Simple question. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransgender-world.forumprofi.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorm1.gif&hash=6731350b52261b6fd6a8b99f2234c1448b8d8503)
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 04:04:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransgender-world.forumprofi.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorm1.gif&hash=6731350b52261b6fd6a8b99f2234c1448b8d8503)
:lol: yeah
Interesting raise of topic. Marty is well in the age-range where most single heteros switch to panic mode, settle and have kids ASAP. Those who don't, seem to pay for their freedom with doubt over their decision, and a lonely old age.
Instead of paying for the calm of succumbing to society and biology and not dying alone, with sacraficing their freedom and well-being for others, of course.
Still, my point is: do gay people have the "omg I must settle and have kids so I won't slip into lone madness when I am old" urges?
Transgender World? Really?
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 04:24:53 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 04:04:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransgender-world.forumprofi.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorm1.gif&hash=6731350b52261b6fd6a8b99f2234c1448b8d8503)
:lol: yeah
Interesting raise of topic. Marty is well in the age-range where most single heteros switch to panic mode, settle and have kids ASAP. Those who don't, seem to pay for their freedom with doubt over their decision, and a lonely old age.
Instead of paying for the calm of succumbing to society and biology and not dying alone, with sacraficing their freedom and well-being for others, of course.
Still, my point is: do gay people have the "omg I must settle and have kids so I won't slip into lone madness when I am old" urges?
Not really. I am just curious about people's justification for their decision to have children. I sincerely hope, for the sake of humanity, that it was not a thoroughly selfish justification of the kind you mention in your post - because that would have been utterly immoral.
On my 30th birthday some friends brought their delightful baby along. That night was my one and only "I want one" weepy breakdown. As soon as the reality of "Why don't you stop taking your Pill tonight?" hit me, I went right off the idea and returned to the world of cream-coloured carpets, impractical shoes and leather car seats. Never had the urge again.
Lonesomely old age? I suspect it will be less so with the friends I have chosen throughout my life rather than sinking into bitterness that the fruit of my loins left town when they were 18 and never calls except to ask for money.
Quote from: Brazen on July 02, 2012, 05:59:28 AM
On my 30th birthday some friends brought their delightful baby along. That night was my one and only "I want one" weepy breakdown. As soon as the reality of "Why don't you stop taking your Pill tonight?" hit me, I went right off the idea and returned to the world of cream-coloured carpets, impractical shoes and leather car seats. Never had the urge again.
Lonesomely old age? I suspect it will be less so with the friends I have chosen throughout my life rather than sinking into bitterness that the fruit of my loins left town when they were 18 and never calls except to ask for money.
Indeed. Besides, the way I see it, as thinking and self-aware beings, the onus should be on us to show why we want to bring someone into the world, not the opposite. The Kant's practical imperative is to always treat humanity of others as a goal in itself and never as only a means to reach another goal - so creating a human being for the purpose of not being lonely, or to have someone remember you, or to bring happiness to your life or your relationship, or to secure your retirement is the utmostly selfish and immoral reason because then the kid is just a tool for you to feel better about yourself.
I don't doubt a lot of people have kids for non-selfish reasons though that's why I started this thread. Although I guess now I spilled the beans about my purpose, as I could not leave Tamas's idiocy alone.
:cool: I knew this would get things rolling. I am sorry Mart but your OP was so bland and obvious bait, I had to step in.
I am over 30 and the only thing remotely interesting in having children, for me, is perhaps the challenge of bringing them up right, plus continuing the family line. But every time I see a child throwing a tantrum, or hear stories of my family-raising friends, I have some SERIOUS doubts.
That said, the want to have children is clearly quite instinctive. Not having any is thus the harder choice. Just look at how you open this topic, how you want to engage in high philosopy on the topic, etc. People with children are much more laid back about the issue and not opening "why don't you have children" topics, or call us "non-breeders". Surely because, for whatever other and possibly bigger motivation, they have "completed" their instinctive urge of having offsprings, and by their family with children, taken their standard and final position in the social order.
I didn't know justification was needed? :rolleyes: Reason, explanation, other words come to mind, but justification?
If any justification is called for its all the hip 30-40 year olds who are too busy being self absorbed to care for growing up, acting like the twenties are the new teenagers and the forties the new thirties :hug:
They need justification when they want society to pay first for their vain, and often failed attempts at getting children at the age of 40+ and later when they want society and by that extend my kids' taxes, to pay for a burdensome group of elderlies expecting to continue life in the high gear in plush retirement homes, expecting better and better wellfare for each new generation :P
There is a term in my society called the burden of the lederly that is growing drastically with the group of elderly expecting better service from society while their demographic group is outgrowing the size of the actual taxpayers
V
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 06:44:02 AM
:cool: I knew this would get things rolling. I am sorry Mart but your OP was so bland and obvious bait, I had to step in.
I am over 30 and the only thing remotely interesting in having children, for me, is perhaps the challenge of bringing them up right, plus continuing the family line. But every time I see a child throwing a tantrum, or hear stories of my family-raising friends, I have some SERIOUS doubts.
That said, the want to have children is clearly quite instinctive. Not having any is thus the harder choice. Just look at how you open this topic, how you want to engage in high philosopy on the topic, etc. People with children are much more laid back about the issue and not opening "why don't you have children" topics, or call us "non-breeders". Surely because, for whatever other and possibly bigger motivation, they have "completed" their instinctive urge of having offsprings, and by their family with children, taken their standard and final position in the social order.
:lmfao:
You are quite right, the high horse of Martinus and the implied insult of namecalling is so stereotyped that it is funny.
What really puzzles me is why Martinus and his ilk (sorry Brazen, you are generally not included in this) feel such a need to to justify their own choice by requiring the ROTW to justify their progeneration of the species :)
It makes me think they are highly defensive of their own choices and that their apparent superiority complex is quite hollow..
The funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality, nor his lack of drive for children, but apparently he feels a need to question every other choice the rest of us makes? Does that mean he is insecure in his own choices? :hmm:
V
QuoteThe funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality, nor his lack of drive for children, but apparently he feels a need to question every other choice the rest of us makes? Does that mean he is insecure in his own choices?
yes
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 07:01:45 AM
QuoteThe funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality, nor his lack of drive for children, but apparently he feels a need to question every other choice the rest of us makes? Does that mean he is insecure in his own choices?
yes
:secret:
I knew it ;)
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 06:03:42 AM
Indeed. Besides, the way I see it, as thinking and self-aware beings, the onus should be on us to show why we want to bring someone into the world, not the opposite. The Kant's practical imperative is to always treat humanity of others as a goal in itself and never as only a means to reach another goal - so creating a human being for the purpose of not being lonely, or to have someone remember you, or to bring happiness to your life or your relationship, or to secure your retirement is the utmostly selfish and immoral reason because then the kid is just a tool for you to feel better about yourself.
I don't doubt a lot of people have kids for non-selfish reasons though that's why I started this thread. Although I guess now I spilled the beans about my purpose, as I could not leave Tamas's idiocy alone.
I am sorry is your life all about acting selflessly and full of morals? We usually do not call you out to explain yourself to see just how noble and non-selfish you are.
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 06:03:42 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 02, 2012, 05:59:28 AM
On my 30th birthday some friends brought their delightful baby along. That night was my one and only "I want one" weepy breakdown. As soon as the reality of "Why don't you stop taking your Pill tonight?" hit me, I went right off the idea and returned to the world of cream-coloured carpets, impractical shoes and leather car seats. Never had the urge again.
Lonesomely old age? I suspect it will be less so with the friends I have chosen throughout my life rather than sinking into bitterness that the fruit of my loins left town when they were 18 and never calls except to ask for money.
Indeed. Besides, the way I see it, as thinking and self-aware beings, the onus should be on us to show why we want to bring someone into the world, not the opposite. The Kant's practical imperative is to always treat humanity of others as a goal in itself and never as only a means to reach another goal - so creating a human being for the purpose of not being lonely, or to have someone remember you, or to bring happiness to your life or your relationship, or to secure your retirement is the utmostly selfish and immoral reason because then the kid is just a tool for you to feel better about yourself.
That's how I treat everyone else. Why should it be different with my very own creation? :)
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 04:04:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransgender-world.forumprofi.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorm1.gif&hash=6731350b52261b6fd6a8b99f2234c1448b8d8503)
:D
:hmm: Definitely sounds like Marty is having second thoughts about the whole gay thing, and is projecting that self-doubt on others.
You guys always take the bait.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 08:37:22 AM
You guys always take the bait.
Ofc we do :D Were would the fun be if we couldnt call him out on his own idiosyncrasies and self doubts? :P
V
Because fuck you that's why.
Life isn't about indulging one self in booze, money & sex.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 02, 2012, 08:54:32 AM
Because fuck you that's why.
Life isn't about indulging one self in booze, money & sex.
Don't overcomplicate it. Life is about what you make it be about.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 06:03:42 AM
Indeed. Besides, the way I see it, as thinking and self-aware beings, the onus should be on us to show why we want to bring someone into the world, not the opposite. The Kant's practical imperative is to always treat humanity of others as a goal in itself and never as only a means to reach another goal - so creating a human being for the purpose of not being lonely, or to have someone remember you, or to bring happiness to your life or your relationship, or to secure your retirement is the utmostly selfish and immoral reason because then the kid is just a tool for you to feel better about yourself.
I don't doubt a lot of people have kids for non-selfish reasons though that's why I started this thread. Although I guess now I spilled the beans about my purpose, as I could not leave Tamas's idiocy alone.
I am sorry is your life all about acting selflessly and full of morals? We usually do not call you out to explain yourself to see just how noble and non-selfish you are.
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
That seems like a pretty good reason. What I find rather funny/telling is that how passively-aggressive your post is (although if it didn't follow overly aggressive Valdemar's posts, perhaps it would read somewhat differently).
Why is there a need for the first paragraph of your post in particular? Why are you so defensive about a simple request to explain a rather life-changing decision?
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
The funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality
Are you saying sexuality is a choice? :D
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:51:38 AM
I didn't know justification was needed? :rolleyes: Reason, explanation, other words come to mind, but justification?
Uhm, these words are synonyms. Perhaps you are reading more into my question than there is? Again, you are extremely defensive about it which is quite funny. For the record, I don't question your "choice" to be attracted to women either. But surely the decision to have children was not an accident (I hope).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 08:37:22 AM
You guys always take the bait.
I think they do so in a rather spectacular way. And that's only two enraged parents so far so I'm not lifting the nets yet.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
The funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality
Are you saying sexuality is a choice? :D
You choose to engage in homosexual acts just as he chose to become a father. Neither of you could help *wanting* to do so.
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
What really puzzles me is why Martinus and his ilk (sorry Brazen, you are generally not included in this) feel such a need to to justify their own choice by requiring the ROTW to justify their progeneration of the species :)
I think the decision to do something requires more justification than a decision not to do something. And is certainly more interesting, philosophically speaking. Your implied explanation ("everybody does that") shows you as being rather low on the self-awareness ladder.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 09:26:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:57:12 AM
The funny thing is, I dont question neither his choice of sexuality
Are you saying sexuality is a choice? :D
You choose to engage in homosexual acts just as he chose to become a father. Neither of you could help *wanting* to do so.
Indeed. But he said something about my choice of sexuality, which is something quite different from what you are talking about.
Furthermore, the fact that a lot of people engage in heterosexual acts and do not have children (and a lot of people engage in homosexual acts and want to have children) shows unless you are an animal, a decision to have children is separate from your sexuality.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:17:08 AM
Why is there a need for the first paragraph of your post in particular? Why are you so defensive about a simple request to explain a rather life-changing decision?
Because of the first paragraph of your post that I quoted :P That you were demanding I justify the morality of my choice based on the assumption I had done something for selfish reasons, that some sort of onus was on me to make clear my reasons. Obviously I was not offended enough not to answer but I had to poke fun at you a bit.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 09:29:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:17:08 AM
Why is there a need for the first paragraph of your post in particular? Why are you so defensive about a simple request to explain a rather life-changing decision?
Because of the first paragraph of your post that I quoted :P That you were demanding I justify the morality of my choice based on the assumption I had done something for selfish reasons, that some sort of onus was on me to make clear my reasons. Obviously I was not offended enough not to answer but I had to poke fun at you a bit.
No I did not say that. I said that the "obvious" reasons Tamas mentioned were all selfish and that I hope other people (who actually have children) come up with something better than that.
Also I am not saying that people never commit immoral acts, but many parents seem to believe that their immoral reasons for having children are valid. For example, even if I was guilty of theft, I would probably not go on public record arguing that the good reason for me for taking money from someone else was that I wanted to buy a car. Surely you realize the difference?
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
Human nature being what it is, biological imperative and such, a widespread adoption program is only likely to get off the ground if we sterilize the First World.
I'll go get the tongs.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 09:38:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
Human nature being what it is, biological imperative and such, a widespread adoption program is only likely to get off the ground if we sterilize the First World.
I'll go get the tongs.
Again, your worldview proves to be quite inconsistent. You are a representative of a hillbilly left (the opposite of the caviar left) and the best example that you can take Ideologue out of the redneck-ness but you can't take the redneck-ness out of Ideologue.
Or you could sterilize the third world, you know, the people who are still having 4-8 kids instead of 2. Might be a tad more effective if controlling overpopulation is your goal...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Or you could sterilize the third world, you know, the people who are still having 4-8 kids instead of 2. Might be a tad more effective if controlling overpopulation is your goal...
Just seemed that if Valmy's concern is demographic collapse in the West, rather than opt for a solution that just contributes to overpopulation - put the current neglect overpopulation to some use.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
I thought about this but I do not really think this is a serious concern anymore. Demographic collapse seems pretty universal now. Also there seems to be some sort of offense foreigners take when we take their babies to raise them our way.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 10:01:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
I thought about this but I do not really think this is a serious concern anymore. Demographic collapse seems pretty universal now. Also there seems to be some sort of offense foreigners take when we take their babies to raise them our way.
What about orphans/abandonned children in the US?
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 10:01:50 AM
I thought about this but I do not really think this is a serious concern anymore. Demographic collapse seems pretty universal now.
I'm not so sure of that look up quick stats on few places.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 10:01:50 AMAlso there seems to be some sort of offense foreigners take when we take their babies to raise them our way.
And people are offended when we don't help them feed their babies and offended when we do help feed their babies. Not sure if offense should be a credible driver of behavior.
The premise that Valmy should feel guilty for wanting to raise his own offspring and not somebody else's is stupid and it's a shame he's buying into it. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
The premise that Valmy should feel guilty for wanting to raise his own offspring and not somebody else's is stupid and it's a shame he's buying into it. :P
Oh well I'm not actually thinking that at all. Just thinking off of what Valmy said when he decided to play Marti's game.
I am not sure I understand the question, or rather, I don't understand why it was asked.
Isn't the *desire* for progeny a rather well understood phenomenon? I wasn't really aware there was any need to explain it, even to those who do not share it.
It's the same reason Marty wants to have sex for example - because we are programmed to do so.
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
The premise that Valmy should feel guilty for wanting to raise his own offspring and not somebody else's is stupid and it's a shame he's buying into it. :P
Oh well I'm not actually thinking that at all. Just thinking off of what Valmy said when he decided to play Marti's game.
It's funny how Peter Wiggin et consortes accuse people "of our ilk" of being self-dubting and defensive but are acting very defensive themselves, as if a mere question of their motives was somehow an attack on them personally. It reminds me of the reaction of religious people a bit when someone questions their faith.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
I am not sure I understand the question, or rather, I don't understand why it was asked.
Isn't the *desire* for progeny a rather well understood phenomenon? I wasn't really aware there was any need to explain it, even to those who do not share it.
It's the same reason Marty wants to have sex for example - because we are programmed to do so.
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
Still, the difference is quite clear - sex between two consenting adults does not concern anyone else and is entirely their decision to make, no? This is quite different from procreation which results in bringing a concious human being into the world in an act such being has no say about whatsoever - surely in such case you have to consider more than just a biological imperative, being a thinking, self-aware human being yourself, no?
I find it rather unsatisfactory that you of all people (who seems to have always prided himself on his rational thinking) would not see it and are happy to give up your rational decision making process to a "biological imperative" (which, as we know quite well, is not by far the ultimate justification of all our actions - otherwise we would not have a need for what we call "civilization").
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Or you could sterilize the third world, you know, the people who are still having 4-8 kids instead of 2. Might be a tad more effective if controlling overpopulation is your goal...
<_<
As to the OP, because I enjoy children. I enjoy playing with them, I enjoy raising them, and I enjoy being around them. To make it easier for all of those things to happen, I gave birth to them. Simple as that.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
Oh well I'm not actually thinking that at all. Just thinking off of what Valmy said when he decided to play Marti's game.
Ok point taken. Sorry for participating.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2012, 10:21:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 09:45:47 AM
Or you could sterilize the third world, you know, the people who are still having 4-8 kids instead of 2. Might be a tad more effective if controlling overpopulation is your goal...
<_<
As to the OP, because I enjoy children. I enjoy playing with them, I enjoy raising them, and I enjoy being around them. To make it easier for all of those things to happen, I gave birth to them. Simple as that.
Perhaps you should have sticked to playing EQ. :hug:
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2012, 10:21:27 AM
<_<
You had 4 but Max had none, so it evens out to 2. ;)
Perhaps let me rephrase the question into something that makes it less personal for you lot - would you consider it a right decision for someone who, say, has already 4 kids and has no financial means of raising them, to give birth to a 5th kid.
What would you say to such person if this person used the same reasoning for his or her decision as you just did (except for Valmy's, I think most of the other explanations are bullshit - by the simple fact that such a person in my scenario could very well use each of the justifications, except for Valmy's, in his or her defense).
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2012, 10:21:27 AM
As to the OP, because I enjoy children. I enjoy playing with them, I enjoy raising them, and I enjoy being around them. To make it easier for all of those things to happen, I gave birth to them. Simple as that.
Perhaps you should have sticked to playing EQ. :hug:
Not sure why you'd say that. I met my objective, clearly, and enjoyed it immensely. My children, my husband, and I are all pretty happy with life. :)
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 10:27:33 AM
Perhaps let me rephrase the question into something that makes it less personal for you lot - would you consider it a right decision for someone who, say, has already 4 kids and has no financial means of raising them, to give birth to a 5th kid.
If they were pregnant, yes. But they should be using birth control.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
That seems a bit reductive. Presumably Marti has sex (or doesn't as the case maybe) because it feels pleasurable - not because his genes are telling him he should ape procreative sex.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
The premise that Valmy should feel guilty for wanting to raise his own offspring and not somebody else's is stupid and it's a shame he's buying into it. :P
Oh well I'm not actually thinking that at all. Just thinking off of what Valmy said when he decided to play Marti's game.
It's funny how Peter Wiggin et consortes accuse people "of our ilk" of being self-dubting and defensive but are acting very defensive themselves, as if a mere question of their motives was somehow an attack on them personally. It reminds me of the reaction of religious people a bit when someone questions their faith.
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 09:38:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2012, 08:04:57 AM
In any case I did feel an obligation, as an intelligent and able person, to bring kids into the world raised the right way with the right values and society does need a steady flow of children at a modest rate to keep things going. We are well below this modest rate in alot of the first world so I felt like people needed to step up and fill out the next generation a bit. I mean do you ever worry how so many of the next generation are being brought into the world by fundies and those in poverty? Can progress be sustained like that? That line of thinking made me think this is something I had an imperative to do to the best of my ability.
Given over population in general though, maybe we should just pick up little black and brown babies and raise them here?
Human nature being what it is, biological imperative and such, a widespread adoption program is only likely to get off the ground if we sterilize the First World.
I'll go get the tongs.
Again, your worldview proves to be quite inconsistent. You are a representative of a hillbilly left (the opposite of the caviar left) and the best example that you can take Ideologue out of the redneck-ness but you can't take the redneck-ness out of Ideologue.
I'm confused as to how making a stupid joke about popping people's gonads out with salad bar utensils exposes my worldview. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 10:21:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
I am not sure I understand the question, or rather, I don't understand why it was asked.
Isn't the *desire* for progeny a rather well understood phenomenon? I wasn't really aware there was any need to explain it, even to those who do not share it.
It's the same reason Marty wants to have sex for example - because we are programmed to do so.
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
Still, the difference is quite clear - sex between two consenting adults does not concern anyone else and is entirely their decision to make, no? This is quite different from procreation which results in bringing a concious human being into the world in an act such being has no say about whatsoever - surely in such case you have to consider more than just a biological imperative, being a thinking, self-aware human being yourself, no?
But that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
Quote
I find it rather unsatisfactory that you of all people (who seems to have always prided himself on his rational thinking) would not see it and are happy to give up your rational decision making process to a "biological imperative" (which, as we know quite well, is not by far the ultimate justification of all our actions - otherwise we would not have a need for what we call "civilization").
THat makes no sense - what are you asking? I have not given up anything by acknowledging that my desires are largely rooted in my biology.
You might as well ask why I want to eat, why not just starve? Why let my biology dictate that I live, when my rational self can sit about and decide that life is not really rationally justified absent the biological drive for self preservation?
Why don't you just stop eating? The desire to live is just an irrational response programmed into you after all - your death won't really matter in the overall scheme of things, right? Surely a rational being such as yourself does not eat simply because you are a slave to your biology?
You eat because you are programmed to not want to die, because creatures without such programming do in fact die and then don't pass on their genes. It is the most basic of the basis of evolutionary biology. Only slightly less basic than that is the desire to actually pass on those genes via having children (or whatever means a given organism uses to procreate).
So that is, quite simply, the answer to the question of "Why do you want children". For the same reason you want to eat, and fuck, and shit, and do all the other things that living creatures do - because it is part of being alive. There is absolutely nothing at all not rational about that. Indeed, it is probably the most rational thing any living creature does.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz,
Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz, Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
Mart has been: Excommunicated.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz, Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
No. He says that basic instincts are down to biology.
you of course may argue that every decision is down to biology, since your brain IS a biological construct, but that wasnt his point, and this thread is fucked up enough (nowadays, Marty posting in a thread is enough for that to happen) without covering that as well
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
I didn't get that from his post at all. I read it to mean that the basic desire stems from an innate need, but that the decision to do so is open to choice. Ergo, psychology does factor into the doing of the deed, if not specifically the desire to do so.
When Mart posts, this is what I visualize:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 11:01:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz, Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
No. He says that basic instincts are down to biology.
you of course may argue that every decision is down to biology, since your brain IS a biological construct, but that wasnt his point, and this thread is fucked up enough (nowadays, Marty posting in a thread is enough for that to happen) without covering that as well
I'd say sex is more than just a basic instinct...as well as many of the items he cited. There are so many decisions around who we fuck, why we fuck the people we fuck...why we eat the foods we eat. Saying that we are programmed to do basic things doesn't really answer why a given individual chooses to do something...and thus doesn't really answer Marti's (admittedly lame) question.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
I didn't get that from his post at all. I read it to mean that the basic desire stems from an innate need, but that the decision to do so is open to choice. Ergo, psychology does factor into the doing of the deed, if not specifically the desire to do so.
I don't see how that distinction is relevant to the question Mart asked. As in why it is necessary to mention base desire since Marti was asking people for their personal reasons.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
That seems a bit reductive. Presumably Marti has sex (or doesn't as the case maybe) because it feels pleasurable - not because his genes are telling him he should ape procreative sex.
It is pleasurable because he is programmed to find it pleasurable though.
Just like I am programmed to find raising children pleasurable.
We can break it down into smaller pieces in both cases - I like watching my son do well in school, because concern for the success of my progeny is conducive towards me being a parent likely to have children who are also successful. Marty likes the feeling of someone sucking his dick because those who enjoy having their genitals stimulated are more likely to procreate than those who do not, hence our bodies find that pleasurable.
