Having children and selfishness

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Marriage is a private contract - no-fault divorce means that the contract is unenforceable, even if both parties agreed beforehand to enforce the contract in the future. An unenforceable contract is not a contract.

The ability to revoke a contract does not make the contract unenforceable. Either I or my employer can revoke my employment contract at any time for any reason or none at all. That does not mean I cannot have my employment terminated and/or be sued should I breach the terms of said contract, or sue my employer should they fail to uphold their end. MOST contracts, public AND private, can be revoked by either party at any time, many for any reason. No-fault divorce is a means of revoking the contract *without* breaking the terms of said contract. If one partner or the other cheats, the other partner can still initiate an at-fault divorce in which the other party is at fault. The no-fault part simply means for marriage what At-Will Employment means for employment contracts: That, while it is still possible for the contract to be terminated with cause, no cause is needed. It does not mean the contract cannot be enforced (the non-compete clause in my contract, for example). It simply means that there is the option to end it without there needing to be a breach in contract first.

It's also worth noting that at-will employment makes the already vulnerable working class even more vulnerable to an employer's whims, while no-fault divorce makes vulnerable abused spouses less vulnerable to the effects of a need to prove wrongdoing.

[Drakeon]

I think people just say that as a reaction when they want more grandchildren or nieces/nephews in the family.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I think people just say that as a reaction when they want more grandchildren or nieces/nephews in the family.

Then you can always say "well, you won't be around for the worst of climate change, but the grandchildren you want so badly will."

[Saiwania]

See? It is almost established fact that people in general, hate people who're childless or just plain don't "fit in" to the prevalent societal norms and expectations. You can live life the way you want (like I did, via being a loner who did tons of solitary pursuits) but the consequence is that perhaps the person in question just won't be liked or will be less successful in one or more areas.

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the ... -have-kids

[The Batorys]

It's extremely simple to answer actually.

Having kids and raising them, requires commitment and sacrifice, you sacrifice your time, resources, and some possibilities, to give them to the kids. That commitment and sacrifice can be read and selflessness, of the parent toward the kid.

For the same reason, who refuses to have kids, on the basis of not wanting to commit or sacrifice anything of themselves, are selfish.

"Not having kids" isn't a choice detached from everything, that's why it's valued in relation to "having kids". "Having kids" require much more effort than not.

It's something you enter into voluntarily. So why make that choice? It isn't something you have to do.

People have kids because they want to.

[The Batorys]

...wait, who has banned marriage?

No-fault divorce essentially outlaws marriage.

That's bullshit and you know it.

[The Batorys]

How can something as human as having children be immoral for humans to do if we were made to want to do so?

I didn't say it was immoral.

I said that it is just as, if not more selfish than choosing not to have them.

[The Batorys]

Ha. No. That's as stupid as saying "the power to revoke driver's licences essentially outlaws driving".

Marriage is a private contract - no-fault divorce means that the contract is unenforceable, even if both parties agreed beforehand to enforce the contract in the future. An unenforceable contract is not a contract.

Bullshit sophistry.

[The Batorys]

So why is this the case, that the decision to have children is seldom regarded as selfish, yet the decision not to, often is?

Because having children is a sacrifice.

One people freely choose to make. Because they want to.

[Jebslund]

The ability to revoke a contract does not make the contract unenforceable. Either I or my employer can revoke my employment contract at any time for any reason or none at all. That does not mean I cannot have my employment terminated and/or be sued should I breach the terms of said contract, or sue my employer should they fail to uphold their end. MOST contracts, public AND private, can be revoked by either party at any time, many for any reason. No-fault divorce is a means of revoking the contract *without* breaking the terms of said contract. If one partner or the other cheats, the other partner can still initiate an at-fault divorce in which the other party is at fault. The no-fault part simply means for marriage what At-Will Employment means for employment contracts: That, while it is still possible for the contract to be terminated with cause, no cause is needed. It does not mean the contract cannot be enforced (the non-compete clause in my contract, for example). It simply means that there is the option to end it without there needing to be a breach in contract first.

It's also worth noting that at-will employment makes the already vulnerable working class even more vulnerable to an employer's whims, while no-fault divorce makes vulnerable abused spouses less vulnerable to the effects of a need to prove wrongdoing.

