undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdpassens7mo ago0 comments

> despite the clear preferences of younger people

But the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children, it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates.

> we both understand

I'm assuming that you're not doing this intentionally, but by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] into having a more positive "positive" birth rate', a notion that I still disagree with, you're suggesting that I'm being intentionally obtuse. Please don't do that.

0 comments

AlecSchueler7mo ago

> the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children,

No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional.

> it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates.

I understood this as well but if we're going to be picky about what was actually said then your use of "just" is unfair here. They actually didn't go one way or the other in it being coincidental or intentional.

> by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] ...

I haven't implied this. I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily. Did you understand that? Framing it as "just asking questions" obscures the obvious socio-political undertones and feels dishonest.

dpassensOP7mo ago

> No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional.

Not really. There are still young people who don't intentionally choose not to have children. Their birth rates might or might not increase without social media.

> your use of "just" is unfair here.

Fair enough, I'll concede that.

> I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily.

Because birth rates are much more relevant to the topic at hand than chocolate sales, no? More loneliness almost necessarily translates into lower birth rates while you can eat chocolate alone or with others.

AlecSchueler7mo ago

Ok then use an example of tandem bicycles. Lonelier people are less likely to buy those. Why aren't we talking about that? Why aren't we asking the question of whether or not banning social media could have a positive impact on the tandem industry?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdpassens7mo ago0 comments

> despite the clear preferences of younger people

> we both understand

0 comments

AlecSchueler7mo ago

> the assertion was not that young people have a 'clear preference' not to have children,

No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional.

> it was that they just have a clear preference to engage in a behaviour that, as a side-effect, lowers birth rates.

> by asserting that I "understand" the commenter is trying to 'coerce [me] ...

dpassensOP7mo ago

> No, and the comment indeed ignored the very visibly growing "child free" movement popular with the younger generations in a way that framed it as unintentional.

Not really. There are still young people who don't intentionally choose not to have children. Their birth rates might or might not increase without social media.

> your use of "just" is unfair here.

Fair enough, I'll concede that.

> I asserted that you understood that singling out the effect on birth rates over the effect on chocolate sales wasn't done arbitrarily.

AlecSchueler7mo ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse