Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 16.

Talk:Childfree movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

childfreemovement.org[edit]

Actually leads to this article. Huh. Bit of a "wha?" moment. Zero (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Zero That website no longer exists, unfortunately. Nerd (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Why are you so cruel to people who do not want to have children for reasons of comfort? Why do you consider this a bad thing? We (at least most of us) to live honestly earned money, with which we pay taxes, do not commit crimes, respect other people's interests and love our parents, brothers and sisters, lovers, friends and pets. Why did you say that we are evil only for what we live for the joy of life and do not want to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of someone or something? Why do you think that if you are willing to endure that children "keeps a person awake at night" and "smell" that all others should too? Why do you think that your values ​​are universal, and all should be required to share them? This is such a new kind of rationality or a new kind of tolerance?— Unsigned, by: 31.23.4.206 / talk / contribs

Congratulations on your lack of maternity/paternity. Enjoy. MarmotHead (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, how odd. I see absolutely no mention of people refusing to have children for reasons of pure comfort anywhere as being called evil. The closest I do see is selfish and questionable. And given your reply alone it most certainly comes across as those two. It's one thing to say you just don't want children because of ethical or common sense such as you being unfit to have any. Quite another to say, and I paraphrase, "I don't want children because I find them loud, smelly and intrude on my comfort." It's not at all cruel to find such a radically hedonistic answer questionable and problematic because... well... it is. Old Schooler (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There are people who for a variety of reasons choose not to have children/do not find themselves in a situation where the possibility of having children is appropriate; and then there are the people who promote the childfree movement and 'these are two separate things.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with those who do not want to have children because they cannot afford it. Simply put, with the type of jobs that are popping up in certain countries (contracts that may last just a couple of days and part-time), short of the few probabilities of finding a job for some people (and little welfare to speak of compared with other countries and overloaded -30% of infant poverty, no less-), it's not recommendable until goverments decide to change that. --Panzerfaust (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Old Schooler You haven’t elaborated on why it’s “radically hedonistic” to abstain from procreating based on the aforementioned reason. I see no difference between that and say, not having sex with your partner because you don’t feel like it. It’s a choice. Iamapartofman (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Caplan criticism is stupid[edit]

That entire piece didn't address a single one of his arguments from the book. The only quote from his book is from its front page.— Unsigned, by: 124.33.208.179 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.NameThatNobodyTakes () 16:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus and the childfree movement[edit]

Going by the canonical gospels he had none - siblings yes (and not counting the sons of God mentioned in Job), and he advised people to abandon their families, rather than marry and procreate. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Article in Support of Crank Movement[edit]

Considering that this article completely one-sidedly supports a movement that has often been criticized and has often rubbed shoulders with several woo-ideologies such as antinatalism (a hard green crank belief that is even mentioned positively in this article, in the section "Arguments that a child may be harmed merely by its own birth," despite being derided in several other places on this very Wiki), I added the missionality-template and would like to ask for some opinions on the quality of this article. - Nara (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. When taken to its logical conclusion, the line between the Child-free movement and VHEMT is non-existent and Rationalwiki's article on the latter movement is far more critical than this one is. The article should at the very least mention the fact that the underlying ideas of this movement are clearly anti-humanist.
The other obvious problem is the conspicuous absence of the issue of the Pensions system. Its absence isn't surprising because too much of the left has a dangerous habit of downplaying if not outright denying the long term non-sustainability of any Pensions system in a country with a TFR that has been far below replacement for a substantial period of time (at least without adopting a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to immigration or producing a massive (and also unsustainable) drag on the economy by redistributing resources to support said failing pension system). It is unfortunate that racists love talking about this issue, it masks the very real danger of this soon to be global problem (i.e. affecting everyone rather than just white people as racists like to imagine) and further discredits natalism as a "conservative policy" in the eyes of people who are already predisposed against it (due to its justifiably objectionable association with anti-choice sentiment). 96.233.134.156 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC) A
Re-added the template, since it seems that I'm not the only one who finds the article in it's current state wrong for the wiki. 142.161.98.149 (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes this article is extremely bad and ironically in it's current state actually promotes pseudoscience and crankery. Truly epic. — Dysk (contribs) 11:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)