And if people bothered to read, I explicitly said incentives & disincentives should be used (as in China), so unless you all are going to withdraw your love of how market economies work, I don't follow how this "runs roughshod over liberty" or whatever the crap you're saying.

You don't follow how having the state control how many children a family can have runs roughshod over personal liberty? Nothing really is too authoritarian for you, if it?

That is fair, i'm not sure that derision and scorn are a good tactic, but i don't think it is a conscious tactic. Well perhaps there is a minority, in the business, of playing to an audience (whatever media they happen to use) and they spread the message of scorn because they think it will sell well. And then the private citizens are merely copy-cating, or not really think through as we are here, just holding onto their biases - and i suspect people like to be jerks, whether it be racism/sexism/xenophobia, there is a tendancy to hate; or just pile derision and scorn on Others - the difference with 'Fecundophobia' is they are not targeting some natural part of these Others' identity, they are targeting something which is more like a lifestyle choice. (though of course having children is a fairly natural choice... That becomes a blurry issue, not as simple choice vs nature) But the point being, these other -isms are unpopular as inherently unfair, while attacking someone for their choice is merely horrible.

A conversation, defonitely. But it's a hard conversation to have without some scorn showing through. I'm sure it would be a contraversial topic for schools, and parents/school officials would manage to disagree on what should be taught (but then i think you are able to see other people's point of view, and balance two contradictory ideas in your head - this is a skill which develops between about 14-16 years old, if i'm not mistaken, but it only develops in 30/70% of people - i forget which is the correct number - it only develops when teenagers are exposed to the right kind of stimulation... That is to say, there is a large part of the adult population who do not want their kids exposed to contradictory ideas, because these adults can't hold two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time... )

I don't follow how using incentives and disincentives to push for certain outcomes is a problem for you market ideologues, no, and if it were, then I'd venture to guess you'd be asking for the repeal of the child tax credit and other such policies as kind of draconian overreach, but you're not.

Tuat was all @smeck

The only say the state should have over children is in adoption (where the child's interests come first) and if youare on welfare, the state should have the right to curb the practice of having more children to get more welfare by taking away that incentive. Once you are on welfare, your number of dependents should be locked regardless of i you get pregnant or not and you must be off welfare 5 years before a new dependent count would be allowed if you did go back on later.

Draugnar raises an interesting point up in that the original 'fecundophobes' were conservatives railing against 'welfare queens', now all of a sudden they want unregulated breeding in the name of the almighty individual.

You're spinning out Draugnar's opinion into "they" for no reason besides you're an over-generalizing asshole attack dog for anything lefty. I, for one, don't think there should be any state control of child-bearing attached to welfare pay-outs. Why don't I get to be "they"?

But putin has a point that some 'Fecundophobia' is directed specifically at those on welfare - ie it is wrong to have kids you can't afford.

Which leaves large families to be acceptable for the wealthy - a reversal of the trend for smaller families the better off you are, you can almost imagine a big family as being a sign of wealth/status symbol. (though i don't know anyone who thinks like this, i've read about a trend of larger families in the wealthy class)

"You're spinning out Draugnar's opinion into "they" for no reason besides you're an over-generalizing asshole attack dog for anything lefty. "

You know very well that bashing welfare queens has been a staple of rightwing propaganda since the 1980s.

"(Classical) Liberals are going to lead us straight to hell with their religious commitment to the individual."

Yes. Because there is nothing more important than an individual human being.

I don't give a shit if they have a large family when a welfare recipient start on welfare. I just want to discourage the abuse of the system by not *rewarding* existing recipients for having more kids. I'm not saying punish recipients for havign kids. I'm saying don't reward them. Now maybe there is a place for periodic adjustments to the count. Maybe every 24 months they can add another dependent and, if the recipient shows evidence of a multiple birth (twins triplets, etc.), allow them the extra dependent increases appropriate to the count. But popping out a baby every 9-12 months is unacceptable. If you can't afford a family, you shouldn't expect the state to pay for it for you. If you want to bread like animals, learn to survive like animals.

I would even be good with rewarding those households who *don't* have more children with a reward like insurance does for safe drivers. Call it the "safe sexers" award. Only households with women would be eligible naturally.

breed not bread of course.

What about families with infertile women?

Don't be pedantic. Details would have to be worked out. Maybe even a "lifetime safe sexers" award given to both men and women who choose to have their junk taken off the market through medical means. who knows. the point is to eliminate a ngeative reinforcement by replacing it with a positive one.

We shouldn't reward childraising period. Middle & upper class people who have children consume much more in the way of resources than lower class people do. Ever looked at the trash heap in suburbia of a household with kids? It's disgusting. And all their expensive energy wasting toys and televisions, their SUVs and minivans?

What kind of evil asshole are you? Do you hate being human? Being alive? Probably one of those guys that considered suicide after watching avatar lol.

I enjoy being called evil by villains who laugh at poverty and economic inequality. It's like being called evil by Monsanto or people who sell lead-toys to children.

Jesus, what is wrong with me. I actually agree with Putin about not rewarding childraising. More than one child per parent is wasteful and harmful to the planet. don't punsih large families, but don't reward them either.

fecundophelia - it's in their bible thing there

First you say "We shouldn't reward childraising period." then you add in your typical commie class hatred. yes, the amount of garbage produced is terrible, and generally higher classes produce more garbage, as they consume more. But the blame should not be on class, and even more more on children, only an evil bastard like you would hate children and consider them a "drain on resources". The problem is not consuming resources, as all living things consume and produce waste, the problem is our dependence on plastics and fossil fuels.

Funny how you assume me to be in the same pot as people who *laugh* at poverty and economic "inequality". And even more funny how you group me together with monsanto, which is backed by the big governments you so support, and the lead toys produced by the peoples republic of china.

No, didn't 'assume' anything, Your response to a graph showing the extent of inequality in America was to literally laugh out loud at the notion of inequality, which you persistently put in quotes.

http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1061642&page-thread=1#threadPager

Pardon me if I don't cry myself to sleep when someone whose mouth is permanently affixed to the rearend of the rich calls me evil.

"Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't say?!

You people who think there's something wrong with having children are sick."

haha, I did not tell you what you can or cannot say, buddy. Nor did I say that there is something inherently wrong with having children; I just think that the reasons you have provided are nonsense.

Also, what is with all of this talk of "the state" and "government." Libertarians are so afraid of the boogeyman government that they associate all public health planning with some sort of totalitarian oppression.

Hey Draug going back to earlier in this thread. You and Mrs. Draug don't have any children. Do you think your life was some how lesser because of this ad/or are you worried about late life when children are "suppose to" take care of their parents? I'm interested to see your perspective on that side of the talks that had been going on.

What does "public health planning" have to do with having children?
Nothing unless you are a communist, see China for communist "public health planning" regarding having children.

"What does "public health planning" have to do with having children?
Nothing unless you are a communist, see China for communist "public health planning" regarding having children."

You can't imagine that the public health service should not plan to provide health care for the number of children the expect? I mean this just makes sense, if you're expecting the 1-5 year olds to be 10% of the population (numbers pulled out of thin air) then you plan this.

well, he's calling public health services communist

which isn't wholly accurate, but that aside, that's what he means

public health planning =/= public health service. One is a euphemism for government controlled family planning ala China. The other is actual health care. He never said public health service. He said public health planning. Try reading once in a while.