|
Solice Kirsk posted:Maybe the solution is just keeping poor people from having children. We always say there's too many poor people, so maybe we can unbreed them out? A few generations and they'll all be dead, in jail, or have bettered themselves. I'll start drafting the paperwork, you guys call our congressmen. I was going to say this but I thought it would be too unpopular even though I'm pretty sure I've said it in the past.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
We could call it A Humble Idea or A Basic Plan. Nah, there's gotta be something better...something more modest sounding...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
I'll raise a kid for way less than $400 a month. Call it $350 a head and I'll raise all your kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Maybe eliminate poverty so no one has a hard time paying child support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Of course it is. But the fact that someone will be working poor shouldn't give them the right to pass their childcare expenses to somebody who's no better off. Far and away, the most common situation is that dad makes more than the mom who has custody. The solution has already been proposed. Increase taxes on the rich to help the poor. Execute all republicans and riff raff. De-annex the South and institute full communism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Sunswipe posted:Any father who doesn't support his children should be castrated with a pair of bricks. -let men opt out of child support. -those that opt out get hunted down and burned for fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
What about Tiger Woods losing like 100 million for his divorce on top of child support? Does she really need all that? Why doesn't 20 million suffice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Don't get married if you don't want to lose half, it's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Get a pre-nup even if you're poor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:As for "opt out" i think its hosed up a teenager can sex another teenager with all precautions in place and one teenager can unilaterally make a decision for the rest of both their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Yeah. This is similar to how everyone has to accept responsibility for the crimes of the USA. You participated in their capitalist system, you helped their wars with complacency if nothing else, and now terrorism and global warming are making you pay. You did the thing, you are responsible. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Thanks to so much exposure to American culture I've begun to instinctively roll my eyes when I hear the word freedom, to the point where I rolled my eyes when I heard "they took our freedoms" in the new Wolfenstein trailer, dam it america it was a perfectly fine word stop overusing it so dam much. e; meant for the pet peeve thread but whatever, my opinion is Americans use the word freedom too much and it sounds dumb. Tarantula has a new favorite as of 05:44 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Also that is a gross article that minimizes the plight of the poor. gently caress Forbes. That article is the written equivalent of '95% of "poor" households own a refrigerator'. It's truly a pile of poo poo and the author should be guillotined.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Brainworm posted:Of course it is. But the fact that someone will be working poor shouldn't give them the right to pass their childcare expenses to somebody who's no better off. Far and away, the most common situation is that dad makes more than the mom who has custody. There aren't good answers, unfortunately. There's also the snag that there's a bit of a gender double-standard on it; a woman who gets pregnant accidentally but doesn't want an abortion can absolve herself of all responsibility to the child easily. She can put it up for adoption, let the dad just take it, hand it off to family...she has options to get out. The abortion is of course always an option. The father doesn't have that option. If she carries it to term and keeps it she can force him to bear part of the burden whether he likes it or not. She has a choice; he does not. It's worth noting that it takes two to gently caress. Whether we like it or not things like sabotaged birth control happens. Where I'm originally from (an area that is unimaginably white trash poverty as gently caress) that's one of the most common ways for a marriage to start and there are women that will have children to five different guys to force them to pay her child support so she can not have to have a job. The tragedy there is that that's sometimes the only way to survive given how wretched the job market is there. The end result is guys working two jobs, living with their parents because they can't afford the payments, all sorts of awfulness. In a lot of cases you're placing a massive financial burden on two people where neither can afford it. Now, it's also easier for a woman to get WIC, subsidized housing (varies by state), and food stamps. Dad gets "gently caress you, pay up" and judges that won't even necessarily enforce his visitation. Despite all of it you end up with children growing up in horrible, awful poverty with no way out. There is only so much money you can get if it's a situation where everybody involved is living in poverty. It's damned difficult for children to escape that; it often leads to them perpetuating the cycle. If no money comes from external sources no amount of "make dad pay" can do that if he doesn't have a way to get money. Trust me; the job markets in those sorts of areas are so dreadfully terrible he probably can't. Before you say "but that never happens!!!" I lived that poo poo growing up and saw it happen to far too many men. It's getting better but it can be extremely one-sided and there just plain aren't good ways to deal with it. Dad is making minimum wage? If you take money from him he may very well end up not making rent. What good does that do his kids? It also isn't automatically just a dead beat being irresponsible; dude loses a job and...then what? His payments don't magically stop and his children still need the money. The situation is hosed in a hell of a lot of ways. It's also depressingly common that even parents who are still together can't afford to take care of their children properly. Dad making more than mom, together or not, custody or not, doesn't automatically mean he's making enough. It's a lovely situation for everybody involved no matter which way you slice it. "But what will the children do?!??!?!?" is trying to simplify the problem. If dad has no money how can you take from dad to give to mom? What do you do if dad loses his job, gets his pay cut, or gets in an accident? There have been cases of a guy becoming disabled, the judge going "nah gently caress you dude keep paying," then the guy going to jail because...well he's disabled. What can he do? The best solution would be mincome, a strong social safety net, or just handing whoever the children live with money; however much it would take. You know, actual loving functional social programs. The problem is that $400 a month can be absolutely devastating to somebody. How can somebody that makes $9,000 a year afford $4,800 in child support? They can't. No amount of "but but but think of the children!!!!!" can undo the math of the situation. Yeah, it loving sucks but that's the truth of the situation. If mom has even less money then...well holy gently caress nuts we have a dreadful situation where somebody (probably mom and the children, all told) is going to end up among the ranks of the homeless/effectively homeless. Maybe they'll squeak by on welfare or live with grandparents or something. Conversations like this very frequently underestimate the crushing, horrifying poverty that some Americans live in. This is especially true in areas where the poverty is horrendous. Stories like this play out all the time in the rust belt and the results are rarely pretty. ToxicSlurpee has a new favorite as of 06:52 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The baby is a consequence of both of their actions though. It's not like it's some random boy just being handed a baby for no reason. The baby exists and has to be taken care of, and the boy is partly responsible for its existence. If you throw a ball and break a window, you'll probably have to pay for its replacement. You can't say "it's my friend's fault for not catching it" or "I wasn't aiming at the window so it's not my fault". You did a thing, there was a consequence, now you have to deal with it. The difference is that the woman can choose whether she's going to replace the window or not, while the man is stuck paying half the bill from whatever fancy contractor she decided to go with and he doesn't want to live in that house anyway. fruit on the bottom posted:-let men opt out of child support. Any society that believes man's only value is to provide financially for children is circling the drain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Tarantula posted:Thanks to so much exposure to American culture I've begun to instinctively roll my eyes when I hear the word freedom, to the point where I rolled my eyes when I heard "they took our freedoms" in the new Wolfenstein trailer, dam it america it was a perfectly fine word stop overusing it so dam much. We deploy the word as a smokescreen when trying to justify taking away freedoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There aren't good answers, unfortunately. There's also the snag that there's a bit of a gender double-standard on it; a woman who gets pregnant accidentally but doesn't want an abortion can absolve herself of all responsibility to the child easily. She can put it up for adoption, let the dad just take it, hand it off to family...she has options to get out. The abortion is of course always an option. The father doesn't have that option. If she carries it to term and keeps it she can force him to bear part of the burden whether he likes it or not. She has a choice; he does not. It's worth noting that it takes two to gently caress. Whether we like it or not things like sabotaged birth control happens. Where I'm originally from (an area that is unimaginably white trash poverty as gently caress) that's one of the most common ways for a marriage to start and there are women that will have children to five different guys to force them to pay her child support so she can not have to have a job. The tragedy there is that that's sometimes the only way to survive given how wretched the job market is there. A good loving post
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:The baby is a consequence of both of their actions though. It's not like it's some random boy just being handed a baby for no reason. The baby exists and has to be taken care of, and the boy is partly responsible for its existence. If you throw a ball and break a window, you'll probably have to pay for its replacement. You can't say "it's my friend's fault for not catching it" or "I wasn't aiming at the window so it's not my fault". You did a thing, there was a consequence, now you have to deal with it. See sassasins response with the contractor. Im not saying men should be able to dodgr on month 7 of 9 as a convenience im talking they are both poor, young, and in no placw ro have a kid. Boy is like "omg plan B or abortion, this is terrible", girl is like " oh its mah little angel" and refuses. gently caress that. The boy was trying to do the moral and responsible thing and shouldnt be on the hook for the womans compounding bad decision. As others have said, create better safety nets and remove the stigma on abortion and birth control snd the world will literally becomr a better place. Im seriously to the point where i openly call pro life people pieces of poo poo because of how flippantly they are willing to trest their fellow citizens because of their dumbass faith. Also after the GA special election, just want to reiterate that republicans are massive pieces of poo poo. Holy crap how can you vote for these chodes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:See sassasins response with the contractor. Im not saying men should be able to dodgr on month 7 of 9 as a convenience im talking they are both poor, young, and in no placw ro have a kid. Boy is like "omg plan B or abortion, this is terrible", girl is like " oh its mah little angel" and refuses. gently caress that. The boy was trying to do the moral and responsible thing and shouldnt be on the hook for the womans compounding bad decision. It's unfair, but in these situations Boy needs to talk about plans for "what do if get pregnant" before having sex with girl. Sex is a big responsibility and you can't just go "Welp, I told her to get an abortion, don't come after me for money!" Like, I know you think it's so simple for the dude to just cut himself free, but you really loving can't allow that. Your ideal world is filled with poor single mothers. WampaLord has a new favorite as of 13:05 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's unfair, but in these situations Boy needs to talk about plans for "what do if get pregnant" before having sex with girl. Sex is a big responsibility and you can't just go "Welp, I told her to get an abortion, don't come after me for money!" They are poor single mothers becsuse they failed to act responsibly when they were in those early stages. Not all of course, but hoe many poor single mothers are there becsuse if thr stigma about being pregnant, abortion, and birth control? What if boy wants baby and woman is responsible and says no? She, rightfully, gets the say on her body. It is up to her to do the right thing, and boy shouldnt be on the hook forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's unfair, but in these situations Boy needs to talk about plans for "what do if get pregnant" before having sex with girl. While Girl has options and time to think them over when she's not drunk & horny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
An adult game carries adult consequences. There's no do-over for a lot of life's big problems and saying, "How come she gets to decide?!" is a little kid's response. It's like one of the only thing women have total agency over. Man up and take responsibility for your dick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
sassassin posted:While Girl has options and time to think them over when she's not drunk & horny. That's life. Like biology is unfair here, so yea, it sucks, but dudes have to be extra careful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's life. Like biology is unfair here, so yea, it sucks, but dudes have to be extra careful. Biology is unfair to women. The State punishes men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:If you throw a ball and break a window, you'll probably have to pay for its replacement. You can't say "it's my friend's fault for not catching it" or "I wasn't aiming at the window so it's not my fault". You did a thing, there was a consequence, now you have to deal with it. This is kind of a conservative/Republican thing to say, don't you think? Like, if you made this kind of argument in D&D about almost any other political subject, you'd get crucified. And then you'd get a thousand lectures about how everybody is actually a victim of society/circumstance, etc. . . Edit: I don't think people in this thread actually have a consistent ideology regarding personal responsibility--I think that people are mostly just making an ends-justify-the-means type argument for the policy. Although people don't outright say the following and would prefer to obfuscate their reasoning with bogus appeals to universal principles, I think most people's reasoning for supporting the policy is more like: "Women, who are an oppressed class, benefit from the policy, therefore it is a good policy." silence_kit has a new favorite as of 13:49 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:An adult game carries adult consequences. There's no do-over for a lot of life's big problems and saying, "How come she gets to decide?!" is a little kid's response. It's like one of the only thing women have total agency over. Man up and take responsibility for your dick. Woman up and take responsibility for your perky boobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is kind of a conservative/Republican thing to say, don't you think? Like, if you made this kind of argument in D&D about almost any other political subject, you'd get crucified. And then you'd get a thousand lectures about how everybody is actually a victim of society/circumstance, etc. . . Why does it have to be political? It's basic logic. Also it's not like D&D is full of wise rational people. They will "crucify" you for pretty much everything that isn't 100% in lockstep with the hivemind's list of Approved Opinions. The general rule I follow is that if something I think would get me flamed in D&D I'm probably right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Why does it have to be political? It's basic logic. "Basic logic" is "common sense", "sensible solutions", usually just-world logical fallacies that are insanely reductive and don't actually work in any given situation. Which conservative/right-wing parties thrive on. To actually understand and fix problems in the world you need to go beyond easily-digestible, inoffensive vote-winning mantras. Basic logic is for kids and people who never have to actually face the issues they think they've got all the answers to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's unfair, but in these situations Boy needs to talk about plans for "what do if get pregnant" before having sex with girl. Sex is a big responsibility and you can't just go "Welp, I told her to get an abortion, don't come after me for money!" Good thing teenagers are constantly watching homosexual propaganda and porn, and are obsessed with anal sex. Hopefully, with time, these kind of problems will be much reduced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's life. Like biology is unfair here, so yea, it sucks, but dudes have to be extra careful. The problem is that even if they are, they still get screwed majorly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Why does it have to be political? It's basic logic. Everything is political if it effects other people
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
sassassin posted:"Basic logic" is "common sense", "sensible solutions", usually just-world logical fallacies that are insanely reductive and don't actually work in any given situation. Which conservative/right-wing parties thrive on. Are we seriously at the point where the left believes actions don't have consequences anymore? Tiggum's post was that if you break something, you are responsible for paying for it. How is that controversial or political at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:And then you'd get a thousand lectures about how everybody is actually a victim of society/circumstance, etc. . . Feeling threatened by this idea is a sign of weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Are we seriously at the point where the left believes actions don't have consequences anymore? Tiggum's post was that if you break something, you are responsible for paying for it. How is that controversial or political at all? Because Tiggum's broken window was an analogy for two people having sex and someone getting pregnant. That's not a straightforward "you broke it so pay to get it fixed" scenario. A child is not a broken window.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Are we seriously at the point where the left believes actions don't have consequences anymore? Tiggum's post was that if you break something, you are responsible for paying for it. How is that controversial or political at all? Where does an action begin? Was it born out of the void with no prior events or actions leading to said action? If not, where does that chain of responsibility begin or end?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Where does an action begin? Was it born out of the void with no prior events or actions leading to said action? If not, where does that chain of responsibility begin or end? It's of course not always as simple as Action A gets Consequence B in a vacuum. Even in the case when you're action is a justifiable reaction to something else, you still have to accept responsibility for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Going by how things worked out with my half brother, there's zero consequence to not paying child support. Even if you take it to court. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:Feeling threatened by this idea is a sign of weakness. Of course everybody is a product of their environment to some degree--I'm not arguing with that. I actually appeal to that idea in an earlier post in this thread: silence_kit posted:A lot of the racist ideology of poor whites though was kind of introduced to them from the wealthy classes, who found it beneficial to pit black people and poor white people against each other. Obviously this doesn't absolve poor white people of being racist, but usually on this message board when we talk about disadvantaged groups we tend to not judge them as harshly and we tend to be a little more willing to (correctly, IMO) attribute negative attitudes and traits of the groups to them being victims of society. I'm just pointing out that I suspect posters in this thread would not be giving these lectures about personal responsibility if an oppressed group were not the beneficiary of the policy. I suspect that the main reason for supporting these kinds of policies is not derived from a strong and consistently-held belief in personal responsibility. The main reason is that the policy props up an oppressed group of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
The State needs to take a more active and hands-on role. Because all people are property of The State, and it has a duty to strengthen its citizens and thus itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:It's of course not always as simple as Action A gets Consequence B in a vacuum. Even in the case when you're action is a justifiable reaction to something else, you still have to accept responsibility for it. In many, many areas of law people don't have to accept the same responsibility for their actions when those actions have been decided to be justified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2017 14:21
|
|