[ SECRET POST #2230 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2230 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



















Notes:

Early because blizzard, not quite sure if power will last.

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 103 secrets from Secret Submission Post #319.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

DA - Technically speaking, just about everything we choose to do or not do is inherently selfish because we evaluate our actions based on what it does for us, emotionally, financially, etc... Yes, people can do things that benefit others (eg donating to a charity makes the donator feel good about themselves, but it also greatly helps out those they're donating to), and we don't generally consider those actions "selfish" because they're not exclusively benefiting the person doing them. However, choosing to have a child benefits nobody but the parent, who has chosen to have the child to fulfill their own desires. Having children has always been a selfish act because children have always been born in order to benefit the parents, but it's even worse now because there's no practical benefit to having a child - the only thing it does is make the parent feel good about themselves.

It's not inherently a bad thing, but people need to realize that there's nothing noble or altruistic about it.

[dreemyweird]

This. It's not like a child is obliged to be grateful to their parents for giving them a life.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you, this. It always bugged me a lot when someone said stuff like that. What choice do we have in being born?

[insanenoodlyguy]

the fact you can contemplate that means you're welcome, you ingrateful shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Would you just shut up? You are so gad damn annoying.

It benefits the state

[(Anonymous)]

Here we are so few people that the goverment thinks every woman shold have 3 kids to keep the welfare level going.

It drives me mad, if it's so important they should pop out some more babies themselves instead of trying to force me :

[(Anonymous)]

the only thing it does is make the parent feel good about themselves.

Someone to take care of you when you're older.

Not only that, but you're only thinking in the here-and-now sense. In a meta sense, bringing someone into this world whose life will be happy and warm and comfortable is a noble idea. If you think "I want to have a child so I can raise a happy, loving human being", that's not exactly selfish.

Not only that, but you're missing an important aspect of selfishness--a lack of concern for others. If I choose to, say, go to a spa to make myself happy, I am not being selfish. I am only doing it for myself, but the action is not selfish. Regardless of others, I think, is how most people use the term selfish.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone to take care of you when you're older.

Here's an activity: go to an old folk's home and talk to the people there. Find out if they have children and ask them how often their children visit. More often than not, you'll find that parents and grandparents end up with nothing to show for their efforts. People are not obligated to care for their elderly parents, and often if they're busy with children of their own, they don't have the time or energy to do so anyway. That aside, having children with the assumption that said child will care for you when you are older is selfish. You can't argue with that one. You've proven my point that having children does nothing but benefit the parents themselves.

bringing someone into this world whose life will be happy and warm and comfortable is a noble idea.

No, it's delusional. The reality is that life is not happy, warm, or comfortable. Life is full of pain and hardship and suffering - bringing a child into this world, no matter how well you think you can care for them and make their life perfect, is a harmful act. Not understanding this is naive and grossly detrimental. Not to mention, you've started your reasoning with, "I want..." - is that not an aspect of selfishness, desiring something for yourself?

Not only that, but you're missing an important aspect of selfishness--a lack of concern for others.

I would ask you to explain to me, then, why people who choose not to have children are often called "selfish." Why is my choice to not inflict myself on a child considered "selfish," yet people's choice to contribute to overpopulation and pollution is not? If I'm able to be considered selfish for a choice that is detrimental to absolutely nobody, then I reserve the right to consider people selfish for choosing to procreate.

[(Anonymous)]

Here's an activity: go to an old folk's home and talk to the people there. Find out if they have children and ask them how often their children visit.

They wouldn't be at an old folk's home if not, eh? They'd be at their home or at their kids.

That aside, having children with the assumption that said child will care for you when you are older is selfish. You can't argue with that one. You've proven my point that having children does nothing but benefit the parents themselves.

I don't know if you're anon I replied to, but that was directly in response to saying there's no practical reasons for having kids any more. I pointed out there were, and then continued with another thread.

No, it's delusional. The reality is that life is not happy, warm, or comfortable.

I'm sorry, you've lived more than one life? Maybe mine as been happy, warm, and comfortable and I could see that my kid's would be too. Who gives a shit whether yours wasn't or not?

Life is full of pain and hardship and suffering - bringing a child into this world, no matter how well you think you can care for them and make their life perfect, is a harmful act.

No, it's not. There is no morality in question with it. They did not exist previously, so their state of being was neither good nor bad. That they exist now is neither good nor bad. Some circumstances can be, but that's it.

And regardless, some people have delightful lives. The huge majority of people are happy to be alive.

Not understanding this is naive and grossly detrimental. Not to mention, you've started your reasoning with, "I want..." - is that not an aspect of selfishness, desiring something for yourself?

"I want to donate all of my money to charity, giving only to other people and taking nothing for myself". Look at allllll of that selfishness in that sentence that started with "I want".

I would ask you to explain to me, then, why people who choose not to have children are often called "selfish."

Some people call them selfish. As someone pointed out below, you're saying that you don't want to have a kid because you like your free time and what not is a selfish reason in your standards. It's not by mine, but in yours it is. Because you're thinking about your emotions and what makes you happy.

But as I can see from your final sentence, this is basically just childfree garbage and a general hate of parents and parenting. Be free then, I don't care.

[dreemyweird]

I don't fully agree with either of you, but I'd like to note that

Maybe mine as been happy, warm, and comfortable and I could see that my kid's would be too. Who gives a shit whether yours wasn't or not?

this is illogical? Because your kid is a different person and you can't know whether their life will be happy or not. You may do everything in your power and still get a very unhappy person. Shit happens.

Omg, it seems that I set childfree/parenting wank astir. Not my intention, tbh.

[diet_poison]

But as I can see from your final sentence, this is basically just childfree garbage and a general hate of parents and parenting. Be free then, I don't care. parents and parenting. Be free then, I don't care.

They had me at "bringing a child into this world, no matter how well you think you can care for them and make their life perfect, is a harmful act. Not understanding this is naive and grossly detrimental". Being childfree is one thing, judging others for wanting to have children makes them no better than the people who call them "selfish" for not wanting any.

(Seriously, can't everyone just grow up about this topic? Some people have kids. Some don't. IT'S OKAY.)

[(Anonymous)]

I'll preface this by saying I don't really have a horse in this race, and I believe that people should be free to have or not have children as they desire. There's nothing inherently selfish in choosing not to have children.

That said.

"No, it's delusional. The reality is that life is not happy, warm, or comfortable. Life is full of pain and hardship and suffering - bringing a child into this world, no matter how well you think you can care for them and make their life perfect, is a harmful act. Not understanding this is naive and grossly detrimental."

Seriously? Seriously. Yes, it is a fact that suffering is inherent to life. That is, has been, and always will be true. However, life (for most people) is also full of joys, meaningful relationships, and pleasure. There is nothing naive or grossly detrimental about maintaining that bringing new life into the world is, ceteris paribus, a good thing. It is not harmful to bring a child, whose life will contain an overall balance of good, into existence. One could argue that a child whose life ends up containing an overall balance of suffering is harmed by being brought into the world (alternatively, by not being killed in infancy), but to be honest, I also strongly, strongly oppose a utilitarian ethics of that sort. (For reasons whose elaboration would require more space and energy than I have at present.)

Life is not that simple or reducible, and neither are ethical judgments about the value of bringing a person into existence. You are naive if you really think they are.

In conclusion, you sound strikingly like Peter Singer; I'd bet dollars to donuts you love his work, in which case I'm not sure there's much I can say anyways.

[(Anonymous)]

So, why are you still alive?

You've acknowledged that life is awful, and you think that every additional person on this planet contributes to the problems of overpopulation and pollution. Why, then, are you still here? I mean, you must surely be suffering, and you must certainly be miserable, since life contains nothing but suffering and misery. You can't be well-cared for, or comfortable, since both are impossible. Given that, and the fact that you recognize that humanity is a cancer, I'm surprised that you haven't ended things. What is it that's keeping you attached to this worthless existence?

[(Anonymous)]

Things aren't as black-and-white, Mr. J. Yes, there are selfish parents out there: they're the parents who have their kids around and never teach them how to behave or teach them anything because they don't think about how they shape their kids or how their kids' behavior will affect other people. But there are also many parents who do care about their kids and genuinely want to teach them and love them.

Also, I have volunteered at an old folks' home, and relatives did visit them. I was only there once a week, so I couldn't see everything, but I saw enough to refute your statement that old folks' home =/= uncaring kids. Keeping elderly parents in their home can become unsafe or impractical, especially if they need frequent medical care. And though some grown children don't have the space or money to house the parent(s), but still care about them. In fact, my grandparents just moved into an assisted living facility, and 7 of their 13 children visit them regularly and take turns bringing them dinner on Sunday nights. Only 7 can do it because the other 6 live out of town, and sending Sunday dinner by UPS might not be sanitary.

It's not selfish to be childfree, but some people might call them that because they choose to care for themselves but don't contribute to the next generation. This is not selfish, however, because those people may have recognized that they do not have the disposition to be an effective parent. It's not so much about selfishness as it is about what's best for everyone's well-being---the person, their SO/spouse (if applicable), and any potential children.

So it's kind of sad, Mr. J, that you still believe that deep down, we're all as ugly as you. And it makes me wonder what happened to you to make you that way.

[(Anonymous)]

Jesus, calm the fuck down. Clearly people have been giving you shit IRL about your choice not to have kids, but news flash - the people on the internet are not these people.

[justthedriver]

People are not obligated to care for their elderly parents

Yes. They are. And if you don't? You're an ungrateful bastard. Just because you didn't ask for it doesn't mean it wasn't done for you all the same, and gratitude to due for that.

[(Anonymous)]

Someone to take care of you when you're older

Uh, that makes it more selfish, not less. Or at least, more pragmatically selfish. Self-motivated. Dammit, I've lost the word. Self-serving? It means people aren't just having kids for shits and giggles, but if you're doing it to have someone to take care of you when you're older, that is not at all selfless.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, that was referring directly to this statement:

"but it's even worse now because there's no practical benefit to having a child - the only thing it does is make the parent feel good about themselves."

My point is that there are, actually. Not that I think they're good reasons, but there are.

[(Anonymous)]

There's always a practical benefit to people having children, in that it furthers the existence of the species.

You can argue that we're overpopulated (we're actually not; we simply do not utilize the resources available to us in the most efficient manner, and that most certainly is as a result of selfishness). You can argue that humans, as a species, do more harm than good, and that our propagation is therefore undesirable. However, inasmuch as we are still animals, and we are still products of evolution, a significant amount of people among us are always going to have within them a drive to reproduce. And the primary benefit is always going to be that it ensures that we do not die out.

[(Anonymous)]

Overpopulated or not, there's certainly no risk of our species dying out anytime soon, especially if governments keep trying to restrict people's choice on the matter.

That aside, I have to wonder what the "selfless" benefit is to procreating rather than adopting, if you're arguing for the propagation of a species rather than the propagation of a lineage. Isn't it far more beneficial to the species as a whole that we care for and nurture the human beings who are already here, rather than simply adding more to everybody's detriment?

[diet_poison]

That sounds very Tragedy of the Commons-ish.

It's an interesting point.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not selfless, and that's not what I'm going for.

It does make sense to adopt rather than to procreate, and on a personal level, I wish that it was more easy to do so (and that there was less of a stigma attached to it). However, I am not arguing from the mindful or logical point of view. I am arguing from the instinctual and evolutionary standpoint. As intelligent as we are, and as much as we like to think that we've moved beyond the beginnings of our species, we are still very much creatures of the wild. And in the wild, propagation is beneficial.

I suppose what I'm really trying to say is that I don't think it's selfishness that drives parenthood so much as that aspect of ourselves that we would like to deny exists.

[(Anonymous)]

Something has occurred to me.

Deciding to have a child because there is a practical benefit to it is itself selfish.

[katiemariie]

Having children has always been a selfish act because children have always been born in order to benefit the parents...

I think you're forgetting all the people throughout time who've been impregnated against their will and/or forced to carry a pregnancy to term. For a good many people, having a child wasn't (and isn't, because this still goes on) a choice--selfish or otherwise.

[(Anonymous)]

If you're doing something involuntarily, then it obviously isn't selfish whether or not it would be selfish otherwise, because you're not choosing to do it.