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 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 522

Thread: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

  1. #481
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it.
    The problem is that this leaves almost no one who can claim to know sociology because most sociologists are neo-luddites who don't acknowledge the role of genetics in their field of study and so don't design their studies to account for genetic/biological confounds.

    They certainly THINK they know something, but they don't ACTUALLY know squat. They may as well be witch-doctors.

  2. #482
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,869

    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?
    A big fat NO! You may have an inferior education compared to another, a lower rank in the military, or an underling with a menial job position with many superiors above you but to be childless has nothing to do with being inferior IMO.

  3. #483
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Obviously humans are animals, and our instincts control our behavior as a matter of simple default. I might even accept that this is the level the majority of people operate at the majority of the time.

    But you can't simply ignore the other things our high intellects compel us to do. You can't compare us apples-to-apples with any other animal, because none come close to our brain structure. The closest is probably dolphins, and if you take a good look at them, you'll see they display some of the same evolutionarily meaningless behavior that we do, although not to the same extent.

    Humans -- some of them, anyway -- spend a great deal of their time doing things that have nothing to do with tribe survival altruism, reproduction, or self-preservation. Why do we make art? Why do we learn about the distant cosmos when, at least at first blush, we have no reason to believe this has any affect on us? Why do we do things for the sake of mental intrigue that are overtly risky to our lives, and don't offer any survival benefit to our "tribe"?
    Art is another form of (semi-permanent) communication like writing. The advantages of communication and writing are obvious.

    We learn about everything and try to rationalize the world because the genes that push us that way are almost constantly reinforced. Our tool making ability helps us a lot in this area.

    "Overly risky" behavior - depending on what you mean by that - is almost all a product of the modern age. We're built for an environment that's dangerous. There are medical clues and problems showing up more and more that our safe, sedate, overly clean lifestyle is killing us.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Because we're just not that simple. You can't think of humans as though we just go into heat.
    Many animals never go into heat so I don't know where you're going with that thought.


    Basic human behavior is that simple. At the bottom of it all is a biological mechanism that pushes us this way or that way. We are our biological history and our genes. You seem to believe we're transcendental/metaphysical. I don't.



    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    We've got mental energy to burn, and we burn it in all kinds of ways that offer us nothing on the level of the selfish gene. Hell, half the point of trying to make life so easy for ourselves is to give us more time to do these evolutionarily meaningless things.
    We "make life easy" because we're programmed to do so. As I noted above, we've taken it to such an extreme it's become harmful in many ways. Evolution isn't some guided action leading from here to there. Every organism on the planet is saddled with it's genetic history and sometimes that leads to lethal consequences. In time, those genes that survive our new environment will dominate, just as lactose tolerance is now common to most Europeans and their descendants.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    And I might also note that Dawkins knows nothing about sociology. It is not his field of expertise, and he is not qualified to speak about it. He is also exceptionally poor at philosophy, and listening to him debate the religious on that level is embarrassing to me -- and I'm an atheist who agrees with him.

    Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he actually knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.
    I didn't take any of Dawkins' non-biological teachings into account. I've never read any of his other books. The extended phenotype is a biological concept and, as you've noted, biology is his specialty. The same idea that promotes the screening of genes for "better" dam building in a beaver is the same one that screens for social behaviors in humans and many other animals.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    But even ignoring all that, if you want to think of humans in such a simplistic way, the childfree serve a very clear purpose for the same reason altruism does. We spend much more of our lives working, and often working in very challenging and humanitarian fields. And if your argument were true, we would be appreciated by society for the same reason altruism is. The purpose we serve "the tribe" is quite obvious, even if it doesn't benefit our own genes.

    And yet, we are not. And we are especially maligned in societies that still suffer a lot of sexual repression and misogyny. Gee, what a coincidence.
    Altruism doesn't exist. It's an illusion made up by people who didn't understand evolution and it's been perpetuated by ignorance.


    Again, you're trying to rationalize something that I've already said isn't rational. Social behavior in general isn't rational. But people's attitudes on most subjects of this nature aren't rational at all or we wouldn't have the issues we do with other, non-survival behaviors. Why should you care if the girl next door kills herself or the guy next door gets his kicks sucking cock? Rationally, neither situation is any of your damn business but it doesn't stop such behavior from being "frowned upon" (to say the least) by a huge portion of the population. That's just the way life is, like it or not. Social behavior never has been rational and I honestly doubt it ever will be. The best we can hope for is that future generations are better grounded in tolerance, which is rationally accepting (as opposed to deriding) behavior you don't like.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 03-23-14 at 08:42 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  4. #484
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    The problem is that this leaves almost no one who can claim to know sociology because most sociologists are neo-luddites who don't acknowledge the role of genetics in their field of study and so don't design their studies to account for genetic/biological confounds.

    They certainly THINK they know something, but they don't ACTUALLY know squat. They may as well be witch-doctors.
    Um, you don't design studies -- in ANY field -- to pre-emptively tell you something you want to hear. That defeats the entire point. So if sociological studies and surveys come to a conclusion that doesn't lend itself to over-simplification based on an entirely different field of science, that isn't science's fault. It means the over-simplifier is wrong.

  5. #485
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Art is another form of (semi-permanent) communication like writing. The advantages of communication and writing are obvious.

