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 36 of 53 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #351
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    It is how we repay our parents and our grandparents and our great-grandparents and our more distant forebears for having kept our lines going until we were born-- for having borne and raised us. It is how we pass on the teachings that were passed on to us.



    I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that choosing other endeavors at the expense of your family line is irresponsible. It's short-sighted and selfish.



    Again, not saying that. You can live a life of tremendous purpose and meaning without bearing children. You're just missing an important aspect of family and social life. I don't think childless couples are particularly less happy or less fulfilled than couples with children-- just less responsible to the line of their ancestors.
    All things have a beginning and an end. Life is a terminal disease. We are all going to die. The only real question is when and how. The luckier of us may be fortunate enough to know the answer to one or both of those questions with enough time to act on the foreknowledge. As we are all going to die so are our lineages. All life begins and all life ends. Does it really matter in the end, whether or not, someone chooses to have children? Their lines are destined to end its simply a matter of when.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  2. #352
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    06-24-16 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,073

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    I'm not in their head.

    Love is feeling, dude. People can feel things towards anything or anyone. Of far more consequence is what they do with it.

    Would it be different if it was his actual live girlfriend versus my cat or another person I love? I'd still not be happy about the fact that my loved one wasn't saved. Who took their spot on the lifeboat, so to speak, or even if no one did, wouldn't make any difference.

    Let's think about something else. Let's say you have some rare antique artifact. People have such things, and often they say they love them. They spend hours, perhaps daily, maintaining or restoring them. Their sense of loss if they are stolen or destroyed is quite real -- perhaps even mournful.

    We regard that as, well, a little reclusive, but not as absurd as loving a sex doll. Why not? Does it make any difference? No. We're just really weird about sex, that's all. That's why you chose that example, for the pearl-clutching effect it has on people like you, which you wrongly assumed I am.

    Like I said, I don't think replacing live beings with inanimate objects is healthy -- be they sex dolls or antique artifacts -- and psychology agrees with me. We're social creatures and we need social contact. However, that says nothing about the realness of their feelings.

    Feelings are just feelings.

    You're the one who keeps attempting to use your subjective feelings to put people and other creatures into some kind of hierarchy of worth and declaring everyone else's feelings but yours invalid.

    I don't happen to think subjective feelings are a good enough barometer to judge worth to begin with.
    I asked you if a person's "love" for an inanimate object was equal to the love of a human being and you couldn't give a straight answer. It was a yes or no question.

  3. #353
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    I asked you if a person's "love" for an inanimate object was equal to the love of a human being and you couldn't give a straight answer. It was a yes or no question.
    No, what you asked me was where I think they belong on a tier system of worth that is assessed based on subjective feelings. And I told you I think you're asking the wrong question. You don't seem to be able to connect the dots, so I'll expound.

    Ultimately, love alone means absolutely nothing. People can love someone and still hurt them. People can love someone who is hurting them. Obviously love doesn't dictate value, because love doesn't stop some people from doing things that are clearly of negative value.

    Love by itself is just a series of chemicals firing off in your brain. So asking me which loves are "better" and therefore of more value is a nonsense question. It's like asking me whether caffeine or sugar is a more fit object of worship based on which one I think gives me a better rush. It's nonsense.

    So can a guy love a doll? Yeah, probably, as long as those same series of chemicals fire off. What does that mean? Nothing. Because love alone means nothing.

    What matters is whether you have good reason to respect them, based on what they do and how they show their love, and how that compels you, and whether or not you're good enough to give it back. This is what gives love depth, motion, and purpose. It's what takes it from some nonsensical, meaningless feeling, into an actual relationship that can be positive, and in which people (and yes, animals as well sometimes) can do amazing things.

    Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.

    And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind, including parental. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 03-17-14 at 06:16 AM.

  4. #354
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    03-25-14 @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    873

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    No. Why, precisely?

    I'm quite intentionally childfree. And from what I've seen of the world, I don't really notice any superiority of people who just happen to have reproduced on any metric.



    How so? How is simply breeding a contribution?

    And how do you reckon people who don't reproduce -- a lot of whom don't because they occupy very challenging careers that possibly benefit your children -- aren't contributing?
    I never noticed this thread before; and off hand, I would say from the perspective of someone with two children that, in an overpopulated, polluted and hotter world, the contribution of childless couples is by NOT adding to an already oversized human population. We are already living in a world that no longer has grain surpluses (in case anyone has noticed), and there is no means to significantly increase food supply to accommodate the expected increase to 10 billion in a few decades.

    It's more likely that the negative effects of climate change, pollution, topsoil erosion and water scarcity, are going to reduce the food supply and lead to a population bottleneck, with a significant dieoff of human population. Everyone who has kids and is paying attention to these issues, has to wonder what kind of world they've brought their children in to!
    Why should our nastiness be the baggage of an apish past and our kindness uniquely human? Why should we not seek continuity with other animals for our "noble" traits as well?
    Stephen J. Gould

  5. #355
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    No, what you asked me was where I think they belong on a tier system of worth that is assessed based on subjective feelings. And I told you I think you're asking the wrong question. You don't seem to be able to connect the dots, so I'll expound.

    Ultimately, love alone means absolutely nothing. People can love someone and still hurt them. People can love someone who is hurting them. Obviously love doesn't dictate value, because love doesn't stop some people from doing things that are clearly of negative value.

    Love by itself is just a series of chemicals firing off in your brain. So asking me which loves are "better" and therefore of more value is a nonsense question. It's like asking me whether caffeine or sugar is a more fit object of worship based on which one I think gives me a better rush. It's nonsense.

    So can a guy love a doll? Yeah, probably, as long as those same series of chemicals fire off. What does that mean? Nothing. Because love alone means nothing.

    What matters is whether you have good reason to respect them, based on what they do and how they show their love, and how that compels you, and whether or not you're good enough to give it back. This is what gives love depth, motion, and purpose. It's what takes it from some nonsensical, meaningless feeling, into an actual relationship that can be positive, and in which people (and yes, animals as well sometimes) can do amazing things.

    Good relationships, of any type, are much more than just love.

    And incidentally, while most people feel love, very few people are any good at relationships of any kind. They're full of selfishness and expectation and just sheer laziness, and people think simply because they love someone, that's good enough. That because they have fuzzy feelings in their brain for their child or their partner or whomever, they deserve a goddamn medal. That's nonsense.
    I LOVE this explanation!

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-29-14 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,612

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by loader View Post
    You swore at me. What's next? You had not given any reasons why we need a family without children. Gays, who adapt children, has more rites call it's self "family" , then couples without children.
    Nothing is "next," since I didn't "swear" at you in the first place. Here is what I actually DID say:

    "Originally Posted by Ocean007:
    NONSENSE. Each individual, woman or man, is capable of deciding for herself or himself what makes up a 'family.' Couples without children may not make sense to you, which is fine. The bolded statement is a ridiculous assertion, which I certainly don't take seriously."

    Where is the so-called "swear" word in this post? Please point it out for me.

  7. #357
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-29-14 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,612

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by loader View Post
    Why not? They can. But why? To share half insurance? Ok. If you think, God created us for to sharing insurance, you have opened a new page in philosophy.
    A couple can get married without the desire or intention to have children. Whether they have children or not is really nobody else's business but their own. A childfree (no kids by choice) couple certainly is not "inferior" because they choose NOT to reproduce. Contrary to what you seem to want everyone to believe (keep in mind that beliefs aren't facts), the childfree decision is just as valid and responsible as the choice to become a parent.

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    11-29-14 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,612

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by loader View Post
    Childless people do not have to participate in the electoral process. Refusing to have children, they refuse future. So they do not care what will happen to the country and to civilization. They stopped the series of rebirths, because we are, our ancestors and our descendants, it's us.
    Again, this kind of assertion is sheer NONSENSE. You should also be aware that there are two groups of couples who don't have children; childless (no kids by circumstance) and childfree (no kids by choice).

    In any case, it isn't for you to decide who "should" or "should not" participate in the process of voting. Whether childless or childfree, couples without kids have the same right to vote as you do.

  9. #359
    Wee Nyeff
    GottaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In the now
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 02:58 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,311

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by loader View Post
    Why not? They can. But why? To share half insurance? Ok. If you think, God created us for to sharing insurance, you have opened a new page in philosophy. In your opinion, in this sense of human existence.
    That small thing called love. Sharing a life with another regardless of procreation.

    God has nothing to do with this, nor sharing insurance.

    I cannot voice my true thoughts for people who think this way, all you'd see is *. NO ONE is inferior to another person, no matter if they have kids or not, by choice or not.
    Building block or stumbling block.... choose.

  10. #360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    On the contrary, raising the citizens who will be running our businesses, communities, and government tomorrow requires massive investment of time, effort, energy, and money. People are generally net productive (that is why our GDP is positive, for example), and individuals contributing to society through their daily interactions represent a social good - one that requires a vast amount of investment to produce. All things being equal, parents have contributed more towards society in the forms of those investment that people who aren't parents.



    Precisely. You are chillin in the key's. We are busy putting in the work to ensure that our society survives and (hopefully) flourishes. One of those things requires more effort and is more socially positive than the other.
    Pfffffft. Cant wait for you kids to grow up, I will put them to work.

Page 36 of 53 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •