Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#16,045
No one says that having a driver's license is a natural "right", granted automatically by virtue of the fact that you're a human. It's a privilege that you have to earn by working and getting good at driving, so you don't endanger other innocent people. So why can't the same logic be applied to having a child? You're causing potential harm in both cases. The very possibility, however remote, of accidentally injuring or killing someone (or yourself) makes the act of driving a car something you have to pass a test of some sort in order to to partake in legally, so why doesn't the possibility, however remote, of your child accidentally getting injured or killed (or injuring or killing someone else) mean that you have to pass some kind of test in order to legally enforce that child into existence?
There is an objective test everyone must pass in order to gain the privilege to drive and no one raises an eyebrow, yet there would be universal outrage if someone proposed a test everyone must pass in order to have a child. This is a blatant contradiction.
Ph !SQAJbBZk/o joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#277,681
Operating a machine vs. performing a natural act
Well I just don't see what the difference is.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#277,684
I guess this means it wasn't a right when our ancient ancestors did it like mammals.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#277,689
That's the difference between rights and privileges OP. But I hear what you're saying. I think we should require licenses to take a shit. I'm so fucking tired of people shitting whenever they fucking feel like it. It just stinks.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#277,695
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#277,709
@previous (C)
Shitting is serious business. Without the proper training and guidance, people might just shit anywhere. It would be safer to require training and certification that everyone must carry on their person at all times in public.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#277,710
@previous (E)
So what should people without proper certification do if they need to shit?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#277,712
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#277,718
@previous (C)
Of course. Why wouldn't they be? We just can't let them out into public until they have taken a shitting certification class, watched a safety video, and paid $30 for a state shitting license. It's a public health concern to have untrained shitters loose in restrooms open to the public.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#277,722
@previous (E)
But who the fuck would actually take such a class if they'd just shit before they leave their homes?
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#277,733
@previous (C)
I don't know. If you want to run home from work or dining out to shit at home, that's your business. Shitting in public is a privilege.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#277,737
@previous (E)
So why wouldn't they just take a shit before heading out to work or dine?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#277,850
Drivers licences aren't earned lol. They are an exercise of private property rights. Party A owns the roads (in most cases, the state) and prohibits people who they feel are likely to cause injury or damage to other people from driving. As individuals have self-ownership, there is no party who can prohibit them from procreating, except the 2 parties involved.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#277,997
@277,689 (D) > I think we should require licenses to take a shit. I'm so fucking tired of people shitting whenever they fucking feel like it. It just stinks.
this
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,003
if it is, rape is a right too?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,005
You're right. We should treat driving a car and having a child as the same thing. How has society been so hypocritical all these years?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,304
So by your theory, if I get drunk, drive my car around your own yard, smash it up and kill the passenger, you're telling me I couldn't be charged with operating under the influence?
That's bullshit I'm sure.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,308
No one has the right to prevent someone from procreating. It's a normal thing humans do, like eating and sleeping.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,312
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
It's true. Everyone has the right to make children they can't afford. And to petition government to steal the productivity of non-reproductive citizens to feed their offspring. It's just how democracy works.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,321
@previous (J)
Like I said, no one has the right to prevent someone else from having children. Society is made up of people, including people who reproduce. It's not down to you whether they should be allowed to do something they're naturally created for. Ideally, conservatives and Nazis wouldn't have children, but it's not up to us...
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,324
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
Hey guy, you won't get any argument from me. I'm all for individual rights. Including my right not to feed and educate the children of degenerates.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,327
@previous (J)
So it should be everyone's right not to pay any tax?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,329
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
Let's just give everyone the right to tax everyone else and see how that works out.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#278,333
@previous (J)
People are taxed on their income. If it wasn't being spent on giving poor people a few quid to stop their children from starving, it would be spent on war and bankers.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,434
@278,304 (J)
You're conflating two issues. The license issuing authority is free to remove your license if it feels you are dangerous, and will harm people on their roads.
The manslaughter of your friend is a tragic accident, but apart from damages to your friends family (?) I can't see any justifiable charges.
Anonymous F double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,435
@278,333 (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM) > implying it's not spent on both
dumbass
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,436
@previous (F) > Implying anything government spends money in isn't simply a glorified excuse to steal in the first place.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,438
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,519
@278,435 (F)
I wasn't implying it's not spent on both. The money that's already put aside for welfare would be "shifted" onto something else, so taxes wouldn't be affected either way.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,521
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM)
Taxes should be decreased.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,526
@previous (F)
Yes, they should. But taking it from the poor first is a terrible idea. I'm not sure where you're from but in the UK a lot of people moan about foreign aid; as you can see from the link, it's not a big problem.
Anyway, going slightly off-topic there. A lot of people, at a certain stage in their life, want children. It's not the same as materialism. In my opinion, it would be cruel for the government to prevent them.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,528
@previous (RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM) > in the UK a lot of people moan about foreign aid
Mostly Daily Mail readers who don't understand what they're talking about and just like to have opinions.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,538
@previous (G)
lolthis. They're basically our Fox News.
RevNick !0xmMfC4OiM replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#278,541
@278,528 (G)
Surly they can see it's just a tabloid with posh writing on the front? :P