- Thread starter kcbird
- Start date
Was it morally wrong to whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one?
Was it morally wrong to sterilize or lobotomize the mentally ill?
All were legal at some point.
Legal and moral are not synonyms.
Don't know her, don't care what she thinks.
when you take out the racist element, it is just eugenics
But I did try to research this and like most of this stuff being passed around the internet it's not likely to be factual.
Buying into bullshit like this it's no wonder people spout all these indefensible positions and fall back ironclad reasoning like "it's right" or "because".
Last edited:
You post this after I link a video of her talking about speaking at a KKK women's auxiliary meeting???
That looks like something a 6th grader would say. Did you ever get your GED dad ?
I know one of your greatest wishes in life is to be able to call someone dad, but I'm not him. You've never met him and likely never will.
So, she pays taxes that feeds dumbmike and his welfare rat offspring...does she get to say...cut that fat fuckers little dick off because she has money invested.?
Sucks to be you, incest hurt you bad .
Tell it to your shrink.
i think entitlements, while widely abused and incorrectly applied, are one of the truly good things the government does.
"abortion" is more complicated, because late term abortion is basically murdering a baby, not a blob of cells.
only a fucking idiot thinks that using taxes to feed the poor is comparable to cutting up babies.
If your child came home with a great report card and you grounded them. If your child came home with a failing report card and you rewarded them, what would you be teaching them?i think entitlements, while widely abused and incorrectly applied, are one of the truly good things the government does.
"abortion" is more complicated, because late term abortion is basically murdering a baby, not a blob of cells.
only a fucking idiot thinks that using taxes to feed the poor is comparable to cutting up babies.
Government does exactly that. Punish people who are successful and reward people who are stupid and lazy.
In psychology it's called operant conditioning, old farmers called it the carrot and the stick. Reward what you want, punish what you don't.
Because dumb/stupid/gullible people are a lot easier to control than intelligent people who can think for themselves, etc. etc.
@doubloon why did you like this when it's exactly what I've been saying on this entire thread?
because some people take advantage of poor policy, it doesn't mean that there is nobody deserving of help.
as i said, the programs are devious by design, but feeding the poor is still worthwhile.
because some people take advantage of poor policy, it doesn't mean that there is nobody deserving of help.
as i said, the programs are devious by design, but feeding the poor is still worthwhile.
Poverty in the US is nearly universally the result of laziness and/or poor life choices.
i have to compare entitlements with other things the government does with our money...
like sponsoring proxy wars, or promoting lgbtq+ behavior and abortions abroad.
hence my comment that this is was one of the good things they do with my money.
i have met decent hard working people that were poor or needed help at some point in their lives.
you do have a point though...
welfare should not be a career, but we have families with 3 generations that never worked.
single mother on welfare has a daughter.
daughter gets pregnant at 16 and goes on welfare
welfare daughter has a daughter at 15, goes on welfare
baby's mom is 15, grandma is now 31 and great-grandma is 51..
none of the 3 has ever worked in their lives (and chances are good the baby won't either).
no "fathers" were ever in the home, because that would interfere with welfare payments.
while we used to rely on faith based charities to care for the poor, not enough people actually believe in god anymore, and the big talking atheists and religion bashers don't give shit to charities, despite telling everyone that they are better than people that believe in fake sky lords.
About 10 years ago the Brookings Institute released a study saying if you at least finished high school, got a job, got married, then had kids, IN THAT ORDER, your chances of living in poverty were in the single digits, why should we continue to subsidize laziness and poor life choices?
Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class | Brookings
Ron Haskins explains research indicating that young people should fulfill three major responsibilities to substantially improve their chances of avoiding poverty and entering the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
www.brookings.edu because the government installed "by the people" created these dependents, and sabotaged public education to create even more?About 10 years ago the Brookings Institute released a study saying if you at least finished high school, got a job, got married, then had kids, IN THAT ORDER, your chances of living in poverty were in the single digits, why should we continue to subsidize laziness and poor life choices?
Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class | Brookings
Ron Haskins explains research indicating that young people should fulfill three major responsibilities to substantially improve their chances of avoiding poverty and entering the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
So your answer is even more government?
i'd like reform at the very least like drug testing, no more bonus payments to keep dad out of the house...force them to do public works if they cannot find a paying job (no more watching tv all day on welfare)...
make them ride peddle powered generators hooked to the grid. no juice, no money.
Why reform instead of eliminate?
If I put an ad in the local paper saying I'd pay 500$/week to cut my lawn, my phone would blow up with calls wanting that job.
When government advertisements say they will pay unwed moms to raise illegitimate children in fatherless homes, folks will sign up for that too.
Remove the pain and you remove the lesson.
it would impact too many people all at once, and not only the poor but also the people that house them via section 8 and other programs.
Poverty in the US is almost universally the result of laziness and/or poor life choices.
Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class | Brookings
Ron Haskins explains research indicating that young people should fulfill three major responsibilities to substantially improve their chances of avoiding poverty and entering the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
www.brookings.edu From the article: Finish at least high school, get a job, get married, and have kids IN THAT ORDER and your chances of ever living in poverty are in the single digits
Last edited:
Quick question.
How did folks of all colors have such a low unwed mother percentage in the 50's and before?
R
How did folks of all colors have such a low unwed mother percentage in the 50's and before?
R
It wasn't subsidized by government then.
Thank you for providing yet another data point that proves morality is fluid and subjective.
If you cannot make it in the USA you simply cannot make it, period.
The USA is [or historically was] one of the easiest countries in the world in which to work your way ahead. You might not get rich but you could become a solid middle-class small or medium business owner and be comfortable, and if you were at the right place at the right time with the right ideas you could strike it big and become rich.
People who cannot even obtain a subsistence living in the USA are generally extremely lazy or have made horrible life choices. Most of it flows from their inability to delay gratification. They are the people who will wind up with multiple illegitimate kids by age 22 because each time they are about to get down to business and no protection is available, instead of delaying the encounter until they can procure a condom, they just push forward.
They don't study, they're never acquiring new skills, they are too busy partying and can't be bothered to study or improve themselves. They won't take a shift to work overtime because that would cut into time they could party and "hang out" with their [loser] friends.
Poverty in the US is almost universally the result of laziness and/or poor life choices.
Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class | Brookings
Ron Haskins explains research indicating that young people should fulfill three major responsibilities to substantially improve their chances of avoiding poverty and entering the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
From the article: Finish at least high school, get a job, get married, and have kids IN THAT ORDER and your chances of ever living in poverty are in the single digits
For a man, do not get married until your education is completed and you have a job, however you define that. It might mean medical school and becoming a doctor, it might mean finishing an apprenticeship and becoming an electrician. It might mean finishing your bachelors and becoming an engineer. It might mean finishing high school and becoming a ranch hand. Do not have a child until you are married and have a job.
I would also further tell men, "do not marry before the age of 25." This means do NOT be the E-3 who is 20 and wants to marry "single mom Bambi who works the pole at the club off base, but she hates doing it and I'm going to make an honest woman out of her" because she's so into you and she really likes you, you are getting sex-bombed, and you want the military to hook you up with housing and you think it is going to work out so well. Don't do it. In Ancient Rome legionaries were required to serve 20 years and were not allowed to marry, if you're enlisted you can go 4 years without marrying and wait until you're 22-23 and have some perspective.
Morality doesn't change.
That some have no morals is a personal failure.
Morality is morality, it is objective. Morality is morality regardless of how people behave.
Bad policies can induce bad behavior. When the government becomes the main tempter by rewarding bad behavior, we will have more bad behavior, it doesn't mean this additional bad behavior is suddenly good moral behavior simply by virtue of having become more common.
@theLBC why haven't you respinded?Poverty in the US is almost universally the result of laziness and/or poor life choices.
Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class | Brookings
Ron Haskins explains research indicating that young people should fulfill three major responsibilities to substantially improve their chances of avoiding poverty and entering the middle class: at least finish high school, get a full-time job and wait until age 21 to get married and have children.
From the article: Finish at least high school, get a job, get married, and have kids IN THAT ORDER and your chances of ever living in poverty are in the single digits
Sir-
It's evident that you hold very strong feelings on this subject, and to be honest, a lot of folks do & make this particular topic a single issue politically for them. And that's ok too. As a sincere compliment- you clearly have gumption in this matter and that's not a character flaw either. With that said, from a perspective as an outsider though- your continual and vehement responses may have crossed past the threshold that you intended for the conversation because (offered respectfully) you seem to be coming across as a Tasmanian Devil and consequences be damned.
I can understand that there are times where that mentality is necessary but as an honest opinion- I fail to see how continuing to call out the 3-4 folks that you have been as this thread progressed for all of these pages ultimately results in anything worth your effort unless you just enjoy the debate (which I suppose is possible too). Best case scenario I'd imagine in your mind is they all acquiesce and agree with your position but after all of the effort spent arguing with them to get to that ideological end state- the matter at hand will not have changed at all in the "real world" outside of the Hide. So what was gained through all of the quips?
Just one opinion of course but best of luck to you sir.
-LD
I know very basic logic is hard for some folks, especially if they had no father growing up.
But if a fella lacks the wherewithal to go to the store and buy a box of condoms, the chance he'll be able to help a woman support a baby is near zero, and that's an excellent reason not to sleep with him.
But welfare whores had no father in their lives, so they have to get male attention any way they can, even if it's degrading themselves to such a level.
Last edited:
Because they can regurgitate the talking points the talking heads told them to believe, but past that, they vapor lock. It's obvious they haven't thought the matter out for themselves, and are only behaving like good little automatons.
If you supposedly believe in something so deeply, you should be able to defend it.
there is no question. we all (should) know what the problems are...
Why pay welfare whores to squirt our bastard children and raise them in fatherless homes, when we know it is the biggest contributing factor to living in poverty, criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, and mental health issues?
you act like I support this, despite the sowell quotes i posted.
i don't, but i don't think you can just pull the rug out from under people that the government trained to rely on entitlements.
Margaret Sanger......well
Why do I have to say this, but I must.
You can't judge a person on the past by the "morals" of today. Her line of thinking was not way out in left field at the time. This thinking was very common. You remember the Olympics held in Nazi Germany, and the name that is already in your mind....Jessie Owens. Did you know that all the americans in the olympics that took a medal got invited to FDR's white house.....BUT.....Jessie Owens, and yes excluded because he was black. It is just the way it was, not debating right or wrong, it is the way it was.
If you point to this to tear down another side, you also point to every statue and building rename that the other side has taken down. You are doing the exact same thing.
Now, the awards.....the people that make these stupid awards have zero clue at the entire history of the person. I would bet half the people have no idea what Nobel is famous for. It is the same thing, and it is stupid.
Personally I shy away from this as I just hate these arguments, you can find great people in all history that had ideas that are very main stream at the time, but we look at today and thing WTF. I imagine sometime in the distant future (provided there is one that does not look like the Fallout TV show) and go, they wanted to cut the tits off girls, and the dicks off boys? And yes we are being told this is a mainstream idea, by the main stream media, how would people 300years from now know the truth.
Personally I think you take welfare, you get birth control with your check. The shot so you can't not take it. Now for men......snip snip......get off welfare and we will sew it back together....hay it sometimes works. I would not oppose the idea of tie tie on females, again that can be undone....sometimes. That is the chance you take.
Why not? They can work for their living, or not, their choice.
Not everyone thought like this in times past. In the mid 1800s there was a war where one side thought a segment of the population didn't really count as people. As far as FDR not inviting Owens to the white house, he also wrote letters praising Mussolini's style of government before the war. He also paid 10s of millions of depression era dollars to farmers to burn their crops and destroy their livestock because he thought food prices were too low.
I think you are falling for what our current education system is selling. Your right not "everyone", but "most" did. And a great many still do, however we don't do it so much by skin pigment but by what you think.
My point with FDR is you can go back from there, and none of them had a "modern" attitude to the race issue, Wilson had screenings of Birth of a Nation in the white house.
And still I say you can't judge actions of the past by morals of today. The thing is a great many people have no idea what the truth of the past is. It like many other things are being rewritten, and when you correct someone you get a......ok boomer.
if you think crime is bad now, imagine what would happen if 65 million people couldn't feed themselves.
i try to stay within the realms of reality.
It's not at all a secret that Sanger was a eugenicist. At that time it was "Settled Science", and the majoritarian view. Why do you think that Woodrow Wilson reinstituted Jim Crow across the federal government? This was the AGCC of it's day among the "progressives".Don't know her, don't care what she thinks.
But I did try to research this and like most of this stuff being passed around the internet it's not likely to be factual.
Buying into bullshit like this it's no wonder people spout all these indefensible positions and fall back ironclad reasoning like "it's right" or "because".
Similar threads
- Locked
