Odd, these French

[Orwell]

And if the government decides that brushing your teeth and flossing and exercising regularly and rinsing fruits before eating them and not sitting too close to the television and staying abreast of current events and voting on election day are good long-term policies, should it enact laws to enforce them?

And while it may be a good long-term policy to encourage women to have kids (that's part of the reason you get a tax exemption for each kid in this country) and be around them during some very important developmental years, is it not also a good long-term policy to encourage mothers to avoid having children they can't afford, and to encourage them to avoid deliberately engaging in actions that will have them sucking at the collective teats of the rest of the taxpayers?

Or is making and rearing children such an unalloyed good that it is worth whatever it costs a society? In which case, shouldn't the government force people to have children, like it or else?

Slippery slope fallacy.

Many European countries (and Canada) have parental leave policies more generous than those of the US, and none have instituted those kinds of things.

 

[Orwell]

Not being able to afford a child is not responsible. Asking me to contribute, against my will, is not responsible.

Your government already asks you to "contribute" to a lot of useless things. Extended unpaid parental leave like that enjoyed in Canada and Europe, would almost certainly be more useful than missile defence and a few extra airplane carriers.

But hey, what do I care! It's up to you. You decide what's important. I just don't share your values.

 

[BPSCG]

I started this line of reasoning because I was pointing out the contradictions of the "family values" crowd. Last time I checked, the family values crowd doesn't like immigration much.

Could you please tell us where and when you checked? 'Cuz that doesn't sound like many of the members of the "family values crowd" I know.

Translation: Provide a cite, please.

 

[BPSCG]

Slippery slope fallacy.

Many European countries (and Canada) have parental leave policies more generous than those of the US, and none have instituted those kinds of things.

That's not my point. My point is that just because something is a good idea doesn't mean it's the government's business. Having both parents taking an active part in raising their children is a good idea. Frankly, having six parents would be an even better idea, but nature has put some natural limits on that one. But why is it the government's business to see to it that you take five months off work to be with your newborn?

 

[Ed]

Your government already asks you to "contribute" to a lot of useless things. Extended unpaid parental leave like that enjoyed in Canada and Europe, would almost certainly be more useful than missile defence and a few extra airplane carriers.

But hey, what do I care! It's up to you. You decide what's important. I just don't share your values.

Bad behavior is no excuse for more bad behavior.

 

[CBL4]

In the five years before my wife and I had children, we saved between 15 and 25% of our income. Now we have the option of one of us staying home or not.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Let's look at extreme consequences of 24 weeks of maternity leave. Jane Swift was the acting governor of Massachussets when she gave birth. If she had taken 24 weeks of maternity leave, where would this have left the state?

I had the 2 best of the 6 people working for me on maternity/paternity leave at the same time. For a month, my department could not do anything except respond to emergencies. If this had gone on for 6 months, we would have been screwed.

Businesses cannot cope with ridiculously high absentee rates. Their only logical response is to discriminate against people who are likely to take extended leave.

CBL

 

[Orwell]

Could you please tell us where and when you checked? 'Cuz that doesn't sound like many of the members of the "family values crowd" I know.

Translation: Provide a cite, please.

Of course not! Anti-immigration people in the States and in Europe always deny being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant, though they acknowledge pressing for reductions in immigration levels and support laws that target illegal immigrants. But these laws are only occasionally proposed as straight anti-immigration laws (although sometimes they are, like the Mass Immigration Reduction Act , proposed by Tom Tancredo, R (CO), I think it failed to pass). Since it is politically bad for the Bush administration to directly restrict legal immigrants (can't alienate the immigrant voters and the people who need immigrant labour), they discourage it by making it harder to get work visas. The net result has been that legal immigration to the US has been falling since 2000.

Study: Immigration falls from 2000

 

[Orwell]

Bad behavior is no excuse for more bad behavior.

Well, since I don't share your values, I don't consider extended parental leave "bad behaviour".

 

[Orwell]

Let's look at extreme consequences of 24 weeks of maternity leave. Jane Swift was the acting governor of Massachussets when she gave birth. If she had taken 24 weeks of maternity leave, where would this have left the state?

You're right, that's an extreme consequence. Not very representative, is it?

I had the 2 best of the 6 people working for me on maternity/paternity leave at the same time. For a month, my department could not do anything except respond to emergencies. If this had gone on for 6 months, we would have been screwed.

If you knew that was coming, you could have prepared for it. If leave only lasts a month, there's no point in hiring temps, or training people... And how about all the loses in productivity because new parents are too tired, or too worried, to work properly? And the leave of absences because the baby isn't well?

Businesses cannot cope with ridiculously high absentee rates. Their only logical response is to discriminate against people who are likely to take extended leave.

CBL

Man, I wonder how the Norwegians do it! Or the Canadians!

 

[Orwell]

In the five years before my wife and I had children, we saved between 15 and 25% of our income. Now we have the option of one of us staying home or not.

CBL

Well, congratulations! How about those who can't afford to do that but would wish to have a kid? My girlfriend got pregnant by accident. We decided to keep the baby (although were both pro-choice). I was a lowly research assistant, not making much. I proposed finding a better paying job, but we agreed that that would be screwing with our future. So she had to get welfare for several years, until the kid was big enough to go to kindergarten, and then she went back to school. She's finishing a Ph. D. in Psychology now.

She had to go on welfare, and put up with all the crap people on welfare put up with, just because she wanted to keep this baby. We were dirt poor for several years (welfare is a pittance, and they make it so that it's humiliating as hell to get it). We were penalised for doing the responsible thing. Imagine if abortion was illegal in Canada? We wouldn't have had the choice! Family values indeed!

We decided to have another kid, but this time, its planned, and we are both going to take extended parental leave.

 

[toddjh]

How about those who can't afford to do that but would wish to have a kid?

How about those who can't afford an expensive car but would wish to have a Mercedes?

It's not my fault if you've made poor financial decisions and don't have enough money to support as big a family as you'd like. Why should my money pay for your poor planning? Isn't that just rewarding irresponsibility?

Jeremy

 

[Orwell]

How about those who can't afford an expensive car but would wish to have a Mercedes?

It's not my fault if you've made poor financial decisions and don't have enough money to support as big a family as you'd like. Why should my money pay for your poor planning? Isn't that just rewarding irresponsibility?

Jeremy

Look, I don't feel like arguing along those lines. I find comparing children and human beings in general to consumer goods highly... How to put it politely?... Distasteful?

Your argument also doesn't take into account that hey, faeces happen sometimes.

 

[Orwell]

You know, no offence, but it's talking about these little details that convince me that it would be a bad idea to move to the US. Ok, now, back to work...

See ya latter 'gator.

 

[toddjh]

Look, I don't feel like arguing along those lines. I find comparing children and human beings in general to consumer goods highly... How to put it politely?... Distasteful?

It's not an attempt to equate the two; it's a reminder that children are not a necessity any more than a fancy car is. I find it equally distasteful to suggest that innocent bystanders should be forced to pay the bills for another person's poor decisions.

Your argument also doesn't take into account that hey, faeces happen sometimes.

I was proactive in making sure I wouldn't unintentionally cause a pregnancy.

I am also pro-choice, as is my government. If **** happens, do what you have to do. If you decide that you're not comfortable with an abortion, well, that's your choice (emphasis on "your"). It's irresponsible to expect other people to pick up the slack. If it takes a village to raise a child, at least do the village the courtesy of consulting them about it first.

Jeremy

 

[CBL4]

Orwell,

I am so glad that you and your girlfriend decided that I should pay for your "accident" in addition to paying for my own family. I sacrificed for 5 years to pay for my children and now I get to pay for your girlfriend and your child as well. Are you planning to pay me back sometime?

She had to go on welfare, and put up with all the crap people on welfare put up with, just because she wanted to keep this baby.

She had to go on welfare. Uh, uh. You could have taken a better job but that would have messed up your future. She could have worked but that would have messed up your family. If I did not have to pay for leeches like you, perhaps my children would be better off. Perhaps I would buy my children new clothes instead of used one.* But don't worry about them as long as you are happy.

And for your next child, you are going to make your company pay as well. It is very generous of you to pass the pain around.

* - I do buy them new pajamas and socks because I cannot find them used. Other than that, I bet that I have not bought 5 pieces of new clothing for my two children combined.

CBL

 

[BPSCG]

Of course not! Anti-immigration people in the States and in Europe always deny being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant,

I see. So, by that reasoning, if they were to admit they were anti-immigrant, that would be evidence they were pro-immigrant.

And furthermore:

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery

(You know all about that, don't you Orwell?)

though they acknowledge pressing for reductions in immigration levels and support laws that target illegal immigrants.

Okay, why is supporting laws that target illegal immigrants anti-immigrant? And do you really believe it's only the "family values crowd" that resents illegal immigrants?

But these laws are only occasionally proposed as straight anti-immigration laws (although sometimes they are, like the Mass Immigration Reduction Act , proposed by Tom Tancredo, R (CO), I think it failed to pass).

It did? Despite the fact that the Republicans - you know, the "family values crowd" party - control both houses of Congress? Curiouser and curiouser.

Since it is politically bad for the Bush administration to directly restrict legal immigrants (can't alienate the immigrant voters and the people who need immigrant labour), they discourage it by making it harder to get work visas. The net result has been that legal immigration to the US has been falling since 2000.

Study: Immigration falls from 2000

Well, since you were kind enough to give a cite, for once, let's have a look at some of what it says:

Passel and Roberto Suro, co-author and director of the center, based their analysis on data from the Census Bureau. Passel believes the fluctuations were dictated by the U.S. economy, increasing in flush years when demand for work was high and decreasing during downturns.

The guys that did the study appear to disagree with you; it's not visas that's the problem - it's jobs. Then, almost as an afterthought:

Passel cited other possible causes for the subsequent decline, including the government's increased scrutiny of immigration applicants after the 9/11 attacks.

So, in support of your claim that the "family values crowd" is anti-immigrant, you present the argument that

1) They claim they are not anti-immigrant;
2) They are opposed to illegal immigrants;
3) They defeated the only anti-immigrant bill you can cite, and
4) A study appears to show that the main reason for the drop in immigration from its record highs is economic downturn.

You know, I want to believe you, but I'm just not getting there.

 

[Orwell]

None of you yanks are paying for me, I'm Canadian. Canadians have paid for me, and once I and my girlfriend get those good paying job we deserve thanks to our Ph.Ds., we will pay Canadian society back with our taxes and work. And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

Ok, have your way. You have your values, I have mine. I just don't wanna live in the kind of society you seem to want, that's all.

 

[toddjh]

And thanks to our good jobs, our kids will be able to go to college and get an education, and they will, in turn, pay their taxes and provide their work. Not bad for a few thousand dollars in welfare payments.

That's fine, except the part where you think it's better to have children before you're financially able to support them instead of just waiting a few years until you are.

It's not the outcome that bothers us, it's your apparent belief that everyone else should sacrifice so that you don't have to.

Ok, have your way. You have your values, I have mine. I just don't wanna live in your society, that's all.

Yes...you might have to pay your own bills that way. Couldn't have that.

Jeremy

 

[Orwell]

That's fine, except the part where you think it's better to have children before you're financially able to support them instead of just waiting a few years until you are.

It's not the outcome that bothers us, it's your apparent belief that everyone else should sacrifice so that you don't have to.



Yes...you might have to pay your own bills that way. Couldn't have that.

Jeremy

[Sarcasm]Ooohh, you got some heavy hitting argumentation going on there, Jeremy![/Sarcasm]

The problem is, you see it as "sacrifice" instead of "investment".

For the record, I think that parental leave policies in almost every rich nation are more generous than those of the US. Concerning at least this, the US are the "odd" ones.

But you know what, I'm tired of this argument. It's one of them "values" things, and I know (long experience), that these arguments are pointless and they just create bitterness and resentment. Besides this thing is becoming too personal (and I'm to blame for that).

I'm off this thread...