Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

originally posted by: beezzer
Well, you all are right and I am wrong. I've been shamed by the social pressure from individuals here.

I'll change my behavior. . . . . . . . wait, what?

American politics is the epitome of shaming.

The left tries to 'shame' the right.

The right tries to 'shame' the left.

And it is socially acceptable behavior.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It depends on the situation, no? How many permutations of this scenario can we think of?

Is a two-parent home where the parents hate each other and fight all the time better than a one-parent home that is peaceful?

Many kids today have three or four parents and two homes.

I'm speaking in general terms. Looking at the big picture.

If you want to argue that 2 parent homes are worse than 1 parent homes, then that is your right, thought I find the assumption foolish to even consider.

It's a fact not an argument that many one-parent homes are better than many two-family ones. It's something that only the people in the situation can decide, not those without all the facts and not living the experience.

a reply to: beezzer

But, there could be a myriad of reasons that a child is better off, without one, or even both, of its parents.

There could be abuse, drugs, violent crime, etc.

Should a mother stay with a father that beats her? Or does hard drugs? Or drinks until he is belligerent? Or cheats on her, subjecting her to possible life long diseases? Just to remain a two parent household?

Its not always so black and white.

I agree it should always be about the children, but sometimes, parents aren't it.

a reply to: neo96

And the rich have too much money they are publically shamed.

Them evil corporations are too greedy, and their ceo's are 'fatcats'. They are shamed publically.

As well they should be, for their egregious behavior.

This conversation has nothing to do with 'gun control'. (i.e. Keep your stupid guns, and I'll keep mine....... )

We are talking about Jeb Bush pushing "public shaming" onto those who have messed up or are "in need" - which is A FAR CRY from shaming those who are CAUSING the neediness.


Those rich people are psychopaths, and lucky that we allow them to roam free and have any influence on ANYONE.

So, what do you say to that? The Banksters DESERVE to be publicly humiliated (and not just fined, but put in prison), just like the warlords of the "Bush Dynasty"......

but instead of looking at those villains, you want to look at the needy, the confused, the homeless, and the victims of such rampant greed and say: "You should be ashamed! Shame on you!!"

God. This might (hopefully) be the last time I ever respond to your rhetoric. It makes me sick (nauseated) - but, you know, there's no 'rule' against that.

sigh

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And once again, you really cannot shame those who are incapable of feeling shame.

IF that's the case then why was political correctness created ?

Where people can't say what they honestly think, and have to be 'nice' not to hurt someone else's 'feelings'.

But I forget only when it comes to a 'protected' class such as 'unwed' mothers.

Well, being an unwed mother is shameful, so I don't see why public shaming would be a bad thing. Maybe it would teach them some responsibility.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

We are talking about Jeb Bush pushing "public shaming" onto those who have messed up or are "in need" - which is A FAR CRY from shaming those who are CAUSING the neediness.

Oh please.

Public shaming happens every damn day.

Dunno why people are up in arms about it. Prolly just because a Bush said it.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

I'm an unwed mother.

My children live in a 2 parent household.

I am not ashamed, because I have nothing to feel ashamed about.

Not everyone wants to, or needs to be married.

a reply to: neo96

He didn't really say it. More to the point for me is that he signed a bill into law that allowed this without reading it or thinking through the ramifications. then made excuses for it later. That's shameful.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Well, being an unwed mother is shameful, so I don't see why public shaming would be a bad thing. Maybe it would teach them some responsibility.

It's only shameful to those who sit in judgement on others without knowing all the facts or the person or their situation and who love to cast aspersions on or try to control the lives and destinies of others who ware not exactly like they are. If they can live with themselves being that way, more power to them.

ETA: You don't have to agree with or support someone else's lifestyle and choices, but why bully them about it or humiliate them for it? Because you feel it might "teach them" something?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

"but why bully them about it or humiliate them for it?"

I imagine because the Man in question was born with a silver spoon up his bum thus he feels entitled to sit in judgment over others of lesser means. Funny how a privileged life style does that to so many.

Women, by their nature, are not as forward-thinking, moral, and rational as men are. They are influenced far more by the limbic system, social cues, emotion, and base physical urges. When a woman sees a tall, chiseled, dominant alpha male, she gets all tingly inside and completely forgoes all pretenses to being a "nice girl". That's why chastity has to be socially enforced. Without social enforcement, all women would just blindly pursue every chiseled, muscular bad boy that they see and society would degenerate into an MTV "16 and Pregnant" dystopia (actually, it basically already has).

As I said before, women mainly operate through the limbic system. Without some kind of moral guidelines, they are reduced to whatever their social groups consider normal and cool. Women are far more attuned to social trends, and therefore they are more pliable and far less individualist than men. Women also lack an innate sense of honor, they'll even betray their own families once an alpha male comes and sweeps them off their feet.

So, basically, the path we are headed on is not looking good. Eventually it's just gonna be masses of sexually ravenous females getting knocked up by 5 different alpha males, while average guys just abandon society completely, or go on spree killings because they can't compete with the chiseled bad boys.

a reply to: DiggerDogg

Women, by their nature, are not as forward-thinking, moral, and rational as men are

I stopped reading right here.

originally posted by: DiggerDogg
Women, by their nature, are not as forward-thinking, moral, and rational as men are. They are influenced far more by the limbic system, social cues, emotion, and base physical urges. When a woman sees a tall, chiseled, dominant alpha male, she gets all tingly inside and completely forgoes all pretenses to being a "nice girl". That's why chastity has to be socially enforced. Without social enforcement, all women would just blindly pursue every chiseled, muscular bad boy that they see and society would degenerate into an MTV "16 and Pregnant" dystopia (actually, it basically already has).

As I said before, women mainly operate through the limbic system. Without some kind of moral guidelines, they are reduced to whatever their social groups consider normal and cool. Women are far more attuned to social trends, and therefore they are more pliable and far less individualist than men. Women also lack an innate sense of honor, they'll even betray their own families once an alpha male comes and sweeps them off their feet.

So, basically, the path we are headed on is not looking good. Eventually it's just gonna be masses of sexually ravenous females getting knocked up by 5 different alpha males, while average guys just abandon society completely, or go on spree killings because they can't compete with the chiseled bad boys.

This is sarcasm, right?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

ETA: You don't have to agree with or support someone else's lifestyle and choices, but why bully them about it or humiliate them for it? Because you feel it might "teach them" something?

That could apply to everything from climate change issues, recycling, vaccinations, veterans, gun ownership, freedom of expression issues, religious issues. . . . . the list goes on.

How many times have the "erudite elite leftists" simply wanted to teach us low brow Neanderthals how to act, behave, live, do things that are none of their business?

Trolls are so cute!

a reply to: neo96

Public shaming happens every damn day.

Dunno why people are up in arms about it. Prolly just because a Bush said it.

It does happen - all the time - always has. This is how people bring about change - and also how we try to make everyone toe the line. It's natural

I think there's a big difference between all of us being able to freely argue, point our fingers where we want when we want... a process that makes us all think, and sometimes it makes us look at things differently, and a law that makes it mandatory. That's something else

Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote.

''Only a male-dominated legislature could possibly pass a law that facilitates adoptions by requiring public humiliation of women,'' Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said.

''You've got to have a real narrow vision to congratulate the governor for signing a repeal of a statute that, as a result of a lawsuit we were involved in, the courts struck down as unconstitutional,'' he said. ''The legislature shouldn't have passed it in the first place.''

Go Jeb! If only you had known back then where you would be today :-)

a reply to: DiggerDogg

I can't say that I agree with everything you said, but man!

I gotta give you kudos for having the stones to say it!

lolz

a reply to: beezzer

Back to the point of what is civil conversation, discourse, and debate and what is not? Just because some do it (from all points on the spectrum, I will add), does that make it right? Or a better world?