Originally posted by uzlessWhen kids around the world are asked to draw a picture of an american, they draw a big fat person with a gigantic wool hat being pulled down over the eyes
Yes, and this is generally why world opinion on american intelligence is so low.
When kids around the world are asked to draw a picture of an american, they draw a big fat person with a gigantic wool hat being pulled down over the eyes
LOL, is that your scienticfic poll?
Originally posted by generalissimoit goes to show the public view of america. nobody said it had to be scientific.
[b]When kids around the world are asked to draw a picture of an american, they draw a big fat person with a gigantic wool hat being pulled down over the eyes
LOL, is that your scienticfic poll?[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorrabasically one might consider house wives freeloading. but there are other worse things out there. the house wife isn't freeloading, her husband works for both of them.
I find it highly ironic that the same kind of people who are usually complaining about people on benefits and how they should make themselves useful are now defending laziness and freeloading!
sure, it is an idiotic practice, you are inviting your husband to abuse you knowing you have no skills, no financial stability to make it on your own but that is a separate issue.
the freeloading housewife is the same as a dood with a fat inheritance. he isn't costing society anything he is simply spending what others before him have worked to gain.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraand relax, i for one can hardly call the housewife lazy. performing that function in the household would drive me for one insane. it is not easy to stay at home, doing the same thing each day with the vague satisfaction your children do not come home to a empty home because both parents are gone, that they have a warm meal in front of them and not just a tv dinner because mom was stuck in a meeting and dad cannot make even an omelette that is not bio hazard.
I find it highly ironic that the same kind of people who are usually complaining about people on benefits and how they should make themselves useful are now defending laziness and freeloading!
of course i support women's right to a career, in fact i insist on it. and the equal distribution of chores around the house.. but not because society would collapse if me or wifey stay home and care for the children. if society depends and my wife to function, we are in big trouble.
Originally posted by ZahlanziPeople on benefits do the same. They spend money that others before them have worked to gain. The only difference is that the money for people on benefits are provided through tax. The economic impact is the same, and morally there is no difference.
basically one might consider house wives freeloading. but there are other worse things out there. the house wife isn't freeloading, her husband works for both of them.
sure, it is an idiotic practice, you are inviting your husband to abuse you knowing you have no skills, no financial stability to make it on your own but that is a separate issue.
the f ...[text shortened]... n't costing society anything he is simply spending what others before him have worked to gain.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrait is not the same difference. people on benefits get the public money. money better spent on other things or people who actually need it.
People on benefits do the same. They spend money that others before them have worked to gain. The only difference is that the money for people on benefits are provided through tax. The economic impact is the same, and morally there is no difference.
a housewife is spending the husbands money. you must look at it this way. a housewife is like an employee that only gets paid with food, shelter and clothing. for all intents and purposes it is like the housewife doesn't exist. she is invisible. the husband brings money in the house and a number of persons benefit. the children, a sick granma, the housewife, the house dog. as long as nobody desires more income in the house, who gets hurt? the husband may even set aside some money for her pension fund. in return, the housewife provides quality services that that particular family prefers instead of a babysitter, a maid, someone that does groceries, a tutor for the children and whatever else.
like i said, a housewife is no different than a rich heir spending his daddy's money. he doesn't cause damage because he isn't spending someone else's money, nobody has to work for him, somebody already worked for those money. and how that somebody decides to spend the produce is their business.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo, if you change "housewife" by "person on benefits" and "husband" by "government", what is the fundamental change? The only difference is the money received by the housewife is not public money. But if you look at it on a fundamental level, she is doing the same as a person who is on benefits, can work, but is too lazy. Society is providing the resources, and nothing is given in return. A rich heir who is living off the inheritance is economically far more harmful than a housewife or someone on benefits, because the amount of resources used tend to be higher. You say nobody has to work for a rich heir. This is utter nonsense. He is buying goods and services. People need to work to make these goods and provide these services. Ergo, people work for him and he gives nothing in return. That the person who gave him the inheritance worked for him changes nothing to the moral issues for the person receiving the inheritance.
it is not the same difference. people on benefits get the public money. money better spent on other things or people who actually need it.
a housewife is spending the husbands money. you must look at it this way. a housewife is like an employee that only gets paid with food, shelter and clothing. for all intents and purposes it is like the housewife does rked for those money. and how that somebody decides to spend the produce is their business.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraf o r c e
People on benefits do the same. They spend money that others before them have worked to gain. The only difference is that the money for people on benefits are provided through tax. The economic impact is the same, and morally there is no difference.
is the difference.
The point of the broken window fallacy is that someones involuntary loss is perceived as everyone elses gain. This involuntary loss does not occur when a husband chooses to support his wife.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraf o r c e
So, if you change "housewife" by "person on benefits" and "husband" by "government", what is the fundamental change? The only difference is the money received by the housewife is not public money. But if you look at it on a fundamental level, she is doing the same as a person who is on benefits, can work, but is too lazy. Society is providing the resour ...[text shortened]... ed for him changes nothing to the moral issues for the person receiving the inheritance.
is the difference.
Some one has amassed some wealth, it is theirs, it belongs to them, they have chosen to hand it on to a heir, this is what it is to own something.