6 ms·

> If you’re getting off with your family you should just wait for everyone else Uhh, no. First of all, we aren't slow, second kids have tiny bladders and third

> If you’re getting off with your family you should just wait for everyone else Uhh, no. First of all, we aren't slow, second kids have tiny bladders and third when did childless folks become such fragile babies?

disbshdns 7y ago
They’re not babies. They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. What’s new is that they also just don’t care.
- twojacobtwo 7y ago
  Or, as I have heard from multiple friends who have chosen not to or can't have children(due to ethical concerns or lack of money), they understand completely and expect that parents take responsibility for the commitments they made without pushing the problems onto everyone else.
  - starfallg 7y ago
    >without pushing the problems onto everyone else. Or as others call it - "common courtesy" I don't have children but I can understand that parenting is stressful enough as it is. Why go about making it worse for them?
    - Freak_NL 7y ago
      Not to mention that having children sits at the very base of human existence. We built societies around the plain fact that children are necessary. Only those who believe that humanity should just go extinct can argue that having children is just a personal choice.
  - disbshdns 7y ago
    Good for them for not wanting kids? I’m not pushing anything into anyone. But just try to push me aside because I have kids! My kids have just as much right to public spaces as anyone else. If it offends you that the kid acts in a way befitting a kid that’s your problem.
- simonskoog 7y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. Two thoughts: The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives. This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that most _parents_ don't get it and that the commitment is lost on _them_. But I'm also sure that they aren't doing anything wrong by having kids, it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people. This trickles down into as fine-grain things as walking efficiently in public so that others aren't bothered and running into you and spending countless hours helping people out with without any reciprocation. So when you do encounter a whirlwind-family in public where the parents do not care about affecting others negatively it's unfortunately easy to become judgmental.
  - mapgrep 7y ago
    >it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?
    - simonskoog 7y ago
      > It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off? That's the thing though. I don't think children are born with a debt to their parents or to society that they have to pay off. Now I don't go around complaining about people with kids, and just wanted to add that there are people who could have a general dislike for things being annoying or 'in the way' which could include children (or rather their parents, I don't think it's fair to put any responsibility on the children). I have a friend with with ASD that gets extremely upset with any disturbances, and who have posted more than a few rants about parents 'not controlling their kids' online, but in his case those posts are not unique to children, but without that context they read as if written by someone tho specifically dislikes kids. I don't think children by and large have a negative effect on families and the individuals around them (if we are trusting parents, not happiness-studies) and they do have a beneficial effect on society (more people, more taxes, more welfare and happiness for the population), it's just that I don't want to create a person, that _I_ would owe a great life. The idea of viewing children as owing anything to their parents or to society before being able to make decisions for themselves as an 'ancestral sin' (original sin?) is something I feel very uncomfortable with. Now, the thinking that the child who has no say about being brought into existence has a debt and saying it's a bit late to opt out implies that I (and other people) should have ended it in infancy to avoid this debt, and to gain the right to want things to not be annoying, but I am also pretty sure that it's a completely unreasonable expectation and doubtfully even a biologically possible decision. The consequences of that view seem awful both morally and ethically, thought I think few people spell them out. But yeah, I don't dislike kids, but I understand someone going on a rant about them being annoying either because they don't know how hard it is or because they view themselves as not impacting others in the same way and wanting others to share their values. But I don't agree that it can be dismissed with a statement like this > They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. > What’s new is that they also just don’t care.
twojacobtwo 7y ago
There is a question that I think needs to be asked more often: Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens? You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that your choice to have children automatically grants you the right to impinge on the rest of us. That's quite entitled.
- tomrod 7y ago
  > You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.
    - bonzini 7y ago
      I certainly am.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 7y ago
      I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight. However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better. Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
When I travel with my toddler, I always wait to get off..well, he is wearing a diaper anyways. I assume when he is a bit older, we will get off much more quickly, but right now...it is just too much of a hassle to rush off the plane.
jacobolus 7y ago
> kids have tiny bladders Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms. > when did childless folks become such fragile babies? Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience. It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big deal.
- emj 7y ago
  We debark trains a lot with my family, and I prefer waiting, but that extra minute can be a lot easier to handle waiting in line with a three year old than sitting down. Every situation is different with people, families are included in that.
- ergothus 7y ago
  Access to the plane bathrooms is barely sufficient for me. Too much of the flight you cant get up or vc ant get to them. I've had many a flight involve my own pee pee dance, I think it is fair to say I can be a problem for some families.
- glennpratt 7y ago
  Edit: sorry for being needlessly combative. > Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms. I have a 5 and 9 year old and fly regularly. I don't know if you've considered the amount of time that can elapse from seat belt sign on for landing to deplaning. Nevermind a turbulent flight. And trying to use the bathroom at the rear of a plane that just arrived isn't really going to smooth the deplaning process. But like I said, my family is not slowing anyone down, we're usually faster because we're ready and the adults organized the kids while we waited for our turn.
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provoked you were by another comment, or feel you were. It just makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- glennpratt 7y ago
  Sorry! Thanks for moderating things.

