4 ms·

I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time

by jraby3 29d ago

I've thought about this and while I agree with you completely, I think the reason why is not just society at large. Externally what most people see is the time suck, money suck, and frustration with teaching behavior, fixing bad behavior etc. What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me.

sneak 29d ago
You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.
- marliechiller 29d ago
  Do you have children? If no, then how can you make this assertion? If yes, what or who is filling the gap that children fill for you?
  - siren2026 28d ago
    This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it. Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
    - Forgeties79 28d ago
      You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate. Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different. Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
      - siren2026 28d ago
        Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion. We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
        the_af 28d ago
        > Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion. Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]". > But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied): > What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me. If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
    - ido 28d ago
      The feelings are definitely influences by hormones. Doesn't make them any less real.
      - siren2026 28d ago
        Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings. There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered. Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
        the_af 28d ago
        Being a parent is in large part about feelings. Also, the context of this conversation was replying to this assertion: > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings So it's about feelings, not about "rational discussion". Not a "fallacy" like you claimed, but the actual topic of discussion.
        siren2026 28d ago
        This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements. >>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
        the_af 27d ago
        I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings. Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote: > Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours. In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend: > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you. Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value. Read again the comment that prompted the above comment: > What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me. Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them. edit: > a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life The blog doesn't claim this, either.
    - the_af 28d ago
      > You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it. In the case of being a parent, yes, yo do. This is not something you can experience second-hand.
- manmal 29d ago
  There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
- Forgeties79 29d ago
  This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision. Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live. And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that. To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry. TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
  - sneak 28d ago
    Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice. Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them. You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion. If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised. People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated. Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA? PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
    - bevilp 27d ago
      Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend... Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others. And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
- Gareth321 29d ago
  I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
- Der_Einzige 29d ago
  [flagged]
  - Forgeties79 29d ago
    Wow I didn’t think that stale term was used anymore outside of boomer circles on Facebook
- siren2026 28d ago
  Agree. Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
  - jraby3 25d ago
    That can be said about any decision. You can't go back in time. So every decision is permanent. I understand that kids carry a long responsibility above just memories though.
- throwfaraway4 28d ago
  I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
- the_af 28d ago
  > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you. Peak HN comment. Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
- jraby3 23d ago
  You actually do. Getting a dog or having nephews isn't close to the same thing. It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance. You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.
seanc 29d ago
Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."
- zingar 28d ago
  I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.
holy_eggplants 28d ago
not only easy to miss but also hard to believe! how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life? or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time? it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them. the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)

by jraby3 29d ago

sneak 29d ago

You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you.

marliechiller 29d ago
Do you have children? If no, then how can you make this assertion? If yes, what or who is filling the gap that children fill for you?
- siren2026 28d ago
  This is a fallacy. You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it. Especially if we try to rationalize the choice. If you talk about "feelings", then fine. But be aware that "feelings" could simply be your hormone levels changing after having kids.
  - Forgeties79 28d ago
    You don’t need to be a parent to be allowed to comment on or speculate about being a parent, but this is definitely one of those things you can’t guess at or estimate. Until it is your kid in front of you you can’t know what you’ll feel as a parent. Maybe it’s all hormones and monkey brain, but that doesn’t make it any different. Many people do not have that Hollywood Magic moment where “everything changed.” Some of my friends experienced this, some of them did not. None of us experienced what we thought we would.
    - siren2026 28d ago
      Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion. We are talking past each other because some/most parents in those discussion cannot get out of their self-centered view of the worlds based on "feelings". But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world, you should be able to substantiate that claim without going back to "feelings" that only you can feel.
      - the_af 28d ago
        > Again, feeling should not matter that much in this discussion. Yes, they should. We are, after all, replying to the initial assertion that (and I quote) "you don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings [love, being needed, needing someone]". > But if you make a claim that having a kid is the most important thing in the world That wasn't a claim anybody made in this thread, and specifically everyone was talking from a personal perspective about parenthood, not making universal claims. Certainly not the person who wrote this (and to whom you indirectly replied): > What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me. If you don't like talking about feelings, fine. But this discussion was about feelings, not about some universal "most important thing in the world".
  - ido 28d ago
    The feelings are definitely influences by hormones. Doesn't make them any less real.
    - siren2026 28d ago
      Sure. But if you want a rationale discussion about what matters in life as this blog post and parent commenter suggest you probably don't want to get influenced by feelings. There is a ton of philosophy written around this. Feelings are a very self-centric view of the world. The goal of rationalization is to take a wider systemic view without being self-centered. Because if you push feelings and chemistry to the max you could also make an argument that taking meth and heroin is the most important thing in the world, as the feelings coming out of it are very real.
      - the_af 28d ago
        Being a parent is in large part about feelings. Also, the context of this conversation was replying to this assertion: > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings So it's about feelings, not about "rational discussion". Not a "fallacy" like you claimed, but the actual topic of discussion.
        siren2026 28d ago
        This discussion is many level deeps based on a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life. And other grand similar statements. >>> Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life.
        the_af 27d ago
        I don't think so. You specifically replied to a comment by calling it a "fallacy", when it was discussing feelings of parenthood. That's very specific and cannot be excused as arguing it was addressing the broader context of TFA. And the whole sub-thread was about feelings. Also, nobody here -- the people you're debating with, I mean -- is arguing that having kids is universally the most meaningful thing anyone can do with their life; they are instead offering their personal perspectives. For example, in the sentence you quote: > Raising kids is probably the most meaningful and significant thing I have done with my life The operating words are "I have done with my life"; it's not telling you what you should do with yours. In fact, the whole debate in this sub-thread was sparked by a very aggressive comment (not yours), but which you chose to implicitly defend: > You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you. Well, whether the person saying the above has or doesn't have children is entirely relevant. It's not a "fallacy". We're discussing feelings, even the above comment acknowledges it; and in relation to parenthood the fact remains: these feelings must be experienced, you cannot truly comment on them otherwise. I mean, you can, but your opinion wouldn't be of much value. Read again the comment that prompted the above comment: > What's so easy to miss is the immense feeling of love, of being needed, of being loved, that words can't describe. I frequently tell people I feel like the grinch after he discovers Xmas - my heart is three times bigger. But you can't really see that it's just a feeling I carry with me. Really, it's all about subjective feelings. Which, essentially, is all that matters in the context of this conversation. If you don't have children, you won't have felt like this. You simply cannot. So it's not a fallacy to ask if you have them. edit: > a blog post that claims having kids is the most meaningful thing you can do with your life The blog doesn't claim this, either.
  - the_af 28d ago
    > You don't need to live a situation to be able to comment about it. In the case of being a parent, yes, yo do. This is not something you can experience second-hand.
manmal 29d ago
There‘s a lot of ancient biology at play in raising kids. You won’t get exactly this kind of feeling elsewhere. Doesn’t mean it has to be your kids though. You just need to be an important part of their life.
Forgeties79 29d ago
This is a very snarky, flippant, uninformed take that serves no purpose other than to tear others down in an effort to validate your decision. Have kids or don’t, live your life the way you want. But taking unsolicited dumps on other people’s decisions is a pretty lame way to live. And yes, you do have to have kids in order to understand what it feels like to have kids. You do not know what it’s like, as evidenced by your thinking having kids entitles a parent to their love. Let me tell you clearly and unequivocally: it does not. Love is earned. A family is a big lesson in that. To use a less charged example: I can’t claim to know what strawberries taste like if I never try a strawberry. TL;DR: I understand anti-natalism is in vogue right now, but some of y’all are really shitty about it.
- sneak 28d ago
  Other people’s choices have externalities that harm society. I don’t need validation for not doing something that benefits no one and harms everyone. It’s already obvious that abstaining from this selfish and self-indulgent activity is the only intelligent choice. Furthermore I don’t need to shoot heroin to know that shooting heroin feels extremely good and that the people that do it really enjoy the feeling. I also don’t need to shoot heroin to see the harms it causes to the people that do it, and those around them. You are trying to make a logical argument for the observed preferences of an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA. It’s a shame that so many people are blinded to that by instinct and emotion. If I were developing nanotech grey goo in my basement, everyone would rightly point out that it’s a risk to society. Yet, humans doing the exact same thing (just more slowly) are praised. People get unreasonably defensive when confronted with these facts, as you have demonstrated. Can you name one thing that benefits from people creating more selfish and self-replicating creatures other than the emotional state of people who share some of their DNA? PS: No mother “earns” the love of a one or two year old. It’s automatic and meritless. To assert otherwise to bolster your argument is obviously silly and should clue you in to how shaky the logical foundation for your claims is.
  - bevilp 27d ago
    Forgeties79 is talking about understanding parenthood at the experiential level. You can read as much as you want about how heroin makes people feel extremely good, you will never understand at the experiential level how it actually feels until you use it yourself. Not that I recommend... Also you seem to be saying that not having children is the "only intelligent choice". Intelligent for what? Then you state that we are "an evolved system that only evolved to perpetuate itself, not to benefit anyone or anything outside of a sequence of DNA." while in the same breath excluding yourself from being said system, calling yourself logical and calling your preference superior to others. And "harms everyone" assumes the damages of the life you create outweigh the goods. That's your value judgment, not a measurement, and plenty of the people actually created have thought it through and disagree... As for one benefit? Existing people benefit, including you. Everything keeping you alive was built by people who had to be born.
Gareth321 29d ago
I think it could be possible to replicate this without children, but it is extremely uncommon. Ask any parent if they could accomplish the same before they had kids. I have never met a parent yet who thinks it's possible.
Der_Einzige 29d ago
[flagged]
- Forgeties79 29d ago
  Wow I didn’t think that stale term was used anymore outside of boomer circles on Facebook
siren2026 28d ago
Agree. Remember that once you have kids you are stuck in that situation forever. There is a lot of coping and trying to persuade yourself that this is the best thing in the world. It might as well be as there is no escape anyways!
- jraby3 25d ago
  That can be said about any decision. You can't go back in time. So every decision is permanent. I understand that kids carry a long responsibility above just memories though.
throwfaraway4 28d ago
I can honestly say, I think there was a chemical change in my brain or a biological equivalent when my kids were born. That is to say, something more primal than the "love" you can get from a spouse/SO; you feel it in your bones, deep down, always on and changed forever.
the_af 28d ago
> You don’t need children to have these sorts of feelings, unless you can only get them from some small people who don’t have any choice but to love you. Peak HN comment. Technically you don't "need" anything in life besides food and shelter. You don't need to have children, or loved ones, or friends, or ambitions, or projects, or goals... but life is very sad if you miss all of them.
jraby3 23d ago
You actually do. Getting a dog or having nephews isn't close to the same thing. It's kind of like balance. You can read all about balance in a book and watch YouTube videos but until you get on a bicycle and experience it you'll never really "get" balance. You can't imagine until you experience it. It's as simple as that.

seanc 29d ago

Agree 100%. I often tell expecting parents "All the hard stuff they tell you about; the sleep loss, the stress, the cost... All that stuff is true. But there's also all this amazing stuff they don't tell you about, which is also true."

zingar 28d ago
I think that people probably tried to tell me about the amazing stuff, but I couldn't take it in. This created a very pleasant surprise for me when I found out about the good feels after the dread of just expecting everything I know to be upended with no reward.

holy_eggplants 28d ago

not only easy to miss but also hard to believe! how do i explain that my child running into my arms after his first day of daycare is a high ill be chasing for the rest of my life? or the irrational pride when you see your kid flip over for the first time? it's so many mundane moments that punch 100000x above their weight when its your kid having them. the good parts of parenting sound like fake news (unless youre talking to other parents)