So that's what, between one and three generations? Wow! [/unimpressed]
And your unarguable and universally agreed criteria for 'poor' and 'unsettled' are...?
One can have as many brats as one wishes. Just don't expect others to feed them!
Sent from my HP 10 Plus using Tapatalk
What's your basis for that inference? According the the OP link, Sulaf has five children. If people applying her "survival strategy" average 2.4 children growing up to reproductive age and 2.6 dying in childhood, that will be enough to make it a choice that history will show being common enough to cause the cultures that embrace it to grow and spread and win in the evolutionary struggle for survival among cultures. But its failures will still tend to outnumber its successes.
Oh, for the love of god! Here I am not "equating" them. Here I am exhibiting a counterexample, thereby demonstrating the invalidity of the inference procedure you used: "Because people have managed to raise and sustain families in horrible conditions in the past and done relatively well for themselves". The circumstance that you can do fairly well for yourself in horrible conditions by doing X is not evidence that X isn't unethical. Learn some logic.
No, but two things he sure as hell CAN do are (1) call you immoral for making those choices when they're probably going to amount to child abuse, and (2) be right. Where did credoconsolans advocate forced abstinence, forced birth control or forced abortion?
Why is your irony meter twitching? Who are you saying used a lame ad hominem strawman, and where do you feel I mistook it for substantive?
We're seeing the pattern that having kids disqualifies us from criticizing other people's choice, and NOT having kids ALSO disqualifies us from criticizing other people's choice.
Why are you babbling about "arguments" and "refuted". There is no way to refute that observation without knowing the counterfactual situation.
Why are you babbling about wrongdoing? There was nothing in my observation about wrongdoing.
Whether that is valid or not, I make no claim either -- I merely observe that he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You say "when there is uncertainty" as though that were a binary variable. Nobody here has ludicrously claimed one ought not to have kids when there is uncertainty. Uncertainty is a continuum. There are levels of uncertainty low enough that it would be ludicrous to offer them as a reason not to have a kid, and there are different levels of uncertainty in which it would be irresponsible to have a kid, and you are glossing over that for the purpose of painting your opponents as having claimed any uncertainty at all makes it irresponsible, when they simply draw the line somewhere you wouldn't. You ought not to do that.
But the accusation of hypocrisy is a trumped-up charge. Nobody here has actually drawn the line immediately below his own ability to provide, as Bilby accused. And the circumstance that following a given standard would have kept a person from existing does not rationally disqualify that person from favoring that standard -- or do you approve of rape, Mr. Don "descendant-of-a-rape-victim*" 2? So where's the hypocrisy?
Now you've gone off the deep end. I didn't say a single word about your comments about Anne Frank's parents. I commented on Underseer's strawman and I commented on your "crickets".
I strongly suspected that your observation was intended to be pertinent input into the thread's ongoing debate, rather than simply irrelevant noise. Sorry, my bad. Consider the inclusion of your post as an example withdrawn. Apparently I should have instead pointed out that you forgot to write the words "unable" and "a".
Why do you feel the need to provide more babble?
Ah, an observation about the non-birth of people in general, made by pointing out the non-birth of "these judgmental posters". Got it.
The prevalence of discrimination everywhere we look means that the argument that people shouldn't discriminate is an argument against observed human nature. And yet you argue against discrimination.
