What's the point of having kids?
09-23-2009
, 07:25 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
Quote:
This is why you have to kill people with your bare hands: to learn about yourself, your life, the world, humanity, all that.
Until you have killed people with your bare hands, you don't understand your parents, or your own childhood, because you'll have only seen parenting and childhood from one side. You need the perspective of killing people with your bare hands to really gain understanding of who you are.
Until you have killed people with your bare hands, you don't understand your parents, or your own childhood, because you'll have only seen parenting and childhood from one side. You need the perspective of killing people with your bare hands to really gain understanding of who you are.
Hmmm.
If I write "in the equation 2x = 6, x = 3,"
you respond by saying "yeah, but if x= -5 then your equation fails, ha ha ha!!!"
Brilliant.
But one of the benefits to having raised children is learning to anticipate how childish minds work. So, I anticipate that you're next intellectual step is to say, "No, no, 'kill people with your bare hands' DOES work in your post, don't you see, it does, it does!!!"
No, child, it doesn't. Killing people with your bare hands won't help you understand your parents, unless maybe they were bare hand killers.
Going to China might give you a fuller life. Fighting in Iraq might. Almost any new and challenging experiences might. We all have the vagaries of our individual existences which make us unique. We each do a lot of different things, and necessarily fail to do most things.
But because parenting is so fundamental to human existence, it is overwhelmingly necessary if you are to understand what human existence is about, and your own most important relationships, your own history.
If beings from another dimension came here and wanted to experience what it is to be human, they'd surely say "let us first be children, then parents, because these humans are creatures which, most fundamentally, are first children to parents, then parents to children. That's certainly how they exist. As far as we can observe, that's also why."
But if you want, stick to giggling at such brilliance as "substituting 'killing' for 'parenting' makes his post fail!"
That you think such drivel is humourous tells us all you certainly haven't undergone the maturation parenting sometimes brings about.
09-23-2009
, 07:29 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
Hopefully it's not too late to delete that.
09-23-2009
, 07:52 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
Quote:
Telling people you made a terrible mistake and regret what you have done to your life, and even more that you're not willing to do what it takes to change it? Or that you have made great changes in your life that you feel at best quite neutral about? Not likely. Call it a sterling success instead. Look around you. Everyone else is doing the same thing. Your secret is safe with them. Together, you can band together against all the others. Who are doubtless plotting even now to steal your cheese..
Quote:
If it takes kids to drag you kicking and screaming into sympathy with or understanding of the world, there's a solid chance that you weren't much to start with. But there is no basis to assume that the rest of humanity equally needed the same shock treatment to come to its senses..
Your inability to have sympathy for that part of the world which has moved past childless adulthood exposes your ignorance. I do have sympathy for those who don't parent, and that sympathy and understanding is clear from my post. No such sympathy and understanding is to be found from you, however.
Which is my point. I can understand and appreciate childless adulthood because I've lived it. You can't understand or appreciate parenting because you haven't lived it.
09-23-2009
, 08:01 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
Quote:
One thing for sure is that it's a hell of a gamble, and -- which I don't believe many people take adequately into account -- you're not just gambling on your life. You're gambling the life of a baby too. Better have your act together before you empty your account and put it all on red.
Explain, please, how parenting is more of a gamble than not-parenting?
"You're gambling the life of a baby too."
As opposed to, what, not even giving the baby a life?
But let's not go off on an abortion tangent. The topic is raising kids, not making them. You can do one without the other.
09-23-2009
, 08:03 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
I only read a few sentences of your rant against me, and right after your rant against AirshipOhio, that was enough for me. I decline to participate in that sort of exchange.
Generally we don't do that sort of thing in the Lounge, but have at it if you like. I just don't think it's productive or has an adult tone.
Generally we don't do that sort of thing in the Lounge, but have at it if you like. I just don't think it's productive or has an adult tone.
09-23-2009
, 08:18 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
We can only be three things in life. Children, childless adults, parenting adults. Having only been two of those three can not possibly lead to as full a life as having been all of those three. Indeed, until you've been all three, you can't even understand the other two. You won't have perspective.
There's an old saying I'm going to butcher here, something to the effect, "he who only knows England, doesn't England know."
Quote:
I really, really don't want kids. I don't see any benefit to my life in having one. I know for a fact I enjoy my free time, my fun money. I don't feel the need to feel and see what my mother went through from her perpective. I am glad you are happy with your decision to have kids, but I don't feel I am not a whole human being for not.
That you don't see a benefit in parenting doesn't mean there isn't one. I had trouble convincing my kids there was a benefit to math.
And I didn't "decide" to have kids, btw. Not the first one, anyway.
Last edited by MrMore; 09-23-2009 at 08:46 PM.
09-23-2009
, 08:42 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
Quote:
Amber hit the nail on the head. It is stupid, and downright immature, to judge a person for not sharing your experiences. Yeah, I travelled for 6 years, and suppose I find that you are less than me because I saw things you couldn't dream of? That's not a good way to hold an argument, because it violates the point of bieng human, and this aloofness is what justifies many of our problems in our world. I'm not going to disagree with you that you may be a better person because you have children, but don't look down on me. One person said it clear enough for me: "I have family, what more do you need in life?" I have a million answers for that, but I couldn't justify a one of them if I asked the ocean. And Amber, will you move to LA so you can marry me?
You're all so hurt by what I now understand is a monumental insult (or is interpreted as such): my statement that you need to parent to have lived a full life.
Because of this hurt, your emotionalism leads to defensive justification of your choice to skip parenting. And, because you're ignorant (by definition) of what parenting is, you (ignorantly) equate it to such relative trivialities as travel. How could you not?
Anyone's life is fuller for the greater experiences in it (although depth of experience is just as key as breadth; "touristing" around the world isn't necessarily much more of an experience than watching Travel Channel).
The question is one of weight. Is it possible to weight experiences?
Is it fair to say that being a child is such an important stage of human life, that if a person suddenly appeared fully grown, we'd all say that this person has had less than the full human experience, less than a full life, no matter how many jobs or adventures or whatever he later has?
And can you then see that second only to being a child to those parenting, in the pantheon of common and key human experiences, is parenting a child?
Most of those who parent, tell you this. None of those who haven't parented, can know of this.
You haven't parented. How can you know what it entails? How can you know its benefits?
I was a happy childless single, for many years. I know of what it entails. I know its benefits.
And, having lived both ways, I'm telling you: Being a human who has been a childless adult AS WELL AS a human who has parented GREATLY outweighs, in life experience and education, the life of someone who has only had the former experience, and not also the latter.
It isn't any more complicated than that. It's so simple, in fact, that I'm going to let this thread go.
09-23-2009
, 08:49 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 781
Quote:
I only read a few sentences of your rant against me, and right after your rant against AirshipOhio, that was enough for me. I decline to participate in that sort of exchange.
Generally we don't do that sort of thing in the Lounge, but have at it if you like. I just don't think it's productive or has an adult tone.
Generally we don't do that sort of thing in the Lounge, but have at it if you like. I just don't think it's productive or has an adult tone.
And, "that sort of thing" that you accuse me of doing, you were in fact doing yourself. Which is incredibly childish of you. Please stop.
09-23-2009
, 09:16 PM
For starters, I didn't tourist around the world. I lived all over the place. I also own my own business, and have been self-employed for many years. I can use your bizzare gradation on anything. For self-employment: haven't had a job yet; had a job; don't deal with a job. I guess I couldn't understand employment until I left? Or that an employee is less whole than me? LOL, I deserve to get slapped for that attitude.
09-23-2009
, 09:27 PM
This thread has become so unlounge-like...do we really need a "Dont want to deal with dids but still want to argue" sub-forum?
09-23-2009
, 09:46 PM
old hand
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,230
So on what authority do you make your claims? Why is your assertion that x = 2 any more or less legitimate than x = 3, or my (mock) assertion that you can never truly know life unless you kill people with your bare hands?
Quote:
I'm running out of steam here.
You're all so hurt by what I now understand is a monumental insult (or is interpreted as such): my statement that you need to parent to have lived a full life.
Because of this hurt, your emotionalism leads to defensive justification of your choice to skip parenting. And, because you're ignorant (by definition) of what parenting is, you (ignorantly) equate it to such relative trivialities as travel. How could you not?
You're all so hurt by what I now understand is a monumental insult (or is interpreted as such): my statement that you need to parent to have lived a full life.
Because of this hurt, your emotionalism leads to defensive justification of your choice to skip parenting. And, because you're ignorant (by definition) of what parenting is, you (ignorantly) equate it to such relative trivialities as travel. How could you not?
See my line of reasoning above, re: I could claim that you only feel that parenthood is of ultimate import or meaning because you feel inadequate and are desperate to justify your existence in some way, or any other thing I feel like making up. And barring the presentation of any data or facts, how can you dismiss my opinion-claims, and at the same time, declare that your own opinion-claims are facts (and anyone who doesn't agree is emotionally entangled in the question, defensive, ignorant, immature, etc.).
Above all, let's keep it civil, and if you really want to go into the nitty gritty then start a thread in SMP. But in SMP, you will probably run into more than just 2 people jumping on you about passing off these kinds of bad arguments as incontrovertible facts.
Finally, and this is really the most crucial issue, my first message itt is hilarious! If it wasn't just so repetitive, I'd go back and read it for a 3rd time right now.
09-23-2009
, 09:54 PM
That said, I don't really feel sorry for people who don't have kids. There are other experiences in life that have a richness that parenting does not provide. There are many who have a full life without them, and many parents whose lives lack fulfillment despite the presence of children. .
Nor does that mean that those who choose not to have kids are "wrong" or "unnatural", somehow denying a primal urge that they would do better to acquiesce to. Or that every human is incapable of regretting to have kids. Some, I would guess, feel that way.
Quote:
Historically, and all around the world today, that has not been the case. People have had kids first and foremost because there was no birth control or because use of same was forbidden by authorities. People had kids to ensure succession of their family line, whether they wanted to or not, and even whether they wanted to be married or not, and even if they were gay. All the more so when women could not inherit land and a widow's house and lands could be seized were her husband to pass. People had kids to work the farm, without whom it could not possibly be maintained, and that in itself is a fair part of the social history of the world. People had kids to take care of them in their old age. People had kids to conform to religious dictates and social convention. People had children to seal agreements and cooperation between families. People had kids because a man without a family could not expect to be promoted or paid at the level of a man who had one. People had kids because they didn't know what else to do with their lives. People had kids because they got drunk and stupid.
Like I said, parenting is a whole 'nother thing. Parenting is the result of transcending that selfish conceptual urge. Or, rather, "good parenting" is the result.
Now I gotta look up airship's response and see if it really was all that insightful and funny.
09-23-2009
, 10:08 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
Quote:
I never endorsed that sentiment. I agree with the idea that it is an individual good, and the reaction to having a child (and the ramifications of it) are definitely not universal. However, I understand what MrMore is saying. I never wanted kids until I had them; the fact is, with most people, they do drastically alter your perspective and enrich your life, even if you think, as you do now, that you will find more trouble than joy in them.
Quote:
I have known many who have had children after saying for years they didn't want any (my wife is one of those people, as well as myself), and none have regretted it. And that is a perspective that a non-parent cannot say they possess, no matter how one wishes to intellectualize the idea.
Quote:
Taking that as "high-horse" condescension, or as some back-slapping self delusion, as some here have done, is some pretty slippery accusation.
Quote:
Certainly, some parents claim a moral or intellectual superiority, but that's true of non-parents, as well.
Quote:
That said, I don't really feel sorry for people who don't have kids. There are other experiences in life that have a richness that parenting does not provide. There are many who have a full life without them, and many parents whose lives lack fulfillment despite the presence of children. .
Nor does that mean that those who choose not to have kids are "wrong" or "unnatural", somehow denying a primal urge that they would do better to acquiesce to. Or that every human is incapable of regretting to have kids. Some, I would guess, feel that way.
Nor does that mean that those who choose not to have kids are "wrong" or "unnatural", somehow denying a primal urge that they would do better to acquiesce to. Or that every human is incapable of regretting to have kids. Some, I would guess, feel that way.
Quote:
All of which are selfish acts, no matter what their utility.
Quote:
Not one of those things is geared toward the best interests of the prospective child. "Historically, and all around the world today", children are conceived to assuage a selfish impulse.
Quote:
Like I said, parenting is a whole 'nother thing. Parenting is the result of transcending that selfish conceptual urge.
Quote:
Now I gotta look up airship's response and see if it really was all that insightful and funny.
09-23-2009
, 11:05 PM
Quote:
I recall most if not all remarks to that effect being qualified rather than absolute
Virtually every post in this thread, those on both sides of the coin, is written in absolutes, with some kind of assumed universality.
Quote:
I haven't seen it done regarding their status of non-parents, myself. I've heard it, and expect to hear it in the future, from parents by virtue of their mere parenthood, too many times to count.
For the record, I see your point about parents. I love kids, but, as a rule, find parents insufferable. But, had they no children, I would find them equally insufferable about some other selfish garbage, their pet or their fantasy football team or whatever. I love kids because they haven't reached that "age of insufferabilty", yet. But I don't find parenthood to be the trigger, at least not as readily as non-parents seem to.
Quote:
But none of them are what you claimed they were -- acts born out of some sort of primal joy in it or whatever.
Quote:
Having kids, like getting married, has had and always will have many motivations. Yours acknowledged the more romantic ones alone.
Quote:
Tell me you read the part about murdering people with your bare hands and teenagers being difficult and didn't at least get a little tickle or smirk out of the juxtaposition and appropriateness of the FYP there.
09-23-2009
, 11:29 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe we're hearing what we want. I hear that obnoxious "it just wouldn't be fair for me to have children" line, with the requisite condescension and judgment, quite a bit, and not simply in response to queries about why one has no children, but as tacit accusation.
I don't see what you're talking about happening here. I've never seen it happen in real life, either. But I do see the opposite. Both in this thread and in real life.
Quote:
For the record, I see your point about parents. I love kids, but, as a rule, find parents insufferable. But, had they no children, I would find them equally insufferable about some other selfish garbage, their pet or their fantasy football team or whatever. I love kids because they haven't reached that "age of insufferabilty", yet. But I don't find parenthood to be the trigger, at least not as readily as non-parents seem to.
09-23-2009
, 11:36 PM
Parents can try to mold kids but it doesn't usually work. I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone I know who grew up to be like their parents.
09-23-2009
, 11:46 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
I can think of many. I think home schooling increases the chances dramatically, because you have fewer conflicting points of view brought into a child's life, and fewer chances for her to see that many people with opinions she may have never expected or had been told were wrong or terrible are actually quite confoundingly nice and reasonable people. I knew a lot of born agains growing up, and let's just say a very solid number of them grew up quite uptight. I knew a gigantic number of racists growing up and they got that way because their parents taught that to them too. I've known plenty of people who have swallowed their parents' political beliefs hook, line, and sinker. I've known plenty of Asian girl children who must have learned to be incredibly, seemingly quite unnaturally shy and quiet, from somewhere, because none of the kids of other races was anything like that. I've known weird or awkward parents who have had weird or awkward kids. I've known lowlife parents who raised lowlife kids. I've known bright and happy parents with all the possibilities of the world open before them who have raised bright and happy kids with all the possibilities of the world open before them.
