The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[godelian]

Whaaaat? Not if you're a citizen of the PRC. You don't get to rove around the world, pollenating the planet. And you certainly aren't allowed to establish a family not conforming to the PRC rules.

SE Asia is full of Chinese men extensively pollinating local bitches. They have always done that, over the centuries, and I suppose that they always will. The long-term visa requirements on Chinese nationals are not more onerous than on anyone else. You must have (some) money. But then again, that is true for any foreigner. Furthermore, the PRC has no say whatever over what anybody does, including Chinese men, in other countries, concerning family or concerning anything else. These countries here are fully sovereign.

If you cannot have more than one child on Chinese territory, who even cares?

The Chinese do, of course.

Not the ones who choose to deal with that elsewhere. There are many other reasons why a Chinese man would prefer a foreign woman. For example, Chinese families are known for requiring hefty bride prices. Chinese women are also known for their delusional standards.

In any case, the PRC has certainly legislated the bedroom practices of its people, and with demographic-disastrous effects, as you know. And guess what? They're not democratic.

No other country ever implemented a one-child policy. This is a China-only issue. Furthermore, my own small provincial SE Asian town is full of Chinese men who don't give a flying fart about that. It is only a problem for people who fail to use geomaxxing as a strategy.

A government is irrelevant outside its national territory. If they try to interfere anywhere else, they should get duly bombed. I actually agree that it should be done more often. Either they stay in their lane, or else it is time to blow their legs off.

[Age]

I'll answer when you learn how to read, so you can ask a question that makes sense.

Clearly, that's not today.

So...no answer.

No: no sensible question.

And, no answer at all.

Ask Gary instead. He's the one favouring privilege.

But, 'favoring privilege' is not what I am questioning, here, at all. your continual assumptions, here, really do keep leading you completely astray 'immanuel can".

Look, it was 'you' who said and wrote, 'If women are equal, why do they need special privileges?' And, it was 'I' who ask 'you' a very specific question to what 'you' said and wrote.

Now, either 'you' will answer 'this question', or 'you' will not. Either way suits 'me', perfectly.

[Immanuel Can]

...the PRC has no say whatever over what anybody does, including Chinese men, in other countries...

Not the point. You were blaming "democracy." The PRC is not democratic. Other countries may or may not be. But it's clearly not democracy that's the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

So...no answer.

No: no sensible question.

And, no answer at all.

Ask a question that makes sense, and you might get one.

[Age]

No: no sensible question.

And, no answer at all.

Ask a question that makes sense, and you might get one.

you just do not want to answer that question because you know that you would then have to reveal your actual belief, here.

Now, if you want to claim that that question does not make sense, then explain to the readers, here, how and why it does not make sense, to you.

If you do not, then that question does actually make sense.

[godelian]

Not the point. You were blaming "democracy." The PRC is not democratic. Other countries may or may not be. But it's clearly not democracy that's the problem.

The PRC is socialist. That kind of country can sometimes even be worse than a democracy. But then again, an absurd law of theirs also has to matter. It has to be relevant to me:

ChatGPT: Did the one-child policy in China also apply to foreigners?

No, the one-child policy in China did not apply to foreigners living in the country. It was enforced only on Chinese citizens. Foreigners residing in China—whether for work, study, or other reasons—were exempt from the policy and could have more than one child without facing any penalties or restrictions.

In general , a foreigner without money is treated like an insect. A foreigner with money, is treated like a king.

If you have at least some money, you will typically be treated much better abroad than back home, especially, in a so-called democratic country. Furthermore, the foreign country will never try to do things like trying to tax your income. Seriously, the grass really is greener on the other side.

[Immanuel Can]

And, no answer at all.

Ask a question that makes sense, and you might get one.

you just do not want to answer that question

No, the question's to the wrong person. But if you could read, you'd have realized that.

[Immanuel Can]

Not the point. You were blaming "democracy." The PRC is not democratic. Other countries may or may not be. But it's clearly not democracy that's the problem.

The PRC is socialist.

Communist totalitarian, actually. But yeah, certainly not a democracy. So your theory doesn't hold up.

[Age]

Ask a question that makes sense, and you might get one.

you just do not want to answer that question

No, the question's to the wrong person. But if you could read, you'd have realized that.

'This one', still, has not yet caught on and caught up.

And, again, this is because of this one's beliefs. Again, 'we' can see another prime example of just how beliefs and presumptions completely prevent and stop people from learning, and understanding and knowing, more.

[godelian]

Not the point. You were blaming "democracy." The PRC is not democratic. Other countries may or may not be. But it's clearly not democracy that's the problem.

The PRC is socialist.

