 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
Lets see if liberalism destroys families:
1) Social Security - old folk no longer need the kids, and the kids get to go off on their own. Sounds good for both perhaps until the kids start having children and the old folk aren't there to help raise them. "It takes a village" begins with a family clan, and trust me, old folk ain't looking forward to a rest home now that the government is taking care of them (or preserved their freedom according to the left).
2) Welfare - who could argue with that? Help the poor, no different than giving money to a charity. Uh oh, out of wedlock birthrates skyrocket because government has taken over the father's role as provider.
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?
4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers.
5) Divorce - I suspect rates have gone up too because of this breakdown in the family. It seems logical divorce rates would be lower in tightly knit family clans where relatives can ease married couples thru troubled times. Virtually all cultures understand the importance of the newlyweds going to join one side of the family and not off on their own.
Was all this a predictable result of liberalism?
I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Lets see if liberalism destroys families:
1) Social Security - old folk no longer need the kids, and the kids get to go off on their own. Sounds good for both perhaps until the kids start having children and the old folk aren't there to help raise them. "It takes a village" begins with a family clan, and trust me, old folk ain't looking forward to a rest home now that the government is taking care of them (or preserved their freedom according to the left).
2) Welfare - who could argue with that? Help the poor, no different than giving money to a charity. Uh oh, out of wedlock birthrates skyrocket because government has taken over the father's role as provider.
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids?
4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers.
5) Divorce - I suspect rates have gone up too because of this breakdown in the family. It seems logical divorce rates would be lower in tightly knit family clans where relatives can ease married couples thru troubled times. Virtually all cultures understand the importance of the newlyweds going to join one side of the family and not off on their own.
Was all this a predictable result of liberalism?
I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning... |
You're just trying to justify your greed, this is just absolute BS.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Lets see if liberalism destroys families:
1) Social Security - old folk no longer need the kids, and the kids get to go off on their own. Sounds good for both perhaps until the kids start having children and the old folk aren't there to help raise them. "It takes a village" begins with a family clan, and trust me, old folk ain't looking forward to a rest home now that the government is taking care of them (or preserved their freedom according to the left). |
Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25, and their kids have kids at the same age how old are the grandparents? I think you'll find that most people become grandparents between 40 and 55, well before they're old enough for Social Security. Among the people in my practice grandparents are very often the primary caretakers for the kids because the parents have to work 3+ jobs to make ends meet because the good paying jobs all went to China. Maybe if employers and the government didn't have such a libertarian attitude in this country people would be paid enough that they could look after their own kids.quote:
2) Welfare - who could argue with that? Help the poor, no different than giving money to a charity. Uh oh, out of wedlock birthrates skyrocket because government has taken over the father's role as provider. |
I think that our over-sexed, me-first, self-centered culture is more likely at fault. The average teen boy generally isn't thinking "Aw heck, if we screw up let the government pay for it" when he seduces Sally, they don't think that far in advance. He's thinking about how all the other young bucks have mucho notches in their sex pistols and he neds to work over time to catch up. Ditto with the girls. Maybe if we didn''t have such a libertarian attitude about sex in this country the out of wedlock rate wouldn't be so high. quote:
3) Women's "liberation" - Mommy wants a career, honey, so here's your nanny or child care expert. They'll watch you until school starts. Is this the origin of "Latchkey Kids? |
So libertarianism isn't for women too? My, my, my. quote:
4) High taxation - gotta have it to pay for all this progress. But thats okay, we now have millions of mommies with careers to help pay for it all. Of course, the high taxation "coerced" millions of mothers into employment to pay the father's high taxes. Now they need child care too, parenting is increasingly shared with paid strangers. |
No, the vast majority of women work not because they want careers, unless you consider flipping burgers a "career", nor did they do so because of hubbies high taxes - the job that paid enough to but Dad into a tax bracket went overseas years ago. They went to work because they want a chance to live like everybody else - 2 cars, 2000+ feet of living space, a TV in every room. etc., etc. quote:
5) Divorce - I suspect rates have gone up too because of this breakdown in the family. It seems logical divorce rates would be lower in tightly knit family clans where relatives can ease married couples thru troubled times. Virtually all cultures understand the importance of the newlyweds going to join one side of the family and not off on their own. |
In tightly knit clans the adult children remain essentially children until the parents are close to death. Think about Prince Charles. Divorce is high in this country because our culture so highly values individualism. Unfortunately the obverse side of that coin is often one person in the pairing sucking up mountains of abuse just to maintain the marriage. quote:
Was all this a predictable result of liberalism?
I've tried to present what I think is the socially conservative set of arguments since they are under-represented here at Poly. The evidence is rather damning... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25 |
You really think people these days have kids from 20 to 25? I'm 25 years old and know of only one person in my peer group who has any children... |
You ain't from around here, are you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
quote:
Let's see, if a couple has their kids when they're 20 to 25 |
You really think people these days have kids from 20 to 25? I'm 25 years old and know of only one person in my peer group who has any children... |
I know a lot of people who had kids ~20
now the group that I hang out with, who are the physicsts and the like, aren't having kids anywhere near 25
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I know lots of people who had kids between the ages of 13 and 17. They definitely ain't physicists. Physicists are a distinct minority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
yeah.. me to
my highschool had the highest pregnancy rates in oregon often in the 90s..
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
You have high schools in Oregon? What's it like?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2005 15:06
8/10
|