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 26 of 53 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #251
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Doesn't it make you wonder how the global "planners" can so callously decide that several billion people should be eliminated, usually the poor, and make grand speeches about it? It seems that they have taken on the role of God in deciding who will live,and who won't. I agree that our planet is becoming over populated, but c'mon. You have noticed that they never include themselves in their planning, but others are considered "disposable?" :
    Can you please tell me where any scientist has advocated the actual killing of poor people? This is some pretty ridiculous propaganda you've heard.

    Most advocate they breed *less* -- which everyone, including the people themselves, is up for, if only they could find ways to get people to stop denying women birth control and stop all the rape.

  2. #252
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.
    This is especially counter intuitive. I agree with the idea of long term economic sustainability being dependent on new people being produced. But this paper seems to suggest that childfree people tend to be more educated, are employed professionals and hold management positions and when in relationships both partners tend to have relatively high incomes. This is somehwat intuitive, since fecundity across nations seems to inverse correlate with wealth. So can you summarise the books argument or some interesting data sets? the book itself should have references that may be available on line if that helps.

    Choosing Childlessness: Weber's Typology of Action and Motives of the Voluntarily Childless - Park - 2005 - Sociological Inquiry - Wiley Online Library

  3. #253
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    You quoted a source once, but managed not to read it. You summarized 2, but did so in a way that was not at all connected to what they said. And you've done the same once again. Although that was an odd one where you basically agreed with me, but tried to pretend I'd said something different and somehow was wrong. Bizarre
    I cited your own sources back to you to show that in two instances they had not supported your claims, and that in the third that it did so only in a ridiculous manner. Sure, hunter gatherers don't engage in war - so long as you define the warfare that they engage in as "not war" :p. By the same token, the United States doesn't engage in warfare either.

    However, I am open to being proven wrong. If you can actually cite those sources not saying what I quoted them as saying, I would be interested in seeing it. I don't think you can, which is why you choose to call me a liar without being able to demonstrate any evidence of falsehood.

    Actually you're pretty typical. Certainly not a representation of all parents, but pretty typical at least in the sense of the way you view others.
    (shrug) if you want to accept me as a spokesmen for "most parents", that's up to you. See more below.

    I'll ask you the same question I asked Chuck, which apparently scared him right out of the thread: when did your children ask to be born?
    I don't see how this would be a scary question - obviously they didn't. Neither did they ask me to get them medical care, nor did they ask me for shelter that was safe for small children, neither did they ask me to teach them their ABC's, or how to speak. They didn't ask me to feed them healthy food, they didn't ask me to clothe them.

    However, if you want to talk about things that posters have run away from in this thread, I've got a whole post you seem to have decided to run away from. I suspected at the time mostly because of the fact that you had been caught either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting the claims of two of your sources and because of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill
    Okay, look, this is a stupid game, because breadth of impact is not the same as depth of impact is not the same as raw total impact, and really I would bet that in those three variations the ability to differentiate between CF and CL is (just like productivity) nigh on nil, just as the idea that parents don't do those things as well is... well...

    Okay, as a parent I have put a couple of dozen mass murderers in jail, and helped to secure a city of approximately 300,000 people from a major terrorist insurgency. Hundreds of school children could travel back and forth from their houses to school safely whereas before we came on scene they couldn't as one metric. We went from 200 attacks a month with a casualty rating of about 1-3 per to 2 attacks a month with one casualty between them. I've done humanitarian assistance in Thailand, trained security forces in Kuwait, dammed up the Mississippi to protect Amish communities, aided flood victims in the Philippines, increased the ability of the South Koreans to protect certain portions of their populace, and helped the Japanese when a Tsunami wiped out their nuclear reactors. So I would put forth that I've had some breadth - my impact has been literally global. I would say that I've had some depth - people are alive today partly because of me. This isn't to be braggadocious, or try to paint some kind of awesome picture of myself - I'm not particularly unique in these regards. Lots of the vets in here will tell you similar stories. MANY have had greater impact. But if you want to try to tell me that "your world is much bigger" because you don't have kids? That you "influence a vastly greater number of people"?
    And it's worth pointing out, that's before you consider the impact my children will have. As I recall, you are a writer at a small-distribution magazine. And that's just fine - if people are willing to pay you for it then obviously you bring value to others. I"m truly glad you were able to find a position where you can do what you love and bring enough value to others to support yourself on the trade - lots of english majors don't get that option. But don't stick your nose up in the air and tell me about how the CF have such larger, bigger, wider, lives and impact on humanity than Parents.

