Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#51

Post by Dma54rhs »

mecsred wrote: post #15
ryan93 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This logic makes no sense. What about no smoking spaces? Basically every nation implements these and it benefits everyone (including smokers, more reasons to quit). Are you going to try and tell me "no smoking in front of the building" is the new apartheid? Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation.

Parenthood is necessary so your nation doesn't go extinct and hopefully you get a paid pension from a new generation. As the other commenter said many nations tax having a child free lifestyle just like they tax smoking.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#52

Post by missedthecue »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #39
anonym29 wrote: post #2

Wish we had a hell of a lot more of these in the USA. Especially pet-free apartments. Something needs to be done about the service animal loophole though, far too many people abusing that system to bring e.g. pair of pitbulls into communities that only allow small dogs or the few rare gems that allow no dogs at all.

What’s wrong with pitbulls? Every one I’ve met is a sweet little thing. And I know the stats on dog attacks. Something like 10 a year from pitbulls could easily be down to owners buying them specifically to use them as weapons and training them as such.

Since you're aware of the statistics, how can you reconcile that only pitbulls seem to have bad owners? Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds, making golden retrievers, great danes, or bloodhounds just as likely to maim and kill other pets or children?

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#53

Post by Dma54rhs »

warning26 wrote: post #29
logicchains wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the people arguing for white-only spaces said whites caused less property damage than certain other races.

And that’s related how? Choosing to have a kid (or a pet) is a choice, while race isn’t. Seems to me that’s a pretty major distinction.

Are these serious opinions? I'm sure in America they said to black folk having kids is a choice as well - you can skip the discrimination by not having a new generation.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#54

Post by bell-cot »

x86x87 wrote: post #32
bell-cot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are enough options... Maybe , with regard to living in an area with/without kids around. But for those who want to have children of their own...what I've heard from younger folks around here, that really does not look like an option anymore, unless you're in the 1%.

Not to get all political or spin conspiracy theories, but this makes you wonder why we are going in a direction where abortion + birth control will be illegal (at least for most people). Not to mention relaxing the age requirements for being able to work. Could this be a strategy to force people to reproduce and ensure that the poorly payed, disposable workers supply does not run dry?

At least in America, the most-popular-and-growing preference for birth control seems to be "not in a relationship". Trying to force people past that barrier might get some more-zealous pushback.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#55

Post by EA-3167 »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #51
mecsred wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic makes no sense. What about no smoking spaces? Basically every nation implements these and it benefits everyone (including smokers, more reasons to quit). Are you going to try and tell me "no smoking in front of the building" is the new apartheid? Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation.

Parenthood is necessary so your nation doesn't go extinct and hopefully you get a paid pension from a new generation. As the other commenter said many nations tax having a child free lifestyle just like they tax smoking.

"Breed for the good of the nation" isn't the compelling argument it once was.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#57

Post by emaro »

loeg wrote: post #47
causality0 wrote: post #34

Personally I've found the presence of children in restaurants can be totally fine depending on the parents. If they keep a handle on them they're no more unpleasant than an adult. If they're trashy people who let their kids scream and carry on it's a nightmare. I haven't lived in SK but I'm surprised there are many people who would let their kids be disruptive.

It's optimistic to assume parents have direct control over whether their kids are screaming or not.

That's very true in general, but anecdotally the children in Korea (the few I saw) were very well behaved. They didn't shout, scream, cry or anything. Even when playing, running around etc. they were remarkably quiet. It's a combination of education and culture.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#58

Post by causality0 »

x86x87 wrote: post #32
bell-cot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are enough options... Maybe , with regard to living in an area with/without kids around. But for those who want to have children of their own...what I've heard from younger folks around here, that really does not look like an option anymore, unless you're in the 1%.

Not to get all political or spin conspiracy theories, but this makes you wonder why we are going in a direction where abortion + birth control will be illegal (at least for most people). Not to mention relaxing the age requirements for being able to work. Could this be a strategy to force people to reproduce and ensure that the poorly payed, disposable workers supply does not run dry?

If that were the case the powers that be would be using the carrot as well as the stick. Parental leave, tax breaks, etc.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#59

Post by kpw94 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #25
dm319 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation.

An opinion, to be sure, but not the only one. If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably, demographically speaking (and there are already 8 billion people on the planet, headed to 10 billion). Another opinion is that children are a luxury good, not a necessity.

>> Anyone who is child free still has a vested interest in the future generation.

> If child free, you’re only vested in whatever it takes to get you to the grave comfortably

Aren't you saying the same thing as parent post? When someone's 60 to 80 years old, which generation is going to "to get them to the grave comfortably"?

Basic necessities like food, etc, no matter the current amount of automation to multiply outputs, you still need a baseline of working people.

Re: Doubts creep in about wisdom of ‘no-kids zones’ in South Korea

#60

Post by almost_usual »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #48
cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a pro-social attitude.

I’m happy to discuss what “pro social” means in another thread to prevent derailing this one, to be polite to the forum. My thoughts on the idea are that it means taking care of everyone existing first at a reasonable level of quality, before encouraging more folks to have kids with social or economic incentives because the economic pyramid scheme is at risk [1]. If you have the resources, the support network, and th…

The societal problem is elderly care will skyrocket.
Post reply on HN