Is it even ethical to have children?

[Some_porcupine]

I think you haven't considered this but if you don't have kids then your ideology is reduced by one back to zero. You also effectively gift the world to the WEF and the UN on a silver platter and also take yourself out of any expenses too since there will be nobody to provide for you in old age.

Where is the resources to take care of you in old age? Social Security, that is basically smoke nowadays in your youth.
401k? The financial system is headed right for great depression era and the stocks go right with it.
Pensions? Nobody gives out pensions anymore.
Currency in bank? Inflation ate that
Gold Silver? You get robbed either on the way, or at the dealer. They almost never pay spot.

You want to eat, better get to banging.

What does it mean to criticise a film as "woke"? Is it a bad thing for a film to be "Woke"?

Kevin Winslow's answer: Woke in this context is more about the broader contexts of "social justice" being applied in film, (which include multiple types of perceived inequality not just perceived racial inequality), ...and in that context, I would say that when it's the lens the whole work is bein...

qr.ae

 

[Caspar]

From a social standpoint, having kids is you carrying on your family lineage and is thus a good thing to do. Historically, most men will fail at reproducing for one reason or another. Most women, however, will not. Make of this little fact whatever you will. As an ethical problem, I think it's a non-issue. You desire to reproduce by your nature - which means that you'll naturally pursue the ethically proper path; if you can't, you'll find a reason why that's acceptable. It is definitely a coping mechanism, but go ahead and try to work yourself up a thousand degrees about something you can't have. See if that makes things turn out better or worse for you. lol

 

[Ross_Я]

you'll naturally pursue the ethically proper path;

How does that work. Nature has nothing to do with ethics. If anything, nature is quite often unethical.

 

[Caspar]

How does that work. Nature has nothing to do with ethics. If anything, nature is quite often unethical.

In this context, people's natural instinct is to reproduce which coincides with their ethical obligation to continue your family's lineage.

 

[Ross_Я]

In this context, people's natural instinct is to reproduce which coincides with their ethical obligation to continue your family's lineage.

I do not see any ethical obligations behind continuing your family's lineage for the average Joe and Jane of 21st century.
The only kind of obligation that is there is the social one, I think.

 

[Caspar]

I do not see any ethical obligations behind continuing your family's lineage for the average Joe and Jane of 21st century.

And I don't understand how you don't. To me, that just sounds like egoism. Your lineage is how you got here. It's packed into everything you do. Continuing that lineage is just the default position. Of course you should try to see to it that your lineage perseveres. Your are your lineage. Not seeking the continuation thereof is the same as not wishing that you continue. Ergo, it sounds like suicide. Which is just excessive focus on oneself... which is egoism.

 

[LostintheCycle]

I will play devils advocate here

Your lineage is how you got here. It's packed into everything you do. Continuing that lineage is just the default position.

Why should it be the default?

Your are your lineage. Not seeking the continuation thereof is the same as not wishing that you continue.

I don't accept that I am my lineage, why should I be?

 

[Ross_Я]

Ergo, it sounds like suicide. Which is just excessive focus on oneself... which is egoism.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to type the following:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a slave for some unspeakable evil. You are forced to work for it, forced to promote this evil. Yet you have an opportunity to kill yourself, not to give at least your working power to said evil. Would such a suicide be egoism?
I'm not saying this example is anyhow applicable to this world, but I have a solid point that suicide is not always egoism and you are not right to apply such a judgement to every human without walking a mile in their shoes.

 

[Caspar]

I will play devils advocate here

Why should it be the default?

I don't accept that I am my lineage, why should I be?

You cannot deduce an 'ought' from an 'is', firstly, as the type of knowledge will pass from being empirical to something else. My conclusion that this 'is' the case is based on observed reality. Virtually everyone tries to have sex, which is the prerequisite to producing a lineage. This ordinary instinct is rather flummoxed by the invention of contraceptives, which very well may be the destroyer of advanced civilization, but I digress. Secondly, if I am to produce an 'ought', it would be something like this: "You ought to continue your lineage, as considered apart from yourself, because it will provide for you in your old age, it will permit you to see yourself continued - albeit in a mixed form, in your children, and because your lineage is your representation in society past, present, and future. Unless you believe yourself to be unworthy of these things, it is a matter of basic forward-thinking to continue your lineage."

A brief point: your lineage is not merely the genetic material shared by parent and child. Your lineage is the attitudes, politics, ways of working, your outward appearances, your tastes. If you've ever felt atomized, consider that it may have been possible to share your experience of life with others had there been more like yourself. Others who may have been more acquiescing to the hobbies you wanted, to the ideas you hold, to the art you are inspired by.

You don't have to accept that gravity is real, either, but it will still compel certain things of you. Likewise, you may describe reality incorrectly to satisfy your own psychological needs, but in so doing, you are blinding yourself to the very real constraints that your lineage will impose on you. If you want to escape your lineage, that might be even dumber than not even recognizing it. If you are born to 5'8", earnest, yuppie parents, trying to be a grizzled soldier mayhaps not come so naturally to you. Moreover, are you not an adult? Do you still at your age need to rebel against your parents? Have you truly not yet come to accept them? Come now.

I know you're being the devil's advocate, but that's how I'd argue with the devil.

 

[Caspar]

I've been waiting for an opportunity to type the following:
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a slave for some unspeakable evil. You are forced to work for it, forced to promote this evil. Yet you have an opportunity to kill yourself, not to give at least your working power to said evil. Would such a suicide be egoism?
I'm not saying this example is anyhow applicable to this world, but I have a solid point that suicide is not always egoism and you are not right to apply such a judgement to every human without walking a mile in their shoes.

Incidentally, this is very similar to the plot point made at the end of Fate/Stay Night. Brilliant work by quite the lecher. I would say this: it's your duty to be true to yourself - who did not come into being as an atomic unit, but as a part of a larger whole. If your place in that whole is to be the great totality of all the world's evil, then by all means, become a monstrosity. It then becomes incumbent upon others to destroy you - and their act of heroism will be a cause for great glory and praise.

There is a difference between considering yourself to be 'evil' and considering yourself to be 'botched', however. There are those who are given to the debasement of others and those who are given to being debased. The former are actually quite a bit more likeable than the latter, ironically. The man who challenges life by seeking to press others down actually provides something of a service to life. He forces others to learn how to be hostile, to politick, to make factions, and often to learn patience or other virtues. There are many people who do no good; they wish no good; they want only their own pockets to be full. These people are a good challenge, they bring people together in enmity.

Those who seek to be debased, however, are just disappointing. They rot and sicken everything they touch. When they achieve power, they love rules and hate work. They love safety and hate daring. Basically, Nietzsche's Last Men. These people should be taught to kill themselves. They'd be doing the rest of us a favor. They can't even be hated as an enemy, because they're not even worthy of that. They're pitiful, small men who pretend to be big.

I never said I don't engage in some pragmatic hypocrisy. I'm not everyone's friend.

 

[Ross_Я]

If your place in that whole is to be the great totality of all the world's evil, then by all means, become a monstrosity.

If that's your outlook on things, I'm not even going to continue this discussion.

These are the people who want me to have children. Yeah, right.

 

[Caspar]

If that's your outlook on things, I'm not even going to continue this discussion.

These are the people who want me to have children. Yeah, right.

lol? I'm making a generic point. Why are you seething?

 

[Ross_Я]

Actually, a bit more.

The man who challenges life by seeking to press others down actually provides something of a service to life. He forces others to learn how to be hostile, to politick,

Yeah, a fat lot of service, I see. I'm definitely happy I have to learn to be hostile in order to live normally in this world.

For the people who go to such length that they prefer a life of evil to an embrace of death, I can only say they reek of fear. Fear, and lack of faith. Both are despicable.
For the people who justify pressing others down, I can only say that all of those are self-affirming statements for inhuman heartless bastards.

That's it, definitely done now. And it kind of stretches it to off-topic a bit. But such argumentation is really beyond me to argue with.

lol? I'm making a generic point. Why are you seething?

Because some points do not deserve any kind of coherent answer.

Edit: This applies to the comment below as well: some points do not deserve anything but insults.

 

[Caspar]

Yeah, a fat lot of service, I see. I'm definitely happy I have to learn to be hostile in order to live normally in this world.

For the people who go to such length that they prefer a life of evil to an embrace of death, I can only say they reek of fear. Fear, and lack of faith. Both are despicable.
For the people who justify pressing others down, I can only say that all of those self-affirming statements for inhuman heartless bastards.

That's it, definitely done now. And it kind of stretches it to off-topic a bit. But such argumentation is really beyond me to argue with.

Ah, it's another -phobia, huh. As if that's not just some tawdry way of hurling an insult at someone with a false pretense of intellectualism. Yawn.

 

[Hobo8239]

I think you haven't considered this but if you don't have kids then your ideology is reduced by one back to zero. You also effectively gift the world to the WEF and the UN on a silver platter and also take yourself out of any expenses too since there will be nobody to provide for you in old age.

Not really an ideology but Jesus is an exception to this, he had no children yet Christianity is the most popular religion in the world.
I think how you influence the people around you matters more to your ideology than having kids, you can influence hundreds of people but you can't have (or you really shouldn't) hundred of kids

 

[bnuungus]

I've noticed in this thread that the pro-natalists always say that considering your circumstances and determining your capabilities for having kids is very important. Yet despite @Ross_Я showing very clear examples of him living in an environment that would be terrible to raise kids in, he's still the main subject of attack. Don't get me wrong, I think anti-natalism is a fucking stupid idea. It infuriates me to no end that there are people who choose to sterilize themselves for this that and the other reason when me and my wife have struggled with fertility issues. I just don't think ross is advocating for your average person to not have children. Just that he's looked at his current circumstance and has correctly determined that it wouldn't be prudent for him to try to do so

 

[Caspar]

I've noticed in this thread that the pro-natalists always say that considering your circumstances and determining your capabilities for having kids is very important. Yet despite @Ross_Я showing very clear examples of him living in an environment that would be terrible to raise kids in, he's still the main subject of attack. Don't get me wrong, I think anti-natalism is a fucking stupid idea. It infuriates me to no end that there are people who choose to sterilize themselves for this that and the other reason when me and my wife have struggled with fertility issues. I just don't think ross is advocating for your average person to not have children. Just that he's looked at his current circumstance and has correctly determined that it wouldn't be prudent for him to try to do so

My understanding is that making a point in an argument is not about convincing the person you're talking to, but representing your ideas to third parties. You very, very, very rarely convince the person you argue with. If he's taking the position of being the anti-thesis, it seems to make sense to me to contradict him as such.

 

[bnuungus]

My understanding is that making a point in an argument is not about convincing the person you're talking to, but representing your ideas to third parties. You very, very, very rarely convince the person you argue with. If he's taking the position of being the anti-thesis, it seems to make sense to me to contradict him as such.

I would agree with this. But you are an exception in this thread in this regard bc you actually format your posts to be such. Do I think ross is digging his own grave on this argument? Yes. But no one even tried to understand his position in life, hence why I wanted to point it out

 

[Captain]

I think the bigger question is: is it ethical for every idiot 20 year old married couple to buy 2-4 dogs before having children only to increase the breeding rates of dogs (which is selling a life form), then basically abandoning the dog once she pops out 2 kids. The levels of dogs is getting out of hand and it's directly correlated to people having kids.

...just a thought.

 

[Ross_Я]

I would agree with this. But you are an exception in this thread in this regard bc you actually format your posts to be such. Do I think ross is digging his own grave on this argument? Yes. But no one even tried to understand his position in life, hence why I wanted to point it out

Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure Vitnira acknowledged it couple pages ago and wrote something along the lines that she is talking to a typical american, while I and my arguments are a role model or something for those people, who actually live in way more comfortable circumstances.
That being said, I think I won't ever understand the american outlook on... well, pretty much anything. Overall, it just boils down to this:

And I don't understand how you don't.

Pretty much sums it up. I mean, do I really even have to explain why I see arguments like these:

If your place in that whole is to be the great totality of all the world's evil, then by all means, become a monstrosity. It then becomes incumbent upon others to destroy you...

The man who challenges life by seeking to press others down actually provides something of a service to life....

as incorrect and rotten from the very core? It's this type of thinking that got this country into the 90's in the first place. Though it looks like America is headed right that way as well nowadays, so, hey, what can I say. If this thread is any kind of indication, than a solid part of the country has this type of predatory outlook on life, and when such a thing happens - well, that is what you get.

Ah, whatever. As I've already mentioned, this thread should've ended pages ago.