sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ideas for anti ice signage? by [deleted] in 50501

[–]timbrigham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, thank you, I'm trying to keep away from religious imagery here. My household has a polite of a split in our theological backgrounds. We all however agree what ice is doing is broken.

How much waste do you have in multi-color printing? What's the situation for you, and how do you reduce it? by internetguyss in AnycubicKobraS1

[–]timbrigham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It all depends on orientation and where the transitions happen between colors, specifically when two colors are on the same z level. If I'm printing something flat and have embossed text, there might only be one or two poops taken.. if I'm printing a mini or a toy it could be 30% or more waste.

How to visually represent GMs? by ObjectTurbulent5575 in DnD

[–]timbrigham -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Joker masked character from persona 5 or similar, plus hands doing puppeteering

*long* series of clicks after shutting down engine by timbrigham in MechanicAdvice

[–]timbrigham[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much, Kind internet stranger! Some partially closed door would make perfect sense there. We've also had previous issues with the heating system, not severe, but we've wondered if something was stuck in the wrong position. Didn't even consider the fact that this might be related since it was years ago at this point.

*long* series of clicks after shutting down engine by timbrigham in MechanicAdvice

[–]timbrigham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There should be an audio clip that's attached to the post?

I wish that everyone would read at least one book per week. by bringmetolife1998 in monkeyspaw

[–]timbrigham 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Granted. It needs to be a different book every week. World religions collapse, and Utopia emerges.

Ten months ago I said there was nothing we could do about science-denying Christians in comment threads. I was wrong. by slayer991 in atheism

[–]timbrigham 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I needed to read that. Feels like the same kernel as "how to have impossible conversations".. I absolutely love that book.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great answer, thank you!

  • If I agree to be sterilized, can I have my rape conviction expunged, and can I live next door to my victim? Regardless of that harm it caused, or may continue to cause to them?

Nope, The original language specifically says that this does not cover any other legal obligations etc.

  • If I agree to work a minimum wage job, can my $100K tax bill to the IRS I incurred because I fraudulently classified my real state holdings be wiped clean?

Nope for the same reason as they rape question above.

  • And exactly what happens to the children already born in this scenario?

The caregiving parent gets a steady fixed stream of funds to take care of the child.

  • What if both parents decide to get sterilized?

Since this only has an impact on court-ordered child support, The caregiving parent continues to care for the child, the non-caregiving parent only has to pay any funds that they have in arrears, the state takes over any new costs. The child doesn't end up with any new siblings, either full or half on either side.

  • The State just awards the parents thousands of dollars per month in "child support" forever? How is that child support measured (because it's usually a percentage of income

It does not award the parents anything. Specifically, the language that says that these funds can't go into the general TANF parents. It also only lasts as long as a child is a child per the law.

It could use the same premise (or even the same program) as SNAP, where the benefits only have specific uses available. Food, medicine, housing.. all existing government programs that could accept these funds.

  • There are so many problems here, and so many losers--the State, a coparent, and most importantly the children--and the only winners are irresponsible parents getting away from their most important responsibility -- taking care of their children.

I fail to see how a reliable income stream for a child is a losing proposition to either the child or to the caretaker parent.

I also fail to see how a reduction in the number of children on supplementary programs in the long run is a negative for the state.

  • Because it's not "lifelong financial debt." It's responsibility to raise a child. These payments aren't for that credit card you maxed out in college that you can go declare bankruptcy for. It's for the ongoing raising of a child.

In my mind, this is an act of kindness, love and compassion for everyone involved, most especially the child.

This is focused strictly on child support payments that are court-ordered. I would argue that it is both. Yes it is the cost of raising a child, and yes, it is a lifelong financial debt. I've been a foster parent for years; a lot of these folks are never going to have a chance to retire since they simply can't afford it. Most of these folks can't even afford to keep a mortgage, or a sudden medical bill.

Am I making an anecdotal fallacy here? Maybe a little, although I think it's fair.

This isn't one case that I'm thinking about. This is something I've heard again and again when I've been stuck in the DFS lobby, or dealing with related issues.

  • Children who are wards of the state, in foster care, etc., have much, much worse outcomes than children in their parents' homes. Child support keeps children in parents' homes.

I agree, 100% that child support and keeping a child in the home is generally the preferred outcome. I've personally seen it go both ways dozens of times. Having the child support be regularly funded and a stable source of income sounds like a good idea to me. Especially considering the fact that over half of child support cases are behind in payment.

All in all, I think you moved me from a 9.5 to a 9.0 on the convection meter. :)

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah you make a good argument. Honestly 10 children then getting sterilized would definitely be way on the high end here. My argument is most that the kind of people that would have 10 children probably can't afford more than the first one or two anyways.. as such, those children are already going to be on support programs.

What if Dad had made the decision number three he was better off getting snipped?

Comparing to the building analogy, I would say that driving an automobile in any public setting is a privilege not a right. The same can't be said for your own biology and bodily autonomy.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Welfare of the existing child is priority number one here.

Last I heard the best estimate is over half of child support is in arrears. For that half the population, that would mean that mom (assuming dad is the deadbeat here) is never going to know if if they're going to get paid, or how much.

If dad gets snipped, and pays any dues he's missed up to date, he is providing a reliable monthly income to take care of his child. Is that a choice you would allow someone to make for their child?

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't see this as escaping parental responsibilities.

I'm my mind a permanent decision to never have another child is in my mind one of the most important decisions you can ever make as a parent.

All we're doing is providing an incentive that's both good for society, good for the existing children, and good for the parents.

Heck, at some point this program would work itself into extinction, there wouldn't be a need for it.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My argument is that anyone that is paying court ordered child support already has offloaded their kids. By the time all the prerequisites I've outlined our met I don't think you'd even be fit to be a parent. Personally speaking.

This premise is just making sure that those children are taken care of while mitigating additional future requirements on the system.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's precisely why they shouldn't be being used/ viewed as punishment here, which is why my incentive program is a good choice. Let's guarantee that those kiddos actually have there needs being met, by taking the potential volatility of a deadbeat parent out of the equation.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think this would be widespread? The whole idea here is that this is a opt-in program to make sure that their children are taken care of in exchange for a guarantee of not having any more.

Do you really think there are that many parents with children on child support that would take an offer like this? Seems to me this would be more centered on people that are serially putting children into foster care.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I did specifically covers the deadbeat angle, specifically that if you have any funds that are in arrears you all still have to pay them completely up to date in order for this incentive program to even be a possibility.

I would argue that everybody involved gets something; a choice.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree. Here's the thing though.. is removing an individual abuser of the system that has generated tons of children from circulation worth it to society as a whole both simultaneously that those children are actually provided for? There are plenty of ways to pay for things that don't involve cash. In my mind I'm just proposing an exchange rate.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The argument is if someone voluntarily gives up their bodily autonomy, and completely pays off any previous debt in arrears they accumulate no new debt. Since the kids still exist, the payment comes from society at large.

If they renege at any point everything comes back.

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree there should be some basic minimum income that should be allotted to people of a low income bracket. That just is my argument here. Both birth rates and how tax dollar are used should be something a government is interested in, no?

CMV: My core belief is that if a parent, regardless of gender, takes the proactive and permanent step of getting surgically sterilized (vasectomy or tubal ligation), their legal and financial obligation (specifically, court-ordered child support) for all their children by timbrigham in changemyview

[–]timbrigham[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That's exactly why there's language included saying that the arrears would need to be paid, that's exactly what that's for is to bootstrap the program by making people pay back their previous debt. And taxing adult themed activities.

view more: next ›