posted
My apologies luthe I havnt the time to hunt the stats so ive a poor arguement. But it stems from the idea of the rich getting richer poor getting poorer. I guess im just not capitalist enough to want much more than I have and to realise what I have is far far more than my fair share.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me see if I follow this correctly. 1) the "rich" are hogging a disproportionate amount of these resources (in this case money) 2) because of 1 they are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
To be able to hog something there has to be a limited amount of it. Wealth is not limited.
I guess I am not totally convinced that the gap between the rich and the poor really matters. I am fairly certain that your average poor person is richer today your average poor person 20 years ago.
Although we are getting pretty far from the topic of this thread.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are a lot of things that don't show up before you marry someone...in fact, there have been cases where women have married men who seemed perfectly nice (absolutely NONE of the usual warning signs) who ended up being horribly abusive or trying to murder them. You can't predict that.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan, do you think that "neglect" equals ignorance? Belle tells the story of the pregnant teenager that her husband (a paramedic) helped at one point that had no idea that sex actually led to babies. This was child two or three. (correct me if I've got it wrong Belle)
I do think there is an awful lot of ignorance out there, that may lead to children. But un-intentional ignorance does not equate to neglect. And ignorance is far more rampant than we realize. For an off topic example that I'm still astounded by, yesterday a late 30s college educated co-worker asked me the definition of anti semitism. He genuinely didn't know. If that kind of ignorance can be found in highly educated people...
posted
So how long do you wait before you truly know the person? The answer is you can't. My great-great grandmother and great-greatgrandfather got married after knowing each other for less than two days.
On the other hand, I know of a several fathers who have abandoned their family after 10-15 years of being a model provider.
Why didn't it come out in the first five years? And how long of a waiting period do you reccommend?
quote:Claudia, the law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married. I have seen it happening a number of times in civic courts.
What state and country please? It is also considered neglect if a father doesn't pay child support.
posted
OSC-Fan, you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that not everybody in the world lives with the perfect foresight that you do. There are also some people who change and grow with time and new experiences, something else I suppose you must not do.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan, by your logic, all of the civil cases you present are caused by the woman in the relationship? Am I understanding that right? You seem to be waivering in your arguements. First you blame the men, then the women. Truth is people change. It is hard enough to get to know a person in the first place. If you throw in the constantly changing dynamics of the human emotional system, it's near impossible to truly know anyone; especially a spouse that we automatically assume reads our mind.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well last time I checked, OSC fan, it takes TWO people to make a baby. I hold the mother and father equally responsible. However, many many young women (and men) have not been properly educated on the subject, even while extremely highly educated in academic issues.
posted
OSC-Fan, you are so far on the fringe that your views are making Farmgirl and I look liberal.
I can't believe the utterly callous disregard you have for people like Farmgirl, like my mother, like my aunt, like so many people I know. People whose husbands just...leave. And it works the other way, I'm good friends with two men whose wives left them with the kids. They both have full custody and things are going well.
But the reality is that most of the time women are the ones with the primary child rearing duty. The reality is that even when child support can be collected most single moms are in much worse financial shape after the divorce than the man. Unlike you, we don't generalize much around here when we're trying to make a political point. Anecdotes are useful critters, but they don't carry as much weight as cold hard facts.
quote:Finding: Divorce exerted greater economic consequences on women than men. Three months after divorce, 45.2 percent of custodial mothers not receiving child support were living below the poverty line, as were 38.0 percent of those receiving child support; noncustodial fathers, in contrast, exhibited poverty rates of 9.5 percent before paying child support and 10.5 percent after making those payments. Judi Bartfeld Demography 2000
To say every divorced woman had a choice, and chose to be divorced is a bit insulting. Women get left, abandoned, abused. I detest the divorce rate in this country, and I wish we could do something about it, but I don't blame people like Farmgirl for it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan, I am happy to be educated. As a mandated reporter of suspected abuse and neglect, I've never even heard that "the law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married."
Do you have any further information to back this up? I can find no reference to this at either the Department of Child and Family Services website, or through the site for the ABA Family Law Attorney's Network.
That sounds very, very odd.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard it put even shorter as "Common sense isn't."
OSC-fan I'm trying extremely hard not to lose my temper with you.
