NationStates

Zordennox wrote:

VoVoDoCo wrote:That's not what genocide is.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Nice strawman bruh

If you don't care that the native population will be decimated, you're okay with genocide by the definition you've given.

Your flag is a Francoist Symbol, And you’re fearmongering about white genocide. See no contradictions...

Kowani wrote:

Zordennox wrote:
If you don't care that the native population will be decimated, you're okay with genocide by the definition you've given.

Your flag is a Francoist Symbol, And you’re fearmongering about white genocide. See no contradictions...

I support National syndicalism, so what? Does that mean I should accept the dissolution of my race? No. Anyone can stand up for their race.

Zordennox wrote:

VoVoDoCo wrote:That's not what genocide is.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Nice strawman bruh

If you don't care that the native population will be decimated, you're okay with genocide by the definition you've given.

Systematic. Deliberate. You glossed over those two key words. Immigration is often chaotic and disorganized. At the very least it is not planned.

Zordennox wrote:

Kowani wrote:Your flag is a Francoist Symbol, And you’re fearmongering about white genocide. See no contradictions...

I support National syndicalism, so what? Does that mean I should accept the dissolution of my race? No. Anyone can stand up for their race.

Ignoring the fact that race is a social construct by any consistent measure...

Kowani wrote:

Zordennox wrote:
I support National syndicalism, so what? Does that mean I should accept the dissolution of my race? No. Anyone can stand up for their race.

Ignoring the fact that race is a social construct by any consistent measure...

It's not.

http://fashthenation.com/2019/01/for-ja ... o-defense/

VoVoDoCo wrote:

Zordennox wrote:
If you don't care that the native population will be decimated, you're okay with genocide by the definition you've given.

Systematic. Deliberate. You glossed over those two key words. Immigration is often chaotic and disorganized. At the very least it is not planned.

Yes, globalism is an ideology with a systematic, deliberate, genocidal agenda.

Zordennox wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that race is a social construct by any consistent measure...

It's not.

http://fashthenation.com/2019/01/for-ja ... o-defense/

So, let’s just sidestep the fact that your source is complete shit for a moment, shall we? There are ethnic groups, nobody’s denying that. Race is just humans taking ethnic groups that look similar and putting them into one category. A Bedouin and a Xhosa have very little in common genetically, yet they both get classified as African. In that vein, the Roma and the Scandinavians have more genetic similarities than the Germans and those same Scandinavians, despite both being classified as white. The system is not consistent, it’s baded on flawed reasoning, and it doesn’t hold up to legitimate scientific inquiry.

Kowani wrote:

Zordennox wrote:
It's not.

http://fashthenation.com/2019/01/for-ja ... o-defense/

So, let’s just sidestep the fact that your source is complete shit for a moment, shall we? There are ethnic groups, nobody’s denying that. Race is just humans taking ethnic groups that look similar and putting them into one category. A Bedouin and a Xhosa have very little in common genetically, yet they both get classified as African. In that vein, the Roma and the Scandinavians have more genetic similarities than the Germans and those same Scandinavians, despite both being classified as white. The system is not consistent, it’s baded on flawed reasoning, and it doesn’t hold up to legitimate scientific inquiry.

How is the article complete shit? Your credibility has just gone down the toilet for rejecting the discoverer of DNA's findings. Unfortunately, if you haven't noticed, there's a global narrative that you're peddling with things that other people want you to believe. I would encourage you to break the habit of taking false arguments.

Zordennox wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ignoring the fact that race is a social construct by any consistent measure...

It's not.

http://fashthenation.com/2019/01/for-ja ... o-defense/

Well that's ONE theory. From a long time ago.

Now there's evidence showing that things we do and the way we grow up impacts our education. Go figure.

This site brings up even better points though. It brings up countless data showing that the average IQ of African Americans has gone up since the civil rights movement. If their IQ comes from their DNA, this shouldn't be the case.

Zordennox wrote:

VoVoDoCo wrote:Systematic. Deliberate. You glossed over those two key words. Immigration is often chaotic and disorganized. At the very least it is not planned.

Yes, refugeeism is an ideology with a systematic, deliberate, genocidal agenda.

Intentionally moving=/=intentionally deluding white blood

Zordennox wrote:

Kowani wrote:So, let’s just sidestep the fact that your source is complete shit for a moment, shall we? There are ethnic groups, nobody’s denying that. Race is just humans taking ethnic groups that look similar and putting them into one category. A Bedouin and a Xhosa have very little in common genetically, yet they both get classified as African. In that vein, the Roma and the Scandinavians have more genetic similarities than the Germans and those same Scandinavians, despite both being classified as white. The system is not consistent, it’s baded on flawed reasoning, and it doesn’t hold up to legitimate scientific inquiry.

How is the article complete shit? Your credibility has just gone down the toilet for rejecting the discoverer of DNA's findings. Unfortunately, if you haven't noticed, there's a global narrative that you're peddling with things that other people want you to believe. I would encourage you to break the habit of taking false arguments.

Note that I said the source, not the article. Very different things. Additionally: Source 1. Source 2.
Source 3.
Souce 4.
C’mon mate, this isn’t particularly hard to Google.

So where is the money for all of this coming from? Seems like a massive waste in all honestly.

This looks good now. Eventually, you will be forced to have children and start a family because the alternative would be too expensive. Control of one's body and life is the end game of conservatism. I hope Hungarians enjoy being forced into doing things they don't want because that's what the future holds for them under Orban's rule.

It's sorta amusing to watch virtually every commentator on these policies not double-check what the previously existing policy setup was. There already are tax incentives for extra kids, and there already are subsidised housing allowances. This is just ramping up policies that were probably having an effect at the margin, but clearly haven't fixed the problem (if the OP's alarmist language were anything to go by).

And I reckon Orban and Fidesz's insistence on traditionalist roles for women are sabotaging this policy anyway. In the 21st century, women have choice about what they want to do with their lives. That includes forms of self-actualisation that weren't really considered appropriate fifty years ago - in work, hobbies, interests and behaviours. If you make having kids conditional on not being able to follow these other options, then some proportion of women who might have had a family will choose not to have it.

I reckon there's a U-shaped curve when you plot birthrates against some hypothetical measure of the 'conservativeness' of social expectations about what constitutes a good mother. If society is so conservative that choosing not to become a traditional mother carries a real threat of being ostracised, women are either forced to or educated to become just that (e.g. Egypt, rural Turkey, rural southern US, all to varying degrees). But if there's enough liberty and economic development to allow women to choose the live they want for themselves, but enough conservatism to see them (and their kids) judged harshly (by others and themselves!) for being a working mother with a live outside her kids, then you get dropping birthrates (e.g. Spain, Italy, Japan, Korea ... and Hungary). Once women are free to choose to have a family and a life and that is accepted by society, then the trade-off gradually disappears and birthrates should be higher again (e.g. France, Sweden or Norway). I think that's a big part of why in these latter countries, when you look at a time series birthrates have increased from the low-points they saw a couple of decades ago, while in the former they have not.

By that logic, if you want a higher birthrate you want the state to provide incentives that ensure the availability and use of infrastructure and services that make it easier for working women to also have families and for the government to do what it can to legitimise working mothers in terms of society's expectations. That's what they do in France and Scandinavia, and it seems to be working. And, if I'm not wrong, Orban's emphasis on the 'traditional family' is sending precisely the opposite message to the one he should be sending if kids were his priority. They aren't, of course. Lots of kids are just part of the idealised 1930s world he wants to live in - lots of housewives is just as important. And so he dampens the impact of the taxpayer money he's blowing on this.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Confederate States of German America wrote:
Only if you don't understand basic demographic math and economics.

It is going to make things worse.

Novus America wrote:Actually the correlation between wealth and birthrate are far from absolute, and often extremely inconsistent and in many cases it is simply does not exist.

Actually the US and France have a much higher birth rate than Eastern Europe and China despite being much wealthier.

And the US and France have a higher birthrate than even Brazil and much higher than Thailand!

Actually India is not much above replacement and falling fast.
Much of South America is below replacement.
So the wealthy countries only is garbage.

Many other factors go into birthrate besides wealth.

Many countries will get old long before they get rich.

And yes, there is no exact way to calculate our exact carrying capacity and there certainly are many other ways to reduce our impact.

And we are not talking about a “temporary decrease in certain places”!

We are talking about Japan losing a third of its population by 2100 for example.

Certainly some countries still need a decrease. This does not mean all countries need a massive decrease.

And we are not discussing increasing the global birthrate, we are simply discussing slowing the decrease in certain places.

You are completely unaware of what is actually going on.
So your whole “we have been through worse so we do not need to worry about this” is wrong on multiple levels.

All of these are untrue.

Are you going to make an actual argument?
And no, the comparative birth rate numbers are absolutely true.
France 1.9, US 1.8, Sweden 1.8.

Brazil 1.7, Thailand 1.5, China 1.6, Macedonia 1.5, Ukraine 1.5, Bulgaria 1.5.

Clearly wealth alone does not control the birth rate.
And not only the wealthy countries are facing a demographic crisis.

Novus America wrote:Are you going to make an actual argument?

I have already made my argument. You keep repeating falsehoods.

Clearly wealth is not the determative factor, at least for many places.

It is. End of.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Novus America wrote:Are you going to make an actual argument?

I have already made my argument. You keep repeating falsehoods.

Clearly wealth is not the determative factor, at least for many places.

It is. End of.

Prove what I have said is false.
You have not actually supported your argument with data. You just repeat the same thing without supporting it.

Also, again, explain
France 1.9, US 1.8, Sweden 1.8.
Brazil 1.7, Thailand 1.5, China 1.6, Macedonia 1.5, Ukraine 1.5, Bulgaria 1.5.

This conclusively and irrefutably proves wealth alone does not determine birthrates.
And that not only wealthy countries face demographic crisis.

Novus America wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
I have already made my argument. You keep repeating falsehoods.



It is. End of.

Prove what I have said is false.
You have not actually supported your argument with data. You just repeat the same thing without supporting it.

Also, again, explain
France 1.9, US 1.8, Sweden 1.8.
Brazil 1.7, Thailand 1.5, China 1.6.

This conclusively and irrefutably proves wealth alone does not determine birthrates.
And that not only wealthy countries face demographic crisis.

That's down to the minority cultures present in the three countries mentioned with high birth rates.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Prove what I have said is false.
You have not actually supported your argument with data. You just repeat the same thing without supporting it.

Also, again, explain
France 1.9, US 1.8, Sweden 1.8.
Brazil 1.7, Thailand 1.5, China 1.6.

This conclusively and irrefutably proves wealth alone does not determine birthrates.
And that not only wealthy countries face demographic crisis.

That's down to the minority cultures present in the three countries mentioned with high birth rates.

Which (even if true) does not refute my point.
Wealth impacts, but does not control birthrates.
Many Poor countries are also facing demographic crisis.

But you are not entirely correct. South Dakota and Utah have the highest birthrates in the US.

Also this
https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fe ... rity-women

Novus America wrote:Prove what I have said is false.

I already have.

This conclusively and irrefutably proves wealth alone does not determine birthrates.

It doesn't. You have made those numbers up.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Novus America wrote:Prove what I have said is false.

I already have.

This conclusively and irrefutably proves wealth alone does not determine birthrates.

It doesn't. You have made those numbers up.

Take a look, it’s in a fucking book
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ility_rate

The income tax exemption is nice. The subsidies to parents with multiple children are not. How is the Humgarian government going to possibly pay for that? Raising taxes. Throwing money at people not because they are struggling but simply because they have more kids is abuse of welfare at its worst.

2) A lifetime (and backdated) income tax exemption for families with four or more children.

Niiiiice!

This is regardless of income, and includes millionaires et al.

NOT NICE! NOT NICE!!!

Rea wrote:How is the Humgarian government going to possibly pay for that?

They are going to make not having children impossible to force them to raise children.

Esternial wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Unless people have children there will be nobody to support you when you get old.

Long term a child is going to pay more in taxes than the parents were paid in subsidies.

Unless something is done there will be a deflationary spiral and economic collapse when there are more propels retired and unable to work because of age than workers.

Basically a pyramid scheme.

When you think about it, the life & reproduction cycle are basically pyramid schemes.