[Image: First date advice first date online, online dating advice, which
means
an open relationship, alpha male traits] Welcome, everyone, to the
Fourth Pua Mgtow great debate! Today, "Fred" not my debate on
I argue that having children makes you less happy in the long run. As
still, both joined us the character limit for each 1700
reply.
The specific topic will discuss today:
* Having children intelligently makes men happier in the long run,
Not less.*
Fred FOR debate, I argue AGAINST.
Fred's comments will be blue like this. My comments will be in the usual
black font.
As always, I'll let Fred start and finish the debate with his comments. AT
the end, you can decide who won.
* THE BATTLE BEGINS !!! *
* Fred *
Thank you for accepting the debate. Let's start. Before entering
details, I would like to emphasize some starting points for
debate. I guess you'll have no problem with them:
1. There are very stupid ways to have children, such as hitting your
girlfriend when you're 15. Obviously, this is not conducive to long-term
happiness, and I do not want to discuss this situation.
2. I considered view of man here. Much of what we
discuss also apply to women, but I think we can keep it simple,
by not discussing men.
3. There are important and significant negative positive aspects to have
children. My argument is that the positives outweigh the negatives when
you have kids in a smart way, making you happier in the long run.
Your argument is that, regardless of how it is done, the negatives outweigh
the positives when you have children, making you less happy in the long
run. Correct?
Fred -Fanciful
*Black Dragon:*
I agree with your three parameters.
This is not my argument that the negatives outweigh the positives, as
each will have a different opinion on what is "positive" or
"Negative" and how much each value is his.
A straight, conservative, religious Alpha Male 1.0 can
consider having five children as a huge net positive (leaving a legacy,
do the will of God, having little minions to boss around, prove to the world
his penis works, etc.), even if it makes him less happy together
because of the extreme amount of work, cost, sacrifice and stress
places on himself, his finances, his wife, and his marriage. It is clearly
* *
less happy together that a man like me, but that did not matter to him.
It will still tell you that it's worth it because there are more positive
(in
their eyes). (And we did not discuss when that man is divorced, which
is statistically unlikely in the modern era, and must pay alimony for five *
children * or go to jail.)
My argument is that having children makes you less happy, on average, over
the
Overall, over a period of about 15-20 years, until the children grow up and
let. Because it does. Almost all the studies they've done on this subject
indicated. Almost all married couples with children I see will
through it; intense moments of joy followed by hours or even days
irritation and a lot of work, as I explained here. As with long-term
monogamy, this misfortune occurs regardless of "how you do it. " It is
inherent in the system. Having children is hard work, hard, which is
usually not
fun for mom or dad.
* Fred *
Hey BD
Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'll try to summarize what you
wrote:
- A person who consults huge positive aspects of having children (such as
leaving a legacy) that the negatives outweigh is incorrectly
weigh the positives and negatives. His life every day will be less
happy (because of the negative aspects), although he will not see it that
way
because it weighs the positives too strongly. Is it a
accurate summary of what you think?
- The main negative to have children: the extreme amount of work,
cost, the sacrifice and the stress it imposes on himself, his finances, his
wife,
and his marriage. And maybe pay alimony. All other things
add here?
- Your proof that having children makes you unhappy is 1) studies on this
subject and 2) your personal experience and the experience of others
you know. Is it correct?
- The graphic and written, to have children of your "How Happiness
Blog work over time "is your personal opinion, correct? It's not
on the basis of a study?
Fred -Fragile
*Black Dragon:*
1. No, it does not hurt weighing positive or negative. It is instead
placing his own happiness as a lower priority than other things.
So if he says, "Having children makes me happier," it is wrong. If, he said,
"Okay, well BD, having children makes me less happy, but I do not care
because
X and Y, "then it is okay. My only problem is happiness here.
In other words, you are more than welcome to defend or encourage lifestyles
you made less happy, but you can not tell me these lifestyles you
happier, because they do not.
2. Yes, that is a fairly comprehensive list. Regarding one of the elements,
remember
"Sacrifice" means always want to do things with your life that you are
unable to do so, because of the children. So many men who are fathers wish
they
could do so many things, but can not. Add to that everything else in this
list and you have a good amount of misfortune, even if you
the largest relative to Earth and your kids are the best kids in the world.
3. Correct. However, I would not describe my personal experience awareness
Children constantly miserable or unhappy. A little less happy if I did not
have children. The vast majority of mothers and fathers, if you have a
little alcohol in them and put them in a separate room away from
everyone knew that, quietly admit the same.
4. Correct, my personal opinion / extrapolation. However, I * highly * trust
if you give this chart to a qualified researcher in this field, they
would more or less agree with her.
* Fred *
1. Okay, I think I understand your point here.
2. We agree here
3. studies on this subject are almost irrelevant because they reflect
the average person. The average person is:
- A) * Broke / In Debt * - talk about stress! I can not imagine anything
more
scary as having children I can not be able to feed. The average person
is essentially living paycheck. There is a ton of data about it.
Here is a source.
- B) * Work work crappy 9-5 * Office - Super stressful. Your boss may
take a shit about you every day, but you can not cut off the only source of
income when you have kids. Great way to reduce your happiness.
- C) * In a less traditional sex (or low sex) marriage * - Ugh. You have
covered this enough on your blog, but again, the theme here is that
the average person feels trapped (in this case, sexually).
- D) * have children in their 20s or early 30 * - You guessed trapped.
You want to do something different and amazing with your life, but you are
financially trapped by your children.
The average person is less happy to have children? No they are shit-
completely trapped financially and sexually. What misery! Fortunately
there are ways will not leave. As you said, it is ideal for large
financial shape, hire a full-time nanny to help accomplish many of your
major life goals (first prob means having children in your 40s), and
non-monogamous marriage and premarital parenting plan. Happiness is
usually on the elimination of negative and positive creation. A study
with people with children would be smarter to show an increase of happiness,
because they face very few problems "average person."
*Black Dragon:*
Yeah, I know that the average person sucks, I do not know if you quote me or
make an argument. So your argument is children do not make a man less happy
if he does all of the following:
- Hiring a nanny (part time or full time?)
- Is able to easily afford a nanny (nannies are expensive)
- Do not * children until 40
- Is it regularly banging other women besides his wife
- A marriage contract and a parenting plan (if married, he did not even need
to be married?)
Yes or no?
If so, I will continue to discuss the above items.
If not, please tell me exactly * * and * * with details that "having
children
intelligently "means.
* Fred *
I quote and make an argument. The point here is that you claim
that the "average person sucks" and yet you use comprehensive studies of
the average
people to show why an Alpha 2.0 (in this case, which means that someone to
have children
intelligently) will be unhappy to have children. The studies (which are your
The main argument for why having children make you miserable) are not valid
for
how you propose (and I agree with) to have children.
And yes, the points you listed are how I (and you, I think) see
specificities of "having children smarter. "
To answer your questions:
- full-time nanny would be ideal
- Babysitters are expensive, but are not necessarily expensive. I met
live in au pair, the other day, and she continues to eat / board + $ 1,500
a month.
- To keep things simple, let's married with a prenup / parenting plan. I
know every state has different laws (some with common law
marriage) that make this complex. You have already discussed the ideal
ways to marry.
I have another main point of discussion, but I would like to address the
first point.
*Black Dragon:*
I agree that the statistics to which I refer are looking (mostly) normal
people who
do most of the bad things in life, so we'll pass it.
You have confirmed that the education of children "smarter" means that you
hire a
full-time nanny. You just said, hilarious, that pay a nanny $ 1500
month * more * provide her full-time room and board is not "cheap. "This
is ridiculous, I completely disagree, and I think the vast majority of
people who read it would be as well. Very few men, even the Alpha 2.0 is
that
make the recommendation $ 75 000 per year, will be able to easily
this.
So yes, I agree that if you are rich and can easily allow * *
Full-time, broadcast live in nanny to raise your children for you
screaming, it can not
damage your long-term happiness I describe normally. I have already said it
so in this article here, where I described how these types
problems do not apply to rich people. Rich people can have after divorce
Divorce can have several children out of wedlock, can get STDs, and
all kinds of problems that affect them as they affect non-rich
people. It is another world.
But if you think this option is available for the typical guy there
Next (or try to follow) the lifestyle recommended I speak
(Alpha Male 2.0), again, even if it is recommended $ 75 000 per year
then you are wrong.
* Fred *
Haha yes, $ 1,500 is "expensive". What I wanted to say that $ 1,500 a month
is a
good value as you get a 24/7/365 full-time nanny.
As you have mentioned, of course not reasonable if you make 75K
one year. But go, BD, you're nitpicking here. As I said, full-time
nanny is ideal. But what can we do to 75K a year? obviously
they can help as well. How about hiring a student to help
$ 10 per hour for a few days a week? Maybe it goes to $ 480 per month ($
480 =
$ 10 / hour x 4 hours per day x 3 days per week x 4 weeks per month) or $
5760 per
year. Not cheap, but reasonable for someone who makes 75K.
Or maybe you think this is not enough help and / or money. Perhaps the
recommended amount of income per year should be a little more 75K.
Again, I think everything is fussy. Unless you have you
nothing else to add related to your studies quoted are not valid or
specific intelligently have children, I would go to my next main
point.
*Black Dragon:*
This nanny thing was your idea, not mine. I'm still trying to nail
your specific definition of having children "intelligently. "You have
clearly said
above was to hire full-time, live in nanny. Now you move the goal
post and that he be paid a student for a few hours per week.
I can not answer your point if you keep changing your definition
"clever."
Please give me your final definition, very specific to raise children
"Cleverly" is. Then when I address, do not change.
* Fred *
Haha, you are definitely getting bogged down in details here. As I have
said from the beginning, the smartest and most ideal for
children is to have a full time nanny.
Just so we're on the same page:
- Yes, it is almost impossible if you only 75K per year.
- You can still do ok for yourself if you do that 75K per year (as I
described), but it's not ideal (not the smart way
kids)
- You set the number 75K, not me.
*Black Dragon:*
As I have said many times on my blog, you must obtain a specific agreement
definitions of words if you talk about a subject, or get you anywhere. It is
not a "detail". is your definition of "intelligently" raise children
important to this discussion; Indeed, it is all about here.
Your assertion is that "intelligently" raising children needs a full time,
live-in nanny. I agree it would offset most or all of your misfortune.
The problem is that the majority of VAST men read these words will not
to have this ability, making your entire invalid item, or at least
very, * very * small. I think I won that round. But I'll let readers
decide.
At your next point, if you had one.
* Fred *
Let's recap:
1. You asked that studies show that people are less happy when they
kids. I have shown that these studies are not valid. * But you still have
not
provided no evidence demonstrating that people are less happy. * This is
needed to "win" this turn.
2. I said that people will be much happier if that studies show
they have kids smarter (meaning they are large financial A.
Complete Form B. major life goals first (prob have children in your 40s)
C have not monogamous marriage w / + prenup parenting plan D. hire a full
nanny time. We agree that these 4 items you will do much
happier when you have children. You nitpicked one of these 4 articles and
said that now my whole point is invalid.
This is illogical. My whole argument is not undermined by a niggling
point, it is only slightly less strong. Your average reader (who was
never a condition to start, but let's go with it) can reach 85% say
having children smarter, and always will be much better than average
people in the studies.
Why has it to be full-time nanny or nothing? This does not
meaning. You can still get all A-C and a D (having a part-time
nanny) on 75K annually. You can get 100% A-D on a higher salary.
In addition, your current argument is non-existent; it is just nitpicking
One of my points, suggesting that it cancels everything. Answer please
exactly what your argument is why you will be unhappy to have children,
and explain how the average reader will not be able to achieve 100% (but can
to 85%) have children smarter invalidate the whole argument.
*Black Dragon:*
The studies include normal people who tend to suck; they are not invalid.
Yes
they were invalid, you would be able to offer all kinds of easy to do * *
Things to avoid * * misfortune happened, not difficult as hiring a
full-time nanny.
If one of your requirements is 4 full time, live in nanny, yes, your points
is invalid because it applies only to a small group of men.
If your point is the nanny is only 15% (!) Happiness
won, it's laughable. An Alpha Male 2.0 in great shape with protection
finance and non-monogamy is * still * will suffer significantly reduced
* Set * happiness in having children. Freedom, peace, travel, your daily
calendar, sex, life, low-cost, living abroad (if you want), sleep,
focus on your mission, * ALL * of these things are negatively affected to
some degree when to have children. It is true when they are small, so when
they are teenagers (but not quite as good). Then, after the age of 18, you
always *
* Have things like college fees, helping them get cars, helping them to get
jobs, helping them to settle in life, helping them to get through their
problems, and, and, and. There are so many ways your
the overall level of happiness decreases in some way, I can not even begin
to list
right here.
Saying that most of this shit is off just because you're not fat and can
Fucking other women who will not. How banging on FB using side when the
baby screaming in the middle of the night, when the 9-year needs
help with homework, when the old year just crashed his car 17?
I agree lifestyle Alpha 2.0 * help * fixed but not even 50% of this
reduces happiness.
* Fred *
* 1. * Here's what laughable- you have already accepted that the studies
were
irrelevant, and now you have changed your mind.
2. laughable- Also, you continue to claim that child care is a binary
problem. nanny full time vs. no nanny. It is not binary. There is a
spectrum of care solutions. A part-time nanny + do everything else
smarter you get about 85% of the way. Each person can
add or subtract hours childcare as they see fit.
3. Your evidence is still lacking. You simply listed negative
aspects of having children. The debate is not "Are there negatives
to have children? "Obviously, there are negative aspects of having
children. In
to "win" the debate, you must prove that the negative (happiness
decrease) in priority areas on the positive (increasing happiness).
4. Other aspects (AC) to have children are not smart
insignificant. In fact, the # 1 complaint from most of my friends who
children in an "unintelligent way" is that they are not able to kiss other
women.
5. When you are in your 40s, it's not so hard to do
much more than 75K per year. You have 20 years of work experience
At this point. I guess the majority of your readers who are over 40 are
making it much more than 75K per year.
6. Perhaps part of the problem is your outlook on children in general. A lot
people watch "help find a job, helping them to settle in life,
helping them to solve their problems "as positive (happiness) more things
where they appreciate the opportunity to help their mentor children.
Anyway, at this stage, it seems we turn our wheels here. I would like
as pass.
*Black Dragon:*
Let us then. Proceed.
* Fred *
I know we both agree that, in life, lots of happiness is derived to
meaningful work. For many people, having children is the most important and
meaningful thing they do. Although I am aware that this is impossible
to prove, I believe that evolution has made us desire to have strongly
children, much like a high-Mission (to use your terminology).
Of course, the argument against is that feelings and emotions
people have about their children are all from the social programming.
For the record, I believe 100% that the programming of the company massively
influences almost everything we do, including our decisions have
kids. SP is obviously responsible for many stupid things as men do
buying a woman a massive engagement ring. However, there is more to this
just as SP.
Having children really affects men physiologically. You can learn more about
that here. I bring this up not as evidence that children who made you more
happy, but to illustrate that there is something more going on here. Having
children affects men at a very deep level. If you think having children is
one for men "Integrated Mission" (what I do), then the logic is as follows
who have children will lead to at least some degree of unhappiness and
sorry, while having the lead at a certain level of happiness and
Satisfaction. Overall, it can be assumed intelligently face
negative aspects of having children (as we discussed), to have children
should
increase your long-term happiness.
*Black Dragon:*
To quote your article: * "When men have more sperm donation to a
pregnancy ... they are called crazy. The condition describes the future
fathers ...
which are struck by a combination of weight gain, nausea, food
cravings, backaches, insomnia ... the testosterone level drops a father
also by
about a third on average in the first three weeks after her child
born."*
This makes men happier?
My evolution conceived me to fertilize as much as possible before women
I die. If I did like the caveman in BC 50,000, or a farmer in the 16
century, it would be a good idea. If I did today, alimony
bankrupt me and literally destroy my life. Evolution is not
problem. long-term happiness and modern realities.
I do not mean having children will not cause any trouble. It may for some
Men. I said that having children will damage your long-term happiness
(despite
* * Moments of joy), and if you add all the unhappiness that you will
experience
over the years 18-20ish * * (at least!), it will be much more unhappy
all the regret that you might feel if you have children, then you live
a great life, be free and happy man.
I'm not telling men to never have children. I mean, if you really want
children,
you can not bullshit you with a kind of guys right Disney
fancy. * You must understand that your * average levels of happiness
will take a significant blow for about 20 years. Do it if you want,
but boy, you better want those little bastards so badly that you do
* * mind decades of happiness in general reduced.
Finish this thesis. Make your final statement (you can meet one of
above if you wish), and we'll let the public decide.
* Fred *
Really, BD? recap:
Fred: "I bring this [Article] to * not * as proof that children who have
you happier ... "
BD answer: "To quote your article .... This makes men happier? "
RE: EVOLUTION- It is very relevant. Evolution is why we are
we are. However, your point about evolution is irrelevant. No
we are suggesting to have dozens of children with several women.
I'll leave the rest of my arguments hold only in writing.
BD, thank you for the debate; I liked that! Also, thank you for your
Blog. It certainly helped to shape some of my views and changed the way I
see the world.
Fred thank you for a lively debate!
The rest now, you can leave comments as to who you thought won, plus any
other matters that should have been implemented. Having children is
extremely
significant and warrants further examination subject.
The post Pua Mgtow Great Debate 4: Having children makes you happy or not?
first appeared on the blog Pua Mgtow.
No comments:
Post a Comment