Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#51

Post by austincheney »

theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

> it's because you disregarded that Richard puts his ethical argument for the implications to humanity first

No. I have spent three years living apart from my family on military deployments. I know what it means to make this ethical argument and live by it in a self-sacrificing way. Many people cannot make this work, which isn't the same as forcing a divisive choice upon those of us who can.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#52

Post by dogma1138 »

youdounderstand wrote: post #20
dogma1138 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western people aren't even replacing themselves without immigration Europe would be in a population decline. The US still has a positive natural population growth but many countries do not. I find the arguments for not having children a disastrous one. Reproduction is effectively our prime directive as a life form. Furthermore it's utterly ironic that the people that could care for their offsprings the most seem to h…

That presupposes some reason for humanity to keep existing.

I really don't understand these types of comments - humanity shouldn't exist; fine then practice what you preach, but I doubt you are willing to go first.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#53

Post by jstewartmobile »

theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..."

How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#54

Post by trobertson »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #53
theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..." How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.

> expression of sympathy

Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman).

You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#55

Post by jstewartmobile »

trobertson wrote: post #54
jstewartmobile wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You quoted me directly on "I feel bad for poor Stallman..." How an expression of sympathy is also a personal attack, I do not know.

> expression of sympathy Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman). You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".

So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#56

Post by razzaj »

Sure, kids complicate things. They also have the unique attibute of being non-undoable. And life is surely much simpler without them. But aren't all enriching things in life complicated? Like love, starting a company, friendship, learning. I have kids, and i dont think of people who decide not to have any as "wrong". This is clearly a personal choice, but i can definitely say they are missing out on a great source of richness, and tons of joy.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#57

Post by trobertson »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #55
trobertson wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expression of sympathy Whether you intend it or not, it's an expression of condescension. It states that you are in a position where you can look down at (feel bad for) a lesser (poor Stallman). You may not mean it that way, but it's exactly the same sort of phrase as "Bless your little heart".

So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?

If you "feel bad for him", you are not looking down on him.

If you "feel bad for poor him", you are referring to him in a way that implies his position is lesser.

"Poor $noun" is nearly always derogatory towards $noun. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a neutral or positive use for "poor $noun".

Verbal communication is imprecise enough that people will overlook "poor $noun". In text, you have the opportunity to proofread and revise your statements, so "poor $noun" drastically changes the meaning of the phrase.

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#58

Post by millstone »

theonemind wrote: post #18

Before you post, 1. Are you a parent? 2. Are you about to post some variation of "Richard Stallman is emotionally broken?" i.e., "What an oversimplification by somebody who sounds like an emotional failure", or "I feel bad for poor Stallman" or "What a sad man" 3. Are you a parent, or have strong feelings about becoming a parent? If you answered yes on step 3, and want to know how I knew, it's because you disregarded…

Yes, yes, yes.

Adoption enables people to become parents without increasing population. Why didn't rms address this obvious objection? I think it simply didn't occur to him.

Now consider that in the context of his line: "Having no dependents, I could dedicate myself to what seemed right rather than to whatever someone with money told me to do."

Adoptive or foster parents aren't doing what seems right to them! Why are they wasting their time providing parental love to children in need, when they could be writing emacs patches?

As a child of both foster and adoptive parents, I say: What a jerk!

Re: Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012)

#59

Post by jstewartmobile »

trobertson wrote: post #57
jstewartmobile wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I feel bad for someone who lost his dog, I'm looking down on him as a "lesser"?

If you "feel bad for him", you are not looking down on him. If you "feel bad for poor him", you are referring to him in a way that implies his position is lesser. "Poor $noun" is nearly always derogatory towards $noun. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a neutral or positive use for "poor $noun". Verbal communication is imprecise enough that people will overlook "poor $noun". In text, you have the opportunity t…

You're formalizing some kind of culture disconnect. If I say, "Poor John lost his dog." to any native of the Gulf Coast, no one is going to mistake that for an expression of superiority to John.
Post reply on HN