This is very true, though the point to my analogy was more that a contract doesn't have to be irrevocable to be enforceable.

[The Batorys]

It's also worth noting that at-will employment makes the already vulnerable working class even more vulnerable to an employer's whims, while no-fault divorce makes vulnerable abused spouses less vulnerable to the effects of a need to prove wrongdoing.

This is very true, though the point to my analogy was more that a contract doesn't have to be irrevocable to be enforceable.

Indeed, and a marriage contract is in use every time one of the various legal benefits to marriage is used.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Women keep having children at later ages. A woman who hasn't had kids at my age hasn't failed anymore than one who has. You, on the other hand, keep failing in your assessments. Nothing strange there. It's what you do.

There is still a hard limit on how old a woman can get, before childbirth is impossible for a woman. Outside of the Bible, I've never heard of any lady past 50 years of age giving birth. (Abraham's wife could only do it with divine help, allegedly).

People can feel less bad about having failed, in that chances are- they aren't the only one, especially in these modern times. It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people only see failure in people who don't have children or follow all the predominant social expectations.

Men who aren't valued by women, often aren't considered valuable. It is a harsh truth that because I don't have good career prospects or economic stability that objectively speaking, almost no woman could want me. I bring almost nothing to the table so to speak. What else can people derive from my life except that I've failed and can be ignored or not afforded respect but only scorn or mockery by default?

With how disgusting your ideological stances are, it's not strange to me that you are lacking in the romantic department. I don't think it's career prospects or looks, it's just that what you believe in is frankly nauseating.

Lack of children at any age is not selfish or a sign of failure. It's of no concern to us if that's how you feel about lack of Aryan babies but it is the truth. And society needs to change their views about it. Having babies is not selfish, just like not having them isn't a failure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Women keep having children at later ages. A woman who hasn't had kids at my age hasn't failed anymore than one who has. You, on the other hand, keep failing in your assessments. Nothing strange there. It's what you do.

There is still a hard limit on how old a woman can get, before childbirth is impossible for a woman. Outside of the Bible, I've never heard of any lady past 50 years of age giving birth. (Abraham's wife could only do it with divine help, allegedly).

People can feel less bad about having failed, in that chances are- they aren't the only one, especially in these modern times. It still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people only see failure in people who don't have children or follow all the predominant social expectations.

Men who aren't valued by women, often aren't considered valuable. It is a harsh truth that because I don't have good career prospects or economic stability that objectively speaking, almost no woman could want me. I bring almost nothing to the table so to speak. What else can people derive from my life except that I've failed and can be ignored or not afforded respect but only scorn or mockery by default?

I mean, this might be true in terms of medical stuff but God damn dude, there's nothing inherently good or bad about being considered medically infertile, or being medically considered fertile and then having menopause come on you and you not being able to have a child as a woman.

A lot of people might see failure in certain aspects of a person's social expectations, however, the culture in which a person developed has already validated her choice tbh.

Men who aren't valued by women are often not considered valuable because they fall into this spiral of self-defeat and learned helplessness. Which might be reinforced by the lack of approval from people around you, but that doesn't mean that the behavior to just believe you are not good enough and project that and people validating this to you because that is what you reflect is not learned. It definitely is, and to be honest, while a lot of women might not approve of you, the behavior men display when they reaffirm to themselves they are not valuable enough and the view that men who are not valued by women is not valuable in society is nothing but a convenient explanation to their failure, in that they believe this not because it is true, but because it helps explain to them why they are not successful enough. It's convenient, even if it was true.

[Saiwania]

With how disgusting your ideological stances are, it's not strange to me that you are lacking in the romantic department. I don't think it's career prospects or looks, it's just that what you believe in is frankly nauseating.

Lack of children at any age is not selfish or a sign of failure. It's of no concern to us if that's how you feel about lack of Aryan babies but it is the truth. And society needs to change their views about it. Having babies is not selfish, just like not having them isn't a failure.

I could be a liberal pantywaist and would still be unsuccessful. No, I insist that it is simply a mismatch between the predominant zeitgeist of my community and my innate personality. I'm simply the type that hates other people by default. It is far easier for me to mistrust someone than to leave myself open and thus become vulnerable to a negative outcome. Being like a hermit is my easiest and most natural inclination.

