Hatred for the poor

[zefrendylia]

This is an inspiring autobiography of a Russian-Jewish son of an immigrant who grew up in the ghettos, served as a bombadier in WWII, became an influential activist in the civil rights and Vietnam War era, became a world renowned professor and changed the face of American history with his first book A People's History of the United States.

From Howard Zinn's You Can't Remain Neutral on a Moving Train p.165:

"[talking about growing up in the Brooklyn ghettos and his father's constant struggle to earn a living]

All his life he worked hard for very little. I've always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talk of how, in America, if you worked hard you would become rich. The meaning of that was if you were poor it was because you hadn't worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie, about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone, harder than financiers and politicians, harder than anybody if you accept that when you work at an unpleasant job that makes it very hard work indeed."



Sadly, though my parents worked hard, succeeded and I was fortunate enough to grow up in the middle class--I agree with Zinn. I understand that there will always be people who abuse the system. But just like the poor and disadvantaged, there are wealthy and influential corporate fat cats who cheat the system on a daily basis. Yet those who "despise" the poor never seem to treat the rich the same way. When I say "despise," I mean exactly as Zinn says. It seems as though the poor are blamed for making that "choice" in life. It seems as though the poor in our society are somehow not really that poor. It seems as though the poor are blamed for the very situation they are in and struggling to get out of. And it's the poor and their advocates that take money out of my paycheck!

Why these beliefs? Simply because people don't want to pay taxes. They don't like someone telling them how to use their "hard-earned" money; they want more for their own use. Somehow giving a little to uplift all of society is evil because its liberal, Democratic, progressive, or socialist. To me, it reeks of greed. Guess what Americans: if you don't like it, get politically involved and lets push for a more direct democracy. Until this happens, I somehow doubt that without force, every beggar on the street would receive $5 from you every time you pass by.

When I asked an admitted "conservative," Why should a CEO earn a billion dollars a year and his janitor $5 an hour, he replied: because he can. To look at the true richness of a society all you need to do is look at how the poorest person lives. I don't mean to pidgeonhole all conservatives, right-wingers or Republicans because indeed there are some in those groups who would agree. Of course they then would be labeled by their fellow ideologues as "not really conservative."

This idea that the poor drain our tax dollars is absolutely untrue. Somehow, spending tax dollars on education, healthcare, and poverty is a waste--yet, outspending all other nations combined on defense contractors is a-ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States as is spending more than any other domestice budget item http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html. Meanwhile, China spends a tenth of our budget on electronic countermeasures to our high-tech, high dollar offensive weapons.

Abandoning the poor in our society because we believe it is their "choice" is equivalent to abandoning a family member in need. Bottomline: most of us would never do it. Now if you had to continually bail that family member out, understandably you would have to draw the line. The same is true for any social welfare program. But the mentality that the majority of the poor truly need the help must be there first. Everyone makes mistakes in life. Just because you have been fairly fortunate, predicted the right paths, and picked the right choices doesn't mean misfortune can befall you at any moment. To deny those who have fallen short in life is not Christian nor is it American.

[Hobbit]

I know that not all poor people are lazy, but many of them are, and those who are are usually the ones who scream the loudest for handouts. Not all people who are poor earned it. Same for the rich. However, I don't want the government determining how best to help the poor. I give my time and money to the poor all the time, and I don't want money taken from me, by force, and given to, for example, Katrina leeches.

By the way, the poor in America aren't that bad off. The standard of living for the average person in America living below the poverty line is higher than the standard of living for the average European.

[avatar4321]

The poor in our society really arent that poor. Even the poorest among us are among the richest 5% of the world.

And to claim there is no reason a janitor should be paid any less than a CEO is a complete and utter joke. One of them worked hard to get the training and skills needed to get a better job. They have sacrificed. The other hasnt.

[diuretic]

By the way, the poor in America aren't that bad off. The standard of living for the average person in America living below the poverty line is higher than the standard of living for the average European.

Is that right? So what's the standard of living for "the average European"?

[diuretic]

The poor in our society really arent that poor. Even the poorest among us are among the richest 5% of the world.
...........

Where did you find that statistic?

[darin]

Worse - the poor in our society are poor by CHOICE. :(

[diuretic]

Worse - the poor in our society are poor by CHOICE. :(

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

[shattered]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

95% of them ARE poor by choice. Very few people are actually destitute due to uncontrollable circumstances.

[Abbey Marie]

Keeping your pants zipped/legs closed until you can afford children has an uncanny way of helping you stay out of poverty. As does working at your schoolwork and having a good work ethic in general. Generations of immigrants have done it. It's not rocket science.

[darin]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh2:

Know any Poor people?

[darin]

Keeping your pants zipped/legs closed until you can afford children has an uncanny way of helping you stay out of poverty. As does working at your schoolwork and having a good work ethic in general. Generations of immigrants have done it. It's not rocket science.

Bah - C'mon...you're SO OLD SKEWL! People are GONNA have sex! Instead of telling them information to HELP them - let's coddle their behavior and just hand out condoms at schools and stuff! GOD FORBID a Conservative try to teach the TRUTH of your words to people too self-centered to listen.

:)

[darin]

95% of them ARE poor by choice. Very few people are actually destitute due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Eggs Zachary.

From the entitlement-poor people we hear sound bites such as this old gem:

"I shouldn't have to work two jobs to make ends meet!"

dmp's response: "What YOU so special as to feel you DESERVE an easy life, lady?"

[shattered]

Eggs Zachary.

From the entitlement-poor people we hear sound bites such as this old gem:

"I shouldn't have to work two jobs to make ends meet!"

dmp's response: "What YOU so special as to feel you DESERVE an easy life, lady?"

*shrug* You need to work as many jobs as necessary to support the lifestyle you think you're entitled to. :D

Hell.. My parents didn't even buy me a car when I was 16. If I wanted a car, I had to buy it. :D

[darin]

*shrug* You need to work as many jobs as necessary to support the lifestyle you think you're entitled to. :D

Hell.. My parents didn't even buy me a car when I was 16. If I wanted a car, I had to buy it. :D

...you POOR child! (gasp!) having to (gasp!) Take Responsibility to EARN what you Get!!??? How EVER did you cope?!?!!

:)

[shattered]

...you POOR child! (gasp!) having to (gasp!) Take Responsibility to EARN what you Get!!??? How EVER did you cope?!?!!

:)

Not sure, but 37..I mean..29 years later, I'm still alive to tell about it. Hell, next I'll be expected to pay for the $5k Viking range I want installed in my kitchen..

