Japan -- Geriatric Society

[DanS]

Originally posted by Aeson
Only problem with your plan Dan... is you'll be dead before it takes over much. Won't do you much good.

People live pretty long nowadays...

As a fun exercise, calculate how short of time it has taken the Mormons to be 2%+ of the US population.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Aeson

Why are you laughing what JM said is completely true.

I mean any person with half a brain can figure it out and those who don’t have half a brain only have to live in a negative natural growth society to see the problem, I’m starting to think that there is a reason why no Japanese or Europeans in this thread are arguing that not having kids doesn’t burden society. I’m afraid the ones that are have lived sheltered lives or are really really thick or just trolling.

[Arrian]

Honestly, babies who don't have problems and aren't from foreign cultures are at a premium.

Since they're babies, I don't see how that fits in with your calculus. Physical problems are another matter.

Not having kids doesn't burden society. Taking more than you give back burdens society.

Makes sense to me. Of course, determining how much you take and how much you give back isn't simple.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS
While all y'all are finding excuses for not having kids, my family will be taking over, thank you very much.

(And the family tree is reasonably well constructed. )

Is there some reason I should mind?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


Doesn't change the fact that someone can still be productive without having kids.

(Also, those two adults "giving me" that care chose the whole shebang... You can't just go create a "problem" and then start to "take care of it", then demand payment for it even though you never got consent.)

Your productivity will only last 50 years at the most though. If you have children, then your productivity can last throughout the rest of humanities history.

What soceity is missing the most, is kids of responsible parents where the parents have enough money to see the kid to a proper education.

If you had a whole highschool of productive and great teachers, but the parents were bad parents.. then the kids who went to that highschool would mostly be unproductive.

On the other hand, if the parents are responsible and hvae enough money, most of their kids will end up being successful.

JM

[DanS]

Originally posted by Arrian
Is there some reason I should care?

-Arrian

Almost all vote Republican.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian


Since they're babies, I don't see how that fits in with your calculus. Physical problems are another matter.

He probably dosen't consider foreign born babies raised by parents here, to be foreign babies.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DanS

Almost all vote Republican.

Meh, so does mine. It's not like I'd indoctrinate my (theoretical) kids to be Dems. Hell, even if I tried I doubt it would be terribly successful. My parents brought me up as a good little Republican.

I'd expect that well-educated people (the sorts of people Jon Miller is arguing we need more of) would be less likely to simply vote like mummy and daddy do. Instead, having been taught to think critically, their voting would be based on intelligent analysis of the issues, not inherited party loyalty.

Though perhaps I'm overly optimistic concerning the virtues of education.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Dude stop that.

No.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Yet you go on to agree with it.

Not having kids burdens society, period.

"Period."

Now lets start the exceptions to "period" rolling...

Unless you live in a society without any form of social security where you let the elderly die of exposure or starvation.

I wouldn't say that SS is the only way people can be a burden on society. But you understand the basic point, if society doesn't help an individual much, the cost that the individual needs to "pay back" is less.

Sure you can do without having kids and give more to society than you have taken, but I argue this is harder to do.

Doesn't matter if it's harder to do. It's still possible.

And if I may point out, the targets of your proposed taxation are those more likely to give more than they take, since the wealthy are more likely to be able to pay for themselves. (Depends on whether they are self-made or not.)

I would say if someone takes more than he gives and makes three kids in the process he has in fact given more than he has taken, since it is probable his kids will give more to society than they take (all of the kids taken together, one may be parasitic but all three would be a feat of bad parenting).

That is retarded. You can't take more than you give if you give more than you take. If adding children is to be considered a plus (which it generally is, but depends on how you raise them and how they turn out) then it's included in how much someone give/take already.

Pretending like "give/take" was sans some areas of give/take already is preposterous.

It is not a question of giving more than you have taken, it is a question of who gives the least to society. And a childless person is by definition a part of that group.

A burden is defined as a responsibility, generally a difficult one to carry.

Not having kids does not mean that society has to carry your responsibilities for you. So long as you repay whatever debt you have to society (and especially if you do so more), you are not burdening it.

Perhaps you should chose a more applicable term to what you are trying to say.

Even if he is a brilliant scientist or a great writer him not having kids costs society more than a bum not having kids.

It doesn't cost society anything if a person repays their debt in full.

You need to understand the difference between addition and subtraction. The lack of addition is not subtraction.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Heraclitus

He probably dosen't consider foreign born babies raised by parents here, to be foreign babies.

I don't know what he considers. I raised it, because it's pretty obvious that if you want to adopt a black baby you can do so fairly easily*, whereas if you want yourself a white kid, you're talkin' waiting list. That says something, and I was wondering if JM was referencing that, or talking about something else that I missed.

* a gay guy I work with and his partner adopted kids. They put in their petition or whatever it is and were told that most of the time, people wait ~2 years before they get a match. They put down they wanted minorities, siblings, etc... and got a call the next day. The day after that, they were parents.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
People who are responsible and can afford them not having kids is taking more then you give back.

Did JESUS take more than He gave back?

(specifically tailored question for JM or any Christians with similar views. You atheist bastards can have another example if you really want. Feel free to request it )

[Heraclitus]

And you need to look at the big pictrue and stop being intentionaly dense, I don't have problems with addition and subtraction but perhaps you do. If the you factor in the surplus the children provide the "slightly parasitic Joe" I spoke about has in fact been a productive member of society since if he did not have children their surplus would not exist.


Ok, not wanting to waste too much time I will try a different angle that might be easier for some people to understand. I would tax people without children as a form of positive discrimination for people with children, since those people have a harder time finding jobs, have less free time and have more expenses than people without children.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Did JESUS take more than He gave back?

Jesus = God = the guy who gave everyone life, so yes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'd expect that well-educated people (the sorts of people Jon Miller is arguing we need more of) would be less likely to simply vote like mummy and daddy do. Instead, having been taught to think critically, their voting would be based on intelligent analysis of the issues, not inherited party loyalty.

Well-educated people

1) end up wealthier and therefore more likely to vote Republican.
2) often inherit basic ideology, not party loyalty.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian


I don't know what he considers. I raised it, because it's pretty obvious that if you want to adopt a black baby you can do so fairly easily*, whereas if you want yourself a white kid, you're talkin' waiting list. That says something, and I was wondering if JM was referencing that, or talking about something else that I missed.

* a gay guy I work with and his partner adopted kids. They put in their petition or whatever it is and were told that most of the time, people wait ~2 years before they get a match. They put down they wanted minorities, siblings, etc... and got a call the next day. The day after that, they were parents.

-Arrian

That is a case specifiic to the US, we're not talking about the US here, since your entire population (including blacks, hispanic) replaces itself (though all its ethnic groups do not).

I know that if I wanted to adopt a black baby I would have to wait just as long.