So, in the case of an unexpected pregnancy, who should pay for the abortion? The woman or the man since they caused the pregnancy?
By your own arguments, aborting the fetus appears to be what is far better for the community, than the woman actually keeping the child and having it become a drain on society as one of its dregs. There are so many adoptable children out there right now that all elgible parents should adopting the ones that are already out there after all.
AJ
(note, I'm not endorsing the above statement in that it is what I believe, I'm simply trying to find some logic in OSC-Fan's previous statments)
posted
Do you realize what you are suggesting OSC-Fan?
1) mandatory removal of children from parents based soley on income.
2) A woman must stay in an abusive relationship with her husband as long as he doesn't abuse the children.
3) Great counselling comes from a book by a radio talk show hostess who has a doctorate in gym.
4) Sex is the cause of all economic problems.
5) Stealing $10,000,000 will get you sent to prison for 20 years, but believing the lies of a smooth talking man can wind you up in a prison of a marriage for life.
You claim not to be rich. I've discovered that nobody claims to be monetarilly rich themselves. Well off maybe, but Rich is always that other guy with the bigger car or the bigger house. Even Ken Lay's wife complained "Why are they hounding us. We are poor. We are down to only 3 homes and a few million."
Your family is there to help when the world turns cold. Great. There are people that do not have that luxury.
Your church is there to help when the world turnd cold. Great. There are people, even in this country, who do not have that option. They have never had someone show them how the church is good, just church fanatics yelling at them for beign sinners and hopeless and living sinners lives. They have been judged by a lot of good church folk, who did not invite them in to be saved, or to help, but only to condem as sinners.
Now for the economic reactionaries who calmly say, hey, charity is all that is needed--that does not explain the lines at the shelters and clinics and the shortages at the food kitchens. Your taxes are not going to feed the poor because people think thats a noble deed. It is, but its also saving you tons of money in the long run. In your perfect capitalist world, when the charity food runs out, where do you think the hungry will go? They will raid your warehouses and your kitchen.
Others, seeing no way out of their life of misery will make great cheap prostitutes and cheap thugs for your money to buy.
The cost of your guards and your police, or the street cleaning crews to clean up the streets from their weather killed corpses, may not add up to be more expensive than what you are paying now in taxes, but the diseases thier lives of squalor will breed will spread, even to your ivory towers, and will cost much more.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Robespeierre would say to OSC-fan, because she's not idealogically consistent entirely on her capitalism either. I think he'd find the holes quicker than I can though.
quote: I already said that those whose situation is beyond their control need help, the others just have to accept the consequences of their choices, or straighten up and get married.
Wow, I'm at a loss here. I'll try to work through it.
So, I agree with the whole 'if the situation is beyond their control they need help' concept. But, I wouldn't be a good person if I didn't agree. The second part is baffeling to me. In most cases, as was already pointed out, the consequences are poverty and despair. Is that a good choice? Not in my book. Those that don't go into poverty are better off for having the "man" in the relationship leave.
quote: straighten up and get married.
There are such big holes in this arguement that I won't even think about adding water to it, I'll let it sink on it's own.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dan Raven, sometimes people have problem with the truth and I can see it in this forum.
*throws up hands in disgust*
This is an INSULT to all of Hatrack. The reason why we are all here is because we WANT truth. We may disagree and argue passionately at points on what that truth is, but we are all trying to find it.
OSC-fan your chosen handle is a travesty. Especially to those of us who know and like OSC even if we disagree with him.
Is it the truth that, well, gee, if everybody where as perfect as you then nobody would be suffering. That it has taken hard work and dedication and faith to get you where you are today, and anyone who has not reached that point must either be pitied or they deserve the pain they must endure.
And of course, anyone who is better off than you must certainly be saintly to have deserved it.
That the only reason one couldn't depend on one's family is because they were unworthy of their family.
That the truth you offer to show us must be taken on faith for there has been no proof offered other than your personal experiences, which, while interesting, are limited, as any single persons must be.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And somewhere, along the way, they raised a couple of pretty good kids. No arrests for either my sis or I, both have had fulfilling careers, Sis has a college degree, and we're fairly well adjusted and happily married.
Sopwith married his sister! Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The law considers neglect if a woman has more than two children by different fathers and is not married. I have seen it happening a number of times in civic courts.
