Posted by MrSimons

Regardless however, kids aren't something you need to have, if you dont have the time/money you shouldn't have them. Don't get whats not clear about that.

Because you are here..?  

Posted by MrSimons

"families have to take on debt just so they can take care of their kid for the first year of their life." is a rubbish argument; if you work in a job where you are not going to be able to support a kid for a year, don't have a god damn kid.

but but but who's going to have the future minimum wage workers of America? Who's going to do Juan and Tyrone's jobs? Skyler?



I don't think parents should get a year of paid maternity leave, but 1-2 months is good. That should be enough time to bond with a new born.

I don't know about other states, but CA provides a program for paid family leave. Could be used not only for bonding with a newborn, but also if you need to take care of an ill family member.  

Posted by MrSimons

Regardless however, kids aren't something you need to have, if you dont have the time/money you shouldn't have them. Don't get whats not clear about that.

Please excuse me if I'm blowing this way outta proportion but are you implying that only the wealthy have the appropriate means to procreate?  

Posted by 5hift

Please excuse me if I'm blowing this way outta proportion but are you implying that only the wealthy have the appropriate means to procreate?

How dare these peasants think about having kids?




Worse than the homeless in SF having the nerve to live on the streets. What is this world coming too.

http://justink.svbtle.com/open-lette...r-police-chief

damn idiots man. Why find a solution when you can just be a douche about it get yo sh1t together psymon
lol jk  

Posted by 5hift

Please excuse me if I'm blowing this way outta proportion but are you implying that only the wealthy have the appropriate means to procreate?

IDK man, he said it pretty clearly. If you do not have the resources available to support a child, then it's not responsible of you to have that child. That seems pretty reasonable...
I don't think you need to be wealthy to have time and the finances available to feed, cloth, and take care of a child.  

Well I personally think it goes beyond having the necessary resources to support a child.

Biologically speaking, our main purpose is to procreate and pass on our genes so basically saying that people who don't have time nor money shouldn't carry out their basic human instincts.

But then again, could be taking things out of context so don't go by me.  

Posted by 5hift

Biologically speaking, our main purpose is to procreate and pass on our genes so basically saying that people who don't have time nor money shouldn't carry out their basic human instincts.

Well, I'm not even sure if it's a human instinct to reproduce.

The question of whether humans possess a sexual instinct is easily answered by noting that human beings as a species are uniquely capable of choosing not to reproduce. Sure, most of us do engage in reproduction, but we do so by choice, as demonstrated by the millions upon millions who instead choose NOT to reproduce. This is an amazing fact and is proof that we do not possess a sexual instinct like that seen in all other animals.

We are an advanced enough species to make a conscious decision on if we should or shouldn't reproduce. For it to be our instinct would mean that we have some compulsive nature to do it. If someone told me it was their instinct to have a child when they have no job, no time, no future, no way to provide, or anything like that, I'd just see them as irresponsible.  

Posted by MrSimons

Nanny's are an option in which neither parent needs to stay home from work. Regardless however, kids aren't something you need to have, if you dont have the time/money you shouldn't have them. Don't get whats not clear about that.

1. Goat is probably right that a year would be a bit extreme.

2. Nanny's aren't really an option for the first couple months, though after 5 months or so(not a parent, wouldn't know) you'd probably be fine.

3. Most people have kids in their twenties, when they don't really have a super stable job or solid means of decent income(or a large savings account). Having kids in your forties or thirties can be unappealing to some people(besides the fact that fertility starts to decline at age around 30.)

So, why should we force young people who want to have kids when they are young and capable to take on debt? Not saying that it should be a year, but even two months would help.

Plus, that doesn't go by the fact that usually people in their twenties have other loans(car, house, student) that they will also be paying.  

Posted by Areo

1. Goat is probably right that a year would be a bit extreme.

2. Nanny's aren't really an option for the first couple months, though after 5 months or so(not a parent, wouldn't know) you'd probably be fine.

3. Most people have kids in their twenties, when they don't really have a super stable job or solid means of decent income(or a large savings account). Having kids in your forties or thirties can be unappealing to some people(besides the fact that fertility starts to decline at age around 30.)

So, why should we force young people who want to have kids when they are young and capable to take on debt? Not saying that it should be a year, but even two months would help.

Plus, that doesn't go by the fact that usually people in their twenties have other loans(car, house, student) that they will also be paying.

I still think you are missing the point. No one is forcing you to take on debt for having kids, you're doing that to yourself by having kids.

That's like saying that you are being forced to take on debt when you by a house because your job doesn't pay you enough for you to afford a house. If you don't have the funds to do something don't do it; rather than doing it then blaming the system when you go into a lifetime of debt because of your own crappy decision.

3. To be honest, if I was a business owner (the person paying your maternal leave) I don't give a **** if you want to have kids in your twenties. Thats money that'd be coming out of the business I am trying to run because you "need" to have kids now, instead of waiting 10 years when you are financially stable.

1. Why should I, a business owner, have to sacrifice my recourses because you are too impatient to have a kid in 10 years when you can actually afford it?
2. Does just the general idea of having a kid when you are 20 years old, financially instable, and most likely mentally immature honestly sound like a good idea to you? Is that the kind of person we want to be parents, people who can't wait to have kids so they do it anyway when they *should* know they can't afford it?
3. Are you actually sure most people want to have kids in their twenties, because I have never heard of that, I know this is anecdotal but everyone I have met wants kids in their twenties, you know, when they are out of college and have a career lined up.

Posted by 5hift

Please excuse me if I'm blowing this way outta proportion but are you implying that only the wealthy have the appropriate means to procreate?

Not at all, while I can see where you would get that idea that is not what I am saying. For one I don't think you need to be upper class to have the recourses to support a child, I think as long as you are around the 60,000/year range you should have enough money to support a kid in most places in the United States (Metropolis like LA, SF, NYC probably not so much). That would put you right in the center of the middle class.

Also a lot of what it comes down to is how financially adept you are, you can be earning a lot less than 60,000, and end up having more left over at the end of the month than someone earning say, 100,000. And people like that who are good with money, even though they don't earn a lot of it are probably going to end up being more fit to be a parent than those who aren't.

I'm not against poor people having kids, I'm against unstable people having kids.  

Posted by MrSimons

I still think you are missing the point. No one is forcing you to take on debt for having kids, you're doing that to yourself by having kids.

That's like saying that you are being forced to take on debt when you by a house because your job doesn't pay you enough for you to afford a house. If you don't have the funds to do something don't do it; rather than doing it then blaming the system when you go into a lifetime of debt because of your own crappy decision.

3. To be honest, if I was a business owner (the person paying your maternal leave) I don't give a **** if you want to have kids in your twenties. Thats money that'd be coming out of the business I am trying to run because you "need" to have kids now, instead of waiting 10 years when you are financially stable.

1. Why should I, a business owner, have to sacrifice my recourses because you are too impatient to have a kid in 10 years when you can actually afford it?
2. Does just the general idea of having a kid when you are 20 years old, financially instable, and most likely mentally immature honestly sound like a good idea to you? Is that the kind of person we want to be parents, people who can't wait to have kids so they do it anyway when they *should* know they can't afford it?
3. Are you actually sure most people want to have kids in their twenties, because I have never heard of that, I know this is anecdotal but everyone I have met wants kids in their twenties, you know, when they are out of college and have a career lined up.

I didn't miss the point of your previous post, I was more saying that while it is entirely voluntary, the time you actually can do it is limited.

And no, I haven't done any research on when people want to have their kids. More just off personal experience.

Right or wrong, you've given me some food for thought. Thanks for sharing your perspective, not much left for us to debate at this point  

Posted by MrSimons

I still think you are missing the point. No one is forcing you to take on debt for having kids, you're doing that to yourself by having kids.

That's like saying that you are being forced to take on debt when you by a house because your job doesn't pay you enough for you to afford a house. If you don't have the funds to do something don't do it; rather than doing it then blaming the system when you go into a lifetime of debt because of your own crappy decision.

You don't need to make crappy decisions to go into a lifetime of debt. Ask college students in debt. The fact that the US doesn't have any federal mandate on some paid maternity leave is clearly a flaw on the system. FYI the US has many flaws in the system, so it is okay to blame the system in certain cases.

Posted by MrSimons

3. To be honest, if I was a business owner (the person paying your maternal leave) I don't give a **** if you want to have kids in your twenties. Thats money that'd be coming out of the business I am trying to run because you "need" to have kids now, instead of waiting 10 years when you are financially stable.

1. Why should I, a business owner, have to sacrifice my recourses because you are too impatient to have a kid in 10 years when you can actually afford it?
   But what if this has nothing to do with being able to "afford" a kid. Maybe some parents want to have the perk of being able to spend some time with their newborn without having to reach into their savings.
   
   
2. Does just the general idea of having a kid when you are 20 years old, financially instable, and most likely mentally immature honestly sound like a good idea to you? Is that the kind of person we want to be parents, people who can't wait to have kids so they do it anyway when they *should* know they can't afford it?
   
   Those people don't care about paid maternity leave, the government ends up supporting them anyways
   
   
   
3. Are you actually sure most people want to have kids in their twenties, because I have never heard of that, I know this is anecdotal but everyone I have met wants kids in their twenties, you know, when they are out of college and have a career lined up.
   
   
   What? You ask him if he's sure then you validate his point !wat! When people want to have kids is irrelevant what should matter is when they actually have them. Someone might want to start having kids at 30, but hey sh1t happens.
   

Posted by MrSimons

I'm not against poor people having kids, I'm against unstable people having kids.

I'm not an expert here, but I would assume that a majority of low income families ask for government support anyways, so regardless if they have paid maternity leave they will still receive assistance.


FYI being poor would make you unstable financially anyways lol  

Trump has had his own comedy central roast and he shaved Vince McMahon's head. He has my vote!  

Posted by GOAT

but but but who's going to have the future minimum wage workers of America? Who's going to do Juan and Tyrone's jobs? Skyler?
.

Another Juan and Tyrone.

Also trump btfo south carolina. Took all the delegates.

LIGHTS OFF  

So trump is leading in 10/14 upcoming primary state polls.

Honestly I'm not surprised, America has been pretty racist and terrible in the past with stuff like the trail of tears and the Japanese interment camps, so it shouldn't be surprising to see that we haven't gotten away from those roots quite yet despite all the progress that seemingly has been made since.

I'm honestly not worried about trump, I'm worried about the morally regressive nature that his fan base represents, they talk about strength and high energy but the policies they support are based on fear and anger, the exact opposite of what makes this country great. We shouldn't be temporarily banning Muslims from entering the US or attempting to build a massive multi billion dollar wall to keep the Mexicans out (looked how that worked out with China and the Mongolians, lol) that goes against all the progress and lessons we have learned as a country. And don't get me started on the whole anti political correctness thing or people who hate "SJWs". It's basically an attempt to ruin all the equality progress that has been done since MLK. It's just depressing to see all these trump supporters, since they represent all the negatives about this country in a single political movement.

Like Obama said, I truly believe he won't be elected as I feel like we have made enough progress as a country and there are enough kind hearted people (which trump supporters would call weak or low energy) that these racists and bigots won't be able to take it away. This "movement" is the last dying scream of the dark, bigoted past in Americas history to me as the United States gets more and more liberal and progressive, enjoy it while it lasts I guess.  

Trump declared that he is going to change the law giving the right to sue media and make it to you can sue the media if they have been false reporting and you can prove it. The absolute madman. Mark my words, trump will be assassinated by the shadow government now