I'd like to discuss China's one child policy with you

[FourthTenor]

I'd like to post a link to its wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy) entry here, and I'd like for you to read it (along with any other references on the subject you wish to look up) and then I'd like for us to discuss it.

But unfortunately it's probably too much reading for most of you, and too much critical thinking. It's too important of an issue for you to invest brain power into.

Please resume scrolling through the random pictures of the 693 people you barely know and list as friends on your facebook. Feel free to go back to checking up on one of the 7 message boards relating to your favorite sports team that you have favorited. Return to your regularly scheduled programming where 67 year old Gene Simmons is filmed "at home and totally uncensored, with his wacky unconventional family!"


:(

[brantonli]

Hmmm? What do you want to discuss about it? Good things bad things about it? I'm not personally affected by it, but my 2 cousins are direct consequences of them (i.e. they are both the only child).

[pete's montreux]

How about a no child policy? Only certain families and people should be allowed to breed. It's no coincidence that smarter and wealthier families procreate much less than the poor and stupid.

[FourthTenor]

Most of you will continue to wonder, why the elite take advantage of you in government and in economy. You will resent the increasing wealth gap, the power and influence of those at the top, and continued dominance of society's upper class. You will blame the system.

It won't occur to you that perhaps they are simply the opportunists of a society that allows EVERYONE to be as involved, ambitious, and assertive as they wish, and the benefit for the people who do recognize this is only multiplied be the sizable number of people who do not.

You'll continue trying to STYMIE the minority "upper class" in order to keep them from distancing themselves further from you, rather than try to KEEP UP yourself and encourage the rest of the lower intellectual class to do so as well so the gap remains tighter.

You don't want to exercise your brain, you want to keep everyone else's brain firmly planted on the couch right next to yours, so that they can't get ahead of your fat lazy ass. You'll definitely vote democrat.

[FourthTenor]

Hmmm? What do you want to discuss about it? Good things bad things about it? I'm not personally affected by it, but my 2 cousins are direct consequences of them (i.e. they are both the only child).


I want to discuss the overall affect it has had on China, and whether or not the US may feel compelled to adopt some kind of modified version of it in the not-so-distant future.

I'll post some thoughts on it myself in a few moments, but first I wanted to chastise the majority of the people who will open the thread just to see if i said anything un-PC for which they could jump up and scream and cry hot tears, and then once they realize i didnt they can neglect the actual topic of the thread because they're too stupid and have nothing to say.

[FourthTenor]

effeminacy, phoniness, futility, and bitterness.... thy name is deucewallaces. Thy middle name is real men wears green.

[bagelred]

Return to your regularly scheduled programming where 67 year old Gene Simmons is filmed "at home and totally uncensored, with his wacky unconventional family!"


Really? What channel?! :rockon:

[FourthTenor]

Really? What channel?! :rockon:


It conflicts with the political puss-a-thon you watch everyday of Olbermann's show, then Maddow's show, then Franken's show, then Jon Stewart's show etc. etc. So you wouldn't be interested.

You have a vag1na.

[brantonli]

I would say the one child policy, from a social viewpoint, doesn't really affect anything in terms of the day to day workings of China, it's just too much of a long term effect to have any impact in a daily routine.

In other areas though, I know it has led to quite severe results in terms of male-female ratios. Obviously it should be 100-100, because of a 50-50 chance of male or female, but in some areas they go up to 110-100, or even more. This does develop a rather serious human trafficking problem in China, which is helped rather than hindered by the fact that provinces are terrible at cleaning up themselves, because of a lack of accountability towards the bottom.

The one child policy was brought about because, in my opinion, the Chinese leaders wanted to push fertility rates down. An interesting economics model suggests that fertility rates are highly dependent on how many children other people have, and so societies tend to get stuck at certain birth rates, regardless of how poor or developed they are. In China's case, obviously a low birth rate would help with China's own natural constraints, and when you don't really have much of a choice if you want to depress the national fertility rate, then you'd have to resort to the rule of law.

I don't think it's a sustainable policy though. There will always be inherent 'Oh, I need to have a boy so that the family name will live on' although as China grows richer, there may be more and more people who are willing to pay the fine in order to have larger families. As I'm sure you know, China's already facing an unusual problem of getting old before getting rich, and the one child policy has encouraged that. Ultimately it has to go, but I don't know when the Communist govt will willingly let it go without proper pressure groups or lobbyists (yes, a place where they can do some good!)

[bagelred]

It conflicts with the political puss-a-thon you watch everyday of Olbermann's show, then Maddow's show, then Franken's show, then Jon Stewart's show etc. etc. So you wouldn't be interested.

You have a vag1na.

I like you.

[Theoo's Daddy]

china's one child policy is for population control. If you go back 2 years ago, when there was food shortage crisis throughout the whole world, this policy does make sense even though it was introduced long time ago. China has been agressive trying to make deals with other countries in order to feed it's population. They are exporting farmers to africa and other countries to grow food and ship them back home. To me it's the same reason they are trying so hard to be a world power. Sounds like they are outgrowing their resources. It's a familiar story, the europeans did the same by raping 3rd world countries in the colonial days.

[FourthTenor]

I would say the one child policy, from a social viewpoint, doesn't really affect anything in terms of the day to day workings of China, it's just too much of a long term effect to have any impact in a daily routine.

In other areas though, I know it has led to quite severe results in terms of male-female ratios. Obviously it should be 100-100, because of a 50-50 chance of male or female, but in some areas they go up to 110-100, or even more. This does develop a rather serious human trafficking problem in China, which is helped rather than hindered by the fact that provinces are terrible at cleaning up themselves, because of a lack of accountability towards the bottom.

The one child policy was brought about because, in my opinion, the Chinese leaders wanted to push fertility rates down. An interesting economics model suggests that fertility rates are highly dependent on how many children other people have, and so societies tend to get stuck at certain birth rates, regardless of how poor or developed they are. In China's case, obviously a low birth rate would help with China's own natural constraints, and when you don't really have much of a choice if you want to depress the national fertility rate, then you'd have to resort to the rule of law.

I don't think it's a sustainable policy though. There will always be inherent 'Oh, I need to have a boy so that the family name will live on' although as China grows richer, there may be more and more people who are willing to pay the fine in order to have larger families. As I'm sure you know, China's already facing an unusual problem of getting old before getting rich, and the one child policy has encouraged that. Ultimately it has to go, but I don't know when the Communist govt will willingly let it go without proper pressure groups or lobbyists (yes, a place where they can do some good!)

Fair points, and I will certainly grant that this system, like ANY system (or absence of a system), is inherently imperfect, but consider this:

"In April 2007 a study by the University of California, Irvine, which claimed to be the first systematic study of the policy, found that it had proved "remarkably effective".[29] Other reports have shown population aging and negative population growth in some areas."

and

"The Chinese government estimated that it had three to four hundred million fewer people in 2008 with the one-child policy, than it would have had otherwise.[32][33] Chinese authorities thus consider the policy as a great success in helping to implement China's current economic growth."


Independent studies outside of China, as well as the Chinese government have labeled the program an OVERALL success, despite obvious imperfections. And China STILL has issues with overpopulation, notwithstanding the fact that without such a policy, they might have an added population nearly the size of the United States'.


Something to keep in mind, which I find STAGGERING:

By population, the world's top three most populated countries are China, India, and USA.

China - 19% world population
India - 17% world population
USA - 4.5% of world population


WHOA! China and India make up 36% of the worlds population. The third largest country by population is at 4.5%. That's incredible.

Yes, it is important for an economy like China's to have a LOT of people.... but not THAT many. If you add the USA-sized population China is estimated to have shaved by using the policy (4.5% of world) to what it already has, that's 23.5%. That's just outrageous.

TO ME there can be no question that the policy was a success. But I am looking at it from a broad, overall, long-term point of view. Someone like deucewalrus, smokee, sarcastic, etc. would identify one single citizen who wanted to have an extra kid and wasn't allowed, and label it a full blown crisis and catastrophe because one person didnt get what they want. This is the mindset that fukcs over our own country but that's another topic.

So I ask you, and anyone else - before we get to the prospects of establishing something like this in USA - if you agree or disagree OVERALL that the one child policy was positive legislation for the country.

[step_back]

Excellent way to start a thread.

Let's have a thought provoking, engaging debate once I get my insults out of the way.

I find this an interesting topic. Shame it was started by a complete tool.

[FourthTenor]

Excellent way to start a thread.

Let's have a thought provoking, engaging debate once I get my insults out of the way.

I find this an interesting topic. Shame it was started by a complete tool.


No, you have nothing to say about the topic, don't make phony excuses like who the OP is or how the thread started.

You're a mental invalid and there's no need to try and hide it. We already know everything we need to.

[step_back]

No, you have nothing to say about the topic, don't make phony excuses like who the OP is or how the thread started.

You're a mental invalid and there's no need to try and hide it. We already know everything we need to.

Thanks for proving my point.

It's just far too easy with you.

[kNIOKAS]

I'd like to post a link to its wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy) entry here, and I'd like for you to read it (along with any other references on the subject you wish to look up) and then I'd like for us to discuss it.

But unfortunately it's probably too much reading for most of you, and too much critical thinking. It's too important of an issue for you to invest brain power into.

Please resume scrolling through the random pictures of the 693 people you barely know and list as friends on your facebook. Feel free to go back to checking up on one of the 7 message boards relating to your favorite sports team that you have favorited. Return to your regularly scheduled programming where 67 year old Gene Simmons is filmed "at home and totally uncensored, with his wacky unconventional family!"


:(

Most of you will continue to wonder, why the elite take advantage of you in government and in economy. You will resent the increasing wealth gap, the power and influence of those at the top, and continued dominance of society's upper class. You will blame the system.

It won't occur to you that perhaps they are simply the opportunists of a society that allows EVERYONE to be as involved, ambitious, and assertive as they wish, and the benefit for the people who do recognize this is only multiplied be the sizable number of people who do not.

You'll continue trying to STYMIE the minority "upper class" in order to keep them from distancing themselves further from you, rather than try to KEEP UP yourself and encourage the rest of the lower intellectual class to do so as well so the gap remains tighter.

You don't want to exercise your brain, you want to keep everyone else's brain firmly planted on the couch right next to yours, so that they can't get ahead of your fat lazy ass. You'll definitely vote democrat.

I want to discuss the overall affect it has had on China, and whether or not the US may feel compelled to adopt some kind of modified version of it in the not-so-distant future.

I'll post some thoughts on it myself in a few moments, but first I wanted to chastise the majority of the people who will open the thread just to see if i said anything un-PC for which they could jump up and scream and cry hot tears, and then once they realize i didnt they can neglect the actual topic of the thread because they're too stupid and have nothing to say.








http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/perma_banned.gif

[RidonKs]

great post brantonli



what sort of policy are you proposing? the Chinese model is pretty discriminatory, for a lot of good reasons of course. rural families are exempted more than urban families, ethnic and traditional families get a pass, etc. most of those make sense, but they still discriminate. and people don't like discrimination. and if there was no discrimination, if the policy was indiscriminate, it would be too extreme for any population, from China to India to Uganda. here's a graph of how China would look from 1960 all the way to 2100 with a strictly enforced one child policy

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110806_WOC326_0.jpg

the grip has been loosened and enforcement has become more relaxed in the last 20-30 years. thankfully so, the human rights violations were vicious back then. so it's better now.

in the end though, it's too draconian and toes the line of authoritarianism and coercion. forced abortions are not my cup of tea and no woman should have to go through that. and it seems obvious why this would never be implemented in any system even slightly resembling a democracy. the people would never go for it. there's no way in hell you'd find 50% of a population or a legislature willing to put restrictions on something so fundamental to the human condition. it could only come to pass in a system like China's, an oligarchy for all intents and purposes, single party elitist rule where social policy is handcuffed to the population rather than voted on. so it's practically impossible in any political system i'd like to live under.

and then there are all the other consequences of the policy that you'd have to live with in order to achieve your desired population growth; brant mentioned a few. the sex imbalance is an important one, especially for a country like China that still hasn't fully escaped its traditional sexism. and that doesn't only f*ck up population growth itself -- the very problem you're trying to fix -- but it also just flat out sucks for guys. and girls too, who get f*cked over like crazy. there's the 4-2-1 deal that was brought up in a previous thread on this; one child having to care for two parents and four grandparents. that's a much more substantial issue than the babyboomers one we currently face.

all of that and a whole lot more are reason enough to think that a policy like this probably isn't going to gain much traction over here, and probably wouldn't have enough economic benefits to outweigh the detrimental effects anyway.

[JtotheIzzo]

what I know, and I spend a lot of time in Asia and China specifically:

-the policy was put into place to counter balance the population boom Mao Ze Dung wanted. He believed a huge population was key to China's rise.

-the policy doesn't affect the 50 plus recognized minority groups inside China.

-the policy has lead to huge numbers of abortions and abandonment of females

-there is something like 110,000,000 more men than women in China as a result of this policy.

-Rural Chinese have a difficult time finding wives (women migrate to the coastal cities to find work in factories or the service industry) and resort to marrying mentally handicapped women. There is fear rural life as the Chinese knew it will disappear forever.

-prostitution booms in China like nowhere else on the planet.


Personally I think social engineering policies like this are born out of Communist ideologies (making the 'perfect' society) and are always doomed to failure. I think the safe comment people make is that it was necessary, but truth be told earlier adoption of a market economy would have kept population growth down as it has in the West. It is just another example of China ignoring personal freedoms for the 'good' of the nation, but in the long run a nation's strength is built on the backs of individuals, and if your individuals have no rights, or limited rights they will never excel.

Draconian laws like these are easily placed on a highly Confucian society where people will do as they are told without questioning the logic or righteousness of it.

[FourthTenor]

I wasnt proposing a discussion about how the CHINESE model would work in AMERICA. I was proposing a discussion of how the Chinese model has worked for China, and how a modified version tailored to American issues might theoretically work for AMERICA. Dont strawmanthis discussion.

Ridonks, please answer for me point blank if u do or do not consider China's one birth policy to be an overall success for the country since its instituion. You rattled off all the problems and acknowledved no benefits which doesnt surprise me and i can probably figure out the answer. But since you didnt say definitively, ill ask if u will please.

[PowerGlove]

How about a no child policy? Only certain families and people should be allowed to breed. It's no coincidence that smarter and wealthier families procreate much less than the poor and stupid.
You cant be serious.

[JtotheIzzo]

I wasnt proposing a discussion about how the CHINESE model would work in AMERICA. I was proposing a discussion of how the Chinese model has worked for China, and how a modified version tailored to American issues might theoretically work for AMERICA. Dont strawmanthis discussion.

Ridonks, please answer for me point blank if u do or do not consider China's one birth policy to be an overall success for the country since its instituion. You rattled off all the problems and acknowledved no benefits which doesnt surprise me and i can probably figure out the answer. But since you didnt say definitively, ill ask if u will please.

it is basically opposite to all the right wing ideals you champion on these pages, and it isn't a good diea at all for the US.

if China had it to do over again they'd probably pass.

[FourthTenor]

what I know, and I spend a lot of time in Asia and China specifically:

-the policy was put into place to counter balance the population boom Mao Ze Dung wanted. He believed a huge population was key to China's rise.

-the policy doesn't affect the 50 plus recognized minority groups inside China.

-the policy has lead to huge numbers of abortions and abandonment of females

-there is something like 110,000,000 more men than women in China as a result of this policy.

-Rural Chinese have a difficult time finding wives (women migrate to the coastal cities to find work in factories or the service industry) and resort to marrying mentally handicapped women. There is fear rural life as the Chinese knew it will disappear forever.

-prostitution booms in China like nowhere else on the planet.


Personally I think social engineering policies like this are born out of Communist ideologies (making the 'perfect' society) and are always doomed to failure. I think the safe comment people make is that it was necessary, but truth be told earlier adoption of a market economy would have kept population growth down as it has in the West. It is just another example of China ignoring personal freedoms for the 'good' of the nation, but in the long run a nation's strength is built on the backs of individuals, and if your individuals have no rights, or limited rights they will never excel.

Draconian laws like these are easily placed on a highly Confucian society where people will do as they are told without questioning the logic or righteousness of it.

Ok, i appreciate yhe comments. Couple things:

You talked about communist ideals of making a perfect society. What about simply preventig a chaotic one? You spoke of individual rights being a sort of cure all, but thats idealizing the situation as well. We see in America that as social pressures, mandates, etc lessen, people inherently start shirking their social responsibilities. The left once the goverment to tax and redistribute, but never to enforce social standards and responsibility. Somewhere there should be a balance.

You mentioned abortion. Are you right-to-life? I didnt peg u as such, maybe im wrong. When i juxtapose the the individual rights that have been infri ged against what China would look like with an extra half billion, i conclude t was worth it.

I agree moving toward a free market earlier would hae reduced the prOblem, but not solved it. This is not a permanent program, but it was instituted for the good of the country when a unique problem was recognized. I believe in cutting to the root of problems even if a few flowers get uprooted in the process. If u believe as i do that OVERALL this has achieved a better result than the alrernative (and the academic consensus seems to favorthat) then it has to be deemed a success, no?

[RidonKs]

So I ask you, and anyone else - before we get to the prospects of establishing something like this in USA - if you agree or disagree OVERALL that the one child policy was positive legislation for the country.
you've got to weight the pros and cons of it. asking if it was positive legislation is totally different from asking if it worked. yeah, it definitely worked. you posted a few statistics that back that up and i've seen enough to know that it's true.

i just laid out a lot of the specific problems i have with it. there are others too. they're enough to outweigh the positive outcomes of the policy.

but the most important reason it was a bad policy is that other policy options were available that would have proved more successful and less draconian.


Personally I think social engineering policies like this are born out of Communist ideologies (making the 'perfect' society) and are always doomed to failure. I think the safe comment people make is that it was necessary, but truth be told earlier adoption of a market economy would have kept population growth down as it has in the West. It is just another example of China ignoring personal freedoms for the 'good' of the nation, but in the long run a nation's strength is built on the backs of individuals, and if your individuals have no rights, or limited rights they will never excel.
this about sums it up. a corrective measure like that wouldn't have been necessary were the right measures taken in the first place. it's a specifically 20th century communist fix to a specifically 20th century communist problem. a developed free market economy with a transparent and democratic political system would have been the far better corrector and, with the size and wealth of the country before single party rule, would have proved just as effective.

so,

1. it is inherently oppressive of what most people consider a basic human right
2. it creates a lot of additional problems, plenty of which have been mentioned in this thread
3. there were other better policy options available that were ignored for fear of a power loss by the country's elite class

[FourthTenor]

it is basically opposite to all the right wing ideals you champion on these pages, and it isn't a good diea at all for the US.



First of all, i dont rigidly apply right or left ideals. I analyze EACH issue with my own brain, more often than not i conclude that typical right wing principles most effectively address the problem, but thats just because they usually do, not because i actually care whether its a right or left solution.

Secondly, the US has MAJOR problems ahead of it with regards to population, not just by numbers but by its overall culture, values, abilities etc.

Confronting that sooner will be better long term but uncomfortably candid about our pronlems. So everyone shies from it like we keep doin with social security and now look.

***** f@ggots

[FourthTenor]

you've got to weight the pros and cons of it. asking if it was positive legislation is totally different from asking if it worked. yeah, it definitely worked. you posted a few statistics that back that up and i've seen enough to know that it's true.

i just laid out a lot of the specific problems i have with it. there are others too. they're enough to outweigh the positive outcomes of the policy.

but the most important reason it was a bad policy is that other policy options were available that would have proved more successful and less draconian.


this about sums it up. a corrective measure like that wouldn't have been necessary were the right measures taken in the first place. it's a specifically 20th century communist fix to a specifically 20th century communist problem. a developed free market economy with a transparent and democratic political system would have been the far better corrector and, with the size and wealth of the country before single party rule, would have proved just as effective.

so,

1. it is inherently oppressive of what most people consider a basic human right
2. it creates a lot of additional problems, plenty of which have been mentioned in this thread
3. there were other better policy options available that were ignored for fear of a power loss by the country's elite class

U are apparently supposing a simple change in the economic model would have worked anywhere NEAR the magnitude of the policy. Based on what? You said so? Its u who is dealizing the situation. If a policy violated a potential right, auto bad. If it doesnt, auto good.

Sometimes tough hard actions have to be taken for overall good. I just think some people are the ultimate pussees and always poopoo anythi g that gets it done in less than a coddling, fairytale-esque manner. Theories about what mite have worked just as well in pleasantville (tho they wouldnt) hold little weight against the success of the policy in reality.

This is typical of the ish demographic tho. Ill move on to thoughts about us population when i get to my desktop, im on my phone rite now

[FourthTenor]

People need to accept that eventually population will be a global issue. Unless were hit by a comet, its a social certainty. At what point do we start taking appropriate cautionary measures? When some of these estrogen infused f@ggots grow testicles? That mite never happen tho. We need solutions sooner than that.

[pete's montreux]

Eventually? It's a major issue right now. Everyone is just choosing to ignore it.

[FourthTenor]

This is the problem with feminism, ie excessive liberalism. It takes problem solving off the table if there is even one person who is mildly offended by a largely effective solution. We have too many people to cater to everyone. But the pussees wont admit that, and just insist on nth degree hypersenitivity. Were gonna fall like rome yall. Not conquered by one big empire, but imploded from within to due weakened strength against the weight of myriad chaotic outside cultures. At least tho itll take a while and no feelings will be hurt in the meantime. Right ridonks?!

[JtotheIzzo]

People need to accept that eventually population will be a global issue. Unless were hit by a comet, its a social certainty. At what point do we start taking appropriate cautionary measures? When some of these estrogen infused f@ggots grow testicles? That mite never happen tho. We need solutions sooner than that.

the estrogen infused f@ggots aren't the problem of the population boom, if anything they are just the opposite.


You talked about communist ideals of making a perfect society. What about simply preventig a chaotic one? You spoke of individual rights being a sort of cure all, but thats idealizing the situation as well. We see in America that as social pressures, mandates, etc lessen, people inherently start shirking their social responsibilities. The left once the goverment to tax and redistribute, but never to enforce social standards and responsibility. Somewhere there should be a balance.

You mentioned abortion. Are you right-to-life? I didnt peg u as such, maybe im wrong. When i juxtapose the the individual rights that have been infri ged against what China would look like with an extra half billion, i conclude t was worth it.

you are making too many facile analogies under the assumption that the one child policy has worked. We do not know the ramifications of all the bi-products it has created (mainly a gender gap of 110,000,000).

and no, I don't think anyone lawmaker should govern a woman's uterus.

operating under the ideal that this Chinese 'solution' is a workable model if Americanized because too many Mekkers and poor folk keep shitting out kids is silly. it is not what advanced societies do, it is archaic social engineering from a bygone era.
you are really only one step removed from some Khmer Rouge type shit if you start down this path.

[FourthTenor]

the estrogen infused f@ggots aren't the problem of the population boom, if anything they are just the opposite.



you are making too many facile analogies under the assumption that the one child policy has worked. We do not know the ramifications of all the bi-products it has created (mainly a gender gap of 110,000,000).

and no, I don't think anyone lawmaker should govern a woman's uterus.

operating under the ideal that this Chinese 'solution' is a workable model if Americanized because too many Mekkers and poor folk keep shitting out kids is silly. it is not what advanced societies do, it is archaic social engineering from a bygone era.
you are really only one step removed from some Khmer Rouge type shit if you start down this path.

So point blank, you think the one child policy was a bad/regrettable decision?

[FourthTenor]

UC Cal Irvine did the definitive study and declared success. The Chinese government - which has ackowledged and ammended problems that came up - still deems it successful. And before you claim that to be spin, what reason would they hae to spin it? If it was overall negative, theyd undo it. They focus on the big picture anyway.

Methinks its only gutlessness that would lead individuals to consider it an overall negative. People who see minor issues caused to individuals and have their hearstrings tugged to the point of clouded objectivity. F@ggotry.

[JtotheIzzo]

So point blank, you think the one child policy was a bad/regrettable decision?

If I had to choose I'd say yes it was a bad idea, I am not denying that the pro side has an argument as well, but I think the toll outweighs the benefits.

One of China's biggest flaws is that they always try to use a broad sword when sometimes the scalpel is the best tool for the job.

[FourthTenor]

One of China's biggest flaws is that they always try to use a broad sword

LOL! Why do u think that is???

Hint: it has to do with the exact topic of this thread!


Answer: They have a billion ****in people!

[RidonKs]

U are apparently supposing a simple change in the economic model would have worked anywhere NEAR the magnitude of the policy. Based on what? You said so? Its u who is dealizing the situation. If a policy violated a potential right, auto bad. If it doesnt, auto good.
no, that's a gross oversimplification. i thoroughly presented the dozen or so specific problems that are associated with the policy. it doesn't really matter what i consider a right when we're talking about successful policy in successful politics, it matters what society as a whole feels is a right. and if a substantial chunk of society thinks a policy infringes on one of their rights, that's a big deal and should be considered appropriately when trying to assess said policy. and all the other things count too.

i'm acknowledging its success and retrospectively saying it wasn't worth it. for alllllll of those reasons. and there are a lot of them.



It takes problem solving off the table if there is even one person who is mildly offended by a largely effective solution.
jesus christ, i feel like i'm talking to Cartman. for the policy on the table, the one i've been talking about this whole time and not some generalization of all policies... it's not ONE person who is MILDLY offended you nitwit. it's a whole f*cking lot of people who are. you're trying to argue that we can't cater to every little complaint because there are so many of them, but we're talking about an issue that EVERYBODY WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT.

if one person was killed by the state as a direct result of it, that would be an auto-condemn. if one woman had their child forcibly aborted, it probably wouldn't be. but since 10 million women have had their child forcibly aborted, you've got to weigh it accordingly. it might not be an autocondemn if the policy magically turned seawater into oil, because that would be amazing and hugely beneficial and its worth a couple fetuses to drive our wealth that high. but its effect on population wasn't on that level, and it could have been achieved through other means. primarily creating a successful and educated middle class, like their neighbours to their immediate east have done. Japan is actually in the opposite situation where it needs to increase fertility rates. but it's certainly right there with China in terms of economic success.

it was a poopy policy for all of those reasons. you're picking one and pretending that was the only criteria i used. the reality of the situation is that you're fixated on one piece of criteria (achieving a lower population growth rate/fertility rate/whatever) and ignoring the rest.

[RidonKs]

the estrogen infused f@ggots aren't the problem of the population boom, if anything they are just the opposite.
lol

[JtotheIzzo]

UC Cal Irvine did the definitive study and declared success. The Chinese government - which has ackowledged and ammended problems that came up - still deems it successful. And before you claim that to be spin, what reason would they hae to spin it? If it was overall negative, theyd undo it. They focus on the big picture anyway.

Methinks its only gutlessness that would lead individuals to consider it an overall negative. People who see minor issues caused to individuals and have their hearstrings tugged to the point of clouded objectivity. F@ggotry.

yes, its because of f@ggotry I think this way...:rolleyes:

think for a minute (and I know this is hard for you), what would happen in the US if there were 110,000,000 men who will never find a mate or a partner. No one knows the long term ramifications of what this will do to society. Do you have any idea how central the family is to Chinese life and Confucian societies. Even if we ignore all the social unrest this could spur (not to be underestimated in a society that looks at people like epic failures if they do not start a family), Now there will be 110,000,000 men with no family to take care of them when they are aged, therefore the responsibility falls on the state and the tax burden on earners will be many times more than earlier generations.

problems with this 'study' right off the top of my head (and I am sure a few minutes of googling would lead to countless other studies that 'declare' the opposite)

-UC Irvine is the most Asian school outside of Asia.
-it is near impossible to get accurate statistics out of China as they cook the books on EVERYTHING as not to embarrass the government

they wouldn't 'undo it' if it was flawed (this is how your ignorance bites you in the ass)...do you have any idea how a Confucian society works? you do not question authority, you do not undo the workings of someone who is your senior (even if only by a year) you heap praise on them no matter how wrong or flawed and you accept without question whatever they have decided.

[Jailblazers7]

I'm not sure why our country would even consider the one child policy. Our birth rate is not a problem and our population issues center around the aging of the baby boomer generation and their impact on social security/medicare. There's no pressing reason to even contemplate it for use in America imo.

[RidonKs]

to be fair, in a less traditional society like the US or really any other western democracy, gender imbalance wouldn't be nearly as bad. China still adheres to patriarchy a lot more than the US does, thanks to those whining lezbo feminists that starface decries. not the best argument against it for the west, but there are plenty of others, so you don't really need it.

[JtotheIzzo]

I'm not sure why our country would even consider the one child policy. Our birth rate is not a problem and our population issues center around the aging of the baby boomer generation and their impact on social security/medicare. There's no pressing reason to even contemplate it for use in America imo.


easy now, this is a bait and switch classic thread by Starface, comes in with a simple question, hurls a few insults, and then defends his right wing nonsense (poor people shitting out too many kids) by hurling insults and suggesting radical change because society is in a downward spiral.

He is completely ignorant to the reality that Western societies are starving for more reproduction and the fact that many are contemplating benefit structures to encourage women to have babies. Keep that hush, it is more fun to watch him make a complete ass out of himself.

[LJJ]

I'm not sure why our country would even consider the one child policy. Our birth rate is not a problem and our population issues center around the aging of the baby boomer generation and their impact on social security/medicare. There's no pressing reason to even contemplate it for use in America imo.

In light of declining prosperity and maybe even the entire economic system collapsing there is a very pressing reason to contemplate lowering the population.

Yes that would be very, very bad for the older generations which have more people than can be sustained by the younger generations. But that alone is not a reason to bump up the population even more.

[Jailblazers7]

In light of declining prosperity and maybe even the entire economic system collapsing there is a very pressing reason to contemplate lowering the population.

Yes that would be very, very bad for the older generations which have more people than can be sustained by the younger generations. But that alone is not a reason to bump up the population even more.

Declining prosperity could very well cause a decreased national birth rate naturally and avoid any need for such a policy. Families in the US are generally smaller now and the financial burden of having children is in the forefront of peoples minds when planning families.

[FourthTenor]

no, that's a gross oversimplification. i thoroughly presented the dozen or so specific problems that are associated with the poli

it was a poopy policy for all of those reasons. you're picking one and pretending that was the only criteria i used. the reality of the situation is that you're fixated on one piece of criteria (achieving a lower population growth rate/fertility rate/whatever) and ignoring the rest.

The population growth was the big huge problem. You are using claasic anarchy/liberal theory, that all policies that present problems or dillemmas should be undone, and you assume ridiculously that no problems will come up with the absence of the policy. You sell a grass is greener, perfect world tonic.

Let me ask u this, since you cannot prove or measure the impact of chinas economic policy on population: if you set that aside because its an unknown, and you say either we institute the policy and have cases of forced abortion and 421 or we dont and the growth decline doesnt achieve anythig near the results it has, which do u pick?

Keep in mind, people arent being killed or enslaved here. A segment of the population is being told not to have more than one child. Otherwise China would have an EXTRA half billion people right now.

Youd still say no to the policy?

[RidonKs]

Let me ask u this, since you cannot prove or measure the impact of chinas economic policy on population: if you set that aside because its an unknown, and you say either we institute the policy and have cases of forced abortion and 421 or we dont and the growth decline doesnt achieve anythig near the results it has, which do u pick?
you're talking about assessing policy in the absence of all other policy. that doesn't make sense. you don't tackle a societal problem with only one mechanism, you tackle it with a variety of them. there are other ways to slow down a population. i'm sure if i spent half an hour right now, i could show you a variety of methods that aren't nearly as draconian. that's what i can tell you for sure.

i can imagine some reasonable circumstances and possibilities that are even more damning for the policy. doesn't it make sense that the Communist Party might have ignored these other policy options because it might, oh i don't know, reduce their political power over the entire country? this is an authoritarian system that has imposed itself on a country for a really long time, through revolutions and repressed uprisings and lots of death, and has proved in its 50 year history that it will do just about anything to stay in power. this particular regulation has its benefits, but that's not why it was chosen. it was chosen because it falls right in line with the history of the guys who made it.

if it were less power hungry and obsessed with control, it might have gone another route. that's what i'm saying it should have done. therefore, i choose not using it, because there were better options available that i would have used. does that answer your question?

[FourthTenor]

Its amazing bc with the number of extra mouths to feed being reduced, that has HELPED even the people who were so harshly forced to have a single child. Nobody has taken that into accout when crying about the extra 111,000 men or whatever. The policy has been tough for some, but ocerall BETTER for all than the alternative.

You arent looking at large problems, u sniff out minor, often inconsequential individual "injustices" (or fabricate them) and start a whining crusade, even if they are the necessary lesser of two evils.

You cut off noses to spite faces. You complicate natural order by disrupting te best practical solution if it has even the tiniest most inoffensive flaw. You can be tough without being callous or cruel. Well, not u specifically obviously, but some of us do manage it

[FourthTenor]

you're talking about assessing policy in the absence of all other policy. that doesn't make sense. you don't tackle a societal problem with only one mechanism, you tackle it with a variety of them. there are other ways to slow down a population. i'm sure if i spent half an hour right now, i could show you a variety of methods that aren't nearly as draconian. that's what i can tell you for sure.

i can imagine some reasonable circumstances and possibilities that are even more damning for the policy. doesn't it make sense that the Communist Party might have ignored these other policy options because it might, oh i don't know, reduce their political power over the entire country? this is an authoritarian system that has imposed itself on a country for a really long time, through revolutions and repressed uprisings and lots of death, and has proved in its 50 year history that it will do just about anything to stay in power. this particular regulation has its benefits, but that's not why it was chosen. it was chosen because it falls right in line with the history of the guys who made it.

if it were less power hungry and obsessed with control, it might have gone another route. that's what i'm saying it should have done. therefore, i choose not using it, because there were better options available that i would have used. does that answer your question?

Sigh.


Its not a conspiracy bro.


China had a serious problem, and addressed it in the most direct and effective manner without SERIOUS human rights violations: death, imprisonment, enslavememt etc


But thats not good enough for u. It worked but it wasnt pretty and ideal, so u think it never should have happened, completely and willfully ignoring the other side of the coin.

Neither side of the reality coin is pretty. U focus on whatever side u see and believe the other side is better. Try coping with reality some time broham.

[FourthTenor]

yes, its because of f@ggotry I think this way...:rolleyes:



-UC Irvine is the most Asian school outside of Asia.



Oh good point, american asians are never critical of mainland china.:rolleyes:

[RidonKs]

i never said it was a conspiracy. conspiracies are hush hush and only pursued by a few brave souls. everybody knows what the number one prerogative of the Communist Party is... stay in power. then after that comes prosperity, wealth, advancement, etc, etc. and we shouldn't expect anything less, because that's the way it was made to be, by a guy who, you guessed it, wanted power.

btw, that's also the reason for the broad strokes that the party takes throughout the country. it isn't because of the giant population. a little more decentralization would fix that, more power in the hands of provincial and city governments with less fixing from above. all the stuff you're usually in favour of. the broad strokes is because policy is all being formed at the top of the political pyramid, inside the committee or whatever they call it. there's like 20 of them i think. all the provincial governments have to work within the confines of what the central Communist Party branch decides is appropriate.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Don't live in China, so I'm not effected. The one child policy was mainly for population control. Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea, to keep down the fertility rate. Having a huge population without much jobs is only going to be a problem. Main problem is a lot of people in general just prefer boys, as it's like a thing to "pass down the family name" or something. People go as far as abandoning their daughter if it's a female, possibly even killing it and reporting it as missing. China is running out of a ****** (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjGW_4o0RWk&feature=related), and that's a bigger issue.

[RidonKs]

this is how you slow population growth, or to put it more accurately, promote responsible reproduction.

from the wiki page for 'human population control'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control#Present-day_practice_by_countries)


Enacted in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to those in need. Priority for services is given to people with low-incomes. The Title X Family Planning program is administered through the Office of Population Affairs under the Office of Public Health and science. It is directed by the Office of Family Planning.[46] In 2007, Congress appropriated roughly $283 million for family planning under Title X, at least 90 percent of which was used for services in family planning clinics.[46] Title X is a vital source of funding for family planning clinics throughout the nation,[47] which provide reproductive health care.
The education and services supplied by the Title X-funded clinics support young individuals and low-income families. The goals of developing healthy families are accomplished by helping individuals and couples decide whether to have children and when the appropriate time to do so would be.[47]
Title X has made the prevention of unintended pregnancies possible.[47] It has allowed millions of American women to receive necessary reproductive health care, plan their pregnancies and prevent abortions. Title X is dedicated exclusively to funding family planning and reproductive health care services.[46]
Title X as a percentage of total public funding to family planning client services has steadily declined from 44% of total expenditures in 1980 to 12% in 2006. Medicaid has increased from 20% to 71% in the same time. In 2006, Medicaid contributed $1.3 billion to public family planning.[48]

but in less socially advanced societies where gender equality is still sorely lacking, the general promotion of female empowerment, sensible family planning, education in a variety of life skills, and the rest are the fundamental programs that need to be made available. and poverty exacerbates that problem even more. but you've gotta teach a man to fish, not just give him a small weekly ration.

[FourthTenor]

this is how you slow population growth, or to put it more accurately, promote responsible reproduction.

from the wiki page for 'human population control'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control#Present-day_practice_by_countries)



but in less socially advanced societies where gender equality is still sorely lacking, the general promotion of female empowerment, sensible family planning, education in a variety of life skills, and the rest are the fundamental programs that need to be made available. and poverty exacerbates that problem even more. but you've gotta teach a man to fish, not just give him a small weekly ration.

Thats well and good but do u or dont u think the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies in the US occur because people werent educated or looked for birth control and couldnt find, or just simply didnt care enough to bother??

The problem for the US isnt just a matter of numbers. The people and cultures in the pyramid who have the least amount of social principles and priorities are the ones muktiplying the fastest. Small homogenous countries in europe maintain bc theyre natually on the same page. Big countries like China force people on the same page. The US is so overly sensitive that it wont call out its own for thw good of the country. People like u are enablers, point blank, because ur too afraid and sensitive to ask standards of individual. You always blame the big institution bc its u vs goliath and it feels less standoffish. U wont say to one persons face that their way is not good for socety. Were still resting on the huge excelerated motion of yesteryear, but that momentum is slowing. The newer generations are falling behind. Its not a resources and space issue, but a quality of life issue. Jizzo said it best, we dont need all these people shitting out kids they arent raising.

Youll never have the guts to day it but i do, because i want my country to be better off going forward

[RidonKs]

because people werent educated

or just simply didnt care enough to bother??
these are connected. if they were educated, they would have cared enough to bother. that's the way it works.

[ballup]

The fact that the Chinese government made this policy clearly indicates that Chinese people like to get their **** on:rockon:

Anyways, the Chinese government had to make a move to stop overpopulation, which would lead to much worse problems then the human right to have as many children as one desires. Another solution would be to promote immigration to other countries, but I'm not entirely sure if the general population would like that sort of mixing.

or maybe the one child policy a secret Chinese plot to get a lot of males and one day, disperse the single male population to every corner of the world. Then China will rule the world by having Chinese blood in almost every population.:eek: :bowdown:

[Stuckey]

sorry, no money dont care

[FourthTenor]

these are connected. if they were educated, they would have cared enough to bother. that's the way it works.

Really, you reckon people old enough to reproduce dont know how its done and how to prevent it?

Once again, this is u blaming the larger, more ambiguous "system, institution, concept, goverment, establishment" etc i stead of saying a lot of ORDINARY PEOPLE are screwing up.

You cant say it. Youre allergic. You have a liberal complex where u cant bring yourself to be "mean" (see: honest) to david so youre always findig a way to truck the blame to goliaths door step, come hell or high water or illogical argument. We kno why politicians do it. To stay in office. Why do u do it? Because u have no toughness. Not trying to be mean , just honest. Youre always tip toeing on egg shells bc if u made a peep and a baby started to cry, your heart would explode with sadness and sympathy. U dont have the guts to be the adult and do what is right albeit unpopular. A successful society needs cooperation and sacrifice from top to bottom. You are always professing your insistence on accountability from big brother, but when problems obviously caused by the collective little brother arise, u shrink from callinv the spade a spade, and seek to draw big brother back into it as the real cause of the problem.



I wish at the least u would admit you have this complex.

[RidonKs]

yeah, sure. i've got something similar to that. i'd describe it a whole lot differently and i'd back it up with reasons as to why i think it's appropriate.


Once again, this is u blaming the larger, more ambiguous "system, institution, concept, goverment, establishment" etc i stead of saying a lot of ORDINARY PEOPLE are screwing up.
overall, the political and social and cultural environment is more significant for the direction of a single individual, a small community, or an entire country, than your conception of 'individual choice'. the data tends to back that up, and we've seen the benefits of seeing the problem through that kind of a lens and adjusting public policy accordingly. there are a lot of great ways that government and a socially responsible private sector can reinforce positive environments and foster a successful society, without encroaching on rights that people feel should be beyond reproach. that's the bottom line. why take an unpopular course of action when popular ones are available? the fact that the unpopularity of a course of action is itself problematic in a democracy only exacerbates the problem.

[FourthTenor]

Ok, so u have communities where the majority ofghe population is destitute and desperate, and instead of methodic imrpovement in their condition through patience and self improvement, they make the choice to say fukc it and just have irresponsible sex and live willfully in poverty, commit crimes, and ha e their basic needs supplied by the government.

This is a detriment to the rest of society. So if the rest of society wants change, then what? Ask nicely? That wont work. Figuratively shake them by the shoulders and say "shape up or gtfo!!!" oh no, thats much too insensitive and oppressive for u. So whats the solution? Oh, appease them with taxpayer money and let the problem linger as long as we arent directly confronting anythig (perish the thought) and hurting feelings.


Sometimes not every pronlem has a nice, delicate, perfect solution. Your womanly approach is not working. It needs some balance of actual balls. You let problems fester bc u have a weak stomach. Look the other way or divert blame and its all better, huh?

[RidonKs]

bleh. i'll talk about the actual policies with you, but this sort of dumb generalization is boring and goes nowhere. let me know when you're ready to let go of your made up scenarios and talk about the real world. you aren't writing much worth responding to.

why don't you actually describe provable real world effects of the policy that you think are positive? you've barely done that. you're just sitting around tossing bullsh*t. you were thinking about the issue, stumbled across this newly published study, and you jumped on that connection, made a thread about the policy, and claimed it proved something. you haven't actually given it any thought, you just pounced with your preconceived notions and framed yet another complex issue into your crazy dichotomized black and white world. it's silly.

seriously, re-read your second post in this thread. you sound like a f*cking nutjob.

[FourthTenor]

All u ever argue is the problems with the current solutions. And if asked for a solution of your own u give a cartoonishly impractical, pie in the sky, idealized x1000, realistically impossible scenario. You are in perpetual denial of how life works. Your contributions to discussions of policy are, therefore, valueless.

[RidonKs]

:roll: re-read the damn thread. i'm the one talking about policy. real substance and content are totally absent because all you care about is trapping whoever your arguing with inside a stupid made-up hypothetical scenario and then yelling 'aha!'. it's retarded.

seriously, in your last post, it's right there...

"okay, okay, imagine that all the masses are like, living in Narnia and everything's great... got that? so then a big chunk of those people start acting like idiots and having lots of unprotected sex and buying corvettes with money they don't have. and they kill each other too! and and soon they break into the real world and start killing and raping your family! are you saying you'd still want to help them?"

the world doesn't work like THAT. i talk about the real world, you don't.

[FourthTenor]

No u dont. You deny the real wold, which at its core is dependent on the actions of flawed individuals. Instead of promoting effort and betterment from individuals, you consistently excuse them and target institutions, establishmnts, or concepts you feel more comfortable criticising, since youre afraid to criticize those more apt to take offense - even if their actions merit criticism or rebuke.

You razz the rich, the education system, the corporations, republicans, banks etc etc and when necessary thats fine. But when it comes to things like birth rates, violence, obesity, drop out rates, incarceration rates, i never hear you calling out the cultures and communities and values that foster them. You just make a token remark about how the government needs to do more or the edu system needs better funding. You imply that these alone will solve the growing problems by failing to EVER mention anything but them. Thats pathetic.

You are gutless. Youre afraid to have any comments construed as insensitive, mean, harsh, etc and so u play it safe and only criticise the big guy. You are constrained by your fear of ostericization (sp...?) and as a result adopt only the views youre confident enoughto say out loud. Thats a liberal hall mark. Youre afraid to SAY anything potentially offensive tothe point that you start to only be able to think in those terms as well. Youre a social doormat. Instead of standing up to the inconsiderate and irresponsible, you redirect the blame so u can appear to be involved in the process without having to confront anyone on a person to person level.

Youre a coward man. Thats it and thats all. You are a coward.

[brantonli]

Hmm, does the US need a policy similar to the one child policy?

Let's think things long term. Now, you already know that Medicare and Medicaid are already killing the US budget. Now imagine if your nation starts to become older and there are less working people to pay for that spending. Unless both come under major reforms, a one child policy will do disasters to pensioner's benefits.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=122#us

Right now, USA is at a fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman. As the CIA fact book kindly explains:


A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older.

So right now, USA is actually on par in terms of population growth. It's not in a decline like W. European countries, but it's not going on a population explosion either. Now, China's children per woman is 1.54, which indicates an ageing population.

If anything, in order to combat world overpopulation, it's the developing countries, especially Africa, that we'd have to concentrate population controls on, rather than countries with stable or even declining populations. If one looks at, well, every country that has a fertility rate of 3 or above, the list is almost exclusively African.

[FourthTenor]

Hmm, does the US need a policy similar to the one child policy?

Let's think things long term. Now, you already know that Medicare and Medicaid are already killing the US budget. Now imagine if your nation starts to become older and there are less working people to pay for that spending. Unless both come under major reforms, a one child policy will do disasters to pensioner's benefits.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=122#us

Right now, USA is at a fertility rate of 2.06 children per woman. As the CIA fact book kindly explains:



So right now, USA is actually on par in terms of population growth. It's not in a decline like W. European countries, but it's not going on a population explosion either. Now, China's children per woman is 1.54, which indicates an ageing population.

If anything, in order to combat world overpopulation, it's the developing countries, especially Africa, that we'd have to concentrate population controls on, rather than countries with stable or even declining populations. If one looks at, well, every country that has a fertility rate of 3 or above, the list is almost exclusively African.

Like i said, im not talking about a necessity of numbers situation forthe US or a one child policy, i just want the low class scum of society to be sterilized basically is what im sayin. That neednt be equivalent to low income, but rather people with no consideration for the society they live in. People who are running amok and causing problems. I dont wat their kids in my country. Period.

And yeah i agree bout africa, a lot of money is wasted sustaining a generally desperate and futile existence there. Either invest enough to make it significantly better off long term, or just leave them to the vultures. Right now giving them aid is like throwing money into quicksand

[Sarcastic]

Like i said, im not talking about a necessity of numbers situation forthe US or a one child policy, i just want the low class scum of society to be sterilized basically is what im sayin. That neednt be equivalent to low income, but rather people with no consideration for the society they live in. People who are running amok and causing problems. I dont wat their kids in my country. Period.

At least now you are finally admitting you are racist.

[FourthTenor]

At least now you are finally admitting you are racist.
:roll:


Only a loony liberal...

[Sarcastic]

:roll:


Only a loony liberal...

The Native tribes of North America want you out of their country too.

We don't always get what we want, now do we?

[CLE[216]]

Like i said, im not talking about a necessity of numbers situation forthe US or a one child policy, i just want the low class scum of society to be sterilized basically is what im sayin. That neednt be equivalent to low income, but rather people with no consideration for the society they live in. People who are running amok and causing problems. I dont wat their kids in my country. Period.

Oh, so you'd like to do away with the rich white elite who run this country? I agree with you that they're fukking everything up.

[RidonKs]

No u dont. You deny the real wold, which at its core is dependent on the actions of flawed individuals. Instead of promoting effort and betterment from individuals, you consistently excuse them and target institutions, establishmnts, or concepts you feel more comfortable criticising, since youre afraid to criticize those more apt to take offense - even if their actions merit criticism or rebuke.

You razz the rich, the education system, the corporations, republicans, banks etc etc and when necessary thats fine. But when it comes to things like birth rates, violence, obesity, drop out rates, incarceration rates, i never hear you calling out the cultures and communities and values that foster them. You just make a token remark about how the government needs to do more or the edu system needs better funding. You imply that these alone will solve the growing problems by failing to EVER mention anything but them. Thats pathetic.

You are gutless. Youre afraid to have any comments construed as insensitive, mean, harsh, etc and so u play it safe and only criticise the big guy. You are constrained by your fear of ostericization (sp...?) and as a result adopt only the views youre confident enoughto say out loud. Thats a liberal hall mark. Youre afraid to SAY anything potentially offensive tothe point that you start to only be able to think in those terms as well. Youre a social doormat. Instead of standing up to the inconsiderate and irresponsible, you redirect the blame so u can appear to be involved in the process without having to confront anyone on a person to person level.

Youre a coward man. Thats it and thats all. You are a coward.
lol very nicely put

you're reading just a little too much into it. psychoanalysis is all well and good, but usually you have to base it on a little more than politics discussions on a messageboard. good try though, i can see you gave it a lot of thought.

but i'll tell you why i hold the two sides you described, call them institutionalized and uninstitutionalized, to different standards. the institutions that i criticize so much operate and collaborate with a popular system of governance that is supposed to represent ME. so when they act out of hand to do nothing more than line their pockets, i feel ripped the f*ck off. banks, republicans, that's just the tip of the iceberg, and nothing about it is partisan.

as for the uninstitutionalized stuff, it's happening everywhere around you. kids are being popped out, fatties are lining up to gorge on grease, kids treat school like a drive thru. and i can't do anything about it. i can't put a ban on that stuff, because they're only hurting themselves. stupid though i may think they are, i have to treat them as rational human beings. that's the way democratic politics have to work because it's the only one that's sustainable.

so how do i get them to stop? not by cutting off their arm as they go to light a cigarette, but by guiding them in the right direction without denying them their freedom of choice. incentives. disincentives or whatever the opposite is. sin taxes. restrictive gun licenses. social enterprise subsidies. EDUCATION. that's the most important one, because it's the one that lasts.

of course, if you hurt somebody, you're breaking the law by violating that person's freedom to not be hurt. that's against the law and punishable and yeah, those people suck. but even those people are different. they can be brought into the system, educated to make the right choices, etc. still by their own free will, but ease of access to programs that will help them is important.

so to answer your question after all of that, the difference is legal; both are making bad choices, but the fatties and whores aren't breaking any laws that i think are enforceable. and i think when it gets down to that distinction, even you can understand what i mean.


Youre afraid to have any comments construed as insensitive, mean, harsh, etc and so u play it safe
i don't play it safe. i'm polite. i don't act like an assh*le. and only an assh*le would call somebody out for that. i call people out on sh*t, but i'm not out to hurt feelings. why would i, that's idiot behavior that we should ignore. i know how it feels to have ________ happen to you, so i'm going to avoid putting other people through it.

but when somebody is doing something that has an enormous effect on everybody else, and it happens to be against the law, and they happen to understand the risk of disaster, and they do it anyways? something really shitty that winds up catastrophically upsetting the lives of a sh*tload of people? yeah, i call them out.

straight and nice, it's called. don't keep anything bottled up that needs to be said, but if it's not that important and it'd probably hurt somebody's feelings, don't bother. unless it's harmless fun. jokes and stereotypes are how i let out my pent up racism. it works great and breaks the ice.

but enough about me

[TennesseeFan]

Wut.

[CrownTime]

I don't see the one child policy being the way to go about population control. Killing off every pro-lifer would be a start and then we can introduce euthanasia as a commonplace practice and let the old and the redundant to let go off life instead of clutching on to what little life they have. if you're in a nursing home your life should be ended. Watch more George Carlin.

[purplch0de]

http://www.dan-dare.org/Dan%20Mario/MarioMemoriesWallpaper1024.jpg

[imlmf]

it's something that had to be done, otherwise they will just keep reproducing while other systems don't seem to catch up, education, health care, etc.

of course it's going to have its effect that the entire generation grew up without any siblings. but overall, the topic is too lengthy for an online forum

you may name something specific so a real discussion is even possible

[lilbill]

Most of you will continue to wonder, why the elite take advantage of you in government and in economy. You will resent the increasing wealth gap, the power and influence of those at the top, and continued dominance of society's upper class. You will blame the system.

It won't occur to you that perhaps they are simply the opportunists of a society that allows EVERYONE to be as involved, ambitious, and assertive as they wish, and the benefit for the people who do recognize this is only multiplied be the sizable number of people who do not.


The same society that allows an obnoxious, lazy, delusional college drop out to sponge off his parents and post tough guy bullshit on message boards?

[JtotheIzzo]

it's something that had to be done, otherwise they will just keep reproducing while other systems don't seem to catch up, education, health care, etc.

of course it's going to have its effect that the entire generation grew up without any siblings. but overall, the topic is too lengthy for an online forum

you may name something specific so a real discussion is even possible


whoa easy with the logic there fella.

Starface already summed it up nicely. If you are against social engineering you are a liberal f@ggot pu$$y looking for a free handout.

[FourthTenor]

The same society that allows an obnoxious, lazy, delusional college drop out to sponge off his parents and post tough guy bullshit on message boards?


Oh god, another account u created to obsess over me??

Youre puttin a lot of pressure on me bro. I gotta go out n enjoy hollywood, i gotta keep up with social issues and current events, and i gotta articulate all of it in an entertainig and interesting way back here at ish just so u have a reason not to kill yourself. I mean ur living vicariously thru me and slurping my juice with a hundred anonymous internet gimmicks, one can imagine how desperate u are as it is, imagine if i warnt around. Show a lil gratitude, miserable f@g :oldlol:

[lilbill]

Oh god, another account u created to obsess over me??

Youre puttin a lot of pressure on me bro. I gotta go out n enjoy hollywood, i gotta keep up with social issues and current events, and i gotta articulate all of it in an entertainig and interesting way back here at ish just so u have a reason not to kill yourself. I mean ur living vicariously thru me and slurping my juice with a hundred anonymous internet gimmicks, one can imagine how desperate u are as it is, imagine if i warnt around. Show a lil gratitude, miserable f@g :oldlol:

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Funny stuff. Too bad the Hollywood establishment hasn't discovered you yet.

[FourthTenor]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Funny stuff. Too bad the Hollywood establishment hasn't discovered you yet.


Actually, hardly anyone gets 'discovered' from a talent standpoint these days.

Hollywood isn't looking for real artistic talent anymore. The TV industry gets its stars from Reality shows that anyone can happen to land on by chance. I get tons of audition notices for those things and I don't even go to them. It's crap and I don't want to be a part of it. The music industry gets its big stars from the likes of American Idol. Not meticulous talent searches that scour venues throughout the country like Motown used to do, but rather a voter based sideshow full of amateur talent and idiot audiences.

That's why I've been spending all summer trying to figure out web design, video editing, doing some writing etc. because I simply can't rely on the Hollywood machine if I want to do real entertainment. They're not looking for the best anymore, they're looking for fast, cheap, viral sensations. Why? Because Average Joe will consume any form of entertainment you stick in front of his face. Executives out here dont care bout the art, they got beverly hills mortgages and range rover leases to pay. They wanna make the most money with the least investment possible, and the average american dummy yokel makes that possible by being so uncultured, so idiotic and compromising, and so desperate to keep up with whatever random nonsense is 'trending' that he'll literally EAT UP anything that he's TOLD is entertaining. He's not even cognizant while he's watching something if he finds it stimulating or not, whether its good entertainment or not. He's told to watch it, so he watches it. He has no other interests, hobbies, or ambitions in life, so he watches it. Works his job, comes home, watches 4 hours of whatevers on the tube, goes to bed.

If you want to make anything of substantive quality that takes time and talent, you gotta do it on your own now. Hollywood is now Dominoes. Big national brand, absolute shit quality. If you wanna make good pizzas, you're gonna have to start from scratch as a local chain and do it all your own. Being 'discovered' is dead.

[FourthTenor]

whoa easy with the logic there fella.

Starface already summed it up nicely. If you are against social engineering you are a liberal f@ggot pu$$y looking for a free handout.


lol @ social engineering.

"we've got a population crisis. we are asking that all non-ethnic minority couples who live in urban areas please have only one child. if you have more, you'll have to pay a fine. this is so that as a society we can best manage our already enormous population, without the burden of an extra 35-40% added to it over the next few decades."


j2theizzo: social engineering! omg!
ridonks: egregious human rights violations! ahhh!


bystander:what, they're killing people? imprisoning political dissenters? conquering and enslaving neighboring countries?

j2theizzo/ridonks: Worse. They've asked that all urban couples who are not ethnic minorities only have one child, and are providing free, readily avaiable contraceptives to aid them in this initiative for the long term health of the country. But if they dare have more than one child, get this.... they get fined...




http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/56/5629/ITHMG00Z/posters/roberts-h-armstrong-woman-with-frightened-expression-holding-hands-up-to-face.jpg

[RidonKs]

forced abortions, you nitwit. imagine your mother being strapped to a steel table and aborted without her consent a week before she gave birth to you... sound fair? what about a sibling of yours? or a family friend? can you even contemplate the experience of expecting a child and then having it killed shortly before its due date? you've never gone through anything even closely resembling that sort of pain, and neither have i, and neither of us likely ever will. show some respect.

that's the extreme end of the spectrum that we're talking about, with simple fines at the opposite end. the exact number of times that happened throughout the 80s and 90s varies depending on who you ask, but you aren't going to find a figure under a million. and if that happened over a million times, even discounting every other factor that has repeatedly been explained to you to no avail, then it's not worth it. not for a smaller population. lines have to be drawn, and that's one of them. point blank.

[FourthTenor]

forced abortions, you nitwit. imagine your mother being strapped to a steel table and aborted without her consent a week before she gave birth to you... sound fair? what about a sibling of yours? or a family friend? can you even contemplate the experience of expecting a child and then having it killed shortly before its due date? you've never gone through anything even closely resembling that sort of pain, and neither have i, and neither of us likely ever will. show some respect.

that's the extreme end of the spectrum that we're talking about, with simple fines at the opposite end. the exact number of times that happened throughout the 80s and 90s varies depending on who you ask, but you aren't going to find a figure under a million. and if that happened over a million times, even discounting every other factor that has repeatedly been explained to you to no avail, then it's not worth it. not for a smaller population. lines have to be drawn, and that's one of them. point blank.

That's not the official policy. I'm asking about the merit of the concept of one child per couple. All governments do nefarious things. I'm not proposing they should strap people down and abort their kids. I don't know why that route was taken rather than the fine which is generally how the legislation reads.

Anyway, USA (and by extension your country, USA Jr.) has major problems going forward. Look at charts. The communities that are growing the fastest are the ones with the least education, least in-wedlock births, highest incarceration rates, rampant violence etc. etc.

Because you and LOSERS like sarcastic are too afraid, too sensitive, too unable TO HANDLE THE TRUTH, you will divert this important discussion to the race card. You don't wanna have a candid discussion of these uncomfortable issues (because you're afraid a single wittle feeling might get hurt by some pansy as sensitive as you are) and so instead you dare me to say something direct and crucial to discussion, knowing you've got that strawman race-card right there on your hip, ready to draw like a sixshooter at the drop of a hat.


It's people like Sarcastic who enable this country to slide down the slope. He doesn't want accountability for any thing from any one. If you ask that everyone be held accountable, and try to identify specific areas where people aren't, he demonizes you and TRIES to make you spend time defending your own character rather than focus on the important issues he's too much of a vag1na to look directly in the face of.

Bottom line is do you want to call a spade a spade so you can move on and address the problem, or do you want to call a spade a beautiful little rose so it feels good, and you cant pretend like its not an issue because hey whats the harm in a beautiful little rose? If that's what it is, you can just ignore it. (its really a spade, but you cant handle the truth so you pretend its a rose and make everyone agree on it). just keep callin it a beautiful rose so that there's no standoff, no messy confrontation, no hurt wittle feewings. Not a spade, a magnificent little rose...

You aren't looking ahead. We are still at the forefront of quality of life right now because of the incredible momentum we built up from the beginning days of our country. Everything in the Universe - animal, vegetable, mineral, or country - has a life span. Remember how great Rome was? Guess what, it fell too. Sarcastic won't help to keep our country strong because he simply doesn't have the guts to confront those who act detrimentally. HE. IS. A. PUS$Y. Straight up, period. He is a loser. He's probably ugly and insecure, got picked on in school, so now he's out for revenge against any and all social pressures. Hey, Sarcastic, I'm sorry you got bullied at school, never got a girl, you're ugly and intellectually inferior. I truly wish that hadn't happened to you. But it's not too late to integrate into society. It is important. Just because you were an excluded outcast before, doesnt mean we won't embrace you now. You just have to actually flick the 'on' switch on your brain, and put a little water and fertilizer on your lap until testicles grow. Ok? The feel good, immediate-relief-at-long-term-expense solutions you propose are like trying to use buckets to rid water from a leaking ship. You're a f@ggot. Do you understand? You're not intelligent and you dont have good ideas. You're trying to fit in with all the other kids who were outcasts and grew up to be democrats. Now you guys have your own union and you wanna stick it to the society that never accepted you. Hurray! Get with the program and grow up, losssserrrrrrrrr.

[RidonKs]

I'm asking about the merit of the concept of one child per couple.
i'm not reading the rest. you just flipped the question to try to alter the conversation that clearly wasn't going your way. what you -were- interested in, prior to having your ass served for dinner, was whether or not this policy worked in China. everybody told you that it didn't work because there were too many negative ramifications; forced abortions were one of them. then you pulled a bunch of your patented condescending crybaby tangents, and now you're changing the subject.

let me add some quotes for emphasis


Ridonks, please answer for me point blank if u do or do not consider China's one birth policy to be an overall success for the country since its instituion.

So point blank, you think the one child policy was a bad/regrettable decision?

When i juxtapose the the individual rights that have been infri ged against what China would look like with an extra half billion, i conclude t was worth it.

THAT's what we're talking about. stick to your own topic.


and now you're reverting back to a very typical progressive solution; taxation. in fact, the sin tax is the very mechanism of government regulation that you strenuously attacked about a week ago, and forced me to defend. now you're on the opposite side of the fence... "just fine them when they don't do as they're told". i'd go read through your arguments in the last thread and force you to answer to them if they were worth a single grain of salt. buuuut they aren't.

[FourthTenor]

i'm not reading the rest. you just flipped the question to try to alter the conversation that clearly wasn't going your way. what you -were- interested in, prior to having your ass served for dinner, was whether or not this policy worked in China. everybody told you that it didn't work because there were too many negative ramifications; forced abortions were one of them. then you pulled a bunch of your patented condescending crybaby tangents, and now you're changing the subject.

let me add some quotes for emphasis

THAT's what we're talking about. stick to your own topic.


and now you're reverting back to a very typical progressive solution; taxation. in fact, the sin tax is the very mechanism of government regulation that you strenuously attacked about a week ago, and forced me to defend. now you're on the opposite side of the fence... "just fine them when they don't do as they're told". i'd go read through your arguments in the last thread and force you to answer to them if they were worth a single grain of salt. buuuut they aren't.


China prevented about a half-billion in extra population which would be a CATASTROPHE right now, and you think it wasnt worth it because there were forced abortions.

Dude.... oh. my. god. I can't believe how gay you are. You are like purposely taking the soft side cuz you think you have to. Taking the tough, necessary, unpretty, EFFECTIVE route would give you weird feelings inside. Am I being a meany? Am I being a big bad jerk? OMGZ I can't stand this, I need to go back to softy ASAP. I like to play the butterfly effect game. Pretend that if I undo all the bad stuff, there won't be any bad stuff. Not realizing it will just be different types of bad stuff, possibly much, much worse. I want to sit on the computer and argue impossible, impractical magical solutions that make everyone happy, while outside my house the actual problems are going to shit because nobody is solving them with realistic means. I can ignore whats actually happening and just make great theoretical happy proposals that make all the people and puppies and flowers happy. Wait a minute. Is there a large man punching me in the head right now so he can take my wallet? It's ok. If I confronted him about what is occuring, it might get very awkward and uncomfortable. He can keep punching me. I deserve it anyway, I have 100 bucks in my wallet. He probably has 10. I was in the wrong for not being punched in the head, I'm glad we've made this correction.

Just get the sex change over with already bro. I mean sis.

[RidonKs]

aaand yet ANOTHER flip flop by starface. now we're back to the original debate, and you're back to defending the actual reality of what happened in China as a direct result of the one-child policy. and only 45 minutes after saying


That's not the official policy. I'm asking about the merit of the concept of one child per couple. All governments do nefarious things. I'm not proposing they should strap people down and abort their kids. I don't know why that route was taken rather than the fine which is generally how the legislation reads.

"but, yaknow, if it happens so what? f*ck them, sacrifices must be made!"
"what if it happens to 10 million people?"
"...errr....... f*ck them, sacrifices must be made!"

you know who else said that?

*reads off list of war criminals*

you f*cking jackass. anything to 'win' an argument, right? doesn't matter anyways, you'll convince yourself of that no matter what the content of a discussion. that's YOUR pathology. you're ability to analyze the facts is sorely lacking and you try to make up for it with stupid inapplicable analogies and generalizations that have nothing to do with anything. same old talking points, no new information. i feel like i'm debating jeeves.

[FourthTenor]

aaand yet ANOTHER flip flop by starface. now we're back to the original debate, and you're back to defending the actual reality of what happened in China as a direct result of the one-child policy. and only 45 minutes after saying



"but, yaknow, if it happens so what? f*ck them, sacrifices must be made!"
"what if it happens to 10 million people?"
"...errr....... f*ck them, sacrifices must be made!"

you know who else said that?

*reads off list of war criminals*

you f*cking jackass. anything to 'win' an argument, right? doesn't matter anyways, you'll convince yourself of that no matter what the content of a discussion. that's YOUR pathology. you're ability to analyze the facts is sorely lacking and you try to make up for it with stupid inapplicable analogies and generalizations that have nothing to do with anything. same old talking points, no new information. i feel like i'm debating jeeves.

I didn't say they SHOULD. I am not personally CONDONING forced abortions.

But weighing the fact that it did happen in some instances, vs. the overall effectiveness of the program is still a W for the policy.


You can pick between some forced abortions - and i'll assume in any other argument you're pro-choice, so you dont think the act of abortion itself is that bad. just that a mother who is having a second child in a society that is a billion strong and is trying to control its numbers is made to have an abortion is an unspeakable atrocity - so you can deal with some forced abortions and reduce the potential size of China by 40% or you can have a full blown crisis of numbers right now that would cause the whole society's quality of life to plummet. And you arent allowed to play theoretical games like "well, maybe if they changed their economy, everyone would just have one kid anyway" and nonsense like that.

All we have is the facts. The policy, the results, and the side effects. You are focusing on the side effects because you can easily say they're wrong, and pretend like not having the policy would have been a perfect solution. You're playing the one sided coin game. You can't swallow a tough action as a necessary one. You condemn every little thing and pretend like the opposite would have been better. You're just scared. Scared and sensitive.

It's not like if they were killing people in the streets or saying people couldnt have kids. I believe people have rights and there is a delicate balance between individual freedoms and social good. But you dont see any sort of balance. You believe in free reign anarchy if it makes the person feel good. To hell with society! It's evil and rich and republican anyway, right? Let all the creeps and outcasts stick it to 'em! Hurrah!

[FourthTenor]

you f*cking jackass. anything to 'win' an argument, right? doesn't matter anyways, you'll convince yourself of that no matter what the content of a discussion. that's YOUR pathology. you're ability to analyze the facts is sorely lacking and you try to make up for it with stupid inapplicable analogies and generalizations that have nothing to do with anything. same old talking points, no new information. i feel like i'm debating jeeves.


hah! i bring more critical thinking heat to this site then everyone else combined. you just dont like it because i dont apply generous sugarcoating which you desperately need in your world affairs and because i tactlessly call you out when i see you CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. those have nothing to do with the merits of my viewpoints, which are more substantive than yours. Always.

[RidonKs]

lol

did you even bother offering the least bit of substance to your only talking point? not once in this thread did you actually outline WHY China needed to reduce its population and by how much and under what circumstances it was hurting the global economy, the domestic economy, and the standard of living. not a single time did you elaborate. you think i'm being one-sided? at the very least, i've given a descriptive analysis to the cons i think outweight the pro(s?). you haven't given any thought to what the reduced population actually means. you just keep repeating it, over and over again.


but this is dumb. you wanna talk about policy, let me know. i'd be more than happy to. you haven't done that in this thread because you consistently let yourself get sidetracked with diagnosing your opponents with freudian bullsh*t that would be more aptly applied to a nutcase like yourself. you just hop on the bandwagon with whatever isolated fact sparked the original thought in your head, and then you set out to fiercely prove your retarded point by making up retarded sh*t to trick your handcuffed mind into avoiding the obvious truth for why every f*cking person everywhere disagrees with you.

and you're really really confused about the libertarian/socialist divide. you've leveled two diametrically opposed accusations at me in about a week's span. make up your f*Cking mind.

[FourthTenor]

lol

did you even bother offering the least bit of substance to your only talking point? not once in this thread did you actually outline WHY China needed to reduce its population and by how much and under what circumstances it was hurting the global economy, the domestic economy, and the standard of living. not a single time did you elaborate. you think i'm being one-sided? at the very least, i've given a descriptive analysis to the cons i think outweight the pro(s?). you haven't given any thought to what the reduced population actually means. you just keep repeating it, over and over again.


but this is dumb. you wanna talk about policy, let me know. i'd be more than happy to. you haven't done that in this thread because you consistently let yourself get sidetracked with diagnosing your opponents with freudian bullsh*t that would be more aptly applied to a nutcase like yourself. you just hop on the bandwagon with whatever isolated fact sparked the original thought in your head, and then you set out to fiercely prove your retarded point by making up retarded sh*t to trick your handcuffed mind into avoiding the obvious truth for why every f*cking person everywhere disagrees with you.


i reciprocated discussion with brantonli and jtotheizzo earlier in the thread, but then you brought the softness and it did get me sidetracked. bc you are always on the extreme end of uber softness, even if its BAD for the long term, BAD for the larger group, you always go with what is the easiest, softest, mildest method as long as it produces an effect that allows you to pretend you championed a little guy. and i just get so pissed off when i try to discuss topics on ISH and i get responses like that from the likes of you and many others. i dont wanna discuss this stuff with you because you're too soft. you're too soft, you can't handle the truth, and its a waste of time.

i try to strike a balance. i dont support oppression or dictators with iron fists, but this was a reasonable overall policy applied to a unique situation which required a balance of toughness and effectiveness with the rights of individuals. By and large it is considered a success, but you instinctively think it has to be bad because of flaws here and there, and any kind of tiny miniscule injustice is one too many for you, even if it prevents a larger crisis. You'd rather everyone have a crisis than 1 person make a sacrifice. you live in a fairyworld. and since there was limited response in this thread to begin with, i got sidetracked by your gunk.

[Droid101]

Just put birth control in the water supply or something.

After age 18, if you want, you can get the antidote (like any 18 year old is going to say "Yeah I want to have a kid right this second!").

All societal problems solved.

[purplch0de]

i heard the ops mouth is a sperm bank skeet skeet skeet

[Jailblazers7]

Actually, hardly anyone gets 'discovered' from a talent standpoint these days.

Hollywood isn't looking for real artistic talent anymore. The TV industry gets its stars from Reality shows that anyone can happen to land on by chance. I get tons of audition notices for those things and I don't even go to them. It's crap and I don't want to be a part of it. The music industry gets its big stars from the likes of American Idol. Not meticulous talent searches that scour venues throughout the country like Motown used to do, but rather a voter based sideshow full of amateur talent and idiot audiences.

That's why I've been spending all summer trying to figure out web design, video editing, doing some writing etc. because I simply can't rely on the Hollywood machine if I want to do real entertainment. They're not looking for the best anymore, they're looking for fast, cheap, viral sensations. Why? Because Average Joe will consume any form of entertainment you stick in front of his face. Executives out here dont care bout the art, they got beverly hills mortgages and range rover leases to pay. They wanna make the most money with the least investment possible, and the average american dummy yokel makes that possible by being so uncultured, so idiotic and compromising, and so desperate to keep up with whatever random nonsense is 'trending' that he'll literally EAT UP anything that he's TOLD is entertaining. He's not even cognizant while he's watching something if he finds it stimulating or not, whether its good entertainment or not. He's told to watch it, so he watches it. He has no other interests, hobbies, or ambitions in life, so he watches it. Works his job, comes home, watches 4 hours of whatevers on the tube, goes to bed.

If you want to make anything of substantive quality that takes time and talent, you gotta do it on your own now. Hollywood is now Dominoes. Big national brand, absolute shit quality. If you wanna make good pizzas, you're gonna have to start from scratch as a local chain and do it all your own. Being 'discovered' is dead.

Translation: "no I'm not going to prom because I couldn't find a date...I'm not going because its stupid and juvenile"

[Rnbizzle]

What makes you (OP) think you're that much smarter then the rest of us? At least, that's what your tone makes me think you're suggesting.

[HAL 9000]

Dave I think a no child policy would be good for the blacks and browns

[Colin Cowherd]

What a meatball.

Look at this guy. Taking an unpopular position just to generate discussion. He probably doesn't even believe half of what he's saying. He just wants a response.

I don't know anyone who does that :rolleyes:

[RidonKs]

bump



this was a lively conversation. if memory serves me right, i was mostly arguing against the particulars of the Chinese policy that had so many disastrous repercussions, especially in its infancy. lotta sh*t went down that can't be tolerated, regardless of whether or not that makes me teh ghey.

ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, starface? it's a strong argument against laissez faire economics that's pretty common and applicable to most issues on the agenda; basically, a rationally self interested pastoralist is going to be given a choice between maximizing his own livestock holding, to the benefit of only himself and no one else, or tempering his numbers to ensure that the common land isn't overgrazed and rendered useless, to the benefit of all the pastoralists. the cost/benefit analysis that this laissez faire styled individual would make is simple... benefit of +1 all to himself vs benefit of +1 divided between everybody... one clearly outweighs the other and the 'rational' choice doesn't seem so rational once everybody is forced to up and move because they didn't share their land wisely.

in this article (http://dieoff.org/page95.htm), that argument is used precisely in favour of a policy designed to limit population growth. the argumentation is well done and there are a lot of cool psych and philosophical strands throughout. it's short and succinct and i'm sure a lot more could be written about it. i'm also sure there are flaws to his method -- in particular, his major argument that appealing to conscience (in the form of family planning, education, personal responsibility) is self-defeating in that it only succeeds with conscientious people, allowing the unconscientious among us to continue reproducing at alarming speeds and totally bringing to ruin our already precarious ratio of smart:dumb if you wanna put it that way... well, it seems precarious. i'm not exactly sure why though, so maybe that's just a surface objection to the idea of it all and not really grounded in anything. the guy used Darwin's grandson to ground that argument.

either way, it's a great read and was persuasive enough to make me seriously think. i stand by what i said earlier about the total implausibility of a democratic society voting in measures that restrict their freedom to procreate, but as far as supporting the measures themselves... i could probably get behind it, depending on the policy itself. mostly it would just have to not result in millions of involuntary abortions.

[FourthTenor]

bump



this was a lively conversation. if memory serves me right, i was mostly arguing against the particulars of the Chinese policy that had so many disastrous repercussions, especially in its infancy. lotta sh*t went down that can't be tolerated, regardless of whether or not that makes me teh ghey.

ever heard of the Tragedy of the Commons, starface? it's a strong argument against laissez faire economics that's pretty common and applicable to most issues on the agenda; basically, a rationally self interested pastoralist is going to be given a choice between maximizing his own livestock holding, to the benefit of only himself and no one else, or tempering his numbers to ensure that the common land isn't overgrazed and rendered useless, to the benefit of all the pastoralists. the cost/benefit analysis that this laissez faire styled individual would make is simple... benefit of +1 all to himself vs benefit of +1 divided between everybody... one clearly outweighs the other and the 'rational' choice doesn't seem so rational once everybody is forced to up and move because they didn't share their land wisely.

in this article (http://dieoff.org/page95.htm), that argument is used precisely in favour of a policy designed to limit population growth. the argumentation is well done and there are a lot of cool psych and philosophical strands throughout. it's short and succinct and i'm sure a lot more could be written about it. i'm also sure there are flaws to his method -- in particular, his major argument that appealing to conscience (in the form of family planning, education, personal responsibility) is self-defeating in that it only succeeds with conscientious people, allowing the unconscientious among us to continue reproducing at alarming speeds and totally bringing to ruin our already precarious ratio of smart:dumb if you wanna put it that way... well, it seems precarious. i'm not exactly sure why though, so maybe that's just a surface objection to the idea of it all and not really grounded in anything. the guy used Darwin's grandson to ground that argument.

either way, it's a great read and was persuasive enough to make me seriously think. i stand by what i said earlier about the total implausibility of a democratic society voting in measures that restrict their freedom to procreate, but as far as supporting the measures themselves... i could probably get behind it, depending on the policy itself. mostly it would just have to not result in millions of involuntary abortions.

Thank you for that shifty and circuitous concession that the argument i made with my head was right and the one you made with your heart was ineffective and unsustainable.

The world is not a poem. Its not a fairytale. Its not platos divine form. It never will be. It does not matter HOW DESPERATELY YOU WANT IT TO BE. the first step is to accept that. Avoiding tough and unpleasnt realities out of FEAR or discomfort is what is leading to the mitosis of problems. And yet we contine to duck and cover from them. Pass it off to the next generation, pass it off to the corporations, just keep slappin bandaids on an infection bc were scared of the knife.

[FourthTenor]

Anyay to ur point about the article, yes, the fox population is slowing while the rabbit population is accelerating. No matter how much u wanna protect the bunny rabbit cuz its small and harmless, an unbalabced ecosystem is no good.

Too many bunnies fighting for finite resources. Fox keeps the bunny population down, which is actally good for the bunnies that live.

YOU CANT JUST KEEP MAKIN MO BUNNIES. NEED BALANCE. DONT BE PUSSAY.

[purplch0de]

China's one child policy has a lot of positive aspects. It makes Chinese youth more competitive, many of them are pushed harder then most students to do well in education. There are cases where their mothers go to school with them just to provide support and guidance. As a result of the one child policy, families depend on the single child for financial support once they get older. So it's essential to their livelihood that the child becomes successful. However with this being a common characteristic among all Chinese families, many students acquire a diploma but do not have a place to work. China can only support 1/3 of their graduates.

Some downsides to this competition derived from the one child policy is suicide rates. Because students/children are pushed so hard, when they score lower than what is expected many see themselves as failures. For that reason and others China's 5th highest cause of death is suicide.

ch0de out

[RidonKs]

well that was a waste of time. ah well, i thought i'd give it a shot.

[lilbill]

well that was a waste of time. ah well, i thought i'd give it a shot.

:lol
Did Starface get banned again or is that just part of his avy?