Let's demonstrate the first modern mind control. It is child welfare. Religious mind controls can be argued against other religions. But child welfare? Child welfare is above everything. Nobody has been able to even open an argument against child welfare, let alone conduct one. So, let's do a little mind control experiment here, and see if we can break out of it and make argument for and against child welfare. I would like to start with an argument against child welfare. Child welfare is an automatic ticket that equates pregnancy with future guaranteed cash income for all women, especially at the poorer segments of society. Conversely, it also equates to a life long coercion of fathers by subjugating them to endless shakedown. I propose that child welfare is a racket, because it is produced by the same society as the one bringing down all families, even the nuclear family. Will we ever overcome our automatic knee-jerk reaction, to force fathers and taxpayers to pay for women's expedient choices in courtrooms?
I don't know about mind control, but it is definitely a racket and highly manipulative. Not going to plot the graph, but I bet a chart describing the decline of individual rights in the US would overlay a chart describing the rise in appeals to "it's for the chiiiiiiiiiiiillllldren, children are our fuuuuuuuuture!" very closely.
so true, saw a guy get id's for cigarettes the other day, must of been at least 70, but we do it for the kids... cause if we let 70 years olds buy without ID'g then we would have to let 10 year olds buy without ID'g... common sense in this given example is thrown out the door... mind games seat belt laws for adults are the same... they were more done for city profits then public health, they could of accomplished the same by saying the other drive is not at fault for your healthcare if your not wearing a seatbelt, course no profit for the coffers that way via click it or ticket .
I am all for harvesting the DNA of anyone arrested. Add the DNA of single mothers and their kids so if dad ever gets arrested CODIS may just find them and make them accountable for their children. If a guy doesn't want to take care of his kids.......don't have any.
No, let's not confuse serious issues with irrational references. First, I think you need to be clear about which systems you're talking about here (and they will be different in different places too). There are payments required from absent parents to parents with custody of a child, long term payments from the state to guardians of all children, long term payments from the state to guardians of some children based on various measures of poverty or need and short term payments from the state in relation to specific incidents of need or emergency. I'm not aware of any payments that automatically go to the mother; they'll go to the legal guardian/custodian of the child (that the mother more often wins custody in disputes is a different question). Few payments are guaranteed. Payments from absent parents can often be a nightmare to get or get consistently and any state benefit payment can be changed by policy or legislation. There is a wider question than you're looking at here of course. The concept of payments to parents in general is recognition that it costs a lot to bring up children and wider society has a vested interest in that upbringing and in it being done as well as possible. That's why parents are supported in all sorts of ways in society. You don't seem to be interested in denying that support to all parents, only a certain (as yet undefined) subset of mothers, which strikes me as a little odd (unless your opinion has been shaped by a specific mother). The reference to "a racket" is little better than the one to "mind control" and at very least needs expanding on (though I'd recommend dropping it and focusing on facts).
....uh....you do know the woman had a little bit to do with it , right? So...what if the woman then decides to ditch the father?
That doesn't mean he shouldn't be forced to support his child. I don't have any children by choice, why on Earth should I support someone else's child when the father skips town to avoid paying child support?
Okay...let's sat hypothetically, a man marries a woman and they have a few kids and seem happy. She then decides she wants someone else and gets pregnant by him but lets her husband believe the child is his. Shortly after she divorces the man and takes him for everything he has....pretty much destroying his ability to live properly, gets his credit destroyed by allowing the children and herself to live in his house but getting it foreclosed upon, and perpetrates a series of dishonesties that cannot be rebutted without damaging the children in question. Does the man in question simply sit back and take it?
Indeed. Continued association of the particular childcare amount to the particular father is redundant once the family is broken. Any child should receive what they need. I don't see why a child from an absent father of low means should have less than a child of an absent father of high means after the family is broken. All earning parents should pay into a pool, and resident parents should receive an equal amount from that pool for their children. If you split up, you don't get more or less, but you do get a certain amount that's backed by the wider pool, so its regular. Just an idea.
Actually, that would lead to childbearing for cash in the poorer communities (us lefties don't like to admit it, but it does happen). Providing vouchers for essentials - groceries, clothing, school stuff, rent, may help to reduce the effect, but the effect would still be there... If every parent, married or single, received the vouchers, there should not be any stigma attached...
...Yeah....nothing quite as beautiful as dragging a five year old into nightmares. I suppose he is not quite so evil.
What do you mean by protecting the people? But it is usually the woman's decision, not the guy's. The ussue is serious enough, the statistics of it are sky high. And the intent is not symmetrical enough to warrant equal responsibility. Fathers plus taxpayers, because government welfare programs are usually involved too. Excellent question, even if she doesn't make him believe the new child, simply by divorcing him, she destroys his assets and earnings, whilst she keeps or gains assets and income sources, generally. And none of them care about the children, why should the state?
Nanny state laws, such as seat belt laws and bike helmet laws etc... are done under the guise of protecting the people.
The government is promoting the creation of stupid people and in the end I think the racism dynamic is to blame. Accusations of racism keep western people from pulling the plug. Japan has almost no welfare for young people to speak of, though it has plenty of social security and socialized health care. They really despise poor welfare people in that country but because it's 99% Japanese, no one gets accused of racism for refusing to fund their antics.
That's really not a response to my post. You've not established which systems you're talking about or demonstrated any real knowledge of any of them and you've not addressed my wider points. You've put more effort in to defending your irrational references than anything real. If you want a discussion on an issue, try actually discussing it.
Just to clarify terms. When I worked in Colorado, Child Welfare dealt with abuse and neglect. ADC, aid-to-dependent children was a separate unit and they and child welfare were sometimes at odds.
of course the people upset when a father wants nothing to do with a child could care less if BOTH parents want nothing to do with the child and give it to someone else to raise why is it when only one wants to give up a child one expects them to support it but if both want to do the same... neither should support it? interesting how that works isn't it... people should at least be consistent... .
