3 ms·

Really?? Rather than help people who are struggling to take care of their children, you'd rather shame them, creating another generation of neglected children

Really?? Rather than help people who are struggling to take care of their children, you'd rather shame them, creating another generation of neglected children who grow up into undereducated, angry young people? What is wrong with you?

wolfgke 8y ago
> Really?? Rather than help people who are struggling to take care of their children, you'd rather shame them Offering free vasectomies (subsidized from tax money) would indeed not a bad idea to help these people before the problem occurs.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Yes. Let's sterilize the poor before they reproduce! /s !
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Or, we could give free vasectomies to people who display a total lack of empathy. Don't want to pollute the gene pool!
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Or, we could give free vasectomies to people who display a total lack of empathy. If you mean me: I have good, deep reasons why I do not even want children (these reasons shall by off-topic here). And I live by my words so that other people can follow my anti-natalist example. :-)
golergka 8y ago
False dichotomy logic fallacy. These things are not at all mutually exclusive.
zeroname 8y ago
I'm gonna answer your loaded question honestly: Yes, I would rather shame people who are "having kids when they clearly have no resources of place for them in their lives" than spending any of my personal resources on actually helping them, if those are the only two choices I have. Your empathy in and of itself is worthless. How much of your income are you personally willing to give up to bail out people who make poor choices? Where do you draw the line? I hope we can agree that having children without having the resources to take care of them is a poor choice. All that "neglect and undereducation" is due to that poor choice, first and foremost. Welfare doesn't fix the problem. Just look at all the "angry young people" in France (20% youth unemployment), a country which has some of the strongest welfare programs in the world, including free university education.

wolfgke 8y ago

> Really?? Rather than help people who are struggling to take care of their children, you'd rather shame them Offering free vasectomies (subsidized from tax money) would indeed not a bad idea to help these people before the problem occurs.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Yes. Let's sterilize the poor before they reproduce! /s !
fallingfrog 8y ago
Or, we could give free vasectomies to people who display a total lack of empathy. Don't want to pollute the gene pool!
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Or, we could give free vasectomies to people who display a total lack of empathy. If you mean me: I have good, deep reasons why I do not even want children (these reasons shall by off-topic here). And I live by my words so that other people can follow my anti-natalist example. :-)

golergka 8y ago

False dichotomy logic fallacy. These things are not at all mutually exclusive.

zeroname 8y ago

I'm gonna answer your loaded question honestly: Yes, I would rather shame people who are "having kids when they clearly have no resources of place for them in their lives" than spending any of my personal resources on actually helping them, if those are the only two choices I have. Your empathy in and of itself is worthless. How much of your income are you personally willing to give up to bail out people who make poor choices? Where do you draw the line? I hope we can agree that having children without having the resources to take care of them is a poor choice. All that "neglect and undereducation" is due to that poor choice, first and foremost. Welfare doesn't fix the problem. Just look at all the "angry young people" in France (20% youth unemployment), a country which has some of the strongest welfare programs in the world, including free university education.