Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rhea · 03-08-2002, 09:52 AM

Wow this thread went unexpectedly long & vociferous!

I'm gonna ramble all the way back to the beginning and put in 2� on the original topic.

I think there is a VERY annoying tendancy in our society to assume parenthood is everyone's goal. And yes, I do think it's kind of annoying for new parents (or any) to assume you are delighted by their children.

I think any _honest_ parent will admit that they do NOT think everyone else's children are interesting. I think we would have to admit that there are some kid stories that we just suffer through.

AS a parent (new!) who didn't start parenting until 35yo, I guess I can completely understand the position of the childless because I've been there. Do I think the childless are _missing_ something? Well, yeah, in a way, but so am I missing something. A lot of somethings! I'm damn busy with this parenting thing! And I'm fooling myself (IMO) if I think that there is nothing else worthwhile to do instead. It was just that I chose this.

I think that's the big dissonance, the big GAP-a-roonie. New parents forget that there is plenty to be genuinely happy about besides childrearing. Although some people work toward parenthood so exclusively it's not a matter of forgetting, but never knowing.

AS for all the silly kid updates... I confess, we do forget that if you aren't watching all of them, then they lose their novelty and excitement. Laugh. I try to remember that when I'm out. And I actually like it when someone changes the subject (gently, for the sake of my ego) so that I can remember to grow in _other_ ways (as well).

I do agree, completely, that it is inappropriate to project feelings of parenthood onto others, as in, you would be happier if. Because, really, it's just not true! IMO.

Pomp · 03-08-2002, 12:03 PM

Well said, Rhea.

clef, we're waiting...

cleftone · 03-08-2002, 03:12 PM

OK, here it is. I'm a slow typist, so this has taken me ALL day. The organization of the following responses to alleged rebuttals of my points in previous points is chronological, for the most part, from the beginning of the thread to this page. Whatever is in normal type is original quotes from others. Italicized phrases are my responses back.
I'll probably have to edit this once or twice. But I hope not.

Related to my own lack of caring toward NPs, here are some of the sweet comments you all have directed at parents like myself:

WWSD this was a sarcastic reply to the lingering idea in the mind of a non-parent that you can�t be truly happy unless you have kids. It�s a telling example of the non-parent�s hatred not only for the annoying things proud parents do, but their very existence! You are insane if that's what you think. Obviously you can never be truely content if you don't have two or more children running around giving you thier pathogens and costing you money. Sure, they're cute. When they're QUIET!

Echidna But back to friends, yes there seems little duller than infinitely proud parents.

Pompous Bastard a classic example of how non-parents dismiss parental motivations as strictly biological or social. And yet this same person decries my claim that other kinds of love are not as strong as the love for a child by affirming the strength of his purely abstract notion of love toward a spouse or an experience. So which is it? I�d go half hormones and half conditioning. You�re supposed to have kids. Once someone has their own, I think it�s more that they want their friends to be in the same situation so they can relate.

And here are the emotional responses to the claim that you can�t understand if you�re not a parent:

tronvillain It's possible I suppose, but it seems unlikely.

alek0 this is a response to Comenius and DRFSeven early on in the thread when they restated the idea that you don�t understand unless you�re a parent, you�re statistically likely to have kids, etc. This is precisely what is annoying! *I* will NEVER find myself among the ranks of new parents. 1. I don't want children, never did and never will 2) I have endometriosis, so most likely would not be able to have them (lots of damage in there) if I wanted them.

This is the brunt of the above argument which has taken several other different forms in this thread: "I can�t have kids, I don�t want them (because I don�t give a shit about other people�s kids) so god-damnit, I will still be ultimately happy without them!" Heaven forbid we sit back and say, �you know, I can�t have kids, I don�t want them, but I�ll never be as happy as I could have been if I�d had them. I�ll make the most out of life, but it would have been better with kids. Perhaps I�ll think more carefully about it and step outside myself and, rather than be jealous about the happiness of parents, pursue other means of having or rearing them...� No, No, No. We will have none of that! That doesn�t sit right with us. That violates our freedom. That means we have to be realists. That means there might be someone else that knows something that we don�t know. That means we don�t necessarily define our own truth. Oh shit, what do we do????????????????

WWSD I appreciate the honesty of this statement, and it is another telling revelation of the blindness many non-parents have with respect to kids in general. I don't like kids. Don't get me wrong, I do not scowl at small children or anything. I am very nice to people's kids, I have been known to play with small children and am even teaching my 8yr old cousin how to play basketball. But I don't find kids cute, and feel a keen sense of disinterest in them. Kids are for someone else, not me.

echidna Imagine me, cleftone, describing to you how I know what you�re feeling, even without having experienced the same thing, regarding this statement: My father died suddenly. Does that really make sense to you? Because I don�t know what that is like. And I�ll sit with you for hours while you weep, trying to understand, because I would care that that was an obviously important thing for you. And yet the non-parents on this thread don�t want to hear a damn thing about their friends� joys of parenthood. This is so hypocritical and it is a common theme in this thread � hypocrisy.

Hobbs sarcasm Well, hey, if it seems to work for me, it must be absolutely right for everyone, since of course I am the measure of all things. That, I think, is the primary sentiment underlying religious dogmatism.
of course, this is yet another assumption that resounds throughout the thread: �Absolutes are bad. Therefore, I must know what�s best for me.� This is just a claim and I suspect that, because of the fact that I am pretty open to just about anything these days, the relativistic sentiment is just another extreme, but widely held social axiom � a supreme case of the pendulum swinging to the other side. So much for that other contradictory maxum that many of you also believe: balance. Which is it? To be fair, Hobbs also points out that fear of pain and loss probably explains many peoples� refusal to have kids � what if they die?

I grant very openly that I was immature and selfish in my desire to NOT have kids. Now, I am immature and selfish with respect to other things. I admit it, and I�ve admitted it continually on this thread. What are the rest of you afraid of?

DRFseven This is powerful, but many neglected to accept it To say that you can't know what it's like may seem like a cheap brushoff, but there it is. I promise you that even child development experts find that having their own children is different from anything they ever imagined, as they will be happy to tell you. This all has to do with previously unexperienced feelings, which is why they can't be explained, feelings that have evolutionary underpinnings. People experience these feelings to different degrees, but the vast majority experience them profoundly. Try to imagine describing what it is like to fall in love and to intimately touch your lover for the first time to someone who has never experienced falling in love. What is that like? Can it be compared to being squeezed shoulder-to-shoulder in a crowded elevator next to friends and acquaintances? No, just because both situations involve people being close together, you still can't experience one from doing the other. Having a child is even harder to describe than having a lover because of the dawning sense of long-term responsibility that is realized. People intellectually know they will be responsible for their future children, but until that responsibility arrives, they don't get the emotional impact, which, of course, is the feeling. It's not the financial responsibility or the caretaking, but the growing realization that this is a permanent, full-time, emotional bond that has been established and there's no backing away from this; this is it. From now on the parent's emotions are heavily invested in how this new person fares in life - every hurt, from playground falls to the child's inevitable social disappointments, hurts the parent. But the same is true for the joys; the successes and triumphs of the child/teen/adult will color the parent's life forever. Most parents learn to experience their children's lives with some degree of equanimity as the children grow up, but, for most people, those heavy emotional ties will exist to some extent until death puts an end to them.

tronvillain Oh wait, here�s an excellent non-response (or banter) to the above statement from DRFseven
There is a difference between attempting to imagine describing something and attempting to imagine something. I see no apparent obstacle to imagining being a parent, especially not the emotional impact.

echidna Don�t bother trying to dialogue with echidna by alluding or referring to the expertise of others cuz it just doesn�t matter! See, now that�s where I think that�s a loaded experiment. To me, anyone who calls themselves a "child development expert", almost automatically doesn�t understand child development. The parents I know who have been most surprised at the child-bearing experience are generally those who have been most opinionated about it prior, those who thought the first 6 weeks would be easy, those who thought they could still enjoy all the things they liked beforehand, those who bought a puppy dog to practise on. Brilliance

tronvillain Here�s another gem from tronvillain related to a person�s alleged ability to understand that which he has no experience of in reality. It also demonstrates yet again the question begging nonsense that flourishes on this thread (accurately imagining...) Finally, it shows quite clearly that the typical non-parent considers parenthood to be as conceivable as something like bowling, even though one has experienced neither of them. I think this proves at least one of my points: NPs just don�t get it! I agree that someone who has never been in love can't know what it's like to be in love, but then someone who has never bowled can't know what it's like to bowl. However, that did not prevent me from accurately imagining what it was like to experience them before I actually did, and I don't see why the experience of having children should be any different. DRFseven rightly rebutted this as well: It's different because the elements of bowling can be broken down into separate elements of which you were familiar. Unless you were taken to a bowling alley as an infant or toddler, you probably had aimed at things and tried to knock them over before and you probably had played games and experienced the same sort of competitive feelings (or lack of them) as you did when you bowled. There are no emotions involved in bowling that single it out from all other activities. But the feelings a parent develops for his/her child are unlike the feelings a person has for others, even though the interactions with the parent's own children and with others may be very similar. It is the emotions that make the difference; they are what determine the vested interest, just as the emotions of falling in love are very different from "falling into" a friendship.

