Lobsang, you miserable, judgmental lump of shit

The BBQ Pit
121

Oh for hellsake. If some one you would shut up for five seconds and actually listen to one another maybe this thread would end in a group hug then sink to the bottom. Maybe I can sum up what some of you aren’t hearing.

  1. Childless people do not want to be badgered, harassed, pestered, or made to feel inadequate because of their decision.

  2. The word “breeder” is insulting and insinuates that we are no more than cattle or fancy show dogs.

  3. Some kids ARE snot nosed brats.

  4. It is rude to generalize all kids as such. More often than not, kids are wonderful, respectful, and a lot of fun, but they are still kids, not some perfect, clean, little being that should be seen and not heard. Like it or not, you have to share the planet with them so cut them some slack, eh?

  5. It is rude to generalize all non parents as selfish assholes who are missing out on the experience of raising kids. Having children doesn’t insure a lifetime of fulfilled happiness so stop with your misplaced pity.

  6. It’s also rude to generalize all parents as poor souls who have given up everything, including freedom, hobbies, time, and money because of their decision to have children. I can almost bet that I, as a parent, have experienced more people, places, and things, that some of you freedom loving non-parents so just stop with the generalities, m’kay?

  7. Some people make wonderful parents, other people make wonderful non-parents, others fall somewhere in the middle and do the best that they can with what they have. All sides need to stop with the judgmental bullshit and shut their yaps long enough to actually hear what each other is saying. It would help to realize that your perception of a fulfilling life style may be very different that mine. It doesn’t make either one of us right or wrong or any less of a person or even worthy of pity.

Agree? Then what is the argument here?

122

I second everything MrVisible said.

I agree that there isn’t any overpopulation but at the same time, we’re not in danger of running out of people. CF people who use the “over population” myth are countered by the parents who say not having kids is selfish. It’s really a personal choice that really doesn’t concern anyone but me and my SO.

And what about the parents with only one kid? Shouldn’t they have 2 at least? Sheesh…how selfish :smiley:

BTW, I have no excuse as to why I only want 1 kid at most and would rather have none. I’m rather indifferent about kids, even the loud annoying ones that I’d rather strangle than anything else. I wouldn’t be surprised if most CF people are like me…they just aren’t moved either way to have kids or not.

123

My point, borrowing from Diane’s list, has been a question to the moderator that if we see someone doing 4, 5, and/or 6, even if it is in line with the OP, can we not call them on it, politely, without being forced to open a pit thread?

That is all.

Some others have misunderstood my purpose in the thread, most recently Miller and(assuming a mix-up between Shodan(who hasn’t posted in this thread) and Steven, we do have similar-sign offs), Goo. I have no problem with individuals asserting a personal aversion to children or asserting that parenthood would be a negative experience for them. I do have a problem with them projecting this personal preference and characterizing ALL children as repulsive and ALL parental relationships as negative.

Miller, I don’t think your analogy with Harry Potter and a CS thread holds up. I’ve never said one should be able to walk into a Harry Potter thread and say “HP SUX, you are all dum!!!1” or a more eloquent equivelant. However, if, in that HP thread, people are relating a distorted version of the book for discussion(perhaps from memory and they get events and characters mixed up), would it not be appropriate to say things like “No, that never happened in the books. It was really more like this…”?

I suggest it is not inappropriate to attempt to correct hyperbolic distortions of reality in non-pit forums. I will let it go now because I’m not sure Czarcasm(who issued the original ruling) is even following this thread.

Enjoy,
Steven

124

Go Diane! Very well put.

CrazyCatLady, there is a sort of selflessness that comes with parenting…and isn’t quite like anything else. Here I’m getting into deep waters. I think mothers feel it more than fathers (this is probably because I never have and never will been/be a father). Its like all of the sudden, there’s this creature that depends on you, and you have to set aside your wants and needs to nurture it. To me, it was like losing a part of myself. I mean, you can set aside your wants and needs in order to fulfill the wishes of your SO, but the idea is that your SO is supposed to be setting aside his wants and needs for you sometimes, when the occasion demands. A two-way street. Babies’ streets are one-way all the time. Until they get older, at least. And its weird, because for some reason, at the time, I didn’t mind. Instinct kicks in and I wasn’t so freaked out about the process.

If there was ever a “curse of Eve”, I think its this: babies can suck the life out of you, and for some reason, you welcome it. And, as Diane said, there’s loads you can do with children, and it can be a blast, but your kids will always be there to provide the “but” in every scenario you wish for. As in “I’d like to move to Paris, but will my kid want to move too?” At least its been that way for me. Anne Roiphe sums it all up nicely in Fertility.

That being said, I don’t blame anyone for choosing to remain childless.

125

Dammit, that was Fruitful by Anne Roiphe, not Fertility.

sorry.

126

I used to hate children, but I found this great recipe…

127

Great, I was worried you might have kids.

128

I have to respectfully disagree Kam. That is that having kids is necessary to turn us into unselfish, fully cognizant, “good” human beings. Or that it is required in order to bring out the best in us, and make us realize we aren’t the center of the universe.

For instance take Audrey Hepburn as an example of my opinion. She didn’t have any children of her own right? But yet even though she was an admired star and sex symbol of sorts, she spent the latter part of her life caring for others. I certainly wouldn’t call her thinking she was the center of the universe.

Ghandi (sp pls?), Mother Theresa…and I’m sure countless others who are childless by choice, but nonetheless have a very good karmic standing in the world (though perhaps small and unsung), due to their attitudes about themselves and others in relation to “how life works”.

It doesn’t take having or raising children to be conscious of your ability to “be all you can be” so to speak. There are many many life circumstances that can teach us the “appropriate” way to be in this world.

As to the comments about willingness of parents to “sacrifice their lives, or put other’s lives before their own”? No, that’s not always being a parent that does that, that’s taking a person that was already a solid good person, and perhaps having the child brought out that instinct more finely. But who is to say that other life circumstances than children might not have brought out that same “noble” attitude in them? Such as those I’ve mentioned.

Plus as many of us in this thread have mentioned, too many parents do just the OPPOSITE of having their “best” brought out in them. Too many parents find out after it’s too late, that having kids brings out not their BEST humanity, but their WORST.

For instance:

The woman who drowned her 5 kids?
Susan Smith
the Menendez Bros? (obviously their parents hadn’t had THEIR best brought out, or how else did they raise boys that grew up to murder them?).

By and large? I think (hope) most of us just try to do our best and most of us aren’t June and Ward Cleaver, but are closer to Roseanne and Dan. And as Mr. Visible said, it’s not as if it’s some Noble Sacred mission, having kids. It’s just biology, nothing more, nothing less.

129

Your points were all good ones, and ones we’ve all been making throughout this thread. I think people are actually coming to a pretty decent understanding of others’ viewpoints here.

But being as it’s all being done in type, without the benefit of smiles, tone of voice and other f2f gestures, it may seem more “argumentative” cold and harsh than it’s meant to be. Looking at this thread from the beginning, people in this thread ARE moving toward that “group hug”.

imho, the way people are talking and debating in this thread is pretty civil overall, and it appears to be progressing toward exactly what you said.

Not meant to be snotty, just an observation.

130

slight hijack.

Huh? (okay, I’m blonde but), I thought this thread WAS in the pit?

131

CanvasShoes, THIS thread is. The thread which inspired it is not. Lobsang took offense to instances of numbers 4, 5, and 6 from Diane’s list in the original thread and said so there. He also said some other stuff that got him a lot of flack there and inspired this thread here. He was told his complaints were out of line in that thread and I’m trying to clarify if it was the derision of the reasoning behind the childfree lifestyle portion of Lobsang’s posts, the calls for accurate representation of parenthood, or both. I’d hope that if a thread is full of overgeneralizations and hurtful stereotypes that someone would be allowed to say something about it without having to go to a full-on pitting.

Enjoy,
Steven

132

If they can say it a)politely b) intelligently and c) without completely hijacking the original thread, then they should certainly hop to it. Lobsang was unable to do any of the three, so he got his ass rightfully chewed.

Incidentally, he was bent out of shape over 4 and 6, and committed 5.

133

Is this thing still going? :rolleyes: It seems an apology is worth nothing to some people.

134

Agreed. I said it should be possible to call people on any/all of 4-6 in my original post after Diane’s. Got it a little more muddled with my last one. Sorry about that.

I just think polite disagreements on minor points, especially when one group is most likely being knowingly hyperbolic and overgeneralizing, shouldn’t be forced to the pit. Discussion of the merits/motives of CF living should go either here or GD. But, quite frankly, I don’t understand why a polite rejoinder to keep the derision down would be out of place. It isn’t like derision of parents is an integral part of the average CF person’s day. Why would it be necessary in the thread?

Enjoy,
Steven

135

Nope, just siblings. I saw first hand why having kids is a bad idea… and, apparently, unlike some, learned better.

136

**Lobs ** is saying,“I fucked up, I didn’t mean to imply that all childless parents are selfish.”

The selfish childless parents are saying, “Fuck you Lobsang, you are full of shit. You miserable piece if shit.”

I may be a bit inaccurate in my paraphrasing of the folks who have completely shown their ass in this thread. BUT fuckoff…you ignorant fucks. He said he was sorry…if you are so fucking ignorant and full of yourself that you can’t accept a sincere apology. Then you can ALL kiss my ass too.
Fucking (need to get laid) pricks…:rolleyes:

I’m through w/ this thread…fucking asshats

137

Sorry, but when someone apologizes for insulting me, insults me again, apologizes again, and then insults me again, I tend to doubt the sincerity of their apologies. A sincere apology, in my book, includes the intent and good faith effort not to repeat the behavior.

If he didn’t go around repeatedly insulting people, he wouldn’t have to keep apologizing, now would he?

138

!!! Where did I re-insult you? Please quote where I re-insulted you?

I went on to say that I dislike the disrespectful way some people refer to children. If that insulted you then it means must refer to children in a disrespectful way. I also criticised a specific anti children attitude - “I want to spend my money on me, not these things I consider brats” That was a specific criticism of people who show that particular attitude. I was not refering to all childfree people with that!!

And talk about insulting - that fucking title. I have put up with that for days!

139

I believe the main error for which I apologised was hijacking that thread. I was not really apologising specifically for insulting you CrazyCatLady because technically I did not insult you. You misunderstood some things I said and were insulted by them (the misunderstood version of them)
And for the nth time - The comment about lack of regard for the human race was directed at the stupid comment that j_kat_351 made, not at anyone else. I said it in rage. Are you just ignoring my defence? and continuing to say I did the wrong thing? because it seems like you are.
:rolleyes:

140

Heh. It must mean that you have passed the Initiation Test to be a fully-fledged Doper ™ Lobbers. :smiley:

Don’t sweat the small stuff…and this is indeed small, OK?