Repost from aus.politics: Immoral society

[Oliva]

Interesting discussion in aus.politics :


"Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> "Ben Roberts" <Ben Roberts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<41900703@duster.adelaide.on.net>...
>> Australia is an immoral society with so many children born out of wedlock
>> and so many abortions.
>> The religious fraternities have failed and so have the politicians who
>> should have had policies in place to encourage decency. This is a society
>> that has women having children fathered by a series of men. What a shame.
>
> The function of morality was once to guide people in making proper
> choices in life that would be good for the individual and society.
> Shame was one way of doing this. Many people think they are so smart
> they don't need morality. However most people are dumber than they
> think.
>
> The following is not religious morality but it coincides with
> religious morality:
>
> 1 Don't have sex with someone you are not close to and trust to stay
> with you. You may have a child you don't want and the other person
> may not be the one that you can live with.
>
> 2 Don't have an abortion. It will pain your conscience and you may
> even shut your conscience down a suffer further psychological to avoid
> direct distress.
>
> 3 Don't abandon a child: it may suffer, be exploited and become
> delinquent unless it has your example, love and support. You may be
> passing on a curse.
>
> 4 Don't abandon your husband or wife. You'll likely find out that
> there was nothing wrong in the first place that leaving will fix.
>
> 5 Promise to love and honour your wife or husband. If you are not
> then you are breaking your promise and so you must change your
> behaviour. Build them up.
>
> 6 Commit to getting married rather than waste your own time and
> someone else's time and life when leave you find someone better after a
> few years.
> ****
> Of course in a welfare state all this is possible because we are
> obligated to compensate for the costs of others indolence and
> immorality: for a while at least until it collapses.>>
> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
> essentially personal issues.

Except of course when the govt/taxpayer is expected to pay for it.

> Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
> is.

Sure, and we wonder why there are so many dysfunctional families and
confused, poorly cared for kids..

>>
>>
> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
> essentially personal issues.

So true. It is because of them it is becoming more beneficial and easier to
get out of a marriage. A marriage is a Written contract where you stay
together for ever. Till death do us part remember. Yet the government in
its wisdom has decided any one can break this contract and not be penalised.
Except for the men however what kind of society lets a woman cheat on her
husband with his best friend, she divorces him, she keeps their child, she
gets the house the money (even if all the assets were his to begin with and
she was unemployed.) and he pays child support for a child that he is not
allowed to see because of the unfairness and bias of the family court. It
has become more attractive to divorce. You can DIY a divorce over the net.
If I signed a lifetime contract with Telstra and decided to pull out after 2
years you can bet anything they would not have to pay me out money. And they
sure as hell would not keep paying me so I can be with Optus.

> Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
> is.
>
> So your assertions are complete twaddle !!

[Oliva]

"Oliva" <joneoliva2brownfox@hotmail.con> wrote in message
news:2vd4f9F2jis79U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Interesting discussion in aus.politics :
>
>
> "Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> $afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>> "Ben Roberts" <Ben Roberts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<41900703@duster.adelaide.on.net>...
>>> Australia is an immoral society with so many children born out of
>>> wedlock
>>> and so many abortions.
>>> The religious fraternities have failed and so have the politicians who
>>> should have had policies in place to encourage decency. This is a
>>> society
>>> that has women having children fathered by a series of men. What a
>>> shame.
>>
>> Yes it is !!!
>>
>> Government encourage such policy through higher payment to single parent
>> families in endeavour to destroy as many families as possible.
>>
> If people want to have kids out of wedlock it's their business and no-one
> elses and all the moralistic fascists should but out.
>
>

Neil, we are all paying for this lifestyle of some. It is our business as we
are forced by corrupted Australian Government promoting unfair legal system
discriminating financially "normal" heterosexual families. Your stand is
fascist as you don't care for needs of children to be protected by both
parents and as Family law state in defining marriage. Only brainless crooks
can say that marriage is worse option for children and partners.

We all pay billions, not only by $ shovelled to "single motherwhores", but
also in higher rate of crime committed by their children and other problems
coming from dysfunctional family. Marriage for life assure happy and normal
children cared by both parents. Divorcing is HUGE business in Australia and
people who become rich practically forcing separations are not giving - up.
They are more powerful than ever and good illustration for that is recent
experimenting of Chief Injustice Nicholzon of the Family Court with sex
change on 14 years old girl. If she was living in normal family (wedlock)
this will probably not happened.

Australia is indeed totally immoral and corrupted country and urgent return
to traditional family values and responsibility of individual instead of
wasting most of the taxpayers money on irresponsible life habits is needed.

>>
>> The function of morality was once to guide people in making proper
>> choices in life that would be good for the individual and society.
>> Shame was one way of doing this. Many people think they are so smart
>> they don't need morality. However most people are dumber than they
>> think.
>>
>> The following is not religious morality but it coincides with
>> religious morality:
>>
>> 1 Don't have sex with someone you are not close to and trust to stay
>> with you. You may have a child you don't want and the other person
>> may not be the one that you can live with.
>>
>> 2 Don't have an abortion. It will pain your conscience and you may
>> even shut your conscience down a suffer further psychological to avoid
>> direct distress.
>>
>> 3 Don't abandon a child: it may suffer, be exploited and become
>> delinquent unless it has your example, love and support. You may be
>> passing on a curse.
>>
>> 4 Don't abandon your husband or wife. You'll likely find out that
>> there was nothing wrong in the first place that leaving will fix.
>>
>> 5 Promise to love and honour your wife or husband. If you are not
>> then you are breaking your promise and so you must change your
>> behaviour. Build them up.
>>
>> 6 Commit to getting married rather than waste your own time and
>> someone else's time and life when leave you find someone better after a
>> few years.
>> ****
>> Of course in a welfare state all this is possible because we are
>> obligated to compensate for the costs of others indolence and
>> immorality: for a while at least until it collapses.>>
>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
>> essentially personal issues.
>
> Except of course when the govt/taxpayer is expected to pay for it.
>
>> Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
>> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
>> is.
>
> Sure, and we wonder why there are so many dysfunctional families and
> confused, poorly cared for kids..
>
>>>
>>>
>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
>> essentially personal issues.
>
> So true. It is because of them it is becoming more beneficial and easier
> to
> get out of a marriage. A marriage is a Written contract where you stay
> together for ever. Till death do us part remember. Yet the government in
> its wisdom has decided any one can break this contract and not be
> penalised.
> Except for the men however what kind of society lets a woman cheat on her
> husband with his best friend, she divorces him, she keeps their child, she
> gets the house the money (even if all the assets were his to begin with
> and
> she was unemployed.) and he pays child support for a child that he is not
> allowed to see because of the unfairness and bias of the family court. It
> has become more attractive to divorce. You can DIY a divorce over the net.
> If I signed a lifetime contract with Telstra and decided to pull out after
> 2
> years you can bet anything they would not have to pay me out money. And
> they
> sure as hell would not keep paying me so I can be with Optus.
>
> > Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
>> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
>> is.
>>
>> So your assertions are complete twaddle !!
>
>
>

[Amanda Van Stone]

"Oliva" <joneoliva2brownfox@hotmail.con> wrote in message
news:2vd4f9F2jis79U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Interesting discussion in aus.politics :
> "Eunometic" <eunometic@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> $afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Ben Roberts" <Ben Roberts@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<41900703@duster.adelaide.on.net>...
>>> Australia is an immoral society with so many children born out of
>>> wedlock
>>> and so many abortions.
>>> The religious fraternities have failed and so have the politicians who
>>> should have had policies in place to encourage decency. This is a
>>> society
>>> that has women having children fathered by a series of men. What a
>>> shame.
>>
>> The function of morality was once to guide people in making proper
>> choices in life that would be good for the individual and society.
>> Shame was one way of doing this. Many people think they are so smart
>> they don't need morality. However most people are dumber than they
>> think.
>>

True. This is how Australian Government "help" families to stay poor.

Australian studies have repeatedly confirmed that Australia has a relatively
high child poverty rate. Using the half average family income poverty line,
NATSEM has estimated that 14.9% of all Australian children are living in
poverty (Harding et al, 2001). NATSEM has concluded that while progress was
made in the first half of the 1990s in the fight against child poverty (due
to the introduction and growth of government cash transfer programmemes to
assist low income working families with children and the introduction of the
child support scheme) these gains were fully eroded during the second half
of the 1990s.

Analysis of child poverty indicates that the average dependent child in
poverty in Australia:

· Lives with both of their parents, both of whom have no
educational qualifications
· Is aged less than 13 years;
· Lives with one or two brothers or sisters;
· Has Australian-born parents who have bought or are buying their
own homes;
· Has at least one parent who is earning income, but with earnings
being low due to (primarily) self-employment or (less often) low wages; and
· Lives in a family whose principal income source is government
cash benefits.

(Harding & Szukalska, 1998)

After implementation of "outsourcing" many families are forced by government
to not work as jobs are reduced or filled with foreigners working on
temporary visa.

Single mothers with out of wedlock children are treated much better than
both parent families not only on Family Court, but also if father was never
found.



Effective and MORAL solution:



Before paying them, they should nominate father for whom DNA test should be
done to confirm fatherhood.If they don't want, take the child from such
mother instead of supporting her immorality.



>> The following is not religious morality but it coincides with
>> religious morality:
>>
>> 1 Don't have sex with someone you are not close to and trust to stay
>> with you. You may have a child you don't want and the other person
>> may not be the one that you can live with.
>>
>> 2 Don't have an abortion. It will pain your conscience and you may
>> even shut your conscience down a suffer further psychological to avoid
>> direct distress.
>>
>> 3 Don't abandon a child: it may suffer, be exploited and become
>> delinquent unless it has your example, love and support. You may be
>> passing on a curse.
>>
>> 4 Don't abandon your husband or wife. You'll likely find out that
>> there was nothing wrong in the first place that leaving will fix.
>>
>> 5 Promise to love and honour your wife or husband. If you are not
>> then you are breaking your promise and so you must change your
>> behaviour. Build them up.
>>
>> 6 Commit to getting married rather than waste your own time and
>> someone else's time and life when leave you find someone better after a
>> few years.
>> ****
>> Of course in a welfare state all this is possible because we are
>> obligated to compensate for the costs of others indolence and
>> immorality: for a while at least until it collapses.>>
>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
>> essentially personal issues.
>
> Except of course when the govt/taxpayer is expected to pay for it.
>
>> Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
>> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
>> is.
>
> Sure, and we wonder why there are so many dysfunctional families and
> confused, poorly cared for kids..
>
>>>
>>>
>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be involved in what are
>> essentially personal issues.
>
> So true. It is because of them it is becoming more beneficial and easier
> to
> get out of a marriage. A marriage is a Written contract where you stay
> together for ever. Till death do us part remember. Yet the government in
> its wisdom has decided any one can break this contract and not be
> penalised.
> Except for the men however what kind of society lets a woman cheat on her
> husband with his best friend, she divorces him, she keeps their child, she
> gets the house the money (even if all the assets were his to begin with
> and
> she was unemployed.) and he pays child support for a child that he is not
> allowed to see because of the unfairness and bias of the family court. It
> has become more attractive to divorce. You can DIY a divorce over the net.
> If I signed a lifetime contract with Telstra and decided to pull out after
> 2
> years you can bet anything they would not have to pay me out money. And
> they
> sure as hell would not keep paying me so I can be with Optus.
>
> > Wedlock is a Christian institution and should not be forced on the
>> sensible ones among us who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it
>> is.
>>
>> So your assertions are complete twaddle !!
>
>
>

[Society]

"Amanda Van Stone" <amanadavansa3@netscape.com.ir> wrote in message
news:2vd62hF2kb648U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Oliva wrote...
>>
>> Interesting discussion in aus.politics :
>>
>> Eunometic wrote...
>>>
>>> Ben Roberts noted for the record...
>>>>
>>>> Australia is an immoral society with so many
>>>> children born out of wedlock and so many
>>>> abortions. The religious fraternities have failed
>>>> and so have the politicians who should have
>>>> had policies in place to encourage decency.
>>>> This is a society that has women having children
>>>> fathered by a series of men. What a shame.
>>>
>>> The function of morality was once to guide people
>>> in making proper choices in life that would be good
>>> for the individual and society. Shame was one way
>>> of doing this. Many people think they are so smart
>>> they don't need morality. However most people
>>> are dumber than they think.
>
> True. This is how Australian Government "helps"
> families to stay poor.
>
> Australian studies have repeatedly confirmed that
> Australia has a relatively high child poverty rate.
> Using the half average family income poverty line,
> NATSEM has estimated that 14.9% of all Australian
> children are living in poverty (Harding et al, 2001).

Any such criteria for "poverty" will produce that
or a similar result. Why? Because the highest
income years are in a person's fourth and fifth
decades and those are unlikely to be ages at
which a child is conceived. (Duh.)

> NATSEM has concluded that while progress was
> made in the first half of the 1990s in the fight against
> child poverty (due to the introduction and growth
> of government cash transfer programmemes to
> assist low income working families with children
> and the introduction of the child support scheme)
> these gains were fully eroded during the second
> half of the 1990s.

