Pope Francis says not having children is selfish

[Malthus]

@monstro

Well, if someone were to ask me if I like children, I wouldn’t lie and say “yes”. I’d tell the truth. “No, I don’t particularly like kids. I like some kids, but not all kids.” I suppose someone can infer something negative about me based on this, but I’d infer something negative about them if they did this.

Right. But you implied someone who doesn’t like children doesn’t display a positive personality. I’m challenging you on this, because it is very possible to dislike something and not have it be a part of ones outward personality.

The context was in someone noting that ‘not liking kids or not wanting kids’ was viewed in media negatively. I made the point that these two were different, and it is rational to portray the former negatively, but not the latter.

Seems to me obvious that what is viewed negatively is displays of dislike, since a private, un-expressed dislike is pretty unlikely to feature promenently in the media.

Sometimes, I think we go too far in accepting everything as okay and positive special-snowflake style, no matter what, to the point where we are supposed to “tolerate the intolerant”. Fact is that those who make a display of misanthropy are rightly judged as ‘less pleasant’ than those that actually appear to like people - and this is as it should be.

If someone told me they don’t like kids in a private moment, but they still manage to get along with kids fabulously, I don’t see the point in judging this person in a negative way. YMMV.

The same reasons that people love kids (their playfulness, honesty, their messiness, their helplessness) are the same reasons they are unpleasant to be around. So it’s not irrational to dislike children (read: people exhibiting “childish behaviors”) like it is to dislike, say, Jews or black people.

There are always going to be ‘rational’ reasons to dislike some group of people or other, if you dig hard enough. But what does ‘rationality’ matter? Didn’t you just make the point that a person cannot help what they dislike, and so morality isn’t a question? If that is the case, it isn’t a question made better or worse by justification - really, it is no different than (say) a person with an instinctual hatred for Jews or Blacks, who nonetheless wills themselves to be scrupulously polite to Jews or Blacks.

[monstro]

@Malthus

The context was in someone noting that ‘not liking kids or not wanting kids’ was viewed in media negatively. I made the point that these two were different, and it is rational to portray the former negatively, but not the latter.

I don’t understand why it’s rational to portray an honest and sincere feeling in a negative or positive way. Understandable, yes. But not rational.

Seems to me obvious that what is viewed negatively is displays of dislike, since a private, un-expressed dislike is pretty unlikely to feature promenently in the media.

I’ll agree with you on this. But I do think that it can be a self-perpetuating problem. If good people are afraid to say they don’t like something lest they be judged in a negative light, then it’s no wonder that the opinion will be associated only with jerks–who, by definition, have no shame. I’m totally fine with people keeping harsh opinions to themselves. But I’m not fine with people being afraid to be honest when their opinions are solicited. If someone asks why a person doesn’t want to have kids, they would be wise to say “I just don’t want to be a parent.” But if they say “I’m not a fan of children”, I don’t see why they should be raked over the coals, as if it’s so inconceivable why a person wouldn’t be a fan of kids.

Sometimes, I think we go too far in accepting everything as okay and positive special-snowflake style, no matter what, to the point where we are supposed to “tolerate the intolerant”. Fact is that those who make a display of misanthropy are rightly judged as ‘less pleasant’ than those that actually appear to like people - and this is as it should be.

If someone is being a jackass and an asshole, by all means judge away. And that includes someone who loudly proclaims their misanthropy.

There are always going to be ‘rational’ reasons to dislike some group of people or other, if you dig hard enough. But what does ‘rationality’ matter? Didn’t you just make the point that a person cannot help what they dislike, and so morality isn’t a question?

Um, what? A person can have reasons for not liking something and still not have any control over it. For instance, I despise canned asparagus. I know it’s due to the smell and the god-awful texture. But I have not chosen to be particularly sensitive to the smell and texture of canned vegetables.

If that is the case, it isn’t a question made better or worse by justification - really, it is no different than (say) a person with an instinctual hatred for Jews or Blacks, who nonetheless wills themselves to be scrupulously polite to Jews or Blacks.

Sorry, but this is nuts. Children, as a class of people, are a lot more similar in terms of behavior than Jews or black people. Disliking people who aren’t mentally and emotionally mature is nowhere near as irrational as disliking people based ethnicity or skin color.

And you know what? There is no societal expectation that everyone should naturally love them some Jews or black people. Perhaps a lot of the anti-child sentiment you hear is simply backlash against this pressure.

[Malthus]

@monstro

I don’t understand why it’s rational to portray an honest and sincere feeling in a negative or positive way. Understandable, yes. But not rational.

Lots of honest and sincrere feelings are portrayed negatively.
Bigotry and selfishness are typically portrayed negatively, while love for others is portrayed positively.

I’ll agree with you on this. But I do think that it can be a self-perpetuating problem. If good people are afraid to say they don’t like something lest they be judged in a negative light, then it’s no wonder that the opinion will be associated only with jerks–who, by definition, have no shame. I’m totally fine with people keeping harsh opinions to themselves. But I’m not fine with people being afraid to be honest when their opinions are solicited. If someone asks why a person doesn’t want to have kids, they would be wise to say “I just don’t want to be a parent.” But if they say “I’m not a fan of children”, I don’t see why they should be raked over the coals, as if it’s so inconceivable why a person wouldn’t be a fan of kids.

If some man doesn’t want to be married, why can’t they say “I’m hetero, but I simply dislike women” and not be judged for it?

Because disliking classes of people as people tends to be judged negatively. I myself am okay with that - I would prefer to be around men who did not dislike women (and women who did not dislike men). Why? Because I have close relations with people who are women and with people who are men.

Um, what? A person can have reasons for not liking something and still not have any control over it. For instance, I despise canned asparagus. I know it’s due to the smell and the god-awful texture. But I have not chosen to be particularly sensitive to the smell and texture of canned vegetables.

My point is you are mixing up two ideas.

Idea one: that a person can’t be held morally responsible for something (say a dislike) they have no control over.

Idea two: that this particular dislike can be rationally justified, and so presumably, is morally better than other dislikes that cannot be rationally justified.

If idea one is true, idea two is irrelevant. You don’t need to justify a dislike you did not choose.

Sorry, but this is nuts. Children, as a class of people, are a lot more similar in terms of behavior than Jews or black people. Disliking people who aren’t mentally and emotionally mature is nowhere near as irrational as disliking people based ethnicity or skin color.

People have fought wars over things like ethnicity, and have enslaved people based on skin colour. Seems to me that it is easy to justify a dislike based on ethnicity or skin colour - if you wanted to (which I do not) - simply by reference to this history: there is always some sort of oppressor/oppressed dynamic one could appeal to.

And you know what? There is no societal expectation that everyone should naturally love them some Jews or black people. Perhaps a lot of the anti-child sentiment you hear is simply backlash against this pressure.

On the contrary, there is a lot stronger social prejudice against any expression of bigotry, than there is against anti-child misanthropy. Look at this very site: how would people react if one referred to individual Blacks or Jews as a “little semen stain” and call for killing them when they trivially misbehave (even for joke/shock effect?) See post 80:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18140074#post18140074

[Anaamika]

It’s a joke, son.

Anyway, I don’t like kids in the aggregate. Do you really like every kid that you ever came across? I may be sympathetic to them but some of them are just not likeable. The snotty little know-it-all, for example. Hell, I have seen their own parents be exasperated by them! And then there’s the spoiled rotten ones that have never seen a bit of discipline in their lives.

I try to remember that I am only dealing with him for X minutes, whereas the parents have to deal with him all the time, but that doesn’t mean I need to like him.

Some kids on the other hand are very loveable. I don’t see how it’s any different actually, from ethnicity. I’ll use E. Indian because I am one - no way on earth do I like every E. Indian out there! I don’t just love them as a whole. I like individual people.

[Malthus]

@Anaamika

It’s a joke, son.

Uhhh, yeah. What part of “even for joke/shock effect” was not understood?

Point I made was that you could not get away with ‘joking’ about using negative terms of the same ilk for Jews or Blacks. You just couldn’t.

There are good, rational reasons for this, of course … but point remains: there is a stronger social stigma against bigotry, than against expressions of anti-child misanthropy.

Anyway, I don’t like kids in the aggregate. Do you really like every kid that you ever came across? I may be sympathetic to them but some of them are just not likeable. The snotty little know-it-all, for example. Hell, I have seen their own parents be exasperated by them! And then there’s the spoiled rotten ones that have never seen a bit of discipline in their lives.

I try to remember that I am only dealing with him for X minutes, whereas the parents have to deal with him all the time, but that doesn’t mean I need to like him.

Some kids on the other hand are very loveable. I don’t see how it’s any different actually, from ethnicity. I’ll use E. Indian because I am one - no way on earth do I like every E. Indian out there! I don’t just love them as a whole. I like individual people.

That isn’t the issue. Of course not all people are lovable. The issue is, do you, on average, dislike one group more than their individual merits would warrant, simply because of their membership in the group.

[monstro]

@Malthus

Lots of honest and sincrere feelings are portrayed negatively.
Bigotry and selfishness are typically portrayed negatively, while love for others is portrayed positively.

I understand all this. Which is why I said portraying feelings as either good or bad is “understandable”. But it is not rational. An emotion is neither right or wrong. It just is. Take love, for instance. It can be just as foolish and dangerous as hatred. But I totally understand why people interpret emotions through a lens of morality. I’ve done the same thing. Doesn’t mean that it makes any sense, though.

If some man doesn’t want to be married, why can’t they say “I’m hetero, but I simply dislike women” and not be judged for it?

If you want to judge him, go right ahead. Me? I’ll be waiting for what he has to say next. If he clarifies himself by saying, “I don’t really care for female companionship or sharing space with another person. I have a “bro” personality, and it chaffs against what most women are into”, I’ll likely NOT judge this person as a jerk. I feel confident that he’s not someone I’ll get along with since I’m not into bros. But I’m going to judge his character differently from the guy who just says “GIRLS ARE GROSS!”

If someone says they don’t like kids for X, Y, and Z reasons, and X, Y, and Z reasons ring true or sensical (e.g., kids are messy, kids are needy and fragile, kids are unpredictable and often hard to control), then I’ll refrain from judging them like I’d judge the person who just says “KIDS ARE GROSS!!!”

Because disliking classes of people as people tends to be judged negatively. I myself am okay with that - I would prefer to be around men who did not dislike women (and women who did not dislike men). Why? Because I have close relations with people who are women and with people who are men.

I don’t like hanging around people who are given to large amounts of alcohol consumption. I’m sure there are some fabulous individuals who can be described in this way, who I’d get along with. But in general, drunk people aren’t my cup of tea.

Would I say this in a bar? No. And I probably wouldn’t say this in front of an audience of people I don’t know (present audience excluded) unless I was in the mood for an argument.

But if was asked why I don’t want to hang out with a particular group of people, I would. Since my opinion was solicited.

I don’t think not enjoying the company of children is the same thing as not getting along with women, blacks, and Jews. Children require a certain level of interaction and engagement that these other classes of people don’t. Some folks have a knack with kids, while others don’t. I’ll knock someone who doesn’t at least try to be a good sport. But I’m not going to knock someone who just acknowledges the truth, as long as they do it tactfully and with some explanation.

Sorry, I don’t have the desire to address your other points because I don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[gigi]

@Anaamika

I don’t understand, and never did, why the Pope and other religious figures don’t speak more on * planned parenthopod*. Not an “abortion clinic” which it most definitely is not, but the act of planning your parenthood. You can’t just keep having babies. It’s nice to think that God will provide but evidence has shown he doesn’t. Plan your families! Have children but make sure you can afford them! Don’t have a third child to try to fix your marriage!

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but the Church does talk about spacing births, and NaPro is the current accepted method. The link below contains the same excerpt from Humanae Vitae that I quoted earlier.

http://www.thecatholicconnection.org/?p=3148

[Anaamika]

@gigi

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but the Church does talk about spacing births, and NaPro is the current accepted method. The link below contains the same excerpt from Humanae Vitae that I quoted earlier.

http://www.thecatholicconnection.org/?p=3148

Which is, frankly, pretty stupid. Oh, I know, when done correctly NaPro is great! Amazeballs! I just don’t think most people do it right.

[gigi]

retracted - snarky!

[handsomeharry]

@Rikk001

However, the population was measured in the millions, and now it’s in the hundreds of billions…
Not everything in the Bible should be taken as flat fact…with errors being made along the way.

tl;dr

Am I the only one who is amused by this?