Calling Languish parents: Why did you decide to have children?

[Phillip V]

Here is how the middle class is eroding. Now suburban white kids are behaving like poor bastard minorities.







As for the OP: I welcome people who decide not to have children.

However, the main issue is the "why" they are doing it. You might decide on never marrying and never fathering children so as to better devote yourself in the service of others. You love humanity.
Others may not want to have children because they see them as "parasites". Their view is unloving and flies in the face of the various actors that contributed to the survival and growth of a child so as to develop it into a contributing adult of good health and character.

Thus, whether or not to have children should first be a choice of love in both cases.

[Malthus]

Too bad, otherwise I never would have guessed you started the thread to discuss Kantian philosophy.

In this case, it was a Kant of worms.

I Kant take it any more.

[grumbler]

I Kant take it any more.

I Kant-ache it or leave it.

[Razgovory]

Instead, we must search for some alternative rationale, such as that arguing that the restored Martinus would live a worth life of dignity and meaning.  Given the contestability of that premise, however, poor Martinus might be left in an unfortunately precarious position . . .

I love how Minsky can land a crushing kick to the nuts, and look refined and sophisticated throughout the procedure.

Just keep away from the underneath of his desk.

[The Minsky Moment]

I Kant take it any more.

I Kant-ache it or leave it.

I don't know whether to Hume-r you two or do something to stop it before mods are forced to Locke the thread.
On the one hand, tis not Christian to cry Wolff; on the other hand, this is getting Paineful.

[Jacob]

Calvin all just get along? Or is it too far to Spinoza a religious reformer as a philosopher?

[Barrister]

[dps]

Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?

This is a cheap shot and a typical response in discussions like this. Rather lame.

I see how the question may seem facetious, but it was meant earnestly. Why would you quiz people on the interwebs, not all of which you have met, but not your own parents?

Your question already contains its own answer - I'm making sure my question is devoid of any emotional element by the virtue of it being asked to people with whom I share hardly any emotional connection with (or none at all).

There's a huge fallacy there.  The answers given by people who have children will have a lot of emotional elements, even if the question was asked anonymously (thus ruling out any emotional reaction to you on the part of those answering).

[Jacob]

There's an even bigger fallacy - the assumption that even if the emotional component to the answer could be filtered out, that it should be filtered out.

[grumbler]

I don't know whether to Hume-r you two or do something to stop it before mods are forced to Locke the thread.
On the one hand, tis not Christian to cry Wolff; on the other hand, this is getting Paineful.

Puns are, indeed, a Mills tome around our neck; each feels like a Newton of bricks.  Rue! Reap what Roussaeu.

[Jacob]

@ grumbler 

Abelard pressed to follow that, but we won't let that Boethus.

[katmai]

As much as i hate all of you and your stupid puns, still an improvement to this thread.

[Ed Anger]

As much as i hate all of you and your stupid puns, still an improvement to this thread.

A pile of turds would improve it.

[DGuller]

Unfortunately, we don't have a pile of turds, so we'll have to make do with puns.

[Ed Anger]

Give me a bit. I've been backed up all day.