Reality isn't always safe for kids either. Why should the net be? This constant dumbing down and treating everyone as errant children is destroying society.
No it doesn't. The law does. If you're not happy, and she's lording it over you, then maybe you should divorce..or leave the country (assuming you're in the west).
What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women? What happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? How about telling women to keep their pants on too?
Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?
It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.
So what happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women?
Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?
It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.
If you go back and read the propaganda distributed by socialists and communists over the years, the patterns leap out. They justify doing this in the name of 'revolution.' Many of them reference the 'two prong' attack as well.
So when the middle class wealth generators realize they can't keep what they've earned and slowly die out, what will motivate the next generation to work their hardest? Why study to become an engineer if you'll be paid the same as a factory laborer in the name of 'social justice'? Where does the future wealth come from? Or are we all supposed to live in love and harmony in a happy unicorn-powered utopia? The soviet union, cuba, and north korea have shown that this repression of individual interest degenerates into state enforced mediocrity where everyone is poor equally, except for the party elite. Places like sweden and denmark suffer a softer fate, where the culture has become so self loathing that it lets anything cross the border unchallenged in the name of 'diversity.' Taxes are high and so is alcoholism. If these two are examples of 'moderate' socialism, I don't see much functional difference.
Capitalism is not the 'temporary use of another class's capital.' It is a system where property is freely bought and sold. 'Borrowing' against the taxpayer's capital is exactly what the socialist solution does for every budget shortfall they hit in their attempts at centralization. They borrow against the taxpayer's future income (with the federal reserve) while increasing their tax burden, burning the individual's capital from both ends. It's criminal.
Probably.. The revolt the socialists have been hoping for. They've already got the 'intelligentsia' lined up on their side (the bloodless pincer) by thoroughly compromising the education system. They'd love it if the lower class would upend the whole thing with violence (the bloody pincer). What better way to upend a once functional society then by setting it against itself, polarizing as much as possible, conflicts between white vs non white, men vs women, straight vs gay, rich vs poor etc. Joe citizen majority in the middle will look at both and run for the hills, abandoning the country. It will be a sad day. I hope I don't live to see it.
The protracted soviet social engineering continues, even with the death of its mother country.
In the states, if mom chooses to have the baby, dad is held financially accountable, even if not married. He can be put in prison until he pays, with interest. Basically, it's debtors prison.
This doesn't address the situation I was talking about. If you're happy with her choice, more power to you. That doesn't mean all men are (or should be forced into it on her whims). If it's ok for women to show up at a club, hook up drunk, and then decide what to do about the consequences, then men should have the same right to do so. Neither party should take advantage of the other.
1. respect is earned, usually by demonstration of responsibility and good judgment. The fact the law allows women to have babies and then use the state to go after 'your gender' for bailouts is unbelievably hypocritical and disrespectful, especially when done under the banner of 'equality.'
2. fatherhood CAN be a positive outcome, but not when it's foisted on unwilling men by politicians with agendas and women who know they can squeeze a paycheck out of him. This is NOT an occasional event. It's what built the ghettos and the welfare system. How do feminists feel about motherhood foisted upon women? Right. It's no different for men. If you care about men, you should care about this. Otherwise, you're crying crocodile tears.
3. Nothing wrong with that, but the real problem is the bias in the law that favors her whims and choices, but leaves him with the responsibility of the outcome. Your view is outdated, from a time when women didn't have post conception choice. It was designed to protect them. Now that she has it, he should have it too. She should have to ask him for support. If he signs the contract (or marriage license), he's liable assuming he's actually the father, and she can now count on his continued support. If he refuses, then she's on her own, and he's got no parental rights. I think women would be a lot more judicial about what guys they sleep with, and whether to have children by them in the first place.
As opposed to the responsibility of realizing you nor daddy have the funds to raise children right now and making the appropriate choice? Feminists hate equality when it's time to take responsibility. Then they want the men to step in and clean up after them.
Well, as long as it's solely "her body, her right, her choice", it should also be solely "her responsibility." At least by default. If she gets him to sign a contract for support (ie marriage), and it is indeed his kid, that's different.
'Educated' people are often the most indoctrinated. Some are smart, maybe, but not out-of-box critical thinkers. They've been in the system the longest. Did you know the term liberal originally referred to the philosophy behind the libertarians before it referred to 'social liberalism'?
Uh, are you kidding? The quake community was ruthless. The trashtalk was rampant, but it did keep the whiners to a minimum. For those of us with skin and spines, it was part of the fun. Today, instead, we have whole communities of easily offended whiners demanding easy buttons.
Your income tax should do that. Property taxes are egregious because they take away your right to own. If you don't pay, the property is confiscated to pay the imagined 'debt' of the unpaid tax.
The huge feminist logo does not inspire confidence in objectivity. Just like I wouldn't buy into a climate change debunk from the heritage foundation, I would not take any claims seriously from feminists. Both parties are interested in finding facts that fit their narratives rather than finding the truth.
So you're still paying rent basically. What happens if you stop paying those taxes? That's the problem with people just starting out now.. There is no job stability and taxes only go up.
Except that a government gains more power, the less it has to listen to individuals. It gets to the point where the individual basically has no voice. He's surrounded by groupthink and kneejerk propaganda designed to polarize that groupthink into alignment with whatever the officials want. The government becomes the enforcer for the 1%. I'd rather the 1% use their own money to try to enslave us rather than our own.
Slashdot Mirror
Reality isn't always safe for kids either. Why should the net be? This constant dumbing down and treating everyone as errant children is destroying society.
I'll sure it'll be crippled.. Like XNA on the 360.
No it doesn't. The law does. If you're not happy, and she's lording it over you, then maybe you should divorce..or leave the country (assuming you're in the west).
Yes, well, her denying you a child is not the same as forcibly taking your money to fund her 'choice.'
What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women? What happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? How about telling women to keep their pants on too?
Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?
It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.
So what happened to equality and personal responsibility for women? Shouldn't she be held accountable for having a kid knowing that she doesn't have the income, yet knowing she can bilk him out of his? What happened to 'social justice' as feminists call it? It only applies to women?
Man up and deal with it? How is that different from telling women to 'woman up and get back in the kitchen'?
It's amazing how people like you cannot see your hypocrisy.
If you go back and read the propaganda distributed by socialists and communists over the years, the patterns leap out. They justify doing this in the name of 'revolution.' Many of them reference the 'two prong' attack as well.
So when the middle class wealth generators realize they can't keep what they've earned and slowly die out, what will motivate the next generation to work their hardest? Why study to become an engineer if you'll be paid the same as a factory laborer in the name of 'social justice'? Where does the future wealth come from? Or are we all supposed to live in love and harmony in a happy unicorn-powered utopia? The soviet union, cuba, and north korea have shown that this repression of individual interest degenerates into state enforced mediocrity where everyone is poor equally, except for the party elite. Places like sweden and denmark suffer a softer fate, where the culture has become so self loathing that it lets anything cross the border unchallenged in the name of 'diversity.' Taxes are high and so is alcoholism. If these two are examples of 'moderate' socialism, I don't see much functional difference.
Capitalism is not the 'temporary use of another class's capital.' It is a system where property is freely bought and sold. 'Borrowing' against the taxpayer's capital is exactly what the socialist solution does for every budget shortfall they hit in their attempts at centralization. They borrow against the taxpayer's future income (with the federal reserve) while increasing their tax burden, burning the individual's capital from both ends. It's criminal.
Probably.. The revolt the socialists have been hoping for. They've already got the 'intelligentsia' lined up on their side (the bloodless pincer) by thoroughly compromising the education system. They'd love it if the lower class would upend the whole thing with violence (the bloody pincer). What better way to upend a once functional society then by setting it against itself, polarizing as much as possible, conflicts between white vs non white, men vs women, straight vs gay, rich vs poor etc. Joe citizen majority in the middle will look at both and run for the hills, abandoning the country. It will be a sad day. I hope I don't live to see it.
The protracted soviet social engineering continues, even with the death of its mother country.
In the states, if mom chooses to have the baby, dad is held financially accountable, even if not married. He can be put in prison until he pays, with interest. Basically, it's debtors prison.
This doesn't address the situation I was talking about. If you're happy with her choice, more power to you. That doesn't mean all men are (or should be forced into it on her whims). If it's ok for women to show up at a club, hook up drunk, and then decide what to do about the consequences, then men should have the same right to do so. Neither party should take advantage of the other.
1. respect is earned, usually by demonstration of responsibility and good judgment. The fact the law allows women to have babies and then use the state to go after 'your gender' for bailouts is unbelievably hypocritical and disrespectful, especially when done under the banner of 'equality.'
2. fatherhood CAN be a positive outcome, but not when it's foisted on unwilling men by politicians with agendas and women who know they can squeeze a paycheck out of him. This is NOT an occasional event. It's what built the ghettos and the welfare system. How do feminists feel about motherhood foisted upon women? Right. It's no different for men. If you care about men, you should care about this. Otherwise, you're crying crocodile tears.
3. Nothing wrong with that, but the real problem is the bias in the law that favors her whims and choices, but leaves him with the responsibility of the outcome. Your view is outdated, from a time when women didn't have post conception choice. It was designed to protect them. Now that she has it, he should have it too. She should have to ask him for support. If he signs the contract (or marriage license), he's liable assuming he's actually the father, and she can now count on his continued support. If he refuses, then she's on her own, and he's got no parental rights. I think women would be a lot more judicial about what guys they sleep with, and whether to have children by them in the first place.
As opposed to the responsibility of realizing you nor daddy have the funds to raise children right now and making the appropriate choice? Feminists hate equality when it's time to take responsibility. Then they want the men to step in and clean up after them.
Just as he should have something to say about having to FUND her indulgent decision for the next 20 years.
Well, as long as it's solely "her body, her right, her choice", it should also be solely "her responsibility." At least by default. If she gets him to sign a contract for support (ie marriage), and it is indeed his kid, that's different.
The People salute you for your commonwealth's stewardship, comrade!
'Educated' people are often the most indoctrinated. Some are smart, maybe, but not out-of-box critical thinkers. They've been in the system the longest. Did you know the term liberal originally referred to the philosophy behind the libertarians before it referred to 'social liberalism'?
Uh, are you kidding? The quake community was ruthless. The trashtalk was rampant, but it did keep the whiners to a minimum. For those of us with skin and spines, it was part of the fun. Today, instead, we have whole communities of easily offended whiners demanding easy buttons.
No thanks. We've seen the marxist empty promises destroy enough lives.
Your income tax should do that. Property taxes are egregious because they take away your right to own. If you don't pay, the property is confiscated to pay the imagined 'debt' of the unpaid tax.
The huge feminist logo does not inspire confidence in objectivity. Just like I wouldn't buy into a climate change debunk from the heritage foundation, I would not take any claims seriously from feminists. Both parties are interested in finding facts that fit their narratives rather than finding the truth.
That's not what he was saying and you know it.
Totalitarians aren't perfect.
Those three governments qualify.
So you're still paying rent basically. What happens if you stop paying those taxes? That's the problem with people just starting out now.. There is no job stability and taxes only go up.
Except that a government gains more power, the less it has to listen to individuals. It gets to the point where the individual basically has no voice. He's surrounded by groupthink and kneejerk propaganda designed to polarize that groupthink into alignment with whatever the officials want. The government becomes the enforcer for the 1%. I'd rather the 1% use their own money to try to enslave us rather than our own.