    Answer me that and then we can talk about how the CF are so selfish.
    (shrug) I didn't say "selfish". I said that their lives are more self-centered.

    I would say you hang out with a very unusual subset of parents. Or you're just being dishonest in terms of percentages.
    I have only posted one percentage on this thread which is that if you look at the bottom 30% of the income brackets, you will find that it is disproportionately made up of those who have failed to form families, who are childless. Most the folks (CF and Parents) I hang out with are either Japanese or Military. I would posit that most of the parents (and CF) that you hang out with are of a similarly constrained community (by geography, work, and inclination), and that therefore your own anecdotal experiences about how seriously your friends at the coffee shop talk about poverty in Africa and Global Warming don't translate into actual evidence for some kind of "wider impact / bigger world" for CF.

    You honestly sound like you're just ripping off the stereotype that the CF are such because they're basically children. However, the general known evidence about the CF demographic shows you wrong -- and not just my anecdata. I don't actually believe you know any CF people, honestly.
    Is that your default when you lack any evidence or the ability to respond? You just call the other person a liar?

    Just because you can't read well enough to distinguish between statements of activities and personality does not make me prejudice.
    No, your arguments have been pretty prejudiced in this thread. But tell me more about how CF people live in a wider world and impact more people than parents because of how they understand larger society whereas Parents are just so parochialistically parochial

    *sigh* But I was not talking about the REASON.
    No, as you pointed out, there are multiple reasons to decide not to have children. Yours, for example, you stated, were because of your own life goals, your own wants, your own desires; not because of any idea about what society needed. Others may buy into overpopulation (a debate for it's own thread), and I've seen some who claimed to be doing it for global warming. Others may simply think that the scars or situations in their lives would leave them atrocious parents. The reasons are myriad. What you claimed, however, was a necessary prerequisite of "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." - this is not a necessary prerequisite to deciding that one does not want to have children. As you and I have both agreed, it may be simply that you don't want to, or that you don't want to and think you wouldn't be good at it. No "higher plane of existence" is necessary, though simply as a matter of psychology it does make sense that folks would respond to:

    What I was talking about is how one gets to a point where they are personally able to withstand societal pressure, regardless of the reason.
    said social pressure by developing defensive delusions of superiority and/or grandeur.
    Last edited by cpwill; 03-22-13 at 10:24 PM.

  4. #254
    Guru
    ChuckBerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    Last Seen
    10-28-13 @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,491

    Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I don't see how this would be a scary question - obviously they didn't.
    It was a bull**** question because S&M already knew the answer. I don't dignify bull**** questions and I don't care what an opponent thinks of me.
    The morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society.

  5. #255
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckBerry View Post
    It was a bull**** question because S&M already knew the answer. I don't dignify bull**** questions and I don't care what an opponent thinks of me.
    I don't get what she thinks she is going to prove by it. Unless she wants to argue that life is a net-negative that we have somehow inflicted upon them, in which case she loses (as she sort of already did when she argued that most people weren't beneficial) her ability to argue that CF people are somehow superior/productive/etc.

  6. #256
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckBerry View Post
    It was a bull**** question because S&M already knew the answer. I don't dignify bull**** questions and I don't care what an opponent thinks of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I don't get what she thinks she is going to prove by it. Unless she wants to argue that life is a net-negative that we have somehow inflicted upon them, in which case she loses (as she sort of already did when she argued that most people weren't beneficial) her ability to argue that CF people are somehow superior/productive/etc.
    The original argument was about parents supposedly being unselfish.

    Please note that at no point did I try to argue the CF necessarily are.

    You cannot claim that wanting to be a parent is "unselfish" when your children never asked to be born. That is ridiculous. And the fact that Chuck can't handle it displays how attached many parents are to their own internal belief that they are superior and unselfish, despite the obvious logical evidence to the contrary.

  7. #257
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,170

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    However, if you want to talk about things that posters have run away from in this thread, I've got a whole post you seem to have decided to run away from. I suspected at the time mostly because of the fact that you had been caught either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting the claims of two of your sources and because of this:
    Your link doesn't go to any particular post, so I'm not sure which you're talking about.

    However, I did drop points when you simply started either being belligerant or playing dumb/lying/not reading my evidence/your own evidence. Because like I said, I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, and I don't care about what you have to say, really.

    And it's worth pointing out, that's before you consider the impact my children will have. As I recall, you are a writer at a small-distribution magazine. And that's just fine - if people are willing to pay you for it then obviously you bring value to others. I"m truly glad you were able to find a position where you can do what you love and bring enough value to others to support yourself on the trade - lots of english majors don't get that option. But don't stick your nose up in the air and tell me about how the CF have such larger, bigger, wider, lives and impact on humanity than Parents.
    That is not my nine-to-five, no. I did do that once, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.

    My nine-to-five is pretty specialized, so I prefer not to say specifically what it is, but I'm an editor and I help people with sensory impairments. It is by no means a local job either. But that's beside the point.

    I never said any such thing. What I said is that the CF dedicate a lot more time to the world, and while we may not affect any one person as much as a parent does, we often have a wider net of people that we do affect.

    (shrug) I didn't say "selfish". I said that their lives are more self-centered.
    I don't really see evidence of that either.

    I have only posted one percentage on this thread which is that if you look at the bottom 30% of the income brackets, you will find that it is disproportionately made up of those who have failed to form families, who are childless. Most the folks (CF and Parents) I hang out with are either Japanese or Military. I would posit that most of the parents (and CF) that you hang out with are of a similarly constrained community (by geography, work, and inclination), and that therefore your own anecdotal experiences about how seriously your friends at the coffee shop talk about poverty in Africa and Global Warming don't translate into actual evidence for some kind of "wider impact / bigger world" for CF.
    Actually, I'm drawing from an international pool. I'm involved in helping CF people get reproductive care (they are routinely discriminated against and finding good doctors is hard). I've talked to CF people from China to Kentucky and back again. I only know a handful from happenstance.

    I know one in particular who practically sees red when parents tell him CF people do nothing for children. He's an EMT. He's the guy who rescues the children parents abuse.

    No, as you pointed out, there are multiple reasons to decide not to have children. Yours, for example, you stated, were because of your own life goals, your own wants, your own desires; not because of any idea about what society needed. Others may buy into overpopulation (a debate for it's own thread), and I've seen some who claimed to be doing it for global warming. Others may simply think that the scars or situations in their lives would leave them atrocious parents. The reasons are myriad. What you claimed, however, was a necessary prerequisite of "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." - this is not a necessary prerequisite to deciding that one does not want to have children. As you and I have both agreed, it may be simply that you don't want to, or that you don't want to and think you wouldn't be good at it. No "higher plane of existence" is necessary, though simply as a matter of psychology it does make sense that folks would respond to:

    said social pressure by developing defensive delusions of superiority and/or grandeur.
    You don't get it, dude.

    Before you can reach the conclusion that you are going to make a choice that society does not like, you have to reach the conclusion that society doesn't control you, and you have to have effect means of managing its attempts to do so.

    Again, this is why studies on CF stigma management exist; because their is a stigma.

    People respond to stigma in various ways, but how you are responding to having your sense of superiority challenged is simply to become irrational.

  8. #258
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Childless couples are not inferior to anyone for the reason of being childless.

    If being childless is a choice for them, however, many married parents do look at them with pity and believe that they are going to be sorry later.

  9. #259
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Your link doesn't go to any particular post, so I'm not sure which you're talking about.

    I"m sure you don't. Post 253 - literally the only post of mine on that page where I am responding to you. I'll wait.

  10. #260
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,117

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    The original argument was about parents supposedly being unselfish.

    Please note that at no point did I try to argue the CF necessarily are.

    You cannot claim that wanting to be a parent is "unselfish" when your children never asked to be born.
    On the contrary. The fact that we do not pre-exist our own conceptions in no way invalidates the unselfish nature of parenting. That's one of the reasons we've gotten worse at being parents lately - we've gotten (as a culture) alot more selfish.

    That is ridiculous. And the fact that Chuck can't handle it displays how attached many parents are to their own internal belief that they are superior and unselfish, despite the obvious logical evidence to the contrary.
    as I stated at the beginning, all other things being held equal, parents have given more of themselves to others and they have benefited society more than those who are not. Raising a child is a socially positive act. That's all .

Page 26 of 53 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... 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
  •