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.

@killcrazy

when you say this:
I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

and have you rephrase it like this:
I find it unlikely in the extreme that there will be a sea change in women's behaviour thanks to this person.

means that we agree that her influencing the world is not impossible. especially with how fast ideas get shared now.

Jenny McCarthy for example ruined decades of health programs all over the world because she thought vaccines caused autism. she found an audience and now a lot of remain un-immunized even though history and medical research debunk her claims.

Just get one person to believe you and the idea will spread. no matter how silly the idea is.

@ahtman
well we have different views of what "changing the world" is then

if by changing the world means she was focal point for people to take up discussions that werent discussed in the past. if these discussions would then domino into reforms that drastically alter how a nation sees its own people, domino into how the nation then deals with the world

then i think she did change the world

anyone remembered in history, whether justified or not, has changed the world one way or another. Not everyone can be a Benazir Bhuto or a Cory Aquino...but Jane Goodall and Helen Keller are no less important.

Bakerofish wrote:anyone remembered in history, whether justified or not, has changed the world one way or another. Not everyone can be a Benazir Bhuto or a Cory Aquino...but Jane Goodall and Helen Keller are no less important.

Everyone has changed the world in one form or another by there existence. In Historical studies (and I don't mean reading Stephen Ambrose) the real importance of these players is questionable. Lending a face to a movement is useful shorthand but it denies the realities of any given situation. There is concern that we place to much emphasis on individuals when most issues are not centered around specific people. No man is an island, and there is a long line of uninterrupted time with murky cause and effect chains with no clear demarcation line to say when a thing actually began and when it ended.

Jane Goodall didn't make the information she studied about primates or build the plane she flew to Africa, let alone pilot it. She didn't drive herself to the mountains, she didn't self publish her book or do interviews of herself on networks she owned being watched by herself on tv and talked about herself at the water cooler at work. She certainly didn't become a poacher and shoot herself in the end. Her life was a group effort.

@ahtman

successes (and failures) are attributed to the people who spearhead them.

if someone asked me who invented the lightbulb i would then say Edison

or should i also include the people who gathered the materials and outlined the concepts necessary to facilitate such an invention? Edison cant make the lightbulb without the caveman who first used fire as a tool after all

Bakerofish wrote:@killcrazy

when you say this:
I really don't think one woman's example is going to change the world.

and have you rephrase it like this:
I find it unlikely in the extreme that there will be a sea change in women's behaviour thanks to this person.

means that we agree that her influencing the world is not impossible. especially with how fast ideas get shared now.

...

No, it doesn't. It just means you don't have a strong insight into human society and psychology.

If you think Mrs Lazybitche is going to turn women off mothering, why don't you think that will be balanced by the marvellous example of Mrs Crazytigger?

You overestimate the influence these people have. Both of them are nine-day wonders.

Women have been giving birth and raising families for 250,000 years. The human race only exists because of the strength of the parenting instinct.

Bakerofish wrote:@ahtman

successes (and failures) are attributed to the people who spearhead them.

if someone asked me who invented the lightbulb i would then say Edison

or should i also include the people who gathered the materials and outlined the concepts necessary to facilitate such an invention? Edison cant make the lightbulb without the caveman who first used fire as a tool after all

Except we aren't talking about inventions, which to be honest aren't always that cut and dry either, we are talking about social movements. The idea that just becuase we put a face to a movement means that they spearheaded the movement or were the crux of it is false and in depth history studies show this again and again.

@killcrazy

so youre saying the the woman CANNOT influence others...knowing the fact that there are folks who think the same as her?

@ahtman

putting a name or face on an idea is one way ideas are conveyed and spread in the first place. The fact that they did or didnt originate the idea is irrelevant as people will get introduced to the idea through these people anyway.

think of a concept, an idea, a movement... most often people will first recall a face or a person. Can you honestly tell me that you never associated an idea with a specific person?

I think what Killcrazy is trying to say is that in the longterm people will just look back and think "crazy woman leaving her children. Bad mother etc etc". Short term of course some will follow her example, but once the hype is over it's back to business as usual.

Lukus83 wrote:I think what Killcrazy is trying to say is that in the longterm people will just look back and think "crazy woman leaving her children. Bad mother etc etc". Short term of course some will follow her example, but once the hype is over it's back to business as usual.

this is the most likely outcome yes. keyword is likely. definitely? unless youve got a crystal ball that confirms it id be hard pressed to say it in such final terms.

i was just pointing out the flaw in his statement that its impossible to say for sure.

Immigrant families with professional opportunities overseas have to deal with
this all the time, and when the families do finally get to settle in together there
remain unresolved issues that can make it difficult for them to live with one
another. Some of the people I grew up with moved to the United States as
teenagers or older, and what was striking to me was the age differences among
siblings: 2-3 years, exactly the amount of time it took their father to save up
money for a trip back home to the Philippines.

It's not a small decision, leaving your children behind, but there are situations
where it is for the better.

I'm not sure if this situation is such a one. I don't know if I can make that call.

There's a Los Lobos song that expresses how hard it must feel:

Speak softly, don't wake the baby
Come and hold me once more
Before I have to leave
Because there's a lot of work out there
Everything will be fine
And I'll send for you baby
Just a matter of time

Our life, the only thing we know
Come and tell me once more
Before you have to go
That's there's a better world out there
Though it don't feel right
Will it be like I hope
Just a matter of time

And I hope it's all it seems
Not another empty dream
There's a time for you and me
In a place living happily

And I hope it's all it seems
Not another empty dream
There's a time for you and me
In a place living happily

Walk quietly, don't make a sound
Believe in what you're doing
I know we can't be wrong
Don't worry about us here
It will be alright
And we'll be there with you
Just a matter of time
And we'll all be together
Just a matter of time
A matter of time
We'll be together
In a matter of time
You and me, a matter of time
It will be like I hoped
A matter of time

I'm just giving you crap We're cool.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.

Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.

I agree in parts. Just because a person has a child doesnt mean they have to raise it. Its pertty fethed up if you ask me but thats the truth. Personally, even if my wife and I separated, I would still be there for my children (and indeed my wife) whenever they needed me. It sounds to me like she just realized it was a bad idea and left. I think shes now just convincing herself that it was an awesome choice to abandon her children and husband.

Personally, Id punch the bitch

Frazzled wrote:

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!

I will gladly climb off your balls the day you stop treating complex issues in a manichean fashion. Saying that 'people who abandon their kids should be exterminated' is pretty unhelpful to any sort of rational debate, especially considering the fact that abandonment is an ambiguous concept. There are degrees of 'abandon'. Some people may consider my situation 'abandonment'. On the other hand, you could take the matter of my own father, who I barely knew. Now you'll probably say 'he sounds like a scumbag', and you'd basically be right - he was a violent drunk who spent most of my life in various prisons (or trying to get into them) - but what you wouldn't take into account is the fact that I was actually glad he wasn't around. I was more than happy to be 'abandoned'.

A bad parent can do more damage than an absent one. Worth bearing in mind before you make broadbrush statements on the issue of parental absenteeism.

Good for her.

I will gladly climb off your balls the day you stop treating complex issues in a manichean fashion.
***That’s cheating. You’re using those $5 words again.

Saying that 'people who abandon their kids should be exterminated' is pretty unhelpful to any sort of rational debate, especially considering the fact that abandonment is an ambiguous concept.
***Wait, why do you think I or anyone on this thread or this board are having a debate? It’s a statement f belief.

There are degrees of 'abandon'.
***Excuses to make shades without reason. I already stated my qualification of when abandonment is.

Some people may consider my situation 'abandonment'.
***I don’t know what your situation is or if it meets my definition.

