O.O

bruh i think you’re making a mistake here.

you’re wrongly assuming that people have sex to make children, hence they should wait till after marriage to get financial stability.

but that is not the case at all. humans are very social animals, and just like we have re-purposed our mouth and throat to speak and communicate, instead of just swallowing food, we have also re-purposed our sexuality as a form of communication, to exchange personality. that is why it is an important part of human life, even in the absence of wanting to make children.

Then why would you wait till after marriage?

there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support it.

Well, to be fair, what would such evidence look like? Would you like to see secret documents (conveniently found in a rich banker’s living room) that detail that single-family homes get easier credit benefits so that more people buy them? I’m afraid that kind of proof will be difficult to get hold of, if the banks or whoever might be behind it don’t show it to us out of their own free will.

Who would look for such evidence? Who can pay for a search after that evidence? The banks won’t investigate themselves and find that they manipulate people.

As such, it is directly natural that there is no proof. That doesn’t automatically make it wrong though, just without proof. The question is: is it likely? is it perceivable? is it consistent?

i suppose you’re one of the people who insists that they are always right solely based on the fact that “it has always been like this”. i.e. you claim “it’s natural that we all live in individual houses”, though that’s actually a fallacy:

people are naturally tribal animals and we used to live in rather large groups of around 30 people or more for most of human history. it’s an incredibly young thought that people live in 4-person homes. (i couldn’t track down the exact time when this started but it must have been sometime within the last 200 years, i guess.)

what are your actual arguments in favor of the single-family home?

I have the idea that parents are difficult to be around (especially towards their own children) to push their children “out of the nest”. I.e. it is not a natural “defect” that parents stop being acceptable people once their kids turn into puberty, but rather a feature of nature that is supposed to push teenagers out into the world to explore.

In other words, it’s a behavior that is meditated by signals: The parent gets the signal “my child is old enough to explore the world by themselves now -> push them out of the house”. That would imply that the signals can be identified and eliminated or reprogrammed to make parents more acceptable for their kids. Just a thought.

My guess is that if it were naturally preferable to keep kids in the house (for example because it’s too dangerous to go away from the house), then maybe parents would adopt to not push their children out of their house anymore.

I guess a part of the problem is the stigma:

People have been told that whoever still lives with their parents is a loser, and that’s the actual reason why it repells girls.

YES thank you, finally somebody says it. I couldn’t muster the motivation to make this exact thought into a post yet even though the idea has been going through my head for a long time.

Of course, if every person uses their own house, you need lots of houses which “stimulates the economy”, i.e. it shifts wealth from the pockets of the workers into the pockets of the construction companies, up from where it goes partially to the owner’s pockets, partially to the wages. Yet with every iteration of the game the owners grab a bigger and bigger piece of the wealth, until it is all accumulated uphill. Consider:

yeah … free from life

wow, that sounded so self-aware. you know what you exist for.

imagine the effort to switch accounts and find the exact thing to vote on over and over again…

kinda hits the spot, at least IMO. nothing exciting left.

I think the mistake you’re making here is that you’re comparing living conditions as they are today.

When you conceive a child today, however, that child is gonna be sentient over a timespan of maybe 80 years, with a significant part of that being decades in the future.

You can guess now that it doesn’t matter how the living conditions today are. It matters how the living conditions in the next decades are going to be.

what are your stakes in the game? what does it cost you if you’re wrong and having children does indeed turn out to be a mistake? are you gonna pay for the damages? if not, then you have no right to tell people what to do.

the question you could ask yourself might be “would you like to be born again, as your child, if you could?” that would give you a clear indication of whether it’s worth it.

honestly, same. the only thing that keeps me going is some weird and irrational hope that things will get better in the future. i can feel that, but i can’t explain it rationally. if i didn’t have that hope, i’d go crazy. Like, what even is this mess?

giving birth to “not let them have it” sounds a lot like “owning the libs”

self-harming behaviour because everything is made into a competition.

here, have some spare ones:

wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtd wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtd wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wrf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf

i had them in stock.

also note that the Holocaust did not only target Jews, but also homosexuals and other minorities. Yet when talking about WW2 victims, you mostly learn about Jews. Why is that?

It’s because (some) Jews have perfected the art of victimizing themselves more than others, in the expectation to get more favorable treatment from the world this way.

I want to place bets on the debt becoming a problem eventually.

I understand saying “debt isn’t a problem” is easy, as talk is cheap. I am however so sure about my position that i’m willing to bet money on the fact that debt will indeed become a problem, even for states and governments. Where can i make such a bet?