8 ms·

Whenever I encounter this attitude I like to remind that person that they should have no voice, whatsoever, in what happens in government and politics anymore.

Whenever I encounter this attitude I like to remind that person that they should have no voice, whatsoever, in what happens in government and politics anymore. I don't want people who are self-selecting themselves out of the future having any say in what happens for my children. It's fine that you don't want kids, enjoy the golf course I guess. But in general I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence.

nyokodo 3y ago
> I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence I’d settle for a much higher tax rate for the voluntarily childless to very inadequately offset the lack of contributing to the next generation. Probably the best way to implement this is that the child tax credit should be much bigger.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Yeah the child tax credit should be doubled or tripled, that's one option.
- kalaksi 3y ago
  That kind of already happens in countries where government monetarily supports families with children since it's tax money. But the effective difference in taxes isn't probably that large.
  - lordnacho 3y ago
    It's just peanuts compared to having one less job for a while. Maybe that is what to do, give tax credits on the order of an income. That way you are basically tax free while having young children, but you'll still want a job when they are a little bit older.
- card_zero 3y ago
  I'm impressed by the idea that it's even possible to stop people in general from having kids. In 1974 there were 4 billion people, and we were worried about overpopulation, with scare stories in the media on the theme of "standing room only". Now we are 8 billion, and worrying about low birth rates, even in China (see the "lying flat" trend). So, get back to me when we're down to 4 billion again and I'll consider supporting financial incentives to support future human life, but right now I don't see an existential threat from low birth rates. I do however think that it's really cool that people have the capacity to refrain from having kids when they know that it's a bad idea in their specific circumstances. I like this because it shows the malthusian overpopulation doom-mongers to be wrong, and they were getting annoying.
- askonomm 3y ago
  I already pay tax that ends up paying your child support money, builds kindergartens for you, funds schools, even though I have no kids. But no, let's punish me more because I don't fit your view of the world by raising my taxes more, even though I benefit from the existing ones a lot less than you do already.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Taxes are not punishment. With such a childish view of society it is probably for the best that you aren't a parent.
    - askonomm 3y ago
      You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay. Think if it this way: in the childlessness-tax scenario, the parents would be paying society in-kind by raising kid(s), and you'd paying society with money instead. You're both paying, just in different ways. Taxes also aren't some kind of payment-in-exchange for services thing. It's foolish to complain about programs because you don't personally benefit from them.
retrac98 3y ago
This makes no sense. Why shouldn’t someone who’s going to live in a society for several more decades have a say in how it operates?
- remarkEon 3y ago
  It makes perfect sense. Their preference set is limited to their own desires, for as long as they are terrestrially bound. They have no skin in the game for ensuring that things are functional after they die. Why should I listen to someone who only cares about their own gratification?
  - retrac98 3y ago
    What makes you think people without kids only care about their own gratification? Can’t they care for others that aren’t their children? What about people without children who work for the betterment of entire communities?
    - brewdad 3y ago
      Sure they can but I don't see much of that.
  - malermeister 3y ago
    This might surprise you, but people can care about other people that aren't their blood relatives. Don't play morally superior just because you decided to procreate.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    This is the system everyone else who came before, and had kids, created. Seems like disagreeing and committing is the right move.
  - GeneralMayhem 3y ago
    This strikes me as not dissimilar to religious people who are terrified of atheists because, without God, they must have no reason not to become mass murderers. There are many people with kids who have revealed the value they place on the sustainability of the environment, democratic society, or the economy through the lifetime of their children, let alone their children's children, to be zero. Why would you assume that the childless are any more selfish, as a group? Why can one not care about the continuance and betterment of humanity without one's own direct descendents being involved?
card_zero 3y ago
Some parents boast about how they'd impetuously shoot anyone who threatened their offspring. Here you are excluding those who leave behind only ideas and creative works from having a say in the future, in case that threatens your offspring. Reproduction makes people slightly crazy. First it's must have sex, then it's must protect the brood. I resent being manipulated by these mindless instincts, which serve only DNA. Your apparent vision of the purpose of life is a dichotomy between reproducing and golf.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  They aren’t mindless. They’re what preserve the species and the arts and the culture and the science etc etc. I’m sorry you feel resentful about normal human instincts.
  - card_zero 3y ago
    That's different, then, if it's a thoughtful project carried out in the cause of culture. But then why disenfranchise all the creative and science types, just because their only offspring are the ideas that they nurture? They're doing basically the same thing, they're still investing in the future, and less randomly as well (since you can't ethically control the ideas of your actual flesh and blood children by any means beyond suggestions). Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature.
    - hypertele-Xii 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      >Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature. But instincts are something to be proud of. They're a product of extremely complex processes that occur over incredible timescales. At a minimum that's remarkable and interesting.
deleted 3y ago
bowsamic 3y ago
That is bizarre. Someone disagrees with you so all their political rights should be removed? What?
- tivert 3y ago
  > That is bizarre. Someone disagrees with you so all their political rights should be removed? What? You're misunderstanding him. I think it's more on the line of "freeloaders shouldn't have a say on what work gets done." The GGP literally said "I don't really care about the preservation of the human species. I'm going to be dead in the next 40 years or so, why should I care?" If someone has that attitude, and explicitly rejects responsibility to go all-in on selfishness, they've pretty clearly given up the moral right to be part of decision-making for the future.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed. You are misunderstanding me, in thinking I'm misunderstanding him. I'm understanding him exactly, and I'm saying that saying you "don't really care about the preservation of the human species" is an opinion and that you and GP are bizarrely claiming that those with that opinion should have their political rights removed.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed. I think there's two aspects where you misunderstand: 1. The original comment is ambiguous about whether they think their "voice...in what happens in government and politics" should be formally removed, voluntarily given up, or just passively ignored. 2. I think simplistically framing this as mere "disagreement" fails to capture what's actually being discussed, and ignores important aspects of governance. It's sort of (but not exactly) like the question if insurrectionists should keep their places in the government they're subverting (e.g. should the Confederate States have kept their seats in Congress, ability to vote for the presidency, have it's members hold important positions in the US government, etc. while they were rebelling)?
voidfunc 3y ago
If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas. Parenting is a messy business that introduces too many quality control issues. Our glorious future means we must have only perfectly standard issue babies that conform to exact government measurements and standards. Men must donate sperm and women will be artificially impregnated until we can figure out how to grow test tube babies. Glory to our future!
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  Ah yes, the Romanian orphanage concept. I did wonder when Eastern bloc policies would see a resurgence.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    The Papers, Please guy will be happy to credit you two for the sequel idea.
- tivert 3y ago
  > If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas. Come on, that's just idiotic sarcasm that doesn't even understand the GP's point, let alone actually skewer it. It's as stupid as trying to mock childfree people by sarcastically advocating a total ban on having children, like in ZPG (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069530/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069530/).
  - voidfunc 3y ago
    It's an equally ridiculous proposal to someone's fascist take that I shouldn't be allowed to have political rights because I don't want children.
    - 3y ago
newbie578 3y ago
Absolutely well said. I agree a 100%. If someone wants to be selfish, let him be, but don’t expect the rest of us to give much credence to his opinions since he very well doesn’t care about our society.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Because parents can't be selfish too? We all have our motivations for doing what we do. People's drive to have children can be selfish. Their drive to not have children can be selfish. There can be selflessness mixed in to either scenario. Equating not wanting to have children with not caring about society is absurd. While we're throwing around ridiculous ideas: if anyone should have no say in politics of society, it's people who make these kinds of blanket judgments.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Except GP literally said they don't care about society after they are dead. That is a problem for society.
pjc50 3y ago
People in this thread like you should have to declare how many kids they actually have.
fzeroracer 3y ago
Fine, if that's your argument that childless people are leeches and shouldn't have a voice then give me back the tax money I pay to subsidize you.
surgical_fire 3y ago
Should they stop paying taxes too? Why should they subside the common good that your children will benefit of? This argument cuts both ways.
askonomm 3y ago
It's actually people like you that have no regard for other people's wishes and desires, a downright hostile attitude towards people who live different lifestyles from you and who force their own lifestyle onto others as the "one true way of living", that should be removed from the ability to vote, imo.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence. After reading your post, I’ve reached the same conclusion regarding your opinions.

nyokodo 3y ago

> I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence I’d settle for a much higher tax rate for the voluntarily childless to very inadequately offset the lack of contributing to the next generation. Probably the best way to implement this is that the child tax credit should be much bigger.

remarkEon 3y ago
Yeah the child tax credit should be doubled or tripled, that's one option.
kalaksi 3y ago
That kind of already happens in countries where government monetarily supports families with children since it's tax money. But the effective difference in taxes isn't probably that large.
- lordnacho 3y ago
  It's just peanuts compared to having one less job for a while. Maybe that is what to do, give tax credits on the order of an income. That way you are basically tax free while having young children, but you'll still want a job when they are a little bit older.
card_zero 3y ago
I'm impressed by the idea that it's even possible to stop people in general from having kids. In 1974 there were 4 billion people, and we were worried about overpopulation, with scare stories in the media on the theme of "standing room only". Now we are 8 billion, and worrying about low birth rates, even in China (see the "lying flat" trend). So, get back to me when we're down to 4 billion again and I'll consider supporting financial incentives to support future human life, but right now I don't see an existential threat from low birth rates. I do however think that it's really cool that people have the capacity to refrain from having kids when they know that it's a bad idea in their specific circumstances. I like this because it shows the malthusian overpopulation doom-mongers to be wrong, and they were getting annoying.
askonomm 3y ago
I already pay tax that ends up paying your child support money, builds kindergartens for you, funds schools, even though I have no kids. But no, let's punish me more because I don't fit your view of the world by raising my taxes more, even though I benefit from the existing ones a lot less than you do already.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Taxes are not punishment. With such a childish view of society it is probably for the best that you aren't a parent.
  - askonomm 3y ago
    You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > You seem to have not read what I replied to. It is punishment if I pay MORE taxes than those with children, just because I don't have any, even though those with children benefit more from taxes, taxes that I already pay. Think if it this way: in the childlessness-tax scenario, the parents would be paying society in-kind by raising kid(s), and you'd paying society with money instead. You're both paying, just in different ways. Taxes also aren't some kind of payment-in-exchange for services thing. It's foolish to complain about programs because you don't personally benefit from them.

retrac98 3y ago

This makes no sense. Why shouldn’t someone who’s going to live in a society for several more decades have a say in how it operates?

remarkEon 3y ago
It makes perfect sense. Their preference set is limited to their own desires, for as long as they are terrestrially bound. They have no skin in the game for ensuring that things are functional after they die. Why should I listen to someone who only cares about their own gratification?
- retrac98 3y ago
  What makes you think people without kids only care about their own gratification? Can’t they care for others that aren’t their children? What about people without children who work for the betterment of entire communities?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Sure they can but I don't see much of that.
- malermeister 3y ago
  This might surprise you, but people can care about other people that aren't their blood relatives. Don't play morally superior just because you decided to procreate.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  This is the system everyone else who came before, and had kids, created. Seems like disagreeing and committing is the right move.
- GeneralMayhem 3y ago
  This strikes me as not dissimilar to religious people who are terrified of atheists because, without God, they must have no reason not to become mass murderers. There are many people with kids who have revealed the value they place on the sustainability of the environment, democratic society, or the economy through the lifetime of their children, let alone their children's children, to be zero. Why would you assume that the childless are any more selfish, as a group? Why can one not care about the continuance and betterment of humanity without one's own direct descendents being involved?

card_zero 3y ago

Some parents boast about how they'd impetuously shoot anyone who threatened their offspring. Here you are excluding those who leave behind only ideas and creative works from having a say in the future, in case that threatens your offspring. Reproduction makes people slightly crazy. First it's must have sex, then it's must protect the brood. I resent being manipulated by these mindless instincts, which serve only DNA. Your apparent vision of the purpose of life is a dichotomy between reproducing and golf.

remarkEon 3y ago
They aren’t mindless. They’re what preserve the species and the arts and the culture and the science etc etc. I’m sorry you feel resentful about normal human instincts.
- card_zero 3y ago
  That's different, then, if it's a thoughtful project carried out in the cause of culture. But then why disenfranchise all the creative and science types, just because their only offspring are the ideas that they nurture? They're doing basically the same thing, they're still investing in the future, and less randomly as well (since you can't ethically control the ideas of your actual flesh and blood children by any means beyond suggestions). Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature.
  - hypertele-Xii 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    >Also, instincts are nothing to be proud of, they're just dumped on us by nature. But instincts are something to be proud of. They're a product of extremely complex processes that occur over incredible timescales. At a minimum that's remarkable and interesting.

