Wednesday, September 26, 2012

You're Evil and Selfish For Not Having Kids

Joe O'Connor.  Meet the Capposhere.  Capposhere, meet Joe O'Connor who is going to lecture you about not having children.  He will also berate and mock you for not breeding.  You can e-mail him here.

In the mean time I will rise and defend my SMARTER THAN AVERAGE brothers and sisters who opted not to breed and suffer the sucky life of Joe.

Enjoy your sucky life Joe!

Part 1



Part 2


27 comments:

Zorro said...

Apparently, he drinks Rumplemintz, too.

Great minds drink alike.

[Going back to my Blu-ray of Wrath of Khan]

Anonymous said...

His premise is wrong. It's not "couples" who aren't have kids. It's women. Women decide who does or doesn't get born. Men were cut out of the equation long ago. So he needs to think about who he's blaming here.

While I'm on the topic of blame, he needs to go to the source: Baby Boomers who raised their daughters as boys, giving them boys names and shuttling them into careers instead of motherhood. By the time these women fall into couplehood, the damage has already been long done.

- Days of Broken Arrows

Craig Cavanaugh said...

My favorite quote of all time:

"You want to have kids? Go to Chuck E Cheese on Saturday. You'll go home and buy you a dog, I ain't shittin' ya." ~Rodney Carrington

Malcolm said...

Great videos! You should make more of them

Roberto Severino said...

Wow! Less than 20 grand a year? That's impressive. Does that include any donations you've gotten and do you have to pay rent or anything like that? I can certainly see the advantage in making very little money because of how you get to keep more of what you make and not have the government take away as much as your income in taxes.

Blooming Psycho said...

Damn. This clown makes Charlie Sheen look like the Messiah.

Grit said...

Your lifestyle (and hopefully mine soon) is not a logical disqualifier for having kids. Homesteaders do it for one, and two, i have read stories about families that sail around the world with their kids, spending little money and eating their fill from the ocean.

The problem is nanny state fem-centric blue pill requirements for western women to have kids. It just validates histrionic women to be more histrionic. She goes straight to the baby section of walmart and ohmygod, we need one of everything here for our child. I would demand to raise a paleo baby if i ever had a kid. I ain't feeding it gerber baby goop, but organic food pureed from stock from Trader joes et al.

Daddies here are nothing more than shots of cum. Let her do the thinking, moneymaking, and rearing. How dare if you try to add logic, wisdom, paternal sentiment, or rules and gasp discipline. How dare you.

Derrick Bonsell said...

Hey, feminism told women there was more to life than having children.

If it's fine with feminists, then what exactly is the problem Joe?

Amy Haines said...

I've met with the opposite ideology from many people. I have three kids, which is one too many for at least two strangers I've met who have had the temerity to tell me that the world has enough people already and perhaps I should stop (having kids) now. This at farmer's markets and a Whole Foods in towns near where I grew up.

They view children as a crime against our collective resources and carrying capacity.

I wonder this: what if I'm breeding the right kinds of kids? Ok, there's lots of hubris in that statement, but what if it's not that we need less people, but less of the wrong kinds of people (parasites)? The thought seems never to occur to them...

whoism3 said...

Virtually a carbon copy of my mentality on how i feel about not having kids.

When someone tells me i'm selfish, i usually laugh and tell them i think it's time for them to go change their kids diaper and get in my car and go for an aimless drive.

Because i can.

Great vid btw. I never figured your voice would sound like that tho :)

William said...

I will take a contrarian approach. I am of the opinion that choosing to not raise children is choosing to leech of those of us who do. In effect, it is choosing death.

My children will be creating the goods and services that will keep the childless alive when they are old. Nevermind that they will have a larger pile of capital at the end of their life - who will create the goods that they wish to purchase with it? Like a airplane hijacker leaping from a plane with a million dollars in cash and landing on a desert island: they can't eat their money.

One or two people choosing to wipe themselves, their culture, and their ideas out of the future is not a large burden for a society to bear. The rest of us will carry them along like we do the other unproductive debris.

The only reason we as a society can tolerate such a choice is that we are wealthy, all of us, to a degree that the ancient world could not imagine. Interestingly, this is a self correcting situation.

My five children will inherit the earth that the childless leave vacant, and will propagate my morality into the culture they create, and will look to the interests of me and mine. They can build on what I and my fore-fathers have created.

The dry and dusty modes of thought that turn away from the future and choose death must be reinvented from nothing each time such a perversion of thought arises.

Choices have consequences. Choosing to turn away from the future and choose gold, bullets, and whiskey will have consequences.

At the end of our lives, what will we have stood for?
What will you choose?

Koop said...

Glad to see you were having a good day. Which video games catch your interest at the moment?

Cogitans Iuvenis said...

I have to agree with William. The fact is, that even if the continuing economic class doesn't result in individuals abandoning wrongheaded economic ideology, the 'intellectual' progressive while die out because they don't breed. The future belongs to those that repoduce and I wouldn't mind a little cogitans who I would teach to eat rocks and shit steel.

Anonymous said...

FYI, the WWII generation wife beating you mentioned was almost always a good Sean Connery slap or a light jab to the liver. It was alpha style dominance, not a retarded omega male Chris Brown beatdown.

To speak so poorly of children, though, hints that you have figured out the r strategy game, and have applied it too.

Suz said...

Uh, William? Perhaps some childless people are smart enough to invest for their old age. That way, they can BUY the caretaking services your children would offer. You know, instead of expecting the government to do it "for free."

Zorro said...

I gotta tell ya, you come off far better in your vids than you do in your posts. Not trying to make an issue, dude. Just sayin'. Your posts tend to project your opinions of those of an angry crank (sometimes), but "live, in concert," you are far more engaging and intriguing.

I've read some of your posts and have felt you are just another 26-year old who read Fight Club once too often. But these vids really made me warm to your take on matters.

I have the same reaction to Roosh V. His posts often cast him as a misogynist, woman-hating prick, but when I see his vids, I detect a sense of humor, irony and humanity that doesn't come through in a lot of his posts.

With all due respect, just food for thought. If Dr. Helen hadn't given you the thumbs up, I probably wouldn't have given you the time of day.

Peace.

thewomanandthedragon said...

I with you, Amy. I have five children, and the random, uninvited commentary from strangers is disconcerting. I wouldn't jump on someone for choosing not to have children, and it surprises me when others jump on me for having a large brood.

-sunshinemary

William said...

Suz, the people who are saving for the future and hope purchase services from my children are in for a shock.

What if their investments are worthless, their savings confiscated, and their ability to produce is zero? Who will we rely on except our friends and family? What happens if there *are* no friends and family?

If we fail to replace ourselves we will be replaced by others. We might be able to enjoy the decline, but the arrival at the bottom is going to be abrupt and uncomfortable.

Those who abandon their future will receive what my children decide to provide them. They better hope my children are in a good mood.

Captain Capitalism said...

William,

I think this will assuage your concerns about me failing to think about planning for retirement:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/06/smith-and-wesson-retirement-plan.html

Cpt.

Aeroguy said...

Children as a retirement plan is a old historical norm and the advent of things like social security has had a direct effect on declines in childbirth. Interestingly guys like William assume their children will take care of them but given how they have no direct compulsion to do so other than the taxes they pay for all old people they're reliability as an insurgence plan is less than 100%. I anticipate being alive long enough to see the beginnings of a post-human future. The human species as we know it today will not not even be relevant in the 22nd century, having kids to have a stake on the future is not only hollow, but false.

kurt9 said...

I know this doesn't fit with your crash and burn scenario, but what I see as the future for childless people is this:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/09/years-to-regeneration-and-antiaging-via.html

http://sens.org/sens-research

I see no reason why aging cannot be eliminated by 2030 or 2040 on the outside. Granted this may be a little late for the boomers. But the Gen X and Gen Y people can certainly make if they get thier act together and not do stupid things.

Keppers said...

1I plan on ingesting a kickass morphine cocktail myself!

But really, I think govt/whatever assisted euthanasia is going to become an accepted thing in the future.
It's already practiced on the down low in nursing homes for some cases. Fact.

If you honestly believe your kids want to or will have the ability and resources to take care of your Alzheimers/dementia ridden-self at home you may already be suffering from senility. Get some long-term care insurance and hope for the best.

My husband and I did not pass on our precious genetic legacy; he had a vasectomy decades ago; we've never regretted it. In the end, it ain't nobody's business if you have a Duggar-size family or no family. But please provide for your own sprogs.

I stand and applaud anyone, male or female, that gives the matter some serious thought and just takes care of their personal business, rather than having an accident or just going along to get along.

Good for you, Captain Capitalism!

kurt9 said...

These "debates" about having or not having kids that pop up on blogs from time to time do not represent my experiences in the real world. I am married and do not have kids. I have never had anyone call me "selfish" for the simple reason that I've never even had this discussion in the real world. I don't know where most of you are from or what social circles you move in. But I can tell you that in all of my social circles, it is considered rude to criticize someone's long-term personal life choices when the person in question is not in obvious distress (e.g. addicted to drugs, criminal, etc.). Having such a discussion is simply not a part of polite conversation where I am from.

The subject has never come up even once in over 20 years of my life.

Apollo said...

More videos! And more Rumpie before you make them (somehow I do think you'd be even more entertaining when loaded)

I agree with your decision not to have kids. The financial and freedom aspects are certainly a consideration in this decision, but the main driver for me is the legal risk. Why have kids if you can't raise them the way you would like and if they can be taken away from you at any time, after which you will be forced to pay through the nose for them?

This is the point that people like William seem to be living purposefully in denial of. Kids as a way to be taken care of in your own age? Even some children who are raised by the parents are not above abandoning them to old folks homes. How well do you think a child who gets taken away from you at age 5 is going to treat you when they have spent most of their lives being told by their mother that you're a deadbeat loser?

On another note Captain, I'm quite enjoying Borderlands 2 at the moment. Maybe give it a whirl in some of your copious free time ;)

Anonymous said...

Why is this even a conversation?

If not having children makes me selfish...then guilty as charged as I am the most selfish prick you will ever meet. And as for those of you this disturbs, offends or just plain pisses you off, GOOD!! I derive great pleasure in pissing off people who don't know how to mind their own damn business.

What I find most humorous is how self important people have become. Do they realize the human race, as a species, is headed for extinction regardless of our life choices? We are but a blip on the evolutionary timeline. We are temporary, and will be another failed species like millions before us.

As the late great George Carlin said, “…the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.”

The Captain covered all the main points of remaining childless except for one.

Why would I, or anyone for that matter, want to bring a child into a world populated by PC busy bodies who feel they are entitled to tell other people how to live? Or even worse, to have my kid turn out to be one of them.

kurt9 said...

Here's another one of about 500 good reasons not to have kids:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/09/its-the-bias-against-stale-labor-not-the-sticky-nominal-wages.html

Morons like Joe O'Connor don't understand the economic reality of most people.

Khadija Umayyad said...

I went the amoral, misanthropic Onely route. If someone tells me I'm selfish I tell them yes I am, and also go fuck yourself.

Morality, families and sex are chumps.
Hobbies, friends and drugs are for champs.