Your in laws are proposing you and your husband enter into terrible investments because it's what would be most convenient for them and their family (like the member who lives rent-free in the duplex).

If they need financial assistance and you want to help, fine. Cut them a check.

But buying houses with them is a really bad idea.

Do not do this. There may come a time when they can't/don't want to pay for something, and you'll be left paying for it. Or, equally as bad, there may come a time when you and your husband can't/don't want to pay for something.

Do not do this. When you talk to your husband about it, you need to talk through worst-case scenarios. Are you prepared to assume the costs of 3 houses? You can't assume that everything will go smoothly the whole time.

Your parents should not have access to your money.

Do not let them guilt you into finally supporting them. They are adults. You can choose to help them financially, but they are not entitled to your money.

The article doesn't contain that quote. Where did you see it, OP?

Did you even read anything I wrote?

I actually said I don't think it's practical to try to do it with everything. There's too many things. You'd spend your life trying to do all the research.

But when you're made aware of it - but shrug your shoulders and watch anyway, that's ok?

And your reasoning "this won't make a difference unless I can get billions of people to also not watch" - so being a part of the audience Qatar and FIFA profit from is fine because lots of other people are doing it?

Do you just have no standards for yourself? It doesn't matter how horrific things are, just as long as you don't have to miss out on watching a soccer tournament?

What if they just killed a slave laborer at halftime of every game? Would you still watch, but make sure to go get a snack at halftime so you didn't have to be inconvenienced by watching the slave being killed? This isn't much different - they just killed the slaves before the games instead, hoping people like you would just look the other way. I guess they were right.

Enjoy the World Cup!

It's a sporting event. This isn't like "you might only get to see this member of your family 15 more times in your life." It's "you might get to watch this soccer tournament 14 times rather than 15.

I'm saying we should all do better. I'm not asking for 1000% perfection here. But when you do find out that something was produced with slave labor, you shouldn't help the oppressor. So, yeah, if a person knows that the Qatar stadiums were made with slave labor and they watch the games anyway, they are doing something wrong. That is a bad thing that they ought to be ashamed of.

The net story was a hoax.

Also, do you work for FIFA or something? It seems to really bother you that people are noticing FIFA and soccer fans looking the other way on slavery and murder.

Amen. Now, it's very difficult to know where a lot of things are produced. We should all do a better job on that front. I'm sure I'm not perfect.

But that's not the case with the World Cup. Everyone has easy access to information about how the Qatari government confiscated passports and worked immigrant laborers to death.

Just a reminder that if you watch the Qatar World Cup, you're saying that slavery and murder are not as important as your own enjoyment of soccer. That it doesn't matter that Qatar enslaved and killed people, because you just really want to watch soccer.

That's why I said we do need more rangers.

I just meant that I'm not sure what the point is of comparing two radically different industries that fill totally different needs, have totally different models, and function radically different in different societies.

I'm not at all saying that there aren't good reasons for dramatically increasing the number of rangers. We should do that.

There should be more rangers. But comparing their numbers to random industries doesn't seem to make sense.

Are parks understaffed? Of course. Know how many regional/national parks I visit each year? maybe 3 or 4 (and I spend maybe 3 hours at a time there). I suspect a large proportion of people in the US visit staffed parks even less than that. That doesn't mean we don't need more rangers. We do.

Just saying, I'm not sure I get the point of comparing it to other industries that service many times the number of people, and much much more often.

I'm not going to say that's impossible... but it doesn't sound likely.