Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

The Mongols. They didn't pick up the 'heaven' rhetoric until well after Temujin died.

sebster wrote:
Saddam gave moral justification, claiming he was taking recompense for oil stolen from Iraqi fields. I’m going off of memory but I think the Kuwaitis really were stealing the oil, not that that justifies the invasion and subsequent atrocities.

He was also running off the narrative of pan-Arab unity, as an opposing force to both the Soviet Union and the United States, that was left over from Nasser's regional dominance in Egypt.

dogma wrote:The Mongols. They didn't pick up the 'heaven' rhetoric until well after Temujin died.

Ooh, good answer.

He was also running off the narrative of pan-Arab unity, as an opposing force to both the Soviet Union and the United States, that was left over from Nasser's regional dominance in Egypt.

Interesting. Have you got a decent reference for the history of the region? It's something I don't know enough about.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

[sarcasm]Godwin's Law means all the right-wing nutjobs win.[/sarcasm]

Damn.

ungulateman wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

[sarcasm]Godwin's Law means all the right-wing nutjobs win.[/sarcasm]

Damn.

For a second there I thought you'd post that all the right-wing Nazis win. Then the
Internets would explode in a paradox loop.

sebster wrote:
Ooh, good answer.

Thanks. I owe my knowledge to Jack Weatherford, and his book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Good book, and a good man. He was my anthro teacher.

sebster wrote:
Interesting. Have you got a decent reference for the history of the region? It's something I don't know enough about.

For a modern history I would recommend A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleveland.

If you're interested in something more akin to cultural history, then The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years by Bernard Lewis is your book. It basically covers the period from Jesus' birth until now.

Another good read is Islam and the West, also by Lewis. Its basically a middle-finger to Edward Said's Orientalism. Something which I wholeheartedly endorse.

Actually, anything by Lewis is worth a look. His knowledge base, and level of access, is just unbelievably profound.

dogma wrote:Another good read is Islam and the West, also by Lewis. Its basically a middle-finger to Edward Said's Orientalism. Something which I wholeheartedly endorse.

This is both funny and true.

Ahtman wrote:

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

Or suicide.

warpcrafter wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Old Testament.
Jihads that actually caused the crusades
Jihads after the crusade.
WWI from, er, every side.
WWII from, er, every side.
AlQaeda
Oh wait you get the picture.

And of course, the most vicious of all: Coke vs. Pepsi

dogma wrote:


Thanks. I owe my knowledge to Jack Weatherford, and his book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Good book, and a good man. He was my anthro teacher.

I may be reading that now. If so its an excellent book.

Edit: too many quotation marks.

EDIT - answered with edit above.

sexiest_hero wrote:It was a weird way to put things but she meant well I think. Less kids on government programs mean less of a burden to the state. A lot of poorer people can't afford birth control, as can't very young adults.And ir's a lot better than this idea.

"Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metarie wants to pay poor women $1,000 to get sterilized. Why? Because people receiving food and housing assistance "are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated residents." The New Orleans Times-Picayune has the story:

"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

Whaa? Here in Britain, I can nip down the local Family Planning Clinic and get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Sprongs? I prefer the term rugrats, or hooligans myself

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:...get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Without the context of the thread and the first half of your sentence, I'd have no idea what this part meant. Seriously, it's like Romulan or something to me.

Maybe I'm just having a hard time blatwikking your potnuz, yongsurk.

you've havin' a giraffe aint ya ?

it's like last week when we were in the rub. This geezer bowls in-- all sovereigns, flat cap and burberry. Series 5 beamer and 2 fat f^&*s backing him up-- with his rude girls, and he's giving it all this and that, trying to come across as if they're all darlins' on charlie when it's clear to all who aint no dogoodygoody, that they're in fact billyed up at best, p'raps with a few spliffs on them as well.

So they sidle up to this quiet bloke-- stood on his jack jones-- and start makin' out that he's all radio rental. Fair play to the guy, he didn't wait for a mo. Turns and gives the guy a full on proper glasgow kiss and then glassed him right in his mush. Guy knocked straight off his plates, and drops like sack of spuds, pissing claret all down his boat race. Guvenor leans down and picks him up by his king lears and as him apologise for staining his whistle. Then drags him along and throws him out on his khyber.
Honestly it was well weapon.

Honestly, it's simple common sense.

gorgon wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:...get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Without the context of the thread and the first half of your sentence, I'd have no idea what this part meant. Seriously, it's like Romulan or something to me.

Maybe I'm just having a hard time blatwikking your potnuz, yongsurk.

Dunkies are Jizzybags....Sponglefilters....French Letters....Babyblockers....Party Hats...Party Poppers That Pop In The Night...Sheath...Johnnies....Raincoats....Dirtygloves...

And a Sprog is the same as a Saucepan Lid my old China.

You know what, I'm going to dig through my Bitzbox soon for a suitable prize for our Foreign Friends should they manage to successfully translate a special thread I will write. Entries will be accepted via PM only to prevent process of elimination. Think I have all the parts to the Albion Giants. Suitably British prize really for such an endeavour.

So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

reds8n wrote: you've havin' a giraffe aint ya ?

it's like last week when we were in the rub. This geezer bowls in-- all sovereigns, flat cap and burberry. Series 5 beamer and 2 fat f^&*s backing him up-- with his rude girls, and he's giving it all this and that, trying to come across as if they're all darlins' on charlie when it's clear to all who aint no dogoodygoody, that they're in fact billyed up at best, p'raps with a few spliffs on them as well.

So they sidle up to this quiet bloke-- stood on his jack jones-- and start makin' out that he's all radio rental. Fair play to the guy, he didn't wait for a mo. Turns and gives the guy a full on proper glasgow kiss and then glassed him right in his mush. Guy knocked straight off his plates, and drops like sack of spuds, pissing claret all down his boat race. Guvenor leans down and picks him up by his king lears and as him apologise for staining his whistle. Then drags him along and throws him out on his khyber.
Honestly it was well weapon.

Honestly, it's simple common sense.

Oy.

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

If they really are just going at it with such abandon that the government feels it needs to provide contraceptives to stem population growht then I don't know if there is any helping them.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Which is cheaper, birth control pills or foster care/wellfare?

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Yeah, pretty much. Does anybody really think people will stop having sex? Ever? no matter how bad an idea it is? The government pays for the results of people having sex in education, child health care, etc. You're going to pay now or pay later, but if it's cheaper now I say do it.

Yes, it would be wonderful if people that can't afford to raise kids would abstain, but every shred of evidence shows that they don't. Just like economic regulations that completely ignore market forces are doomed to failure, so are social programs that completely ignore human nature.

Has there been any statistical analysis of birth rate by socio-economic class?

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Which is cheaper, birth control pills or foster care/wellfare?

No welfare equals non-issue.

I think it's cheaper to give them birth control as oppssed to a 16 year old dropping out of school to have a kid she's not ready for and can't afford. You can say she made her bed and has to sleep in it, until that bed grows up poor in a single parent family and shoots your family member in an armed robbery later in life. Call it the Uncle Ben syndrome.

Frazzled wrote:

No welfare equals non-issue.

There will always be welfare for children, there's simply no way society will allow children to starve, run around naked, or die of easily treated disease. Even dickensian london spent at least some money on orphanages and workhouses.

EDIT: belay that, I'm just being cranky. Malf stole another one of my socks. Curse you Malf!

Railguns wrote:If they really are just going at it with such abandon that the government feels it needs to provide contraceptives to stem population growht then I don't know if there is any helping them.

Spoken like someone who couldn't get any during their teenage years. An 18 year old with the prospect of getting laid will probably get laid. They don't have to be engaging in intercourse every day all the time. All it takes is that one time because "I LUV U GRL/BOI". Pretending young people don't have sex is ridiculous. It's also not as simple as people rutting around all the time with no control or no one needing birth control at all. Your presenting a false choice dilemma.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Yeah, pretty much. Does anybody really think people will stop having sex? Ever? no matter how bad an idea it is? The government pays for the results of people having sex in education, child health care, etc. You're going to pay now or pay later, but if it's cheaper now I say do it.

Yes, it would be wonderful if people that can't afford to raise kids would abstain, but every shred of evidence shows that they don't. Just like economic regulations that completely ignore market forces are doomed to failure, so are social programs that completely ignore human nature.

I think that birth control is an economic answer, but it is being touted as murder due to association of planned parenthood with abortion.

Less mouths to feed, especially due to people who arent even citizens of this country giving birth here and the citizens paying for the hospital saty.

I think as a citizen, I would rather pay for birth control for the whole population than granting citizenship to people because they had a baby in this country.

This whole thing is blown out of proportion. Silly silly issue. I saw this all last night being debated. Right wingers slinging the whole deal as a moral distress that the libs are trying to make taxpayers pay for abortions.

As said earlier in the thread by Ahtman:
Condoms = Murder?

I'm just spitballing here, but $50 a month can buy plenty of birthcontrol. That's the pill or nuva ring for the ladies, and plenty of condoms for the fellas. That shakes out to $600 a year per person. This is being conservative in my estimate, but let's assume each person gets it for 30 years. That shakes out to $18,000 for each person in the country to prevent unwanted little ones.

What does even one year of public education cost the various levels of government?