In 5 years of a law degree, I have never seen this happen. I would be honestly interested if you have cases to back this up.
And secondly at Belle and Farmgirl's new liberal status. Plus the genetic roots comment. Belle, you just made my day. [To echo Farmgirl ]
I may not agree with you all the time, but you sure are one cool lady.
posted
OSC-fan is right-- people need to take more responsibility for their actions.
AND . . .
One of the actions that I choose to take responsability for is my baptism as a Mormon.
Alma, a Book of Mormon prophet, who had lived a life of sin, but became converted had this to say about baptism and the covenants that Mormons enter into when baptised:
quote: Mosiah 18:8 ...and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life. . . .
As a Mormon, I take this to mean that unless I am willing to mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those that need it, I am not going to be redeemed. As a baptised Mormon, I have the obligation to bear the burden of those I come into contact with.
Realistically, I've come to interpret this as meaning that when I can give aid, whatever it may be, I give it. Money, time, talent, whatever.
For me, it is not so much the responsability of the single moms that concerns me-- it is my own. Where does my responsability lie?
Interestingly enough, my family and I read about this very thing last night:
quote: St. Matthew 5:42
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
I have never seen anying in the scriptures that calls for a mandated, consistent refusal of aid to those that ask for it. Either spiritually, or monetarily.
It is good to teach responsability, I think.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's both... both the individual and the society. But I'm looking at society here. The writer of this book is correct, society would benefit from elimanating trickle down, paying workers a living wage, lessening the economic burden on the poor and many other things. My question is how can this be done? Besides, a lot of the time a person is not poor because they want to be poor or because they didn't work enough. That is a myth.
Society-wide, I don't really know what can be done to help single moms. I don't like the idea of more government intervention-- though I believe that may be all that can be legislated.
What is REALLY needed is prevention and individual kindness.
And now, I show my social conservative roots-- because if you really want young people to be as free as possible from sexual difficulties, you MUST stress the importance of self-discipline, self-respect, self-education, and sexual abstinence.
These things can't be taught by pamphlet, or from the pulpit, or out of a text book. They have to be values that are socially enforced, because most relationships are not intellectual-- they're social. And you have to come at them from the same vein.
That's prevention.
As for individual kindness-- . But we glorify sarcasm and cynicism and giggle at sincerity. We are becoming a society of anti-heroes.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, what can be done for single folks like me who want pure independence but have to settle for not so good jobs?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-Fan, that assumes that the family has those values to begin with.
Mine did and I thank God each day for it.
I have friends who's families did not have those values. One family, claiming itself truly Christian, valued fear and conformity and obeidiance. There son was headed down the road to drugs and destruction. Luckilly my wife and other caring people, and the US Army helped relieve him of the problems his family literally beat into him.
I have friends who's families cared little for them, but only thier position in the world and the status a good child will give them.
I have a step-mother-in-law who believes in giving her family everything, as long as her husbands previous family, my wife and her sibblings, get nothing.
Family is a wonderful concept, perfect in ideal, but usually far from perfect in practice.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you more likely to have a liberal gay couple to adopt a child than an old fashioned, religious one?
One quick question OSC-fan: Do you think that a Lesbian or Gay couple should not be alowed to raise children?
I too am a member of the LDS church. But, I also have a strong sense of trust when it comes to other people. Having this trust, I believe that anyone can be qualified to raise a child. Weither I believe in their sexual orrientation or not, they can still be good parents.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan you have yet to substantiate any of your allegations on the previous pages with facts. You haven't acknowledged a medical doctor and a lawyer saying they have never ever heard of the reporting of "abuse" for an unwed mother with two different fathers of her children.
Until you either acknowledge that you were mistaken, or substantiate your spurious claims with facts, I have absolutely no respect for you.
I think parents should be teaching values of honesty, integrity and truthfulness to their children. So far, you have shown none of the above, so what kind of role model will you make for your children. You haven't shown ANY of the "old-fashioned" values you tout in your communication with this forum. You cause people like Farmgirl and Belle, who do practice what they preach on a daily basis to recoil in horror.
Therefore, by your own stated standards you are little more than an "unfit" parent yourself.
This may sound odd, but if I lost my job, I would find some place to move to live that has an extremely low cost of living. (Norman, Oklahoma comes to mind because I lived there once already.)
