots, but none has the same father. Each has uniquely colored ties in her hair, but none has a dad present in her life.

As another single mother on Sumner Road decked her row-house stoop with Christmas lights and a plastic Santa, Ms. Hawkins recalled that her middle child’s father has never spent a holiday or birthday with her. In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … s-america/
People born into a 2 parent household are better off than people who tend not to. Less crime and better educational achievement. So since living in a 2 parent household is better than not living in one, in what ways do you feel comfortable with the government attempting to get men to stay with their baby mothers?
It's a social issue that needs to be taken care of by society, not by government.
Fine then how can we start getting it done as a society?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
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. Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact, so 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.

Last edited by Jay (2012-12-28 18:10:33)

"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
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,
Need a citation for that one.
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4299
he means black people versus white people (excluding irish)
What are you looking at dicknose
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Macbeth wrote:

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,
Need a citation for that one.
Several factors causing a reduction in fertility affected high status groups before they
had a similar impact on the rest of the population. Knowledge and practice of traditional
birth control methods is likely to first have been practiced by high status groups who
were more exposed to different ideas and knowledge (Cleland 2001). Contraceptive use
correlates with education and income also in contemporary societies (Jejeebhoy 1995,
Kanazawa 2003). Infanticide may also positively correlate with status, and has been
found to be more common among high-caste communities than among the rest of the
population in northern India in the 1980s (Sudha and Rajan 1999). 
Mortality has in several studies been found to be similar between the social classes
before the demographic transition in Europe (Knodel 1983, Livi Bacci 1991, Surault
1979). Gadeyne (2006) writes: “In general, it is accepted that socio-economic mortality
differences were rather limited in pre-industrial Europe“. However, the decrease in
mortality that followed increased hygiene, better nutrition, less strenuous lifestyles and
better medical treatment is first likely to have affected the higher social classes. As
mortality declined, a general tendency emerged that status relates to life expectancy,
which is still evident (Marmot 2004). 
If uncertainty is high, childbearing may be perceived as a basic social insurance, as
children may support parents when they become frail and dependent on transfers.
Effective social security systems that provide support in old age could therefore reduce
fertility preferences (Cain 1983). Social security schemes are more likely to first have
been utilized by the upper social echelons. For example, evidence from medieval
Germany shows that monasteries receiving gifts from wealthier individuals repaid the
contributors as they grew old through the provision of old age care and support (Lyon
2006). 
The fertility decline occurred as female labour force participation increased, a
cultural transition took place with rising material aspirations, individualisation and
changes in gender roles – which may particularly have affected fertility of high status
groups (Brown and Guinnane 2002, Caldwell 1999, Lesthaeghe and Meekers 1986,
Matysiak and Vignoli 2006, Sathar and Kazi 1990). The effect of religion on fertility
may also play an important role, as secularisation and liberal interpretations of religion
is more common among the more educated (Banu 1992, Sacerdote and Glaeser 2001),
and those with weaker religious beliefs tend to have lower fertility (Schellekens and van
Poppel 2006, Goujon et al. 2007).
http://www.demographic-research.org/vol … 5/18-5.pdf

In a few small sample sizes, wealthier people tended to have more children than poorer people, but if that were uniform I doubt we'd have a world that looked like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG/800px-Population_growth_rate_world_2005-2010_UN.PNG
"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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Frank Reynolds wrote:

he means black people versus white people (excluding irish)
No, I really didn't. I had in mind a more Dickensian setting with whores dropping their unwanted offspring off at orphanages or committing infanticide.
"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
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

jay wrote:

Poor people have always had more sex than wealthier people, it's just a fact,
Need a citation for that one.
Several factors causing a reduction in fertility affected high status groups before they
had a similar impact on the rest of the population. Knowledge and practice of traditional
birth control methods is likely to first have been practiced by high status groups who
were more exposed to different ideas and knowledge (Cleland 2001). Contraceptive use
correlates with education and income also in contemporary societies (Jejeebhoy 1995,
Kanazawa 2003). Infanticide may also positively correlate with status, and has been
found to be more common among high-caste communities than among the rest of the
population in northern India in the 1980s (Sudha and Rajan 1999). 
Mortality has in several studies been found to be similar between the social classes
before the demographic transition in Europe (Knodel 1983, Livi Bacci 1991, Surault
1979). Gadeyne (2006) writes: “In general, it is accepted that socio-economic mortality
differences were rather limited in pre-industrial Europe“. However, the decrease in
mortality that followed increased hygiene, better nutrition, less strenuous lifestyles and
better medical treatment is first likely to have affected the higher social classes. As
mortality declined, a general tendency emerged that status relates to life expectancy,
which is still evident (Marmot 2004). 
If uncertainty is high, childbearing may be perceived as a basic social insurance, as
children may support parents when they become frail and dependent on transfers.
Effective social security systems that provide support in old age could therefore reduce
fertility preferences (Cain 1983). Social security schemes are more likely to first have
been utilized by the upper social echelons. For example, evidence from medieval
Germany shows that monasteries receiving gifts from wealthier individuals repaid the
contributors as they grew old through the provision of old age care and support (Lyon
2006). 
The fertility decline occurred as female labour force participation increased, a
cultural transition took place with rising material aspirations, individualisation and
changes in gender roles – which may particularly have affected fertility of high status
groups (Brown and Guinnane 2002, Caldwell 1999, Lesthaeghe and Meekers 1986,
Matysiak and Vignoli 2006, Sathar and Kazi 1990). The effect of religion on fertility
may also play an important role, as secularisation and liberal interpretations of religion
is more common among the more educated (Banu 1992, Sacerdote and Glaeser 2001),
and those with weaker religious beliefs tend to have lower fertility (Schellekens and van
Poppel 2006, Goujon et al. 2007).
http://www.demographic-research.org/vol … 5/18-5.pdf

In a few small sample sizes, wealthier people tended to have more children than poorer people, but if that were uniform I doubt we'd have a world that looked like this:
All that proves is that in wealthy countries we manage to not have kids when we bone. That has nothing to do with income vs sex. Stop being dumb.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
What do people do when they're bored? They have sex. Who is more likely to be bored, someone that works all day and has access to a million entertainment options or someone that sits at home all day watching boring television shows for entertainment? Poor people in this country have way more sex than wealthier people do, maybe not the wealthiest diletante types, but people who work. But good job focussing in on the least important, most throwaway line in the entire post. I expect nothing less from you.
"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
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto
As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4299

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
fucking hell no.  religion is the downfall of society.
What are you looking at dicknose
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
Fear of hell, or fear of justice, one or the other is generally necessary to keep people on the track society wants. Either that or create a utopian society where everyone feels included and wanted and loved and that love removes any desire for violence or theft or rape.

https://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/manson1.jpg

Worked for the hippies.
"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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
fucking hell no.  religion is the downfall of society.
Is it? The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others. Even if you're completely averse to the idea that there is a creator of some sort out there, the basis for the religion is actually something beautiful, not worthy of scorn. It's misused and misinterpreted on a daily basis, yes, but it did take hold over so many people for a reason. It gives hope to those who have no cause for it. I think our society could use a little hope these days, and not the kind being offered by the man in the Oval Office.
"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
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5513|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
Fear of hell, or fear of justice, one or the other is generally necessary to keep people on the track society wants. Either that or create a utopian society where everyone feels included and wanted and loved and that love removes any desire for violence or theft or rape.



Worked for the hippies.
I wasn't that serious about it. Spirituality is important, but it doesn't have to be at a set time with a collection plate going around. Problem is that you can't mention introspection without the church thinking they're the answer, or without the parish getting righteous. You're lumped in if you even mention anything even remotely related. Controlling thoughts is ambitious, so start by controlling your own. Then bend a spoon. Then leave me alone.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
Fear of hell, or fear of justice, one or the other is generally necessary to keep people on the track society wants. Either that or create a utopian society where everyone feels included and wanted and loved and that love removes any desire for violence or theft or rape.



Worked for the hippies.
I wasn't that serious about it. Spirituality is important, but it doesn't have to be at a set time with a collection plate going around. Problem is that you can't mention introspection without the church thinking they're the answer, or without the parish getting righteous. You're lumped in if you even mention anything even remotely related. Controlling thoughts is ambitious, so start by controlling your own. Then bend a spoon. Then leave me alone.
No, it doesn't require a collection plate or a set time. You're right. My best friend is a devout Catholic and I confound him. I openly disbelieve in a deity, I'm not spiritual at all aside from an irrational happiness whenever I'm walking through a forest, but based on what he was taught as a kid, I should be out robbing banks and raping nuns. Sure, fear of the consequences of getting caught are well known to me, but I'm one of those dumb people that thinks he's smart enough to get away with it if he wants, I just don't have a desire to. Why fuck up other peoples lives unnecessarily? I wouldn't receive any pleasure from the act. My whole point is that religion at one point was a useful tool for keeping stupid people in line. That cat is out of the bag now though.
"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
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4299

Jay wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

As a society we need to bring ourselves back to our roots in religion. An hour of prayer on Sunday morning helps keep the world in line.
fucking hell no.  religion is the downfall of society.
Is it? The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others. Even if you're completely averse to the idea that there is a creator of some sort out there, the basis for the religion is actually something beautiful, not worthy of scorn. It's misused and misinterpreted on a daily basis, yes, but it did take hold over so many people for a reason. It gives hope to those who have no cause for it. I think our society could use a little hope these days, and not the kind being offered by the man in the Oval Office.
the fuck those are the basic tenets.  how can you even say that.  no gays, no birth control, no abortion, no tv, no women not covered in cloth, no unmarried mothers, ...the rules of various religions are anything but beautiful.  they are simply do as we say or go to hell.  and btw give us money.  what a fucking massive failure.
What are you looking at dicknose
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Jay wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:


fucking hell no.  religion is the downfall of society.
Is it? The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others. Even if you're completely averse to the idea that there is a creator of some sort out there, the basis for the religion is actually something beautiful, not worthy of scorn. It's misused and misinterpreted on a daily basis, yes, but it did take hold over so many people for a reason. It gives hope to those who have no cause for it. I think our society could use a little hope these days, and not the kind being offered by the man in the Oval Office.
the fuck those are the basic tenets.  how can you even say that.  no gays, no birth control, no abortion, no tv, no women not covered in cloth, no unmarried mothers, ...the rules of various religions are anything but beautiful.  they are simply do as we say or go to hell.  and btw give us money.  what a fucking massive failure.
Because it's the foundation of Christianity. The rest is just dross tacked on by stupid people who think the above idiocy has anything at all to do with their religion. The things you mentioned were meant to keep an uneducated people in line and flourishing. People today have turned them into what the religion presents to the world instead of the core values that their savior laid out for them to follow.
"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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

The basic tenets of Christianity are peace, love and goodwill to others.
But in practice 'Christians' don't worry too much about any of that.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5555

Jay wrote:

What do people do when they're bored? They have sex. Who is more likely to be bored, someone that works all day and has access to a million entertainment options or someone that sits at home all day watching boring television shows for entertainment? Poor people in this country have way more sex than wealthier people do, maybe not the wealthiest diletante types, but people who work. But good job focussing in on the least important, most throwaway line in the entire post. I expect nothing less from you.
This is so stupid on so many levels.

Not all poor people sit at home at all day. People who are part of the working poor may have several jobs that all pay bunk. A construction worker doing 11 hours a day in the cold for $8 a hour will probably not have the means or energy to go get laid every day. Not all office workers making $80K are as gluttonous as you. You may get out of breath walking to the copy machine but there are people who can go home from a busy office and not fall asleep after eating. If you have money it is a lot easier to get laid. You also don't have to be doing 80 hours a week to be wealthy. As far as entertainment...I don't know many guys who would rather watch netflix than bone.


But of course you have to turn everything into a competition over money.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
It's got nothing to do with money you syphilitic twerp. Do you know any poor people outside of your textbooks? Christ, get out of the house and get some real world experience. I wasn't talking about the working class, most of whom define themselves as lower middle class and share middle class values. I was talking about the genuinely poor people who get by on government assistance. But yes, continue to focus in on the throwaway line with personal attacks instead of even attempting to adhere to your own topic. You obviously have no solutions, your purpose was simply to troll.
"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

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard