Kolya on 13/7/2009 at 06:57
Quote Posted by Kolya
AR is right. You're the anti-social crotchspawn of capitalism, worse than Hitler (who loved children).
Quote Posted by Tocky
Hitler didn't love kids. He loved his race.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Hitler would not like it.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Hitler still wouldn't like it.
Okay people, the joke is over. Any Hitler/Nazi-comparison only serves to devaluate one's views and I made one to mark that sentence as the gross exaggeration it was. Quelle surprise!
You knew all along it's the internet, where coarse exaggeration and one-sided arguments are all part of the game, right? At least I like to think that none of us is that stupid as we sometimes appear here.... But looking at the way some of you reacted to AR, maybe you did not. Anyway, thanks for coming here tonight. I for one am totally expecting Stitch's and Dethy's offspring to take over the world soon, mustache'd or not, well probably mustache'd but in a distinctively Dalí-rolling-his-'stache-between-the-fingers-way, so hold fast and remember: Don't drink & write. Goodbye.
mol on 13/7/2009 at 08:05
This thread has a sense of veiled arrogance and an air of moral superiority in it, towards those who, for whatever reason, choose not to have kids.
The implication seems to be that having kids elevates a person onto a level of life experience, responsibility, morality, selflessness and matureness that's unattainable by people who don't have or even want kids, and gives the right to lecture to others on how life should be lived.
It's alright not to like kids, and it's alright not to want them nor the things in life that come with the package, as much as it's alright to like them and want them.
Having kids will surely change a person - I've witnessed it many times among my friends. It's built in our dna, it's ultimately a survival of the species response. We have to be able to protect and nurture our offspring, like any animal.
And you will surely 'grow as a person'. But it doesn't mean that the change will somehow make you a better (more mature, more experienced in life, etc) person next to someone who chose not to have kids, or that persons without children wouldn't 'grow as a person' in their lives. It's just nature adapting your body and mind to caring for your young. You will gain experience in parenting, and in whatever comes along with that package, but it's not the only path to personal growth, or something that everyone must or should experience, to live responsible, mature, selfless and respectable lives. It just means you had a kid, that's it. You're a parent, like billions of other people have been.
Having said that, I don't doubt for a moment that from an individual point of view, the point of view of a parent, being a parent and having a child is - or can be - the most wonderful thing in the universe. It would have to be so, too - evolution has ensured it.
You could turn the whole argument upside down. As having babies is considered the normal thing to do, and most people choose to have them, one could say that it's not having kids that gives you a unique life experience, and having kids moulds you to a certain formula and deprives you of it.
Of course, such a proposition would be equally ridiculous and arrogant as is the whole 'only having babies and knowing what it's like to be a parent will grow you as a person and provide unique life experiences'.
Without kids, you will lose potentially great moments in life, but those aren't any more unique moments than those that people with kids may miss out on due to the different lifestyle that comes with kids. They're unique only in the sense that it's your kid, and in the sense that any great moment in life is unique. We're talking about different kinds of moments, neither by default better or more unique or more life-enriching than the other.
But the world is full of parents and kids. Being a parent isn't special. Having babies isn't special. Not being a parent isn't special either. Choosing not to have kids isn't special. It's just living. Neither choise is inherently better or provides a path to 'better' growth, or gives the other the right to ride on the high horse of morality emitting an aura of condescending superiority (and it's all just horse farts anyway).
Vasquez on 13/7/2009 at 09:17
Quote Posted by Tocky
If somebody has ovarian cancer or somebody stabbed them in the uterous then I guess they need a support group. If, however, they join a group because they blew a fuse when some person asked them when they are going to have a kid then that is just strange. If anything it is a compliment. It is saying hey I would like to see more of your kind on the planet. Of course when your eyes catch fire and you start spouting what monsters most kids are (which is not true) then they reevaluate.
Yes, of course this is always how it goes. Do you honestly think that childfree person blows a fuse simply because someone asks? No, it's the stuff that comes after you answer, no matter how civil you are.
Again, this doesn't happen with every parent or wannabe-parent, but when it does - especially repeatedly, like at work or family meetings - it will lead to blowing fuses after awhile. If you can't understand that, then you're really expecting childfree to have much higher levels of cool than the average person.
Some examples from real life:
- [snide]Oh, so you just want to party and live selfishly, of course it would be nice if we aaaalll could do that![/snide]
- But everyone wants kids! Which end has gone wrong with you, up or down?
- You're not a real woman/man!
- You will end up all alone (sometimes with "and you deserve it!")
- When are you gonna put down that old mutt and start having babies like a normal person?
- I hope you will have "an accident".
- Oh, so you're one of those child-
haters!etc.
Imagine getting responses like this when you say "We're planning to have a child". Do you think you wouldn't start fuming at least a little bit, after hearing shit like this year after year (topped with the less-insulting, but still irritating after n'th time, "tick tocks" and such)?
You have seen the attitude in this thread, too. Of course AR Master clearly has some profound problems of his own, but what he's spouting here is the shit many childfree get face-to-face - and often unprovoked.
Yet you sink your teeth onto one word, "breeder", that's not even used face to face at the person it refers to, just to let off steam after some serious baby-bashing?
And like I've said - bolded, yet you seemingly somehow managed to overlook it again -
most parents are not like this. I have close friends who have kids, do you think I call them breeders? (Although I don't even have need for that word anymore much of all, it seems that around 40 the questions pop up less and less ;) )
So, you don't get the "breeder"-label as easy as just having kids - you have to earn it with your own behaviour ;)
What's wrong with the word "childfree"? I honestly don't understand. It's not a choice to be proud of, but it's not a choice to be ashamed of either, IMO.
Scots Taffer on 13/7/2009 at 09:23
Quote Posted by mol
This thread has a sense of veiled arrogance and an air of moral superiority in it, towards those who, for whatever reason, choose not to have kids.
let me guess, you're club treasurer, founder and president of "breeder bingo"
edit: before that's pounced on, we breeders call that "a joke"
Vasquez on 13/7/2009 at 09:31
Quote Posted by Stitch
And while we'd be leaving the comfort zone in which "childfree" advocates can revel in ill-earned righteous indignation, a far more interesting topic for debate is what the effects of a declining birthdate--more specifically, a growing elder population and a dwindling youth--will have on the world as we know it.
Yeah, it's been all righteous reveling hasn't it.
I don't think anyone chooses not to have children to save the planet. If you want kids, you have them regardless of what's going on in the world, and same thing if you don't want them.
But the inevitable result of a childfree choice is that there will be at least one less human to use up the resources. If there will be less people on earth in the future, that will mean more resources for everyone (different story how it will be distributed, but there are already predictions of "water wars" and such).
It's a simple thing: You have a cake and you have 20 eaters, they get much less if there were only 6 eaters.
Anyway, the birthrate isn't declining nearly quick enough to have any dramatic effect, so don't lose your sleep over it.
Vasquez on 13/7/2009 at 09:34
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
edit: before that's pounced on, we breeders call that "a joke"
So, someone recognised himself from that description of "breeders". Funny, I always thought you're a parent, but guess I was wrong.
Scots Taffer on 13/7/2009 at 09:35
Jesus, Vas. Try harder. English really isn't your forte, stick to Finnish. You understand subtlety about as much as you'll ever begin to grasp parenthood.
mol on 13/7/2009 at 09:37
You know, I guess I just don't get your sense of humor, then, 'cause I'm not laughing my ass off here.
Where the fuck have I called anyone a "breeder", or indicated that I belong to any social group with people without kids, yet you conveniently place me there, try to build immunity to yourself from any negative reactions and deny me the right of being irritated by your stupid comment by simply saying it's just "a joke".
It doesn't work like that.
mol on 13/7/2009 at 09:42
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
Jesus, Vas. Try harder. English really isn't your forte, stick to Finnish. You understand subtlety about as much as you'll ever begin to grasp parenthood.
And you're just the perfect example of subtle, yeah? Very subtle and classy to start hitting non-English speakers with snide remarks about their English skills.
