4 ms·

That's a very morality based argument. In general, those types of arguments aren't great and don't really serve a purpose outside of letting the individual take

by Loughla 11mo ago

That's a very morality based argument. In general, those types of arguments aren't great and don't really serve a purpose outside of letting the individual take the moral high ground for whatever reason. I had to rely on food banks when my parents kicked me out at 16. I had to again my second year of marriage while I was still in graduate school and our car got hit, forcing us to use our food budget (and we did have a budget that we followed) for the family. For the second time, I had kids, I had a good job, so did my wife, I was seeking higher education to advance in my career. But times were tight due to factors out of our control, and we needed help. What should we have done differently?

solumunus 11mo ago
I can’t understand what you think their argument is. This response doesn’t seem relevant to theirs.
- nobodyandproud 11mo ago
  I’m pretty sure the retort was aimed at the patronizing bit here: > but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford. Which seems quite relevant. The only fool-proof plan for anyone is to have zero kids, which is ridiculous. My wife and I live beneath ours means, save as much as possible, live debt free, and we instead try to afford as much as possible for the kids. A job loss or major accident/medical problem where we survive is terrifying from a financial PoV.
  - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
    Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense. Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.
    - jabberwhookie 11mo ago
      Your comment is completely patronizing. Every child who needs help has parents who should know better and let's make them suffer.. Not because it is rational or even meets the objectives of the community but because we should be a community that is mean spirited.
    - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
      I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch. That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.
      - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
        My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question". Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on. My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes and the state will pick up the tab. No-one, no-one replied to my comments on the point. Only intellectually lazy outrage.
        nobodyandproud 11mo ago
        > the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question. It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable. It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk. The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than one can afford? What standard is being used to decide when someone has gone past affordability? The harder or impossible questions, and these are critically important: What factors play into the financial risk of having or extending a family? And can each factor be quantified? I suspect the answer is no, because few or no private insurer is in business guaranteeing long-term employment terms. Finally: Even if the probabilities can be accurately quantified, what risk threshold can we establish as responsible vs irresponsible? And the burden is on the claim maker to establish that it’s possible, because as far as I know life in a market economy is a bit too messy to forecast in this manner. If this inspires you or someone else to try, I wish you all the best and with my blessing.

by Loughla 11mo ago

solumunus 11mo ago

I can’t understand what you think their argument is. This response doesn’t seem relevant to theirs.

nobodyandproud 11mo ago
I’m pretty sure the retort was aimed at the patronizing bit here: > but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford. Which seems quite relevant. The only fool-proof plan for anyone is to have zero kids, which is ridiculous. My wife and I live beneath ours means, save as much as possible, live debt free, and we instead try to afford as much as possible for the kids. A job loss or major accident/medical problem where we survive is terrifying from a financial PoV.
- mytailorisrich 11mo ago
  Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense. Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.
  - jabberwhookie 11mo ago
    Your comment is completely patronizing. Every child who needs help has parents who should know better and let's make them suffer.. Not because it is rational or even meets the objectives of the community but because we should be a community that is mean spirited.
  - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
    I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch. That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.
    - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
      My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question". Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on. My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes and the state will pick up the tab. No-one, no-one replied to my comments on the point. Only intellectually lazy outrage.
      - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
        > the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question. It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable. It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk. The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than one can afford? What standard is being used to decide when someone has gone past affordability? The harder or impossible questions, and these are critically important: What factors play into the financial risk of having or extending a family? And can each factor be quantified? I suspect the answer is no, because few or no private insurer is in business guaranteeing long-term employment terms. Finally: Even if the probabilities can be accurately quantified, what risk threshold can we establish as responsible vs irresponsible? And the burden is on the claim maker to establish that it’s possible, because as far as I know life in a market economy is a bit too messy to forecast in this manner. If this inspires you or someone else to try, I wish you all the best and with my blessing.