Maybe. What's the Underclass? Is there a dollar limit under which your shirt color doesn't matter and you become the unders?

In any case though you'd be hard pressed to diagnose my values based on what color shirt I symbolically wear to work.

Quote from: James McMurrayMaybe. What's the Underclass? Is there a dollar limit under which your shirt color doesn't matter and you become the unders?

In any case though you'd be hard pressed to diagnose my values based on what color shirt I symbolically wear to work.

Underclass: we call them "chavs"; you probably call them "trailer trash" or "ghetto".  You might not use that actual words (I try to avoid pejorative labels myself), but I think we all know what we're talking about

Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but where I come from there's a huge difference between middle/working/underclass, even down to the way someone dresses or their accent/dialect.  Things like the value placed on formal education vs. life experience

Ah, trailer trash. Yeah, I was there for a while growing up. I definitely know the type.

Quote from: JimBobOzI'm aware that a substantial part of the Scandavian birth rate has been from immigrants; but a significant part has been from Scandanavian-born women.

The growth or the birth rate?  Do you have the numbers?

Quote from: JimBobOzIt now appears that as women's education level increases, the birth rate drops; but when their social and political power comes to match their education at a high level, the birth rate rises again.

I don't think that social and political power are the issue.  I think it has to do with whether children are an unbearable economic liability or not.  But bear in mind that removing the economic liabilities of children in a developed country are it not cheap and often involve spreading the cost of the economic liability to everyone, including those without children.

Your tone, Droog, is one that seems to suggest you believe yourself to have somehow transcended Class, and rings as pretty condescending.

In my opinion, I really don't think anyone can transcend class, though you can try to be class-conscious. Personally, I just think being conscious in general is a plus.

RPGPundit

As a voluntary extinctionist, I don't really have anything to contribute to the discussion beyond the fact that every time I load up Off-Topic I misread the title and think "Ethics of child beating? Wha??"

's all. Return to your argument.

Quote from: John MorrowThe growth or the birth rate?  Do you have the numbers?

:google:
These are statistics from the countries themselves, widely available and discussed on the web. Go look for them.

I tire of these online discussions where you say, "well, since an elephant is larger than a mouse -" and someone interrupts you to say, "ZOMFG do you have a SOURCE for that?!" It's not like I'm claiming that aliens from Zeta Reticuli are visiting us...

I also tire of searching up statistics and articles which people then don't look at; take for example my thread about bankuei's "broken gaming" - how many posted to that thread without having read the accompanying article? Why should I trouble to search out references others won't even read?

So, use google.

Quote from: John MorrowI don't think that social and political power are the issue.

Maybe you don't. However, that's what the Scandanavian women have said, and I think they know more about why they do and don't have children than you and I do. They say that when they feel comfortable and secure in their social position, that when their voice matters, they feel more comfortable and happy about having children.

That's what they say. So unless you're pulling a Ron Edwards or Freud and saying they don't know themselves as well as you do...

Quote from: JimBobOzThese are statistics from the countries themselves, widely available and discussed on the web. Go look for them.

Uh, I did Google for them.  Quite a bit.  The statistics I found either don't break out immigrants (sites touting how wonderful things are) or tell me that Immigrants and children of immigrants are having significantly more children than Scandinavian women (sites complaining that Muslims are taking over Europe).  That suggests to me that the story is more complex than the one you are presenting.  Since you seem so confident in your interpretation, I'd like to know the source of your confidence.

Quote from: JimBobOzI tire of these online discussions where you say, "well, since an elephant is larger than a mouse -" and someone interrupts you to say, "ZOMFG do you have a SOURCE for that?!" It's not like I'm claiming that aliens from Zeta Reticuli are visiting us...

The problem is that you are making claims that I could not find ready support for via Google, and my Google-Fu is pretty good.  I do try to verity such things.  Really.  But rather than tossing out sources that are clearly biased and will likely turn this into a debate over whether Muslims are taking over Europe (something I'm trying to avoid here), I'd like to know why you are so confident.  Knowing the source of your information will let me assess how reliable it is.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request, even if your answer is that you read an article in some source at some point.

Quote from: JimBobOzI also tire of searching up statistics and articles which people then don't look at; take for example my thread about bankuei's "broken gaming" - how many posted to that thread without having read the accompanying article? Why should I trouble to search out references others won't even read?

Uh, I read them.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo, use google.

OK.  Let me put this bluntly, then.  Plenty of what I found via Google tells me that you are wrong, but the sources in both directions (holding up Scandinavia's solution, on the one hand, and complaining about Muslim immigration, on the other hand) are biased.  

That's why I'm asking you.  I've looked.  I couldn't find what I need to assess the truthfulness of the claim (raw numbers broken out).  Maybe the problem is that I don't speak Swedish, Finnish, or Norwegian and that's what I need to find the right numbers.  Maybe the problem is that the statistics show something the officials in those countries don't want to deal with.  That's not clear from what I've read.  Both sides raise interesting facts that the other ignores.

Quote from: JimBobOzMaybe you don't. However, that's what the Scandanavian women have said, and I think they know more about why they do and don't have children than you and I do. They say that when they feel comfortable and secure in their social position, that when their voice matters, they feel more comfortable and happy about having children.

C'mon, JimBob...  what does "the Scandinavian women have said" mean?  Did you speak to them personally?  What was the sample size if it was a survey?  And let's not pretend that there aren't social and political agendas behind all of this that have a vested interest in these policies.  

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's what they say. So unless you're pulling a Ron Edwards or Freud and saying they don't know themselves as well as you do...

I'm willing to believe they know themselves.  What I'm skeptical about potential bias in your source.  If you read an article telling you that "American women" or "Australian women" all feel the same way about something, don't you get a little bit skeptical?

Maybe what you are saying is entirely true.  I'm certainly willing to believe that various Scandinavian policies and cultural traits make it a friendlier place for women to want to have children than other places.  It sounds like it should be true.  But others claim that immigrants are a significant source of births and that could bring the basis of your claim into question.  I don't trust those sources, either, because they gloss over important facts (e.g., many of Sweden's immigrants are from other Scandinavian countries).  So until I can find some unbiased statistics that break birth rates out (and I've tried to find them), I have to remain a bit skeptical of both sides because I get the feeling they are both hiding things.  If I had to guess, I get the sense both are trying to make claims stronger than the evidence supports.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn my opinion, I really don't think anyone can transcend class, though you can try to be class-conscious. Personally, I just think being conscious in general is a plus.

Absolutely. It seems I am talking to the unconscious, however, and I will be as condescending as I feel they deserve.

Quote from: James McMurrayLiar.

I think not.

QuoteIt's a quest to avoid having people give birth to children they can't afford.

QuoteStopping procreation in certain instances won't eradicate poor people, it'll just stop some of them from having children.

QuoteHell, if you can show me that poor peoples' children being a drain on society is a good thing I'll even drop the monetary prereqs and screen only for psychological acceptability.

QuoteYes it is. If they really want a child they can do what it takes to become worthy of the privilege.

QuoteYou can lump yourself in with the human refuse if you want, but don't try to drag me into your cesspool.

Clearly shows you see yourself as a better class of person than 'poor people' (working with your terminology here). It's classic petty-bourgeois ideology (using my terminology). There are other indicators, such as your awe of positivist science (let the experts decide) and your talk of 'contributing to society' (what exactly have you 'contributed to society', by the way?).

Other things you have said indicate that you are a wage-worker, rather than living off your capital. That puts you in the working class, but the values you have put forward here are strongly petty-bourgeois. Thus you are hegemonised. You identify with the middle class in that you fear and despise the 'poor'. You seek a scapegoat for the ills of society, like Nox.

There are many roads to fascism. Nox stumbles blindly along the lumpenproletarian one. You have taken your first baby steps on the petty-bourgeois one. Congratulations.

Quote from: SpikeSerious problem, apparition...

by disenfranchising males you reduce them to second class citizens. Presumably, the goal for all humanity is that we are all legally equal.

Women get chits, men do not. Women decide which males get to breed, men have apparently no say.

They can say no, they can say yes, how is that different than now? The only difference is women are explicitly given control over their wombs with respect to reproduction.

QuoteNext, suggest that population can be controlled by simply reducing men to subliterate cattle working in menial jobs why don't ya :rolleyes:

Is this based on text or just snark?

QuoteOr to phrase it similar to how you did (her body, her choice)

For men: His sperm, his choice.  Or rather, his genetic data, his choice.

It's still his choice, it still takes two to tango. One of the two just gets to decide whether her womb is open for business or not. Which is also the case now.

QuoteThis, by the way, gives each member of a couple a chit, and thus you get two children per pairing, making for a very slow decline in population, rather than the more drastic generational halving on one chit per couple, thus less need for corrective lotteries.

Since my objective is a dramatic decline in population, your idea won't work.

Quote from: fonkaygarryJames:  What an interesting topic!  This should allow for hours of autofellatio by our resident philosophers!

Thanks for remaining a sure sign that a thread is waste of my motherfucking time.

LOVE

FG

What kind of imbecile wastes his time posting on a thread that he has no interest in?:rolleyes:

Quote from: James McMurrayIn response to John's most recent question, I'd definitely prohibit people from having children if I could. I'd also be in favor of some sort of monetary prerequisite for having kids, to make sure that children aren't born to people that can't afford them.

So in effect this would be stopping the poor from having kids, while allowing the rich to breed.Elitism by any other name would sound just as foul.
How about making sure that there are no poor by sharing out the riches? Or is that too socialist/communist/humanitarian?
The outcome of not allowing the poor to breed would be an inevitable decline in the profits of the rich. The rich need a labour force and by adopting a selective breeding policy you have made that group of potential workers smaller.So I doubt that any major employers would share your opinion...but then again theres always a few eugenicist fascists hanging around to start the ball rolling towards goose stepping authoritarianism!

droog, you are a delusional fool if you read into what I've said what you say you're reading. Personally I think you're just being an ass. Welcome to the IL.

QuoteSo in effect this would be stopping the poor from having kids, while allowing the rich to breed.Elitism by any other name would sound just as foul.

Define "poor." My definition would be somewhere around "if you can't feed and shelter your baby, you can't have one." If that means that only the rich can breed we've got widely disparate views of what words like "rich" and "wealthy" mean.

QuoteHow about making sure that there are no poor by sharing out the riches? Or is that too socialist/communist/humanitarian?

Too unworkable, at least with America's "I deserve it because I'm alive" value system.

I'll say it again: we (America) already take peopls' children away if they cannot provide for them properly. Why should we wait until the damage has been done to step in?

And I'll say something else again: we can drop the monetary portion of the discussion completely. Does that change anyone's viewpoint? Is it ok to tell a repeat offendor child molester that he can't have a baby of his own to "love" and to "cherish"?

Quote from: apparition13They can say no, they can say yes, how is that different than now? The only difference is women are explicitly given control over their wombs with respect to reproduction.

Is this based on text or just snark?


It's still his choice, it still takes two to tango. One of the two just gets to decide whether her womb is open for business or not. Which is also the case now.

 Since my objective is a dramatic decline in population, your idea won't work.

I had to base my objections based on what you posted, not what you meant. You posted that women got chits (fine so far) and picked out the man they would breed with (not so good. Implies men have no say in the matter).  

A generational HALVING of population is pretty fucking dramatic. Personally, i'm all for it for a generation or two... sadly the places that need it most are not exactly complicit with our laws, morals or culture. If the US and Europe undertook this (needlessly, given the already declining native populations) then the... and pardon the clumsy term, Third World nations that already have insane population pressures will simply fill in the empty spaces as they continue to produce 9 fucking children per couple.  There is a reason violence is so endemic to certain regions: population pressure.


I'd rather see a stable population with a mild, controllable decline... as long as it's universal, rather than one population group (us, for lack of a better term) while another population group does not have similar constraints (them).