99.99999% of humans could literally decide to stop having children and mankind would still survive. All it takes is 14 healthy couples if nothing goes wrong. Or 48 couples allowing for a catastrophy that wipes out 30% every couple years. Don't remember where exactly I read this, was an article about how many humans to send into space if the earth gets destroyed.
It's a false analogy because they're not comparable, at all, period. Also, the "survival of the human race" is bullshit tripe of the type peddled by collectivists.
You seem to be missing the point. People without children pay more into funds for children than those with them. Every child a couple has adds to the bill that those without them has to foot. So calling those who choose not to have children "selfish" isn't just factually-challenged, it's blatantly retarded.
The "democratic process" is based on the idea that law-abiding citizens are treated equally and have the same rights. Taking away the rights of those who don't have/want children is literally, objectively and factually undemocratic. Your analogy is nonsense. You have no argument only a contentious and irrelevant opinion.
Last edited by Mistame; 2019-06-15 at 08:29 PM.
I am incredibly lucky that my parents have never bothered me or tried to convince me and my husband to have children. They have "grandcats" and save money and time by not having to pay for things for grandkids. My brother is 42 and single so no grandkids for them.
It is beneficial to the herd to have much offspring.
This is no different than anything else people disagree about and argue over. People feel strongly about something and struggle to comprehend that someone else might feel differently. I have no intention of ever having kids and have already had a vasectomy. Plenty of people have told me the usual crap about regretting it or not knowing you wanted them until you have them and all that. I personally think a lot of people who love their kids feel guilty admitting they would have rather not had them. You can love your kids but still acknowledge that you would have preferred never having any without it being personal. Anyway it makes no difference to me if they call me selfish or whatever. They can find other parents and talk about how nothing else matters but children if my choice offends them that much.
That's not at all what the democratic process is based on, it's solely an apparatus meant to digest and represent the interests and wishes of the populace via (most cases) voting, everything else is just a cultural addon or cultural take on this form of democracy.
Democracy has existed without global suffrage, with global suffrage and with varying forms of voting privileges inbetween, all these systems are democratic.
Last edited by OriginalName; 2019-06-15 at 08:31 PM.
It's about equality in representation. Any system that excludes citizens, without just cause, is undemocratic, period.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democratic
pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all
That's a bad definition from the outset, because people arent equal and equality is impossible. Even if it's a honorable pursuit, it's lofty and irrelevant to the discussion, because you can have unequal democratic systems; USA pre 1920 female suffrage despite 51% (general figure) of the population being ineligible to vote, the country, was still a democracy.
You're not afforded the same objective rights regardless in the USA and it's still a democracy, example; reproductive rights are objectively not equal, because women have bodily autonomy. Now I know, that men can't have children, but it's the spirit of the law and rights that matter here.
Democracy isn't equality, equality can be a policy which a democratic nation may attempt to achieve.
Either way, this discussion point can be pretty easily solved with the advent of tiers of citizenship, wherein childless people belong to a tier which does not have the privilege of holding office or voting on long term policy.
Last edited by OriginalName; 2019-06-15 at 10:04 PM.
they don't want to feel sh8t, that simple
they don't want to acknowledge that u are better than them, they want u to be as disgusting piece of sh8t as horrible as them, they can't live their lives know that u are literally better than them not a horny a88 who f8cks for f8cks
seriously we are overpopulating earth, if anything we should have less children, but the mass uneducated f8ck like rabbits
The beginning of wisdom is the statement 'I do not know.' The person who cannot make that statement is one who will never learn anything. And I have prided myself on my ability to learn
Thrall
http://youtu.be/x3ejO7Nssj8 7:20+ "Alliance remaining super power", clearly blizz favor horde too much, that they made alliance the super power
You can't give some people special voting privileges in a democracy and some people not, that opens a Pandora's Box of bullshit as I pointed out earlier.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah low IQ types are the ones who are more likely to breed which is problematic. The continued lack of critical thinking skills evidenced by some of the posts here is evidence enough of it...
Last edited by Celista; 2019-06-15 at 10:15 PM.
Like, I see what you mean and I agree that you simply can't say "this is how it is now", you have to gradually update the existing system and improve on it with reforms.
That said, i've been arguing that that only parents should be given franchise due to their inherent loyalty to the system and desire to see it function after they are gone and that the praxis for giving and removing the franchise exists and, it's very possible to do so and that it's not at all undemocratic.
Well... to be fair, having kids now that our little planet is getting fucked in the ass by pollution is kind off irresponsible since your offspring are the ones who most likely will suffer.
That is the reason why I don't want any children.
You're blatantly ignoring context to demonstrate a nonexistent point. In the context of representation, discounting felons, everyone is and should be equal. That is what makes it truly democratic. Your opinions to the contrary are irrelevant.
The US has never been a democracy. Additionally, pre-women's suffrage and civil rights, the system was undemocratic.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of reproductive/women's rights and bodily autonomy. Women having certain extended rights do not make them unequal. In fact, those extensions exist to make them equal. A woman has no more or less bodily autonomy than a man does. And frankly, your comment sounds like some MRA/incel nonsense.
The term democracy is irrelevant, in the context you're using it. Any system that unfairly or unjustly excludes those it represents is inherently undemocratic. This is an objective fact.
Sounds like some deranged variation of political/social eugenics. Those who have children are in no way superior to those who choose not to. And when one considers the ratio of unplanned pregnancies, it could be argued that a large portion of those with children are too incompetent to vote. Regardless, your "suggestion" is idiotic and reeks of collectivist drivel with a dash of troll dung.
Last edited by Mistame; 2019-06-15 at 11:14 PM.
Because some people think they know buy they dont really know themselves or change over time.
I had a buddy who hates kids ever since I knew him. Attitude did not change until he was urged to have one, and when he did it changed him completely. From the guy who wanted to punch babies to the guy who shares every baby pic on facebook.
People dont truly know themselves until they challenge themselves with change. This isnt to say it automatically applies to you, but if you wonder why it happens well its because people think they do but sometimes they dont.
Last edited by Triceron; 2019-06-15 at 11:18 PM.
Just quote me en large or pack them together because it's really hard to respond to these posts without turning it into a quote mess, also i'll not be responding to any of your ad hominem.
You consistently misunderstand the "equality" clause in the modern definition of democracy, which pertains to equality under the law, which I don't qualify the franchise to be, we do make distinctions for voting rights already as you aptly point out, felons, foreigners, underage children, people with severe mental deficiencies can have their franchise rescinded or awarded to a guardian. It's to this that I refer to, when I say there is praxis for both giving and removing the voting franchise.
My opinions is what we're discussing here, you keep trying to dismiss them but this is a forum and I approached this thread with an opinion, you're arguing against it, I don't know why you keep repeating yourself here.
Regardless, i'm not going to unpack the whole "everyone is equal under the law", wether that means the spirit of the law, jurisprudence or consequence of the law it's a huge topic and not relevant to this, so i'll end it by saying; (largely) everyone is equal in the spirit of the law already.
US has always been a representative democracy with addendums, the latter part something it shares with every democracy that ever was and ever will be.
It's not a misrepresentation of reproductive rights and it is quite ironic you label it WOMEN'S RIGHTS when that alone indicate the lack of equality in the rights given anyway, because men and women have different functions and are thus NECESSARILY unequal in the law and in rights, i'm not passing judgement here, i'm giving you a very easy example to showcase how we have unequality yet democracy.
I can concede that rescinding the franchise may appear undemocratic to someone who only admire democracy akin to someone who admires a piece of clothing from a shopping magazine but honestly it's a non issue, because the tenets of democracy arent universal as i've explained earlier.
I've put no judgement into superiority or inferiority, I don't think people without children are inferior, I think they are less able to make productive political decisions than those who have children.
Nobody has ever done that to me and I certainly don't do it to others. Having children this day and age is a choice, thank God! (really fucking hate that expression but there doesn't seem to be a better one).
I'm just gonna leave a couple of ideas floating around here, sorry if they have been said.
1. You cannot be "anti-breeder", yet expect society to keep functioning when you get old. Without children today, there will be no surgeons to operate on you or garbage ppl to pick up your trash when you're 75.
2. Children give you a huge sense of fulfillment. Yeah, they're a pain in the ass most of the time, but when you do stuff together and click with them, there isn't another feeling in the world that matches that level of satisfaction.
I'm hesitant to add 3. They will visit you when you're old. It's not something that's guaranteed, and I certainly don't expect it from mine. It will be nice when it happens though.