A response to Adam Ellis’s Buzzfeed post “28 Reasons Why You’re Better Off Not Having Kids”
1. If an individual is to argue the validity of an idea, a skeleton structure is of no means a tangible source of announcing the argument; i.e. by listing “Twenty Eight Reasons Why Blank,” such an individual would have sundered off any researchable insight which should be included when developing an argument. One should not merely state, but provide pertinent data that substantiates their claim. This is not to say the individual who presents such a thesis must academically research the topic for two years or more, but you can’t spell your name without at least having fucking read it prior.
2. The fact that I’m beginning a list in order to communicate though a lower means for an audience I may believe is incapable of foddering for mental stimulation because of a growing epidemic of digital media trends pathetically understands in some relative means, is beginning to elevate my blood-pressure and really annoy the fuck out of me.
3. To state you know “twenty eight reasons why your life will be better off without children” is to state as well “I am a selfish individual of the global human condition and rather than understand my basic biology, I will transcend this traditional trend of existence and live by my own misguided conscious understanding.” If you don’t wish to have children, this is fine; all individuals are entitled to their own free will* interpretations and engage on the linear details to follow in a sentient existence. However by not integrating oneself into the cycle of childbirth, an individual has severed their self from the perpetual growth of the human race. However, this statement does discount the argument of biological inadequacies amongst effected individuals. By not integrating also means by not solving problems involved with childbearing, leading to argument number four.
4. Though the basic biology of a human being is to procreate and reproduce, there are genetic and biological differences and abnormalities that can prevent certain individuals from fully integrating into the cycle of childbirth, e.g.: endometriosis, genetic mutations, sterile and/or infertile, etc. Individuals suffering from such complexities have a multitude of options available to solve the above issues, such as fucking adoptions.
5. Reasons number one and two in the article are not distinct, different reasons. Reason two regarding the idea of embarking on naps freely is in direct correlation to the argument of sleep cycle regulations in regards to aligning with children. Sleep schedules are of utmost importance in order to maintain a proper homeostasis and health, and yes, newborn babies have a very radical sleeping cycle in the first months following birth, but this actually counter argues the idea of napping freely. Newborn children after the first two-three months according to a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics on the consolidation of newborn sleep patterns, were reported to have slept well through the night and regulated quicker to the conveniently standard 10:00pm–6:00am schedule (Jacqueline M. T. Henderson). Furthermore, because many newborns up until toddler age require daily naps for proper development, this greatly increases the chances of an adult or participating in the same activity. By “napping freely” an individual has the greater chance or affecting an actual nights sleep thereby altering a natural sleep cycle and effecting healthy states of existence. See the arguments of Free Will for further interpretation.
6. Reason three can be interpreted as an individual may curse freely around the house but not indicate the means as to why an individual would do such. Further parameters must be detailed to fully understand the context of this argument. Does the individual have a lack of communicative skills or suffer from some speech disorder? Does the individual lack the abilities to obtain an extensive vocabulary? Furthermore, what defines curse words, societal norms?**
7. Reason four in regarding the argument of depression associated with parenting I ask readers to investigate this article as opposed to the WebMD source provided:
an alternative link:
8. Reason number five is a valid argument under false pretenses.
Stress causes agony.
Childbirth causes stress.
Therefore childbirth is agony.
Childbirth causes the body to explode.
Explosions are caused by an immediate release of stored energy.
Therefor childbirth is a nuclear reactor.
Logically this is incorrect because the body is a self-maintaining organism. The author in this case may be argued furthermore as a “fucking idiot.”
9. Reason number six argues against the sole purpose of reason for the article. Why would another individuals children remain “fun and cute” if the purpose of the article is to argue against the means of any individual integrating themselves into parenting? Are some children better than others? Are some individuals intended to have children against others? What qualifies these parameters?
10. Reasons number seven states an individual with children can never have a drink of white wine during NighttimeTM. Author is unclear about the trademark value of “nighttime” thereby inciting a fury of further investigative questions. No conclusive studies can be found with a simple internet search to substantiate this claim.
11. Reason number eight is correlated with the stress of raising children. See arguments against reason number four in argument number seven of this publication.
12. Reason number nine does not state if whether the ends of the means of private defecation are inclusive to only parents with children. What about adults who may be in an environment surrounded by children not of their own? What about adults surrounded by other adults? What about adults surrounded by animals? Clarification needed.
13. Reasons ten, eleven, and twelve are not distinct separate arguments, and all correlate with the idea of a published article provided by the author. The author failed to interpret that there are thousands of factors that could greatly affect the monetary requirements of raising a child and assumes all individuals reading the article have acquired the monetary means to afford such extravagant actions. Again see the argument of Free-Will.
14. Reason number thirteen suggests all readers either participate in the application Seamless or suffer from raging tantrums. Does the author believe individuals are incapable of adhering to a mature mindset in which they mentally and physically cannot control outbursts caused from an emotional disapproval of an action?
15. Reason number fourteen should be omitted. Any human existing on this planet can easily come in contact with a bodily fluid on a microscopic scale on a daily basis. One must assume the author doesn’t go outside much.
16. Reasons fifteen and sixteen are not distinct and directly correlate with one another. Author also assumes that if a reader has owns, or possess a desire to obtain such furniture. Furthermore the author assumes the reader is incapable of simply acquiring cleaning tools in an effort to rid extravagant furniture from “smudgy prints.” The author also failed to include fingerprints and dust left behind by the adult themselves on their furniture.
17. Reason number seventeen argues there is no such thing as a washing machine or a surplus of clothing available.
18. Are you, the author a “fucking idiot”? Why would you even fucking think of something like that when you’re poor when there are hundreds of other things to consider? Health-care, food, housing, transportation, work, etc.
19. Reason number nineteen believes the adoption of a pet (or a houseplant, really? Are you that fucking stupid?) can help solve loneliness. Loneliness can be contributed as a symptom of depression, which should be taken into serious consideration; regardless of being a parent or not. An individual experiencing symptoms of loneliness should consult a doctor to find treatment options and prevent any further developments of depression.
20. Reason twenty is in direct correlation to reason number six and argument number nine of this publication.
21. Reasons twenty-one through twenty-eight are all such pathetic attempts at justifying the point of the article that the author failed to incite one valid argument; the nature of the universe.
The universe operates on a scale of rules that are, for a greater portion, unfathomable to humans. Are basic biology is for the reproduction of the species. Given the grandeur of the universe itself, to argue the purpose of humanities existence is to itself attempt to argue the purpose of the universe. Because no purpose can be solidified, one must assume that all attempts to identify a solid reasoning are futile given the outstanding operations of the universe itself. Therefor, having children is pointless. Even if humanity manages to escape the planet and the death of the Sun, its safe to say that humanity would only prolong the inevitable death that lies ahead of everything. However to argue in such a way is to also argue against the sole basic composition of our humanity, growth. By not integrating oneself in the childbirth cycle, you are hindering not only humanities growth, but also your own. We are a social species and we cannot survive on selfishness. Same theory applies to the universe.
*This idea of free-will can be argued a thousand times over. For example, Hard-Determinist could argue against the ideas of free-will with casual determinism, the idea that cause is effect, thereby rendering an agent a subject of their own actions. Logical determinism (my personal favorite) states that all events of an agent are either true or false regardless of the measurements of time (past, present, future), thus allowing a mathematical equation to validate any moment of existence. All measurements of the future could only be concluded by measurements equated from the past and present. However on the other side you have Metaphysical Libertarians arguing theories such as the Non-causal theories in that an agent must act, or cause volition in order for events to start. E.g.: Is the Big Bang caused by kinetic developments of grand amounts of energy, or did someone(thing) hit a light switch and start all this bullshit?
**An interesting argument about curse words lies in the constructs of language itself. Words are compositions of letters constructed to allow for an immediate association of phonetic sounds. The word “fuck” for example can be interpreted as an association with sexual intercourse or to intensify selected statements, however if a new publication of the English dictionary were to simply interpret it as a means to intensify phrasing and only as such, then the profanity that lies behind the term is rendered useless. Thereby saying a phrase such as “the author of Twenty Eight Reasons Why You’re Better Off Never Having Kids is a fucking idiot,” cannot be interpreted as a slanderous term, but rather a scripted effort to intensify the idea that the author of the stated article is more than simply an idiot.