Damn the injustice of it all.

[darin]

Not sure, but 37..I mean..29 years later, I'm still alive to tell about it. Hell, next I'll be expected to pay for the $5k Viking range I want installed in my kitchen..

Damn the injustice of it all.

Want it free? (never mind it wouldn't be REALLY free because you'd lose part of your soul...) Start MARCHING and DEMONSTRATING against Viking. Say "You have a RIGHT to a well-cooked meal!" Liberals do that ALL the time; they turn their desires into Rights simply by proclamation.

[shattered]

Want it free? (never mind it wouldn't be REALLY free because you'd lose part of your soul...) Start MARCHING and DEMONSTRATING against Viking. Say "You have a RIGHT to a well-cooked meal!" Liberals do that ALL the time; they turn their desires into Rights simply by proclamation.

Alas.. I don't have time.. I have to work... *sigh*

[Hagbard Celine]

Bah - C'mon...you're SO OLD SKEWL! People are GONNA have sex! Instead of telling them information to HELP them - let's coddle their behavior and just hand out condoms at schools and stuff! GOD FORBID a Conservative try to teach the TRUTH of your words to people too self-centered to listen.

:)

Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus. Save me the "abstinence is 100 percent effective" one-liner. People ARE going to have sex regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary that if we preach enough about it all unmarried people will suddenly see the light and adopt a monastic lifestyle. You can't keep believing that policy based on ideology alone will work in the real world. In the real world people--unmarried people no less--have sex all the time and they always have and always will. Our bodies are built for it. That's not a "self-centered" comment, it's real life. The way I see it, we've got two options. Either we make birth control available to people, teach our kids about it AND continue to teach that abstinence is the best policy until they're married and we see unwanted birthrates decline, OR we shun birth control based on self-righteous, unrealistic ideology, ignore reality, preach abstinence-only dogma and continue to see unwanted birthrates skyrocket out of control. I've made my choice already.

[darin]

People ARE going to have sex regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary


Why don't you READ before making-up your mind about what I am or am not insisting upon? Comments like yours above are simply false. Nobody's insisting what you claim.

Here's one for you!

People ARE going to have UNPROTECTED sex regardless of how much "Information" we through at them, OR how convenient we make condoms, regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary.

You prefer to treat the symptoms - I look to treat the condition. That's the fundamental difference between you and me.

[shattered]

Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus. Save me the "abstinence is 100 percent effective" one-liner. People ARE going to have sex regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary that if we preach enough about it all unmarried people will suddenly see the light and adopt a monastic lifestyle. You can't keep believing that policy based on ideology alone will work in the real world. In the real world people--unmarried people no less--have sex all the time and they always have and always will. Our bodies are built for it. That's not a "self-centered" comment, it's real life. The way I see it, we've got two options. Either we make birth control available to people, teach our kids about it AND continue to teach that abstinence is the best policy until they're married and we see unwanted birthrates decline, OR we shun birth control based on self-righteous, unrealistic ideology, ignore reality, preach abstinence-only dogma and continue to see unwanted birthrates skyrocket out of control. I've made my choice already.


Funny.. That was at least 100 words, and I didn't see the words "personal responsibility" anywhere in there.. Now granted, I just skimmed it, because I've heard it all before, but.. were those words in there, and I just missed them?

[darin]

Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus.


Hrm....This Chart: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html

Shows Condoms are only about 1-2% more effective than withdrawal.


Maybe we should simply 'teach' guys to pull-out?

[Abbey Marie]

Bah - C'mon...you're SO OLD SKEWL! People are GONNA have sex! Instead of telling them information to HELP them - let's coddle their behavior and just hand out condoms at schools and stuff! GOD FORBID a Conservative try to teach the TRUTH of your words to people too self-centered to listen.

:)

In the words of a very cool guy I know: That's how I roll. :D

[Hagbard Celine]

Why don't you READ before making-up your mind about what I am or am not insisting upon? Comments like yours above are simply false. Nobody's insisting what you claim.

Here's one for you!

People ARE going to have UNPROTECTED sex regardless of how much "Information" we through at them, OR how convenient we make condoms, regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary.

You prefer to treat the symptoms - I look to treat the condition. That's the fundamental difference between you and me.

Sure people would still have unprotected sex, but some who might have gone-in unprotected before might use b.c. if it were readily and easily available. If a girl who didn't know anything about b.c. pills suddenly became educated about them she might choose to go on the pill. That's one-less potential unwanted pregnancy. If a guy who had never been introduced to them before suddenly became educated about condoms or about the female menstrual cycle (something they never taught us guys about here in GA schools) he would have knowledge that he could use to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I never said easily available birth control would completely do away with cases of unwanted pregnancy, but it would certainly lead to a decline in those cases. If we only teach abstinence-only dogma we're completely ignoring another proven line of defense, leaving a problem spot in our society. i.e. If a person were to only have abstinence-only education then that person gets into a situation where they are going to have sex, they could ignore their abstinence-only education. If they had birth control, they could also choose to ignore it, but atleast there were two lines of defense against unprotected sex rather than only one. Shattered is right, it all comes down to personal responsibility. Will you indulge or will you "go monk." Most people will indulge I think, so why not atleast make it easy for them to get condoms?

[darin]

Sure people would still have unprotected sex, but some who might have gone-in unprotected before might use b.c. if it were readily and easily available. If a girl who didn't know anything about b.c. pills suddenly became educated about them she might choose to go on the pill. That's one-less potential unwanted pregnancy. If a guy who had never been introduced to them before suddenly became educated about condoms or about the female menstrual cycle (something they never taught us guys about here in GA schools) he would have knowledge that he could use to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I never said easily available birth control would completely do away with cases of unwanted pregnancy, but it would certainly lead to a decline in those cases. If we only teach abstinence-only dogma we're completely ignoring another proven line of defense, leaving a problem spot in our society. i.e. If a person were to only have abstinence-only education then that person gets into a situation where they are going to have sex, they are ignoring their abstinence-only education. If they had birth control, they could also choose to ignore it, but atleast there were two lines of defense against unprotected sex rather than only one. Shattered is right, it all comes down to personal responsibility. Will you indulge or will you "go monk." Most people will indulge I think, so why not atleast make it easy for them to get condoms?

You are very good at assuming-away the problems with your line of thinking.

