People will tend toward prioritizing their kids over other kids in general. So, when having to choose between feeding and housing their kid or maybe another kid getting sick (and carefully not thinking about them maybe dying), they choose to feed their kid.
Rather than getting angry that some parents aren’t as noble as you, perhaps consider directing your ire toward a system where a parent can’t afford to stay home without the financial harm impacting their kid. Mandatory paid sick days would make this much easier.
I’m a pragmatist. I don’t see the point in making people make hard choices when they don’t have to. The vast majority of people will always choose us over them, and not many things are more ‘us’ than our children. So rather than rail against the imperfection of humanity, I’d rather promote the idea this issue should never arise. Our nation is wealthy enough that people shouldn’t have to risk their or other people’s health when they or their kids are sick, yet we have nothing in place for most employees to make sure that doesn’t have to be a consideration. I’d posit those who have the power to change are not merely amoral, but rather are immoral, and those who have no sympathy for those in the position to have to choose the health of their kids versus the health of some other kid are out of touch or insensitive.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Losing a week of pay means they can’t make rent, then they lose their home, now we have homeless children.
Pick your poison.
For people like me, dead children is always the worst possible scenario but you do you.
I think it’s more about having sympathy for the cruddy situation they might be in, not necessarily what the best or optimal outcomes would have been.
I will never be sympathetic to people who put other people’s children’s lives at risk for any reason.
Never.
That’s is incredibly selfish and entitled.
It’s a bad situation for sure but risking someone else’s child is unforgivable.
People will tend toward prioritizing their kids over other kids in general. So, when having to choose between feeding and housing their kid or maybe another kid getting sick (and carefully not thinking about them maybe dying), they choose to feed their kid.
Rather than getting angry that some parents aren’t as noble as you, perhaps consider directing your ire toward a system where a parent can’t afford to stay home without the financial harm impacting their kid. Mandatory paid sick days would make this much easier.
No.
Putting other people’s children at risk will never be acceptable.
Period.
And here I thought the goal was to put no children at risk.
There is no circumstance where putting someone else’s child’s life at risk is acceptable. Period.
Ever.
You’re an amoral, toxicly entitled assholes if you do.
I’m a pragmatist. I don’t see the point in making people make hard choices when they don’t have to. The vast majority of people will always choose us over them, and not many things are more ‘us’ than our children. So rather than rail against the imperfection of humanity, I’d rather promote the idea this issue should never arise. Our nation is wealthy enough that people shouldn’t have to risk their or other people’s health when they or their kids are sick, yet we have nothing in place for most employees to make sure that doesn’t have to be a consideration. I’d posit those who have the power to change are not merely amoral, but rather are immoral, and those who have no sympathy for those in the position to have to choose the health of their kids versus the health of some other kid are out of touch or insensitive.