A recent Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics was
awarded to an economist who demonstrated that
as the dole gets bigger, work hours get fewer.
Who'd a thunk it?

> Analysis of child poverty indicates that the average
> dependent child in poverty in Australia:
>
> · Lives with both of their parents, both of whom
> have no educational qualifications;

Educational attainment correlates with producing
fewer children.

> · Is aged less than 13 years;

Of course, because as children age their parents
age also -- and reach their higher-earning years.
(Duh.)

> · Lives with one or two brothers or sisters;
> · Has Australian-born parents who have bought
> or are buying their own homes;

Wow, some "poverty" that is! "Poor" and yet
they can buy a house of their own, how about that?
This demonstrates Sowell's Law: All relative definitions
of poverty make the problem insoluable.

> · Has at least one parent who is earning income, but
> with earnings being low due to (primarily) self-
> employment or (less often) low wages;

Naah, the low earnings are due primarily to youth
and inexperience leading to entry-level and near
entry-level employment. What do Aussies expect,
to start in the top slot the first day on the job?
Sheesh.

> and
> · Lives in a family whose principal income source
> is government cash benefits.

You get what you pay for! Pay people with
entry-level skills NOT to work and they won't
work. As a result, those people will be less
able to work their way out of poverty.

> (Harding & Szukalska, 1998)
>
> After implementation of "outsourcing" many families
> are forced by government to not work as jobs
> are reduced or filled with foreigners working on temporary visa.

I never heard Australians complain about the US,
UK, and Canuckistan "outsourcing" the wool business
to Australia. The ability to trade among larger
populations increases the standard of living. If
Australians attempted to drop out of the global
trade network and turn to economic autarky, their
average standard of living would decline to about
the level last seen in Western Europe when its
population was the same as present-day Australia's.

> Single mothers with out of wedlock children are
> treated much better than both parent families
> not only on Family Court, but also if father
> was never found.

You get what you pay for! Pay women to break
up a child's home -- or birth a child without any
family to receive that child at all, and (Duh.) one
finds a huge number of fatherless children around.
In addition, if one's socialist public begs for a
State that leaves the marginal-earner father stuck
in the position of sticking around but being unable
to see to it that his children are properly fed, clothed,
and housed every day or being pushed out of his
children's lives but being sure his children will always
have a bare sustinance, clothing, and shelter, well
do the moral calculus. (Duh.)

> Effective and MORAL solution:
>
> Before paying them, they should nominate father for whom DNA test should
> be done to confirm
> fatherhood. If they don't want, take the child from
> such mother instead of supporting her immorality.

Better yet, if a sprog-whelper isn't married, take
the baby straight into a sealed records adoption
into a stable, married, two-parent heterosexual
home. Stop paying for the Women's Lotto of
make-a-baby, win-a-prize. Only then will women
begin to exercise some reproductive responsibility.

>>> The following is not religious morality but it
>>> coincides with religious morality:
>>>
>>> 1 Don't have sex with someone you are not
>>> close to and trust to stay with you. You may
>>> have a child you don't want and the other person
>>> may not be the one that you can live with.

Not "you", "she". (Duh.)

If any womanfirsters in these news groups are angry
that my proposal appears to remove from reproductively
irresponsible women the power of Making Him Pay
for Sex, they can always demand that father, not
mother custody be the norm for out of wedlock births.
The child benefits by being placed with a wage-earning
father, women benefit by enjoying the _schadenfreude_
of seeing the man's style cramped by having a child
to see to, and men benefit by the removal of a woman's
incentives to engage in reproductively irresponsible
ploys to grab a man's income through contraceptive
"oopsies".

>>> 2 Don't have an abortion. It will pain your
>>> conscience and you may even shut your
>>> conscience down a[nd lead you to] suffer
>>> further psychological [traumas] to avoid
>>> direct distress.
>>>
>>> 3 Don't abandon a child: it may suffer, be
>>> exploited and become delinquent unless it
>>> has your example, love and support. You
>>> may be passing on a curse.

Forcing a child into a fatherless home is a form
of child abandonment. Releasing an infant child
for adoption, however, is not "abandon(ment)".
Too many sprog-whelping women don't 'get' this.

>>> 4. Don't abandon your husband or wife.

If the rate at which women cause broken homes
by running away from marriage could be reduced
to the rate at which men do, the divorce rate would
fall to less than 20% of its current figure.

Ninety-one percent of divorces are initiated by women,
according to this study -- contrary to the popular stereotype
that "men leave women."

