Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:44:06 GMT
tpfkar You're the one who is implying that the non-existent must therefore be desirous of the choice. Your reasoning wouldn't work unless the non-existent had desires. If you have the conscious ability to assess your choices, then of course it is better not to be restricted to one choice. But nobody who doesn't exist wants or needs any choices. The concept of choice is meaningless to the universe, and is meaningless to anyone who doesn't already exist in order to appreciate the concept of choice. No, I'm pointing out your purposeful nonsense the nonexistent anything. If you're going to pipe dream about what they "want" or "don't want" then you have to use actual evidence, not simplyyour freakishly unbalanced perspective. No nothing at all, or if you want to push that there is, then the overall likelihood is that they'd overwhelmingly prefer the option over none. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The fact that the non-existent don't have any consciousness means that they cannot possibly lose out on existence should the parents decide not to have children. They don't 'lose out' on the choice, they simply never need the choice. From that vantage point, your probablistic argument is meaningless. It's only meaningful if there is something to be lost. Since there's no conceivable scenario in which someone can lose out from not being born, then that means that the decision to bring them into being is only necessary from the perspective of the parents and the society. Therefore, it is a selfish and needless gamble imposed on someone who cannot consent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 14, 2017 23:49:33 GMT
tpfkar The fact that the non-existent don't have any consciousness means that they cannot possibly lose out on existence should the parents decide not to have children. They don't 'lose out' on the choice, they simply never need the choice. From that vantage point, your probablistic argument is meaningless. It's only meaningful if there is something to be lost. Since there's no conceivable scenario in which someone can lose out from not being born, then that means that the decision to bring them into being is only necessary from the perspective of the parents and the society. Therefore, it is a selfish and needless gamble imposed on someone who cannot consent. Nor can they be averse to it. "Need" is not, and never will be the standard for "existence". They don't "lose out" on freedom from harm by coming into existence. Your whole line is nonsensical, but even if one grants you the crazy, your stance is (tragi-)comically one-sided. As you know it's not "necessary" to try to have a good time in this life, but it sure is fine. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 14, 2017 23:51:21 GMT
The fact that the non-existent don't have any consciousness means that they cannot possibly lose out on existence should the parents decide not to have children. They don't 'lose out' on the choice, they simply never need the choice. From that vantage point, your probablistic argument is meaningless. It's only meaningful if there is something to be lost. Since there's no conceivable scenario in which someone can lose out from not being born, then that means that the decision to bring them into being is only necessary from the perspective of the parents and the society. Therefore, it is a selfish and needless gamble imposed on someone who cannot consent. So just to get my understanding of your stance clear, you believe that having children is a bad thing, does that not ultimately mean that you think humanity is bad and should be removed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 23:55:48 GMT
tpfkar The fact that the non-existent don't have any consciousness means that they cannot possibly lose out on existence should the parents decide not to have children. They don't 'lose out' on the choice, they simply never need the choice. From that vantage point, your probablistic argument is meaningless. It's only meaningful if there is something to be lost. Since there's no conceivable scenario in which someone can lose out from not being born, then that means that the decision to bring them into being is only necessary from the perspective of the parents and the society. Therefore, it is a selfish and needless gamble imposed on someone who cannot consent. Nor can they be averse to it. "Need" is not, and never will be the standard for "existence". They don't "lose out" on freedom from harm by coming into existence. Your whole line is nonsensical, but even if one grants you the crazy, your stance is (tragi-)comically one-sided. As you know it's not "necessary" to try to have a good time in this life, but it sure is fine. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.Actually, someone who does exist and feels harmed may well feel that they lost out on freedom from harm. They are, after all, being harmed because of someone else's selfish or base biological desire to transmit their genetic material. Do you ever feel guilty about not having more children than you already have?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 0:03:39 GMT
The fact that the non-existent don't have any consciousness means that they cannot possibly lose out on existence should the parents decide not to have children. They don't 'lose out' on the choice, they simply never need the choice. From that vantage point, your probablistic argument is meaningless. It's only meaningful if there is something to be lost. Since there's no conceivable scenario in which someone can lose out from not being born, then that means that the decision to bring them into being is only necessary from the perspective of the parents and the society. Therefore, it is a selfish and needless gamble imposed on someone who cannot consent. So just to get my understanding of your stance clear, you believe that having children is a bad thing, does that not ultimately mean that you think humanity is bad and should be removed? I don't know what standard one would use to determine what 'bad' is. I think that the system of evolution is something that causes harm for no reason. Humans are harmful to each other and to other species (which is 'bad'), but ultimately we're really only victims of evolution. Christianity attributes the harm that we do unto other humans and animals to being 'fallen' through the misuse of free will (which doesn't exist), but as an atheist and antinatalist, I attribute it to us being victims of unintelligent forces. Other animals harm each other as well. Nature is a gladiator war of organisms competing against each other and wherein the weakest die out in brutal fashion. Humans are merely the most successful gladiators. I think that all sentient life should be ended, as it's nothing but a gladiator war that is propelled by the unintelligent forces of evolution. I would classify humanity as the most harmful and most harmed form of life, however (although I suppose that's unproven, given that we have limited knowledge of the quality of sentient experience of other animals).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 0:04:26 GMT
Actually, someone who does exist and feels harmed may well feel that they lost out on freedom from harm. They are, after all, being harmed because of someone else's selfish or base biological desire to transmit their genetic material. Do you ever feel guilty about not having more children than you already have? As has been repeatedly demonstrated, someone who does exist can have any number of patently deranged feelings. Which is of course utterly irrelevant to the infinite things that the nonexistent can't feel. As for your "selfish" and "base" and whatnot, I'll put it all and more up against your inviolate desires to have Trump nuke the planet. Do you ever feel guilty that you haven't killed your folks? On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 0:07:31 GMT
Actually, someone who does exist and feels harmed may well feel that they lost out on freedom from harm. They are, after all, being harmed because of someone else's selfish or base biological desire to transmit their genetic material. Do you ever feel guilty about not having more children than you already have? As has been repeatedly demonstrated, someone who does exist can have any number of patently deranged feelings. Which is of course utterly irrelevant to the infinite things that the nonexistent can't feel. As for your "selfish" and "base" and whatnot, I'll put it all and more up against your inviolate desires to have Trump nuke the planet. Do you ever feel guilty that you haven't killed your folks? On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Any deranged thoughts or feelings are only a product of life itself, and are therefore a reflection of the nature of life. And how about you answer my question, then I'll answer yours. I already know the answer - you don't feel guilty because you know that the kid that you didn't have hasn't missed out on anything. Why would a youngest child feel guilty about not having killed their parents?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 0:10:51 GMT
tpfkar As has been repeatedly demonstrated, someone who does exist can have any number of patently deranged feelings. Which is of course utterly irrelevant to the infinite things that the nonexistent can't feel. As for your "selfish" and "base" and whatnot, I'll put it all and more up against your inviolate desires to have Trump nuke the planet. Do you ever feel guilty that you haven't killed your folks? On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Any deranged thoughts or feelings are only a product of life itself, and are therefore a reflection of the nature of life. And how about you answer my question, then I'll answer yours. I already know the answer - you don't feel guilty because you know that the kid that you didn't have hasn't missed out on anything. Deep. And right, nonexistent anythings haven't missed out on anything at all. More profundity. Thankfully the nonexistent missing out on any good is exactly as relevant as the nonexistent missing out on any bad. In the meantime, enjoy yourself! And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 0:19:31 GMT
tpfkar Any deranged thoughts or feelings are only a product of life itself, and are therefore a reflection of the nature of life. And how about you answer my question, then I'll answer yours. I already know the answer - you don't feel guilty because you know that the kid that you didn't have hasn't missed out on anything. Deep. And right, nonexistent anythings haven't missed out on anything at all. More profundity. Thankfully the nonexistent missing out on any good is exactly as relevant as the nonexistent missing out on any bad. In the meantime, enjoy yourself! And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.The non-existent do not accrue a benefit from not coming into existence, but neither do they need one. When you bring someone into existence, you create an organism that will be constantly searching after the next benefit in order to avoid the crashing, devastating valley of deprivation. You'll be creating someone who needs a benefit that they may not be able to reliably find. And all for no productive purpose, merely to serve the selfish interests of the people bestowing life.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Dec 15, 2017 0:19:43 GMT
Enjoying oneself is the best we can do.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 0:34:18 GMT
