Scratch your head and gape in awe at how fast they hotswap over these issues.

They only want people who look like them and think like them to have lots of kids

This guy is must be schizophrenic.

That'd be more closer to Bi-Polar, actually.

Textbook definition would suggest he is Schizo, not Bi-Polar.

*shrug* My wife's the one with the degree. I was thinking of Bi-polar being literal opposites changing from one way to another. Looking at the textbook definition "a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation.
(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements." In general use isn't what *should* be used. Schizophrenics typically have an alternate world view and have a lot of hallucinations.

I wish I knew as much as she does, but it's very nuanced, and obvs, we couldn't diagnose off of one interaction.

Do MAGA Trump supporters not have a alternative world view, though? You’re probably right, though, about not being able to diagnose from one interaction.

touche

6sl558.gif (click to show)
I won, but at what cost?

I want to quote Harry Potter so bad in response to your Voldemort line but I can’t because it wouldn’t make sense in context. :(

Go ahead, we'll pretend it does.

Ok *planks*

Im definitely pretending xD

Another stupid leftist strawman, conflating having children out of wedlock and raising a family with a mother and father present as the same.

Statistics prove that children raised in a family with a mother and father are up to 70% more likely to be successful and are better adjusted, no matter their color or ethnicity.

Many studies showed that children raised by both parents are significantly more likely than children in other family structures to avoid poverty and prison and graduate from college — and those benefits are evident across racial lines.

I'm just repeating the rhetoric I hear from the right. If you have issue with the message I'm repeating, then maybe the right should be more specific when spouting that nonsense.

Would you prefer that women not have children out of wedlock by law? Also, that statistic? What demographic was used? What was the sample size? Who collected the data? What method was used to rule out hidden variables and collate the data?

Also, this meme says nothing about wedlock.
Interesting that you'd choose this path to go down when we're speaking generally as a population. Such figures at this point do not care if it's out of wedlock or not. The fact remains that the right sees these both as issues.

I see your accusation of strawman, and raise you by your red herring.

"— and those benefits are evident across racial lines." Didn't see this part until now.

So what? You think it uniquely affects one race or another? Sure, it may be more prevalent in one race or another, but it isn't exclusive. It happens to everyone. Worrying about race is just an obstacle we have to worry about as changing laws to reinforce our social safety net would fix this problem for everybody. But, I don't see the Right Wing wanting to expand social care. What else do we have to think other than you want people to starve? Because it's wrong to think that about you? Fine. So do something about it. The systems we have in place are already at their limits. And you wanna get rid of abortion? Our Fostercare system is stretched thin, too btw.

I guess that leaves the answer of "Close your legs." which, basically reinforces economic inequality to infringe on the right to have children.

So, thinking as the right, what option does that leave? Don't put taxes forth for women who have more children than they should? So, worst case, the children starve and die. Best case scenario, the children go into foster care who can feed them, requiring more EBT and taxing the Foster Care system. So what's the logical right wing answer there?

Tie tubes? Or let them keep reproducing? If we assume tubes tied, we're taking away the right to reproduce. If they keep reproducing, the situation escalates out of control because we're not taking care of them.

These may be strawman arguments, but I have yet to hear a solution from the right wing that doesn't involve removing someone's rights. This is an invitation to put something on the table that protects women's rights to reproduce, (and the rights of men) protects the children from financial exploitation and increasing poverty.

Reminding you that this issue is unique to all, not just any individual race.

Take responsibility for your actions.

*I* do. *People* do.

Next time you wanna come barking up my tree, come prepared with a sufficient response - and spare the toxic disgusting behavior 2020 is over.

Exactly what "toxic disgusting behavior" have I demonstrated? I think you are a little overly sensitive.

You're entitled to your own opinion.

Whether I am overly sensitive or not is irrelevant.

Coming into a meme starting with "Another Stupid Leftist Strawman." then laying down a red herring to fight it without even so much as sufficiently answering the response to said red herring, does you a great disservice to your credibility.

If you're not interested in your credibility, are you just here to be disruptive and be a troll? Because there's the door. If you want to keep using ad hominem to augment your rhetoric, I'll recuse myself in moderation and seek another opinion from another mod as we don't tolerate ad hominem here.

