Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The root problem is tribalism (and by the way, statistics are all a lie) The root problem is tribalism (and by the way, statistics are all a lie)

11-26-2017 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
I agree it sounds obnoxious to assert your superiority, but i didn't start the poo flinging. He claimed that smart people don't think like me - that he has the intellectual high ground. This begs the question - by what metric? I agree there're a lot of intelligent people on 2+2. He's not an idiot either. He's just delusional.


Gender segregation is built into how we manage prisons. It's not the sole reason why we split the genders as we do, but do i really need to dig up journals from the outset of the penal system where legal scholars were pondering how to manage affairs to show you that convicted felons reproducing is seen as undesirable?

Right now what they do is even more barbaric by teh standards of this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compul...#United_States



Phew! at least he managed to have 7 before the evil government stepped in and demanded that he undergo that quick, painless, barbaric procedure.
You don't have to fling poo back.

I would love to read journals from the 'outset of the penal system' from 10,000+ years ago.

That wiki link discusses the period from 1890 to 1920. Let's try something more current that I've obviously missed.

'Demanded' is the wrong word. The quote says it was part of a plea deal so it's his business.

But nm all of that. There aren't enough words to describe how absurd your suggestion of gender segregation of the poor to end the cycle of poverty is. You must define 'poor' which is not as easy as it sounds bec people may have the support of extended family structures. They may make a go of it w/ various charitable enterprises such as food banks. You can't simply point to raw dollars as the measure of whether or not someone can raise children. You would be better off trying to grade potential parents on a responsibility spectrum: Will they be good parents or not? Good luck w/ that, btw, every single state has a problem w/ that which is why so many have to rename their child protective service agencies in the face of scandal which is just what my home state of Arizona did a couple of years ago. IOW, it's tough to say who may or may not be a good parent. Sure, a couple of addicts would be bad parents but it's usually not very clear cut.

And then there's the pesky Constitution which would not allow your proposal at all. It's entirely laughable that anyone outside of a (Oh, dear, I'm not allowed to say it), uh, unreasonable person would even bring it up.
11-26-2017 , 11:11 PM
You guys should just debate the merits and drawbacks of existing policy such as the Chinese one/two child policy. You might actually find yourself agreeing more than you think.

The devil is in the detail and when the details are undefined, people start arguments from a nebulous yet dogmatic basis that never leads anywhere.
11-26-2017 , 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
Ahh, so maturity is where your edge comes from! The same maturity that has you suggesting people are stupid because they disagree with you and swearing in anger? And you think MY feelings are hurt?
This dude is endorsing putting undesirables in a ****ing concentration camp and he's whining about seeing asterisks online, lol.

Yeah, man, your feelings are hurt. Real hurt. You thought you might get gasps at the boldness and clarity of your thoughts, you didn't expect mockery at how you're just plain ole dumb.

Quote:
I'm not even the one trying to assert myself as being superior though. You're the one who said I'm an idiot and that "smart" people don't think like me. Well - I'm telling you, I'd be above average at all elite schools by the metrics they use to judge a persons academic aptitude, and I've spent years of my life studying this subject matter. What makes you think you'd have a better grip on what smart people think? Feel free to respond in a series of grunts and swear words if it help you get your anger out.
Again. Literal concentration camps.

Quote:
It depends on why they're there. If they were, as someone used as an example, a couple who had a child, was complying with the law for many years and then fell on hard times -i see no reason why they wouldn't be free to go as they please. If you're talking about a teenage mother who can't even identify the father and has a severe case of ADD and oppositional defiant disorder, then of course you don't let them mingle with the local studs. Every case is different. You judge the risk factors and you put them in a housing complex that has an appropriate level of security.
Or, in the alternative, we do none of that ****. Who the **** do you imagine is the audience for you eagerly writing dystopia fan fiction?

Before you go on with another paragraph long screed about the proper care and breeding controls of the untouchable caste I would call up your mom real quick and ask her how long she cried when the doctor told her about you missing those developmental milestones.
11-26-2017 , 11:15 PM
Everyone likes to noodle around and daydream about what they would do if they were King For a Day but this dude literally whipped up a fantasy where he's the villain. Jesus Christ.
11-26-2017 , 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I mean, I think the principal objection to your ideas are moral. I'm not sure any academic credentials would move the needle much for me. And I like me some academics, don't get me wrong.

The other objections are just that whatever problems you're trying to solve can be adequately addressed through less authoritarian and inhumane means.

Anyway, I'm not one of those academic experts, but unless I've missed it I haven't seen anything about forced sterilization in any of the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality magazines I'm subscribed to, so I'm a little dubious about the claim that there is some academic consensus on this.
There isn't academic consensus on this. Neither will there ever be. It's a touchy subject that's pretty polarizing. There're people on both sides with strong opinions.

Humor me, though, in what sense are your objections moral? Do you think that there are some liberties that we extend to people for which there's NO price that we can put on it, where no matter what the consequences are that we need to guarantee it to them? I don't think you believe that. You just think that there are "better" ways to do it.

And I wouldn't disagree that there are ways to suss out poverty that are less direct. I just think they're significantly more costly, slower to take root and have a variety of undesirable side effects - which isn't really contentious if you're being honest; an honest person may just disagree about the severity of the side effects or how MUCH longer it would take to reduce poverty.

That makes a big difference if we're talking about, not years, but generations of suffering to get to that end state. You have to be able to put a price on how much "value" there is in offering unstable/incompetent people these liberties. The people who are baring the consequences of it are the people who are living in poverty, and the way the wind is blowing, you'd be lucky to retain even half of what was previously being spent by 2020.

Quote:
Sure, some people who probably would be better off not having kids do so intentionally. But as far as there is a social problem worth trying to address through government intervention the evidence I've seen (not that I've taken a lot of time on this question) suggests that you could focus on making it easier for people who don't want to have kids to avoid having them and accomplish much of what you want without the moral problems.
I dont think anyone here disagrees with making contraception widely available and affordable enough that no one has to think twice about using it. These points aren't mutually exclusive.
11-26-2017 , 11:31 PM
Abbaddabba,

No one should be nice to you. Decent people stopped talking about such things after WW2. During WW2 lots of people who did no more wrong than get conscripted to fight for people who embraced your ideas were killed by the good guys.
11-26-2017 , 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoeba
You guys should just debate the merits and drawbacks of existing policy such as the Chinese one/two child policy. You might actually find yourself agreeing more than you think.

The devil is in the detail and when the details are undefined, people start arguments from a nebulous yet dogmatic basis that never leads anywhere.
The one child / two child policy in practice works very similar to what i'm suggesting.

And who'da thunk it? China went from having 88% of their population living in poverty to only 6.5% in ... wait for it... 30 years!

But oh my god, can you imagine how horrible it must have been for those poor people who weren't allowed to have multiple children? OH THE HUMANITY.
11-26-2017 , 11:39 PM
Dude, Abba, your ideas are horrible and if you sincerely believe them you are a **** human being. Go the **** back to BFI, or better yet get together with Chez and start your own eugenics forum. Not that Chez believes in eugenics and concentration camps for the poors, but I'm sure he'd be happy to moderate for you.
11-27-2017 , 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba

It depends on why they're there. If they were, as someone used as an example, a couple who had a child, was complying with the law for many years and then fell on hard times -i see no reason why they wouldn't be free to go as they please.
Because in my example they get pregnant and are not complying.

Quote:
If you're talking about a teenage mother who can't even identify the father and has a severe case of ADD and oppositional defiant disorder, then of course you don't let them mingle with the local studs.
Hmmm....makes me wonder.

Quote:
Every case is different. You judge the risk factors and you put them in a housing complex that has an appropriate level of security.
Ok. Well at least we got to the jailing of the poor people part.
11-27-2017 , 09:38 AM
Quote:
Do you think that there are some liberties that we extend to people for which there's NO price that we can put on it, where no matter what the consequences are that we need to guarantee it to them? I don't think you believe that.
Mr. Ubermensch the College Dropout here, despite studying this subject* for years and being the Smartest Boy, is apparently unaware of the concept of holding certains truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.


*One thing you can tell is due to his personal lack of education and also not ever being around smart people, it's real difficult to identify what exactly the subject is, right? He keeps circling back to his concentration camp for poor people plan but I'm not sure what problem he's identified that solves or what alternative approaches he believes failed or anything. He's written thousands of words about These Things I Believe and another thousand or so on the eugenics tangent, but he hasn't included like one empirical fact.
11-27-2017 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
I'm not even the one trying to assert myself as being superior though. You're the one who said I'm an idiot and that "smart" people don't think like me. Well - I'm telling you, I'd be above average at all elite schools by the metrics they use to judge a persons academic aptitude
Um...
11-27-2017 , 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
The one child / two child policy in practice works very similar to what i'm suggesting.

And who'da thunk it? China went from having 88% of their population living in poverty to only 6.5% in ... wait for it... 30 years!

But oh my god, can you imagine how horrible it must have been for those poor people who weren't allowed to have multiple children? OH THE HUMANITY.
Lol, Jesus.
11-27-2017 , 09:52 AM
Academically elite apostrophe omissions ITT.

      
m