Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[Revoltingest]

If only it were that easy.
Some of them should. Many, for one reason or another, can't.

I never said life would be easy.
Perhaps it is for some, but no one has a right to the life of Riley.

 

[Curious George]

Because they can.
No children should be forced to endure the lowest common denominator
education when their parents are willing to pay for more..

Because parents have the option of spending more money on their own kids.
Being wealthy allows bigger houses, faster cars, better vacations, fancier food, snappier clothing.
There's no reason they shouldn't be able to provide their kids with a better education.
Would you say they should be prevented from improving their kid's education above the standard state level?

This isn't a Marxist paradise......yet.

That sounds like a strawman. We are discussing not what the parents provide but what the government institutions separate from parent groups like the PTA provide. These are very different things. Would you like to try again?

 

[BSM1]

Physician heal thyself. Don't criticise your brother for the mote in his eye. Buy a mirror. Insert whatever criticism of hypocritical lack of self awareness you like.

I see you know how to duck a question. Was I wrong?

 

[Falvlun]

I find this whole blame-poor-people-for-having-children discussion fascinating.

Sure, people should be prudent about the financial obligations involved with having children. But just as obviously it’s not that simple.

The conservative response is contradictory:
1. They do not support abortion as an option.
2. They do not support robust sex education.
3. They do not support public health services for family planning.
4. They do not support public aid when children are inevitably had.
5. And then they blame people for having kids they can’t afford.

The argument that poor people shouldn’t have children— or should give them up— is also interesting. This is such a basic human need, experience, and right. I can’t imagine the idea that procreation, and raising children, should be something only allowed the rich. The idea seems to be that poor people should be punished by lifetime poverty for choosing to have children. No aid shall be offered, only blame and literally generations of repercussions, just because someone had unprotected sex at some point, or because they felt the basic instinct to have a child.

Like I said, interesting.

 

[Curious George]

I find this whole blame-poor-people-for-having-children discussion fascinating.

Sure, people should be prudent about the financial obligations involved with having children. But just as obviously it’s not that simple.

The conservative response is contradictory:
1. They do not support abortion as an option.
2. They do not support robust sex education.
3. They do not support public health services for family planning.
4. They do not support public aid when children are inevitably had.
5. And then they blame people for having kids they can’t afford.

The argument that poor people shouldn’t have children— or should give them up— is also interesting. This is such a basic human need, experience, and right. I can’t imagine the idea that procreation, and raising children, should be something only allowed the rich. The idea seems to be that poor people should be punished by lifetime poverty for choosing to have children. No aid shall be offered, only blame and literally generations of repercussions, just because someone had unprotected sex at some point, or because they felt the basic instinct to have a child.

Like I said, interesting.

Not to mention that these arguments seek to assert that it is ok for these people to suffer as they are suffering for their bad decisions yet fail to acknowledge the child did not choose anything. Somehow the child's suffering, through no "bad decision" of his or her own is justified as having to suffer because giving any support would be enabling the parents and letting the parents take advantage of us.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I see you know how to duck a question. Was I wrong?

...considering you weren't asking me a question, I don't see how I'm ducking anything.

Were you wrong? To the extent you were criticizing India for things that happen in your own country, yes.

 

[Curious George]

...considering you weren't asking me a question, I don't see how I'm ducking anything.

Were you wrong? To the extent you were criticizing India for things that happen in your own country, yes.

To be fair they happen to a much lesser degree in the U.S.

However if the many conservatives and libertarians had their way all social welfare programs would be destroyed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I find this whole blame-poor-people-for-having-children discussion fascinating.

Sure, people should be prudent about the financial obligations involved with having children. But just as obviously it’s not that simple.

The conservative response is contradictory:
1. They do not support abortion as an option.
2. They do not support robust sex education.
3. They do not support public health services for family planning.
4. They do not support public aid when children are inevitably had.
5. And then they blame people for having kids they can’t afford.

The argument that poor people shouldn’t have children— or should give them up— is also interesting. This is such a basic human need, experience, and right. I can’t imagine the idea that procreation, and raising children, should be something only allowed the rich. The idea seems to be that poor people should be punished by lifetime poverty for choosing to have children. No aid shall be offered, only blame and literally generations of repercussions, just because someone had unprotected sex at some point, or because they felt the basic instinct to have a child.

Like I said, interesting.

You're over complicating this. A certain faction of judgemental moralisers don't like people having sex for pleasure, let alone out of marriage, and like to use pregnancy and children as a punishment. Anything thaat removes or lessens the effectiveness of the threat, either by removing it or mittigating the consequences will always be anathema to them.

That is the core of the issue, the whole edifice of ad hoc rationalisations surrounding the issue are largely nothing more than attempts to justify busybody prudishness. There are exceptions, but IMPE and opinion, scratch the surface of most right to lifers, you'll find a judgemental prude.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

To be fair they happen to a much lesser degree in the U.S.

However if the many conservatives and libertarians had their way all social welfare programs would be destroyed.

To a lesser degree, sure, however degree wasn't mentioned in the post I was referring to. Further, given that @BSM1 seems to be a LMC conservative straight down the line, the sec8nd sentence of your post is particularly relevent. He might criticise India for their poverty, but I doubt very much he's particularly interested in doing anything practical to combat it in the States.

I, of course, am happy to be proven wrong on that last point and will apologise unreservedly if so.

If.

 

[YmirGF]

The conservative response is contradictory:

I do understand that is true in many so-called "conservative" areas, but conservatism is not a monolithic thing. Those to the left of traditional conservative often bristle when painted with the same tarred brush.

1. They do not support abortion as an option.

Not true for all of us. In one of my posts above I stated that abortion is a suitable choice in some cases.

2. They do not support robust sex education.

I have repeatedly stated that people should have to go to sex education seminars.

3. They do not support public health services for family planning.

I'm certainly in favor of this. It's a bit of a no-brainer, really.

4. They do not support public aid when children are inevitably had.

I don't think I've heard anyone say that public aid should not be given to those who need it most.

5. And then they blame people for having kids they can’t afford.

Again, abortion is always a reasonable choice, especially in the first trimester. Late term abortions, unless the mother's health is in danger, is not desirable, imho.

The argument that poor people shouldn’t have children— or should give them up— is also interesting. This is such a basic human need, experience, and right. I can’t imagine the idea that procreation, and raising children, should be something only allowed the rich. The idea seems to be that poor people should be punished by lifetime poverty for choosing to have children. No aid shall be offered, only blame and literally generations of repercussions, just because someone had unprotected sex at some point, or because they felt the basic instinct to have a child.

Like I said, interesting.

Holy hysteria, Batman. I simply do not believe that having a family is a basic human right. It's certainly not like there is any lack of humans on the planet. Likewise, it would be my guess that the "poor" have far more children than rich families. Look all over the Third world and what do you see?

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose that if you set the volume low, & can't quite
make out the words, it could be a soothing white noise.
Is white noise racist?

Yes, I think a constant diet of Fox news is making me crazy. How much more peaceful life could be without politics...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because they can.
No children should be forced to endure the lowest common denominator
education when their parents are willing to pay for more..

Because parents have the option of spending more money on their own kids.
Being wealthy allows bigger houses, faster cars, better vacations, fancier food, snappier clothing.
There's no reason they shouldn't be able to provide their kids with a better education.
Would you say they should be prevented from improving their kid's education above the standard state level?

This isn't a Marxist paradise......yet.

One way or another, you're missing the point.
This is government money. School fund raising is nothing to do with it.

U.S. Rare in Spending More Money on the Education of Rich Children - Sociological Images

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Holy hysteria, Batman. I simply do not believe that having a family is a basic human right. It's certainly not like there is any lack of humans on the planet. Likewise, it would be my guess that the "poor" have far more children than rich families. Look all over the Third world and what do you see?

But why do you think that is? Because all research indicates it's because of lack of education coupled with lack of access to contraceptives.

Surely, you don't believe that poor people are just inherently less responsible than rich people, do you?

 

[Revoltingest]

That sounds like a strawman.

No.
It becomes tedious when posters deflect with erroneous claims of logical fallacy.
I corrected your mistaken claim about school financing, & answered your questions.
If you don't want to discuss what you broached, then perhaps you shouldn't bring it up.

 

[BSM1]

...considering you weren't asking me a question, I don't see how I'm ducking anything.

Were you wrong? To the extent you were criticizing India for things that happen in your own country, yes.

First of all, you're right, I thought you were another poster. My apologies. Secondly, you obviously have no idea what we (or evidently you, for that matter) are talking about.

 

[BSM1]

To a lesser degree, sure, however degree wasn't mentioned in the post I was referring to. Further, given that @BSM1 seems to be a LMC conservative straight down the line, the sec8nd sentence of your post is particularly relevent. He might criticise India for their poverty, but I doubt very much he's particularly interested in doing anything practical to combat it in the States.

I, of course, am happy to be proven wrong on that last point and will apologise unreservedly if so.

If.

Again, you have no idea what @BSM1 espouses politically; and you have no idea what was being discussed in the OP cited. Knee jerk reactions should be confined to the doctor's office.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I think a constant diet of Fox news is making me crazy. How much more peaceful life could be without politics...

Some things must be taken in small doses.
Back when I briefly watched it to see what
all the hubbub was, I found it too shrill for
my taste.
You might give OAN a look. It's also heavily
agenda laden, but if you watch only their news,
it's calmer. (Avoid their other shows....the
commercials make'm look quite extreme.)
It's a window into how others think.

 

[Revoltingest]

One way or another, you're missing the point.
This is government money. School fund raising is nothing to do with it.

U.S. Rare in Spending More Money on the Education of Rich Children - Sociological Images

You're wrong to oppose addressing school funding.
Fundraising is critical because it determines allocation,
with some districts suffering while others prosper.

I responded to a post which made an erroneous claim
about funding, & then challenged the ability of wealthier
districts to pay for an upgrade from the state standard.
If you object to my response to a post about funding,
perhaps you should first object to the initial post, eh.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Again, you have no idea what @BSM1 espouses politically; and you have no idea what was being discussed in the OP cited. Knee jerk reactions should be confined to the doctor's office.

Um, I know exactly what you were discussing. It was posted in open thread. That's how I could comment on it in the first place.

I also stand by my comment about the way your political affiliation SEEMS.

 

[Revoltingest]

To a lesser degree, sure, however degree wasn't mentioned in the post I was referring to. Further, given that @BSM1 seems to be a LMC conservative straight down the line, the sec8nd sentence of your post is particularly relevent. He might criticise India for their poverty, but I doubt very much he's particularly interested in doing anything practical to combat it in the States.

This post is awfully presumptive & personally critical.
Let's keep it more to the issues.