3 ms·

Are you actually proposing that as a solution? Are you against paid parental leave?

jseban 5y ago
I'm against it. Why give people less responsibility and less freedom, as they get smarter and more educated. And why revert to a more costly and inefficient public sector to achieve this. Seems like moving in the absolute wrong direction to me. Socialism and "free stuff" is something that I'm absolutely against in every way. And people have full control over having children. I see no point whatsoever in having paid parental leave, what's the reason why? "it's nice"?
- pertymcpert 5y ago
  Do you think that's the right thing to do from a moral standpoint? Are you aware of how callous you are?
  - jseban 5y ago
    To educate people to take responsibility for their lives? Yes, I think that's the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. People deserve freedom and deserve empowerment. I think it's morally wrong to have forced guardianship of adults.
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    It’s callous to not give people free money, that you took from other people? Is it callous to throw criminals in jail? Is it callous to expect people to save money? Maybe principles, morality, and justice are callous.
    - pertymcpert 5y ago
      What a pointless comment. It's much more nuanced than giving people free money. Next you'd be saying it's not callous to not help someone out of a burning building unless they paid their taxes for the fire fighters.
      - jseban 5y ago
        The parent comment is an equally pointless call for sympathy with no substance.
- sixstringtheory 5y ago
  > people have full control over having children I disagree. There are plenty of people without access to birth control, abortion, or even proper sexual education in the US. I've spoken with so many people who are at once against sex ed, abortion, contraception and parental benefits. That is wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Without the first three you're going to need the last one. Not everyone has a good familial or social safety net. Not everyone is independently wealthy. Exceedingly few can live completely pastorally. It's like asking for a software product fast, cheap and high quality. Pick two. Same with society: you can have a healthy, free and educated populace, able to fulfill personal/social obligations (ie child rearing, taking care of aging parents, building lasting friendships), and/or working at peak economic production/efficiency. But I doubt you can have all three at the same time without massive subsidization or regulation. An individual's time and resources spent on one are the opportunity cost of the others. I'd be interested to know counterexamples of societies that were able to achieve all three.
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  By your logic the state shouldn't pay for school for children either. It does though because it's an investment, the country is better off for having an educated and literate population. I suspect that one day free childcare will be viewed similarly as free education—something that may cost money but is widely accepted as "worth it" for the sake of society. Anyway I always struggle to understand the all-to-frequent hyper-American hyper-individualistic opinions that are often found on this website. Always seem utterly detached from reality and lacking in basic empathy. Tbh if you really want to be logically coherent then I encourage you to try to defend ending free education for kids.
  - jseban 5y ago
    The country would be even better off with a financially literate, empowered population that could be responsible for their own lives, and could come to these conclusions themselves. Why are you surprised that an american centered website have just the opinions that are current de-facto policies in america? And why are you surprised that highly educated people that work in for-profit organisations prefer to be independent and manage their own lives? I'm rather more surprised at the opposite, to discover that american programmers are actually communists and want to be cared for by the state in every way, and live uniform, identical, slow and inefficient lives. That seems to me like you would be in constant conflict with your surroundings and contradict your own life choices.
    - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
      > and could come to these conclusions themselves People already have. That is what the state is. Society has come together to solve problems through the state. Just like with free education for all children (which sadly you didn't have the balls to argue should be outright abolished, and just ignored the point entirely). > Why are you surprised that an american centered website have just the opinions that are current de-facto policies in america? I mean the hyper-libertarianism you espouse is of course popular in the US but it's clearly not dominant judging by how much both Trump and Biden love to blow up the deficit. >And why are you surprised that highly educated people that work in for-profit organisations prefer to be independent and manage their own lives? Because not everyone thinks "fuck you I've got mine"? Is there any proof that going hyper-libertarian actually improves things? It's like the magical thinking surrounding "if we cut taxes, tax revenues will magically increase". Or in this case it's "if we cut the state so it doesn't help anyone who is in need, those people will magically be better off". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so where is it? Where's the proof that leaving vulnerable people to rot is good for them? >I'm rather more surprised at the opposite, to discover that american programmers are actually communists and want to be cared for by the state in every way, and live uniform, identical, slow and inefficient lives. That seems to me like you would be in constant conflict with your surroundings and contradict your own life choices. I can't think of anything more uniform, identical and slow than a society which exists entirely to optimise GDP or individual earnings. Hardly distinguishable from communism's obsession with 5 year plans at that point is it? It's an equally mad obsession with wealth and economic growth that is utterly degenerate and uncivilised.

