[Victoribus Spolia]

What??? You really would prefer to live a shorter life and have a large networked family? Why do you feel this way?

Is that so strange? Life is fleeting, here today and gone tomorrow. I would much prefer to have a greater quality of life with less years than live a long time as another cog in the great machine.

Nothing gives me greater joy than my wife, my children, and the hope that my lineage, my blood, will continue and will grow and prosper. A piece of me will continue on and spread upon the earth. If God came and told me that He would ensure my family's survival, prosperity, growth, and success for the next thousand generations in exchange for giving my life tomorrow, I would trade it without the slightest hesitation.

Unless of course if you are religious. If you are religious, then this life to you doesn't matter because you would believe in an afterlife, depending on the religion. So it all comes down to religion.

We can debate metaphysics and morality now if you want

Yes, I am a Trinitarian Theist and also a Phenomenal Idealist and my morality is Theonomic law argued via the apologetics of anarcho-capitalism; especially argumentation ethics coupled with my own defense of hyper-natalism.

I don't want to derail this specific thread, but I have given deductive proofs on this forum for both my moral and metaphysical positions.

If you are interested, I will post the links for you to examine.

[Pants-of-dog]

Regardless of religious beliefs, public health care is cheaper and more effective than private health care.

This is not only supported by fact, but also by economics.

[Drlee]

Yes, I am a Trinitarian Theist and also a Phenomenal Idealist and my morality is Theonomic law argued via the apologetics of anarcho-capitalism; especially argumentation ethics coupled with my own defense of hyper-natalism.

Holy shit! (I assume.)

Sounds like a freshman art student's Artist Statement. You should get a job.

[SSDR]

@Victoribus Spolia, Yeah people with bigger families tend to have more stress, drama, and bullshit. There is less personal freedom, let alone one can't live their life without their big family always asking what they're doing, and giving them social permission or not. You're using your second paragraph to motivate you to reproduce, hence people actually think they need those beliefs you mentioned to motivate them to reproduce because that was how they were raised and conditioned. And the elites want the masses to condition their children to think like this to prevent them from rebelling against the elite, so that the elite can stay rich.

And yes, I am interested. You can provide the links.

[Victoribus Spolia]

And yes, I am interested. You can provide the links.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=173900

The actual argument is on post 13, though the entire thread has been fun.

The argument title is quite plain in the post and its my deductive argument for my system of phenomenal idealism and my proof for the Trinitarian God.

Feel free to debate my system with me there.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&start=40

The sixth post on this page of the thread has the formal presentation of my argument for my ethical system; though once again, this entire thread has been fun. Please feel free to post on that thread in response to my arguments.

Yeah people with bigger families tend to have more stress, drama, and bullshit.

People with bigger families also tend to be ignorant on how to manage a large family these days. This is not a problem in my house.

. There is less personal freedom, let alone one can't live their life without their big family always asking what they're doing, and giving them social permission or not.

I am getting my Ph.D and I have a masters degree and a bachelors degree and I am learning my fifth language, have lived where I have wanted to live, done what I have wanted to do, have owned three homes, am building my fourth, and am starting my second business and going on possibly 7 kids and have done all these things while refusing to take hand-outs or going into debt-slavery. I have been a contractor, a machinist, a landlord, a factory-worker, a welder, and an interior designer... I drink when I want to, smoke pot when I want to, hunt
and fish when I want to, am a rapier fencer, martial artist, and have more goals to go from here....and I just turned 30 last month.

I am curious as to what your contrary life has brought you by contrast? Though, like your points, its all nothing by anecdotal conjecture to go down this road.

Once again, I think there is a big difference between people who "happen to have more kids" and "people who have more kids because they want to and are motivated to have them."

The former can be miserable just like the person who is unintentionally childless can be miserable; however people motivated by desire and conviction will also tend to happier and better at what they do.

You're using your second paragraph to motivate you to reproduce, hence people actually think they need those beliefs you mentioned to motivate them to reproduce because that was how they were raised and conditioned.

Correct, to establish any social system there must be conditioning, do you really think communism is any different? Education is the basis of perpetuating ideas and this is universal to any society or system.

And the elites want the masses to condition their children to think like this to prevent them from rebelling against the elite, so that the elite can stay rich.

The elites of this world are not promoting child-bearing, nor are they advocating for and supporting patriarchal ideals. Only recently have some more nationalistic regimes begun to do this sort of thing, but on the whole, the trends of most developed nations (which have the most powerful states and largest concentration of billionaires) is towards less child-bearing and less individual rights and China's former one child policy is gaining traction among many western thinkers.

Obviously, if we pursue this line of thought, the conversation will be consumed by conjecture regarding family values; however, my system is demonstrable from plain reason; both in its ethical and its metaphysical components.

Obviously, if God exists, physicalism is shown false, contraception is shown to be murder, murder is shown to be wrong, and private property is shown to be an absolute right; and all of these preceding things are demonstrated from logically derived axioms....then any further opinion you have against familialism and a market economy will be rendered moot.

I'd like to get to this point in debating you if you are game.

If you decide to post a response to my argument in those threads that I linked, I will take that as an acceptance to the challenge to debate.

I probably won't be back until next week sometime, so in the meantime I hope you are well and look forward to our discussions.

[SSDR]

@Victoribus Spolia, But with society gaining real consciousness, there is no conditioning. Gaining real consciousness is NOT conditioning. One isn't conditioned to gain real consciousness. No one is taught that "family is oppression." People are shamed that they view family is oppression, so then they don't view it as oppression due to fearing that they will lose respect from those around them who support the family institution.

Education on how to work, and contribute to the survival of humanity is not conditioning because working is not used to keep the masses under control. Humans need to work in order to survive, unless if we live off of AI and robots that do everything. It is only conditioning if the conditioned views are used to keep people from rebelling against capitalism and slavery. And here are some examples of conditioning:

The Family Institution: Raising children to think that they need family time together in order to be "happy." Shaming anyone who goes against the stresses and dramas of organizing the family together, via one going against the drama of holidays or weddings.

Religion: Raising children to think that they need religion in order to motivate them to be good, productive people who have a strong work ethic. Shaming anyone who goes against the teachings of religion, and religious values. Shaming anyone who supports what religions tend to forbid, such as sex outside marriage, showing sexual activity to children, alcohol consumption, masturbation, or cussing.

Money Buys True Happiness And Love: Spoiling children and buying them things to show that a parent "truly" loves them, and that it buys "true" happiness. Calling anyone "selfish" or "weird" if they don't buy gifts or spoil their personal affiliations such as wives, children, friends, or parents.

Gender Roles: Teaching society that women must be sociable, extroverted, family oriented, passive/weak, too friendly, and unproductive (so that women can rely on their husbands and families). Teaching society that men must be socially competitive, too tough, and obnoxious to keep them going against each other, so that the economics can stay privatized so that no man wants to work with or for an other one. Anyone who goes against these gender roles are usually shamed or ridiculed.

Tradition: Teaching society that celebrating ancient or religious holidays are needed to motivate the people to work. Teaching useless, emotional, and unproven ideas to control society. An example of an idea like this is a woman putting her purse on the floor means "bad luck." Anyone who goes against tradition are labeled as "traitors" to their tribes or nations.

These conditioning tactics that elites through out various times are not needed once a society has gained real consciousness.

Nowadays many elites are not promoting child bearing, nor patriarchal ideals. This is because of all of the progress that the progressives have made over the past 150 years. But many children are still abused, and many women are still under rule. It is just that it is not reported because people don't want to lose their jobs or that society just doesn't care enough.

There is a difference between private property, and Personal property.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But with society gaining real consciousness

When the fuck has this happened?

LOL

Education on how to work, and contribute to the survival of humanity is not conditioning because working is not used to keep the masses under control. Humans need to work in order to survive, unless if we live off of AI and robots that do everything. It is only conditioning if the conditioned views are used to keep people from rebelling against capitalism and slavery.

Well, that all depends on what is in fact requisite to the survival of humanity now doesn't it? So far, societies that have been anti-familial and more egalitarian in nature have been shown to be less reproductively viable (as evidenced by declining birth-rates), so assuming that you are a darwinist of sorts, it seems that given that intentional infertility might be the only real "sin" of evolution, it seems hard to justify any social system that results in mass childlessness; likewise, it seems like a rather amusing conundrum for secular darwinists that the very societies that tend to reject naturalism, darwinism, egalitarianism, and secularism etc, have the highest level of fecundity; namely the religious and patriarchal.

If we are speaking of collective "survival" in purely evolutionary terms, it appears that the zealots are the future, not the secularists and marxists. After all, you can't perpetuate the human race if you find families and child-bearing to be "terrible and inconvenient." Obviously, demographics in the west have born this out and the religious shall clearly inherit the earth. The great irony of darwinism is that those who tend to reject it the hardest are the ones that most perfectly fulfill its maxims.

The Family Institution: Raising children to think that they need family time together in order to be "happy." Shaming anyone who goes against the stresses and dramas of organizing the family together, via one going against the drama of holidays or weddings.

Religion: Raising children to think that they need religion in order to motivate them to be good, productive people who have a strong work ethic. Shaming anyone who goes against the teachings of religion, and religious values. Shaming anyone who supports what religions tend to forbid, such as sex outside marriage, showing sexual activity to children, alcohol consumption, masturbation, or cussing.

Besides being "caricatures" to a degree, ultimately I have little problem with any of this; though, I will qualify that I don't have much of a problem with my kids having a healthy appreciation of sexuality, cussing, and alcohol; but within the bounds of moderation, reason, and marriage.

Further; I would of course see heretics as punishable by death if they had previously and voluntarily agreed to the terms of the covenant (forbading such) on my own land. I would have them burned or stoned.

Money Buys True Happiness And Love: Spoiling children and buying them things to show that a parent "truly" loves them, and that it buys "true" happiness. Calling anyone "selfish" or "weird" if they don't buy gifts or spoil their personal affiliations such as wives, children, friends, or parents.

I think its wrong to spoil kids or teach them that money is the highest aim of life.

We are in general agreement here.

Gender Roles: Teaching society that women must be sociable, extroverted, family oriented, passive/weak, too friendly, and unproductive (so that women can rely on their husbands and families). Teaching society that men must be socially competitive, too tough, and obnoxious to keep them going against each other, so that the economics can stay privatized so that no man wants to work with or for an other one. Anyone who goes against these gender roles are usually shamed or ridiculed.

You have a weird definition of gender roles which seem to be mostly based on 1950s sitcom stereotypes; that being said, women are supposed to fulfill their role in childbearing as natural, logical, and scriptural. The "distinctions among the sexes" are inferrable from plain reason; my wife being home with our children and perpetually pregnant is a consistent expression of this universal and logical reality. All other gender applications are irrational by definition.

Tradition: Teaching society that celebrating ancient or religious holidays are needed to motivate the people to work. Teaching useless, emotional, and unproven ideas to control society. An example of an idea like this is a woman putting her purse on the floor means "bad luck." Anyone who goes against tradition are labeled as "traitors" to their tribes or nations.

This is also a weird strawman caricature, though I would agree with the idea that those who betray the traditions of their people should be shunned. I have no problem with such shaming and have yet to see a moral argument or rational critique of the position.

Nowadays many elites are not promoting childbearing, nor patriarchal ideals. This is because of all of the progress that the progressives have made over the past 150 years.

Well I am glad we agree that the elites of today do not support patriarchy or fecundity.

In reality, your position of egalitarianism and anti-familialism is elitist, not my own. Your position represents the views of the corporate billionaires and statists, not my own. So don't act like my position is that of the mainstream establishment; quite the contrary.

There is a difference between private property, and Personal property.

Yes, in Marxism this is true; however, I am not a Marxist. To privately own property is to have absolute rights over such so long as aggression is not committed against others and their property.

If you want to get away from strawman caricatures and get to the real meat of the matter, please address my arguments in the links provided so that we can establish definitely whose worldview is in fact superior at the foundational level of metaphysics and moral philosophy.

- VS.

[annatar1914]

Is that so strange? Life is fleeting, here today and gone tomorrow. I would much prefer to have a greater quality of life with less years than live a long time as another cog in the great machine.

Nothing gives me greater joy than my wife, my children, and the hope that my lineage, my blood, will continue and will grow and prosper. A piece of me will continue on and spread upon the earth. If God came and told me that He would ensure my family's survival, prosperity, growth, and success for the next thousand generations in exchange for giving my life tomorrow, I would trade it without the slightest hesitation.



Yes, I am a Trinitarian Theist and also a Phenomenal Idealist and my morality is Theonomic law argued via the apologetics of anarcho-capitalism; especially argumentation ethics coupled with my own defense of hyper-natalism.

I don't want to derail this specific thread, but I have given deductive proofs on this forum for both my moral and metaphysical positions.

If you are interested, I will post the links for you to examine.

Well done, @Victoribus Spolia , addressing the issue of the family. Indeed we Anti-Moderns and other religious types will be inheriting the Earth, and the sooner the better. My one singular cavil with you remains the State, however, I think we have pretty well determined that the Modern State is by no means the State as understood by the Ancients, and so our differences do not loom so large. The family, in fact, is the primordial state, as Sir Robert Filmer writes. Therefore we can sense why children and the family are under such attack today, can we not?

[Godstud]

Children and family are NOT under attack, however. This is a ridiculous perception made by only a very few. It's as valid as the "War on Christmas".

What people are against is people having 5-10 kids when we live in a world with limited resources, and this only adds to the problem.

What this has to do with universal healthcare, I have no idea.

[Victoribus Spolia]

What people are against is people having 5-10 kids when we live in a world with limited resources, and this only adds to the problem.

PLEASE try to argue for overpopulation, it will make my day.

[Godstud]

I just think that people who are still having that many kids, when they don't live in a 3rd world country, with a high infant mortality rate, are careless and irresponsible. That's my opinion on it, though.

[Pants-of-dog]

Overpopulation is also irrelevant to a discussion on public health care.

[Victoribus Spolia]

are careless and irresponsible. That's my opinion on it, though.

So you think i'm careless and irresponsible then? I hope to have atleast 14 before the old lady hits menopause, Lord Willing.

It also seems odd for you to call first worlders who have kids irresponsible when they theoretically have the best means to provide for them when compared with peoples who tend to have more kids in the second and third worlds.

If you have an argument to make as to WHY you think I am careless and irresponsible. Please make it.

[annatar1914]

Children and family are NOT under attack, however. This is a ridiculous perception made by only a very few. It's as valid as the "War on Christmas".

You might say that the secular victory has been so complete that the few who resist are invisible and ''unpersoned'' as enemies of humanity, so it does not surprise me you think that way. I'd be more surprised if you did not. That's why I appreciated @Rei Murasame so much in my earlier visits here, she was refreshingly quite a honest surprise.

What people are against is people having 5-10 kids when we live in a world with limited resources, and this only adds to the problem.

I do not deny that with modern technics we indeed are running out of the resources to feed more people than we can contain in this world, but i'm looking at the problem from the other end of the telescope so to speak.

What this has to do with universal healthcare, I have no idea.

Since we are not likely to ever have universal healthcare at this point in civilization's history, ever again, it is indeed a moot point.

[Godstud]

I hope to have at least 14 before the old lady hits menopause, Lord Willing.

You made my argument for me. A reactionary response based on your religion and feelings.

I do hope you have saved up enough money to make sure all your horde is able to attend college, and not become simply more uneducated Welfare recipients.

[Pants-of-dog]

Universal health care has two relationships with population:

1. Civilised countries (i.e. those with public health care) all seem to have low birth rates. This is a good thing for those who think overpopulation is a problem.

2. Universal health care makes it easier and cheaper for those of us who do have large families to keep them healthy.

So, regardless of your position in the overpopulation debate, you should support public health care.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I do hope you have saved up enough money to make sure all your horde is able to attend college, and not become simply more uneducated Welfare recipients.

I paid for my own college, why shouldn't they?

more uneducated Welfare recipients.

*ehem* I am getting my Ph.D. and am not a welfare recipient (yet).

So maybe i'm doing something right.

Besides, my arguments for my positions were linked; all of my views have been proven from plain reason, so if you are intelligent enough to debate them with me, please do.

I won't hold my breath.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you have any arguments about universal health care?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Do you have any arguments about universal health care?

oh hello Pants, I didn't see you there.

[Godstud]

oh hello Pants, I didn't see you there.

That's a no for an argument. Try following your own advice, @Victoribus Spolia when it comes to intelligent discourse.

I never meant to suggest that you were an uneducated Welfare recipient, only that we have enough in this world without making more.

Making your kids pay for their own education is an increasingly difficult thing, too.

That said, Universal Healthcare is a no-brainer. That's why every country that has it, is loath to get rid of it.