Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 03-07-2002, 11:32 AM

Quote:

alek: 2) They are absolutely unable to dampen their enthusiasm and keep talking about their kids most of the time. If I can supress the need to talk about quantum dots which I find far more fascinating than whether little Johny has diarrhea, they should be able to control their need to talk about kids.

If you've let them know that you are much more interested in discussing other things, then they are being rude to ignore your wishes. To be fair, though, you must know that their children are much more dear to their hearts than quantum dots are to yours. It might work to just tell them the truth; that you think they don't realize how that kind of talk seems to one without interest in children. In any case, you're under no obligation to spend time with people who rudely disregard you.

Quote:

alek: Statements of the type "you are selfish not to have kids". As many of you have pointed out, there is nothing noble about having kids. From what I've seen, people have kids for the sake or fulfilling their wish to have kids and that's that. Survival of the species, kids are our future etc. are not the reasons but excuses given to justify the choice which is ultimately no less selfish than the choice of not having kids.

Fully agree.

Quote:

Dogmatic statements about child raising. One does not need to be a parent to be able to judge pros and cons of certain medical decisions for example. One does not need to be a parent to know that there is more than one way to achieve something

It depends on what the statement is and what it's in response to. When my first child was born, it was common for childless pediatricians to state that teething does not cause fever and diahrrea in infants and toddlers, but all parents of teething-aged children knew that it did. They tried to have us believe that each time the child cut a tooth, it happened to contract a mild, unidentified virus, but nobody bought it. Pediatricians who had experienced it with their own children would just admit that they didn't know why, but that it did often occur. Now they have found a connection between excess saliva produced by teething, the immune system, and the symptoms of fever and diahrrea. Sure, whether or not the researchers had children had nothing to do with the research leading up to this discovery, but having children did prevent even lay people from erroneously believing their child was ill with viral infections.

I think it's like anything else. It's possible for anyone to study internal combustion engines and make a diagnosis if your car doesn't run, but you're probably going to put more stock in what the seasoned mechanic says. Doesn't mean that would always be the right choice, but most make determination of how knowledgeable someone is on experience, and I think that's because there are often things that come up in practical application that cannot be anticipated in theoretical consideration.

cleftone · 03-07-2002, 12:16 PM

I suspect our collective preoccupation with our own alleged abilities to understand other people and their experiences in spite of the fact that we have not experienced such things ourselves is a genuine contributor to poor health. And yes, I stand by the claim that childless people, regardless of their ability or inability to have kids, still do not experience love and happiness to the same extent as parents do. It is harsh, yes. But that doesn't make it false. Many of you folks just sound way too wound up in your personal 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'expression' and 'need for equity'. And I have a feeling this is exactly what we would want from each other if we are going to continue our devolution. Lighten up, man. I'm real sorry for peole who can't have kids. I'm sorry for hermaphrodites (or perhaps I envy them). I'm sorry for people with debilitating diseases. I don't understand their pain because I have not experienced such things. We all want to say that Helen Keller was just as happy as the guy next door who had all his senses to experience the world. Why can't we just say, "Ya know what? Her life must have sucked ass quite a bit!" Hello? If you are all so convinced that you're just as happy NOT being parents, then go on, live your life and don't try to convince me to the contrary, because I don't buy it. I think it's a silly and immature notion. But hey, I'm just writing like the rest of you. At least there isn't anything inconsistent about what I have stated. What is inconsistent is telling me that, on the one hand, I don't have the right or the requisite knowledge to claim that a non-parent is not as happy as a parent, and on the other hand, I'm expected to yield to and accept sentiments which conflict with my own coming into this thread. This is a classic example of how proud and self-absorbed we are as humans. Debates like this are useless I suppose, because none of us is really all that open-minded like we claim. I suppose I'm the same way. I try to convince and persuade. But perhaps I should just take the path of the 'great modern guru' Krishnamurti and say that, 'if you don't see it, you don't see it.' Sorry ya'll are so pissed off.

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

By the way, I never claimed that having kids was an altruistic process. Nothing ever is. But that's quite irrelevant to the question of ultimate earthly happiness, which is largely what this thread has become about...

Furthermore, the fact that people can contribute to society and be happy without kids is also irrelevant. My point has been that without kids, life is not as fulfilling as it otherwise would or could be. And I agree that many people should not have kids for various reasons. And their lack of ability or desire to be parents will surely yield them lives which are not as happy as they could have been. Simple. Why do we have this notion that people choose a certain path in life, or are given a certain path in life, and that is the best way they could have chosen or been given? Are we so dull as to believe that the human experience can be perfect? Are we fatalists? Whatever I do is right? Whatever I can do is perfect and what I can't do is simply not that great anyway? Gimme a break! This is just sour grapes to the hilt.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ]

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ]

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 12:32 PM

cleftone,

I suspect our collective preoccupation with our own alleged abilities to understand other people and their experiences in spite of the fact that we have not experienced such things ourselves is a genuine contributor to poor health.

Huh? What does that mean?

And yes, I stand by the claim that childless people, regardless of their ability or inability to have kids, still do not experience love and happiness to the same extent as parents do. It is harsh, yes. But that doesn't make it false.

As none of us have an objective happinessometer, perhaps we should stop flinging such statements about.

Many of you folks just sound way too wound up in your personal 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'expression' and 'need for equity'. And I have a feeling this is exactly what we would want from each other if we are going to continue our devolution.

Huh? Right and freedoms are equivalent to deevolution?

Lighten up, man. I'm real sorry for peole who can't have kids. I'm sorry for hermaphrodites (or perhaps I envy them). I'm sorry for people with debilitating diseases. I don't understand their pain because I have not experienced such things. We all want to say that Helen Keller was just as happy as the guy next door who had all his senses to experience the world. Why can't we just say, "Ya know what? Her life must have sucked ass quite a bit!"

What of peopel who choose not to have children? Are you going to condescendingly remark that our lives must suck because of the glaring emotional defects that prevent us from choosing to reproduce?

Hello? If you are all so convinced that you're just as happy NOT being parents, then go on, live your life...

We're trying to. The OP was about those parents who feel the need to pressure non-parents into becoming parents.

..and don't try to convince me to the contrary, because I don't buy it.

Huh? What are you saying? If we were trying to to convince you of "the contrary" we would be arguing that we non-parents aren't really happy without children.

I think it's a silly and immature notion.

And this is what I take offense at. If you think that you are happier having children, fine, that's your judgment, and no one but you can say whether or not you are happy. If, however, you are going to repeatedly assert that the notion that non-parents can be just as happy as you are is "silly and immature" then you are going to hear quite a bit of objection from us non-parents. Please respond to my previous resposne to you: in what sense is indifference to parenthood "immature?"

But hey, I'm just writing like the rest of you. At least there isn't anything inconsistent about what I have stated. What is inconsistent is telling me that, on the one hand, I don't have the right or the requisite knowledge to claim that a non-parent is not as happy as a parent...

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.

...and on the other hand, I'm expected to yield to and accept sentiments which conflict with my own coming into this thread.

I don't think anyone is asking you to do so. You might, however, consider that notion that it may be more accurate to judge whether or not someone else is happy by asking them if they are happy rather than comparing their circumstances to what you consider ideal. For example, I'm taking your word for it that you are happy as a parent. I'm not claiming that you cannot possibly be happy because I wouldn't be happy in your shoes.

Sorry ya'll are so pissed off.

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.

I found your previous post rather eloquent, even though I disagreed with most of it. This post just made me angry, though.

Blake · 03-07-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
livius drusus: 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.

If you read my response to LadyShea, you'll see that I was referring to the problem of people with children telling the childless that they SHOULD have children. Since I couldn't find a single example of that in a post, I was asking if personal assertions such as parent/child love being the "highest expression of love", or of parenthood being the "best " or "most rewarding" thing in life were being interpreted as an implicit message that those without them SHOULD have children.

In the specific case of Cleftone's two posts, which is what I understand we're talking about, yes, they are being (correctly) interpreted that way. No, Cleftone didn't use the exact words "people without children should have them," but how else are we to construe the following (from #5 in Cleftone's first post):

Quote:

"There are standards that we all should live by in order to acheive the highest degree of happiness. Yes, there are differences in the details, we all choose different hobbies and interests to pursue, etc. But we have many things in common as well. Growth in love and endurance and selflessness is something we all need, and a lot of that development is brought about through the parenting experience.

This, on top of

Quote:

So in a sense, I guess NPs are always going to be less mature overall, than Ps. Therefore, NPs are bound to be less happy with their lives than Ps. Of course, no NP can argue against this since he doesn't know what it's like to be a parent. If he says "How do you know what makes me happy? Every person defines his own happiness!" This is false. There are things that every human NEEDS in order to be the happiest she can be. True, she can be happy as a NP, but ultimately, her increase in happiness will depend on her existence as a parent.

Thank you for saying "I would personally never criticize people for not having children, or think such a thing." This, however, is precisely what Cleftone has done--has in fact just confirmed with a new post as I was composing this reply.

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. Not to mention, isn't arguing purely by reference to your personal experience one of the grossest of fallacies? Start arguing like someone worthy of the II, quit dumping on non-parents while earnestly declaring you're not, and *then* we'll lighten up.

Blake

Pomp · 03-07-2002, 12:43 PM

cleftone,

You edited while I was typing my response:

Furthermore, the fact that people can contribute to society and be happy without kids is also irrelevant.

No, it is not. If you're going to assert that we are "selfish" because we are indifferent to parenthood, and link that to a vague statement about children being "the future," then you must demonstrate that we are somehow not contributing to "the future" by not having children. It's somewhat ironic that the thread from which this one spun off was about overpopulation, as my choice not to have children is inspired,in part, by a concern for the future.

My point has been that without kids, life is not as fulfilling as it otherwise would or could be.

As noted, you have exactly zero evidence to back this claim up. Get out your fulfillmentometers, boys and girls.

The best way to determine if I am content is to ask me. Alternately, you could do a sociological study in which you tried to correlate indicators of happiness with parenthood. Conjecture and projecting your values onto others does not cut it.

And I agree that many people should not have kids for various reasons. And their lack of ability or desire to be parents will surely yield them lives which are not as happy as they could have been. Simple.

Arrogant and incorrect. Your values are not my values.

Why do we have this notion that people choose a certain path in life, or are given a certain path in life, and that is the best way they could have chosen or been given? Are we so dull as to believe that the human experience can be perfect? Are we fatalists? Whatever I do is right?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You seem to be extrapolating from your own experience as a parent that non-parents cannot be fulfilled. What you do is right, what the rest of us do is not.

Whatever I can do is perfect and what I can't do is simply not that great anyway? Gimme a break! This is just sour grapes to the hilt.

Assuming that this is in response to LadyShea's posts, I think her point was not, "What I cannot do is not that great anyway," but "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."

For what it's worth, I also find it offensive.

03-07-2002, 01:18 PM

LadyShea: I'm sorry that you feel got at by parents. That was certainly not my intention when posting; I simply wanted to agree with those who said that having children is a transforming experience that is extremely difficult to comprehend fully in advance.

I also wanted to support the grouse that childless people often assume that they know more about bringing up children than parents do. Parents may not know more in general about bringing up children, but they do know usually a hell of a lot about bringing up their own children.

Having said that, I would not deny that all parents make mistakes. A definition of a parent could be someone who will be blamed in the future for all their adult offsprings' problems and shortcomings.

I would never maintain that parenthood is a route to happiness, let alone the only one. So much depends on character and contingency.

I must say that although I love my children deeply and passionately, I am now at 62 very glad that my son is about to finish at university and my husband and I will at last be left without resident children. The sad thing for us is that this coincides with the heavy dependency of our extremely elderly surviving parents (3 out of 4), so that we are still not achieving the independence we would like and may be too tired and decrepit to enjoy it by the time we do.

echidna · 03-07-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB:
I agree that it's irritating and bad manners to say "well, you wouldn't understand". But I sometimes think it.

I meant to post this yesterday. I think your statement is extremely true for all of us at times. We all have life experiences which enrich and change us. True, parenthood is one of the more intense and deep ones, but we all wish others could share our positive life experiences with us.

We feel they made us better people, so there is an automatic implication that by not experiencing them, one is a lesser person.

There are so so many reasons why this is false. Either way, no one will appreciate the insult that they are a lesser person for not experiencing something.

BTW, fortunately I�m confident that cleftone�s extreme sentiments do not reflect the vast majority of parents.

alek0 · 03-07-2002, 04:35 PM

Jamie_L, great post.

DFRSeven, I agree, mostly, except that you have no idea how I feel about quantum dots. You just wouldn't understand

As for avoiding those who ignore the fact that I am not interested in listening stories about their kids, that's what I am doing, but it is very sad that friendships come to an end soon after the child was born.

Cleftone, I don't need your pity. You cannot possibly judge happiness of other people. Neither can I. But I can and do know whether I am happy and whether my life is fulfilled. We are not all the same. What makes me happy would not necessarily make you happy and vice versa. Is that so difficult to understand? BTW, do you honestly think that Andrea Yates' life for example is more fulfilled than mine? She was a parent after all? What about all those cases of child abuse? Do those parents who abuse their kids lead happy and fulfilled lives?

cleftone · 03-07-2002, 05:31 PM

Re: alek0's comments: I don't care enough about you to pity you. And I can judge the happiness of other people, including yours. You may not like that, but it's just the way it is. No one here has opposed my points for any "reasons" that are anything more than emotionally based. Oh well. And re: Andrea Yates - like I said in a previous post, some people shouldn't have kids. Likewise, you should keep in mind that 'hard cases make bad law'. Citing an extreme example like this to defend against a general rule is quite pointless, and therefore, ridiculous.

Re: Echidna's comments:There are so so many reasons why this is false. Oh really, what are they? I'd love to hear them! And as far as the majority of parents goes, the majority, as history amply proves, is often wrong. And in this case, not wrong with respect to parenting, but with respect to the willingness to affirm the existence of "absolute standards" (for want of a better, less cliched phrase) of happiness. I grant my views are not popular. That doesn't make them illogical or wrong.

Re: Pompous Bastard's multitude of comments: Huh, what does that mean? It means you are proud and insecure, and this leads you to believe wrongly that you can understand the experiences of others even though you have not experienced such things yourself. Pride and insecurity lead to (and cause) poor health (stress, fear, heart problems ultimately, etc.) It was intended as a side note.

As none of us have an objective happinessometer, perhaps we should stop flinging such statements about. OK, then stop flinging.

Huh? Right and freedoms are equivalent to deevolution? No, but like I said rather clearly, the intense preoccupation you have with such notions. Rights and freedom are abused by people like you who insist that they alone can interpret their own experiences. You're so god-damned self-absorbed, you can't possibly fathom that someone outside of yourself could know anything negative about you, in accord with standards that just might be completely outside of you as well.

What of peopel who choose not to have children? Are you going to condescendingly remark that our lives must suck because of the glaring emotional defects that prevent us from choosing to reproduce? AGAIN, NO. But it won't be as good. I made this very clear in a prior post. Boy, you are tedious.

We're trying to. The OP was about those parents who feel the need to pressure non-parents into becoming parents. Hah, thanks for proving yet another trait of many non-parents: whininess. Oh, are you feeling pressured, Pompous. Boo hoo. And I'm not pressuring anyone anyway. What the hell are you people 'on'?

Huh? What are you saying? If we were trying to to convince you of "the contrary" we would be arguing that we non-parents aren't really happy without children. I meant "the same". Thanks for your kind correction.

More tomorrow, I gotta go.

cleftone

echidna · 03-07-2002, 05:59 PM

I don�t think you�ll be very disappointed if I don�t reply.

03-07-2002, 12:16 PM	#92
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	I suspect our collective preoccupation with our own alleged abilities to understand other people and their experiences in spite of the fact that we have not experienced such things ourselves is a genuine contributor to poor health. And yes, I stand by the claim that childless people, regardless of their ability or inability to have kids, still do not experience love and happiness to the same extent as parents do. It is harsh, yes. But that doesn't make it false. Many of you folks just sound way too wound up in your personal 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'expression' and 'need for equity'. And I have a feeling this is exactly what we would want from each other if we are going to continue our devolution. Lighten up, man. I'm real sorry for peole who can't have kids. I'm sorry for hermaphrodites (or perhaps I envy them). I'm sorry for people with debilitating diseases. I don't understand their pain because I have not experienced such things. We all want to say that Helen Keller was just as happy as the guy next door who had all his senses to experience the world. Why can't we just say, "Ya know what? Her life must have sucked ass quite a bit!" Hello? If you are all so convinced that you're just as happy NOT being parents, then go on, live your life and don't try to convince me to the contrary, because I don't buy it. I think it's a silly and immature notion. But hey, I'm just writing like the rest of you. At least there isn't anything inconsistent about what I have stated. What is inconsistent is telling me that, on the one hand, I don't have the right or the requisite knowledge to claim that a non-parent is not as happy as a parent, and on the other hand, I'm expected to yield to and accept sentiments which conflict with my own coming into this thread. This is a classic example of how proud and self-absorbed we are as humans. Debates like this are useless I suppose, because none of us is really all that open-minded like we claim. I suppose I'm the same way. I try to convince and persuade. But perhaps I should just take the path of the 'great modern guru' Krishnamurti and say that, 'if you don't see it, you don't see it.' Sorry ya'll are so pissed off. cleftone <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> By the way, I never claimed that having kids was an altruistic process. Nothing ever is. But that's quite irrelevant to the question of ultimate earthly happiness, which is largely what this thread has become about... Furthermore, the fact that people can contribute to society and be happy without kids is also irrelevant. My point has been that without kids, life is not as fulfilling as it otherwise would or could be. And I agree that many people should not have kids for various reasons. And their lack of ability or desire to be parents will surely yield them lives which are not as happy as they could have been. Simple. Why do we have this notion that people choose a certain path in life, or are given a certain path in life, and that is the best way they could have chosen or been given? Are we so dull as to believe that the human experience can be perfect? Are we fatalists? Whatever I do is right? Whatever I can do is perfect and what I can't do is simply not that great anyway? Gimme a break! This is just sour grapes to the hilt. [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ] [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: cleftone ]</p>

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

03-07-2002, 12:32 PM	#93
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	cleftone, I suspect our collective preoccupation with our own alleged abilities to understand other people and their experiences in spite of the fact that we have not experienced such things ourselves is a genuine contributor to poor health. Huh? What does that mean? And yes, I stand by the claim that childless people, regardless of their ability or inability to have kids, still do not experience love and happiness to the same extent as parents do. It is harsh, yes. But that doesn't make it false. As none of us have an objective happinessometer, perhaps we should stop flinging such statements about. Many of you folks just sound way too wound up in your personal 'rights' and 'freedom' and 'expression' and 'need for equity'. And I have a feeling this is exactly what we would want from each other if we are going to continue our devolution. Huh? Right and freedoms are equivalent to deevolution? Lighten up, man. I'm real sorry for peole who can't have kids. I'm sorry for hermaphrodites (or perhaps I envy them). I'm sorry for people with debilitating diseases. I don't understand their pain because I have not experienced such things. We all want to say that Helen Keller was just as happy as the guy next door who had all his senses to experience the world. Why can't we just say, "Ya know what? Her life must have sucked ass quite a bit!" What of peopel who choose not to have children? Are you going to condescendingly remark that our lives must suck because of the glaring emotional defects that prevent us from choosing to reproduce? Hello? If you are all so convinced that you're just as happy NOT being parents, then go on, live your life... We're trying to. The OP was about those parents who feel the need to pressure non-parents into becoming parents. ..and don't try to convince me to the contrary, because I don't buy it. Huh? What are you saying? If we were trying to to convince you of "the contrary" we would be arguing that we non-parents aren't really happy without children. I think it's a silly and immature notion. And this is what I take offense at. If you think that you are happier having children, fine, that's your judgment, and no one but you can say whether or not you are happy. If, however, you are going to repeatedly assert that the notion that non-parents can be just as happy as you are is "silly and immature" then you are going to hear quite a bit of objection from us non-parents. Please respond to my previous resposne to you: in what sense is indifference to parenthood "immature?" But hey, I'm just writing like the rest of you. At least there isn't anything inconsistent about what I have stated. What is inconsistent is telling me that, on the one hand, I don't have the right or the requisite knowledge to claim that a non-parent is not as happy as a parent... 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. ...and on the other hand, I'm expected to yield to and accept sentiments which conflict with my own coming into this thread. I don't think anyone is asking you to do so. You might, however, consider that notion that it may be more accurate to judge whether or not someone else is happy by asking them if they are happy rather than comparing their circumstances to what you consider ideal. For example, I'm taking your word for it that you are happy as a parent. I'm not claiming that you cannot possibly be happy because I wouldn't be happy in your shoes. Sorry ya'll are so pissed off. 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. I found your previous post rather eloquent, even though I disagreed with most of it. This post just made me angry, though.

03-07-2002, 12:43 PM	#95
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	cleftone, You edited while I was typing my response: Furthermore, the fact that people can contribute to society and be happy without kids is also irrelevant. No, it is not. If you're going to assert that we are "selfish" because we are indifferent to parenthood, and link that to a vague statement about children being "the future," then you must demonstrate that we are somehow not contributing to "the future" by not having children. It's somewhat ironic that the thread from which this one spun off was about overpopulation, as my choice not to have children is inspired,in part, by a concern for the future. My point has been that without kids, life is not as fulfilling as it otherwise would or could be. As noted, you have exactly zero evidence to back this claim up. Get out your fulfillmentometers, boys and girls. The best way to determine if I am content is to ask me. Alternately, you could do a sociological study in which you tried to correlate indicators of happiness with parenthood. Conjecture and projecting your values onto others does not cut it. And I agree that many people should not have kids for various reasons. And their lack of ability or desire to be parents will surely yield them lives which are not as happy as they could have been. Simple. Arrogant and incorrect. Your values are not my values. Why do we have this notion that people choose a certain path in life, or are given a certain path in life, and that is the best way they could have chosen or been given? Are we so dull as to believe that the human experience can be perfect? Are we fatalists? Whatever I do is right? Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You seem to be extrapolating from your own experience as a parent that non-parents cannot be fulfilled. What you do is right, what the rest of us do is not. Whatever I can do is perfect and what I can't do is simply not that great anyway? Gimme a break! This is just sour grapes to the hilt. Assuming that this is in response to LadyShea's posts, I think her point was not, "What I cannot do is not that great anyway," but "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." For what it's worth, I also find it offensive.

03-07-2002, 01:18 PM	#96
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	LadyShea: I'm sorry that you feel got at by parents. That was certainly not my intention when posting; I simply wanted to agree with those who said that having children is a transforming experience that is extremely difficult to comprehend fully in advance. I also wanted to support the grouse that childless people often assume that they know more about bringing up children than parents do. Parents may not know more in general about bringing up children, but they do know usually a hell of a lot about bringing up their own children. Having said that, I would not deny that all parents make mistakes. A definition of a parent could be someone who will be blamed in the future for all their adult offsprings' problems and shortcomings. I would never maintain that parenthood is a route to happiness, let alone the only one. So much depends on character and contingency. I must say that although I love my children deeply and passionately, I am now at 62 very glad that my son is about to finish at university and my husband and I will at last be left without resident children. The sad thing for us is that this coincides with the heavy dependency of our extremely elderly surviving parents (3 out of 4), so that we are still not achieving the independence we would like and may be too tired and decrepit to enjoy it by the time we do.

03-07-2002, 04:35 PM	#98
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	Jamie_L, great post. DFRSeven, I agree, mostly, except that you have no idea how I feel about quantum dots. You just wouldn't understand As for avoiding those who ignore the fact that I am not interested in listening stories about their kids, that's what I am doing, but it is very sad that friendships come to an end soon after the child was born. Cleftone, I don't need your pity. You cannot possibly judge happiness of other people. Neither can I. But I can and do know whether I am happy and whether my life is fulfilled. We are not all the same. What makes me happy would not necessarily make you happy and vice versa. Is that so difficult to understand? BTW, do you honestly think that Andrea Yates' life for example is more fulfilled than mine? She was a parent after all? What about all those cases of child abuse? Do those parents who abuse their kids lead happy and fulfilled lives?

03-07-2002, 05:31 PM	#99
cleftone Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: #1 Intellectual Wasteland - California Posts: 58	Re: alek0's comments: I don't care enough about you to pity you. And I can judge the happiness of other people, including yours. You may not like that, but it's just the way it is. No one here has opposed my points for any "reasons" that are anything more than emotionally based. Oh well. And re: Andrea Yates - like I said in a previous post, some people shouldn't have kids. Likewise, you should keep in mind that 'hard cases make bad law'. Citing an extreme example like this to defend against a general rule is quite pointless, and therefore, ridiculous. Re: Echidna's comments:There are so so many reasons why this is false. Oh really, what are they? I'd love to hear them! And as far as the majority of parents goes, the majority, as history amply proves, is often wrong. And in this case, not wrong with respect to parenting, but with respect to the willingness to affirm the existence of "absolute standards" (for want of a better, less cliched phrase) of happiness. I grant my views are not popular. That doesn't make them illogical or wrong. Re: Pompous Bastard's multitude of comments: Huh, what does that mean? It means you are proud and insecure, and this leads you to believe wrongly that you can understand the experiences of others even though you have not experienced such things yourself. Pride and insecurity lead to (and cause) poor health (stress, fear, heart problems ultimately, etc.) It was intended as a side note. As none of us have an objective happinessometer, perhaps we should stop flinging such statements about. OK, then stop flinging. Huh? Right and freedoms are equivalent to deevolution? No, but like I said rather clearly, the intense preoccupation you have with such notions. Rights and freedom are abused by people like you who insist that they alone can interpret their own experiences. You're so god-damned self-absorbed, you can't possibly fathom that someone outside of yourself could know anything negative about you, in accord with standards that just might be completely outside of you as well. What of peopel who choose not to have children? Are you going to condescendingly remark that our lives must suck because of the glaring emotional defects that prevent us from choosing to reproduce? AGAIN, NO. But it won't be as good. I made this very clear in a prior post. Boy, you are tedious. We're trying to. The OP was about those parents who feel the need to pressure non-parents into becoming parents. Hah, thanks for proving yet another trait of many non-parents: whininess. Oh, are you feeling pressured, Pompous. Boo hoo. And I'm not pressuring anyone anyway. What the hell are you people 'on'? Huh? What are you saying? If we were trying to to convince you of "the contrary" we would be arguing that we non-parents aren't really happy without children. I meant "the same". Thanks for your kind correction. More tomorrow, I gotta go. cleftone

03-07-2002, 05:59 PM	#100
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	I don�t think you�ll be very disappointed if I don�t reply.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.