Target audience, versus target.
~Max
I can’t see much of a difference, but anyway, again, I guess nobody ever on the whole wide world has kept pets to “cultivate their sense of parenthood”, whatever that means.
That’s what I asked in the poll.
“Some people, who do not want children (or if applicable more children) for various reasons, choose to adopt pets to fulfill a motherly/fatherly desire or duty to love or nourish.” = “some people substitute pets for children as something with which to develop their sense of parenthood.”
A sense of parenthood being the thing which fulfills one’s maternal instinct (or equivalent for men) to love and nourish a growing, living thing.
For example, to draw on a stereotype, some men fixate their sense of parenthood on a car rather than a child. Maybe they don’t feel the need to have a child when they can nurture their beloved car. I wouldn’t assume such men consider their lives unfulfilled, but I do assume the Pope’s criticism applies to them just as well.
~Max
Really. Since when does “get laid” mean consensual? What a bizarre hijack.
Why not? That’s what we’ve been arguing about here. And that’s the way you phrased the title of the poll. And if all you want to know is about nurturing “something”, what’s that got to do with what the Pope said about people specifically not having what he thinks is enough children?
They’re IMO kind of a hijack here, especially if you’re saying the poll questions aren’t related to the topic. I’ll copy them over there; but since you appear to think, despite the title, that you’re asking something there entirely unrelated to the question of whether people choose to raise pets instead of raising children, I’m not sure how much I’m going to get into any of your answers.
I’ve been trying to think of a coherent response to this. I give up. I cannot get my head into any framework in which it makes enough sense for me to come up with an answer to it, other than that it makes no sense.
– though wait a minute, maybe I do have something: if you genuinely think that there are men who can’t tell the emotional difference between a child and a car, do you seriously think that such people should be raising children?
I just read the thread and how it’s going: all the people say the same as in this thread, that you can’t compare “nurturing” children with nurturing pets. The thread is useless, especially by the totally warped and convoluted poll questions you asked. Sometimes I think you’re a robot, Max_S. Is your nickname Data? 
A car qualifies as “a growing, living thing”? You’ve been reading too much Stephen King.
I’m trying to imagine how Francis would handle this.
“It is selfish to own a luxury car as a substitute for having children. Only the Holy Father may ride in a Popemobile.”
What if we just like dogs?
I have been on this earth for 57 years and I have yet to have anyone tell me of intimate or even suggest that pet ownership was a substitute for raising kids.
Have been living a sheltered life?
ETA. I swear on life that was not a pun.
Y’know, I would say the majority of pet owners have been pet owners since their own childhoods and want to keep that part of their life going. I realize that some people get an animal, never having had an animal before, but I would imagine that’s the exception to the general rule of who owns pets.
Some first timers may adopt a pet because mommy or daddy never let them have a pet.
So, I doubt that child substitution even comes into it for most pet owners.
I had (have) kids. I have dogs, birds, horses, cats.
I love them all. They’ve all made me cry.
If I were reincarnated with knowledge/memory of my past(current) life I’d definitely have dogs again. Children would be a consideration, but not a certainty.
Having never suffered from allergies, that took me a while. 
Clearly we’ve been talking past one another.
As a matter of fact, I did not phrase my poll ‘did you ever choose not to have a child because you had or wanted to get pets?’
Now you appear to have me confused. I did make a poll titled, “is raising pets is an acceptable alternative to raising children?”
I did not make a poll titled “did you ever choose not to have children because you had or wanted pets”.
I think the best thing is for you to ask me a direct question, and I’ll do my best to give a direct answer.
I don’t genuinely think there are men who can’t tell the emotional difference between a child and a car.
Such men, if they exist, should not be raising children.
Direct questions, direct answers.
~Max
I haven’t read any Stephen King, but my point with that was that developing a sense of parenthood with respect to a car is inherently disordered.
Nice 
~Max
Do you think the following conversation is realistic?
“I don’t have any children, myself.”
“Do you ever feel like you’re missing out on something? Do you ever feel a desire to nurture something and watch it grow up?”
“I don’t think I’m missing out on much. Kids are icky. More power to people who have them. As for the nurturing, I’ve got my pups.”
~Max
You are literally the only person so fucked up they’d take that literally. So there really is a person with a depraved mind here. It’s you.
Cross-posting from the poll.
This is really all I’m getting at.
Neither can I. The Pope criticized couples that don’t want children (or don’t want more than one child) yet have multiple pets. It seems to me that the Pope is saying the duty to raise children is not discharged by adopting pets, and furthermore, that it is a basic part of humanity.
~Max
Do you think anybody in their right mind would adopt a puppy to help satisfy a desire to nurture something?
Am I depraved for thinking people do so?
~Max
Not in any sense as a substitute for children, you fucked up defender of pedophiles.
But the first question presumes that the two are considered alternatives to each other, rather than orthogonal to each other.
The point I and many others are making in these threads is that they’re orthogonal: independent decisions, choices made separately. Not alternatives, choices in which the decisions are dependent on each other.
And what you’ve seemed to be arguing with me, at least, about is whether they’re alternative or orthogonal; which is a question that can’t possibly be answered by a poll assuming that they’re alternative.
Then why did you post the below?
I
I’m not Typo_Negative, but:
-
I think that conversation’s fairly realistic, except that I’d be mildly startled by the part about “nuture something and watch it grow up”. I don’t usually hear people talk about either their children, or their companion animals, that way – if only because they generally expect to still live with the companion animals as adults, and to still know the children as adults. But I suppose there might be some people who are primarily interested in their children while the children aren’t yet grown. People who are only interested in kittens and puppies but don’t want cats and dogs are generally frowned upon.
-
More to my point: I do not think that person decided to have pups as an alternative to having kids, and would have had kids if they couldn’t have dogs. I think that person decided not to have children because they feel that kids are icky; and decided to have dogs because they wanted to have dogs, presumably not feeling that dogs are icky. Separate decisions; not a choice of one as an alternative to the other.
ETA: 3) The line about ‘don’t you feel you’re missing something’ is in most circumstances obnoxious. People will respond to this sort of criticism of their lives in all sorts of ways, many of them not intended to be taken literally. They’re trying to shut up an intrusive questioner who’s had the nerve to tell them that they’re living their lives wrong.
Now the Pope, of course, is in the business of telling Catholics whether they’re living their lives wrong. In his case, what I’m criticizing is his assumption that people are choosing pets instead of children, as an alternative, not an orthogonal. In your case, I’m pointing out that taking responses to that sort of question as being anything other than a defensive reflex is usually ill advised.