In a K-12 context, Emotionally Handicapped (EH) mostly just refers to unpopular children. I got labeled with that simply because I didn't do stuff expected of people in my age group. I never derived any satisfaction in making friends, going out of my way to talk to people, or to take unnecessary risks. That just wasn't me and never will be.

Should I eventually raise a kid, I most definitely am going to show them the IEP paperwork (if that applies) and make them aware of what the School District really thinks about them and will get them to proactively correct that straight away so that they won't be judged more negatively than is necessary. They'll be aware of the conspiracies of this world that tries to stay secret from them.

Most of everything I did wrong, ideally they'll do right. To get this outcome, it demands some degree of micromanagement and strict discipline. I could implement a series of 5 week plans for improvement on their part. Too much failure, shall have consequences. I'd rather they succeed where I failed and be hated, than to be loved but for them to have failed in equal measure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

With how disgusting your ideological stances are, it's not strange to me that you are lacking in the romantic department. I don't think it's career prospects or looks, it's just that what you believe in is frankly nauseating.

Lack of children at any age is not selfish or a sign of failure. It's of no concern to us if that's how you feel about lack of Aryan babies but it is the truth. And society needs to change their views about it. Having babies is not selfish, just like not having them isn't a failure.

I could be a liberal pantywaist and would still be unsuccessful. No, I insist that it is simply a mismatch between the predominant zeitgeist of my community and my innate personality. I'm simply the type that hates other people by default. It is far easier for me to mistrust someone than to leave myself open and thus become vulnerable to a negative outcome. Being like a hermit is my easiest and most natural inclination.

In a K-12 context, Emotionally Handicapped (EH) mostly just refers to unpopular children. I got labeled with that simply because I didn't do stuff expected of people in my age group. I never derived any satisfaction in making friends, going out of my way to talk to people, or to take unnecessary risks. That just wasn't me and never will be.

Should I eventually raise a kid, I most definitely am going to show them the IEP paperwork (if that applies) and show them what the School District really thinks about them and will get them to correct that straight away so that they won't be judged more negatively than is necessary. They'll be aware of the conspiracies of this world that tries to stay secret from them.

Most of everything I did wrong, ideally they'll do right. To get this outcome, it demands some degree of micromanagement and strict discipline. I could implement a series of 5 week plans for improvement on their part. Too much failure, shall have consequences. I'd rather they succeed where I failed and be hated, than to be loved but for them to have failed in equal measure.

This whole "micromanagement and dispelling a child's innocence about the world" sounds to me like a plan for failure tbh.

I am better than my dad in that I don't share in his failures. But that wasn't because he was micromanaging me or strictly telling me how to succeed at what he failed.

[Saiwania]

This whole "micromanagement and dispelling a child's innocence about the world" sounds to me like a plan for failure tbh.

I am better than my dad in that I don't share in his failures. But that wasn't because he was micromanaging me or strictly telling me how to succeed at what he failed.

There is a difference between allowing mistakes and rewarding mediocrity. I think I can do it without helicoptering too much. People hate Joseph Stalin for example, but he still made the Soviet Union into a superpower. In the same way, my aim would be to be as merciless as needed to get results. It is just a matter of knowing what direction it should be.

If my kid were exceptionally good at basketball for example, I'd more or less try to get them to do nothing but basketball- in the hopes that they'll qualify for the NBA, get paid millions- and I get a small cut of it as their manager.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This whole "micromanagement and dispelling a child's innocence about the world" sounds to me like a plan for failure tbh.

I am better than my dad in that I don't share in his failures. But that wasn't because he was micromanaging me or strictly telling me how to succeed at what he failed.

There is a difference between allowing mistakes and rewarding mediocrity. I think I can do it without helicoptering too much. People hate Joseph Stalin for example, but he still made the Soviet Union into a superpower. In the same way, my aim would be to be as merciless as needed to get results. It is just a matter of knowing what direction it should be.

If my kid were exceptionally good at basketball for example, I'd more or less try to get them to do nothing but basketball- in the hopes that they'll qualify for the NBA, get paid millions- and I get a small cut of it as their manager.

