The Glade 4.0

If the only children you would ever have would have a 100% chance of having Downs, Severe Autism or other disability which would mean they would never become functioning adults, you'd still chose to have multiple children?

@Riov

Children are afforded the same protections as mentally handicapped folk (as previously established). Therefore they are equally valued, the question you should be asking now becomes whether or not children who are mentally handicapped are more valuable than either category alone.

_________________

No, and that has no bearing on anything. I would adopt, because I want children. What is your question supposed to prove?

Edit: Thanks for bringing this up, actually.



www.theadoptionguide.com

This is not at all established. They are not equally valued by society, nor are they provided the same protections. They are provided different protections, for different reasons.

Indeed, if they were "equally valued", that would pretty much destroy the argument that children are only valued because they will contribute later, as there is not this assumption for the severely mentally handicapped.

I think its safe to say people want children for different reasons. Some for legacy, some because they want a baby doll to dress up, some because they want to mold someone, etc

Because they are valued for different reasons, I think its safe to say there is no metric you can use to define worth.

Sure, luckily I'm not attempting to. I'm simply trying to refute the absurd argument that society doesn't value them. As you state above, you agree they are valued.

As someone who is ostensibly a member of society, I don't give two **** about your children or their well-being Arathain.

_________________

Hopwin:
I find your pro-life stance deeply at odds with your children-are-useless sentiment.

Well, like I said, I'm not considering the rare sociopath as part of my assessment.

The good news is, the vast majority of the rest of us care about you and your family regardless of your self-centered views.

How dare you, this is the internet.

Don't mistake me pointing out a flaw in your analogy or logic for me disagreeing with your conclusions.

So you think it is a rare thing and a sign of mental illness for people to not give two shits about your kids? In that case you must value me more (as was previously established).

_________________

Yes, it is very rare for people to not care about the well being of children. Society highly values its children, you see.

By the way, I don't actually believe you. I've never actually met anyone who really doesn't care about the well being of children. I think you are merely acting like you don't because you feel it somehow helps your argument.

So in summation then, you are saying the heirarchy of the value of an individual is:

Adults are worth less than children
Children are equally valued to mentally handicapped adults
Mentally handicapped children are the most valued

_________________

Placing value of the self higher than the other is normal behavior for all organisms. The fact that the specific "other" in this instance happens to be children isn't some exception that suggests sociopathic behavior. This is before the consideration of other factors, such as the bloated population of humanity and the rate at which we're consuming resources. Not only that, but we have quite a bit of bad DNA floating around that we're taking extraordinary efforts to maintain. The sudden loss of half of humanity would not be an overall detriment to the species. The one thing that really keeps us from recognizing and advocating for such event is the fear that we might lose the coin flip.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Nobody suggested that. Reread. Not giving "two shits" about a child would make one a sociopath. Valuing yourself above that child would only make one selfish/self centered.

First, I've said nothing about the value of handicapped children, you have.

Second, I have said that children are "highly valued" by society. I've addressed a post from you that tries to rank value among various classes, and said "I don't buy it". That said, I've intentionally attempted to stray away from ranking value of societal parts, because it's a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

I'm merely trying to combat the moronic assertion that society at large doesn't value its children.

Well if I as an adult am a coward for not risking my own well being for the sake of a child then their well being must be above my own. You created this.

_________________

No.

A coward is someone who bases actions or inaction upon fear. That is the definition of a coward. I have said failure to act out of fear is cowardly and loathsome regardless of whether the victim is a child or adult.

If you have an issue with this, argue with Webster.

Now as far as it being loathsome, that is opinion. Personally, I care about children more than adults. But I would put myself at risk to help nearly anyone, because it's the right thing to do. Better dead and a clear conscience than a healthy piece of ****.

You keep talking about "society's values" and "society's obligations." I reject all such statements outright. I would certainly feel some kind of compulsion to try to protect children who require protection... "obligation" is the wrong word, because it's not a debt, not something owed... but Society doesn't matter here. Collective "values" are irrelevant.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Bullshit.

Basing one's reactions on fear is both wise and can be very rational. Animals have strong fear reactions because having them keeps them alive. What you are suggesting would mean that primarily the cowardly will live to progate and pass on their cowardly genes to their children. This would make cowardice a virtue, not a negative quality.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Please point out where I've used "obligation".

Collective values are relevant, but only in the sense that we identify whether an individual is "abnormal" or not.

Whether you view it positively or negatively, that is the definition of cowardice.

And no, I don't view it positively. Yes, the cowardly will inevitably put themselves at less risk, to the woe of the species.

The assumption that there is some virtue or value to "normalcy" is rather repugnant to me. There are only a few things you could say about someone more damning than "they were normal."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I think you are forgetting something in this formula: the values of the person in question.

Cowardice is not about whether fear influences your actions. It is about whether you allow fear to override rational thinking, or to compromise your values.

If you fail to act to save children when you think you should, because you are afraid, then that is cowardice.

If you think about your fear, and in the end, value your own life more than the life of some random child you do not know, you are not being a coward. It is not cowardly to do the smart thing to get the results that you find most favorable. Fear is merely an indicator of danger. Heeding fear to run for your life from a wild animal is not cowardice -- standing there and facing it is stupid. It's only when the animal threatens something you value more than your life, and fear stops you from reacting properly, that you're being a coward.

Most of the time, acting on fear is just being intelligent.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █