View Poll Results: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

Voters
229. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Having children is a moral obligation to God/society/family/etc.

    9 3.93%
  • No, they are free not to have children. They don't have to answer to anybody

    161 70.31%
  • Not if they have reproductive problems.

    2 0.87%
  • Yes, even if they have reproductive problems. They can adopt, you know.

    1 0.44%
  • They should get a medal for lowering world population.

    44 19.21%
  • Other

    10 4.37%
  • I don't know.

    2 0.87%
Page 24 of 53 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #231
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,166

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    That is incorrect, though I fear here I'm going to have to cite another book. Jared Diamonds' "The World Until Yesterday" when he spends time observing those groups similarly disproves that theory, though I haven't read it yet. The idea of the Noble Savage has always been grounded more in western pretensions than observation of reality.
    I'm getting bored of you simply lying about my positions, but a couple of these are worth addressing.

    First of all, I find it utterly hilarious that you're citing a book I can't access and that you haven't even read.

    Second, here's one I have read with a citing to the specific passage, and it proves you pretty wrong.

    Simple hunter-gather societies, which are nomadic true subsistence, and have small populations do not make war.

    Complex hunter-gather societies, which are kind of a crossing breed with agriculture, do practice some degree of agriculture, have bigger populations, and they cannot migrate. They DO make war.

    Beyond War:The Human Potential for Peace - Douglas P. Fry - Google Books

    Here's another, shorter reference.

    How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways: Three Complementary Theories | Psychology Today

    No. It means you understand the thought processes of others. You are demonstrating that you cannot understand the thought processes of others who are parents, but instead project your own biases onto them.
    So now you are representative of all parents?

    and people who don't have children are more likely to have a constrained worldview in terms of time. they are, for example, more apt to not care about the future because they will not be in it and won't have any children in it, either. I wouldn't argue whether or not they have a constrained worldview in terms of space, but I would find it likely.
    Evidence, please? Most of the CF people I know are profoundly concerned about the direction of humanity. Many even choose to be CF for that reason.

    By making the decision not to breed? That has literally nothing to do with relative breadth of worldview.
    Yes, it does. In order to make a decision not to reproduce in a pro-natalist culture -- especially if you are a woman -- you have to be able to understand society as a larger machine and how it can and cannot control you. You have to be able to persist with that for the rest of your life, despite constant pushing from society, ranging from relatively benign to outright cruel.

    The link I showed you earlier -- the one about CF career proclivities -- is actually a study on CF stigma management.

    There would be no stigma management if there wasn't a stigma. And someone who thinks of society in small terms -- in terms of their immediate comforts, and in terms of personifying it to the degree that it could hurt them -- won't last long as a CF person.

    Not only that, but a lot of people wind up being CF for non-personal reasons. Philosophical reasons, environmental reasons, genetic reasons, etc.

  2. #232
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sort of. People without children pay the property taxes that typically fund schools - although they are less likely to do so as a portion than parents (who are more likely to purchase homes to - surprise - raise children in). But parents take on those burdens as well, leaving the childless relatively not picking up their portion of the cost for raising the generation that they expect to support them in their old age.



    This is simply not accurate - as has already been demonstrated. The childless make up a disproportionate portion of the lowest income quintiles.



    Who then (because that is what immigrant populaces tend to do) have and raise successful children who themselves develop technical skills

    Marine, Capt, Sir. I may not always agree with you, but I will always love you and respect you and I would always obey you and I would always do my duty with honor and respect and dignity. I love you marine as you are a special human being an american.
    sempir fi

  3. #233
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Marine, Capt, Sir. I may not always agree with you, but I will always love you and respect you and I would always obey you and I would always do my duty with honor and respect and dignity. I love you marine as you are a special human being an american.
    sempir fi
    Back at you old soldier, but I am but a lowly Sgt of Marines, and know nothing of the shiny people who are no doubt my intellectual, moral, and martial superiors in all aspects

  4. #234
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I'm getting bored of you simply lying about my positions
    If you can demonstrate me lying about your positions, I would like to see it. Thus far I have noticed that you tend to accuse me of being dishonest when I quote your own sources back to you. This is the third time in this thread that you have cited a source, apparently without reading it thoroughly, and then gotten upset when I actually took the time to.

    First of all, I find it utterly hilarious that you're citing a book I can't access and that you haven't even read.
    Well I cited two, and I was upfront that I hadn't read the second

    Second, here's one I have read with a citing to the specific passage, and it proves you pretty wrong.
    No, similar to your insistence that the threads' discussion of "childless couples" instead focus on your preferred sub-group of "child-free individuals", the author divides hunter-gatherers into two groups, and states that one engages in warfare very commonly and the other does not. Then he goes further to point out that the second group does kill each other over women or in clan-fights, or ongoing group-fueds... but that this is somehow not "war" at a basic level. John Keegan, that foremost historian of warfare, disagrees. If you wish to amend your earlier argument that one particular segment of hunter gatherer societies did not conduct war as often as others, but that they did consistently kill each other in a regular / organized fashion, then that is a (I would argue) a distinction without a difference, but it is an argument you are free to make based off of the evidence you have provided.

    [quote]Here's another, shorter reference.

    How Hunter-Gatherers Maintained Their Egalitarian Ways: Three Complementary Theories | Psychology Today


    So now you are representative of all parents?
    I would say that I am able to represent the parents who definitely do not match the depiction that you have self-servingly come up with. Certainly I can represent them better than you can represent the entire universe .

    Evidence, please? Most of the CF people I know are profoundly concerned about the direction of humanity. Many even choose to be CF for that reason.
    I'll offer up the same. Most of the CF people I know are self-focused, including the ones who purport to care about broader humanity. The parents I know go on mission trips to the Philippines, adopt children from Africa, etc. Most of the CF people I know spend alot of time drinking, playing video games, and/or working out. They are CF generally because A) they don't like kids or B) they don't want the responsibility and demands that come with them.

    In other words:

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
    My decision to be childfree isn't dominantly about society. It's dominantly about my own goals and wishes


    And you know what? The groups I know may or may not be representative of CF'ers as a whole. Just as the ones that you know may or may not be representative as a whole. They just demonstrate that the groups exist and that prejudiced statements like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
    Childfree people have an entirely different focus and purpose in life.
    and this:

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
    Parenthood is parochial. Much of the service work I and other CF people do is much broader -- for people we never have and may never meet.
    and this:

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors
    The being parochial is almost entirely incompatible with being CF.
    are wrong.

    Yes, it does. In order to make a decision not to reproduce in a pro-natalist culture -- especially if you are a woman -- you have to be able to understand society as a larger machine and how it can and cannot control you.
    That is incorrect. It is possible that one do so, but it is not a prerequisite for making the decision that one does not wish to have children. There are lots of reasons to decide that one doesn't want kids - and "because someone understands society as a larger machine (which it isn't)" is or may be only one.

  5. #235
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Many couples don't have children for various reasons. Should they be considered inferior in society?
    I fail to understand the point of the question... Can you use it in a sentence?
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    I fail to understand the point of the question... Can you use it in a sentence?
    Please, read post #215 (http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061587705)


  7. #237
    Advisor Lightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    07-14-13 @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    342

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    N...O.... thank you (bows)


    What does it matter if people decide not to have(or cant have) kids? If a couple cant have kids and has a strong desire to have children there are thousands of kids just waiting to have a nurturing home somewhere in the world(I dont mean to make it seem like they're pets at the pound) Hell that would just be natural selection taking its course. The world is overpopulated anyways.
    “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  8. #238
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightning View Post
    N...O.... thank you (bows)


    What does it matter if people decide not to have(or cant have) kids? If a couple cant have kids and has a strong desire to have children there are thousands of kids just waiting to have a nurturing home somewhere in the world(I dont mean to make it seem like they're pets at the pound) Hell that would just be natural selection taking its course. The world is overpopulated anyways.
    The world is not overpopulated, that's a common fallacy used (usually) by those who want to create a crises that can be used to hand over massive power to the government. We could house and feed the entire population of the globe rather comfortably in the space currently occupied by the continental United States alone.

  9. #239
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    childless people should have to pay higher taxes.

  10. #240
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,265

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The world is not overpopulated, that's a common fallacy used (usually) by those who want to create a crises that can be used to hand over massive power to the government. We could house and feed the entire population of the globe rather comfortably in the space currently occupied by the continental United States alone.
    Quiet. You'll ruin everything with the truth. Repeat after me: The world is overpopulated. Disease, starvation, wars, pestilence and pollution are the result. Better that we should kill a few - a couple of billion - so that others can live. Just because such things have existed throughout history doesn't mean overpopulation isn't the cause right now.

Page 24 of 53 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •