4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
        No idea what you're on about but good luck to you...
        nobodyandproud 11mo ago
        Appealing to common sense is insufficient for creating a sound policy or even a sound personal financial policy. Your quip implies decisions based on financial risk, which is just probabilities of a certain category. Given that the market doesn’t insure to hedge against your “tough question”, it suggests (though doesn’t prove) it can’t really answer that question. But if your suggestion and quip wasn’t meant to be thought through and modeled, then carry on. Edit: tl:dr; I’m trying to understand your question beyond vagaries, which you’ve so far refused to clarify. Therefore, nobody can really answer your question.
        mytailorisrich 11mo ago
- GeoAtreides 11mo ago
  no, the other posters are right, your comment was not only patronising but terrifying in its implications.

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.
    - mytailorisrich 11mo ago
      No idea what you're on about but good luck to you...
      - nobodyandproud 11mo ago
        Appealing to common sense is insufficient for creating a sound policy or even a sound personal financial policy. Your quip implies decisions based on financial risk, which is just probabilities of a certain category. Given that the market doesn’t insure to hedge against your “tough question”, it suggests (though doesn’t prove) it can’t really answer that question. But if your suggestion and quip wasn’t meant to be thought through and modeled, then carry on. Edit: tl:dr; I’m trying to understand your question beyond vagaries, which you’ve so far refused to clarify. Therefore, nobody can really answer your question.
        mytailorisrich 11mo ago
GeoAtreides 11mo ago
no, the other posters are right, your comment was not only patronising but terrifying in its implications.