It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Well there's your contradiction. The benefit of America IS that the law of the land is overly simplified. Why is that bad?


It is not. There are countless laws, restrictions and regulations, and people study the law in universities for years. It is a complicated and huge system.




Objective wrongs include murder. But under the right subjectivity, murder becomes not wrong. Objectively it is still wrong. But murdering, say, a rapist, is most certainly not wrong from a subjective point.


There is no objective wrong, even laws against murder are a product of society we live in.




Actually it's quite universal. Animals breed by their will, no other animal comes in and says "sorry, no you can't. I think you're baby lamb might be chased by wolves. You're not responsible enough to have that kid."


Animals also have no laws against murder. We are homo sapiens, and what happens in nature among other animals is largely irrelevant to our human morality, IMHO. Animals also eat their offspring.
Again, naturalistic fallacy - implication that natural=good, artificial=bad.




And like I said, benefit of not believing in morals is that immorality doesn't exist either.


But you and I do believe in our subjective morals. Therefore we do have our subjective immorality, which does exist. Laws and rights are derived from morality.



But then again, Driving isn't a right, its a privilege.


So is procreation, according to my morality.




And that's why I don't believe in such laws. Also you are mixing right with mandatory there.


Then I believe you are a very immoral person.



Sucks to be the kid in a bad home. But that doesn't give someone the right to take them away.


Yes, it does.


Sucks to be raped. But that doesn't give someone the right to save them.

Where is the distinction? Harm is harm. Why do you think one kind of harm is acceptable but the other is not? You are not consistent.



Not really. We have our own evolution, as unnatural as it is.


And if we choose that population control will be part of our unnatural evolution, it will be. Again, there is absolutely no correlation between natural/unnatural and good/bad.



it's not based off morality. That's why it makes quite good sense to those not bound to morals.


It is indeed based on your subjective morality, and there are millions of people that would disagree with it.




I'm not an anarchist. I just believe government is a necessary evil and it's only purpose of existence is shooting the person who tries to extend his rights over beyond himself. That includes the government itself. It's not so black and white like you put it. There is another way to look at it.


One of these basic rights that government needs to protect is right of a person to be brought into this world under good material and social conditions, and controlling the population in accordance with available usable resources. There are many ways to look at it, and there is no objective or logical reason why your way should be the right way.


edit on 3/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





It is not. There are countless laws, restrictions and regulations, and people study the law in universities for years. It is a complicated and huge system.


So now you see the problem.




There is no objective wrong, even laws against murder are a product of society we live in.


That is the product of a failed post-modern generation.




Animals also have no laws against murder. We are homo sapiens, and what happens in nature among other animals is largely irrelevant to our human morality, IMHO. Animals also eat their offspring. Again, naturalistic fallacy - implication that natural=good, artificial=bad.


Actually it just shows the way we operate. We are to be better than them, for we got here. Not subscribe to the same methods for our own. That said, they have something that we don't. A lack of "the man".




But you and I do believe in our subjective morals. Therefore we do have our subjective immorality, which does exist. Laws and rights are derived from morality.


I'd like to think that, but the cold hard fact is I'd do whatever I want to, irrelevant of the law, when it came down to it. Most people would probably.




So is procreation, according to my morality.


A morality which has been shown to be primitive because it assumes. It is premeditated, and assumes too much. It is flawed because it is not objective. Assumption is, by definition, subjective.




Then I believe you are a very immoral person.


Immorality, as in lack of morals? Thanks, I know.




Yes, it does. Sucks to be raped. But that doesn't give someone the right to save them. Where is the distinction? Harm is harm. Why do you think one kind of harm is acceptable but the other is not? You are not consistent.


Simple. Due to my lack of morality I'd break my own law and shoot the rapist. Not being consistent is a benefit of not being bound to any morals. It's really useful at times.

But we're talking about government and law here. Even simpler. We're not assuming a rapist before he acts. We are punishing a rapist for his actions. In context to your own so-called morality, you would have us punish the parent and assume their child would grow up to be a rapist, even though we really don't know. But hey, you're morality has to be right, right?




And if we choose that population control will be part of our unnatural evolution, it will be. Again, there is absolutely no correlation between natural/unnatural and good/bad.


I'd argue that the act of having a kid is certainly more in tune with 3.5 billion years of evolution versus not.

Oh but that probably means saying we should be better than animals seems like a contradiction right? What's wrong with a little contradiction here and there if you're free?




It is indeed based on your subjective morality, and there are millions of people that would disagree with it.


That's nice for them. Again, benefit of not living under, nor being forced to live under, any moral code. They cna believe what they want, and live under it by their will. but they have no right to enforce their morality onto me. I will, like most Americans, defend my free way of life. Again, take your morality and leave it at the door. We are free men here.




One of these basic rights that government needs to protect is right of a person to be brought into this world under good material and social conditions


This is subjective. Governments cannot define what is good condition, as the human race has no definition for it that is universal.




and controlling the population in accordance with available usable resources.


Thanks fuhrer, I'm sure the people would love to shut up and follow orders.




There are many ways to look at it, and there is no objective or logical reason why your way should be the right way.


Yes there is. Lacking a government action is the only objective way, because inaction in a subject is, by definition, a lack of objection and subjection. Naturally, it's objective in this case. let people lead their children as they will. If a kid ends up dead and the parent tries to hide it, that parent shoot be arrested or killed due to their failures. Clearly the kid did not end up in a good place.

This is the difference. You would act preemptively, this being subjective. I would act after the event, this being objective because it assumes nothing. The corpse is right there for cold hard facts of the parents failure. For you, who knows. Maybe that kid that had a father that beat him every day grew up to cure cancer. Too bad, you're subjective preemptive strike against his father extinguished that possibility. Premeditated action is always subjective. Not assuming is objective. You are assuming.
edit on 3-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I don't see the problem with this.
1) You don't need to have 5 kids
2) People who have a lot of kids, are often poorer (don't have any evidence for this, just basing this on what i've seen)
3) More kids, more responsibility, more chances that one of the kids will be jealous of not receiving enough attention, and later in life suffer from this, or continue a life of aggressiveness to get attention.
4) Do you really need 5 kids? 1 is enough.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





So now you see the problem.


Reality is complicated. I am no fan of too much bureaucracy, tough, but also not too little, as is the situation currently with reproduction anarchy.



I'd like to think that, but the cold hard fact is I'd do whatever I want to, irrelevant of the law, when it came down to it. Most people would probably.


You are underestimating the power of the state to enforce the laws, and overestimating the stubborness of an average citizen, particularly when it comes to relatively unintrusive reproduction control. The state does not take significant portion of GDP just for the heck of it. Most people would conform to population control policy, and those that would not could be easily dealt with. The policy is widely supported by people in China.




A morality which has been shown to be primitive because it assumes. It is premeditated, and assumes too much. It is flawed because it is not objective. Assumption is, by definition, subjective.


There is less assumption than there is with driving licence laws. Those who cannot take care even of themselves should not have children at the expense of the child or the society. I dont see any primitivism or assumptions in this.




Immorality, as in lack of morals? Thanks, I know.


Thats nothing to be proud of.




Simple. Due to my lack of morality I'd break my own law and shoot the rapist. Not being consistent is a benefit of not being bound to any morals. It's really useful at times.


Indeed it is. Like when Hitler gassed those jews.




But we're talking about government and law here. Even simpler. We're not assuming a rapist before he acts. We are punishing a rapist for his actions. In context to your own so-called morality, you would have us punish the parent and assume their child would grow up to be a rapist, even though we really don't know. But hey, you're morality has to be right, right?


Prevention of crime, endangerment, material expenses or other bad things is a basic role of laws and government, not just punishing after some crime happens. There are countless laws like that. And no, population control is not punishment, in the same sense that not allowing someone without licence to drive is not punishment. It is a preventive regulation.




Oh but that probably means saying we should be better than animals seems like a contradiction right? What's wrong with a little contradiction here and there if you're free?


You are free to contradict yourself as much as you want, but dont be surprised when your arguments wont make much sense, then..





That's nice for them. Again, benefit of not living under, nor being forced to live under, any moral code. They cna believe what they want, and live under it by their will. but they have no right to enforce their morality onto me. I will, like most Americans, defend my free way of life. Again, take your morality and leave it at the door. We are free men here.


You already live under an enforced moral code, you are not free. The only thing that is keeping you from being forced to live under moral code with population control is that politics took some other way in the past.




This is subjective. Governments cannot define what is good condition, as the human race has no definition for it that is universal.


I fail to see why this is an issue. Laws are full of such things. Also, it is not very subjective when we make a few assumptions about what conditions a child should grow up under. For example, earning an income sufficient to raise child on or at least not being unemployed would be a good start.




Thanks fuhrer, I'm sure the people would love to shut up and follow orders.


They indeed do, even more if the orders make some sense, such as population control.




Yes there is. Lacking a government action is the only objective way, because inaction in a subject is, by definition, a lack of objection and subjection. Naturally, it's objective in this case.


I dont see why inaction should be somehow objective. Also, I fail to see why total objectivity is required.




This is the difference. You would act preemptively, this being subjective. I would act after the event, this being objective because it assumes nothing. The corpse is right there for cold hard facts of the parents failure. For you, who knows. Maybe that kid that had a father that beat him every day grew up to cure cancer. Too bad, you're subjective preemptive strike against his father extinguished that possibility. Premeditated action is always subjective. Not assuming is objective. You are assuming.


We can assume many things with very good accuracy. Not assuming is also often too late. You would have lots of unnecessary corpses if the laws were based on this strange logic. Luckily, they are not.


edit on 3/7/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





Reality is complicated. I am no fan of too much bureaucracy, tough, but also not too little, as is the situation currently with reproduction anarchy.


Reproduction anarchy? That sounds awesome. You should learn, governments are only needed where the majority of people need protection from the minority or vice versa. Considering there really isn't any need for protection in terms of reproduction... unless of course, you're one of those ultra-isolationism freaks who hates diversity.... otherwise, it's just another place government is unwelcome.




You are underestimating the power of the state to enforce the laws, and overestimating the stubborness of an average citizen, particularly when it comes to relatively unintrusive reproduction control. The state does not take significant portion of GDP just for the heck of it. Most people would conform to population control policy, and those that would not could be easily dealt with. The policy is widely supported by people in China.


mien fuhrer, China doesn't have any history of freedom, nor diversity of opinion, nor respect for nay sayers. Why do you think China is so desperately trying to prevent news of the Arab revolt from getting in? China has a long long long long history of conformity. America does not. Do not try to take the conformity of a conformity culture and apply it to a revolutionary one. This, for your information, is what leads to governments failing.

Simply put, my dear fuhrer, Revolutions are lead against forced conformity in places where conformity is not part of the culture.




There is less assumption than there is with driving licence laws. Those who cannot take care even of themselves should not have children at the expense of the child or the society. I dont see any primitivism or assumptions in this.


Then you're ignorant of your own terms. "taking care of themselves" is a subjective term. Many would call being poor, and nothing else, as irresponsible. But that doesn't make it true.

Do tell, what exactly is irresponsible. Or are you just disgusted by the poor and don't want to see more poor people? because really, that's what I'm getting from you.




Thats nothing to be proud of.


It is too me. Get used it it, God forbid another opinion be presented.




Indeed it is. Like when Hitler gassed those jews.


yes, He did do that. But I wouldn't. Ergo your point is baseless.




Prevention of crime, endangerment, material expenses or other bad things is a basic role of laws and government, not just punishing after some crime happens. There are countless laws like that. And no, population control is not punishment, in the same sense that not allowing someone without licence to drive is not punishment. It is a preventive regulation.


This is from your opinion, but simply not true universally. And while true with drivers license, It's not true with people having kids. People who don't know how to drive kill people a lot more often than people who don't know how to parent.

In addition, you are punishing. You are punishing people for their state of existence. This is called fascism, as well as imperialism. It's never worked. Now you can dream, oh dear fuhrer, that it will work. But right now I don't see many people coming to your rescue. Crime prevention is not crime prediction. The same reason why we do not make laws based off assumptions, nor make laws based off prediction. This is not a dark-ages castle. This is a modern free state. Prevention is not precognition, which is what you are talking about, and as of now is impossible.




You are free to contradict yourself as much as you want, but dont be surprised when your arguments wont make much sense, then..


makes sense to those who want freedom and the state gone.




You already live under an enforced moral code, you are not free. The only thing that is keeping you from being forced to live under moral code with population control is that politics took some other way in the past.


