arkey

So the best you can hope for, if mass control is what you want, is the combination of comfortably and leisurely uneducated people, isn't it?

I agree with this and that's why I think social media, mass media and so on exist.

However I'm curious as to why you attribute or limit this to 'conservatives' only. Is this really something exclusive or characteristic of the conservative side? At least where I am from it's the left that's more interventionist in regards to education rather than the right, that interventionism being used to make education more rigid and controlled by a biased government.

And the media is definitely not consolidated, you've got clearly two sides competing at a pretty equal level.

I concede you're partially right, and I was later regretting my tone, until I re-read a few of the comments and answers. Still, I actually agree with the content of what you're saying, although maybe not the intention or the conclusions.

My tone is, after all, pushback, precisely because we didn't start from a middle ground to begin with (parent's comment). I am pushing in a direction. You might disagree with it, and that's fine.

> differentiating between what 99.9% of scientists are saying, and what political/industry goons are saying

Even if what scientists say can be inaccurate, as has happened throughout history, the point is rather that I question what politicians or the industry says, based on Science, because while the science might be correct, the message is easily corrupted.

Again, I find it very small-minded to imply that I'm a denier because I advocate for questioning what we are told. Furthermore, you are putting words on my mouth which make no sense at all.

People should understand there can be healthy middle grounds, which Parent obviously struggles with.

I don't deny anthropogenic climate change, on the contrary, I'm believe it's real and there's evidence for it.

I am, however, sceptical of how it's being presented and used.

Please understand the "as is presented to us".

I'm not denying climate change as a whole or in absolute, I just want to point out that there's enough evidence to think that the world as we know it won't actually end in 2012 as some studies indicate.

Don't you think this could quickly devolve into legitimising suicide as something normal and valid, as opposed to something that should be avoided, through proper care, support and help?

Hang on in there mate. If not now, eventually they will be grateful.

I was that kid (I mean one with boundaries set, with parents that acted against all of this, just to be clear) and now a father, with my second kid on her way. Still very young, so I can't claim to have much experience. But I am getting ready to stand against all of this, and I do intend to delay their exposure to social networks, mass information, etc. as much as possible.

At least until their character is formed and they have developed essential human traits like being able to read a book, being able to be patient, being able to communicate in person, and to hand-write. You know, that sort of ancient wisdom.

Edit for clarification.

No, they can do quite a lot, it's just VERY hard, for both the parents and the kids.

But if properly done, it can work. I was/have been the kid in this scenario, and now I'm being the parent and bracing for it.

Social pressure might be a tidal wave, you can either give up, or you can try to stand against it.

Because "medical services" is an euphemism for killing, in this case.

You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early.

And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.

Right, so the answer to my question apparently is yes.

Also, I'd like to constructively challenge the idea of "enabling" something that someone is free to do. You're free to kill yourself, yes, nothing anyone can do about it. But is it good to help enabling it?

If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice.

I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.

If that's your position, there's no use in us arguing.

I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".

My general experience received from doctors in my adult life has been, in summary, "Go take some Ibuprofen and stop bothering me".

And because of some other, more complex cases close to me, I will NEVER trust a doctor's "Nothing else can be done". Too many times it has been proven wrong.

So I can't understand someone killing themselves based on any doctor's criteria.

So we should go about enabling the "better" committing of wrong acts?

A killer set on killing will kill anyway, so maybe we could pair them up and have both happy?

The "they will do it anyway" argument is as absurd as it is dangerous.

Heh, it's not like it backfired in the past at all, is it?

> This strongly suggests that sharing genes with a deadbeat dad is worse for you than not being raised by a father.

I find that the implications of this being true are very troubling.

Maybe you could attribute the outcomes to the difference between your father abandoning you vs. your father unfortunately passing away? I'm sure both cases would have different effects on a person.

I have the hope that someone with a deadbeat dad being adopted by a caring family will have a better prospect than someone thrown into the system.

Apologies, I probably misunderstood your comment and I'm sorry if you missed out on something you hoped for.

I agree, today's society in many places can make it very hard for young people to start a family.

If you, like me, only go to Amazon when you've already decided to buy a certain thing, then you probably just stay with the "will arrive tomorrow" part.

However the countdown could add some pressure if you're still deciding on buying something or not, in the form of "now or never FOMO".

Independence is cool and all that, but I'd rather go with the teamwork of marriage and family.

Power over their own lives... well, I'd say both men and women give it up in marriage, at least in a functioning, idealistic one.

If you want absolute power over your own life, and your goal in life is financial independence, that's okay, but maybe marriage and family is not for you.

No, I agree with you, maybe I was wrong in assuming parent meant it in a more generalistic way.

But then again, the points you bring up, I'd argue it's quite difficult to figure all that out before having a kid. Everything I said I meant as having in common some general guidelines and a direction, not every specific detail.

Having a shared, defined direction will also help you in settling all the "smaller" disagreements, but I guess my reaction comes from seeing many couples that don't have that general direction figured out yet, i.e. getting married and suddenly husband finds out wife is not that keen about having kids.

> The notion that parents have much to do with how kids turn out is a myth.

This is honestly fascinating. It's obviously not true, just by taking into account the consequences of it being actually true.

Am I missing something? The study says, at some point "We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family.".

Are they limiting this to the genetic composition of a person? It seems they refer to the character, behaviour, overall identity... which to me sounds unbelievably absurd.

I mean, being raised by a single mom vs. being raised by an Army dad MUST introduce some differences, right? And what about all the studies about the consequences of father absence? Oh, all criminals were going to be criminals regardless?

Come on.

After reading the comments I understand this MUST mean people in Niger, Angola, etc. are more financially ready to have kids than people in Europe, Japan, USA, South Corea, etc.

My own experience is that most people focus on the stresses, worries and overall negative(?) aspects. Maybe I've had it easy and I'm incredibly fortunate, which I often feel like, but after becoming a father I would tell you that all the stresses, worries and overall negative aspects are nothing, NOTHING, compared to the positives.

As I said in other comments, I'd never push anyone on such a personal topic, but I'll never forget how, right after my first was born, I simply wished parenthood on everyone.

I think consensus with the partner on how to raise a child would be a given. I don't understand how people get to late stages of a relationship before starting to talk about having kids.

And yes, parenthood is hard, it's tough, you can focus on that, but you could also focus on how meaningful it is.

I would never push parenthood on anyone, I understand it's a personal choice. Honestly though, I just feel sad about people missing out, so very often due to misconceptions.

Why can't you have a kid at 25 without messing up your life? Some people do.

Reading all these comments I just keep thinking it's all a matter of priorities. If you really want to do something, the sooner you do it the better. Responsibly, of course.

What "responsibly" means in any case might also be influenced by your priorities. For instance, a lot of people say "We're not financially ready to have kids" but they really mean "We can't keep up the fancy holiday trips if we add a kid". If your priority is to have a family, you might cut on holidays and have the kid.

That applies to some, even plenty, of cases, but I acknowledge that not for all. At least where I'm from, it often feels everything is set up to make it difficult for people to build a family.

Thank you for this.

> Your mindset and business philosophy matters far more than your degree.

I completely agree with you, and therefore with the idea that having a background in engineering is still not a guarantee of success or even good practices or good business philosophy.

I disagree however with parent's implication about those difficulties being some sort of justification for malpractice, and my argument is that having engineering-capable managers should mitigate those issues in a properly managed company.

That's the whole point. That's precisely why you need managers with backgrounds in engineering in a business based on engineering.

> Creationism doesn't explain anything.

How so? For that to happen you'd need to have the usual "evolution-is-science-and-creationism-is-religion-which-denies-science" stance, no?

There are creationist scientists, there is "creationism-proving", or at the very least allow "creationism-compatible" evidence in science, and so on. Let's reduce it even more, science hasn't been able to disprove Creation.

Believing "God did it" should not invalidate science, wanting to understand more, and actually making experiments. On the contrary, it should encourage it, as it did with many scientists who, in a way, brought us to where we are.

And as other commenters say, your computer program would prove absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, primarily because micro-evolution (which can easily be understood as a feature of Creation) does certainly not imply macro-evolution or abiogenesis.