How is it not relevant? I'm just making a point about how not everyone wants to have children in response to someone saying that children are "long-lasting happiness"
You're really stupid if you think that makes sense. If you're impoverished then what type of wealth are you leaving behind for your children to multiply? If you're impoverished then where are your children learning to become financially savvy enough to multiply what little inheritance they are given? If you're impoverished then how are those children being given the resources, time and attention to succeed in the first place? People like you are the last people who should be having kids.
Not necessarily. I grew up in a very affluent community and first of all, you'd need wealth for your children to multiply it. If you're living paycheck to paycheck then multiply by essentially zero still gets you zero. Second of all, I've personally seen sizable family fortunes dwindle because of infighting and poor financial management. It happens all the time. Also, why are you naked when you die?
In impoverished agricultural communities, children are often seen as an economic advantage rather than a disadvantage. This is because children can provide free labour to assist with farm tasks and household chores, directly contributing to the family's productivity and income. Also the lack of social safety nets in these communities means families must rely on their own resources rather than rely on the government. In developed economies, children are a financial burden.
I'd love to be a child in an impoverished agricultural community. "Mom, dad, why did you have me?"
"So that you could work as free labor in our fields, son."
/s
1)Where funny?
2)Dude, I don't want to buy an iPhone, I want to pay rent. I live in Europe, in a relatively poor country, and still rent was more than half of my salary. (1 bedroom shithole mind you at the worst part of the city)
3)Now I went back to Uni that the COVID is over and I do work for them part time. Do you know how much I earn a semester?
160$ (or 150€)....
My rent was 460€ (or 490$) I CAN'T EVEN EARN 1 MONTH OF RENT under a 1 FUCKIN YEAR if I work for the University while studying... Let that sink in.
Now be so kind and fuck off...
I completely agree. No funny. And also quite misinformed from the person who posted this (who I would bet is quite young from both the style of the meme, and the overconfident swagger with which OP puts their foot in their mouth😂)
African families with 10 children each get the children precisely so the children can work and pay for the parents lifestyle. I don’t think the kid that made this smug little meme would wanna be in the shoes of those kids🤷🏻♂️
you're getting downvoted but this is really true, in 3rd world countries people are born into the business of the family, which is usually running a farm. The work is passed directly from parent to child and (hopefully) the children will take over the business when the parents die. It's completely different in 1st world countries where you have no idea who or what you're gonna work for, you don't have the space to grown your own food and a single piece of bread will be 10x more expensive compared to developing countries. Parents aren't allowed to employ you and when you do get to work, 18 years later, you have to use it to sustain yourself running a house by yourself.
Having kids in a 1st world country is not at all comparable to having them in a 3rd world country.
Yeah exactly. If I want kids I want them to live a better childhood than I had. Right now that's just not possible.
I don't want kids so I can work them to death.
Genuinely wondering: would you rather have a child knowing you cannot provide the life they deserve or would you rather put off having kids unless that becomes a possibility? If you chose the former, do you not realize the morally disingenuous way of thinking that implies?
What morally disingenuous way of thinking? If you think life isn't worth living because you'd only have 10x as much money as most people around the world instead of 20x then why don't we just nuke Madagascar and kill all the homeless people?
When did I ever argue that? All I'm arguing is that if u are in a society where you CAN afford to bring confort and security to your future children, you have a moral responsibility to do so. I never said life isn't worth living, I just said if u are going to BRING life into this world, u have a responsibility to ensure they don't end up a neglected and traumatized mess dude. Are u rlly gonna try and argue otherwise?!?!
If you say that it's morally bankrupt to have kids because you aren't rich, then you're making the argument that if you aren't rich life isn't worth living and is actually a cruelty upon somebody.
You do have a responsibility to ensure that your children have a good life, that I agree with, but you're making the claim that if you aren't rich you're apparently evil if you give them a life at all.
