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.

Albatross wrote:

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.

Then he really isn't abandoned. If you got a girl pregnant and decided to hell with it and left her and the children high and dry then you would be a deadbeat. By having regular contact you are showing that you care about your child.

This lady is a nut case that doesn't even deserve time spent discussing her. She thinks skype is contact.

My point is that situations like that are rarely black and white issues.

To make it clear I am not condemning parents that don't live at their child's primary habitat, nor am I defining what parent means. I am taking issue with this women specifically and her reasons for leaving: just ad alieno. It is a complicated world and there will be many variations on things but that doesn't mean we can not make decisions or decide if something is right or wrong. I have not called for harm on this woman or anyone else for that matter, I just find her reasoning spurious and a repugnant person at this juncture.

Albatross wrote:My point is that situations like that are rarely black and white issues.

I totally agree. It isn't black and white. Your situation sounds very different than this woman. I don't have a solution for this, but every time I see the title of this thread I get pissed off. Seriously "Encourages Others to do so..." What if the father was encouraged to abandon the children too. What if every parent was encouraged to abandon their kids.

This person isn't abandoning this kids because she is helping them. She is abandoning them because she is a selfish person. I hope your situation is, you just wasn't compatible with the lady you got pregnant. You don't want the kids to suffer, so you keep the contact up and pay the mother money to help her raise them when you are not there.

Some people just shouldn't be together. My wife's parents were a couple just like that. However if they didn't have their kids, then I wouldn't have my wife would I?

yes cases where parents leave their kids behind is rarely black and white and rarely have easy decisions some leave in order to provide, some leave because their presence makes living harder

the real debate here is that the woman actively chose to leave her kids because she doesnt want to be a full time parent

no financial factors, no abuse no nothing

just plain rejection of the notion of being a full time parent

whether this mindset is justified is the issue

Honestly now that I think of it some more, I am glad this woman abandoned her children. They are better off. Can you imagine the hell these kids would have put up with if she would have remained with the family? Moping about complaining about how much she hates her children? Hopefully they have a decent step mom. She should be paying child support though. I didn't see any mention of that in the article unless you could this as child support: " "‪Now we stay in touch by phone, IM, Skype a few times a week," she says. "I hear about their lives and give support.‬"

Ahtman wrote:

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.

Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.

Adoption used to be taboo, now it's common. But before adoption, there (usually) must be some sort of abandonment by one or both parents ("usually" to cover cases of parent death). We shut up orphans away from society and hoped they turned out all right.

This case is no different, apart from age, than the mother who abandons her kids at birth. She shirked her responsibility and figured someone else would take care of her kids for her. She didn't care if they grew up to be successful, or even if they lived to see their 10th birthday.

You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.

biccat wrote:Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.

So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place? If you, you know, actually read anything, you would see that I am not defining parent and I am certainly defining it as narrowly as only biological parents. Referring to adoption as taboo is an extreme oversimplification and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term taboo.

biccat wrote:You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.

You can't think of this outside of political semiotics can you? You are the one that keeps going that way. If I agree with something a Republican says I will say so, if I disagree I will also say so. This is true of Democrats. I am not running for office and do not therefore need to align myself with one or the other that strongly.

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

Melissia wrote:But what defines abandon?

The question I was asking was too straightforward to be THAT confusing.

Well, Frazzled?

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:Being a parent to your own child is a traditional value. It's something that has changed over time.

So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place? If you, you know, actually read anything, you would see that I am not defining parent and I am certainly defining it as narrowly as only biological parents. Referring to adoption as taboo is an extreme oversimplification and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term taboo.

I merely disagreed with your statment that "being a parent isn't a 'traditional value,'" as used in the present context.

The woman abandoned her own kids, she refused to be a 'parent' (in more than the biological sense) to her children. This is a bad thing, but not because it's objectively bad, but because it's bad for society.

You're right tho that it wasn't 'taboo' according to the original understanding of the term, that is, "an unmentionable sacred act." But the term is more commonly used to mean an "unmentionable socially disfavored act." Adoptions used to happen due to abandonment, but nobody talked about it and it wasn't commonplace.

I'm sorry if you failed to understand this point. I shall be more specific when responding to your posts in the future.

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:You can't label something "not a traditional value" to avoid agreeing with a Republican on something.

You can't think of this outside of political semiotics can you? You are the one that keeps going that way. If I agree with something a Republican says I will say so, if I disagree I will also say so. This is true of Democrats. I am not running for office and do not therefore need to align myself with one or the other that strongly.

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote:

Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue.

Seems to me that you were the one drawing a political line.

biccat wrote:But the term is more commonly used to mean an "unmentionable socially disfavored act." Adoptions used to happen due to abandonment, but nobody talked about it and it wasn't commonplace.

Except it wasn't an "unmentionable socially disfavored act". The getting pregnant out of wedlock would have been taboo, but orphans were not. Maybe unpopular, sure, but taboo? No. I also don't see the point in bringing up traditional use other than to be asinine.

I also used the political example at that time to define what it is not, you are trying to define it as what it is.

And you are still wrong on most everything else, but I imagine you are used to that by now.

Ahtman wrote:I also used the political example at that time to define what it is not, you are trying to define it as what it is.

As I understood your point:

1) This is not a traditional value.
2) Traditional values are the purview of Republican politics
3) Ergo, this is not a political issue.

I disagree with #1, agree with #3, and therefore disagree with #2. There are 'traditional values' that both sides can agree upon.

Ahtman wrote:And you are still wrong on most everything else, but I imagine you are used to that by now.

I am certainly used to some posters disagreeing with me. This might be something you should try to "get used to."

I am also used to the fact that some posters here refuse to accept that there can be any rational opposition to their ideas. You may want to reconsider your position if you're in this group.

I am also used to the fact that certain posters here are stubborn who won't accept anything that doesn't agree with their religious, political, racial, or national bigotry. If you fall into this group, you should take a step back.

If this is what you meant, then yes, I am used to it by now.

I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Rosa Parks?

Did she abandon her children?

For shame!

It didn't necessarily change the world but it sure as hell led to lots of societal change.

This woman's example, however... no.

Bakerofish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Rosa Parks?

She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?

Albatross wrote:

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.

Then you didn 't abandon him now did you. So Get Off My Balls!
(protip As I learned Saturday night, a nearly blind weiner dog, when pissed off, will bear his teeth and just wave his head about Ray Charles style. Its awesome)

Ahtman wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Rosa Parks?

She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?

that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction

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

When I say that dependency is forced, I mean for the period of time before a child can file for emancipation. After that, force doesn't really come into it at all, as a child could very well wish dependency until age 30, only to have dependency taken away by a parent.

In general, society doesn't grant children the ability to make any significant choices until a certain age.

So did Queen Elizabeth, and Cleopatra, and Marie Curie.

Do these examples make a convincing argument that Mrs Rizzuto will convert a generation of women to the idea of having children and abandoning them?

Kilkrazy wrote:So did Queen Elizabeth, and Cleopatra, and Marie Curie.

Do these examples make a convincing argument that Mrs Rizzuto will convert a generation of women to the idea of having children and abandoning them?

im just pointing out that its not impossible

she already has folks defending her position

biccat wrote:
I must have misunderstood you when you wrote:

Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue.

Seems to me that you were the one drawing a political line.

Simply using the word "Republican" does not make a statement political. Republicans often talk about "traditional values" in an almost comically narrow sense in order to develop a sort of political ownership, and one might bring such a thing up in order to explain the fruitlessness of pursuing a similar route by speaking to "traditional values".

Its like calling something "common sense".

Why would you do that to your children!

Bakerofish wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Rosa Parks?

She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?

that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction

Of course it is the point when your argument is that she was one woman that changed the world when in fact she didn't. She may be one of the best known names today but she certainly wasn't alone or the first.

Ahtman wrote:So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place?

Not that anyone else has been guilty of the same...

Ahtman wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

Rosa Parks?

She didn't do it alone. She also falls under the historical theory of the cult of personality where a few people are acknowledged for something the many did. It is just easier to remember her name. Know the name of the school where a white guy taught MLK and her the fundamentals of Ghandi's theories on non-violent civil disobedience?

that really isnt the point is it? whether or not she did it alone you cant deny that name got people going a certain direction

Of course it is the point when your argument is that she was one woman that changed the world when in fact she didn't. She may be one of the best known names today but she certainly wasn't alone or the first.

was the argument about Rosa parks being solely responsible for changing the world?

or about a woman changing the world?

so did Rosa Parks NOT change the world?

Bakerofish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:So did Queen Elizabeth, and Cleopatra, and Marie Curie.

Do these examples make a convincing argument that Mrs Rizzuto will convert a generation of women to the idea of having children and abandoning them?

im just pointing out that its not impossible

she already has folks defending her position

I find it unlikely in the extreme that there will be a sea change in women's behaviour thanks to this person.

The human race would have become extinct a long time ago if the majority of women were so uninterested in having children.

Bakerofish wrote:so did Rosa Parks NOT change the world?

Not alone, no, and even than she didn't change the world. Last I checked the USA wasn't the entirety of the planet. She may have been part of a cultural change but she wasn't the catalyst nor the end of it. It is still ongoing and involves millions of people everyday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Ahtman wrote:So you finally admit you are debating a point I was never arguing in the first place?

Not that anyone else has been guilty of the same...

At some point all of us have misunderstood another's position, were in error, and got called on it. I've made that error before and fessed up to it. I don't recall any argument being put forward that any of us are error free.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Love them Daleks...