# Requiring kindergardeners to share things is now apparently a "socialist" idea **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 22, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372 "2011-04-22T16:29:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/201 "2011-04-29T07:30:36Z")
“Now class, repeat after me: ‘A is A’”. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/202 "2011-04-29T08:08:25Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, I do have a bad back but that is rather minor. I have two forms of arthritis and IBD among other, lesser issues. I am essentially in pain at all times tho some days are better than others. Due to this, I also rarely sleep more than 4 or so hours at a time, and even that isn’t restful sleep. Due to the narcotics I’ve taken for pain for all of my adult life, I am starting to have memory issues. > > Yes, I can spend an hour or so typing, but that is far different from doing it 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. I also cannot hold a job for any length of time because I would be out sick too frequently as on my bad days I don’t do much of anything other than lay in bed. Can you advise why I should have more sympathy for you, born with genetic health issues, than I should have for a child born to poor parents? You’ve stated clearly that those who cannot contribute should receive no consideration, so please…what is it you contribute? Or is that only to be applied to children? ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/203 "2011-04-29T15:35:05Z")
> [@Sateryn76](#): > > Do you think you will do kids a favor by eliminating schoolyard unpleasantness? Because it is all over the adult world, and the tools and thick skin you need to deal with it should start when you’re young, IMO. YES. You don’t teach kids to deal with the problems in the adult world by exposing them to the cruelty of it. That only makes some kids broken (did you never hear about teenagers committing suicide because of “teasing” and bullying?), other kids - often those who bully - set in their ways of being cold and heartless, and leaves the rest ill-equipped. And do you want an adult world that’s as brutal as possible, or do you want a few people who deal in kindness where possible? After all, you usually don’t give kids alcohol or let them watch brutal violence\* either, because you think they are not ready for that yet - why is harrassament different? Obviuosly, to those scientists who study that (psychologists and pedagogists) will always, always, conclude that a child growing up free as possible from abuse/ bullying/ harrassment will develop a stable self-confidence\*\* and self-assurance, which will enable it to deal with the brutal adult world far, far better than bullied children, who grow up with problematic self-esteem issues that need a long time solving/ healing, leaving them less equipped to deal with the adult world. - Yes, in the US, it’s quite okay to let children watch all the violence they want, but if they see a naked breast or hear a “fuck”, they are still considered vulnerable. \*\* I’m not talking about the inflated, hollow, artifical self-esteem that comes from mis-applying a concept by clueless or badly-trained adults, but the concept of proper self-esteem /self-worth as used in psychology. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/204 "2011-04-30T03:47:51Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Yes, you have proven that you rely on the social safety net, you old socialist you. Nope. As I said, I rely on my husband. > [@](#): > > You have also proven that you are capable of keyboarding piecework out of your own home (e.g. medical transcription), but have deliberately chosen not to work at all rather than work to the best of your ability in combination with social support. Again, nope. Being able to sit at the computer for an hour or so a day does not translate into being able to work. Heck, even if I could still keypunch eight hours a day like I used to, there is far more to jobs like that than just being able to type. But of course if you had any clue about such things, you wouldn’t even be able to suggest it with a straight face. > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Can you advise why I should have more sympathy for you, born with genetic health issues, than I should have for a child born to poor parents? I have never asked you to care more about me than anyone else, or at all. Nor have I asked you to not care about children born to poor people. As a matter of fact, I have noted many times that being born poor is a very bad situation for a child to be in for the most part, and you all who love children should quit paying people to have and raise children and start paying to give those kids a better life. But then that would require actually caring, wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > You’ve stated clearly that those who cannot contribute should receive no consideration, so please…what is it you contribute? Or is that only to be applied to children? Oh fercrissakes. Why are there so many dumb people in here? I did contribute, for almost 40 years as I have already said. Just like any other person who works for most of their adult life and then retires and takes their SS. Do you think that all retired people should just be shuffled off to the desert and left to die if they want to take their SS? Also, do you have a problem with stay at home moms, or is it OK with you that they “don’t contribute” simply because they are raising kids? And if nothing else, I may be saving SS money - you all realize that I get about half of what I would have if I’d been able to wait until retirement age, right? And that amount won’t go up when I reach that age? Taking SS disability isn’t the free ride you all seem to want to make it out to be. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/205 "2011-04-30T07:23:07Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Curlcoat, is it true that you personally are not even self-supporting, and instead depend on the kindness of others? > [@curlcoat](#): > > No. > [@curlcoat](#): > > As I said, I rely on my husband. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/206 "2011-04-30T08:43:54Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I did contribute, for almost 40 years as I have already said. Just like any other person who works for most of their adult life and then retires and takes their SS. Do you think that all retired people should just be shuffled off to the desert and left to die if they want to take their SS? . . . Taking SS disability isn’t the free ride you all seem to want to make it out to be. Curlcoat, you will, of course, agree that SS retirement benefits and SS disability benefits, refer to **social** security retirement benefits and **social** security disability benefits. And you will, of course, agree that whether or not your self-identify as a socialist, you suckle at the **social** tit. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/207 "2011-04-30T09:02:23Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Being able to sit at the computer for an hour or so a day . . . So there you sit, able to do piecework transcription for an hour or so a day, which would generate about five grand a year for you, but instead you prefer to suckle on the social tit and be a kept woman. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/208 "2011-04-30T19:56:39Z")
