Sydney's migrant mums keeping Australia fertile

Cunth

Fingerlickin' Good!
May 22, 2018
3,315
8,340
505

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
5,450
1,461
410
Same story in Western Europe. White liberals are too busy experimenting with alternative lifestyles to care.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
The assumption II find most troubling is that countries need to meet replacement levels. This is a mindset driven by economics from the perspective of presumed future taxpayers rather than any position on longterm sustainability. Overall we should be striving for population reduction rather than growth worldwide.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
The assumption II find most troubling is that countries need to meet replacement levels. This is a mindset driven by economics from the perspective of presumed future taxpayers rather than any position on longterm sustainability. Overall we should be striving for population reduction rather than growth worldwide.
I honestly hate overpopulation.

Even where I live, congestion is everywhere. It's a non-stop movement of people day in and night out. I still can't see how all this population growth is good for the environment.

More people = more cars = more pollution.
 
Last edited:

Cunth

Fingerlickin' Good!
May 22, 2018
3,315
8,340
505
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Birth rates of immigrants drop sharply after the first generation and other factors, like education, income and birth control, carry far more weight than immigrant status on predicting birth rates.

The results of the study indicate that current population projections for California may be too high because they do not consider declines in fertility as immigrants and their descendants adapt to life in this country.
https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_402LHRB.pdf

If you want to decrease the birth rate amongst a certain group of people you essentially have to try and lift them out of poverty.

If you want to increase the birth rate amongst a certain group then deny them education, welfare and a chance at a good life.

Teenage birth rates are also dropping and the article even points that out.

At the same time there has been a sharp drop in the teenage birth rate which has fallen by 42 per cent.
Weird that the article only points out data since 2011. Why not go back to 2001 where the fertility rate dropped all the way to 1.74? Or how about that it increased to 2.02 in 2008?

Extrapolating data from arbitrary years and extending them for decades to get the number you want is insincere, intellectually dishonest and being used for nefarious goals. A market exists for ethno-nationalism, people are being sold on it and taken for a ride.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
If you want to decrease the birth rate amongst a certain group of people you essentially have to try and lift them out of poverty.
So it's the host countries responsibility and not the immigrants because...?

Or why don't we change our immigration policy so it doesn't favor poverty?
 
Last edited:

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,524
360
1,025
So the general gist of this thread is that whites are slowly getting bred out, is it?
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
16,639
1,727
1,035
I think people get a thrill out if being afraid. Are you guys feeling an adrenaline rush yet?
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
So it's the host countries responsibility and not the immigrants because...?

Or why don't we change our immigration so it doesn't favor poverty?
Amazing that you cut everything else out because it doesn't conform to your worldview. I knew you would respond.

You said yourself you've been redpilled on democracy. You're being mislead on an incompatible worldview with our current reality and if you think democracy has failed then your only alternative left is violence. It's extremely sad to see honestly. I pity you more than I dislike you.

This is my only response to the topic and something I think you've been blindsided on.

If immigrants should stay at home and figure shit out to better their own life then how can you defend your own lineage? Unless you're indigenous you're being inconsistent. I'm glad my ancestors emigrated from Britain to America, even if in your eyes that meant they were losers.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
Amazing that you cut everything else out because it doesn't conform to your worldview. I knew you would respond.

You said yourself you've been redpilled on democracy. You're being mislead on an incompatible worldview with our current reality and if you think democracy has failed then your only alternative left is violence. It's extremely sad to see honestly. I pity you more than I dislike you.

This is my only response to the topic and something I think you've been blindsided on.

If immigrants should stay at home and figure shit out to better their own life then how can you defend your own lineage? Unless you're indigenous you're being inconsistent. I'm glad my ancestors emigrated from Britain to America, even if in your eyes that meant they were losers.
I consider the original immigrants to America different to the whole world immigrating today.
The people who came to America were forced to tame the land. There was no standing buildings there except for trees. They could have stayed in Britain but they opted to transform the land into something better than where they came from.

I don't think people coming here to sweep floors have the same desire that the founding fathers did.

I think people get a thrill out if being afraid. Are you guys feeling an adrenaline rush yet?
20 years from now it's absolutely going to look frightening.

Anytime you hear "demographics shift" when does it sound positive?

Not in South Africa. Not in Zimbabwe. Not in Lebanon. Not in Brazil.

But sure, lets try the same experiment again in all other 1st world countries.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,752
4,390
510
isnt this pretty basic, developing world has more children then the first world.
 

Darkking2001

Banned
Jul 5, 2018
481
230
180
I consider the original immigrants to America different to the whole world immigrating today.
The people who came to America were forced to tame the land. There was no standing buildings there except for trees. They could have stayed in Britain but they opted to transform the land into something better than where they came from.

I don't think people coming here to sweep floors have the same desire that the founding fathers did.



20 years from now it's absolutely going to look frightening.

Anytime you hear "demographics shift" when does it sound positive?

Not in South Africa. Not in Zimbabwe. Not in Lebanon. Not in Brazil.

But sure, lets try the same experiment again in all other 1st world countries.
Dude it'll take 100s of years before the thing your worried about will become a problem...if it keeps at the same rate mind you...not including when the next generations integrate or if the birth rates for immigrants drops...etc ...

It's kinda funny hearing this from the guy who thinks the left exaggerate climate change...to just go around and basically think the great placement is a thing that'll happen in 20 years....wtf
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
Dude it'll take 100s of years before the thing your worried about will become a problem...if it keeps at the same rate mind you...not including when the next generations integrate or if the birth rates for immigrants drops...etc ...

It's kinda funny hearing this from the guy who thinks the left exaggerate climate change...to just go around and basically think the great placement is a thing that'll happen in 20 years....wtf
Lol, "100s of years"

There are already entire cities that are foreign born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia#Demographics

Richmond has an immigrant population of 60%, the highest in Canada.[8] Richmond has over 50% of residents identifying as Chinese, making it the city in North America with the largest proportion of Asians.[9] More than half of its population is of Asian descent, many of whom immigrated in the late 1980s, mostly from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China. Other Asian Canadians in Richmond include Indo-Canadians, Filipino Canadians and Japanese Canadians.[10]
 
Last edited:

Darkking2001

Banned
Jul 5, 2018
481
230
180
Lol, "100s of years"

There are already entire cities that are foreign born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia#Demographics
Chances are if you looked into it...it probably has been ongoing for 100s of years or so in that case.

What you are worried about is 100s of years in the making....if things keep up

And don't even try to pick out more low hanging fruits...I've already saw a debunk on the great replacement, so I don't care what you "FEEL" on the subject because reality is different.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,860
14,786
940
Australia
I honestly hate overpopulation.

Even where I live, congestion is everywhere. It's a non-stop movement of people day in and night out. I still can't see how all this population growth is good for the environment.

More people = more cars = more pollution.
Is that more an issue of overpopulation or population concentration?
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,541
1,032
240
A lot of the more right wing conservativism is fueled and sustained by persecution complex, and fear of others.
That is a pretty rich statement in the light of the far left trying to deplatform people for saying things online they disagree with or writing and sharing hit pieces about conservatives and classic liberals while in a financial death throw.

Pot meet kettle.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
Chances are if you looked into it...it probably has been ongoing for 100s of years or so in that case.

What you are worried about is 100s of years in the making....if things keep up

And don't even try to pick out more low hanging fruits...I've already saw a debunk on the great replacement, so I don't care what you "FEEL" on the subject because reality is different.
Yes, "Feelings"

Most popular baby name in Peel Region (Toronto suburbs) is Muhammad.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/12/11/muhammad-in-peel-maverick-in-the-soo-a-look-at-top-baby-names-across-ontario.html

Nothing to see here people! Everything we're seeing is just "100s of years in the making".
 
Last edited:

*Nightwing

Member
Sep 24, 2014
129
111
295
Nope
So....... um........ can I help out and move to Australia to help impregnate more Australian women? Is there a visa for that I would need to get or something? It would be hard work, but I'm willing to sacrifice my time and energy for the cause as long as child support won't follow me back to the U.S., as I have remained childless here cause I know I won't be a good father, and im a cheap bastard on top of that... but I might be willing to make an exception for Australia and it's hot women. I know I can't fix the problem single handedly, but I'd love to try
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
So there's 4 babies for every Lebanese moms?

Wtf kinda jobs are they working to support all that?
They might also be partaking on the dysgenic experiment! Make a proper child raising environment financially impossible, make it untenable to have a large family for the middle class, and provide vast aid to reproduce to those at the bottom of society, especially those who don't care how bad of an environment they provide for their children.

You see if you succeed in society you should be penalized, but if you fail you should be rewarded, like what could go wrong...

If you want to decrease the birth rate amongst a certain group of people you essentially have to try and lift them out of poverty.

If you want to increase the birth rate amongst a certain group then deny them education, welfare and a chance at a good life.
Doesn't work given there are genetics, genetics of things like IQ, which are hereditary.
When you fail to regulate reproduction and incentivize reproduction of those at the bottom of the social ladder while disincentivizing it at the higher rungs of the social ladder, you are doing the exact opposite of eugenics that is dysgenics.

Take an example
This was not because they are an interracial couple, nor because they are both classified as retarded, but because they decided to marry and attempted to do what no one thought they should: have a child. 60 Minutes' Wallace first interviewed them in 1986; now he's returned to Washington to see the family's progress after 13 years.

The Thorntons made their home in an apartment with other mentally challenged people. Their IQs - 67 for him and 64 for her - gave them the label mildly retarded. They hate the label. And had they lived outside Washington, that label could have prevented their marriage.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/07/20/oregon-has-decided-this-couple-isnt-smar
This year the couple had a second son, Hunter. The state also took custody of him. This time they didn't even wait to see how they'd behave as parents: Fabbrini was still in the hospital when they took the boy.


Oregon's justification for taking Christopher and Hunter away: "limited cognitive abilities that interfere with [their] ability to safely parent the child." In other words, the government declared them too dumb to be parents.

https://reason.com/blog/2017/07/20/oregon-has-decided-this-couple-isnt-smar
If they want they can have five or six or more kids, the state takes them away and cares for them.


I'd previously heard of a case were a mentally handicapped woman was on her 4th or fifth successful pregnancy, her prior children taken away by the state.

But these are extreme examples just to highlight the issue. THERE IS NO EDUCATION, there is NO training, but others of slightly higher capacity are also being aided by the state. If they barely pass the test of a minimally acceptable environment they get to raise their kids, the state is also not omniscient, many horrible unacceptable environments make a pass, and are incentivized financially.
 
Last edited:

Darkking2001

Banned
Jul 5, 2018
481
230
180
Yes, "Feelings"

Most popular baby name in Peel Region (Toronto suburbs) is Muhammad.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/12/11/muhammad-in-peel-maverick-in-the-soo-a-look-at-top-baby-names-across-ontario.html

Nothing to see here people! Everything we're seeing is just "100s of years in the making".
and it couldn't even crack top 20 in all of Ontario....Wow we really are gonna be replaced in 20 years.
...btw the article is pretty sparse on details so forgive me if I don't give a fuck...
Are they refuges....long term citizens that are just muslim.....or well...we don't know...
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
You want to regulate who can reproduce and who can't? And you're making this point during a thread on immigration? Am I missing something here or is this extremely fucked up and a very authoritarian approach...
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
You want to regulate who can reproduce and who can't? And you're making this point during a thread on immigration? Am I missing something here or is this extremely fucked up and a very authoritarian approach...
Seems like you missed the point.

This thread is about population replacement. It is not happening just across borders but within borders.
Honestly can't you understand causality?

Now what do you think happens if someone takes a car and drives off a cliff? Would you not understand the issue with that course of action, and the consequences ahead of said path?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Seems like you missed the point.

This thread is about population replacement. It is not happening just across borders but within borders.
Honestly can't you understand causality?