I was able to survive in Norman, Oklahoma, earning $800/month while I was in graduate school. $500 went to rent, $150 for utilities and $150 for food and everything else. I never starved and even went to see the occasional movie. I was actually living in an expensive place. You could rent cheaper places for $350/month. Then even on the minimum wage it is much easier to live at a better standard of living than in expensive states like California or Illiniois.
In a college town like Norman, OK there are also an abundance of lower income jobs readily available. Interestingly you will find people driving much nicer cars down in Oklahoma because their income to cost of living ratio is so much better than many other parts of the country. I would live in a place like that, until I got back on my feet, and then I would start exploring opportunites to branch out.
Norman, Oklahoma while not a thriving metropolis does have quite a few cultural opportunities available as well.
posted
Yes, OSC_Fan, it starts with strong families. But how can we create strong families if they don't have good jobs, good working conditions? It goes both ways! Even the strongest and most ideal family can crack under the pressure. Example- A man works in the factory to support his wife and 3 kids. However, they annouce to him that his paid break is getting cut, he can't leave the line if he needs to go tot he bathroom, his health benefits will cost him a large precentage of his wages. Even if he is a nice, respectable good guy, he can and will crack under this stress. He will take it out on his kids and wife. He will be stressed out and surly and as he finds out he will get a dramatic decrease in salary because he's being downsized and has to work a job that pays 7 dollars an hour as opposed to the 14 dollars an hour he was getting he will become stressed out. His wife will have to take a second job so she'll have less time to spend with the kids. The kids won't have their parents at home as much and when they are at home they will argue about money for hours upon end. Sadly, things like this actually happens! Yes, people should be more responsible, however, we are in a culture that is the equivalent of baking a nice warm batch of cookies, putting them in a cookie jar with the lid off, putting a nice fresh jug of milk in the fridge and saying don't touch these cookies. Sex is everywhere in the media and it is utterly appealing and forbidden so of course everyone wants to do it! If sex was taught in a casual, it's not a bad thing, just do it responsibly sort of way, maybe we'd eliminate at least 1/4 of the problem, but there's still the matter of work, jobs and education. Yes, family is the cornerstone, but they need support! Child care, affordable and universal health care. Things like that. I'm not asking for a communist state or insisting that capitalism be elliminated and we just hand out checks to people for not doing anything. I believe we need to do away with corporate welfare, get rid of trickle down and create a better society that cares for individuals.
edit-how does homosexuality teach that promiscuous sex is ok?
posted
It doesn't follow that all homosexual relationships involve promiscuous sex. Some of them might, but them again so do some heterosexual relationships.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan, answer the question at hand. Your response to me seemed to be political at best. I'm not into going through and reading every post you've written.
Second thing, you say that you have not been rude to AJ. I can show you multiple times that you have been. In fact your last response to her showed a sort of 'holier than thou' attitude.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think the misandry accusation set me off the most. To turn your own words on you OSC-fan, you don't don't know me at all and yet you accused me of misandry.
There are many, many LDS people on this board,for which I have the utmost respect, including katharina. OSC-fan has yet to live up to their standard, and is, in fact, creating a new low for so-called LDS behavior on this board.
In short, it is people like OSC-fan that give the LDS religion a bad name. If OSC-fan was actually the first LDS person I'd ever met, it would have become the last religion I'd ever consider.
quote:If sex was taught in a casual, it's not a bad thing, just do it responsibly sort of way, maybe we'd eliminate at least 1/4 of the problem, but there's still the matter of work, jobs and education.
That *is* the way I see it taught a lot in popular culture.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC-fan many HETEROSEXUALS participate in and enjoy anal sex with a consenting partner of the opposite sex. No where in the Bible, as far as I'm aware, (and I know my Bible pretty darn good) is anal sex ever prohibited.
(In both heterosexuality and homosexuality there are an abundance of opportunities for sexual pleasure other than anal sex, but even in heterosexuality it is not viewed as horribly abnormal or truly in the "fetish" range of sex acts.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
You can't predict that.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
OSC-fan I'm trying extremely hard not to lose my temper with you. ![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Belle ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Belle! You just made my day!!![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
. But we glorify sarcasm and cynicism and giggle at sincerity. We are becoming a society of anti-heroes.
