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

[Barrister]

It certainly was true of my BMW.

But I think you missed the "for another person" part of the sentence.

[DGuller]

It certainly was true of my BMW.

But I think you missed the "for another person" part of the sentence.

Ok, buying your wife a BMW.

[Eddie Teach]

Well yeah, we've all been pretty much sitting around marking time until Malthus chimes in.

Isn't that true of every thread?

[Malthus]

Well yeah, we've all been pretty much sitting around marking time until Malthus chimes in.

Isn't that true of every thread?

How very flattering. 

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps the better question is why do people choose not to have children.  If one wishes to speak about self centred greedy behaviour the decision to devote all your resources to yourself rather than spending some of those resources to raise the next generation has got to be near the top of the list.

Mind you Marti does us all a kindness by not adopting.  Even though he will not pass on his nature he could still do some serious damage.

Not necessarily. A single person could have more disposable income to a) help economy, b) donate to charity, c) leave more wealth behind that wasn't tied up in additional mouths that they've created.

You missed the part about adopting. 

Not really. You can still assist future generations without adopting.

Yeah, you can do as little as you want then.

[Martinus]

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

wins the thread 

Sorry, but Marti wins the thread by trolling all you idiots into participating in 12+ pages of his heterophobic bullshit.

And you knew it, too.  And you did it anyway.



"You know whats going to happen here in the morning? The whole damn forum is going to be here. They'll move through this thread, occupy these posts on the other side and when our people get here Marti will have the high ground. There will be the devil to pay! The high ground! Berkut will come in slowly, cautiously. New to command. They'll be on his back in The Off Topic Topic, wire hot with messages 'Post! Post!' So he will set up a ring around the Thread Starter. And when Marti's nicely entrenched behind fat posts on the high ground, Berkut will finally attack, if he can coordinate BB and Malthus. Straight up the thread, out in the open, in that gorgeous field of fire.

We will post valiantly... and be trolled valiantly! And afterwards posters in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave thread it was.

Katmai, I've led a mod's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this."

See, I'm saying stuff you are afraid to say but you think anyway. Because deep inside you are annoyed by the looks and the whispers of "weird uncle Seedee, with his cats and no kids or wife" or how you are missing out on the true purpose of your life, according to the Languish benevolent paternalists. I yanked their chain for you, for Brazen, for the gays. You don't need to send the flowers.

[Malthus]

Who says we parents are benevolent? 

[Neil]

Martinus speaks for Martinus.  The others can handle their own business.

[CountDeMoney]

See, I'm saying stuff you are afraid to say but you think anyway. Because deep inside you are annoyed by the looks and the whispers of "weird uncle Seedee, with his cats and no kids or wife" or how you are missing out on the true purpose of your life, according to the Languish benevolent paternalists. I yanked their chain for you, for Brazen, for the gays. You don't need to send the flowers.

I'm the first to give breeders shit on their "omg my life is so much more fulfilled and valuable than yours because I didn't use a condom" bullshit. 
But I don't need you on my team. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Hmm.
I suppose I should know better, but then again if I did I would avoid languish in the first place.

So I will pose a hypothetical.

Suppose tomorrow, Martinus is the ironic victim of a deranged cave troll, and is reduced to a coma.  Without extraordinary medical intervention, he will remain in that state indefinitely.  With extraordinary medical intervention, however, he can be restored to life and eventually regain full functioning.  The question is whether is would it be morally proper to take the steps to return Martinus to life.  Under most moral analyses not involving languish posters, bringing Martinus back to life would be a moral good.  Certainly I can think of nothing objectionable under a Kantian schema.  Yet under Martinus' analysis, including his rather idiosyncratic reading of the Kantian imperative, such an act is morally suspect, because there must be some independent justification for bringing the now defunct Martinus into the world.  Because Martinus, unlike most mainstream readings of Kant, appears to ascribe no value to human life in and of itself, it isn't enough to say that restoring Martinus to life is a good in and of itself.  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 . . .

[The Brain]

See, I'm saying stuff you are afraid to say but you think anyway. Because deep inside you are annoyed by the looks and the whispers of "weird uncle Seedee, with his cats and no kids or wife" or how you are missing out on the true purpose of your life, according to the Languish benevolent paternalists. I yanked their chain for you, for Brazen, for the gays. You don't need to send the flowers.

I'm the first to give breeders shit on their "omg my life is so much more fulfilled and valuable than yours because I didn't use a condom" bullshit. 
But I don't need you on my team. 

Your fingers type no but your mouth shouts yes.

[Martinus]

Part of that power which still
Produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill.

[Eddie Teach]

Well yeah, we've all been pretty much sitting around marking time until Malthus chimes in.

Isn't that true of every thread?

How very flattering. 

Sure, if you choose to ignore the flippant sarcasm.

[Martinus]

Hmm.
I suppose I should know better, but then again if I did I would avoid languish in the first place.

So I will pose a hypothetical.

Suppose tomorrow, Martinus is the ironic victim of a deranged cave troll, and is reduced to a coma.  Without extraordinary medical intervention, he will remain in that state indefinitely.  With extraordinary medical intervention, however, he can be restored to life and eventually regain full functioning.  The question is whether is would it be morally proper to take the steps to return Martinus to life.  Under most moral analyses not involving languish posters, bringing Martinus back to life would be a moral good.  Certainly I can think of nothing objectionable under a Kantian schema.  Yet under Martinus' analysis, including his rather idiosyncratic reading of the Kantian imperative, such an act is morally suspect, because there must be some independent justification for bringing the now defunct Martinus into the world.  Because Martinus, unlike most mainstream readings of Kant, appears to ascribe no value to human life in and of itself, it isn't enough to say that restoring Martinus to life is a good in and of itself.  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 . . .

Fallacy. Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being. Hell, my philosophy professor at college argued that "women and children" first is the biggest moral failing of them all, since unlike adults, children are not fully developed human beings, and as such their lives are clearly less valuable. She was a Kantian.

[The Brain]

Kant was a fugly OCD-ridden homosexual.

Wait a minute...