I’m a pragmatist. I don’t see the point in making people make hard choices when they don’t have to. The vast majority of people will always choose us over them, and not many things are more ‘us’ than our children. So rather than rail against the imperfection of humanity, I’d rather promote the idea this issue should never arise. Our nation is wealthy enough that people shouldn’t have to risk their or other people’s health when they or their kids are sick, yet we have nothing in place for most employees to make sure that doesn’t have to be a consideration. I’d posit those who have the power to change are not merely amoral, but rather are immoral, and those who have no sympathy for those in the position to have to choose the health of their kids versus the health of some other kid are out of touch or insensitive.
Putting your convenience before the health of other people’s children is entitled and selfish. Public health ordered them to keep their children isolated until they had tested negative and remained symptom free for a few days. Instead they risked sickening or killing other people’s children. That is never acceptable. I am sympathetic to their inconvenience but it’s an entitled, selfish asshole move to risk the lives of other people’s children for any reason.
I think they should be charged with violating a public health order and had my children been sickened because of their selfishness I would be suing them for every penny I could get out of them.
No.
Putting other people’s children at risk will never be acceptable.
Period.
And here I thought the goal was to put no children at risk.
There is no circumstance where putting someone else’s child’s life at risk is acceptable. Period.
Ever.
You’re an amoral, toxicly entitled assholes if you do.
I’m a pragmatist. I don’t see the point in making people make hard choices when they don’t have to. The vast majority of people will always choose us over them, and not many things are more ‘us’ than our children. So rather than rail against the imperfection of humanity, I’d rather promote the idea this issue should never arise. Our nation is wealthy enough that people shouldn’t have to risk their or other people’s health when they or their kids are sick, yet we have nothing in place for most employees to make sure that doesn’t have to be a consideration. I’d posit those who have the power to change are not merely amoral, but rather are immoral, and those who have no sympathy for those in the position to have to choose the health of their kids versus the health of some other kid are out of touch or insensitive.
Putting your convenience before the health of other people’s children is entitled and selfish. Public health ordered them to keep their children isolated until they had tested negative and remained symptom free for a few days. Instead they risked sickening or killing other people’s children. That is never acceptable. I am sympathetic to their inconvenience but it’s an entitled, selfish asshole move to risk the lives of other people’s children for any reason.
I think they should be charged with violating a public health order and had my children been sickened because of their selfishness I would be suing them for every penny I could get out of them.
It is NEVER acceptable. EVER.