There's a lot of people who shouldn't be parents. Maybe we shouldn't encourage child abuse. Just a thought.
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn't happen, but I think it'll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
but I think it’ll be happen less than more
Oh good, as long as it's only some child abuse...
Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it'll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.
Wow. Are you really 'game theorying' child abuse?
Yes. And that's not an argument. If we had a genie, it'd probably be in my three wishes. However we do not. Do you disagree with my incentives reasoning or not? I think it's still pretty good.
I think it could also be argued that being a cognitively functioning adult that has not attempted to teach the youth is also abusive. You're letting em rot. If you dont take one then they'll just go to someone presumably more abusive than you-- You monster! :p And in doing so, in saving the youth, you'd be allowed to select some stooges into office. Its sounding better by the reply, lol.
Specifically how many abused children are acceptable in this "solution?" Let's hear a number.
It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you've shown some sign of life here, sheesh.
Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?
That's not an answer.
Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.
Still not an answer.
Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?
Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just 'no, you first.' ;]
No, your idea doesn't make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you're right, do you find that acceptable?
Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an "NPC" or any other names.
There's a lot of people who shouldn't be parents. Maybe we shouldn't encourage child abuse. Just a thought.
Encourage child abuse? Are you suggesting people will take on children to so they can vote? Im not saying it wouldn't happen, but I think it'll be happen less than more. Or, another way, that a great mant of people are already taking on the duty of rearing children without any benefit (okay, maybe tax write-offs).
Oh good, as long as it's only some child abuse...
Well, whats the ambient level of abuse? Do you think it'll tick up significantly? Lets say a growth of +5%? Im very doubtful. Abusing foster kids has an immediate economic incentive, the vote is a 50/50 gamble on a slow trickle of incentive. The game-theory will still favor abusing foster kids, IMO.
Wow. Are you really 'game theorying' child abuse?
Yes. And that's not an argument. If we had a genie, it'd probably be in my three wishes. However we do not. Do you disagree with my incentives reasoning or not? I think it's still pretty good.
I think it could also be argued that being a cognitively functioning adult that has not attempted to teach the youth is also abusive. You're letting em rot. If you dont take one then they'll just go to someone presumably more abusive than you-- You monster! :p And in doing so, in saving the youth, you'd be allowed to select some stooges into office. Its sounding better by the reply, lol.
Specifically how many abused children are acceptable in this "solution?" Let's hear a number.
It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you've shown some sign of life here, sheesh.
Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?
That's not an answer.
Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.
Still not an answer.
Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?
Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just 'no, you first.' ;]
No, your idea doesn't make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you're right, do you find that acceptable?
Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an "NPC" or any other names.