They are not a commodity, let alone a luxury one.They are PEOPLE. Children have a right to exist for their own sake, as individuals, not for their parents' sake. They are not objects, or items of property.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 12:54,
archived)
And anyway we DO need them,or humanity would die out. Actually, NOT having children is a luxury.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:01,
archived)
We can but hope.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:08,
archived)
Yes, but you don't have to have them. There are all sorts of birth control methods available now.You CHOOSE to have children, in which case, you should pay for them.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:08,
archived)
No you choose NOT to have children,Ever noticed how it tends to be the more well off people in developed countries who choose to have fewer children, and leave it later in life? Because they are a major lifestyle/career inconvenience, even though it is necessary for the continuation of society.
Anyone who has children purely as a "lifestyle choice" is in for a big fucking shock.
(Anyone who has children purely as a "lifestyle choice" is in for a big fucking shock.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:12,
archived)
A girl I went to school with had a kid a year later purely so she'd get moved up the council house list.Not the best of reasons, perhaps. She's not worked since because, apparently, child care costs more than she'd make working the same number of hours.
(
drimble he'd been white, he'd been black,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:18,
archived)
Yeah I can believe that.I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, that's for sure.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:23,
archived)
she'll get £20 a week for it in child benefit, wowzers.do you know you can get paid £150 a week or more to foster a child? So if that kid got taken into care and rehomed, some middle class family could get paid more than the kid's own mum. In fact £150 a week was more than I got paid in my first job.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:34,
archived)
Well, plus her rent paid and her unemployment benefit and all her medical and dental care, free prescriptions and glasses, yes. Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:37,
archived)
yes but those things are for those things.also you don't get free dental care or glasses when you're on the dole.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:42,
archived)
I'm on the dole and I get free dental care, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses. I can get free glasses if i want the jarvis cocker nhs style ones.
(
quackpipe swings like a pendulum do,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 20:49,
archived)
So parents get paid more to live apart than they would to be married and kids will be better provided for if they don't live with their natural parents?Hey, who says the nuclear family is dead?
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:51,
archived)
The nuclear family was always a con,it was only ever a stepping stone between the traditional extended family and Aldous Huxley's dystopian nightmare.
I didn't even get paid £150 a week in my first job.
(I didn't even get paid £150 a week in my first job.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:02,
archived)
Oh, sorry - I thought we were on about the UK, since the post is about the UK.In the UK it's a lifestyle choice to have children, and should therefore only have them if you can pay for them.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:35,
archived)
The UK is a developed country last I checked.It's not a lifestyle choice unless you are a fucking moron. If you are going to treat your children like fashion accessories then frankly they should be taken away from you no matter you can afford them or not.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:41,
archived)
It IS a lifestyle choice.You don't NEED to have children, you CHOOSE to, for the lifestyle - whether that's for them to look after you in your old age, or to see their little faces when you buy them Christmas presents, or just because the house feels so big and empty.
It's a lifestyle choice.
(It's a lifestyle choice.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:53,
archived)
Are you really incapable of conceiving of the ideaof doing something for somebody else's sake instead of your own?
Are you incapable of understanding that, given that having children is necessary for the survival of humanity, it is an IMPERATIVE that people do it?
Nobody but the pathologically vain or emotionally crippled have children for any of the reasons you stated.
(Are you incapable of understanding that, given that having children is necessary for the survival of humanity, it is an IMPERATIVE that people do it?
Nobody but the pathologically vain or emotionally crippled have children for any of the reasons you stated.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 13:59,
archived)
Not really, no. Everyone's entirely selfish (Dawkins' Selfish Gene and all that).I'm not too fond of humanity as it is, particularly people who breed and can't afford to support their own offspring, and particularly particularly those who whine that it's all so unfair that they're not receiving child benefit any more, despite the fact that they're on £50k pa and regularly take said fucking spawn to the pub.
People should not have kids unless they can guarantee they won't impact on anyone else's life unrequested.
(People should not have kids unless they can guarantee they won't impact on anyone else's life unrequested.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:08,
archived)
Have you actually read The Selfish Gene?Because it doesn't say what you just said. At all.
Selfish genes do not equal selfish people. That's actually the entire point of the book - how altruistic tendencies evolved.
(Selfish genes do not equal selfish people. That's actually the entire point of the book - how altruistic tendencies evolved.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:11,
archived)
Altruism doesn't negate the selfishness of procreation.... and it also doesn't even mention "Children Welcome" signs on pubs.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:14,
archived)
Procreation isn't selfish, you numpty,it is the creation of other people, at your own personal expense.
But I see where you're coming from now. You're the worst sort of misanthropist. A petty one.
(But I see where you're coming from now. You're the worst sort of misanthropist. A petty one.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:16,
archived)
Procreation isn't selfish?!It's the reproduction of yourself, to satisfy your own ego, and meet your own ends, at the expense of others.
That's pretty selfish, in my book.
You numpty DUMPTY.
(That's pretty selfish, in my book.
You numpty DUMPTY.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:20,
archived)
Of course it isn't selfish.Your offspring will be competing with you for resources. That's why selfish people hold off for the sake of their careers. It's not at the expense of others, it's an investment for the future of the whole of society, which couldn't continue to function without it. People who spend their whole lives accumulating wealth and not looking after children, or indeed anybody else, they are the selfish ones.
Nobody procreates to satisfy their own egos and meet their own ends. I don't know why I should have to repeat this. Maybe that's why you do everything you do. In which case you fail at humanity.
(Nobody procreates to satisfy their own egos and meet their own ends. I don't know why I should have to repeat this. Maybe that's why you do everything you do. In which case you fail at humanity.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:24,
archived)
"Nobody procreates to satisfy their own egos and meet their own ends."Absolute nonsense. That's exactly why people (in the UK) procreate.
Of course, many try to dress it up with all sorts of pretentiousness, but that's the root cause.
That's why people breed instead of adopt, and have IVF treatment.
"Because it's different when it's your own."
Of course it is - you have a vested (ie selfish) interest in it.
(Of course, many try to dress it up with all sorts of pretentiousness, but that's the root cause.
That's why people breed instead of adopt, and have IVF treatment.
"Because it's different when it's your own."
Of course it is - you have a vested (ie selfish) interest in it.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:30,
archived)
If nobody bred, there'd be nobody TO adopt.To suggest that selfishness is the root cause of procreation is nothing short of absurdity. The root cause is a natural drive that we now have the intellectual ability to subvert, which is done for selfish reasons such as careers, social life etc..
There's nothing pretentious in saying that by having children, you are playing a part in the creation of the next generation, because that is exactly what you are doing. Sadly we are encouraged these days to try to think up a "what's in it for me" style justification for absolutely everything.
Sometimes the IVF thing does irk me when there are babies wanting adoption. But how is there a vested interest in bringing up "your own" child over somebody else's? What actual practical difference would it make? It's the child that stands to gain, not yourself. They might have your genes, but they don't carry on your ego. There might be "selfish gene" work going on here but "selfish gene" is nothing more than the provocative title of a book. A gene can't be selfish because it doesn't have a sense of self. It's ultimately an irrational, instinctive thing, not the "rational self-interest" of Homo Economicus.
(There's nothing pretentious in saying that by having children, you are playing a part in the creation of the next generation, because that is exactly what you are doing. Sadly we are encouraged these days to try to think up a "what's in it for me" style justification for absolutely everything.
Sometimes the IVF thing does irk me when there are babies wanting adoption. But how is there a vested interest in bringing up "your own" child over somebody else's? What actual practical difference would it make? It's the child that stands to gain, not yourself. They might have your genes, but they don't carry on your ego. There might be "selfish gene" work going on here but "selfish gene" is nothing more than the provocative title of a book. A gene can't be selfish because it doesn't have a sense of self. It's ultimately an irrational, instinctive thing, not the "rational self-interest" of Homo Economicus.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:45,
archived)
"The root cause is a natural drive"Yes. Procreation of the self.
It's OK - everyone's selfish.
(It's OK - everyone's selfish.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 14:59,
archived)
NO, NO, NO.It isn't procreation of the SELF. It is procreation of your genes - well, HALF of your genes (and half of your partner's). Your baby is not YOU. Your genes are not you. Genes do not have a "self". Even a pair of identical twins is still two individuals.
It's a natural drive, which means it doesn't have a conscious, selfish reason such as "so that they will look after me in my old age." These things are post-rationalisations. The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why. They just do. It's way beyond the scope of the ego. It's NOT having children that is a conscious decision, that people make for selfish, egotistical reasons such as "career".
Everyone is NOT SELFISH. Maybe you should read The Selfish Gene. It explains why.
(It's a natural drive, which means it doesn't have a conscious, selfish reason such as "so that they will look after me in my old age." These things are post-rationalisations. The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why. They just do. It's way beyond the scope of the ego. It's NOT having children that is a conscious decision, that people make for selfish, egotistical reasons such as "career".
Everyone is NOT SELFISH. Maybe you should read The Selfish Gene. It explains why.
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:06,
archived)
No, it's not the self, but the drive behind it is of the self.So it's selfish.
"The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why".
Which is why I'm providing this rather wonderful elucidation. I'm telling you why - because they're selfish. It's because they want them.
Like I want a threesome with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen. I don't need one; I just want one.
It's done (in the UK) because people are that shallow, their lives that empty, and their relationships that fragile that they think having a kid will fulfil them. It also provides the parent with someone utterly dependent on them.
It's all me, me, me. Of course - as you point out, many are unaware of this; many try to disguise this intention, but it's the root.
MINE. ME.
"im not a vilent man but i swer eny1 goes near my dauter an ill do time"
("The truth is, when someone knows they want kids, they don't know why".
Which is why I'm providing this rather wonderful elucidation. I'm telling you why - because they're selfish. It's because they want them.
Like I want a threesome with Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanssen. I don't need one; I just want one.
It's done (in the UK) because people are that shallow, their lives that empty, and their relationships that fragile that they think having a kid will fulfil them. It also provides the parent with someone utterly dependent on them.
It's all me, me, me. Of course - as you point out, many are unaware of this; many try to disguise this intention, but it's the root.
MINE. ME.
"im not a vilent man but i swer eny1 goes near my dauter an ill do time"
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:25,
archived)
I'm still trying to decide whether this is some kind of spectacular trolling or these are all your genuine opinions.I really hope the former.
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:35,
archived)
No the drive behind itis to the genes. Drives have no awareness of self. Even insects have this drive. Even ants, who sacrifice their own lives without thought for the sake of the nest.
Because "they want them" isn't any kind of answer. It's practically tautologous. WHY do they want them? That's the question. I can see why people want NOT to have them. It's because they know how it will affect their careers, their social lives, their sex lives. All conscious, selfish reasons. A reason really has to be conscious to be selfish, because the self is the conscious.
You seem to be hung up on this kind of selfishness dogma. Maybe you are aware that you are selfish and you are trying to save face. Yes, we all are, to a degree, but that doesn't mean it is the only motivation for anything. It's hard to admit, but sometimes we just don't know why we do things. That's why we invented the meaningless word "want".
(Because "they want them" isn't any kind of answer. It's practically tautologous. WHY do they want them? That's the question. I can see why people want NOT to have them. It's because they know how it will affect their careers, their social lives, their sex lives. All conscious, selfish reasons. A reason really has to be conscious to be selfish, because the self is the conscious.
You seem to be hung up on this kind of selfishness dogma. Maybe you are aware that you are selfish and you are trying to save face. Yes, we all are, to a degree, but that doesn't mean it is the only motivation for anything. It's hard to admit, but sometimes we just don't know why we do things. That's why we invented the meaningless word "want".
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:36,
archived)
They want them ...because they're selfish.
"They just do"/"Because it's different when they're your own."
"Yes, we all are, to a degree" - not to a degree, entirely. Of the self. Me. All of us. Nothing - charity, philanthropy, helping others is done without some at least hope of reward - whether that's money, self satisfaction, feeling smug, or the chance of being a sanctimonious prick.
("They just do"/"Because it's different when they're your own."
"Yes, we all are, to a degree" - not to a degree, entirely. Of the self. Me. All of us. Nothing - charity, philanthropy, helping others is done without some at least hope of reward - whether that's money, self satisfaction, feeling smug, or the chance of being a sanctimonious prick.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:41,
archived)
JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:54,
archived)
p.s. side of screenend of discussion. Or start a new thread somewhere.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag,
Wed 9 Jan 2013, 15:37,
archived)