Poll: Is raising pets an acceptable alternative to raising kids? (take two)

[kayaker]

@bump

Pets typically aren’t interesting enough to warrant much third-party communication (a dog IS a dog, and does typical dog stuff, after all), unless their owners are acting weird about them

I think that’s a YMMV thing. We know people with a dog that we’ll occasionally meet up with so our dogs can play. I know all sorts of details about the dog. The guy also has shared custody of a child. I don’t know it’s exact age or sex, and we’ve never met the kid, nor do we want to.

[Max_S]

@puzzlegal

Some people eat vegetables because they enjoy them or think they are good for them.

Some people shovel snow because they want exercise or because their municipality requires them to.

Yeah, it’s weird to lump desire and duty together. But I see this as a non-criticism. My polls were slightly more specific than “because they want enjoy them / because they want exercise”:

“to fulfill a motherly/fatherly desire or duty to love or nourish”

vs ‘to fulfill a desire or duty’, unspecified.

~Max

[puzzlegal]

It’s conflating “desire” with “duty” that’s weird, though. Not the rest of it.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

You’re still presuming that the alternate routes are all going to the same place.

I don’t presume so, for example alternate evacuation routes in case of a hurricane. One route might lead to a shelter at a fancy hotel in Orlando, an alternative route might lead to a relative’s house farther North, in Jacksonville or something. My use of the word “alternative” here does not imply equivalence (the point of my analogy), neither does it imply all “alternatives” lead to the same endpoint (contrary to your counterpoint).

@thorny_locust

And you’re presuming that every person wants to go to that location in the first place.

I’ve totally lost you. Raising pets is not an alternative to raising children, because when people speak of “alternative” routes that means they want to go to that (which?) location in the first place, and … I’m not connecting the dots.

~Max

[Max_S]

@puzzlegal

It’s conflating “desire” with “duty” that’s weird, though.

That’s easy to sort out if you believe the correct (“acceptable”) way to fulfill one’s desires involves satisfying religious duties.

Eg:

desire sex? ← Religious duty to marry & have sex with spouse

desire to raise something like a parent? ← Religious duty to raise children

~Max

[Max_S]

@Richard_Pearse

(One of) the problem(s) with Question 4 is that it allows for people who can’t have children while the focus of the discussion, and the thrust of the Pope’s comments, was centred on people who don’t want children. They are very different situations and don’t deserve to be lumped together into one question.

I recommend re-reading the Pope’s statement, which dealt with adoption specifically. The Pope lumped together people who couldn’t have children and people who adopted pets.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Ulfreida

[…] need to have pets be a solution to childlessness. It’s just not the norm for pet owners who don’t have children.

I have no problem accepting that. I never thought it was the norm. I’m quite surprised roughly 20% of people agreed with Q.4, I thought it would be single digits.

~Max

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

@thorny_locust

And you’re presuming that every person wants to go to that location in the first place.

I’ve totally lost you. Raising pets is not an alternative to raising children, because when people speak of “alternative” routes that means they want to go to that (which?) location in the first place, and … I’m not connecting the dots.

It’s very likely that everyone inside a building that’s about to be flooded does want to get out of there. But not everybody wants children, or wants something to “nuture”.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

But not everybody wants children, or wants something to “nuture”.

Right. This is borne out by the results to Q.2.

~Max

[puzzlegal]

@Max_S

That’s easy to sort out if you believe the correct (“acceptable”) way to fulfill one’s desires involves satisfying religious duties.

Eg:

desire sex? ← Religious duty to marry & have sex with spouse

desire to raise something like a parent? ← Religious duty to raise children

So
if you desire social interactions with other people you should…
if you desire to eat ice cream, you should…
If you desire to swim, you should…
if you desire to solve puzzles, you should…

I’m sorry, that formula still doesn’t make sense. Yes, there are some religious obligations that overlap with common desires, and the religious obligations shapes the “best” or appropriate way to fulfill those desires. There are other religious obligations that are unrelated to common desires (fast on Friday) and many desires that aren’t especially bounded by religious obligations (enjoy swimming)

So:
“Some people have a desire to rear children” sure
“some people find they can satisfy that desire, at least in part, by caring for pets” sure
“some people think that caring for pets satisfies their religious obligation to rear children” only if you are completely disconnected from reality

So putting a perfectly reasonable statement together with a batshit crazy statement as if they were somehow similar is truly bizarre.

[Max_S]

@puzzlegal

I’m sorry, that formula still doesn’t make sense

The idea is that all human desires, like humans themselves, are the product of some Divine scheme. That there is a divine purpose for every thing gives rise to the concepts of goodness and virtue, and the foundation of Catholic ethics. This is, as I understand it, a pillar of Catholic theology, specifically the theology of St. Thomas of Aquinas.

~Max

[puzzlegal]

So … The desire to watch football (or sports in general) is given to mankind by God to fulfill… And the correct way to do that is…?

I suppose that’s an interesting theory. It’s not one that i could possibly subscribe to, but i suppose maybe that’s why I don’t believe in God.

It would have been helpful in understanding your motivations in this thread if you’d said that up front. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief.

So, you are saying that people who have pets due to a desire to nurture are doing the moral equivalent of masturbating, and that’s morally wrong. (Even if they already had kids, or plan to do so later ) Or maybe you are saying that’s the pope’s perspective. If that’s the case, i guess i can wholeheartedly endorse the pit thread about the pope, anyway.

[Max_S]

@puzzlegal

people who have pets due to a desire to nurture are doing the moral equivalent of masturbating, and that’s morally wrong. (Even if they already had kids, or plan to do so later ) Or maybe you are saying that’s the pope’s perspective

This is pretty much my take on it.

~Max

[puzzlegal]

So, what do you think is the Pope’s take on playing sports, or watching sports, or solving puzzles, or eating dessert? That’s a serious question. Because it seems weird to call out pet-owning among all the things that people do outside of their religious obligations.

[Max_S]

I seem to remember in Summa Theologica, St. Thomas of Aquinas was asked whether there can be virtue in games or playful acts. And the answer was yes, there is sin in excess play and sin in lack of play. I think the rationale was that recreation is necessary for humans and thus, taken in moderation, cannot be sinful.

~Max

[Max_S]

@puzzlegal

So, what do you think is the Pope’s take on […] or eating dessert

As the joke goes, the sin of pi is zero.

But with foods you get into gluttony. Intention matters - after all it is supposed God made desserts sweet.

~Max

[saje]

Well, no. If you believe in God then God made humans enjoy the taste of sweet, and provided sweet things in nature to fulfil that need. and gave humans the wit to learn how to use them.

I’ve yet to hear that God bakes pies …

[Max_S]

@saje

If you believe in God then God made humans enjoy the taste of sweet, and provided sweet things in nature to fulfil that need.

I would distinguish Catholic eudaimonism (which identifies eudaimonia as beautitude, or union with God - in other words, to know God in heaven) from hedonist eudaimonism (which identifies eudaimonia as pleasure). Catholicism is obviously not a “if it feels good do it” sort of religion.

~Max

[saje]

I like sweet things and animals. I want them in my life for their own rewards.

I’m not interested in children or religion. Both just cause trouble, IMO.

So I’m going to bow out of this discussion, go get cup of tea and a cupcake, and then sit on the couch and enjoy the company of my cats as I indulge.

[EinsteinsHund]

@Max_S

I would distinguish Catholic eudaimonism (which identifies eudaimonia as beautitude, or union with God - in other words, to know God in heaven) from hedonist eudaimonism (which identifies eudaimonia as pleasure). Catholicism is obviously not a “if it feels good do it” sort of religion.

~Max

This reminds me of the theological question of how many angels can dance on a pin. The mere fact that people, great minds at times, mused about those subtleties shows that Catholic thought is truly warped. Why don’t let people have some fun without guilt or justification?