echidna The parents I know have many different feelings for their children, which will vary further as their children grow older. "You don�t understand because you don�t have children" assumes that there is a universal feeling of parenthood to which I am automatically excluded. I don�t see evidence for this amongst the parents I know. Each set of feelings differs, as would my feelings differ if I were to be a parent. translation: �Some parents hate their kids, some love them. I don�t know if I would hate my kids or love them. Also, I think my feelings would differ if I was a parent, but I can understand parenthood as a non-parent.� Well, echidna, as I�ve made painfully clear throughout this thread, some people just are not meant to be parents. Miserable parents are miserable people whose happiness quotient would have been much better had they been secure and mature enough to be parents in the first place. I just don�t turn around and say, �well, that guy is still the happiest he could be cuz parenthood didn�t work for him.� This is just a ridiculous attempt to walk on eggshells with the rest of humanity. �Everyone knows what�s right for himself� � diehard individualism is just a pathetic extreme response to centuries of oppression. Will the pendulum EVER come to the middle, because it hasn�t done so on this board!

tronvillain Also related to the subject of whether or not one can really know what it�s like to be a parent without being a parent. See if you can spot the big fat contradiction in this one (hint: it�s the last sentence of the quote...) They may be driven by different instincts, but that doesn't mean any unique or unimaginable emotions are involved. You are simply asserting that there are, and I see no reason to believe you, especially since you assert the same thing about romantic love. I guess we'll have to wait until I'm a parent. But I thought you didn�t have to have that experience in order to comprehend it. Huh?

While DRFseven has disagreed with me and my extremism to a large extent, her comments should be reviewed thoroughly by all on this thread before anything else is barfed up!

Isn�t it great! We all hate taxes - wouldn�t pay them if we didn�t have to (in fact many of us cheat on them), and then we turn around and say, �Hey, I support kids and their future, I pay taxes!� You guys got me on that one. I�m glad you (Pompous) care about kids the way you care about the quality of the roads in your community. You�re just like every other normal, ordinary person. Do forgive my insolence.

Many of echidna�s comments, [i]here is another common fallacy throughout this thread illustrated by the following analogous argument:
a. I know a parent who washes her kid�s hands every 5 minutes.
b. This is ridiculous.
c. All parents do this.
d. All parents are ridiculous

Here�s another one, again based largely on the wonderful, thorough points from echidna:
For what it�s worth, parental advice to other parents, from either P�s or NP�s, is quite annoying to me. Everyone�s suddenly an expert. When I feel the need I prefer supportive suggestions myself, ever conscious that they are often perceived as harassment.
translation:a. I don�t like it when people have opinions that are different from mine.
b. I don�t like experts because they threaten my ignorance.
c. Therefore, there are no experts, and no one can tell me what to do!

echidna: This was echidna�s attempt to correct my alleged misunderstanding of her.Clef, the hiking reference was not a direct comparison to having children, obviously. It was in reference to discussing the nature of experience and understanding. What you fail to see however is that one can not communicate these experiences to the same extent, as DRFseven has poignantly stressed over and over. So, for me to criticize you for equating the intensity of these experiences is appropriate, because by stating that they can both be communicated effectively to the same extent, you have in effect put them on the same level. And, why would you disagree with a direct comparison? Are you implying that it is ridiculous to equate them? So you do know that parenthood is not an experience to be compared with any other, like the infinitely pleasant and unpleasant ones you cited? Or not? Which is it? Are you just trying now to NOT be obtuse?

Pompous Bastard: The context in which your statement appeared leads me to believe that you consider indifference toward children selfish because they are, in some sense, "our future." Fine. That's why I pay taxes that are used, in part, for schools. That's why I support socialized health care, including prenatal care and pediatrics. That's why I contribute to a society that tries to foster healthy child development. That's why I make monthly donations to a charity that, in part, works to feed hungry children.
Really? Socialized health care? In Rancho Cucamonga? Isn�t that in or near San Bernardino, the land with the highest incidence of road rage? Interesting. At any rate, very noble of you. Too bad most other people do at least 75% of those same things. This hardly makes them vital contributors to society or the future. Care about prenatal services? Me too. Schools? Do you really know what the schools in California need? I�ll give you a hint: It�s not your money. And what respectable society doesn�t foster healthy child development? But the point really is this: The new wave of humans needs to be genuinely loved, not just supported with blind funds.

alek0: Why is it so hard to accept that people can have fulfilling lives and be happy without having kids?
I said they couldn�t be at their happiest.
Why is it so hard to understand that we are all different and what makes you happy would not necessarily make me happy? This assumes the principle of what I like to call hyper-individuality, a very anachronistic masculine ideal that a good liberated female like yourself would be expected to reject, but, whatever. But aside from that, I don�t accept your insistence that everyone defines his/her own happiness. This is just a social fad. It�s gone on much longer than I had anticipated. I guess I�m still naively optimistic that the pendulum will eventually get somewhere toward the middle.
Finally, why is it so hard to understand that people may have different reasons not to have children? I do accept this. What�s the problem?
Why is it so hard to understand that, if I choose not to go through several surgeries with no guarantee of success and certain loss of one ovary in order to solve my endometriosis problems, I get quite offended by someone telling me that I should not "neglect parenthood"? My choice to be childfree is actually quite a good thing for my emotional wellbeing, otherwise I would be in for plenty of unhappiness, distress, and heartbreak. Isn�t it possible that you are in an unfortunate situation that will inevitably make your life NOT AS HAPPY AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN? This is my whole point. I�m not saying it�s your fault. I�m saying you may very well be a victim of circumstances that are beyond your control. I know that sounds heartless to you. That doesn�t make it false.

echidna Comparing happiness between people is an impossible and pointlessly aggravating topic.
Is that a fact? Who says? Let me remind you that if suicide and mental health are objective indicators of happiness, there is no evidence that parenthood is a guarantee of happiness. If I were to say that you�re American therefore you�re not as happy as a Vietnamese person because America�s suicide rate is higher, it would be an obvious fallacy. blatantly false analogy and equivocation of obviously different concepts � place of residence on the one hand, and parental status on the other. Give me a break. Nevertheless, I don�t dispute the notion that people from other countries are quite possibly happier than people from others, on the whole, so your attempt to put me into a bind has failed. Your comparison also fails to consider that there are many different reasons why suicide is more prevalent in one place than in another. You�re being way too simplistic. Even if parents were more prone to suicide than non-parents that only proves one of my other essential points: Not all people should be parents. Insofar as a person is able and mature enough to handle it, parenthood is the highest calling in life, leading to the greatest happiness. I�m not asking you to agree. I just don�t know why you don�t get it.

Sivakami I know I might cause some wrath here, but ... someone please tell me whats so noble about getting married, staying married, producing and rearing children ? Sure, some people might opt for it, but its by no means a universal objective! Who told you this? How do you know it�s true?
We're genetically programmed to think it is our aim in life, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Isn't it time we outwitted our genes (we've already started doing so)? Outwitting the genes? Go for it! Outwit your pride and myopia while you�re at it!
Of course, our species shouldn't die out, thats for sure. Why not But thats really in no danger of happening (quite the opposite, in fact!). So why is breeding still of such high priority ? I didn�t say it�s all about breeding, you did, and I disagree with that. But even if it was only about breeding, there couldn�t really be anything more noble than ensuring the survival of the species, now could there? There's so much more to life. I agree.

Sivakami has also affirmed the value of value judgements � one life is less valuable than another.

LadyShea I have been married 10 years and we have fertility problems. I have two choices 1. Accept that we may remain childless and learn to live with it...and maybe (gasp) even STILL manage to trod through this life with a smile on my pathetic non-parent face or 2) Become obsessed with pregnancy, sell everything we own and mortgage the rest to pay for painful expensive infertility treatments all the while bursting into tears at the site of every pregnant woman, bore fertile people with my talk about basal body temps, IVF, and urine samples, and schedule sex only to be disappointed by the 25% success rate ALL because the parents of this world don't think a childfree person can be mature or happy Perhaps a combo of the two: Try, try, try, since you seem to want kids (#2) AND realize your life will not be as happy if it doesn�t work out (#1). Does that make sense?

LadyShea Bullshit DRFseven....childless (or childfree) couples in this thread have been told they can never have the maturity of parents, can never feel as happy as parents, can never have some special kind of "parent only" love....it has been condenscending to say the least. condescending, yes, false, no
I don't want people to feel sorry for me, I DO NOT want people to look at me with that pity in their eyes like I can never be a whole person. you may not want that, but maybe that�s what you�re going to get. Life is tough I may never know what it's like to be a parent, but parents will never know the bond that is created between spouses when they look at each other and finally say "It's just me and you against the world for the rest our lives...that okay honey?" That�s true, and parents won�t have that level of pain, and so they may not end up being as strong without it. But they�ll have the joy of parenthood to overcome that, and the pain in life may come from somewhere else, perhaps even from the death of their children!

alek0 Why is talking about kids different than talking about other topics which do not interest the person you are talking to? exactly the level of understanding I�ve come to expect from non-parents � Incredible indifference toward parents AND especially children.

Lacking altruism is one thing. Being selfish is another.

livius drusus You finally found me, cleftone, the culprit that had eluded the omniscient DRFseven so effectively up to that point. Drat! Now, I may not be the Dalai Lama, but I have a high enough spiritual consciousness to see that these statements are not simple "expressions of joy in parenting," but rather nauseating examples of the kind of mistreatment LadyShea was talking about in her post. Irrelevant. My points establish my dedication as a parent. My disdain for YOU, however, has nothing to do with my parenting experience, only with your ignorance.

MassAtheist a kind illumination of one thing I�ve tried to get across. I think my original statement was clear enough but Mass says it well also: I think (could be wrong) the point is that all children represent the future of society. Therefore, everyone - parent or not - needs to take an interest in the lives of children. To paraphrase, anyone who doesn't take an interest in the future of society is immature and selfish.

Jamie_L I expect most parents feel the same. However, because of these very feelings, we have NO IDEA what people who do not want children feel or think. It is arrogant for us to presume that because we think or feel something, others feel it as well. Personally, I do have a curiousity about what people think and feel who do not want kids. But this is merely from an information standpoint. Since I can't comprehend myself, I'm curious to hear the other side. But having heard the other side, it would be inappropriate, insensitive, and rude of me to tell that person that what they feel is wrong. The problem is, I did NOT WANT KIDS FOR A LONG TIME. Therefore, I do know what it�s like to be a typical IMMATURE, SELF-CENTERED NP. Period!

livius drusus Sorry for the death of your ferret. That was the only meaningful, important thing from you. Also, ideas that hurt are not necessarily false, so all your little rebuffs that impressed LadyShea so much are actually useless.

Pompous Bastardin what sense is indifference to parenthood "immature?" Because parenthood is the highest calling in life, and, because many, if not all of us (Ps AND NPs alike) would consider the death of our children the most heinous evil, we ought also to reckon the joy of parenthood as the greatest good, or that which produces the greatest happiness. Loss of a child = greatest pain. Life with a child = greatest joy. Simple. So to deny this is certainly a sign of immaturity. You do not have the requisite knowledge to make this claim in general. You do, of course, have the requisite knowledge to make this claim in the specific case of yourself. Who told you this? One of the other NPs on this board? Again, the hyper-individuality is not convincing, especially in the absence of PROOFS for it.
Please bear in mind that we are not pissed off because you have an opinion. We are pissed off because you are arrogantly asserting that our reports of our own subjective happiness must necessarily be in error because we do not share your values. The value exists outside of us both, so it�s not me you�re disagreeing with.

Bill the Cat And, by the way Cleftone, I can see at least one glaring inconsistency in what you've stated: you've asserted that you aren't bigoted against the state of non-parenthood when your actual statements have unequivocally demonstrated the opposite. False. I say what is. I don�t look down on non-parents. They just can�t have the same level of happiness that parents can have. It�s like saying a blind person is not as fulfilled as someone who has sight. I know it�s fashionable and kind to say otherwise, but that doesn�t make it true. Everything in reality indicates that without sight, you are less-fulfilled. Period. Construe it as bigotry, I really don�t care. Your offense at it doesn�t make it false. Not to mention, isn't arguing purely by reference to your personal experience one of the grossest of fallacies? False. The standard of the highest happiness coming from parenthood isn�t my opinion. It�s the law of nature, society, etc. outside of me, outside of you.

Pompous a vague statement about children being "the future," What is vague about children being the future? I poked fun at the phrase�s trite use in present day nomenclature, but the principle itself is very profound and vital. Also, just because I believe parenthood is the highest great thing, doesn�t mean all people should be parents. In other words, perhaps you ought not be the happiest you can be, theoretically speaking. Maybe you�re not one of the chosen few. Also, overpopulation not a problem if not all people are supposed to be parents. Also, perhaps huge families are not such a hot idea. I never said they were. Come on, man! Your values are not my values. That doesn�t mean they shouldn�t be I have learned to accept what I can and cannot do, and am content with that acceptance, and find it offensive that people suggest that I should not have such contentment. Now, this comment is a bit closer to what you should be looking for � acceptance. But you should still be more open to the idea that you won�t be as happy if you are not a parent. You�re almost there.

echidnafortunately I�m confident that cleftone�s extreme sentiments do not reflect the vast majority of parents. Then again, given your disdain for parents, why the hell would you care? And perhaps other parents are just being more civil than I am. That�s fine. I promise you my claims are believed by MANY parents even if they are not voiced.

echidnaAll other correspondents are quite quite excluded, but I found it a little (?) ironic that this type of response could come from someone insisting that they were more mature than the rest of us (???). I�ll take honesty over maturity any day. Perhaps I am not as mature as the rest of you in terms of social refinement. Fine. I�ll accept that.

Bill the CatThen why did you say you felt sorry for her? I don�t remember saying that I felt sorry for alek0. But if I did, it would be better construed as a general form of pity toward all NPs who are too blind to see what I am saying. But toward a specific arrogant NP like alek0, I think the original idea stands � I don�t care enough to pity her. You can do anything you're capable of; it doesn't mean it's right or you're entitled to do it. So you do agree that I am CAPABLE of discerning what objective happiness is? OK. Also, it�s not a flame war on my part. All arguments against me in this thread have been emotionally based and I never said I was projecting my standard of happiness on others but that such a standard exists independent of me and you. Yours is nothing more than a straw man. You conveniently overlooked alek0's mention of the hundreds of thousands of parents who abuse their children in more mundane but no less horrifying ways. They're not extreme examples, they're run-of-the-mill, and sufficient rebuttal of this "general rule" you think you're expounding. Run-of-the-mill abuse? That�s nice. I�d ask for clarification on this whole paragraph but I don�t think there is good enough reason for it. Suffice to say that the fact that child abuse is a possibility in ANY family arrangement, you may as well argue, by necessity, for the elimination of the species. Oops!

Rhea More of the same is just that: More of the same. I already addressed all of these straw men.

thanks, cleftone.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ]

Pomp · 03-08-2002, 04:15 PM

cleftone,

The organization of the following responses to alleged rebuttals of my points...

You're correct in that no one has rebutted your points because, as far as I can see you haven't made any points! Your entire "argument," thus far, has consisted of repeated assertions to the effect that "parenthood is the highest calling in life," and of indulgence in the fantasy that, through the magic of having reproduced, you are able to pass authoritative judgment on what wil or will not make the rest of us happy or fulfilled. You've set yourself up as both the final arbiter of objective value and the omniscient judge of the minds of your fellow humans.

Quite simply, you do not have a case beyond the obviously fallacious, "parenthood made me happy, therefore it will make everyone happy." Unlike the other parents in this thread (DRFseven comes to mind), you appear to have nothing constructive to say. I have to ask: Do you at least understand why your "points" are non-points?

I'd like to address your specific responses to me:

a classic example of how non-parents dismiss parental motivations as strictly biological or social. And yet this same person decries my claim that other kinds of love are not as strong as the love for a child by affirming the strength of his purely abstract notion of love toward a spouse or an experience. So which is it?

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never discussed the relative strengths of emotions in this thread, and I certainly didn't compare parental love to "abstract" love, whatever that is.

You are correct, I did offer:

I�d go half hormones and half conditioning. You�re supposed to have kids.

...as a possible explanation of why reproducing is seen as "normal" and remaining childless is not, and I think it is a reasonable hypothesis.

Further, I offerred:

Once someone has their own, I think it�s more that they want their friends to be in the same situation so they can relate.

As a possible explanation for why those with children want their friends to have children. In my experience, friends often encourage each other to pursue similar lifestyles so that they continue to have experiences in common. I'm not sure why this is offensive to you.

Isn�t it great! We all hate taxes - wouldn�t pay them if we didn�t have to (in fact many of us cheat on them),

For your information, I have no problem with taxes, have consistently argued the need for taxation in the PD forum, and have consistently voted for candidates who promised improved social programs, not candidates who promised reduced taxes.

...and then we turn around and say, �Hey, I support kids and their future, I pay taxes!� You guys got me on that one. I�m glad you (Pompous) care about kids the way you care about the quality of the roads in your community.

In the context of your original pseudo-point, children are not the "future" in any special sense that any other undertaking, including road maintenence, is the "future." Your obvious implication being that I am some sort of cold bastard who values children and roads equally aside, the children who I personally know I value because they are a pleasure to be around, not because they are vital to "the future" in any sense.

You�re just like every other normal, ordinary person. Do forgive my insolence.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm of some sort?

Really? Socialized health care? In Rancho Cucamonga? Isn�t that in or near San Bernardino, the land with the highest incidence of road rage? Interesting.

Yes, it is. I've been here for just over two months. Forgive me for not revolutionizing local politics in that time. Furthermore, what in the name of all fuck does road rage have to do with socialized health care?

At any rate, very noble of you. Too bad most other people do at least 75% of those same things. This hardly makes them vital contributors to society or the future.

Agreed. Too bad 90% of other people choose to reproduce. This hardly makes you, or them, vital contributors to society's future. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this.

But the point really is this: The new wave of humans needs to be genuinely loved, not just supported with blind funds.

What's your point? Should I be wandering around looking for someone to bestow love upon? I know...I'll create a new person who needs love, and love them! That way, I can feel that I've done a great service, even though I'm only fulfilling a need I've created myself!

Because parenthood is the highest calling in life

Prove it. Give me one objective standard by which one "calling" can be judged "higher" or "lower" than another.

..and, because many, if not all of us (Ps AND NPs alike) would consider the death of our children the most heinous evil, we ought also to reckon the joy of parenthood as the greatest good, or that which produces the greatest happiness. Loss of a child = greatest pain. Life with a child = greatest joy.

Thus diluting your position from "parenthood is the highest calling" to "many of us would consider parenthood to be the highest calling." I'm fine with that. Many people do consider parenthood to be some sort of uber-value.

Simple. So to deny this is certainly a sign of immaturity.

To deny what? That many people consider parenthood to be the best thing a person can do? Or that parenthood is, objectively, the best thing a person can do? Denial of the former case is not immature, it's simply incorrect. In the latter case, I regret to inform you, once again, that disagreeing with cleftone's values does not make one immature.

Who told you this? {that cleftone does not have the knowledge to pronounce authoritatvie judgment on the minds of others} One of the other NPs on this board? Again, the hyper-individuality is not convincing, especially in the absence of PROOFS for it.

Wait...you're asking me to prove that you don't know my thougths and values? Are you insane? You're the one asserting that you can somehow know what the rest of us think and feel. The burden of proof lies firmly with you.

The value exists outside of us both, so it�s not me you�re disagreeing with.

Similarly, if you'd like to assert that values exist independant of valuers, the burden of proof is one you.

What is vague about children being the future?

In what sense can you say that children "are" the future? Are young human beings somehow identical with those portions of the dimension of time greater than now? I realize that it's a colloquialism, but such expressions are inherently vague. Presumably, you meant something like, "we will all rely on the new generation to manage society when we are old," but how am I supposed to infer your exact meaning from an idiom? Idioms are vague.

Also, just because I believe parenthood is the highest great thing, doesn�t mean all people should be parents. In other words, perhaps you ought not be the happiest you can be, theoretically speaking.

Again, you assume that the greatest possible happiness is only attainable if one subscrbes to your particular system of values.

Maybe you�re not one of the chosen few. Also, overpopulation not a problem if not all people are supposed to be parents.

Supposed by whom?

That doesn�t mean they {cleftone's values} shouldn�t be {PB's values}

It is meaningless to speak of values that someone should hold. We all value what we value.

Now, this comment {acceptance of one's limitations is a good thing} is a bit closer to what you should be looking for � acceptance. But you should still be more open to the idea that you won�t be as happy if you are not a parent. You�re almost there.

Even a cursory reading of my post reveals that I was not referring to myself, but to LadyShea. Your position is, apparently, that she has been denied true happiness by her inability to conceive and that, as a result, she is propagating the false notion that parenthoos isn't all that great anyway. My point was that she is not disparaging parethood, but wisely accepting that she can be perfectly happy without it.

Please think about my response.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Edited for UBB tags.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]

alek0 · 03-08-2002, 04:16 PM

Cleftone,

1. I didn't want children long time before I found out that I have endometriosis. The reason why I mentioned not being able to have children is because when people insist one should not "neglect parenthood" to those who cannot have kids but want them is hurtful. Of course that those who want children and find out that they are infertile are not happy. But that does not mean that childfree people do not have fulfilled lives. If I would go by your "logic", I could argue that you cannot possibly have happy and fulfilled life without doing scientific research, knowing the excitement of discovering something new, developing something which gives better results than any other work reported in the literature.

2. You still haven't answered the questions about child abuse. Child abuse exists. You argue that parenthood is universal recipe for happiness. Are those abusers happy? Are children of abusive parents happy?

3. Please define objective standard of happiness.

4. You still haven't answered the question: "Why is talking about kids different than talking about other topics which do not interest the person you are talking to? "

5. Explain what is altruistic in the scenario of people having children in order to satisfy their desire to have children?

6. "a good liberated female like yourself would be expected to reject" ROFL. I am what I am, regardless what people expect me to do or not. Do you always do what you are expected? Like having kids, and bragging that parenthood is greatest happiness?

7. I don't think that my life would be better with kids. On what basis do you make such statement?

I would also like to comment on your statement to LadyShea:
"Try, try, try, since you seem to want kids (#2) AND realize your life will not be as happy if it doesn’t work out (#1). Does that make sense?"

No, in my opinion this does not make sense. I hope you don't know what are you talking about.
If you know all the risks and side effects involved with fertility treatment (some of which have low chance of success) and if you keep telling someone who has been there to "try, try, try" that's just sick.

Finally, you've said:
"I did NOT WANT KIDS FOR A LONG TIME. Therefore, I do know what it’s like to be a typical IMMATURE, SELF-CENTERED NP. "

Seems to me that you have only advanced to become immature, self centered parent. Big improvement...

One question, are you sure that you are not a theist? On this topic, you sure sound like one...

Pomp · 03-08-2002, 04:20 PM

alek0 said:

One question, are you sure that you are not a theist? On this topic, you sure sound like one...

The same thought occurred to me...

cleftone · 03-08-2002, 04:35 PM

That's right Obtuse Pompous Ass, bang your head till you get it in there. Too bad they don't have a little icon that stands for "pissing contest", eh? On the surface some may actually think that you piss pretty far, but not me. But it's the thought that counts I guess. Look up the term 'sophistry' when you have a chance. I already graciously addressed all of your non-points. And I'll raise your silly little head-bangers by a nickel... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

cleftone

Viti · 03-08-2002, 04:38 PM

cleftone...I just realized that you are not sane...at first I just thought you were an ass.

livius drusus · 03-08-2002, 04:52 PM

Cleftone, the viciousness of your personal attacks is unwarranted and inexplicable.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleftone:My disdain for YOU, however, has nothing to do with my parenting experience, only with your ignorance.

Well, I guess I'm glad to know that your capacity for disdain is not part of or a result of your parenting regimen. As for my putative ignorance, I never claimed any knowledge of parenting so if that is the ignorance you mean, I will embrace the aspersion, saddened though I may be by your having cast it on such thin evidence. If you meant it more generally, than I can only respond in language your extensive parenting experience will lead you to recognize instantaneously:
I'm rubber; you're glue.

Quote:

Sorry for the death of your ferret. That was the only meaningful, important thing from you.

Thank you. I loved him and miss him. I don't think I was aiming for meaningful and important, frankly. I was replying to a specific question DRFseven asked regarding who in this thread had expressed the kind of sentiments LadyShea described. The answer was (and is even more so now) you.

Quote:

Also, ideas that hurt are not necessarily false, so all your little rebuffs that impressed LadyShea so much are actually useless.

I see now. You think I was attempting to rebut you. I was using it as an example to reply to another post, Cleftone. I commented on your postings' inherent condescension and utter lack of consideration, but you don't deny that anyway. You embrace it, in fact. So what's the problem?

Anyway, you use "shenanigans" in one of your screeds before you judge.

Now, since I occupy such an tiny region on your atlas of scorn, I will leave you to the other worthier subjects of your unworthy disdain.

bonduca · 03-08-2002, 04:57 PM

Er...cleftone...look up "hysteria" when you have a chance.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]

03-08-2002, 03:12 PM	#113
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	OK, here it is. I'm a slow typist, so this has taken me ALL day. The organization of the following responses to alleged rebuttals of my points in previous points is chronological, for the most part, from the beginning of the thread to this page. Whatever is in normal type is original quotes from others. Italicized phrases are my responses back. I'll probably have to edit this once or twice. But I hope not. Related to my own lack of caring toward NPs, here are some of the sweet comments you all have directed at parents like myself: WWSD this was a sarcastic reply to the lingering idea in the mind of a non-parent that you can�t be truly happy unless you have kids. It�s a telling example of the non-parent�s hatred not only for the annoying things proud parents do, but their very existence! You are insane if that's what you think. Obviously you can never be truely content if you don't have two or more children running around giving you thier pathogens and costing you money. Sure, they're cute. When they're QUIET! Echidna But back to friends, yes there seems little duller than infinitely proud parents. Pompous Bastard a classic example of how non-parents dismiss parental motivations as strictly biological or social. And yet this same person decries my claim that other kinds of love are not as strong as the love for a child by affirming the strength of his purely abstract notion of love toward a spouse or an experience. So which is it? I�d go half hormones and half conditioning. You�re supposed to have kids. Once someone has their own, I think it�s more that they want their friends to be in the same situation so they can relate. And here are the emotional responses to the claim that you can�t understand if you�re not a parent: tronvillain It's possible I suppose, but it seems unlikely. alek0 this is a response to Comenius and DRFSeven early on in the thread when they restated the idea that you don�t understand unless you�re a parent, you�re statistically likely to have kids, etc. This is precisely what is annoying! I will NEVER find myself among the ranks of new parents. 1. I don't want children, never did and never will 2) I have endometriosis, so most likely would not be able to have them (lots of damage in there) if I wanted them. This is the brunt of the above argument which has taken several other different forms in this thread: "I can�t have kids, I don�t want them (because I don�t give a shit about other people�s kids) so god-damnit, I will still be ultimately happy without them!" Heaven forbid we sit back and say, �you know, I can�t have kids, I don�t want them, but I�ll never be as happy as I could have been if I�d had them. I�ll make the most out of life, but it would have been better with kids. Perhaps I�ll think more carefully about it and step outside myself and, rather than be jealous about the happiness of parents, pursue other means of having or rearing them...� No, No, No. We will have none of that! That doesn�t sit right with us. That violates our freedom. That means we have to be realists. That means there might be someone else that knows something that we don�t know. That means we don�t necessarily define our own truth. Oh shit, what do we do???????????????? WWSD I appreciate the honesty of this statement, and it is another telling revelation of the blindness many non-parents have with respect to kids in general. I don't like kids. Don't get me wrong, I do not scowl at small children or anything. I am very nice to people's kids, I have been known to play with small children and am even teaching my 8yr old cousin how to play basketball. But I don't find kids cute, and feel a keen sense of disinterest in them. Kids are for someone else, not me. echidna Imagine me, cleftone, describing to you how I know what you�re feeling, even without having experienced the same thing, regarding this statement: My father died suddenly. Does that really make sense to you? Because I don�t know what that is like. And I�ll sit with you for hours while you weep, trying to understand, because I would care that that was an obviously important thing for you. And yet the non-parents on this thread don�t want to hear a damn thing about their friends� joys of parenthood. This is so hypocritical and it is a common theme in this thread � hypocrisy. Hobbs sarcasm Well, hey, if it seems to work for me, it must be absolutely right for everyone, since of course I am the measure of all things. That, I think, is the primary sentiment underlying religious dogmatism. of course, this is yet another assumption that resounds throughout the thread: �Absolutes are bad. Therefore, I must know what�s best for me.� This is just a claim and I suspect that, because of the fact that I am pretty open to just about anything these days, the relativistic sentiment is just another extreme, but widely held social axiom � a supreme case of the pendulum swinging to the other side. So much for that other contradictory maxum that many of you also believe: balance. Which is it? To be fair, Hobbs also points out that fear of pain and loss probably explains many peoples� refusal to have kids � what if they die? I grant very openly that I was immature and selfish in my desire to NOT have kids. Now, I am immature and selfish with respect to other things. I admit it, and I�ve admitted it continually on this thread. What are the rest of you afraid of? DRFseven This is powerful, but many neglected to accept it To say that you can't know what it's like may seem like a cheap brushoff, but there it is. I promise you that even child development experts find that having their own children is different from anything they ever imagined, as they will be happy to tell you. This all has to do with previously unexperienced feelings, which is why they can't be explained, feelings that have evolutionary underpinnings. People experience these feelings to different degrees, but the vast majority experience them profoundly. Try to imagine describing what it is like to fall in love and to intimately touch your lover for the first time to someone who has never experienced falling in love. What is that like? Can it be compared to being squeezed shoulder-to-shoulder in a crowded elevator next to friends and acquaintances? No, just because both situations involve people being close together, you still can't experience one from doing the other. Having a child is even harder to describe than having a lover because of the dawning sense of long-term responsibility that is realized. People intellectually know they will be responsible for their future children, but until that responsibility arrives, they don't get the emotional impact, which, of course, is the feeling. It's not the financial responsibility or the caretaking, but the growing realization that this is a permanent, full-time, emotional bond that has been established and there's no backing away from this; this is it. From now on the parent's emotions are heavily invested in how this new person fares in life - every hurt, from playground falls to the child's inevitable social disappointments, hurts the parent. But the same is true for the joys; the successes and triumphs of the child/teen/adult will color the parent's life forever. Most parents learn to experience their children's lives with some degree of equanimity as the children grow up, but, for most people, those heavy emotional ties will exist to some extent until death puts an end to them. tronvillain Oh wait, here�s an excellent non-response (or banter) to the above statement from DRFseven There is a difference between attempting to imagine describing something and attempting to imagine something. I see no apparent obstacle to imagining being a parent, especially not the emotional impact. echidna Don�t bother trying to dialogue with echidna by alluding or referring to the expertise of others cuz it just doesn�t matter! See, now that�s where I think that�s a loaded experiment. To me, anyone who calls themselves a "child development expert", almost automatically doesn�t understand child development. The parents I know who have been most surprised at the child-bearing experience are generally those who have been most opinionated about it prior, those who thought the first 6 weeks would be easy, those who thought they could still enjoy all the things they liked beforehand, those who bought a puppy dog to practise on. Brilliance tronvillain Here�s another gem from tronvillain related to a person�s alleged ability to understand that which he has no experience of in reality. It also demonstrates yet again the question begging nonsense that flourishes on this thread (accurately imagining...) Finally, it shows quite clearly that the typical non-parent considers parenthood to be as conceivable as something like bowling, even though one has experienced neither of them. I think this proves at least one of my points: NPs just don�t get it! I agree that someone who has never been in love can't know what it's like to be in love, but then someone who has never bowled can't know what it's like to bowl. However, that did not prevent me from accurately imagining what it was like to experience them before I actually did, and I don't see why the experience of having children should be any different. DRFseven rightly rebutted this as well: It's different because the elements of bowling can be broken down into separate elements of which you were familiar. Unless you were taken to a bowling alley as an infant or toddler, you probably had aimed at things and tried to knock them over before and you probably had played games and experienced the same sort of competitive feelings (or lack of them) as you did when you bowled. There are no emotions involved in bowling that single it out from all other activities. But the feelings a parent develops for his/her child are unlike the feelings a person has for others, even though the interactions with the parent's own children and with others may be very similar. It is the emotions that make the difference; they are what determine the vested interest, just as the emotions of falling in love are very different from "falling into" a friendship. echidna The parents I know have many different feelings for their children, which will vary further as their children grow older. "You don�t understand because you don�t have children" assumes that there is a universal feeling of parenthood to which I am automatically excluded. I don�t see evidence for this amongst the parents I know. Each set of feelings differs, as would my feelings differ if I were to be a parent. translation: �Some parents hate their kids, some love them. I don�t know if I would hate my kids or love them. Also, I think my feelings would differ if I was a parent, but I can understand parenthood as a non-parent.� Well, echidna, as I�ve made painfully clear throughout this thread, some people just are not meant to be parents. Miserable parents are miserable people whose happiness quotient would have been much better had they been secure and mature enough to be parents in the first place. I just don�t turn around and say, �well, that guy is still the happiest he could be cuz parenthood didn�t work for him.� This is just a ridiculous attempt to walk on eggshells with the rest of humanity. �Everyone knows what�s right for himself� � diehard individualism is just a pathetic extreme response to centuries of oppression. Will the pendulum EVER come to the middle, because it hasn�t done so on this board! tronvillain Also related to the subject of whether or not one can really know what it�s like to be a parent without being a parent. See if you can spot the big fat contradiction in this one (hint: it�s the last sentence of the quote...) They may be driven by different instincts, but that doesn't mean any unique or unimaginable emotions are involved. You are simply asserting that there are, and I see no reason to believe you, especially since you assert the same thing about romantic love. I guess we'll have to wait until I'm a parent. But I thought you didn�t have to have that experience in order to comprehend it. Huh? While DRFseven has disagreed with me and my extremism to a large extent, her comments should be reviewed thoroughly by all on this thread before anything else is barfed up! Isn�t it great! We all hate taxes - wouldn�t pay them if we didn�t have to (in fact many of us cheat on them), and then we turn around and say, �Hey, I support kids and their future, I pay taxes!� You guys got me on that one. I�m glad you (Pompous) care about kids the way you care about the quality of the roads in your community. You�re just like every other normal, ordinary person. Do forgive my insolence. Many of echidna�s comments, [i]here is another common fallacy throughout this thread illustrated by the following analogous argument: a. I know a parent who washes her kid�s hands every 5 minutes. b. This is ridiculous. c. All parents do this. d. All parents are ridiculous Here�s another one, again based largely on the wonderful, thorough points from echidna: For what it�s worth, parental advice to other parents, from either P�s or NP�s, is quite annoying to me. Everyone�s suddenly an expert. When I feel the need I prefer supportive suggestions myself, ever conscious that they are often perceived as harassment. translation:a. I don�t like it when people have opinions that are different from mine. b. I don�t like experts because they threaten my ignorance. c. Therefore, there are no experts, and no one can tell me what to do! echidna: This was echidna�s attempt to correct my alleged misunderstanding of her.Clef, the hiking reference was not a direct comparison to having children, obviously. It was in reference to discussing the nature of experience and understanding. What you fail to see however is that one can not communicate these experiences to the same extent, as DRFseven has poignantly stressed over and over. So, for me to criticize you for equating the intensity of these experiences is appropriate, because by stating that they can both be communicated effectively to the same extent, you have in effect put them on the same level. And, why would you disagree with a direct comparison? Are you implying that it is ridiculous to equate them? So you do know that parenthood is not an experience to be compared with any other, like the infinitely pleasant and unpleasant ones you cited? Or not? Which is it? Are you just trying now to NOT be obtuse? Pompous Bastard: The context in which your statement appeared leads me to believe that you consider indifference toward children selfish because they are, in some sense, "our future." Fine. That's why I pay taxes that are used, in part, for schools. That's why I support socialized health care, including prenatal care and pediatrics. That's why I contribute to a society that tries to foster healthy child development. That's why I make monthly donations to a charity that, in part, works to feed hungry children. Really? Socialized health care? In Rancho Cucamonga? Isn�t that in or near San Bernardino, the land with the highest incidence of road rage? Interesting. At any rate, very noble of you. Too bad most other people do at least 75% of those same things. This hardly makes them vital contributors to society or the future. Care about prenatal services? Me too. Schools? Do you really know what the schools in California need? I�ll give you a hint: It�s not your money. And what respectable society doesn�t foster healthy child development? But the point really is this: The new wave of humans needs to be genuinely loved, not just supported with blind funds. alek0: Why is it so hard to accept that people can have fulfilling lives and be happy without having kids? I said they couldn�t be at their happiest. Why is it so hard to understand that we are all different and what makes you happy would not necessarily make me happy? This assumes the principle of what I like to call hyper-individuality, a very anachronistic masculine ideal that a good liberated female like yourself would be expected to reject, but, whatever. But aside from that, I don�t accept your insistence that everyone defines his/her own happiness. This is just a social fad. It�s gone on much longer than I had anticipated. I guess I�m still naively optimistic that the pendulum will eventually get somewhere toward the middle. Finally, why is it so hard to understand that people may have different reasons not to have children? I do accept this. What�s the problem? Why is it so hard to understand that, if I choose not to go through several surgeries with no guarantee of success and certain loss of one ovary in order to solve my endometriosis problems, I get quite offended by someone telling me that I should not "neglect parenthood"? My choice to be childfree is actually quite a good thing for my emotional wellbeing, otherwise I would be in for plenty of unhappiness, distress, and heartbreak. Isn�t it possible that you are in an unfortunate situation that will inevitably make your life NOT AS HAPPY AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN? This is my whole point. I�m not saying it�s your fault. I�m saying you may very well be a victim of circumstances that are beyond your control. I know that sounds heartless to you. That doesn�t make it false. echidna Comparing happiness between people is an impossible and pointlessly aggravating topic. Is that a fact? Who says? Let me remind you that if suicide and mental health are objective indicators of happiness, there is no evidence that parenthood is a guarantee of happiness. If I were to say that you�re American therefore you�re not as happy as a Vietnamese person because America�s suicide rate is higher, it would be an obvious fallacy. blatantly false analogy and equivocation of obviously different concepts � place of residence on the one hand, and parental status on the other. Give me a break. Nevertheless, I don�t dispute the notion that people from other countries are quite possibly happier than people from others, on the whole, so your attempt to put me into a bind has failed. Your comparison also fails to consider that there are many different reasons why suicide is more prevalent in one place than in another. You�re being way too simplistic. Even if parents were more prone to suicide than non-parents that only proves one of my other essential points: Not all people should be parents. Insofar as a person is able and mature enough to handle it, parenthood is the highest calling in life, leading to the greatest happiness. I�m not asking you to agree. I just don�t know why you don�t get it. Sivakami I know I might cause some wrath here, but ... someone please tell me whats so noble about getting married, staying married, producing and rearing children ? Sure, some people might opt for it, but its by no means a universal objective! Who told you this? How do you know it�s true? We're genetically programmed to think it is our aim in life, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. Isn't it time we outwitted our genes (we've already started doing so)? Outwitting the genes? Go for it! Outwit your pride and myopia while you�re at it! Of course, our species shouldn't die out, thats for sure. Why not But thats really in no danger of happening (quite the opposite, in fact!). So why is breeding still of such high priority ? I didn�t say it�s all about breeding, you did, and I disagree with that. But even if it was only about breeding, there couldn�t really be anything more noble than ensuring the survival of the species, now could there? There's so much more to life. I agree. Sivakami has also affirmed the value of value judgements � one life is less valuable than another. LadyShea I have been married 10 years and we have fertility problems. I have two choices 1. Accept that we may remain childless and learn to live with it...and maybe (gasp) even STILL manage to trod through this life with a smile on my pathetic non-parent face or 2) Become obsessed with pregnancy, sell everything we own and mortgage the rest to pay for painful expensive infertility treatments all the while bursting into tears at the site of every pregnant woman, bore fertile people with my talk about basal body temps, IVF, and urine samples, and schedule sex only to be disappointed by the 25% success rate ALL because the parents of this world don't think a childfree person can be mature or happy Perhaps a combo of the two: Try, try, try, since you seem to want kids (#2) AND realize your life will not be as happy if it doesn�t work out (#1). Does that make sense? LadyShea Bullshit DRFseven....childless (or childfree) couples in this thread have been told they can never have the maturity of parents, can never feel as happy as parents, can never have some special kind of "parent only" love....it has been condenscending to say the least. condescending, yes, false, no I don't want people to feel sorry for me, I DO NOT want people to look at me with that pity in their eyes like I can never be a whole person. you may not want that, but maybe that�s what you�re going to get. Life is tough I may never know what it's like to be a parent, but parents will never know the bond that is created between spouses when they look at each other and finally say "It's just me and you against the world for the rest our lives...that okay honey?" That�s true, and parents won�t have that level of pain, and so they may not end up being as strong without it. But they�ll have the joy of parenthood to overcome that, and the pain in life may come from somewhere else, perhaps even from the death of their children! alek0 Why is talking about kids different than talking about other topics which do not interest the person you are talking to? exactly the level of understanding I�ve come to expect from non-parents � Incredible indifference toward parents AND especially children. Lacking altruism is one thing. Being selfish is another. livius drusus You finally found me, cleftone, the culprit that had eluded the omniscient DRFseven so effectively up to that point. Drat! Now, I may not be the Dalai Lama, but I have a high enough spiritual consciousness to see that these statements are not simple "expressions of joy in parenting," but rather nauseating examples of the kind of mistreatment LadyShea was talking about in her post. Irrelevant. My points establish my dedication as a parent. My disdain for YOU, however, has nothing to do with my parenting experience, only with your ignorance. MassAtheist a kind illumination of one thing I�ve tried to get across. I think my original statement was clear enough but Mass says it well also: I think (could be wrong) the point is that all children represent the future of society. Therefore, everyone - parent or not - needs to take an interest in the lives of children. To paraphrase, anyone who doesn't take an interest in the future of society is immature and selfish. Jamie_L I expect most parents feel the same. However, because of these very feelings, we have NO IDEA what people who do not want children feel or think. It is arrogant for us to presume that because we think or feel something, others feel it as well. Personally, I do have a curiousity about what people think and feel who do not want kids. But this is merely from an information standpoint. Since I can't comprehend myself, I'm curious to hear the other side. But having heard the other side, it would be inappropriate, insensitive, and rude of me to tell that person that what they feel is wrong. The problem is, I did NOT WANT KIDS FOR A LONG TIME. Therefore, I do know what it�s like to be a typical IMMATURE, SELF-CENTERED NP. Period! livius drusus Sorry for the death of your ferret. That was the only meaningful, important thing from you. Also, ideas that hurt are not necessarily false, so all your little rebuffs that impressed LadyShea so much are actually useless. Pompous Bastardin what sense is indifference to parenthood "immature?" Because parenthood is the highest calling in life, and, because many, if not all of us (Ps AND NPs alike) would consider the death of our children the most heinous evil, we ought also to reckon the joy of parenthood as the greatest good, or that which produces the greatest happiness. Loss of a child = greatest pain. Life with a child = greatest joy. Simple. So to deny this is certainly a sign of immaturity. You do not have the requisite knowledge to make this claim in general. You do, of course, have the requisite knowledge to make this claim in the specific case of yourself. Who told you this? One of the other NPs on this board? Again, the hyper-individuality is not convincing, especially in the absence of PROOFS for it. Please bear in mind that we are not pissed off because you have an opinion. We are pissed off because you are arrogantly asserting that our reports of our own subjective happiness must necessarily be in error because we do not share your values. The value exists outside of us both, so it�s not me you�re disagreeing with. Bill the Cat And, by the way Cleftone, I can see at least one glaring inconsistency in what you've stated: you've asserted that you aren't bigoted against the state of non-parenthood when your actual statements have unequivocally demonstrated the opposite. False. I say what is. I don�t look down on non-parents. They just can�t have the same level of happiness that parents can have. It�s like saying a blind person is not as fulfilled as someone who has sight. I know it�s fashionable and kind to say otherwise, but that doesn�t make it true. Everything in reality indicates that without sight, you are less-fulfilled. Period. Construe it as bigotry, I really don�t care. Your offense at it doesn�t make it false. Not to mention, isn't arguing purely by reference to your personal experience one of the grossest of fallacies? False. The standard of the highest happiness coming from parenthood isn�t my opinion. It�s the law of nature, society, etc. outside of me, outside of you. Pompous a vague statement about children being "the future," What is vague about children being the future? I poked fun at the phrase�s trite use in present day nomenclature, but the principle itself is very profound and vital. Also, just because I believe parenthood is the highest great thing, doesn�t mean all people should be parents. In other words, perhaps you ought not be the happiest you can be, theoretically speaking. Maybe you�re not one of the chosen few. Also, overpopulation not a problem if not all people are supposed to be parents. Also, perhaps huge families are not such a hot idea. I never said they were. Come on, man! Your values are not my values. That doesn�t mean they shouldn�t be I have learned to accept what I can and cannot do, and am content with that acceptance, and find it offensive that people suggest that I should not have such contentment. Now, this comment is a bit closer to what you should be looking for � acceptance. But you should still be more open to the idea that you won�t be as happy if you are not a parent. You�re almost there. echidnafortunately I�m confident that cleftone�s extreme sentiments do not reflect the vast majority of parents. Then again, given your disdain for parents, why the hell would you care? And perhaps other parents are just being more civil than I am. That�s fine. I promise you my claims are believed by MANY parents even if they are not voiced. echidnaAll other correspondents are quite quite excluded, but I found it a little (?) ironic that this type of response could come from someone insisting that they were more mature than the rest of us (???). I�ll take honesty over maturity any day. Perhaps I am not as mature as the rest of you in terms of social refinement. Fine. I�ll accept that. Bill the CatThen why did you say you felt sorry for her? I don�t remember saying that I felt sorry for alek0. But if I did, it would be better construed as a general form of pity toward all NPs who are too blind to see what I am saying. But toward a specific arrogant NP like alek0, I think the original idea stands � I don�t care enough to pity her. You can do anything you're capable of; it doesn't mean it's right or you're entitled to do it. So you do agree that I am CAPABLE of discerning what objective happiness is? OK. Also, it�s not a flame war on my part. All arguments against me in this thread have been emotionally based and I never said I was projecting my standard of happiness on others but that such a standard exists independent of me and you. Yours is nothing more than a straw man. You conveniently overlooked alek0's mention of the hundreds of thousands of parents who abuse their children in more mundane but no less horrifying ways. They're not extreme examples, they're run-of-the-mill, and sufficient rebuttal of this "general rule" you think you're expounding. Run-of-the-mill abuse? That�s nice. I�d ask for clarification on this whole paragraph but I don�t think there is good enough reason for it. Suffice to say that the fact that child abuse is a possibility in ANY family arrangement, you may as well argue, by necessity, for the elimination of the species. Oops! Rhea More of the same is just that: More of the same. I already addressed all of these straw men. thanks, cleftone. [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ]</p>

03-08-2002, 04:15 PM	#114
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	cleftone, The organization of the following responses to alleged rebuttals of my points... You're correct in that no one has rebutted your points because, as far as I can see you haven't made any points! Your entire "argument," thus far, has consisted of repeated assertions to the effect that "parenthood is the highest calling in life," and of indulgence in the fantasy that, through the magic of having reproduced, you are able to pass authoritative judgment on what wil or will not make the rest of us happy or fulfilled. You've set yourself up as both the final arbiter of objective value and the omniscient judge of the minds of your fellow humans. Quite simply, you do not have a case beyond the obviously fallacious, "parenthood made me happy, therefore it will make everyone happy." Unlike the other parents in this thread (DRFseven comes to mind), you appear to have nothing constructive to say. I have to ask: Do you at least understand why your "points" are non-points? I'd like to address your specific responses to me: a classic example of how non-parents dismiss parental motivations as strictly biological or social. And yet this same person decries my claim that other kinds of love are not as strong as the love for a child by affirming the strength of his purely abstract notion of love toward a spouse or an experience. So which is it? I think you're confusing me with someone else. I never discussed the relative strengths of emotions in this thread, and I certainly didn't compare parental love to "abstract" love, whatever that is. You are correct, I did offer: I�d go half hormones and half conditioning. You�re supposed to have kids. ...as a possible explanation of why reproducing is seen as "normal" and remaining childless is not, and I think it is a reasonable hypothesis. Further, I offerred: Once someone has their own, I think it�s more that they want their friends to be in the same situation so they can relate. As a possible explanation for why those with children want their friends to have children. In my experience, friends often encourage each other to pursue similar lifestyles so that they continue to have experiences in common. I'm not sure why this is offensive to you. Isn�t it great! We all hate taxes - wouldn�t pay them if we didn�t have to (in fact many of us cheat on them), For your information, I have no problem with taxes, have consistently argued the need for taxation in the PD forum, and have consistently voted for candidates who promised improved social programs, not candidates who promised reduced taxes. ...and then we turn around and say, �Hey, I support kids and their future, I pay taxes!� You guys got me on that one. I�m glad you (Pompous) care about kids the way you care about the quality of the roads in your community. In the context of your original pseudo-point, children are not the "future" in any special sense that any other undertaking, including road maintenence, is the "future." Your obvious implication being that I am some sort of cold bastard who values children and roads equally aside, the children who I personally know I value because they are a pleasure to be around, not because they are vital to "the future" in any sense. You�re just like every other normal, ordinary person. Do forgive my insolence. Is this supposed to be sarcasm of some sort? Really? Socialized health care? In Rancho Cucamonga? Isn�t that in or near San Bernardino, the land with the highest incidence of road rage? Interesting. Yes, it is. I've been here for just over two months. Forgive me for not revolutionizing local politics in that time. Furthermore, what in the name of all fuck does road rage have to do with socialized health care? At any rate, very noble of you. Too bad most other people do at least 75% of those same things. This hardly makes them vital contributors to society or the future. Agreed. Too bad 90% of other people choose to reproduce. This hardly makes you, or them, vital contributors to society's future. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. But the point really is this: The new wave of humans needs to be genuinely loved, not just supported with blind funds. What's your point? Should I be wandering around looking for someone to bestow love upon? I know...I'll create a new person who needs love, and love them! That way, I can feel that I've done a great service, even though I'm only fulfilling a need I've created myself! Because parenthood is the highest calling in life Prove it. Give me one objective standard by which one "calling" can be judged "higher" or "lower" than another. ..and, because many, if not all of us (Ps AND NPs alike) would consider the death of our children the most heinous evil, we ought also to reckon the joy of parenthood as the greatest good, or that which produces the greatest happiness. Loss of a child = greatest pain. Life with a child = greatest joy. Thus diluting your position from "parenthood is the highest calling" to "many of us would consider parenthood to be the highest calling." I'm fine with that. Many people do consider parenthood to be some sort of uber-value. Simple. So to deny this is certainly a sign of immaturity. To deny what? That many people consider parenthood to be the best thing a person can do? Or that parenthood is, objectively, the best thing a person can do? Denial of the former case is not immature, it's simply incorrect. In the latter case, I regret to inform you, once again, that disagreeing with cleftone's values does not make one immature. Who told you this? {that cleftone does not have the knowledge to pronounce authoritatvie judgment on the minds of others} One of the other NPs on this board? Again, the hyper-individuality is not convincing, especially in the absence of PROOFS for it. Wait...you're asking me to prove that you don't know my thougths and values? Are you insane? You're the one asserting that you can somehow know what the rest of us think and feel. The burden of proof lies firmly with you. The value exists outside of us both, so it�s not me you�re disagreeing with. Similarly, if you'd like to assert that values exist independant of valuers, the burden of proof is one you. What is vague about children being the future? In what sense can you say that children "are" the future? Are young human beings somehow identical with those portions of the dimension of time greater than now? I realize that it's a colloquialism, but such expressions are inherently vague. Presumably, you meant something like, "we will all rely on the new generation to manage society when we are old," but how am I supposed to infer your exact meaning from an idiom? Idioms are vague. Also, just because I believe parenthood is the highest great thing, doesn�t mean all people should be parents. In other words, perhaps you ought not be the happiest you can be, theoretically speaking. Again, you assume that the greatest possible happiness is only attainable if one subscrbes to your particular system of values. Maybe you�re not one of the chosen few. Also, overpopulation not a problem if not all people are supposed to be parents. Supposed by whom? That doesn�t mean they {cleftone's values} shouldn�t be {PB's values} It is meaningless to speak of values that someone should hold. We all value what we value. Now, this comment {acceptance of one's limitations is a good thing} is a bit closer to what you should be looking for � acceptance. But you should still be more open to the idea that you won�t be as happy if you are not a parent. You�re almost there. Even a cursory reading of my post reveals that I was not referring to myself, but to LadyShea. Your position is, apparently, that she has been denied true happiness by her inability to conceive and that, as a result, she is propagating the false notion that parenthoos isn't all that great anyway. My point was that she is not disparaging parethood, but wisely accepting that she can be perfectly happy without it. Please think about my response. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Edited for UBB tags. [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ] [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

