5 ms·

I am a father and I agree 100% IMO maaaaybe you could be married with no kids and do this ethically. But with kids? You're rolling the dice on a very importa

by seanc 9y ago

I am a father and I agree 100% IMO maaaaybe you could be married with no kids and do this ethically. But with kids? You're rolling the dice on a very important promise. I do struggle with what that line of thinking means for soldiers though.

rrhyne 9y ago
As a father, I agree completely, and think you shouldn't have been down voted, so here's an upvote.
- Fuckdang2 9y ago
  As a non cunt, I agree about your cuntery
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
balls187 9y ago
For a soldier, it's their duty. For the diver in the story, it was his hobby. He'd been doing it for 24 years, so his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive--thus I don't blame him at all.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > For a soldier, it's their duty They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". > his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive What does this mean?
  - balls187 9y ago
    > What does this mean? As someone who's never done cave diving, the perception of risk is going to be higher than the actual risk. 1 time in 24 years is pretty low.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Maybe, unless he got sloppier as time went on. There are a few flags pointed out in these threads - like not telling anyone that he dived..
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        On the other hand, in that case he's likely to be "scared straight" now and much more careful, at least for a good while.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        Hopefully..
  - harpiaharpyja 9y ago
    Not GP but I believe he is saying that unless we've been in an underwater cave the diver's perspective may be difficult for us to really appreciate. To us, continuing to dive seems like an unacceptable risk. To the diver, it seemingly is not. Along the same vein I believe GP then goes on to say that he does not feel that the diver's perspective is less valid just because he (the GP) doesn't understand it.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      But what's the difference? Either it's risky, or it isn't? If the diver has good reason to think that it isn't, fair enough. But is that the case?
      - gpawl 9y ago
        risk is easy to calculate. reward is not.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". But if it's not ok to become a soldier if you have kids, that severely limits who can be a soldier. (For example, many soldiers get married and start families during their careers as soldiers. Should they instantly get discharged if that happens? Taken off all possibly dangerous duties?) That doesn't seem like a good idea for society as a whole, since it makes being a soldier a much less attractive career, and any society needs soldiers to defend it. The argument with cave diving is at least somewhat stronger, since I don't see any pressing need for society as a whole to have a particular number of cave divers, or for cave diving to be an attractive career.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > that severely limits who can be a soldier But that's an economic problem, isn't it? Maybe if children stopped working, we couldn't make enough matches? But unless we recognise the morally undesirable, why would we care to change anything? You can recognise something as morally undesirable, yet for some other reason unavoidable. There are many things that fall into that category. It's also a slippery slope - if something is needed does that justify all means in getting it? And to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? It's one thing to defend its borders, but is every military action of necessity - as opposed to national will?
      - pdonis 9y ago
        > that's an economic problem, isn't it? Only if you think the need of any society to be able to defend itself is an economic problem. > to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? That depends on what threats we expect to have to deal with. Also, if you argue that people with children should not be soldiers, you are taking out of the decision loop people who are likely to have a more restrained view of when violence should be used.
        gpawl 9y ago
        the people who die in war aren't the people who decide to get into a war.
  - Retra 9y ago
    No, they don't merely accept that duty. They receive a paycheck, societal honors, and if they die in the line of duty, their family gets taken care of. They also tend to go into battle under the pretense of carrying out a function of necessity.
mhluongo 9y ago
> IMO maaaaybe you could be married with no kids and do this ethically. I've never heard any vows include anything about cave diving.
Chris2048 9y ago
> I do struggle with what that line of thinking means for soldiers though. It means exactly the same, but with millennia of cultural resistance to overcome before you can accept it.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
At least in theory, soldiers risk their lives to make all their country's children safer. I think that's a worthwhile trade, in aggregate. It depends on whether your country likes to get involved in wars that don't actually protect their populace, of course.
gpawl 9y ago
the common marriage vows explicitly state death as the one justification for exiting vows, so married with no kids is definitively in the clear.
gpawl 9y ago
the common marriage vows explicitly state death as the one justification for exiting vows, so married with no kids is definitively in the clear.
pluma 9y ago
The way soldiers rationalize it is presumably that they'd argue they're protecting their children by "serving their country". This line of reasoning works a lot better in countries like the US or UK than e.g. Germany (although the sole purpose of the German army by law is to defend the country) but it's easy to guess why Germans don't like putting soldiers on pedestals. The line of reasoning for firefighters and police officers is likely similar (though IMO the risks in these professions are far more manageable because you're not literally surrounding yourself with people who try to kill you). In the end I think it's a good thing we talk about these decisions at all and I hope it has not only to do with women (and thus mothers) entering these professions.

by seanc 9y ago

rrhyne 9y ago

As a father, I agree completely, and think you shouldn't have been down voted, so here's an upvote.

Fuckdang2 9y ago
As a non cunt, I agree about your cuntery

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

balls187 9y ago

For a soldier, it's their duty. For the diver in the story, it was his hobby. He'd been doing it for 24 years, so his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive--thus I don't blame him at all.

Chris2048 9y ago
> For a soldier, it's their duty They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". > his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive What does this mean?
- balls187 9y ago
  > What does this mean? As someone who's never done cave diving, the perception of risk is going to be higher than the actual risk. 1 time in 24 years is pretty low.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Maybe, unless he got sloppier as time went on. There are a few flags pointed out in these threads - like not telling anyone that he dived..
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      On the other hand, in that case he's likely to be "scared straight" now and much more careful, at least for a good while.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Hopefully..
- harpiaharpyja 9y ago
  Not GP but I believe he is saying that unless we've been in an underwater cave the diver's perspective may be difficult for us to really appreciate. To us, continuing to dive seems like an unacceptable risk. To the diver, it seemingly is not. Along the same vein I believe GP then goes on to say that he does not feel that the diver's perspective is less valid just because he (the GP) doesn't understand it.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    But what's the difference? Either it's risky, or it isn't? If the diver has good reason to think that it isn't, fair enough. But is that the case?
    - gpawl 9y ago
      risk is easy to calculate. reward is not.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". But if it's not ok to become a soldier if you have kids, that severely limits who can be a soldier. (For example, many soldiers get married and start families during their careers as soldiers. Should they instantly get discharged if that happens? Taken off all possibly dangerous duties?) That doesn't seem like a good idea for society as a whole, since it makes being a soldier a much less attractive career, and any society needs soldiers to defend it. The argument with cave diving is at least somewhat stronger, since I don't see any pressing need for society as a whole to have a particular number of cave divers, or for cave diving to be an attractive career.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > that severely limits who can be a soldier But that's an economic problem, isn't it? Maybe if children stopped working, we couldn't make enough matches? But unless we recognise the morally undesirable, why would we care to change anything? You can recognise something as morally undesirable, yet for some other reason unavoidable. There are many things that fall into that category. It's also a slippery slope - if something is needed does that justify all means in getting it? And to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? It's one thing to defend its borders, but is every military action of necessity - as opposed to national will?
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > that's an economic problem, isn't it? Only if you think the need of any society to be able to defend itself is an economic problem. > to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? That depends on what threats we expect to have to deal with. Also, if you argue that people with children should not be soldiers, you are taking out of the decision loop people who are likely to have a more restrained view of when violence should be used.
      - gpawl 9y ago
        the people who die in war aren't the people who decide to get into a war.
- Retra 9y ago
  No, they don't merely accept that duty. They receive a paycheck, societal honors, and if they die in the line of duty, their family gets taken care of. They also tend to go into battle under the pretense of carrying out a function of necessity.

mhluongo 9y ago

> IMO maaaaybe you could be married with no kids and do this ethically. I've never heard any vows include anything about cave diving.

Chris2048 9y ago

> I do struggle with what that line of thinking means for soldiers though. It means exactly the same, but with millennia of cultural resistance to overcome before you can accept it.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

At least in theory, soldiers risk their lives to make all their country's children safer. I think that's a worthwhile trade, in aggregate. It depends on whether your country likes to get involved in wars that don't actually protect their populace, of course.

gpawl 9y ago

the common marriage vows explicitly state death as the one justification for exiting vows, so married with no kids is definitively in the clear.

gpawl 9y ago

the common marriage vows explicitly state death as the one justification for exiting vows, so married with no kids is definitively in the clear.

pluma 9y ago

The way soldiers rationalize it is presumably that they'd argue they're protecting their children by "serving their country". This line of reasoning works a lot better in countries like the US or UK than e.g. Germany (although the sole purpose of the German army by law is to defend the country) but it's easy to guess why Germans don't like putting soldiers on pedestals. The line of reasoning for firefighters and police officers is likely similar (though IMO the risks in these professions are far more manageable because you're not literally surrounding yourself with people who try to kill you). In the end I think it's a good thing we talk about these decisions at all and I hope it has not only to do with women (and thus mothers) entering these professions.