Man up, you losers! How dare you waste your time posting inanity on this forum?
p.s.
I think this is the explanation you're looking for:
That said, yes, I also agree it would be cruel and probably raise crime rates if we did not give them support. But I'm afraid that, if we do not, not only is it going to happen anyway, it's going to be much worse when it does.
I think a fine start would be just to have a national debate about the slut problem. Of course, this is not gonna happen, and I'm not holding my breath.
p.s.
speakeasy said:It takes two to tango. Most single mothers didn't get conceived from a sperm bank. Most of them have dads that didn't stick around to raise their kids. There's plenty of blame to spread around for fatherless homes. The point of aid to women with children isn't to reward women, it's to protect kids who had no choice in being brought into the world under such messy circumstances. I don't like the moral hazard of rewarding irresponsibility any more than you do, but the alternative might mean more teens living in poverty and turning to crime, and breaking into my home. Sometimes you have to pick the lessor of two evils.
I think this is the explanation you're looking for:
Take for example the issue of out of wedlock births. Gilligans are especially susceptible to what I call the it takes two fallacy. In the proper context it isn’t a fallacy at all. If an individual woman has a child out of wedlock, it is a fact that there is somewhere a man who is also responsible for the problem. So far, no problem. But the Gilligans want to use this to form social policy. They mistakenly apply at the macro level what is only true at the micro level. They assume this means if you have 100 baby mamas, that there must also be an equal number of baby daddies. They took this logical error and combined it with their natural sympathy for sluts, and decided to create a social order where only men are punished for out of wedlock births. What they didn’t understand is that it only takes a small number of irresponsible men to sire all the bastards the baby mamas could ever want. No matter how draconian our child support laws become, there will always be a small number of irresponsible men who are willing to play their part.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/1...d-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/
That said, yes, I also agree it would be cruel and probably raise crime rates if we did not give them support. But I'm afraid that, if we do not, not only is it going to happen anyway, it's going to be much worse when it does.
I think a fine start would be just to have a national debate about the slut problem. Of course, this is not gonna happen, and I'm not holding my breath.