5 ms·

There's little financial difference between having children and buying Lambourghinis. The cultural difference is that only one of these is blameworthy if you g

by khafra 15y ago

There's little financial difference between having children and buying Lambourghinis. The cultural difference is that only one of these is blameworthy if you get into financial trouble later. Perhaps both of them should be.

yannis 15y ago
Maybe better neuter yourself? This is the most selfish statement in this thread.
- khafra 15y ago
  Thanks for the demonstration of the mindset I'm talking about. Some people want children, other people want pets, other people want houses, other people want cars, other people want jewelry. All of these things cost money, none of them are charitable, but it's somehow less ok to get in financial trouble over them, the further you move toward the end of that list. Why?
tsunamifury 15y ago
Your parents took that risk so you could have life. It seems extrodinarily arogant to belittle them for it.
- khafra 15y ago
  My parents didn't have kids until they could afford them. They were in their mid-30s when I was born. If I'd been raised in poverty because they had kids at 18 and dropped out of college, I would be entirely within my rights to question their judgement.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    I don't think anyone's taking issue with the notion of personal responsibility, but rather, with your original phrasing -- in which you (perhaps in a tongue-in-cheek way?) implied that having children was a luxury akin to buying a sports car. One of those things is a hardwired, biological imperative of our species; the other is a fancy toy. Apples and oranges.
    - khafra 15y ago
      Social signaling (such as flaunting luxury goods) is a hardwired, biological imperative of the entire Hominidae Family. Gorging on foods rich in historically hard-to-find nutrients like salt, fat, and sugar is a hardwired, biological imperative of the entire Mammal Class, at least--probably all animals. You blame people who fail to control their unhealthy eating decisions; why don't you blame people who fail to control their unhealthy procreating decisions?
      - jonnathanson 15y ago
        "You blame people who fail to control their unhealthy eating decisions; why don't you blame people who fail to control their unhealthy procreating decisions?" That's not what I said. I do blame people who make unhealthy parenting choices, i.e., who have kids before they're financially capable of supporting kids. I take no issue with that argument. Rather, I took issue with the language in your original post, which seemed to imply that having kids at all is considered a high-end luxury. IMO, something's seriously wrong with any society in which that's categorically true.
        khafra 15y ago
        I was very careful to separate the financial difference and the cultural difference, and I feel like you're ignoring that. Having kids at all is not a basic human need on the level of food, water, and shelter. It is a biological urge, similar to the urge for french fries. Now, I don't personally think that eating a reasonable serving of french fries while getting adequate exercise is blameworthy; nor do I think that buying a Lambourghini while earning $10M/year is blameworthy; nor do I think that having children you can afford and care for is blameworthy. I do think that it's silly for popular culture to have sympathy and often admiration for unprepared parents, but scorn and derision for indebted luxury car owners. FWIW, I am childless and drive a VW.
        tsunamifury 15y ago
        Your ignorance shows when you seem to think financial stability can be reached by most of the world. The reality is that most people will never achieve any sort of stability, living day to day, taking risks as they will. Effectively you are telling the majority of people on this planet they don't deserve the right to have children.

by khafra 15y ago

yannis 15y ago

Maybe better neuter yourself? This is the most selfish statement in this thread.

khafra 15y ago
Thanks for the demonstration of the mindset I'm talking about. Some people want children, other people want pets, other people want houses, other people want cars, other people want jewelry. All of these things cost money, none of them are charitable, but it's somehow less ok to get in financial trouble over them, the further you move toward the end of that list. Why?

tsunamifury 15y ago

Your parents took that risk so you could have life. It seems extrodinarily arogant to belittle them for it.

khafra 15y ago
My parents didn't have kids until they could afford them. They were in their mid-30s when I was born. If I'd been raised in poverty because they had kids at 18 and dropped out of college, I would be entirely within my rights to question their judgement.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  I don't think anyone's taking issue with the notion of personal responsibility, but rather, with your original phrasing -- in which you (perhaps in a tongue-in-cheek way?) implied that having children was a luxury akin to buying a sports car. One of those things is a hardwired, biological imperative of our species; the other is a fancy toy. Apples and oranges.
  - khafra 15y ago
    Social signaling (such as flaunting luxury goods) is a hardwired, biological imperative of the entire Hominidae Family. Gorging on foods rich in historically hard-to-find nutrients like salt, fat, and sugar is a hardwired, biological imperative of the entire Mammal Class, at least--probably all animals. You blame people who fail to control their unhealthy eating decisions; why don't you blame people who fail to control their unhealthy procreating decisions?
    - jonnathanson 15y ago
      "You blame people who fail to control their unhealthy eating decisions; why don't you blame people who fail to control their unhealthy procreating decisions?" That's not what I said. I do blame people who make unhealthy parenting choices, i.e., who have kids before they're financially capable of supporting kids. I take no issue with that argument. Rather, I took issue with the language in your original post, which seemed to imply that having kids at all is considered a high-end luxury. IMO, something's seriously wrong with any society in which that's categorically true.
      - khafra 15y ago
        I was very careful to separate the financial difference and the cultural difference, and I feel like you're ignoring that. Having kids at all is not a basic human need on the level of food, water, and shelter. It is a biological urge, similar to the urge for french fries. Now, I don't personally think that eating a reasonable serving of french fries while getting adequate exercise is blameworthy; nor do I think that buying a Lambourghini while earning $10M/year is blameworthy; nor do I think that having children you can afford and care for is blameworthy. I do think that it's silly for popular culture to have sympathy and often admiration for unprepared parents, but scorn and derision for indebted luxury car owners. FWIW, I am childless and drive a VW.
        tsunamifury 15y ago
        Your ignorance shows when you seem to think financial stability can be reached by most of the world. The reality is that most people will never achieve any sort of stability, living day to day, taking risks as they will. Effectively you are telling the majority of people on this planet they don't deserve the right to have children.