The comment I responded to was specifically talking about "banning social media" and their confidence this would have a "positive" impact on birth rates, despite the clear preferences of younger people. I'm "bringing up" coercion because I'm not sure how to describe such policies and intentions otherwise?
The reason for it might not have been made explicit but we both understand what they were driving at and why they weren't "merely" asking the question of what effect a social media ban might have on chocolate sales or something equally arbitrary.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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?
Mostly because cedws is apparently more interested in birth rates than in tandem sales. Personally, I can't say I fault them for that and don't understand why that's a problem because, going back to my original point, they're not suggesting that people who don't want children should be forced to have children.
They're suggesting using the law the limit people's alternatives. You might not call it coercive but it's paternalistic at best. It's using the state apparatus and the monopoly of violence to limit people's choices in such a way that they're encouraged to choose to breed. I'll stand by what I said: it's creepy.
For one, the question was merely whether we'd observe an increased birth rate, not whether that is a reason to pass such a law.
Secondly, you're the one who's bringing up coercion. You can both not be on social media and not have kids. It's still your decision.