Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fertility Shock

124»

Comments

  • #92
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,655 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gargargar wrote: »
    I would categorise ignoring the threat of climate change as blind optimism. We have only had heavy industry for the last 100 and odd years. To go back beyond that is foolish.


    Couple of things to clear up here - HD regarded my view that the human species adapt our environment to suit ourselves as naive, in spite of the fact that’s exactly how we have evolved and how civilisations have evolved and civilisations have fallen throughout human history.

    I see no reason to think we won’t do the same again as we have done throughout history. The civilisation that will fall is the one that imagines they’re doing future generations a favour by having less children (where they expect future generations to come from if not from themselves, is anyone’s guess, but sure ignore that!), and those people who imagine they’re doing the planet a favour by disposing of their plastic Evian water bottle in a socially responsible fashion (I’ll leave vegans and EV drivers alone, Christ knows they have it hard enough :pac:).

    The point I’m making is precisely because we now live in a world where we’ve had the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and now the technological revolution, and there have been naysayers and doomsayers in each revolution, and human society has evolved each time, you’d think the naysayers and doomsayers would have learned by now that their efforts are futile (I’m being kind), but no, they’re still bleating about the end of human civilisation being nigh and the death of the planet. Why? Because they’re optimistic in one sense at least that at some point in the future they’re sure to be proven right.

    At that point they’ll be able to say to what’s left of humanity “I told you, I warned you, but you didn’t listen”, and it’s that optimism in hoping one day they will be able to say that, which drives them.


  • #93
    topper75
    Registered Users Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    paleoperson wrote: »
    This is an insanely offensive and disgusting thing to say.

    Once you start going down this road of "the wrong people breeding" you are automatically talking about eugenics.

    Right so we don't want eugenics.

    But is there an any acceptable alternative to letting it all play out laissez faire and see more of this:

    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/addicted-baby-born-every-three-days-910068.html


  • #94
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    paleoperson wrote: »
    No, I have never heard that in my entire religious upbringing growing up. Not once was I ever advised that we should have plenty of children, never. I only ever heard that online by people like yourself.

    Ah you were raised protestant then?


  • #95
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,856 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    paleoperson wrote: »
    No, I have never heard that in my entire religious upbringing growing up.

    Strange. It's a very commonly known phrase (and a euphemism for f..k off, to boot!)
    Not once was I ever advised that we should have plenty of children, never. I only ever heard that online by people like yourself. You're taking one thing in the entire bible out of context when there was a lack of population and applying it to life today.

    But it's still RCC policy today. Our birth rate was way above other European countries until quite recently. They kept contraception here illegal for decades and still tell their followers it's a sin. They're doing all they can to restrict the availability of contraception in the developing world and telling their rather more impressionable followers there that it's a sin. More souls for Jeebus appears to be the only criterion
    You're no better than the bible-thumpers and the people who do take one thing out of the bible and use that as their basis for behaviour that way yourself.

    Somehow pointing out the RCC's policy and actions in the world today, which are directly relevant to the topic of this thread, and the damage and human suffering they cause makes me a bad person. Uhuh.
    Being against contraception has nothing to do with wanting to overpopulate Africa, that's why they preach abstinence instead.

    If abstinence worked, then we would never have needed to invent contraception. Not even the priests can practice what they preach

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #96
    jim-mcdee
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭jim-mcdee


    Auntie Semite wrote: »
    Lots of thirty somethings have a future of loneliness, regret and despair to look forward to...not all but lots.

    An extremely narrow minded comment. Avoidance of the above, must be the worst reasons in the world to decide to have children. Also, having kids are in no way guaranteed to avoid that. My wife worked in the home care industry. More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy to pay for their care, but never visit.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    jim-mcdee wrote: »
    More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy forced to pay for their care, but never visit.

    Fixed that for you. On another note, some posters on here are delusional in thinking they will be certainly fit and healthy, will have bags of money and won't need any care in their old age.

    Dream on ! I don't think they have any idea how much it costs to fund 20 years of retirement.

    Others are delusional that getting married and having kids is a way around this. Loneliness is't a reason to have a family - in many cases it's actually more isolating for both men and women as you can't easily socialise with people at the drop of a hat.


  • #98
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    professore wrote: »
    Ah you were raised protestant then?

    No, Catholic. To very catholic parents and one of my aunts was a catholic nun. Catholic religious class in school. Catholic sermons every Sunday growing up. If there were ever the slightest value placed in populating by Catholics I would have them. Priests aren't even allowed to reproduce by definition.

    It was never, never, never said to me, including in religious class, or ever a thing I heard at all until the internet.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Strange. It's a very commonly known phrase (and a euphemism for f..k off, to boot!)

    I don't know what you're smoking.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    But it's still RCC policy today. Our birth rate was way above other European countries until quite recently. They kept contraception here illegal for decades and still tell their followers it's a sin. They're doing all they can to restrict the availability of contraception in the developing world and telling their rather more impressionable followers there that it's a sin. More souls for Jeebus appears to be the only criterion

    That's contraception, that has nothing to do with wanting people to multiply. The teaching of the catholic church has always been that sex outside of wedlock is a mortal sin.

    I agree that abstinence doesn't work. I'm not saying I agree with the catholic church or even saying their teachings aren't stupid. What I am saying is that it has never been a religious thing to give birth to a lot of children in Ireland, I have never heard it at all apart from online.


  • #99
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭scamalert


    jim-mcdee wrote: »
    An extremely narrow minded comment. Avoidance of the above, must be the worst reasons in the world to decide to have children. Also, having kids are in no way guaranteed to avoid that. My wife worked in the home care industry. More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy to pay for their care, but never visit.


    Exactly knowing someone who worked in home care is a cruel joke, those parents who raised their kids couldn't be arsed once they parents get old to look after them never mind visiting is like once a year just to see if they still breathe.


    if people make rational decision that its to expensive or they might not be able to provide fully and decide not to have kids all the better no one should dictate on someones choices.


  • #100
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,856 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    paleoperson wrote: »
    I don't know what you're smoking.

    Ah so you're back to attacking the poster rather than the post, I see.
    That's contraception, that has nothing to do with wanting people to multiply.

    Genuine LOL at this :pac:
    I'm not saying I agree with the catholic church or even saying their teachings aren't stupid. What I am saying is that it has never been a religious thing to give birth to a lot of children in Ireland, I have never heard it at all apart from online.

    I can remember when married couples with no kids were looked on with something close to suspicion by some, or even couples with "only" two kids after a few years - this was when contraception was illegal and the one and only reason it was illegal in Ireland was because the RCC wanted it to be.

    If you don't agree with their actions or teachings then why attack people who question their actions and teachings...?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #101
    paleoperson
    Registered Users Posts: 3,522 ✭✭✭paleoperson


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Ah so you're back to attacking the poster rather than the post, I see.

    No I am not attacking the poster pal. I would be attacking the poster if I said something like your job is only such and such or you are a drug user so your point is invalid. I am saying here I have no clue what you're saying and that I think it's nonsensical and cannot fathom how you come to it, that is attacking the post.

    I have no idea what you mean by "back to attacking the poster" either because I don't recall anything like attacking a poster in this thread. :confused:
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I can remember when married couples with no kids were looked on with something close to suspicion by some, or even couples with "only" two kids after a few years - this was when contraception was illegal and the one and only reason it was illegal in Ireland was because the RCC wanted it to be.

    If you don't agree with their actions or teachings then why attack people who question their actions and teachings...?

    Because people like you are always spewing such vile hatred and outright lies about good people, many of whom are now dead.

    It's bull****, the whole thing you brought up is bull****. Nothing about catholicism belongs as part of this conversation unless if you're talking about an indirect effect on Africa. Both nuns and priests are strictly forbidden from reproducing. So enough with your bull****.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Auntie Semite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Auntie Semite


    jim-mcdee wrote: »
    An extremely narrow minded comment. Avoidance of the above, must be the worst reasons in the world to decide to have children. Also, having kids are in no way guaranteed to avoid that. My wife worked in the home care industry. More than a few elderly clients that were filled with the above after being practically abandoned by their children, who are happy to pay for their care, but never visit.

    What I meant was (in the context of the comment about enjoying life too much to have kids) that lots of people in their 30's put off having kids for a career, or do not have kids for environmental reasons, having too much fun or simply leave it too late.
    Many people assume they're mindset will still be the same at 50 than it was at 30 , this is often not the case and unfortunately some will ultimately regret not having kids. I'm talking middle age here not old age.

    I agree that having kids for the reason of having someone to look after you in your dotage is a bad idea.


  • #103
    mvl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭mvl


    topper75 wrote: »
    Right so we don't want eugenics.
    But is there an any acceptable alternative to letting it all play out laissez faire and see more of this:
    https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/addicted-baby-born-every-three-days-910068.html
    the numbers in this story are not high, and trend seems to be decreasing - would you know what is contributing to this trend ?

    but I'd think in future cryonics may be of use for all sorts of scenarios: humans have a problem they don't know how to fix yet, then put affected individuals to sleep until science has found a way.


  • #104
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Of course the Catholic Church greatly influenced reproduction rates by their influenece on the availability of contraception.


  • #105
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,856 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    paleoperson wrote: »
    No I am not attacking the poster pal. I would be attacking the poster if I said something like your job is only such and such or you are a drug user so your point is invalid. I am saying here I have no clue what you're saying and that I think it's nonsensical and cannot fathom how you come to it, that is attacking the post.

    It's not though. "I don't know what you're smoking" is attacking the person making the post, not the post.

    Your non-comprehension of a well known English phrase and one of the most well-known quotes from the book of Genesis is entirely your issue.

    I have no idea what you mean by "back to attacking the poster" either because I don't recall anything like attacking a poster in this thread. :confused:

    :rolleyes: It's only a page or two ago, post 78, here let me refresh your memory.
    paleoperson wrote:
    Hotblack Desiato shut the **** up. You're not doing any favours for anti-overpopulation by claiming it's all due to christian religion, it has nothing to do with christian religion, you're just acting like a clown.

    Because people like you are always spewing such vile hatred and outright lies about good people, many of whom are now dead.

    It's bull****, the whole thing you brought up is bull****. Nothing about catholicism belongs as part of this conversation unless if you're talking about an indirect effect on Africa. Both nuns and priests are strictly forbidden from reproducing. So enough with your bull****.

    People like me? Uh-oh, attacking poster again.
    Vile hatred and outright lies? What have I posted which is hatred or lies?
    I have not attacked any person religious or otherwise.
    I have posted FACTUAL accounts of Roman Catholic Church influence on regional and global population policy.
    "Bull****" is not a synonym for facts which you are not willing to face up to.
    If you are not willing to engage respectfully in a discussion based on fact then we are done here.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #106
    jim-mcdee
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭jim-mcdee


    Auntie Semite wrote: »
    What I meant was (in the context of the comment about enjoying life too much to have kids) that lots of people in their 30's put off having kids for a career, or do not have kids for environmental reasons, having too much fun or simply leave it too late.
    Many people assume they're mindset will still be the same at 50 than it was at 30 , this is often not the case and unfortunately some will ultimately regret not having kids. I'm talking middle age here not old age.

    I agree that having kids for the reason of having someone to look after you in your dotage is a bad idea.

    Got ya. That's reasonable to assume. Circumstance dictates a lot and many sleepwalk into a situation where they discover the clock was against them and now its too late.


  • #107
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    The people you would want to have kids aren’t or aren’t having many and the Margaret cash of the worlds are pumping them out , massive financial burdens on the state! Laughable this banana republic!


  • #108
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    In Ireland some people complain about immigration. I we paid ourselves less, they would be slower to come. This video shows the consequences of our high pay on low income countries like Bulgaria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Ufhi_42h0
    Shame on us.


  • #109
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,856 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Well of course the proles earning less would suit your rent-seeker class right down to the ground - up to a point, anyway.

    Just be careful you don't allow them to earn so little they can't afford to pay their betters their rent, this occurred in the 19th century and didn't work out too well for your lot.

    Life ain't always empty.



Advertisement