# Requiring kindergardeners to share things is now apparently a "socialist" idea **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372 "2011-04-22T16:29:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/181 "2011-04-28T20:10:47Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t want to go digging around all day in which you explicitly call people who use social programs freeloading scum and such. I’d be surprised if you didn’t generally feel that way and I’m misremembering. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/182 "2011-04-28T20:31:49Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > How in hell do you support a minor child without giving the required funding to their parent(s)? I’ve already addressed that. > [@](#): > > Darling, insular, hate-blindered welfare case, where the hell are there family-supporting jobs right now? Do tell. People are unable to get any sort of job for a long period of time shouldn’t be having children any more than they should be having Ferrarris. > [@](#): > > And why do you hate other women so much? I don’t. > [@](#): > > Where are the fathers and what is their responsibility in this fantasy deadbeat dole-scrounging family of your maggot-laden imagination? Since the women have the final say in whether or not they get pregnant, stay pregnant and/or keep the child, the final responsibility of how they are going to pay to raise it should fall on them. Also, it appears that most cases where a child is getting financial assistance from the state, they don’t have a father in the picture. > [@](#): > > This is unadulterated bullshit. This is apparently a position you are unable to support. > [@](#): > > I know better than you do. I know well better than you do. You’ve got a fairy tale in your brain of what poor families look like. I have reality in my own community. I could walk out my front door and look at a dozen houses where the residents are recipients of all manner of benefits. I see what they’re doing to survive. I’m helping them survive. You don’t know jack fucking shit living in your pitiful little Orange County suburban enclave. Snort. I’ve lived in Orange county (which isn’t anything like what you see on TV BTW - we have dirt poor people here too) for about 15 years. Prior to that in Washington I spent maybe 6-7 years doing OK, however in the 10-12 years between then and when I left my parents’ home, I was extremely, mind-numbing, freezing poor. I lived in places where the temps could drop to below zero in houses without heat - one had a hole in the roof which I discovered when it started to snow in my fireplace. There were long stretches where the only food I got were the meals I was given at the restaurant where I worked. My clothes came from charity bins. And yes, I essentially stole stuff, such as the free breakfast that the local hotel had out for their tenants. But what I didn’t do was make my situation any worse by taking on anything that would cost money if I didn’t need it to survive. Such as having a kid (back then this was something I assumed I would end up doing at some point), or as the case of my across street neighbors, buy a house that there is no way they can afford - those people are one lost job away from losing everything. And if it happens, they will get government handouts because they have kids - when I was starving and freezing, I got nothing because I was childless. Even the charities looked at me sideways for daring to ask for help when I had no babies at home (that taught me to lie about it). Yeah, you can look at poor people - I lived it. > [@](#): > > More bullshit. If you’re going to try to cover your nonsense, can you at least try something we can’t blow apart with 20 seconds of searching on [tvguide.com](http://tvguide.com)? > Do you watch the news at all? I mean you don’t have anything else to do so I’m sure that you could manage a half hour of nightly news in the evenings. Have ya noticed anything happening lately about Planned Parenthood, maybe? The hell? What does the “news” have to do with whether or not there are TV shows and movies that essentially glorify teen pregnancy? Or did you not bother to read this part of the thread before you spouted off? > [@](#): > > Have you noticed anything about the 900+ bills all attacking the ability of women to access abortions lately, maybe? Yes. And? > [@](#): > > Are you aware that teenagers’ access to abortion is next to nil in most states because of parental notification laws? And? > [@](#): > > Do you know that the average cost of a first trimester abortion right now is more than $600? > There are more than half a million adoption-ready children in foster care as we speak, right now. What makes you think that every child born to those you deem inappropriate to parent (because you are, of course, the arbiter) could possibly be adopted? Look, just because this is hitting you too close to home doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t be able to recognize that far too many children are being raised in “inappropriate” conditions _and_ that these children tend to repeat that cycle when they grow up. Instead of ignoring that, ignoring the children already in foster care and glorifying every pregnancy, maybe you all should actually prove that you care about children after they grow out of the cute baby phase and actually try to do something to prevent all of this? > [@](#): > > And once again, you’re trotting out the complete fallacy that the money you’re getting in disability payments is the money you put into the system. That this is entirely false has been explained to you at least three times that I can think of, yet you keep trying to drink from that dry well. All you guys do is prove that the money I get for SS disability isn’t the _actual_ money I paid in, which is a big so what. Retirees who get their SS when they turn 65 don’t get the actual money they paid in - do you consider them to be “living off the kindness of others” as well? (As if being forced to pay taxes can be considered being kind…) > [@](#): > > I know it makes you feel better to think that you’re still self-sufficient via the courtesy of the social security system, but face it honey, you’re living off of other people’s labor, just like the welfare mommies you so decry and deride. You live courtesy of me, and everyone else who’s still managing to work in this country. So you need to simmer the fuck down about who we should and shouldn’t be supporting. At least a young mother and her children will work and contribute to society in the future, unlike some people. Again, that’s wrong. I am living off my husband’s salary - there is no way I could live on the amount I get for disability, particularly in this part of the country. As for “at least a young mother and her children will work and contribute to society in the future, unlike some people”, I did work, for 36 years. Essentially the same amount of time someone who went to college and then stopped working at retirement age. Contrast that to the fact that you don’t know that your young mother and her children will work and contribute - for all you know, that young mother will never work and her kids could end up in prison. Remember up there where you were bemoaning the lack of family-supporting jobs? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/183 "2011-04-28T21:19:10Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It was $2100 per year. Given that I subtracted it from the yearly rate, y’know. > > Try reading it again. $14000 per year. So around $1000 per month (well, $1100, but I was allowing $600 savings and $500 everything else anyway). OK, whatever, I got lost on the back and forth between annual and monthly. I still don’t get how people cannot live on 20K a year after they pay their taxes and mortgage. > [@](#): > > So what’s the acceptable risk, then? Suppose someone prepares for 75% of likely situations? 90%? What about unlikely ones? In this country, if some misfortune or calamity hits 0.1% of households, that’s still 130,000 families. Which is a hell of a lot less than the number the government is supporting - it’s probably less than what this state is supporting. However, why are you stuck on trying to pin down some number? What is wrong with “don’t be stupid”? Don’t have kids when you are living paycheck to paycheck and/or have no savings. Realize that when you do have kids, you are most likely going to need to cut back on spending on non-necessary items. Don’t buy a house with a mortgage so high that both parents _must_ be working. Quit trying to keep up with the Joneses if you can’t afford it easily. You know - don’t be stupid. Unfortunately, society as a whole rewards people being stupid, if they have kids. > [@](#): > > It’s not the fact that you’re “responsible”, it’s the fact that you’re obsessed with the idea that anyone who is not perfectly planning for every possible disaster is “selfish”. Nope, that is just what you choose to believe despite everything I’ve said to the contrary. Probably because the only way you can defend your position is to apply extreme exaggeration to mine. > [@Muffin](#): > > curlcoat, you will agree, of course, that you are a living example of how the socialist education system has failed. > > No? Nope. However, way back then, an public education was actually that. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/184 "2011-04-28T21:46:24Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > My kids always got instructions to get only the 16 pack of crayons. Screw that - I always got them the 84 (?) big pack with the sharpener. > > I’m really sorry that some kids can only afford the 16 pack, but I enjoyed art class an awful lot, and I’m not going to limit my kids creative streak by curtailing their choice of color shades to save someone else’s feelings. I don’t know about kindergarden, but in High school, our art teacher told us to get only the 12 water colour paint box, not the fancy 24 box. The reason? Learning to properly mix your own shades and hues from basic colours was an important part of the teaching of painting with water colours; but with light green, turquoise green and dark green readily available in the bigger set, kids could take shortcuts, limiting creativity in the long run by not really mastering basic techniques. And in kindergarden, as in primary school and junior high, I can quite easily see some kids bragging over the others that “My parents can afford the big pack I’m better than you, nee-neee-nah!”, leading to unpleasantness. At least over here, enough high schools are worried about social peer pressure over clothes to discuss school uniforms (not the British uniform kind, though, just some weater and jeans from one supplier in two basic colours - iit shouldn’t look military); so inequality from art supplies can also be an issue. Of course, glue and pencils in kindergarden are provided for by the kindergarden. Avoids the question of “forgetting to pack”, and also avoids waste - if 30 parents buy single sets, and half of each pack is used, there’s a lot more left over then when the teacher buys five big tubs (only putting out two at a time, so they don’t get broken in the first month). But then, we are a “socialist” country. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/185 "2011-04-28T21:47:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What is wrong with “don’t be stupid”? Don’t have kids when you are living paycheck to paycheck and/or have no savings. Realize that when you do have kids, you are most likely going to need to cut back on spending on non-necessary items. Don’t buy a house with a mortgage so high that both parents _must_ be working. Quit trying to keep up with the Joneses if you can’t afford it easily. You know - don’t be stupid. Unfortunately, society as a whole rewards people being stupid, if they have kids. What’s wrong with that, moron, is that it doesn’t work. I have demonstrated above, and note, we’re talking about living with $500 total for gas, car, insurance, entertainment, clothes, and EVERYTHING not covered under “food and rent/mortgage”. This family is saving more than half of their absolutely disposable income and 10% of their net toward retirement. Every two years of this level of frugality, they can save approximately one fiscal quarter’s worth of income. EVEN IF they forego EVERYTHING. No new clothes. No luxuries. No cable tv. No rental videos, no insurance on their home or car, ZERO, that means they can only save one quarter’s worth of income each year. So by the minimum of your own example, these people should have to live this life between 3 and 6 years before they’re allowed to take on luxury expenses at all. And we’re talking about half of American households living on this much or less. Frankly, you DON’T see how you come across as a bitchy hardass? I invite you to take your wimpy-ass disability check, fold it until it is all corners, and stuff it in a bodily orifice of your choice–I’m thinking ear for you, since you are incapable of taking in new information anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Sateryn76](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e4f/32.png) [@Sateryn76](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sateryn76)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/186 "2011-04-28T22:13:29Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I don’t know about kindergarden, but in High school, our art teacher told us to get only the 12 water colour paint box, not the fancy 24 box. The reason? Learning to properly mix your own shades and hues from basic colours was an important part of the teaching of painting with water colours; but with light green, turquoise green and dark green readily available in the bigger set, kids could take shortcuts, limiting creativity in the long run by not really mastering basic techniques. > > And in kindergarden, as in primary school and junior high, I can quite easily see some kids bragging over the others that “My parents can afford the big pack I’m better than you, nee-neee-nah!”, leading to unpleasantness. At least over here, enough high schools are worried about social peer pressure over clothes to discuss school uniforms (not the British uniform kind, though, just some weater and jeans from one supplier in two basic colours - iit shouldn’t look military); so inequality from art supplies can also be an issue. > > Of course, glue and pencils in kindergarden are provided for by the kindergarden. Avoids the question of “forgetting to pack”, and also avoids waste - if 30 parents buy single sets, and half of each pack is used, there’s a lot more left over then when the teacher buys five big tubs (only putting out two at a time, so they don’t get broken in the first month). > > But then, we are a “socialist” country. That’s a good reason, and if was provided to me in the beginning, I have no problem with that, and I even like the idea of kids being taught to mix colors properly/creatively. And, yes, having that many crayons may lead to unpleasantness, which is why I have taught my children not to be dicks, and continue to monitor their social skills. They have also been the target of unpleasantness, and I have used that as a teaching moment as well - even if that lesson is “well, screw that guy. He’s a jerk.” Do you think you will do kids a favor by eliminating schoolyard unpleasantness? Because it is all over the adult world, and the tools and thick skin you need to deal with it should start when you’re young, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/187 "2011-04-29T00:09:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Prior to that in Washington I spent maybe 6-7 years doing OK, however in the 10-12 years between then and when I left my parents’ home, I was extremely, mind-numbing, freezing poor. I lived in places where the temps could drop to below zero in houses without heat - one had a hole in the roof which I discovered when it started to snow in my fireplace. There were long stretches where the only food I got were the meals I was given at the restaurant where I worked. My clothes came from charity bins. And yes, I essentially stole stuff, such as the free breakfast that the local hotel had out for their tenants. Hey! The snort is back! Anyways, you claim to have been this desperately poor while you had a job, no dependants, and no debts. The reason why you couldn’t keep yourself warm and feed yourself without resorting to criminal activity is, frankly, a total mystery to me - although I suspect it has a lot to do with your stunning stupidity. If you couldn’t keep it together under those circumstances then why do you expect everyone else to be able to get through even the most unforeseen events while unemployed, during a serious recession, and with dependant children? I know you’re going to say that they should have planned for every eventuality, but that is just not possible. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Nope. However, way back then, an public education was actually that. \*An \*public education, hey? The irony here is thick. Very thick. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/188 "2011-04-29T00:23:31Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > What’s wrong with that, moron, is that it doesn’t work. I have demonstrated above, and note, we’re talking about living with $500 total for gas, car, insurance, entertainment, clothes, and EVERYTHING not covered under “food and rent/mortgage”. This family is saving more than half of their absolutely disposable income and 10% of their net toward retirement. Every two years of this level of frugality, they can save approximately one fiscal quarter’s worth of income. You have conveniently ignored the part of my post where I said “don’t take on debt you cannot afford”. This includes things like delayed gratification, which I realize is a scary thought these days. One of the things you included in your write up of a typical family was paying off student loans - how about we wait to have kids until that is done? Or if you’ve just bought a house, how about you wait to have kids until you’ve gotten some equity? Or shoot, how about those who will never be able to afford to have kids just don’t have them? Where is it written that everyone has a right to kids? > [@](#): > > EVEN IF they forego EVERYTHING. No new clothes. No luxuries. No cable tv. No rental videos, no insurance on their home or car, ZERO, that means they can only save one quarter’s worth of income each year. So, you are saying that people who have kids also have the right to cable TV land luxuries? Or that since they can’t save a huge amount of money each month, they shouldn’t bother and just go spend it on those luxuries? If I have to choose between different things to spend money on, why don’t parents? > [@](#): > > So by the minimum of your own example, these people should have to live this life between 3 and 6 years before they’re allowed to take on luxury expenses at all. And we’re talking about half of American households living on this much or less. Frankly, you DON’T see how you come across as a bitchy hardass? I’ve lost your train of thought here - are you including having kids as a luxury expense or not? Well, either way, perhaps you should explain to me why you consider it to be _my_ responsibility to help people raise their kids just because they couldn’t wait that 3 to 5 years to have them? Or if you are going the other way, explain to me why it’s so awful for parents to have to wait until they can afford luxuries. I wasn’t able to afford luxuries for most of my life, and I still can’t afford things that I see other people buying on credit. > [@](#): > > I invite you to take your wimpy-ass disability check, fold it until it is all corners, and stuff it in a bodily orifice of your choice–I’m thinking ear for you, since you are incapable of taking in new information anyway. Uh huh. Judging by this, I’d say the idea of waiting to have kids until you can afford them isn’t something you did… ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/189 "2011-04-29T01:36:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh huh. Judging by this, I’d say the idea of waiting to have kids until you can afford them isn’t something you did… Pretty good guess, considering I’m in as good or better financial shape than you (in that I could afford to be unemployed for a year before I’d even blink), I’m in my early 30s with no student loans, and my kid is less than a year old. Oh, and I’ve never taken a handout from anyone, not disability, not unemployment, nada. Suck it up, sister. I’m just not under any illusions about the facts that A) I’m lucky as hell (to be in a hell of a nice paying job, and have held onto it through the recession with a meager pay cut that was repaid in full in less than a year) and B) the level of fiscal preparedness I have is or should be expected of everyone, even the 50% of America who is making half or less than what I am. You’re acting like we’re all trying to defend just popping out kids willy-nilly on a McDonalds temp job, instead of the reality of the situation which is that we’re in an unforseeable recession, and all but the most lucky or most paranoid are feeling some pressures and squeeze, some more than others. Nope, in curlcoat land, there are only two states: crazy prepared or deadbeat. Hell, even IF someone waits until they have a year salary in the bank and some equity (5-8 years) before they have kids, I know a LOT of people who’ve been out of work longer than that or forced to take on temp/minimum wage jobs to keep it together until jobs in their field reappear. I’m talking engineers here, not basket-weaving-appreciation majors. Nope, in curlcoat land, still apparently deadbeats. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/190 "2011-04-29T01:45:32Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > \*An \*public education, hey? The irony here is thick. Very thick. Almost as thick as curlcoat. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/191 "2011-04-29T02:41:23Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > Anyways, you claim to have been this desperately poor while you had a job, no dependants, and no debts. The reason why you couldn’t keep yourself warm and feed yourself without resorting to criminal activity is, frankly, a total mystery to me Speaking of stunning stupidity - I suppose you think the only recession in history is the one we are (or aren’t, depending on who you listen to) in now? I had a series of very low paying (under minimum wage) food service jobs, none full time and at times I was unemployed altogether for a month or two at a time. Since I only had a high school degree, I didn’t have much choice and at the time there really wasn’t much out there either. > [@](#): > > If you couldn’t keep it together under those circumstances then why do you expect everyone else to be able to get through even the most unforeseen events while unemployed, during a serious recession, and with dependant children? I know you’re going to say that they should have planned for every eventuality, but that is just not possible. No, it is just what I DID say - I didn’t take on any debt during that time. And again, what I have said before, just to forestall your usual inane stance, I do not have any trouble with people who saved and had back up plans and just had a run of bad luck. However, those people do not seem to be a majority of the cases. > [@](#): > > \*An \*public education, hey? The irony here is thick. Very thick. Because my parents paid for it? > [@Zeriel](#): > > Pretty good guess, considering I’m in as good or better financial shape than you (in that I could afford to be unemployed for a year before I’d even blink), I’m in my early 30s with no student loans, and my kid is less than a year old. Oh, and I’ve never taken a handout from anyone, not disability, not unemployment, nada. Suck it up, sister. You are young, you will get sick of paying out so much tax for so little return. > [@](#): > > I’m just not under any illusions about the facts that A) I’m lucky as hell (to be in a hell of a nice paying job, and have held onto it through the recession with a meager pay cut that was repaid in full in less than a year) and B) the level of fiscal preparedness I have is or should be expected of everyone, even the 50% of America who is making half or less than what I am. Then you are lucky as hell to have that job since you appear to be stupid. A) Being able to ride out a year of unemployment without blinking is far beyond anything anyone recommends as a minimum backup plan. B) Those making less than you don’t have the bills you do - or they shouldn’t, but in reality far too many do, the ones that bought houses they couldn’t afford, had a bunch of kids they can’t afford, a new car because they were temporarily flush enough to have a trade in or down payment. > [@](#): > > You’re acting like we’re all trying to defend just popping out kids willy-nilly on a McDonalds temp job, instead of the reality of the situation which is that we’re in an unforseeable recession, and all but the most lucky or most paranoid are feeling some pressures and squeeze, some more than others. And, it looks like you cannot learn from history either! No recession is truly unforeseeable because they keep happening. This is the second one I’ve lived thru and might even be the third as I think there was also one when I was very young. Anyone who thinks they will always have a job and will always make at least X amount of money is an idiot. However, as I’ve said MULTIPLE times, I am not talking about people who have their kids when times were good and they had some sort of backup plan, I AM talking about those folks who have jobs along the lines of flipping burgers or keypunching. Since when I was working I was never a professional, I saw a lot of this - a woman who was making maybe $10 an hour having baby number two by babydaddy number two; another woman who conceived, on purpose, baby number four three months after she and her husband declared bankruptcy; and of course those folks across the street. It isn’t always parents who make stupid financial decisions of course, but it is only parents that can receive government assistance. > [@](#): > > Nope, in curlcoat land, there are only two states: crazy prepared or deadbeat. Hell, even IF someone waits until they have a year salary in the bank and some equity (5-8 years) before they have kids, I know a LOT of people who’ve been out of work longer than that or forced to take on temp/minimum wage jobs to keep it together until jobs in their field reappear. I’m talking engineers here, not basket-weaving-appreciation majors. Nope, in curlcoat land, still apparently deadbeats. They are extremely selfish and entitled if they are having children while in that condition. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/192 "2011-04-29T02:53:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > They are extremely selfish and entitled if they are having children while in that condition. Yes, because pre-existing children conveniently disappear when you lose your job. Are you actually capable of following a discussion? As for the rest of your drivel, you just crack me up. I used to have a similar outlook on taxation and deadbeats as you–when I was in college, and shit was handed to me on a silver platter (in the form of scholarships, and my parent’s excellent planning in forcing me to save 50-75% of my high school income–I paid my own way, even if it felt draconic at the time I was earning the money). Then I grew up and saw firsthand the effects that luck and happenstance have and how readily they can swallow up good planning and hard work. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/193 "2011-04-29T02:59:15Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Yes, because pre-existing children conveniently disappear when you lose your job. Are you actually capable of following a discussion? No, but apparently you are. I have been very clear that people like you described - enough savings to last months of unemployment, taking whatever jobs they can get, etc - are not the sort of folks I am talking about. Therefore, when you bring them up , IF you have been following the discussion, the assumption has to be that these are not the responsible kind and are having kids while in financial trouble. > [@](#): > > Then I grew up and saw firsthand the effects that luck and happenstance have and how readily they can swallow up good planning and hard work. Eventually you will grow up and see (probably not first hand) how good planning and hard work tends to affect “luck”. If you are smart enough to get it that is. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/194 "2011-04-29T03:56:55Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Eventually you will grow up and see (probably not first hand) how good planning and hard work tends to affect “luck”. If you are smart enough to get it that is. It’s funny watching you try to insult your way out of this. Why don’t you go get a nice data-entry job, rather than continue to get paid my money to type stupid crap on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/195 "2011-04-29T04:31:53Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It’s funny watching you try to insult your way out of this. You mean as you have been doing for quite some time? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Why don’t you go get a nice data-entry job, rather than continue to get paid my money to type stupid crap on the internet. I had a nice data-entry job but, you know, disabled? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/196 "2011-04-29T05:43:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I had a nice data-entry job but, you know, disabled? You’re obviously not disabled enough to not type huge amount of stuff on Teh Internetz. What’s your exact medical issue, and how is it disabling ? (For some reason I have you pegged with “bad back” in my head but I couldn’t tell you where that comes from, whether it was a post you made or a completely random thought of mine.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/197 "2011-04-29T06:02:57Z")
I assumed “mentally.” ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/198 "2011-04-29T06:03:04Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > You’re obviously not disabled enough to not type huge amount of stuff on Teh Internetz. What’s your exact medical issue, and how is it disabling ? > > (For some reason I have you pegged with “bad back” in my head but I couldn’t tell you where that comes from, whether it was a post you made or a completely random thought of mine.) Well, I do have a bad back but that is rather minor. I have two forms of arthritis and IBD among other, lesser issues. I am essentially in pain at all times tho some days are better than others. Due to this, I also rarely sleep more than 4 or so hours at a time, and even that isn’t restful sleep. Due to the narcotics I’ve taken for pain for all of my adult life, I am starting to have memory issues. Yes, I can spend an hour or so typing, but that is far different from doing it 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I also cannot hold a job for any length of time because I would be out sick too frequently as on my bad days I don’t do much of anything other than lay in bed. Enough proof? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/199 "2011-04-29T06:16:00Z")
Wow, so your disability is being a pain med junkie ?! Just kidding. Yes, that’s fair enough for me. Arthritis is a bitch and a half. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/200 "2011-04-29T06:20:11Z")
Yes, you have proven that you rely on the social safety net, you old socialist you. You have also proven that you are capable of keyboarding piecework out of your own home (e.g. medical transcription), but have deliberately chosen not to work at all rather than work to the best of your ability in combination with social support. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=11)