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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by hotpotamus »

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?

Dog breeds are an object of human fascination with fashion. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12715176/most-popular-dog-bree...

I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject, but in my life, Doberman Pinchers and German Shepherds have gone through phases of being seen as dangerous breeds as well. My suspicion is that owners who desire aggressive dogs also tune into this and train their dogs accordingly.

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

#72

Post by x86x87 »

bell-cot wrote: post #54
x86x87 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh the pushback is real. Is it going to help?

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

#73

Post by x86x87 »

causality0 wrote: post #58
x86x87 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a cost optimizations exercise. Why give you tax breaks when I can get the same thing for free?

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

#74

Post by derstander »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #37
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.

I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one. And there are plenty of instances of untrained and abused animals. My downstairs neighbor keeps a dog so loud its bark can be heard through a concrete floor. It barks at all hours of the day, night, and early morning. It's because these neighbors are inconsiderate assholes. The apartment complex management shrugs their s…

> I live in apartments in Austin. The only reason people get dogs is because everyone else has one.

I don’t know if I’m parsing this correctly. Are you saying that the only reason people get dogs in your particular apartment building in Austin is because everyone else has one?

Or are you saying that, in general, the only reason that people get dogs is because everyone else has one? The latter just isn’t correct. And I can’t speak to your particular apartment building, but I’d expect it’s not true for everyone there either.

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

#75

Post by analog31 »

lgleason wrote: post #16

Here's a thought. Allow kids, but require that they have manners and are well behaved. I love kids and have no problems with them, but hate kids that have no manners and are not well behaved because the parents are not doing their job. The same is true with dogs. Both take work, but as a parent and a dog owner those are part of your job.

This is actually self enforcing for the most part. Raising kids who can behave themselves in a modern restaurant (e.g., 100+ dB crowd noise, large open spaces, and hour-long waits) involves a certain amount of luck. It's hard to be the only person expected to sit still and be quiet with no explanation as to why.

But once you know the range of social settings where you can expect your kids to behave, you can opt out of certain situations. I have two kids, both are now college age. We rarely took them to restaurants. It was unpleasant for us, unpleasant for them, and expensive. In fact I live in a town that's known for being a place to raise kids, and most people don't take their kids to restaurants that are not overtly kid friendly.

At the same time, people being more tolerant of the normal range of behaviors exhibited by children, could also be a matter of parents doing their job.

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

#76

Post by analog31 »

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

Everybody subsidizes the school system. And the productivity of educated workers subsidizes everybody. It's the bargain of the millennium.

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

#77

Post by abecedarius »

nfriedly wrote: post #67
abecedarius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. Their parents paid.

2. From my experience of public school it's more of a cost than a benefit. Many thousands of hours wasted, bullying incurred, etc. (That its value was negative does not reduce the other point about cost in taxes.)

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

#78

Post by abecedarius »

analog31 wrote: post #76
abecedarius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everybody subsidizes the school system. And the productivity of educated workers subsidizes everybody. It's the bargain of the millennium.

This is a common belief with terrible support and a good case against it. https://www.econlib.org/caplan-callard-the-case-against-educ... (I can recommend the book.)

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

lgleason wrote: post #16

Here's a thought. Allow kids, but require that they have manners and are well behaved. I love kids and have no problems with them, but hate kids that have no manners and are not well behaved because the parents are not doing their job. The same is true with dogs. Both take work, but as a parent and a dog owner those are part of your job.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by Banbeck »

(Disclosure, I am a parent and a happy one.) There is something so bleak about the quiet child hate in the modern world. To me, it implies on some level a lack of hope for a better future. This is as far as I can tell, a systemic problem of the modern world. Yes, bad kids are annoying. We've all been there. The problem is the behavior, not the fact that the misbehaving human is young. I'd be perfectly fine with designated public "quiet zone" (like libraries have been forever) and most kids could probably handle that concept too. Exclude behaviors, not people. As another example the article mentioned older men harassing young female wait staff, for those cases have a "no-romance zone". Anyone who can't abide by the rules gets ejected from that space. It's not that complicated. The real issue to me is that some people are offended that the young exist. I don't like people much either in general, but I don't resent their very existence. Kids are good if for no other reason than to remind you what a fool you were at that age. You're probably just as much a fool now, just (hopefully) in new and interesting ways.
Post reply on HN