[Godstud]

This whole thread is predicated on the Pope's ad hominem towards people who don't have children. He's pushing the Catholic Church doctrine, and nothing else.

People's reasons for not having children and having pets is up to them, individually, and to make blanket statements about their motives, or humanity, is pure nonsense.

[noemon]

@Godstud If you failed to read the OP, you should do so.

The pope is saying that people should not replace kids with pets because it reeks of selfishness, not that they should not have pets. The Pope is correct, it does reek of selfishness replacing kids with pets simply because it's easier and less hustle. That is the very definition of selfishness.

[Godstud]

In a world that has overpopulation, the selfishness is people HAVING more than 2 children, in a world with limited resources, and questionable future.

The Pope is pushing the age-old agenda of Catholic religious propagation, and nothing else. He might as well be arguing against birth control, because it's "selfish".

Have any of you stopped to consider that people who don't have kids might have actual reasons for this? It's usually not selfishness, either. Selfishness, incidentally, is entirely HUMAN, and not indicative of lack of humanity, but simply humanity.

It's still an ad hominem by the Pope. He's making a blanket statement about people who choose not to have children. Everyone has an opinion, of course. His is no more valid than mine, which says that people who have a LOT of children, are being selfish, and lacking in humanity.

[noemon]

Nope, he is making a statement about people who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids.

[Godstud]

Has the Pope actually spoken with a lot of these people to find out WHY, or is he just making a judgement, made from a position of ignorance? He has, after all, remained celibate for his religion. Obviously it's out of selfishness, if he isn't making children, right?

[noemon]

No, not right.

His statement is true regardless of whatever motives you want to throw at him.

[Godstud]

His statement is an opinion, and nothing more, whatever motives you want to throw at people who don't want to have kids. You think it's true because you agree with his opinion.

I do not agree with his opinion, and do not think that not having kids is robbing people of humanity(I do not think his statement is true). That some still choose some sort of companionship from pets, isn't indicative of a loss of humanity. I think it's entirely indicative of humanity, even if it is perceived by some as a sort of selfishness. Is it really, though?

[noemon]

His statement is an opinion, and nothing more, whatever motives you want to throw at people who don't want to have kids. You think it's true because you agree with his opinion.

I do not agree with his opinion, and do not think that not having kids is robbing people of humanity(I do not think his statement is true). That some still choose some sort of companionship from pets, isn't indicative of a loss of humanity. I think it's entirely indicative of humanity, even if it is perceived by some as a sort of selfishness. Is it really, though?

It is a reasoned statement which is clearly very true.

I know that not raising kids is robbing people of their humanity and a very selfish act of consciously replacing kids with pets in order to make one's personal life easier. That is the very definition of a selfish act.

[Godstud]

No. You are wrong. I am sorry you think that way, but the people I know and have met who choose not to have kids, do not so because of selfish reasons, and I am sorry you(and the Pope) think that way.

Not having kids is not robbing anyone of humanity. That's not a fact, although you might think it's true and the Pope might seem reasonable to you. I do not agree, nor do I think it's true. There are not facts to support this, either.

[noemon]

The people you know may not think that way but that does not mean that the people that I know do not think that way. When people make a conscious decision to have pets instead of kids due to ease of use, they are making a selfish decision and they are missing out on fatherhood and motherhood which is a quintessential part of humanity.

When smart people choose to do that or remain childless they are robbing the world of their higher intelligence.

This is called the dysgenic fertility effect and is the number one reason for the drop in intelligence in the west according to science.

[Godstud]

Well, I tend to disagree, and since it IS based on opinions, that's just fine.

I know there's a topic already on this, but since you brought it up here...

IQ tests: are humans getting smarter?
It’s a question many scientists have pondered, particularly so given that throughout the 20th century the average score on IQ tests around the world increased significantly – especially in the west. This increase was around three IQ points per decade – meaning we are technically living with more geniuses on the planet than ever before.

This increase in IQ scores and the seeming tendency for intelligence levels to increase over time is known as the Flynn effect (named after the late US-born educator, James Flynn). And improvements in health and nutrition, better education and working conditions, along with recent access to technology have all contributed.

Indeed, in the 19th century, for example, industrialisation created large overcrowded cities with poor health outcomes and premature death. But improved housing, health and parenting, along with greater access to free education and gradual progression from manual to more intellectually demanding jobs, led many to live longer and healthier lives. Research even suggests there’s what’s known as an “IQ-mortality gradient” whereby smarter people often live longer.
https://theconversation.com/iq-tests-ar ... es%20Flynn).


Also, not breeding also applies to DUMB people, so that wouldn't change overall intelligence.

[noemon]

Well, I tend to disagree, and since it IS based on opinions, that's just fine.

A reasoned argument is not an opinion. Yours is an opinion, mine is reasoned. My friends have different reasons to selfishness to choose pets over kids and not because of ease of use you claim, that is your unreasoned anecdotal opinion but also irrelevant because even if you do the Pope does not refer to them anyway.

I know there's a topic already on this, but since you brought it up here...

Your nit-picking avoided to mention the decline in intelligence and only mentioned the rise of the previous century.

Also, not breeding also applies to DUMB people, so that wouldn't change overall intelligence.

Nowhere near in the same negative rates as the smart people.

Scientific study proving so:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=hsbi19

[Godstud]

My argument is as reasoned as yours, or the Pope's, is. Saying something is unreasoned, does not make it so.

What you are talking about is a philosophical argument, as well, for which there is no evidence. You're talking about "humanity" after all, for which there is no measure. If you can present an argument showing evidence that people prefering to have pets instead of children have less humanity than other people, then please present it, otherwise it's simply an opinion and no more reasoned than mine.

USA is not the world, either. I am willing to bet that this trend is not worldwide, and that it's localized. Of course, I have no evidence of this, but the study isn't providing that, either.

[noemon]

Your propositions are entirely unreasoned:

1) "I know people who had pets instead of kids for entirely unselfish reasons", this is an unreasoned anecdote.
2) Fatherhood and motherhood have nothing do with humanity. Totally unreasoned nonsense.

As opposed to:

1) People who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids for ease of use are by definition selfish. Because opting for something easier is the very definition of being selfish. Reasoned.
2) A decline in the cognition of groups due to the dysgenic effect is an adverse negative effect on humanity. Reasoned and proven.

Lastly, it is not just the US but also Denmark, Germany, the UK and the vast majority of the West.

[Godstud]

Reasoned?

Your argument is based on a "reasoning" prompted by a religious bias.

1) People who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids for ease of use are by definition selfish. Because opting for something easier is the very definition of being selfish. Reasoned.

Your argument is based on the Catholic doctrine that does not support birth control and ignores the many problems of a world in which over-population is a building problem.

2) Fatherhood and motherhood have nothing do with humanity. Totally unreasoned nonsense.

It is biological imperative but it is not what makes us human. Not having children is not indicative of not having humanity, or the Pope would be a prime example of a "selfish person". If he wasn't so selfish he'd get married and have children.

How do you measure selfishness, anyways? It all seems vague and subjective.

1) People who consciously choose to have pets instead of kids for ease of use are by definition selfish.

Only according to the Pope, and you happen to agree with him. It is an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. The Pope said it, so it must be true, even if there is absolutely no way to truly discern this, and your agreement is based on completely emotional "reasoning".

Many people don't have kids because they simply cannot afford to have them, might be infertile, jobs that don't allow for maternity leave, etc. Your opinion and the Pope's is thoughtless.

2) A decline in the cognition of groups due to the dysgenic effect is an adverse negative effect on humanity. Reasoned and proven.

This argument isn't relevant to what the Pope said, but it makes more sense than you basing it on something as abstract as "selfishness", which you cannot determine and cannot measure.

[noemon]

Reasoned?

Your argument is based on a "reasoning" prompted by a religious bias.
Your argument is based on the Catholic doctrine that does not support birth control and ignores the many problems of a world in which over-population is a building problem. Only according to the Pope, and you happen to agree with him. It is an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. The Pope said it, so it must be true, even if there is absolutely no way to truly discern this, and your agreement is based on completely emotional "reasoning".

Many people don't have kids because they simply cannot afford to have them, might be infertile, jobs that don't allow for maternity leave, etc. Your opinion and the Pope's is thoughtless.

No it is not. The argument is based on the fact that choosing to raise easier pets than kids is a selfish act. Strawmen about other reasons are irrelevant strawmen as are the nonsensical accusations and ad-homs.

The argument applies to those couples who substitute kids for pets. It does not apply to people who cannot have children.

This argument isn't relevant to what the Pope said, but it makes more sense than you basing it on something as abstract as "selfishness", which you cannot determine and cannot measure.

Yeah sure, every single word that does not suit your extremist religious bias of hyperindividualism is apparently vague, impossible to understand, define & measure.

If you have to redefine or deny the term selfish altogether just to maintain your posture then you should already know you 're wrong.

Redefining selfish to allow for more selfishness seems like the next frontier.

[Godstud]

The argument is based on the fact that choosing to raise easier pets than kids is a selfish act.

If you could prove that people are having pets instead of children, then this might be an argument. You cannot, so it's not.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

As I said, you cannot say something is selfish merely because you don't agree with it. Selfishness cannot be measured and to call others selfish is to invite judgement upon yourself. Many people think that bringing children into a world as fucked up as ours, is selfish. I'd say their argument is as valid as yours.

No one is redefining the word 'selfish', but I believe that the Bible has something to say about the Pope and his "judging". Matthew 5–7.

[noemon]

If you could prove that people are having pets instead of children, then this might be an argument. You cannot, so it's not.

It applies to those who consciously substitute kids for pets. You are going full-blown PoD troll mode.

Of course such people exist and plenty out there:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-wrong-if-I- ... child-baby

Now their existence is proven, do you agree with this obvious proposition?

As I said, you cannot say something is selfish merely because you don't agree with it. Selfishness cannot be measured and to call others selfish is to invite judgement upon yourself. Many people think that bringing children into a world as fucked up as ours, is selfish. I'd say their argument is as valid as yours.

No one is redefining the word 'selfish', but I believe that the Bible has something to say about the Pope and his "judging". Matthew 5–7.

Substituting pets for kids due to ease of use is the definition of a selfish act. You are welcome to argue that people having children are more selfish than those substituting them for pets. It would not make the latter un-selfish.

[Stormsmith]

Pants of dog:

We don't have children. At the time we wanted them, we were students with little income. Going for artifical insemination wasn't an option.

I disagree with the pope. Childless people are completely able to advance socities. Some love and support nieces and nephews, others support schools, hospitals, etc. Had we had kids, we'd have still had pets to control rats and chase deer out of the fruit trees and roses. They would become part of the family but pets, not kids. Also, some people shouldn't become parents, full stop.



Someone else argued we need kids to pay pensions. We pay into pension funds for 40 years. I have 1 brother. Hubby has 4 siblings. Our homes are all over a $1,000,000 and most of us have that again in the bank, partly through inherentence, so if the kids are helping finance our old age, it could be viewed as an investment for themselves.

[Pants-of-dog]

Pants of dog:

We don't have children. At the time we wanted them, we were students with little income. Going for artifical insemination wasn't an option.

I disagree with the pope. Childless people are completely able to advance socities. Some love and support nieces and nephews, others support schools, hospitals, etc. Had we had kids, we'd have still had pets to control rats and chase deer out of the fruit trees and roses. They would become part of the family but pets, not kids. Also, some people shouldn't become parents, full stop.



Someone else argued we need kids to pay pensions. We pay into pension funds for 40 years. I have 1 brother. Hubby has 4 siblings. Our homes are all over a $1,000,000 and most of us have that again in the bank, partly through inherentence, so if the kids are helping finance our old age, it could be viewed as an investment for themselves.

Thank you for the information.

It seems that people choose not to have kids for several reasons, and it seems that the reasons for not having kids are also increasing.

Financial stability seems like a big issue. For obvious and intelligent reasons, most women choose not to have kids until they are financially stable, and this takes a lot longer in our current age.