    We learn about everything and try to rationalize the world because the genes that push us that way are almost constantly reinforced. Our tool making ability helps us a lot in this area.

    "Overly risky" behavior - depending on what you mean by that - is almost all a product of the modern age. We're built for an environment that's dangerous. There are medical clues and problems showing up more and more that our safe, sedate, overly clean lifestyle is killing us.


    Many animals never go into heat so I don't know where you're going with that thought.


    Basic human behavior is that simple. At the bottom of it all is a biological mechanism that pushes us this way or that way. We are our biological history and our genes. You seem to believe we're transcendental/metaphysical. I don't.

    We "make life easy" because we're programmed to do so. As I noted above, we've taken it to such an extreme it's become harmful in many ways. Evolution isn't some guided action leading from here to there. Every organism on the planet is saddled with it's genetic history and sometimes that leads to lethal consequences. In time, those genes that survive our new environment will dominate, just as lactose tolerance is now common to most Europeans and their descendants.

    I didn't take any of Dawkins' non-biological teachings into account. I've never read any of his other books. The extended phenotype is a biological concept and, as you've noted, biology is his specialty. The same idea that promotes the screening of genes for "better" dam building in a beaver is the same one that screens for social behaviors in humans and many other animals.

    Altruism doesn't exist. It's an illusion made up by people who didn't understand evolution and it's been perpetuated by ignorance.


    Again, you're trying to rationalize something that I've already said isn't rational. Social behavior in general isn't rational. But people's attitudes on most subjects of this nature aren't rational at all or we wouldn't have the issues we do with other, non-survival behaviors. Why should you care if the girl next door kills herself or the guy next door gets his kicks sucking cock? Rationally, neither situation is any of your damn business but it doesn't stop such behavior from being "frowned upon" (to say the least) by a huge portion of the population. That's just the way life is, like it or not. Social behavior never has been rational and I honestly doubt it ever will be. The best we can hope for is that future generations are better grounded in tolerance, which is rationally accepting (as opposed to deriding) behavior you don't like.
    Art doesn't always communicate. So, wrong. Risk is not always for the thrill. For example, it probably is if it's easy to do like skydiving, but learning to be shot into space takes so many years or decades that anyone who does it has a different motivation -- probably just curiosity and want for knowledge, however pointless it is. So, wrong.

    Not even close. Even the other highly intelligent species -- none of whom come close to us -- are not that simple. You don't seem to know anything about human behavior.

    "Uh-huh because I said" so doesn't work with me. So I consider the next point and the last one, for that matter, untouched.

    The fact that you didn't consider whether the person you were reading knew a single damn thing about what he was talking about is exactly the problem.

    Yes, I'm aware of that, but we have no alternate words for the concept, so can you just address it please? Ok, I guess not. That was easy.

  6. #486
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Um, you don't design studies -- in ANY field -- to pre-emptively tell you something you want to hear. That defeats the entire point. So if sociological studies and surveys come to a conclusion that doesn't lend itself to over-simplification based on an entirely different field of science, that isn't science's fault. It means the over-simplifier is wrong.
    Before you attempt to bull**** someone, master the subject matter you're going to lecture on, otherwise you look like a fool.

  7. #487
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Before you attempt to bull**** someone, master the subject matter you're going to lecture on, otherwise you look like a fool.
    What in the hell are you talking about?

    Perhaps you ought to master writing first?

  8. #488
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,868

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors;1063066401
    Just because Dawkins is famous and is qualified in the field he [I
    actually[/I] knows something about (biology) does not make him an authority on all things. He is extremely ignorant about a great many subjects, regardless of how much he talks about them.

    Not sure about Mo, but people truly interested in science read more than one author or source....for corroboration and verification (or not). As have I. Dawkins' work is well-supported.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #489
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,160

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Not sure about Mo, but people truly interested in science read more than one author or source....for corroboration and verification (or not). As have I. Dawkins' work is well-supported.
    Having not read the book, I am not sure whether the conclusion put forth here is coming from Dawkins or Mo (the conclusion being unrelated to the biological research itself -- and I don't have reason to believe Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about as far as the biology). But whoever put forth that conclusion is conflating two fields that are different things, and has come to the wrong conclusion according to the evidence sociology puts forth (and biology has nothing at all to say on the matter).

  10. #490
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should childless couples be considered inferior?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Having not read the book, I am not sure whether the conclusion put forth here is coming from Dawkins or Mo (the conclusion being unrelated to the biological research itself -- and I don't have reason to believe Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about as far as the biology). But whoever put forth that conclusion is conflating two fields that are different things, and has come to the wrong conclusion according to the evidence sociology puts forth (and biology has nothing at all to say on the matter).
    Whenever we study humans and their behaviors, psychology and sociology must account for the genetic confounds as they seek to understand the behavioral issues. Psychology is beginning to do this now, but most of sociology is still in witch-doctor mode and who trusts a witch doctor when he says anything. Sociology is built on the basis of environmental determinism, a false belief that 100% of behavior arises from environmental/cultural factors or individual choice. If they don't even bother to look at biology then they're willfully blinding themselves, which means that everything a sociologist tells you is likely inaccurate.

Page 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 394748495051 ... 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
  •