[imetatroll]

I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not.

To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced". I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say. And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences".

[halgir]

> I cannot put my finger on why I dislike this comment so deeply but I am a parent and I suspect you are not.

I am also a parent.

> I do agree though that parents should deeply love and support their kids which is what it sounds like you are trying to say.

Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them.

> And in turn, your kids should do the same despite "generational differences".

I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition.

[vacuity]

> I disagree. Our kids will never be morally obligated towards us in any way. We can only hope to have loved and supported them enough for them to love and support us back of their own volition.

I agree with this. Kids can't willingly bring themselves into the world (although "forced" is an exaggeration), and the burden is on their parents. A kid, until a certain point, is a person with certain needs and restrictions that call for external supervision (e.g. needing shelter, not voting). I consider a person in general to not have inherent obligations beyond not killing and whatnot. Sure, I can ditch my friend in a socially awkward moment and that would make me a huge jerk, but surely it doesn't rise to the same level as hitting someone.

> Loving your kids is not a moral obligation, though most do (for the record, I love mine very much). Supporting your kids is a moral obligation, whether you love them or not, incurred by creating them.

I don't quite know what you mean by "loving" versus "supporting". To me, supporting sounds like loving, with the caveat that I think emotional care ties into supporting a kid. Do you mean extra things like buying more presents on holidays?

[halgir]

> (although "forced" is an exaggeration)

Maybe. "Forced" implies "against their will", and prior to existing they of course had no will to oppose. It seems like you know what I mean though, and I'll try to think of less harsh verbiage for my point.

> I don't quite know what you mean by "loving" versus "supporting". To me, supporting sounds like loving, with the caveat that I think emotional care ties into supporting a kid. Do you mean extra things like buying more presents on holidays?

I may have been overly pedantic in separating them. By "love" I mean the actual emotion, which can never be forced or obligated. By "support" I mean everything we do for our kids. And part of supporting our kids is making sure they never doubt that we love them, which perhaps renders the difference moot.

[p_j_w]

>To be specific I dislike your framing and use of the word "forced".

Why?

[trillic]

Because it directly contradicts their world view where child-rearing and the success of said child’s genetics is the highest purpose one can pursue.