Do you want to have kids?

[Antonio the Sixth]

To be honest, I have no idea. I don't really like thinking about it, because there are other things I really need to sort out about myself before I can seriously start thinking about these questions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Other than that, it's kind of like what one of the interviewees stated in the article: I think kids are at their best when they're quiet, humble, and intelligent.  You don't get that combination much at all, unfortunately.

Ugh, is it really too much to ask to leave people alone and let them be whatever they want to be for at least a couple years in their lives? Don't worry, they'll learn soon enough that they have to turn into emotionless, disciplined, productive machines and renounce to everything that made them happy in order to survive in the world. Being quiet, humble and intelligent defeats the whole point of childhood.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Active dislike for children is one of those animuses that should be critically examined a lot more than it is.

What about a second side of the coin: "ZOMGZ I LOVE BABIES! THEY ARE SO CUTE AND I JUST LOVE THEM!"? Doesn't sound very healthy either.

I don't think that's equivalently bad at all, no.

I mean, another part of the reason why I'm not sure kids are in the cards for me is that they do sort of alarm and stymie me and I'm never quite sure how to talk to them or what to talk to them about, but I see that as my problem.

Huh, I'm not the only one who has that weird social awkwardness around children.

Anyway, I agree with all your posts in this thread.

Ditto on both counts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For a moment you lost me.  At first I thought this some 15th century Burmese philosopher you were referencing for whatever tedious point you were trying to make... then I noticed it was the name of the YouTube account I posted...?  Not sure why that was relevant for you to point out, but anyway the video was intended for those without gray lives to enjoy.  I did post a TW for you, so don't blame me that you ignored it.

> is incapable of appreciating the vitality and cheerfulness of children
> says others have "gray lives"

Priceless.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cool, Nathan's even whinier, almost as humorless, but just as reflexively offended sidekick.  As if on cue.

Cool, an ad hominem that completely fails to address the ridiculousness that I pointed out in your posts. Once again, someone who can't enjoy children is lecturing those who can about how to have fun.

Nathan is indeed my friend, and he also happens to be on the correct side of this discussion.

But if yes, I prefer a daughter

what the christ

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've made this point to people for years, but stick big hair and a bigger moustache on Patrick Stewart damn if he doesn't look like Ramsay MacDonald. C'mon there's a biopic just waiting to happen right there.

I'd definitely watch that.

(well, I'd watch almost anything with Patrick Stewart in it, but a MacDonald biopic would be interesting nonetheless)

[Antonio the Sixth]

But if yes, I prefer a daughter

Guys can we all go back to this post for a moment because what the fu[Inks]

id rather pretend this post doesn't exist tbh

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

(B) is admittedly a very valid reason, and I agree that we'll probably have to get around to it sooner or later because of this. Obviously (A) is sh*t.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's a difference between defending our citizens from aggressive and domineering foreign powers and "gaining the upper hand", which implies that we'd become (or remain) just as aggressive and domineering.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I for one am proud of my work here, and thankful to Cathcon for his collaboration.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.

I was sold on Picard by the first season (which isn't even good itself). Besides, Kirk also had 6.5 movies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fine with this analogy. That would make Picard the Abraham Lincoln of starship captains (the time distances are about the same!), and Lincoln > Washington. QED.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.

I was sold on Picard by the first season (which isn't even good itself). Besides, Kirk also had 6.5 movies.

Yeah, but one of them was The Final Frontier. That alone has to be equal to about -5.5 movies.

Well, it was directed by Shatner, so we can hold Kirk morally responsible for that disaster.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No.

Kids are very expensive. I'd prefer to spend one million dollars on early retirement or a year-long world tour etc. Maybe it's the inner "dismal scientist" lurking inside of me but these considerations matter a great deal to me and I don't feel ashamed about them in the slightest. We live very limited lives and I'd like to spend my life doing anything but changing diapers, giving kids stern lectures to not throw poop on the walls etc.

Another thing that I've considered is that it's weird of me to have a desire to have children when, um, I would not be the one who's pregnant or the one who's expected to take care of the kid etc. If one is a man, one must remember that the desire to have kids is hardly noble. It's a desire to have something that generates acknowledgement in society without all that many risks/consequences.

Some people also find fulfillment in the act of raising a child in and of itself - fulfillment greater than you'd get from a world tour or an expensive car. If that's not for your that's perfectly fine, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge it.

But srlsly guise, can't we got back to discussing Kirk vs. Picard?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd rather have Picard as a dad.

Now that you mention it, Picard had issues with children too. But he never blamed children themselves for them and, at least where I'm at in the show, it seems he's working to resolve them.

But yeah, Picard is someone who takes all his responsibilities and duties, of any kind, very seriously - which is more than can be said about Kirk...

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've seen this 'it's ~problematic~ for a man to want children' opinion before and it strikes me as facially absurd every time, even though on a hyper-theoretical level it makes some sense.

It's not that it's wrong in the abstract, it's just irrelevant because the decision of having children in a couple obviously takes two. A man shouldn't force or pressure a woman into having children (nor should a woman to a man, although in both cases this strikes me as legitimate grounds for ending a relationship), but if a woman does want children, then it's obviously ridiculous for a man to say no based on some abstract feminist stance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually didn't know about Kirk. That's quite interesting. Picard's experience is certainly more common.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey, omegascarlet, why don't you actually try to provide a serious, substantive answer to my posts on the incest thread before randomly picking new fights (which you know you're going to lose anyway)?