Jesus fuck and IM accused me of having a selfish parenting style...

I also in no way mentioned "rewarding mediocrity", also, with children the general rule is that the more you try to squeeze them the more they will slip through your fingers.

Raising a child is not about you or living your do-over, dream life through your child.

[Saiwania]

Raising a child is not about you or living your do-over, dream life through your child.

If it is such a bad approach, why then were Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson still successful in the end? There is after all, plenty of time to live life as you want, if you already have plenty of money. Many people are stuck in wage slavery and never get that opportunity. Not having a fun childhood is a worthy sacrifice if that is what it takes to get into a position to become rich.

Many Jewish families for example, force their children to become either doctors, bankers, or lawyers. This is a smart approach is that certain professions are more correlated with financial success and security than others. It can be thought of as insurance they can go for, in case their first choice for career winds up not paying off.

[Luminesa]

This whole "micromanagement and dispelling a child's innocence about the world" sounds to me like a plan for failure tbh.

I am better than my dad in that I don't share in his failures. But that wasn't because he was micromanaging me or strictly telling me how to succeed at what he failed.

There is a difference between allowing mistakes and rewarding mediocrity. I think I can do it without helicoptering too much. People hate Joseph Stalin for example, but he still made the Soviet Union into a superpower. In the same way, my aim would be to be as merciless as needed to get results. It is just a matter of knowing what direction it should be.

If my kid were exceptionally good at basketball for example, I'd more or less try to get them to do nothing but basketball- in the hopes that they'll qualify for the NBA, get paid millions- and I get a small cut of it as their manager.

Your children don’t exist for you to leech off whatever successes they may have. Most people learn to be parents by watching good parental figures, or by realizing what their own good parents have sacrificed for them during their lives. That is the life of a parent. Sacrifice and love. You won’t make an NBA player. You’ll make another emotionally-stunted child with low self-esteem who feels he only has value when he follows the dreams his parents wish they had followed. A statistic. Another child who becomes angry and miserable, because he knows you only love him for what he can give you in return. You made your choices by not going into the NBA, whatever your reasons were. You didn’t get your glory days then, and you won’t get them by impaling your children with your selfish dreams of being the next Larry Bird. Get over it.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

There is a difference between allowing mistakes and rewarding mediocrity. I think I can do it without helicoptering too much. People hate Joseph Stalin for example, but he still made the Soviet Union into a superpower. In the same way, my aim would be to be as merciless as needed to get results. It is just a matter of knowing what direction it should be.

If my kid were exceptionally good at basketball for example, I'd more or less try to get them to do nothing but basketball- in the hopes that they'll qualify for the NBA, get paid millions- and I get a small cut of it as their manager.

Your children don’t exist for you to leech off whatever successes they may have. Most people learn to be parents by watching good parental figures, or by realizing what their own good parents have sacrificed for them during their lives. That is the life of a parent. Sacrifice and love. You won’t make an NBA player. You’ll make another emotionally-stunted child with low self-esteem who feels he only has value when he follows the dreams his parents wish they had followed. A statistic. Another child who becomes angry and miserable, because he knows you only love him for what he can give you in return. You made your choices by not going into the NBA, whatever your reasons were. You didn’t get your glory days then, and you won’t get them by impaling your children with your selfish dreams of being the next Larry Bird. Get over it.

I'm not a parent but it is my belief that parents are there to help guide their children into fulfilling their own dreams. We shouldn't live, vicariously, through our kids. We hurt them and we hurt ourselves when we try to do that. Your child is not there to do what you didn't get to do at his or her age. Your child is there to live his/her life, his/her own dreams, with your guidance. Like you said, if we try to impose, we create another emotionally stunted person. A statistic.

[Luminesa]

Raising a child is not about you or living your do-over, dream life through your child.

If it is such a bad approach, why then were Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson still successful in the end? There is after all, plenty of time to live life as you want, if you already have plenty of money. Many people are stuck in wage slavery and never get that opportunity. Not having a fun childhood is a worthy sacrifice if that is what it takes to get into a position to become rich.

Michael Jackson was tortured from the time he was around 5. He became PHYSICALLY ILL at the very thought of his father. His father’s actions resulted in Michael being emotionally childlike, afraid of people his own age, and painfully shy for most of his adult life. Sure, dancing and singing were his life, and there’s no doubting he loved it, as he did it until his last days. But having multiple best-selling albums and being the King of Pop could never repair the deep, emotional scars his father left. That you see his dad as an inspiration for parenting shows you have absolutely no idea what it means to be a parent.

[Luminesa]

Your children don’t exist for you to leech off whatever successes they may have. Most people learn to be parents by watching good parental figures, or by realizing what their own good parents have sacrificed for them during their lives. That is the life of a parent. Sacrifice and love. You won’t make an NBA player. You’ll make another emotionally-stunted child with low self-esteem who feels he only has value when he follows the dreams his parents wish they had followed. A statistic. Another child who becomes angry and miserable, because he knows you only love him for what he can give you in return. You made your choices by not going into the NBA, whatever your reasons were. You didn’t get your glory days then, and you won’t get them by impaling your children with your selfish dreams of being the next Larry Bird. Get over it.

I'm not a parent but it is my belief that parents are there to help guide their children into fulfilling their own dreams. We shouldn't live, vicariously, through our kids. We hurt them and we hurt ourselves when we try to do that. Your child is not there to do what you didn't get to do at his or her age. Your child is there to live his/her life, his/her own dreams, with your guidance. Like you said, if we try to impose, we create another emotionally stunted person. A statistic.

Right. We have enough parents who laugh at their children in awkward situations (like the parents of shows like Toddlers n’ Tiaras and Dance Moms). Parents should give their children love, support, and wisdom, not the dreams they wished they had followed when they were 15.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Raising a child is not about you or living your do-over, dream life through your child.

If it is such a bad approach, why then were Tiger Woods and Michael Jackson still successful in the end? There is after all, plenty of time to live life as you want, if you already have plenty of money. Many people are stuck in wage slavery and never get that opportunity. Not having a fun childhood is a worthy sacrifice if that is what it takes to get into a position to become rich.

Many Jewish families for example, force their children to become either doctors, bankers, or lawyers. This is a smart approach is that certain professions are more correlated with financial success and security than others. It can be thought of as insurance they can go for, in case their first choice for career winds up not paying off.

Yea, they push their kids to become doctors, bankers, or lawyers.

But they do it because the social circles they raised themselves in and they are raising their children in see a social value in becoming doctors, bankers, or lawyers, and children usually surround themselves with people who want to be doctors, bankers, or lawyers, so the child ends up becoming a doctor, banker, or lawyer.

There's a certain "grooming" to it in the sense that the child is not methodically and "mercilessly micromanaging and destroying their innocence just like Stalin built the Soviet Union into a superpower to get results" as you have put it.

There is a place for discipline and strict order in a household, for sure, but the way you are thinking of is the least useful one, and the most harmful one to a child. If for no other reason than what Lumi said above.

[Saiwania]

Yea, they push their kids to become doctors, bankers, or lawyers.

But they do it because the social circles they raised themselves in and they are raising their children in see a social value in becoming doctors, bankers, or lawyers, and children usually surround themselves with people who want to be doctors, bankers, or lawyers, so the child ends up becoming a doctor, banker, or lawyer.

The Jews wouldn't be gravitating towards medical, legal, or financial fields if those professions weren't paid well, it is all about the money. The stereotypes regarding Jews are true more often than not, those perceptions wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth to it. Who can blame them for doing more of what it takes to become rich (on average) than other peoples?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yea, they push their kids to become doctors, bankers, or lawyers.

But they do it because the social circles they raised themselves in and they are raising their children in see a social value in becoming doctors, bankers, or lawyers, and children usually surround themselves with people who want to be doctors, bankers, or lawyers, so the child ends up becoming a doctor, banker, or lawyer.

The Jews wouldn't be gravitating towards medical, legal, or financial fields if those professions weren't paid well, it is all about the money. The stereotypes regarding Jews are true more often than not, those perceptions wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth to it. Who can blame them for doing more of what it takes to become rich (on average) than other peoples?

I mean, there's also the fact you missed the point entirely and instead you decided to talk about how "DEM J00Z R GOLD DIGERZ".