I pit my Mom, Grandma, Sister, Aunts, Uncles, and Friends

The BBQ Pit
141

[Quote=Bob55]

Yes, but you don’t have kids so it’s a difficult case. I know if you pushed one out you’d protect it with your dying breath. You’ve got 50,000 years of modern homosapiens behind that instinct.

[/Quote]

Do you not read the newspaper or listen to the news in any form? How can you make such an statement and expect to be taken seriously? There was a Pit thread here recently about a woman who took her infant by the legs and used it to hit her husband. There is the Andrea Yates case, where a woman drowned her children in the bathtub - chasing at least one of them down to catch him. How can you say something like this?

Are you really that close-minded? Or are you just trying to stir people up? Or are you a bloody fucking idiot?

And by the way, no threats were made about anything. You have been threatening a lot of women with imagined regrets, but no one has threatened you. You might want to take off your baby-shit smeared glasses and read a little more closely.

142

[QUOTE=Bob55]
#44 was no response, it was senseless.
[/quote]
How so? I pointed out that you were having trouble with one of your definitions. I then pointed out a flaw with your approach of “Didn’t you all have good childhoods?” - you can’t measure how well people who don’t have kids raise kids because, by their very nature, they don’t have kids. And even regardless of that, you didn’t respond and say “It was a senseless argument” until I called you on it. My accusation of you cherry-picking the mocking comments holds true.

No, you did not. You merely said that contraception means that women now “hide” their fertility (what exactly did you mean by that, by the way?). My argument was a reponse to your statement - that we need to fornicate - saying that fornication no longer means children. We can fulfil that urge perfectly and not have a child. Thus, saying that we have an urge to fornicate built into our genes is not an argument for having kids.

Let’s see. I’ve responded to each of your posts in which you addressed me personally; you’ll have to take my word for it that I read your posts which did not. On the other hand, you responded only to my mocking comments (until I called you on it) and then said that you had only received mocking comments. Either you missed my posts completely (yet saw the mocking ones) or you’re lying. And that’s not an insult; it’s a logical inference.

How is it off-topic? We appear to be discussing your opinions on having children here. My question was about gay people not have children, and your views on that. It seems perfectly on topic to me - can you point out where I leapt off the topic onto a completely random new subject?

I did assume this would be what you meant, but I thought it would be fair to make sure you held such a homophobic view, rather than just assume it.

Oh, and by the way… that argument doesn’t even make sense within your logic. You believe that we have a duty to pass on our genes. Assuming that homosexuality has some genetic component (as research has shown) or that upbringing is a factor (again, something that research has shown) it’s more likely that a homosexual parent will have a homosexual child. Logically, since homosexuality is less likely to lead to gene-passing-on, you should be very much against gay people having kids. Yet you’re not. Now, it’s one thing to have a poor opinion; opinions are subjective, after all. But having a logically incoherent argument even within your point of view? That’s just silly.
[QUOTE=The Swan]
I’m not 100% convinced that Bob isn’t trolling, at this point. I’ve been wrong about these things in the past (I think), but I’m having a hard time believing that any of this is for real.

It’s just the right mix of ignore and nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
You’re more generous than I. The only thing that says to me he’s not a troll is his join date.

143

[QUOTE=Bob55]
You know, if I was flat-out wrong people would have ignored me long ago.
[/quote]

Right. That’s how it usually works on this board. That’s why threads about, say, young-Earth creationism never last more than a half-dozen posts.

You haven’t made an argument. You’ve just made a bunch of assertions.

No, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong. I don’t hate society. I love society. Society is awesome. What I hate are morons who insult me because I’m not just like them, make sweeping, sexist statements with no basis in science, and then pull a martyr act when they’re called on their general imbecility and assholishness.

And you’re a homophobe! You’re really firing on all cylinders, aren’t you?

I think you’ve found your intellectual metier.

If you that’s what you think I said, go ahead and report me. I’m confident that nothing is going to happen to me, though, because unlike you, the mods aren’t illiterate morons.

From your posts in this thead, you don’t know shit about biology, so I’m going to tack “liar” onto the previous list of character traits you’ve exhibited in this thread.

Did you just accuse Isaac Newton of killing off the Indians?

My God, your idiocy is unfathomable.

No, you don’t. There are a lot of conservative posters on the boards who are smart, polite, and interesting. You, on the other hand, are a dishonest boor, and this would be true regardless of your political persuasion. Bricker represents the red states. Sarahfeena represents the red states. You represent inbreeding and severe head trauma.

Who’s shutting you down? People are laughing at you because your opinions are so pitifully devoid of thought and knowledge, but no one’s actually preventing you from speaking. We all wish you’d shut up voluntarily, of course, because taunting morons can only entertain for so long, and you’re alredy becoming tiresome, but no one’s preventing you from speaking.

Your argument has as much validity as the flat Earth theory. It doesn’t need to be refuted. It’s patently absurd on its face.

Right. Calling other people “selfish” because they’re not exactly like you isn’t in the least insulting or judgemental! There’s absolutely no reason for anyone to take offense to what you’ve posted!

Putz.

No, you’d just be an insufferable, smug, condescending prick to them.

If you want to provide a phone number, or even a meeting place, I would be more than happy to repeat everything I’ve said in this thread to you in person.

Your behavior in this thread has been neither polite, nor decent, and in return, you have been treated in kind. I do, however, believe that you’d behave exactly the same way in real life. Assholes are assholes, no matter what the venue.

Liar.

Ah, yes, the final defence of the loud-mouthed idiot. The first ammendment applies to government interference with free speech. Private entities are allowed to restrict free speech to any extent they can. The government has to let you spout off whatever ignorant nonsense passes through the soggy mass of rotten cheesecloth you use as a brain. I do not.

My email is in my profile. It uses my real name. I don’t need anonymity to call you an idiot. Like I said, I’d be happy to do it in person.

Show us some evidence that your claim has any basis in fact, first. We can’t rebut an argument you’ve never made.

I don’t pity myself at all. I pity you, because you can’t find any higher purpose to your life than rutting like an animal. But that’s your problem, not mine.

That’s because your opinions are faulty. You have a right to state your opinions. You do not have a right to have those opinions respected. You say stupid shit like you have in this thread, people will call you stupid. That’s how life works. Grow up and get over it.

If everything is the result of my genes, then me not wanting to have kids is a result of my genes. Are you even bright enough to realize how self-defeating your entire argument is?

No, of course you aren’t. What was I thinking?

144

I just hit 30 (and I’ve been here since I was 22. That’s so weird) and I am starting to have to really, seriously decide whether or not I want to have kids. What’s interesting is that the reason not to is that I love what I do and I have a powerful sense I am doing good in the world–I teach at a public school, and right now that sucks up all of my emotional energy. I’m the cool teacher, the one kids come and talk to, the one that puts together college applications for kids that have no family members in college, who listens when they have boy/girl issues, who goes to every football game and volleyball match and orchetra concert. I’m the one that gets notes that say “Thanks for teaching me English, but even more, thanks for teaching me about life.” And I love it. And I’d have to give it up to have kids. I could still teach, but not like this. I couldn’t love my students this much, I couldn’t answer the phone at midnight when they don’t understand their research paper or just got arrested (both have happened!) I couldn’t stay out past nine on school related events three nights out of five.

I’m still torn on what to do, but I don’t see how my life now is a selfish one, and it bugs me that you could be one of my student’s parents, sitting there quietly dismissing all I do as selfish because of my childlessness.

145

[QUOTE=Bob55]
Ahh, I see the zerg rush has continued in my absence. You know, if I was flat-out wrong people would have ignored me long ago. But the fact that you actually take the time to address my “you are selfish” argument shows that really there is some deep-seeded hatred in many of you for the truth I speak. You really, really, really hate society for some reason or another, and feel that you must prove me wrong at all costs because it will in a sense validate your selfish and materialistic lives.
[/quote]

No. If you want pure honesty, people are replying to you because it’s fun to kick around a dimwit. I enjoy watching newer posters pounce because it’s like watching a kitten attack a stuffed mouse. They’re sharpening their debate skills in the way that a kitten sharpens its hunting skills.

Here’s a thought: what if all those gay folks adopted children. (You know, the thousands of children out there who were beaten, starved, raped and neglected by their chock-full-of-maternal-instinct mothers?) I suppose they could go though a surrogate, if you think it’s that important to have a genetic replica, but wouldn’t it be even more of a benefit to society to take in one of the kids who are already here?

We’ve already faced it. That’s the SDMB slogan: “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It’s taking longer than we thought.)” We’ve already accepted the enormous number of ignorant people bumping around in the world. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.

I take it your kids are going to solve all of the world’s problems, are they?

Tell me, what have your kids done for the genocide victims in Darfur?

I’m sure you’ll be shocked, *shocked *to find out that there are conservatives on this board who are highly respected. They get in debates just like everyone else.

Sweetie, there ain’t much in this world that isn’t refutable.

You know, once upon a time, it was the majority of the country’s opinion that blacks were inferior people who should have to sit at the back of the bus. “Majority” does not equal “right.”

You’ve said that twice now. Apparently YOU think it’s important, but you know, I haven’t seen the other people in this thread hastening to lay out their educational credentials. They tend to let their words speak for themselves.

Quoth Lissa, who has only a high-school diploma. (And an unaccredited one at that.)

You whine and complain about how poorly you’ve been treated and then you use words like the ones I bolded. Does the hostility make sense now? You’re using inflamatory language, so don’t be surpised if you get it back in spades.

146

[QUOTE=Bob55]
Maternal instinct is in you. Maybe the world today doesn’t promote it for one reason or another, but it’s there.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve never met me, you don’t know anything about me that I haven’t revealed on this board, and you aren’t even in the same state as me, but you feel comfortable making pronouncements about me that are in direct contradiction with what I’ve said about myself.

God, is that you?

147

Ok, a couple of things.

I’ve had a look through Bob55’s post history to see if I could find any evidence that he was trolling, but nope, his views today are the same as they have been for years. Cite from 2002;
[QUOTE=Bob55]
IMHO everything that exists today is a result of survival of the fittest, you, me, religion, war, society…Religion very well may be responsible for war and pestilence, but that is neither provable nor unprovable. But war, like religion, is a “meme” and is a means to achieve survival of your ways and your memes. I’d ask the Carthagineans but they died at the hand of the memes of the Romans. Even something like compassion for those unfit for survival can be seen as survival of the fittest as the result of the meme “compassion” which prevails throughout society.
[/QUOTE]

And, again to be fair, his post history does show some good knowledge of molecular biology, and he’s claimed to be a medical researcher before also. So i’m inclined to believe he may, in fact, have a PhD.

So, probably not a troll and not lying in this case. See, Bob55, I am objective. :slight_smile:

148

Most of my reasons for not wanting children have been touched on already by other posters who are more eloquent than me, but there’s a couple that I’d like to re-touch on.

There’s a pretty big reason that I don’t want to have children - My husband has a genetic syndrome/disorder-y thing that has a 50% rate of transmission regardless of the gender of the child. So if I fall pregnant, there’s a half-and-half chance that our child may develop the same genetic disorder.

Now the symptoms of this disorder vary widely. My husband has a relatively “mild” case, which means that he was born with a cleft palate that had to be fixed with surgery as a baby, has almost completely lost sight in one eye due to retinal detachment, and has had to have surgery on the other in order to stop him from losing sight there as well (again childhood surgery), lack of collagen in his joints which means a higher probability of early-onset arthritis, and heart problems that at the moment are confined to a mild arrythmia, but may or may not increase as he ages. There are degrees of symptoms that are worse than that, up to the point where death before the 20s is not uncommon.

I believe you can do genetic testing for this syndrome in utero, that’s fine. But what you can’t do is test how severe it is going to be, until the child is born - or just about to be. They may have nothing more than some slight facial deformity, or they may have the whole gamut of symptoms and die in their teens. So if I did fall pregnant, even if I did know whether the child would have the syndrome or not, I would not know how severe it would be. If the child was born, and it was one of the most severe cases, then of course we would try to do as much as we could to give the child a normal life.

But that would involve surgeries, and lots of them. Now even though here in AU we have a socialised healthcare system, surgery is still expensive. We can’t afford to pay outright for the number and degree of surgeries that would be needed in a severe case of this syndrome, so we would have to rely on medicare. Other people’s tax dollars at work, to pay for the fact that our child needs surgery just to have a semi-normal shot at life. With no guarantee that other complications may not arise in the future, or that our child may die before even getting a chance to pass on their own genetic legacy and/or repay those tax dollars that were spent on getting them there.

Now I know I said there’s a 50% chance that the child will have the syndrome, which also means that there’s a 50% chance that they won’t. But I’m not ready to play that kind of russian roulette with a child’s life, happiness and wellbeing. Not to mention the fact that even if our child doesn’t have the syndrome, they are still a carrier and have the same chances of passing it on to their own children.

There’s also the fact that at the moment (not through lack of trying) my husband is in a temporary job role, that may not be around in a couple of months. We don’t know if his next job will be permanent or if it will be another temporary role. It’s just the way the job market works here. We could support ourselves plus a baby on both of our salaries, and be quite comfortable. But if I’m on maternity leave and his temporary contract expires, what then? He can’t claim unemployment, because he’s not a permanent resident (he emigrated from England). If I’m not working, and he’s not working then there’s a net amount of $0 incoming to our household. Sure, we can live off our credit cards until he finds work again, or my maternity leave expires, but then what? We’re both having to work to pay off our debts incurred whilst out of work. Money spent paying off debts is less money that can be dedicated to the child, and buying things that they need/want.

That is why I get so offended when people badger me about when we’re having children. It’s not just some stupid whim that’s led me to make these decisions. They’re things that I have considered, over and over again, and looked at from every angle. If you have kids, more power to you. If you want to have kids, but are waiting for the right time or are trying at the moment, then that’s great. But I reserve the right to make my own reproductive decisions, based on my knowledge of my financial, physical and mental health, without being badgered, judged or dismissed for my decisions.

149

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And, again to be fair, his post history does show some good knowledge of molecular biology, and he’s claimed to be a medical researcher before also. So i’m inclined to believe he may, in fact, have a PhD.
[/QUOTE]

How do you think he got it? Collected enough Wheaties box-tops?

150

[QUOTE=Bob55]

Yes, but you don’t have kids so it’s a difficult case. I know if you pushed one out you’d protect it with your dying breath. You’ve got 50,000 years of modern homosapiens behind that instinct.
[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, I have “pushed one out”. My maternal instinct did NOT kick in and I placed her for adoption. So I do not consider myself to have “had kids”, and I still can’t stand the sound of a crying baby - mine or anyone elses. I know you’ll come back and say it is a good thing I gave my baby up, but I already know that, duh.

And I’m not ashamed to admit I’m selfish. That’s between me, myself and I, and should not concern anyone else.

151

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
OAnd, again to be fair, his post history does show some good knowledge of molecular biology, and he’s claimed to be a medical researcher before also. So i’m inclined to believe he may, in fact, have a PhD.

So, probably not a troll and not lying in this case. See, Bob55, I am objective. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

You could be right. Bob could, in fact, be an extremely intelligent, intellectually dishonest, ultra-conservative molecular biologist with a large misunderstanding of the first amendment. He certainly could.

152

[QUOTE=Bob55]

I’m sorry that the fact that you are a slave to your chromosomes hurts so many people. “WE’RE BETTER THAN OUR CHROMOSOMES WE SWEAR”. No, you aren’t. 50,000 years of humanity, and 2 billion years of life says otherwise, or else you wouldn’t be here. Everything you do is due to your genes. Even the thought of “no I have overcome them” is a result of your genes.

[/QUOTE]

Does my butt look fat in these genes?

153

Phew…where to begin, a lot has happened since our last encounter. I’ve evidently been called a “troll” even though I’ve been at the SDMB before many of you (I just normally stick to the General Questions and Cafe Society, but occasionally a Pit thread catches my eye), and I’ve also been told that essentially I have a warped view of the First Ammendment because I dare spoke my opinion.

[QUOTE=quilter]
Inform me? INFORM me?

Unless you can cite double-blind scientific research, the only thing you’re qualified to inform me about is your own opinion.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve said many times that it’s my opinion.

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Observations are best left to being about matters that you personally have observed.
[/QUOTE]

I thought there was such thing as sampling? And as for the people here, I’ve already said they don’t represent the “norm” of society, I doubt that the average American spends their time on a message board. They’re too busy with that little thing called “life”. I was only trying to defend the society that so many here appear to loathe.

[QUOTE=The Swan]
Cite?

Not that you’ll produce one.
[/QUOTE]

Billy Madison.

[QUOTE=The Swan]
I’m not 100% convinced that Bob isn’t trolling, at this point. I’ve been wrong about these things in the past (I think), but I’m having a hard time believing that any of this is for real.

It’s just the right mix of ignore and nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

Yup, Charter Member. I know it hurts. I’m really only here for the important stuff that goes on in GQ, but sometimes I’ve got to step into this realm of unreality and defend Conservatism, religion, society, capitalism, and many other things that seem to be under constant assault here because it’s the non-conformist thing to do.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
How so? I pointed out that you were having trouble with one of your definitions. I then pointed out a flaw with your approach of “Didn’t you all have good childhoods?” - you can’t measure how well people who don’t have kids raise kids because, by their very nature, they don’t have kids. And even regardless of that, you didn’t respond and say “It was a senseless argument” until I called you on it. My accusation of you cherry-picking the mocking comments holds true.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t rehash every argument I’ve presented with you every thread. You expect me to repeat every sentence, and unfortunately I don’t have all night to go back and forth with you. What it boils down to is you disagree with my opinion, and I yours. I answered your earlier quests the best I could, maybe if you could summarize what you want me to respond to in a list or a few sentences it’d be easier.

And yes again, Charter Member so don’t go throwing the “troll” thing around like you’re in a place to do that now just to try to win the argument. I don’t have time for your hit-and-run offense of “he’s cherry-picking” or “it’s illogical”, I need specifics, and short and sweet please I’ve got 50 other people to address.

Miller, you are a very angry person that is evidently out to get people who dare express an opinion different than yours. I won’t respond to your choppy replies of “liar” or “idiot” or “dickcheese” or “have your kid stick his finger in the light socket” anymore.

[QUOTE=Lissa]
No. If you want pure honesty, people are replying to you because it’s fun to kick around a dimwit. I enjoy watching newer posters pounce because it’s like watching a kitten attack a stuffed mouse. They’re sharpening their debate skills in the way that a kitten sharpens its hunting skills.

We’ve already faced it. That’s the SDMB slogan: “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It’s taking longer than we thought.)” We’ve already accepted the enormous number of ignorant people bumping around in the world. That doesn’t mean we have to like it.

I take it your kids are going to solve all of the world’s problems, are they?

I’m sure you’ll be shocked, *shocked *to find out that there are conservatives on this board who are highly respected. They get in debates just like everyone else.

You know, once upon a time, it was the majority of the country’s opinion that blacks were inferior people who should have to sit at the back of the bus. “Majority” does not equal “right.”

You’ve said that twice now. Apparently YOU think it’s important, but you know, I haven’t seen the other people in this thread hastening to lay out their educational credentials.

They tend to let their words speak for themselves.

[/QUOTE]

Hrm, dimwit. Again, resorting to the namecalling to someone with a difference of opinion. I don’t get deep-seeded hatred you have for someone different than you. I thought you were supposed to be the “tolerant” one here. Evidently that only works if I agree with you.

No, my kids aren’t going to solve the world’s problems. I just want them to be happy in whatever road they choose. Even if that’s to not have kids.

And yes, I would be shocked to find a respect for any conservative ideas around here. I’ve seen how anyone who expresses my beliefs is treated, and it isn’t very respectfully. It’s bashing, seething hatred at the core. It’s anger. It’s rage. It’s an “I’m more intellectual than you” approach. Wow, I am in awe of your great intellect, I’m sure it will take you far in life. So far that you will be on a message board calling others dimwits for their opinions to make yourself feel better about your choices.

[QUOTE=DeadlyAccurate]
You’ve never met me, you don’t know anything about me that I haven’t revealed on this board, and you aren’t even in the same state as me, but you feel comfortable making pronouncements about me that are in direct contradiction with what I’ve said about myself.

God, is that you?
[/QUOTE]

Again, it’s called sampling. I’ll sure bet that you believe those poll numbers they put on the news that says the democrats are going to win the house and senate. Or a study that links certain activities with disease? Oh did they poll or study me? No. They took a small sample of the country, and multiplied it.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ok, a couple of things.

I’ve had a look through Bob55’s post history to see if I could find any evidence that he was trolling, but nope, his views today are the same as they have been for years.

Cite

from 2002; And, again to be fair, his post history does show some good knowledge of molecular biology, and he’s claimed to be a medical researcher before also. So i’m inclined to believe he may, in fact, have a PhD.

So, probably not a troll and not lying in this case. See, Bob55, I am objective.

:slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the research, you can see that my ideas and opinions are my own and my posts are consistant, and I express them here in select Pit threads from time to time. And yes, as much as you all would like to call me a “dimwit” and take your hatred out on me, I do, in fact, have a Ph.D. And have been published in Nature for my work on cancer metastasis. So no, casting a stigma of stupidity on me will not work. I know that’s been part of the plan when approached by an opinion that makes you gasp in horror, but as much as you can try it will not work here.

[QUOTE=Sierra Indigo]
Most of my reasons for not wanting children have been touched on already by other posters who are more eloquent than me, but there’s a couple that I’d like to re-touch on.

There’s a pretty big reason that I don’t want to have children - My husband has a genetic syndrome/disorder-y thing that has a 50% rate of transmission regardless of the gender of the child. So if I fall pregnant, there’s a half-and-half chance that our child may develop the same genetic disorder.

That is why I get so offended when people badger me about when we’re having children. It’s not just some stupid whim that’s led me to make these decisions. They’re things that I have considered, over and over again, and looked at from every angle. If you have kids, more power to you. If you want to have kids, but are waiting for the right time or are trying at the moment, then that’s great. But I reserve the right to make my own reproductive decisions, based on my knowledge of my financial, physical and mental health, without being badgered, judged or dismissed for my decisions.
[/QUOTE]

I would never badger someone about having children, in your case especially. I’m sorry about your situation, as I have family with Muscular Dystrophy. My family though chose to have children, and several have the disease now and it is very hard to watch.

The only reason I am telling my opinions to those in this thread is because it was a pow wow against society’s “norm” of having children, and I felt as a father I should speak up for society and offer our opinion in the case of the OP. While your reasons are legitamate and do not fall into the category of “selfishness” I was categorizing earlier, most people here said “I like my life the way it is and I don’t want to have to wake up early” as their reason for not wanting children.

I’d liek to say though that your post was one of the few reasonable ones in this thread, where someone offered a difference of opinion to me and we can have a discussion on it. Thank you for not following suit and being nasty just because it’s allowed here. You are an example to everyone else of how a mature discussion can happen, even in The Pit.

[QUOTE=Miller]
How do you think he got it? Collected enough Wheaties box-tops?
[/QUOTE]

Wow it’s Miller again, throwing out more personal insults. If you can’t offer anything constructive to the discussion why do you post? For attention? For a giggle as you hit the “submit” button? Next time write it, but then maybe just close the window after the preview please.

[QUOTE=The Swan]
You could be right. Bob could, in fact, be an extremely intelligent, intellectually dishonest, ultra-conservative molecular biologist with a large misunderstanding of the first amendment. He certainly could.
[/QUOTE]

Oh no it’s a conservative and his evil opinions! And he dares to use freedom of speech! Everybody run! See, this is a perfect example of what I’ve been saying all along - ANYONE who expresses a different opinion from the majority of posters in The Pit - especially if that opinion dares represent the views of 50% of the nation (i.e. more conservative), then said person should burn in a fiery pit of the ensuing flamewar that attacks his intelligence, his intolerance, his narrow-mindedness, his judging of everyone, rather than just having a normal discussion on the matter at hand.

This is why I’m so adament that people who wish to discuss ideas with me refrain from personal insults. It’s not that I can’t take it (sticks and stones…), it’s that people use “he’s a dimwit” as a crutch because they cannot actually refute the argument. It’s a last-ditch effort of a losing battle to start throwing out personal insults. It’s especially funny when facts aren’t even involved, but opinions (even after I’ve said myself 50 times that it’s my opinion).

154

[QUOTE=Bob55]

Hrm, dimwit. Again, resorting to the namecalling to someone with a difference of opinion.
[/QUOTE]

Dude. I’m serious this time. Do you not get what you’re doing here?

155

In all seriousness Bob55, you’ve certainly changed my point of view. I went from thinking that I should grow up and have kids eventually but now I am damn sure that I will avoid procreating at all costs.

I’ve only ever held an inkling of maternal instinct, but now I am sure that I will be fine with just taking care of other people’s kids. Or I could adopt, but that doesn’t count because I’m not passing on my genes.

Much love,
Freudian Push Up Bra
who will never ever get knocked up.

156

[QUOTE=Bob55]
Phew…where to begin, a lot has happened since our last encounter. I’ve evidently been called a “troll” even though I’ve been at the SDMB before many of you (I just normally stick to the General Questions and Cafe Society, but occasionally a Pit thread catches my eye), and I’ve also been told that essentially I have a warped view of the First Ammendment because I dare spoke my opinion.
[/quote]

Nobody thinks you have a warped view of the First Amendment. However, you do not understand how it is applied. You’ve repeatedly stressed how you represent the majority of Americans, and on this point I think you might be right – a LOT of people make the same mistake about the First Amendment.

As has been previously stated, the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to interfere with free speech (and a bunch of other stuff). At what point in this thread did a governmental entity do anything to you?

[QUOTE=Bob55]

Hrm, dimwit. Again, resorting to the namecalling to someone with a difference of opinion. I don’t get deep-seeded hatred you have for someone different than you. I thought you were supposed to be the “tolerant” one here. Evidently that only works if I agree with you.
[/QUOTE]

Since I’m thinking about it, the term you’re looking for is “deep-seated.” I will admit that “deep-seeded” does paint an interesting word picture all its own, but the proper term is “deep-seated.” I offer this not to try to tear you down, but merely as a tidbit of information you may find useful.

157

Not to knock the deliberately childless too hard, but I always wonder if they relish the thought of dying alone.

158

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Not to knock the deliberately childless too hard, but I always wonder if they relish the thought of dying alone.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t relish the thought of dying alone. Otherwise I wouldn’t have married my husband (who I do plan on being with until my dying day). There’s just other considerations that have led me to make the choices I’ve made, and the need to have a “comfort blanket” when dying is the least of those.

159

[QUOTE=pimaspinner]
Does my butt look fat in these genes?
[/QUOTE]

Not in those genes, no. In those genes, it’s just dandy

:smiley:

Lizard, my grandfather turned 93 on October 12. Grandma is turning 94 on November 1st. They’ve forbidden each other from “dying first and leaving me behind”.

But what can I say, my own bet that obsexed Gramps goes first is as much wish as biology. And they’ve spent their 70+ year marriage fighting, literally “for fuck’s sake”, only they still fight (top of their lungs, both being pretty deaf) and don’t fuck much any more.

My other grandfather died when he was 65; his wife followed him more than 20 years later. He died surrounded by his children; she had moved into a nursing home of her own choosing and by her own volition a few months before and was found, lying on her bed fully dressed with her rosary in her hands, by one of the nuns. How sure are you that Abuelita’s death was worse than Abuelito’s? She was, strictly speaking, alone.

160

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Not to knock the deliberately childless too hard, but I always wonder if they relish the thought of dying alone.
[/QUOTE]

If the other option is someone asking me, “So? Did you regret not having kids? I told you that you might, so did you?” then yeah, it sounds like a great idea.

Hey Bob55, since I’ve yet to see you address any of my points (though perhaps I might have missed it in one of your interminable lists of tiny snipped quotes from lots of people), let me boil the discussion down this way:

OP: I hate it when people try to convince me to have kids and think they know me better than I know myself.
Bob: tries to convince her that she should have kids
Everyone but Bob: :smack:

The OP did not say, “No one should have kids! Kids suck!” The OP did not say, “All people who have kids are selfish/evil/idiots.” So I don’t get why Bob55 “cares” so much about the welfare of the childless/childfree/those who have no kids to the point where he claims to know all of their hearts and minds - PhD or no - better than they do. (In my support I’ll claim my grad school advisor, a star in the field of social psychology specializing in interpersonal relationships, married and no kids, in her late 50s when we met. If anyone would know the emotional “dangers” of not reproducing, she would.)

And to emphasize a point I made earlier, just remember, Bob55 - no matter how many children you have, no matter how many children the members of the SDMB have, we’ll never make a bit of difference in the human genome compared to what the vastness of humanity does. Furthermore, no matter how special you hold anyone’s DNA, they’re still sharing over 99% of it with a chimpanzee. Have as many kids as you want, but a few generations from now, anything you contributed will be more or less swamped by the contributions from other families. You and I are unique and special people, sure - just like everyone else, in this case 6 billion other people.