Do your jaw problems make you reconsider wanting children?

[Lazlo]

yeah but thy can fix that s**t early now, we just didn't have the chance. so who cares?

[Charles-Guillaume]

Even provided the hypothetical scenario that a woman would actually agree to bear my children, I wouldn't want to introduce without consideration of the volition of the unborn another soul into this Godless nihilistic s**thole.

I don't think that my jaw deformity would necessarily be passed on as none of my direct ancestors have it (however, it could of course be an epigenetic mutation). However, I have experienced life without mutual physical attraction, and it is awful to say the least. Even if this civilisation of tedious ontological naturalism (the product of which is invariably nihilism) were to transform into something more suitable for real live humans, I couldn't imagine fathering a child that would risk inheriting my unattractiveness.

[PloskoPlus]

Even provided the hypothetical scenario that a woman would actually agree to bear my children, I wouldn't want to introduce without consideration of the volition of the unborn another soul into this Godless nihilistic s**thole.

I don't think that my jaw deformity would necessarily be passed on as none of my direct ancestors have it (however, it could of course be an epigenetic mutation). However, I have experienced life without mutual physical attraction, and it is awful to say the lesat. Even if this civilisation of tedious ontological naturalism (the product of which is invariably nihilism) were to transform into something more suitable for real live humans, I couldn't imagine fathering a child that would risk inheriting my unattractiveness.

Happiness is a matter of temperament and little else.  Just like looks, temperament is completely determined when the sperm hits the egg.

[Charles-Guillaume]

Happiness is a matter of temperament and little else.  Just like looks, temperament is completely determined when the sperm hits the egg.

I don't agree with your analysis. It is by now commonly accepted in the scientific community (the dogma of which is generally a result of a combination of a modified Baconian empiricism and a priori preferences for "pet theories" and the status quo) that genoexclusivism is a defunct hypothesis, as is evinced by the importance of epigenetics and possibly even a para-Lamarckian evolution guided by the will by means of gamma waves produced by brain activity, known to possess the capacity to mutate DNA. The latter "proof" is still highly controversial--as is always the case when commonly accepted theory encounters empirical counterevidence.

The determinism to which you subscribe is something of a Victorian relic, counterintuitive and falsified by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the findings of GR and QM. Hence, even within the narrow scope of contemporary science, materialistic hard determinism cannot possibly suffice to account for the phenomena concerned.

[Lazlo]

I don't agree with your analysis. It is by now commonly accepted in the scientific community (the dogma of which is generally a result of a combination of a modified Baconian empiricism and a priori preferences for "pet theories" and the status quo) that genoexclusivism is a defunct hypothesis, as is evinced by the importance of epigenetics and possibly even a para-Lamarckian evolution guided by the will by means of gamma waves produced by brain activity, known to possess the capacity to mutate DNA. The latter "proof" is still highly controversial--as is always the case when commonly accepted theory encounters empirical counterevidence.

The determinism to which you subscribe is something of a Victorian relic, counterintuitive and falsified by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the findings of GR and QM. Hence, even within the narrow scope of contemporary science, materialistic hard determinism cannot possibly suffice to account for the phenomena concerned.

Well there you go! 

[Lazlo]

I agree with jawbone just for the record.

[Gregor Samsa]

I can't help myself from thinking about reddit every time I heard the words "Baconian empiricism". 

[Lazlo]

Whoever nicked me a karma point, go f**k yourself in the ass. You'll probably enjoy it.

[PloskoPlus]

Whoever nicked me a karma point, go f**k yourself in the ass. You'll probably enjoy it.

I'm up one.  Defeatists For The Win!

[Lazlo]

I voted up Lazlo for agreeing with  me.

nice thanks jawbone. you're a smart cookie! 

[PloskoPlus]

I don't agree with your analysis. It is by now commonly accepted in the scientific community (the dogma of which is generally a result of a combination of a modified Baconian empiricism and a priori preferences for "pet theories" and the status quo) that genoexclusivism is a defunct hypothesis, as is evinced by the importance of epigenetics and possibly even a para-Lamarckian evolution guided by the will by means of gamma waves produced by brain activity, known to possess the capacity to mutate DNA. The latter "proof" is still highly controversial--as is always the case when commonly accepted theory encounters empirical counterevidence.

The determinism to which you subscribe is something of a Victorian relic, counterintuitive and falsified by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the findings of GR and QM. Hence, even within the narrow scope of contemporary science, materialistic hard determinism cannot possibly suffice to account for the phenomena concerned.

I know about epigenetics.  So you're done not when the sperm hits the egg, but when you're born instead. Big whoop.

Nature/nurture, epigenetics, what not, you're definitely done by the time you hit 20.  There is a reason why tennis champions start playing so early and even then it's mostly genetics.  20 years ago one sports scientist interviewed thousands of tennis academy kids in Florida. The kids who eventually became champions trained on average *less* and played fewer tournaments as kids.  They were taller and thinner than their peers as pre-teens.

Yes, you can improve your lot.  But it becomes harder and harder each passing year.  Good job on recognizing your dentofacial deformity when you did.  I was largely oblivious until I was 35.

[GJ]

The arguing in this thread has been deleted.

I don't want to police you guys, so I ask you police yourselves (i.e. self-edit button, bite your tongue, whatever you want to call it). Have some restraint and decency.

[molestrip]

That ship has already sailed for me. My 6yo has an open bite and retrognathic profile already. Both of my kids struggle to nose breath, not sure what to do about it. I took my 6yo for an allergy test and she no reaction to anything. I tried Nasonex, no help. Thinking of taking them to Stanford or UNC to see what they'd do and look for the best dentofacial orthopedic people I can find. ENT, sleep doc, dentist, none of them are remotely concerned. A few orthodontists seemed interested. Who are the world class experts in dentofacial orthopedics, that can correct this for her?

[needadvancement]

^Sorry to hear that. Have you tried to encourage them to maintain good oral posture throughout the day and during sleep? And also not having an only soft food diet etc. I think that the stuff dr. Mew teaches is good for children, 6 years old perhaps an ideal age.

[JawKid7]

@Molestrip see Mike Mew