patrick.net

lets make sure we extend 'equal opportunity' to the 'front lines' aka cannon fodder jobs.

Mandy Lifeboats says

How 'bout we just keep everyone at home?

How about we JUST send feminists to Iraq? I mean they're theoretically capable of doing practically anything according to the reports I've heard.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/42sI2G4m5aU

Men and Women that listen to the Liberal filth, deserve what they become. Senseless bastards sitting around waiting for validation from the Liberals for their miserable existence. This is so NOT what the Liberal education promised them, a world where EVERYONE is a winner.

Turn that shit off and go get a job, they are out there for everyone.
You just have to weed out the Liberal HR mother fuckers that have taken the agenda beyond the classroom. Also don't patronize any business that doesn't hire you based on Liberal bias, mumbo jumbo bullshit.

"Don't believe the hype!" - it's ironic that those lyrics were written during Bush Sr's administration, but has fit more so to the last 3 two termers.

CaptainShuddup says

Men and Women that listen to the Liberal filth, deserve what they become.

You are so full of bullshit. I'm the most god-damn liberal person on this site and I appall the way men are treated in the family court system, which is the primary reason that marriage rates have plummeted over the past 30 years. The treatment of men as second class citizens in the family court system is the most antithetical practice to liberalism there is. Liberalism believes in absolute equality under law for all persons regardless of anything.

The 1970s misandry perversion of feminism has nothing to do with liberalism and everything to do with capitalism, the taking advantage of those with less bargaining power (in this case, less bargaining power in the family court system). Blame capitalism, not liberalism, for the destruction of the family. Capitalism says that financial gain justifies every means; liberalism doesn't.

MershedPerturders says

Men, math, and marriage

Unfortunate, but true. The family court system, not gay marriage, is what has killed "traditional" marriage. Why doesn't the Christian right protest against that?

Not all women are the same, but all family court systems are. That's what's important to remember. It's not most women who are the problem; it's every family court. Our legal system has adopted the philosophy that men are inherently evil, cruel, and inferior -- which cannot be further from the truth in the vast majority of cases -- and should be treated as such.

But there are consequences to screwing over half the population for decades. That half of the population reacts by changing its behavior. In this case, that is why fewer Gen Xer's got married and far fewer Millennials will get married. The family court system is the primary reason why half of first time mothers are single, and it's teen pregnancy; it's 30-something single women realizing that they will never marry but deciding they still want a child enough that they'll go it alone.

And what are the consequences? After all, 1970s pseudo-feminists misandrists said "a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and ridiculed Dan Quale when he said men play an important role in the upbringing of children and eliminating men from the family unit would have negative consequences. [Yes, this is one of the few times Dan Quale was right.]

The result is that massive numbers of single mothers and their children languish in poverty as shown in the quotes below.

The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2011 was 40.9%, nearly five times more than the rate (8.8%) for married-couple families.

Today, 1 in 3 children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Of that group, nearly half live below the poverty line.

Around 45% of single mothers have never married, around 55% are either divorced, separated or widowed.4 Half have one child, 30% have two.

Quale, like Sinead O'Connor, was right. [Bet you never thought you'd hear those two being called right in the same sentence.]

One of the things that distinguishes liberals from either the left or the right is that liberals have loyalty to the truth, whatever the hell it is.

CaptainShuddup says

Also don't patronize any business that doesn't hire you based on Liberal bias, mumbo jumbo bullshit.

there are none left, they've been taxed or regulated out of existence.

Quigley says

The real reason women make less money than men is because they won't work as hard as men will (on average) to make a living, preferring the easier jobs and making up the difference by leeching from men. Even when they are in identical professions, they usually work less hours than their male counterparts and so make less money (if hourly paid) or are eligible for fewer promotions (if salaried).

this is why I wont work for a woman manager. Not because she's a woman and I discriminate, but because of the things you state. They NEVER work as hard as men, they are rarely prepared or intelligent enough to be working their job, and they got there simply by working the system.

Feminism is welfare for spoiled white women. It buy society precisely NOTHING.

Dan8267 says

After all, 1970s pseudo-feminists misandrists said "a women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"

you're only half the way there. There is no 'pseudo' feminism. The idea was flawed from the beginning. Women always worked jobs- even before feminism. Society, and even women themselves assumed they would be spending a lot of time raising children thus they assumed that the life paths of men were simply not open to them. Notice that since the advent of Feminism practically anything natural for men to do has become financially and socially impossible.

Gloria Steinem, whom you quote above admitted later that she was actually working for the CIA. Just recently Obama presented her with an award.

Once this thing collapses, these NWO women are going to be screwed beyond belief because they rely on this system to survive. They don't have families, they don't do anything useful, they require enormous levels of credit just to even sustain the way they look. What will become of them when reality hits? Who cares. They've stated by their actions that they have no allegiance to humanity- they're willing to kill infants in order to avoid what little responsibility they have in this world. They're beyond disgusting.
Meanwhile, the aging Boomer men on viagra laugh along at this because Feminism makes it far more difficult for younger competition to take them on. The younger men are career-crippled(in more ways than one, if it isn't Feminism- it's foreign labor or illegal aliens).

MershedPerturders says

you're only half the way there. There is no 'pseudo' feminism. The idea was flawed from the beginning. Women always worked jobs- even before feminism.

True. Women and children working was the norm, not the exception, in the nineteenth century and before, going back to at least antiquity. And the jobs women worked sucked ass -- as did the jobs men worked -- at that time ...nothing as cushy as an office job.

However, when I think of feminism, I think of the original feminist movement in the late 19th and early 20th century revolving around women having the same legal rights as men including the right to vote, own property, and sign business contracts. Granted, these issues were written about as early as 1792 in the book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. However, it was in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment that ultimately answered the question of equality under law for women and fulfilled feminism.

All that came after 1920 isn't feminism even if it uses the same word for marketing purposes. I personally believe that the real feminism, the suffrage movement, is in itself so significant that the term feminism should have remained referring to that historical movement rather than being perversed by later political agendas. For example, by the definitions of the late 20th century, Susan B. Anthony would not be a feminist because she wasn't pro-choice on abortion. And I think that is utterly ridiculous.

Dan, good points but I think it remains to be seen how much of 'equality' really makes sense. While voting seems like an obvious right, the effect it had was turning our nation from a responsible republic into a tax-and-spend madhouse. It wasn't long after the Nineteenth Amendment that we got the New Deal which put us on the path to socialism.

Fact is, unless you are responsible and CULPABLE(which women are not) then you shouldn't be voting. The fact is the state is built on the notion of military might and women neither recognize nor contribute to it. While you can coddle this cherished notion of equality- the fact is the national democracies have no power in today's world, the corporations have all the power and there is no suffrage movement in the board room. Women voting was a mistake and men will lose on both an individual and collective level until they realize that.

MershedPerturders says

there are none left, they've been taxed or regulated out of existence.

AMEN!

MershedPerturders says

I think it remains to be seen how much of 'equality' really makes sense.

The term equal, of course, must be defined. It is defined in the phrase equal under law as to mean we all have the exact same set of rights and no one has privileges. As for what constitutes social equality, that's a whole different story.

MershedPerturders says

While voting seems like an obvious right, the effect it had was turning our nation from a responsible republic into a tax-and-spend madhouse.

I would argue that the Federal Reserve Act and the use of an income tax to fund a general spending fund is what got us into the "tax-and-spend madhouse". If all special interests feed from the same trough, then all special interests will act like greedy pigs trying to eat as much as they can before the other pigs eat it all.

That's why I propose using service taxes to pay for things like lighthouses, highways, etc. and using taxes on rent seeking to pay for non-metered services like the police, fire, and military.

MershedPerturders says

It wasn't long after the Nineteenth Amendment that we got the New Deal which put us on the path to socialism.

Socialism isn't inherently bad and is, in fact, absolutely necessary to run any society. The military, the police, the firefighters, the highway transportation system, the sewers, and the electric grid are all socialism and could not possibly be done effectively in any other way whatsoever. You cannot create a functional society with 0% socialism. It is logically impossible.

Don't treat socialism as a dirty word. Instead think about what distinguishes the situations where it makes sense to socialize costs and the situations where it makes sense to personalize costs. If you do that with an open mind, you'll find that there are sensible rules of when, where, and how to social costs and where to personalize them. Good economic engineering is all about finding and understanding these rules. Economics should be an engineering discipline, not a religion. There should be no economic doctrines.

As for the social safety nets that cost our society so much, they simply would not be necessary or at least nearly as large if it wasn't for the ridiculous and unjustifiable rich-poor gap. The cause of the welfare state is ultimately capitalism run amuck. Eliminate the injustices of capitalism and the welfare state ceases. Parasitic behavior at the top causes social dependency at the bottom.

MershedPerturders says

Fact is, unless you are responsible and CULPABLE(which women are not) then you shouldn't be voting.

I disagree with several implications of this statement.

1. All persons subject to the laws of a state should have a say in what those laws are.

2. It is highly dangerous to let anyone decide who is responsible enough to vote and who is not. Any person with this power would be corrupted by the power and would use it to serve his own selfish purposes at the expense of others.

3. Although I agree that most Americans are dumb asses and don't vote intelligently, I have yet to see evidence that women are measurable worse voters than men. And even if they were, the answer is to make people better voters, not to take away their right to vote.

MershedPerturders says

The fact is the state is built on the notion of military might and women neither recognize nor contribute to it.

In barbaric times the state was based on military conquest. That ended with WWII and the advent of nuclear weapons. Continuing that world view leads to the extinction of our species. Even our dumbest politicians recognized this fact back in the 1970s.

Today, the state is built on technological and economic accomplishments. Having intelligent, innovative pacifists is far more valuable to the state than having a bloodthirsty warrior. In fact, I would even extend this argument back to the earliest civilizations...

Who was the most important Roman to ever live? Julius Cesar? Hardly. Had he not existed, some other dictator would have taken his place and done more or less the same things. The specific battles fought would differ, but life itself would essentially be the same for the masses.

No, the most significant Roman to ever live is the engineer who invented concrete. His intelligence led to the development of roads, aqueducts, multistory buildings, and so much more that greatly impacted Roman life and even life today.

The inventor, the scientist, and the engineer do more for all societies than the warrior, the king, or the emperor.

MershedPerturders says

Women voting was a mistake

By that, I take it you mean that women don't vote for the things you like. That is disadvantageous for you, but it doesn't make it a mistake. They vote for what they want.

Now one can argue that certain things shouldn't be subject to a popular vote. For example, if the majority wants to bake all the Jews in ovens, we shouldn't go by majority rules. Why? Because people have rights and those rights are far more important than majority rules. However, the popular vote makes sense for voting on things that do not violate people's rights.

Would the country be better if only highly intelligent, computer programmers with intricate knowledge of Predator and Xenomorph lore voted? I believe so. But who am I to decide that? I would certainly be happier with the results of elections if that were the case, but that fact doesn't make it right.

CaptainShuddup says

AMEN

it's all part of the plan. They can only implement policies like Feminism if they have COMPLETE control of the marketplace. Of course small independent businesses can out compete- that's why they want them all destroyed. The end result isn't even equality for women- they're just using that as a selling point for their programs, which are designed to bring about a complete CHANGE in America- to be turned over to international bankers. When this is complete even those women won't have the freedom they were promised, nor will the blacks, nor will the gays or any other group they've conscripted into the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/T4YtgA2jnu4

Dan you offer up many reasons why women voting is a good, practical, and thoughtful idea. What you avoid or miss complete is that since women have been given the vote - the democracy has become a malleable mess of passions that can be manipulated by psychology, sociology, etc. The access that marketers and advertisers have to the public today would be inconceivable 60 years ago. Our entire society has been converted into a shopping mall. We have surrendered control to international corporations and this is due primarily to Feminism.

While women are ultimately similar in structure to men, they lack the logical component and the ability to subdue their emotions. The moment you suggest this to them, they immediately respond in a way that confirms this statement. Often times they apologize for this by claiming this is actually an ASSET ie. 'Women's Intuition', or some other crazy nonsense such as calling it 'creativity'.

Now if I wanted to transform a society, wouldn't I want to give control to the people who dont have control of themselves? absolutely. You can even observe this effect in retail sales. If a salesman is trying to get a couple to buy a product, he will rarely talk to the man- he will always talk to the woman. The women perceives this as meaning that she must be more powerful than the man, when in reality it's quite the opposite- she is more susceptible to suggestion than the man and thus the salesman concentrates on her. This is similar to what we have going on in the US. The women believe they are being EMPOWERED. Really, the nation is being DISEMPOWERED and fleeced of it's wealth.

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier. -Arthur Schopenhauer

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place. -Arthur Schopenhauer

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

what's happened on a interpersonal level is that men have been turned into tax-slaves, and women into tax-benefactors and thus they don't see the direct need for men. Thus the men whom they do have relationships with only provide for them a superficial function such as sexual thrills or various transient emotional support. But men are still required to support the system, for which they personally get nothing but enslavement. That's why they are either dropping out in huge numbers, expatriating, or finding ways to detach themselves from the system.

Do you ever hear women complaining? no one ever seems to point out that most women are enjoying the destruction of our nation. They've never had it better. That is the 'single' 'professional' woman, or at least thats the image the left projects. The moment a woman wants to pursue her natural desires of family, she is severely penalized and finds it financially unattainable. The ones in their 20s are severely confused and totally misinformed about what lies ahead of them. The typical experience of women in their 20s is one of extreme frustration as they cannot get men of their peer group to live up to their expectations instilled in them by(typically lesbian or bisexual) college professors. Again, go on OKCupid. Communicate with a few of these women. Scary stuff.

When we remove the FALSE images of romantic love, we find instead the economic and social functions of FAMILY, which the courtship process is meant to lead up to. Today's use of the term 'date' is really just a cover for what it really is, and entirely selfish sensual gratification ritual. When you remove the false notions of romance, it's fairly easy to see that the new economic rules have had MAJOR and DEVASTATING impact on the family. So much so that one would necessarily conclude that this result was by DESIGN rather than circumstance.

MershedPerturders says

Dan you offer up many reasons why women voting is a good, practical, and thoughtful idea. What you avoid or miss complete is that since women have been given the vote - the democracy has become a malleable mess of passions that can be manipulated by psychology, sociology, etc.

I hate to break this to you, but America was a malleable mess of passions manipulated by yellow journalism and charlatans long before women got the vote. America was never Eden. America started at as a backwater cesspool built on slavery and genocide. It has slowly been getting better, but there are no "good old days".

MershedPerturders says

The access that marketers and advertisers have to the public today would be inconceivable 60 years ago. Our entire society has been converted into a shopping mall. We have surrendered control to international corporations and this is due primarily to Feminism.

All true except the last bit. The power of marketing isn't due to feminism but rather to increase in technology. Facebook doesn't sell your data to marketers because of 1970s anti-male pseudo-feminism or progressive 1920s true feminism. Facebook sells your personal data because it can. Technology has made it possible for marketing to become intrusive. And our government takes bribes from lobbyists which keep the laws in favor of anything that produces a cash flow even when such an enterprise is inherently wealth destructive.

Don't blame misandrist women for the abuse of relational database systems. There's a lot of bad things that feminazis did over the past 40 years. The erosion of privacy is not one of them. Blame that on government, particularly "law enforcement", and on corporations. Yes, the destruction of privacy in America is a huge problem. It's just a problem that has nothing to do with men being second class citizens in family courts or the constant male bashing in the media.

MershedPerturders says

While women are ultimately similar in structure to men, they lack the logical component and the ability to subdue their emotions.

Here you are making the very same mistake that the feminazis and other bigots make. Yes, blacks kill far more whites than whites kill black. That does not mean the typical black man is a murderer. Yes, men commit rape far more often than women. That does not mean the typical man is a rapist. Yes, women are statistically worse than men at math and logic -- although most men suck at that too -- but that doesn't mean women are incapable of performing well at those subjects. Men are statistically worse than women at language skills. That does not mean that men are incapable of writing great speeches or communicating clearly.

Going from a statistically significant difference between two groups to making a judgment of an individual based on those statistics is the very definition of prejudice. It is to "pre-judge" an individual based on group affiliation. And that kind of reasoning leads to killing an innocent kid for buying Skittles.

Furthermore, the answer to Americas being too dumb to vote in a republic is to smarten up Americans, not to take away their right to vote. A republic, and even more so a democracy should one come into existence again, depends on the general population being as rational, intelligent, and informed as possible. This is exactly why agencies like the NSA should not be allowed to have secrets like Prism. It prevents a public debate on the issue and the people's ability to control their own government as they see fit.

Quite frankly, if we were to set a "rationality standard" for voting, about half of Americans of both genders would not qualify. Anyone who believes in a god or an afterlife clearly isn't distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and thus should not be allowed to vote. But the problem with setting any voting criteria is who gets to pick the criteria. Such a power would always be abused by those who posses it, and they would use it to gain money and power by tweaking the voting poll for the highest bidder. It's better we just allow everyone over 18 to vote.

Furthermore, if one is to talk about the credibility of people based on sexual hormones, we should divide the population into four, not two, groups: alpha males (high testosterone), beta male (low testosterone), beta females (low estrogen), and alpha females (high estrogen). Of these groups, alpha males are most destructive, followed by alpha females. Beta males are most beneficial to society followed by beta females. All social and technological progress has been make by beta males and females, whereas wars have been started largely by alpha males and females, the alpha female using indirect violence by manipulating alpha males to do the dirty work.

Men pay more for car insurance because alpha males are the worst and most aggressive drivers. Beta males are actually the best drivers followed closely by beta females and then by alpha females at a distant third. So auto insurance companies should give discounts to mathletes and penalties to athletes.

I've always said, alpha is the Greek letter A and stands for asshole. Beta is the Greek letter B and stands for better. That's certainly true for alpha and beta males. Basically, most things are good in moderation and bad in extremes including both estrogen and testosterone.

MershedPerturders says

If a salesman is trying to get a couple to buy a product, he will rarely talk to the man- he will always talk to the woman. The women perceives this as meaning that she must be more powerful than the man, when in reality it's quite the opposite- she is more susceptible to suggestion than the man and thus the salesman concentrates on her.

Yes, women make most of the purchasing choices in families. This is why marketing caters to them and why men are often shown as dolts in commercials. Of course, marketing is an industry largely dominated by men, so how is either gender the one to blame? The solution is too either stay single or marry an intelligent woman who isn't so easily manipulated. Of course, even marrying an intelligent woman is a huge risk given the family court system, but I think we all agree that the court system needs to be severely overhauled.

Oxygen posts video

So true. Sex is the motivation for getting things built and society regulates it for that reason (and others). It comes down to production. Yep.

Kind of reminds me of Millennial men being called lazy and forever boys because they can get laid without working their asses off and so they just play XBox.

Dan8267 says

Yes, women make most of the purchasing choices in families. This is why marketing caters to them and why men are often shown as dolts in commercials. Of course, marketing is an industry largely dominated by men, so how is either gender the one to blame? The solution is too either stay single or marry an intelligent woman who isn't so easily manipulated. Of course, even marrying an intelligent woman is a huge risk given the family court system, but I think we all agree that the court system needs to be severely overhauled.

- 90% of divorces between college educated partners is initiated by the wife. (Overall, 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by the wife).

- IQ swamped education as a predictor of divorce rates. IQ played a huge role in divorce rates within the college educated group. Those who were college educated with an IQ of 100 had a 5 year divorce rate of 28%. Those who were college educated with an IQ of 130 had a five year divorce risk of only 9%.

Oxygen says

- 90% of divorces between college educated partners is initiated by the wife. (Overall, 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by the wife).

- IQ swamped education as a predictor of divorce rates.

I guess that's bad news for me. I always found intelligent women to be the sexiest.

What's your sources on these statistics?

A few good points about family courts.

However can it be avoided by not marrying?
If you want children at all you need to bow to women power.
And if you don't, you will be WEEDED OUT THE GENE POOL like a regular Darwin Award.
Everything you are will disappear after a short life spent going after lame luxuries and enjoying freedom - alone.

Yeah, marriage is risky financially. The opposite risk is to get weeded out.
(You don't need to get married to have kids, but having kids automatically exposes you to a lot of financial risks and a lot of parasites that will suck a lot of your money)

Personally I don't care so much about living in a 1bdr apartment with an old car. I was living like this before I got married. I don't need much.

Having kids is as good a use of the extra money as any other - certainly better than housing in any case.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you want children at all you need to bow to women power.

And if you don't, you will be WEEDED OUT THE GENE POOL like a regular Darwin Award.

Everything you are will disappear after a short life spent going after lame luxuries and enjoying freedom - alone.

Nature fools you into having children by giving some kind of pleasure on the front side (sex) along with hormonally induced narcissism around the child somehow perpetuating you into future.

The fact is if you have descendants and any of them manage to reproduce out four generations, there is no individual who will be carrying any more than 1/32 of your genes, and of course, fewer in later generations.

You as an individual are eradicated by serial reproduction and genetic crossover/intermingling whether you like it or not.

You are going to wind up in genetic bits, anyway, and the random bits of genes making you up are probably already out there dispersed in the larger human population. If they are contributory, they will survive whether you survive and reproduce as an individual or not.

Individuals are packaged robots for genes where they aggregate temporarily, it is only our egos that make us think we are something else.

Heraclitusstudent says

Everything you are will disappear after a short life spent going after lame luxuries and enjoying freedom - alone.

Modern humans differ from each other genetically by less than one part in a thousand. That's 0.1%. That's what you're fighting for. Actually, it's 0.05% since you only contribute half the genetic code.

The vast majority of your genes will be passed along regardless of whether or not you reproduce. As for the tiny ass amount that you uniquely posses, let's say you have four kids. That's four kids in a world whose population is about 3 billion persons per generation.

Congratulations, all that time, effort, and sacrifice you have done allowed you to contribute 0.05% * 4 / 3,000,000,000 or 6.7 * 10^-13th of the human genome. That's 0.000000000067% of the genetic material for a generation.

Is your finite life worth so little that it should be spent servicing a handful of selfish genes that act like parasites inside you? Given such a finite time we have in life, I'd rather live life to the fullest than simply serve a bunch of genes that have little to do with who I am.

Reproduction is not immortality. Even if your genes are passed on, they are swallowed up in the sea of other genes and eventually are removed in favor of other genes. True immortality comes from making the world a better place through scientific or technological advancement, social reforms, spreading of good ideas, creation of art. And even then, immortality is not nearly as important as making the most of your finite life. Simply being a slave to mindless genes is not making the most of your life.

Ceffer says

The fact is if you have descendants and any of them manage to reproduce out four generations, there is no individual who will be carrying any more than 1/32 of your genes, and of course, fewer in later generations.

That's an argument that works at the individual level. If enough of you believe it, your RACE will be weeded out. If all smart educated people stop having kids, what will remain is a populace of imbeciles having 4-5 children because they don't know how sex works.

We are here today because for millions of generations our ancestors did the effort to have offsprings, feed them and care for them. To throw all of this away - in what is a flash by historical times - just to enjoy "your lifestyle" is an act of monumental egoism as far as I can tell.

Dan8267 says

What's your sources on these statistics?

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/whistling-through-the-graveyard/

Oxygen says

Dan8267 says

What's your sources on these statistics?

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/whistling-through-the-graveyard/

the most relevant part (to me) is the section "The impact of hookup culture on future divorce rates"

I have no idea why there is all this hoopla of leaving a legacy. it's merely confirmation bias molded to fit the "i need something to justify me having kids" notion. if your brother has kids, your bloodline is extended. YOU dont need to have kids.

Heraclitusstudent says

That's an argument that works at the individual level. If enough of you believe it, your RACE will be weeded out.

Oh honey, it's not just your race that will be weeded out, it's your entire species. Think about all your ancestors going all the way back to single cell organism. Your ancestors were members of thousands of species that no longer exist.

Even without genetic manipulation, human beings as they exist today, won't be around in a million years. Our descendents, if we haven't destroyed ourselves, will be a different species and whether or not you have kids will have almost no impact whatsoever on what they are.

Add in genetic manipulation and designer babies and your inherited genetic code makes even less of a difference.

And if our species invents a platform to which we can download our minds, it's all over for biological reproduction of our species.

Heraclitusstudent says

We are here today because for millions of generations our ancestors did the effort to have offsprings, feed them and care for them. To throw all of this away - in what is a flash by historical times - just to enjoy "your lifestyle" is an act of monumental egoism as far as I can tell.

With a population approaching 10.1 billion, I'd say that becoming a parent is the most selfish and egotistical thing a person can do. When our species is endangered of going extinct due to low numbers, I'll agree with your statement. But that hasn't been the case in over 20,000 years. If anything, overpopulation is more likely to trigger an extinction event like nuclear war or ecological collapse.

Dan8267 says

With a population approaching 10.1 billion, I'd say that becoming a parent is the most selfish and egotistical thing a person can do.

unfortunately, only the people who should be having kids think this way.

This is such a sad, small, limp penis thread.

Dan8267 says

human beings as they exist today, won't be around in a million years.

True. And that leaves the time in-between.
In the big scheme of things you can always say that nothing at all can matter at all: life cannot be destroyed and given 500 millions years a new species will arise later and succeed where we failed. Yet there are things that seem to matter enough to you to argue about it on Internet.

Dan8267 says

making the world a better place through scientific or technological advancement, social reforms, spreading of good ideas, creation of art.

That's not just your genes. It's your memes too - since you love Dawkin.
That answers the designer babies and computer uploads too.

Dan8267 says

With a population approaching 10.1 billion, I'd say that becoming a parent is the most selfish and egotistical thing a person can do.

That's worse in case it's left up to an uneducated 10 billions. Then it will be 15 billions.
I wouldn't worry too much about over-population: mother earth will take care of it the old way, via starvation, plagues and war. 100% of people that remain will be descendants of people that live now.

Heraclitusstudent says

In the big scheme of things you can always say that nothing at all can matter at all:

Actually, what I would say is that seeking genetic immortality is a waste of the precious finite time you have. Instead, what matters is how you spend the time you have. Did you live a fulfilling life? If you did, then that lifetime will always exist as a thread in the space-time continuum and will always be meaningful.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's your memes too - since you love Dawkin.

Great, so the meaning of my life is reduced to Grumpy Cat.

Heraclitusstudent says

I wouldn't worry too much about over-population: mother earth will take care of it the old way, via starvation, plagues and war.

And that would be what we rationalist would prefer to avoid.

Dan8267 says

Actually, what I would say is that seeking genetic immortality is a waste of the precious finite time you have. Instead, what matters is how you spend the time you have. Did you live a fulfilling life?

Most parents seem to think this job is fairly fulfilling by itself. People don't have kids for sex, nor for an illusion of personal immortality. So I guess they could agree with you.

But is there anything greater than yourself and your fulfilling life? Like a society around you, that requires to perpetuating? And if so are the costs involved beneath you and to be left to other people?

Heraclitusstudent says

Most parents seem to think this job is fairly fulfilling by itself.

And if that's what a person wants fine. But there is no civil duty to become a parent.

Heraclitusstudent says

But is there anything greater than yourself and your fulfilling life?

Sure. Adopting a puppy from a shelter, proving a scientific theory or mathematical theorem, contributing to the construction great wonder of the world like the Internet, adding a teaspoon of knowledge to mankind that eventually leads to the cure for cancer, spreading an idea that averts a war, creating a musical score that inspires for generations, taking care of an elderly parent, improving the safety of cars, spending time with those you care about.

Just to name but a few of the things that are worth spending the finite time you have in existence...

Dan8267 says

And if that's what a person wants fine. But there is no civil duty to become a parent.

That makes sense provided it's a small fraction of people that opt out, rather than a large share. (I saw statistics of 40% of working women not having kids at 40)

Since healthcare jobs will be the only jobs, in a post Obacalypse world. May these kids that you Libs so hatefully despise spit in your porridge while they care for you in the mandated Pelosi Senior labor camps.

Dan8267 says

Add in genetic manipulation and designer babies and your inherited genetic code makes even less of a difference.

Just think of the genetic mutations that people will insist on having if this is allowed! Just like with pets, I suspect that the people wanting designer babies will want ones that can't live without some form of assistance. I'm thinking of things like Munchkin or hairless cat type of thing.

Excuse me, but this thread needs to be retitled "Patrick.net Misogyny".

Indiana Jones says

Excuse me, but this thread needs to be retitled "Patrick.net Misogyny".

No, you're thinking of this thread. Men sticking up for human and civil rights of all people including other men is exactly not misogyny.

There are a lot of abuses of women in our society, especially by criminal police. The outrage of men at the family court system is not an abuse of women. And ultimately, such an unjust court system hurts women because it prevents men from marrying and it harms all the male descendants of women. So it's a lose/lose/lose situation.

Granted, there are a bunch of things said in this thread that I disagree with, but that doesn't make it misogyny.