- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
NSFW for: Potentially challanging your narrative and worldview.
I recently found this article summarising important findings.
Breaking out of ones own bubble is important. And I would like you to remember this the next time you are at a ballot.
If you really think of the children, vote according to reality.
And if you FEEL personally attacked by this article and bash me in the comments, whataboutism away from the subject or bothsides-ing the issue; Thanks for making my point for me and seek help.
You must log in or register to comment.
Conservatives don’t care about kids.
The proof is in the pudding:Children in the US can be legally married in 41 states, physically punished by school administrators in 47 states, sentenced to life without parole in 22 states, and work in hazardous agriculture conditions in all 50 states.” Over and over again, the worst states for children are clustered around the “pro-life” Bible Belt, and the map of the states that are the worst for children looks a lot like a map of red-state America
While I disagree with some if the points in the article, the conclusion that is reached in the article is valid. I am not saying that conservatives want it this way, but most conservatives seem to be so hyper focused in certain areas that other areas slip through the cracks ( except for school lunches, a lot of conservatives hate providing “free” school lunches to students who need them)
Government allows questionable laws to exist on the books Government spends money in misguided places More government will make it better.
There’s a Thomas Sowell book called ‘Conflict of Visions,’ its pretty neat. Ultimately he breaks Left/Right into two philosophies: The Anointed believe everything can be solved with infinte money, and the Blighted believe that some problems are inherintly hard and cannot be solved without an impossible level of force. Basically P vs NP but with people.
I dont think giving more money to the government will save the world. Tax revenue is up, government spending is up-- but the problems persist… Then consider that an endless national debt may destroy the economic enviroment of today’s children as they grow up. I dont know about you but this ‘9% transitory inflationy’ has cut my buying power nearly in half!
The only answer provided ever is give the government more money/power. Its pretty silly. No thanks. They’ll just use to pedal soft-power to sketchy Eastern blok nations again, lol. Uncongressional wars for two decades. Create a spying apparatus that makes Stalin blush… Its a joke.
Are you joking? Did you even read the article?
It talks about child marriage, child labour and forced birth. None of these problems in particular require money, just laws to be passed. The solution to two of these issues is to just ban them. The solution for the third is just to unban something.
No, ‘Think of the children’ is a meme :p
Laws are written by government lawyers. Laws are revoked and rescinded by government workers. These laws still exist. Unpopular laws still exist… In many States a law can be petitioned into existence-- to get broken and watered down in beaureocratic double-speak. Worse, laws dont just go away, they’re written over. Wherein §512.765 still reffrences the ‘removed’ §218.231(A)(2) verbiage. Its a clusterfuck.
Do you really think more taxes/government will end the ageless problem of shit parenting and poor parents?
How about… Not electing government officials that are OK with child marriage?
For it! No force or taxes required
You would need police to force people into jail for marrying children or officiating said marriages, and taxes to fund said police
If you believe only the State has a right to force… ;]
In our current system, yes, only the state (and capital) have the right to force
I think you meant to *reply to a comment that asked for higher taxes or more government power, because that wasn’t what mine said.
Also, i am quite happy letting the government have the “power” to stop child labour and child marriage. If that’s an overstep in your book, then i don’t like your book. What seems an overstep in government power to me is regulating what people can do with their own bodies. Why isn’t that offensive to you?
The implication of all left/right ultimately boils down to taxes/force. I dont like force or taxes. This extends to bodily rights. However if you mean abortions issues, there is a true coin-flip on who’s body gets priority. (The solution is to not regulate it so that people that want it can do it and people who dont dont have to fund it. No force, no taxes. Consistency).
The mother’s body. It should take priority every single time.
You see how its a conundrum, right? That two sides of a dichotomy are definitionally extreme…
The implication of all left/right ultimately boils down to taxes/force
That’s not even close to being correct. The left/right spectrum is basically anti/pro capitalism and hierarchy
But I agree with how your comment ended anyway. But “no taxes” seems untenable, unless you’re also arguing for abolition of the state… in which case I’m curious where you fall on that
Eh, I see how you got there but I dunno about that. In my terms, a Communist (far left) State redistributes all wealth (~100% tax) and in a Minarchist system (far right) there is virtually no tax because there is virtually no State to fund. Thus no reason to employ force to gain said funding. The game theory is clear either way; A small State can only inflict small tyranny. A (mid to) large State typically has a war-machine.
I am more Right-skewed than typical Conservatives. I identify as Libertarian, but the LP itself is/was a mess. Mises Caucus seems legit tho. I believe that the State has limited rightful duties. As enumerated in the Constitution, the feds only need power to 1)Make and maintain currency shit (shit job), 2) Enforce or sovereignty (shit job), and 3) Enforce and promote popular law (shit job). But they want to do everything else…
Do you think your taxes are well spent? I know you dont, lmfao. If they reallocate spending then maybe I’d be cool with (some) taxes. Here and now, no. Im being misrepresented and it’s tantamount to theft. The problem isnt lack of funding, its more a lack of budgeting and prioritizing the wrong stuff. Making another committee or council only worsens the issue. They must be starved.
Dude, I’m sorry, but this just demonstrates a bizarre misunderstanding of the left and right spectrum, and a complete misunderstanding of communism.
The left-right dichotomy most certainly represents opposition or favour toward liberal capitalist democratic states. Here’s a rough outline.
Where on Earth did you hear that communists want to redistribute all wealth through a 100% tax? Seriously, wtf is that all about?
Communists want workers to control their work and work their own way without a boss taking all the profit.
Technically communism should be a moneyless, stateless society. No government to give taxes to. No corporations to take your money. No money to take. No one to force things. It’s all for the people by the people. The idea that you’re pointing to communism as force in order to defend your decision to vote republican on an article about pedophelia is pretty telling. This is why some people assume libertarians want to fuck kids.
Most cherry picked biased garbage Ive ever seen. Wonder if any other things could be twisted further out of context from real life.
And if you FEEL personally attacked by this article
Words in print can’t “personally attack” people LOL! Unless you’re a bubblewrapped snowflake actively looking to be offended by anything and everything.
Sticks and stones people…
Thanks for making my point and getting “personally attacked” (triggered) by words.
It’s so fucking predictable. Neither of these critical comments even mention anything said in the article. Likely because they aren’t able to refute it, or didn’t even read it in the first place.
I dont even think that other guy read the dam thing.
Wait, you are telling me republicans can read? Weren’t they the party standing against intellectuals and scholars because “muh religious truth is better than your scientific one”?
Oh wait, maybe you meant they can read the single words one by one but they cannot understand the message being conveyed through those words. This would make more sense.
Removed by mod
Sorry to disappoint, I’m not that fragile.
Sure seems like it LOL
May want to look up the definition of fragile.
How’s it cherry picked? Where’s the greater context that makes these facts more reasonable?
How’s it biased? What is the true story, and how does the article twist it?
Also, the last half of your comment is just unhinged rambling about bubblewrapped snowflakes, when everyone knows the real safe space is among conservatives, with fingers in your ears singing “LALALALA”.
There’s no need to tell this person not everything is offensive. They are not the one being offended. And telling you not to be offended doesn’t mean they themselves are easily offended. That’s an absurd reach. What it means is they have experience bringing truth to conservatives, and know what to expect.
The final nail in the coffin is that you haven’t made a single argument here that is supported by any facts. You just ignored the actual content and decided to insult OP.
You just made my night!!! I am absolutely drunk on the irony.
