Wonderful or Selfish?

poundapunnet wrote: »

A married couple having protected sex, or an unmarried couple engaging in sexual acts, or two people of the same sex engaging in sexual acts either have no consequences for other people or ones that are much lesser than the consequences which could arise from those people having 13 kids.

And crucially, nobody here is suggesting that the state or the law should have any say in what that couple get up to in their bedroom or how many children they should be allowed to have. Or for example taking the kids off them and putting them in institutional schools or having them adopted, possibly abroad, or institutionalising the parents themselves on the basis of their sex life. So shut up.

poundapunnet wrote: »

Those actual, real, consequences is what makes it different from pre-marital, homosexual or protected sex, and society's reaction to it is what makes it different from the carry on of the Catholic church in days gone by. Like I said, more power to them, my point is your comparison is stupid.

You haven't addressed any of the content of my posts there. You're responding to me as if my point is that it's a bad thing for this couple to have 13 children, when from my first post I've been quite clear that's not the case. Fair play to them! My point is that when you said:

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Nice to see though that it wasn't just Catholic Ireland that judged the morality of what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Modern, secular Ireland is keeping up the tradition it seems.

you were wrong. This is the only point that we disagree on, this is the point I'm interested in debating with you, otherwise we can both just agree that we're happy for this couple and their decision to have and raise 13 children.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

As for you referring to the Catholic Church's "carry on" I fully agree, unfortunately you were twisting my post to make it say something I never did. I was referring simply to the judgmental attitude that was undoubtedly shown here starting from the very first post, I never claimed there to be a comparable follow up punitive action as had been the case in the past. So all your talk of institutional schools, forced adoption etc amounts to nothing more than a straw man.

So, what you meant to say was something more similar to the earlier posters were similar to the catholic church minus the most pernicious, insidious aspects is it? Because the catholic church are remembered for far more than a disapproval of behaviour. It was a mandate.

Who are you to judge how many kids a couple have? Most people in their twenty are the first generation of small family. Most of your parents where members of a large, poor family. Are they anyway mess up? In a society where gay marriage and other such taboo issues are moving into the norm why is the norm moving into the taboo?

poundapunnet wrote: »

Yeah that worked great in China :rolleyes:

Tbh it does work a little bit. The one child law only applies to Han people who are still in a vast vast majority. These days you can actually have more kids but you have to pay a fine, one that is becoming more affordable in modern times. Either that or have guanxi (connections). Thing is, despite it's so called Communism, social welfare doesnt exist so whatever. The real difference now is that men outnumber women greatly which has led to the modern Chinese man becoming a pussywhipped nancy in order to get with one. No ones suggesting a one child law but a bigger family should contribute more rather than be a bigger burden.

Kold wrote: »

Tbh it does work a little bit. The one child law only applies to Han people who are still in a vast vast majority. These days you can actually have more kids but you have to pay a fine, one that is becoming more affordable in modern times. Either that or have guanxi (connections). Thing is, despite it's so called Communism, social welfare doesnt exist so whatever. The real difference now is that men outnumber women greatly which has led to the modern Chinese man becoming a pussywhipped nancy in order to get with one. No ones suggesting a one child law but a bigger family should contribute more rather than be a bigger burden.

I wouldn't neccessarily agree with this to be honest. As you say the gender imbalance is so extreme that in the case of something like 15-20 million men, a life without a girlfriend/wife isn't probably but definite. In the cases of these men they can be as pussywhipped as they like and still end up tugging themselves off alone for the rest of their days.

The Sunday Times did a great report on it a few weeks back, very sad reading.

Rod Serling wrote: »

I actually laughed out loud at this. The government should have a say in our reproductive rights. Not just any government, but the Irish government. Tremendous.

I know, right?!

I mean, it already does!! :D

I have no problem in principle with people having lots of kids. Knock yourself out.

But this **** annoys me about these kinds of people:

And Paul -- who works at Dublin Airport -- said that he is eternally grateful for the help from eldest brothers Eoin (15), Cian (12), Darragh (11) and Cathal (10) who assist in organising breakfast for their younger siblings.

Don't drag your kids into your decisions. Let them off to be teenagers, not spending their time running around after other children. There'll be plenty of time for that when they're 30. If you can't cope managing the workload, then get the fncking snip, don't be expecting your children to help you raise their siblings.

seamus wrote: »

Don't drag your kids into your decisions. Let them off to be teenagers, not spending their time running around after other children. There'll be plenty of time for that when they're 30. If you can't cope managing the workload, then get the fncking snip, don't be expecting your children to help you raise their siblings.

First world problems eh? Poor lads losing an irreplaceable twenty minutes of their precious childhood by having to make tea and butter toast. What life experiences were they deprived of by doing this small chore at breakfast time? There was nothing suggested there that the teenage children were being forced to stay home from social events with their peers as they were expected to babysit at night or similar.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with children participating to some degree in the running of a household. My brother and I were also expected to help with the breakfast (and more) and that was with the two of us and my family was far from an exception. Were my parents one of the "these kind of people" (you must be very perceptive to be able to be able to judge this couple out of a short article) who annoy you so much? It's not like the ten year old was sent walking three miles to collect water from the village well I'm sure as happens in some places, more likely he just set the table or some similar token job.

Children since time immemorial have always been expected to contribute to the running of the family and the care of their siblings with the recent blip of modern, more enlightened families who, for some strange reason, seem to be increasingly producing irresponsible and downright unpleasant adolescents and young adults. Nothing to do with modern soft parenting of course...

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

First world problems eh? Poor lads losing an irreplaceable twenty minutes of their precious childhood by having to make tea and butter toast. What life experiences were they deprived of by doing this small chore at breakfast time?

Apart from the studies which show how much sleep pre-teens and teens require in order to function properly? Waking them up at 6am to look after their siblings is hardly in their best interests. Like I say, if they can't handle the workload, it's downright bad parenting to expect the older children to help raise their siblings. The odd bout of babysitting is one thing. Looking after their breakfasts (and no doubt other things) is a whole other ball game, it's work you can't expect children to have to do.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with children participating to some degree in the running of a household. My brother and I were also expected to help with the breakfast (and more) and that was with the two of us and my family was far from an exception.

Yes, because a child helping make their own breakfast is exactly the same thing as feeding a baby or a toddler.

Children since time immemorial have always been expected to contribute to the running of the family and the care of their siblings with the recent blip of modern,

Ah, the appeal to tradition fallacy, that's what I thought. Just because it's been happening since "time immemorial", it's automatically OK?

more enlightened families who, for some strange reason, seem to be increasingly producing irresponsible and downright unpleasant adolescents and young adults. Nothing to do with modern soft parenting of course...

Another fallacy. Teenagers are no more irresponsible nor unpleasant than their parents were. I'm afraid this belief of yours is a symptom of getting older and believing that things are getting worse.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L.
Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277
(1953)."

Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Page 63

The CSO say the Total Period Fertility Rate, a better index than simple birth rate, is 2.01, below the 2.1 replacement level.

If only there was a way for us to attract a workforce to this country besides pushing them out of a vagina.

seamus wrote: »

Apart from the studies which show how much sleep pre-teens and teens require in order to function properly? Waking them up at 6am to look after their siblings is hardly in their best interests. Like I say, if they can't handle the workload, it's downright bad parenting to expect the older children to help raise their siblings. The odd bout of babysitting is one thing. Looking after their breakfasts (and no doubt other things) is a whole other ball game, it's work you can't expect children to have to do.

I don't see any mention of these children getting up at 6am to feed their siblings or indeed any suggestion in the article that they were woken a minute earlier than they would have been getting up with or without this chore. Where did you get this detail from or are you just assuming that this is the case?

Another fallacy. Teenagers are no more irresponsible nor unpleasant than their parents were. I'm afraid this belief of yours is a symptom of getting older and believing that things are getting worse.

I had a sneaky suspicion that old chestnut might be brought up. Always strikes me as a rather lazy argument. Do you know if the parenting methods of Socrates' day had undergone a comparable shift from strict authoritarianism to soft liberalism that would make it a relevant quotation for you to bring up?

Do you agree that the style of parenting has a very significant impact on the development of the child? Do you agree that the style of parenting today has changed significantly to that experienced just one or two generations previously? If so isn't it a mighty odd coincidence that two very different attitudes to parenting just so happen to produce the same outcome as you believe? Or have I got you wrong and when you say that teenagers today are no more irresponsible nor unpleasant do you actually mean they are more responsible and more pleasant than their parents rather than just equivalent as I assumed you meant?

I wonder does the evidence back your claim up? My mother, and many like her, were living and working abroad at 15 and 16 (my dad was the ripe old age of 17 before doing the same) and they were sending money home to help support their parents and younger siblings (we know how you feel about that). Today though children of a similar age who help make breakfast in their own kitchen is apparently worthy of comment and the raising of eye brows, even though the actual level of their participation in this isn't even mentioned apart from the fact that we know they were only assisting their parents and not expected to do the job alone.

I would be interested to see the statistics, are children and young adults today more or less responsible with money, with alcohol, with their own health and bodies, are they more or less violent, or are they as politically aware and active as those of the same age from 40 or 50 years ago?