> I'd argue the parents of said children are anti-children, because they are living in an apartment building without any possibility to play for the children nearby.
What do you have to say about the fact that apartments are the only option?
It feels to me that you're trying to depict not living in a nice suburban villa as subjecting children to abuse, as if this was a whimsical decision of egotistical parents.
Meanwhile, moving to the suburbs is a luxury that's way out of the reach of working class families, not to mention the fact that outside of the US it's outright unthinkable.
And all the time wasted commuting is not considered abuse why?
To me it reads you're claiming "let them eat cake", followed up by "not letting children eat cake is anti-children."
I know for a fact that child-friendly-suburbian appartments are actually cheaper then the city-center-appartment they have now. But you can go on and assume all sorts of bad things about me, that doesnt change my opinion about egotistical parents.
OP is not the exception. I have at least two playgrounds in a 300m radius. Perhaps I'm lucky but I don't recall ever living in a place that didn't had at least a playground in walking distance.
What do you have to say about the fact that apartments are the only option?
It feels to me that you're trying to depict not living in a nice suburban villa as subjecting children to abuse, as if this was a whimsical decision of egotistical parents.
Meanwhile, moving to the suburbs is a luxury that's way out of the reach of working class families, not to mention the fact that outside of the US it's outright unthinkable.
And all the time wasted commuting is not considered abuse why?
To me it reads you're claiming "let them eat cake", followed up by "not letting children eat cake is anti-children."