As long as you are calling people out, why don’t you answer the question I asked pages back–you remember, it was right around the time that you claimed that I am somehow receiving money for having a kid. I don’t. What money? In addition how is it that you claim fiscal responsibility while at the same time saying that you expect more from social security than you pay out?
Certainly you recognize that the money you paid in was spent: if you want to change things you must act. I would reccomend that you research the fair tax proposition and the flat tax poposal.
One definitely receives something from children, but it’s a bit of an intangible, and if you don’t value the emotional bond with the child then the relationship is entirely parasitic. For me there are few things that are more nourishing than a genuine cuddle-snug from a two-year old girl. But in terms of real physical, tangible nourishment, she takes entirely and doesn’t give back.
Let’s not forget group 3: lurking, but reading 44 pages of bitterness, not without sometimes dropping a comment here and there on how this is all so bitter, yet they still continue reading.
Just to be picky, that wasn’t my point. A parasite is technically when an organism relies upon a different type of organism to provide for its survival. Like a remora and a shark, which are two different species.
Metaphorically, people can be “parasites” but we usually reserve that term for people like Kato Kaelin - people who are deliberately unproductive when they havea choice not to be. Which of course leads us to the GD thread on welfare, I guess. Circle of SDMB life.
Too tough & stringy. But I love chowing down on a fat Mexican toddler. They’re plump and juicy, they baste up real nice, and the drippings make a great soup stock. Get me some freshly drawn blood from an Irish teenage girl, and that’s an evening meal to remember!
…oh wait, I thought the thread title said “People who ATE children.” My bad! :smack:
