Having a Baby Never Cost So Much (US)

[I Push Buttons]

Label what I am as you see fit. It doesn't bother me. I certainly don't feel "defeated" in my life. Good job, house all to myself ( and that's my only debt), and no one demanding my attention for their survival.

You can state your belief that children are useful. But I defy you to prove any practical purpose for them on a personal level.

What does this even mean?

On a personal level? People have stated "personal" reasons countless times in this thread and you have offhandedly dismissed them all as "nonsense."

Practical purpose of kids? Sure they have no utility for the first few years of their lives, but after that how do they not have practical value? Clean your house, mow your lawn, cook your food, wait on you, a life long conversation partner/confidant, assuming you aren't an asshole to them, you have someone to take care of you as you age, be there for you until the end, etc., etc.

And assuming you aren't entirely devoid of emotion, which is BIG IF given your attitude thus far, you might even grow to like your kid, heaven forbid even love them.

[Berengil]

There's no "practical purpose" to life itself, not in any way that will satisfy you. And yes, I will label you a nihilist because it's what you are. Have fun living and dying alone. The irony is, your life's worth will be reflected in how you chose to live it. In your case, living your life in the nihilistic fashion with the view that family and children and all that are just "emotional" and "poetic nonsense" will in and of itself make your life worthless.

By the way, virtually every successful man or woman who has ever lived had children and families and left behind a dynasty. Everyone who shaped the world and whose life mattered. Those who are loners, who see children and family as useless, pointless distractions? They tend to be the useless lives who never mattered or made an impact. Go ahead and scrounge up a few examples of those who never had family and were important, there are exceptions to every rule. But they are vastly outnumbered by the VIPs of history with family.

But all of that doesn't matter to me.

I don't care if anyone remembers me after I die. What does it matter?

Disdaining all of the stuff we're talking about would make my life worthless in your eyes, but it isn't anyone else's perspective on my life that matters to me, just my own.

And as to " making an impact", it doesn't matter to me if I do. What does matter to me, you might be wondering?

Keeping a good job, having a working car, paying my bills, getting a girl every now and then for some fun, reading ( I love to read), and keeping out of trouble. That's all.

- - - Updated - - -

What does this even mean?

On a personal level? People have stated "personal" reasons countless times in this thread and you have offhandedly dismissed them all as "nonsense."
.

They've stated emotional personal reasons, not practical ones. That's what I'm talking about. There is no absolute necessity for someone to reproduce in order to survive. For the species? Sure. But not for the individual.

[jimboa24]

I do have them. Anger, amusement, arousal, friendship, curiosity, and so forth.

I do try to be pragmatic above anything else. I don't always succeed.

I get emotional satisfaction from plenty of things. Just not anything that requires me to take care of someone else. I'm responsible for myself, and that's it. And I'm not a hypocrite. I don't expect help from anyone, unless I pay for it.

Then there is something wrong with you, or you're one of those extremely obnoxious Randroids who are obsessed with the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Cause normal people do get emotional satisfaction from helping others. We are social creatures - it's how our civilization came to be, the fact that we are all dependent on each other. And even now, with you convinced that all you need is you, the fact is, you rely on the products and services of others just to get by on a day-to-day basis. No man or woman is an island. We've just made things less personal and broadened the scale of our interdependent "village" into an interdependent nation of people.

[Deleted]

Be it cheap or expensive, I don't want to spend my time on a child. I don't like children and I love to enjoy my free time the way I want to.

[Berengil]

Practical purpose of kids? Sure they have no utility for the first few years of their lives, but after that how do they not have practical value? Clean your house, mow your lawn, cook your food, wait on you, a life long conversation partner/confidant, assuming you aren't an asshole to them, you have someone to take care of you as you age, be there for you until the end, etc., etc.

Underlined is unnecessary, i'll do it myself.

Bolded is not wanted. The day I can't do things for myself will be my last.

[Mister Cheese]

All those things that you dismiss, emotionalism, religion, traditions, customs, etc, those things you deem as completely irrational and useless are what make life worth living. They bring excitement to life, they feed the spirit and are the quintessential spices of life.

If we're going to all go the same way that you are, then life itself is useless. Nothing is necessary. We all are things that worthless, a waste of time and resources, and nothing matters. See, you're not "special" or "logical" or "enlightened", friend. You're nihilistic, whether you realize it or not. And the truth of the matter is, nihilism itself is self-defeating and the ultimate useless mindset/outlook. Children are far, far more useful than nihilism will ever be.

- - - Updated - - -



If you're a parent, and your kid is ever that defiant or talks back to you by the age that they're still spilling juice, then you have completely and utterly failed as a parent, and the problem isn't children, the problem is you.

It's a joke. Calm the hell down. I'm not a parent, but I constantly see other parents letting their kids get away with stupid shit and it annoys the hell out of me.

[Berengil]

Then there is something wrong with you, or you're one of those extremely obnoxious Randroids who are obsessed with the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Cause normal people do get emotional satisfaction from helping others. We are social creatures - it's how our civilization came to be, the fact that we are all dependent on each other. And even now, with you convinced that all you need is you, the fact is, you rely on the products and services of others just to get by on a day-to-day basis. No man or woman is an island. We've just made things less personal and broadened the scale of our interdependent "village" into an interdependent nation of people.

I don't like Ayn Rand. Too preachy.

The things i need that i don't myself do, I pay for, with money I earned at my job. So I do take care of myself.

[jimboa24]

But all of that doesn't matter to me.

I don't care if anyone remembers me after I die. What does it matter?

Disdaining all of the stuff we're talking about would make my life worthless in your eyes, but it isn't anyone else's perspective on my life that matters to me, just my own.

And as to " making an impact", it doesn't matter to me if I do. What does matter to me, you might be wondering?

Keeping a good job, having a working car, paying my bills, getting a girl every now and then for some fun, reading ( I love to read), and keeping out of trouble. That's all.

- - - Updated - - -




They've stated emotional personal reasons, not practical ones. That's what I'm talking about. There is no absolute necessity for someone to reproduce in order to survive. For the species? Sure. But not for the individual.

Yep, there is something wrong with you, or you're a kool-aid-drinking Randroid. Normal people not just get emotional satisfaction from connecting with, helping, or depending on others, they require it. It's this little concept called "family", to most people, family, whether it's blood family or chosen/adopted family, is exceptionally important to life. Not to you. You're basically a dead drone walking, based on your "dead inside" nonsense posted here.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't like Ayn Rand. Too preachy.

The things i need that i don't myself do, I pay for, with money I earned at my job. So I do take care of myself.

Not really. If you really did "take care of yourself," then you'd be off on an island somewhere, not just working a job, but doing EVERYTHING yourself, with absolutely no help or services from anyone. not just cooking and cleaning, but making your own shit, entertaining yourself, medically caring for yourself, etc. The fact that you don't is proof that no, you don't take care of yourself. You have to incentivize people to help take care of you with money, people who otherwise don't and wouldn't give a damn about you.

Point is, on some level, we all depend on each other, no man or woman is an island, and if everyone had that mindset, things would fall apart very, very quickly.

[THE Bigzoman]

There's no "practical purpose" to life itself, not in any way that will satisfy you. And yes, I will label you a nihilist because it's what you are. Have fun living and dying alone. The irony is, your life's worth will be reflected in how you chose to live it. In your case, living your life in the nihilistic fashion with the view that family and children and all that are just "emotional" and "poetic nonsense" will in and of itself make your life worthless.

By the way, virtually every successful man or woman who has ever lived had children and families and left behind a dynasty. Everyone who shaped the world and whose life mattered. Those who are loners, who see children and family as useless, pointless distractions? They tend to be the useless lives who never mattered or made an impact. Go ahead and scrounge up a few examples of those who never had family and were important, there are exceptions to every rule. But they are vastly outnumbered by the VIPs of history with family.

And?

You act as if those successful people had the impacts they had because they had a family. You could easily make an argument that having a family prolonged the impact they had by word of mouth, but that's about it. People who had a profound impact while not having offspring are more numerous than you think. The success of those who who had families had almost nothing to do with the fact that they had families as well.

[jimboa24]

And?

You act as if those successful people had the impacts they had because they had a family. You could easily make an argument that having a family prolonged the impact they had by word of mouth, but that's about it. People who had a profound impact while not having offspring is more numerous than you think.

It proves that this idea that family and kids do nothing but hold you back from success is complete and utter bullshit. If it were true, the rich and wealthy without kids would vastly outnumber the ones with kids and family. Not the other way around.

[Berengil]

You're basically a dead drone walking, based on your "dead inside" nonsense posted here.

Again, this is only true from your perspective. I certainly don't feel "dead inside". I have a job, amusements I enjoy, a house and a piece of land to look after. I'm quite satisfied with my life. But I'll say this:

I'm very familiar with the line of thinking you're displaying here. I've encountered it before. it's usually religious people incensed that someone isn't buying what they're selling about marriage, family, and so on. I'm not saying that's you, because you haven't said so, but it sure sounds familiar.

it's almost as if some people are so invested in what they believe, that when they encounter someone ( like myself) who just laughs it off, they pop a cork.

[MatthewOU2015]

Reason #912 why i'm childfree

[Berengil]

It proves that this idea that family and kids do nothing but hold you back from success is complete and utter bullshit.

I've never said that. My argument can be summed up this way: I don't want to pay for them or do the nearly two decades worth of work raising them.

[jimboa24]

Again, this is only true from your perspective. I certainly don't feel "dead inside". I have a job, amusements I enjoy, a house and a piece of land to look after. I'm quite satisfied with my life. But I'll say this:

I'm very familiar with the line of thinking you're displaying here. I've encountered it before. it's usually religious people incensed that someone isn't buying what they're selling about marriage, family, and so on. I'm not saying that's you, because you haven't said so, but it sure sounds familiar.

it's almost as if some people are so invested in what they believe, that when they encounter someone ( like myself) who just laughs it off, they pop a cork.

I could care less about how you chose to live your life. It's when you insult others with how they choose to live theirs (with your "children as useless" bullshit) that I take issue. Like the others on this thread who similarly go, "this is why I don't have kids" - I'm not arguing with them. Just you.

[Berengil]

Not really. If you really did "take care of yourself," then you'd be off on an island somewhere, not just working a job, but doing EVERYTHING yourself, with absolutely no help or services from anyone. not just cooking and cleaning, but making your own shit, entertaining yourself, medically caring for yourself, etc. The fact that you don't is proof that no, you don't take care of yourself. You have to incentivize people to help take care of you with money, people who otherwise don't and wouldn't give a damn about you.

Point is, on some level, we all depend on each other, no man or woman is an island, and if everyone had that mindset, things would fall apart very, very quickly.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this then. IMO, if I made an effort to earn money then I use that money to pay for something, I'm not a leech expecting someone else to just do the work for nothing.

[THE Bigzoman]

It proves that this idea that family and kids do nothing but hold you back from success is complete and utter bullshit. If it were true, the rich and wealthy without kids would vastly outnumber the ones with kids and family. Not the other way around.

No it doesn't,

It just proves that having children isn't a death sentence that people make it out to be. You're ruling out the possibility that those people became successful despite having kids, You don't prove that it doesn't hold you back per se.

[Berengil]

I could care less about how you chose to live your life. It's when you insult others with how they choose to live theirs (with your "children as useless" bullshit) that I take issue.

It's not an insult. Someone choosing to do something useless with their time and money is immaterial to me. It's theirs.

And again, objectively speaking, children are useless. Do you need them to be able to breathe? Eat? Drink? Do you understand the perspective I'm coming from when I say " useless"?

There's no need for anger, btw. I very much enjoy such philosophical discussions. Someone having a different opinion from mine doesn't bother me.

[May90]

They've stated emotional personal reasons, not practical ones. That's what I'm talking about. There is no absolute necessity for someone to reproduce in order to survive. For the species? Sure. But not for the individual.

Well, here is your mistake: false dichotomy. Reasons being emotional doesn't prevent them from being practical. If you know that something will give you great joy, and you choose to do it because of that, then how is it not practical?

- - - Updated - - -

And again, objectively speaking, children are useless. Do you need them to be able to breathe? Eat? Drink? Do you understand the perspective I'm coming from when I say " useless"?

That's a very strange notion that anything not vital to your survival is useless...

[Berengil]

Well, here is your mistake: false dichotomy. Reasons being emotional doesn't prevent them from being practical. If you know that something will give you great joy, and you choose to do it because of that, then how is it not practical?

Not a false dichotomy.

Joy doesn't pay the bills. It has no practical purpose. It may be satisfying, but if all you have is joy, you'll starve or freeze.

[jimboa24]

No it doesn't,

It just proves that having children isn't a death sentence that people make it out to be. You're ruling out the possibility that those people became successful despite having kids, You don't prove that it doesn't hold you back per se.

Again, if what you're saying is true, then the top rich and wealthy and successful pioneers of industry would all be those without ANYTHING holding them back, those without kids or family they seriously invested in, with a scattered few rich and successful with family to show that family is a burden that can be overcome. In fact, for most people, family is the exact opposite of something that holds them back - for most, especially those who are successful and rich, their credit their family as the biggest, most powerful motivating factor in their lives.