4 ms·

Your post is content-free, and it says much about the value of your thoughts. This is not a problem of emotions, except in that it's a useful tool for others to

Your post is content-free, and it says much about the value of your thoughts. This is not a problem of emotions, except in that it's a useful tool for others to manipulate your emotions. The only effective solution would be to subsidize these relationships via taxes, ideally to the point where one partner can devote themselves to childcare. In this society, you want something, you pay for it. You should probably contemplate why this isn't being proposed by the people who are supposedly concerned about this problem, but I suspect you'll find an answer that lets you keep thinking that you're thinking, rather than being played like a fiddle.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>his is not a problem of emotions, except in that it's a useful tool for others to manipulate your emotions. we do it with every other form of advertisement, why not use it to encourage good lifestyles too? > You should probably contemplate why this isn't being proposed by the people who are supposedly concerned about this problem simple: - they aren't concerned about the problem to begin with. Be it apathy, ignorance, or malice. There are different solutions depending on the cause. - they are, as mentioned above, more afraid of upsetting single families by imposing what can arguably be a healthier family dynamic - the school board feels that issues with family are outside their purview so they do not even consider it, despite the fact that parents are the biggest strain on any given school teacher. Maybe take your own advice? They at least gave propositions, while you are simply engaging in rhetorical attacks without contributing anything worth a conversation. What does "you want something, you pay for it" mean in a conversation about government funded education? We're all already paying for it.
- sethrin 3y ago
  Yes, I'm sure you have wonderful reasons for wanting to legislate your morality. No, that person offered zero in the way of concrete suggestions, and it staggers belief to see how you would even think that. The immediate subject at hand is not government funded education but family structures, and I was pretty explicit about the solution; since you seem not to have the correct context I suggest re-reading this discussion more carefully.
dumpsterdiver 3y ago
> Your post is content-free, and it says much about the value of your thoughts. It's hard for me to get behind the logic of someone who opens their response with a direct personal attack. I stopped reading as soon as you started making abusive comments (the very first sentence). I didn't deserve to be told that my thoughts are without merit, and when you resorted to saying so it really did tell more about you than it ever could me.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>his is not a problem of emotions, except in that it's a useful tool for others to manipulate your emotions. we do it with every other form of advertisement, why not use it to encourage good lifestyles too? > You should probably contemplate why this isn't being proposed by the people who are supposedly concerned about this problem simple: - they aren't concerned about the problem to begin with. Be it apathy, ignorance, or malice. There are different solutions depending on the cause. - they are, as mentioned above, more afraid of upsetting single families by imposing what can arguably be a healthier family dynamic - the school board feels that issues with family are outside their purview so they do not even consider it, despite the fact that parents are the biggest strain on any given school teacher. Maybe take your own advice? They at least gave propositions, while you are simply engaging in rhetorical attacks without contributing anything worth a conversation. What does "you want something, you pay for it" mean in a conversation about government funded education? We're all already paying for it.

sethrin 3y ago
Yes, I'm sure you have wonderful reasons for wanting to legislate your morality. No, that person offered zero in the way of concrete suggestions, and it staggers belief to see how you would even think that. The immediate subject at hand is not government funded education but family structures, and I was pretty explicit about the solution; since you seem not to have the correct context I suggest re-reading this discussion more carefully.

dumpsterdiver 3y ago

> Your post is content-free, and it says much about the value of your thoughts. It's hard for me to get behind the logic of someone who opens their response with a direct personal attack. I stopped reading as soon as you started making abusive comments (the very first sentence). I didn't deserve to be told that my thoughts are without merit, and when you resorted to saying so it really did tell more about you than it ever could me.