Now what do you think happens if someone takes a car and drives off a cliff? Would you not understand the issue with that course of action, and the consequences ahead of said path?
I'm not buying what you're seliing. Slippery slope 101. I have certain principles that I abide by and funnily enough reality agrees with me.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,292
504
215
I'm not buying what you're seliing. Slippery slope 101. I have certain principles that I abide by and funnily enough reality agrees with me.
?

Incentives? Disincentives? Population replacement? Do any of these words mean anything to you? Natural selection is the law of this world, it is reality, it cares not for your feelings.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
27,788
2,552
1,035
Australia already has a history of its indigenous population being replaced by foreign hordes.
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,719
3,844
375
All the self-hating white leftists are going to love this future Australia
Wait what exactly is the point of that statement? The children being born in Australia are Australian are they not? I mean the children of immigrants in the US are just as much of an American citizen as I am and my family has been here for over 100 years. I mean who cares what color their skin is?


Not sure how citizenship works in Australia though.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Do you think it is the responsibility for the state to care for every child born into poverty?
If the alternatives are to let them die or to forcefully sterilize people then yes.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,033
2,956
540
Brampton, Ontario
Wait what exactly is the point of that statement? The children being born in Australia are Australian are they not? I mean the children of immigrants in the US are just as much of an American citizen as I am and my family has been here for over 100 years. I mean who cares what color their skin is?


Not sure how citizenship works in Australia though.
People start caring when it leads to changes in culture.

Ask the Palestinians how they felt when non-Palestinians moved into their land and started outbreeding them. Or when Native Americans got outbred by Anglo settlers. It was just skin color right?
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,916
3,563
1,090
If the alternatives are to let them die or to forcefully sterilize people then yes.
Why shouldn't people be prevented from having children?

If two parents have a high risk of producing children with a horrible genetic disorder, allowing them to have children is no different from permitting child abuse. Two people having kids is not really a "personal decision" between them - they are necessarily imposing their will onto a third party (their child) without their consent, which for me is something the state should regulate. Why should a kid suffer because their selfish parents needed biological progeny?
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Why shouldn't people be prevented from having children?

If two parents have a high risk of producing children with a horrible genetic disorder, allowing them to have children is no different from permitting child abuse. Two people having kids is not really a "personal decision" between them - they are necessarily imposing their will onto a third party (their child) without their consent, which for me is something the state should regulate. Why should a kid suffer because their selfish parents needed biological progeny?
You don't have to try and word it in such a way. We all know what the end goal for this kind of stuff is. It'll never end at the mentally disabled or medically deficient, who would only serve as the starting point for something larger. There are plenty of people who suffer no defects, are intelligent and are still shitty parents. Should they be sterilized? How do you regulate who gets to be sterilized and who doesn't? How do you know one day that power isn't abused to sterilize you? Left-handedness used to be a sign of deficiency. There is no telling what we don't know about certain illnesses or genetic defects.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,916
3,563
1,090
You don't have to try and word it in such a way. We all know what the end goal for this kind of stuff is. It'll never end at the mentally disabled or medically deficient, who would only serve as the starting point for something larger. There are plenty of people who suffer no defects, are intelligent and are still shitty parents. Should they be sterilized? How do you regulate who gets to be sterilized and who doesn't? How do you know one day that power isn't abused to sterilize you? Left-handedness used to be a sign of deficiency. There is no telling what we don't know about certain illnesses or genetic defects.
I have a very different set of morals when it comes to children versus adults. Children are not given a choice to exist - parents, for better or worse, bring them into the world at their will. Kids don't get to look at the odds of what they get in the genetic lottery and make rational choices - instead, they are at the whim of societal/cultural pressure or, worse, their parents' instincts. It is right to say that people should not have the right to rule over others and control others, and this is an extension of that. We do not allow slavery, after all. The government not allowing children to be brought into existence willy-nilly protects the rights of children over those who seek to impose their will upon those children.

It is a difficult topic because the right to have children is considered sacrosanct (especially on an emotional level) even though there is an inherent violation of childrens' individual rights, and obviously there are privacy/self-ownership considerations in preventing completely at-will reproduction. I think the best solution is to give all boys a treatment similar to Vasogel before puberty (as part of the vaccination schedule), with free reversals after some milestone where they are considered "free adults", like reaching a certain age. At the same time, build a better government infrastructure to educate children, ensure they are healthy, etc. to decrease the number of adults in bad economic situations so that, statistically, children will be born into better situations. And also allow human genetic engineering, when we reach that point, to remove deleterious alleles (which won't help with preventing aneuploidy disorders or disorders resulting from spontaneous mutations). A lot of horrible diseases (e.g. Huntington's) have very simple genetic mechanisms around them.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
If the alternatives are to let them die or to forcefully sterilize people then yes.
It seems you don't quite understand the nature of the question without jumping to outlandish conclusions. I'll rephrase. By what measure is it the responsibility for the State to supplement or support children born to parents who cannot financially afford them? Poverty is a trap and those born into it have very little chance of escape. Where is the benefit for the State in this?
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
It seems you don't quite understand the nature of the question without jumping to outlandish conclusions. I'll rephrase. By what measure is it the responsibility for the State to supplement or support children born to parents who cannot financially afford them? Poverty is a trap and those born into it have very little chance of escape. Where is the benefit for the State in this?
It's a humanitarian benefit. I myself was born into a single-mother household who was financially irresponsible, couldn't hold down a job and lost her parental rights and thus I entered into the foster care system for 6 years before being adopted. Economics is the science for sociopaths.

Why don't you answer the question yourself?
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,916
3,563
1,090
It's a humanitarian benefit. I myself was born into a single-mother household who was financially irresponsible, couldn't hold down a job and lost her parental rights and thus I entered into the foster care system for 6 years before being adopted. Economics is the science for sociopaths.

Why don't you answer the question yourself?
What if there was not a foster care system and you had been remained with her?

Like I said, it is a difficult question because there is so much emotion behind the "right to have children", and from a pragmatic view restricting that ability is very difficult without having very invasive systems in place. I'm looking at it from more of an anti-natalist perspective than a eugenicist one. Bringing a human into the world is a burden to that human, regardless of whether you think that human will find it "worth it" or "not worth it" in the end. The prevailing perspective is that parents are benevolent and generous for having children, and children should be grateful to exist at their parents whim. That is a long-standing meme built into every culture and religion, to the point that some promote parents as "gods" to their children. I disagree with that on an axiomatic level due to self-ownership being violated in the creation of a new human.

Improving the foster care system would go along with my ideas for better infrastructure to help children be in a position to succeed, by the way.
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
Why don't you answer the question yourself?
Sure, none. And I say that as someone raised by a single parent myself. Fortunately, in my case, they managed to get their act together get off benefits and forge a better life. I'm not opposed to the state assisting when people fall into poverty as a safety net, but I take issue with when it becomes a generational lifestyle. Something I saw all too much of on my particular council estate. So spare me your personal pity party.

Economics is the science for sociopaths.
Very quippy, but given the world is grossly overpopulated already, and we are heading towards fairly inevitable climate collapse in the coming decades, mayhap there is a pretty compelling humanitarian case for easing up on overbreeding simply because more people means greater deprivation in the long term., especially for those consigned and condemned to the lower tier.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Sure, none. And I say that as someone raised by a single parent myself. Fortunately, in my case, they managed to get their act together get off benefits and forge a better life. I'm not opposed to the state assisting when people fall into poverty as a safety net, but I take issue with when it becomes a lifestyle. Something I saw all too much of on my particular council estate. So spare me your personal pity party.
The problem is how do you regulate and prevent people from falling into a lifestyle of welfare? Are those costs simply unavoidable, regardless of the mechanics at play? Must every person in society produce more than they consume? There is a very fine line to walk when violating people's rights for the betterment of society and it would be incredibly difficult to stay consistent, regardless of what systems are implemented. For example, a person with a high IQ, no medical defects, mentally perfect and yet they may choose a career path in the arts that deprives society of tremendous net gain. Are they acting immorally? Should we regulate that behavior? By what rights should that person be allowed to possess free will but others aren't. There will always be those who abuse the system but we may be talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,916
3,563
1,090
For example, a person with a high IQ, no medical defects, mentally perfect and yet they may choose a career path in the arts that deprives society of tremendous net gain. Are they acting immorally?
They are not depriving society of anything - society is not owed their talents. To suggest otherwise implies society owns them to some extent.
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
The problem is how do you regulate and prevent people from falling into a lifestyle of welfare? Are those costs simply unavoidable, regardless of the mechanics at play? Must every person in society produce more than they consume? There is a very fine line to walk when violating people's rights for the betterment of society and it would be incredibly difficult to stay consistent, regardless of what systems are implemented. For example, a person with a high IQ, no medical defects, mentally perfect and yet they may choose a career path in the arts that deprives society of tremendous net gain. Are they acting immorally?
This isn't a question relating to the value to society of a person in terms of its advancement. It's about long-term sustainability. Society isn't obligated to pay your potters wage, are they? False equivalence.

