5 ms·

- The GP did not say anything about the richest of the rich only having children, nor did they say that they were libertarian. - Calling the GP an asshole and

- The GP did not say anything about the richest of the rich only having children, nor did they say that they were libertarian. - Calling the GP an asshole and implying that they aren't "terribly intelligent" can only serve to detract from your argument. EDIT: At least you took out the asshole comment

alexqgb 13y ago
He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that group is both certainly and obviously limited to the richest of the rich.
- waps 13y ago
  Having kids is a human right. That should be the end of the discussion. Anyone, rich or poor, is * entitled to have children [1] * entitled to financial and other aid to raise those children safely and securely [2] [1] UDHR, Article 16, paragraph (1) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16 [2] UDHR, Article 25, paragraph (2) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25 Since the US has signed these treaties, and unless it intends to back out, there can be no government policy that does not follow these articles.
  - clarkm 13y ago
    Why is calling something a "human right" and pointing to some UN declaration any different than calling something a "God-given right" and pointing to the Bible?
    - msellout 13y ago
      International law.
    - s_kilk 13y ago
      It's different in that the UN demonstrably exists.
      - waps 13y ago
        That the UN exists does not explain the reason behind the policies. That's like saying the bible is true because the printer exists, or the church, which is of course trivially true. That some organisation is behind a document does not make it true or false. And keep in mind that the League of nations (the creators of the UN) came forth from the Red cross, which was a division of the army that guards of the pope.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    No, it is not a human right. If we can just point to websites as undisputed facts, then the earth is flat.

alexqgb 13y ago

He specifically said people should be "100% certain" that they can support their children until their children can support themselves. Given that this normally entails a span of ~25 years (assuming two kids through college), that group is both certainly and obviously limited to the richest of the rich.

waps 13y ago
Having kids is a human right. That should be the end of the discussion. Anyone, rich or poor, is * entitled to have children [1] * entitled to financial and other aid to raise those children safely and securely [2] [1] UDHR, Article 16, paragraph (1) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a16 [2] UDHR, Article 25, paragraph (2) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#a25 Since the US has signed these treaties, and unless it intends to back out, there can be no government policy that does not follow these articles.
- clarkm 13y ago
  Why is calling something a "human right" and pointing to some UN declaration any different than calling something a "God-given right" and pointing to the Bible?
  - msellout 13y ago
    International law.
  - s_kilk 13y ago
    It's different in that the UN demonstrably exists.
    - waps 13y ago
      That the UN exists does not explain the reason behind the policies. That's like saying the bible is true because the printer exists, or the church, which is of course trivially true. That some organisation is behind a document does not make it true or false. And keep in mind that the League of nations (the creators of the UN) came forth from the Red cross, which was a division of the army that guards of the pope.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 13y ago
  No, it is not a human right. If we can just point to websites as undisputed facts, then the earth is flat.