[The Wire]

(02-14-2015 02:16 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 12:31 PM)The Wire Wrote:  

Here's a basic question. Let's take good old Leonardo DiCaprio. How would having say 16 children have any benefit towards Leonardo DiCaprio's lifestyle? No matter how much he neglected them at some level fathering 16 children would be a distraction to him.

To what end is ones lifestyle? As far as biology is concerned, if you don't have kids, you just made a load of noise and commotion and then died.

As far as biology is concerned you should attempt to get every women you have sex with pregnant. We are all smarter than to listen to our biology because we know the consequences of such actions in the western civilized world.

The winners in life also know this even if they can afford to have 30 kids. They know shooting their load into loads of different women isn't the road to immortality and will make their quality of life worse. Making the assumption DiCaprio will never have children is silly since he just turned 40. Brad Pitt had his first child at 43. I'm sure if it's a goal of DiCaprio to have children then there is a woman on this planet will gladly volunteer for it.

[Beyond Borders]

(02-14-2015 01:02 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-14-2015 09:03 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

...

I can only assume that you did not grow up in a low-income household if you really think the average poor family sees an unexpected pregnancy as an economic benefit and makes a rational decision to breed in order to up their income. It's far from the case, I assure you, and in most low-income homes I spent time in growing up, there's little going on in the way of rational decision-making to begin with.
...

Note: I'm talking American culture. If you're talking about England, that could explain some major differences.

What you describe is the typical Christian puritan viewpoint that you find in the US. Also welfare does not pay nearly enough to survive in a decent way in the US. I would estimate that Americans hardly ever have children out of some net-gain calculations.

I didn't read your entire post because I'm not entirely sure you addressed the right post or read mine correctly. I didn't say that welfare was enough to survive on or that low-income Americans were having children as a calculated move. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Did we lose each other here?

I'm also not sure which part of my post you're referring to when you said I was describing a typical Christian puritan viewpoint.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(02-14-2015 07:38 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

I didn't read your entire post because I'm not entirely sure you addressed the right post or read mine correctly. I didn't say that welfare was enough to survive on or that low-income Americans were having children as a calculated move. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Did we lose each other here?

I'm also not sure which part of my post you're referring to when you said I was describing a typical Christian puritan viewpoint.

No - I read it correctly - it's not calculations in the US at least. Correct.

The puritan viewpoint permeates US culture - ask a Frenchman, any Eastern European man or the average European immigrant whether he feels ashamed for cashing in government welfare. They don't - they give a shit about milking the State. Part of it is certainly justified, since the government generally gives a shit about you.

You described your mother trying to get off welfare despite still being able to apply for some aid. That is what I meant by the old-style self-sufficient protestant Christian work-ethic, which permeates the American culture. It does not mean that you have to be Christian or a believer. Atheists have that too in the US.

Such sentiments would be completely alien in France. Religion and religious sects leave an imprint in the social psyche even if most people have stopped following the path outwardly.