Stallman: Why it is important not to have children (2012) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by mariallery » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 11:14 AM UTC

jstewartmobile wrote: post #59

trobertson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It comes down to the context: yes, when poor John loses his dog, we can all understand, what you meant. However, Stallman did not lose anything, furthermore, he is successful and happy with his choices, therefore your "poor Stallman" comment is by definition condescension.

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

#62

Post by diea » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 12:02 PM UTC

unclenoriega wrote: post #50

diea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, no, maybe (I am 25y/o) I read many responses mentioning you should have kids to 'pass on your genes' so potentially your offspring can be a 'better you' and improve the world. I would argue that adoption could be a good alternative. When adopting, you are potentially doing all this without actually contributing to the world population increase. Also, I think RMS made a respectable choice, and probably indeed cont…

I think you're right, but your phrasing is a bit odd. If you adopt, you are explicitly not passing on your genes. I think a better word here is 'memes' (in the original sense) or 'values' if 'memes' is too polluted.

Agreed :-)

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

#63

Post by Shorel » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 4:55 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #24

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…

Every person is somebody's child "Implications to humanity?" There's no humanity if people don't reproduce. It's that simple

We can perfectly have a few billions less of humanity and be totally fine.

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

#64

Post by Shorel » Sun, Nov 13, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #19

jstewartmobile wrote: post #8

I am so glad I had children. I enjoy their company tremendously, and the added responsibility has sharpened my game. That, and the whole eco-disaster angle is overblown. Thanks to birth control, Westernized peoples are barely replacing themselves. I feel bad for poor Stallman. Too focused on saving the world to save himself.

Not replacing ourself is a good thing. We are too many, and right now we want the population to grow because our economical system depend on it. This is reverse thinking. We have economical problems because there are too many of us. Too many to feed. Too many to host. Too many with a car, a smartphone, heaters in the winter, and eating meat 5 times a week. We would have zero resources problem with 1/3 or our current…

May be we can start fixing the economic model to not to need continuous growth, and the rest will follow.

A more closed society, like the Japanese, can show us the way by improving the lives of the future generations while having fewer people.

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

#65

Post by jstewartmobile » Mon, Nov 14, 2016, 12:37 PM UTC

mariallery wrote: post #61

jstewartmobile wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It comes down to the context: yes, when poor John loses his dog, we can all understand, what you meant. However, Stallman did not lose anything, furthermore, he is successful and happy with his choices, therefore your "poor Stallman" comment is by definition condescension.

Nothing but respect here for RMS. Successful: yes. Happy with his choices: debatable. His writing and his countenance don't really give off the "happy" vibe.

Perhaps the condescension in my writing (of which there was none) was not so much in the signal as it was in the receiver? Your reply is absolutely dripping with it, window-dressing a cry of "is not / is so" with: "however", "furthermore", "therefore", and "by definition."

The only thing that would have made it worse would be putting it into pseudocode!