I’d take that bet. I’m pretty sure the founding farmer were aware of the concept of sex, and the prospect of a particular subset of the population having a whole lot of it would not have phased them in the slightest.
This is one of the most absurd things I’ve read recently, and I just came from a thread about Pat Buchanan defending the peaceful intentions of Adolf Hitler. There’s nothing nefarious about having children with the express intention of passing on your values. If one group has a lot more children than another group, they aren’t circumventing the other group’s rights, they’re just being more vigorous in exercising their own rights. There’s nothing stopping the first group from fucking just as much as the second.
By way of analogy, let’s say that only 30% of the population votes in any given election. But one subsection of the population has a consistent 90% voter turn out. Your proposal is equivalent of depriving 60% of that minority the right to vote, so that they aren’t over-represented in the polls.
Is that a fact? Last time I checked, Canada has a lot of natural resources, and not a whole lot of military. We could walk up there and take them out relatively easily. Lots of resources for little risk is a wise choice. If the government is about wise choices, and not right and wrong, should we be planning a sneak attack on Ontario right now?
Eh? I don’t believe there’s a government on Earth, now or at any time in the past, that completely discounts “ideas of right and wrong.” And all “ideas of right and wrong” are equally “artificial” – not equal, but equally artificial; you don’t need to be a moral relativist to understand that.
Also based on the thread title, apparently no men are involved in this conspiracy. I think that this particular attempt to “subvert democracy” has a major flaw.
I think I see the disconnect. A Denial of Service attack is illegitimate because the agents working on behalf of the attacker, generally programs(bots), aren’t real users who would use the data they’re requesting from the site. In this case you have one (l)user who is employing faux-users to request all the resources from a site, preventing other, legitimate users, from accessing it.
This just doesn’t apply to the situation with having children with the intent to teach them your values with the assumption they’ll accept those values, make them their own, and then use their rights as citizens to shore up a political position. Those children are real citizens with every bit as much right to petition the congress or vote as anyone else. They’re not scripts running in some background process. They’re human beings, ones which may not have had an upbringing you agree with, and who may hold political opinions fostered by their parents without a lot of critical thinking or alternate viewpoints, but still living, breathing, taxpaying citizens of the nation.
The idea that children of Quiverfull adherents are analogous to scripts which execute DOS attacks strips them of their humanity, and that’s just not right. It’s like the argument that it’s fine to have kids or clone people to harvest their organs. No level of parental intent or indoctrination can strip them of their human rights once they’re born. They’re real people and they have rights to exercise their political power as they see fit or to retain their autonomy and not donate their organs against their will. If they’ve been indoctrinated to believe the politics of their parents is the right thing, well, that’s just normal. If society doesn’t provide a welcoming and open place for them to grow into and receive other viewpoints and see the world is bigger than their parents views, then we’ve failed them and the least we can do is not add insult to injury by treating them as second-class citizens because of their unusual life circumstances.
Whereas based on the thread contents, apparently men are involved up to the hilt in this conspiracy, and the concern is that the rights and choices of the women involved are being subverted.
So we’re justified in demanding that all illegal aliens leave immediately? I find it interesting that you have a problem with these people having lots of children to suck up resources, but you don’t seem to have a problem with pregnant Mexican women jumping the border to have anchor babies in the States.
Contrary to what you claim, the Wikipedia says exactly nothing about creating a “massively fundamentalist Christian voting block”. Not one word anywhere. Nothing about it being a principal goal or an express goal or a goal of the Federal Express corporation. Nada. Zilch. Zippo.
Note that your argument goes, “once they are born.”
They aren’t born -yet-. They may eventually be people, and I think it can be shown that children are likely to continue in their parents politics.
If they come into being, certainly they have their rights.
But feasability-wise, it can’t hold that the only way for a group to protect its rights is to out-grow or grow with its competitors. The country would be bursting at the seams in just one or two generations. But we would all have to do it. We would all have to have 10 or 20 kids, just to keep our politics from becoming marginalized. Law seeks sanity. That’s just insane to have to do. But once people start acting to subvert democracy, by cheating at elections or mass-breeding or whatever, the only way for others to fight back is to either police that sort of activity, or join along.
Um…illegal aliens are illegally in the country. Of course we’re justified in demanding that they leave illegally, and I also have a problem with anchor babies. What did I say that made you think otherwise?
Let’s go through some quotes, just because it’s obvious that you’ve not paid much attention:
Sage Rat said - "Whether it’s fundies or Mexicans, or whoever, should any coordinated group be allowed to cheat democracy via artificial expansion of their group?
That it’s fundamentalists who, possibly, were the first ones to make a go at it isn’t particularly relevant. "
“This isn’t a thread about Fundamentalists, blacks, Mexicans, or anyone else. It’s purely about what the title says, the power to vote with your vagina.”
“like I said, the thread is about voting with your vagina and the ethics thereof, not about the Quiverfull movement.”
Okay so, as you should have noticed, whether the Quiverfull movement is or isn’t doing this is irrelevant to the thread. Neither I nor anyone cares.
Secondly, the Wikipedia states, under the section called Motivations:
How exactly are their rights and choices of the women involved are being subverted?
Nobody is being raped here. These are married couples making choices about how they are going to handle birth control (or absence thereof). Are you contending that husbands should have no role in family planning?
Is it your position that forcible physical rape is the only means by which women might be coerced into having children. Does not the isolation, the emphasis on wifely submission, and the totalizing rituals that fundamentalist require women to perform (as, say, courtship, the Christian dating paradigm where Dad picks your boyfriend-husband-to-be) rather not resemble the practices of a cult. And cults, of course, operate by using psychological not physical coercion.
You’re being falsely modest when you pretend that these facts and inferences did not occur to your mind.
Of course, I didn’t assume you were referring to literally voting with a vagina. Nothing about the Quiverfull movement allows them to walk into a voting booth, discreetly show a number of notches on their labia and then be allowed that number of votes. The children have to be born, raised, and reach the age of majority in order to exercise their vote. Due to their upbringing they may be more than likely to hold certain views, but there’s nothing immoral or “cheating” about that. Every parent raises their children the way they believe to be right. And I’d like to see a cite about children following their parent’s politics to a significant degree. I seem to recall a generation voting to give rights to Blacks when their parents were vehemently supporting segregation. There have been tons of instances where an older generation would not have supported the laws their children voted in. Women’s suffrage for another example. And there’s a good argument to be made that shifting away from your parent’s politics is accelerating.
Who has said anything like that? There are tons of ways to grow a voting bloc. Winning people over has always been a faster and easier strategy than growing a new generation, for one thing it doesn’t take at least eighteen years. Converts are more valuable than new generations because they both strengthen your side AND weaken theirs. Nothing about this changes due to the Quiverfull philosophy.
Again, mass breeding does not subvert democracy. A democracy can NOT be subverted by individuals exercising their franchise. It CAN be shifted, but that’s a shift, not a subversion, and shifts are a feature, not a bug. No matter how you feel about the politics of the Quiverfull movement or the values they instill in their children, the children are still individuals and entitled to as much political power as you or I. Your opinion of their parents or their childrearing philosophies have NO bearing on their rights as citizens.
There’s just no analogy to cheating an election, assuming you mean the traditional way like stuffing a ballot box with ballots filled in by fake voters or stealing ballot boxes from real voters who you assume voted a way you don’t like. Both of those either create artificial people to act as a proxy for one real person, thereby artificially inflating their political power(a real analogue of the DOS attack), or taking away the legitimate power of others(disenfranchisement).
I think some are seeing political representation as a racial/groupl spoils system. My group gets this if we outvote that group so we need more and more citizens in our group to get more and more stuff.
That’s one reason perhaps the gov’t was supposed to be limited and a reason for minority protections in the bill of Rights.
Once someone has kids, there is no ability of the gov’t to determine “why” they had them. Do they like large families? Or is it something more sinister, perhaps? What should they do? Put them on trial and make the families prove they don’t have ulterior motives? It’s ridiculous.
Can you imagine if conservatives started railing against large minority families and how they were subverting democracy?
