3 ms·

>> But there are no other kids out there. I'm sending him out into streets empty of kids. This. It's a number's "game". My father, born in rural Romania, had

>> But there are no other kids out there. I'm sending him out into streets empty of kids. This. It's a number's "game". My father, born in rural Romania, had 8 siblings, one of them died of an accident in his childhood (yeah, during "free range stuff"). I was born in a town and have 2 brothers. Live in a city and have one kid. I can't send my kid out carelessly because I don't have a backup.

xyzelement 6mo ago
One of the many reasons you should have more kids.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  If one in 8 has that kind of accident in America they will seize all the kids and you will lose all of them, so other than just spreading your DNA that approach won't work. There are many, many documented cases of people having all their kids seized because they had a child with a brittle bone disease, and after their brittle bones break (happens easily with such child) the government blames the parent and takes all the other children too.
  - xyzelement 6mo ago
    Ok I am not sure what exact point you are making or arguing with. The op grew up as 1 of 3 and I think that's better than 1 of 1 :)
    - mothballed 6mo ago
      3 means 3x the chance of them all being taken away when something goes wrong. 1 seems better if your goal is to have at least one child remaining in custody with you to age 18, since if anything goes wrong other than a provable unavoidable medical accident they're typically all seized.
      - xyzelement 6mo ago
        This seems like an absolutely insane thing to optimize for but if this is anything like personal experience for you I am really sorry.
  - dublinstats 6mo ago
    statistically you'd only need about 0.0002 additional children to counter the risk of accidental deaths prior generations of children experienced.
  - shigawire 6mo ago
    Many, many seems like overstating a rare corner case that can easily be proven.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - mothballed 6mo ago
      It actually can't be determined if it's "overstated", because the child snatchers have intentionally hidden the data (under seal, "think of the children") so you can't determine the ratio of "overstating." It is illegal to pull the data, so instead you just have to rely on the many many articles you can pull up of people speaking up on their own accord despite the fact their adversary is usually using their children as leverage to keep them from speaking out. That is part of the genius. They hide the data then declare "just show us the data" knowing damn well they hid it then try to hide under just being reasonable and why can't you prove it. It's quite sadistic actually and of course arguments such as yours play into this intentional subterfuge. Note that this hiding of evidence, when done by private actors, in a court of law usually means it is entered in evidence in favor of the other side as hiding means the worst case scenario of that is contributed towards the burden of proof ("spoliation of evidence.") You don't get to play the fuck-fuck game of simply asking for additional burden of proof when you've intentionally induced spoliation of the evidence.
      - watwut 6mo ago
        Missing kids statistics exist.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  Easier said than done when you don’t have to suffer the physical consequences of having them.
  - xyzelement 6mo ago
    I am not sure what you mean. Most people in the world including every single one of your ancestors has managed to have kids - including the physical aspects.
    - MichaelRo 6mo ago
      My wife gave birth by C-section. That would have killed her up until very modern times. She may theoretically birth another child but there's a substantial risk. There are "physical aspects", just because it's all theoretical and principles to you doesn't make them go away.
      - true_religion 5mo ago
        People aren’t comparing today to the ancient past. They’re by and large, comparing life to when they grew up. So on HN, that’s the 70s through the 90s. Since then maternal mortality in the USA has only increased. The reasons vary, but this still supports your comment as less people ought to be willing to risk having more children. I would add, that this stat also pairs with the prevalence of hard pregnancies in the USA, so people may become more protective of their children since they suffered more to have them. Other countries don’t have this issue, and also have more free range child allowances (e.g. Japan with low mortality, low number of children, but highly independent children supported and watched by adults in general and not their parents).
xboxnolifes 6mo ago
> I can't send my kid out carelessly because I don't have a backup. I don't understand this reasoning. Are you saying you're knowingly stunting the growth of your child because you would have to deal with your emotions if something terrible happened? I understand the emotional pull of it, but I don't understand being able to identify it, put it into words, and then continue to do it.
- MichaelRo 6mo ago
  I don't understand the "knowingly stunting the growth of your child" attack. What makes you conclude I'm stunting the growth of my child? He's not chained to a tree. He goes to private school in a country where public schools are free and excellent. Visits his friends and play in the public park or the private yard. Spends vacations in the countryside unsupervised by me because unlike the city, chances of being run over by a retard driving a car are much lower. Still, I advise him not to wander around freely as I did in my childhood because the world has become much shittier. One thing, there are bears everywhere, thanks to the animal rights lobbyists. I feared dogs and bulls when wandering across countryside as a kid, now I have to add bears too for my kid.

xyzelement 6mo ago

One of the many reasons you should have more kids.

mothballed 6mo ago
If one in 8 has that kind of accident in America they will seize all the kids and you will lose all of them, so other than just spreading your DNA that approach won't work. There are many, many documented cases of people having all their kids seized because they had a child with a brittle bone disease, and after their brittle bones break (happens easily with such child) the government blames the parent and takes all the other children too.
- xyzelement 6mo ago
  Ok I am not sure what exact point you are making or arguing with. The op grew up as 1 of 3 and I think that's better than 1 of 1 :)
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    3 means 3x the chance of them all being taken away when something goes wrong. 1 seems better if your goal is to have at least one child remaining in custody with you to age 18, since if anything goes wrong other than a provable unavoidable medical accident they're typically all seized.
    - xyzelement 6mo ago
      This seems like an absolutely insane thing to optimize for but if this is anything like personal experience for you I am really sorry.
- dublinstats 6mo ago
  statistically you'd only need about 0.0002 additional children to counter the risk of accidental deaths prior generations of children experienced.
- shigawire 6mo ago
  Many, many seems like overstating a rare corner case that can easily be proven.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mothballed 6mo ago
    It actually can't be determined if it's "overstated", because the child snatchers have intentionally hidden the data (under seal, "think of the children") so you can't determine the ratio of "overstating." It is illegal to pull the data, so instead you just have to rely on the many many articles you can pull up of people speaking up on their own accord despite the fact their adversary is usually using their children as leverage to keep them from speaking out. That is part of the genius. They hide the data then declare "just show us the data" knowing damn well they hid it then try to hide under just being reasonable and why can't you prove it. It's quite sadistic actually and of course arguments such as yours play into this intentional subterfuge. Note that this hiding of evidence, when done by private actors, in a court of law usually means it is entered in evidence in favor of the other side as hiding means the worst case scenario of that is contributed towards the burden of proof ("spoliation of evidence.") You don't get to play the fuck-fuck game of simply asking for additional burden of proof when you've intentionally induced spoliation of the evidence.
    - watwut 6mo ago
      Missing kids statistics exist.
lotsofpulp 6mo ago
Easier said than done when you don’t have to suffer the physical consequences of having them.
- xyzelement 6mo ago
  I am not sure what you mean. Most people in the world including every single one of your ancestors has managed to have kids - including the physical aspects.
  - MichaelRo 6mo ago
    My wife gave birth by C-section. That would have killed her up until very modern times. She may theoretically birth another child but there's a substantial risk. There are "physical aspects", just because it's all theoretical and principles to you doesn't make them go away.
    - true_religion 5mo ago
      People aren’t comparing today to the ancient past. They’re by and large, comparing life to when they grew up. So on HN, that’s the 70s through the 90s. Since then maternal mortality in the USA has only increased. The reasons vary, but this still supports your comment as less people ought to be willing to risk having more children. I would add, that this stat also pairs with the prevalence of hard pregnancies in the USA, so people may become more protective of their children since they suffered more to have them. Other countries don’t have this issue, and also have more free range child allowances (e.g. Japan with low mortality, low number of children, but highly independent children supported and watched by adults in general and not their parents).

xboxnolifes 6mo ago

> I can't send my kid out carelessly because I don't have a backup. I don't understand this reasoning. Are you saying you're knowingly stunting the growth of your child because you would have to deal with your emotions if something terrible happened? I understand the emotional pull of it, but I don't understand being able to identify it, put it into words, and then continue to do it.

MichaelRo 6mo ago
I don't understand the "knowingly stunting the growth of your child" attack. What makes you conclude I'm stunting the growth of my child? He's not chained to a tree. He goes to private school in a country where public schools are free and excellent. Visits his friends and play in the public park or the private yard. Spends vacations in the countryside unsupervised by me because unlike the city, chances of being run over by a retard driving a car are much lower. Still, I advise him not to wander around freely as I did in my childhood because the world has become much shittier. One thing, there are bears everywhere, thanks to the animal rights lobbyists. I feared dogs and bulls when wandering across countryside as a kid, now I have to add bears too for my kid.