5 ms·

I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position. Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people

I'll play devil's advocate, and you tell me the immorality of the position. Say you have no children. Is it an acceptable position to hold that 'those people who have children should also be the ones to look after them'? Shouldn't you have considered these sorts of expenses and being able to meet them, rather than expecting to receive handouts?

yojo 1y ago
You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents. Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.
- verisimi 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
    - verisimi 1y ago
      How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
      - mschuster91 1y ago
        That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
        verisimi 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > Does everyone you know gets free meals, free housing, heating, etc and spending money? Read again what I wrote, and read precisely this time: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
      - hofrogs 1y ago
        This is what humanity must aim for.
        verisimi 1y ago
        [flagged]
        eesmith 1y ago
        > is it ok to force people to pay for stuff that they don't want to? Yes. Happens all the time. Money doesn't exist unless people are forced to use it to pay for something they don't want to. (read Graber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years.") I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons. Why am I forced to pay for it through my taxes? Because if I don't, the state will use its power to punish me. Pacifists can't direct their tax monies to avoid military expenditures. Adherents to one faith can't say their taxes can't be used on apostates. You sound like this is a surprise. Like you don't understand why people have to pay taxes for schools even if they don't have children, don't understand why people who don't drive still have to pay taxes for roads, don't understand why people who don't swim still have to pay taxes for public pools, .. the list is very long. Your comments sound very much like 1980s Thatcherism - "There is no such thing [as society]! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." The last 40+ years of neoliberal thought hasn't turned out so well, as those who have money no longer feel pressure or obligation to distribute it, resulting in a return to Gilded Age power concentrations. That's what you want, it seems. > such as increased salary and pension contributions Such as tax cuts for the rich. Make Gates "only" a billionaire and we can use the remaining $100 billion to pay off school lunch debt (works out the math) ... forever. $2.8 million debt for Utah with a population of 3 million people. US population 340 million. Call it $300 million in school lunch debt. Probably within an order of magnitude. That's less than the interest on $100 billion. Yes, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would have an actual positive impact on education if, instead of funding projects that trained educators knew would fail - and eventually did fail - they has simply put their $10+ billion into funding school meals. Instead, rich people get to fund "non-profits" that they control - reducing their taxes while not relinquishing the power and influence tied to their money. Gates' wealth gives him a very undemocratic and malignant influence over US education policy. And you want to blather on about supporting student lunch debt?!
      - framapotari 1y ago
        If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. These are both obviously silly examples. The 'Where do we draw the line?!' answer can in this case be answered with 'On the side that feeds hungry children'.
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. In that case, people will always self-organise such structures anyway. Even amongst the most failed of the failed states, eventually you will end up with at least someone claiming to be the chief law enforcer (of whatever kind), someone to look after the kids (i.e. education) while the rest works to provide for food, and some sort of fire brigade. It will just be many orders of magnitude more inefficient than what a large government that governs more than a few dozen to hundred people can establish.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        that's called universal basic income, and it is seriously being discussed.
      - Suppafly 1y ago
        >How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc? Now you're talking, let's do it. UBI FTW.
  - Symbiote 1y ago
    > Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? You can see the rates for this in Europe, Australia, Canada and South Korea here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit
  - 0xffany 1y ago
    In the wake of a demographic collapse, you're arguing against helping feed children - future tax contributors, caretakers, social workers, healthcare personnel...? Who will pay taxes for you when you won't be of working age anymore? Who will be your caretakers? Contributing to the next generation's upbringing is the least we can do, even if some won't have kids of their own they would still (directly) indirectly benefit from this.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      We might fall so far as to ensure the children in the richest society in world history are actually clothed! The horror!
