Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gantolandon]

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too. Where the fuck was their social worker, though? It's bullshit.

The ugly truth is that they frequently don't care. There is not many people who would adopt a child, because they usually prefer to have their own. Orphanages usually do everything they can to get rid of the children under their care (this is also because the earlier it gets out of there, the better chance it have to adapt to its new family), and social workers to their best to ignore uncaring foster parents.

Sometimes shit happens, though - in Poland, recently, foster parents managed to beat to death two of their charges. And I don't mean they did that simultaneously - it was in the span of a month. Only after the second child had died, the authorities decided that something seems strange there and begun investigation. It appears that almost every institution involved fucked up: the foster parents wasn't schooled, screening was laughable and detected abnormalities (both during screening and afterwards) were swept under the rug.

[scriver]

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too.

So true. Main reason for running an orphanage in the 18-/19th century? Not charity, those brats make excellent unpaid labour.

Orphanages usually do everything they can to get rid of the children under their care

There used to be a horrible practice in Sweden (I would specify rural, but that's like all of it ) where orphans were auctioned as farmhands/maids to the lowest bidder. Ended in the 40's-60's sometime.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But this has been a thing for a long time. People have been abusing adopted kids since even before the government paid them too.

So true. Main reason for running an orphanage in the 18-/19th century? Not charity, those brats make excellent unpaid labour.

That was the main reason for having children at all before around 1940 or so. Still is in some places.

[scriver]

No. Children helping out and working to support the household or just because they lived in a household with lots of work, like a farm, is not the same.

And no, that wasn't the main reason people had kids back then. The main reason people had kids was because they liked fucking, and goat bladders make awful condoms.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see any meaningful difference between fostered child labor and blood child labor.

While I agree that people had lots of kids back then because they liked fucking and had no contraception as well, that isn't a motivation to have children.

[scriver]

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

And I don't see why "motivations" would even matter, as sex has kids as a direct consequence of them. Still, the main "motivation" would still be that were kind of wired to want kids. That desire (and the resulting social pressure) for children is in itself a lot more "motivational" rather than such trappings as "six-seven years from now this kid might be able to start making life less hard for us" (or even further away "when we're old and grey they can care for us"). Those are just benefits.

[scriver]

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

And I don't see why "motivations" would even matter, as sex has kids as a direct consequence of them. Still, the main "motivation" would still be that were kind of wired to want kids. That desire (and the resulting social pressure) for children is in itself a lot more "motivational" rather than such trappings as "six-seven years from now this kid might be able to start making life less hard for us" (or even further away "when we're old and grey they can care for us"). Those are just benefits.

[Frumple]

No. Children helping out and working to support the household or just because they lived in a household with lots of work, like a farm, is not the same.

And no, that wasn't the main reason people had kids back then. The main reason people had kids was because they liked fucking, and goat bladders make awful condoms.

Yeah, not really. At least insofar as everything I've seen regarding marriage and suchlike in most historical societies goes. Marriage, procreation, family creation... they were all a lot more practical, if you will, for most of human history. People didn't have kids because fucking is fun (though it is), they had kids so they'd have farmhands and things to barter to other families for dowries and suchlike. Partner choice was more about family connections and fecundity than anything else. Romance and reasons beyond what were essentially economic hasn't really been a big concern insofar as that sort of thing goes until very, very recently (in a relative sense). You had kids because you needed kids to tend the land (/send off to work/etc.) and keep the family going, and you wanted as many as you could get because that was how you made sure those two things happened.

Net hiccup made response come after, but... I think it still applies. Most of our history it was more or less the other way around -- sex being fun was the benefit. It was the kids you were after.

You honestly can't see any difference between kids helping out because they have to in order to get by (and because the only way to learn a trade was apprenticeship) and a man gathering as many children as possible and raising them in Aw cheaply as possible in order to turn a personal profit?

Yeah, there's a difference there, but it's divorced from the historical context MSH was talking about. It's only been recently that kids were anything but a net profit, so that latter bit was pretty close to the de facto state of things. The primary reason they tended to stick to blood kin instead of orphans was due to concerns related to marriage and marriage equivalents, so far as I understand it.

[Pnx]

Spoiler: Macroeconomics. In ragecomic form. (click to show/hide)

You know, I do find myself wondering if one day people are going to look at internet ragecomics the same way we look at Punch political cartoons.

[lordcooper]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

"What does Barrack Obama look like?"

[Sirus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

I couldn't help but laugh at it xD
But yeah, just a little heavy on the propaganda.

[Eagle_eye]

This sort of stuff just encourages the "democrats and republicans are all the same" people.

[Zrk2]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/samuel-l-jackson-obama-video

Kinda funny, kinda dumb propaganda.

Too bad I lost all respect for him when he said racism was his primary reason for voting for Obama.

[Leafsnail]

This sort of stuff just encourages the "democrats and republicans are all the same" people.

The ad's purpose is the energize a somewhat apathetic base, not sway undecided to the cause on its own.