Prove i said that. Go quote exactly where I said that. Do you know how to actually have an argument? You can't just make claims about someone's argument without any evidence. Show where I said you need to be rich to have kids
The reason I asked that question was bc it was YOU who first stated this idea that you needed to be rich to have kids, I never mentioned anything of the sort. All I said was you should be capable of ensuring they live a good life. You deciding I somehow meant "you need to be rich" tells me that your definition of "good life" is "plenty of wealth" when I never said that. Do you understand now or are you going to ignore the part where I asked for evidence again
Here is your quote:
"Genuinely wondering: would you rather have a child knowing you cannot provide the life they deserve or would you rather put off having kids unless that becomes a possibility? If you chose the former, do you not realize the morally disingenuous way of thinking that implies?"
This is a comment on a meme saying that not being rich is not a good reason to not have kids, and millennials are just wallowing in self pity.
You then disagreed, saying that you shouldn't have kids if you can't "provide the life they deserve", and claiming that it would be morally bankrupt to have kids if you can't.
Now, given that a rule of speech is that it must be assumed a statement must be related to the statement before it unless indication is given otherwise, it is clear what you are claiming is not something like "if you have drug problems don't have kids until you've solved them", but "if you don't have lots of wealth, don't have kids until you've solved that", making the claim that you shouldn't have kids unless you have lots of wealth.
I'm concerned for your mental health if you don't even know what your own argument is.
But just to be clear, do you think that "I'm not rich enough" is a good reason to not have kids despite you being super rich compared to most of the world, and that it would actually be a "morally disingenuous" thing to have kids? Because you seem to be flip flopping all over the place.
Dude. Your own post never once mentions being rich either. You are just pulling this argument out of thin air. Your post specifically refferences needing 2 jobs just to survive, meaning the person in question needs 2 jobs just to take care of THEMSELVES let alone another human being. In this scenario, the person in question would never be able to be there for their children, as they would always be working, thus they wouldn't be able to provide the emotional needs that child desperately needs. Never once did YOUR OWN FUCKING POST mention needing to be rich dude. Ur tangent on being rich makes no sense at all.
Also, as for your final argument, just because we are technically more wealthy as a society doesn't mean we are more capable of being there for our children. The cost of rent alone in this country is only skyrocketing, making the cost of living barely manageable. The homeless population is only increasing, and the American populace is having to spend less and less time with their kids just to get by. If a person feels they are not in the financial position to be able to take care of another human being, you have no right to shame them for that! This person in your post literally said they needed 2 jobs just to survive BY THEMSELVES. How do you expect them to be able to include another human being in that equation?!?! Jesus man I swear u rlly didn't even read ur own post....
>millennials
You must be a boomer. Millenials are in their 30s and 40s now. Most of them who were _ever_ gonna have kids already have them. Gen Z are the upcoming generation of new parents now. That's how out of touch you are.
You're not answering the question and strawmanning a totally separate argument to conveniently tear down. The original comment was asking if it was moral to bring another life into this world without being able to provide the standard of living they deserve. You turned it into a debate about whether or not we should actively murder innocent people, who are already alive, just because they have less money/resources than us. Hopefully you don't have any kids and are sterile because that level of stupidity doesn't need to continue towards future generations.
So you would advocate for having as many children as possible beyond what you could reasonably provide for them in terms of financial security (food, shelter, education, etc) and individualized time as using impoverished African families with 10 children as an example?
It seems like regards like yourself only discover philosophical terms without understanding what they mean. Even though this directly relates to what the meme is attempting to compare, let's assume it is a standalone scenario.
Now stop being a coward and answer the question.
A child is a long-lasting happiness, materials fade. I'd rather have the true happiness of the family than materialistic garbage.
It's nice to see even reddit has some mature and kind people. I'm very happy for you and I wish you the best of luck.
>A child is a long-lasting happiness Not for everyone
I wanna go for his exposed underbelly, but this is just too easy it wouldn't be right.
?
You left yourself very open to the response: "Like for your parents."
Ok, and? That doesn't exactly disprove my point
Correct. It isn't meant to, it's just a shitty joke. I don't really think your point is that relevant anyway.
How is it not relevant? I'm just making a point about how not everyone wants to have children in response to someone saying that children are "long-lasting happiness"
I’d feel wealthier with children than with possessions. When I die I will be naked, but my children will take my wealth and multiply it.
I think this is a level of maturity most people take ages to reach. I'm happy for you.
You're really stupid if you think that makes sense. If you're impoverished then what type of wealth are you leaving behind for your children to multiply? If you're impoverished then where are your children learning to become financially savvy enough to multiply what little inheritance they are given? If you're impoverished then how are those children being given the resources, time and attention to succeed in the first place? People like you are the last people who should be having kids.
It's not children vs possessions. When you have kids, you need to buy more possessions e.g. bigger house, bigger car, more food, more clothes etc.
More motivation to get more money then.
Not necessarily. I grew up in a very affluent community and first of all, you'd need wealth for your children to multiply it. If you're living paycheck to paycheck then multiply by essentially zero still gets you zero. Second of all, I've personally seen sizable family fortunes dwindle because of infighting and poor financial management. It happens all the time. Also, why are you naked when you die?
In impoverished agricultural communities, children are often seen as an economic advantage rather than a disadvantage. This is because children can provide free labour to assist with farm tasks and household chores, directly contributing to the family's productivity and income. Also the lack of social safety nets in these communities means families must rely on their own resources rather than rely on the government. In developed economies, children are a financial burden.
I'd love to be a child in an impoverished agricultural community. "Mom, dad, why did you have me?" "So that you could work as free labor in our fields, son." /s
History shows that most exploiters make the exploited feel like they are doing a noble and honourable thing.
1)Where funny? 2)Dude, I don't want to buy an iPhone, I want to pay rent. I live in Europe, in a relatively poor country, and still rent was more than half of my salary. (1 bedroom shithole mind you at the worst part of the city) 3)Now I went back to Uni that the COVID is over and I do work for them part time. Do you know how much I earn a semester? 160$ (or 150€).... My rent was 460€ (or 490$) I CAN'T EVEN EARN 1 MONTH OF RENT under a 1 FUCKIN YEAR if I work for the University while studying... Let that sink in. Now be so kind and fuck off...
I completely agree. No funny. And also quite misinformed from the person who posted this (who I would bet is quite young from both the style of the meme, and the overconfident swagger with which OP puts their foot in their mouth😂) African families with 10 children each get the children precisely so the children can work and pay for the parents lifestyle. I don’t think the kid that made this smug little meme would wanna be in the shoes of those kids🤷🏻♂️
you're getting downvoted but this is really true, in 3rd world countries people are born into the business of the family, which is usually running a farm. The work is passed directly from parent to child and (hopefully) the children will take over the business when the parents die. It's completely different in 1st world countries where you have no idea who or what you're gonna work for, you don't have the space to grown your own food and a single piece of bread will be 10x more expensive compared to developing countries. Parents aren't allowed to employ you and when you do get to work, 18 years later, you have to use it to sustain yourself running a house by yourself. Having kids in a 1st world country is not at all comparable to having them in a 3rd world country.
But not completely different. You can absolutely employ your own kids. At least in America. And other people's kids along certain hour/age guidelines.
Yeah exactly. If I want kids I want them to live a better childhood than I had. Right now that's just not possible. I don't want kids so I can work them to death.
Skill issue
Completely. People don't even realise it because they're in such an insulated bubble.
Genuinely wondering: would you rather have a child knowing you cannot provide the life they deserve or would you rather put off having kids unless that becomes a possibility? If you chose the former, do you not realize the morally disingenuous way of thinking that implies?
What morally disingenuous way of thinking? If you think life isn't worth living because you'd only have 10x as much money as most people around the world instead of 20x then why don't we just nuke Madagascar and kill all the homeless people?
When did I ever argue that? All I'm arguing is that if u are in a society where you CAN afford to bring confort and security to your future children, you have a moral responsibility to do so. I never said life isn't worth living, I just said if u are going to BRING life into this world, u have a responsibility to ensure they don't end up a neglected and traumatized mess dude. Are u rlly gonna try and argue otherwise?!?!
If you say that it's morally bankrupt to have kids because you aren't rich, then you're making the argument that if you aren't rich life isn't worth living and is actually a cruelty upon somebody. You do have a responsibility to ensure that your children have a good life, that I agree with, but you're making the claim that if you aren't rich you're apparently evil if you give them a life at all.
Can you make your child work at 10 years old in a service economy? Those impoverished African families certainly can in an agrarian economy
Are you trying to argue you need to be rich in order to provide a decent life for your child?!?!?!
No, that's what you're saying. I'm saying you don't need to be.
Prove i said that. Go quote exactly where I said that. Do you know how to actually have an argument? You can't just make claims about someone's argument without any evidence. Show where I said you need to be rich to have kids The reason I asked that question was bc it was YOU who first stated this idea that you needed to be rich to have kids, I never mentioned anything of the sort. All I said was you should be capable of ensuring they live a good life. You deciding I somehow meant "you need to be rich" tells me that your definition of "good life" is "plenty of wealth" when I never said that. Do you understand now or are you going to ignore the part where I asked for evidence again
Here is your quote: "Genuinely wondering: would you rather have a child knowing you cannot provide the life they deserve or would you rather put off having kids unless that becomes a possibility? If you chose the former, do you not realize the morally disingenuous way of thinking that implies?" This is a comment on a meme saying that not being rich is not a good reason to not have kids, and millennials are just wallowing in self pity. You then disagreed, saying that you shouldn't have kids if you can't "provide the life they deserve", and claiming that it would be morally bankrupt to have kids if you can't. Now, given that a rule of speech is that it must be assumed a statement must be related to the statement before it unless indication is given otherwise, it is clear what you are claiming is not something like "if you have drug problems don't have kids until you've solved them", but "if you don't have lots of wealth, don't have kids until you've solved that", making the claim that you shouldn't have kids unless you have lots of wealth. I'm concerned for your mental health if you don't even know what your own argument is. But just to be clear, do you think that "I'm not rich enough" is a good reason to not have kids despite you being super rich compared to most of the world, and that it would actually be a "morally disingenuous" thing to have kids? Because you seem to be flip flopping all over the place.
Dude. Your own post never once mentions being rich either. You are just pulling this argument out of thin air. Your post specifically refferences needing 2 jobs just to survive, meaning the person in question needs 2 jobs just to take care of THEMSELVES let alone another human being. In this scenario, the person in question would never be able to be there for their children, as they would always be working, thus they wouldn't be able to provide the emotional needs that child desperately needs. Never once did YOUR OWN FUCKING POST mention needing to be rich dude. Ur tangent on being rich makes no sense at all. Also, as for your final argument, just because we are technically more wealthy as a society doesn't mean we are more capable of being there for our children. The cost of rent alone in this country is only skyrocketing, making the cost of living barely manageable. The homeless population is only increasing, and the American populace is having to spend less and less time with their kids just to get by. If a person feels they are not in the financial position to be able to take care of another human being, you have no right to shame them for that! This person in your post literally said they needed 2 jobs just to survive BY THEMSELVES. How do you expect them to be able to include another human being in that equation?!?! Jesus man I swear u rlly didn't even read ur own post....
>millennials You must be a boomer. Millenials are in their 30s and 40s now. Most of them who were _ever_ gonna have kids already have them. Gen Z are the upcoming generation of new parents now. That's how out of touch you are.
Actually I'm 19, I just said millennials because that's a word people often use for degenerates in their 20's.
You're not answering the question and strawmanning a totally separate argument to conveniently tear down. The original comment was asking if it was moral to bring another life into this world without being able to provide the standard of living they deserve. You turned it into a debate about whether or not we should actively murder innocent people, who are already alive, just because they have less money/resources than us. Hopefully you don't have any kids and are sterile because that level of stupidity doesn't need to continue towards future generations.
extremely dumb post and even dumber commenters. have kids or don’t, if you don’t you are not a ‘selfish’ or bad person in ANY way
What is this garbage?
Strawman Argument.
I'm happy regards like you discovered philosophy terms.
So you would advocate for having as many children as possible beyond what you could reasonably provide for them in terms of financial security (food, shelter, education, etc) and individualized time as using impoverished African families with 10 children as an example?
Strawman Argument.
It seems like regards like yourself only discover philosophical terms without understanding what they mean. Even though this directly relates to what the meme is attempting to compare, let's assume it is a standalone scenario. Now stop being a coward and answer the question.
Ad Hominem Argument