disbshdns 7y ago

They’re not babies. They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. What’s new is that they also just don’t care.

twojacobtwo 7y ago
Or, as I have heard from multiple friends who have chosen not to or can't have children(due to ethical concerns or lack of money), they understand completely and expect that parents take responsibility for the commitments they made without pushing the problems onto everyone else.
- starfallg 7y ago
  >without pushing the problems onto everyone else. Or as others call it - "common courtesy" I don't have children but I can understand that parenting is stressful enough as it is. Why go about making it worse for them?
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    Not to mention that having children sits at the very base of human existence. We built societies around the plain fact that children are necessary. Only those who believe that humanity should just go extinct can argue that having children is just a personal choice.
- disbshdns 7y ago
  Good for them for not wanting kids? I’m not pushing anything into anyone. But just try to push me aside because I have kids! My kids have just as much right to public spaces as anyone else. If it offends you that the kid acts in a way befitting a kid that’s your problem.
simonskoog 7y ago
I'm not so sure about that. Two thoughts: The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives. This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that most _parents_ don't get it and that the commitment is lost on _them_. But I'm also sure that they aren't doing anything wrong by having kids, it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people. This trickles down into as fine-grain things as walking efficiently in public so that others aren't bothered and running into you and spending countless hours helping people out with without any reciprocation. So when you do encounter a whirlwind-family in public where the parents do not care about affecting others negatively it's unfortunately easy to become judgmental.
- mapgrep 7y ago
  >it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?
  - simonskoog 7y ago
    > It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off? That's the thing though. I don't think children are born with a debt to their parents or to society that they have to pay off. Now I don't go around complaining about people with kids, and just wanted to add that there are people who could have a general dislike for things being annoying or 'in the way' which could include children (or rather their parents, I don't think it's fair to put any responsibility on the children). I have a friend with with ASD that gets extremely upset with any disturbances, and who have posted more than a few rants about parents 'not controlling their kids' online, but in his case those posts are not unique to children, but without that context they read as if written by someone tho specifically dislikes kids. I don't think children by and large have a negative effect on families and the individuals around them (if we are trusting parents, not happiness-studies) and they do have a beneficial effect on society (more people, more taxes, more welfare and happiness for the population), it's just that I don't want to create a person, that _I_ would owe a great life. The idea of viewing children as owing anything to their parents or to society before being able to make decisions for themselves as an 'ancestral sin' (original sin?) is something I feel very uncomfortable with. Now, the thinking that the child who has no say about being brought into existence has a debt and saying it's a bit late to opt out implies that I (and other people) should have ended it in infancy to avoid this debt, and to gain the right to want things to not be annoying, but I am also pretty sure that it's a completely unreasonable expectation and doubtfully even a biologically possible decision. The consequences of that view seem awful both morally and ethically, thought I think few people spell them out. But yeah, I don't dislike kids, but I understand someone going on a rant about them being annoying either because they don't know how hard it is or because they view themselves as not impacting others in the same way and wanting others to share their values. But I don't agree that it can be dismissed with a statement like this > They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. > What’s new is that they also just don’t care.

twojacobtwo 7y ago

There is a question that I think needs to be asked more often: Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens? You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that your choice to have children automatically grants you the right to impinge on the rest of us. That's quite entitled.

tomrod 7y ago
> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.
  - bonzini 7y ago
    I certainly am.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight. However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better. Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

When I travel with my toddler, I always wait to get off..well, he is wearing a diaper anyways. I assume when he is a bit older, we will get off much more quickly, but right now...it is just too much of a hassle to rush off the plane.

jacobolus 7y ago

> kids have tiny bladders Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms. > when did childless folks become such fragile babies? Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience. It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big deal.

emj 7y ago
We debark trains a lot with my family, and I prefer waiting, but that extra minute can be a lot easier to handle waiting in line with a three year old than sitting down. Every situation is different with people, families are included in that.
ergothus 7y ago
Access to the plane bathrooms is barely sufficient for me. Too much of the flight you cant get up or vc ant get to them. I've had many a flight involve my own pee pee dance, I think it is fair to say I can be a problem for some families.
glennpratt 7y ago
Edit: sorry for being needlessly combative. > Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms. I have a 5 and 9 year old and fly regularly. I don't know if you've considered the amount of time that can elapse from seat belt sign on for landing to deplaning. Nevermind a turbulent flight. And trying to use the bathroom at the rear of a plane that just arrived isn't really going to smooth the deplaning process. But like I said, my family is not slowing anyone down, we're usually faster because we're ready and the adults organized the kids while we waited for our turn.

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provoked you were by another comment, or feel you were. It just makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

glennpratt 7y ago
Sorry! Thanks for moderating things.