"Get it on," says the Pope. Discussion about pop

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:14 am

I live in a republic, not a democracy. Legislation in the U.S. is not subject to referendum.

Even a hypothetical president who had zero public approval for any of his policies would still have four years to carry out those policies; a senator, six; and a representative, two.

Post by **Teaos** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:21 am

But how would politicians you vote in voting on a law that restricts a biological function be restricting your freedom? Especially when this could save billions of lives in the long run?

Because I would never vote someone like that in.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:12 am

Mikey wrote:I live in a republic, not a democracy. Legislation in the U.S. is not subject to referendum.

Even a hypothetical president who had zero public approval for any of his policies would still have four years to carry out those policies; a senator, six; and a representative, two.

You live in a democratic-republic. Has qualities of both but is neither.
Senators and Representatives would have to agree with whatever the population tells them to. Our system of government is designed so that public reaction doesn't affect policy in the short run but in the long run it does.

Teaos just because you don't agree with a policy doesn't mean its restricting rights. Don't get me wrong I agree we'll never see a candidate run on that ticket until its too late but it doesn't change my mind that it would be a good idea to limit the amount of children to X (to be voted on by congress) for 20 years.

I think its a great idea to revamp our science and math in schools, explore more, offer tax cuts to businesses to move back factories to the US and increase taxes to businesses that don't, better relations with Russia, and increase funding towards fighting infectous diseases. But none of these are going to happen in the near future

(well maybe the factories one).

I'm not running for election on a 2-4 child per household plan, nor would I even join an activiest group to see it happen, I just think its a good idea. And if people could overcome their primitive instincts we'd be in a much better situation in the future.

Its like deer. I support hunting and the chief reason given for hunting is deer are too stupid to know they don't need to breed as much since humans have killed most of their natural predators and shortened their natural habitat.

Then we jump to humans. We've defeated most of the causes of deaths for early man and we're destroying our natural habitat. However I think short of mad men no one would call for genocide so lowering the birth rate is the next best solution. Will we ever see a big movement for this? no. But I still think its a good idea.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:06 pm

Senators and Representatives would have to agree with whatever the population tells them to. Our system of government is designed so that public reaction doesn't affect policy in the short run but in the long run it does.

Not necessarily. Isn't one of the biggest complaints with our political system the fact that a candidate may make claims in order to be elected, but is under no compulsion to see those claims through?

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am

And then they're replaced in the next election. But the failures of our system of governent kinda belongs in another thread...

All I'm saying is that we should, not that we ever would.

How many times have you or someone you know said, "There should be tests to be a parent." Whenever you hear about a bad mother leaving their kids in a locked car or a father who beats a small boy to death? Or in the past how popular movements like Eugenics was to steralize dangerous criminals. People just seem to be more upset when the possiblity of those laws affecting them.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:32 am

I can honestly say I have never said or supported that. I believe perents should be able to raise perents how ever they choose to.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:10 pm

How many times have you or someone you know said, "There should be tests to be a parent." ...

Yes, I have said that, and probably will continue to do so. However, how can you justify painting all of humanity with the same brush? I don't know if you have any children, Monroe, but I hope you do and that you will be a good parent. And when that happens, I hope you rethink how you feel about someone mandating your rights to sire more children based on the activites of others, who do unthinkable thiongs that you yourself wouldn't imagine.

Monroe · Post by **Monroe** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 5:15 am

Well I'd be up for there being a law to have children. I just think -something- has to be done. In bio today we plotted that in 58 years there will be around 13 billion people on the world. Our sub (poor real teacher is in the hospital

) went over food- we have enough of it, space- always can build new cities, but not enough water. And that's a scary thought.

Post by **Mikey** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:45 pm

Refer to this again when YOU become a parent.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:29 pm

I'm a parent and I'd happily have to submit to a test or license to become one to weed out all the dregs. There are too many deadbeats and shitty parents out there. You need a license to drive a car but you can become a parent with no oversight at all and that's the most important job there is in the world.

*Edit: I'd also happily submit to a two child limit. Two children is plenty and I don't see how you could afford to feed more anyways. They do it in China. This is just freedom wanking nonsense.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 2:57 pm

Refer to this again when YOU become a parent.

No argument with your main point there, Kendall - I was saying this to Monroe; perhaps he would feel differently about having someone mandate his parental ability, perhaps not, but I can't accept the argument in this of someone who is not a parent.

Post by **Teaos** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:22 pm

Well i don't have kids but I can still tell you I find the idea of anyone controlling who can have children EVIL. Yes evil it is a strong word and I am using it.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:47 pm

Teaos wrote:Well i don't have kids but I can still tell you I find the idea of anyone controlling who can have children EVIL. Yes evil it is a strong word and I am using it.

Even when it would be in the child's best interest not to be born to some of the idiots out there? Like the woman discussed in this thread who killed herself and two of her children through her own gross stupidity. Even when we've past peak oil production and power generation will become an ever increasing problem over the comming decades? Even when global warming will seriously increase the risk of living on floodplains and coastal areas, where most of the world's population currently live? Either the human race puts the breaks on it's expansion through this sort of legislation, or we find more efficient ways to support ourselves without further screwing up the planet, or nature will put the breaks on our expansion for us.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:50 pm

I don't like the idea of restricting birth, but I do agree that it will become nesecsary. And I think it would be an excelent idea for people to undergo 'parenting classes'. I mean, some people who have kids I wouldn't trust with a burnt out match. Let alone a life.

Post by **Mikey** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:15 pm

And I think it would be an excelent idea for people to undergo 'parenting classes'. I mean, some people who have kids I wouldn't trust with a burnt out match. Let alone a life.

That part is dead on. But I can't in good conscience espouse a mandate for other people which I wouldn't want applied to me.