patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

The premise that men and women should be equal only makes sense if you are talking to a feminist.

1. Define feminist
2. Define equal. Are you talking about equal rights (equality under the law) or something else?

Heraclitusstudent says

Having a baby or not is her choice. It is basically deciding what to do with her body or not.

It's more than that. It starts out as just that when the egg is fertilized, but by the time the baby is about to be born, it's not just about the mother. A baby one minute before birth is not materially different from a baby one minute after birth. So yes, there is a time limit before the rights of the offspring must be considered. That doesn't happen at fertilization, but it does happen before birth.

Heraclitusstudent says

- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

1. No. The fact that we have financial safety nets like food stamps, assisted housing, public schooling, etc. means that there is most certainly a non-zero cost to society when a woman has a baby, and even more so when poor women have babies. In fact, there is considerable cost. We spent a lot of our local government spending and land on children from schools to parks to child-related services.

2. Not all people become net-productive people. I question if even half the people in our society contribute more than they consume.

Heraclitusstudent says

Women always bear a disproportionate portion of the cost in time of parenthood.

Yes, but this is irrelevant to the questions of
- whether or not men should have the right to opt in to parenthood
- whether or not there should be licensing for parents

Women have always had the better deal when it comes to reproduction. Barring death or infertility, they are guaranteed reproductive success if they want it. For women, reproduction is a right. For men, it's a privilege. There was a PatNet thread referencing that throughout history only about 5% of males actually reproduced and that changed only recently (past 1000 years or so).

Second women are guaranteed parental certainty. Without paternity tests, men have no such guarantee.

Heraclitusstudent says

The role of men in every society is to provide resources for the society to perpetuate itself, i.e. share resources with mothers who are spending their times on the child rearing task.

Should this be the purpose of man? To be a slave?

Heraclitusstudent says

It is obvious that men would benefit greatly from denying this support role and just keeping resources for themselves to enjoy life.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a self-correcting problem. Simply require females to choose mates that will provide support and you'll get future generations in which men are supportive. If such support turns out to be unnecessary because women can support the children themselves and choose to shop for the best looking men rather than the best supportive men, then again, by evolution this is a self-correcting problem. Men cease to be needed for economic productivity and become simply peacocks. And if that is to be their function, then fine. Under such a system men should just be exercising, pruning themselves, fucking women, and playing x-box. If anything, women should be taxed to pay for the living expenses of all men in such a society. Men would just be reproductive children, but evolution is a-OK with that.

Heraclitusstudent says

Thus society needs a mechanism to force men to contribute their due whether through marriage or child support. If men could opt out of child support, then I would say all childless adults should pay a special tax as a compensation that would used to help single parents.

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero. As a liberal, I reject that position.

The solution is to restrict reproduction to those who are licensed after demonstrating financial solvency. Any woman who violates this restriction gets fined and denied all social services including housing subsidies and food stamps.

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

- A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

1. No. The fact that we have financial safety nets like food stamps, assisted housing, public schooling, etc. means that there is most certainly a non-zero cost to society when a woman has a baby, and even more so when poor women have babies. In fact, there is considerable cost. We spent a lot of our local government spending and land on children from schools to parks to child-related services.

2. Not all people become net-productive people. I question if even half the people in our society contribute more than they consume.

Yes the costs are heavy, and it should be obvious that all these costs are absorbed always by adult working people and we still have resources left to eat, provide for the sick and the retired, etc... that proves that human beings on average are net producers even considering the cost of childhood, education, retirement and sickness when these human beings have to rely on others.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes the costs are heavy, and it should be obvious that all these costs are absorbed always by adult working people and we still have resources left to eat, provide for the sick and the retired, etc... that proves that human beings on average are net producers even considering the cost of childhood, education, retirement and sickness when these human beings have to rely on others.

You are almost as bad at math and logic as Marcus. Average and median are not the same thing. The median person can easily be net-negative productivity while the average is net-positive. Furthermore, environmental degradation means that we as a society can be net-negative productive while still having resources left to eat, provide for.... etc., at least for some time.

Dan8267 says

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero.

Call it what you want: it's what always happened, and will always happen, however you feel about it.
The notion that women will slave to raise children and provide for them while men care only for themselves is silly.
Civilization relies on sounds education and this cannot happen without men support.

Dan8267 says

You are almost as bad at math and logic as Marcus. Average and median are not the same thing. The median person can easily be net-negative productivity while the average is net-positive. Furthermore, environmental degradation means that we as a society can be net-negative productive while still having resources left to eat, provide for.... etc., at least for some time.

I've just showed that on aggregate (doing the sum) human beings are necessarily net positives. Divide that by the number of people and ON AVERAGE human beings are net positives.
Here's for your math, Einstein.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

This argument is essentially, society needs slaves. The degree of slavery might vary, but it can never be zero.

Call it what you want

What it's called is irrelevant. It's slavery by any name.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's what always happened, and will always happen, however you feel about it.

How I feel about it is irrelevant to my argument. The messenger is always irrelevant.

Second, just because something has always happened in human history does not mean it has to continue to happen. A mere two hundred years ago, you could truthfully said that most children died before reaching adulthood and that's the way it's always been. Is it true today, though?

Also just because something never happened in human history does not mean it won't be common from now on. Before 1903 no human had ever flown. Now it's common. Before 1940 no human had ever used an electronic computer. Now you have one in your pocket. Before 1975 no person owned his own computer. A decade later they were common household items. Before 2000 no one had smartphones and digital video cameras, now they are cheap. Yes, there are new things under the sun every day.

I appreciate the sentiment of the thread, but I'd like to step back a bit. If you agree to marry someone, your vows should mean something. For rich or for poor, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, till death do you part. Where the fuck does it say "Until I get bored", or " Until its too much hassle". Life isn't easy, marriage takes work.
Now if you decide to have a child in your marriage, shouldn't that child have a choice? Shouldn't the child have human rights? And shouldn't you do everything, absolutely everything in your power to raise that child in the best environment possible, with a mom and a dad? Money NEVER replaces parents.

But what about outside of marriage, you didn't agree to be with this person forever. You made no vows. Fine, then WHY THE FUCK are you having a child with them.

Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.

Heraclitusstudent says

I've just showed that on aggregate (doing the sum) human beings are necessarily net positives. Divide that by the number of people and ON AVERAGE human beings are net positives.

Here's for your math, Einstein.

1. Your math is wrong because you aren't taking into consideration environmental degradation including pollution and resource exhaustion.
2. The average being positive would not imply, in any way or form, that the average or median baby born to poor women grow up to net produce.
3. The greater the population, the less productive each person is due to resource contention. If this were not the case, then an infinite population would be best. Obviously an infinite population is not best, or even possible, therefore there most be some point where population increases are net bad.
4. China empirically disproves your hypothesis that greater populations is best for economic productivity. China had to go to extremes to get its population under control.
5. Ditto for Africa. African women having lots of babies is one of the chief causes of starvation. It's the tragedy of the commons.

I never said greater populations is best for economic productivity. I said on average, whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers.
All the rest is straw man.

Dan8267 says

From an evolutionary perspective, this is a self-correcting problem. Simply require females to choose mates that will provide support and you'll get future generations in which men are supportive. If such support turns out to be unnecessary because women can support the children themselves and choose to shop for the best looking men rather than the best supportive men, then again, by evolution this is a self-correcting problem. Men cease to be needed for economic productivity and become simply peacocks. And if that is to be their function, then fine. Under such a system men should just be exercising, pruning themselves, fucking women, and playing x-box.

I guess that is an argument in favor of men having no choice, paying child support for their offsprings and being needed for their productivity.
Let's just add paternity tests to close a certain evolutionary loophole and we are good.

rando says

I disagree. The situation between men and women would become symmetrical. Her choice and his choice. Not just her choice alone.

rando says

This trap catches rich men all the time.

I think it was Mercedes Carerra or Lisa Ann or some other Porn Star who is/was an NBA groupie: flush the condom down the toilet.

NuttBoxer says

Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.

Yep - and Feminists are opposed to that.

For starters, get rid of no-fault divorce if kids are involved. You married with kids? You need a real reason - abandonment, drug abuse, etc.

Heraclitusstudent says

I never said greater populations is best for economic productivity. I said on average, whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers.

Actually what you said was

A woman having a baby is not putting society on the hook, it has a net positive effect on society once the baby becomes a productive adult member.

This is simply not a true statement. The statement, as you wrote it, means that every baby becomes a productive adult and pays back society for the costs it imposed. This is simply and clearly not true.

