Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

2020 Democratic Primary Race

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Apparently my sarcasm went right over your head, even though I explicitly said "tongue-in-cheek aside."

"Attacking their rights" by saying that the average  private citizen shouldn't have assault rifles. Okay. Owning an assault weapon is not a right. If you think the government has no business telling people how to live their lives, what's your argument against me purchasing an ICBM. Or a tank. Or a bazooka. Take your pick. There are regulations, common sense regulations, we can use here.

Plus your analogy is simply a bad analogy, sorry friendo. I can choose whether to purchase an assault rifle. I can't choose if I'm mentally ill.

Yes it is a right. And you can own all of those things. Permit required of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, seanbrock said:

Well what if my hobby is raping bitches. Should I just be allowed to live my best life? Lol I hear what you're saying bro but we need some rules. 

Rape is inherently a violent act. Owning a gun isn't. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should it be legal to purchase chemical/biological weapons? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we make it illegal to purchase knives?

This is the logical fallacy known as appealing to the extremes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knives have many uses. Assault rifles have two. To kill a lot of people and entertainment and I guess maybe if you're John Wick and have hundreds of assassin's trying to kill you, self defense. Also, if you recall I said like 3 posts ago that I don't support banning assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His point still stands. When you say why cant we have tanks you're going to an extreme to illustrate a middle of the road point. Assault weapons, still not a thing, are slightly more dangerous than handguns, a lot more dangerous than bolt actions, and a lot less dangerous than pipe bombs or bazookas. 

That is the equivalent of me saying well cars kill more than people than guns let's ban them. Or force everyone to take public transportation and ban everything that isnt a hybrid to lower our carbon footprint. 

A bus can do the same thing as a car, why do we need them. Its lazy and a bad and meaningless place to start an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point I was trying to make was that there are some things that we have to make laws against people owning or restrict ownership of certain things. JD was saying it's not the government's role to tell you how to live but that just simply isn't true. Maybe we should do away with drivers licenses and do away with traffic laws. Who the fuck is the government to tell me I can't drive just because I have narcolepsy? 

Again, I wouldn't ban assault rifles. I have already said what I would do. I actually agree with much of what you and JD say. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Omerta said:

Yes it is a right. And you can own all of those things. Permit required of course.

So why can't we have a permit specifically for assault weapons then?

I find myself so completely unable to understand how the right can argue for owning assault weapons as being a right, and yet healthcare is not. Honestly here, not trying to belittle the belief, I just cannot wrap my head around how someone can believe it. Most of the time, I like to at least be able to think how the other side can possibly be viewing a thing a certain way. Abortion, for example, I understand both sides. But I cannot get my head around how people can be so pro-gun and so anti-healthcare for all. 

Let me try to at least get there.

Can you try to explain why you think owning assault weapons is a right? And do you think its a moral right, or just one that we have because of the second amendment?

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 6:13 PM, DalaiLama4Ever said:

As was discussed in this thread earlier, many of these shooters suffered severe trauma as children. Please tell me about all of the poor life decisions a 5 year old makes that A) puts them in the traumatizing experience to begin with and B) leads them on the path to mass murder. 

A shooter being mentally ill doesn't mean anyone who is mentally ill is a shooter. I think you're the only one falling into that logical fallacy. 

What's lazy is ignoring all of the factors that make us uniquely human. Neither one of us may ever resort to a mass shooting, but that doesn't mean we react to our surroundings and different situations identically or even similarly. How we react is a combination of genetics and life experiences -- each combination being unique to the individual in question. Sometimes those combinations have the potential for lethal results; especially if we begin mixing in prescriptions. 

The discussion, and perhaps your concern, shouldn't end with a labeling of "this person is mentally ill". The discussion needs to evolve into realizing this, and looking for patterns throughout a persons life that makes them more likely to fall into one of those lethal combinations I mentioned above. Then... then we help people. Help people better understand their situations... their traumas... and help them better deal with life in the aftermath of that trauma. And in turn prepare them to make those better choices that you were talking about. Often times though, they don't have the tools or opportunity to do so -- and that needs to change. 
 

 

I understand your point but childhood trauma is so common. More common than people realize. I personally think we need to intercept these individuals when they're developing as awkward, socially inept, bitter, angry adolescents and teenagers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

So why can't we have a permit specifically for assault weapons then?

I find myself so completely unable to understand how the right can argue for owning assault weapons as being a right, and yet healthcare is not. Honestly here, not trying to belittle the belief, I just cannot wrap my head around how someone can believe it. Most of the time, I like to at least be able to think how the other side can possibly be viewing a thing a certain way. Abortion, for example, I understand both sides. But I cannot get my head around how people can be so pro-gun and so anti-healthcare for all. 

Let me try to at least get there.

Can you try to explain why you think owning assault weapons is a right? And do you think its a moral right, or just one that we have because of the second amendment?

 

So this is just me, I wont speak for anyone else here or anywhere else.  And my response will be for America only, as other country's aren"t my business. 

So the reason people say it is a right and healthcare is not is fairly simple in my opinion. It is in the "Bill of RIGHTS." I didnt capitalize it to be a dick, but those first 10 are guaranteed to every American citizen in this country thanks to the following amendment where we figured out black people and women are not inferior people.  I capitalized it because it is a lot easier to call it a right than it is to say," It is a right afforded to me by the constitution of The United States." So people just call it a right. And not just guns but, speech, rights for court and so on.  There is nothing in the Bill of Rights explicitly stating that healthcare is guaranteed to all citizens or we would have it. 

I also think that people who dont support medicare for all get lumped into "anti-healthcare." Call it psychopathy or whatever you want but I care very little of others. So the appeal to me better nature with," What about your fellow man?" does not work for me. The benefit to that is that I am also not for holding others back because I think they deserve what they get or whatever the narrative is. Here is what I do know, Medicare sucks. This is well documented, so why do you think I would want to put my family on that shit ? That is nuts. I laid out what I would do for healthcare and it had nothing to do with universal healthcare, raising taxes, or disbanding private insurance. If this country can come up with a way that isnt some dumbed down marxist drivel of," lets take all the things from the bourgeoisie and give it all back to the proletariat" nonsense. I am all for people having healthcare, but it is not going to come at the expense of me or my family. I am not going to be satisfied with some horseshit medicare for all. 

I also think that almost all of us really dont think about human rights. If we are talking about rights as they pertain to humans as a whole, how many people really think about that? I mean most people only think of rights that pertain to them or a group they care about. This conversation for example. Why cant it be a right to have guns and healthcare? Why does one group want to take the rights to abortion, and the abortion group wants to take guns? The truth is we care very little about the rights of others just so long as those we value are preserved. We dont ever stop to think about humanity as a whole, and what rights should be guaranteed to use as human beings ? We only see what is right in front of us. 

So I am not really pro-gun anti-healthcare, but I am not some rube who is going to jump on the liberal bandwagon with some cheap appeal to my empathy with a shit plan and a whole lot of propaganda. Not going to happen. I dont think immigrants are going to steal my job, and I dont think it is my job to take care of someone else. 

A far as why do I believe it is our rights to have guns. Well first and foremost I dont believe we all should. I believe people like me should. What I mean by that is this. I have no domestic violence charges, I have no felonies, no mental illness, extensive training on using the weapon, and have no criminal history other than a DUI in 2009 and a parking ticket for parking in a bank parking lot 4 years ago. I am no danger to anyone who is not posing a threat to me and my family so I should not be penalized for the action of a few people. I also think that this "Mass shooting Problem" is extremely disproportionate to the actual problem. Seriously less than 500 people a year is such a small percentage that I think we should be dedicating a bit more outrage to things that kill more people like Diarrhea, measles, nutritional deficiencies, drowning, falls, fires, and syphilis. 

As fr as if guns are a moral right or a constitutional one, I think that it is both.  I think it is a moral right because I dont have anymore right to take something from you than you do from me if I have harmed nobody. Abortion kills 500,000 viable fetus's a year, and it is never a mans right to have a say in anything woman. Why do people who dont own guns get to mandate something that kills less that 10,000? Why do we have to worry about taking anyone's rights. Why dont people agree to leave each other alone? i have shot nobody or done anything violent or shown signs of slipping into the abyss why does someone get to take something that brings joy to someone. It just doesn't make sense to me that people get to tell people what they can and cant have if they are not hurting anyone. You also cant attribute to me something that my gun has not decided to do. 

The Constitution is pretty damn clear on this. "Shall not be infringed" kind of says all that needs to be said and their are no specific restrictions on it. Now as to what you said earlier there is a distinction between AR's and ICBM's. In the military we have something called discriminatory fire. Or target discrimination.  A bomb is an indiscriminate killer. An AR is fired with intent of specificity on a particular person. meaning that person has to look at that person and kill them. A bomb has way more potential for destruction, and it is an indiscriminate killer. That is a massive difference imo. 

This was longer than I intended but this is about as thorough as I can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

 

I understand your point but childhood trauma is so common. More common than people realize. I personally think we need to intercept these individuals when they're developing as awkward, socially inept, bitter, angry adolescents and teenagers. 

Even when it comes to trauma, we all have different ways of coping (or not). Every situation (person) is completely 100% unique. 

Stabilizing the American family is a big part of fixing that. And for those instances that we can’t prevent, we have to get better at identifying the troubling patterns and get people help. 

So I think we agree there. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Even when it comes to trauma, we all have different ways of coping (or not). Every situation (person) is completely 100% unique. 

Stabilizing the American family is a big part of fixing that. And for those instances that we can’t prevent, we have to get better at identifying the troubling patterns and get people help. 

So I think we agree there. 

If you want to stabilize the American family, give people healthcare and a living wage. If you're feeling suicidal you should be able to just walk in and talk to a doctor. Stuff like that would go a long way to preventing mass shootings. By all accounts you seem opposed to this. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, seanbrock said:

If you want to stabilize the American family, give people healthcare and a living wage. If you're feeling suicidal you should be able to just walk in and talk to a doctor. Stuff like that would go a long way to preventing mass shootings. By all accounts you seem opposed to this. 

Healthcare is cool by me, just don't let Bernie or Lizzy do it. Their plan is no plan. If, after the discussions we've had about healthcare, you think I am anti-healthcare or whatever label you want to assign me -- you're not paying much attention. 

Livable wage... I agree, but I assume my solution is different than yours. Just raising the minimum wage  isn't the answer. I am against that. Bernie Sanders pays his staff a 15$ minimum wage... but when he started that policy he had to cut their hours. What good does that do and if you can't make it work in the small scale like that.. how the hell do we expect all these small businesses to make it work? 

I prefer Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend. Very socialistic and not a policy I'd typically support. But it's a better solution to this problem than I have heard from any of the more than 20 Democrats running for President. And he actually lays out how he is going to pay for it -- which is a big plus. 

EDIT: Even though I don't support the 15$ minimum wage, Ron Paul always fought for giving tipped employees a bump to the minimum wage which I've always supported. Working as a server for YEARS making $4.35 an hour is ludicrous unless you're at some fancy steakhouse or upscale foodie district in LA or NY or whatever.

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Omerta said:

 

So this is just me, I wont speak for anyone else here or anywhere else.  And my response will be for America only, as other country's aren"t my business. 

So the reason people say it is a right and healthcare is not is fairly simple in my opinion. It is in the "Bill of RIGHTS." I didnt capitalize it to be a dick, but those first 10 are guaranteed to every American citizen in this country thanks to the following amendment where we figured out black people and women are not inferior people.  I capitalized it because it is a lot easier to call it a right than it is to say," It is a right afforded to me by the constitution of The United States." So people just call it a right. And not just guns but, speech, rights for court and so on.  There is nothing in the Bill of Rights explicitly stating that healthcare is guaranteed to all citizens or we would have it. 

I also think that people who dont support medicare for all get lumped into "anti-healthcare." Call it psychopathy or whatever you want but I care very little of others. So the appeal to me better nature with," What about your fellow man?" does not work for me. The benefit to that is that I am also not for holding others back because I think they deserve what they get or whatever the narrative is. Here is what I do know, Medicare sucks. This is well documented, so why do you think I would want to put my family on that shit ? That is nuts. I laid out what I would do for healthcare and it had nothing to do with universal healthcare, raising taxes, or disbanding private insurance. If this country can come up with a way that isnt some dumbed down marxist drivel of," lets take all the things from the bourgeoisie and give it all back to the proletariat" nonsense. I am all for people having healthcare, but it is not going to come at the expense of me or my family. I am not going to be satisfied with some horseshit medicare for all. 

I also think that almost all of us really dont think about human rights. If we are talking about rights as they pertain to humans as a whole, how many people really think about that? I mean most people only think of rights that pertain to them or a group they care about. This conversation for example. Why cant it be a right to have guns and healthcare? Why does one group want to take the rights to abortion, and the abortion group wants to take guns? The truth is we care very little about the rights of others just so long as those we value are preserved. We dont ever stop to think about humanity as a whole, and what rights should be guaranteed to use as human beings ? We only see what is right in front of us. 

So I am not really pro-gun anti-healthcare, but I am not some rube who is going to jump on the liberal bandwagon with some cheap appeal to my empathy with a shit plan and a whole lot of propaganda. Not going to happen. I dont think immigrants are going to steal my job, and I dont think it is my job to take care of someone else. 

A far as why do I believe it is our rights to have guns. Well first and foremost I dont believe we all should. I believe people like me should. What I mean by that is this. I have no domestic violence charges, I have no felonies, no mental illness, extensive training on using the weapon, and have no criminal history other than a DUI in 2009 and a parking ticket for parking in a bank parking lot 4 years ago. I am no danger to anyone who is not posing a threat to me and my family so I should not be penalized for the action of a few people. I also think that this "Mass shooting Problem" is extremely disproportionate to the actual problem. Seriously less than 500 people a year is such a small percentage that I think we should be dedicating a bit more outrage to things that kill more people like Diarrhea, measles, nutritional deficiencies, drowning, falls, fires, and syphilis. 

As fr as if guns are a moral right or a constitutional one, I think that it is both.  I think it is a moral right because I dont have anymore right to take something from you than you do from me if I have harmed nobody. Abortion kills 500,000 viable fetus's a year, and it is never a mans right to have a say in anything woman. Why do people who dont own guns get to mandate something that kills less that 10,000? Why do we have to worry about taking anyone's rights. Why dont people agree to leave each other alone? i have shot nobody or done anything violent or shown signs of slipping into the abyss why does someone get to take something that brings joy to someone. It just doesn't make sense to me that people get to tell people what they can and cant have if they are not hurting anyone. You also cant attribute to me something that my gun has not decided to do. 

The Constitution is pretty damn clear on this. "Shall not be infringed" kind of says all that needs to be said and their are no specific restrictions on it. Now as to what you said earlier there is a distinction between AR's and ICBM's. In the military we have something called discriminatory fire. Or target discrimination.  A bomb is an indiscriminate killer. An AR is fired with intent of specificity on a particular person. meaning that person has to look at that person and kill them. A bomb has way more potential for destruction, and it is an indiscriminate killer. That is a massive difference imo. 

This was longer than I intended but this is about as thorough as I can get.

I appreciate the detailed response. I still don't get it, and I will lay out why. But first:

Guns kill quite a bit more than 10,000 people in the United States per year. Mass shootings, sure, they are less than 500, though the trend is growing upwards. But gun violence kills a lot of people. About 40,000 people died from gunshot wounds in the US in 2017. And again, its trending upwards, that was more than any year since 1968.

Medicare sucks is a huge generalization. There are plenty of people who would not be able to afford their medication at all except for medicare. Are there problems? Of course there are, but the issues are less with medicare and more with the ridiculous prices hospitals charge and insurances charge as a whole. (I am aware Medicare is an insurance, just saying its not solely an issue of theirs.)

So then to address the point. You are against medicare for all because you don't want it to come at you and yours expense. On what grounds, then, should I pay taxes to the city to support my fire department? My local police? Infrastructure for highways that I never use? Why should we not privatize all of that and just have people buy crime insurance, highway insurance- or tolls, everything tolls- and firefighter insurance? And if you don't have it and you're being robbed the police don't come. If you're on a road you shouldn't be, you're idk, arrested. And if your house is on fire, it just burns down and the firefighters don't come. Plenty of times those things are not your fault, (minus not being on the road, everyone has a GPS at this point). Why should I pay for someone else's misfortune of having their house on fire and needing firefighters? Why should my taxes go to paying the police when I haven't needed them?

Obviously, because society is better off that way. Just like it would be better off if people didn't have to grin and bear it if they have something wrong and hope its not too serious. Because what the GOP doesn't want people to know is that we still end up footing the bill. Someone shows up at the hospital, they aren't going to turn them away if they are dying. And many of those problems can be stopped for far less money if they are caught earlier, but people without insurance won't go until they are forced to. People are far happier in countries with some form of socialized healthcare, but in the US we're too busy diving under the covers at the mention of the word socialism to even consider what it would actually mean, and the fact that we already have socialist system that run just fine.

This even wraps all the way back around to gun control again. You guys, according to our poll, seem to think mental illness is a major factor in mass shootings. You know one of the biggest problems for people who have mental issues? They don't have insurance that will cover it, so they can't get treatment. 

The right's biggest lie is to tell the middle class that the poor person is the problem- You shouldn't have to subsidize the poor people. All the while the top 1% just keep taking more and more of the pot.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Healthcare is cool by me, just don't let Bernie or Lizzy do it. Their plan is no plan. If, after the discussions we've had about healthcare, you think I am anti-healthcare or whatever label you want to assign me -- you're not paying much attention. 

Livable wage... I agree, but I assume my solution is different than yours. Just raising the minimum wage  isn't the answer. I am against that. Bernie Sanders pays his staff a 15$ minimum wage... but when he started that policy he had to cut their hours. What good does that do and if you can't make it work in the small scale like that.. how the hell do we expect all these small businesses to make it work? 

I prefer Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend. Very socialistic and not a policy I'd typically support. But it's a better solution to this problem than I have heard from any of the more than 20 Democrats running for President. And he actually lays out how he is going to pay for it -- which is a big plus. 

Why have we not seen this when we've raised the minimum wage then? If your business cannot survive while paying their workers a livable wage, then you deserve to go under.

I agree its not $15/hr across the country. I don't need $15/hr in Kentucky and I probably need more than that in SF and NY. But a livable wage, assuming 40-hour work week? Absolutely, yes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thanatos said:

Why have we not seen this when we've raised the minimum wage then? If your business cannot survive while paying their workers a livable wage, then you deserve to go under.

I agree its not $15/hr across the country. I don't need $15/hr in Kentucky and I probably need more than that in SF and NY. But a livable wage, assuming 40-hour work week? Absolutely, yes.

I am more open to talking about having a progressive system of minimum wage... but there would have to be a lot more dialogue.

Yeah, that's the problem though. People who benefit from their salaries jumping up have their hours cut. Bernie did it in his campaign, for example. Seattle is perhaps the biggest case study we have right now. Am I going to sit here and paint the entire experiment in a negative light? No. There have been some good to come out of it. But hours are down, payrolls are down. The low-end jobs that saw the rapid increase just cut hiring.  What good does it to get that bump in salary if you can't even get your same hours? The people most impacted (negatively) were the part-timers who were workign a bunch of jobs to get by. They are the ones who got their hours cut, those are the positions that no longer were hiring... those are the people who come out of this as they were when they went in.

They aren't ahead. They aren't better off. They can't quit their 7 jobs. 

Small Business Owner: Wage Hike Comes With a Cost
[Older Study] Low-wage workers Out $125 a month after minimum wage hike
[More Recently Updated Article w/ Study Reference]

The last one, from Vox, goes more into some of the good and bad.

Yeah, even looking at the data I prefer trying the freedom dividend and seeing how that would impact the job market compared to what we are seeing in Seattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, much less progress. It should be much higher than it is, and the idea that raising it is going to cause some huge collapse of small business is just not true.

Why do you think businesses that can't afford to pay their workers a living wage should stay in business? They are just exploiting their own workers. The freedom dividend is a great measure, but we also need a higher minimum wage. 

In other news, Yang is leading the straw poll in Florida and its not even close. He's at 35%. Warren is next at 20%.

Edited by Thanatos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thanatos said:

The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, much less progress. It should be much higher than it is, and the idea that raising it is going to cause some huge collapse of small business is just not true.

Why do you think businesses that can't afford to pay their workers a living wage should stay in business? They are just exploiting their own workers. The freedom dividend is a great measure, but we also need a higher minimum wage. 

In other news, Yang is leading the straw poll in Florida and its not even close. He's at 35%. Warren is next at 20%.

I agree that there's a lot of hyperbole around the impact of minimum wage on small business. I would still contend that it's an overall negative for those businesses though. And it's not that they can't pay them... A lot of that hyperbole is that they will be forced to close or they're gonna leave the city. Most of them don't. They just... cut hours. Like cited up above. Those small businesses... Wages went up, overall payroll is DOWN. Most of them are saving money by hiring less people and cutting the hours of the part timers they already have. They are making it work. Still, i contend that the reaction as a small business is still negative. Just because they make it work doesn't mean it's a satisfactory solution (at least in my mind). 

I am FINE with states who feel like they need to go above and beyond. If in California they want to pass a $20 minimum wage because a small studio apartment can go for more than $2k a month... go for it. I am not in or near California at all. Not my business and not my place to tell them how to run their state. For the most part, anyway.

I know you said you're for the freedom dividend, so there's no argument here. But 12k a year (effectively $6 an hour doing a 40 hour / week job all year) has way more benefits across the board. I actually don't know if there is a negative other than government cost -- which Yang has planned out well enough for me to jump on board. Doesn't have the negative impact on small business, people working those part time jobs COULD ACTUALLY QUIT (if they want). Give people the freedom to pursue things they actually love and enjoy rather than having to work all the damn time.

We agree here more than we don't, I just had to get that out there.
 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stabilizing the American family stops with demonizing marriage. It starts with telling people a career is more rewarding to a family. It starts with encouraging people to accept, when young, that life has more purpose when one had a committed relationship and children. There's freedom in having a direct purpose every single day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not wrong, but what teen or young adult wants to hear that? lol How do you teach that? How do you make that message resonate? How do you ensure they actually act on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he absolutely is wrong. Children is not something we need to act like one has to have in order to have a family or a committed purpose in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

I think he absolutely is wrong. Children is not something we need to act like one has to have in order to have a family or a committed purpose in life.

 

I meant it in the sense of family and children versus career and the illusion of freedom in the single life or childless life. There's much more freedom when direct purpose is present.

The "happy" life depicted in pertual singledom is an illusion. Those people become aimless and lost.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I disagree more after the clarification. Lol.

What I’m saying. It doesn’t fulfill everyone. And it isn’t for everyone.But it is important to realize that if that’s the way you go (on purpose or otherwise) that you need to commit. There are too many broken families, too many fathers not involved (enough). 

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people it fulfills. As for fatherlessness, we need to raise our sons to be better men, and we need to raise our daughters to select better men. It has to start at the individual level or it'll never not be a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BwareDWare94 said:

 

I meant it in the sense of family and children versus career and the illusion of freedom in the single life or childless life. There's much more freedom when direct purpose is present.

The "happy" life depicted in pertual singledom is an illusion. Those people become aimless and lost.

This is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue that makes it seem like a person who can't have children, or someone who doesn't want children is somehow never going to be happy. You don't need any of that. You do need friends- relationships. But they don't have to be romantic ones and they certainly don't have to have children.

Also not sure what culture is saying the single life is this great happy life, we push the opposite a lot harder in this culture.

Edited by Thanatos
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×