Anonymous #1 5d

Yes

-2

Anonymous #1 5d

*the government shouldnt allow the poverty cycle to continue

-2

Anonymous OP 5d

Don’t correct me. I said what I said. Well, we unfortunately don’t live in a utopia that will provide for each citizen, so that leaves poverty as a very real thing. And similarly, our government and pretty much all others are similarly not utopian. No one directed their “anger or disgust” at poor people, but at selfish individuals who see their environments that do little to support and sustain their own selves and still choose to have children which continue the cycle of generational poverty.

2

Anonymous #2 5d

LMFAO

5

Anonymous #2 5d

republicans spotted

-3

Anonymous OP 5d

if calling u stupid makes me republican then im republican as hell i guess

8

Anonymous OP 5d

Lovely ad hominem. Now that we’re done with the childish name calling, what else?

6

Anonymous #1 5d

Not a character attack. republicans actually believe poverty is a moral failure

-2

Anonymous OP 5d

ur iliteracy is the real moral failure here

3

Anonymous OP 5d

It’s a character attack due to you using it as a way of calling someone else a name without knowing them personally because you cannot stand someone else disagreeing with you. I never stated my political views🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Besides it’s not a “moral failure” it’s a matter of responsibility, which you seem to lack

1

Anonymous #1 5d

who else is too irresponsible to have kids

-1

Anonymous OP 5d

People who may be able to fulfill their physical needs (gifts and such) but cannot attend to their emotional needs. So I guess we could call them absent parents. Parents who want children for the sake of children being the “next step in life” without considering they may actually not want children. This applies to all economic classes. People who have children so they “have someone to care for them when they’re older.” That’s pretty irresponsible of people

0

Anonymous OP 5d

The people who keep having kids and just use their older children as babysitters

1

Anonymous #1 5d

parentifying ur kids is a different type of fucked up

4

Anonymous OP 5d

The people who have a kid to try and save their failing marriages

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Oh it really is. I’ve seen it happen to a ton of my friends and I would just shake my head cause why would you do that to your CHILD?!

3

Anonymous #1 5d

i literally had a friend un highschool who used to have to SKIP SCHOOL to take care of her brother but she thought i was an asshole for thinking that was fucked up 🤷‍♀️

5

Anonymous #1 5d

It’s such a slippery slope… like some people might believe that single parents shouldnt have kids. Divorced people shouldnt have kids. People who were abused as a child shouldnt have kids. I just dont get the point of judging people for their choices. And of all of these things, how the argument is always focused on poor people (yes my post is about poor ppl, but i brought it up bc this argument comes up on yy every single month. Nothing about abusive parents, just poor people who want kids)

-1

Anonymous #2 5d

One of my best friend’s had to go straight home after school each day because she had to take care of the house, help her sister with homework, make dinner, and get her sister in bed on time, do her own work. And she was not allowed to go out on weekends because her parents “needed a break” on Saturdays and Sundays. We only hung out because I was allowed to go over to her house, but not vice versa

1

Anonymous OP 5d

Everything is a slippery slope. Just about EVERYTHING. People have their opinions but it’s very rare to someone gaf anymore about someone who was divorced having kids, or single parents, or people who were abused as children because it’s 2025, not 1954. They typically don’t pose a parental/physiological problem as an impoverished person who wants to have a child WHILE impoverished might

1

Anonymous #3 5d

They were arguing in another post. And what I believe the gist of it is, they think that we should be mad that the government doesn’t take monetary care of each citizen to ensure that every currently impoverished person is given the right to have a child they don’t have to worry about living in poverty alongside them

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Yeah I gathered that but the conversation has clearly moved on to what makes a situation bad to bring a child into past the financial reasons so idk why they seem to be acting like finances are the only reason a person shouldn’t have a kid.

6

Anonymous #3 5d

But because the bourgeois does not make sure no citizens are poor, we (yikyak) are wrong to say that poor people shouldn’t bring children into an impoverished life. That poor people have the right to have a child no matter their financial situation. So by us saying a child shouldn’t be born into poverty, we are fascist, republican, and eugenicists

-1

Anonymous #3 5d

Well, when we pointed out logical reasoning, they claimed that we only target poor people. And if poor people having children in poverty aren’t the only ones deemed “irresponsible” in our eyes, then who else is? (Thinking we would have no examples.) So then it moved on to that and now we’ve arrived here

1

Anonymous #1 5d

Sounds like someone who wants to have the moral high ground but doesn’t understand that they have a black and white opinion on an issue that has many gray areas.

3

Anonymous #3 5d

Me? Yeah, idk. I guess we just see things differently

1

Anonymous #1 5d

I was more saying OP has this opinion that thinking X makes you Y but is ignoring the rest of the conversation

7

Anonymous #3 5d

Gotcha now. Yeah. Cause when someone pointed out they grew up in foster care, she was pretty rude about the entire situation. And then claimed other people not wanting children born into poverty was them being the “moral/purity police”

4