    - umbra07 1y ago
      But it's the logical continuation of the argument. It's not like we're going from "something something unlimited free speech -> something something more bullying something something more suicides" - which is a slippery slope fallacy if you don't show the logic or proof that one leads to the other. The argument for free school lunches is exactly the same as the argument for free school breakfasts, free dinners, and free clothes.
  - Suppafly 1y ago
    >And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? I'm in favor of all of that. We're trying to have a society here, not sure what your problem is.
  - bluecheese452 1y ago
    And the next thing you know we will demand they have access to clean water.
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? You tell me.
lurkshark 1y ago
Even with no children of your own, you still reap benefits from living in a society where children are fed.
rienbdj 1y ago
An adult can either be a net tax contributor or a net tax burden over their lifespan. The probability of them being a net contributor is much higher if they are well educated and not malnourished. The effect is stronger at younger ages. It’s good ROI for the tax payer.
- kerkeslager 1y ago
  I'm glad that you're saying this, but honestly, it's disgusting that this has to be said. I want my country to feed and clothe children because it's the right thing to do. The sort of person that wants an ROI to agree to that, is not a good person.
madeofpalk 1y ago
Yes. That's an acceptable position to hold. It's unacceptable and inhumane to think that children should starve. The devil doesn't need an advocate here.
- alphan0n 1y ago
  You would be hard pressed to find many examples of actual starvation in the US due to a lack of food availability. IIRC there are around 20-30 cases, yearly, mostly the product of abuse by a caretaker/guardian.
  - camdenreslink 1y ago
    What is the purpose of this pedantry? Plenty of children do not get the appropriate nutrition during the day due to food insecurity, and for many the only consistent meal they get is at school. Why argue over technical definitions of starvation?
    - alphan0n 1y ago
      What is the purpose of using a word that means something different than what is currently being discussed? Why not say that children are suffering from malnutrition or food insecurity, rather than using a term used to describe a cause of death? You wouldn't say that someone who choked on a glass of water to have drowned, or someone who received a momentary shock from frayed cord to have been electrocuted. Words have meaning, it's not pedantic to comment on the usage of a word that has a different meaning entirely from manner in which it is being used, in what I suspect is an attempt at an appeal to emotion.
      - camdenreslink 1y ago
        I think most (all?) people would understand "starve" to mean to suffer from hunger, rather than to literally die from hunger. Especially from the context.
        deleted 1y ago
naniwaduni 1y ago
The relevanr polities already factor children in when computing taxes. All you need to do is adjust the amount.
scotty79 1y ago
You don't really "have" a child. A child is new separate human that will eventually grow into free separate adult human. The question is, do you want there to be more humans in the future or are you fine with the ones that are already here until they die. And should they be starved or dumb?
lurking_swe 1y ago
many problems with your argument. I will enumerate just a few off the top of my head. - if a child was born with poor planning from the parents, it’s too late and unhelpful to say “i told you so”. Feeding a disadvantaged child raises their chances of doing well in school and reduces their chance of being a much larger burden on your tax dollars down the line. Are you saying we should save $5 on this child now so we can spend $100 in the future (subsidizing their social security payments, maybe jail time, maybe homeless, etc)? Sounds like a smart business move! (sarcasm) Feeding kids is good ROI. - it’s possible to get pregnant even when being responsible. No protection is 100% except for abstinence your entire life. - you can “plan” for these expenses all you want. Sometimes a spouse dies. Sometimes a person needs to spend money to support their aging parents, AFTER their child is born. Or a divorce ruins one’s finances. Or someone loses their good job due to layoffs. Life is not a simple path, not sure what gave you that illusion. - congrats you don’t have children. Guess what? When you’re old and need a diaper change in a nursing home, who do you think will be wiping your ass? One of the nurses… one of those kids that is not yours. Who will be delivering food to the grocery store? That’s right, one of those other kids. Who will be your doctor? Right again! One of those other kids. - it’s easy to be smug until you’re unlucky in life. What if tomorrow you’re hit by a drunk driver and you go bankrupt trying to pay for major medical bills. Suddenly it’s not so fun saying nobody deserves a handout. At the end of the day, this mindset is an empathy problem. It seems like _most_ of my fellow americans have an empathy problem. Are you all dead inside? Anyway…it’s useful to invest in our society. Not everything is about me me me.

yojo 1y ago

You are not denying food to the parents, you are denying food to the children. They did not choose to be born, and they certainly didn’t choose the fiscal responsibility of their parents. Maybe there is room in there to shame the parents or give them a slap on the wrist, but the kids are blameless and denying them food makes you probably a monster.

verisimi 1y ago
[flagged]
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? Indeed: Why not? Certainly a better investment than yet another round of tax cuts for billionaires.
  - verisimi 1y ago
    How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc?
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      That's how most of Europe actually works: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves. Granted, our systems aren't perfect either. People fall through the cracks sometimes or have to deal with inane bureaucracy. But you generally won't see large encampments of homeless citizens openly defecating on the sidewalks or school children being shamed for their parents not having lunch money.
      - verisimi 1y ago
        [flagged]
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > Does everyone you know gets free meals, free housing, heating, etc and spending money? Read again what I wrote, and read precisely this time: we assist those who for whatever reason are unable to support themselves.
    - hofrogs 1y ago
      This is what humanity must aim for.
      - verisimi 1y ago
        [flagged]
        eesmith 1y ago
        > is it ok to force people to pay for stuff that they don't want to? Yes. Happens all the time. Money doesn't exist unless people are forced to use it to pay for something they don't want to. (read Graber's "Debt: The First 5,000 Years.") I don't want to pay for nuclear weapons. Why am I forced to pay for it through my taxes? Because if I don't, the state will use its power to punish me. Pacifists can't direct their tax monies to avoid military expenditures. Adherents to one faith can't say their taxes can't be used on apostates. You sound like this is a surprise. Like you don't understand why people have to pay taxes for schools even if they don't have children, don't understand why people who don't drive still have to pay taxes for roads, don't understand why people who don't swim still have to pay taxes for public pools, .. the list is very long. Your comments sound very much like 1980s Thatcherism - "There is no such thing [as society]! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first." The last 40+ years of neoliberal thought hasn't turned out so well, as those who have money no longer feel pressure or obligation to distribute it, resulting in a return to Gilded Age power concentrations. That's what you want, it seems. > such as increased salary and pension contributions Such as tax cuts for the rich. Make Gates "only" a billionaire and we can use the remaining $100 billion to pay off school lunch debt (works out the math) ... forever. $2.8 million debt for Utah with a population of 3 million people. US population 340 million. Call it $300 million in school lunch debt. Probably within an order of magnitude. That's less than the interest on $100 billion. Yes, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would have an actual positive impact on education if, instead of funding projects that trained educators knew would fail - and eventually did fail - they has simply put their $10+ billion into funding school meals. Instead, rich people get to fund "non-profits" that they control - reducing their taxes while not relinquishing the power and influence tied to their money. Gates' wealth gives him a very undemocratic and malignant influence over US education policy. And you want to blather on about supporting student lunch debt?!
    - framapotari 1y ago
      If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. These are both obviously silly examples. The 'Where do we draw the line?!' answer can in this case be answered with 'On the side that feeds hungry children'.
      - mschuster91 1y ago
        > If we're doing this, let's look at the other extreme as well: We give all people, including children, nothing as they are expected to take responsibility for themselves. No education, no services, no law enforcement, no roads, nothing at all. In that case, people will always self-organise such structures anyway. Even amongst the most failed of the failed states, eventually you will end up with at least someone claiming to be the chief law enforcer (of whatever kind), someone to look after the kids (i.e. education) while the rest works to provide for food, and some sort of fire brigade. It will just be many orders of magnitude more inefficient than what a large government that governs more than a few dozen to hundred people can establish.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      that's called universal basic income, and it is seriously being discussed.
    - Suppafly 1y ago
      >How about this: we give all people all meals, clothes, housing, heating (all essentials) and spending money so that they can explore their interests, travel, etc? Now you're talking, let's do it. UBI FTW.
- Symbiote 1y ago
  > Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? You can see the rates for this in Europe, Australia, Canada and South Korea here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit
- 0xffany 1y ago
  In the wake of a demographic collapse, you're arguing against helping feed children - future tax contributors, caretakers, social workers, healthcare personnel...? Who will pay taxes for you when you won't be of working age anymore? Who will be your caretakers? Contributing to the next generation's upbringing is the least we can do, even if some won't have kids of their own they would still (directly) indirectly benefit from this.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    We might fall so far as to ensure the children in the richest society in world history are actually clothed! The horror!
  - umbra07 1y ago
    But it's the logical continuation of the argument. It's not like we're going from "something something unlimited free speech -> something something more bullying something something more suicides" - which is a slippery slope fallacy if you don't show the logic or proof that one leads to the other. The argument for free school lunches is exactly the same as the argument for free school breakfasts, free dinners, and free clothes.
- Suppafly 1y ago
  >And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? I'm in favor of all of that. We're trying to have a society here, not sure what your problem is.
- bluecheese452 1y ago
  And the next thing you know we will demand they have access to clean water.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  > And then, why stop at lunches? Why not give all children breakfast and dinner too, and buy them good clothes to wear? You tell me.

lurkshark 1y ago

Even with no children of your own, you still reap benefits from living in a society where children are fed.

rienbdj 1y ago

An adult can either be a net tax contributor or a net tax burden over their lifespan. The probability of them being a net contributor is much higher if they are well educated and not malnourished. The effect is stronger at younger ages. It’s good ROI for the tax payer.

kerkeslager 1y ago
I'm glad that you're saying this, but honestly, it's disgusting that this has to be said. I want my country to feed and clothe children because it's the right thing to do. The sort of person that wants an ROI to agree to that, is not a good person.

madeofpalk 1y ago

Yes. That's an acceptable position to hold. It's unacceptable and inhumane to think that children should starve. The devil doesn't need an advocate here.

alphan0n 1y ago
You would be hard pressed to find many examples of actual starvation in the US due to a lack of food availability. IIRC there are around 20-30 cases, yearly, mostly the product of abuse by a caretaker/guardian.
- camdenreslink 1y ago
  What is the purpose of this pedantry? Plenty of children do not get the appropriate nutrition during the day due to food insecurity, and for many the only consistent meal they get is at school. Why argue over technical definitions of starvation?
  - alphan0n 1y ago
    What is the purpose of using a word that means something different than what is currently being discussed? Why not say that children are suffering from malnutrition or food insecurity, rather than using a term used to describe a cause of death? You wouldn't say that someone who choked on a glass of water to have drowned, or someone who received a momentary shock from frayed cord to have been electrocuted. Words have meaning, it's not pedantic to comment on the usage of a word that has a different meaning entirely from manner in which it is being used, in what I suspect is an attempt at an appeal to emotion.
    - camdenreslink 1y ago
      I think most (all?) people would understand "starve" to mean to suffer from hunger, rather than to literally die from hunger. Especially from the context.
      - deleted 1y ago

naniwaduni 1y ago

The relevanr polities already factor children in when computing taxes. All you need to do is adjust the amount.

scotty79 1y ago

You don't really "have" a child. A child is new separate human that will eventually grow into free separate adult human. The question is, do you want there to be more humans in the future or are you fine with the ones that are already here until they die. And should they be starved or dumb?

lurking_swe 1y ago

many problems with your argument. I will enumerate just a few off the top of my head. - if a child was born with poor planning from the parents, it’s too late and unhelpful to say “i told you so”. Feeding a disadvantaged child raises their chances of doing well in school and reduces their chance of being a much larger burden on your tax dollars down the line. Are you saying we should save $5 on this child now so we can spend $100 in the future (subsidizing their social security payments, maybe jail time, maybe homeless, etc)? Sounds like a smart business move! (sarcasm) Feeding kids is good ROI. - it’s possible to get pregnant even when being responsible. No protection is 100% except for abstinence your entire life. - you can “plan” for these expenses all you want. Sometimes a spouse dies. Sometimes a person needs to spend money to support their aging parents, AFTER their child is born. Or a divorce ruins one’s finances. Or someone loses their good job due to layoffs. Life is not a simple path, not sure what gave you that illusion. - congrats you don’t have children. Guess what? When you’re old and need a diaper change in a nursing home, who do you think will be wiping your ass? One of the nurses… one of those kids that is not yours. Who will be delivering food to the grocery store? That’s right, one of those other kids. Who will be your doctor? Right again! One of those other kids. - it’s easy to be smug until you’re unlucky in life. What if tomorrow you’re hit by a drunk driver and you go bankrupt trying to pay for major medical bills. Suddenly it’s not so fun saying nobody deserves a handout. At the end of the day, this mindset is an empathy problem. It seems like _most_ of my fellow americans have an empathy problem. Are you all dead inside? Anyway…it’s useful to invest in our society. Not everything is about me me me.