I've notice some of you communist believe

[CaptainCapitalist68]

that the size of person's wallet or the conditions a person lives in shouldn't affect someone's decision on having children and frankly this way of thinking is disturbing.


"People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for them. " -Revleft communist communist


"this is exactly the double standards that Marx meant about the beourgiouse preaching family values when he talked of the ''beourgiose claptrap'' in the communist manifesto.
Your 'suitability' to have kids is not measured by your love, aptitude, or commitment but by the thickness of your wallet. " -Revleft communist



Factors that should affect someone's decision on having kids should be is their capability to provide for their own family sufficiently. Wealth is what determines someone capability to provide therefore if a person does not have sufficient wealth he/she has no business having kids being that kids cost time and money to support. (IE if the person can provide suitable living conditions, an education, clean water and more then enough food or a family and has money saved over for emergences then he is qualified to have kids)

We all want to reproduce. We all are born with this urge but we also as humans ,unlike other animals, have the capability to go beyond what our urges, feelings and instincts tells us and instead can use our higher brain functions to make decisions.

So why are people in poor places having so many kids even though there clearly isn't enough essentials to go around? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this? Whats worst is that when this kids are starving and dieing on the streets people end up blaming the rich capitlist for their misfortunes.

the population in Africa is about 300,000,000 right now. In a matter of decades it will reach 500,000,000. Can you see how bad things are right now and possibly imagine how worst things will get then when even now there isn't enough to go around for everyone? How are we ever going to fix problems like this if people don't recognize the problem to begin with? The communist might say "well we have enough food to feed 12 billion people" to which I woudl reply "Yes I am sure we do but do we have enough oil to take the food to everyone and how long will it last?"

The communist might also say,"Well it is essential for people to have kids because we will need strong working hands in the future". This is true but more accurately put, having more hands means having more mouths to feed. Furthermore in first world countries liek Europe and Japan the average birthrate for every two people while in more poor countries its over 3 or 4.

The resources we have on this planet are finite, it simply makes much more sense to have fewer of everyone. Logic and reason is screaming here for poor people not to have kids .Will you give in to logic and reason?

And lets say a person does not what to take care of kids so he chooses not to have any. Is it at all fair to force this person to give or help in takign care of other people's kids?

Your system is so disgusting.

[Trystan]

Straw manning on a huge scale. You are getting very tedious.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Straw manning on a huge scale. You are getting very tedious.

Let me guess. Poor people can't provide for their kids because the evil bad capitlist have all the wealth.

For the sake of arguemtn lets say this is true. Well then do poor people have any business having kids either way?

SO are you just going to make stupid insults and stupid statements without backing them up or are you going to give an intelligent rebuttal?

[Trystan]

Let me guess. Poor people can't provide for their kids because the evil bad capitlist have all the wealth.

For the sake of arguemtn lets say this is true. Well then do poor people have any business having kids either way?

SO are you just going to make stupid insults and stupid statements without backing them up or are you going to give an intelligent rebuttal?

You really don't understand humanity, do you? Poor people have kids for the same reason as anyone - because they want to start a family. There is actually a (albeit diminishing) life outside capitalism; if you had any friends and were not a basement dwelling sociopathic dipshit you would realise this.

And I think it's you who's making the stupid accusations. You pull two random quotes out of your ass and waste your precious time building a straw man around them. You are a despicable excuse for a human being and the way you talk about poor people is reminiscent of how the Nazis spoke of the Jews.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Let me guess. Poor people can't provide for their kids because the evil bad capitlist have all the wealth.

For the sake of arguemtn lets say this is true. Well then do poor people have any business having kids either way?

SO are you just going to make stupid insults and stupid statements without backing them up or are you going to give an intelligent rebuttal?

Here's an appropriate response to your drivel:

Stop sniffing glue, it kills braincells.

[Sendo]

Actually, as it has been documented time and again, poverty increases birth rates.

Take a look at the perfectly stable Scandinavian population, a couple of welfare states.

We can prevent future births, but to consign the already living to death is not only hypocritical (why not kill yourself?) but sick.

[Hyacinth]

The OP clearly doesn't understand the economic logic of reproduction. You will notice that as people get richer and richer they tend to have fewer children; the population growth of first world nations rate, if we discount immigration, is either stagnant or negative. The simply reason for this is that after a certain point children stop being a profitable economic investment. If you live in the third world it makes sense to have a lot of children because a) most of them will not survive into adulthood, and b) they provide a source of free labour for the family. Conversely, in the first world, children are a *huge* expense; instead of improving ones economic standing (as they do in third world conditions) they have a detrimental impact upon ones disposable income, as well as ones income in general. So, contrary to what you claim about "logic and reason screaming" (a terrible anthromorphization) for poor people not to reproduce, the opposite is true; it is prudent for them to have more children, just as it is prudent for the rich to have fewer.

As the economic conditions improve you will see a decrease in family size. Except, the problem with this is that capitalism requires a working class, as well as a surpluss supply of labour, hence unemployment is built-into the system, which in turn also creates poverty. Poverty is systemic, it is a product of capitalism. It is very easy for you to sit in your armchair and decree that all those people who are having 10 children are immoral, yet you ignore the material conditions which motivate and necessitate that, material conditions brought about by capitalism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It's 'irresponsible' to get pregnant when you are a poor woman (especially if you are of another color), while it's normal to do so when you are white and apart of the upper middle class. The celibacy and marital preachers (who re-enforce the nuclear family) demonize these people over television and radio shows.

As other posters noted, teenage pregnancy replicates itself to colossus numbers in ratio with the poverty level - it's apart of the social fabric of poorer working class families to reproduce so that you can introduce more of your children into the workforce.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We all want to reproduce. We all are born with this urge but we also as humans ,unlike other animals, have the capability to go beyond what our urges, feelings and instincts tells us and instead can use our higher brain functions to make decisions.
Really? I thought we should never try to go against OMG HUMAN NATURE!!!!!111


The resources we have on this planet are finite, it simply makes much more sense to have fewer of everyone. Logic and reason is screaming here for poor people not to have kids. Will you give in to logic and reason?
Of course it would be better if everyone had fewer children. And it has been shown that education and wealth are statistically correlated with smaller family sizes. Poor people - particularly those living in countries with conservative social mores and no state pension system or public healthcare - are pressured into having more children by tradition and by economic necessity (they need children to take care of them when they grow old, because of the lack of a state pension system and public healthcare for the elderly). Communism will greatly improve the wealth of the poor; it will also provide them with free higher education, public healthcare and the equivalent of old age pensions. These factors will drastically reduce birth rates.


And lets say a person does not what to take care of kids so he chooses not to have any. Is it at all fair to force this person to give or help in takign care of other people's kids?
Yes, because a few years down the line other people's kids will be working to provide this person with a comfortable retirement.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You really don't understand humanity, do you? Poor people have kids for the same reason as anyone - because they want to start a family. There is actually a (albeit diminishing) life outside capitalism; if you had any friends and were not a basement dwelling sociopathic dipshit you would realise this.

And I think it's you who's making the stupid accusations. You pull two random quotes out of your ass and waste your precious time building a straw man around them. You are a despicable excuse for a human being and the way you talk about poor people is reminiscent of how the Nazis spoke of the Jews.

More stupid insults and stupid statements without backing them up huh? Typical communist.

No shit people want to start families. I already said that shit. The question is, that if no one wants to give a person a good paying job then does this person have any business starting a family?

[CaptainCapitalist68]

The OP clearly doesn't understand the economic logic of reproduction. You will notice that as people get richer and richer they tend to have fewer children; the population growth of first world nations rate, if we discount immigration, is either stagnant or negative. The simply reason for this is that after a certain point children stop being a profitable economic investment. If you live in the third world it makes sense to have a lot of children because a) most of them will not survive into adulthood, and b) they provide a source of free labour for the family. Conversely, in the first world, children are a *huge* expense; instead of improving ones economic standing (as they do in third world conditions) they have a detrimental impact upon ones disposable income, as well as ones income in general. So, contrary to what you claim about "logic and reason screaming" (a terrible anthromorphization) for poor people not to reproduce, the opposite is true; it is prudent for them to have more children, just as it is prudent for the rich to have fewer.

As the economic conditions improve you will see a decrease in family size. Except, the problem with this is that capitalism requires a working class, as well as a surpluss supply of labour, hence unemployment is built-into the system, which in turn also creates poverty. Poverty is systemic, it is a product of capitalism. It is very easy for you to sit in your armchair and decree that all those people who are having 10 children are immoral, yet you ignore the material conditions which motivate and necessitate that, material conditions brought about by capitalism.


Translation. Capitalist are not giving poor people good enough pay on their jobs therefore making poor people poor and makign them have more children therefore its the capitlist fault.

It is nessary for the people in shit world countries to have a lot of kids because most of them will die anyways and few will make it to adult hood.

[Plagueround]

No shit people want to start families. I already said that shit. The question is, that if no one wants to give a person a good paying job then does this person have any business starting a family?

Kinda throws a wrench in your freedom idea if someone else has the ability to limit how many people are able to give their children a decent life.


Translation. Capitalist are not giving poor people good enough pay on their jobs therefore making poor people poor and makign them have more children therefore its the capitlist fault.

It is nessary for the people in shit world countries to have a lot of kids because most of them will die anyways and few will make it to adult hood.

You could at least give people the courtesy of actually responding to their posts with data or researched opinions instead of just resorting to poor hyperbole and blind conjecture.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Really? I thought we should never try to go against OMG HUMAN NATURE!!!!!111

Your system goes against our nature.




Of course it would be better if everyone had fewer children. And it has been shown that education and wealth are statistically correlated with smaller family sizes. Poor people - particularly those living in countries with conservative social mores and no state pension system or public healthcare - are pressured into having more children by tradition and by economic necessity (they need children to take care of them when they grow old, because of the lack of a state pension system and public healthcare for the elderly). Communism will greatly improve the wealth of the poor; it will also provide them with free higher education, public healthcare and the equivalent of old age pensions. These factors will drastically reduce birth rates.

Yes, because a few years down the line other people's kids will be working to provide this person with a comfortable retirement.

The person responsible for taking care of yourself when you are old is you. That is why its best to save money.

No people having too many kids is what contributed to making them poor in the first place. That lost to opportunity to go to college and the ability to dedicate their time to a career.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Kinda throws a wrench in your freedom idea if someone else has the ability to limit how many people are able to give their children a decent life.

Hey let people start families but let them pay for it too.

Pretty soon the genes that causes people to do stupid things like start a family at the beginning dies off and the genes that makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one off survives and passes itself on.

[Plagueround]

Hey let people start families but let them pay for it too.

You've already made it clear you don't advocate giving them the resources to do so; you don't feel business owners should, at the very least, give everyone who works for them a living wage. You've even grossly distorted what a living wage is.


Pretty soon the genes that causes people to do stupid things like start a family at the beginning dies off and the genes that makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one off survives and passes itself on.

That has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. People are not hardwired in such a manner and the fact that you think they are may somewhat explain your unintelligent, sociopathic, black and white views.

[Hyacinth]

Translation. Capitalist are not giving poor people good enough pay on their jobs[,] therefore making poor people poor and mak[ing] them have more children therefore it[']s the capitlist[s'] fault.

It is nessary [necessary] for the people in shit world countries to have a lot of kids because most of them will die anyways and few will make it to adult hood.
Bravo! You've understood. Have a cookie!

And your counterargument to this is? You've just [badly] restated what I said.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Your system goes against our nature.
Except that you said we should go against our nature in reproductive matters. Specifically, you said:

"We all are born with this urge but we also as humans, unlike other animals, have the capability to go beyond what our urges, feelings and instincts tells us and instead can use our higher brain functions to make decisions."

So which is it? Should we or should we not follow our natural urges? Can we or can we not suppress them? If we can do it with reproduction, why can't we do it with communism?


The person responsible for taking care of yourself when you are old is you. That is why its best to save money.
No, you are responsible to work for society while you are able and society is responsible to care for you when you are no longer able.

Also, the practice of having children as a form of social security is well enshrined in all traditional societies. Saving money for retirement was not an option for most of human history, and even today it's only an option for the very rich.


No people having too many kids is what contributed to making them poor in the first place. That lost to opportunity to go to college and the ability to dedicate their time to a career.
Eh? Did you even read my post? I was talking about people who never had the opportunity to get a higher education, particularly in poor countries.

Besides, most people who have large families get those large families well after college age. We're not talking about teenage pregnancy here; not every mother who has over 3 children got pregnant as a teenager.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Hey let people start families but let them pay for it too.

Pretty soon the genes that causes people to do stupid things like start a family at the beginning dies off and the genes that makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one off survives and passes itself on.
The human genome has been fully mapped. So where is the gene for starting a family too early? Where is the gene that "makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one?" Show them to me.

If you can't show them to me, then you're talking out of your ass.

[GPDP]

Alright, that bullshit about genes is taking it too far. This kid's really got issues.

Why don't you cut to the chase, and tell us what you think of eugenics? Come on now, all we need is one answer, and you can hopefully stop wasting everyone's time.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Bravo! You've understood. Have a cookie!

And your counterargument to this is? You've just [badly] restated what I said.

It makes no sense at all to have any kids whatsoever if there is a good risk that a kid wouldn't make it to adulthood because of things like food shortages, high crime or nto enough clean water.

I can just imagine the conversation soon-to-be-parents have before they have kids. "Well honey, the chances of a child here in our area making it to adult hood is 10% therefore we should have at least 10 kids if we want at least one to make it" Nah they don't think at all really. All they do is mindless fucking and raping without any concern for their actions.

They end up having like 10 kids then soon find out they don't have enough food to feed them then they look at the ambitious capitlist who is more concern with making wealth and has no kids at all.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

You've already made it clear you don't advocate giving them the resources to do so; you don't feel business owners should, at the very least, give everyone who works for them a living wage. You've even grossly distorted what a living wage is.

I don't feel anyone should be force to do anything for anyone else. Its up to the business owner to determine how much he wants to pay and its up to the employee to determine how much he wants to work for. They will eventually both come to a mutual agreement. If you just looked into things youll find out that some of the best most successful companies actually pay very good. If the business owner needs to employ someone who has a very rare skill he'll end up paying a lot for it. But if he needs someone who has a pretty common skill he wouldn't have to pay too much for it. This is what makes people get that rare skill and what keeps them away from having a common skill. This is what makes people become rocket scientist and what keeps them away from flipping burgers.

Ultimately its up to each person to take care of himself.





That has absolutely nothing to do with genetics. People are not hardwired in such a manner and the fact that you think they are may somewhat explain your unintelligent, sociopathic, black and white views.

Behavior or personality traits can be genetic. Do you have any personality traits from your father or mother? It doesn't necessary mean you are going to be entirely just like your parents but it can mean you will pick up your parents behavior.

Once I met a Grandma, some Moms, and some daughters all living under the same house and all had kids and were living off nothing but welfare. Alcoholism can also be genetic. IE if your parents were alcoholics there's a good chance you might be too.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't feel anyone should be force to do anything for anyone else. [...] Ultimately its up to each person to take care of himself.
Cool. So, since I'm not obligated to do anything for you, I don't have to obey any laws that benefit you at my expense. And since it's up to each person to take care of himself, I can take care of myself by killing you and taking all your money.

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't do that if I can get away with it.


Behavior or personality traits can be genetic.
But not all of them are. The human genome has been fully mapped. So where is the gene for starting a family too early? Where is the gene that "makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one?" If you say that X behaviour is genetic, prove it. Show me the genes for that behaviour. The full map of the human genome is out there. What are you waiting for? Show them to me!

If you can't show them to me, then you're talking out of your ass.

[bcbm]

Behavior or personality traits can be genetic. Do you have any personality traits from your father or mother? It doesn't necessary mean you are going to be entirely just like your parents but it can mean you will pick up your parents behavior.

Friends usually pick up each other's behaviors as well. Guess friends are genetically related too?

[Demogorgon]

Your system goes against our nature.


Notwithstanding the fact that asking people to go against the most fundamental natural drives of all-the drive to reproduce-is going against nature about as much as is conceivably possible, let me ask you a question. If our nature is not to care about others and let people suffer if it benefits us, why have almost all human societies, even some of the most dreadful had systems in place to help the needy? Why have almost all societies valued compassion so highly? If it went against our nature, such a thing would not be one of the biggest constants in history.

[Hyacinth]

It makes no sense at all to have any kids whatsoever if there is a good risk that a kid wouldn't make it to adulthood because of things like food shortages, high crime or nto enough clean water.

I can just imagine the conversation soon-to-be-parents have before they have kids. "Well honey, the chances of a child here in our area making it to adult hood is 10% therefore we should have at least 10 kids if we want at least one to make it" Nah they don't think at all really. All they do is mindless fucking and raping without any concern for their actions.

They end up having like 10 kids then soon find out they don't have enough food to feed them then they look at the ambitious capitlist who is more concern with making wealth and has no kids at all.
So I've given you an argument as to why it makes sense for people to have high numbers of children precisely because of high child mortality and poverty, and you just assert that it "makes no sense". What astute argumentation! :rolleyes:

By your reasoning the human race shouldn't exist at all; up until this century, and even now only in the advanced industrial countries, child mortality is virtually non-existent. Conversely, the child mortality rates in the past, regardless of wealth differences, were astronomical (upwards of 25%, and that is a conservative estimate). The reason for this was largely sanitation, and poor sanitation, rather than lack of means by which to feed children, etc. is still the primary contributing factor to child mortality.

Given that there is a biological impetus to reproduce, and a material benefit to having children in the third world, and lack of access to contraception (women don't have control over their reproductive organs), etc. this, in culmination with high child mortality, is what drives the incentives to have a large number of children. No one sits down and does a calculus as to what the benefits are, it needn't be conscious to be explanatory.

Regardless, my words are wasted on you, I'm talking to the audience. You are clearly a racist, obdurately ignorant, or just plain stupid.

[Dr Mindbender]

that the size of person's wallet or the conditions a person lives in shouldn't affect someone's decision on having children and frankly this way of thinking is disturbing.


"People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for them. " -Revleft communist communist


"this is exactly the double standards that Marx meant about the beourgiouse preaching family values when he talked of the ''beourgiose claptrap'' in the communist manifesto.
Your 'suitability' to have kids is not measured by your love, aptitude, or commitment but by the thickness of your wallet. " -Revleft communist



Factors that should affect someone's decision on having kids should be is their capability to provide for their own family sufficiently. Wealth is what determines someone capability to provide therefore if a person does not have sufficient wealth he/she has no business having kids being that kids cost time and money to support. (IE if the person can provide suitable living conditions, an education, clean water and more then enough food or a family and has money saved over for emergences then he is qualified to have kids)

We all want to reproduce. We all are born with this urge but we also as humans ,unlike other animals, have the capability to go beyond what our urges, feelings and instincts tells us and instead can use our higher brain functions to make decisions.

So why are people in poor places having so many kids even though there clearly isn't enough essentials to go around? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this? Whats worst is that when this kids are starving and dieing on the streets people end up blaming the rich capitlist for their misfortunes.

the population in Africa is about 300,000,000 right now. In a matter of decades it will reach 500,000,000. Can you see how bad things are right now and possibly imagine how worst things will get then when even now there isn't enough to go around for everyone? How are we ever going to fix problems like this if people don't recognize the problem to begin with? The communist might say "well we have enough food to feed 12 billion people" to which I woudl reply "Yes I am sure we do but do we have enough oil to take the food to everyone and how long will it last?"

The communist might also say,"Well it is essential for people to have kids because we will need strong working hands in the future". This is true but more accurately put, having more hands means having more mouths to feed. Furthermore in first world countries liek Europe and Japan the average birthrate for every two people while in more poor countries its over 3 or 4.

The resources we have on this planet are finite, it simply makes much more sense to have fewer of everyone. Logic and reason is screaming here for poor people not to have kids .Will you give in to logic and reason?

And lets say a person does not what to take care of kids so he chooses not to have any. Is it at all fair to force this person to give or help in takign care of other people's kids?

Your system is so disgusting.

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i59/ulstersocialist/leninshut_the_fuck_up2.jpg

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I always thought this one was better

(i made it myself) marx always seemed more like a "get the fuck out" kind of guy

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3803/censoredmarxyu0.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

I always thought this one was better

(i made it myself) marx always seemed more like a "get the fuck out" kind of guy

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/3803/censoredmarxyu0.jpg


:lol: +1

[Dust Bunnies]

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Raúl Duke]

that the size of person's wallet or the conditions a person lives in shouldn't affect someone's decision on having children and frankly this way of thinking is disturbing.


"People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for them. " -Revleft communist communist


"this is exactly the double standards that Marx meant about the beourgiouse preaching family values when he talked of the ''beourgiose claptrap'' in the communist manifesto.
Your 'suitability' to have kids is not measured by your love, aptitude, or commitment but by the thickness of your wallet. " -Revleft communist



Factors that should affect someone's decision on having kids should be is their capability to provide for their own family sufficiently. Wealth is what determines someone capability to provide therefore if a person does not have sufficient wealth he/she has no business having kids being that kids cost time and money to support. (IE if the person can provide suitable living conditions, an education, clean water and more then enough food or a family and has money saved over for emergences then he is qualified to have kids)



So why are people in poor places having so many kids even though there clearly isn't enough essentials to go around? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this? Whats worst is that when this kids are starving and dieing on the streets people end up blaming the rich capitlist for their misfortunes.



And lets say a person does not what to take care of kids so he chooses not to have any. Is it at all fair to force this person to give or help in takign care of other people's kids?



Actually, while some have those opinions (about not factoring money in decision to have children) others do not. You are generalizing. I know one leftist who used to use this forum who actually extorted that people should always factor in their resources when it comes to making the decision of having kids. However, one shouldn't "put themselves on a moral pedestal" and belittle those who do not.

The Marx critique is actually not much of a "critique" but more as an observation. This is a true observation and thus why some leftists advocate that people do factor in their material conditions.

While it is the fault of the capitalist system that those kids are starving a reason why the poor have a lot of kids in the 3rd world might have to do with accessibility to birth control and also religiosity of the population (i.e. religion limits you from using some forms of birth control, usually abortion but in some cases even condoms), among other factors.

No communist or anarchist (at least no real ones) advocates forcing people to have children or take care of children.

[Dr Mindbender]

another drive by trolling brought to you by captain capitalist.

load the bancannon.

[Dust Bunnies]

Aw we don't have to resort to the ban cannon, we can still reeducate him ;)

[cop an Attitude]

Hey let people start families but let them pay for it too.

Pretty soon the genes that causes people to do stupid things like start a family at the beginning dies off and the genes that makes us responsible by making sure we can take care of a family before starting one off survives and passes itself on.

That sounds a lot like eugenics to me. You are regulatiung the gene pool by capitalism, plus its not even genes in the first place. It is not instinctual for people in a lower standing to have more kids.

[Dust Bunnies]

Good Evening Gentlemen

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Aybabtu.png

Can he have kids or is he too stupid/poor/Communistic to have them?

[mikelepore]

the ambitious capitlist who is more concern with making wealth and has no kids at all.

Here are some interesting facts about some families that had a lot of kids. I guess the reason these ragamuffin hobos are so poor is because the families had too many kids.

G. P. Getty, $1.9 Billion inheritance
J. P. Getty, Jr. $1 Billion inheritance
C. M. Getty, $670 million inheritance
A. C. Getty Earhart, $670 million inheritance
C. E. Getty Perry, $670 million inheritance

W. C. Ford, $1.4 Billion inheritance
J. Ford, $800 million inheritance

R. A. Hearst, $1.4 Billion inheritance
W. R. Hearst III, $800 million inheritance
D. W. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
G. R. Hearst, Jr., $700 million inheritance
A. Hearst, $700 million inheritance
P. Hearst Cooke, $700 million inheritance

O. M. Dupont Bredin, $500 million inheritance
C. S. Du Pont Darden, $500 million inheritance
I. Du Pont, Jr., $500 million inheritance
I. S. Du Pont May, $500 million inheritance
A. F. Du Pont Mills, $515 million inheritance

J. C. Walton, $6.5 Billion inheritance
H. R. Walton, $6.4 Billion inheritance
A. L. Walton, $6.3 Billion inheritance
S. R. Walton, $6.3 Billion inheritance
J. T. Walton, $6.3 Billion inheritance
A. K. Walton, $660 million inheritance
L. M. Walton, $660 million inheritance

(copied from Forbes magazine, Dec. 1997)

[Yazman]

You really don't understand humanity, do you? Poor people have kids for the same reason as anyone - because they want to start a family. There is actually a (albeit diminishing) life outside capitalism; if you had any friends and were not a basement dwelling sociopathic dipshit you would realise this.

And I think it's you who's making the stupid accusations. You pull two random quotes out of your ass and waste your precious time building a straw man around them. You are a despicable excuse for a human being and the way you talk about poor people is reminiscent of how the Nazis spoke of the Jews.

I don't agree with the OP at all but after reading this post I do think that you are exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be posting in Opposing Ideologies. How the fuck can we have an intelligent discussion when there's fuckheads like you who won't even accept any sort of criticism? How about you put forward actual arguments rather than this fucking drivel? Seriously, after reading this post I would like to see somebody tear your genitals out with a chisel.

[spice756]

It makes no sense at all to have any kids whatsoever if there is a good risk that a kid wouldn't make it to adulthood because of things like food shortages, high crime or nto enough clean water.

So have no kids and everyone will die.



I can just imagine the conversation soon-to-be-parents have before they have kids. "Well honey, the chances of a child here in our area making it to adult hood is 10% therefore we should have at least 10 kids if we want at least one to make it" Nah they don't think at all really.


Than people will be extinct.



All they do is mindless fucking and raping without any concern for their actions.

I want some facts prove it to me.




They end up having like 10 kids then soon find out they don't have enough food to feed them then they look at the ambitious capitlist who is more concern with making wealth and has no kids at all.


Most of those countries lack the industrial revolution.And a lack of resources and food.

[spice756]

that the size of person's wallet or the conditions a person lives in shouldn't affect someone's decision on having children and frankly this way of thinking is disturbing.



So some people in society are privilege and other people not ? Sounds totalitarian to me that the poor cannot have kids.

Under a free society people should have kids no matter what.




"People want to have kids its a kind of sexual feeling. If somone wants to pop about babies good for them. If not good for them. " -Revleft communist communist

Do you support totalitarian it sure sounds like it.Telling people if they should have kids or not.




"this is exactly the double standards that Marx meant about the beourgiouse preaching family values when he talked of the ''beourgiose claptrap'' in the communist manifesto.


The beourgiose preaching family values that is news to me.



Your 'suitability' to have kids is not measured by your love, aptitude, or commitment but by the thickness of your wallet. " -Revleft communist

Many have kids for what ever the reason.


Factors that should affect someone's decision on having kids should be is their capability to provide for their own family sufficiently. Wealth is what determines someone capability to provide therefore if a person does not have sufficient wealth he/she has no business having kids being that kids cost time and money to support.


No it does not :(you are denying basic human desire to have kids if one choose to have kids.And money or wealth should not be part of the equation.


(IE if the person can provide suitable living conditions, an education, clean water and more then enough food or a family and has money saved over for emergences then he is qualified to have kids)


Now you are denying most 80% of world having kids:( denying they cannot have kids they are too poor.:(



We all want to reproduce. We all are born with this urge but we also as humans ,unlike other animals, have the capability to go beyond what our urges, feelings and instincts tells us and instead can use our higher brain functions to make decisions.


If we do not reproduce we all die.




So why are people in poor places having so many kids even though there clearly isn't enough essentials to go around? Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with this? Whats worst is that when this kids are starving and dieing on the streets people end up blaming the rich capitlist for their misfortunes.


What poor places are you talking about? It was debunk that Africa is not that sexualy active has Canada or the US.



the population in Africa is about 300,000,000 right now. In a matter of decades it will reach 500,000,000.

No it is not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa)

Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous [/quote]
continent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent), after Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia). At about 30.2 million km² (11.7 million sq mi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_mile)) including adjacent islands, it covers 6% of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)'s total surface area and 20.4% of the total land area.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa#cite_note-Sayre-1) With about 922 million people (as of 2005)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa#cite_note-2) in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14.2% of the world's human population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population).



Can you see how bad things are right now and possibly imagine how worst things will get then when even now there isn't enough to go around for everyone? How are we ever going to fix problems like this if people don't recognize the problem to begin with? The communist might say "well we have enough food to feed 12 billion people" to which I woudl reply "Yes I am sure we do but do we have enough oil to take the food to everyone and how long will it last?"


Most of all the food is in Canada,US and UK .You better get use to food rationing .And face up to the reality.



[quote]The communist might also say,"Well it is essential for people to have kids because we will need strong working hands in the future". This is true but more accurately put, having more hands means having more mouths to feed.

People have control over their body and if want to have kids should be allowed no matter what .If you are denying people the right to have kids it is a crime of free will.



Furthermore in first world countries liek Europe and Japan the average birthrate for every two people while in more poor countries its over 3 or 4.


Because those people place me over family not like other countries it is about family .



The resources we have on this planet are finite, it simply makes much more sense to have fewer of everyone. Logic and reason is screaming here for poor people not to have kids .Will you give in to logic and reason?


No it not :Dmake space ships and go to the moon ,mars and build dome cities there.