tpfkar The non-existent do not accrue a benefit from not coming into existence, but neither do they need one. When you bring someone into existence, you create an organism that will be constantly searching after the next benefit in order to avoid the crashing, devastating valley of deprivation. You'll be creating someone who needs a benefit that they may not be able to reliably find. And all for no productive purpose, merely to serve the selfish interests of the people bestowing life. The non-existent do not accrue a benefit nor harm from anything. Nor will "need" ever be the measure for existence. Searching and reaching and avoiding are all good things that make all of us and the system work, thankfully. Nor is "productive purpose" an objective thing except just one more for the religious. And right, making sure new creatures have a blast is just as selfish as the psychopathic hope for Trump to unleash worldwide nuke blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 15, 2017 0:36:04 GMT
So just to get my understanding of your stance clear, you believe that having children is a bad thing, does that not ultimately mean that you think humanity is bad and should be removed? I don't know what standard one would use to determine what 'bad' is. I think that the system of evolution is something that causes harm for no reason. Humans are harmful to each other and to other species (which is 'bad'), but ultimately we're really only victims of evolution. Christianity attributes the harm that we do unto other humans and animals to being 'fallen' through the misuse of free will (which doesn't exist), but as an atheist and antinatalist, I attribute it to us being victims of unintelligent forces. Other animals harm each other as well. Nature is a gladiator war of organisms competing against each other and wherein the weakest die out in brutal fashion. Humans are merely the most successful gladiators. I think that all sentient life should be ended, as it's nothing but a gladiator war that is propelled by the unintelligent forces of evolution. I would classify humanity as the most harmful and most harmed form of life, however (although I suppose that's unproven, given that we have limited knowledge of the quality of sentient experience of other animals). So in short, yes. You think humanity should be ended. I find it interesting that you describe pretty much all life as pointless (I see no reason to pause at sentient, all life is engaged in your gladiator war) and that the very tool (for lack of a better word) that created life as harmful. I find it interesting that you feel the need to include 'with no reason', your stance is that all of creation is without reason, although you say unintelligent at one point, why does there have to be a reason? I also think (and I know you will not agree) that there is plenty of good things to be alive for and they outweigh the bad, which is a very strong thing for me to say at this point in my life as I am in one of the darkest places I have ever been. How do you feel about euthanasia for being sad and the death pods that have just been released?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 7:18:33 GMT
I don't know what standard one would use to determine what 'bad' is. I think that the system of evolution is something that causes harm for no reason. Humans are harmful to each other and to other species (which is 'bad'), but ultimately we're really only victims of evolution. Christianity attributes the harm that we do unto other humans and animals to being 'fallen' through the misuse of free will (which doesn't exist), but as an atheist and antinatalist, I attribute it to us being victims of unintelligent forces. Other animals harm each other as well. Nature is a gladiator war of organisms competing against each other and wherein the weakest die out in brutal fashion. Humans are merely the most successful gladiators. I think that all sentient life should be ended, as it's nothing but a gladiator war that is propelled by the unintelligent forces of evolution. I would classify humanity as the most harmful and most harmed form of life, however (although I suppose that's unproven, given that we have limited knowledge of the quality of sentient experience of other animals). So in short, yes. You think humanity should be ended. I find it interesting that you describe pretty much all life as pointless (I see no reason to pause at sentient, all life is engaged in your gladiator war) and that the very tool (for lack of a better word) that created life as harmful. I find it interesting that you feel the need to include 'with no reason', your stance is that all of creation is without reason, although you say unintelligent at one point, why does there have to be a reason? I also think (and I know you will not agree) that there is plenty of good things to be alive for and they outweigh the bad, which is a very strong thing for me to say at this point in my life as I am in one of the darkest places I have ever been. How do you feel about euthanasia for being sad and the death pods that have just been released? Yes, of course humanity ought to be ended. The reason why I'm stressing that there's no reason or purpose is because there's no moral authority that gives validation of what we're doing here. There's nobody who ultimately ensures that the rules of the game are fair. It's understandable why theists want to believe that there is an objective authority who has deemed life 'fit for purpose' and who dispenses out justice in the afterlife. Are there any benefits that you enjoy for being alive that you feel that you would miss had you never been born? I think that anyone who wants euthanasia or assisted suicide should have a right to it. If there is a right to live, then there should be the right not to live; otherwise we're really dressing up an obligation as a 'right'. The reason that the right to die doesn't currently exist is because 'pro-lifers' take the suffering of the most unfortunate as validation of the value of their own existence (or 'sanctity of life'). And what we've always had are people (martyrs sacrificed for a cause that they don't support and want nothing to do with) who are suffering far more intensely, and for far longer than Christ allegedly suffered on the cross.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 7:25:28 GMT
tpfkar The non-existent do not accrue a benefit from not coming into existence, but neither do they need one. When you bring someone into existence, you create an organism that will be constantly searching after the next benefit in order to avoid the crashing, devastating valley of deprivation. You'll be creating someone who needs a benefit that they may not be able to reliably find. And all for no productive purpose, merely to serve the selfish interests of the people bestowing life. The non-existent do not accrue a benefit nor harm from anything. Nor will "need" ever be the measure for existence. Searching and reaching and avoiding are all good things that make all of us and the system work, thankfully. Nor is "productive purpose" an objective thing except just one more for the religious. And right, making sure new creatures have a blast is just as selfish as the psychopathic hope for Trump to unleash worldwide nuke blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I explicitly acknowledged above that the non-existent never accrue a benefit. But importantly, they don't need a benefit to accrue, because there are no harms, either potential or actual which need to be staved off. And it is the staving off of harm which characterises all, or at least most of the putative benefits that a life accrues. And the most evil person of whom you've ever heard is a facet of nature, and therefore their thoughts and actions reflect an aspect of nature. And Trump unleashing nukes is simply a tragic solution to a vexing and intractable problem. Just because I want a solution to this problem doesn't mean that I actually like what the solution may have to entail. It's simply less bad to inflict short-term harms on those who are already alive (with the view to preventing them from imposing on generations that need not exist) than to allow the cycle of harm to be perpetuated forever.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 10:55:06 GMT
tpfkar The non-existent do not accrue a benefit nor harm from anything. Nor will "need" ever be the measure for existence. Searching and reaching and avoiding are all good things that make all of us and the system work, thankfully. Nor is "productive purpose" an objective thing except just one more for the religious. And right, making sure new creatures have a blast is just as selfish as the psychopathic hope for Trump to unleash worldwide nuke blasts. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I explicitly acknowledged above that the non-existent never accrue a benefit. But importantly, they don't need a benefit to accrue, because there are no harms, either potential or actual which need to be staved off. And it is the staving off of harm which characterises all, or at least most of the putative benefits that a life accrues. And the most evil person of whom you've ever heard is a facet of nature, and therefore their thoughts and actions reflect an aspect of nature. And Trump unleashing nukes is simply a tragic solution to a vexing and intractable problem. Just because I want a solution to this problem doesn't mean that I actually like what the solution may have to entail. It's simply less bad to inflict short-term harms on those who are already alive (with the view to preventing them from imposing on generations that need not exist) than to allow the cycle of harm to be perpetuated forever. They don't need or not need anything, including any "staving off". It "characterizes" nothing. And if you wish to play pretend, then all the potential good/bad can be considered and what the potential sentient beings will overwhelmingly actually prefer and not just supplant it with your desire to bring all down to your particularly low level. Trump nuking the world to save it is the idea of religious nutcases looking for their idea of holy perfection, and one you've explicitly advocated, however you choose to attempt to "justify" the psychopathy. Like tossing out misleading links that don't advance your sacred cause, you in your personal backwards quest for the purported "less harm", seek via mass murder the multiplication overall suffering via forcing civilization into rising again, untempered, from bloody barbarity. And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 11:09:58 GMT
www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/88842957/The-parent-trap-Why-child-free-people-are-happierMoreover, you should be proud of the fact that you haven't imposed a risky, unneeded and unasked for existence on someone, and aren't going to further contribute towards the degradation of the ecosystem. I suppose it's difficult to overcome the emotional desire for children, but try to realise intellectually that your yearning is just your genetic programming trying to trick you. I work with people who are anxious and depressed, when I see people in mid life who have no significant other and no children it's a horrible indicator. Some of the most selfish and anxious people are the ones who have convinced themselves that they never need to have children or a family to be happy.. Maybe your genetic programming isn't trying to 'trick you', maybe you have intelligence and history within your genetics and ignoring that will have dire consequences. Also, if you're going to present a balanced viewpoint do a quick internet search on the benefits of having children.. I got so much stuff I'm not going to bother linking any. I'm not saying everyone needs to have kids to be happy, but most people who discount the benefits of having kids either have not done any research or are trying to make their unlovable selves feel better. 'I'm never going to have kids because I'm messed up' is much easier than 'I'm going to face my problems and improve myself because it's not all about me'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:43:34 GMT
