re: Does this align with being pro-life? Louisiana refuses summer meal assistance for kids

It aligns with being pro-responsibility, which is a part of being pro-life.

It's not the other taxpayers job to feed your kids. You bred 'em, you feed 'em.

quote:

---

It’s a moot point because Louisiana is participating in the program after all.

---

Not quite moot, because inefficient bureaucratic redundancy was the rationale for LA's initial hesitancy. That very legit rationale was duplicitously ignored by the OP article author, Ashley Murray. Duplicitous behavior rarely registers as "moot."

quote:

---

It’s a moot point because Louisiana is participating in the program after all.

---

So you are fine with wasting money on redundant programs as long as it makes you “feel good about it”? That’s incredibly stupid and very leftist of you.

quote:

---

don't understand what you're claiming. The violent crime rate fell literally by half between the early 1990s and 2014

---

Is violence the only criminal behavior that you consider to be antisocial? Are you in favor of decriminalizing property crimes, obscenity, drugs, etc? Obviously laws don’t prevent crimes. Murder has been against the law since the 10 commandments yet people have been murdered daily for centuries.


Anyway, you picked the most violent period of our country’s recorded history to compare current violent crime rates to - why? Violent crime has doubled since 1960.

quote:

---

suspect, however, that this is the point in the discussion during which you stop conversing rationally and start to frankly be a dumb-arse

---

Respectfully, arguing that laws prevent crime is not rational in the slightest and is very easily disproved. I’m not sure if you’re dying on that hill becaue you’re trolling or becaue you simply like arguing and it’s easy to disagree with a woman on a very sexist message board. Random dudes upvoting your post doesn’t make it logical or correct.

quote:

---

Let's do it this way—if there were literally no laws whatsoever, true or false, there would be significantly more acts that we currently consider criminal committed.

---

You keep mentioning anarchy as if I’m advocating for that. When I said I’m generally always against additional laws, I wasn’t promoting anarchy. We have countless ineffective laws on the books already. We don’t need more.

quote:

---

Now I know you're trolling.

---

But your post implying men have no control over when they have sex with who they have and with WASN’T a troll? Give me a break.

quote:

---

but being just fine with men being forced by the state to do so.

---

If you want the government to force women to give birth, why wouldn’t you be in favor of the government forcing both parents to support the child?

quote:

---

Are you ready for the government to stop incentivizing women to abandon marriage?

---

I explicitly stated that I was in favor of welfare reform.

quote:

---

Yet you want people to be able to kill them. That tracks, sure.

---

Nope. I’ve literally copy and pasted my exact opinion multiple times in this thread. Why won’t you debate what I believe and have posted verbatim multiple times in this thread instead of making emotionally charged statements that aren’t even true?

quote:

---

Obviously laws don’t prevent crimes. Murder has been against the law since the 10 commandments yet people have been murdered daily for centuries.

---

So you didn't answer my question (because you know how stupid it would be if you did), but let's go ahead and address the two (infantile) arguments that that you have to be making here. You are either claiming that:

1. Laws don't prevent EVERY incidence of a crime, therefore they "don't prevent crime."

2. Laws don't prevent crime. Enforcing those laws does.

The second one is obviously a semantic game for a child and not worth addressing. The first is too, but I will anyway.

And I will by asking you the same question you refused to answer above. True or false, if there were no laws and no restraint and no sociopaths were confined behind bars anymore, there would be significantly more acts that we currently consider to be criminal committed than there are now. That's a true or false answer.

You are an actual idiot if you answer false. A first grader would know that the correct answer is true.

What you're trying to argue is the most asinine version of the, "Well if muh abortion is illegal then women will still get back alley ones and die from them" that I have ever seen anyone argue.

If it reduces abortion by 90% (which it would at least reduce it by that much, if not more, because it would get real hard real quick to find a doctor willing to perform them), then around 800,000 children who would otherwise be killed would be allowed to live every year in the US.

Would a small percentage of women be able to find some alcoholic doctor who lost his license somewhere operating out of a warehouse and be able to give a secret knock because she desires so badly to kill her child that she's willing to do that? Sure. But not as many as any of y'all want to act like, if for no other reason than that she would actually have to pay cash for it instead of having taxpayers pay for it, which would be the biggest dealbreaker for that kind of woman possible.

quote:

---

Anyway, you picked the most violent period of our country’s recorded history to compare current violent crime rates to - why?

---

Specifically BECAUSE it was the most violent period in modern history (it actually wasn't the most violent period in all of the country's history, but back when it was much more violent, guess what we didn't have? All the laws we have now.)

Violent crime rose steadily through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and then in the mid-90s or so started to decline. And you didn't answer my question. Do you remember what happened under the Clinton administration around that time period? I'll give you a hint...remember when Hillary Clinton called young black men animals?

quote:

---

Is violence the only criminal behavior that you consider to be antisocial?

---

No, I consider theft to be antisocial. And you can see what has happened with theft in every city and state that has refused to enforce petty theft laws. It has increased to the point that te communities are all starting to look like Detroit. YouTube is full of videos of an ever-more deserted downtown San Fransisco. Look them up. Almost every one of them features someone blaming it on the crime that the government has strangely allowed to happen over the past 4-5 years.

quote:

---

Respectfully, arguing that laws prevent crime is not rational in the slightest and is very easily disproved.

---

Respectfully, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen anyone on the internet try to argue.

quote:

---

and it’s easy to disagree with a woman on a very sexist message board.

---

Really? I'm disagreeing with you because you're a woman? I'M the one trolling?

quote:

---

You keep mentioning anarchy as if I’m advocating for that. When I said I’m generally always against additional laws, I wasn’t promoting anarchy. We have countless ineffective laws on the books already. We don’t need more.

---

That is NOT what you said. Do I need to go back and copy and paste what you actually said? Good grief you are dishonest! "Obviously laws do not prevent crimes." You just said that IN. THIS. POST. And you keep repeating it over and over again.

quote:

---

But your post implying men have no control over when they have sex with who they have and with WASN’T a troll?

---

It would have been if I had ever said anything like that, but I didn't. And at this point I know you're lying about it. I could believe you misunderstood it once, but I have already explained it.

quote:

---

If you want the government to force women to give birth, why wouldn’t you be in favor of the government forcing both parents to support the child?

---

Who said I wasn't? But that's a hypothetical. That's not what we have right now. Right now women get to choose whether the baby lives or dies, the father has no vote, but if the woman chooses to let it live, the man is compelled by the state to financially support it. Yet all anyone ever worries about it what the state is limiting the woman from doing.

quote:

---

I explicitly stated that I was in favor of welfare reform.

---

Yes, you did. You explicitly made a vague statement that could mean anything instead of answering a direct "yes" or "no" question that, had you answered it as asked, would have clarified what you were affirming.

quote:

---

I’ve literally copy and pasted my exact opinion multiple times in this thread.

---

Like that matters to you. When those opinions are shown to be idiocy, you simply change what you claim you've said. What you actually said is of little consequence to y

And this is a 45 page thread, isn't it? I can't claim to have read every page, so I'm not going to feel to badly about missing your exact opinion, especially when you sidestep rather than answer questions about it. Your opinion is that women should be allowed by society and the government to kill unborn children at will, yes?

If not, feel free to clarify. If so, then what I said is 100% correct.

quote:

---

You are either claiming that:

1. Laws don't prevent EVERY incidence of a crime, therefore they "don't prevent crime."

2. Laws don't prevent crime. Enforcing those laws does.

The second one is obviously a semantic game for a child and not worth addressing. The first is too, but I will anyway.

---

Re: laws not preventing EVERY incidence of a crime - it has long been proven that negative reinforcement only impacts behavior when the consequences are immediate. It is extremely rare that a person is arrested immediately after breaking the law, which is partially why laws are so ineffective.

Re: law enforcement preventing crime. Law enforcement still doesn't prevent crime because of what I just mentioned.

>
In 2022, the VAST majority of crimes committed were never cleared.

quote:

---

And I will by asking you the same question you refused to answer above. True or false, if there were no laws and no restraint and no sociopaths were confined behind bars anymore, there would be significantly more acts that we currently consider to be criminal committed than there are now. That's a true or false answer.

---

This is not a true or false question, it's a yes or no question but whatever. Once again, I never said we should have no laws. I said we don't need additional laws. Why are you continuously asking me to defend a claim I didn't make?

quote:

---

What you're trying to argue is the most asinine version of the, "Well if muh abortion is illegal then women will still get back alley ones and die from them" that I have ever seen anyone argue.

---

And how did you draw this conclusion? What I'm arguing is that the way to eliminate abortions is not by legislation, it's by society valuing pregnant women, infants, and children.

You still refuse to acknowledge that men play any part in procreation, which is comical and reinforces the poor, pitiful men who have no control over anything in their lives but are constantly victimized narrative that this board loves to drown in.

quote:

---

Do you remember what happened under the Clinton administration around that time period? I'll give you a hint...remember when Hillary Clinton called young black men animals?

---

Yes. The mass incarceration of black men really geared up under Clinton. Is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha? I don't identify with any political party. All politicians are the same and none of them give a single shite about anything I care about.

quote:

---

what has happened with theft in every city and state that has refused to enforce petty theft laws.

---

What cities and states have refused to enforce petty theft laws? The data suggests that police aren't able to clear the investigations or determine who committed the petty theft.

quote:

---

Really? I'm disagreeing with you because you're a woman? I'M the one trolling?

---

You're again asking me to defend a claim I never made. To me, it's extremely obvious that laws don't prevent crime. Even if laws prevent some crime, they don't prevent the vast majority of crime. I've already explained why. That's why I said that I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just like fighting and I'm easy to fight with because the board is sexist and downvotes literally every single post I make, which you likely view as support for your absurd claim.

I don't care why you're disagreeing with me. You're wrong regardless.

quote:

---

That is NOT what you said. Do I need to go back and copy and paste what you actually said? Good grief you are dishonest! "Obviously laws do not prevent crimes." You just said that IN. THIS. POST. And you keep repeating it over and over again.

---

I'll go back and quote it.

Your post: What he should have said is, "Then why do you want to keep it legal for people to kill them?"

My post: Generally speaking, I am never in favor of any laws. They are reactionary and punitive only.

Laws don’t solve any problems, they just create more.

In the context of discussing the new abortion ban, it seemed clear to me that I was discussing the new abortion ban and referring to new laws.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you sincerely thought that although are discussing the new abortion laws, you thought I was referring to every single law on the books since the formation of the USA.

quote:

---

Respectfully, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever seen anyone on the internet try to argue.

---

I truly can't understand how you could believe this. I'm genuinely incredulous.

Would your behavior change if violence was decriminalized? Maybe I give people too much credit.

I actually work closely with people who have been convicted of violent crimes and property crimes, and have read extensive research about criminal behavior, and continue to study aspects of the criminal justice system so my perspective is shaped by that.

It sounds like yours is shaped by assumptions.

quote:

---

Right now women get to choose whether the baby lives or dies,

---

Not in the state I live in.

quote:

---

It would have been if I had ever said anything like that, but I didn't. And at this point I know you're lying about it.

---

You cannot be serious. Men don't have to impregnate women.

Men don't have to have sex with anyone.

Men can get vasectomies.

Or wear condoms.

That is how men can have a say in what happens to the offspring they consensually produce.

quote:

---

Yes, you did. You explicitly made a vague statement that could mean anything instead of answering a direct "yes" or "no" question that, had you answered it as asked, would have clarified what you were affirming.

---

Your question to me that I responded to: Are you ready for the government to stop incentivizing women to abandon marriage?

It looks like I again gave your cognitive abilities too much credit, so I'm sorry. I presumed you were alluding to the government incentivizing single parenthood through welfare programs, which is why I responded that I'm in favor of welfare reform, which would remove the "incentives" of single parenthood.

I'm sorry I didn't explicitly connect those dots for you.

quote:

---

And this is a 45 page thread, isn't it? I can't claim to have read every page, so I'm not going to feel to badly about missing your exact opinion, especially when you sidestep rather than answer questions about it. Your opinion is that women should be allowed by society and the government to kill unborn children at will, yes?

---

Well, you responded to posts of mine with my exact opinion about abortion in them so...


I am pro providing support for women and families so that abortion never seems like the “best” option

quote:

---

Ok, please show us an example where you think the anger is directed at the kids and NOT the useless adults . Thanks

---

Again, I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying the government has no business redistributing wealth primarily because I don’t think it works. But there are plenty of people in this thread who aren’t making that argument. They are arguing that poor children should because they are angry with their parents for making them. I can’t help but detect that what they are really mad at is the God who made every one of us

quote:

---

the other half doesn't give two sharts about them after they've passed through it.

---

There is a fatal flaw in your logic: Charity and taxation are not the same thing.