SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
that.... is (not intending to be snide here, though I know it might come off that way) a rather fascinating thing to see a self-described progressive say...
Even then contraception has not proven all that effective. If this is something that interests you, I would recommend an excellent book on the topic. He devotes an entire chapter to the "Cash For Condoms" model.
Oh, CP, but it isn't.There is a difference between a liberal and a progressive, and they can sometimes be wildly different creatures.
The term "childless" is in itself a derogatory word that implies those that choose not to have children are inferior. The term "child free" would be the opposite of that and would infer that those that choose not to have children are better off if not superior. Our society glorifies reproduction and people who have 10 kids, 40 grand kids and 20 great grand kids are put on a pedestal as very successful people. And you wonder why we are running low on land and resources. You wonder why we are drilling, mining, building wind mill and solar farms on every inch of land we have. You can't understand why the ocean is running low on fish and we have mountains of pig crap leeching into our drinking water.
As someone who would like to see the classic term "liberal" restored to its' meaning, I would agree. But most who self describe as "progressive" are not of the opinion that you cannot help the poor by giving them free money.
There are instances however that for whatever fertility reason, people run into difficulty having children...
What exactly does your question imply, is what I'm wondering. Choices are a lot different than circumstances. Maybe a bit of clarification is needed as to why you pose such a question?
The term "childless" is in itself a derogatory word that implies those that choose not to have children are inferior. The term "child free" would be the opposite of that and would infer that those that choose not to have children are better off if not superior.
Our society glorifies reproduction and people who have 10 kids, 40 grand kids and 20 great grand kids are put on a pedestal as very successful people.
I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle between having no kids and having 10 kids.
May be my next poll should be: Should couples with 10 children be considered inferior? :wink3:
:shrug: all things being equal they contribute less to society. "inferior" would be a word that would require qualifications, however.
If a couple choses not raise children, then they have chosen to not support the future tax base which funds government and social programs. Maybe they should receive less benefits than those couples that choose to raise children. When people pay taxes for social programs, they are merely paying the bill for current beneficiaries (namely their parents). If they choose to break the chain maybe their own benefits should be reduced.
Parenting is a definite hardship financially.
Why? Those people who don't put their time into children may have a lot more time to... ya know... do something important to humanity, perhaps.
Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.
There's the problem. You feel responsible to your ancestors. I'm sorry, but they're dead. They won't notice whether you do or don't have kids. Life is only about doing what makes you happy.
Perhaps. But not statistically. Interestingly, especially among men, quite the opposite occurs - those who do not marry and raise no children tend to make less than those who do. Charles Murray has done some rather fascinating research on this. It seems having a family to support is a powerful motivator for self-improvement.
Writing an opinion book is not exactly what I would call research, as in it is not scholarly, peer reviewed or really subject to any kind of scrutiny or scientific method.
Ad Sourcinem by Redress, who didn't read the source critiqued and cannot answer it. Everyone pretend to be surprised.
I'm sorry, but the title is instantly blood-curdling. Not to mention what summaries I can find about point to it being yet another black and white thinking practice in poking the red line of eugenics and egoism.
Also, I must make a very important point: there is a HUGE difference between the childfree and the childless.
There's a reason Ad Sourcinem isn't a real fallacy. I'll let you figure out why.
Ad Sourcinem by Redress, who didn't read the source critiqued and cannot answer it. Everyone pretend to be surprised.
:doh It's a form of ad hominem, baron. I'll give you a minute to figure out that Charles Murray is a person.
:doh It's a form of ad hominem, baron.
I'll give you a minute to figure out that Charles Murray is a person.
:doh
No. The reason that Murray wrote explicitly about the statistics among white Americans was because minorities have a heavier portion of their populace in the ranks of the poor - when Murray wrote earlier about social breakup and the economic results he was accused of being racist because - surprise! - it turned out a greater portion of blacks were poor. This book was written to demonstrate the consistency of the relationships demonstrated across all racial lines, first by teasing out the white numbers, and then by demonstrating how they match the causal relationships in the black and hispanic communities.
Or, you could pull an ad hominem. That seems to work, too. :roll:
Not as far as it impacts society. The two are - in their effects - the same. Both represent people who have not born the cost of raising the next generation of producers upon whom they will depend.
So I should ignore the fact you made it a point to hide the fact you where linking to an amazon add for a book and not actual research? It's my fault you cannot prove your claims, yeah, that's it.
:shrug: you want me to go grab the book off my shelf and read through it to find you relevant statistics? Lack of family formation and child-rearing directly ties to productivity. The natural state of human kind appears to be laziness, and the natural state of the unattached male not responsible for others appears to be a form of extended adolescence. I offered the thing up as a hey-if-you're-interested-this-guy-has-put-together-the-numbers. But hey, if you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?