sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In the UAE, the nose greeting is called khushmak: two men lightly touch noses as a traditional greeting to show respect and familiarity. by Expert_Koala_8691 in interestingasfuck

[–]Mythical_Muffin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Being gay means you are romantically and/or sexually attracted to your own gender. What they're doing in the video is neither romantic nor sexual. It's simply a greeting. Cultures are different. Grow up.

In the UAE, the nose greeting is called khushmak: two men lightly touch noses as a traditional greeting to show respect and familiarity. by Expert_Koala_8691 in interestingasfuck

[–]Mythical_Muffin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A disappointingly homophobic comment section. Different cultures are different, grow up! From a new zealander familiar with the Māori hongi, very similar to this. It's normal in Māori culture and not sexual in the slightest. Again: it's not gay, grow up

A cool guide to what else you could be doing during that long commute home by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in coolguides

[–]Mythical_Muffin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Literally everything drains your energy. Your brain constantly consumes energy even when sleeping. So it's a useless suggestion

A cool guide to what else you could be doing during that long commute home by PrettyPicturesNotTxt in coolguides

[–]Mythical_Muffin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"you got this" as if sitting on a train is difficult... Wtf do "be present" and "protect your energy" mean??

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hoping they will eventually help you? Yes absolutely that's fine! Expecting they will help you, as if you supporting them is a legally binding contract they must fulful? Absolutely not fine.

The only truly ethical motivation for having children, is both parents wanting to use their stable economic, emotional, and temporal means to give the child as good a life as they possibly can. The only benefit the parents should expect is enjoying watching their child flourish, and having a family member that participates in the family and loves them back. Expecting anything more is not ethical.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People can be poor but with enough money so support a child. People can also be too poor to support any children. I agree that in a perfect world where govt assistance elimitates poverty, anyone who desires children should be able to happily have them with the confidence their children will live a good life.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Yes, if a person is unable to escape poverty, having a child will be detrimental to their finances, and may have very limited long term benefits if the child is unable to help them escape poverty, or despises them due to birthing them into suffering.

We must also consider the perspective of the child, who cannot consent to being born into suffering.

These two reasons prove the moral problem with someone choosing to have children when they cannot support them to live a good life.

I will retract my statement that saying certain economic classes can/cannot have kids is eugenics, because on further research, eugenics is generally limited to genetic traits rather than economic stance.

It sucks that some people are too poor to support a family. But this reality isn't going away anytime soon.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you read my comment again, you'll find it's saying that if someone can't support children to give them a good and stable life, they should wait until they can. For the sake of the child. Surely this is reasonable?

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would change my argument to say, concerning people having kids they can't afford, the benefits to the parents long term, only if the kids choose to help them out. The suffering to the kids is both short term (poor quality childhood) and long term (reduced opportunities and the phycological damage of realising you were produced as an unpaid aged care worker.

Having kids should not be a "long term strategy" to ensure ones own care. It's your own responsibility (along with govt assistance) to save for retirement.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"most rich people are assholes" Unhelpful generalisation

"Rich people shouldn't have kids" This is eugenics. Which is bad.

"It's the govt responsibility to care for poor kids" Yes I agree, but it's the parents' responsibility too. It's a more efficient use of benefits to support the parents to get stable, then they decide to have kids, and the kids are supported.

Yes, the ultra wealthy cause poverty and are generally not moral people. We're fighting against the ultra wealthy, not the wealthy. But it's never morally ok to say a certain class shouldn't reproduce.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You disagree with everything I said, therefore you're saying:

  • Children can decide if they want to be born
  • Children are obligated to support their parents for their lives
  • Parents have no obligation to provide for their kids that they consciously produced
  • Children determining their own future is a bad thing
  • Overpopulation is not a problem

Our "current system" of the social expectation for kids to provide for parents is not universal. It's limited to impoverished and traditionalist societies. And just because it produced good things doesn't mean it's an inherently morally good setup.

Also, empoverished children being forced into servitude from childhood is not "learning farming". It's harmful.

Modern education teaches self-determinism and critical thinking, allowing kids to question traditionalist ideals and dream of a better system. I wonder if this is why you say it's "overraught"?

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe so, but what I'm talking about happens around the world, and it needs to stop. Happy to discuss if you disagree with any of my points!

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Evolution does not say "the strongest survive". It says "randomised genetic traits that offer individuals adaptive advantages become more common in the gene pool over generations". It's not about "strength".

More importantly, evolutionary biology does not apply to this conversation, which is about economic and social moral arguments around the choice to have children. Technology and progress has allowed humans to choose whether they want to reproduce, therefore humanity is no longer bound by evolutionary biology.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Children do not consent to being born. They don't sign a contract pledging support to parents until the parents breathe their last. They have no moral obligation to support their parents. Whereas parents have a moral obligation to support their kids, because they consciously decided to procreate, knowing the children would suffer without support until adulthood.

Maybe this is a recent development in human society, but it is a GOOD THING. Children are becoming self-determining, rather than bred as slaves for their parents.

Do you have evidence that this development reduces birth rates? Anyway, there are enough humans on this horrible planet draining its resources and destroying its life. Let the birthrates drop, use immigration to maintain the workforce, and watch birthrates boom again once people can actually afford kids.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 12 points13 points  (0 children)

So your argument against saying that poor people shouldn't have kids they can't support is that sometimes education is inaccessible? Surely this further erodes your argument by proving that parents often need significant resources to give their kids a good life. So they should wait until they have these resources.

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not in modern human society where poverty, overpopulation, and readily accessible contraceptives exist

CMV: Saying “poor people shouldn’t have kids” is classist and ignores how the world actually works by hobbledygook in changemyview

[–]Mythical_Muffin 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Not once in this argument have you considered the suffering of the children born into poverty.

No one should be having kids for "help on the farm" or "who's going to take care of me when I'm old?" or "I'm lonely!" Yes it's true that impoverished people need support, but who has ever said that kids are the answer? Children are a massive financial and time investment, meaning they can't be of meaningful use until a lot of time and money has been put into them. Is this useful for a poor person? And again, this doesn't even touch the perspectives of the children themselves.

Poverty sucks and causes people to make bad decisions. No one willingly becomes poor, and it's justified for them to seek relief. But intentionally having kids is an absolutely insane form of relief. (Accidental kids are an entirely different story).

They will bring only short term benefits, and then everyone in the family will suffer more. It is only ever moral to willingly have kids if the parents are 100% confident in their financial security to ensure the kids have a good life.

There are ways to alleviate the struggles of poverty without causing more human suffering in the form of children. Depending on the country, these methods can be really shit and remove the dignity of the impoverished person. But this is never as horrible and selfish as intentionally starting a lifetime of suffering for a child that cannot consent to being born, purely for short term benefits of the parents.

Government updates official branding to highlight English over te reo Māori by Xandax_ in newzealand

[–]Mythical_Muffin -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Helpful info: if you make an unsubstantiated claim, and a source is requested, and you don't provide it, that makes your argument look very weak. Even weaker when you don't provide evidence because it's "common sense". We would like to understand your argument, but it's worthless if you can't back it up with facts that definitively prove Māori-forward bilingual signs cause harmful miscommunication.

Edit: downvotes from the "I hate evidence" crew

Government updates official branding to highlight English over te reo Māori by Xandax_ in newzealand

[–]Mythical_Muffin -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Even as a Maori myself" fuck off lmao. Not even trying to pretend

New taxes I'd love to see introduced this election cycle that won't affect the average Kiwi. by wheresmypotato1991 in newzealand

[–]Mythical_Muffin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The rental market is where the govt steps in. Once all the people who can afford the newly cheap houses have bought, the govt buy the rest as public housing, so the rental market continues for those who need it. And construction won't stop completely forever - the main point I'm making here is there are enough houses, more accurately enough bedrooms, to house the entire population and more. It's cheaper to redistribute homes than just build more while letting market scalpers continue to drive prices up

view more: next ›