03-08-2002, 04:57 PM	#120
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	Er...cleftone...look up "hysteria" when you have a chance. [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2002, 09:52 AM	#111
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	Wow this thread went unexpectedly long & vociferous! I'm gonna ramble all the way back to the beginning and put in 2� on the original topic. I think there is a VERY annoying tendancy in our society to assume parenthood is everyone's goal. And yes, I do think it's kind of annoying for new parents (or any) to assume you are delighted by their children. I think any _honest_ parent will admit that they do NOT think everyone else's children are interesting. I think we would have to admit that there are some kid stories that we just suffer through. AS a parent (new!) who didn't start parenting until 35yo, I guess I can completely understand the position of the childless because I've been there. Do I think the childless are _missing_ something? Well, yeah, in a way, but so am I missing something. A lot of somethings! I'm damn busy with this parenting thing! And I'm fooling myself (IMO) if I think that there is nothing else worthwhile to do instead. It was just that I chose this. I think that's the big dissonance, the big GAP-a-roonie. New parents forget that there is plenty to be genuinely happy about besides childrearing. Although some people work toward parenthood so exclusively it's not a matter of forgetting, but never knowing. AS for all the silly kid updates... I confess, we do forget that if you aren't watching all of them, then they lose their novelty and excitement. Laugh. I try to remember that when I'm out. And I actually like it when someone changes the subject (gently, for the sake of my ego) so that I can remember to grow in _other_ ways (as well). I do agree, completely, that it is inappropriate to project feelings of parenthood onto others, as in, you would be happier if. Because, really, it's just not true! IMO.

03-08-2002, 12:03 PM	#112
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Well said, Rhea. clef, we're waiting...

03-08-2002, 04:16 PM	#115
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	Cleftone, 1. I didn't want children long time before I found out that I have endometriosis. The reason why I mentioned not being able to have children is because when people insist one should not "neglect parenthood" to those who cannot have kids but want them is hurtful. Of course that those who want children and find out that they are infertile are not happy. But that does not mean that childfree people do not have fulfilled lives. If I would go by your "logic", I could argue that you cannot possibly have happy and fulfilled life without doing scientific research, knowing the excitement of discovering something new, developing something which gives better results than any other work reported in the literature. 2. You still haven't answered the questions about child abuse. Child abuse exists. You argue that parenthood is universal recipe for happiness. Are those abusers happy? Are children of abusive parents happy? 3. Please define objective standard of happiness. 4. You still haven't answered the question: "Why is talking about kids different than talking about other topics which do not interest the person you are talking to? " 5. Explain what is altruistic in the scenario of people having children in order to satisfy their desire to have children? 6. "a good liberated female like yourself would be expected to reject" ROFL. I am what I am, regardless what people expect me to do or not. Do you always do what you are expected? Like having kids, and bragging that parenthood is greatest happiness? 7. I don't think that my life would be better with kids. On what basis do you make such statement? I would also like to comment on your statement to LadyShea: "Try, try, try, since you seem to want kids (#2) AND realize your life will not be as happy if it doesn’t work out (#1). Does that make sense?" No, in my opinion this does not make sense. I hope you don't know what are you talking about. If you know all the risks and side effects involved with fertility treatment (some of which have low chance of success) and if you keep telling someone who has been there to "try, try, try" that's just sick. Finally, you've said: "I did NOT WANT KIDS FOR A LONG TIME. Therefore, I do know what it’s like to be a typical IMMATURE, SELF-CENTERED NP. " Seems to me that you have only advanced to become immature, self centered parent. Big improvement... One question, are you sure that you are not a theist? On this topic, you sure sound like one...

03-08-2002, 04:20 PM	#116
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	alek0 said: One question, are you sure that you are not a theist? On this topic, you sure sound like one... The same thought occurred to me...

03-08-2002, 04:35 PM	#117
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	That's right Obtuse Pompous Ass, bang your head till you get it in there. Too bad they don't have a little icon that stands for "pissing contest", eh? On the surface some may actually think that you piss pretty far, but not me. But it's the thought that counts I guess. Look up the term 'sophistry' when you have a chance. I already graciously addressed all of your non-points. And I'll raise your silly little head-bangers by a nickel... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> cleftone

03-08-2002, 04:38 PM	#118
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	cleftone...I just realized that you are not sane...at first I just thought you were an ass.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.