Billyborker's solution to child abuse:
1. Change drug policy to one of harm minimisation. That would see marijuana treated more liberally than alcohol, for example.
What percentage of child abusers also have drug and alcohol problems? The suggestion seems to be that less penalties for dealing or using dope is going to reduce child abuse. Really?
2. Eliminate the tax concessions given to religious bodies, thus allowing the rest of us to get a decent tax cut when we no longer have to subsidise parasitical religions.
Is BB driven to child abuse because he can't get a decent tax cut? Is the theory that closing down the local church run Soup Kitchen will end child abuse, because some-one on a benefit could have got a better tax cut? Ultimately, the suggestion here is therefore to end all tax concessions for all charity work. To end child abuse. Ahem.
3. Prohibit any form of religious instruction to anyone below the age of 16. This will aid in the development of critical thinking and empathy.
BB is a Stalin in the making. Remember, these are his suggestions for ending child abuse. BB's looking for the religious angle to pin this on, but there are more obvious causes of child abuse. I'm wondering why he assumes he has developed critical thinking and empathy skills.
4. Permit abortion on demand and prosecute anyone who attempts to prevent an abortion or who vilifies or in any way makes a woman who has had an abortion feel guilt. More abortions without guilt = less abused children.
Let's not analyse that last line too deeply. It doesn't stand up well to critical thinking.
In any event, with easy access to abortion in NZ, (some 18,000 last year) he'd have to prove this isn't already the case. And yet child abuse remains high. Perhaps what he is really saying is actively encouraging abortion will cure child abuse, on the basis that there would be less children. The only way of doing this in the "high risk" cases would be encouraging abortion at much later stages of development, perhaps right up to full term. The other kicker, of course, is as well as banning religion, he wants to jail any pro-life people, a large percentage who are religious, for speaking out that they consider abortion unethical.
So, in a nutshell: end freedom of religion, end the parents right to educate their children on morals and ethics if there is any religious content in such education, attack the churches, reduce charity work, jail pro-life people, and encourage late term abortion - to end child abuse.
Is that a money back guarantee?
Related Link: End Child Abuse by Banning Religion, or your money back
1. Change drug policy to one of harm minimisation. That would see marijuana treated more liberally than alcohol, for example.
What percentage of child abusers also have drug and alcohol problems? The suggestion seems to be that less penalties for dealing or using dope is going to reduce child abuse. Really?
2. Eliminate the tax concessions given to religious bodies, thus allowing the rest of us to get a decent tax cut when we no longer have to subsidise parasitical religions.
Is BB driven to child abuse because he can't get a decent tax cut? Is the theory that closing down the local church run Soup Kitchen will end child abuse, because some-one on a benefit could have got a better tax cut? Ultimately, the suggestion here is therefore to end all tax concessions for all charity work. To end child abuse. Ahem.
3. Prohibit any form of religious instruction to anyone below the age of 16. This will aid in the development of critical thinking and empathy.
BB is a Stalin in the making. Remember, these are his suggestions for ending child abuse. BB's looking for the religious angle to pin this on, but there are more obvious causes of child abuse. I'm wondering why he assumes he has developed critical thinking and empathy skills.
4. Permit abortion on demand and prosecute anyone who attempts to prevent an abortion or who vilifies or in any way makes a woman who has had an abortion feel guilt. More abortions without guilt = less abused children.
Let's not analyse that last line too deeply. It doesn't stand up well to critical thinking.
In any event, with easy access to abortion in NZ, (some 18,000 last year) he'd have to prove this isn't already the case. And yet child abuse remains high. Perhaps what he is really saying is actively encouraging abortion will cure child abuse, on the basis that there would be less children. The only way of doing this in the "high risk" cases would be encouraging abortion at much later stages of development, perhaps right up to full term. The other kicker, of course, is as well as banning religion, he wants to jail any pro-life people, a large percentage who are religious, for speaking out that they consider abortion unethical.
So, in a nutshell: end freedom of religion, end the parents right to educate their children on morals and ethics if there is any religious content in such education, attack the churches, reduce charity work, jail pro-life people, and encourage late term abortion - to end child abuse.
Is that a money back guarantee?
Related Link: End Child Abuse by Banning Religion, or your money back
Ummmm, what planet is Billy on?.
ReplyDeletePlanet Bong, I suspect Leonidas.
ReplyDeleteHey, don’t be too harsh on this chap.
ReplyDeleteI mean Billy isn’t a practicing-member of the group that ran the world’s largest organised paedophile ring, is he?
It’s not Billy, who belongs to a religious body which harbours known sexual-abusers, eh?
That's you guys, playing hypocrites, as only you can.
You have a ‘good-one’,
Paul.