How do I respond to this?

I suppose this is a mild bingo.

On another message forum (on an unrelated topic), there is a sub-forum about off-main-topic stuff. Someone else began a thread about the octuplet woman in California and I chimed in along the way, speaking up rather strongly for us childfree (not as much as you do) and against the woman.

In reaction to my remark about there being no "shortage of children" came this from someone else:

"Actually we do - there's not going to be enough kids to grow up to support our current Social Security and Medicare system. I know that doesn't concern you, because you won't be partaking in such 'welfare' programs [they know about my CF status and being retired at 45], but its a big problem for those who planned to rely on them in retirement."

I responded this way:

"And if we have more kids just to support SS and MC, what do we say to that generation in 30 years to further support those programs, 'Have more kids?' This logic is akin to Bernie Madoff saying, 'If I can find more investors for my investment/Ponzi scheme, it won't collapse!'

SS and MC are two programs which need fixing to make them more financially stable, but simply having more kids is not the answer. Yes, it would take an entirely new thread to discuss SS and MC and I am not sure our esteemed moderator would permit it. [Certain topics are taboo in this forum.]"

To that someone else responded with this [emphasis mine]:

"if SS will go bankrupt soon, you either need more children to grow up and pay into system, cut benefits, raise SS tax, or worse choice, print money. In general, more human beings, more consumption, more demand, bigger pie, rather than a shrinking one. That's not to say the situation described on this thread is the way it should be done, at all. Europe is dying. If you love your country and your culture, do something that helps preserve them. Having more children and raising them right is one big way to accomplish that."

I know Europe's birthrates are on the low side, but is it really dying? And the "love your country" continuation reads like a bingo. How do I respond to that?

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

The writer who suggested "having more children and raising them right," will help the problem, makes several huge assumptions:

1. These kids will never use the social service system themselves--no HEAP, food stamps, Medicaid, welfare payments, or any other giveaway programs, either as children themselves or later in life as adults.
2. They will never be identified as special ed and will never receive any of those benefits from SS.
3. They will never lose a parent and get SS until the age of 18 (or older, if they are a full-time student.)
4. They will hold well-compensated full-time employment continuously from age 18, in order to pay their full share into the SS fund--they will never work under the table, will declare all side jobs and consulting work, and never employ a creative tax accountant.
5. They will use no government programs in any fashion--no student loans, home loans, or anything that would have any related governmental administrative costs.
6. They should probably remain single and CF themselves, in order to pay the maximum amount of taxes and receive no deductions for dependents.

I think adding more people will just add to the growing entitlement burden and not fix a thing.

I honestly don't know a good (and non insulting) response to make to ANY person who premeditates in their youth that they will rely on social security and medicare to solely fund their retirement. Even if I retired today and was age 65, SS would no where NEAR be enough to cover my current living expenses. Unless they are late 50's or older and are at the tail end of their time on the job or careers and didn't or were'nt able to save or invest properly, it's a damn shame that they would actually be PLANNING on SS to sustain them in their old age. MOST people consider it as supplemental income or through a series of unforseen events, they were forced to rely on it as their ONLY means of economic survival. Do people REALLY plan to actually live on a meager SS income? Other than calling it a vicious cycle, which it certainly is, I don't know how you could make a good comeback without being insulting because quite frankly, what they are saying sounds ignorant, stupid, cliche, narrow minded, parroted, and idiotic.IMO



It also sounds like they think that they "have you over a barrel" in that you couldn't POSSIBLY understand their plight since you have your retirement funding already in place. They have already separated their situation and probably themselves as well from you simply because you won't be relying on SS. If they thought about it rationally, if they are 50 or younger, employed or self employed, and still in reasonably good health, there is NO REASON at all that they can't start right now making sound financial decisions and avoid relying on SS for their own retirement. Can't they take a look around them and see that relying on an already rickety ass social program to actually be there for them in 20, 30, even 40 years, is just not logical or probable and that even if it was, that it would not be enough? There's probably nothing you can say to them because their minds are already made up, they have digested and believe a WHOLE lot of garbage, are unwilling to take personal responsibility, and are bingoing themselves into a pauper's grave. It would be sad if it weren't so annoying.

i live in europe, and quite the contrary, we are not a dying country.. an island the size of oregan, with 60 million 1/6th of america's

while we may have a lot fo green spaces these are being built on to make houses. ex industrial land, brown belt land is being built on, usually on the cheap, as the toxic chemicals are deadly.. they just cover it with plastic..

at the moment more and more and more are being born, they are taking the resources from the state and by the time they get a job, what with mechanisation, and robotics, there will be less and less jobs. in the 50's 1000 people would work in a place now 60..

so by the time your kids are making money (forget about the next recession), you will have gone into the great beyond. having a child to pay for your social services is a net loss. as more people are living for longer, before it used to be you died at age 70, now its about 80, so thats 20 more years of social payments, some are living to 90 and 100, thats 40 extra years. you get a job after college say 20, work there for 40 years without a break (forgetting the recession and other new technological advances), then chance are by this time everyone will have a life span of 100, as people are living longer, (forgetting the illogical obesity time bomb) so thats 20 years old i get a job, 40 years later i go on pension and for 40 more years i take from the social.

that makes no sense..so they will increase the retirement age, because there is no other viable option. (now if there is an obesity timebomb killing everyone off then we get that same deficit.)

and thats not mentioning the global impact so many kids will have, what with resources, land needed for the building, land to produce the food for these extra people the poisoning of the land for this intensive chemical driven farming to maximise food production. th extra chemicals that will be around from making these kids new clothes.

bye the time we retire at age 65, pensions will be obsolete, (and not mentioning the icelandic government falling due to the bad debt countries do)

so medicade and social are a deceased thing. and will be in 10, 20, 30 years.

the uk has a pensions blackhole. something like £60 billion or more.

now the recession if its as bad as i feel its going to be you will see so many more banks going out of business, car producers out of work as they dotn have any loans from the banks, thats millions more unemployed and claiming, taking more money from the state. as having children will mean more tax breaks, so more health care will collapse, and more of the infrastructure will collapse. leading to more debt,

so yes have more kid, if you want a world of abject poverty, and mass unemployment (not counting the dumbening down of college courses or fluff useless courses), and have dumb people all have degrees, in balloon art.

so yes have kids.. glad i wont be around to see it.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Thank you for your replies. I wrote a short reply earlier today. I'll let you know if anything interesting happens.

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

The US has a population density of 31 people per square kilometer.

Keep squeezing out kids and within three generations the US will be overcrowded like the UK, which has 246 people living in each square kilometer. Japan has 339 people living per square kilometer. Keep in mind that vast tracts of the US are naturally uninhabitable (desert, altitude, etc) so they have to be particularly watchful of density there.

The general rule is that breeding is slowing down in the educated parts of Europe and Asia, where frankly we've run out of room and the cost of living is consequently sky-high. The educated parts of the world actually consider each individual to have a worthwhile life which contributes to the greater good -- their standard of life is really good and so they're not so desperate to give up and 'hand off the baton' to the next generation and sit on the sofa doing nothing for the last 60 years of their lives. Birthrate, however, is not slowing down in the uneducated parts of the world, where they can't think of a single thing to do with themselves other than hump away like Bonobo monkeys.

It's just a question of which category -- educated or uneducated -- of which America considers itself a part.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

Here is what I wrote in response:

"Europe is dying? Are you kidding me? A continent of about 730,000,000 (according to wikipedia) is dying? They are far ahead of us here in several key ways. They are much more energy efficient than we are, more educated than we are (which helps explain their lower birth rates), and have the political will to reform their government-run SS-like programs.

And who made you judge as to saying "having more children and raising them right is one big way to accomplish that?" I would argue that having fewer children is a great way to preserve our culture and our country because we will be using fewer resources which we can pass along to our children so they can continue our culture.

We need to get out of the mindset that the "norm" is having children while remaining CF (childfree) is "abnormal" or "out of the mainstream". I don't understand why anyone wants to have children. By being CF, I....

(1) have more money.

(2) can come and go as I please.

(3) enjoy peace and quiet.

(4) don't have my living space invaded with the smell of stinky diapers, urine, and vomit.

I remember that (unscientific) survey advice columnist Ann Landers had in the 1970s which asked the question, "If you had to do it all over again, would you have children?" and the answer was an overwhelming (~70%) "NO!"

I hope there is enough of an outcry against what this California woman and the clinic did so it doesn't happen again. But one time was already too many."


And here is what he wrote back:

"But you are missing out on so much more. Being a father is the greatest thing in life. You can keep your extra money and extra Strat-playing time thank you very much. I have 3 and not only would I not go back to being child-free if I could, I would have more if I were younger. And since I've experienced both being child free and having children, I think my opinion means more than one from someone who's only lived on one side. I have couple friends who don't have nor want children, but at least they've never said 'I don't understand why anyone wants to have children.'"

Typical bingo, huh?

Here is what I wrote back earlier this morning (emphasis included in the post):

"Sorry, but I am not missing out on anything good. Being a father may be the greatest thing in life for you, but it is not anything I or anyone else childfree desires to be. And I should clarify the use of 'childfree' - you were never childfree, you were childless. Childless people are those who at one time had no children but want to have children (or who were open to the idea). Childfree people never want to have them. There is a difference. You were never on both sides as you claimed, so your opinion does not mean more than mine.

And once you have children, you can't go back to not having them (unless you abandon them or kill them). That Ann Landers survey was quite telling.

Your childfree friends (if they are truly childfree, not just childless) may in fact think as I do about not being able to understand why anyone wants to have children. They just may not say it outright the way I did. I hope you don't 'bingo' them ['bingo' is a CF term for the overused phrases CF people hear all the time from the childed about not wanting children] the way you bingoed me.

Whether you like it or not, we CF people will have more money, come and go as we please, have more peace and quiet, and avoid stinky diapers than if we were childed. We will gladly keep it that way for the rest of our lives."

I would like to thank you here in this forum for helping me sharpen my debating skills in dealing with the childed. It has been helpful in several discussion and comments boards on this topic.

if you need any help shout, i will help, love a good mass debate LOL. (joke).. but seriously any help its yours


notice how he misses the valid points you make, and just focus on one or 2. the uk will probably run out of power in 5 years, as no new power stations are being built, as there is no money. demand is outgrowing power requirements.

so for the sake of the planet stop breeding

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Opinions are points of view formed by our observations and life experiences, and I simply hate it when someone patronizingly says mine is less valid than theirs. Of course, curious, intelligent people are going to inquire about certain life choices, because it's how thoughtful people gather information in order to form their opinions.

Your online sparring partner seems to be missing the bigger point altogether, and falls back on his knowing better than anyone without children, because he's seen "both sides" and is therefore uniquely qualified to pass judgement on your point of view.

With that writer's line of thinking, Deegee, I could never have opinions about things like cannibalism, murder, or animal cruelty, either, having never actually committed any of those acts, but in that context, his argument is ridiculous, so his entire argument falls apart.

at least you know a person or 3 from europe. me and the uk lot here. i bet they know no one

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

You made an interesting and thoughful response Deegee.

We do sometimes joke about parents becoming un-childed by nefarious means. And oh yes it does happen, as we all know. But we don't go around talking to parunts full in the expectation that we're somehow going to convert them -- that our way of life is the only legitimate way of life and any talk to the contrary must be shouted down and stamped out for the good of... er, for the good of... not sure. For the good of our egos, yeah that's it.

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

It looks like the thread will end with an "agree to disagree" although on the thread's original topic (the octuplet woman) it was just mentioned that the woman was unemployed, so she will be a drain on society's resources (another thing I mentioned before I brought up the whole CF thing).

However, there were a few more gems I would like to share with you. I may respond to them anyway. This one tops the list:

"I still disagree that a life not having children but wanting them is different than a life not having children and not wanting them, but I digress."

I am thinking, "Are you kidding?" What about every couple's heartache over TTC (Trying to Conceive) but are unable to? What about all their IVF costs and efforts (not unlike the IVF the octuplet woman had) which the CF will have no need for? Big difference.

Then there is this:

"FWIW, I share all your [the above poster's] views on this subject, but don't see the point of getting into it with this guy [me]. Who knows why he feels this way? It's a sad way of living life, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone."

My possible reply, "Those were my exact thoughts about your way of living life."

And another poster who agreed with the above two posters wrote this in my "Declaration of Independence" thread similar to the one I started here last October:

"Props for not only being able to do it but for being prescient enough to select your username ahead of time. :-)" [My screen name in that forum includes the word "retired" in it.] I mentioned in my thread's opening post that I was childfree, so I do find it ironic that this same poster puts down my life's choices after commending me for them only 4 months ago! I guess once he found out what being CF really means, he no longer agrees with my choices to be retired at 45?

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

Well, Deegee, I think it's much easier for that childed poster to summarily dismiss your point of view rather than look at his own life and think about how many more working years he still has. You are proof positive that retirement at a relatively young age is possible because you are CF, and that probably makes him very uncomfortable. I think people who are saying things like "I feel sorry for you," are, in actuality, jealous of your financial independence, but aren't honest enough to say so.

Quote
Tiquer
Opinions are points of view formed by our observations and life experiences, and I simply hate it when someone patronizingly says mine is less valid than theirs. Of course, curious, intelligent people are going to inquire about certain life choices, because it's how thoughtful people gather information in order to form their opinions.

Your online sparring partner seems to be missing the bigger point altogether, and falls back on his knowing better than anyone without children, because he's seen "both sides" and is therefore uniquely qualified to pass judgement on your point of view.

With that writer's line of thinking, Deegee, I could never have opinions about things like cannibalism, murder, or animal cruelty, either, having never actually committed any of those acts, but in that context, his argument is ridiculous, so his entire argument falls apart.

I agree with completely. I also find it insulting that he claims (wrongly) to have been on "both sides", because he considers the time period before he had kyds as "childfree", so therefore his opinion is "more valid". Like Tiquer, I have opinions about MANY things which I have never personally done or experienced and my opinion isn't necessarily any less valid than the next chump. I suppose that using his logic that juries can only be selected from pools of people who have direct experience with whatever the defendant is being accused, since personal experience is the only determining factor in whether an opinion is valid.

Quote
Tiquer
Well, Deegee, I think it's much easier for that childed poster to summarily dismiss your point of view rather than look at his own life and think about how many more working years he still has. You are proof positive that retirement at a relatively young age is possible because you are CF, and that probably makes him very uncomfortable. I think people who are saying things like "I feel sorry for you," are, in actuality, jealous of your financial independence, but aren't honest enough to say so.

I agree with you 100%. I find it hard to believe that anyone can feel sorry for someone who retired at 45. And as I mentioned, one of my critics actually had kind words for me back in October, something I have reminded him of in my reply. I did not mention the jealousy angle, as I know using one's own words to combat that person's later contradictory statement is a powerful debating tool. I learned that many years ago at my (former) company while discussing a topic and trying to convince that person of my point of view.

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

I would have said, "Ya know, I really don't have time for this low-IQ bullshit and elementary reasoning right now. I'm off to make a Pay-Pal donation to my local Planned Parenthood Clinic."

He's in his own hell; enjoy your stress-free life while laughing at his.

Thank you for all your advice and words of encouragement. I did use some of what you suggested. It looks like the discussion is ending and is turning more to the thread's actual topic, the octuplet woman. As more of that woman's personal situation is becoming known, the more agreement there is that she is an idiot.

My last post, to which not all my opponents have replied yet, was this:

There is still a double standard against CF people. The childed are never asked to explain why they had kids (except perhaps for the nutty octuplet woman). But the CF are constantly bingoed for not having children. I was accused of not being "patriotic" by another poster because I did not have children to keep Social Security solvent. My opinion was discounted because I had not been "on both sides" because I am CF. [Using that logic, could anyone who had not committed a crime be asked to serve on a jury because he was "crimeless"?] I was flat-out bingoed by . And my CF lifestyle is still being mildly put down.

Not living "life's script" of getting married and having children is still seen as being out of the mainstream, or abnormal, always worthy of being questioned or put down (i.e. bingoed). But when we CF folks get a little "uppity" and speak out, the childed (not necessarily those on this board) become shocked that someone dares speak out against the so-called "norm" and claim to enjoy life that way.

I realize the my "I don't know why anyone would have children" was a bit provocative, maybe a bit over the top. It did distract from my overall argument because some of you focused more on that remark than on the rest of what I was saying.

And I should remind you that my remarks are pretty tame compared to what my online friends on a childfree message board say all the time. They are far more passionate (and critical) than I have been here. And the book, "The Baby Boon: How America Cheats the Childless," by Elinor Burkett, shows numerous examples of how we childfree (and childless) people are screwed by public policy makers and by corporate America more and more.

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

Here is how one of my opponents replied:

"You are out of the mainstream and abnormal, but I don't mean that in a bad way.

Every living thing has the instinct to keep its species thriving and to pass their own individual genes to the next generation. To deny that is going against nature. That is how you are abnormal.

It should be obvious that you are not mainstream. Surely you realize that humans with children or will eventually have children far outnumber the ones who will never have children."

Gee, how nice of him to tell me I am abnormal but not in a bad way. How do I deal with this?

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

Deegee, here's another argument for all the bingos.

Either the world has too many prople or it doesn't. I strongly suspect it does have too many and that the Earth's natural sustainable carrying capacity is something under 2 billion, not the 6.7 billion we have now. This means major problems with resource depletion and pollution, leading to wars, crime, and ever stricter government control, not to mention the growing possibility that nature will make things "right" with a plague or epidemic that kills many around the world.

So the issue isn't whether Grandma will get her Social Security and other entitlements in coming decades. The issue is whether we'll instead be eating Grandma because there's nothing else to eat after a growing world population wipes out all the resources and farmland.

LOL it is all moot now. Here is what happened.

Another poster made a remark about someone he knew being proud to have his g/f get an abortion to end an unplanned pregnancy and remain CF. I asked him how that squared with his view that the octuplet's kids be taken by the state. I thought he might have been annoyed by his acquaintance being "proud" to have the pregnancy ended that way and remained CF. I did not want to presume his stance on abortion. He said he was anti-choice. I said that was fine and moved on. The moderator deleted the thread because he does not allow discussions about racial or political topics. I think he was quick on the hook but it is his forum and he has made his rules quite clear. He could have merely deleted the last few posts as there had been nearly 100 of them up to that point which were okay. I am sure in the minds of my opponents, I am the one to be blamed for the thread being yanked LOL!

For the record, I was going to reply that "We are not animals, unable to control our sexual impulses. We don't have sex with anyone we happen to see. We are capable of free and restrained thought and actions when it comes to sex. If you wanted to describe us CF as a 'minority' instead of 'abnormal' I would have been fine with that. I used the term, 'abnormal' only because of the negative stigma too often associated with being CF. And, the rate of CF according to the U.S. Census is growing, up to about 20% now for women in their early 40s, having doubled in the last 30 years. We may be a minority, but we are a growing one. I don't expect the CF to be a majority, but I do expect the stigma to disappear in my lifetime."

MWR, your question about "leaving Octomom alone" is a good one. Similarly, I would ask my opponent if he thought Octomom was "normal" because of her excessive desire to breed. I guess I won't get the chance.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted! And I can always come here and tell you all about it!

______________________________________________

"I thank god I'm an atheist!" -- Mike "Meathead" Stivic (from All in the Family)

First, he needs to define "normal". Things, places, people, ideas, etc.....only become "normal" when a majority of people do them, practice whatever it is, or believe that it is correct. Many things were at one time considered "normal" but now no longer are. Other things were considered GREATLY "abnormal", but are now commonly acceptable by greater society as not only "normal", but preferred. The list of these things could fill up the internet, but off the top of my head are the following:



Used to be considered "normal"


1) Marrying and having children with fathers, sisters, brothers, etc....

2) Visibly wearing a loaded gun on your person and shooting someone who threatened you or yours with no repurcussions

3)Hanging a man after an unfair trial, no trial, or just because, with no appeals

4)Burying loved ones in the back yard

5)Wives were husband's real property

6)Beating your wife

7)Enslaving people

8)The barter system

9)Buying "on credit" at the local store

10) Under age kids attending school

11)Firing women who got married or pregnant from their jobs



Used to be "abnormal"


1)Inter-racial marriages

2)People leading a gay lifestyle in public

3)Breastfeeding in restaurants

4)Handicapped accessibility/parking

5)to refuse vaccines for deadly diseases

6)to be hooked up to machines and vegetative rather than allowed to die

7)Divorce

8)Nudity in movies and TV

9)Support groups for every known or imaginable ailment or situation

10)Seeing a therapist or psychiatrist



Society dictates what is considered "normal" and the majority is NOT always correct or necessarily better, as evidenced by the list. These people like to call whatever it is that they like to do "normal" because it gives them a false sense of social security and of fitting in among their peers. If that's what they want or like to do, then more power to them. However, if they are doing the "Wife, 2.5 kyds, and 2 car garage" gig in order to "fit in", then THEY are the abnormal ones, IMO. The ones who point fingers, judge, and protest a bit too much (like why do they GIVE a shit if someone is CF?) then the problem is not external but rather from within. They often rebut, "Well the CF sure seem concerned about childed people"! That's because it directly affects us via taxation, welfare extortion, overpopulation, discriminatory practices with employment and housing, and pure and unadulterated inconvenience. HOW praytell, does a CF lifestyle affect ANY of these breeders personally one way or the other? It is WE who are discriminated against, not the "normal" ones.



Basically, "normal" doesn't mean shit and because something is "normal" does NOT make it right.