Shekel quest

>parents create bank accounts for each of their children for college
>sister got money to pay off her college from parents, cool
>brother got money to pay off college, cool
>i actively believe taking an apprenticeship in plumbing, despite being very talented in CS so far, is a wise economic decision; guess who gets 0 dollars

even if i do end up getting 0 dollars ill be fine financially because plumbing pays very well. it just makes be very aggravated when my sister and brother get special treatment even though ill be working my ass off just as much, if not more, as them. i know im really privileged to come from a middle class family and am grateful that i dont owe my parents anything but its more of a fair treatment situation. knowing my mom, whos pretty materialistic, shell probably spend on something really retarded. it also pisses me off because i want to start a family earlier in life.

is 30,000 that much? I know thats a years earning for some people but how could having that amount (assuming i compound that interest) jump start my goal of having a family. Mainly want to know what im missing out on.

thoughts?

Attached: shekel.jpg (400x400, 49K)

They're not getting special treatment though. You all had that money available to you *if you went to college*. If you're not going to college, why should your parents just give you $30k for the hell of it?

You're not even entitled to it, it's your parents' money, not yours, and they can do what they want with it. They value college educations for reasons only they can tell you, so they wanted to put some money aside for their children to go to college. If none of you had gone to college, I doubt they would have given any of you money.

Quit bitching that you're not getting something that's not yours to begin with.

so you're saying apprenticeships are worth less than college degrees (duh) and that if i wanted to be a dickbag i should go to college for CS just to steal monies for teh lulz

you parents are stupid sheep that fell for the jew college meme.

the only beneficial reasons to go to college are stem

Sorry you had retard parents user, but when your a successful tradesman, you can start your own plumbing buissnes and your parents will see how much more successful you are than your siblings working at starbucks

Attached: 1523088894861.jpg (604x516, 126K)

No I'm saying that your parents think that apprenticeships are worth less than college degrees and that you're not entitled to your parents' money.

Start having brochures for really bad nursing homes sent to your parents home in your name

Attached: A1E9910B-FED7-419C-9DC0-77E68518BDF7.jpg (960x1280, 330K)

but you're implying my siblings are entitled to it only because they chose a different career path than me. my parents gave me zero fucking warning that i wouldnt be getting this money if I chose an apprenticeship even after i told them its what i wanted to do.

And I know some tradesman that did both, took marking and business/entrepreneurial classes to assist them in starting larger companies.

But the real point is, it’s not your money. You could also stop returning their calls and slowly ghost them.

>son, you can't have this money but some college can
are they even aware that they're betraying you for some shitty college?
complete bullshit

>"Hey user we put some money aside in case you want to go to college"
>"I'm not going to college"
>"Ok then we'll keep the money"
>"OMG THATS SO UNFAIR WHYDOES EVERYONE ELSE GET SPECIAL TREEATTMMEEENT"

They're not entitled to it. None of you are. They just happen to have received it because they chose a path that your parents approved of. If none of you had gone to college, there's a fair chance that none of you would have got any money.

And again, it's their money, not yours.

insert ">1 year later" in the middle and yeah thats pretty much me

You sound like a real dummy. If I were your parents I wouldn't give you $10, OP, because you fail to understand such a basic concept. If I offer a friend or acquaintance $500 to help them pay for a trip and then they tell me "Oh, I'm not going on the trip anymore I've decided to do something else" in what universe am I still obligated, morally or otherwise, to still give them the money? I offered to help them achieve one specific task and they decided not to participate in that one specific task. Whether or not the money would be useful to them in accomplishing other tasks is absolutely irrelevant. They were willing to pay for college and you decided not to go. They gave you a condition for a gift and you decided not to meet that one condition. This is really a very simply concept.

you're very conveniently forgetting that OP didn't know the terms of the deal and that the deal was most likely made when he was underage
>If I offer a friend or acquaintance $500 to help them pay for a trip and then they tell me "Oh, I'm not going on the trip anymore I've decided to do something else
you and a friend making a deal isn't anywhere near comparable to parents making shoddy deals with their underage kids

>you're very conveniently forgetting that OP didn't know the terms of the deal and that the deal was most likely made when he was underage
Its a very simple sentence. "We saved up some money to pay for your college.". Not "We have some money here to help you out as an adult" or "We have some money to pay for whatever you want to pursue after highschool.". It was a specific purpose for a specific amount of money. Regardless whether or not he understood when he was underage he's no longer underage and still failing to understand.
>you and a friend making a deal isn't anywhere near comparable to parents making shoddy deals with their underage kids
Its the same exact thing. "If you do A I will give you B". It couldn't possibly be any simpler.

Okay, so it's like if you thought to yourself "if a friend comes on holiday with me, I'll give them $500". Friend A and friend B go on holiday with you, and you give them $500 each. Friend C decides not to go and still expects $500. Are you really saying that friend C is still entitled to the money?

>Its the same exact thing
no it isn't because underage kids have much less moral responsibility than your friend and parents have much greater responsibility towards their kids than you do to your friend(even after they turn 18)
these examples aren't comparable to OP's situation because of the reasons I wrote above

>no it isn't because underage kids have much less moral responsibility than your friend and parents have much greater responsibility towards their kids than you do to your friend(even after they turn 18)
We're not talking about an underaged kid. We're talking about OP right now who is failing to understand this simple concept right now as we speak. "If you do A I will give you B". I can't dumb this down any more. This has nothing to do with moral responsibility. This is a simple, grade school "if then" statement.
>these examples aren't comparable to OP's situation because of the reasons I wrote above
"If you do A I will give you B"
That is it, plain and simple. I honestly don't know what part about this concept is so difficult for you to grasp.

Are you dumb nigger? It's not your money. You have no say in where it goes and there's no such thing as fair because you had no right to it to begin with. If you go against their wishes, they pull the incentive. What do you not get about that retard?

Or, get this everyone: op is a whiny entitled cunt and his parents are sick of his bullshit so the checkbook closed. Fucking deal with it, op. It's not fair and you didn't play the game like your siblings did. They won and you lost. Sod off.

OP is a self made Man and his siblings are cucks.

>We're not talking about an underaged kid.
he was underage when the deal was made, giving him much less responsibility for it. not to mention he didn't even know the terms of it even when he turned 18
>This has nothing to do with moral responsibility
the parents moral responsibility for what occurred is what my whole argument is about so if you strip the morality from it, of course it's going to be as simple as "If you do A I will give you B"

But is it moral to feel entitled?

>he was underage when the deal was made, giving him much less responsibility for it. not to mention he didn't even know the terms of it even when he turned 18
It was a simple "if then" statement. He ultimately made the decision not to complete the terms of the arrangement as an adult so your entire narrative about him not understanding the deal when he was a kid is completely irrelevant.
>the parents moral responsibility for what occurred is what my whole argument is about so if you strip the morality from it
If you complete A I will give you B. I can keep repeating this if you're still not understanding. He was presented with the option of completing A and then receiving B. He declined to complete A therefore did not receive B. END OF STORY. There is no moral responsibility. He was presented with a simple contract completely voluntary on his part and he chose not to complete it. His parents have no responsibility, moral or otherwise, to give him any money. They offered the same option to all of his siblings and whether or not they actually wanted to go to college the decided to opt in. There is no consolation prize for those who decide not to fulfill the terms of their arrangements If anything, this is a life lesson for OP to learn.

>He ultimately made the decision not to complete the terms of the arrangement as an adult so your entire narrative about him not understanding the deal when he was a kid is completely irrelevant.
that remains to be seen and "completing terms of the arrangement" sounds a lot easier than choosing to go to college
>He was presented with a simple contract completely voluntary on his part and he chose not to complete it.
you're giving a ton of responsibility to OP and very very little to the parents when it should be the other way around
>If you complete A I will give you B
it really isn't this simple, these are life changing things dictated to by his parents from a deal made to him as a kid which he didn't know the terms of even after turning 18
if you don't want to argue the morality of the situation then we're just going to keep going in this circle
if they're not hurting anyone and aren't violating the NAP then I guess

>probably past your NAP time

>"completing terms of the arrangement" sounds a lot easier than choosing to go to college
How it sounds is irrelevant. How difficult the task is is also irrelevant. If you want a gold medal in the olympics you have to place first. If you want to become President you have to get the most votes in the election. Complete task, receive compensation. It couldn't be any simpler.
>you're giving a ton of responsibility to OP and very very little to the parents when it should be the other way around
They have no responsibility. They gave him an option and he chose not to take it. They wanted him to go to college and provided an incentive to do so. He declined their offer therefore forfeited the incentive. All his siblings were given the same choice. 100% of the responsibility is with him.
>if you don't want to argue the morality of the situation then we're just going to keep going in this circle
There is no morality. If he wants the money he goes to college. If he doesn't want the money he doesn't.You complete a task and receive agreed upon compensation. If you don't complete the task you don't get the compensation. This is how real life works.

we have very different foundational views on parental and moral responsibility so I don't think we're going to get any further
thanks for the argument, though. it was fun

We're not getting any further because you just keep stating "They have a moral responsibility" and failing to articulate why. I've fully articulated my point and why I believe it to be valid but you just seem to respond to everything with "but moral responsibility". The argument was length but rather fruitless. In the future I recommend following up your points with precise reasons why you believe them to be accurate. Its difficult to have a debate when one side is only capable of declarations.

>"They have a moral responsibility" and failing to articulate why
I didn't know I had to articulate why parents have a moral responsibility to not screw over their kids
>but you just seem to respond to everything with "but moral responsibility"
because morality is what my entire argument is based on and you refuse to engage with it
in the future I would recommend you to not be afraid to assign parents some responsibility, especially when you're trying to assign all of it to their child

>I didn't know I had to articulate why parents have a moral responsibility to not screw over their kids
No, you have yet to articulate how refusing to give someone compensation when they have not met their end of the bargain is screwing someone over.
>because morality is what my entire argument is based on and you refuse to engage with it
I would engage with it if you gave one well thought out, cohesive reason for why it isn't fair for someone to withhold payment for a job that never got done. You haven't given one reason why it is at all OP's parents responsibility to make this situation right when it was 100% OP's choice not to take advantage of their offer. We're going in circles because you say "Assign them responsibility" I say "Why?" then you say "Moral responsibility" without even making an attempt to articulate the reasoning behind your logic. You're an absolutely abysmal debater, user.