5 ms·

Balls to this. As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own. Sure, we're programmed to

Balls to this. As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own. Sure, we're programmed to behave with an otherwise inexcusable amount of irrationality with our kids, but that's not by accident. If anything, it demonstrates the level of evolutionary importance in keeping our offspring healthy and ensuring their success: it's such an important directive in fact, that evolution has deemed it more important than the needs of the parents to 'play [their] games, go to [their] parties -- read book[s]...or code'. I'm not going to tell you you're objectively wrong on this, but I will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Life is a squishy, inconvenient, and occasionally beautiful endeavour. Realize that.

paulhauggis 14y ago
"As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own." You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on gay rights. You don't smoke weed, so you have no say in the laws The thing is. You can still have an opinion (and pass judgement)..even if you haven't experienced it yourself.
- mcmatterson 14y ago
  You'll notice that later on my comment I said 'I'm not going to say you're objectively wrong on this'. I'm not begrudging the OP his/her opinion, I'm simply saying that without the mental reset that is parenthood, the OP simply does not have enough information to make any factual statement on the matter. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong or unentitled, I'm simply saying that they're exhibiting a potent mix of naivety and arrogance that they may want to be more aware of. Or, as my sibling poster said in a better way: "Don't presume in your arrogance that you know quite a bit about something you have zero experience with."
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  We're not talking about laws here, we're describing experiences. Nobody is suggesting that all people should be parents. Your corrected analogies are as follows: You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on what it means to be gay. You don't smoke weed, so you have no idea what it's like to be high. Both of these statements are perfectly valid, and having a bunch of straight people talk about what it is like to be gay or a bunch of prudes talk about how out of sorts you are when you are high is pretty ridiculous.
aidenn0 14y ago
A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance. Regardless, I have met parents who feel that way, and it can often turn out poorly for the child, though it really depends. One person I know who feels this way is a DBA who earns more than enough for his wife to raise the kids. She works part-time more to escape cabin-fever than to earn money and seems happy with the arrangement. His long work hours means he doesn't have to deal with the kids any more than he wants to.
- engtech 14y ago
  "A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance." The difference is that someone who is a parent has also been a non-parent. Someone who is a non-parent has never been a parent.
  - Joeboy 14y ago
    That doesn't really make sense. Cognitive dissonance may cause a smoker to rationalize their habit even though they have also been a non-smoker. In fact you could argue that cognitive dissonance is more likely to affect a parent than a smoker, as parents don't have the alternative option of quitting. You could argue that non-parents may also be under the influence, but having formerly been a non-parent doesn't necessarily mean you're not rationalizing your choice to make you feel better about it.
- mcmatterson 14y ago
  I don't even pretend to understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph, and since this is HN and not reddit, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean no harm. That being said, I might caution you to choose your words wisely and delicately when it comes to commenting on other people's parenting methods. There are few minefields more fraught with peril than those surrounding parenting. Someone less accommodating than I may well take offense to statements like that, so tread lightly.
  - 14y ago

paulhauggis 14y ago

"As your sibling commenter says, you simply don't get to pass judgement on this if you haven't had a child of your own." You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on gay rights. You don't smoke weed, so you have no say in the laws The thing is. You can still have an opinion (and pass judgement)..even if you haven't experienced it yourself.

mcmatterson 14y ago
You'll notice that later on my comment I said 'I'm not going to say you're objectively wrong on this'. I'm not begrudging the OP his/her opinion, I'm simply saying that without the mental reset that is parenthood, the OP simply does not have enough information to make any factual statement on the matter. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong or unentitled, I'm simply saying that they're exhibiting a potent mix of naivety and arrogance that they may want to be more aware of. Or, as my sibling poster said in a better way: "Don't presume in your arrogance that you know quite a bit about something you have zero experience with."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
run4yourlives 14y ago
We're not talking about laws here, we're describing experiences. Nobody is suggesting that all people should be parents. Your corrected analogies are as follows: You aren't gay, so you can't pass judgement on what it means to be gay. You don't smoke weed, so you have no idea what it's like to be high. Both of these statements are perfectly valid, and having a bunch of straight people talk about what it is like to be gay or a bunch of prudes talk about how out of sorts you are when you are high is pretty ridiculous.

aidenn0 14y ago

A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance. Regardless, I have met parents who feel that way, and it can often turn out poorly for the child, though it really depends. One person I know who feels this way is a DBA who earns more than enough for his wife to raise the kids. She works part-time more to escape cabin-fever than to earn money and seems happy with the arrangement. His long work hours means he doesn't have to deal with the kids any more than he wants to.

engtech 14y ago
"A non-parent could similarly argue that you don't get to pass judgement since you are under the influence of cognitive dissonance." The difference is that someone who is a parent has also been a non-parent. Someone who is a non-parent has never been a parent.
- Joeboy 14y ago
  That doesn't really make sense. Cognitive dissonance may cause a smoker to rationalize their habit even though they have also been a non-smoker. In fact you could argue that cognitive dissonance is more likely to affect a parent than a smoker, as parents don't have the alternative option of quitting. You could argue that non-parents may also be under the influence, but having formerly been a non-parent doesn't necessarily mean you're not rationalizing your choice to make you feel better about it.
mcmatterson 14y ago
I don't even pretend to understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph, and since this is HN and not reddit, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean no harm. That being said, I might caution you to choose your words wisely and delicately when it comes to commenting on other people's parenting methods. There are few minefields more fraught with peril than those surrounding parenting. Someone less accommodating than I may well take offense to statements like that, so tread lightly.
- 14y ago