• Rodeo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Losing a week of pay means they can’t make rent, then they lose their home, now we have homeless children.

    Pick your poison.

      • Godwins_Law@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

                • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.