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

The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

shreyans.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 260 posts

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#161

Post by anon291 »

WalterBright wrote: post #129
anon291 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have a village because no one has kids. The parents I know who are best supported are ones who have tons of siblings.

True. Those with large numbers of kids tend to have a family network of mutual support.

My parents had less kids due to circumstances (age + immigration). But they had so many siblings that they had so much help compared to my brother and I.

Luckily we both have three and we at least want more (they might be aging out... Maybe they'll have one more).

Kids are so much fine and they love each other too. It's amazing

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#162

Post by papa-whisky »

pedrosorio wrote: post #63
dgfitz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes when they have a temper tantrum (at home) it’s ok to let them scream for 5 minutes. Usually when they realize you don’t care they start to calm down. Letting a baby fuss in their crib for 5-10 minutes won’t kill them if you need to take a shit. Start feeding them more than just milk/formula at 6-8 months. They’re going to fall and hurt themselves a lot, kids bounce. Kids feel your energy and reflect it like…

> Start feeding them more than just milk/formula at 6-8 months. This feels out of place. What did you do the first time?

My wife and I found this super helpful for introducing foods: https://solidstarts.com/ (no affiliation)

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#164

Post by rangestransform »

DAGdug wrote: post #104
llm_nerd wrote: post #47

I have four children. I have never regretted it or wished for a different path. I know it isn't for everyone, but it absolutely was and is for me. At the same time I do think articles like this should be countered with the reality that many fathers aren't overwhelmed with waves of love or "surreal magnificence". With each of my children being born the primary emotions I could point to were dread and anxiety. The sudd…

“ And as children get viewed as a selfish luxury” I never quite understood this. Who exactly will pay into social security to benefit the next crop of retirees that seem to think it’s selfish to have kids?

Immigrants, even better that their source country paid for their natal care and education rather than us

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#165

Post by throw10920 »

mistermann wrote: post #103
throw10920 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? Oh, what sky-daddy will do to me if I DON'T love, honor, obey, and tithe him, etc. You need to take a look at the HN guidelines because you have very clearly not read them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I am perfectly fine with it. The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.

> The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.

I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced.

But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#166

Post by mistermann »

throw10920 wrote: post #165
mistermann wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am perfectly fine with it. The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.

> The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem. I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced. But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?

That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric.

That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic.

And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :)

(To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#167

Post by mistermann »

lwhalen wrote: post #116
mistermann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The vast majority of my belief system is or can trivially be peer-reviewed and reproduced. Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though). > but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I should love, honor, and obey him - and most crucially give him MONEY as the almighty is somehow perpetually short on cash - so I can be saved". I will resist the urge to make up something about Y…

You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

> You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager.

Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not.

You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually).

Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me?

And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events.

A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent?

> "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to.

Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic.

> Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status?

EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes."

Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#168

Post by dgfitz »

The_Colonel wrote: post #117
dgfitz wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handle checks out. When the mother breastfeeds, and dad just fills in around the cracks without directly “providing care” beyond holding the kiddo and changing diapers, how can they be judged for feeling aloof? When are they bonding? You should consider softening your tone, being a dad is fucking hard.

> When are they bonding? All that time in between the breastfeeding? Somehow, this question does not compute for me (as a father of a breast-fed 8-month-old baby).

All that time, huh?

First kid?

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#169

Post by mistermann »

isoprophlex wrote: post #99
nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

That was a great article. It highlights many things I routinely hear in church about how God works through families. They and the books we read talk about how children are a gift that humbles us, starts transforming our character, and teaches us a lot. God uses children in big ways. Recently, we’ve been reading Disciplines of a Godly Man by R. Kent Hughes. Today we’re to discuss the chapter on Fatherhood. I was happy…

If you want to prosetylize, go hand out flyers in a shopping mall or whatever...

Do the HN guidelines explicitly outlaw proselytization of specific metaphysical frameworks? Because there is more than one person engaged in the activity.

Re: The Surreal Magnificence of Fatherhood

#170

Post by mistermann »

hooverd wrote: post #20
nickpsecurity wrote: post #2

That was a great article. It highlights many things I routinely hear in church about how God works through families. They and the books we read talk about how children are a gift that humbles us, starts transforming our character, and teaches us a lot. God uses children in big ways. Recently, we’ve been reading Disciplines of a Godly Man by R. Kent Hughes. Today we’re to discuss the chapter on Fatherhood. I was happy…

As someone who used to work with a children's hospital (on the EMR site but still) I wish we could find and kill the asshole who decided a myriad of childhood cancers was in their grand plan.

Do you believe that to be optimal gameplay?
Post reply on HN