People who hate children

[calm_kiwi]

@starwarsfreek42

Meh, whatev. Does this mean we’re rolling on to page 27 then?

No it means enough is enough! Seriously? There is a debate about a point and then there is MANY MANY pages of people who will neve even have the slightest hint of agreement.

This is an example of the latter.

[starwarsfreek42]

So… no page 27 then? Because this looks a lot like page 27 to me.

[Hamadryad]

@starwarsfreek42

Great, because the world needs more egotistical, narcissistic assholes.

When I posted that, my stepkid said, “They’re gonna know you’re being sarcastic as hell and full of shit, right?” and I replied, “If they have any brains at all, and/or have bothered to read my other posts in the thread, of COURSE they are.”

Again, hope springs eternal - I didn’t actually think anyone would be enough of a rancid douche to take me remotely seriously. Thank you for reaffirming my basic lack of faith in the intelligence of strangers.

[starwarsfreek42]

Hey, I haven’t been able to make a statement this whole thread without some asshole coming along and taking it as one extreme or another. No sympathy.

[Kalhoun]

@Carol_Stream

Again, circular logic. You say we need children to provide consumers, and we need children to grow up to produce clothing, books, food, and entertainment. Nonsense. If we had less children, there would be less demand for those things.

And I’m sure your infinite wisdom knows exactly where to draw the line on the number of children society needs in order to function.

We’re waiting.

[flonks]

@starwarsfreek42

So… no page 27 then? Because this looks a lot like page 27 to me.

:rolleyes:

@starwarsfreek42

Hey, I haven’t been able to make a statement this whole thread without some asshole coming along and taking it as one extreme or another. No sympathy.

We didn’t need to take it to extreme, though.

[Carol_Stream]

@Kalhoun

And I’m sure your infinite wisdom knows exactly where to draw the line on the number of children society needs in order to function.

We’re waiting.

Well, you’re wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. The numbers don’t support your argument.

[flonks]

@Carol_Stream

Well, you’re wrong. You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. The numbers don’t support your argument.

He may not have phrased it this way, but he asked a question - where do you draw the line?

If he didn’t, then I do: where do you draw the line?

[curlcoat]

@Sarahfeena

Again, what in god’s name does this matter? You are not turning down any government assistance that you are entitled to. All this nitpicking doesn’t change that a whit.

Social Security is not government assistance. It is money they forced me to give them for the past 40 years, which I could have easily made far more income with than they have. And now that I qualify to get it back, I have had to jump thru hoops for a year and a half and still don’t know if they will actually pay it out.

OTOH, if I had had a kid or two, I’d have very little trouble getting the goverment to give me money that I hadn’t paid into.

[curlcoat]

@Sarahfeena

Of course you are…most people don’t become disabled and retire early.

You are assuming that I will live longer than the average retiree does, and that I will outlive my contributions to Social Security. For all you (or I) know, I could die tomorrow.

Me? I have no idea, since we live in different states. You might have visited a National Park I’ll never get to…who the hell knows?

You claim to, but when it gets right down to it the fact of the matter is, no one pays for any of the lifestyle choices that I have made. National parks are more “family” oriented than anything else - I don’t think I’ve done anything other than drive thru one on the way to somewhere since I was quite young. Driving on the roads certainly doesn’t qualify since society needs those road for workers to get to work and supplies to get to stores, and in my state non-drivers pay far less (if anything) for the roads than drivers do. Parks? HA! Yes, taxes pay for those but they are so heavily restricted that they are generally unusable by dogs. Not to mention the fact that they tend to be covered in children and all the stuff they strew around.

Don’t you get it? We all pay for things we personally have no use for. That’s the way government works.

YOU don’t get it. Taxpayers pay a ton to support the having-babies lifestyle choice, and it is the only one we support. It is also the only thing taxes fund that is not necessary for the community to pay for. And then on top of all those taxes, we are also expected to donate to endless child-oriented charities. There are no taxpayer programs that help out pet owners in need, no one is handing me money for being responsible about our mortgage, I didn’t qualify for aid when I was living well below the poverty level because I didn’t have any children.

Why is it OK with you that the taxpayers and those charities support irresponsible choices? If it is true that we need to have all these children to keep society going, why are we paying the irresponsible to have children?

[curlcoat]

@Rubystreak

You don’t know anything about the quality of my work, do you?

No, but you do and it was you that freaked out when I made mention of the crap job of education kids are getting these days. Which is why I said that apparently that hit too close to home for you.

You get sooo upset when people use your personal details against you, but you’re free to do it to me.

I yet, you can’t show one example when I’ve gotten even a bit upset, much less “sooo upset”.

At least I’m not a liar who’s a bigot and full of hate. Get a job. I mean that in the nicest way possible.

Huh. This post isn’t full of bigotry and hate?

As for the job, wish I could. It’s not particularly easy to live on one salary these days yaknow. (Not that it has anything to do with the subject at hand or anything - " Can’t stick to the topic, had to resort to irrelevant, bitchy ad homimen, showing how bankrupt your argument in this thread is")

[curlcoat]

@Kalhoun

And what makes you think children are any different from you? They don’t earn a paycheck right now, but they contribute to society each and every day. You may not think they’re contributions are worth much, but you’d be wrong, just as most of your opinions on the subject of children are wrong.

How do children contribute to society at all, much less every day? At least I worked for almost 40 years.

[curlcoat]

@Kalhoun

I consider this type of hostility toward children and the concept of them being part of society to be a form of disability in itself. There’s something wrong with someone who feels this way about fellow citizens. Something very, very wrong.

And yet, I am a fellow citizen. Apparently (surprise!) those of us who do not like children are not worthy of the same consideration.

[curlcoat]

@Carol_Stream

The cost to society certainly outweighs the (extremely) limited utility they provide.

And all the other things that do provide that “utility”, such as pets, flowers, music, go begging for funds…

[curlcoat]

@keturah

I have a question. Do you intend to refuse any further SSDI funding when you have reached the benefit amount that you have paid in?

No. Do you give back that money you get for being a parent, even tho it wasn’t your money to begin with?

[curlcoat]

@Frank

I’m constantly and incessantly bewildered by the mindset of those like you who think taxes are stealing.

Sitting on your (general you) ass and collecting from taxpayer funded programs that you never or only barely paid into is stealing. Doing things you know you cannot afford, such as having children, running up credit card debt or buying a house, and then expecting “someone” to bail you out when you run out of money is stealing. Just because taxes fund the government doesn’t mean they cannot be stolen.

[curlcoat]

@Kalhoun

But your “drain on society” as a child already (or still is) happening. So you owe everyone. INCLUDING the children. You are in debt to society.

No. This is probably the whole issue right here. Every child is a “drain” on their parents and should be only on their parents. But somehow over the decades society has steadily taken that drain away from the people who chose to have the children and placed it on those who didn’t. Each generation of children becomes ever more a drain, but it certainly doesn’t follow that eveyone alive right now grew up flushing taxpayer money down their personal toilet.

[curlcoat]

@kambuckta

I disagree.

Here’s a few simplistic examples:

When a couple increase their family (have kid/s), the stimulus to the economy is great. Fistly they upsize their housing, cars and insurance plans to accomodate the new arrival. They buy furniture and clothing and bling for the kid (probably much more than is actually necessary, but anyway…) As the kid grows, there’s more food needed for the table, and more energy used with appliances (so they wear out more often) and gasoline for the car to ferry them too and fro’. There’s the shoes that need to be purchased every quarter as the kid grows, the immunizations and orthodontic work, and all the costs associated with educating them…

And in the process, there’s PEOPLE EMPLOYED to provide all of these goods/services. Thus the economy is kept going at great guns

In the case of a couple alone, they won’t buy a bigger house, car or more furniture. They won’t increase their food purchases/consumption (although they might buy higher priced items…but these do not add value economically to a society, just to the producers), they use less energy because things like washers and dryers are not utilized as frequently. They don’t need braces on their teeth, and (until they get older) generally visit the doctor rarely.

Certainly, the childless couple might spend as much, but the number of products/services that they are spending the monies on are severely limited, and thus don’t encourage a viable economy, at least in the way we know it now.

So, you are saying that it’s a bad thing that childless people don’t use up as much energy or require that more farmland be used to build houses?

As for the actual point of your post, I think you don’t have much idea of the variety of things that those without children go out and buy. Because they can buy them. Just because they aren’t buying child-centered items certainly doesn’t mean they only buy from a narrow list!

[flonks]

Some things are considered as choices on an individual level but not for society. So society doesn’t take the chances and takes care that the majority takes the right choice. Too bad. I feel so bad for you, poor girl.

Do you want some cheese with that whine?

[kambuckta]

@curlcoat

So, you are saying that it’s a bad thing that childless people don’t use up as much energy or require that more farmland be used to build houses?

Pray tell, where did you find any value-judgement in my post? Please cite it because I’m at my wits end trying to imagine how YOU imagined it.

As for the actual point of your post, I think you don’t have much idea of the variety of things that those without children go out and buy. Because they can buy them. Just because they aren’t buying child-centered items certainly doesn’t mean they only buy from a narrow list!

Congratulations on missing the entire point of my post…top of the class for cluelessness for YOU Sunshine. Have a quick read again (or a longer one if you need it) and come back when you have mastered Remedial Comprehension (Preparatory Level).

There’s no shame in being intellectually-challenged you know. We embrace all differently-abled people here on the SDMB.