You must live next to Pele. This is the only explanation.
I’ve given it some thought, and I think curlcoat is right. We should all keep our children the hell out of the way of the CHILDFREE. Forever. In 30 years, when curlcoat (or someone/thing she loves) needs any kind of good or service provided by anyone under the age of 40, she should be SOL, as children are obviously NOT our future, and people with no children are under no obligation to tolerate them in their lives.
She doesn’t want to tolerate the children - they should do her the same courtesy. No matter how old they get.
As a note: I don’t like kids. I’ve never liked kids. I tried babysitting for money once and hated it so much I never did it again. I don’t like other people’s kids. It took a serious act of will for me to NOT tell a friend that her baby was the ugliest damned thing with a human face I’d ever seen. Kids running free in grocery stores and restaurants bug the shit out of me. And me? I have three kids. I like them fine.
From the things I’ve seen curlcoat bitching and moaning and whining about, I think she actually has a problem with ASSHOLES, but chooses to blame the kids for being kids, rather than for being assholes.
I see RickJay noticed the profound absurdity of that comment earlier. I would have read more closely, but I was too busy crushing a car with my bare fist.
I can actually picture it happening. Older kids can sometimes be quite strong and vigorous in their movements. If the ball is heavy enough (like a basketball) and the garage door is made out of cheap plywood, I can see making a crack in it. Not a Bug’s Bunny-like hole, but a crack.
I was once in a band with a guy who was heavily in to property destruction. We were maybe 17 or 18 at the time. We were playing a gig at a local middle school, and we used the girl’s locker room as our dressing room. He tore the doors off of a number of stalls.
Hell of a drummer, though.
I know I’m coming back to this a couple pages late, but I just saw it and I can’t let this load of bull pass. This is just simply false, so either you’re lying or your upbringing was truly aberrant. Not only were my siblings and I going to public places well before the ages that you claim you did, but we were going alone. I know that I was going to the grocery store with my mother as a small child, because I was going alone before I started school. Mom would send me to pick up a loaf of bread or something simple. My friends and I were spending our allowance money in the drugstore on popsicles when we were younger than you claim for your first outing. And this was the norm for my contemporaries.
A crack? Sure. I was a kick-a-soccer-ball-at-my-garage-door afficianado when I was a child and if I’d really uncorked one, I could see that happening. Then I could see my dad whooping my ass. But she did say “hole” and, having followed the lunacy that is this thread for a couple days, the wild-eyed hyperbole is everywhere. This one just happened to be hilariously obvious and I really couldn’t help myself.
Here is what you said:
Where is the hair-splitting? You are asserting that people with children have higher tolerance for kids misbehaving than people without children. I’m saying that I’ve been both (someone with children and without), and my feelings towards children hasn’t changed. Neither have I noticed it with any of my friends who used to not be parents and now are. I think it’s a silly notion that non-parents are inherently less tolerant of kids than parents are.
And if you’re trying to weasel out of your broad-brushing by pointing out the word “seem,” that doesn’t make sense. You are still ascribing a behavior from the way you perceive all parents.
You really are a twat, aren’t you? You know damned well what I am saying, but rather than address that you nitpick the way it was said. What is it that you are trying to avoid here?
Uh huh. Just like you never see children screaming in stores huh? It doesn’t occur to you that there are people out there that hate all dogs? Which of course has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Nice try, but the two are not the same. Someone freaking out by the mere presence of a service animal is not equal to someone not appreciating having to listen to a child scream the whole time the mother shops.
It’s too bad they don’t here ( they do, or did, in Europe) - dogs tend to be so much better trained than children. Or many of their parents.
I can’t and won’t speak for curlcoat, but just the garbage that my grandfather has to put up with makes it pretty easy to believe that there are neighborhoods where children do as they damned well please.
It’s only agism if the person in question - in this case a child - is denied something because of their age and no other reason. I don’t know about anyone else here, but my wish is to deny rights/access to untrained, ill mannered, extremely noisy, destructive children. Same as would happen to any adult that acted that way.
The agism is actually practiced by those people that claim it is OK for a child to do whatever because “it’s only a child” or “kids will be kids”. Even worse are those that insist that the children must be considered separately from their parents/caregivers and must have money/services thrown at them. I don’t know when it happened, but somehow we have ended up with a society that devalues humans more the older they get.
Apparently, kicking the ball really hard multiple times in essentially the same place is how you put a hole in a fiberglass garage door. Not all garage doors are made of wood ya know.
I invent nothing because, if nothing else, I have no need to. How much shit are you determined to ignore in support of the chyyyldren?
I tend to have time to post only once or twice a day. Unlike most folks who are probably goofing off at work.
un-pleas-ant
- [uhn-plez-uhnt]
–adjective
not pleasant; displeasing; disagreeable; offensive: an unpleasant taste; an unpleasant situation; an unpleasant manner.
You have a different definition?
So, a few incidents of damage equals a swarm to you? Your problem is, anything negative against children is exaggerated, either because you are hypersensitive or because you know you cannot paint me as ridiculous otherwise.
The thing about analogies? They should apply. Which the coat made of children and razor blades in apples do not. Find someone to help you with that, you product of public schools.
Trust me, we don’t need any paint.
“Kids being kids” tend to be assholes. Humans are not born with empathy, understanding of the rights of others, indoor voices and all of the other things that they must be taught in order to be - er - pleasant members of society. The problem comes with the people that excuse all of this asshole behavior with “kids being kids”, and no effort is made to teach them that these things are not acceptable.
At what age do you decide that it goes from “kids being kids” to asshole? And why?
Before you call it a load of bull, you might want to find out just what generation I was talking about there.
The hair splitting is that you know that a person who is not a parent but plans to be one is far more likely to share with parents the same views/opinons/responses/tolerance for kids misbehaving than those who who never want kids. Indeed, it is that ability to tolerate the asshole behavior of children that keeps a parent from killing their kid after the 84,037,472th example of it.
I know that hair splitting and trying to change the subject tends to work when you don’t want to think about something, but it doesn’t change the subject - kids tend to act like assholes and far too many parents just look the other way.