intelligentchristianlady: intelligentchristianlady: One thing at a time: I gather from your remarks

intelligentchristianlady:intelligentchristianlady:One thing at a time:I gather from your remarks about businesses that we have dropped the subject of employer-provided birth control.I don’t know, have we?Obesity is indeed a serious a problem. So is hunger. My point is not exaggerated. Did you look at any of the articles I linked to? Some facts:One child in five in the US lives in a food-insecure household. Nine percent of food-stamp recipients are black, and 84 percent are white. The average welfare recipient is a white suburban single mother who finds a job and gets off welfare within an average of two years. And food aid benefits the economy: every dollar in food aid generates about $1.70 worth of economic activity.Why do you feel the need to point out the ethnicity of those on welfare? Should I agree with your point because they sunburn easily? I’ve seen studies that show benefits and adverse effects from food stamps. Another thing I’ll say is that some of those facts that you pointed out are opinions pulled from articles. Saying that X number of children are food deficient doesn’t paint a clear picture. What does that really mean? If there body fat percentage lower than normal? And even if you’re completely right about the facts what you’ve stated, are you saying that confiscating wealth from another through threat of force is morally just if spawned from good intentions?You believe that every person should be free to pursue their own destiny without intervention from “the state.” Yet you feel that if a person can no longer provide for their children, that person should not have custody of the children.I was very clear about what I wanted in the first place. People should not have children that they cannot support. Condoms and birth control are commercially available. But it’s merely as simple as not ejaculating into the birth canal of a female within breeding age. And abortion and adoption are perfectly legal if you manage to fail in avoiding simple preventative measures. What will you do with the children? I guess “the state” will have to take them and house them and feed them. Why not leave them where they are and just feed them? Oh, but that would be rewarding irresponsibility.Just leaving them where they are? You mean with the people who failed something as simple as safe sex? By “just feed them” you mean take the earnings of someone else to do so? We’re not rewarding irresponsibility? Those who fail to utilize male condoms, female condoms, dental dams, spermicide, birth control pills, or even the pullout method aren’t irresponsible? And if you still don’t believe me about that, then why is it that the birth rate is higher within individuals with lower IQ’s?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligenceHow about a person who is diagnosed (or has a family member who is diagnosed) with a catastrophic illness? (Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US—including for people who have insurance.) Or how about a person with a good job who loses that job as a result of downsizing; or who has a serious accident that leaves them disabled and unable to work? Is that person irresponsible?You mean to tell me that the overwhelming majority of people on government assistance are disabled? Health care? Turn on your TV to find out how well Obamacare’s working. And it’s funny that you mention unemployment. Remember what I said about business owners having sovereignty over their business? Here’s the unemployment by state (It would appear that heavily regulated states don’t do so well, just saying): http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htmWhen you say “it’s wrong to forcefully confiscate the wealth of others” to help those in need, are you talking about state and federal income tax? Are you against all taxes in general? I’m not against taxes, but merely it’s usage towards those with personal problems. I’m not against welfare, I think that it should be privatized. That way people are helping each other voluntarily, and not through threat of force from the state.http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42#.UnRpH_kVcVwhttp://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statisticsI am trying to understand your position. I think you hold certain opinions that are not factual (e.g; there is not much of a hunger problem in the US; anyone who can’t provide for their children is automatically “irresponsible” and undeserving; welfare and food aid “nurture weakness”). I have demonstrated, I think, that none of these things are true. If you disagree with me, I would like some supported facts rather than opinions.Or never mind all that; let’s cut to the chase: what do you think should be done? How would you solve the very real problem of hunger in the US?What’s my solution for hunger in the United States? I’ll say it one more time just so it’s crystal clear. Personal responsibility. The idea that people should be in charge of their own lives is shocking, right? The best part is that that solution has been there the entire time. But Americans have just gotten so lazy and used to this perversion of a government catering to their every need. If you’re struggling, don’t amplify that struggle by adding children. Work towards a good future, and plan accordingly. And call me crazy, but demanding more spending from a damned near bankrupt federal government isn’t the answer.Oh by the way if weakness is being nurtured then what is this chart showing?http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/food-stamp-usage-up-162-nationally-over.htmlI’ve got a real good feeling that an ad hominem is coming my way. That’s alright, I’ve got a right hook called “libertarianism” to counter that.I am baffled that you think I would stoop to an ad hominem attack. If you have ever glanced at my tumblr, it should be obvious to you that I try very hard to be civil in all my postings. I really believe that everyone is entitled to hold and express their own opinions, whether I agree with them or not.I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that the bottom line in your argument is that people should not have children unless they are a hundred percent sure that they will be able to take care of those children until the children are of age.There are two things I take issue with in this argument: First, very few people are in a position to know what their financial position will be  eighteen-plus years into the future. (None of us know what the global economy will do; none of us even know whether we will still be alive to provide for our families next week.)Second, what do we do about the hungry children NOW?No one can predict their future with guaranteed accuracy. My point wasn’t that people should examine a crystal ball for planning child development. Witnessing unplanned pregnancy first hand for years has taught me that it results from thoughtless actions. This is completely inexcusable because avoiding pregnancy is a very simple task. Rewarding the failure of following simple tasks is why I define it as “nurturing weakness.” When people see that they’re problems will be taken care of by someone else, it only plants encourages  the behavior.What do we do about hungry children now? First and foremost, stop running to the state for help. Today’s “public servants” primary priority is re-election for their own interests. Previously, I had shown the annual charitable donations in the U.S. Throughout the years it has grown dramatically. Hundreds of billions of dollars are donated in the U.S. every year. Privatization of welfare is more possible now than ever before. Getting up and actually helping people is the solution, and the best part is, it’s been there the whole time.“It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint." -Penn Jilette -- source link

More pics about