On the other hand, you could take the matter of my own father, who I barely knew.
Now you'll probably say 'he sounds like a scumbag', and you'd basically be right - he was a violent drunk who spent most of my life in various prisons (or trying to get into them) - but what you wouldn't take into account is the fact that I was actually glad he wasn't around. I was more than happy to be 'abandoned'.
***That doesn’t fit my definition, but I’ll roll, there may be exceptions. If he abandoned you under this definition then its supporting my point.

A bad parent can do more damage than an absent one.
****True but dthat doesn’t make the absent one any more worthy of being allowed to breath.

Worth bearing in mind before you make broadbrush statements on the issue of parental absenteeism.
***None of that has changed my position. You just cited bad parents. OK they suck. It’s a separate issue but they suck. Put them against the wall too.

Bakerofish wrote:
Jenny McCarthy for example ruined decades of health programs all over the world because she thought vaccines caused autism. she found an audience and now a lot of remain un-immunized even though history and medical research debunk her claims.

She wasn't the first one to say this mind you. She was just the first celebrity to spread it. I don't think she has ruined anything either. Nobody knows for sure what the link is between vaccination and autism. Heck there have been people who video their child for hours each day up until their child is vaccinated and for a period of time afterwards, which clearly show something happened to their child immediately after the vaccine was administrated. Something is going on with the vaccinations, though I don't think they cause Autism. More than likely is is akin to an allergic reaction to the vaccine and these kids have genetic defect that causes the reaction (autism) to happen after being vaccinated.

But I wouldn't know the truth of any of it. I have just witnessed as many as ten familys whose child was perfectly normal until the day that got the vaccine. Instead of saying the vaccine causes it, someone shoudl be looking into a possible genetic flaw that has a reaction to the vaccine.

Assuming you are talking about the MMR vaccine, the following organisations know for sure there is no link between MMR vaccination and autism.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences
The UK National Health Service
The Cochrane Library

They know because of statistics.

Thats sciency!

Kilkrazy wrote:Assuming you are talking about the MMR vaccine, the following organisations know for sure there is no link between MMR vaccination and autism.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Institute of Medicine of the US National Academy of Sciences
The UK National Health Service
The Cochrane Library

They know because of statistics.

I am not arguing with you or the statistics. The medical fields of both autism and ME/CFS research are plagued by politics. This is to our detriment. It's hard to follow the evidence when reporting of findings is skewed by politics. Andrew Wakefield killed off a lot of children with his fraudulent research. I don't think the issue is ever going to be resolved. I believe that there are some kids who are affected in some way whether it is an allegory or something else. Every one I have ever seen has been completely different. It is really hard to find a true cause when you keep blanketing multiple disorders with the same terminology. I have four kids in my classroom all diagnosed with Autism and I can tell you this, their disorders are completely different. That has to affect the outcome of any research in the issue.

EDIT: 9th time is the charm.

Andrew Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register because of that piece of research.

Kilkrazy wrote:Andrew Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register because of that piece of research.

Yeah, I had that edited in a few times. I took most of it out, because I really just do not know anymore regarding the issue. The politics are so distorted with the issue that it is really hard to get a grip on the truth. I am going with the organisations you listed for now until someone steps up and provides us with some new research. I doubt it will happen because of Andrew Wakefield though.

The politics aren't distorted.

On the one hand we have 500 million children vaccinated with MMR since the early 1970s, leading to a saving over over 17,000 cases of mental retardation and over 5,000 child deaths in the US alone. Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.

On the other hand we have people like Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and the Daily Mail.

There isn't any doubt. There isn't any contest. The evidence from numerous, well-conducted studies and meta-research is overwhelmingly convincing that there is no link between vaccination and autism.

There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.

Here too. I wish I could say that the US is less trusting of quack medicine than the brits are, but even here fake crap like Homeopathy is starting to take hold too.

The woman is a selfish person. She's also a idiot who seemingly thought having children would be "fun" and dumped them as soon as she saw they were going to be a responsibility.
This is a growing problem of a selfish society that tells people that they should always place themselves first.
Who thinks of having children without realizing that you've just set yourself up for 18 years of responsibility?
Kids are better off without her and learning her selfish lifestyle.

Kilkrazy wrote:The politics aren't distorted.

On the one hand we have 500 million children vaccinated with MMR since the early 1970s, leading to a saving over over 17,000 cases of mental retardation and over 5,000 child deaths in the US alone. Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.

On the other hand we have people like Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and the Daily Mail.

There isn't any doubt. There isn't any contest. The evidence from numerous, well-conducted studies and meta-research is overwhelmingly convincing that there is no link between vaccination and autism.

There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.

Agreed. I know that GC was infected by a jerk off who wasn't vaccinated right when she neede a booster and was sick for two weeks. SWMBO won't tell me who because I'd go over there and there would be an inevitable "incident."

MadEdric wrote:The woman is a selfish person. She's also a idiot who seemingly thought having children would be "fun" and dumped them as soon as she saw they were going to be a responsibility.
This is a growing problem of a selfish society that tells people that they should always place themselves first.
Who thinks of having children without realizing that you've just set yourself up for 18 years of responsibility?
Kids are better off without her and learning her selfish lifestyle.

I completely agree with this. I know (mainly because I was raised in an incredibly stable environment) that people can and are allowed to make mistakes. And if you do make a mistake, its your responsibility to make it right. So yea, not everyone is cut out for parenting, as long as they "man up" and take responsibility on the matter all is well. Just dumping your family like that is terrible. If I were the husband, Id take responsibility, and tell that bitch she cant see our kids until shes got her head strait. That type of stuff will just screw up kids. Go out, have fun, enjoy life, but once its time to be an adult about things you have to be an adult. Not some damn hippy fruit cake

Kilkrazy wrote:Not to mention the benefits of other vaccines such as polio, tetanus, chicken pox, tuberculosis and HPV.

I wouldn't lump HPV and chicken pox in with the other vaccines. Not because of autism issues (which is dumb), but because they're relatively recent vaccines that haven't been fully time-tested. For example, I don't plan on giving my child the chicken pox vaccine because I'd rather she have chicken pox as a kid than have her risk getting chicken pox as an adult if the vaccine isn't as effective with time.

Kilkrazy wrote:There isn't any political debate. There are only parents who by lack of scientific understanding and trust in doctors, refuse to vaccinate their children, until the herd immunity is reduced to the level that their children start dying of measles, mumps, and other diseases. This has already begun to happen in London.

Most of the people who are susceptable to these diseases are free riders who aren't getting the vaccines themselves. It's not a good situation when kids get serious diseases, but it's the fault of the individual child's parents that they get sick with these diseases.

One of my daughter's nursery school friends died of Chicken Pox at the age of three. The wife and I were off to a private doctor within a couple of days to get the vaccine.

You are right that there isn't a 500 million + evidence base concerning these newer vaccines.

There is general immune system science behind them, though, so there is no reason to think they will suddenly do something weird.

You know what? I still like her better than the tiger mother.

Lord Scythican wrote:I am not arguing with you or the statistics. The medical fields of both autism and ME/CFS research are plagued by politics. This is to our detriment. It's hard to follow the evidence when reporting of findings is skewed by politics.

There has been immense research into this field now, and not one study of any decent standing has found a connection between vaccinations and autism. Not one.

The only politicis in this issue is from people who would rather believe something regardless of the findings of countless studies, developed over years and with millions spent on research.

The complaints don't even make sense any more, because the original theories believed it was due to mercury used in the vaccines. They don't even use mercury anymore (as supplies have diminished and substitutes are now used) but the believers continue to drone on.

tiger mother and abandon mother have one thing in common and its the reason they inspire so much dislike:

they willingly take away choice, at an age where the choices we make are a very important part of our development as people

Bakerofish wrote:tiger mother and abandon mother have one thing in common and its the reason they inspire so much dislike:

they willingly take away choice, at an age where the choices we make are a very important part of our development as people

What choices are you talking about? How are choices more important today than at any other time?

I think the reason we dislike both parents is because they put their own lives and ambitions ahead of supporting their children.