kurt_w wrote:Your point, basically, is that you loathe parents and children, and enjoy being deliberately offensive.
Speaking of boats, it would appear as if you're completely missing the boat here. As I stated, I love kids, my beef ain't with them and I certainly don't begrudge them for simply being born. I also don't begrudge parents. Without reproducing, we cease to exist. I'm more concerned with the spawners and those reproducing who shouldn't be. People who are ready and capable to be parents, have at it, in moderation.
Yes, of course there is the immediate matter of children who are already born and the issue of caring for them. I get it. But I also like to get to the root of things if I can too.
For several years as a teenager I volunteered at an animal shelter. To see the realities of overpopulation up close and personal, go work at a shelter. We had to deal with the immediate issue of animals being brought in, you know, animal care
, but we also knew to help fix the issue we were currently dealing with we needed to spay or neuter the animal as well. We stressed the importance of spaying or neutering pets to the adopters and throughout the community.
In a daily 5-second sentence, Bob Barker did more for the animal overpopulation issue in this country than just about anyone. Where is this education for humans? It's trampled and torn apart by conservatives for the most part, particularly the uber-religious. So we ignore it. Let's not get the Jesus freaks whipped into a frenzy!
Funny how we have the insight to deal with overpopulation in other mammals/animals, but don't take a look at ourselves. We have no issue sending people with guns and bows up north to thin herds of deer every year, but god forbid we take a look in the mirror.
To talk about childcare while not addressing the root issue is just dumb. Imagine if we simply cared for shelter animals and did nothing else. We'd be overrun and at some point no longer able to care for the animals either.
Well guess where we're headed?
kurt_w wrote:I have no problem with your feeling that way.
Obviously you do. Be genuine. I'll respect you more for it.
kurt_w wrote:But the intensity of your visceral reaction to the topic is seriously hindering your reading comprehension. You're not understanding what anyone else is talking about, and your responses don't really relate to the discussion at hand.
I read everything and understood it perfectly. I think you're just getting bristled by my take on it all. A lot of people do regarding subjects like this. Which is why I find the repeated attempts to navigate away from my comments so interesting. It does pertain to the discussion, just not in a way you'd like.
just curious, are you a parent?
kurt_w wrote:Nobody chooses to be born. Nobody asked to be brought into this world.
I agree. What's your point? My point was that having kids is a choice. And it is. What part of that don't you get?
kurt_w wrote:I understand that you have this grudge against parents.
Nope. See above.(you're not projecting are you?)
kurt_w wrote:It's not unique on the Forum; you may imagine that you're being all edgy and provocative and insightful, but it's more or less the same thing that we heard from bdog a few months ago, and from other forons in years past.
I don't care if it's "unique" or not. Or if I'm being "provocative" or "edgy". I'd like to think I'm being insightful, but I'm humble enough to know that's not always the case. I'm trying to establish a dialogue on the big picture here. If you're offended by that, well, suck it up. We're all grownups here.
My point isn't to offend, but rather engage. If you don't like the things I'm contributing that's fine, you don't have to address them. You won't hurt my feelings one bit by not doing so. I welcome your input.
kurt_w wrote:Try to put that aside for a bit, because it's difficult to have a rational discussion when you're blinded by your resentments -- regardless of whether they're justified.
What resentments? That I think kids, kids who don't have a choice who they're born to, should have the best chances and opportunities possible to them? Yeah, maybe you're right, I do resent that not happening. If they had been born to loving parents who were ready for them, maybe things like this
wouldn't make Yahoo's homepage today.
Sorry if my resentment over that is being felt here.
Like I said, I love kids.
kurt_w wrote:This thread is not about whether parents should be rewarded or punished.
I didn't say it was. And curious, what do you mean by rewarded or punished parents? You seem to be really, really, misconstruing the things I'm saying.
kurt_w wrote:It's about the best way to provide care for actual, already-born children who have an absolute need to be cared for by adults.
Well, now you're simply stressing the "already-born" part in an effort to get me off my contentions. But I've already addressed this above. While involuntarily "fixing" humans isn't the answer, birthing education is. Unlike pets, we're able to train
humans about this. And we don't. So the cycle continues.
Fix the cause, not the problem. I love how people fixate on the problem while not the cause and then get ruffled when people want to address the cause as well. And then proceed to stymie the conversation if it veers that way.
kurt_w wrote:If you want to start a thread where you can moan about how awful parents and children are, go back to the main page and click that "New Topic" button.
Not what I'm doing. Why are you so reticent to my incorporating the cause here? Baffles me.
kurt_w wrote:No posts in this thread have said that parenting is the hardest job in the world. You are inventing imaginary outrages to give yourself something to whine about.
Wow. You didn't just start some organic thread here about a topic that was swimming around in your brain for a while. You plucked a national headline and then started a thread about it. That national headline has went on to encompass all sorts of things.
Apparently we get our news from entirely different sources. One of the resulting fallouts I've been seeing all over is the "parenting is the hardest job in the world" bit (well, mothering
actually).Am I imagining this?Or this?
Or the tons of pundits on the various news channels droning on and on about it?
No. It's real. Not some outrage I created.
And I'm mentioning it because it pertains to the national story you started this thread about. So what if no one else brought it up before me? I've now brought it up.
Deal with it or don't.
kurt_w wrote:This is a nice example of what will be one of the themes of your comments in this thread: confusing the act of reproduction with the act of raising a child. If you don't understand that distinction, it's going to be very difficult for you to contribute anything useful.
I understand that distinction just fine. Thanks.
kurt_w wrote:Unless you're operating a commercial fishing vessel, or cargo shipping, then your boat's role in the economy is purely consumption.
Who cares if I'm the supply or demand side? They're supplying it, I'm consuming it. Without my consumption there is no commercial fishing or cargo shipping. We both drive the economy. You said boats aren't an economic interest to society. I simply corrected you.
Investments in early childhood interventions
typically yield conservatively calculated savings of anywhere from 180% to 1700% of the program costs.
Great. I never said investing in early childhood interventions wasn't a good thing. I think investing in birthing education would be an even better thing
kurt_w wrote:What you snipped is, basically, the point of this thread.
Maybe to you and some others. Basically.
kurt_w wrote:You're essentially in the position of a guy who inserts himself into a discussion about the Packers' strategy in last week's game and loudly declares that he hates football and that all this "coaching strategy" stuff isn't the point.
Not worth responding to other than this sentence.
kurt_w wrote:That would be an interesting topic for a different thread. Why don't you start it?
Because it pertains to this one. Again, if you think I'm not contributing or don't like what I have to say, you need not address it if you like.
kurt_w wrote:Of course, if your goal is to get actual discussion going, rather than people just standing around insulting each other, it would probably be more productive to avoid deliberately offensive language like "breeding".
Good grief. Get thicker skin.
Is there a better term for people who mass produce you'd prefer me to use? You don't like breeding or spawning.SPAWN
as defined by Merriam-Webster: verb, to produce young especially in large numbers.BREED
: verb, to produce (offspring) by hatching or gestation.
Provide me with a word that makes you feel more warm and fuzzy about spawning or breeding and I'll use it from now on.
kurt_w wrote:Still inventing your own grievances. Nobody in this thread has said anything about a "right to reproduce". Do you always have this much trouble with reading comprehension?
Well that's usually the response when someone starts talking about population control. Has nothing to do with reading comprehension and more to do with preemptively answering a typical response.
I try to think ahead.
kurt_w wrote:I didn't attribute it to you. You're not the first foron to use offensive language when discussing this topic.
Well, when you quote my post, then quote an actual word I DID use, then go on to quote another passage right after, one would think you were attributing it to them. Which I think is what you meant to do. You just confused mine and bdog's words is all. I could be wrong... but that's what it appears.
Not exactly a big deal, it happens. But when it does, it should be clarified on who said what.
Also, you seem really worked up about all the "offensive" language here. You may want to take a Kit-Kat break and get some fresh air. I really don't think things are all as bad as you're getting worked up about.
But again, I'll tone it down if you give me a more appropriate word to use. You just let me know all the bad words you don't like and I'll try to find suitable replacements.
kurt_w wrote:Actually it's quite rude, as you are aware -- why else would you have used it? But if you enjoy being offensive, go right ahead.
Oh cool. I didn't see this part yet. So I need not use other words if I enjoy being offensive?
Well, the reality is, sometimes I do enjoy being offensive. However, now isn't really one of them. So again, since I obviously rubbed you the wrong way, I'll try to refrain from those particular words again.
I'd still like your safe substitute words though.
kurt_w wrote:One of the nice things about parenthood is that it tends to promote a certain degree of patience with other people who are behaving childishly.
Aaahahh! This answers my question from earlier.
Well then, now it's all