The one with the least emotions loses

[andrewducker]

This discussion with slammerkinbabe got me thinking, and thence to face-to-face discussion with thishardenedarm about why it is that religious objections to dress codes are different to mere personal dislikes to them, and finally to the following thoughts, which still seem woefully unconclusive to me. Possibly one of you insightful chaps and chapesses can help out.

It annoys me that when a person says "If you make me dress in manner X then the sky fairies will be upset" it's given more credence than my own objections to simply "not liking wearing ties".

Partly this is because it seems irrational to me that appeals to the fantastical should be priveliged over appeals to simply grounded aesthetic preference, and partly it's because I don't have any sky fairies of my own to call own and frankly I feel jealous. (Which reminds me that my first ever girlfriend taromazzy originally started smoking because that way she got a five minute smoke break, whereas non-smokers didn't have an acceptable excuse to stand about for 5 minutes an hour.)

However, while I definitely think that way, on an emotional level, I can see their point. What thishardenedarm pinpointed for me was the issue of identity. Religion, and the things that go with it, are very deep seated in someone's sense of identity, while my dislike of ties is, frankly, not. No matter how much I may dislike them I don't have an absolute belief in their rightness or wrongness. And it's this lack of moral certainty that dooms me, because on the emotional plane true belief beats mere dislike any day of the week.

No, I can't quite place my finger on why, it just does.

To skip-paraphrase from Life, The Universe and Everything:

"The point is that people like you and me are dilettantes, eccentrics, layabouts, fartarounds if you like," said Ford. "We're not obsessed with anything, you see. And that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
"I care about lots of things," said Slartibartfast.
"Such as?"
"Well, life, the Universe. Everything really. Fjords."
"Would you die for them?"
"Fjords?" blinked Slartibartfast in surprise. "No."
"Well, then."
"Wouldn't see the point, really."

Sometimes I wonder if I'd be happier if I could _really_ believe in something. I'm fairly sure that studies have indicated that people do.

Comments

[chillies.livejournal.com]

These kids that you so disparage will be the ones paying taxes that make up your pension or wipe your arse when you're in a nursing home. Let's hope they grow up to believe that childless people deserve their attention.

[andrewducker]

Whilst I, personally, think that allowances should be made for people with children, I'd like to say that I'm currently saving money for my own damn pension, and I'd like to hope that whoever wipes my arse is doing it because they're being paid to work there, not because they happen to like childfree people.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

your pension funds are no doubt invested in the stock market, so when you want to buy that annuity, you're gonna need investors to sell to. The baby boomers will be dead; your contemporaries will be in the same boat; gotta be the next generation.

With the current demographic "timebomb", the number of people needing assistance will become sufficiently large that the people who can provide care will have a choice of who they want to work for. It'll not just be about the money; it'll be about the level of respect that's given in the job and terms and conditions. If the care home workers are berated for choosing to have kids and getting flexible working, perhaps they'll work somewhere better.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

So it's blackmail? Give us special treatment because we have children, otherwise we won't help you out in your old age? I'm not sure I'd want a carer like that, to be honest.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

It's not blackmail. It's freedom of labour.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

No, fair point. Everyone's entitled to go to the jobs with the best benefits. But your point - that we should give people with kids special treatment because we'll need more carers in the future - doesn't make sense; there's not a direct correlation between the two facts. Possibly we'll need to give carers better benefits in the future, because we'll need more of them, but that will apply whether they have children or not. It doesn't mean we should give all people with children special treatment.

[andrewducker]

Oh, and attacking someone whose actually taken the time to phrase things in a very reasonable way, deliberately staying that they _don't_ want people with kids to work Christmas, just makes you look unreasonable.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

yes, you're right. In my defense, I just imagined laserboy's final it's unfair came with a wee stomp of the foot. sorry.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

It's cool. No stomping of foot. ;-)

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

It is unfair. It may well be the least unfair of the currently available options - people missing Christmas with their kids would be more unfair, certainly. But that doesn't mean it's fair that the childless should take up the slack.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

Ah, that old argument. You'd think that was the main reason people had kids - to look after them in their old age. And then they say people without kids are selfish.