chimchimm5

iTrader: (9)

Do you neglect them?
Do you feed and clothe them?
Do you nurture and teach them?
Do you insure their safety, health, and well being?
Do you foster their education?
Are you trying to bring them up as healthy, educated, responsible adults?
.....

If you answered YES, then I don't believe you are contributing to an idiocracy.

Do you have unplanned children from multiple partners?
Do you let someone else worry about taking care of them so you don't have to at all?
Are you uninvolved in the children's lives?
Does some other adults have to constant cover what should be your responsibilities?
......

If you answered YES, then you probably are contributing to an idiocracy.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Their moral and social prerogatives? You mean like family values? If we assume “idiocracy” will be compromised of Conservative Christians then society will be spared with their morality and values. At least that's one thing religion got right. Even most practicing polygamists are better at life with multiple partners with multiple families than most couples

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Uh...maybe you don't read...Paul blamed socialists...who are very, very liberal...

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Forcing people to follow your own moral/religious beliefs, no matter how positive, is wrong. And besides, religious groups that hold power are notorious for inflicting problems on non-believers, even when they never caused a single problem before having that power.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Kids are typically a product of their parents. What are you talking about?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

We're talking about the emergence of an idiocracy right? Where the majority of people are idiots and gain control of the country becuase they are, in fact, the majority? So then...if the majority are idiots, and are also religious, and are in charge...then religion is forced on the rest. I guess it's a tangent...not really though...

Salty

iTrader: (14)

It's a very board assumption. So you're saying it'll be the other extreme if it's the exact opposite? We'll be faced with a bunch of parent's who's children are merely 'acting out' with their ridiculous behavior?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

By opposite, you mean if the majority are idiots that are not religious? Then I would expect just as bad an outcome, only with idiots of a non-religious nature in charge. They would impose atheism on the religious, which is a horrible idea. Either way, an idiocracy is all bad. My point is that there is that you can't really say that religious people are more or less moral than non-religious people on average. If that were true, the southern states and the bible belt would have lower crime rates than everywhere else. But they don't.

And even more than that, to get back to my original post, there is NO way you can say the emergence of an idiocracy has anything to do with socialist ideas. From what I see, the opposite is true.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I think the point behind Paul's post is that certain social programs encourage more children. A little birdie once told me that a lot of these particular families are typically lowlife scum.

Anyone have stats on the number of children trash of all races have versus mid-class and above households?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I've been looking for stats on all this stuff, it's really hard to find for some reason. I agree that low income families have more children, but that predates wellfare. Poor people have always had more children, all the way back through history.

Also, more money = more education, and the basis of this thread is that less education = more children. So which correlation is it? Good question. I can't seem to find any studies that clearly show anything on this subject, at least in the US. They all seem to be studies of third world countries.