Also, if you don't think a kid is like his parents, come back in 20 years and you might see a much-increased resemblance. They say the acorn rarely falls far from the tree. It might for a while, though, and on the surface.
Also, if you don't think a kid is like his parents, come back in 20 years and you might see a much-increased resemblance. They say the acorn rarely falls far from the tree. It might for a while, though, and on the surface.
09-24-2009
, 03:48 AM
Quote:
What people can learn from parenting dwarfs other experiences. Parenting is one of the most fundamental of human activities.
Going to China might give you a fuller life. Fighting in Iraq might. Almost any new and challenging experiences might. We all have the vagaries of our individual existences which make us unique. We each do a lot of different things, and necessarily fail to do most things.
But because parenting is so fundamental to human existence, it is overwhelmingly necessary if you are to understand what human existence is about, and your own most important relationships, your own history.
If beings from another dimension came here and wanted to experience what it is to be human, they'd surely say "let us first be children, then parents, because these humans are creatures which, most fundamentally, are first children to parents, then parents to children. That's certainly how they exist. As far as we can observe, that's also why."
But if you want, stick to giggling at such brilliance as "substituting 'killing' for 'parenting' makes his post fail!"
That you think such drivel is humourous tells us all you certainly haven't undergone the maturation parenting sometimes brings about.
What people can learn from parenting dwarfs other experiences. Parenting is one of the most fundamental of human activities.
Going to China might give you a fuller life. Fighting in Iraq might. Almost any new and challenging experiences might. We all have the vagaries of our individual existences which make us unique. We each do a lot of different things, and necessarily fail to do most things.
But because parenting is so fundamental to human existence, it is overwhelmingly necessary if you are to understand what human existence is about, and your own most important relationships, your own history.
If beings from another dimension came here and wanted to experience what it is to be human, they'd surely say "let us first be children, then parents, because these humans are creatures which, most fundamentally, are first children to parents, then parents to children. That's certainly how they exist. As far as we can observe, that's also why."
But if you want, stick to giggling at such brilliance as "substituting 'killing' for 'parenting' makes his post fail!"
That you think such drivel is humourous tells us all you certainly haven't undergone the maturation parenting sometimes brings about.
09-24-2009
, 04:31 AM
Quote:
This is why you have kids: to learn about yourself, your life, the world, humanity, all that.
Until you have your own kids, you don't understand your parents, or your own childhood, because you'll have only seen parenting and childhood from one side. You need the perspective of being on the other side to really gain understanding of who you are.
Plus--and it's a big plus--they put life in your life. They just flat out put so much life in your life. They drag you into human interaction on levels which you'd otherwise never see.
Don't misunderstand me: kids often SUCK. Especially teenagers. OMG does it suck being a parent to teenagers.
But avoiding having kids because of the cost and work involved is like avoiding college or any other form of education because of the cost and work involved.
People with kids have been childless and generally will again be childless (as the kids grow up and out of the house).
But people without kids will never be child-caring (and looking after nephews and such on weekends doesn't count).
We know what you know. We've learned what you've learned being childless. But you dont' know what we know. You can't learn from a book what we've learned from parenting.
No way I'd trade the experience and the connections that come from parenting. When I think I would, I realize I'm just being a baby, that of course parenting is costly and stressful at times. So is every thing else worth having.
Have kids to have a whole life. Parenting is one of the most fundamental components of human life. You can not really understand the human experience until you do it. Hell, you can't even understand the social sciences at a decent level until you add that perspective, that fundamental motivation to human behaviour.
Be a whole human being. A WHOLE human being.
And don't avoid it because it's sometimes hard.
Until you have your own kids, you don't understand your parents, or your own childhood, because you'll have only seen parenting and childhood from one side. You need the perspective of being on the other side to really gain understanding of who you are.
Plus--and it's a big plus--they put life in your life. They just flat out put so much life in your life. They drag you into human interaction on levels which you'd otherwise never see.
Don't misunderstand me: kids often SUCK. Especially teenagers. OMG does it suck being a parent to teenagers.
But avoiding having kids because of the cost and work involved is like avoiding college or any other form of education because of the cost and work involved.
People with kids have been childless and generally will again be childless (as the kids grow up and out of the house).
But people without kids will never be child-caring (and looking after nephews and such on weekends doesn't count).
We know what you know. We've learned what you've learned being childless. But you dont' know what we know. You can't learn from a book what we've learned from parenting.
No way I'd trade the experience and the connections that come from parenting. When I think I would, I realize I'm just being a baby, that of course parenting is costly and stressful at times. So is every thing else worth having.
Have kids to have a whole life. Parenting is one of the most fundamental components of human life. You can not really understand the human experience until you do it. Hell, you can't even understand the social sciences at a decent level until you add that perspective, that fundamental motivation to human behaviour.
Be a whole human being. A WHOLE human being.
And don't avoid it because it's sometimes hard.
09-24-2009
, 04:32 AM
amen.
09-24-2009
, 04:42 AM
I´m pretty sure by now that MrMore is leveling.
09-24-2009
, 08:23 AM
That's not to say that certain behavior might be more endemic now than before; but I would characterize it more as a variation of bad behavior, rather than a downward spiral to worst behavior.
09-24-2009
, 08:32 AM
By the way, this thread reminds me of a great "All in the Family" episode, where Mike and Gloria debate the morality of having a kid in a world rife with problems, including over-population. (In the 70s, we used to hear more about over-population than we seem to now.)
I think the matter was resolved with one character saying something to the effect of, "what if your kid grows up to be the one to SOLVE some of those terrible problems?"
It was a glib way of ending the debate, but not bad for a 30 minute sitcom.
I think the matter was resolved with one character saying something to the effect of, "what if your kid grows up to be the one to SOLVE some of those terrible problems?"
It was a glib way of ending the debate, but not bad for a 30 minute sitcom.
09-24-2009
, 12:31 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 53,527
I wonder how the notion could come about that such clear differences could be spoken of as a false memory. Is it possible that could only be done by those too young to be the holders of those memories themselves?
Personally, I don't find discipline romantic. It's often uncaring, blinkered, and overbearing. It is never pleasant to enact. My stepfather used to say, "Children should be seen and not heard," which I find a disgusting notion. Discipline is certainly practical when done with care, though, and as necessary as good manners to a civil public sphere.
09-24-2009
, 01:34 PM
Quote:
Every generation is right, too. We have become a much less formal society, with looser boundaries and slacker manners every generation. It would take an ignorance of history to think otherwise. Before Dr. Spock's baby book came out, people didn't twice about swatting kids, or yelling at them either, unless it was done unfairly or got carried away. It wasn't an essential evil in and of itself; that thought would have been considered more or less an absurdity to the average parent. Compare to today. Kids were also vastly better behaved in public and toward their elders. And when they weren't, you could expect a swat from a stranger as much as from your parents, and no one would blink an eye. Parents took personal responsibility for and were shamed by the behavior of their children in public. Times have inarguably and significantly changed.
Besides, it might be useful to specify what time periods we're talking about. Are you only looking at the behavior and conduct of Americans this century, or contemplating a broader context, as I was?
Quote:
I wonder how the notion could come about that such clear differences could be spoken of as a false memory. Is it possible that could only be done by those too young to be the holders of those memories themselves?
Quote:
Personally, I don't find discipline romantic. It's often uncaring, blinkered, and overbearing. It is never pleasant to enact. My stepfather used to say, "Children should be seen and not heard," which I find a disgusting notion. Discipline is certainly practical when done with care, though, and as necessary as good manners to a civil public sphere.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD