3 ms·

>a conscious decision with negative externalities. So bereavement should be declined if the dead made a conscious decision for suicide, and sick days should be

>a conscious decision with negative externalities. So bereavement should be declined if the dead made a conscious decision for suicide, and sick days should be banned if the person say made a conscious decision to take care of a family member with a communicable disease? I would argue parental leave is only unfair against those who are simultaneously infertile and legally barred from adopting. If both of these don't apply to you then your position is intractable.

djohnston 5y ago
On bereavement, no, you didn't make any decision and the decision of the deceased is out of scope. On taking care of a sick family member, no, your family member didn't choose to be ill. These are both straw man arguments IMO.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  So are you both infertile and unable to adopt? What is stopping you from being eligible for parental leave? It's absurd to claim taking care of a sick family member isn't a conscious decision. Have you ever slept walked your way into the position of caretaker? It certainly has negative externalities (like you transmitting the communicable illness to others). A nice straw man is suggesting that everyone who chooses not to adopt or have a child doesn't have the option to, and thus somehow unfairly disadvantaged by the offering of parental leave. If you live in the US and you dislike parental leave you know you can simply choose to work for a company that doesn't offer it, don't you? edit: choose to work for a company that doesn't offer paid leave beyond FMLA mandates.
  - djohnston 5y ago
    No one is saying that people who don't have kids are forced into that position, we're only asking why we should be paying for your decision to do so. Dealing with sick family members is out of your control and you should help them if that occurs. There is no such moral imperative to reproduce, if anything you should feel inclined to abstain if you care about the species at large. Not having children is incontrovertibly better for the planet, why am I not getting eco-leave for my decision to help mother nature while you get parental leave for yours?
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      What country are you employed in? In the US you have the choice to work for an employer who does not provide paid parental leave. It is not mandated. So you have no cause for outrage, if your coworkers are taking leave you literally consented to working under this condition when accepting employment. There are some employers who allow unlimited vacation or similar, perhaps you should consider one of those employers who effectively would treat eco-leave and parental leave the same (and under such circumstance you may be judged, but you shouldn't.) Now if you live somewhere where paid parental leave is not consensual but rather legally required by government and funded at gunpoint, then we are in 100% agreement. Taxation is theft and non-consensual.

djohnston 5y ago

On bereavement, no, you didn't make any decision and the decision of the deceased is out of scope. On taking care of a sick family member, no, your family member didn't choose to be ill. These are both straw man arguments IMO.

quantumBerry 5y ago
So are you both infertile and unable to adopt? What is stopping you from being eligible for parental leave? It's absurd to claim taking care of a sick family member isn't a conscious decision. Have you ever slept walked your way into the position of caretaker? It certainly has negative externalities (like you transmitting the communicable illness to others). A nice straw man is suggesting that everyone who chooses not to adopt or have a child doesn't have the option to, and thus somehow unfairly disadvantaged by the offering of parental leave. If you live in the US and you dislike parental leave you know you can simply choose to work for a company that doesn't offer it, don't you? edit: choose to work for a company that doesn't offer paid leave beyond FMLA mandates.
- djohnston 5y ago
  No one is saying that people who don't have kids are forced into that position, we're only asking why we should be paying for your decision to do so. Dealing with sick family members is out of your control and you should help them if that occurs. There is no such moral imperative to reproduce, if anything you should feel inclined to abstain if you care about the species at large. Not having children is incontrovertibly better for the planet, why am I not getting eco-leave for my decision to help mother nature while you get parental leave for yours?
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    What country are you employed in? In the US you have the choice to work for an employer who does not provide paid parental leave. It is not mandated. So you have no cause for outrage, if your coworkers are taking leave you literally consented to working under this condition when accepting employment. There are some employers who allow unlimited vacation or similar, perhaps you should consider one of those employers who effectively would treat eco-leave and parental leave the same (and under such circumstance you may be judged, but you shouldn't.) Now if you live somewhere where paid parental leave is not consensual but rather legally required by government and funded at gunpoint, then we are in 100% agreement. Taxation is theft and non-consensual.