Isaac Newton and Alfred Nobel beg to differ, to name just two examples.

sure, now do jessiwan

He couldn’t find a women that would talk to him, so he identified as one on a Diablo II gaming forum. Definitely the same caliber of a Newton / Nobel.

"girls only want jerks, why cant she see how much better i'd treat her" - Newtons 4th Law.

If the baby hasn’t been born yet, how could it possibly* be murder? lol

This post was edited by crosspawz on Dec 1 2023 09:57am

Well, most people don't do anything of greater consequence with their lives, and will be forgotten by the time their grandchildren have died. So if your standard for relevancy is "people whose impact on the world will be remembered", then almost no one meets it, including the vast majority of people who did have kids... while there's plenty of noteworthy examples of childless people who satisfy this condition.

Simply put, "people without kids shouldn't have opinions" is a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from the premise of "why should we listen to anyone whose existence is temporary".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 1 2023 10:47am

It's not logical because was just speaking from his perma-butthurt by me, lol.

imo no. having kids means you can pass on generational norms. you may not be a twin of your great grandfather, but there's plenty of things you do and think just because of your familial norms. i was lucky to know several of my great grand parents, so they directly influenced me. but even if they hadn't ive been very well influenced by my grand parents, who are the way they are largely due to their parents. my great grand mother went to college in the 1920s, a rarity for the time, and as a result her kids and 8 grand kids are all college educated. a very rare thing for a rural illinois farming family.

these kind of influenced take a long time to wash out. this is evident in all kinds of things, good and bad, but one good example is the rural and black communities' lower standard for importance of education, when that is a very dated idea that directly hurts their communities on the whole.

whereas if you're just a person, and you die, once your friends also die 99% of your influence is likely gone. you're lucky if you have influence on your friend's kids, but even so its usually nominal compared to a parent's influence.

edit: beyond that my first post was clearly shitposting. but there's a there there.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 1 2023 10:55am

Alright, I see where you're coming from. Still tend to disagree because in the modern world, a huge part of people's legacies is their work and the scientific or technological progress they contribute to, so this notion that one's life is vain and meaningless without children is less true today than at any point in human history.

On the other hand, people who have children should have more say on cross-generational policiy issues like social security or climate change, so I would be open to giving parents an extra vote for each child as long as they don't depend on government assistance to feed and house them. (We obviously don't want to give trailer park trash and welfare queens higher voting power.)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 1 2023 11:25am

i 100% agree that if someone has made contributions to society their opinion and legacy carry weight even if they dont have kids.

but if you're a person on social assistance who is retired and has no kids, why should anyone at all take your opinion seriously on anything? maybe fringe stuff, if you live on social security and are on medicare i'll listen to your opinions on those, albeit with a large bias filter. but u want to talk about the state of education? what we should do with taxes? gtfo, i dont care if you like or hate them. you're a non-issue. you'll soon be gone as will all memory of you. you're a fading shadow of a quirky aunt, go knit something to inhabit the earth after you're cremated and dumped in the river.