December 22, 2024, 08:13:18 AM

1,531,361 Posts in 46,734 Topics by 1,523 Members
› View the most recent posts on the forum.


Would you ever have kids?

Started by snoorkel, October 24, 2011, 07:15:08 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Thoughts

Definitely at some point
8 (33.3%)
Maybe
8 (33.3%)
Adopt / foster sure
2 (8.3%)
No, none, never
6 (25%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Go Down

YPrrrr

Quote from: vziard on October 29, 2011, 10:00:10 PM
I still want my q answered

why can't every bitch lay down and have my children?
Chauvinist

Thyme

Quote from: vziard on October 29, 2011, 10:00:10 PM
I still want my q answered

why can't every bitch lay down and have my children?


Literally? There just isn't enough wziard juice for eveyone, man.

also the next generation will be fucked up

snoorkel


Nyerp

i had a kid once. wasn't the best. meat was too stringy.

applesauce

You guys are completely missing what Socks was saying. It has nothing to do with being male or female at all-- it has everything to do with him (and plenty of other people) thinking that having and raising children is the most rewarding and important thing in life. To say that there is a "male worldview" and a "female worldview" is to divide people by sex. It just doesn't work that way. You don't have to think the way he does, but fact is that there are plenty of people, male and female, who do. He's not trying to tell anyone to do or not do anything, and gender has nothing to do with it.

Classic

I don't have the body parts needed to do so.


For now. yes;

snoorkel

Quote from: Molotov Emir 1986 on October 30, 2011, 09:56:24 AM
It has nothing to do with being male or female at all-- it has everything to do with him (and plenty of other people) thinking that having and raising children is the most rewarding and important thing in life.


agreed

Quote from: Molotov Emir 1986 on October 30, 2011, 09:56:24 AM
To say that there is a "male worldview" and a "female worldview" is to divide people by sex. It just doesn't work that way.


agreed, exactly

Quote from: Molotov Emir 1986 on October 30, 2011, 09:56:24 AM
You don't have to think the way he does, but fact is that there are plenty of people, male and female, who do. He's not trying to tell anyone to do or not do anything, and gender has nothing to do with it.


agreed, neither am I trying to tell anyone what to do  doodhuh;



applesauce

Quote from: vziard on October 30, 2011, 03:27:31 PM
agreed

agreed, exactly

agreed, neither am I trying to tell anyone what to do  doodhuh;





I'm glad you understand then.

YPrrrr

Quote from: vziard on October 30, 2011, 03:27:31 PM
agreed

agreed, exactly

agreed, neither am I trying to tell anyone what to do  doodhuh;



Really? What the fuuuuuck goonish

snoorkel

Quote from: NPR on October 30, 2011, 07:33:27 PM
Really? What the fuuuuuck goonish


This is why I said, 'you completely missed every point we were trying to make,' because I think you took your unique judgement as it applied to what we were saying and threw it back at us as if that was all we were saying (I think this is what most people do whenever they say anything). Yet, you probably think you were arguing the neutral center, the outside perspective without any personal opinion involved, right?

I believe vulpix was only 'offended' by Socks saying (in slightly different words), 'anything a woman can do is second in worth to the glorious gift that is her eggs'. Can't you see how that might be 'offensive' if you were a woman? Can't you see how that implies a very biased worldview dominated by the desires of one sex? It implies that the female's value is defined by her biology and nothing else (that's exactly what he said, everything else is second to biology), while the male's value is defined by his ability to find a good woman to fuck for progeny (and whatever else he wants to do). Is this making any sense????



applesauce

Apparently you did not understand what I said and you do not agree with it at all.


Quote from: vziard on October 30, 2011, 11:09:18 PM

I believe vulpix was only 'offended' by Socks saying (in slightly different words), 'anything a woman can do is second in worth to the glorious gift that is her eggs'. Can't you see how that might be 'offensive' if you were a woman? Can't you see how that implies a very biased worldview dominated by the desires of one sex? It implies that the female's value is defined by her biology and nothing else (that's exactly what he said, everything else is second to biology), while the male's value is defined by his ability to find a good woman to fuck for progeny (and whatever else he wants to do). Is this making any sense????


Except this is not what he said. What I'm pretty sure Socks was saying (and what Aubrey and I have been assuming he was saying) is that the greatest purpose & enjoyment that any HUMAN can accomplish/have is to have and raise children. The only part that has to do with being female is giving birth-- that's it. He's not saying that a woman's value comes from giving birth and that a man's value comes from fucking women, but that a HUMAN's value comes from raising, caring for, and supporting children in a healthy environment. I believe the whole childbirth thing was just Socks being Socks and waxing poetic, but that aside-- truth is that if you believe reproduction and child-rearing to be the most important part of life, Sock's message makes perfect sense. It's not chauvinistic...it just isn't. To twist it like that is to remove all the meaning and heart and feeling and distort the meaningless nothing that remains to fit your goals.

??????


PLEASEHELP1991

i am a woman why are you objectifying me
I love [you]

snoorkel

Quote from: Molotov Emir 1986 on October 30, 2011, 11:55:57 PM
Apparently you did not understand what I said and you do not agree with it at all.


Except this is not what he said. What I'm pretty sure Socks was saying (and what Aubrey and I have been assuming he was saying) is that the greatest purpose & enjoyment that any HUMAN can accomplish/have is to have and raise children. The only part that has to do with being female is giving birth-- that's it. He's not saying that a woman's value comes from giving birth and that a man's value comes from fucking women, but that a HUMAN's value comes from raising, caring for, and supporting children in a healthy environment. I believe the whole childbirth thing was just Socks being Socks and waxing poetic, but that aside-- truth is that if you believe reproduction and child-rearing to be the most important part of life, Sock's message makes perfect sense. It's not chauvinistic...it just isn't. To twist it like that is to remove all the meaning and heart and feeling and distort the meaningless nothing that remains to fit your goals.


Socks said (this is what both of us replied to),

Quote from: Socks on October 26, 2011, 06:20:25 PM
women hold the single greatest privilege in life and in this world. all the rest is second to this.


What that means literally, interpretation aside, is that childbirth is the 'single greatest privilege' anyone can hope to be involved with in life. I suppose I do not accept that there is anything wrong with my belief that that is a derogatory remark, given that there's only one sex that actually has to do anything to have a child. I get your point about humans, but I disagree that it isn't at least a little sexist. Like you said, the only part that has to do with being female is giving birth -- but what else, besides pregnancy and giving birth (things that apply exclusively to females), is involved in creating a child?! Bim! (I meant for the topic to be more about having kids, not the aspect of raising kids, which I'd probably share your views on.)

I can't say I disagree with Socks's message making perfect sense, if you believe reproduction is the most important part of life. I think that philosophy is part of the problem. I think it's setting the bar pretty fucking low to say, 'as long as you have kids you can expect life to be perfectly fulfilling'. What are we striving to be, then, simple animals? We're not to expect any higher purpose for our collective existence beyond raising future generations to continue the process of evolution as long as possible? (Yes, I know this is a biological truth.)

So that brings us back around to the original topic of the thread, where vulpix and I expressed the belief that having your own children is just another thing you can do, nothing terribly special about it, so we'd rather adopt kids, not least of all because the world is overpopulated, especially inside orphanages, etc whatever, in our opinion. No tone of 'everyone should do this' at all. We're not trying to make rules for the human race or fight nature, sorry if it came off that way.


Quote from: bluebirdofhappiness on October 31, 2011, 12:32:03 AM
i am a woman why are you objectifying me


lol THANK YOU felt! Bim!! Bim!! Bim! so perfect



applesauce

I can't properly multituote your message from my phone, and I'm not getting out of bed to do it, so:

1st p: Yeah okay but no one gives a shit about what he literally said. I think everyone except you interpreted it the way YPR and I did. Like I said, Socks was just being Socks and I think he did a good job of infusing what he said with emotion and capturing the feeling of love and beauty involved.

2nd p: I personally get more fulfillment out of sharing with and taking care of those I love than anything else I've yet experienced. I imagine parenthood to be like that x200.

3rd p: I don't know-- maybe it's instinct and such, but I would very much like to have biological children. If in 5-10 years it is affordable to garuntee that I don't pass the dominant tbs gene to my children, I will have biological children. If it's not, I'm not sure whether I will or not.

Go Up