Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.

Melissia wrote:Which isn't necessarily all that high to someone like me whom takes the very firm stance that opinions can not only be wrong, they're regularly so

You realize that if you were to apply your own standard, stripped of specificity, to many of your own beliefs you would be wrong almost constantly; given what you've just said, anyway.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.

We didn't, in fact we have stated it is the opposite of perfect or flawless. You keep trying to distance yourself from what you stated but in the end you stated it. People rarely ever start a statement they believe to be true with "This is an ironclad statement...". If a person believes something to be true they just state it, unless they are in academia, than they dissect it and state it in 6000 words or more.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I've never stated my view was ironclad so I'm not entirely sure why it's being treated as such. Again, stop pretending that I said my view was perfect or flawless.

We didn't, in fact we have stated it is the opposite of perfect or flawless. You keep trying to distance yourself from what you stated but in the end you stated it. People rarely ever start a statement they believe to be true with "This is an ironclad statement...". If a person believes something to be true they just state it, unless they are in academia, than they dissect it and state it in 6000 words or more.

Okay.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:Which isn't necessarily all that high to someone like me whom takes the very firm stance that opinions can not only be wrong, they're regularly so

You realize that if you were to apply your own standard, stripped of specificity, to many of your own beliefs you would be wrong almost constantly; given what you've just said, anyway.

I question my beliefs constantly, and change or reaffirm them depending on what I know at that particular time.

That's nice, but it has no bearing on how likely it is for you to be wrong given a, fairly applied, aggressive demarcation criterion.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Rather, I said something which you thought was bad.

I don't think it is bad, I know it is. It really isn't a matter of an opinion. Being a relativist makes it difficult to admit that just having an opinion doesn't make it valid, but believe me, it doesn't. If your thought had just applied to you than it can't be right or wrong necessarily becuase you make that choice, but when you try to apply it to all humanity you put it up for broader scrutiny. In this case your half thought out idea has been judged and found lacking. Just saying it is an opinion doesn't suddenly put an idea beyond reproach or judgment.

I disagree. We don't know enough about how much of human behavior is nature or nurture to form objective decision about this topic. All I've see here is Ahtman doggedly rejecting Cannerus' opinion out of hand, seemingly because he can't conceive of the possibility that this woman isn't a horrible person.

EDIT: After re-reading I realize that I was way off base about the dispute here. Apologies.

@dogma

i get your point about overbearing and/or malfuntional parents and people. yes if theyre bad for the emotional and physical health of everyone around them by all means kick em out or let them leave

what worries me though is that by recognizing this as an acceptable way of thinking then what accountability will parents have left really?

parents will screw up one way or another but consiously, willingly distancing yourself away from your kids just because "you dont want to be a full time parent" is just plain...painful.

rationalizing it that "I left and thus my children are happier and more independent" is silly

theyre independent because they dont have a choice really. that choice was taken away from them

and "happier" is a trickier thing to tackle. No one really knows how anything will affect a kid growing up.

this debate shouldnt be cheapened by gender roles

dogma wrote:That's nice, but it has no bearing on how likely it is for you to be wrong given a, fairly applied, aggressive demarcation criterion.

Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 5'9" 170lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

dogma wrote:That's nice, but it has no bearing on how likely it is for you to be wrong given a, fairly applied, aggressive demarcation criterion.

Are you aware that there are people in this world that have a severe medical condition which causes them to be that way? My mother for instance is one of those people. She is a truck driver that has bad knees and a bad back from driving the truck but you probably do not care about that case either. Oh well I am not one of those people I am 5'9" 170lbs and I exercise every day. I would love to see you say something like to my mother in front of me. Probably never happen though you are probably just an internet tough guy. I doubt very seriously you would say that to someones face. Just my thought.What do you think. Oh I am sorry you probably do not have a brain. I on the other hand will be happy to buy you a plane ticket to come here and see if you have the nerve to say that to someone I know.

Wait... what did you reply to the wrong post or do you not understand what those words mean

Seconded. Vlad, what the heck are you talking about?

Did you quote the wrong person?

Bakerofish wrote:
what worries me though is that by recognizing this as an acceptable way of thinking then what accountability will parents have left really?

Do they need any? At least of the sort that extends beyond legal consequences?

Bakerofish wrote:
parents will screw up one way or another but consiously, willingly distancing yourself away from your kids just because "you dont want to be a full time parent" is just plain...painful.

rationalizing it that "I left and thus my children are happier and more independent" is silly

Its hard to say that it would be an outright painful experience. It may well be that way for you, but again, lots of others might have different reactions.

Bakerofish wrote:
theyre independent because they dont have a choice really. that choice was taken away from them

They never had a choice to begin with, even dependency would have been forced on them.

Bakerofish wrote:
and "happier" is a trickier thing to tackle. No one really knows how anything will affect a kid growing up.

Sure, especially given the absence of any meaningful comparison, but the distinction between "happy" and "happier" is basically meaningless anyway.

@dogma

i wouldnt say dependency is forced. one of the milestones we have as gronwups is that decision to be come independent.

when i said painful i guess i didnt fully articulate what i meant. what im saying there is that the willful and deliberate denial of your presence and "parenthood" to a child during the age they need it the most is painful to me. some parents are parted from their child and have no control over the circumstances

this person has the means to be with her kids. she just chose not to.

i guess it may not matter to some

and yes parents need to be accountable for their kids especially during their formative years. A 5 year old and a 7 year old cannot be expected to fully understand the consequences of actions they make and the experiences they gain. A 5 year old can barely understand why icecream isnt a prefectly good replacement for a full meal. as much as people make a big deal of quality time, quantity time is as important because it provides a 'constant" or frame of reference for a child.

Ahtman wrote:Ok, exaggerating a little but I really don't know how to feel about this. I agree that not smothering your kids is a good idea but I also think that she wen to an extreme to change that. In essence: I wanted to have kids, but I didn't want it to be an inconvenience, so I walked out and let them hang out on occasion. Now I want to rationalize the decision and get others to agree (forgive) me. Very strange.

She should be exterminated.

Frazzled wrote:She should be exterminated.

What is this? The Da(r)lek Ages?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:She should be exterminated.

What is this? The Da(r)lek Ages?

If you abandon your chidren you should be exterminated. Any other excuse is the excuse of vermin, scum, and their supporters.

But what defines abandon?

I know certain Christian folk who believe that Divorce is equivalent to abandoning one's children.

Melissia wrote:But what defines abandon?

I know certain Christian folk who believe that Divorce is equivalent to abandoning one's children.

You figure it out.

Why should I? I'm not the one advocating government-funded killing.

Melissia wrote:Why should I? I'm not the one advocating government-funded killing.

1. Do you even know what you're advocating?
2. Why government? Free enterprise baby. Boba Fett has to make a living somehow.

Nothing. I'm not advocating anything right now-- instead I am asking you to post specifics on what YOU are advocating so that we can better discuss it, instead of me merely taking you as trolling.

If you abadnon your children. If you are a deadbeat dad/mom.

is the term deadbeat still applicable in this case?

honest question

It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.





...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?

Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.





...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?

gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces. If you can't keep it in your pants and be man enough to raise your kid, planet Earth needs to tell you Get Off Its Balls!

Ahtman wrote:Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'.

Yeah, it kinda is. Traditional values aren't Republican or Democrat values, they're values that (are or have been) integral to the support and growth of society.

Not abandoning your kids is a traditional value.

Good job avoiding answering the question, Frazzled. You'd make a good politician.

What was the question? Is Divorce abandonment? No. Abandoning is.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:It reckon it would be pretty sweet to be a total moron who only sees the world in black and white.





...Oh. Hi, Frazzled. S'up?

gak. Tell it to the kid you just abandoned, that the rest of the world has to pick up the pieces.

Not that it's any of your business, but I pay for the kid I 'abandoned' and have regular contact. Your move.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'.

Yeah, it kinda is. Traditional values aren't Republican or Democrat values, they're values that (are or have been) integral to the support and growth of society.

Not abandoning your kids is a traditional value.

Your argument seems sclerotic at best as to why humans taking care of our young is some sort of vague concept that can change over time. What constitutes a parent can change and I am not trying to define that as it can be many different things. What we teach kids to think is important and that changes over time. I don't think anyone could argue that leaving an to fend for itself is a nebulous issue that is shads of grey. It isn't a value, it is a key to our survival as a species. If it wasn't we wouldn't have orphanages, foster parents, or adoption. Next you will argue that breathing is a traditional value.

In reality "traditional values" is such a generic term to be damn near useless. It is good for politics but not for nuanced debate, unless that debate is on how the term is used in politics.