[TheTigerMaster]

The "if" doesn't change anything. You're going to use your cerebral cortex to rationalize either having children...or not having them. The financial aspect is just one tool in this rationalizing. Although it is far more likely for you to rationalize having children, regardless of the financial aspect, because these subconscious primal evolutionary programs have a much more powerful influence on your conscious reasoning than you think....which is why there are 7 billion humans.

What I said in my post was COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL. I do not think that people will ever choose to have children based on financial concerns. You would have to be an idiot to think that. Anyways, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Can we please get this discussion back on track.

 

[freshcutgrass]

As a general idea, it's probably not the wisest move to defend statements made by kkgg7.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

As a general idea, it's probably not the wisest move to defend statements made by kkgg7.

Noted.

 

[kkgg7]

Something tells me that kkgg7 has never been married, has never had a girlfriend, has never had children, has never had anything approaching real sexual relations with anybody...

your continued interest in my sexual life is really flattering... oh, wait, I was already castrated by you last year in another post, how can I have sexual relations?
Maybe being a senior member on this forum gives you some sort of privilege to engage in this kind of personal attack several times without being penalized. All I can do is to just ignore you from now on.

 

[vz64]

kkgg7, you still did not say how you would address the issues of poverty in this city (and this country, by extension). There will always be part of population that relies on some form of social assistance. It looks like you are advocating libertarian view where you assume personal self-responsibility without any obligation to less fortunate. Even such extreme libertarian as Ron Paul argues that these same welfare benefits that states delivers will be delivered by community. He, personally, as a doctor, would never turn down anybody who has no money to pay for medical services. Dismounting welfare state while not taking personal responsibility for less fortunate is a way to anarchy or/and social unrest/revolution (e.g., October Revolution of 1917). So, even if you have no desire to help others, you need to do it in order to live in peace and prosper...

Actually, I don't mind the way kkgg7 expresses his ideas and thoughts: I believe they are honest and sincere (if controversial).

 

[Hipster Duck]

It is relatively 'shitty', but something tells me that you haven't experienced poverty first hand outside the developed world, or even in the US.

This kind of response is both false - because people who are poor do not find solace in knowing that people halfway around the world are even poorer, they care about their position relative to the context (Toronto) that they find themselves in - and also incredibly patronizing:

"Hey, you, in the wheelchair. I know you're paralyzed from the waist down, but have you ever thought about how it would be to be paralyzed from the neck down?"

Actually, I don't mind the way kkgg7 expresses his ideas and thoughts: I believe they are honest and sincere (if controversial).

I agree. I think they're honest, just uninformed. For example, the idea that people would think rationally about having Y children based on their expected permanent income X is impossible for at least two reasons. The first is that people don't make rational decisions in the real world, as some have already mentioned. The second is that it is impossible to predict how much income you will have for the 18 years that you raise your child, and this is especially hard to predict when you're at the age (20s and early 30s) when most people start thinking about having children. I would actually argue that people are increasingly making the decision to have children based on financial security, which is why some women are delaying childbirth into their 40s, which comes with problems of a different kind.

Finally - and this is completely ignored by most conservative thinkers - people who are poor may not have been poor when they made a major decision, such as to raise children. Many families have kids and then are plunged into poverty later on due to events that they may have had little control over, including unemployment, divorce - and in the US - medical conditions.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The only reason people should or should not choose to have children is love. If you think that finances or logic should come into play there is something seriously wrong with you.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I would actually argue that people are increasingly making the decision to have children based on financial security, which is why some women are delaying childbirth into their 40s

Yes, there is a certain demographic amongst certain social groups, that rationalize the importance of pro-creating farther down the priority list. Ironically enough, these are usually the people least affected by the hardships that 95% of the rest of the world faces.

Finally - and this is completely ignored by most conservative thinkers - people who are poor may not have been poor when they made a major decision, such as to raise children. Many families have kids and then are plunged into poverty later on due to events that they may have had little control over, including unemployment, divorce - and in the US - medical conditions.

That's true, but the basic problem with conservative thinkers, is that they lack empathy. They see the world as simply an extenuation of themselves, which is why they get frustrated when the rest of the world doesn't conform to their distorted way of perceiving things.

It is estimated that at any one time, 10-15% of the general population would qualify for a personality disorder. The rest of us are just neurotic. It's amazing we haven't gone extinct.

The only reason people should or should not choose to have children is love.

If you can manage to rationalize that, then fine. But that's not really the wisest choice either. It's actually not really a "choice" technically. You can choose to wait until you fall in love before pro-creating (if you can manage it). But "romantic love" is just another primitive evolutionary program for mate selection. It's an involuntary, and temporary neurochemical response. And it is in direct conflict with another evolutionary program that tells you to mate with as many partners as possible. They both work, which is why evolution keeps them. Romantic love is very strong, but unfortunately has a shelf life. When it wears off, and if you haven't established a strong bonding pattern with your mate (unlike romantic love, takes effort to do), your sex drive will take over and you will be seeking a novel partner. Social taboos keep some of this in check, but overall not very effective.

It's no wonder we are neurotic.

 

[kkgg7]

kkgg7, you still did not say how you would address the issues of poverty in this city (and this country, by extension). There will always be part of population that relies on some form of social assistance. It looks like you are advocating libertarian view where you assume personal self-responsibility without any obligation to less fortunate. Even such extreme libertarian as Ron Paul argues that these same welfare benefits that states delivers will be delivered by community. He, personally, as a doctor, would never turn down anybody who has no money to pay for medical services. Dismounting welfare state while not taking personal responsibility for less fortunate is a way to anarchy or/and social unrest/revolution (e.g., October Revolution of 1917). So, even if you have no desire to help others, you need to do it in order to live in peace and prosper...

Actually, I don't mind the way kkgg7 expresses his ideas and thoughts: I believe they are honest and sincere (if controversial).

I never deny the responsibility of the state to take care of the least unfortunate, what I advocate is that this kind of social protection should be kept at minimum and out of absolute necessity. After all, it is everyone else's hard earned money. It is really unlike giving your poor neighbour money for this children's education.

that being said, the social system should foster a kind of self responsibility. For example, the NDP repeatedly argues for better pension for seniors, quoting how many seniors are living for under say $30K (or whatever the number is) a year. I laugh at it every time. NOBODY, I mean nobody in our world should completely rely completely on pension (ie: a part of salary of the current working young) for their retirement life, which may last up to 30 years. The word "saving" never seem to occurred to their mind as necessary when these poor seniors are younger and making money? Too many people live beyond their means, or live to the maximum of their means, when they are at working age and then complain about "senior poverty" at the age of 70. How ridiculous.

As to the average poor, money should not be given out for free just because they are poor. They should do some work in return - cleaning the street, pick up garbage in the park, paint public libraries, whatever they can contribute. A person should not make more money by collecting social benefits than if working for minimum wage. Do you have any idea how many immigrants, living in big houses and carry a lot of cash, actually receive "social assistance" just because they look "poor" on paper? I personally know many, who make $80k or more, sponsor their parents come over and live with them, and claim their parents to be their "tenants", who in turn get a check from the government. Isn't that ridiculous?

I don't object helping those who are miserable. I just hope the social system shouldn't give out money so easily as if it falls from the sky. It should at least be fair to average working people.

 

[adma]

I think that given the circumstance, it's more a matter of kkgg7's lack of, well, even empathy for that kind of human desire--which, metaphorically speaking, might just as well telescope into his views on urbanity.

 

[gabe]

kkgg7 really hates way how things work here in Canada! Obviously you're not from here.

 

[kkgg7]

kkgg7 really hates way how things work here in Canada! Obviously you're not from here.

I don't hate how things work here. I just think there are things that can be improved.

You will be surprised by how many people actually hold similar social view as I do (well, we do have a conservative majority) and you over estimate the popularity of left socialism. It is only due to the fact that people who are left tend to express their views more easily, because they usually sound "the right thing to do".

Sure, it sounds nice and correct to say "let's give the poor and seniors more money so that they can have a better life". Nice slogan! The liberals and NDP do that all the time, as if money just grows from trees. How come they never say "hey average workers, let's all pay more taxes and cut expenses for your own househodd, so that those old folks who didn't save enough when they are young can have more income now, and those who didn't study well and didn't learn enough skills to find a job can have a good life!". These essentially means exactly the same thing, how come liberals never cry out slogans like that?

The conservative are sometimes less vocal, because, you can imagine, it is always harder to say "We need to cut expenses on this and that" than to say "let's allocate $25million to this program and that initiative". Essentially, the money we have is the same amount, isn't it? It is not like you want to spend more and then there will automatically more money available.

No, I am not from here, but that doesn't make me a minority. The fact that we have a conservative majority, and Canada's largest city elected a conservative mayor somehow indicates no matter how things were, they are changing. Liberals and socialists will always keep talking as of they are the only noble people on the planet who care about the poor, the senior and the humanity, they just need to show where they get the funding from. Forcing every working people to pay increasingly more taxes is the only way to go, yet even a maniac like McGuity keeps falsely promising there will be no tax hike (I guess he will pull money out of his own ass). Do they really have to lie all the time? I guess they do, since most voters are stupid and they don't really understand the economics here. They think when the governments wants to spend $50m on some social program, it can simply print more money, or tax "greedy corporations" more heavily (since they are evil by default and anything done to punish them sounds right) so that they can afford offering fewer jobs or worse, stop operating and move to other countries where tax region is more competitive.

 

[Lenser]

We must live in parallel universes, then. In my universe, conservative types have no problem expressing their views, even actively promoting them. Both ends of the spectrum are quite capable in that regard. Claiming that it's otherwise is just lazy-headed thinking. In my experience the right preaches to their flock just as much as the left does to theirs. They both have their customary talking points and painfully generalized slogans... hoary old conventions that are trotted out faithfully whenever the occasion calls for it. The right and left exist along a continuum; travel far enough rightward and you'll be an extremist - with a leftist right alongside you, having come from the opposite direction.

And what, pray tell, is "left socialism?" Ain't that redundant redundant? Or is it that they drink a different flavour of koolaid than the right socialists?

 

[Register123]

I would actually like to see more left wingers "put their money where their ideology is". Most the time I find they just pay lip service to their altruistic ideals but when comes do doing charitable work, or helping the poor they just can't be bothered.

 

[Lenser]

I would like to see more right wingers inject real substance when complaining about the left. Most of the time they just pay lip service to their cliched complaints but when it comes to providing specific examples we all can examine and discuss, they all too often go quiet.

See how easy it is to generate such slurs? Like water off a duck's back.

So - are we any closer to why Toronto seems to do so well on the best cities lists? I guess not.