Shere Hite, _Women and Love_
St. Martin's Press mass market edition (1989) p. 405

That is, only 9% are initiated by men according to the
numbers collected by this widely-read feminist. Were
women to be no less inclined to break up families, the
divorce rate would fall to only 18% of its current rate.
This would be a good start toward ending the problem
of so many children raised in broken homes.

>>> You'll likely find out that there was nothing wrong
>>> in the first place that leaving will fix.

True. In the large majority of cases, women break up
homes and leave for flighty, lightweight reasons such
as "I need to find myself". (Sanford Braver, Ph.D.,
as disclosed in _Divorced Dads_) These women
often become serial homewreckers.

>>> 5 Promise to love and honour your wife or husband.

Again, the bulk of the problem is caused by wives not
husbands. See _The Proper Care and Feeding of
Husbands_ by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Ph.D., MFT.

>>> If you are not then you are breaking your promise
>>> and so you must change your behaviour. Build
>>> them up.
>>>
>>> 6. Commit to getting married rather than waste
>>> your own time and someone else's [...].

....if one wants to spawn babies, of course.

>>> Of course in a welfare state all this is possible
>>> because we are obligated to compensate for the
>>> costs of others' indolence and immorality: for a
>>> while at least until it collapses.

A Welfare State is an engine of immorality,
unhappiness, and child deprivation. And the
largest bloc of voters who demand an ever
bigger Welfare State are women. So much for
the belief that women are somehow more moral
or more caring toward children. Sheesh.

>>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't
>>> be involved in what are essentially personal issues.
>>
>> Except of course when the govt/taxpayer is expected
>> to pay for it.

Yeah, funny how some people bash politicians for
intruding on "personal issues" then flip around and
demand that the same politicians intrude into the
very "personal issues" of the savings, incomes,
and spending choices of others. Sheesh. Disgusting.

>>> Wedlock is a Christian institution and should
>>> not be forced on the sensible ones among us
>>> who have seen it as the complete bullshit that it is.

If you don't want to be wedded, don't wed.
But, don't expect those of us "who have seen
(unwed motherhood) as the complete (cow)sh*t
that it is" to countenance anyone's attempt to
conduct socio-psychological experiments on
helpless children.

>> Sure, and we wonder why there are so many
>> dysfunctional families and confused, poorly
>> cared for kids..

Yup, that's what happens when fatherhood is
disvalued and disparaged.

>>> Politicians are useless bastards and shouldn't be
>>> involved in what are essentially personal issues.
>>
>> So true. It is because of them it is becoming more
>> beneficial and easier to get out of a marriage.

CAUTION: Easier divorce has been a demand
of North America's feminists since they first organized.
So, is the cause "politicians" or certain organized
social-change agitators who have an agenda they
dupe the voting public with? Recall that a politician
out of step with the constituency is soon out of
office.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Pogo

>> A marriage is a Written contract where you stay
>> together for ever. Till death do us part remember.
>> Yet the government in its wisdom has decided
>> any one can break this contract and not be
>> penalised. Except for the men however;
>> what kind of society lets a woman cheat on her
>> husband with his best friend, she divorces him,
>> she keeps their child, she gets the house,
>> the money (even if all the assets were his
>> to begin with and she was unemployed.) and he
>> pays child support for a child that he is not
>> allowed to see because of the unfairness and bias
>> of the family court.

That is a corrupt society, of course. Thus, I, Society,
do not endorse such corrupting social patterns and
their supporting laws.

>> It has become more attractive to divorce.

And for women to pop out babies without bothering
with marrying in the first place...

>> You can DIY a divorce over the net. If I signed
>> a lifetime contract with Telstra and decided to pull
>> out after 2 years you can bet anything they would
>> not have to pay me out money. And they sure as
>> hell would not keep paying me so I can be with
>> Optus.

The real question, though, would be to ask
how compliant with a court order would women
be if that order said, "Custody of the children
will go to the father. You may visit from time
to time. Yet, you will continue to fulfill the
traditional female role by going over to your
ex-husband and children's house three times
a week and cooking, cleaning and shopping for
them. And you must leave before the kids
come home and you will see the kids only when
the husband says it is okay. You owe it
to your children.

Jack Kammer, _Good Will Toward Men_
St. Martin's Press (1994)
http://www.menweb.org/kammer.htm

THIS would be fairer than the present scheme for
divorces. Thus, the most unfair and least moral
sex opposes this sort of resolution of a divorce.

--
Men are people too. This fact startles most people
and infuriates feminists.