3 ms·

> Taking too much of that responsibility out of parents hands makes it less consequential for them to have children If you are a parent you would know this is

> Taking too much of that responsibility out of parents hands makes it less consequential for them to have children If you are a parent you would know this is BS. Sending them to school and feeding them at school is hardly a significant consequence. Its not like if free school meals come along everyone is going to start having more children. Also children are required by law to be in school. I am not opting out of my parental responsibilities by sending them there. Further, your whole point is that it may make it easier for people to have more kids so we should not do that, even if the cost is children (who had no say in their birth) having to be hungry and suffer through choices of their parents (who birthed them) and the government (who require them to be in school). Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents.

SllX 4y ago
Hi. Please note I didn’t address mandatory schooling or any of the issues downstream from that. The parent raised a point about defaulting to three-square meals a day for all children which was an extension or addition to existing school lunch programs. Please re-read what I said with that context in mind if you want to have a productive conversation. I’m also fine just leaving it at that. Children will always suffer the consequences of their parents including the choice to have them; and the choice to have children (or not), like pretty much all human actions is an economic one. Sometimes a poorly thought out economic choice, and sometimes not really thought through. Right now it is expensive to have children, and a large part of that expense is just food and shelter. Parents that can’t provide that tend to have their children taken away by the State, and the children have no say in that. Does that suck? Yes it does, I have been in my State’s foster care system, and I got out of it lightly when my mother figured out how to take some responsibility. This does not mean it is the public’s duty to insure against all the poor life choices people may make including having children they ultimately cannot afford. I’m basically okay with school lunch systems, because of the mandatory schooling requirement, but remember, what I addressed was an extension of that.
humanrebar 4y ago
There's a large and growing (especially post COVID) movement in the U.S. to opt out of public schools in favor of alternative schooling options. > Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents. It's more that I don't expect governments to be little gods and solve all problems for their people. Sometimes life is hard, and that's unfortunate, but it's not a given that we can really move the needle on suffering through large organizational action. Often it's most impactful for individuals and small communities to step in and care for the most vulnerable. It will be more personal, holistic, and coherent. Big organizations can sometimes get in the way of that kind of personal compassion. For example, public schools have less patience to let compassionate individuals interact with kids on school grounds these days. Even parents are often excluded from the school grounds.

SllX 4y ago

Hi. Please note I didn’t address mandatory schooling or any of the issues downstream from that. The parent raised a point about defaulting to three-square meals a day for all children which was an extension or addition to existing school lunch programs. Please re-read what I said with that context in mind if you want to have a productive conversation. I’m also fine just leaving it at that. Children will always suffer the consequences of their parents including the choice to have them; and the choice to have children (or not), like pretty much all human actions is an economic one. Sometimes a poorly thought out economic choice, and sometimes not really thought through. Right now it is expensive to have children, and a large part of that expense is just food and shelter. Parents that can’t provide that tend to have their children taken away by the State, and the children have no say in that. Does that suck? Yes it does, I have been in my State’s foster care system, and I got out of it lightly when my mother figured out how to take some responsibility. This does not mean it is the public’s duty to insure against all the poor life choices people may make including having children they ultimately cannot afford. I’m basically okay with school lunch systems, because of the mandatory schooling requirement, but remember, what I addressed was an extension of that.

humanrebar 4y ago

There's a large and growing (especially post COVID) movement in the U.S. to opt out of public schools in favor of alternative schooling options. > Sounds to me like you want to punish the children for the mistakes of their parents. It's more that I don't expect governments to be little gods and solve all problems for their people. Sometimes life is hard, and that's unfortunate, but it's not a given that we can really move the needle on suffering through large organizational action. Often it's most impactful for individuals and small communities to step in and care for the most vulnerable. It will be more personal, holistic, and coherent. Big organizations can sometimes get in the way of that kind of personal compassion. For example, public schools have less patience to let compassionate individuals interact with kids on school grounds these days. Even parents are often excluded from the school grounds.