It is reductive, but then, so was his question.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz, Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
:boggle:
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
That seems a bit reductive. Presumably Marti has sex (or doesn't as the case maybe) because it feels pleasurable - not because his genes are telling him he should ape procreative sex.
It is pleasurable because he is programmed to find it pleasurable though.
Just like I am programmed to find raising children pleasurable.
We can break it down into smaller pieces in both cases - I like watching my son do well in school, because concern for the success of my progeny is conducive towards me being a parent likely to have children who are also successful. Marty likes the feeling of someone sucking his dick because those who enjoy having their genitals stimulated are more likely to procreate than those who do not, hence our bodies find that pleasurable.
It is reductive, but then, so was his question.
Let's continue this vein then. Let's say Marti is someone who doesn't like anyone touching him sexually but does find it arousing to be peed on. Biological reasoning for that?
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2012, 10:57:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:35:16 AM
We ain't in the same box, hon. Don't get uppity.
lulz, Martinus: A Homo Even Other Homos Can't Fucking Stand
I don't know. I mean I guess this thread gave us that Berkut thinks psychology is irrelevant. All decisions are down to biology.
:boggle:
Marti asks why people who had kids chose to have kids. You retort that it is because of biology. That strikes me as an odd answer considering that they are many people who decide not to have kids - so the decision to have kids must be something more than just biology dictated it.
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
I get swarmed like in the movie 'Aliens'.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 04:00:38 AM
Simple question. :)
Seemed like a good idea at the time.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 11:11:59 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
That seems a bit reductive. Presumably Marti has sex (or doesn't as the case maybe) because it feels pleasurable - not because his genes are telling him he should ape procreative sex.
It is pleasurable because he is programmed to find it pleasurable though.
Just like I am programmed to find raising children pleasurable.
We can break it down into smaller pieces in both cases - I like watching my son do well in school, because concern for the success of my progeny is conducive towards me being a parent likely to have children who are also successful. Marty likes the feeling of someone sucking his dick because those who enjoy having their genitals stimulated are more likely to procreate than those who do not, hence our bodies find that pleasurable.
It is reductive, but then, so was his question.
Let's continue this vein then. Let's say Marti is someone who doesn't like anyone touching him sexually but does find it arousing to be peed on. Biological reasoning for that?
You are asking me about the vagaries of sexual function or dis-function?
How in the hell should I know why people like to have people piss on them?
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
You are asking me about the vagaries of sexual function or dis-function?
How in the hell should I know why people like to have people piss on them?
You're the one who started me down the rabbit hole.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 11:34:25 AM
You're the one who started me down the rabbit hole.
Speaking of which, what does the caption under your avatar mean?
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 11:34:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
You are asking me about the vagaries of sexual function or dis-function?
How in the hell should I know why people like to have people piss on them?
You're the one who started me down the rabbit hole.
Not really. I just stated the obvious answer to a rather obvious question.
I have no idea what relevance understanding why people like to be urinated on has to whether my response was correct or not.
You might as well point out that while many people like ice cream, some do not, therefore maybe some people really don't like to eat, and my claim that the desire to eat is basic biology is incorrect.
It is a safe bet that the moment you start bringing up corner case examples in a discussion about general observations, you've jumped the shark.
Marty asked why a bunch of people decided to have kids. Not why some tiny fraction of the population has unusual sexual preferences.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
When Mart posts, this is what I visualize:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
For me it's more like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_tOQi3FO3zUI%2FTDTbnZeuNSI%2FAAAAAAAAAVo%2F1Is8b5FnrI0%2Fs1600%2Fsheldon_cooper.jpg&hash=1d49cce9c493dee397014966dcefe0225c136228)
Ugh.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:38:57 AM
Not really. I just stated the obvious answer to a rather obvious question.
I have no idea what relevance understanding why people like to be urinated on has to whether my response was correct or not.
You might as well point out that while many people like ice cream, some do not, therefore maybe some people really don't like to eat, and my claim that the desire to eat is basic biology is incorrect.
It is a safe bet that the moment you start bringing up corner case examples in a discussion about general observations, you've jumped the shark.
Marty asked why a bunch of people decided to have kids. Not why some tiny fraction of the population has unusual sexual preferences.
Like I said many people choose not to have kids. Jumping to biology as the explanation seems odd considering that those who chose not to have kids presumably had a similar biologic makeup. It also seems odd given that Marti wanted to know why parents here chose to have kids which naturally lends itself to personal reasons.
Besides, you're the one who wanted to start explaining Marti's sexual preferences so if I jumped the shark, I was only following your lead.
And to be clear, I'm not debating that biology plays a role in the desire to have children, but I don't see how that's relevant to what Marti asked / Marti's troll.
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
"Biology" is the answer? Of course! I see it clearly now.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 11:43:33 AM
And to be clear, I'm not debating that biology plays a role in the desire to have children, but I don't see how that's relevant to what Marti asked / Marti's troll.
But Marty's troll is of course exactly related to that - he is asking us to justify why we want to have children, so he can tell us how wrong we are and feel smug about himself.
But he might as well demand that people justify why they eat, or fuck, or whatever. Because the realization that one does not have to have children even if their biology creates the desire is no more valid at its core than realizing that just because it feels good to have sex, that doesn't mean you NEED to do it.
Plenty of asthetics, for example, forgo sex and seem to think that works out well for them. However, most of them are self-aware enough not to then make the mistake of demanding that those who DO have sex justify it, as if NOT having sex really is the presumptive norm.
What you don't seem to realize is that I am responding to Marty's troll with a "troll" of my own. The only way for his troll to work is for the respondent to presume that the question has merit by making assumption that are incorrect - namely that biological desire needs to be somehow justified, but only when it comes to procreation. I am simply pointing out that it is no different than any other biological behaviour that we are programmed to enjoy.
I have kids because I enjoy (overall) the experience of having children. I reject the presumption that there is anything "selfish" in this, at least in the sense that selfish is used as a pejorative. I enjoy having kids, my kids are better off for existing rather than not, hence it is a rather simple net evaluation.
What's the sound of one poster digging?
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 11:55:27 AM
What you don't seem to realize is that I am responding to Marty's troll with a "troll" of my own.
Could have just said this rather than boggling at me / having others defend your statement. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Why are you gay Marti? Simple question.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
:lol:
Because mere latex and birth control pills are too weak to hold back my seed.
The minute Martinus says that someone else is immoral and selfish, he loses all credibility.
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
When Mart posts, this is what I visualize:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
For me it's more like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_tOQi3FO3zUI%2FTDTbnZeuNSI%2FAAAAAAAAAVo%2F1Is8b5FnrI0%2Fs1600%2Fsheldon_cooper.jpg&hash=1d49cce9c493dee397014966dcefe0225c136228)
For me it's more like:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmediawiki.middlebury.edu%2Fwikis%2FRUSS0151a_s09%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa3%2FRussian_Peasant.jpg&hash=b3522fa74ff6f11df491c0b381f46937777df600)
Ah, Tolstoy.
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
The minute Martinus says that someone else is immoral and selfish, he loses all credibility.
He must have said that sometime in 2001 or something.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
I'm not really sure how your anecdote relates to what Ide said. After all, anal sex still existed even when most people didn't have access to sexually explicit material.
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
Given how the Victorian morals affected so many cultures and aspects of sexual expression, I'm not sure you could know what was "popular" prior to it with any real certainty. So, while yes, 100 years ago you wouldn't have known what it was, there's a good chance that 200 years ago you might have.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:22:23 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:51:38 AM
I didn't know justification was needed? :rolleyes: Reason, explanation, other words come to mind, but justification?
Uhm, these words are synonyms. Perhaps you are reading more into my question than there is? Again, you are extremely defensive about it which is quite funny.
By formal definition, the words may be synoyms, but "justification" has the conotation of involving a post-hoc rationalization or excuse for one's action, plus an implication that the action wasn't just, or that there is a need to demostrate that it was just. If someone asked me what my reason for making any particular decision, I wouldn't necessarily get defensive about it, but if they asked me what my justification was, I probably would.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
I'm not really sure how your anecdote relates to what Ide said. After all, anal sex still existed even when most people didn't have access to sexually explicit material.
I suspect that the rate at which it existed was far, far less than it is today.
Quote from: merithyn on July 02, 2012, 04:05:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
Given how the Victorian morals affected so many cultures and aspects of sexual expression, I'm not sure you could know what was "popular" prior to it with any real certainty. So, while yes, 100 years ago you wouldn't have known what it was, there's a good chance that 200 years ago you might have.
And you are basing this on... what?
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
I think I'd have figured it out. If it did not exist, I would have had to have invented it.
Now I probably would have been cool with hairy legs, armpits, and bad dental hygiene. Sure. That's passing fashion--fetishes, really. But there is little doubt in my mind that cavemen were blasting on cavewomen's faces with aplomb.
P.S. one does not expect anal because anal is clearly an imposition, whereas the characterization of facials as a burden is propaganda and lies.
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 04:24:53 AM
Interesting raise of topic. Marty is well in the age-range where most single heteros switch to panic mode, settle and have kids ASAP. Those who don't, seem to pay for their freedom with doubt over their decision, and a lonely old age.
Instead of paying for the calm of succumbing to society and biology and not dying alone, with sacraficing their freedom and well-being for others, of course.
Still, my point is: do gay people have the "omg I must settle and have kids so I won't slip into lone madness when I am old" urges?
My pops has always been quite explicit about wanting kids so that at least a couple people will be obligated to take care of him when he's dying.
I think my mother got married primarily to have kids. I think I was conceived in the month right before she was turning 30.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 05:03:19 PM
whereas the characterization of facials as a burden is propaganda and lies.
Wrong. It's messy.
Oh, so is the normal finishing move.
I finish off with a jackknife powerbomb.
I turn into Kintaro and tear her torso off with my mighty blow.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 06:22:04 PM
Oh, so is the normal finishing move.
Less so, because it's internal.
Perhaps moreso, because from my learning, it just kind falls and splats on stuff. Maybe that's only in porn, with the woman's cooperation? I really have no idea; I've never Grey Foxed a woman up.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2012, 06:27:27 PM
I finish off with a jackknife powerbomb.
Ok, Diesel.
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
you just keep digging yourself deeper, don't you?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
Not exactlly true but let's agree for the sake of argument that it is - that makes my question even more relevant, because presumedly in civilized West having children today is (or should be) a conscious decision and not an "accident".
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 02:47:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
you just keep digging yourself deeper, don't you?
Not really. There is a vast gulf of difference between what we want and what we decide to do, especially when this affects lives of other human beings who have no say in the decision.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:51:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 02:47:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
you just keep digging yourself deeper, don't you?
Not really. There is a vast gulf of difference between what we want and what we decide to do, especially when this affects lives of other human beings who have no say in the decision.
well, unless you have that kid, he doesnt get to exist, and thus doesnt get to have a say in the matter of wanting to exist or not now, does he.
The bottom line is, if you remove the biological instinct (which as a civilization we fairly often do to reach wildly different answers to various dilemmas than animals, for example when it comes to infanticide, violence, pack mentality etc.), having children is an ethical/philosophical conundrum and I find it rather disappointing that so many people here refuse to even consider it and immediately see it as an attack on their lifestyle.
However if it wasn't a valid question (I am not claiming what a valid answer to it is, btw) there wouldn't be philosophies and religions for the last 3,000 years constantly returning to the question, with some of them answering it by refusing to procreate (presumedly, not all gnostics or cathars were asexuals or homosexuals and at least some of them had the biological drive you refer to).
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
however, there is no difference between the questions of "why did you want children" and "why did you have children"
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 02:47:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
you just keep digging yourself deeper, don't you?
Does Marty still even care what people think of him?
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 03:06:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
however, there is no difference between the questions of "why did you want children" and "why did you have children"
Elaborate.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2012, 03:14:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 02:47:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:54:57 AMBut that isn't what you asked - you asked WHY people want to have kids. And the answer is because we are programmed to want to do so.
It is the exact same reason you want to have sex. Or to eat. Or to do any number of things you are programmed by biology to WANT to do.
You are wrong. I didn't ask why people WANT to have kids. I asked why people DO have kids. That's quite different. :)
you just keep digging yourself deeper, don't you?
Does Marty still even care what people think of him?
I do. Not at Languish though. And crap I just showed myself to read your posts occassionally despite having you on ignore.
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:15:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 03:06:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
however, there is no difference between the questions of "why did you want children" and "why did you have children"
Elaborate.
I am afraid we are in a "who is more bored" game and I am not sure I want to win.
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 03:21:05 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:15:18 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 03:06:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
however, there is no difference between the questions of "why did you want children" and "why did you have children"
Elaborate.
I am afraid we are in a "who is more bored" game and I am not sure I want to win.
You touched upon a subject that I like, 'sall. A meaningful definition of want.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 09:22:23 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 02, 2012, 06:51:38 AM
I didn't know justification was needed? :rolleyes: Reason, explanation, other words come to mind, but justification?
Uhm, these words are synonyms. Perhaps you are reading more into my question than there is? Again, you are extremely defensive about it which is quite funny. For the record, I don't question your "choice" to be attracted to women either. But surely the decision to have children was not an accident (I hope).
Synonums doesn't mean they are identical, only that they can carry the same meaning. Explanation and justification does not do that.
I can explain WHY Hitler ordered the wipe out of jews, using socio economic, populist or even psycological arguments, but that doesn't mean I am justifying it.
Neo Nazis will try to use the same kind of arguments to justify it, which isn't the same as explaining it.
As to your many following posts:
You are as usual slanting your replies. I haven't begun to answer your OP, only to tackle your reasoning behind even asking the question, and to some extend mocking you for doing it, so please do not begin to try to read an answer as to why people have kids into my posts :)
QuoteI think they do so in a rather spectacular way. And that's only two enraged parents so far so I'm not lifting the nets yet.
You think that is enraged? :wacko:
I'm nowhere near agressive yet, as long as I'm using smilies I'm replying tongue in cheek, but somehow I am not surprised that you read it diferently :D
QuoteAre you saying sexuality is a choice?
And yes, the acts of sex are always a choice, even if the drive may not be. There is ALWAYS a choice to do or do not, to act or to repress, that goes for your choice of partner as well as your choice of lifestyle. Lots of repressed homos, pedofiles, feetlickers out there who have the desire but never act upon it.
QuoteI think the decision to do something requires more justification than a decision not to do something. And is certainly more interesting, philosophically speaking. Your implied explanation ("everybody does that") shows you as being rather low on the self-awareness ladder.
You are reading way to much into my replies if you can read justification, or explanation, as to why I have kids into my posts. First of all, it doesn't need justification, in fact as I posted, NOT to have kids may very well be what needs justification as the explanation it self is obviously selfindulgence ;)
V
Quote from: Berkut on July 02, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
I am not sure I understand the question, or rather, I don't understand why it was asked.
Isn't the *desire* for progeny a rather well understood phenomenon? I wasn't really aware there was any need to explain it, even to those who do not share it.
It's the same reason Marty wants to have sex for example - because we are programmed to do so.
What is funny about the question is that Marty seems to understand (and feel no need to justify) why he wants to have sex, but is confused by why people want children. Does he not even understand that HIS desire to fuck is nothing at all more than the physical manifestation of the desire to procreate that all living beings (in general) have by definition?
It's all biology.
Hehehe :)
Berkut sees what I see, Martinass need to justify his own drives, by having the rest of us justify ours, instead of understanding and accpeting the differences :)
This is the breastfeeding thread all over :D
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 10:18:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 02, 2012, 10:10:58 AM
The premise that Valmy should feel guilty for wanting to raise his own offspring and not somebody else's is stupid and it's a shame he's buying into it. :P
Oh well I'm not actually thinking that at all. Just thinking off of what Valmy said when he decided to play Marti's game.
It's funny how Peter Wiggin et consortes accuse people "of our ilk" of being self-dubting and defensive but are acting very defensive themselves, as if a mere question of their motives was somehow an attack on them personally. It reminds me of the reaction of religious people a bit when someone questions their faith.
I actually fail to see how trying to nail your underlaying motif for raising this subject should make us all defensive? I haven't yet seen one single post where a parent tried to defend or justify having their kids, I havent even seen one who tried to explain it to you.
V
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2012, 11:49:15 AM
"Biology" is the answer? Of course! I see it clearly now.
no biology is the justification according the marti,
42 would be the answer ;)
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
A talking dog :D now that would be something...
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:51:02 AM
Not really. There is a vast gulf of difference between what we want and what we decide to do, especially when this affects lives of other human beings who have no say in the decision.
Is that so? :rolleyes: Then pray explain why the acts of sexuality isn't a choice, the distinction between desiring to kiss feet and actually persuing them?
V
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
But it is so much more fun asking "Why does Martinus wants to know? And why did he chose the word "justification" instead of explanation or reasoning? What is it the pole really needs to express, but cannot say in an inoffensive way?"
V
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
When their answer is rejected as being a legitimate reason, and/or characterized as selfish or immoral (or at least amoral), it's not hard to see why they'd get defensive. And considering the past attitutdes towards parents and children that the person asking the question had shown in the past, it's not hard to see why they'd expect that sort of response, even before answering, either.
Quote from: dps on July 03, 2012, 04:33:13 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
When their answer is rejected as being a legitimate reason, and/or characterized as selfish or immoral (or at least amoral), it's not hard to see why they'd get defensive. And considering the past attitutdes towards parents and children that the person asking the question had shown in the past, it's not hard to see why they'd expect that sort of response, even before answering, either.
We need an applaud smilie :yes:
V
Valdemar: :moon:
Eight posts in a row, and they look much better after I put you on my ignore list.
What's the point of posting here if you ignore everyone?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 03, 2012, 05:16:56 AM
What's the point of posting here if you ignore everyone?
Not everyone. I have only 4 people on my ignore list.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 05:09:56 AM
Valdemar: :moon:
Eight posts in a row, and they look much better after I put you on my ignore list.
Chicken :nelson:
you replied two three posts in a row several times in this thread, and when I get back online and respond in kind all you can do is run away tail between legs :D
You even started the thread...
V
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
I'm not really sure how your anecdote relates to what Ide said. After all, anal sex still existed even when most people didn't have access to sexually explicit material.
I suspect that the rate at which it existed was far, far less than it is today.
An entirely different statement. :P
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 05:09:56 AM
Valdemar: :moon:
Eight posts in a row, and they look much better after I put you on my ignore list.
Chicken :nelson:
you replied two three posts in a row several times in this thread, and when I get back online and respond in kind all you can do is run away tail between legs :D
You even started the thread...
V
Are we children? I hats to say anything to support him but more like you were a waste of his time.
Man did this thing fly off the rails.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 07:42:53 AM
Are we children? I hats to say anything to support him but more like you were a waste of his time.
[/quote]
In that case, what was the justification for getting us? :P
Seriously, I replied more or less in tune to his replies, being on a day later made it several posts.
But I fail to see how him chosing NOT to respond is anymore or any less childish or time wasting than me responding to him?
V
I have a pretty selfless motivation for wanting to have children. I think it would be a real loss to the world if my genes went to waste.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 07:38:29 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2012, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 02, 2012, 12:45:56 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2012, 11:48:52 AM
Until contraception was invented, it wasn't nearly the deliberate decision it is now either.
The facial was one of humanity's earliest inventions, predating the wheel in many cultures.
Probably not.
I was at a lecture several years ago when the speaker went off on a sidetrack about how pronography had changed society's sexual expectations. He was talking about anal sex in particular - that 40-50 years ago to see an anal sexual assault was extremely rare. Now it is fairly commonplace. The "biological imperative" hasn't changed, but access to sexually explicit material has.
In other words - if you had been born even a mere 100 years ago you probably would have no idea what a "facial" is, and have no interest in performing it.
I'm not really sure how your anecdote relates to what Ide said. After all, anal sex still existed even when most people didn't have access to sexually explicit material.
I suspect that the rate at which it existed was far, far less than it is today.
An entirely different statement. :P
I realize that there is no definitive history of the cumshot, and belatedly wish I'd stayed the path, ran the gauntlet, and gone to graduate school. That's the kind of research that turns worlds upside down, my friends. But I leave it to the future generations.
This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.
Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.
Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.
I don't think people even had sex 100 years ago, if early movies are any indication.
Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2012, 07:54:09 AM
Man did this thing fly off the rails.
I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 08:06:37 AM
This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.
Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.
Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.
I'm actually like 99.9999% sure the Romans had facials. They had fellatio. They had irrumatio. Put two and two together.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 03, 2012, 08:12:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 08:06:37 AM
This is an off topic but also I think an interesting discussion (perhaps a different thread is in order?). As I think Merri said, we have very little visibility of sexual mores prior to the broadly understood Victorian era but the records that exist show that interest in various non-standard sexual practices waxes and wanes across the ages.
Of a personal interest to me, it appears for example that there is definitive evidence that fetishes (especially foot fetishes) used to be quite popular in Europe at various times in the past - and more interestingly it seems that "outbreaks" of foot fetishism in pornography in the past were correlated with outbreaks of diseases - thus leading historians of sexuality to speculate it might be some sort of instinctive response to a threat of STDs.
Anal sex and various forms of anal stimulation have also been quite popular during different ages so I think Ideologue is more right about this than BarristerBoy.
I'm actually like 99.9999% sure the Romans had facials. They had fellatio. They had irrumatio. Put two and two together.
Speaking of which, I think "irrumator" must be one of the best sounding insults/nicknames that Romans had for each other. :D
Anyway, surely they had it. I mean, would Fellini, Jarman or Passolini lie to us about it? :P
I need to make make a trip to Pompeii to see the brothel paintings.
Mostly, to experience a major aspect of life.
Most of the true rewards of parenting are things you only really 'get' once you become one, so obtaining them isn't why I chose to be one.
Look at it this way: at every stage of life, you can find life getting stale and repetitive if you refuse to move on and make some major change - even though the stage of life you were at was very interesting, creative and enjoyable. I did not want to end up as that 40-something guy still trying to party like he was 28. I wanted new challenges and new adventures.
It certainly had nothing to do with any larger issues of first world population. I suppose it was totally selfish. Why not? Most of my decisions have been totally selfish - I got a job because I liked money, I dated because I liked sex, I got married because I enjoyed companionship, etc. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.
:rolleyes: Did you also pick up your ball and leave the playground if you got tackled? You are sore loser. I didn't derail you as much as refusing to allow you to read things into my posts and refusing to get away with trying to once again grandstanding your own misbeliefs of grandeur.
If you actually read what I replied, then you'd notice a theme that isn't unlike what other posters said. That your of on using the word justify if you really want an explanantion, that it smack of you needing to justify your own lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else, and your need to make yourself feel superior.
And when you do that Marti, then you do not get serious reponses, only reponses trying to expose your posts.
And frankly, I still don't see why the question needs justification at all, or even an explanation. Adding to the slew of other threads on the same vein from you it still look more than anything else like you are trying to project your own insecurities unto the rest of us.
Perhaps you should start out by justifying why you chose NOT to have children? Then perhaps, if you could keep the tone level and not snide, then maybe, just maybe we would answer seriously as well :)
V
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 07:58:40 AM
In that case, what was the justification for getting us? :P
Poor life choices and addiction. -_-
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 08:18:34 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
I don't think it did. So far you offered an interesting counterpoint. Just ignore Valdemar as I did and this thread is still salvageable.
:rolleyes: Did you also pick up your ball and leave the playground if you got tackled? You are sore loser. I didn't derail you as much as refusing to allow you to read things into my posts and refusing to get away with trying to once again grandstanding your own misbeliefs of grandeur.
If you actually read what I replied, then you'd notice a theme that isn't unlike what other posters said. That your of on using the word justify if you really want an explanantion, that it smack of you needing to justify your own lifestyle choices at the expense of everyone else, and your need to make yourself feel superior.
And when you do that Marti, then you do not get serious reponses, only reponses trying to expose your posts.
And frankly, I still don't see why the question needs justification at all, or even an explanation. Adding to the slew of other threads on the same vein from you it still look more than anything else like you are trying to project your own insecurities unto the rest of us.
Perhaps you should start out by justifying why you chose NOT to have children? Then perhaps, if you could keep the tone level and not snide, then maybe, just maybe we would answer seriously as well :)
V
tl;dr
Why does Valdemar care passionately about Mart's opinion?
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 08:18:54 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 07:58:40 AM
In that case, what was the justification for getting us? :P
Poor life choices and addiction. -_-
:lmfao:
Despite all in the past I do like you G :hug: you are great fun when you want to be :)
V
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 08:20:36 AM
tl;dr
:huh: ?? don't understand that?
Brain, I don't, but I do enjoy arguing against him and pricking needles in his vanity balloon once in a while... look at my post count, I'm not exactly around much :)
V
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 08:22:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 08:18:54 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 03, 2012, 07:58:40 AM
In that case, what was the justification for getting us? :P
Poor life choices and addiction. -_-
:lmfao:
Despite all in the past I do like you G :hug: you are great fun when you want to be :)
V
And that's a personal failing. :grr: :P
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 08:42:35 AM
And that's a personal failing. :grr: :P
On my part or yours? :P
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 05:09:56 AM
Valdemar: :moon:
Eight posts in a row, and they look much better after I put you on my ignore list.
I'm tired of ignore lists.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2012, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 05:09:56 AM
Valdemar: :moon:
Eight posts in a row, and they look much better after I put you on my ignore list.
I'm tired of ignore lists.
Removed them, you have the power!
I concur. We're a community; no reason why everyone can't share in the same pain.
Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2012, 06:03:42 AM
Indeed. Besides, the way I see it, as thinking and self-aware beings, the onus should be on us to show why we want to bring someone into the world, not the opposite. The Kant's practical imperative is to always treat humanity of others as a goal in itself and never as only a means to reach another goal - so creating a human being for the purpose of not being lonely, or to have someone remember you, or to bring happiness to your life or your relationship, or to secure your retirement is the utmostly selfish and immoral reason because then the kid is just a tool for you to feel better about yourself.
I don't doubt a lot of people have kids for non-selfish reasons though that's why I started this thread. Although I guess now I spilled the beans about my purpose
Too bad, otherwise I never would have guessed you started the thread to discuss Kantian philosophy.
Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?
:face:
wins the thread :lol:
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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.
why? If they engaged in Kantian doubt over the whole thing instead, you wouldn't exist.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
Ye
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
Sure, because a dog is a lot like a child. No difference there at all.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make though - why are you using "selfish" as a pejorative term in this context? Why is it bad to want to have children because it brings one joy/pleasure/happiness?
Like I've said, and you've failed to understand, we are programmed to derive enjoyment from having children - but the enjoyment is not the point. Just like you enjoy sex, the enjoyment is not the reason for sex, it is just a means for our biology to encourage us to engage in an activity that is beneficial to life.
The root "reason" is that without procreation, life ends. This is true for all organisms.
You want to just stop at some arbitrary level (the "because we enjoy it") level so you can feel smug and superior about not having kids, as if your reasons to not have them are somehow more valid than our reasons to have them. But that is, of course, completely arbitrary. The reason we enjoy it is because our biology demands that we continue our species.
Can there be a better reason to do anything?
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 11:39:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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.
why? If they engaged in Kantian doubt over the whole thing instead, you wouldn't exist.
If I have never been born it wouldn't matter to me. You can't conduct an existentialist debate ex post ante.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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?
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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). :)
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 11:45:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
YeQuote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 02, 2012, 11:14:23 AM
Because when I get home from work I hear a very excited "daddy!", hear the pitter-patter of little feet, and get a huge enthusiastic hug.
That's why.
Another selfish reason. Could have just got a dog. :P
Sure, because a dog is a lot like a child. No difference there at all.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make though - why are you using "selfish" as a pejorative term in this context? Why is it bad to want to have children because it brings one joy/pleasure/happiness?
Like I've said, and you've failed to understand, we are programmed to derive enjoyment from having children - but the enjoyment is not the point. Just like you enjoy sex, the enjoyment is not the reason for sex, it is just a means for our biology to encourage us to engage in an activity that is beneficial to life.
The root "reason" is that without procreation, life ends. This is true for all organisms.
You want to just stop at some arbitrary level (the "because we enjoy it") level so you can feel smug and superior about not having kids, as if your reasons to not have them are somehow more valid than our reasons to have them. But that is, of course, completely arbitrary. The reason we enjoy it is because our biology demands that we continue our species.
Can there be a better reason to do anything?
When you continue on like this - it is hard for me to parse out your troll...even though you already said it was a troll.
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
Yes. But saying it is a simple question is the troll - well that and labelling every reason insufficient.
I did not say it was a troll.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:23:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 11:32:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?
:face:
wins the thread :lol:
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturesup.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a01348660b2b3970c0133f348a07d970b-800wi&hash=b0dbe32bd8914fe85db06a7bdb0ee857ff3a49ce)
"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."
Hey, I made a serious reply.
Which was totally ignored by all. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:23:55 PM
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. ;)
Awesome. Buford rules. :P
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 12:19:30 PM
I did not say it was a troll.
I'm missing something then. I said that I didn't really think that because biology compels it was relevant to Marti's question about why individuals here chose to have kids. Eventually you told me that you were responding to Marti's troll with a "troll" of your own.
I guess everything you've said isn't a troll (or rather tangent) if you are going to the core of Marti's question about the need to justify having children but like I said before seems rather irrelevant to the actual stated question of "why did you decide to have children".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:23:55 PM
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.
I'm curious to see what Malthus will say in this thread.
Well yeah, we've all been pretty much sitting around marking time until Malthus chimes in.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on July 03, 2012, 03:00:30 AM
"Why did you decide to have children?" is a legitimate question. It's a major decision that most people face and it's very often a conscious decision. That some people get defensive about it says more about those people than about the question.
Yes. But saying it is a simple question is the troll - well that and labelling every reason insufficient.
This. I'd be more than happy to have a discussion about kids. Having a 5-day-old in the house brings the issue to the forefront. (heh - it sounds so funny to measure a lifespan in days).
But it's one thing to ask a question. It's another to challenge someone to "justify" their decision, and then decide that reasons are insufficient.
Personally, I simply can not agree that a choice which involves me sacrificing thousands of hours and thousands of dollars for another person as being "selfish".
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2012, 01:30:03 PM
Personally, I simply can not agree that a choice which involves me sacrificing thousands of hours and thousands of dollars for another person as being "selfish".
Buying a BMW will sacrifice thousands of dollars as well, as well as thousands of hours driving it to and from the shop.
It certainly was true of my BMW. :(
But I think you missed the "for another person" part of the sentence.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2012, 01:49:52 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
Well yeah, we've all been pretty much sitting around marking time until Malthus chimes in.
Isn't that true of every thread?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2012, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
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. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 01:02:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:54:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2012, 12:41:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2012, 12:23:55 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 11:32:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?
:face:
wins the thread :lol:
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturesup.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a01348660b2b3970c0133f348a07d970b-800wi&hash=b0dbe32bd8914fe85db06a7bdb0ee857ff3a49ce)
"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.
Who says we parents are benevolent? :mad:
Martinus speaks for Martinus. The others can handle their own business.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:47:17 PM
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. :P
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 . . .
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2012, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:47:17 PM
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. :P
Your fingers type no but your mouth shouts yes.
Part of that power which still
Produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill.
Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2012, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2012, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
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.
Kant was a fugly OCD-ridden homosexual.
Wait a minute...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2012, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 03, 2012, 02:31:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 03, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
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. ;)
What sarcasm?
:showoff:
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
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.
Also a Pole.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being.
You do realize you just fatally undermined your argument.
If a potential human being does not count morally as a person, then there can be no objection under the practical imperative to using it as a means.
So then the analysis becomes:
+ From the POV of the prospective parents, they are using a thing (non-person/potential personal) to help achieve the end of enriching their own lives. Which is morally permissible, and perhaps even a positive good.
+ From the POV of the potential person, they are better off having the opportunity of an actual life than no opportunity at all.
And it's all good all around for all involved.
QuoteHell, 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.
And a Pole.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:47:17 PM
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 think those looks and whispers had more to do with the disappearance of hott Asian waitresses in the neighbourhood than with lack of children ... ;)
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 02:47:17 PM
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 going to regret answering this post seriously, but here goes, anyway.
I am a parent of a lot of kids. I saw added value to my life in having children, so I had them. That does not mean, however, that I don't see value in not having children, too. In fact, probably because of all of my kids, I'm more likely to advise those who question if they should have children to wait or not to have them at all.
It's such a personal choice - and there are hundreds of reasons that make either choice perfectly reasonable - that one cannot outright say that one choice is better than another. Neither is inherently better than the other on the whole, since it has to be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Marti choosing not to have children benefited him far more than him choosing to have them, obviously, or he wouldn't be so smug about that decision. It was very much the best choice for him - and society, as luck would have it. Others chose differently for different reasons and with different outcomes. It just so happens that the societal norm is to choose to have children, so Marti's decision comes across as "wrong" to those who view different as wrong. In fact, it was very right for him, and there's value in that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2012, 03:25:21 PM
:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Don't get all Danny Sickles on us now.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2012, 02:52:55 PM
Martinus speaks for Martinus. The others can handle their own business.
This.
Could it be we live in the best of all possible worlds, where some people choose to have children and Martinus doesn't?
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2012, 03:47:58 PM
Could it be we live in the best of all possible worlds, where some people choose to have children and Martinus doesn't?
Wouldn't that world be second best? Surely a better world would be one in which Martinus' parents chose not to have children?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
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 . . .
:pinch: I love how Minsky can land a crushing kick to the nuts, and look refined and sophisticated throughout the procedure. :wub:
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2012, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2012, 03:47:58 PM
Could it be we live in the best of all possible worlds, where some people choose to have children and Martinus doesn't?
Wouldn't that world be second best? Surely a better world would be one in which Martinus' parents chose not to have children?
:pinch: :pinch: :pinch: :lmfao:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on July 03, 2012, 11:32:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
Mart, have you ever asked your parents why they had you?
:face:
wins the thread :lol:
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturesup.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a01348660b2b3970c0133f348a07d970b-800wi&hash=b0dbe32bd8914fe85db06a7bdb0ee857ff3a49ce)
"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."
I think I came.
Quote from: DGuller on July 03, 2012, 03:55:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
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 . . .
:pinch: I love how Minsky can land a crushing kick to the nuts, and look refined and sophisticated throughout the procedure. :wub:
I am not sure Marti realizes what happened.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 11:08:37 AM
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.
Here is how the middle class is eroding. Now suburban white kids are behaving like poor bastard minorities. :(
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/facebook_singlemother1.png)
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2012, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 11:08:37 AM
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.
:D
I Kant take it any more.
Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
I Kant take it any more.
I Kant-ache it or leave it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 03, 2012, 03:55:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 02:56:30 PM
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 . . .
:pinch: I love how Minsky can land a crushing kick to the nuts, and look refined and sophisticated throughout the procedure. :wub:
Just keep away from the underneath of his desk.
Quote from: grumbler on July 03, 2012, 05:00:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 03, 2012, 04:54:19 PM
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.
Calvin all just get along? Or is it too far to Spinoza a religious reformer as a philosopher?
:frusty:
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:51:18 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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).
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 05:16:27 PM
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.
:cheers: @ grumbler :lol:
Abelard pressed to follow that, but we won't let that Boethus.
As much as i hate all of you and your stupid puns, still an improvement to this thread.
Quote from: katmai on July 03, 2012, 07:09:43 PM
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.
Unfortunately, we don't have a pile of turds, so we'll have to make do with puns.
Give me a bit. I've been backed up all day.
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 11:35:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 03, 2012, 11:29:09 AM
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.
Apart from your parents not being on languish it is as legit as the ones you post...
It could be rephrased then... what justification do you THINK you parents had for having you? :)
V
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 03, 2012, 12:41:29 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturesup.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a01348660b2b3970c0133f348a07d970b-800wi&hash=b0dbe32bd8914fe85db06a7bdb0ee857ff3a49ce)
"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."
Seriously CdM, you should get published :)
V
Just to make sure I annoy marti by having a few posts in a row...
I did notice that the serious answers held the same premise as I started out mocking,
Why is justification needed? And why is marti so keen on trying to expose others choices rather than explaning his own?
V
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being.
You do realize you just fatally undermined your argument.
If a potential human being does not count morally as a person, then there can be no objection under the practical imperative to using it as a means.
So then the analysis becomes:
+ From the POV of the prospective parents, they are using a thing (non-person/potential personal) to help achieve the end of enriching their own lives. Which is morally permissible, and perhaps even a positive good.
+ From the POV of the potential person, they are better off having the opportunity of an actual life than no opportunity at all.
And it's all good all around for all involved.
QuoteHell, 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.
And a Pole.
An act of creation affects the created being. An act of non-creation does not affect the created being. Is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 04:10:46 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 03, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 03, 2012, 03:00:22 PM
Every Kantian will tell you there is an absolute difference between a developed human being and only a potential human being.
You do realize you just fatally undermined your argument.
If a potential human being does not count morally as a person, then there can be no objection under the practical imperative to using it as a means.
So then the analysis becomes:
+ From the POV of the prospective parents, they are using a thing (non-person/potential personal) to help achieve the end of enriching their own lives. Which is morally permissible, and perhaps even a positive good.
+ From the POV of the potential person, they are better off having the opportunity of an actual life than no opportunity at all.
And it's all good all around for all involved.
QuoteHell, 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.
And a Pole.
An act of creation affects the created being. An act of non-creation does not affect the created being. Is this so hard to understand?
And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators. Is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2012, 09:37:49 AM
And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators. Is this so hard to understand?
It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).
My point is that the question "why did you decide to have children" is not an irrelevant question - because sometimes it is not good for the child to be born in a certain set of circumstances. I guess my point (which is controversial) is that - if you are not certain if, by creating a child, you are going to benefit and not harm the child, should you err on the side of creation or non-creation?
That is why, ultimately, I argue that people who decide to have children should have children (or a child - as again, it may be better from a child perspective to be a only child than one out of four, for example) if they are convinced this will be for the benefit of the child in question. Concerns such as "I want to have company" or "I want to spread my genes" or "I want to have someone look after me when I'm old" should be secondary to that.
Of all the different things that go into a decision to have kids or not abstract moral stuff seems to me to be one of the least interesting or important.
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2012, 10:03:16 AM
Of all the different things that go into a decision to have kids or not abstract moral stuff seems to me to be one of the least interesting or important.
That's not abstract moral stuff - surely we agree that a lot of people who should never have children (or should not have children at a particular moment of their lives) have children nonethless, right?
I guess ultimately this is where the whole lot of defensiveness in this thread comes from - because I am asking people who have children to consider if they indeed should have children (whether at all or at the particular moment of their lives) - because of a whole plethora of things, such as financial conditions, stability of their marriages, their personalities or hereditary diseases etc. It is much easier to abrogate that responsibility by claiming that "everyone should have children" or that it is an instinct - but I argue this is not the case and self-aware humans should decide that for themselves consciously and honestly.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2012, 09:37:49 AM
And so the Act of creation benefits both the created being and the creators. Is this so hard to understand?
It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).
My point is that the question "why did you decide to have children" is not an irrelevant question - because sometimes it is not good for the child to be born in a certain set of circumstances. I guess my point (which is controversial) is that - if you are not certain if, by creating a child, you are going to benefit and not harm the child, should you err on the side of creation or non-creation?
That is why, ultimately, I argue that people who decide to have children should have children (or a child - as again, it may be better from a child perspective to be a only child than one out of four, for example) if they are convinced this will be for the benefit of the child in question. Concerns such as "I want to have company" or "I want to spread my genes" or "I want to have someone look after me when I'm old" should be secondary to that.
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
For the vast majority of parents in the first world, these are not relevant considerations.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 09:59:34 AM
It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).
Your continued existence puts the lie to your contention.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:07:41 AM
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 09:59:34 AM
It doesn't have to, though - or are we saying that, no matter the circumstances, it's better to exist than never to exist (I disagree).
Your continued existence puts the lie to your contention.
See, this is why I regret the ignore function was removed (you were one of the people on my list). After I state my position, you respond with an insult. You are not worthy of my time.
So yes, let's play this game. I continuously hope you and your family die of cancer. Hopefully your wife and your kids before you so you can live through it.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:07:41 AM
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
Seems to me that these are either extremely rare (heriditary diseases so severe as to be a serious factor?), impossible to evaluate (how many people judge themselves to have such negative personality traits as to make child-rearing morally suspect?) or silly (having 3 children isn't morally wrong - I'm a third child myself :lol: ).
Having children for ulterior motives is a bad idea, but not because it is bad for the child - unless the parent plans to discard or ignore the kid of the motive doesn't pan out.
In summary, it is only in ususual cases where a parent would have to seriously consider whether a kid would be better off not existing.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:12:54 AM
See, this is why I regret the ignore function was removed (you were one of the people on my list). After I state my position, you respond with an insult.
So yes, let's play this game. I continuously hope you and your family die of cancer. Hopefully your wife and your kids before you so you can live through it.
I dont blame you for trying to ignore refutations of your world view. I can see why it is at times uncomfortable. My statement was not meant as an insult but merely to point out the difficulty with your position. You state as a first principle that it is not better to exist than to not exist. If you really believed that you would do something about your continued existence.
But then we get into the conceit of your argument. Its not that you are not worthy of existence. You are amazing and fully worthy of existence - so you think. It is all those others who are not.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:18:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:07:41 AM
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
Seems to me that these are either extremely rare (heriditary diseases so severe as to be a serious factor?), impossible to evaluate (how many people judge themselves to have such negative personality traits as to make child-rearing morally suspect?) or silly (having 3 children isn't morally wrong - I'm a third child myself :lol: ).
Having children for ulterior motives is a bad idea, but not because it is bad for the child - unless the parent plans to discard or ignore the kid of the motive doesn't pan out.
In summary, it is only in ususual cases where a parent would have to seriously consider whether a kid would be better off not existing.
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree - because my point is that people shouldn't have children unless they are convinced they will be good parents providing the child with the best circumstances - not vice versa. :P
Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:12:54 AM
So yes, let's play this game. I continuously hope you and your family die of cancer. Hopefully your wife and your kids before you so you can live through it.
:hmm: I bet canuck can't match that one.
God am I glad this ignore list bullshit is gone.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 04, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
God am I glad this ignore list bullshit is gone.
No shit. Neil, despite being a senile old codger, knows what he's doing
Bah, I can see Grey Fox's posts again! Why hast God forsaken me? :cry:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 04, 2012, 10:33:56 AM
Bah, I can see Grey Fox's posts again! Why hast God forsaken me? :cry:
Because you deserved it.
Kneel before him.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 04:10:46 AM
An act of creation affects the created being. An act of non-creation does not affect the created being. Is this so hard to understand?
It's hard to understand because it's not true.
An act of creation does not "affect" the created being. Rather it is the precondition for the created being to come into being and thus be capable of affectation in the first place. As such, it is a positive event for that being, not a negative one, unless one assumes that life is inherently valueless.
Acts of non creation OTOH do affect already created beings all the time.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 04, 2012, 11:55:40 AM
An act of creation does not "affect" the created being. ... As such, it is a positive event for that being,
:hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 04, 2012, 10:29:33 AM
God am I glad this ignore list bullshit is gone.
When did this happen?
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits... ...All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
A great many people who have a high risk of passing hereditary diseases on to their children
do make the decision to forgo having kids--and in many cases where they have kids anyway, it's because they didn't find out that they carried the genes for the disease until after they already had kids. And as for having bad personality traits--well, by that standard, no one would ever have children--we all have a least a few bad traits.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:05:07 AM
I guess ultimately this is where the whole lot of defensiveness in this thread comes from - because I am asking people who have children to consider if they indeed should have children (whether at all or at the particular moment of their lives) - because of a whole plethora of things, such as financial conditions, stability of their marriages, their personalities or hereditary diseases etc. It is much easier to abrogate that responsibility by claiming that "everyone should have children" or that it is an instinct - but I argue this is not the case and self-aware humans should decide that for themselves consciously and honestly.
I'm pretty much re-iterating what Malthus said, but the situations where a child would be better off simply not being born at all are pretty limited.
The thing about raising kids is you can never be a perfect parent, and that kids don't need perfection. To go through your entire list:
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
-Personalities - lots of different kinds of personalities make wonderful parents. From easygoing to hardnosed, hoghbrow to lowbrow, all can make good parents. If someone is a psycopath unable to empathize with others they should probably not have children - but the personality types who absolutely should not have children are pretty limited.
-Hereditary diseases. I've mentioend my wife's cousin, whose mother passed away from Huntington's recently. It's a directly inheritable disease, so he has a 50/50 chance of getting Huntington's - and if he gets it his two kids have a 50/50 chance of developing it. I would strongly disagree he'd be better off not having been born, and the same for his kids.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Barrister, July 4, 2012
Really just personal experience. Take my brother's high school best friend. Raised by a welfare single mom, who then passed away after her son graduated high school. I'm pretty sure Marti would say he'd be better off not having been born, but he's leading a very productive life with a stable job and a loving wife (and who has been pretty much adopted into our wider family, which is why I know how well he is doing).
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Barrister, July 4, 2012
Really just personal experience. Take my brother's high school best friend. Raised by a welfare single mom, who then passed away after her son graduated high school. I'm pretty sure Marti would say he'd be better off not having been born, but he's leading a very productive life with a stable job and a loving wife (and who has been pretty much adopted into our wider family, which is why I know how well he is doing).
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
What do you suppose the risks are of being born into an Eastern European dictatorship?
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Barrister, July 4, 2012
Really just personal experience. Take my brother's high school best friend. Raised by a welfare single mom, who then passed away after her son graduated high school. I'm pretty sure Marti would say he'd be better off not having been born, but he's leading a very productive life with a stable job and a loving wife (and who has been pretty much adopted into our wider family, which is why I know how well he is doing).
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
I don't think anyone would doubt that some people are born with better prospects than others. After all, we are not living in Lake Wobegon, the town "where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." ;)
The issue is at what point are people born with such bad prospects that they would be, on an objective analysis, better off not having been born at all. I do not think being born to a single mom qualifies for that.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
Having an "elevated risk of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional or behavioural problems" is a long, long way from being better off not having been born.
You understand of course that the bread and butter of my work is dealing with society's less fortunate. They have a lot of problems, but most of them are trying to do right by themselves and the world, and probably less than 5 have I ever felt that the world would simply be better off if they never existed.
Do they have to sit through It's A Wonderful Life in gaol?
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 02:09:58 PM
The issue is at what point are people born with such bad prospects that they would be, on an objective analysis, better off not having been born at all. I do not think being born to a single mom qualifies for that.
Well I can never be objective when the question is: Should a person not have been born at all?
My answer is an unequivocal "NO". We have a duty to welcome and take care of children, be they retarded or crazy.
Would I recommend to single women to not have a child on their own because statistically life will be much harder for her and the child? Yes.
You recommend black people that they shouldn't have kids?
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
Having an "elevated risk of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional or behavioural problems" is a long, long way from being better off not having been born.
You understand of course that the bread and butter of my work is dealing with society's less fortunate. They have a lot of problems, but most of them are trying to do right by themselves and the world, and probably less than 5 have I ever felt that the world would simply be better off if they never existed.
What do those less then five do?
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2012, 02:27:36 PM
You recommend black people that they shouldn't have kids?
For many of them: yes.
Unfortunately, middle class whites are now following in their sexual/familial footsteps.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 02:14:33 PM
You understand of course that the bread and butter of my work is dealing with society's less fortunate. They have a lot of problems, but most of them are trying to do right by themselves and the world, and probably less than 5 have I ever felt that the world would simply be better off if they never existed.
I don't know enough of your work or specific clients, but most people indeed have "good intentions". Just usually their actions do not follow their talk, or they fail to follow through to the end.
Thus, I usually recommend 3 months of safe and noncommittal interaction/observation before escalating your personal and professional relationships. You won't be mistaken by first impressions, and we will all be happier. :)
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Barrister, July 4, 2012
Really just personal experience. Take my brother's high school best friend. Raised by a welfare single mom, who then passed away after her son graduated high school. I'm pretty sure Marti would say he'd be better off not having been born, but he's leading a very productive life with a stable job and a loving wife (and who has been pretty much adopted into our wider family, which is why I know how well he is doing).
This is anecdotal. Why does anecdotal evidence almost never trump up statistics, except when it comes to "gee, these shitty people had a kid who turned out pretty much fine"?
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
Would I recommend to single women to not have a child on their own because statistically life will be much harder for her and the child? Yes.
There are all kinds of reasons why having children may be more difficult for one person than another. Generally speaking, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2012, 02:04:38 PM
What do you suppose the risks are of being born into an Eastern European dictatorship?
It depends - are the potential parents educated, running own business and well off? Then yes, sure. Are they human refuse living off the state's dole? Then probably not (unfortunately they did and we still see problems from it with entire regions being plagued by structural unemployment).
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2012, 02:42:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 02:14:33 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
Having an "elevated risk of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional or behavioural problems" is a long, long way from being better off not having been born.
You understand of course that the bread and butter of my work is dealing with society's less fortunate. They have a lot of problems, but most of them are trying to do right by themselves and the world, and probably less than 5 have I ever felt that the world would simply be better off if they never existed.
What do those less then five do?
Defense lawyers
Quote from: Maximus on July 04, 2012, 03:02:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
Would I recommend to single women to not have a child on their own because statistically life will be much harder for her and the child? Yes.
There are all kinds of reasons why having children may be more difficult for one person than another. Generally speaking, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
That's why I just give a recommendation, not a rule. ;)
Single women are free to tell me to go fuck myself (or alternatively fuck me), then go off and have their bastard children. :D
Quote from: Maximus on July 04, 2012, 03:02:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
Would I recommend to single women to not have a child on their own because statistically life will be much harder for her and the child? Yes.
There are all kinds of reasons why having children may be more difficult for one person than another. Generally speaking, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Nobody who's having a child can guarantee that they won't become a single parent at some point. You could have a child today and your spouse could be killed in a car wreck tomorrow.
So, I take it the overall conclusion is that defense lawyers should not have children? :hmm:
Some wise-ass is bound to remove "defense" ... :P
And here is that wise ass!
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
So, I take it the overall conclusion is that lawyers should not have children? :hmm:
Some wise-ass is bound to remove "defense" ... :P
Quote from: dps on July 04, 2012, 03:22:31 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 04, 2012, 03:02:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
Would I recommend to single women to not have a child on their own because statistically life will be much harder for her and the child? Yes.
There are all kinds of reasons why having children may be more difficult for one person than another. Generally speaking, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.
Nobody who's having a child can guarantee that they won't become a single parent at some point. You could have a child today and your spouse could be killed in a car wreck tomorrow.
This is true, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the post you quoted.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
So, I take it the overall conclusion is that defense lawyers should not have children? :hmm:
Some wise-ass is bound to remove "defense" ... :P
Perhaps substitute the term, "Polish"?
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2012, 02:04:38 PM
What do you suppose the risks are of being born into an Eastern European dictatorship?
It depends - are the potential parents educated, running own business and well off? Then yes, sure. Are they human refuse living off the state's dole? Then probably not (unfortunately they did and we still see problems from it with entire regions being plagued by structural unemployment).
Ah, so nobody should have been born in Eastern Europe during communist era? That seems fine.
I'm late to respond to such an insightful thread, but wouldn't it be boring and less fufilling otherwise? What are you going to do with all your personal time--I think there reaches a point where going to bars every weekend starts to get a bit empty.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 04, 2012, 04:46:45 PM
I think there reaches a point where going to bars every weekend starts to get a bit empty.
Heresy.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 02:09:58 PM
I don't think anyone would doubt that some people are born with better prospects than others. After all, we are not living in Lake Wobegon, the town "where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average." ;)
A humble people with much to be humble about.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:22:21 AM
Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.
Since this is such a subjective view of child rearing (who is "better" than whom), it's rendered pointless. Those you consider your lessers could easily be considered your superiors by others using a different set of guidelines.
It sounds like you're asking us parents to justify our right to breed based on your personal criteria, which is asinine. I wouldn't trim my toenails based on your - or anyone else's - personal criteria, so why would anyone make any kind of important decision based on that?
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2012, 10:55:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:22:21 AM
Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.
Since this is such a subjective view of child rearing (who is "better" than whom), it's rendered pointless. Those you consider your lessers could easily be considered your superiors by others using a different set of guidelines.
It sounds like you're asking us parents to justify our right to breed based on your personal criteria, which is asinine. I wouldn't trim my toenails based on your - or anyone else's - personal criteria, so why would anyone make any kind of important decision based on that?
Don't forget you are talking to the guy who believes nonexistence is better than existance. Except for him of course. He is Polish.
Does anyone still disagree with my diagnosis that he's a narcissist?
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:07:41 AM
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
If you extrapolate a bit on that, does that mean you are advocating prescreening of foetus for undiserable effects, such as hereditary diseases? In essence advocating the whole "designer baby" trend?
Apart from the moral and ethical unpleasantness of that line of thought and the obvious historic spectre it raises it would be scientifically stupid to do
The whole idea of natual procreation is diversity, that includes hereditary diseases. Bear in mind that many of these diseases are thought to be genetic mutations in reaction to some external or internal thread thousands of years ago, including violent microbes. By designing off all diseases you may end up killing immunity for something that could turn out to be vital.
V
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:39:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on July 04, 2012, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM
-Children are born to parents of limited means all the time, and turn out great. The situations where parents are so impoverished that it lears to long-lasting suffering for the child are extremely limited.
-Stability of marriages. Lots of children born to less than stable relationships, or single parents, who turn out fine. For the relationship to be so unstable, and so violent, that the child is better off not being born is extremely limited.
citation needed
Barrister, July 4, 2012
Really just personal experience. Take my brother's high school best friend. Raised by a welfare single mom, who then passed away after her son graduated high school. I'm pretty sure Marti would say he'd be better off not having been born, but he's leading a very productive life with a stable job and a loving wife (and who has been pretty much adopted into our wider family, which is why I know how well he is doing).
Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html
I have also read that the upward mobility rate (not to mention incarceration, graduation rates, etc.) of kids born into poverty is also significant retarded. Sure, we like to remember a few exceptions from our personal networks, but the reality is not so uplifting for children in troubled/single-parent households.
That may be true on your side of the pond, but i recently read that effectively that was not the case in EU. I cant find the article, but basically it states that unlike common belief it is very hard to reverse fortunes in God's own nation (US) while it is very much possible in and under semi socialistic EU regimes.
V
In Sweden it's dead easy to move from the bottom 20% to the top 20%. Only problem (and the reason it's so easy) is that it means very little in real money.
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2012, 02:48:35 AM
In Sweden it's dead easy to move from the bottom 20% to the top 20%. Only problem (and the reason it's so easy) is that it means very little in real money.
:D
Yes indeed, that is the challenge, however in context of this text it means that being in the lower 20% shouldn't stop you from having kids..
V
Quote from: alfred russel on July 04, 2012, 04:46:45 PM
I'm late to respond to such an insightful thread, but wouldn't it be boring and less fufilling otherwise? What are you going to do with all your personal time--I think there reaches a point where going to bars every weekend starts to get a bit empty.
So you admit that people have children to fill their empty lives with something to do?
I declare my victory of the thread. :D
And for the record I don't really go to bars anymore.
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house.
Homo Alone? :yeahright:
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2012, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house.
Homo Alone? :yeahright:
I was hardly ever alone - our household consisted of my grandmother, my mother, my unmarried childless aunt and my father, so had pretty much four people raising only me.
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Casual reply... My wife is a single child, but the discussion has never been whether or not to have kids, only how many
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2012, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house.
Homo Alone? :yeahright:
I was hardly ever alone - our household consisted of my grandmother, my mother, my unmarried childless aunt and my father, so had pretty much four people raising only me.
Nice. I'd also like to raise my children in an extended household.
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:31:46 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Casual reply... My wife is a single child, but the discussion has never been whether or not to have kids, only how many
V
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:31:46 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Casual reply... My wife is a single child, but the discussion has never been whether or not to have kids, only how many
V
Zero. Zero is a number.
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:31:46 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Casual reply... My wife is a single child, but the discussion has never been whether or not to have kids, only how many
V
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
this is the stuff why I am growing increasingly tired of you. What need was there for that comment?
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
Listen, you limpdicked sad excuse for a real lawyer
poke all the fun you will at me, make all snide remarks, do what ever rocks your boat, but leave my wife and kids out of this.
I don't make fun of your parents or your lover, only of you. Be man enough to keep it personal and leave family out of this.
Do NOT go down that route.
V
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:52:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
Listen, you limpdicked sad excuse for a real lawyer
poke all the fun you will at me, make all snide remarks, do what ever rocks your boat, but leave my wife and kids out of this.
I don't make fun of your parents or your lover, only of you. Be man enough to keep it personal and leave family out of this.
Do NOT go down that route.
V
Request denied. Especially when you yourself quote her as a proof of something, it's pretty normal to counter that with an observation that perhaps her experience is not that relevant because she is just stupid. She married you after all.
Which (genetics be damned), implies that your children are likely to be stupid as well.
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:55:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:53:52 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:52:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
Listen, you limpdicked sad excuse for a real lawyer
poke all the fun you will at me, make all snide remarks, do what ever rocks your boat, but leave my wife and kids out of this.
I don't make fun of your parents or your lover, only of you. Be man enough to keep it personal and leave family out of this.
Do NOT go down that route.
V
Request denied.
you really really shold have thought before you typed....
V
I know. I wrote a longer post in the "l'esprit d'escalier" before you responded.
It cant take much to be a lawyer in poland if that kind of argument holds water, no wonder most Poles try for work in the rest of europe and fail miserably at anything that require they read the instructions.
V
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 06:00:05 AM
It cant take much to be a lawyer in poland if that kind of argument holds water, no wonder most Poles try for work in the rest of europe and fail miserably at anything that require they read the instructions.
V
Wow, that retort was lame. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:53:52 AM
Request denied. Especially when you yourself quote her as a proof of something, it's pretty normal to counter that with an observation that perhaps her experience is not that relevant because she is just stupid. She married you after all.
Which (genetics be damned), implies that your children are likely to be stupid as well.
You really are solidly stupid.
I didn't quote her as proof, as the sentence said it was a casual observation to counter another casual observation. It says nothing of my wife, her intelligence, our childrens' intelligence, or whether or not the fact Brazen was a lone child as well is significant or not. In fac tthat sentence says Nothing about my wife other than the statistical fact she is a single child.
It really takes an idiot who thinks he can argue to turn THAT sentence into proof that you can blatantly abuse my wife and children in that way. The fact you mentioned your parents earlier hasn't lead me to think I could abuse them or their factulties for letting you live instead of drowning you in the beet soup.
I really thought some sort of exam was required in Poland for universities, I guess I was wrong.
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 06:03:26 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 06:00:05 AM
It cant take much to be a lawyer in poland if that kind of argument holds water, no wonder most Poles try for work in the rest of europe and fail miserably at anything that require they read the instructions.
V
Wow, that retort was lame. :lol:
I edited it before I posted... something you fail to do, you apparently feel much more secure in editing after I reply, hence my second response.
V
Is it not more likely that, if someone is stupid, it's Martinus? I mean, we all know him, and we know that he's stupid. He's got a sort of base cunning that he uses to trick unsuspecting victims into thinking he's a lawyer, but he's still pretty stupid.
Quote from: Neil on July 05, 2012, 07:51:09 AM
Is it not more likely that, if someone is stupid, it's Martinus? I mean, we all know him, and we know that he's stupid. He's got a sort of base cunning that he uses to trick unsuspecting victims into thinking he's a lawyer, but he's still pretty stupid.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2012, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house.
Homo Alone? :yeahright:
I was hardly ever alone - our household consisted of my grandmother, my mother, my unmarried childless aunt and my father, so had pretty much four people raising only me.
That reminds me, how many Polacks does it take to raise a Polack? More than four, evidently. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2012, 08:24:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2012, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house.
Homo Alone? :yeahright:
I was hardly ever alone - our household consisted of my grandmother, my mother, my unmarried childless aunt and my father, so had pretty much four people raising only me.
That reminds me, how many Polacks does it take to raise a Polack? More than four, evidently. :(
Well, my aunt is Raz-like and her father (my maternal grandfather) was also nuts. :P
So I'm always on the look-out for the first signs of hereditary insanity.
Quote from: Phillip V on July 05, 2012, 05:46:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:28:35 AM
I was hardly ever alone - our household consisted of my grandmother, my mother, my unmarried childless aunt and my father, so had pretty much four people raising only me.
Nice. I'd also like to raise my children in an extended household.
You want your kids to be like Martinus?
So what exactly makes you think you haven't already been hit by genetics?
V
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 09:05:04 AM
So what exactly makes you think you haven't already been hit by genetics?
V
I'm able to function in the society. Somewhat.
I have a theory everyone is insane. It's not a problem as long as you keep functioning. Same with alcoholism.
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
I'm able to function in the society. Somewhat.
:yeahright:
V
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 09:02:06 AM
Well, my aunt is Raz-like and her father (my maternal grandfather) was also nuts. :P
So I'm always on the look-out for the first signs of hereditary insanity.
:hmm: By now you should be on the look-out for fourth signs of hereditary insanity.
I made the mistake of reading the last page before the previous one which I'd also not read. This resulted in a brief twinge of sympathy for Martinus. :sleep:
Quote from: Tamas on July 05, 2012, 05:52:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:31:46 AM
Quote from: Brazen on July 05, 2012, 04:56:52 AM
Casual observation - Mart and I are both only children. I think it's harder for us to imagine having children without having grown up with others in the house. We also worry that we'd be selfish parents, though that seldom turns out to be the case.
Casual reply... My wife is a single child, but the discussion has never been whether or not to have kids, only how many
V
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
this is the stuff why I am growing increasingly tired of you. What need was there for that comment?
He just recently said that he hopes CC's whole family dies of cancer. The above comment was nothing but tame in comparison.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM-Personalities - lots of different kinds of personalities make wonderful parents. From easygoing to hardnosed, hoghbrow to lowbrow, all can make good parents. If someone is a psycopath unable to empathize with others they should probably not have children - but the personality types who absolutely should not have children are pretty limited.
With this reasoning I think we've reached a middle ground. By that criterion, it's best if Marty doesn't have kids; but the rest of us are good to go. Thus we can all be satisfied.
Well done :cheers:
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 05:52:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 05:47:44 AM
Perhaps your wife is just unintelligent? :)
Listen, you limpdicked sad excuse for a real lawyer
poke all the fun you will at me, make all snide remarks, do what ever rocks your boat, but leave my wife and kids out of this.
I don't make fun of your parents or your lover, only of you. Be man enough to keep it personal and leave family out of this.
Do NOT go down that route.
V
Aren't you the one who brought up your wife? I agree that what he's doing is crass but if you didn't want him to attack her, not sure why you brought her up in this quagmire of a thread.
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2012, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM-Personalities - lots of different kinds of personalities make wonderful parents. From easygoing to hardnosed, hoghbrow to lowbrow, all can make good parents. If someone is a psycopath unable to empathize with others they should probably not have children - but the personality types who absolutely should not have children are pretty limited.
With this reasoning I think we've reached a middle ground. By that criterion, it's best if Marty doesn't have kids; but the rest of us are good to go. Thus we can all be satisfied.
Well done :cheers:
Is he our only psychopath? :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2012, 11:59:52 AMIs he our only psychopath? :ph34r:
Well, I'm not trained to render that diagnosis, least of all over the net; but it's clear that Martinus is severely emotionally stunted, that he's a useless human being, that the world would have been better off without him, and that it's a blessing that he's not going to breed.
As for other members of languish? Some exhibit some of those qualities, but not to that obvious extreme.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2012, 11:59:52 AM
Is he our only psychopath? :ph34r:
Membership in Languish reverses the onus on this question. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:22:21 AM
Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.
See, that's actually kind of admirable--forgoing having children because of doubts that one would make a good parent. The thing is, nobody else here has the right to make that judgment for you, and you don't have the right to make it for them, either.
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:22:21 AM
Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree - because my point is that people shouldn't have children unless they are convinced they will be good parents providing the child with the best circumstances - not vice versa. :P
Which also brings us back to the question asked of me in the beginning - why do I decide not to have children - because I am not convinced I would have personality traits that would make me a good parent. The fact that people I consider my lessers have children is not a good enough cause for me to lower my standards.
That's a more nuanced position than what you were advocating on page 1.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2012, 11:59:52 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2012, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2012, 01:19:22 PM-Personalities - lots of different kinds of personalities make wonderful parents. From easygoing to hardnosed, hoghbrow to lowbrow, all can make good parents. If someone is a psycopath unable to empathize with others they should probably not have children - but the personality types who absolutely should not have children are pretty limited.
With this reasoning I think we've reached a middle ground. By that criterion, it's best if Marty doesn't have kids; but the rest of us are good to go. Thus we can all be satisfied.
Well done :cheers:
Is he our only psychopath? :ph34r:
Please note for the record I am not calling Martinus a psycopath.
He's not a psychopath, he's just a douche.
Now Lettow...that nigga could pop into Serial Killer Mode any fucking minute. Squee.
Quote from: Valdemar on July 05, 2012, 02:33:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 04, 2012, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2012, 10:07:41 AM
Such concerns only apply in extreme circumstances, where for whatever reasons having a kid is likely to result in that kid living a miserable existence - such as extreme poverty unlikely to change.
I disagree - what about a risk of hereditary diseases. Or parents having bad personality traits. Or having already a couple of children and the fact that they won't have as much time to dedicate to their upbringing if they bring a new one into the fold. Or living in a deteriorating relationship and hoping selfishly that bringing a child into this mess will help them "rekindle" the love. All such people should seriously consider if they should have children.
If you extrapolate a bit on that, does that mean you are advocating prescreening of foetus for undiserable effects, such as hereditary diseases? In essence advocating the whole "designer baby" trend?
Apart from the moral and ethical unpleasantness of that line of thought and the obvious historic spectre it raises it would be scientifically stupid to do
The whole idea of natual procreation is diversity, that includes hereditary diseases. Bear in mind that many of these diseases are thought to be genetic mutations in reaction to some external or internal thread thousands of years ago, including violent microbes. By designing off all diseases you may end up killing immunity for something that could turn out to be vital.
V
I wonder if Marty's parents would have had him if they knew he was going to be gay.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2012, 03:26:42 PMI wonder if Marty's parents would have had him if they knew he was going to be gay.
Seeing how they didn't have a problem with that, I think they would. Now, the better question is - would your parents have you? Considering your mother left you, it's debatable.
She didn't leave him, she left his dad. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2012, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2012, 03:26:42 PMI wonder if Marty's parents would have had him if they knew he was going to be gay.
Seeing how they didn't have a problem with that, I think they would. Now, the better question is - would your parents have you? Considering your mother left you, it's debatable.
They don't have a problem with it now. How about in 1970's communist Poland would they be so understanding then? Homosexuality was regarded as disease in communist Poland and communist propaganda certainly demonized it. Would it have been moral to bring into the world a person who was to be despised and and regarded as chronically mentally ill his whole life? Who would have been regarded as politically suspect and wouldn't be able to get a good job? Remember in the 1970's Poland, they had no reason to believe the Soviets would leave. Not to mention the selfish desire of having a child that is like the parent, a child that may provide parents grandchildren one day and extend the family line.
It's not "better" to talk about me. I'm not the one who started a thread on the morality of having children. Let's keep the discussion on your favorite person, you, for the time being
Quote from: Tamas on July 02, 2012, 04:24:53 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 04:04:26 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftransgender-world.forumprofi.de%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fpopcorm1.gif&hash=6731350b52261b6fd6a8b99f2234c1448b8d8503)
:lol: yeah
Interesting raise of topic. Marty is well in the age-range where most single heteros switch to panic mode, settle and have kids ASAP. Those who don't, seem to pay for their freedom with doubt over their decision, and a lonely old age.
Instead of paying for the calm of succumbing to society and biology and not dying alone, with sacraficing their freedom and well-being for others, of course.
Still, my point is: do gay people have the "omg I must settle and have kids so I won't slip into lone madness when I am old" urges?
I am hetero and I don't want kids so it is not only a gay thing.
You're alive!
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
You're alive!
I thought of him the other day, when I walked thru this gate:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffa%2FSt_Annes_gate_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1287752.jpg%2F560px-St_Annes_gate_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1287752.jpg&hash=969686fe755a0ecb56e325ff7c2d561a43099c4f)
In the room above the gate, Handel composed some works.
Or am I mixing you up with another languishite who was a Handel enthusiast ?
No that was Rex.
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
Aren't you the one who brought up your wife? I agree that what he's doing is crass but if you didn't want him to attack her, not sure why you brought her up in this quagmire of a thread.
As I said earlier, I made a casual observation that she is a lonely child in response to a casual observation by Brazen that lonely children perhaps felt less inclined to have kids... I wouldn't say that in any way means that she is "brought" into this thread in such a way that should be reason for that kind of comments.
As to the CC comment the Pole made, he has made it before, only to me, and not including IIRC my family. he isn't overly creative.. couldn't he at least have made it a more exotic death than cancer? Polonium210 for instance
V
Speaking of which, a bad joke possibly old.
"When is a child not a fruit of love?"
"When it's a vegetable."
Guys, Martinus is going through a really rough time. His long term boyfriend left him after infecting him with HIV. :(
Quote from: Fireblade on July 06, 2012, 04:59:17 AM
Guys, Martinus is going through a really rough time. His long term boyfriend left him after infecting him with HIV. :(
I didn't want to say that. :(
Fireblade,
It's not funny to joke like that.....
And get our hopes up.
:(
Meh, HIV is too severe for Marti. More likely it'll be something stupid, like Hep.
Is it possible to get athletes foot of the mouth :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on July 06, 2012, 05:54:27 AM
Is it possible to get athletes foot of the mouth :unsure:
I have been wondering that. Unlikely to be lethal though.
Quote from: katmai on July 06, 2012, 05:54:27 AM
Is it possible to get athletes foot of the mouth :unsure:
jock's itch of the mouth
Quote from: Valdemar on July 06, 2012, 04:09:16 AM
As I said earlier, I made a casual observation that she is a lonely child in response to a casual observation by Brazen that lonely children perhaps felt less inclined to have kids... I wouldn't say that in any way means that she is "brought" into this thread in such a way that should be reason for that kind of comments.
You brought her up as an anecdote to refute two anecdotes in a thread where Marti has been behaving exceptionally badly. What did one expect? ;)
Quote from: Valdemar on July 06, 2012, 04:09:16 AMAs to the CC comment the Pole made, he has made it before, only to me, and not including IIRC my family. he isn't overly creative.. couldn't he at least have made it a more exotic death than cancer? Polonium210 for instance
Is this your attempt at insults again? I thought we covered this. :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
When Mart posts, this is what I visualize:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
For me it's more like:
Watched some old American Dad episodes again, and yeah, you're right - Roger is spot on.
Quote from: Syt on August 05, 2012, 06:29:19 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 02, 2012, 11:06:38 AM
When Mart posts, this is what I visualize:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jrj-socrates.com%2FCartoon%2520Pics%2FFox%2FAmerican%2520Dad%2FRoger_300.gif&hash=9aee1f16f0cf5f1f7fb02bed94e63a7bdc2d2658)
For me it's more like:
Watched some old American Dad episodes again, and yeah, you're right - Roger is spot on.
Especially the being fat part.