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

61–70 of 114 posts

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

#61

Post by alvarezbjm-hn »

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.

"Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation"

You are mixing up many different unrelated topics here.

Smoking is [mostly] a choice. You used it for an analogy. You explained why it is good to have smoking laws. Then you act like this is part of the conversation on the same level as childfree zones. Smoking is a personal and a public health issue. You getting cancer is expensive for everyone, your non smoking flatmate getting smoking derived cancer is a tragedy (and expensive for everyone) Definitely not in the same level as ruckus, dirt and destruction of property.

Parenthood as in "how many children will someone have" is [mostly] a choice. But there are many reasons for society benefitting parenthood in spite of exclusionists (How to call them NIMBYS?)

-> Children are expensive for parents. CONVERSELY, they are fantastic for economy. Parents are forced to work because they MUST SPEND. Not that they want, they MUST pay for food, care, health, education, clothing, entertaiment.

-> Housing is a very important current issue. Not only in the US. In the few countries I have cared to pay attention, there is the pertinent mafia who has (unofficially exclusive) permission to build, and they naturally build less than required: it is obvious, less supply, better prices. Then add the "investors", buying all property to rent it. Now add the NIMBYS to that humanitary tragedy.

-> There comes a point when the rich country population is unsustainable, and the immigration floodgates are opened. (Cheap labor, anyone?) US and Canada are there already. If not done correctly, that creates many more social issues for everybody (even the immigrants)

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by causality0 »

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.

They have control over whether their kids are screaming where it will disrupt other people. You can always take a child into the bathroom or outside where you can resolve the issue without being a menace to other peoples' experience.

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

#64

Post by mecsred »

alvarezbjm-hn wrote: post #61
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.

"Smoking and parenthood are lifestyle choices, which have consequences. Skin color is not, and shouldn't. It is not relevant to the conversation" You are mixing up many different unrelated topics here. Smoking is [mostly] a choice. You used it for an analogy. You explained why it is good to have smoking laws. Then you act like this is part of the conversation on the same level as childfree zones. Smoking is a persona…

I [mostly] don't disagree with what you've written here. I think you misinterpreted my point. I'm not trying to say smoking and parenthood are the exact same, I'm trying to say wanting to take a date out for a nice meal with no screaming infants and racial segregation are absolutely NOT the same.

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

#65

Post by Dma54rhs »

EA-3167 wrote: post #55
Dma54rhs wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might apply to that anything if you want to go full individualism - from taxes to vaccines but that is not how societies work. Only on paper for the libertarian types.

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

#66

Post by mcphage »

missedthecue wrote: post #52
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Wouldn't we assume a more normal distribution of bad owners across breeds

I don’t think so… given breeds have different reputations, there’s no reason to expect that anything about their owners distributions to be random.

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

#67

Post by nfriedly »

abecedarius wrote: post #40
bell-cot wrote: post #4

Modest idea: Moderately tax no-kids zones. Spend the money to subsidize services which are ~essential to those with young children (such as day care) and ~useless to those without.

Childless taxpayers subsidize the public school system. I get the impression this is a substantial cost already. A better starting point is to take down artificial costs imposed on childrearing, like https://thezvi.substack.com/p/on-car-seats-as-contraception

Most people go through the public school system - so childless or not, you could think of that tax as paying back for the education they already received.

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

#68

Post by newaccount74 »

ryan93 wrote: post #5
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.

[flagged]

Online discussion forums are full of child free people because they have nothing to do all day.

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

#69

Post by Chris2048 »

alvarezbjm-hn wrote: post #28
pessimizer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black people aren't children.

"Black people aren't children" Deflection Both concepts (white only and childfree) are the same (Exclusion of the others), and come from the same place (My right to have what I want is more important than everybody else's) Same as it was considered bad taste to have blacks lingering around, now it is bad taste to have children running around.

Parents are allowed in, just not with their kids, much like people with dogs are allowed in without the dogs.

It's also funny that you are OK with "it is bad taste to have dogs running around", almost like it's your preference..

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

#70

Post by mcphage »

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.

Being a child is not a choice. No-kid zones ban children, not parents.
Post reply on HN