|
Maybe if you can't afford time off to have a kid you shouldn't, you know, have one? Edit: There's ways to fix unwanted or unplanned pregnancies besides carrying a kid to term and then getting months off of work though right? Solice Kirsk fucked around with this message at 01:46 on May 12, 2015 |
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Maybe if you can't afford time off to have a kid you shouldn't, you know, have one? Yeah cause that's how it always works out. Every child is always intentional and totally on purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Maybe if you can't afford time off to have a kid you shouldn't, you know, have one? There are also reasons besides being pro-life to not want either of those things. Making having kids a privilege of high income earning families can't go wrong at all, either.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
I just think that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Like I haven't gone out and bought a Porsche because I can't afford one. Maybe if everyone chips in I can have a Porsche.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I just think that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Like I haven't gone out and bought a Porsche because I can't afford one. Maybe if everyone chips in I can have a Porsche. You don't really get reality do you
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Once I was having sex and the condom broke and 9 months later I had a Porsche and I tried to return it, but there was a 72 hour waiting period and the only dealership was halfway across the state and when I got there it was being picketed by religious fanatics and I didn't have $1,000 to pay for it anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
So what you're saying is that your company and/or tax payers should pay for the first 2 months of payments on it right? I agree. Let's get this show in the road!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Slamhound posted:Once I was having sex and the condom broke and 9 months later I had a Porsche and I tried to return it, but there was a 72 hour waiting period and the only dealership was halfway across the state and when I got there it was being picketed by religious fanatics and I didn't have $1,000 to pay for it anyway. You should have just taken it to one of those Mexican chop shops.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
I asked my friend who is a midwife what the doughnut pillow was for. Nope. Not having kids. Nope nope nope.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:So what you're saying is that your company and/or tax payers should pay for the first 2 months of payments on it right? I agree. Let's get this show in the road!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I asked my friend who is a midwife what the doughnut pillow was for. The idea that your vagina might be sore after passing a child through it is a surprise to you?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
No poo poo but she discussed ...tearing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Ask her about the "daddy stitch."
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Just say something completely absurd in a modern day america that has a logical basis and then boom you're Irish Joe it's easy watch. If you plan on having kids you really should have 3 months of savings so you can take time off. Hell you should have that before even having kids why should a business support that?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Just say something completely absurd in a modern day america that has a logical basis and then boom you're Irish Joe it's easy watch. Why do you think every other country but Papua New Guinea does it differently? Honest question.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:19
|
|
Tater Love 
|
zakharov posted:Why do you think every other country but Papua New Guinea does it differently? Honest question. They don't celebrate freedom like we do. Problem is this also gives us the freedom to make poor decisions. We help the children and the old who become incompetent to do these things but a family should know better than to go into a pregnancy without ample savings to support it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Ask her about the "daddy stitch." Or about the likelihood of going #2 during the delivery.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
In my opinion, we have a bigger problem than paid parental leave in this country, which is getting the federally mandated *unpaid* parental leave without career retaliation.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Bob Balaban posted:Thanks #JohnOliver for including me. I'm not exactly sure what happened. Or what it means. But it was fun. I think.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Having kids is vital to our growth as a country, it's not rocket science or anything. It's not even that big of a deal to these companies, they're just big babies about any sort of regulations. I guess this is just another example of how the corporate system seeks to grind away at humanity in the misplaced quest for efficiency.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I really hope that was peak mascot and the show steps down from Fallon territory going forward. A second of novelty to leaven the heavy material has now slipped into equal time for the monologue and the mascots. At this rate season three will just be Web Soup with a bit of political commentary going on behind the credits.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Maybe if you can't afford time off to have a kid you shouldn't, you know, have one? The children you so obivously don't want to support via taxes are the ones who will be paying for the public services you use when you're old and can't work anymore. How loving hard is it to consider the long-term perspective in this matter? Solice Kirsk posted:I just think that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them. Like I haven't gone out and bought a Porsche because I can't afford one. Maybe if everyone chips in I can have a Porsche. Solice Kirsk posted:So what you're saying is that your company and/or tax payers should pay for the first 2 months of payments on it right? I agree. Let's get this show in the road! I was thinking more like 18 months.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:The children you so obivously don't want to support via taxes are the ones who will be paying for the public services you use when you're old and can't work anymore. How loving hard is it to consider the long-term perspective in this matter? This and a lot of the other arguments in this thread are predicated on the basis that we need people to be having more kids. It's less about not wanting to support them and more about not being able to support all of them at a certain point. Sure we will need them in a few decades, because there are going to be more of us than expected alive as elderly folks, but then if we support growth now they'll have an ever greater struggle when they get old. The simple structure of the inverse population pyramid we're building suggests this, not even considering that the Western bubble will burst eventually. The long-term perspective on the matter suggests much bigger problems. That being said, if we're going to be supporting anyone new parents are a good choice. While we're talking about foundations, getting in while things are starting can only help prevent public service abuse before it starts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Viginti posted:I really hope that was peak mascot and the show steps down from Fallon territory going forward. A second of novelty to leaven the heavy material has now slipped into equal time for the monologue and the mascots. At this rate season three will just be Web Soup with a bit of political commentary going on behind the credits. Jesus Christ just watch Frontline if you want to feel misery.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Maybe using an economic standard of argument is a distraction from the fact that just being a humanitarian society should be enough to argue in favor of this. I get that it's not as persuasive in terms of dollars and cents, and that there are large sections of society that only view policy value in terms of that, but sometimes it just feels like it's trying to quantify something that should be a moral/social issue about the value of preventing needless human suffering.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 11:51
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Maybe using an economic standard of argument is a distraction from the fact that just being a humanitarian society should be enough to argue in favor of this. I get that it's not as persuasive in terms of dollars and cents, and that there are large sections of society that only view policy value in terms of that, but sometimes it just feels like it's trying to quantify something that should be a moral/social issue about the value of preventing needless human suffering. Get a load of this commie.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
We really don't have a problem with needing "more taxpayers" We need to get the restrictions off abortion and find more ways of seizing pay from fathers who don't pay child support. Children are very expensive and demand a lot of resources so they should be planned. This is not what happens though. We would be better off funding more after school programs or subsiding child care.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:Maybe using an economic standard of argument is a distraction from the fact that just being a humanitarian society should be enough to argue in favor of this. It depends on how you define humanitarian. Many would argue that freedom and independence (as opposed to dependence on government assistance) is more humanitarian because it better supports the innate dignity of man. The government needing to step in and pay for somebody's care presupposes that they're both helpless and incapable of caring for themselves, like children. Do you really think its better to live in a society where you, as an adult, are perceived as being like a child your entire life?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:It depends on how you define humanitarian. Many would argue that freedom and independence (as opposed to dependence on government assistance) is more humanitarian because it better supports the innate dignity of man. The government needing to step in and pay for somebody's care presupposes that they're both helpless and incapable of caring for themselves, like children. Do you really think its better to live in a society where you, as an adult, are perceived as being like a child your entire life? hell yeah
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Holy crap. I am speaking the words but I also want to  I sort of agree with Irish Joe.If you can't even afford a month without pay, then how the hell are you going to afford diapers, school supplies, clothes etc. for 18+ years? We live in a reality where having a baby is A CHOICE. There is absolutely no doubt that it is a CHOICE. I'm a girl as well, and I've been screwed over by other chicks taking absurd amounts of leave and making me do more work. I accept that as the price of doing business, but I do NOT accept them getting PAID for it while I do their job as well as mine, because they made a conscious choice. I support a system where they should have that choice, so they should get paid leave for 2 weeks - a month depending on medical circumstance, and up to 12 weeks of having their job guaranteed so that they can be happy and healthy and come back to work without worry. And none of that should count against sick days/vacation (which are generally the same thing at every place I've ever worked). The husbands/fathers should get the same deal without the 2 weeks+ paid part, but they should be able to go home and not get paid and still get their job back without worry. But anything more than that?? I'm completely against. I don't need miniature future people to pay for my retirement, because I scrimped and saved like people should. (Shut up about bootstraps bootstraps. It's entirely possible, barring a really terrible childhood where you are just screwed from the get-go, and that's an entirely different issue) I guess it comes down to.. do we NEED more people on Earth, and my answer is a complete NO, so why encourage it at the expense of those currently living?? Your kid, helps me in ZERO WAYS. Why should I pay for it? If you're my friend, I might help you out with money or something, but a stranger's kid? F that kid. I don't care at all. I don't think this is a troll question at all!! Deadly serious  Pick apart my post like I'm some kind of crazy person if you want.. but just explain to me why I should personally care about "other people" having babies and getting paid for it? It's not even good for "the earth" in a general sense, so what possible argument could you have?This is just one segment where I 100% disagree with Oliver.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:But anything more than that?? I'm completely against. I don't need miniature future people to pay for my retirement, because I scrimped and saved like people should. (Shut up about bootstraps bootstraps. It's entirely possible, barring a really terrible childhood where you are just screwed from the get-go, and that's an entirely different issue) I addressed the gently caress you got mine position a couple pages ago: IRQ posted:This is actually somewhat understandable when you consider how little time off we get in this shithole of a country. If we had reasonable workdays and time off you probably wouldn't see that position expressed so often, but this is ARE CUNTRY so a horrible injury or illness getting you out of work is practically a vacation. Basically I'll give you a horrible monster mulligan on this one because the labor force really is hosed over here, and it's hard to have things like "empathy for others" when the last time you had a weekday off was because you were spouting dubious fluids from one or more holes. Hows about we make things better for everyone, babby, babby momma, babby daddy, and people who will never have kids. How about that craaaaazy idea?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I addressed the gently caress you got mine position a couple pages ago: I just read like 5 pages in a row. If you could reiterate, I would be appreciative. Why should I, personally, want people to get more leave for choosing to have babies when it only effects me negatively? I can't think of any argument that makes any sense to me. People will procreate no matter what, under any conditions, so it's not like humans are going to die out. Without paid leave, it will just skew towards poorer people without access to B.C. who do it on accident. I'd much rather that every kid was born on purpose, but it has no impact on me whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:I just read like 5 pages in a row. If you could reiterate, I would be appreciative. Why should I, personally, want people to get more leave for choosing to have babies when it only effects me negatively? Why does it have to effect you negatively? You should have better time off too.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Why does it have to effect you negatively? You should have better time off too. I got lucky and had 3 weeks at my last job (which is pretty suck in general, but good for the USA), but it's not about my time off. It's about taking up the slack for people who are not there for a long time, but have their job guaranteed when they come back, I DID get a really awesome and expensive chair out of the deal one time. (She took her time off and then never came back at all and quit)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Lots of people talking about how it's a choice when it just happens to be a choice that can't happen to them physically.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
I don't see how it's my responsibility to pay for women to have babies - A bunch of supposedly liberal male posters and Irish Joe
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I don't see how it's my responsibility to pay for women to have babies - A bunch of supposedly liberal male posters and Irish Joe I think the only one not trolling is a lady actually. Go figure?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Holy crap. I am speaking the words but I also want to If you're worried that people will breed like rabbits because the government pays them to have children you can totally relax about that one. Over here in Europe we have downright ridiculous amount of paid leave by U.S. standards, and most of our populations would be shrinking if it wasn't for immigration. Hell, where I live, in Norway, you don't even have to have a job! Our government will literally give unemployed women a lump sum of about 5,000 $ just to poo poo out a kid! And even with all this, we still have tons of assholes who think that we need to close our borders NOW, or we'll be a sharia coutry in 50 years since "Norwegian" (i.e. white) people are barely having babies!
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Holy crap. I am speaking the words but I also want to Old people benefit me in ZERO WAYS. Why should I pay to keep them alive so far beyond their useful lifespan? If it was my grandparents, I might spend a little to make them more comfortable, but some random geezer? F that guy. I don't care at all. Personally, I think we should just euthanize everyone on Medicare and be done with it. Save the taxpayers a couple hundred billion dollars every year.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Holy crap. I am speaking the words but I also want to To play devils advocate, it is both a choice to HAVE kids, and a choice to NOT have kids. You can't fault people for using a program offered to them if you, conversely, decide not to use the same program. It is the same general argument you can make whenever someone complains about their tax money going towards schools. "I don't have kids, why am I paying for other people's kids"; society's number one responsibility should be towards the future of that society. Otherwise, its all just Children of Men. Birth rates are in a total decline in countries that have full paid birthing leave anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 16:50
|
|