Which "guy" are you talking about? Scott is the one who liked the charity. That's it. The rest is the blabbering of a possibly stoned internet commenter from 2012.
-
-
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
Despite that, the implication that drug addiction among the impoverished isn't fundamentally a product of socio-economics/drug policy and is instead a purely genetic disposition that could be solved by "voluntary" sterilization smacks of a coddled, elitist mindset
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
I get it, you lack context and didn't even spend 2 minutes looking up the charity or anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @arthur_affect and
A cursory reading of the Wikipedia article includes this quote from the founder: "we campaign to neuter dogs and yet we allow women to have 10 or 12 kids that they can’t take care of". Sound like I was spot on.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @CasualThonker @arthur_affect and
That sounds like the woman cares about the kids that are neglected. I don't see any invocation of genetics. She adopted like 6 kids from drug addicts. How many foster kids have you taken in?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FakeMeows @CasualThonker and
Given that we're talking about human parents, not animals, I would consider it far more praiseworthy to be able to brag about helping six parents keep their kids than adopting those six kids, and find focusing on the latter option to be an obvious sign of conflict of interest
2 replies 4 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @FakeMeows and
What's really appalling, and part of what makes the foster care system so intensely fraught, is that if we gave struggling parents even the resources we gave foster parents, huge numbers could keep their kids.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @Eristae @FakeMeows and
Public adoption through the foster system doesn't have the same overwhelming level of perverse incentive as private adoption (especially international adoption) But it's really hard not to see the system as still a transfer program of poor kids to rich families
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
The way adoption support payments is fundamentally perverse First you screen the adoptive parents to make sure they have adequate income and don't need the money Then you give them support payments anyway, to make extra sure the adoption goes through and is successful
1 reply 4 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
In many, many cases you could prevent the problem from arising in the first place and greatly reduce the trauma and disruption to the kid's life by doing the exact opposite (finding any parent who DOES need money because they DON'T have adequate income and just giving it to them)
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes
As it is, adoption support payments are just this incredibly obvious example of "rich getting richer" policies in our society "Do you need money? No? Good, have some money"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
While I understand your point, please be careful. There is an issue in child welfare where states will subsidize children in care of strangers - but not children in care of kin. But we know that children do better with kin (including fictive kin).
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @isotriajayne @Eristae and
The perverse bias here that "existing families" need to be held responsible for their ability to provide but *new* families are given access to all kinds of benefits they aren't (because now the state is held responsible for creating that family)
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.