Whaaaat? I use that shit on the wife, the kids and the cats. Why on earth wouldn’t you? 
Wow, that’s wrong in so many ways that I don’t know where to begin.
So I’ll start off by asking what rights and expectations of accommodation you think babies or children have.
Then I’ll say that as far as I know, babies can’t assert any rights for themselves except in very rare circumstances. In most cases, an adult is required to assert the rights for babies and children. In that sense, the rights that the adults have in regards to dogs, parrots and portable stereos also apply.
To give an example, if someone killed your dog, parrot, child and destroyed your personal stereo, the rights would be the same. As to the dog and parrot, the offender might go to jail by laws brought by the SPCA. And the offender might be required to give the owner restitution for the loss of property. The same would hold true for the personal stereo in the sense of restitution. In the case of the baby, very likely the murderer would go to prison in the criminal sense and would possibly pay for losses under the civil system. Now, these damages would likely to be much larger than for the parrot or dog because of the loss of human potential and the prison time would be much longer than for the dog or parrot but other than that, I’m not seeing how the rights for the child are different.
As far as injury to humans and pets and destruction of personal property, I think the same analysis applies.
The only example I can think of where humans might have more rights than animals is in the case of for instance, heating to an apartment or dwelling. But in that case, it’s hard to separate the rights of the adults caring for the child with the child itself.
As far as noise is concerned, I don’t know of any rights that children have in regards to that. If you’re thinking of a specific right, please be more explicit.
So I’m not sure how you’re making the big distinction in that sense between humans and non-humans as far as rights are concerned.
As for your statement about how society “should” be, I can only know what society is and has been. As far as how it has been, there have been some classes of people for whom children and babies have had no rights. For instance, if someone purchased a slave before the civil war, that person could kill that slave out of overwork and not be responsible to the child nor his/her parents. As far as it is now, see the example above with the dog and parrot.
Then when you said:
that’s essentially a meaningless statement. In the case you’re responding to, if the child didn’t exist on the plane that day, there would be no issue. Well, I guess you could argue that the instigator could be a dog or a parrot, but the point is that the child was the beginning of the issue and the resolution always comes down to adults because they’re the only ones that can be responsible.
Could you be more explicit? What straw men are you referring to?
I don’t have an issue with that. I only brought up the inconsistency in saying that I’m not countering your argument directly when I wasn’t replying to your argument in the first place.
That might be a more meaningful statement if the percentage of children and adults are equal. I doubt there are. Since children don’t travel extensively for their jobs, I doubt that there are more children flying than adults. Given that there are more adults flying, the probabilities that adults create more problems is much higher. So your statement is unremarkable and doesn’t make the argument that children are therefore less problematic.
Wow.
It’s a pretty simple fact that we have to make more human beings in order for the human race to continue, no?
Do you propose that reproducers isolate themselves from the rest of society?
How many people do you think would sign on to that proposition?
Kids have their own needs - they are not mini-adults in any way. They are not born knowing how to be quiet and unobtrusive in the way adults sometimes (but not always) are.
The point of having kids is to bring them into society.
The point of having society is to welcome more kids.
I personally agree with everything you wrote. The Dopers who consistently refer to people who have babies as “breeders” do not share these sentiments.
I never really understood the mindset of people who have contempt for parents. Even when I wasn’t one myself, and it looked like I never was going to be one, I never thought of people having kids as “breeders”.
I suppose it is some sort of defence mechanism against the perception that ‘society’ looks down on the childless.
Hey, parts of society DO look down on childless adults. It’s not at all fair.
There was a thread a while back where someone asserted that adults who don’t have kids don’t know about being selfless. I hadn’t posted, but was sitting following along and nodding. And then a young man posted about his experiences caring for his elderly mother. It was so moving. Shut me up real quick.
We never know, looking at other people, what they’re experiencing.
I know pretty well what it is like being childless, since I only have to remember myself around two years ago - when I pretty well had the notion I’d never have children. Can’t say as I referred to parents as “breeders” then.
All I’m saying is that, whether ‘society’ is unfair towards the childless or not, a point which is pretty debatable, the proper reaction IMO is not to develop a contemptuous attitude towards those with children.
I think part of why people refer to breeders as breeders is due to the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle but nevertheless endemic and persistent workplace discrimination that occurs. People with children don’t notice it, but people without kids definitely notice how they’re constantly being asked to work weekends and holidays so families can spend time together, or having to constantly fill in for families because parent-employees always seem to be bring their kid to the doctor, baseball practice, etc. Then you see family employees getting pay raises and promotions and generally being viewed as more mature and reliable than childless employees. Some animosity builds and dismissing them as “breeders” is relatively harmless little insult. I assume it’s fairly harmless. Do any breeders out there actually take offense?
Malthus, Well, sure.
I do remember, though, having vastly different opinions on children and their parents (and my own parents) just a few years ago. I myself was one of those self-centered childless people, and didn’t even realize it. It never even occurred to me how different their lives were from mine. We used to complain to our upstairs neighbors all the time because their 3-yr-old kid, Max, made some noise. I just didn’t understand.
I wish there was a way to help other people understand without going through having children themselves, but it may not be possible.
Have you read the most latter part of this thread? 
People *are *saying they are offended by the use of the word “breeder.” I wouldn’t use it, but I get the impression that, except for a few hardcore hatas, even those who have used it here are *specifically *talking about people with kids who think they have a particular right to something, whether it’s timeoff from work, space on the sidewalk or the ability to be part of an ongoing disturbance in a public place. From what I can see, that is not most of the considered posters here but it does happen and it does cause resentment among those of us who don’t have kids.
I wouldn’t use the word because I have respect for people who choose to be parents and admire those who do it even halfway well.
Seems to me that a misplaced sense of grievance isn’t really a good excuse for insulting a whole class of people, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the alleged unfair discrimination.
Yes, its offensive. I think its “funny offensive” instead of just pure offensive, but plenty of people just think its offensive. I think its really offensive when its used to put me down because “they had to work late and I didn’t” - particularly when the non-breeder missed two Fridays last month due to hangovers and the other two Fridays wasn’t functional until after 1:00. (Worked with more than one of those - but back then I didn’t have kids either. She blamed everything on “not being a family person” - we blamed her lack of raises and having to work late on her not showing up until 10:00am and drinking too much).
Honestly, before I had kids I had a better career trajectory and got bigger raises - because I could and chose to work late and make myself much more accessible to my job and I didn’t turn down business travel. When I had kids (mine came fairly late), my career took a decided slow down - my choice to have kids and slow down the career so I could do it, but it isn’t like I didn’t give anything up when I became a mom. I should go work for one of these places that lets me off early and gives me raises just because I have kids. Must be nice.
Yeah, it’s a big life change and not one easy to understand by people who have not gone through it.
My beef is that, understand it or not, I don’t see any need for rudeness from people.
It is just elementary that one doesn’t give insulting labels to people identified by a trait you don’t possess - whether it be religion, marital status, skin colour, sexual identity or, in this case, children. The only reason why this label isn’t punch-in-the-face offensive is that there is no history of historical discrimination or hatred against parents.
I think as well there is a sense from the child free that “kids aren’t that hard.” Hell, there is a sense from those people who had easy kids - if all kids were like my son I’d still be sending disapproving stares to people whose kids had tantrums in Target. Fortunately, fate gave me my daughter so I could be a more understanding person.
Before you have kids, you decide your kids will be perfect (and remaining childfree keeps you with perfect kids). You’ve maybe babysat kids, it isn’t that hard, and YOUR kids won’t be ALLOWED to act like little brats like your sister’s kids. I’ll be able to reason with my kids. My kids will spend hours each day in educational productive activity. I’ll never need to resort to spanking a child. When I put them in time out, they will sit quietly in the chair until the timer goes off, reflecting on their behavior. They’ll never get wound up on sugar. They’ll always use inside voices and never call their siblings “poopyhead.” These things all happen because I’ll build a good foundation from the moment of conception - after all, baby got Mozart in the womb and I started taking pre-natal vitamins a year before I conceived.
Then reality hits - you can’t reason with a small kid. They are almost uniformly too loud and even if you never let them say “poopyhead” they learn it at school. They have poor self control over their emotions. They can’t communicate “I have a tummyache” or “I’m cranky because my blood sugar is low.” They get fed endless candy by well meaning relatives. Despite putting wholesome food in front of them, they eat nothing but Kraft Mac n Cheese for four months and your choice is to live with a hungry (and therefore cranky and intolerable) child or one that eats Mac n Cheese three meals a day. You try and read them The Hobbit and discover they’ll only sit still for Captain Underpants. You have to bribe them to get into the bathtub (but they’ll spend hours in there once they get in). By nature, they are selfish and self centered because they haven’t even reached the stage of development where they really conceive of the other.
Yet, the vast majority of them grow up to be productive members of society.
Preach it Dangerosa!!
Vicki Iovine says it’s not the speed of the race that’s difficult, it’s the fact that it’s a 24/7 marathon over uneven, unpredictable terrain.
So true. Amen! I don’t have kids of my own, but have had to be the caretaker for awhile, and I see the truth of it.
Part of it is, parent’s get time off of work but they’re thinking “you childless people are so lucky. I’ve got to go deal with my three brats all night.”
Childless people are thinking “aren’t you lucky yet again. You get more time off work. Whenever I ask for time off boss looks at me like I’m headed for the nearest heroin den.”
I’m assuming you’re responding to my post since you’re reiterating something RickJay posted and I’m responding to him.
I considered whether to respond to this because I suspect you don’t care that your argument is a logical fallacy, but someone else might, so I decided to post.
Your premise which leads to your conclusion below is an example of reductio ad absurdum. You’ve taken a premise to an extreme which leads to a falsehood, so you then conclude the opposite must be true. It also has overtones of the logical fallacy of law of the excluded middle and false dichotomy (aka false dilemma).
While it is true that if no more human beings were produced, the human race would cease to exist; but since there is no practical way to bring this outcome about to the planet worldwide simultaneously, the statement is pretty meaningless. There would have to be a way to stop ALL people from reproducing simultaneously or your statement has no effect. In societies with forced sterilization policies, there are still enough people reproducing to not have any effect on society in terms of it functioning. In China, where there is a forced family planning policy (1 child per couple in some areas), the society functions in the same way that other societies function, so limiting reproductive rights doesn’t have an effect on society unless all rights are terminated simultaneously.
So your premise has to work as an all-or-nothing proposition in order for your conclusion to follow. But you haven’t allowed for the vast middle between no one reproducing and all people who want to reproducing. This is why it’s a false dichotomy or violates the law of the excluded middle.
I’m not nor have been proposing anything. I was responding to RickJay’s contention that children have rights that are substantially different than non-humans, particularly in regards to noise.
I don’t have any idea how many people would sign on to a proposition that no one has ever proposed.
I don’t think there’s any dispute on that point, but it’s also not persuasive in arguing that kids have rights in regards to noise.
Since your premises were faulty, your conclusion is also faulty.
In addition, if the point of every society is to welcome more kids, then there wouldn’t be some societies that choose forced sterilization to avoid more children or to enforce forced family planning policies.
Taking your faulty premise to the opposite extreme and coming to the conclusion that way, I could then say that if more children causes overpopulation which causes lack of resources to the point of others starving, then the point of society is to have less children.
Both your argument and this one are logical fallacies.
Utter and complete bullshit foisted into a completely wrong set of “arguments” designed solely to make you sound right.
There is not now, nor has there ever been in the history of homo sapien social groupings, a society that has set out to murder the vast majority of offspring produced by its members. This sole example of society-wide infanticide/ mass gender-based abortions and abandonment is unique to China. The history of favoring a male child goes back at least 3,000 years:
Since 1979, over 15 million babies have been killed in China in an attempt to adhere to the 1 Baby Rule.
Babies do not simply go away. They are aborted or abandoned on a society-wide scale.
This is not the norm. The effects are already being felt and as the generation lacking enough females matures, the impact on the entire Chinese society will be quite profound. Population shifts are already occurring as males leave more rural areas that are almost devoid of females for large cities in the hopes of finding a spouse.
Your statement is entirely factually incorrect .
Cartooniverse
Strikes me as not the best example. By all accounts China is right now starting to experience a rather profound social disaster brought on by its policy:
I’m afraid that for all your citation of various logical fallacies in argumentation, you are simply wrong on the facts. Interference in reproduction short of total elimination of reproductive rights does have an impact on society, as one would expect, since it ultimately impacts every single meaningful aspect of society - whether one has access to partners of one’s choice, how many people of working age there are compared with retirees and children, etc. etc.
And the very example you have yourself picked proves it.
I wasn’t even trying to provide some kind of abstract argument for children anyway, Heffalump and Roo. I was telling you what many people believe, what they base their decisions on. It may not be your reality, but it is theirs.
Not everything can be reduced, removed, abstracted to a theoretical discussion.