I'm against it. Why give people less responsibility and less freedom, as they get smarter and more educated. And why revert to a more costly and inefficient public sector to achieve this. Seems like moving in the absolute wrong direction to me. Socialism and "free stuff" is something that I'm absolutely against in every way. And people have full control over having children. I see no point whatsoever in having paid parental leave, what's the reason why? "it's nice"?

pertymcpert 5y ago
Do you think that's the right thing to do from a moral standpoint? Are you aware of how callous you are?
- jseban 5y ago
  To educate people to take responsibility for their lives? Yes, I think that's the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. People deserve freedom and deserve empowerment. I think it's morally wrong to have forced guardianship of adults.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  It’s callous to not give people free money, that you took from other people? Is it callous to throw criminals in jail? Is it callous to expect people to save money? Maybe principles, morality, and justice are callous.
  - pertymcpert 5y ago
    What a pointless comment. It's much more nuanced than giving people free money. Next you'd be saying it's not callous to not help someone out of a burning building unless they paid their taxes for the fire fighters.
    - jseban 5y ago
      The parent comment is an equally pointless call for sympathy with no substance.
sixstringtheory 5y ago
> people have full control over having children I disagree. There are plenty of people without access to birth control, abortion, or even proper sexual education in the US. I've spoken with so many people who are at once against sex ed, abortion, contraception and parental benefits. That is wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. Without the first three you're going to need the last one. Not everyone has a good familial or social safety net. Not everyone is independently wealthy. Exceedingly few can live completely pastorally. It's like asking for a software product fast, cheap and high quality. Pick two. Same with society: you can have a healthy, free and educated populace, able to fulfill personal/social obligations (ie child rearing, taking care of aging parents, building lasting friendships), and/or working at peak economic production/efficiency. But I doubt you can have all three at the same time without massive subsidization or regulation. An individual's time and resources spent on one are the opportunity cost of the others. I'd be interested to know counterexamples of societies that were able to achieve all three.
bettysdiagnose 5y ago
By your logic the state shouldn't pay for school for children either. It does though because it's an investment, the country is better off for having an educated and literate population. I suspect that one day free childcare will be viewed similarly as free education—something that may cost money but is widely accepted as "worth it" for the sake of society. Anyway I always struggle to understand the all-to-frequent hyper-American hyper-individualistic opinions that are often found on this website. Always seem utterly detached from reality and lacking in basic empathy. Tbh if you really want to be logically coherent then I encourage you to try to defend ending free education for kids.
- jseban 5y ago
  The country would be even better off with a financially literate, empowered population that could be responsible for their own lives, and could come to these conclusions themselves. Why are you surprised that an american centered website have just the opinions that are current de-facto policies in america? And why are you surprised that highly educated people that work in for-profit organisations prefer to be independent and manage their own lives? I'm rather more surprised at the opposite, to discover that american programmers are actually communists and want to be cared for by the state in every way, and live uniform, identical, slow and inefficient lives. That seems to me like you would be in constant conflict with your surroundings and contradict your own life choices.
  - bettysdiagnose 5y ago
    > and could come to these conclusions themselves People already have. That is what the state is. Society has come together to solve problems through the state. Just like with free education for all children (which sadly you didn't have the balls to argue should be outright abolished, and just ignored the point entirely). > Why are you surprised that an american centered website have just the opinions that are current de-facto policies in america? I mean the hyper-libertarianism you espouse is of course popular in the US but it's clearly not dominant judging by how much both Trump and Biden love to blow up the deficit. >And why are you surprised that highly educated people that work in for-profit organisations prefer to be independent and manage their own lives? Because not everyone thinks "fuck you I've got mine"? Is there any proof that going hyper-libertarian actually improves things? It's like the magical thinking surrounding "if we cut taxes, tax revenues will magically increase". Or in this case it's "if we cut the state so it doesn't help anyone who is in need, those people will magically be better off". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so where is it? Where's the proof that leaving vulnerable people to rot is good for them? >I'm rather more surprised at the opposite, to discover that american programmers are actually communists and want to be cared for by the state in every way, and live uniform, identical, slow and inefficient lives. That seems to me like you would be in constant conflict with your surroundings and contradict your own life choices. I can't think of anything more uniform, identical and slow than a society which exists entirely to optimise GDP or individual earnings. Hardly distinguishable from communism's obsession with 5 year plans at that point is it? It's an equally mad obsession with wealth and economic growth that is utterly degenerate and uncivilised.