No, I am free. I am not forced to live under any moral code. People can only say I am wrong, they cannot force me to abide to their morals. Government is just an agreement not to shoot someone because they are shooting the bad guys. That is not what you are going for. You are going for governments punishing people for their state of existence. Something that goes by many names, such as imperialism, fascism, etc etc.




I fail to see why this is an issue. Laws are full of such things. Also, it is not very subjective when we make a few assumptions about what conditions a child should grow up under. For example, earning an income sufficient to raise child on or at least not being unemployed would be a good start.


Ah, and there we have it. You hate the poor.




They indeed do, even more if the orders make some sense, such as population control.


Do explain how you will make 300,000,000 people, each grown up with ultra-individualism ideals, go along with the government. See it works in China because there the culture says shut up and follow orders. Here the culture is "f the man" Do us all a favor and take a stroll through the inner city and tell me how you'll make them follow your orders. Do us all a favor and take a stroll to the farmlands of America where every person has a gun and will not listen to the government. Do us all a favor and try and find places like that in china.




I dont see why inaction should be somehow objective. Also, I fail to see why total objectivity is required.


because humans are flawed, and subjectivity is therefore not logical, because logic is perfection, and objective. Because inaction, at least in this case (don't mix straws) is objective. You don't assume.



We can assume many things with very good accuracy. Not assuming is also often too late. You would have lots of unnecessary corpses if the laws were based on this strange logic. Luckily, they are not.


A thousand bodies is worth one man's freedom. A thousand Hitlers is work one Einstein. And just one good person brought out of a home you would classify as unworthy of reproduction is worth the 1000 worthless bums that come out elsewhere.

If just one child comes out good from a bad parenting, the law is... how would you put it... Immoral. Such disgust in that word.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by thedeadwalkk
 





1) You don't need to have 5 kids


You have the right to. It really doesn't matter what you think.




2) People who have a lot of kids, are often poorer (don't have any evidence for this, just basing this on what i've seen)


poverty doesn't make you bad.




3) More kids, more responsibility, more chances that one of the kids will be jealous of not receiving enough attention, and later in life suffer from this, or continue a life of aggressiveness to get attention.


And just as much a chance the kid doesn't get any love, and learns their parents cannot give it, so he goes out and finds good people to be their parents and becomes successful. If this happens just once, your idea is wrong and assumptive.




4) Do you really need 5 kids? 1 is enough.


need doesn't define worth nor purpose of existence. Does the Earth really need humanity?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I see the men are still arguing if they own women's uteruses outright, or via proxy of the government.

Either way, you still all suck.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


You're right, if you are not going to train your children to be responsible, it would be best to not have many and possibly not have any. Otherwise, for someone to determine having less children as "better," they must be ignoring the factors that go into what qualities make up productive and responsible people.

I would rather live with 10 responsible people than 1 idiot.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


This guy is trying to restrict freedom of choice on how many kids one can have? Really? From a guy who has 4 kids? I myself have one child. I love my son, he is my world, but I'm done with having more children. I have my reasons. Like, doing it right takes a lot of time and energy for one kid and I don't want to do it with more; plus we have population boom problems; and this world is pretty f'd up, I can't bare to bring more people into this world to suffer. Those are my reasons to not have anymore kids, but other people may have plenty of reason to have more than one and that is their right to chose!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Agreed!



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


If a person leases out their land for co-development, the lan dis not their's 100% anymore.

I know, sounds really lame. But honestly, Two people who will themselves to have sex use each other's body parts. You are "leasing out" for pleasure basically. That goes for both genders. When a life is the result of this leasing out, that life has rights, separate of both parents.

And... Just for the record. I know a lot of women who would agree that what I just said is both responsible, and in terms of the life itself that is the result, scientifically factual.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


My uterus isn't on lease, no matter how many times or how many ways one tries to make me into chattel. No matter how many cultures, no matter how many religions, the "I Licked It It Is Mine" defense still blows goats.

I can fix this problem in the exact same way with far less overall impact socially.

All males are given a vasectomy at birth - replace circumcision with the mandatory vas.

Then, all these problems will be solved. The male testicles become public property, and only when a man is given his breeding license is he allowed to go to a doctor and have it undone.

All these problems are solved. Only YOUR reproductive organs get to be public property instead. But it solves WAY more social problems overall, so it is the much better solution.
edit on 2011/7/4 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Well technically no, it's not the guys. It's The baby's home. The organ itself serves no other purpose, except for a few redundant hormone techniques.

