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.

 thekingofkings wrote:

For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Next fake outrage talking point please.

I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.

For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.

Why do you get to draw the line at this particular thing? Can I declare that I don't want to pay for your broken arm to be fixed properly? After all, you have two and it will probably heal mostly right on its own. I shouldn't have to pay for your luxuries, especially when you probably broke it doing something stupid. Personal responsibility and accepting consequences and all...

 Wolfblade wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.

Roads we all use, utilities we all use, someones personal sex life is their business not mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why the are we talking about sex as if it's some kind of crime that people need to accept the punishment for? Why is "responsibility" so important that not having a kid is unacceptable? Who cares if people are using abortion as birth control, we're talking about a blob of cells with no functioning brain and less moral value than the cockroach all of us would not hesitate a moment to kill for our convenience.

For me its more " I am not willing to pay for someone elses condoms and I am not willing to pay for someone elses abortions". I dont personally agree with abortion, but I dont believe we should legislate morality either, its too subjective. BUT if someone is using it for their birth control, they should pay for it themselves.

Why do you get to draw the line at this particular thing? Can I declare that I don't want to pay for your broken arm to be fixed properly? After all, you have two and it will probably heal mostly right on its own. I shouldn't have to pay for your luxuries, especially when you probably broke it doing something stupid. Personal responsibility and accepting consequences and all...

You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

Hmmm, so by that argument all of the people without children should be exempt from paying taxes that fund education, child healthcare, etc. You chose to have children, so it’s your responsibility.

Or you recognise that educated and healthy children are essential to society. In the same way that NOT having unwanted (and potentially neglected) children is.

So, in this magical world of yours thekingofkings, what happens when the parent gives the child up? Does not want it? Who pays for that?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I would rather pay for someone else's abortions/condoms/whatever than pay for someone's children. Even 18 years of condoms is stupid cheaper than 18 years of paying for a human being to exist.

I have no intention of paying for that either, thats for the parents. The argument about responsibility should be that birth control is the individuals responsibility. and just because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_V-5syG_YA

Unfortunately, as a society, we sometimes have to do things we don't like, such as paying for roads we don't use (or birth control for others I guess). It's how society works. Everyone chips in to lessen the cost. The "I got mine so feth everyone else" mindset is harmful to everyone.

Roads we all use, utilities we all use, someones personal sex life is their business not mine.

Ah, keyword WE. WE as a society pay for the roads, WE as a society pay for fire fighters, or police, or public schools.

You cannot tell me you get daily use out of every road in the entire state (even in a single year), or the police, or fire fighters, or public schools, or national park, or every single thing paid for by taxes, and yet, you're still required to pay for them (even if you have no kids) and thus should be subject to the "I don't need it so I shouldn't have to pay for it," right?

And actually you DO pay for others broken arms based on how insurance works. People buy it, not everyone ends up having to use it meaning that large portion of your bill that gets paid is paid by others also buying the same insurance. I mean, surely you don't think that ~$100 per month (based on what I'm currently paying through a plan at work, I dunno what you're paying) will cover that $100,000 medical visit by itself right? (Again, based on what it cost to remove some kidney stones for a couple night stay + the actual operation). That's just how insurance works. Everyone pays into it, a few get actual use from it. The mind set of "I got mine so feth everyone else" is what is holding the US back from the rest of the world when it comes to basic things like healthcare, or education beyond high school.

(I'll also ignore "You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it" even though that's not always true.)

tneva82 wrote:

Actually earth is already overpopulated so we would need LESS humans.

The planet is not overpopulated, it's just that the rich parts plunder the rest of the planet of resources at rates that are lethal.

 thekingofkings wrote:
but I dont believe we should legislate morality either

Well, in all fairness, it's only led to much worse things 100% of the times it's been tried in the last 100 years.

The purpose of the law is to embody codes of social morality into a format that can be administered fairly and with justice.

Rosebuddy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Actually earth is already overpopulated so we would need LESS humans.

The planet is not overpopulated, it's just that the rich parts plunder the rest of the planet of resources at rates that are lethal.

I like having a high standard of living so to me few humans, lots of resources to go around is better than lots of people everyone under the poverty line, keep in mind if everyone was given equal wealth we would all be making $9000 a year. Just because we can have more people doesn't

mean we should, I mean how many more cars do you want to see on the road?

Respect existence or expect resistance.

 Jadenim wrote:
Hmmm, so by that argument all of the people without children should be exempt from paying taxes that fund education, child healthcare, etc. You chose to have children, so it’s your responsibility.

Or you recognise that educated and healthy children are essential to society. In the same way that NOT having unwanted (and potentially neglected) children is.

Look up some of the Libertarians - that is, in point of fact, one of their arguments.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, in California - Patrick Little: Would-be Republican candidate for Senate, ant-Semite, and fan of Adolph Hitler.

Topping the polls of the Republican primaries last week - denounced by the GOP, who really don't want another Roy Moore..

The Auld Grump - Maine had a white supremacist as town manager in Jackman - ousted as soon as the town council found out he was planning on a Whites Only Enclave'.... Let's Make America Great Again - Elect the KKK!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of the law is to embody codes of social morality into a format that can be administered fairly and with justice.

Totally wrong. Law exists to preserve the status quo. If you're looking for Justice, you're looking in the wrong place. Under US law you can kill thousands and only be forced to pay a fine. If you don't believe me, I direct you to the Environmental Protection Agency.

It also works for the wealthy. After all, rich companies can sue under the law to prevent copyright holders from suing companies for violating their copyrights. But if the average citizen downloads an MP3, they can expect RIAA calling.

So, no, law is not justice and has nothing to do with morality. And fairly and justly went the way of Fair and Balanced a long time ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Respect existence or expect resistance.

Good luck after we've drugged and poisoned so many that it won't matter if they resist.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of the law is to embody codes of social morality into a format that can be administered fairly and with justice.

Totally wrong. Law exists to preserve the status quo. If you're looking for Justice, you're looking in the wrong place.

Not trying to speak for Killcrazy but I believe he's speaking of the idealized purpose of laws. Not what they corrupted to be actually used for.

Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.

 thekingofkings wrote:

You dont, I pay for insurance, if you want me to stay out of your bedroom, stay out of my pocket. Medical insurance is not the same thing. You choose to have sex, so be responsible about it.

This is quite moronic, really. . . . Fething insurance is quite literally other people paying. . . it's a risk POOL with many people in it. What if you and Peregrine have the same insurance company?? You're paying for someone else's gonorrhea while that person is paying for your broken arm. It's how risk pools work.

You pretty much blew up your own damn argument.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Since there are a lot of California haters on the board, I just wanted to point out that we are now the world's 5th largest economy, with a third consecutive year of phenomenal job growth.

And still the highest poverty rate of the nation with one in five being being poor and a quarter of the nations homeless.

I wonder who in particular is getting the economic growth in particular given it seems it's not trickling down well enough to those in need.

But I am glad to see a state doing quite well for itself otherwise, seeing as it managed to surpass the UK on the list.

I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

 skyth wrote:
I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

This. . . On the whole, homelessness has been going down the past 5 years consecutively. Strangely, while the overall numbers are "improving" the homelessness numbers among the populace who are also veterans is increasing. In this case, the 1 in 4 number is correct, and getting worse seemingly every day. . . As in, 25% of the homeless population are veterans of the military.

 skyth wrote:
I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

Didn't you know 134,000 people is 25 percent of California's population

Yep. Rate is 34 in 10,000 with Hawaii and New York having higher homelessness rates. I rate that post as 'pants on fire'.

 skyth wrote:
I seriously doubt that 25% of California's population is homeless.

It’s 0.36%.

And the poverty rate is ~16%, ranked 16th highest amongst the states.

California has 25% of the total US homeless population, according to politifact.

I'm guessing that caised the confusion.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
California has 25% of the total US homeless population, according to politifact.

I'm guessing that caised the confusion.

That it did, my mistake!

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
California has 25% of the total US homeless population, according to politifact.

I'm guessing that caised the confusion.

Apparently the other 'facts' were pants on fire as well though. I'm not giving this one the benefit of the doubt.

Well, the mods have declared this thread over, now, as apparently 'Gun Control' must be discussed in 'US Politics'. This is both insulting to those countries that also have this debate, as well as clearly engineered to close this thread, because it's been too civilized for too long.

 skyth wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
California has 25% of the total US homeless population, according to politifact.

I'm guessing that caised the confusion.

Apparently the other 'facts' were pants on fire as well though. I'm not giving this one the benefit of the doubt.

Well you can call me a liar if you want, but I confused the general wording with things for that one, but if I am wrong on the other could you show me if I made a mistake? I'd love to be able to get my facts straight.