Then you revised your statement to say that the average baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society. This may be true -- you certainly have not proven that, but for the sake of argument, let's give you this point even though it's probably not true -- but that does not mean
1. That the median baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society.
2. That the average baby born to poor women will become a net-productive adult. In fact, empirical evidence shows that the most productive people in our society are those not born into poverty. Poverty generates more poverty.

So your revised statement is also completely wrong.

[stupid comment limit]

Now your third statement, "whether the population is growing or shrinking, human being are net producers", is also most certainly wrong. Human beings are committing massive resource depletion, pollution, and extinction. In the past 40 years, half of all wildlife has been destroyed. Clean water reserves are being permanently depleted. A third of the world doesn't even have adequate clean drinking water supplies. How have you factored this into your math? How is a higher population going to help these problems? It's not. It's going to make all these problems worse.

Heraclitusstudent says

I guess that is an argument in favor of men having no choice, paying child support for their offsprings and being needed for their productivity.

www.youtube.com/embed/U_eZmEiyTo0?start=219&end=221

Dan8267 says

Human beings are committing massive resource depletion, pollution, and extinction. In the past 40 years, half of all wildlife has been destroyed. Clean water reserves are being permanently depleted. A third of the world doesn't even have adequate clean drinking water supplies. How have you factored this into your math?

Maybe population should shrink but this is irrelevant here as it doesn't change the facts we are discussing:
- there should be children to perpetuate society
- on average society members are net-producers
- someone needs to support in time and resources children until they become adults. Which is the entire discussion here.

Dan8267 says

that does not mean

1. That the median baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society.

2. That the average baby born to poor women will become a net-productive adult. In fact, empirical evidence shows that the most productive people in our society are those not born into poverty. Poverty generates more poverty.

Since I never said anything related to these statements, this cannot be an answer to my post. Unless you're trying some straw man.

Dan8267 says

So your revised statement is also completely wrong.

How so?

Dan8267 says

the average baby will become a productive adult with a net-positive flow back to society. This may be true -- you certainly have not proven that,

How could it be otherwise? Martians are providing for them?

NuttBoxer says

If you agree to marry someone, your vows should mean something.

I agree. Marriage is a promise, a contract. Part of the contract is that both parties have responsibility to raise any legitimate children produced by that marriage.

The only question is why women should have greater rights than men outside of marriage. I say they should not. If a woman chooses to have a baby outside of marriage against the wishes of the man, or without even asking him, then being the woman's choice, it should be the woman's problem.

The child custody laws need to be changed. If a child is born out of wedlock, the custody and child support payment should not almost always go to the woman. If the man and woman had equal status as potential parents, and the courts could decide custody based only on financial capability and personal parenting capability, and gender could not be a factor in the custody decision, then it wouldn't be a slamdunk for women to get custody of the child and child support. If this was the case women would think twice when they were pregnant with with a child with someone who they weren't going to end up married to. If there was a high probability that they would end up paying child support and not having custody, there would be a lot less woman choosing to have children out of wedlock. Many men would gladly except parental responsibility if they didn't end up with minimal custody and paying part of their earnings into someone else's household, and thus damaging their own ability to have a family and support their own household.

Heraclitusstudent says

Maybe population should shrink but this is irrelevant here as it doesn't change the facts we are discussing:

I did not suggest such a thing. I refuted a conclusion you proposed that is contradicted by the facts.

But to go over the points you are now making...

- there should be children to perpetuate society

No one has ever suggested that there should be zero children born per generation. This is a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. No one wold ever argue that children should not exist and our species should go extinct.

However, population control is important and if we want to maximize happiness, sustainability, health, and prosperity as well as avoiding war, famine, abject poverty, and ecological collapse, we should not encourage reproduction. Instead we should limit it and provide economic incentives to reduce it.

[stupid comment limit. How's that working out again, Patrick?]

Agree what fraser wrote above

rando says

BTW, if a man consents to responsibility for the baby, he should be held to it. I'm not suggesting that men be able to give up responsibility after accepting it.

The insertion of his penis is his consent to the possibility of a baby. Sure, he can try to do things to minimize the chances - condom, etc., but that's his line. Once it's crossed, he has to deal with the consequences. It's not fair to put it on the woman to either abort or raise her child in poverty. I understand your point, but I don't think it's the way to go.
In reality, your proposal would be framed as men forcing women to decide between abortion and starving kids, so it's a non-starter politically. It's more realistic to dream of a world of abstinence until marriage than this proposal ever becoming a reality.

ch_tah2 says

so it's a non-starter politically

I'd say morally too.

Dan8267 says

No one has ever suggested that there should be zero children born per generation. This is a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. No one wold ever argue that children should not exist and our species should go extinct.

I didn't suggest that you suggested there should be zero children. All I said is "there should be children" and given that fact "someone needs to support in time and resources children until they become adults.".
I didn't mean for this to be controversial and these should be simple facts on which we all agree.
But this is sufficient to show to that your considerations on the environment are irrelevant when considering how we finance this support.

Dan8267 says

we should not encourage reproduction

I never said we should encourage reproduction. You keep putting words in my mouth.
All I talked about is how we support children. Regardless of everything else, having children requires huge investments in time and resources, and generally means huge stress, sleep deprivation, guarantied emergencies, crises, fits, screaming etc... People who have children typically rank lower in happiness surveys. Getting some support just means parents lose a bit less than they do anyway, as well as a better path forward for the kid. Encouragement is certainly not the point.

fraser says

Many men would gladly except parental responsibility if they didn't end up with minimal custody and paying part of their earnings into someone else's household, and thus damaging their own ability to have a family and support their own household.

I doubt more than a fraction of men would take the challenge of parenthood over just paying and not having to deal with the brats.
I don't know if you noticed but having children in your custody absolutely damages you ability to have a family and support your own household.
Nothing cools a first date faster than "could you please change the diaper of that one while I get some drinks?"

Heraclit says:

---"

I doubt more than a fraction of men would take the challenge of parenthood over just paying and not having to deal with the brats.
I don't know if you noticed but having children in your custody absolutely damages you ability to have a family and support your own household.
Nothing cools a first date faster than "could you please change the diaper of that one while I get some drinks?"
-
-
-

I speak from experience. I have been a single father of my 12-year-old daughter since she was two, joint custody 50%. Nothing has given me more joy and pride then the time I've spent with her and the impact I have been able to have on her life. No one else can ever be her real father and love her the way I do. I gladly put her needs and happiness before my own, I couldn't think of any other way. Yes, this situation has been a burden on me personally, my relationships and finances, but I feel so lucky that I have been able to be a father to her, and it is well worth any sacrifice.

Heraclitusstudent says

All I said is "there should be children"

Heraclitusstudent says

I never said we should encourage reproduction. You keep putting words in my mouth.

Look, if you cannot clearly communicate what you mean, that's on you. The statement "there should be children" is irrelevant to this and every conversation that has ever existed as no one has ever proposed that no more children should ever be born. So why even bring it up? I've done more than fair diligence in trying to correctly interpret your posts. If that's not good enough, you need to be clearer and more specific in the positions you are advocating, and that does mean you have less room to bullshit or change what "you meant to say" after the fact.

In any case, my position is clear.

1. Men should not be forced into fatherhood.
2. Our social programs should not encourage reproduction, especially among the poor.
3. Discouraging reproduction is one effective means of combating inter-generational poverty.

I can support and defend all of these points easily.

Dan8267 says

if you cannot clearly communicate what you mean, that's on you.

Ok, but if you can't read, that's on you.

Dan8267 says

So why even bring it up?

Because there is a clear sequence: "must be children", " must be support" , "support mechanism not dependent on environment", "therefore bringing environment preservation in discussion is irrelevant."
I think it's clear enough for people who take the time to read and aren't too dense.

Agree with the premise of the argument.
And, there are feminists out there who agree that an uncommitted male should not be made into a slave for an accidental pregnancy. As marriage rates decline, however, I think we will see many more of these situations where the man is "caught" (deliberately). Woe to him. Frankly, you can have a one night stand and a couple of years later find out you owe tens of thousands of dollars - and then you end up supporting the baby mama as well. She has the power to decide the man's fate. Obviously, condoms help but they are not nearly as fool-proof as the pill and other contraceptives available only to females. Vasectomy is the only other viable male choice, and that can be a fairly invasive surgery and may or may not be reversible.

http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/sex/should-men-be-forced-to-pay-for-children-they-didnt-want/

Just remember: women want babies, men want sex. Sex with a mid-thirties woman is EXTREMELY dangerous if she does not already have children.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ok, but if you can't read, that's on you.

My interpretation is more than reasonable. It's the best you can expect from any intelligent, literate person trying sincerely to understand what you are saying.

Heraclitusstudent says

Because there is a clear sequence: "must be children", " must be support" , "support mechanism not dependent on environment", "therefore bringing environment preservation in discussion is irrelevant."

Your reasoning is very flawed.
1. The fact that at least some people must reproduce in order for our species to continue does not mean that every person has to reproduce to avoid human extinction. It certainly does not mean that the continuation of our species requires people financially or emotionally unprepared to raise children must have children they are incapable of taking care of.

2. The fact that some reproduction is necessary for our species to continue does not mean that the state or unwilling fathers must be forced to bear the financial costs of unwanted children. You could make a moral case that either or both of those two agents ought to, or a practical case that either should, but not the case that they must in order for our species or society to continue. Furthermore, there are both moral and practical reasons why neither agent should or ought to bear that financial responsibility. For example, moral hazard.

[stupid comment limit]

[continue]

3. Environmental management is absolutely relevant to this discussion. It is immoral for one generation to deplete the natural resources and degrade the environment thus impoverishing all future generations. Half of all wildlife has been killed off in the past 40 years. Countless species are now lost forever. Repairing the damage done over the past four decades alone will take literally hundreds of thousands of years. That's longer than the human race has been around. How many generations have we already impoverished at current population levels. Of course this is relevant to both moral and practical considerations of reproduction.

krc says

Sex with a mid-thirties woman is EXTREMELY dangerous if she does not already have children.

I don't understand. Are you saying that any man would want to have sex with a woman over 30? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Funny Dan8276. Men will f&*k mud. No matter the age. :)

I guess I was implying, perhaps wrongly, that men are driven more by sex and women by the desire to have children. Childless women in their mid thirties are reaching the end of their potential child bearing period, and so their motivation is to bring that fetus to term no matter whether theirs was a one night stand or a long term arrangement. The female really will not make a judgement or decision that takes into account the "partner" - and legally they have that right. Men have no such corresponding right - we can only suggest or let them know we don't want the child, but that is legally meaningless and irrelevant. Yet, the man will likely provide the vast amount of money required to raise that child. (To be fair, though, if the woman does happen to have a higher income, that may actually be reversed. Note, however, man almost never gets custody in these out of wedlock births, and so there is always some payment transfer to the woman regardless of income disparity).

krc says

Funny Dan8276. Men will f&*k mud. No matter the age. :)

No. Not all men. Some of us are damn picky. Perhaps too picky, but certainly every guy has standards. The question is how low do they go.

krc says

I guess I was implying, perhaps wrongly, that men are driven more by sex and women by the desire to have children.

No, this is correct with one caveat. Men are interested in sex as a way of being interested in reproduction. However, men aren't necessarily interested in committing time and resources to raising the kid. In fact devoting such resources greatly diminishes sexual opportunities for men and thus opportunities to have additional children with additional women. Hence, if men can fuck a lot of women, they are compelled by evolutionary pressures to do so. It makes no sense for a man who is sexually attractive to be monogamous. It does for a woman because she can't bear more children by having more sexual partners. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

krc says

Childless women in their mid thirties are reaching the end of their potential child bearing period, and so their motivation is to bring that fetus to term no matter whether theirs was a one night stand or a long term arrangement. T

Yes, women reaching their reproductive end become desperate to reproduce if they haven't already. It's called the biological clock. And yes, women who cannot secure a long-term devoted mate won't give up selfish reproduction. They will selfishly bring a child into the world even if they cannot afford to. However, society should not encourage this with subsidies or male slavery. In fact, we should prohibit or at least discourage it.

ch_tah2 says

The insertion of his penis is his consent to the possibility of a baby.

That's exactly like saying a woman who dresses provocatively is consenting to sex. They are both fucking stupid statements and for the exact same reason.

Consent is consent. Nothing else is consent.

NuttBoxer says

Men's rights are important, as are all humans rights. But I think as a man or woman we suck it up and sacrifice some of our rights because children are more vulnerable, weaker, and we have a duty to raise our children ourselves.

Do you believe abortion should be legal?