Having children and selfishness

[Geneviev]

Forcing me to exist isn't selfish. It would be selfish if my existence were good for my parents. That also applies to anyone else really. Having children can be really expensive.

What is selfish is forcing your children to do what you always wanted to because you somehow think they care about the same things as you do. A musician can't be turned into a programmer just because their parents want it but they try anyways, for example. It just gets frustrating and is really selfish.

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

Oh...

...

Is that why so many local law firms in Vancouver were run by Jewish partners/bosses?

[The Free Joy State]

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?

Oh...

...

Is that why so many local law firms in Vancouver were run by Jewish partners/bosses?

IM, Saiwania has very definite opinions on... well, most things really. It would be a mistake to blindly swallow them as the truth.

In any case, I don't think this thread is "On Distasteful and Outdated Opinions of Jewish People"

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.

In those type of shows, it seems to be the narcissistic parents (the "Mama Rose" parents -- if you've seen Gypsy), who live through their children, rejoice in the successes their children receive as being their personal successes and reject anything the child achieves for themselves as being insufficient or unacceptable.

They've been studying such parents since the times of Freud and Jung, and such parenting (as seen in Toddlers in Tiaras or Dance Moms) can cause lifelong harm, even up to PTSD.

I can't watch those shows; I always feel so sorry for those poor children.

I'm not a parent, but -- if I was -- the most important thing would be to raise a child who was supported and loved, and raised to be as happy and functional as they could be. That's why people should have children -- because they can support a child and want to raise them properly. Not to live their own life over.

A child is a human being. Not a Sim.

[Geneviev]

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.

In those type of shows, it seems to be the narcissistic parents (the "Mama Rose" parents -- if you've seen Gypsy), who live through their children, rejoice in the successes their children receive as being their personal successes and reject anything the child achieves for themselves as being insufficient or unacceptable.

They've been studying such parents since the times of Freud and Jung, and such parenting (as seen in Toddlers in Tiaras or Dance Moms) can cause lifelong harm, even up to PTSD.

I can't watch those shows; I always feel so sorry for those poor children.

I'm not a parent, but -- if I was -- the most important thing would be to raise a child who was supported and loved, and raised to be as happy and functional as they could be. That's why people should have children -- because they can support a child and want to raise them properly. Not to live their own life over.

A child is a human being. Not a Sim.

Sometimes the child needs to learn how to enjoy something and parents need to make them work harder on it. That still doesn't mean that parents should always make them do things the parents wanted. But I did learn to love music and now it's the only thing I want to do.

[The Commonwealth of Tennessee]

I will say that a lot of my friends know I want to be a father later on in life. I wouldn't say me wanting to raise up some of my own lineage is selfish. I also wouldn't say that the idea of "forcing a life into the world against said life's wishes" is particularly correct, mainly because said consciousness didn't exist at the time of the two parents wanting to conceive a child. It's an interesting dilemma for sure, but I won't say that being a parent or wanting to have a child is selfish. I also wouldn't say that not wanting to a child is selfish. You'll see many examples of people not wanting kids, and others will criticize them for it. The people criticizing the former are actually self-centered themselves for wanting to put their mindest in the head of another.

Sorry if this is all over the place, it sounded good in my head.

[Luminesa]

Oh...

...

Is that why so many local law firms in Vancouver were run by Jewish partners/bosses?

IM, Saiwania has very definite opinions on... well, most things really. It would be a mistake to blindly swallow them as the truth.

In any case, I don't think this thread is "On Distasteful and Outdated Opinions of Jewish People"

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.

In those type of shows, it seems to be the narcissistic parents (the "Mama Rose" parents -- if you've seen Gypsy), who live through their children, rejoice in the successes their children receive as being their personal successes and reject anything the child achieves for themselves as being insufficient or unacceptable.

They've been studying such parents since the times of Freud and Jung, and such parenting (as seen in Toddlers in Tiaras or Dance Moms) can cause lifelong harm, even up to PTSD.

I can't watch those shows; I always feel so sorry for those poor children.

I'm not a parent, but -- if I was -- the most important thing would be to raise a child who was supported and loved, and raised to be as happy and functional as they could be. That's why people should have children -- because they can support a child and want to raise them properly. Not to live their own life over.

A child is a human being. Not a Sim.

Oh I can’t watch them either. Aside from the obvious sexualization and exploitation, the parents are horrific people. You remember when a parent tried to dress their 3/4-year-old like the girl from Pretty Woman? She (the mom) said it was a “joke” and that she did it because she loves the movie, I was horrified.

[Andsed]

Oh...

...

Is that why so many local law firms in Vancouver were run by Jewish partners/bosses?

IM, Saiwania has very definite opinions on... well, most things really. It would be a mistake to blindly swallow them as the truth.

In any case, I don't think this thread is "On Distasteful and Outdated Opinions of Jewish People"

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.

In those type of shows, it seems to be the narcissistic parents (the "Mama Rose" parents -- if you've seen Gypsy), who live through their children, rejoice in the successes their children receive as being their personal successes and reject anything the child achieves for themselves as being insufficient or unacceptable.

They've been studying such parents since the times of Freud and Jung, and such parenting (as seen in Toddlers in Tiaras or Dance Moms) can cause lifelong harm, even up to PTSD.

I can't watch those shows; I always feel so sorry for those poor children.

I'm not a parent, but -- if I was -- the most important thing would be to raise a child who was supported and loved, and raised to be as happy and functional as they could be. That's why people should have children -- because they can support a child and want to raise them properly. Not to live their own life over.

A child is a human being. Not a Sim.

So true. Good parents should take an active role in their childs life, encourage them to do new and exciting things, advise them, and when need be force them to do stuff like homework or discipline them for bad behavior. What they should never do is use them as a tool or as something to use to live out their dreams.

[Diopolis]

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?

That's true, but I fail to see how it addresses the point.

[The Batorys]

Welp, Saiwania has successfully threadjacked this into being about jews or something.

Great job, everyone.

[DARGLED]

Wow.
I did not read the plethora of accounts here.
Ask you, person reading this, who cares?
It is you that determines what you do.
This question, meh.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

Here's the real shit: if you are emotionally handicapped, this means you should never do anything that relies too much on contacts with others, especially forming a new human personality. You straight out don't have the ability to contact others to do so.

This is the reason I'm not planning on having children.

[Luminesa]

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.

“What the school district REALLY thinks of them”, like an IEP is some sort of conspiracy. An IEP is an Individualized Education Plan for a child with special needs. An IEP doesn’t mean the school district is “out to get you”. It means that the child’s IEP team has made plans for how the child will make progress throughout the school year. Most children with emotional disorders are taught in a general classroom setting, and are given therapy to help them with their emotional disturbances.

You did not have an emotional disorder from what you described, because you (presumably) showed no signs of emotional behavior that was keeping you from normally interacting with your classmates and teachers. It’s not a term that refers to “unpopular children”. These are children with phobias, with fears, with lots of anger, or who might be painfully shy to a point that it keeps them from making interpersonal relationships. Do I sound like a textbook? Yes. Is this correct? Yes. Take some time to research IEPs. I had one for a mild speech impediment for many years, I promise the school district was never “out to get me”.

[Jebslund]

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.

“What the school district REALLY thinks of them”, like an IEP is some sort of conspiracy. An IEP is an Individualized Education Plan for a child with special needs. An IEP doesn’t mean the school district is “out to get you”. It means that the child’s IEP team has made plans for how the child will make progress throughout the school year. Most children with emotional disorders are taught in a general classroom setting, and are given therapy to help them with their emotional disturbances.

You did not have an emotional disorder from what you described, because you (presumably) showed no signs of emotional behavior that was keeping you from normally interacting with your classmates and teachers. It’s not a term that refers to “unpopular children”. These are children with phobias, with fears, with lots of anger, or who might be painfully shy to a point that it keeps them from making interpersonal relationships. Do I sound like a textbook? Yes. Is this correct? Yes. Take some time to research IEPs. I had one for a mild speech impediment for many years, I promise the school district was never “out to get me”.

The school district was out to get me as a kid with an IEP, but it wan't by forming an IEP. The IEP was for my own good and actually helped me, as much as I resented it. It was the fact that I wouldn't bow down and accept them as my new gods that had most of the teachers and administrations out to get me.

An IEP is nothing more or less than the school doing its job to make sure kids with disabilities can learn.

[Page]

It was the fact that I wouldn't bow down and accept them as my new gods that had most of the teachers and administrations out to get me.

Many teachers and administrators are quite harsh towards students who express individuality or question authority in ways they don't like.

[Diopolis]

It was the fact that I wouldn't bow down and accept them as my new gods that had most of the teachers and administrations out to get me.

Many teachers and administrators are quite harsh towards students who express individuality or question authority in ways they don't like.

Teachers, in general, want students that will turn in their work without making extra work for the teacher.

[Jebslund]

Many teachers and administrators are quite harsh towards students who express individuality or question authority in ways they don't like.

Teachers, in general, want students that will turn in their work without making extra work for the teacher.

And accept everything they say at face value even when demonstrably wrong.

[Diopolis]

Teachers, in general, want students that will turn in their work without making extra work for the teacher.

And accept regurgitate everything they say at face value even when demonstrably wrong.

Fixed that for you.

[Page]

Many teachers and administrators are quite harsh towards students who express individuality or question authority in ways they don't like.

Teachers, in general, want students that will turn in their work without making extra work for the teacher.

Which is fine, but not what I was talking about.

[Jebslund]

And accept regurgitate everything they say at face value even when demonstrably wrong.

Fixed that for you.

Not really. Accept is the proper word. And, then as now, I'm not going to accept something that is so wrong as to be easily proven wrong by someone much less knowledgeable on the subject as a whole.

[Luminesa]

“What the school district REALLY thinks of them”, like an IEP is some sort of conspiracy. An IEP is an Individualized Education Plan for a child with special needs. An IEP doesn’t mean the school district is “out to get you”. It means that the child’s IEP team has made plans for how the child will make progress throughout the school year. Most children with emotional disorders are taught in a general classroom setting, and are given therapy to help them with their emotional disturbances.

You did not have an emotional disorder from what you described, because you (presumably) showed no signs of emotional behavior that was keeping you from normally interacting with your classmates and teachers. It’s not a term that refers to “unpopular children”. These are children with phobias, with fears, with lots of anger, or who might be painfully shy to a point that it keeps them from making interpersonal relationships. Do I sound like a textbook? Yes. Is this correct? Yes. Take some time to research IEPs. I had one for a mild speech impediment for many years, I promise the school district was never “out to get me”.

The school district was out to get me as a kid with an IEP, but it wan't by forming an IEP. The IEP was for my own good and actually helped me, as much as I resented it. It was the fact that I wouldn't bow down and accept them as my new gods that had most of the teachers and administrations out to get me.

An IEP is nothing more or less than the school doing its job to make sure kids with disabilities can learn.

I’m glad you were able to get help, but I’m sorry you were treated so badly.

[-Ocelot-]

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 of conflicting interests. This isn't an honest opinion.

There are many institutions that benefit from you choosing to raise many children. The state needs more taxpayers, some corporations rely on young consumers, the church needs new customers, the army needs young men etc. Of course you are "selfish" and "evil" and "degenerate" (depending on who you ask) when you decide to not raise any children.