Posted on 03/06/2006 7:12:09 AM PST by FreedomSurge
LOL...probably!
We've kindof come to mutural agreement that FreedomSurge can't think...
"This has got to be the dumbest thread EVER posted on FR. "
It ranks right up there, for sure. This kind of thread...the ones that start with an incredibly stupid opening statement...are the meat and potatoes of Free Republic. They're a gathering point for all the philosophies represented by Freepers. It is in these threads where we find out who to pay attention to when they write and who to simply ignore.
We need these threads to tell the wheat from the chaff.
I never called people who choose not to have children selfish. I do believe that their time horizons for making decisions tend to be short. I believe the time horizons for those who have children is much longer.
I also believe that those who make decisions based on longer time horizons make better decisions and consider the effects of their decisions much more fully.
Heh... Many many children result from decisions made on ~very short~ time horizons.
This whole debate is a ridiculous red herring.
Oh really? A red herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original topic. So, if this is a red herring, then what is the original topic?
Very true. However, once the child is born do the majority of parents still make most of their decisions based on short term time frames? If you are taking care of a child the time frame has to be shifted forward. And if you love your child it has to be shifted very much to the future.
Based on your comment I will change my comment to "Only those who are caring for children or have cared for children should be allowed to vote"
The red herring, as I see it, is that people without children don't care about the future of the country, and therefore don't deserve a vote. That's a fallacy if I ever heard one. If my use of the term 'red herring' distracts you from using your head to really think through the ramifications of the idiotic policy you've offered to us for consideration, please ignore it.
Don't think for one instant that you can or should want to continue to tax people whom you don't wish to give a vote. It's ridiculous. We fought a war about that once ;~D
You got me. In a fit of childless selfishness, I voted for stripmining Yosemite and for the fedGov to give everyone a Ferrari.
We are all concerned about the future, whether we have children or not, what about the PRESENT? What our politicians (not really representatives) do today will affect the present and the future. Should one alive now not have a vote? Do their lives not count?
Some do. Three of the worst decision makers I know (1 couple, 1 single mom) have kids. Nothing about the process of having kids garauntees a positive change (or any change at all) in a person's thinking. Poor decision makers are poor decision makers are poor decision makers, whether or not their loins have borne fruit never really seems to change that.
By the standards you're applying Bill Clinton is a better person than the Pope. Think that through a bit.
Good grief. Aside from the preposterous "logic" that having children is both necessary and sufficient for caring about the future, that would be a disaster politically. If you think the extra-Constitutional stuff that government does "for the children" today is bad, just wait until politicians pander *exclusively* to parents.
I hate coming in late on these threads, when all the obvious weaknesses have already been exposed.
But this one is glaring:
Children (and adults) are no longer expected to produce; lots of multigenerational public pets.
Sort of takes the wind out of the sail of the argument.
If on the other hand, children are fed and housed (but not the adults who profit from them) then this might be a rational statement.
Where's my Ferrari?
Well, you see, I was so shortsighted I forgot to get it in writing...
Economically, we should ban abortion then, right?
Here ya go...
Ooooo.... shiny....
Yes, I am now completely incapable of making a rational decison. Thank goodness I can't vote!
Ok, if that is the red herring, then as I asked you, what is it distracting from? Face it: you used the term improperly. Thus, your argument (if any) has very little merit.
If my use of the term 'red herring' distracts you from using your head to really think through the ramifications of the idiotic policy you've offered to us for consideration, please ignore it.
Yet another problem with your presentation: this is not my argument! I came in on this to simply say that the childless do indeed benefit from those who choose to raise children.
Don't think for one instant that you can or should want to continue to tax people whom you don't wish to give a vote. It's ridiculous. We fought a war about that once.
That was never my argument, and I reject the idea that any law abiding, alive citizen should be denied the vote.
Scourge of God and FreedomSurge are proud...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.