Unintended Consequences
"The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is: he confuses it with feeling."
- Thomas Sowell
So, the person behind this post "discovered" it. That happens when you blog about things. No big deal.
Naturally, they were a bit put off - a bit upset. They felt instead of thought. Rational thought is, "oh, Usagi has a different take on the matter." A response triggered by feeling might be along the lines of "I found this article to be quite distasteful and uneducated to say the least. ... Obviously, you're a man full of hot air, big words, and nothing to back it up."
This mentality, so common among Millennials, has origins in liberal ideology. Someone has a differing opinion or fact, and the response is to lash out at that as if it were a personal attack:
"Obviously you don't know me very well, I'm not entitled to anything. On the other hand, my kid is entitled to the best care possible. ... How would you understand something of this magnitude? ... You have zero idea of what it's like to be a parent with a kid with special needs."
It is responses like this - from liberals, feminists, SJWs, #cuckservatives , etc. - that have become a part of the Millennial mindset. This person disagrees, therefore they are rejecting me (as a person)!
Here's a hint:
No! We reject your stupid-assed idea!
- Thomas Sowell
So, the person behind this post "discovered" it. That happens when you blog about things. No big deal.
Naturally, they were a bit put off - a bit upset. They felt instead of thought. Rational thought is, "oh, Usagi has a different take on the matter." A response triggered by feeling might be along the lines of "I found this article to be quite distasteful and uneducated to say the least. ... Obviously, you're a man full of hot air, big words, and nothing to back it up."
This mentality, so common among Millennials, has origins in liberal ideology. Someone has a differing opinion or fact, and the response is to lash out at that as if it were a personal attack:
"Obviously you don't know me very well, I'm not entitled to anything. On the other hand, my kid is entitled to the best care possible. ... How would you understand something of this magnitude? ... You have zero idea of what it's like to be a parent with a kid with special needs."
It is responses like this - from liberals, feminists, SJWs, #cuckservatives , etc. - that have become a part of the Millennial mindset. This person disagrees, therefore they are rejecting me (as a person)!
Here's a hint:
No! We reject your stupid-assed idea!
So let's look at the idea, not the person - who has not been and shall not be identified.
Reminder - this is about a proposed law to require daycare owners to train their staff to handle special needs children.
Problems
1. Identify the special needs. As listed, the term "special needs" is very broad. Are we talking about Aspergers or Downs or physical deformities (and which physical deformities) or deafness or blindness or developmental delay or speech impediment or what? These are just a few examples of "special needs." There's are many, many others.
2. If you eliminate any one of the above, for any reason, then all are subject to elimination for the same or similar reasons. And you cannot train for them all.
3. Daycare facilities cannot train for them all. Training for any one of these will prove prohibitively expensive. And when mandatory training is attached to a very high price tag, then there are only two possible outcomes: the business must raise prices or it becomes insolvent.
4. Places like the ski resort in question would simply close their child care centers. Unintended consequences are a bitch.
5. Many alternate business (some martial arts schools, for example) will be affected. What happens to companies that have on-site daycare?
6. If there became a training class that was watered down enough to be affordable for all (or most) such facilities, then it will in all likelihood end up being useless.
Solutions
Why not let the free market decide?
Why not let families take care of their own?
If you suggest that there are parents that "don't have a choice but to put their kid in a place that doesn't work with their special needs like they should," or if you feel "there are some instances that [there is] no choice because of [a lack of a support network]," the ponder this:
Parents falling back on those excuses are choosing to do something other than care for their child. Period.
Reminder - this is about a proposed law to require daycare owners to train their staff to handle special needs children.
Problems
1. Identify the special needs. As listed, the term "special needs" is very broad. Are we talking about Aspergers or Downs or physical deformities (and which physical deformities) or deafness or blindness or developmental delay or speech impediment or what? These are just a few examples of "special needs." There's are many, many others.
2. If you eliminate any one of the above, for any reason, then all are subject to elimination for the same or similar reasons. And you cannot train for them all.
3. Daycare facilities cannot train for them all. Training for any one of these will prove prohibitively expensive. And when mandatory training is attached to a very high price tag, then there are only two possible outcomes: the business must raise prices or it becomes insolvent.
4. Places like the ski resort in question would simply close their child care centers. Unintended consequences are a bitch.
5. Many alternate business (some martial arts schools, for example) will be affected. What happens to companies that have on-site daycare?
6. If there became a training class that was watered down enough to be affordable for all (or most) such facilities, then it will in all likelihood end up being useless.
Solutions
Why not let the free market decide?
Why not let families take care of their own?
If you suggest that there are parents that "don't have a choice but to put their kid in a place that doesn't work with their special needs like they should," or if you feel "there are some instances that [there is] no choice because of [a lack of a support network]," the ponder this:
Parents falling back on those excuses are choosing to do something other than care for their child. Period.
You sure may suck a fat dick
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteThank you for reading, and for commenting.
Thank you for proving every last point that was being made in but a single comment.
There is a bit of irony in this post. You talk about millennials and their behavior, then you start a sort of critic with one line that puts you on the same place as the millennials you don't agree with: No! We reject your stupid-assed idea! In a sense you say people from gen x are better just because they were born in such time, given the fact that the way you displayed the topic of discussion, the way it was written and the words used are filled with emotions too. All of this aside from your analysis on the speacial needs case.
ReplyDeleteAs more proof to my point, why not offer a single bit of logic as a counter to any point listed?
DeleteLooks like you are stirring up the snowflakes again, Usagi.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder where "Anonymous" read anything above about Generation X? I don't see anything in the post about one generation being "better" than another. Seems to me as if this is the person who wants to push this law.
Look, we have enough things going on in politics that need fixing. Have you ever seen any of it fixed with more laws? I haven't. The proposed law seems like it has good intentions behind it. But the road to Hell is paved with those good intentions.