[Hagbard Celine]

Hrm....This Chart: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.com/table.html

Shows Condoms are only about 1-2% more effective than withdrawal.


Maybe we should simply 'teach' guys to pull-out?

Funny, I didn't see a statistic for "abstinence-only" effectiveness on that chart. Maybe that's because it's a "faith-based" ideology rather than a realistic form of birth control. :dunno:

[darin]

Funny, I didn't see a statistic for "abstinence-only" effectiveness on that chart. Maybe that's because it's a "faith-based" ideology rather than a realistic form of birth control. :dunno:

That's stupid. lol...How would that chart show the 'unexpected Pregnancy' rate of people who abstain from sexual intercourse? lmao :)

Rule #1 for Libs - When the data doesn't look good for your particular point of view, change the topic; shift people away from YOUR claims and focus the discussion on something ridiculous.

[Hagbard Celine]

You are very good at assuming-away the problems with your line of thinking.

Abstinence-only is based completely on assumption. Assumption that people will listen. Assumption that people will ignore their bodies. Assumption that people will ignore their lovers. Assumption that all people are pious... The list goes on and on. Give me a break with your judgemental little one-line posts based upon nothing more than your own self-righteousness. Pleez :rolleyes:

[darin]

Abstinence-only is based completely on assumption. Assumption that people will listen. Assumption that people will ignore their bodies. Assumption that people will ignore their lovers. Assumption that all people are pious... The list goes on and on. Give me a break with your judgemental little one-line posts based upon nothing more than your own self-righteousness. Pleez :rolleyes:


Rule #2 for Liberals: When your argument REALLY goes into a downward spiral, ridicule people!

[shattered]

One of those poor people that don't have a job can come clean my house, so I can do other things...

[Hagbard Celine]

That's stupid. lol...How would that chart show the 'unexpected Pregnancy' rate of people who abstain from sexual intercourse? lmao :)

Rule #1 for Libs - When the data doesn't look good for your particular point of view, change the topic; shift people away from YOUR claims and focus the discussion on something ridiculous.

Rule #1 for Self-Righteous Conservatives - When a liberal makes an excellent point attack their integrity.

For the people who abstain from sex, great for them. I hope they're happy in their frustrated, virginal existence. For everybody else abstinence-only sure doesn't do them a lot of good. :rolleyes:

I've got a question for you along the same line of thinking you've presented to me: If abstinence-only works so well and is THE answer, why are there still unwanted pregnancies?

[Hagbard Celine]

Rule #2 for Liberals: When your argument REALLY goes into a downward spiral, ridicule people!

Whatever. You're ignoring my argument.

Your argument is based completely on ideology and is not realistic. Your argument is based on "if only." If only people just wouldn't have sex, they wouldn't have unwanted pregnancy, disease, etc. Wow. If only people just wouldn't swim, there would never be any drownings. If only people people just wouldn't break the law, there would be no crime!

Well, people DO have sex, they always have had sex and they will continue to have sex long after we're all dead and gone. My argument uses reality, i.e. facts like "people do have sex" and treats them accordingly with reality-based solutions like *drumroll please* birth control options.

[Abbey Marie]

This is an inspiring autobiography of a Russian-Jewish son of an immigrant who grew up in the ghettos, served as a bombadier in WWII, became an influential activist in the civil rights and Vietnam War era, became a world renowned professor and changed the face of American history with his first book A People's History of the United States.

From Howard Zinn's You Can't Remain Neutral on a Moving Train p.165:

"[talking about growing up in the Brooklyn ghettos and his father's constant struggle to earn a living]

All his life he worked hard for very little. I've always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talk of how, in America, if you worked hard you would become rich. The meaning of that was if you were poor it was because you hadn't worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie, about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone, harder than financiers and politicians, harder than anybody if you accept that when you work at an unpleasant job that makes it very hard work indeed."



Sadly, though my parents worked hard, succeeded and I was fortunate enough to grow up in the middle class--I agree with Zinn. I understand that there will always be people who abuse the system. But just like the poor and disadvantaged, there are wealthy and influential corporate fat cats who cheat the system on a daily basis. Yet those who "despise" the poor never seem to treat the rich the same way. When I say "despise," I mean exactly as Zinn says. It seems as though the poor are blamed for making that "choice" in life. It seems as though the poor in our society are somehow not really that poor. It seems as though the poor are blamed for the very situation they are in and struggling to get out of. And it's the poor and their advocates that take money out of my paycheck!

Why these beliefs? Simply because people don't want to pay taxes. They don't like someone telling them how to use their "hard-earned" money; they want more for their own use. Somehow giving a little to uplift all of society is evil because its liberal, Democratic, progressive, or socialist. To me, it reeks of greed. Guess what Americans: if you don't like it, get politically involved and lets push for a more direct democracy. Until this happens, I somehow doubt that without force, every beggar on the street would receive $5 from you every time you pass by.

When I asked an admitted "conservative," Why should a CEO earn a billion dollars a year and his janitor $5 an hour, he replied: because he can. To look at the true richness of a society all you need to do is look at how the poorest person lives. I don't mean to pidgeonhole all conservatives, right-wingers or Republicans because indeed there are some in those groups who would agree. Of course they then would be labeled by their fellow ideologues as "not really conservative."

This idea that the poor drain our tax dollars is absolutely untrue. Somehow, spending tax dollars on education, healthcare, and poverty is a waste--yet, outspending all other nations combined on defense contractors is a-ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States as is spending more than any other domestice budget item http://www.cdi.org/issues/discret.html. Meanwhile, China spends a tenth of our budget on electronic countermeasures to our high-tech, high dollar offensive weapons.

Abandoning the poor in our society because we believe it is their "choice" is equivalent to abandoning a family member in need. Bottomline: most of us would never do it. Now if you had to continually bail that family member out, understandably you would have to draw the line. The same is true for any social welfare program. But the mentality that the majority of the poor truly need the help must be there first. Everyone makes mistakes in life. Just because you have been fairly fortunate, predicted the right paths, and picked the right choices doesn't mean misfortune can befall you at any moment. To deny those who have fallen short in life is not Christian nor is it American.

I disagree with Zinn that the message is if you work hard, you will be rich. The message I've always heard was if you work hard, you can have a decent life in this country. And unlike in many other countries, you can. Why do you think so many want to immigrate here- because it's so awful? And if you don't like the message that we should aspire to being rich, blame the media, not the rich. The media are the ones glorifying Paris Hilton, all of Hollyweird's gated homes, and the latest rapper's million dollar crib, etc.

But working hard isn't enough. You have to make smart choices, too. I'm not sure what you mean by "mistakes", but I say, don't have kids before you can afford them. Don't spend on extravagences until you have your bills paid and are at least saving for a home. Don't drop out of school. And don't let drugs or alcohol control your life. For starters. Failure to live by these simple rules is not a "mistake". It's choice.

I also disgree with this sentence: "Somehow giving a little to uplift all of society is evil because its liberal, Democratic, progressive, or socialist". How that trivializes what others do! We who work our whole lives give way more than a "little bit". Have you looked at the taxes taken from your paycheck? And that does not include all the money we give to charity through our churches and elsewhere. And volunteer work. If all those nasty rich people you disdain suddenly stopped giving, believe me, you would notice it. (Btw, there is a thread here somewhere with a study that shows Republicans outgive Dems in charitable giving).

Finally, without a strong defense, we will have much more to worry about than a class struggle.

[darin]

Whatever. You're ignoring my argument.


No - the argument is the flawed assumption Condoms prevent 99% of sperm cells from entering the uterus.



Your argument is based completely on ideology and is not realistic.

That's your assumption.


Your argument is based on "if only." If only people just wouldn't have sex, they wouldn't have unwanted pregnancy, disease, etc.

But that's absolute true. It's a truism. If people wouldn't have sex outside of marriage, STDs and unwanted pregnancy rates would drop through the floor.


Wow. If only people just wouldn't swim, there would never be any drownings. If only people people just wouldn't break the law, there would be no crime!

Again!


Well, people DO have sex, they always have had sex and they will continue to have sex long after we're all dead and gone. My argument uses reality, i.e. facts like "people do have sex" and treats them accordingly with reality-based solutions like *drumroll please* birth control options.

...what is the most effective form of birth control? *drumroll* ABSTINENCE!

IF we'd stop perpetuating myths like "safe sex"...and IF we'd instill higher moral standards....and IF we, as a society would stop glorifying and pushing SEX upon the hearts and minds of our young people...we'd GET the desired result. MORE families. FEWER STDs. FEWER Abortions. FEWER ruined lives.

[Hagbard Celine]

I disagree with Zinn that the message is if you work hard, you will be rich. The message I've always heard was if you work hard, you can have a decent life in this country. And unlike in many other countries, you can. Why do you think so many want to immigrate here- because it's so awful? And if you don't like the message that we should aspire to being rich, blame the media, not the rich. The media are the ones glorifying Paris Hilton, all of Hollyweird's gated homes, and the latest rapper's million dollar crib, etc.

But working hard isn't enough. You have to make smart choices, too. I'm not sure what you mean by "mistakes", but I say, don't have kids before you can afford them. Don't spend on extravagences until you have your bills paid and are at least saving for a home. Don't drop out of school. And don't let drugs or alcohol control your life. For starters. Failure to live by these simple rules is not a "mistake". It's choice.

I also disgree with this sentence: "Somehow giving a little to uplift all of society is evil because its liberal, Democratic, progressive, or socialist". How that trivializes what others do! We who work our whole lives give way more than a "little bit". Have you looked at the taxes taken from your paycheck? And that does not include all the money we give to charity through our churches and elsewhere. And volunteer work. If all those nasty rich people you disdain suddenly stopped giving, believe me, you would notice it. (Btw, there is a thread here somewhere with a study that shows Republicans outgive Dems in charitable giving).

Finally, without a strong defense, we will have much more to worry about than a class struggle.

The evil "media" report on Paris Hilton BECAUSE you/we watch it. If we didn't, they'd report something we would watch. Blaming the "media" for all of society's ills is a mistake. Ha--The Koran says "Allah will not begin to change a people until they change themselves." I think that's applicable here.

[darin]

I disagree with Zinn that the message is if you work hard, you will be rich. The message I've always heard was if you work hard, you can have a decent life in this country. And unlike in many other countries, you can. Why do you think so many want to immigrate here- because it's so awful? And if you don't like the message that we should aspire to being rich, blame the media, not the rich. The media are the ones glorifying Paris Hilton, all of Hollyweird's gated homes, and the latest rapper's million dollar crib, etc.

But working hard isn't enough. You have to make smart choices, too. I'm not sure what you mean by "mistakes", but I say, don't have kids before you can afford them. Don't spend on extravagences until you have your bills paid and are at least saving for a home. Don't drop out of school. And don't let drugs or alcohol control your life. For starters. Failure to live by these simple rules is not a "mistake". It's choice.

I also disgree with this sentence: "Somehow giving a little to uplift all of society is evil because its liberal, Democratic, progressive, or socialist". How that trivializes what others do! We who work our whole lives give way more than a "little bit". Have you looked at the taxes taken from your paycheck? And that does not include all the money we give to charity through our churches and elsewhere. And volunteer work. If all those nasty rich people you disdain suddenly stopped giving, believe me, you would notice it. (Btw, there is a thread here somewhere with a study that shows Republicans outgive Dems in charitable giving).

Finally, without a strong defense, we will have much more to worry about than a class struggle.


Well stated, Abbey. In addition to not allowing Alcohol or other drugs to control people; People let SEX and desire for same control them, too.

Did I remember reading something about Conservatives generally giving MORE to charities than Libs? I'll have to see if I can dig that up.

For the record - one time I gave a street guy $20. He was sitting on the sidewalk with a sign which read: "Aspiring Porn Star - needs money for Penis-implant!"

I laughed, and dropped the bill in his pan.

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, people always had and always will have pre-marital sex and pregnancies will occur. Roughly what percentage do you think did so in, say, the 40's, compared to today?

[Abbey Marie]

The evil "media" report on Paris Hilton BECAUSE you/we watch it. If we didn't, they'd report something we would watch. Blaming the "media" for all of society's ills is a mistake. Ha--The Koran says "Allah will not begin to change a people until they change themselves." I think that's applicable here.

Chikcen/egg. If it wasn't reported, who would watch it? If I didn't put Cheerios on the breakfast table for my daughter since she was a baby, would she eat still eat it?

[Hagbard Celine]

No - the argument is the flawed assumption Condoms prevent 99% of sperm cells from entering the uterus.

Actually what I said was: "Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus."

If a condom has a hole in it, obviously it's not going to stop 99 percent of anything. I meant condom use. It says so right on the box. Maybe I should've specified. :dunno: I guess I should know that I have to on this board else my posts will be picked apart word by word in a semantics free for all.


IF we'd stop perpetuating myths like "safe sex"...and IF we'd instill higher moral standards....and IF we, as a society would stop glorifying and pushing SEX upon the hearts and minds of our young people...we'd GET the desired result. MORE families. FEWER STDs. FEWER Abortions. FEWER ruined lives.

I'll buy that. My point is that this idealistic vision of society won't happen. It never has either. The reason is human nature. Even in Muslim society people have sex outside of marriage and I'm pretty sure it's punishable by death or something equally horrifying. Imagining or hoping that human beings are better "moral" creatures than they really are isn't realistic in my opinion. I still think two lines of defense (moral ideology AND contraceptive use) is a more realistic plan.

[Hagbard Celine]

Yes, people always had and always will have pre-marital sex and pregnancies will occur. Roughly what percentage do you think did so in, say, the 40's, compared to today?

I'd say it was roughly the same adjusted, of course, for population growth. Why?

[darin]

Actually what I said was: "Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus."

If a condom has a hole in it, obviously it's not going to stop 99 percent of anything. I meant condom use. It says so right on the box. Maybe I should've specified. :dunno: I guess I should know that I have to on this board else my posts will be picked apart word by word in a semantics free for all.



What's more important - stopping sperm from entering the uterus, or preventing pregnancy?

[Abbey Marie]

I'd say it was roughly the same adjusted, of course, for population growth. Why?

I don't know the answer, but I suspect that there were many fewer pregnancies per capita, based on the exponential increase in unwed motherhood I've seen over the last few decades. There was a time when they seemd to be fairly rare. Today, not so. I chose a decade when abortion wasn't legal, to leave that out of the equation.

It's an interesting but probably unprovable theory, that when teenage sex was more taboo, when we didn't look at it as an inevitable behavior, and when sexually active girls were looked at, well, negatively, there was less of it going on. :dunno:

[Hagbard Celine]

Chikcen/egg. If it wasn't reported, who would watch it? If I didn't put Cheerios on the breakfast table for my daughter since she was a baby, would she eat still eat it?

Your daughter is dependent on you for food, so she's going to eat whatever you put in front of her or she's going to starve. I think that's a bad analogy. The networks are driven by money and are dependent on US to supply them an audience for their advertisers. So the analogy you made should actually be flipped around. YOU are the viewer and your daughter is the "media." If you give your daughter cheerios (an audience for Paris Hilton stories), which she likes, to eat because you know she will eat them, of course she will eat them. But if you give your daughter raisin bran (an audience for actual in depth coverage of issues) or some other healthy cereal, she might not eat it. Your daughter isn't going to choose bran flakes over her cheerios is she? So to make things easy on yourself, you give her what she likes.

I don't think it's a chicken/egg scenario. I know for sure that if ratings fell for Paris Hilton coverage, i.e. people stopped watching, networks would change their programming to something people WOULD watch. The reason we see so much celebrity gossip and other trivial crap on our "news" networks is because the networks have found that they get higher ratings by showing the stuff.

[Hagbard Celine]

I don't know the answer, but I suspect that there were many fewer pregnancies per capita, based on the exponential increase in unwed motherhood I've seen over the last few decades. There was a time when they seemd to be fairly rare. Today, not so. I chose a decade when abortion wasn't legal, to leave that out of the equation.

It's an interesting but probably unprovable theory, that when teenage sex was more taboo, when we didn't look at it as an inevitable behavior, and when sexually active girls were looked at, well, negatively, there was less of it going on. :dunno:
Here's some info on it. Seems teen pregnancy rates have declined since the 1950s but the rate of unmarital teen pregnancy rates have increased since then. Also interestingly, the number of US teen pregnancies has dropped more slowly than other western nations since the 1950s.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

[Abbey Marie]

Yes, there is an audience for celebrity gossip, I haven't denied that. We just disagree on why there is one. If Paris is mentioned on a news program, I am not going to tune out just because they have 2 minutes of Paris on. The point is, if the lifestyles and foibles of the rich and famous weren't proffered, we wouldn't know enough to want to see it.

As for the Cheerios, you have it backwards. I am the provider of the cereal, just as the networks are the providers of the gossip. My daughter is literally, the consumer. If she is steadily given Cheerios when her tastes are forming, she is going to eat it because it's all she knows to eat. By the time she discovers that Raisin Bran exists, she is hooked on Cheerios. However, if I then take the Cherrios away, and tell her that they are no longer available, she will eventually get used to Raisin Bran, and may even like it better.

Take the Paris-level garbage completely out of the media, and the interest level will die a slow death. No one was clamoring for reality TV, but now that it is here, it is a national obsession. The latest is goofy prime time game shows. None of these things were demanded, and we lived just fine without them, but now that the are here, we watch. It's not that telling.

[Abbey Marie]

What the heck?!

http://zapatopi.net/blog/macro-cheerios.jpg

[glockmail]

This is an inspiring autobiography of a Russian-Jewish son of an immigrant who grew up in the ghettos, served as a bombadier in WWII, became an influential activist in the civil rights and Vietnam War era, became a world renowned professor and changed the face of American history with his first book A People's History of the United States. .....

Uugghhh! I read about 1/2 of that book before I had to put it down. He comes up with conclusions with absolutely no basis. It's obvious that Zinn hates humanity.

[gabosaurus]

I know exactly how ConReps feel about poor and underprivileged people. So let's all have a sing-a-long with the Dead Kennedys!


Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they:
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor
Tonight

[stephanie]

I know exactly how ConReps feel about poor and underprivileged people. So let's all have a sing-a-long with the Dead Kennedys!

:cuckoo:

[Abbey Marie]

Gabby, your lyrics reminded me of Spongebob's song:

(Spongebob) It's not about winning, it's about fun
(Plankton) What's that?
(Spongebob) Fun is when you...fun is...it' like...it's kinda...sorta like a...
What is fun?? I...Let me spell it for you

(Spongebob)
F is for friends who do stuff together
U is for u and me
N is for N-e where and N-e time at all

(Sea Creatures) down here in the deep blue sea

(Plankton)
F is for fire that burns down the whole town
U is for Uranium...BOMBS!
N is for no survivors when you're-

(Spongebob) Plankton! Those things aren't what fun is all about!
now do it like this,
F is for friends who do stuff to-

(Plankton) Never! that's completely idiotic!

(Spongebob) Here, Let me help you...
F is for friends who do stuff together
U is for u and me, Try it!

(Plankton) N is for N-e where and N-e time at all

(Sea Creatures) Down here in the deep blue sea

[avatar4321]

*shrug* You need to work as many jobs as necessary to support the lifestyle you think you're entitled to. :D

Hell.. My parents didn't even buy me a car when I was 16. If I wanted a car, I had to buy it. :D

my parents couldnt have afforded to buy me a car if they wanted to. im lucky i can afford one myself.

[shattered]

my parents couldnt have afforded to buy me a car if they wanted to. im lucky i can afford one myself.

Well, then you should be screaming louder than I should be. After all, your parents have a moral responsibility to insist that someone else give you something they should be giving you even if they can't afford it...or something.

(trying to figure that out made my head hurt)

[avatar4321]

Rule #1 for Self-Righteous Conservatives - When a liberal makes an excellent point attack their integrity.

For the people who abstain from sex, great for them. I hope they're happy in their frustrated, virginal existence. For everybody else abstinence-only sure doesn't do them a lot of good. :rolleyes:

I've got a question for you along the same line of thinking you've presented to me: If abstinence-only works so well and is THE answer, why are there still unwanted pregnancies?

Because there are selfish pricks who dont want to take responsibility for their children.

[diuretic]

95% of them ARE poor by choice. Very few people are actually destitute due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Seriously how is that? People choose to be poor. It's an interesting point of view, I disagree with it but it's interesting. Why do you hold that position?

[diuretic]

Keeping your pants zipped/legs closed until you can afford children has an uncanny way of helping you stay out of poverty. As does working at your schoolwork and having a good work ethic in general. Generations of immigrants have done it. It's not rocket science.

Or use contraception, that's a good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancy and also sexually transmitted diseases. But yes, a woman having a child while she's still at school is going to limit her choices later on.

Yes, working hard at school is good too. I wonder why people don't do it?

[shattered]

Seriously how is that? People choose to be poor. It's an interesting point of view, I disagree with it but it's interesting. Why do you hold that position?

Well, a good start would be those with 5-6 children who are on welfare..rather than spending their days looking for a job and/or going to school to get out of that predicament, they live in the slum areas of the city, and spend their days, and welfare checks down at the casino playing slots trying to hit the big jackpot..

How is that not a choice?

[diuretic]

Know any Poor people?

I've met quite a few over the years, yes. I've seen plenty of poverty and squalor and hopelessness. I've also seen battlers trying to get ahead in very difficult circumstances.

[diuretic]

Bah - C'mon...you're SO OLD SKEWL! People are GONNA have sex! Instead of telling them information to HELP them - let's coddle their behavior and just hand out condoms at schools and stuff! GOD FORBID a Conservative try to teach the TRUTH of your words to people too self-centered to listen.

:)

Yes, people are going to have sex when they become physically sexually active. Best to help them understand it all and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[diuretic]

One of those poor people that don't have a job can come clean my house, so I can do other things...

That's a constructive response for sure - no I'm not being sarcastic.

[shattered]

That's a constructive response for sure - no I'm not being sarcastic.

Given the title of the thread "Hatred for the Poor", and the fact that this conversation ended up being about abortion and birth control instead, my comment wasn't any farther out of line than anyone elses. In fact, it was just as constructive as your comment pointing out how constructive it wasn't. :)

[diuretic]

Well, a good start would be those with 5-6 children who are on welfare..rather than spending their days looking for a job and/or going to school to get out of that predicament, they live in the slum areas of the city, and spend their days, and welfare checks down at the casino playing slots trying to hit the big jackpot..

How is that not a choice?

But how did they choose to get poor in the first place?

[diuretic]

Given the title of the thread "Hatred for the Poor", and the fact that this conversation ended up being about abortion and birth control instead, my comment wasn't any farther out of line than anyone elses. In fact, it was just as constructive as your comment pointing out how constructive it wasn't. :)

No I wasn't poking fun, I was serious. It was a constructive comment. Your suggestion was that someone could get a few hours work cleaning your place while you were doing other things more important to you. Great idea. I mean it.

[shattered]

But how did they choose to get poor in the first place?

They chose to have MORE children they couldn't afford to get MORE money from the government, rather than buckling down and doing something to reverse the path their life was obviously taking.

[diuretic]

They chose to have MORE children they couldn't afford to get MORE money from the government, rather than buckling down and doing something to reverse the path their life was obviously taking.

So they weren't born poor, they just had too many kids?

[shattered]

So they weren't born poor, they just had too many kids?

Eh? *I* was born poor. Probably half the people on this board were born poor. It's what we chose to do as soon as we were capable of a thought process that dictated where we ended up. Half of my so-called "family" is poor, and yes, I say that is by choice. If you choose to sit on your fat, lazy ass and drink your life away, that's pretty much how you'll die.

[Said1]

Seriously how is that? People choose to be poor. It's an interesting point of view, I disagree with it but it's interesting. Why do you hold that position?

Let's use me as an example. I could make more money working for a different employer. I don't do this because my present employer lets me read books, study and work on term papers between phone calls. I can also leave earlier to get to a class if the weather is bad. I know this wouldn't be the case working elsewhere. I"m bairly getting by, BUT this is my choice and is not permenant. the girl I work with has no real motivation to improve her finances by upgrading her skills or learning speak french for whatever reason (this would greatly improve her chances of finding employment elsewhere). She blames our employer for her financial situation and thinks she should be paid a lot more. She has the same freedom as I do while the phones are slow - she does the daily crossword from the news, reads women's world or Star magazine. In both cases, each of us has a choice to do what we need to do in order to imporve our financial situations.

Not hard to fathom.

[shattered]

Let's use me as an example. I could make more money working for a different employer. I don't do this because my present employer lets me read books, study and work on term papers between phone calls. I can also leave earlier to get to a class if the weather is bad. I know this wouldn't be the case working elsewhere. I"m bairly getting by, BUT this is my choice and is not permenant. the girl I work with has no real motivation to improve her finances by upgrading her skills or learning speak french for whatever reason (this would greatly improve her chances of finding employment elsewhere). She blames our employer for her financial situation and thinks she should be paid a lot more. She has the same freedom as I do while the phones are slow - she does the daily crossword from the news, reads women's world or Star magazine. In both cases, each of us has a choice to do what we need to do in order to imporve our financial situations.

Not hard to fathom.


Studying? Every chance you get? To change things you may not be happy with?

How utterly odd.

:clap:

[Abbey Marie]

Let's use me as an example. I could make more money working for a different employer. I don't do this because my present employer lets me read books, study and work on term papers between phone calls. I can also leave earlier to get to a class if the weather is bad. I know this wouldn't be the case working elsewhere. I"m bairly getting by, BUT this is my choice and is not permenant. the girl I work with has no real motivation to improve her finances by upgrading her skills or learning speak french for whatever reason (this would greatly improve her chances of finding employment elsewhere). She blames our employer for her financial situation and thinks she should be paid a lot more. She has the same freedom as I do while the phones are slow - she does the daily crossword from the news, reads women's world or Star magazine. In both cases, each of us has a choice to do what we need to do in order to imporve our financial situations.

Not hard to fathom.

:clap: It's not hard to understand the equation, but one must first take off the lib agenda blinders and stop blaming the rich for their problems.

[diuretic]

Eh? *I* was born poor. Probably half the people on this board were born poor. It's what we chose to do as soon as we were capable of a thought process that dictated where we ended up. Half of my so-called "family" is poor, and yes, I say that is by choice. If you choose to sit on your fat, lazy ass and drink your life away, that's pretty much how you'll die.

Fair enough. It's interesting to work out from those peope born into humble circumstances (such as myself) how they managed to get out of that rut. I was lucky in that I had parents who believed in education and made sure I got a decent education. I had far more chances than they did and they helped me get the best out of those opportunities. Now if I had parents who weren't much good at their job I would think I would have had a crappy start in life.

[diuretic]

Let's use me as an example. I could make more money working for a different employer. I don't do this because my present employer lets me read books, study and work on term papers between phone calls. I can also leave earlier to get to a class if the weather is bad. I know this wouldn't be the case working elsewhere. I"m bairly getting by, BUT this is my choice and is not permenant. the girl I work with has no real motivation to improve her finances by upgrading her skills or learning speak french for whatever reason (this would greatly improve her chances of finding employment elsewhere). She blames our employer for her financial situation and thinks she should be paid a lot more. She has the same freedom as I do while the phones are slow - she does the daily crossword from the news, reads women's world or Star magazine. In both cases, each of us has a choice to do what we need to do in order to imporve our financial situations.

Not hard to fathom.

Good for you, you've made the best choice. The girl you work with hasn't. Her problem. If she has no drive for self-improvement then she'll remain a drone.

[shattered]

Fair enough. It's interesting to work out from those peope born into humble circumstances (such as myself) how they managed to get out of that rut. I was lucky in that I had parents who believed in education and made sure I got a decent education. I had far more chances than they did and they helped me get the best out of those opportunities. Now if I had parents who weren't much good at their job I would think I would have had a crappy start in life.

Everyone can (and in a lot of cases likely did) have a crappy start in life.. What changed my thought process was so stupid, and simple, it's funny (now)..

I was watching TV one day - some family type sitcom, and I remember looking at the TV thinking.. "I want that. That seems normal. They have a nice house, car, "stuff", etc. How do I get that?"

By the time I was 16 and had my first job, I was taking every available work hour I could get, and asking for more on weekend and I was sinking my paychecks into filling a bedroom closet not with clothes, and other teenage stuff, but with items for an apartment...dishes, bedding, etc..

So, yeah..

Choices.

[Mr. P]

Not sure, but 37..I mean..29 years later, I'm still alive to tell about it. Hell, next I'll be expected to pay for the $5k Viking range I want installed in my kitchen..

Damn the injustice of it all.

NO!!!!!!!!! DON'T!!!!! I heard they are crap...really.. if I see where I read that again I'll link. Or maybe that was Sub-zero..I know I heard it on them.

Ok 'crap' is not fair, it's the rate of repairs for these high end units. You can buy a ton of whirlpools for $5k.

You Pal (ALL-Clad)
Mr. P

[shattered]

NO!!!!!!!!! DON'T!!!!! I heard they are crap...really.. if I see where I read that again I'll link. Or maybe that was Sub-zero..I know I heard it on them.

Ok 'crap' is not fair, it's the rate of repairs for these high end units. You can buy a ton of whirlpools for $5k.

You Pal (ALL-Clad)
Mr. P

If you find it, let me see it.. I've heard nothing but good for Viking ranges, and Sub-Zero refridgerators...

[Mr. P]

If you find it, let me see it.. I've heard nothing but good for Viking ranges, and Sub-Zero refridgerators...

I will..pretty sure it was one of the consumer reports surveys from owners..

I'm thinking Sub-zero now, but I'm not sure ...I'll look around.

[shattered]

I will..pretty sure it was one of the consumer reports surveys from owners..

I'm thinking Sub-zero now, but I'm not sure ...I'll look around.

BTW, I don't like Whirlpool.. I think they should stick to making washers.. :)

[diuretic]

Everyone can (and in a lot of cases likely did) have a crappy start in life.. What changed my thought process was so stupid, and simple, it's funny (now)..

I was watching TV one day - some family type sitcom, and I remember looking at the TV thinking.. "I want that. That seems normal. They have a nice house, car, "stuff", etc. How do I get that?"

By the time I was 16 and had my first job, I was taking every available work hour I could get, and asking for more on weekend and I was sinking my paychecks into filling a bedroom closet not with clothes, and other teenage stuff, but with items for an apartment...dishes, bedding, etc..

So, yeah..

Choices.

"That seems normal" - that seems a desirable way to live, perhaps? And the way to get there is to do what you did.

[shattered]

"That seems normal" - that seems a desirable way to live, perhaps? And the way to get there is to do what you did.

My point is...with what I was "born into", I could have just slacked along through life, because that was what I knew..that was all I knew.. But I chose to change, and wasn't going to sit around and wait for someone to change it for me..

If a lot more people did that, the welfare/government programs would be for the truly *incapable*, and nobody would have a problem with it. Helping those that truly need help (as in cases of the elderly, incapacitated, etc.) is one thing.. Welfare skaters are entirely another.

[Mr. P]

BTW, I don't like Whirlpool.. I think they should stick to making washers.. :)

I have whirlpool frig that is 24 years old and works great.
A washer dryer too. :)

*I have had to do some work on the wash and dryer though.*

[diuretic]

My point is...with what I was "born into", I could have just slacked along through life, because that was what I knew..that was all I knew.. But I chose to change, and wasn't going to sit around and wait for someone to change it for me..

If a lot more people did that, the welfare/government programs would be for the truly *incapable*, and nobody would have a problem with it. Helping those that truly need help (as in cases of the elderly, incapacitated, etc.) is one thing.. Welfare skaters are entirely another.

I agree, welfare abusers should be dealt with. The system should be a safety net and not a free ride. I think though that it's useful for government to have policies that build up opportunities for people to get out from under as well. You were able to do it because of your personal characeristics, some people may need a hand or a shove in the right direction.

[Gunny]

Dude, condoms are 99 percent effective at stopping sperm cells from entering the uterus. Save me the "abstinence is 100 percent effective" one-liner. People ARE going to have sex regardless of your freaky insistence to the contrary that if we preach enough about it all unmarried people will suddenly see the light and adopt a monastic lifestyle. You can't keep believing that policy based on ideology alone will work in the real world. In the real world people--unmarried people no less--have sex all the time and they always have and always will. Our bodies are built for it. That's not a "self-centered" comment, it's real life. The way I see it, we've got two options. Either we make birth control available to people, teach our kids about it AND continue to teach that abstinence is the best policy until they're married and we see unwanted birthrates decline, OR we shun birth control based on self-righteous, unrealistic ideology, ignore reality, preach abstinence-only dogma and continue to see unwanted birthrates skyrocket out of control. I've made my choice already.

Regardless your twisting, abstinence IS 100% effective at not only preventing unwanted pregnancies, but the transfer of STD's as well.

Like it or not, people DID used to have enough morals to exercise a little self-discipline and good judgement.

Until people like you made it okay to make excuses for being losers instead.

[diuretic]

Regardless your twisting, abstinence IS 100% effective at not only preventing unwanted pregnancies, but the transfer of STD's as well.

Like it or not, people DID used to have enough morals to exercise a little self-discipline and good judgement.

Until people like you made it okay to make excuses for being losers instead.

People have been, are and will continue to hump like rabbits. It's the strongest drive we have. Abstinence as public policy is ridiculous because humping is great fun, feels good and can really make your day! :laugh2:

[shattered]

People have been, are and will continue to hump like rabbits. It's the strongest drive we have. Abstinence as public policy is ridiculous because humping is great fun, feels good and can really make your day! :laugh2:

...and it's all about what's fun and feels good now.. Damn consequences - we can just kill those later, right? :)

[Mr. P]

If you find it, let me see it.. I've heard nothing but good for Viking ranges, and Sub-Zero refridgerators...

This is not what I remember reading but it's a start.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/viking.html

[shattered]

This is not what I remember reading but it's a start.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/viking.html

Hmm.. Ok, that's enough for me - thanks...

[Nukeman]

I agree, welfare abusers should be dealt with. The system should be a safety net and not a free ride. I think though that it's useful for government to have policies that build up opportunities for people to get out from under as well. You were able to do it because of your personal characeristics, some people may need a hand or a shove in the right direction.

New York did start giving them a shove. They stopped giving extra money for having more children after the person started receiving welfair.

They also started Workfair. People HAD to get out and get a job, and start on a course to get off public assistance.

There are a lot of people like shattered who are born poor or low income and "pull themselves up by their bootstrapes". Others who are born into that situation just see a life style and are encouraged by family members to just stay that way. Ever hear of "crabs in a barrel"?

[Nukeman]

People have been, are and will continue to hump like rabbits. It's the strongest drive we have. Abstinence as public policy is ridiculous because humping is great fun, feels good and can really make your day! :laugh2:

Unwanted pregnancy is going to happen. But, and here goes, people who do this shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for their mistakes!

One unexpected pregnancy is one thing, anymore and the person is an idiot for not figuring out how to prevent it. Yes, abstaning, so they can afford the one they have is an option they should take.

People need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions.

1. Pay your bills instead of going out to the bar
2. take classes to improve your career
3. keep your pants on
4. Eat at home instead of going out

RESPONSIBILITY

[diuretic]

New York did start giving them a shove. They stopped giving extra money for having more children after the person started receiving welfair.

They also started Workfair. People HAD to get out and get a job, and start on a course to get off public assistance.

There are a lot of people like shattered who are born poor or low income and "pull themselves up by their bootstrapes". Others who are born into that situation just see a life style and are encouraged by family members to just stay that way. Ever hear of "crabs in a barrel"?

Yep, I'm familiar with the term. I also know "misery loves company".

[diuretic]

Unwanted pregnancy is going to happen. But, and here goes, people who do this shouldn't expect the rest of us to pay for their mistakes!

One unexpected pregnancy is one thing, anymore and the person is an idiot for not figuring out how to prevent it. Yes, abstaning, so they can afford the one they have is an option they should take.

People need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions.

1. Pay your bills instead of going out to the bar
2. take classes to improve your career
3. keep your pants on
4. Eat at home instead of going out

RESPONSIBILITY

Apart from the abstinence idea (birth control is much more realistic), I don't disagree.

[Hobbit]

Apart from the abstinence idea (birth control is much more realistic), I don't disagree.

True, but no birth control is perfect, and there has been at least one documented case of a man with a vascectomy impregnating a woman with tied tubes. Gotta decide how much risk you're willing to take.

[gabosaurus]

True, but no birth control is perfect, and there has been at least one documented case of a man with a vascectomy impregnating a woman with tied tubes. Gotta decide how much risk you're willing to take.

You don't have to reveal family secrets to get your point across. :poke:

[avatar4321]

You don't have to reveal family secrets to get your point across. :poke:

Do you ever write a post that isnt a personal attack on someone?

[diuretic]

True, but no birth control is perfect, and there has been at least one documented case of a man with a vascectomy impregnating a woman with tied tubes. Gotta decide how much risk you're willing to take.

Of course - and it is the case that not every act of unprotected sexual intercourse results in a pregnancy either. Abstinence is very much a counsel of perfection. The sex drive in humans, especially young humans, is very strong, so while abstinence should obviously be advised, it can't be taken for granted and so my thoughts about birth control methods.

[Abbey Marie]

True, but no birth control is perfect, and there has been at least one documented case of a man with a vascectomy impregnating a woman with tied tubes. Gotta decide how much risk you're willing to take.

Dang!

[Hobbit]

Dang!

I wish I had a link, but I heard this from Dr. Ruth, so I'm going to assume it's true.

[diuretic]

I wish I had a link, but I heard this from Dr. Ruth, so I'm going to assume it's true.

Heck it's entirely possible so I'd accept it. Anyway it makes the point - and I think I did take the point.

[shattered]

Do you ever write a post that isnt a personal attack on someone?

No. Her last 6 out of 10 posts are just that.