Majority of U.S. public school students are in poverty; first time in 50 years

[mongers]

There are certainly very few irresponsible rich people in the world and none who also have a good education; that stuff back in 2008 was the Poor's fault, proof being the well off did exceptionally well out of it, so they can't be irresponsible can they?

Subtlety in the construction of strawman arguments just isn't possible for you, is it? 

Who are you, Dorothy or is it Toto?

[LaCroix]

i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.

i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.

[mongers]

i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.

i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.

Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. 

[LaCroix]

Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. 

i don't get the objection.

and i come from a fanciful winter wonderland. 

[Admiral Yi]

i'm not sure if it has anything to do with irresponsibility. that implies it's objectively wrong/foolish. it may look wrong to some, but i don't think that mentality is shared by everyone.

i think it's just different goals. a future doctor has paranoia and fear of an unwanted pregnancy that a future subway manager simply lacks. both know the repercussions. one cares and the other doesn't. that planning and structure that puts a person on a successful career path shies her away from getting knocked up. the other doesn't have that stress and is less likely to see pregnancy as essentially the end of her dreams. hell, she may want the child or the child may in fact be her dream because children give meaning to one's life.

We're talking about people who have more kids than they can afford to raise by themselves.

[LaCroix]

We're talking about people who have more kids than they can afford to raise by themselves.

i know: poor people, not lower middle class. i agree that a family is irresponsible if they're popping out their fifth child while the first two are being fed to the other two. but that rarely happens. if you're saying it's irresponsible to the state because they accept government money, then OK. i agree it's irresponsible to the state and most would agree.

i don't think that necessarily means it's irresponsible to mom and pop (or just mom), though. whatever leads a girl to have three children by 25 probably leads a similar girl with no children to be just as broke. that's not necessarily irresponsibility in an objective sense, unless the argument is that everyone should proceed down a specific path.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get what you mean by irresponsible to mom and pop.

[LaCroix]

irresponsible of mom and pop*

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*

To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.

[LaCroix]

I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*

To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.

but the children are fed, at least in the west. in some cases, there might not be much food on the table, but the child still survives. i'm under the assumption that child deaths or serious physical harm due to malnourishment occurs in only extreme cases and is not common among people with low income.

[Admiral Yi]

but the children are fed, at least in the west. in some cases, there might not be much food on the table, but the child still survives. i'm under the assumption that child deaths or serious physical harm due to malnourishment occurs in only extreme cases and is not common among people with low income.

And a smack head can survive for a while on soup lines and homeless shelters.  Is that your definition of responsible?

[Razgovory]

I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*

To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.

Ah, so two 16 year old  girls get knocked up.  One from a poor family and one from a rich family.  Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?

[Admiral Yi]

Sure.  In exactly the same way the poor girl using the rent money to buy clothes is irresponsible and the trust funder is not.

[Jacob]

Tut, where did you blow in from ? The real world or some such equally fanciful place. 

i don't get the objection.

and i come from a fanciful winter wonderland. 

It was, I believe, a mock-bjection. I expect mongers thinks you made sense.

[dps]

I don't get what you mean by irresponsible of mom and pop.*

To my way of thinking, having a kid you can't feed is plain vanilla irresponsible, irrespective of who or what it is by, at, for, to, or with.

Ah, so two 16 year old  girls get knocked up.  One from a poor family and one from a rich family.  Simply by virtue of their families wealth you can label one irresponsible and one not irresponsible even though they have engaged in the exact same action?

I'd label them both irresponsible, all else being equal.  The consequences are likely to be far worse for the poor girl than for the rich girl, but both are behaving irresponsibly, again, all else being equal.

My point was never that ALL poor people are irresponsible about having babies, or that NO rich people are irresponsible.