It appears the system is working

[Jimmy Higgins]

So that both parents can work.

Are you saying that is a right, as in an entitlement?
I want 10 children and a wife that stays at home not working in a career. I also do not want any education, so I demand that minimum wage support this choice.

Have I the right?

What the heck are you on about? You do realize that analogies need to be similar right?

 

[LordKiran]

A reason for holding the hand out doesn't mean it's not out.

So why don't both of you work? Well we can't afford to both have jobs.

#Americandream

The best part is that all government programs can be classified as a 'hand out' by LP's logic...Y'know unless LP can personally vouch for the program...like combating terrorism! Why should I have to pay for your personal safety against radical terrorists? Buy a gun and defend yourself LP, quit relying on my stolen taxdollars to pay for your defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So why don't both of you work? Well we can't afford to both have jobs.

#Americandream

The best part is that all government programs can be classified as a 'hand out' by LP's logic...Y'know unless LP can personally vouch for the program...like combating terrorism! Why should I have to pay for your personal safety against radical terrorists? Buy a gun and defend yourself LP, quit relying on my stolen taxdollars to pay for your defense.

1) You're mixing up general welfare things with personal things.

2) I'm not opposed to all handouts. I am opposed to pretending welfare isn't welfare.

 

[RavenSky]

How do you know what daycare costs the average American? I suspect you've put zero thought into this assertion. Further, the reason you accrue insults is because you aggravate people with your insulting ignorance.

Just look at this thread--non-skilled women can't afford to work because of the cost of the child care. If working produces less income than the cost of the childcare to let you work isn't it obvious that taking care of the children is the best use of their time?

Of course, you are also the first to scream and yell about a single mother being on welfare, too.

So you don't want free/subsidized child care or schools; and you don't want tax dollars to support the mom to stay home with her children.

What exactly DO you want Loren?

 

[laughing dog]

How do you know what daycare costs the average American? I suspect you've put zero thought into this assertion. Further, the reason you accrue insults is because you aggravate people with your insulting ignorance.

Just look at this thread--non-skilled women can't afford to work because of the cost of the child care. If working produces less income than the cost of the childcare to let you work isn't it obvious that taking care of the children is the best use of their time?

It would be obvious in the case where
1) there is adequate income provision for the household, and
2) that future work and career prospects are path independent from currently not working, and
3) there are no social or psychological benefits from people working.

If any one of those conditions are valid, then it is not obvious at all.

 

[LordKiran]

The best part is that all government programs can be classified as a 'hand out' by LP's logic...Y'know unless LP can personally vouch for the program...like combating terrorism! Why should I have to pay for your personal safety against radical terrorists? Buy a gun and defend yourself LP, quit relying on my stolen taxdollars to pay for your defense.

1) You're mixing up general welfare things with personal things. [1]

2) I'm not opposed to all handouts. I am opposed to pretending welfare isn't welfare. [2]

1. Obfuscation via wordplay at its finest...People with children are a part of society and the general public last time I checked...so this isn't really a rebuttal. Again, why do you get to ask for a hand out for your personal defense, but I can't ask for one when I want someone to take care of my kids so I can work?

2. You choose to call it a hand-out as if that in itself makes it wrong, or not worth implementing. Don't play coy now, LP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just look at this thread--non-skilled women can't afford to work because of the cost of the child care. If working produces less income than the cost of the childcare to let you work isn't it obvious that taking care of the children is the best use of their time?

Of course, you are also the first to scream and yell about a single mother being on welfare, too.

So you don't want free/subsidized child care or schools; and you don't want tax dollars to support the mom to stay home with her children.

What exactly DO you want Loren?

I said that in the current situation we need to provide public schools.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children. You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You're mixing up general welfare things with personal things. [1]

2) I'm not opposed to all handouts. I am opposed to pretending welfare isn't welfare. [2]

1. Obfuscation via wordplay at its finest...People with children are a part of society and the general public last time I checked...so this isn't really a rebuttal. Again, why do you get to ask for a hand out for your personal defense, but I can't ask for one when I want someone to take care of my kids so I can work?

2. You choose to call it a hand-out as if that in itself makes it wrong, or not worth implementing. Don't play coy now, LP.

I have a problem with handouts for those who are not poor.

 

[RavenSky]

Of course, you are also the first to scream and yell about a single mother being on welfare, too.

So you don't want free/subsidized child care or schools; and you don't want tax dollars to support the mom to stay home with her children.

What exactly DO you want Loren?

I said that in the current situation we need to provide public schools.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children.

Really? You have a crystal ball to foretell ever possible future for her?

 

[laughing dog]

I said that in the current situation we need to provide public schools.

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children.

Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

 

[LordKiran]

1. Obfuscation via wordplay at its finest...People with children are a part of society and the general public last time I checked...so this isn't really a rebuttal. Again, why do you get to ask for a hand out for your personal defense, but I can't ask for one when I want someone to take care of my kids so I can work?

2. You choose to call it a hand-out as if that in itself makes it wrong, or not worth implementing. Don't play coy now, LP.

I have a problem with handouts for those who are not poor.

Why are handouts acceptable for you but not for others? I'll ask as often and for as long as I need to until I get an answer that addresses the logical dissonance your general viewpoints and assertions here create.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, you are also the first to scream and yell about a single mother being on welfare, too.

So you don't want free/subsidized child care or schools; and you don't want tax dollars to support the mom to stay home with her children.

What exactly DO you want Loren?

I said that in the current situation we need to provide public schools.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children. You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

So to LP, "responsibility" means a mother now must just plan to marry someone rich enough so that the parents can either afford to:
1) lose her income when she stays home
2) be able to afford daycare so she can go back to work after having a child.

Marrying a non-skilled male is not​ an option and is simply irresponsible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children.

Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

Willful blindness isn't good behavior.

Responsibility.

 

[Malintent]

Are you saying that is a right, as in an entitlement?
I want 10 children and a wife that stays at home not working in a career. I also do not want any education, so I demand that minimum wage support this choice.

Have I the right?

What the heck are you on about? You do realize that analogies need to be similar right?

I'm on about the question of how many of your kids daycare I should be expected to help you pay for. 1, 2,.. 100?
I was not making an analogy, I was asking what the limits of your entitlements are, in your opinion... or if they are in any way limited (as my example -not analogy- alluded to).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What the heck are you on about? You do realize that analogies need to be similar right?

I'm on about the question of how many of your kids daycare I should be expected to help you pay for. 1, 2,.. 100?

So, you want to commit Fallacy a la Hyperbole. I was more referring to typical real world conditions, not so partisan fan-fiction developed to try and derail a train of thought. Most Americans don't have 10 kids.

- - - Updated - - -

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.
Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

Willful blindness isn't good behavior.

Responsibility.

Pathetic. You can't see the world beyond your own bubble.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm on about the question of how many of your kids daycare I should be expected to help you pay for. 1, 2,.. 100?

So, you want to commit Fallacy a la Hyperbole. I was more referring to typical real world conditions, not so partisan fan-fiction developed to try and derail a train of thought. Most Americans don't have 10 kids.

- - - Updated - - -

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.
Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

Willful blindness isn't good behavior.

Responsibility.

Pathetic. You can't see the world beyond your own bubble.

You shouldn't misuse words like 'pathetic' because it takes the punch out of the word when used more appropriately.

For an idea of what pathetic looks like, here's a compilation video with an entry that showcases a bunch of pathetic thirsty guys singing happy birthday to a girl they don't know.

the entry I speak of starts at around 5:30

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/VNpODDzMems?t=330[/YOUTUBE]

 

[RavenSky]

I said that in the current situation we need to provide public schools.

And what I want is for her to be more careful about her financial situation before having children.

Really? You have a crystal ball to foretell ever possible future for her?

Loren, you skipped this question.

To ask it a different way - how do you know she wasn't "careful about her financial situation before having children"? Shit happens. Most of it is actually beyond our control.

So again, what exactly DO you want Loren?

 

[laughing dog]

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.
Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

Willful blindness isn't good behavior.

No it is not. And you willfully ignored half of the content of my post.

Responsibility.

Responsibility is not anathema to the "left".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? You have a crystal ball to foretell ever possible future for her?

Loren, you skipped this question.

To ask it a different way - how do you know she wasn't "careful about her financial situation before having children"? Shit happens. Most of it is actually beyond our control.

So again, what exactly DO you want Loren?

It was a stupid question. Most of the time it's not because things went horribly wrong in life.

- - - Updated - - -

But you also say schools cannot really help with poverty and poor homes.
Why do you assume she wasn't careful or irresponsible? Her partner could be dead or gone. Maybe she inherited the children from her dead sibling.

And, of course, none of that is relevant to the issue of the welfare of the children.

You know, that R word that's anathema to the left.

Reactionary or reprehensible?

Willful blindness isn't good behavior.

No it is not. And you willfully ignored half of the content of my post.

Responsibility.

Responsibility is not anathema to the "left".

When it's applied to individuals, it is. The left thinks it only applies to business.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When it's applied to individuals, it is. The left thinks it only applies to business.

The fuck it is.