Why buy the cow when the milk's free?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Why?, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. Why? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    What robots? The one in the science fictions books or on the big screen. I don't know about you, but I don't have a personal C3PO.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Or, just the opposite. The decline in population leads to increased numbers of resources and less famine and disease causing economic and educational growth.

    If people didnt just work on pumping out kids maybe the world would be a better place.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Why? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Well, you seem to have worked your magic despite the odds, now.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    The robots that are in real life...thats where we live. The ones that produce cars and microchips and all manner of goods.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Why? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Then why are Western European countries biting their nails about declining population rates, instead of popping champaigne bottles?
     
  9. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    They are based on consumerism, so less people = less profit..der
     
  10. Why? Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Less people also means less consumerism, and the toys that go with it.
     
  11. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Wow...you are smart
     
  12. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    this is def. not darksidZz

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    less people, more air.
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    The arrogance.. lol
    Actually.. this isn't funny :bugeye:
     
  15. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    yey way to go Why?....ur amazing man/woman. their probably popping cherries nowdays, instead of champaigne bottles.
     
  16. Luperci Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    Common sense? After WWII, there was a huge boom in population, and with them came prosperity. But now that same generation of people is the reason the US social security system is failing. People are living longer now then in any other time in human history. Only a large population of qualified workers aid in the country’s economy and prosperity. Is it better to have 100 idiots running a business or 50 competent people?
     
  17. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    That is absurd. Marriage does far more to protect women than men. If you're married and you break up, the woman gets half your stuff! If you've just been "shacking up", she doesn't get squat. In some states, the man must even continue to support his ex-wife indefinitely (alimony) after the divorce. Again, if you're not married, she gets squat.

    Women who put out and shack up without the protection of marriage are stupid because they are giving their partners all the benefits of marriage (sex), while they themselves get none of the protections it affords them.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    That is also a recent innovation. In early American history, the wife didn't get anything not even the children, and a divorce was extremely rare.
     
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Of course it was, under those rules. Now we've got the opposite situation. But all a man needs to do to go back to the old system is find a woman willing to put out without marriage.

    Pretty ironic, women who think they're more free by avoiding the "oppressive" institution of marriage are actually putting themselves in the position of a married woman in the old days.
     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    So because women enjoy sex without marriage, they are automatically brain dead?

    No. Marriage originated to document the male line in history. In fact, in ancient times, marriage was only for the wealthy nobles, with commoners living together, well, in common.

    You don't think women enjoy sex and are "hungry" for it just as much as men are?

    I'll put it to you this way. Each time you have pre-marital sex with a woman because you are "hungry" for it, you are denying a fellow male of the right to a virgin bride.

    Read some history books.

    Actually, studies have shown that women who have children are lowering their life expectancy. So in a way, not having children has become a matter of self preservation.

    *Sigh*

    What exactly are the benefits for a woman in regards to marriage?

    Oh dear lord.

    If the men do not want to get married and the women do (just to use your warped sense of logic), do you think women should force unwilling men into marriage? Should women use sex as a tool or weapon against men? You think that is better? And what then? They get married and the man is unhappy, making the woman unhappy, leading to divorce, or worse, an abusive relationship? You think that is more beneficial to the woman and the children that may come out of the marriage?

    So you are married then? Or did you take the hypocritical route and deny your fellow man a virgin bride(s)? Why can't YOU control your sexual urges, but think women should simply hold out or force men like you into marriage?

    Since you have claimed that men who have sex with women before marriage are stupid, does that mean you are stupid too?

    From that, we must now assume you are married?

    And what of men who have sex with these women? Are they sluts as well?

    Family life does not give security. What it does give is added stress, both financial and personal. It also sometimes means the woman is not able to do what she wants to do when she wants to do it, instead having to plan around the lives of the children.

    What makes you assume that all unmarried women who have pre-marital sex are living on welfare and on drugs?

    Try reading some books.

    And?.... You do realise you are contradicting yourself constantly, don't you?

    What should these "youths" do? After all, you have claimed you have had sex many times. Judging by your comments in this thread, we can safely assume you are married and have many children. So, are you?

    You are questioning the stupidity of women for not getting married and calling them sluts for having pre-marital sex with men who apparently cannot control themselves. I doubt you are in any position to be questioning anyone's wisdom.

    You're not? You want to read back through this thread then?

    Like you have each time you have had sex?

    What makes you think they are?

    Slowing population growth?

    The US has seen its biggest baby boom in years. We have not stopped having children.

    Actually no. Those in the upper echelon's of society have been cheating as much as anyone else.

    Ah.. Delightful. An optimist.

    I'll give you an example of an idiosyncrasy. I have a cousin who married a man without having lived with him before hand. She thought he was delightful, kind, charming, caring, blah blah blah. Within 1 month of being married, she had a black eye for not cooking his steak the way he liked it.

    Personally, I am forever grateful for having lived with my ex instead of just marrying him straight away. Had I married him before moving in with him, I would have ended up divorcing him within a year. I lived with my husband for a long while before we decided 'what the hell.. lets get married', after we had our first child. Was the best thing I ever did.

    Ok. You really need to read back through this thread and see what it is that you have written.

    Marriage does not mean "love".

    A child is better off with a happy single parent or parents who aren't married but happy, then be in a household where the parents are married and unhappy.

    I'll give you one word madant.. 'Prenup'.

    You are also assuming women are without wealth when they do get married and have to rely solely upon their husband's income. We both know that is not always the case. You are applying ancient logic of why a woman should be married to modern times. Women today are richer and more free than in the times when a woman had to marry well to ensure her own survival and prosperity. By getting married and having children, many women are having to stop working, losing their financial independence and reverting back to having to depend on their husband financially.
     
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Bell there is only one thing in that whole thing i dissagree with you on. You havent herd of the study that found that of women who live to be 100, it is 4 times more likly that they will have had kids in there 40's than had kids young or not at all

    I do find it a little insulting that you are sugesting that just because a couple wants kids the kids and\or man are forcing the woman to stay home to look after them. Unfortunatly becoming a public servant i will ALWAYS be paid less than my partner. Quite likly that i will work part time while SHE works full time (i wont be able to not work at all because i would lose my qualifications) when we decide to have kids
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,056
    Yes I have heard of that study as well. I wonder if 'Why' expects women to remain virgins until they are willing to have children.

    I never said it was the man who forced the mother to stay home to care for the child. Society as a whole does. There is this distinct lack of respect for women who re-enter the workforce before their children are of school age. She is viewed as a bad mother if she does. In some cases, the man does stay home with the children if the woman earns more than he does. But the salary gap in many organisations means it is only that, 'in some cases'.

    If a couple want to have children, sacrifices have to be made. There is no way around that. And in the majority of cases, it is the mother who has to make that sacrifice.
     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    i have to say that my mother did chose to stay home to look after the 4 of us. She wanted to be able to serve on school commites and what not and she did ALOT. But i dissagree that she was the only one to have sacrificed in there relationship. Dad gave up a job he loved because it wouldnt let him advance as far as changing careers would. So he went to the bottom and they BOTH went with-out alot that they wanted. Your right that kids involve sacrifice.

    Also why do you belive that the partner who has to work gets the better deal? Im sure my partner would love to stay home and look after the kids when we have them (in fact i KNOW thats what she wants to do, but i dont see how we will be able to aford that).

    Personally i think the one who gets to spend more time with there kids gets the better deal (and NO i am NOT IMPLYING THAT HOUSE WORK IS EASIER THAN PAID WORK). Its unfair that so many fathers get to spend so little time with there kids. I can rember how often dad's job forced him to fly interstate for weeks at a time and we wouldnt get to see him at all. I just hope if im the one working full time i will have more opotunity to spend more time with our kids (seeing as how i will be working shift work)

    i think your view is a little one sided, although you could just be pushing that because this thread is VERY onesided

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page