deleted 3y ago

bowsamic 3y ago

That is bizarre. Someone disagrees with you so all their political rights should be removed? What?

tivert 3y ago
> That is bizarre. Someone disagrees with you so all their political rights should be removed? What? You're misunderstanding him. I think it's more on the line of "freeloaders shouldn't have a say on what work gets done." The GGP literally said "I don't really care about the preservation of the human species. I'm going to be dead in the next 40 years or so, why should I care?" If someone has that attitude, and explicitly rejects responsibility to go all-in on selfishness, they've pretty clearly given up the moral right to be part of decision-making for the future.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed. You are misunderstanding me, in thinking I'm misunderstanding him. I'm understanding him exactly, and I'm saying that saying you "don't really care about the preservation of the human species" is an opinion and that you and GP are bizarrely claiming that those with that opinion should have their political rights removed.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > No, they haven't. Again, that's just you saying that because of their disagreement they should have their political rights removed. I think there's two aspects where you misunderstand: 1. The original comment is ambiguous about whether they think their "voice...in what happens in government and politics" should be formally removed, voluntarily given up, or just passively ignored. 2. I think simplistically framing this as mere "disagreement" fails to capture what's actually being discussed, and ignores important aspects of governance. It's sort of (but not exactly) like the question if insurrectionists should keep their places in the government they're subverting (e.g. should the Confederate States have kept their seats in Congress, ability to vote for the presidency, have it's members hold important positions in the US government, etc. while they were rebelling)?

voidfunc 3y ago

If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas. Parenting is a messy business that introduces too many quality control issues. Our glorious future means we must have only perfectly standard issue babies that conform to exact government measurements and standards. Men must donate sperm and women will be artificially impregnated until we can figure out how to grow test tube babies. Glory to our future!

Staple_Diet 3y ago
Ah yes, the Romanian orphanage concept. I did wonder when Eastern bloc policies would see a resurgence.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  The Papers, Please guy will be happy to credit you two for the sequel idea.
tivert 3y ago
> If we really want to go down this route we should do away with parenting. Children our are future therefore the government will be responsible for producing and raising children to meet our necessary societal workforce quotas. Come on, that's just idiotic sarcasm that doesn't even understand the GP's point, let alone actually skewer it. It's as stupid as trying to mock childfree people by sarcastically advocating a total ban on having children, like in ZPG (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069530/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069530/).
- voidfunc 3y ago
  It's an equally ridiculous proposal to someone's fascist take that I shouldn't be allowed to have political rights because I don't want children.
  - 3y ago

newbie578 3y ago

Absolutely well said. I agree a 100%. If someone wants to be selfish, let him be, but don’t expect the rest of us to give much credence to his opinions since he very well doesn’t care about our society.

kelnos 3y ago
Because parents can't be selfish too? We all have our motivations for doing what we do. People's drive to have children can be selfish. Their drive to not have children can be selfish. There can be selflessness mixed in to either scenario. Equating not wanting to have children with not caring about society is absurd. While we're throwing around ridiculous ideas: if anyone should have no say in politics of society, it's people who make these kinds of blanket judgments.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Except GP literally said they don't care about society after they are dead. That is a problem for society.

pjc50 3y ago

People in this thread like you should have to declare how many kids they actually have.

fzeroracer 3y ago

Fine, if that's your argument that childless people are leeches and shouldn't have a voice then give me back the tax money I pay to subsidize you.

surgical_fire 3y ago

Should they stop paying taxes too? Why should they subside the common good that your children will benefit of? This argument cuts both ways.

askonomm 3y ago

It's actually people like you that have no regard for other people's wishes and desires, a downright hostile attitude towards people who live different lifestyles from you and who force their own lifestyle onto others as the "one true way of living", that should be removed from the ability to vote, imo.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

> I will discount your opinions to zero on anything else of consequence. After reading your post, I’ve reached the same conclusion regarding your opinions.