If the child cannot adhere to the standards of behavior of an adult, he or she (or rather his or her parents) should not expect the same freedom to go everywhere and do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law that an adult gets.
No fooling?
Oh gee, and there I was about to have my 4 year old drive the car to the bar for a highball. 
Yeah, kids DON"T have the same legal rights as adults. No-one is arguing that they should!
This thread is already showing the behaviour **mswas **was talking about. Even as many protested the message appearing more and more is no longer “children are all screaming brats” to “I don’t want to pay for your kids school” and “they are parasites”. I don’t want to pay for street in front of (generic) your house or for offsetting your dog’s fart, but it’s part
The thread’s also shown that the bile of “childfree” fora was easily accepted here.
Really, someone asking why he should respect another human being? Really?
Mswas, mission accomplished.
Everything I said was on topic and directly refutes a point you were trying to make. The fact that it shows you to be a disingenuous debater does not change this fact. Furthermore, I don’t remember anyone questioning your right to start a thread. What they’ve asked is that you provide evidence for the underlying premise: people who identify as childfree are derogatory bigots. If you would like to now change the debate to the questions listed above, fine. I think it will lead to more civil debate.
You are the one arguing that children throwing things in restaurants and screaming in theaters should be given “latitude.” Once again, when the child can act like an adult, he or she can do adult things. Until then, children should be in the appropriate nursey facilities.
What, you seriously think that allowing infants to drive cars is an example of “lattitude” on the same order as putting up with an infant crying in public?
Given that position, I suppose kids should be isolated until they can drive cars?
That’s pretty nuts.
You missed the context - this was the post to which the post you quoted was in response:
The response from Der Trihs was:
I think you have to really stretch to get “childfree people claim they’re oppressed” from this. If this is the only example you have, it’s pretty weak.
Possibly, but what’s also happening is that we feel no obligation to share mswas’s outrage about something he had to look for to complain about.
No, sorry. Your interpretation of someones emotions doesn’t count. This should be easy for you, especially re: the perceived selective redefinition of the English language. You’ve made this claim so many times I’d have thought it was the rallying cry of the childfree. “Do not oppress, it’s not childless” or some such thing.
How does the context change anything?
A statement that parents “constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference”, “demand that all of society follow their rules” and “sneer at those who don’t have children like they were vermin” is pretty clearly a claim that those who aren’t parents face ‘oppression’, though as I noted he doesn’t use that word (though it would hardly be stronger or more extreme if he did).
That’s just in the first page. See the more recent exchanges with ZPG Zealot for further evidence.
Now, I’ll readily grant that these are extremes: it is pretty extreme to paint all parents as oppressively looking down on the childless/childfree as “vermin” or (as ZPG Zealot does) insist that all children remain out of public until they are adults.
But the point I think is well made: that when such extreme types appear, they are not laughed at here; their antics are more likely to be hand-waved away (as, I point out, you appear to be doing with your post).
If I was to address the childfree in offensive generalities similar to those used in the quoted post - would you find it offensive?
Agreed. Thank you.
LOL, this is the same kind of logic as Republicans opposing the KBR rape bill because Al Franken wrote it.
Maybe, but it’s not like he’s complaining that his football team plays a 3-4 defense instead of a 4-3. It’s about hating other human beings for a conition they cannot change and THAT has a very bad name.
If it were black/jew/gayfree living we were talking about it would not get the wink **mswas **talked about.
I’m not familiar enough with that situation to comment on any possible similarities, but there’s no personal element to this (or at least not much of one). I’d’ve made the same ridiculing statements no matter who wrote so specious an OP. I also haven’t bothered to read the thread that supposedly inspired this one because there is no need - this thread is sufficiently ridiculous on its own merits. What are you actually arguing, that there exist some people on the internet that don’t like children? Well, duh. Pick anything, and you can find somebody on the internet who doesn’t like it, even to the point of irrationality. I’m sure there are thing you dislike to the point of irrationality.
Not me, though. I’m cool about stuff.
Simple time cures childhood, so it’s not hard to take this form of bigotry less-than-seriously.
Der Trihs did raise an interesting point, though. It’s not automatically about the actual child - it’s the accommodation expected, if not demanded. I don’t personally object to babies crying in public - crying is what babies do, after all - but I look askance at censorship and educational issues where in the name of protecting children, some people are trying (and sometimes succeeding) at keeping children ignorant and incidentally depriving me, an adult, access to certain information or entertainments that I desire.
So some people put their arguments in terms of “moos” and “crotch-fruit”. Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.
Yes, but so do I. You and I share the opposition to such censorship, and we also don’t take our ire at such things out on children because of it. As a parent, I do not think it is reasonable to disallow adults to kill hookers on their X-Box if they want to. ;p
So some people put their arguments in terms of “niggers” and “porch-monkeys”. Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.
Okay, despite your claims to be calm and not overreacting and flying off the handle at all, I think this is a clear indication that you are getting a bit carried away.
I never said I used the term “child-free”. I never disagreed with your definition of the term “child-free”. Given that there are people who define themselves as Childfree and spout a bunch of hateful bullshit that I don’t agree with and that doesn’t apply to me and my life choices I don’t especially want to use the word.
I don’t agree that the term “childless” is an acceptable substitute, for the reasons stated in my post.
So I was wondering what an acceptable term would be? This is just a question for mswas, but for everyone participating in this debate. Obviously, some people will favour “childfree” despite the objections, and some will advocate “childless”. Is there a third choice that is perhaps not quite so controversial?
And on the topic of semantics . . .
Can’t you see the contradiction in this statement? You believe that the term “breeder” is offensive, because you believe the people using this term intend offense, even though there is nothing inherently pejorative in the word - simply in the context and intent with which it is used. However, you are rigorously defending the use of the term “childless” because the dictionary definition of the term is acceptable, regardless of the additional meanings and implications now attached to the term. You can’t have it both ways.
“Simple time” I can accept from you, not from the “why-id-you-spend-money-on-your-disabled-kid” crowd.
Sorry, what DT says is “I accept things that cause me no inconvenience” to which I cna reply in exactly the same way.
So disparaging terminology of any kind is effectively identical to the racial slurs you used here and earlier?
You’re not convincing me by compounding the silliness of your argument.
You couldn’t learn to act like an adult if you spent all your time in a “nursey facility,” could you?
You, when you were a kid, had to be exposed to adults and grownup, everyday situations to learn how to act accordingly. Just as you learned that way, so must all children.