Haha, are you really expecting some insightful answer, Doc?  It's the crazy ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.  It gibberish. I'm going to guess that there is an evil Jew/Black/Catholic or someone in some magic secret club that serves the devil/Jews that is in control and conquering us.  That seems the way that these intellectually disabled rants end, right?

Why?  You didn't with your "Really? You fully expect to have a child everytime you have sex?" response which purposefully misconstrued what he said.

But sure I'll further explain my point. 

Just because he made a point bluntly doesn't mean he's being trollish.  He said what he believes in clear language.  He's argued it consistently throughout the thread.  Having sex has the CHANCE of producing a child.  Therefore if you are having sex you should have considered the CONSEQUENCES of sex, which is a child, and planned accordingly. 

He's consistent, clear, and relevant.  That's about as far from trollish as you can get.  Hence I figured that you were using "Trollish" as a way to dismiss what he was saying without actually having to respond to what he said.   

Of course you can't predict everything and know all consequences.  That's a strawman argument.  But you can, and should, understand the likely consequences of your actions. We're not talking psychohistory here.  We're talking about sex -> children.  It's so simple that we understand it at a subconscious level.  It's literally genetic. 

I know there is a chance that I may get hit by a bus when I walk across the street.  Therefore, I look both ways before crossing.  I also know that this risk mitigation plan may fail (I don't see a car, one is speeding, someone pulls out unexpectedly, etc) and therefore I pay for health insurance.  I also know that this may fail and I may die.  Therefore I pay for accidental death insurance.  Have I covered every eventuality?  Probably not.  But I've covered the obvious ones.  And if I'm not willing to deal with the potential hidden consequences, I just won't walk across the street.  I'll drive or use the crosswalk or deal with whatever caused me to be out walking in some other means (ordering via the internet, for example).  Otherwise, I'm accepting the risk that something might happen to me when I cross the street. 

The larger argument here, generalized from sex, is that people want the right to do whatever they want to do, without having to deal with the consequences afterwards.  However reality dictates consequences.  Someone has to pay for them.  Whenever possible, the person/people who pay those consequences (monetary or otherwise) should be those that took the initial action in the first place. 

trailertrash  -or -  whilte trash attempts to inflitrate upscale Town congregation.

When I was serving in my first congregation (30 years ago) as senior Minister.  (Note: my religious affilation - at this time - had fully ordained women since well into the last Millennium -it was progressive.)    My organist (organ player / music minister) was really ailing, crippling arthritus.  She chose to retire.  I began searching for a new organist. 

I auditioned a handfull of candidates.  The field of candidates was very small, since my congregation was in a realtivly isolated rural region of the state.  Every candidate could belt out a few of the 'moldy and oldie' tunes that the dying generation was clinging to.  One musician, however, stood head and shoulders above all the others.  A truly gifted and acomplished musician, she played the stately pipe organ and made it sing.  Her command of the instrument was marevlious.  The organ sang and sang.  Additionally, she would bring to the table an excellent portofolio of classical music as well as an expanded set of traditional pieces.  None of us had ever heard that pipe organ voice its full range before.  Awesome.  A number of yuppies (four out of five) on the music committe were elated. 

They, too, loved her 'presence' when playing.  They respected her degree from the Eastman School of Music.  And they were in awe of her playing.  The chairperson of the music committe and I, prior to the monthly meeting of the Administriaive Board, (Ruling body of congregation), phoned and discussed the candidate with the people on the Board.  When the Board formally met, they seemed happy, some even excited, with the quality of musician we were about to bring on board.  Then one of the Board members asked where she (the candidate) lived.  I was so naive.    I was taken aback by the intensity of the 'concerns' (hostility veiled under a veneer of religious-speak /double-speak?/) some members used, and kept coming back to as discussion continued.  

She lived in the trailer park at the edge of town.  White trash, trailer trash, etc became a significat part of the conversation about her.  The Chosen are blessed, so they can't be living in a trailer park!  Some of their comments were so diametrically opposed to both the basic principles upon which the congregation existed, and the foundational teachings of our faith, that I was shocked. I felt terror, shame, and grief.  I did not cry at that meeting.  I prefer a consensus model of group process, and of decision making.  No consensus was possible here.  The vampire that is in all of us was bearing its fangs.  Roberts rules to the rescue.  A very comfortable majority, (over 2/3s), approved her appointement for one year.    I thought I knew these people.  Worst of all, was this fine musician had to sit, answer questions, and listen to herself discussed in such a manner.   She must have been mortified.

 I'm not fond of judging a book by its cover.  (You do know what a book is, don't you?)  Lady with two toddlers, abandoned by her childrens father, attempts to rebuild her life, nuture her boy and girl, and re-connect with her love of music.  Sounds like a quality person to me. 

But others dont see the person, they see the cover:  she lives in the trailer park, is white, so she must be whilte trash, yes?  I'll bet she even got food stamps, what a leech!

There is no evidence to suggest a one-world government is coming. Even if it were, why do conspiracy theorist always seem to view it as some sort of Third Reich? Many countries would benefit immeasurably from any form of centralised goverment. Maybe it'll be a utopia like in Star trek. Maybe it won't work at all. No one can predict the future. I have an extremely hard time imagining a one-world government forming given the huge ideological and cultural differences.  
 

Okay... firstly the skull & bones is a silly Yale frathouse for wealthy brats and is about as inclusive as a 19th century Men's club. Idiots like Alex Jones seem to see it as something sinister because they never went to an Ivy League university and are completely clueless as to the culture of said institutes. It's not a well-kept secret. Secondly, Bush Senior's comment on a New World Order was at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union when indeed a new world order was seemingly coming into view. The term is not new and can be interpreted in any number of ways.

An oath to a secret society should only be taken in context should they come into conflict with the following of the laws of a country. Members of the Skull and bones society are probably hugely embarrassed at what they got up to a College. Probably involves buggery for all we know.

Anyone that believes we're due for a giant boost of globalization only needs to look at the EU and EFSF to see that the world is actually trending away from one-world scenarios and towards nationalism at the moment.  

So you think Obama has too?  He's continued and/or expanded every national security practice the Bush administration implemented.  You just don't hear about it anymore for some odd reason.

(1) In this day and age, while using contraception, this is simply not the case. It is not likely. It is a 1: 100 chance and that even only due to rounding up. So thats basically where we disagree. If you get pregnant anyway, while under contraception it is unexpected. Thats all i am saying.

(2) I dont think that is the case for most people. I knew / know people who fell on very (and sadly also terminal) hard times due to reasons totally unexpected, due to chances so unbelievable slim, that even physicians didnt thought about it. And when they did at last, it was too late to do anything.

Hm, thinking about (2) i see the reason why i am so pissed at such statements. I lost a very dear person due to chances we couldnt possible think about.

Bowing out for real now, i dont want to aim my grudge at you. I respect your opinion.

Thanks for the discussion, i learned something about myself today.

This explains where you're coming from right there.  It's an awfully tough pill to swallow to say that your full-time career you do for a living is founded on a lie--and when it's military personnel that makes it all the more politically incorrect on top of that--but unfortunately that is what I'm saying.    Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

I'll accept that we disagree and that's that.  

Thank you for the discussion as well.  

Why?

Because in a society which values education (especially that which produces ideas that sell or improve our condition in some other way, or an educator to open and cultivate other minds) we realize that by helping others we reap concrete benefits.

Beyond that partially mercantile reason, there is also a Social Contract in civilized societies.

"A social contract is a voluntary agreement in which mutual benefit occurs between and for individuals, groups, government or a community as a whole.  According to any of various theories, as of Hobbes Locke or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members." - Webster's, 2003 

Parenthetically, I do feel that he/she should (old school morality) be helping by working as much as he/she can without compromising the PhD.

You should (imo) be receiving help/assistance as well as an extension of the G.I. Bill (the post WWII one, not the current washed out one).... there's no logic to privation, and no reason why a student should suffer. Nor is there one for him/her "to sit idly by". There is an almost infinite number of productive and useful things such a student could do, from instructing in schools, tutioring or flipping burgers. No work is dishonorable and it need not necessarily be a "paid"  position... depending on the degree of assistance he/she is receiving. I also see no reason why it shouldn't be returned (although as a matter of living, it is).

Means testing? By all means (no pun intended)... in all public assistance/entitlement programs. Blending assistance with assets (inversely proportional - more of the former iff less of the latter, and vice versa)... again, firmly supported by me.