www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/88842957/The-parent-trap-Why-child-free-people-are-happierMoreover, you should be proud of the fact that you haven't imposed a risky, unneeded and unasked for existence on someone, and aren't going to further contribute towards the degradation of the ecosystem. I suppose it's difficult to overcome the emotional desire for children, but try to realise intellectually that your yearning is just your genetic programming trying to trick you. I work with people who are anxious and depressed, when I see people in mid life who have no significant other and no children it's a horrible indicator. Some of the most selfish and anxious people are the ones who have convinced themselves that they never need to have children or a family to be happy.. Maybe your genetic programming isn't trying to 'trick you', maybe you have intelligence and history within your genetics and ignoring that will have dire consequences. Also, if you're going to present a balanced viewpoint do a quick internet search on the benefits of having children.. I got so much stuff I'm not going to bother linking any. I'm not saying everyone needs to have kids to be happy, but most people who discount the benefits of having kids either have not done any research or are trying to make their unlovable selves feel better. 'I'm never going to have kids because I'm messed up' is much easier than 'I'm going to face my problems and improve myself because it's not all about me'. Thanks for your post. But it really isn't the issue whether or not it confers a benefit upon the parent to have children, it's whether it should be deemed morally permissible to gamble with someone else's welfare without necessity. The link that I posted was really only to try and reassure the OP that many people without children are at least as happy, or even happier than those with children, and that the drive to procreate is really a trick that our genetic programming plays on us. I probably should have made it clear that I was only trying to console the OP with that link, rather than resting my entire case on that. Kids really aren't an option for me, as I'm homosexual. If you read on a little further down the thread, I do point out that the people less likely to have children are likely to be the type of people who are dealing with adverse sociological factors themselves than those who have kids, which makes it more remarkable that in most nations, having kids incurs a happiness deficit. Even the nations where there is a happiness benefit (8 out of a total 22), this is small, and in only 1 nation out of the 22 reported upon does it exceed 5%. I wonder what the stats would be for parents of children with low-functioning autism, or other severe disabilities, but I guess that all parents just assume that the bad things won't happen to them and their children, it only other happens to other people (Google 'optimism bias'). What you're saying is valid only if we completely ignore the unnecessary risks that are imposed upon the child when 2 people give in to their biological or socially programmed desires to pass on their genetic material.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:47:17 GMT
tpfkar I explicitly acknowledged above that the non-existent never accrue a benefit. But importantly, they don't need a benefit to accrue, because there are no harms, either potential or actual which need to be staved off. And it is the staving off of harm which characterises all, or at least most of the putative benefits that a life accrues. And the most evil person of whom you've ever heard is a facet of nature, and therefore their thoughts and actions reflect an aspect of nature. And Trump unleashing nukes is simply a tragic solution to a vexing and intractable problem. Just because I want a solution to this problem doesn't mean that I actually like what the solution may have to entail. It's simply less bad to inflict short-term harms on those who are already alive (with the view to preventing them from imposing on generations that need not exist) than to allow the cycle of harm to be perpetuated forever. They don't need or not need anything, including any "staving off". It "characterizes" nothing. And if you wish to play pretend, then all the potential good/bad can be considered and what the potential sentient beings will overwhelmingly actually prefer and not just supplant it with your desire to bring all down to your particularly low level. Trump nuking the world to save it is the idea of religious nutcases looking for their idea of holy perfection, and one you've explicitly advocated, however you choose to attempt to "justify" the psychopathy. Like tossing out misleading links that don't advance your sacred cause, you in your personal backwards quest for the purported "less harm", seek via mass murder the multiplication overall suffering via forcing civilization into rising again, untempered, from bloody barbarity. And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.The opening statement doesn't support your cause. When there is nobody in need of anything, whether that's a benefit or the staving off of harm, then there are no problems which need to be solved. At the inception of the universe, there was no sentient life, and that wasn't a problem for anyone. Nobody missed out on any of the purported benefits or 'blasts' of the life of a human being. The link that I posted does support the idea that having children isn't the panacea for the feeling of being unfulfilled that the OP expressed. I wasn't justifying my case solely on that evidence however, because frankly no matter what's in it for the parents, it should not be deemed permissible to take those unnecessary risks on behalf of someone who cannot consent. The link was only really intended to console the OP that they might not be missing out on anything so wonderful after all.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 11:56:36 GMT
tpfkar They don't need or not need anything, including any "staving off". It "characterizes" nothing. And if you wish to play pretend, then all the potential good/bad can be considered and what the potential sentient beings will overwhelmingly actually prefer and not just supplant it with your desire to bring all down to your particularly low level. Trump nuking the world to save it is the idea of religious nutcases looking for their idea of holy perfection, and one you've explicitly advocated, however you choose to attempt to "justify" the psychopathy. Like tossing out misleading links that don't advance your sacred cause, you in your personal backwards quest for the purported "less harm", seek via mass murder the multiplication overall suffering via forcing civilization into rising again, untempered, from bloody barbarity. And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.The opening statement doesn't support your cause. When there is nobody in need of anything, whether that's a benefit or the staving off of harm, then there are no problems which need to be solved. At the inception of the universe, there was no sentient life, and that wasn't a problem for anyone. Nobody missed out on any of the purported benefits or 'blasts' of the life of a human being. The link that I posted does support the idea that having children isn't the panacea for the feeling of being unfulfilled that the OP expressed. I wasn't justifying my case solely on that evidence however, because frankly no matter what's in it for the parents, it should not be deemed permissible to take those unnecessary risks on behalf of someone who cannot consent. The link was only really intended to console the OP that they might not be missing out on anything so wonderful after all. It supports upending your one-sided morbid analysis, it's only point. There's no nothing for the nonexistent, or if you need to pretend religious pretend then both the potential benefit/harm must both be analyzed, if one is actually at all interested in rational. The link was provided for you to try to leave the impression that people who had children were less happy in the general sense, not because of regressive policies of some states. Nobody said anything on "solely", which is another irrelevancy, and you haven't sanely "justified" anything, from your freakishly morbid slants, to losing aversion to rape when one's unconscious, to your advocacy of mass murder by Trump and your putting your own narcissism above the manifold increase in overall suffering such psychopathic barbarity would entail. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 11:58:48 GMT
I work with people who are anxious and depressed, when I see people in mid life who have no significant other and no children it's a horrible indicator. Some of the most selfish and anxious people are the ones who have convinced themselves that they never need to have children or a family to be happy.. Maybe your genetic programming isn't trying to 'trick you', maybe you have intelligence and history within your genetics and ignoring that will have dire consequences. Also, if you're going to present a balanced viewpoint do a quick internet search on the benefits of having children.. I got so much stuff I'm not going to bother linking any. I'm not saying everyone needs to have kids to be happy, but most people who discount the benefits of having kids either have not done any research or are trying to make their unlovable selves feel better. 'I'm never going to have kids because I'm messed up' is much easier than 'I'm going to face my problems and improve myself because it's not all about me'. Thanks for your post. But it really isn't the issue whether or not it confers a benefit upon the parent to have children, it's whether it should be deemed morally permissible to gamble with someone else's welfare without necessity. The link that I posted was really only to try and reassure the OP that many people without children are at least as happy, or even happier than those with children, and that the drive to procreate is really a trick that our genetic programming plays on us. I probably should have made it clear that I was only trying to console the OP with that link, rather than resting my entire case on that. Kids really aren't an option for me, as I'm homosexual. If you read on a little further down the thread, I do point out that the people less likely to have children are likely to be the type of people who are dealing with adverse sociological factors themselves than those who have kids, which makes it more remarkable that in most nations, having kids incurs a happiness deficit. Even the nations where there is a happiness benefit (8 out of a total 22), this is small, and in only 1 nation out of the 22 reported upon does it exceed 5%. I wonder what the stats would be for parents of children with low-functioning autism, or other severe disabilities, but I guess that all parents just assume that the bad things won't happen to them and their children, it only other happens to other people (Google 'optimism bias'). What you're saying is valid only if we completely ignore the unnecessary risks that are imposed upon the child when 2 people give in to their biological or socially programmed desires to pass on their genetic material. If you're going to wait till you're not 'gambling with someone else's welfare' before you have kids, nobody would ever have kids. You can never guarantee safety or happiness to anyone. But I do agree that it's not smart to have kids just to save a relationship or in a misguided selfish attempt to make yourself happier. If you're having trouble paying your bills and satisfying basic needs (food, shelter, clothing), don't have kids.
I think I see what you were saying and and I agree.
|
|