Aromantic Asexuals

A community for aromantic asexuals to connect and discuss, in whatever depth, aromanticism.
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Why aren't people allowed to question romance?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Almagest

avatar

Posts : 35
Join date : 2010-08-16
Age : 26
Location : Boulder, CO

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:09 am

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
Yulia wrote:
I completely agree here! So, we can guess that kids of those who don't care about their education make up the growing majority.
Whoa, what? That's not what I'm saying at all. I just think people who have unprotected sex have more kids nowadays. I said nothing about education.
I meant, when a person doesn't care to protect sex (I surely didn't mean "ONCE in his life"; no, systematically), he/she usually doesn't care about more serious things (like kids' education, giving up bad habits etc.) either. I didn't mean highly educated people of ultra-religious or some other non-typical views (we can't say they DON'T CARE, it's their choice! besides, such cases are relatively rare, at least in Russia and Europe - don't know how it is in the USA). Of course there are exceptions. A murderer can turn into a saint, and a couple of drunkards/drug addicts with 10 kids, stop drinking/taking drugs and bring up their last son (produced after years of abstinence) so that he becomes a great scientist. Such exceptions are not taken into account by statistics.
You cut out my sentences that followed "nothing about education" and once again, missed my point.

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:

All you need is one smart person to manipulate the uneducated masses.
And how would you manipulate MASSES when the last computers and other devices, say, phones were broken years ago, and the last persons able to repair something died even earlier, having no followers? Rulers of ancient times didn't manipulate such huge masses as there exist now, and as will exist - thanks to those who don't care. Smile (Or - okay, let's imagine there remained people able to repair something, but they all emigrated to a more successful, at that historical moment, country. History is changeable. And you cannot join them, they managed to do it when planes didn't crash so often. Crying or Very sad )
Why in the world are you jumping to a post-apocalypse scenario?

Yulia wrote:
Almagest wrote:
I'll be dead. Nothing you say will change this fact: I. Don't. Care.
About having somebody continuing and replacing you, I can agree. To care or not, it is up to you. But as for the anti-utopia I've depicted... an average life length is growing (are you sure you won't reach the age of 150, e.g.?), and young people of nowadays may see it with their own eyes when they are old. Perhaps a bit milder, at first.
Once again, I don't care. And I doubt I ever will care. Stop trying to convince me that I might. Your efforts are futile.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Admin
Admin
avatar

Posts : 22
Join date : 2010-08-16
Location : UK

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:00 am

[quote="Yulia"In Russia, a teacher in a state school has no right to teach a class with a number of pupils less than a standard one (I am not a school teacher, so I don't know the today's number exactly, but a few years ago it was 25 for a city class - the standard number of pupils is different for cities and the countryside). So, when there is lack of pupils, some teachers are fired, and some underpaid, and classes remain big. Schools with smaller classes are closed, and kids are brought to other schools. It seems to me, there used to be the same thing about kindergarten groups. Absurdity, of course.

But even if a school teacher had a right to teach 3 pupils per hour, this would be no reason for her/him to feel quite happy. These 3 pupils born instead of 25-30 will "cope" with all the work needed by the community (when they grow up, of course, and when their parents stop working and HOPE to have a pension) just as "well" as a polluted sea is as "good" for swimming and fishing as a clean one. That was my point when I compared this to the problem of ecology.[/quote]
That's really a problem with the society, as that could easily be changed. Having such large classes isn't very useful for the children, as they can easily get overlooked by overworked teachers - though that depends on whether or not they have teaching assistants.

Quote :
Admin wrote:
Not having a romantic relationship out of choice isn't harmful.
When one lives near a big big sea and pollutes it just a little, knowing nothing about lots of his/her accomplices, one can also think it is not harmful. I mean, the harm of such things can be noticed only when they're taken in a huge heap. But my words relate to the choice of not having kids, not to the question whether to have a romantic relationship before having a kid or not.
How is not having a relationship similar to pollution? Automatically meaning living without romance is dangerous to others...

In regards to the "not having children = pollution" - what? I don't even understand that logic. The effort of raising a child could go to improve the current children - the ones we can't stop from existing. Instead of raising my own children I could help improve the lives of my nieces and nephews. I can't stop my siblings' decisions on those but I can help improve their lives and make them better people. Having five people of 80% good is better than having seven of 50% good.
I realise I can't explain it with Maths but it gets across what I'm trying to say. It's like films. Each film is a child, it is so much better to have less films of great quality than it is to have lots of film of bad quality.

I'm an adoption>biological children person-- seems like a logical option to me, especially if one has genetic difficulties that would in no way help a person in life. Still want kids but can't? There's a kid that wants a family. Win-win situation. Have a biological kid: one less child gets adopted, blahblahblah.

Quote :
Admin wrote:
Personally I can't think of any logical reason to have children. That's simply me though.

I believe that's quite all right till a certain age. Oh... Embarassed sorry if it sounds offensive...
I would like you to expand on this because I don't see how this is bad. I know plenty of childless elderly people and there's nothing relating to children that makes their lives notably different from elderly people with children.

Quote :
Don't you think it, to put it mildly, weird for humankind, and for yourself personally, to choose between changing a lifestyle and having a kid? For me it is like a dilemma, "Shall I put aside this candy/computer game etc., or will it be better to cut off my finger (or, rather, part of my brain)?" Not a matter of reasonable choice.
I have absolutely no idea how cutting off a body part is similar to not having a child. If anything it's the other thing around. Having child means lots of responsibility, thousands of pounds will be spend raising this child, schooling, hospital bills (we don't have those here but for the argument in other nations), the physical difficulty of having a child- the effort the woman has to go through. IF you want a child, then fine, enjoy, but if you have absolutely no desire to have a child then all of these is like chopping off a hand and you don't get to save any money on gloves.
I still... in no way see how not having a child is like making yourself physically disabled- it doesn't make your life more difficult to live than a person with a child. Surely... parents have to go into a lot of effort to get time to themselves, babysitters, have to see if they can take their children on holidays, organise around school times and they have to go out of their way to do things just for the child. Without a child you can concentrate on yourself, which isn't a bad thing. It isn't like I'm going to use that money on immoral things, I just simply want to have more entertainment money which would go to feeding a child I don't want.

Yulia wrote:
But of course I've got your point. To sum up my answer, having no kids is a civilized sort of suicide, no matter what reasons for suicide can be thought up. It's just my opinion, of course, and let's agree to differ about this idea.
Instead of raising numbers, why not concentrate on "improving" children that are already here. Less chances of "monsters" for two reasons: a) not having your own children and b) stopping current children from being "monsters".
Let's say I go out and have a kid and they end up being a regular person - there's still a "monster" out there I could have helped instead. Having one good person is better than having one good person and one "monster".

Almagest wrote:

All you need is one smart person to manipulate the uneducated masses.
And how would you manipulate MASSES when the last computers and other devices, say, phones were broken years ago, and the last persons able to repair something died even earlier, having no followers? [/quote]
Dictators of old have managed this with ease. Simply mimic their actions and there we go.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aromantics.forum-motion.net
Yulia



Posts : 16
Join date : 2011-09-12

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:29 pm

Admin wrote:
That's really a problem with the society, as that could easily be changed. Having such large classes isn't very useful for the children, as they can easily get overlooked by overworked teachers - though that depends on whether or not they have teaching assistants.

It's just what I think, but it is not so easy to change... it doesn't depend on me...

Admin wrote:
In regards to the "not having children = pollution" - what? I don't even understand that logic. The effort of raising a child could go to improve the current children - the ones we can't stop from existing. Instead of raising my own children I could help improve the lives of my nieces and nephews. I can't stop my siblings' decisions on those but I can help improve their lives and make them better people. Having five people of 80% good is better than having seven of 50% good..
Admin wrote:
Instead of raising numbers, why not concentrate on "improving" children that are already here. ... Having one good person is better than having one good person and one "monster".
If you (and some other asexuals) prefer improving children born by someone else, it is just as nice as having your own ones. But... it seems to me, much more people who have no kids just don't deal with kids at all, they don't care about those who is going to work (for them, too) some decades later, and it is this fact that can be compared to pollution (though small and not so dangerous now).

And here are some reasons for having one's own children. 1) One can adopt someone else's kids, it looks so very touching, but when it happens too often, it is like giving money to drunkards. It provokes more young mothers - not so poor, just wanting to continue 'living for themselves' - to leave their babies. Why not, if somebody needs them? They will think of themselves as of savers of human race. queen queen I think it more normal, more natural, when people help raise nephews and nieces, and grandchildren, or even their close friends' children, without taking them from their parents! For that, somebody should have familes, though. 2) When a family are going to have their own child, they can plan such things as no overworking, no strong drinks, no serious ilnesses (why not cure everything possible first?) etc. during the pregnancy. And the suitable age for pregnancies, in some way. I say 'they, a family', because only a woman is often not enough for that. After that less money is required (it's about your reasonable idea that children must be paid for) for a dozen healthy kids than for a quality medical treatment for a drug addict's offspring... or even for a newborn child of a very very good lady aged 55 who used to meet only practising asexuals before Sad . Besides, when your own ones are healthy you have time to work more and can donate money to others if you wish. Let it be Maths. I speak just about money and the number of people now. And happiness added (or not added) to this world means more! Well, if one can spend effort and money and make an already existing chlld at least half so happy as his own one could be, he/she is still to be praised.

3) Suppose we could make an adopted child with a serious disease really happy. Perhaps we even understand what happiness means for people with some mental diseases. But this is the case when the existence of 1+1 is better than only one.

Yulia wrote:

And how would you manipulate MASSES when the last computers and other devices, say, phones were broken years ago, and the last persons able to repair something died even earlier, having no followers?
Dictators of old have managed this with ease. Simply mimic their actions and there we go.[/quote]
I'll have to repeat. Rulers of ancient times didn't manipulate such huge masses as there exist now, and as will exist at first even if the technical regress comes. I dislike the idea of massacring and starving millions for the remaining hundreds of thousands to be submissive.

Sorry, I have more to say, but no more time is left. I'll explain what I said about the age later.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
trewdys



Posts : 1
Join date : 2012-04-18

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:20 am

I think everyone here should give vhemt.org a good read. It's long, I know, but it covers lots of arguments and counterarguments about this topic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
aceOfcakes



Posts : 2
Join date : 2012-04-22

PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:36 am

Yes, I can be seen as a party pooper, if I start being dismissive about love/relationships concerning myself. Many people have told me 'where I am going wrong!' Well, wrong in their world, is right in mine!!!! Smile
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Why aren't people allowed to question romance?   

Back to top Go down
 
Why aren't people allowed to question romance?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» People who donated to the March/April fund raiser for Urth
» this funny Indian people
» Question About Gladiator beasts.
» Hey, people! Here I am! Vanesa, from Argentina!
» Dark Fusion / Mirror Force question

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Aromantic Asexuals :: Community :: Aromantic Discussions-
Jump to: