3 ms·

"I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties

by st3v3r 10y ago

"I have grave doubts about "can't" in most cases. I've picked up & moved 1000 miles on a whim with no job lined up on arrival, and wasn't keen on severing ties in the process - so yes I've a clue about it." Did you leave behind a spouse and children? Then no, you don't have a clue about it. "You'd be hard-pressed to find such "can't" cases." No, I wouldn't be. A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example. "Turning on a TV (colloquially speaking) at all is a disqualifying factor." Wrong. " There's a free lending library" Which you have to be able to get to in between your two jobs and making sure your children get to school. "there's free Internet access" Only in some places, that may or may not be open during your minuscule amount of free time. "there's free job-placement services" Which are worth about as much as they cost. "Suck it up & make it happen" Said the guy who's never had to experience any of that.

hutzlibu 10y ago
". A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example." But nobody forced her or him to make a child and then split up, right? So you can argue, they had a choice of taking care for safe income first and a stable relationship, before making babys and then complaining it is hard to feed them, without proper qualification and then demanding society has to help them ... So, I indeed think that society should help those in need, but I don't think it MUST. Because it means in the end, forcing other people to work for other peoples mistakes. (in general, there are exceptions obviously)
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Maybe flip the thinking and treat it like insurance. If you don't give to someone who needs help and thereby prevent them having a chance to contribute, they perhaps won't ever contribute. But if you give that child a bit of a leg up and help sort their situation, perhaps they won't take or break your stuff.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    Thats why I said society SHOULD help those. But I dont like the mentality of "look how I struggle, you MUST help me" if they got themself into it.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Sorry, I did notice that. I'm referring to the child by the way, not the adults.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No. You cannot make that argument. Not in the slightest. It is an appalling and abhorrent argument. Suppose after having the children, one partner turned abusive. You would have them stay in that relationship. You would say it was a choice. And for that, you are deplorable.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    It was still their choice to make children together. But people can make mistakes, yes. So I never sad they must stay together, and in the case of abuse, I believe there are laws for that. But others (in general) are still not responsible for a family going down, out of their bad planning/judgement whatever. (Main point is still income btw.) But (for the 3. time) society still can and should help, because it is nice to be nice, but not if the niceness is demanded.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Problem is, there are subcultures which encourage family breakdown, which normalize it, which see it as the means to eliciting revenue from the state. If it's a true aberration, others should be willing to help out. If it's normalized social behavior, something is systemically wrong with the culture.

by st3v3r 10y ago

hutzlibu 10y ago

". A single parent who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to feed their family. An extremely common example." But nobody forced her or him to make a child and then split up, right? So you can argue, they had a choice of taking care for safe income first and a stable relationship, before making babys and then complaining it is hard to feed them, without proper qualification and then demanding society has to help them ... So, I indeed think that society should help those in need, but I don't think it MUST. Because it means in the end, forcing other people to work for other peoples mistakes. (in general, there are exceptions obviously)

lostlogin 10y ago
Maybe flip the thinking and treat it like insurance. If you don't give to someone who needs help and thereby prevent them having a chance to contribute, they perhaps won't ever contribute. But if you give that child a bit of a leg up and help sort their situation, perhaps they won't take or break your stuff.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  Thats why I said society SHOULD help those. But I dont like the mentality of "look how I struggle, you MUST help me" if they got themself into it.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Sorry, I did notice that. I'm referring to the child by the way, not the adults.
st3v3r 10y ago
No. You cannot make that argument. Not in the slightest. It is an appalling and abhorrent argument. Suppose after having the children, one partner turned abusive. You would have them stay in that relationship. You would say it was a choice. And for that, you are deplorable.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  It was still their choice to make children together. But people can make mistakes, yes. So I never sad they must stay together, and in the case of abuse, I believe there are laws for that. But others (in general) are still not responsible for a family going down, out of their bad planning/judgement whatever. (Main point is still income btw.) But (for the 3. time) society still can and should help, because it is nice to be nice, but not if the niceness is demanded.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Problem is, there are subcultures which encourage family breakdown, which normalize it, which see it as the means to eliciting revenue from the state. If it's a true aberration, others should be willing to help out. If it's normalized social behavior, something is systemically wrong with the culture.