We aren't perfect in our moderation. Global mods admit the same of their own. What we both share in common as moderators is that we do strive for consistency. I may not agree with you or the people you hang out with, but if you have grievances, I'll listen. I'll look at the evidence and I will do my best to be impartial and fair. I don't imagine you would believe that, I don't need you to. Same goes for any other mod I know on this stream. Some are a little more vigilant than me.

So with that... If you wanna talk here and start spouting nonsense, at least come prepared to actually speak on the points that you're arguing against.

If you want to continue, I'll shorten my points for you so that it's easier to understand from an abridged interpretation in the following post:

Having a lot of children is not a uniquely racial issue. Mormons are fond of having a lot of children. There are people in the right wing and left wing who are pro-life and enjoy having children - a lot of them. My mother was a hard religious conservative she loved having children. But she had too many - she was very pro-life. This is just one example in which some people are having more children than they could afford - requiring state assistance.

There are women who can't leave their abusive relationships. For instance, in Missouri, you cannot get a divorce while pregnant due to habeas corpus. In effect "We can't go through with the divorce, because the child does not yet exist. But you can't get an abortion, because the child exists."

Even though the national economy *is* improving. I predict that the global economy will continue to suffer. The Job market will soon be in peril soon due to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence. With economic conservatives trying to dismantle social network assistance programs such as EBT, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., they're going the wrong direction when at the same time, these individuals value Pro-life policy, which would in effect *require* more taxes to go to social programs so that foster parents can care for children, parents can care for children, so that the unemployed can survive.

You want an increased population? Fine, support it.

You don't want to pay for it? Fine, let someone else make the choice whether or not to have a child and quit trying to dictate their lives.

Sure, you already do pay taxes for such programs. As it is? The Foster Care system is strained due to lack of resources/adopting parents. EBT is already strained because of the recent pandemic and supply shortage, along with economic conservatives seeking to change the laws in the way they're acquired.

Wasn't there a politician who had a chain of hospitals that he wanted to require EBT recipients to take drug tests for EBT? Each test was 100$ (Which it costs pennies to manufacture and less than five minutes to execute by someone with a vocational certificate - they get paid probably 10-15 dollars an hour depending on where you live.)

As far as "my credibility" I could care less what you think of me, and you being a "moderator" doesn't impress me. You are irrelevant to my well-being.

However, your responses are filled with talking points and out-of-context statements.

"There are women who can't leave their abusive relationships. For instance, in Missouri, you cannot get a divorce while pregnant due to habeas corpus."

False. A woman can file for divorce while pregnant and leave an abusive relationship. She can also call the cops on her abuser. The divorce will not be finalized till the baby is born so the court can determine paternity and decide on child support.

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/government-verify/missouri-divorce-pregnancy-law-social-media-claims-fact-check/536-5f66d4cc-66ef-4b22-953f-2b02587a0e96

"Having a lot of children is not a uniquely racial issue."

Never said it was. All I did was refer to an article quoting a study from Cornell University that said children are better off if raised by both parents regardless of race.

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/article/560652-what-are-the-benefits-of-a-two-parent-household/

"some people are having more children than they could afford - requiring state assistance."

If you can't afford more children, don't get pregnant. Simple.

"With economic conservatives trying to dismantle social network assistance programs such as EBT, Medicare, Medicaid, etc."

Again you're conflating two different things. Medicare and Social Security are not the same as Medicaid or EBT.

Medicare and Social Security are mandatory withholding taxes paid for over a person's lifetime. When people are eligible to start using it, is paid for out of a trust, funded by the beneficiary's tax collected over their lifetime. Even when they start using Medicare, they still have to keep paying for it out of their SSI. I am all in favor of getting rid of medicare and letting people contribute to their health care savings accounts over their lifetime. Same for Social Security.

Medicaid and EBT are pure welfare paid for by others who get no direct benefit from them.

"The Job market will soon be in peril soon due to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence."

Someone will still need to maintain those robots and AI systems. I also doubt a robot will replace the local plumber, mason, HVAC Tech, electrician, etc. anytime soon. You know, real working people. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope for people with Gender Studies degrees.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have fixed it. Thank you for doing that.

As for your counter claim, the article you posted, says nothing about abuse. Further it says a divorce cannot be finalized. So you can "get" a divorce in so far as getting it started, but you cannot finalize it. Your article says nothing about abusive relationships. Further, I'm pretty sure MO is conservative enough to not take mental abuse into consideration, but I stand to be corrected.