Should we regulate that behavior?
When it comes to birth control I'd say that will inevitably come to pass. In the long term, it's simply not viable to continue down the road we have gone.

By what rights should that person be allowed to possess free will but others aren't.
When it's to the detriment of all parties concerned.

Read this: -

http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

and then come back and we'll discuss whether it's a benefit or gain for society to give free rein to everyone to breed with impunity on the basis that someone else can pick up the tab.
 
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
This isn't a question relating to the value to society of a person in terms of its advancement. It's about long-term sustainability. Society isn't obligated to pay your potters wage, are they? False equivalence.



When it comes to birth control I'd say that will inevitably come to pass. In the long term, it's simply not viable to continue down the road we have gone.



When it's to the detriment of all parties concerned.

Read this: -

http://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidity/

and then come back and we'll discuss whether it's a benefit or gain for society to give free rein to everyone to breed with impunity on the basis that someone else can pick up the tab.
No facts, no sources, nothing but an appeal to emotion. What is the end argument here? To sterilize low IQ people and welfare queens?
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
No facts, no sources, nothing but an appeal to emotion. What is the end argument here? To sterilize low IQ people and welfare queens?
Projection much? The only one appealing to emotion is you. Given your response time, you clearly didn't even read the article I posted.

It's all very well to bandy around ideals, but ideals tend to operate better in the abstract and don't necessarily gel that well with reality. I'm looking at global overpopulation and you're seemingly defending peoples rights to have more children than they can afford because of *reasons* from what I can tell. Never mind the fact that such children likely face a life of derivation with increasingly scant opportunity for escape.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
Projection much? The only one appealing to emotion is you. Given your response time, you clearly didn't even read the article I posted.
I read it dude. I'm a lifelong reader, it's what I do for hours a day. Answer the question or don't. Within any population there will be a set of people that will quite literally never amount to anything and will always be a drain on society's limited resources, no matter what kind of opportunities they are afforded. Who are these people (what statistical relevance do they possess), how do you identify them ahead of time and what do we do with this information?
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,857
4,676
710
theconclave.net
I read it dude. I'm a lifelong reader, it's what I do for hours a day..
You responded in barely a minute. So fuck off with that BS. You read nothing. If you did you'd have paused for thought before replying.

Answer the question or don't. Within any population there will be a set of people that will quite literally never amount to anything and will always be a drain on society's limited resources, no matter what kind of opportunities they are afforded. Who are these people (what statistical relevance do they possess), how do you identify them ahead of time and what do we do with this information?
The goal of society as a whole should be to limit the damage and burden that stupid actions place upon it. Have more kids than you can afford is a stupid action, for the parents, the state and for the unfortunate children brought up in poverty and with increasingly little chance of being able to escape from it in an ever more demanding world that favours knowledge and money over everything else. If people fall on hard times, then yes I think it's correct and proper for the state and society to step and assist where necessary, however, I don't think society or the state as a whole should curtail the idea of state benefits as a lifestyle choice. Sorry if that grinds your gears, but Children aren't a right, they're a privilege you have to earn and do good by them.
 
Last edited: