Why are "refugees" still having children?

[Derec]

Why is Macedonia condemned for using rubber bullets and tear gas but these "refugees" are not condemned for violently storming the border and injuring dozens of policemen?

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, people like me don't like to give up our hard-earned money to people who - while in extremely bad situations - make their situations worse by being selfish and bringing a helpless child into the dangerous situation.

I can't think of anything more selfish.

You apparently think it's not selfish at all to endanger a child and then demand a host pay for the medical care and food for this child you brought into the danger. Wow, that says a lot about YOU.

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is Macedonia condemned for using rubber bullets and tear gas but these "refugees" are not condemned for violently storming the border and injuring dozens of policemen?

Because in the liberal mind the underdog is in the right.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

 

[RavenSky]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

 

[bilby]

Why is Macedonia condemned for using rubber bullets and tear gas but these "refugees" are not condemned for violently storming the border and injuring dozens of policemen?

If they are "not condemned", then what the fuck is your post?

How come you are telling us what people are and are not condemning in a way that is self-refuting?

Do you imagine that such blatant falsehoods encourage people to agree with your position; or are you deliberately trying to appear untrustworthy and underhanded?

Do you need a fire extinguisher for those pants?

 

[laughing dog]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

You misunderstand LP. His omniscience and omnipotence means he knows exactly what life for these refugees is like and he knows what their options along every step of their journey.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

Disagree. I'm not talking about something off the wall and of little value but things which are very simple and have a big effect. For example, don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for.

 

[bilby]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

Disagree. I'm not talking about something off the wall and of little value but things which are very simple and have a big effect. For example, don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for.

You are NOT talking about something simple at all.

It's easy to SAY "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for", but what does this actually mean?

The first part is not always under control - contraception isn't perfect, and abortion is often unavailable, so 'don't have children' is not as easy as you make it sound; But that's the simplest part of the equation.

The real questions are: What does it mean to 'provide for' a kid?; and What does it mean to be 'in a position' to do that? These are NOT simple questions, even for comfortable suburbanites. Children have differing needs at different stages in their lives; Are you suggesting that it is SIMPLE to decide, right now, what your children will need for the next two decades, and to make a plan for exactly how you will provide those needs?

Because if that IS what you are saying, then you are a moron; and if it isn't, then your assertion that "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for" is an example of a thing which is "very simple" is utter crap.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

Disagree. I'm not talking about something off the wall and of little value but things which are very simple and have a big effect. For example, don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for.

You are NOT talking about something simple at all.

It's easy to SAY "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for", but what does this actually mean?

The first part is not always under control - contraception isn't perfect, and abortion is often unavailable, so 'don't have children' is not as easy as you make it sound; But that's the simplest part of the equation.

The real questions are: What does it mean to 'provide for' a kid?; and What does it mean to be 'in a position' to do that? These are NOT simple questions, even for comfortable suburbanites. Children have differing needs at different stages in their lives; Are you suggesting that it is SIMPLE to decide, right now, what your children will need for the next two decades, and to make a plan for exactly how you will provide those needs?

Because if that IS what you are saying, then you are a moron; and if it isn't, then your assertion that "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for" is an example of a thing which is "very simple" is utter crap.

You can't anticipate everything that could go wrong but you can figure what every kid will need. If you're not in a position to provide that be darn careful with the contraception.

 

[laughing dog]

You can't anticipate everything that could go wrong but you can figure what every kid will need. If you're not in a position to provide that be darn careful with the contraception.

Written by someone who does not have any children.

 

[scombrid]

Why is Macedonia condemned for using rubber bullets and tear gas but these "refugees" are not condemned for violently storming the border and injuring dozens of policemen?

Should all refugees be treated poorly because of the people in the photo you post here?

 

[scombrid]

Why is Macedonia condemned for using rubber bullets and tear gas but these "refugees" are not condemned for violently storming the border and injuring dozens of policemen?

Not having any metadata provided with the photo, how do we even know who, where and what it depicts and whether or not the people in the photo are comdemnable or have been condemned?

The text overlay and context of you posting it seems to imply that those are representative of refugees in general. Why should we assume that?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

 

[RavenSky]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

Disagree. I'm not talking about something off the wall and of little value but things which are very simple and have a big effect. For example, don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for.

You are NOT talking about something simple at all.

It's easy to SAY "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for", but what does this actually mean?

The first part is not always under control - contraception isn't perfect, and abortion is often unavailable, so 'don't have children' is not as easy as you make it sound; But that's the simplest part of the equation.

The real questions are: What does it mean to 'provide for' a kid?; and What does it mean to be 'in a position' to do that? These are NOT simple questions, even for comfortable suburbanites. Children have differing needs at different stages in their lives; Are you suggesting that it is SIMPLE to decide, right now, what your children will need for the next two decades, and to make a plan for exactly how you will provide those needs?

Because if that IS what you are saying, then you are a moron; and if it isn't, then your assertion that "don't have kids you aren't in a position to provide for" is an example of a thing which is "very simple" is utter crap.

You can't anticipate everything that could go wrong but you can figure what every kid will need. If you're not in a position to provide that be darn careful with the contraception.

As Bilby and Laughing Dog point out in very different ways, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about - but you are proving my point: people like you want zero aid for anyone (you disapprove of) and will always come up with an excuse to blame the other person to justify withholding aid

 

[ksen]

Yup. I'm not opposed to aiding those who truly need it. I have a problem with helping those that haven't done all they can to help themselves, though.

Who gets to judge if they have done "all" they can to help themselves

It's simple enough: Show something they should have done but didn't.

In other words, as I suspected, you prefer to provide aid to no one. People like you will always come up with a "should have done" - no matter how absurd - to justify not giving aid.

Reason #1 why relying on private charities to address social ills is a dumb idea.

 

[credoconsolans]

No, those are assumptions based on your moral abstractions. Now having apparently backpedaled from whining about your poor misbegotten tax dollars, you retreat to "General Principle."

I didn't backpedal. I never said I wouldn't pay for them. I just didn't like paying for their irresponsible actions. I still don't.

Yes, they are selfish and irresponsible and are endangering a child.

I mean really?

Anyone on this board think begetting a child while you have no means is a selfless act?

Anyone on this board think begetting a child while you are on the run a responsible act?

Anyone on this board think begetting a child and bringing them into the world where they may still be in danger an act of caring?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

C'mon Crazy. Work a little common sense back into your head.

And again, this is scorn leveled at people you've never met, whose exact circumstances you have no knowledge of. You don't know who they are, where they're from, what they did or when they did it.

Refugees. No home. No means. The conception of a child is easy to trace back. We know how long it takes to gestate a child. What the fuck else do I need to know?

But you've already demonstrated you're the kind of person who is willing to make emotional judgements of other people based purely on your GUESSES about who they are. There's a word for that kind of person.

I'm using their acts to judge what kind of people they are. Stupid is as stupid does.

... because denying the utility of those basic imperatives would pretty much negate our entire existence.

Nobody is denying the utility of those basic imperatives; that doesn't mean it's always okay to do them whenever you feel like it no matter the circumstances.

No one said it did. At issue here is whether or not individuals have the right to decide FOR THEMSELVES whether or not the circumstances warrant it or not. A total stranger doesn't have veto power over you and your choices; he can't prevent you from having sex, he can't force you to use birth control, he can't insist that you only do anal, and he sure as hell can't demand that your wife have an abortion.

Personal responsibility means you're responsible for your own choices and no one else's. If you don't like the choices somebody else is making, you can just as soon chose not to help them.

So if someone wants to act irresponsibly, then it's all on them. Why do they need my help then for paying for their sudden increase in expenses?

Begging the question: whoever asked YOU to pay for anything?

I'm paying for refugees aren't I? All of them via my tax dollars?

But then why I am now responsible for helping pay for something in which I had no input?

ARE you responsible? Forgive me if I missed the part where you told me you worked for UNICEF or the American Red Cross or an all-volunteer refugee relief service that you can't get out of.

Forgive me if YOU missed the part where you tell me I can't tell them what to do while my resources are busy helping them out.

If you're merely talking about your TAX money, that's been covered already: you have no say in how your taxes are spent ANYWAY, your government does. Take it up with THEM if you think they're wasting it.

I have and do. That doesn't stop me from having contempt for these irresponsible adults.

Aside from being utterly deluded about how the U.S. Government works -- this is a representative democracy, not a participatory one

Did you miss the part of "OF the people BY the people"?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, they are selfish and irresponsible and are endangering a child.

Which you have no way of knowing without making up narratives about these people based on an EXTREMELY limited set of facts. Facts you don't really have since you obviously didn't read the OP.

And again, this is scorn leveled at people you've never met, whose exact circumstances you have no knowledge of. You don't know who they are, where they're from, what they did or when they did it.

Refugees. No home. No means. The conception of a child is easy to trace back. We know how long it takes to gestate a child. What the fuck else do I need to know?

Whether or not they were actually refugees more than 9 and a half months ago.

I'm paying for refugees aren't I?

Every refugee everywhere? No you are not.

The refugees in the OP? They're in Greece on the Macedonian Border. And the Greek Military is providing them what little humanitarian aid they are actually getting, so unless you are a citizen of Greece and paying taxes there, you aren't even paying for THESE refugees.

Did you miss the part of "OF the people BY the people"?

... which does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. That's a quote by Abraham Lincoln, 87 years after the Constitution was written.

America is a Republic, not a pure democracy. You don't get to vote on spending measures or allocation of resources, you only get to vote to select the people who DO get to make those decisions. They can (and usually do) completely ignore your opinion on those matters.

Which, again, is sort of irrelevant since these refugees aren't IN America and aren't being supported by U.S. tax dollars. You can go back to flinging invective at welfare queens and single mothers now.

 

[ksen]

Anyone on this board think begetting a child while you have no means is a selfless act?

No, and I don't think I've read anyone say it was a selfless act.

Anyone on this board think begetting a child while you are on the run a responsible act?

You're right, all refugees should be required to take a pledge of chastity.

Anyone on this board think begetting a child and bringing them into the world where they may still be in danger an act of caring?

You're assuming the places where they are refugees are more dangerous than the places they fled from. Having a child while a refugee may be the safest opportunity to bring a child into the world for some of them.

 

[angelo]

Brilliant idea. Have a baby even though the future is uncertain.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Brilliant idea. Have a baby even though the future is uncertain.

Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk

We're seeing the pattern all too common in liberal thought that reproductive decisions should be detached from reality.