"Never said it was. All I did was refer to an article quoting a study from Cornell University that said children are better off if raised by both parents regardless of race."
You again:
"Many studies showed that children raised by both parents are significantly more likely than children in other family structures to avoid poverty and prison and graduate from college — and those benefits are evident across racial lines."

This meme never said anything about being married or race. Again, you're making a red herring. But for the sake of argument, let's look at this "evident across racial lines." thing you're going for... Okay, I see. Yeah. Single women with children more prevalent among non-white ethnicities. But, why bring up race? Who gives a shit if a woman is married or not? Does a woman need to be married to have kids? So, she can't handle more children than she can afford and you say "If you can't afford more children, don't get pregnant. Simple."

So, you're advocating the infringement of the right to reproduce due to economic inequality. I don't think you would, but that's what you're suggesting.

I could go on to correct you and say how whites (as a whole, statistically) receive more welfare than any other ethnic group at a rate of 43%, but that's not the point. The point was, you were trying to create a box to throw me into, and I'm not biting. The meme came never mentioned race or marriage. You came up with that.

"So stop having children."
That's not practical or realistic. Especially coming from a group that is pro-life and some even want to do away with contraception entirely. The only way "Stop Having Children" will work, is if you implement population controls and infringe on the right to reproduce.

So look, some states successfully pushed their pro-life laws into effect, already imposing on reproductive rights. What are you going to do about the problem you're creating? People are going to have children - beyond their means. It happens. It isn't illegal. (1/X)

(2/X) It isn't illegal, even if you want it to be. So, how do you intend to support the disabled and the elderly who are going to feel the effects of the crippling welfare system because the Right Wing needed to exert that level of power? I guess time will tell.

"Again you're conflating two different things. Medicare and Social Security are not the same as Medicaid or EBT."

I know the differences between those programs. You get social security if the spouse dies and the children get survivors benefits. They were pro-life and had a bunch of kids and could have afforded them. Medicare is for disabled people and people 65 and older. More children will mean more disabled children. Not a lot, sure, but isn't that budget already tight as well? EBT is administered to those purely by poverty level. Usually if you receive one of these things, you probably receive another one of those things.

You wanna get rid of Medicare and Social Security Disability? (This, including survivor's benefits? A lot of veterans would have issue with that.) I would see your "Manage their own medical savings accounts" would be viable if everyone could afford life saving medical procedures. Fortunately, because of taxes combined with insurance (a corrupt racket) we can mitigate the costs of healthcare to those who need it and can't afford it. But, again this is a red herring from the main argument:

Pick already. We're either having too many kids or not enough.

Option A) If we aren't having enough, support people having children, encourage it. Create an infrastructure that can support such an initiative.
Option B) If we are having too many, let people make their own decisions. If you don't like their choices in so far as abortion goes, then go with Option A).

The more poverty there is, the more voters there are in poverty, and the more they'll vote against your interests. So what's the smart play to save you taxes? Probably B. So just suck it up and accept that people will get abortions. Or, prepare to have a country of starving children. Barring that, a fascist regime that wants to infringe on the rights of reproduction like Communist China.

You don't want to be like Communist China do you?

If you were a student in one of my economics classes and submitted this as a paper, I would grade it a C-.

You are verbose and your arguments are incoherent and disjointed.

You make statements based on assumptions and opinions, with no factual basis, and then through a leap of logic, you try and make them seem compelling.

"More children will mean more disabled children.". This is just a pointless statement. Using your logic, more children will also mean more geniuses, statesmen, entrepreneurs, and innovators.

You inject extraneous ideas that were never part of the conversation as if they are relevant and meaningful and worse, you counter statements that were never made.

You make inconsequential and out-of-context arguments that that have nothing to do with parenting.

"whites (as a whole, statistically) receive more welfare than any other ethnic group at a rate of 43%"

The fact is that Whites in the US make up 61% of the population, so by your own statement, they are underrepresented. Blacks make up 12% of the population and account for 26% of welfare recipients. So what was your point?

https://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/18/fact-check-whites-medicaid-food-stamps/

There is so much else wrong here that it would be a waste of my time to continue and go point by point countering it.

I think we are done here. I see no benefit in continuing this "discussion".

Have a good life, do some research, and try and get out of your bubble.

"If you were a student in one of my economics classes and submitted this as a paper, I would grade it a C-."

So what purpose does this serve the conversation of not to make a personal attack? This isn't a classroom. I'm not your student. I won't even comment on that nonsense you can't even prove.

If you're having a hard time following along, perhaps you should learn to focus your topic better. So let's start with that. It also doesn't help when you're trying to equate the entirety of welfare to SNAP/EBT when there are so many more programs. So let's get back on touch and avoid further red herrings, what do you say perspicacity? Think you can suspend those behaviors?

This meme makes no mention of married couples. No mention of race. Those were all your topics. The fact remains that the Right wing has complained about people aren't having enough kids. The right wing contends abortion shouldn't be legal

So they put RvW to the states and remove a precedent of over fifty years removing reproductive independence. You (collective right) think welfare queens are bad now?

Our welfare system is already strained. That's a fact.

People don't always make smart choices when it comes to having children. That's a fact.

Expecting everyone to behave and not have sex is naive. That's a fact.

Endorsing the removal of abortion for the sake of geniuses etc gives one the impression you're prospecting children and that's disgusting.

This will be my last reply. This discussion is becoming tedious.

"The fact remains that the Right wing has complained about people aren't having enough kids"

Agreed. In 1986 the US birthrate was 15 per 1000. It is now 12 per 1000. It has been raising slightly since 2013 but is still below historical levels. So instead of growing our country with people raised here, we are forced in bring in people who may or may not have the same goals and social norms or standards. When a society no longer has common goals and agreed to social norms, you end up with anarchy.

"Our welfare system is already strained."

Agreed. Especially when welfare becomes the family business passed on from generation to generation. Why work when you can get TVs, cell phones, food, healthcare, and housing from the fruits of other people's labor? We have disincentivized the need for people to be productive and contribute to society. The problem is, eventually you run out of other people's money as more people decide not to be productive.

"People don't always make smart choices when it comes to having children."

Agreed. We now have generations of people who take no responsibility for their poor choices. They are taught that nothing is ever their fault and there are no consequences for poor choices. They think the government should come and save them. Why should others be burdened with the consequences of your poor choice?

"Expecting everyone to behave and not have sex is naive."

Agreed. However, expecting people to be responsible for their actions is appropriate. If you want to have sex, fine, you know the possible outcome and you are responsible for taking precautions if you do not want that outcome.

"Endorsing the removal of abortion for the sake of geniuses etc gives one the impression you're prospecting children and that's disgusting."

That is your perception of something I never said. I was mearly pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement about more children equating to more disabled people.

If ever you wish to comment to me again, please provide facts and data and don't make outrageous and unqualified statements. Not once did you provide a reference or qualification for any of your arguments. Everything you wrote was based on feelings, perception, talking points, or idololgy.

Now we are done.

Common sense doesn't count huh?

You point out all of these negative things, appealing to extremes. With how much you seem to loathe people benefitting from you work, it would seem you'd advocate for people to have the option to not place such a burden on you.

The fact is, people vote in their own interests. The more people get bogged down in poverty because of anti-abortion laws, the more that either A) they'll vote to overturn those laws or B) they'll work to expand the social safety net laws to endorse the quality of life for those who cannot provide for themselves.

For instance, (You want sources? here you go) The min. wage is $7.25/hr. [1] If it had been indexed to the consumer price index since 1968, the minimum wage would have been $10.15 in 2019.[2] If it had kept pace with worker productivity and been adjusted for inflation, it would have been $24 in 2020.[3] (But we both know someone who knew how deadly a virus was and didn't alert the public and was big about being against masking, lockdowns etc, but that's besides the point.)

1. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage
2. EPI. ”Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15 by 2024 Would Lift Pay for Nearly 40 Million Workers.” (February 5, 2019)
3. Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Correction: This Is What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace With Productivity." (January 21, 2020)

People as a whole, won't care about your statistics *or your feelings* or what *should* be. Because what you think people *should* do versus what *they* choose to do are two separate things.

So, practice what you preach? Understand that facts don't care about feelings?

Kudos on not pulling the "You're just gonna censor me." card. Also, kudos for staying respectful as far as RWIFs go. We may not agree, but at least there's a discussion.

You've got a lot of "But's" but no decisions or solutions. No proposals just "No." So equally, if you want to comment again, bring something to the table that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Further, why would you want to cancel welfare when the very adoption agencies you depend on to handle children that can't live with their parents need welfare? You ever stop think that some of these "welfare queens" may be career parents? Raising children isn't easy, you know. At least, I hope you do.

"So stop having children."

Stop trying to control what people do in the bedroom. It's just not your business. Period.