4 ms·

That's my problem: > My mother gave birth to 12 children Having 12 children is completely out of responsibility. Yet we saved this guy from poverty. Now what,

by tajen 10y ago

That's my problem: > My mother gave birth to 12 children Having 12 children is completely out of responsibility. Yet we saved this guy from poverty. Now what, not only the guy is barely thankful, but he claims that people should be able to reproduce this error and get the same incredibly good outcome – and it's a right? What about no? He shows no understanding of what is normal; Growing from 12th-child of farmer parents to barrister in less than one generation is already a privilege; I'd be happy if my grand son had the same social status as I have already. Be humble. There's a lot of things to learn to rise in society, from not having TV to various attitudes about trading in business, from attitude about alcohol to relaxation things (or religion if that's your thing); No, if you don't educate your child, or if teach him that being a barrista is good enough, then he won't be able to become barrister despite his parents. But he's free to edicate his children better, that's how it works. The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices and make you a lawyer. To me, it explains why people are more and more polarized, on one side those who accuse the riches of stealing their right to equality (whatever that means), on the other people who grow a big expertise at getting deaf to such claims (and, unfortunately, they tilt towards not listening to any claims regarding rights, even older ones which were reasonable enough to survive the ages, like voting and democracy). Want to protect your democracy? Be reasonable with your claims, rights and expectations.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Non-Western cultures and Catholics both have a bias towards large families. As a survival strategy, it often makes perfect sense in those different cultural settings. >The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices. No, it's really not. "Choices" are a luxury, not a given. You need a good education and a personal or family tradition of researching and understanding outcomes to make useful choices. Those are not the default for most families. Even if that weren't true, governments should not, in fact, compensate anyone for anything. What they should do is perform a cost/benefit analysis and work out which social mitigation strategies provide the best overall returns. Does it cost less to house the homeless or to keep them on the streets, where they're a drain on all kinds of services? Simple moralising can't answer that question. Objective, rational, research can. And when you do objective, rational, research, you often find that naive decisions based on simple-minded moralising tend to produces expensive, low-efficiency outcomes.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Catholics and western cultures also have a bias toward large familes. Try going back one or two more generations in your genealogy if you can't see it closer. Sadly and I hate to break it up. Having 10 children a few generations ago used to go with a very high mortality rate, even in Western Europe.
- tajen 10y ago
  > objective, rational, research I'm often surprised how "objective, rational, research" can be biased by the author. For example, "objective, rational, research" lead to not demonstrating that women are paid less if they perform equal work (degree, interest in tech, but also number of extra hours at work), but "objective, rational, research"-people regularly and repeatedly refuse to discuss or even listen to such stats, because they're not "objective, rational, research" according to them. So if you leftist people agreed to question your own "objective, rational, research" that shows that leftist people are right, maybe we could hear each other. Maybe that leads to a world where those who annoy their friends at school have no job when they're an adult. And that's how it should be, even if "objective, rational, research" show that "oh the poor boy he beats up his friends because [insert whatever family reason here]". Note that I've given thousands to charities and helped minorities until my thirties. Until one of them raped my daughter-in-law. No matter how you try, even if you put them on a highway of priorities above normal people, those are their own top enemy. A bit of fairness towards former-normal people would be nice as well.

by tajen 10y ago

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

Non-Western cultures and Catholics both have a bias towards large families. As a survival strategy, it often makes perfect sense in those different cultural settings. >The XXI century is stuck in a wrong expectation that governments are supposed to compensate for your parents' life choices. No, it's really not. "Choices" are a luxury, not a given. You need a good education and a personal or family tradition of researching and understanding outcomes to make useful choices. Those are not the default for most families. Even if that weren't true, governments should not, in fact, compensate anyone for anything. What they should do is perform a cost/benefit analysis and work out which social mitigation strategies provide the best overall returns. Does it cost less to house the homeless or to keep them on the streets, where they're a drain on all kinds of services? Simple moralising can't answer that question. Objective, rational, research can. And when you do objective, rational, research, you often find that naive decisions based on simple-minded moralising tend to produces expensive, low-efficiency outcomes.

user5994461 10y ago
Catholics and western cultures also have a bias toward large familes. Try going back one or two more generations in your genealogy if you can't see it closer. Sadly and I hate to break it up. Having 10 children a few generations ago used to go with a very high mortality rate, even in Western Europe.
tajen 10y ago
> objective, rational, research I'm often surprised how "objective, rational, research" can be biased by the author. For example, "objective, rational, research" lead to not demonstrating that women are paid less if they perform equal work (degree, interest in tech, but also number of extra hours at work), but "objective, rational, research"-people regularly and repeatedly refuse to discuss or even listen to such stats, because they're not "objective, rational, research" according to them. So if you leftist people agreed to question your own "objective, rational, research" that shows that leftist people are right, maybe we could hear each other. Maybe that leads to a world where those who annoy their friends at school have no job when they're an adult. And that's how it should be, even if "objective, rational, research" show that "oh the poor boy he beats up his friends because [insert whatever family reason here]". Note that I've given thousands to charities and helped minorities until my thirties. Until one of them raped my daughter-in-law. No matter how you try, even if you put them on a highway of priorities above normal people, those are their own top enemy. A bit of fairness towards former-normal people would be nice as well.