I don't know. I don't mean to be intrusive. I'd probably be the first guy to volunteerism to bioengineer so a kid could get born from me. Yea it would hurt like a mofo, but hell, why not.

I don't mean to insult you, but your mentality is no different than when a kid cries from the loss of his first bogers. It's just an organ. Not your intelligence nor much else. When two people decide to have sex and life comes about, the organ serves a purpose of the life that comes about. It's honestly no different than how a male anglerfish puts its entire body on lease for the female to breed from. Only in our case evolution chose to not sacrifice a life for reproduction. If we were angler fish, one would logically say that once two people decide to have sex, the male forfeits his own life for the sake of the new life.

That would suck. But that's simple scientific fact.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Of course this has significant consequences. The day we can scientifically prove that we can breed a child from Embryo to birth without the need of mother or father, we invent a legal basis to ban natural child birth. I mean, it solves all the problems.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I see you utterly failed to address my complete and absolutely perfect solution, which solves more problems, causes fewer heart aches, addresses social problems, and maintains family ties in completely traceable and responsible way.

Making women into a possession is MUCH messier.

All males get docked at birth. No more problems with rape babies. No more "non-paterity events," all preganancy must be planned, registered, and contractual obligations in place.

It is neat, and complete. It addresses ALL of your problems, and then some.

It is FAR more manageable. Much easier to institute and regulate. It removes the usual problematic biological contributor to born citizens from birth to adulthood.

And it makes your balls my property.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Have you seen the people that are breeding? Have you noticed how dumb people are getting?

I'm not all that sure its a bad idea to be spreading. I saw recently that India is offering people a new car in exchange for sterilization.

People should get something for it. Its only fair


But it should be a choice not, something that is forced on us.

Al Gore is scum!
edit on 06/28/2011 by IKTOMI because: it needed it.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
All males are given a vasectomy at birth - replace circumcision with the mandatory vas.

Then, all these problems will be solved. The male testicles become public property, and only when a man is given his breeding license is he allowed to go to a doctor and have it undone.

All these problems are solved. Only YOUR reproductive organs get to be public property instead. But it solves WAY more social problems overall, so it is the much better solution.


Absolutely Brilliant!

But - Men give up something?



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by IKTOMI
But it should be a choice not, something that is forced on us.



There is a time when force becomes necessary.

Idealism - - is a nice word - - not much else.

Personally - I kind of like Gore.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons
All males are given a vasectomy at birth - replace circumcision with the mandatory vas.

Then, all these problems will be solved. The male testicles become public property, and only when a man is given his breeding license is he allowed to go to a doctor and have it undone.

All these problems are solved. Only YOUR reproductive organs get to be public property instead. But it solves WAY more social problems overall, so it is the much better solution.


Absolutely Brilliant!

But - Men give up something?





I would probably try and kill someone who tried to give my son a vasectomy at birth with about the same vehemence I'm defending my daugthers from these idiots who think that making my daughters and granddaughter and greatgranddaughters into property is a good idea. When I think about these people trying to force my daugters to act as if they are strips of land because they have some retarded view as to their "place" .....


But all the same. My solution is far neater, and better. And it absolutely proves, again, that these men's concerns about population are absolute BUNK. They don't give a carp about population control. This is just another argument to try and make themselves into Lord and Masters.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by IKTOMI
But it should be a choice not, something that is forced on us.



There is a time when force becomes necessary.

Idealism - - is a nice word - - not much else.

Personally - I kind of like Gore.


Be that as it may I like the idea of liberty and freedom, a hopeless romantic I suppose but hey what can ye do?

Al Gore is as like able as a broken brick that is possessed by a demon.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


ah, so just take one evil and make it the opposite evil?

Yea no thanks. The easiest solution is to kick the government out and let people manage themselves. If they fail, they bare the consequences. Should someone attempt rape, shoot em. Problem solved.

How about you just get your pompousness out of other people's balls, as you yourself put it? Make no one property, Make life absolute. Forget religion, forget culture, forget superiority complexes, which you clearly display.


I fail to see how making life a right gives anyone the nay say? If your a guy and don't want kids, either wear protection or cut it off honestly. If your a girl and don't want kids, same thing. That's fair.
edit on 4-7-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)







 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join