Communist totalitarian, actually. But yeah, certainly not a democracy. So your theory doesn't hold up.

As a foreigner, with some money, you will typically get treated a lot better in China than back home in the one or the other fake so-called democracy.

You see, the term "democracy" refers to a manipulative word salad that is used to justify all kinds of bullshit. I am only interested in the verifiable facts. I don't care about the word salad. So, does the country treat me better or worse?

The verifiable fact is that you always get treated much better as a foreigner than back home, if you have (some) money. Furthermore, non-democratic countries have fewer petty little regulations. So, even the locals are often treated better.

Last but not least, if need be, corruption is much more widespread and substantially cheaper.

Another important element is that the population is often better at fighting back, especially when they are not Christian, when they don't like particular government rules. I really don't want to be surrounded by so-called "law-abiding tax-paying citizens", because I don't want to deal with any expectation that I would abide by absurd rules.

[godelian]

So your theory doesn't hold up.

You see, in western so-called democratic countries, as a man, you must carefully hedge against the fact that women systematically try to extract assets and income on breakup. This means that you must treat these women with copious amounts of distrust. In everything you do, you need to evaluate legal impact and minimize the likelihood of getting ripped off later on.

You don't need to do that as much, outside the so-called western democracies.

But then again, since I am battle-hardened, I still apply customary security measures that I have learned while living in the West. No woman will ever know how much money I have, how much money I make, where I store the money, or where it ultimately comes from. No government will ever know that either. It is simply the very first line of defense.

Democracies are generally more intrusive exactly at collecting the information that I rigorously protect from disclosure.

You see, democracy is the exercise of promising to voters that you will take away other people's money to pay for their doctor bills. All these promises make these governments very keen to breach my security measures. Non-democracies don't need to do that because they don't need to promise that they will give my money away to someone else.

[Immanuel Can]

The PRC is socialist.

Communist totalitarian, actually. But yeah, certainly not a democracy. So your theory doesn't hold up.

As a foreigner, with some money, you will typically get treated a lot better in China...

That's completely untrue, and either you know it is, or you don't know China. But it's irrelevant, anyway. Your thesis blames democracy for the failure of the family; there could be few destructions of the family that have ever happened with the scope and level of what's been done by the PRC, and they're not one bit democratic.

[godelian]

That's completely untrue, and either you know it is, or you don't know China.

I live in SE Asia. Let's say that I am very much aware of the fact that you get treated differently when people think that you have money.

Your thesis blames democracy for the failure of the family;

Democracy is the exercise in promising to take away other people's money to pay for the voters' doctor bills. Alimony, child support, and division of the husband's assets fits right in there. It is so obviously a product of democracy.

Women are treated by men with copious amounts of suspicion in a democracy. They are expected to attempt to pull off an exit scam on breakup. You simply cannot trust them.

In a democracy, men cannot trust women, and they clearly don't. From the one day to the other, she can suddenly turn into your worst enemy.

Does that destroy the nuclear family? You bet that it does!

[godelian]

[Your thesis blames democracy for the failure of the family;

Look at that person lying next to you in bed.

From the one day to the other, she could file for divorce, and strip you clean. Day in, day out, you are walking on eggshells, my friend. Just think of it, do you even want to lie in bed next to such person? Seriously, you've got to be a complete idiot to do that. So, keep walking on eggshells!

Extracting money from one person to give it to someone else. That is exactly what democracy is about.

[Immanuel Can]

Your thesis blames democracy for the failure of the family;

Democracy is the exercise in promising to take away other people's money to pay for the voters' doctor bills. Alimony, child support, and division of the husband's assets fits right in there. It is so obviously a product of democracy.

Not a bad one, when it's done equitably. Parents should always pay for the children they create.

Women are treated by men with copious amounts of suspicion in a democracy.

Not "in a democracy." In a society poisoned by unbalanced kinds of Feminism, such as the man-hating, 3rd Wave kind. It has zero to do with democracy.

As a result of the one-child policy in China, every family in about a quarter of the world's population became distorted and damaged. And democracy had not one thing to do with it; in fact, democracy would have been a considerable improvement, since then the society could not have treated female children in particular, but all second, third and fourth children, and so on, too, with such homicidal effect.

And what about India? It was not a democracy when the business of murdering female children became general cultural practice, especially in poorer and rural areas. That was due to the dowry traditions, which are totally defunct in the West today.

You're dreaming if you think democracy produced China or India. But they sure wrecked families there. And as for Islamic cultures, what could be more shameful, revolting and wicked than the bacha bazi tradition? That also has zero to do with democracy, but is a far sight worse than any mistreatment you see of males in democracies.

Your blaming democracy for something that has no causal link with democracy.