Barney and Timmy: [http://www.randompics.net/wp-content/main/2010\_06/1277676918803.png](http://www.randompics.net/wp-content/main/2010_06/1277676918803.png) ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/209 "2011-05-01T05:12:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If you read what I write and not what hysterical hyper-liberals say I write, you will see that I am well aware that poor people can be responsible. If nothing else, the reason I am not longer poor is because I made responsible choices far more often than irresponsible. However, their definition of responsible does not appear to agree with mine, since I have little patience with people who assume long term debt - house, cars, children - without any fall back plan other than the government. > .. My posts to you are based solely on what your posts say. I get that you’re trying to espouse financial responsibility, but the way you’re coming across is that (and this is what I’m getting from your own posts, not others’ replies to you) people who are broke and have kids did it on purpose and irresponsibly. Your last sentence shows ignorance of how the public assistance program works. There is no viable way for a person on public assistance to assume large ticket item debt like cars and houses. If a person on assistance does have a house or car, it was obtained prior to their falling on hard times. In general, the same with children. Again, we don’t know what’s in each and every one of those people’s minds insofar as motive, so there’s no way for you to correctly, and definitively state which percentage of the poor got there through a reversal of fortunes, and which ones got there due to too many idiotic choices. Particularly in these times. ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/210 "2011-05-01T05:23:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by CanvasShoes View Post > Appropriate wealth and savings are not even in the top 5 criteria for the TRUE meaning of being a good parent. That lies in who the parent is… their character, strengths, traits, kindness, love, and so on. Those are things that no savings account can possibly provide. > [@](#): > > This is part of the problem - people who think that a parent only needs to be loving and so on tend to have children they cannot afford. It’s like people who believe that “two can live as cheaply as one” so they get married and go forth in the world, only to find out that it isn’t true. In the case of the children, they are already here and you have situations like them getting “humiliated” because they don’t have the same supplies as their classmates. Or more serious things like them being left alone far too young because their parent(s) must work and can’t afford daycare. I didn’t say it was completely unnecessary, I said it wasn’t in the top of the most important criteria. Again, you keep acting as if it’s all black or white. As if it’s either people who saved and planned “correctly” (according to your definition) or people who are completely failing, inept and neglectful. There are all shades in between. It’s very possible for a person to be struggling during one time period of their life (and a lot of them too, not just rare exceptions), and be doing okay in another period of their life and for NONE of that to have anything to do with their responsibility or lack thereof. People won’t understand your point much less work toward fixing their part in the issue if you aren’t willing to understand the basics of human nature. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/211 "2011-05-01T09:02:29Z")
> [@CanvasShoes](#): > > It’s very possible for a person to be struggling during one time period of their life (and a lot of them too, not just rare exceptions), and be doing okay in another period of their life and for NONE of that to have anything to do with their responsibility or lack thereof. People won’t understand your point much less work toward fixing their part in the issue if you aren’t willing to understand the basics of human nature. She’s going to come back and say, again, that she’s not talking about _those_ people. What she won’t say flat out is what the implication of her repeated denials actually is: she doesn’t believe that poor people have any right to have children. When a poor person, especially one whose in need of social support – like her – has a child, it is a sign of selfishness, irresponsibility and the perpetuation of a “cycle” which she believes to be abusive and unacceptable. I believe that this argument is generally referred to as class-based (with strong racial implications) eugenics. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/212 "2011-05-01T17:08:16Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > I believe that this argument is generally referred to as class-based (with strong racial implications) eugenics. We’re talking about someone who thinks that the US could go an entire generation without any babies at all, and be fine. I doubt she understands the concept of any kind of eugenics, class based or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Albatross\_On\_A\_Stick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Albatross\_On\_A\_Stick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Albatross_On_A_Stick)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/213 "2011-05-01T17:10:10Z")
As someone who was interested in the original subject of this thread, can I ask that the thread goes back to discussing that and that y’all ignore Curlcoat? It is disappointing, to say the least, when an interesting thread is derailed to become the “Poster X show”. Curlcoat’s views on class-based eugenics, bizarre and enraging as they are, are really not what this thread was supposed to be about! Perhaps the Curlcoat Show could be spun off into its own thread? I really want to see more of the original discussion that was going on before she stuck her oar in! -tnx, albatross. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/214 "2011-05-01T20:30:19Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Curlcoat, you will, of course, agree that SS retirement benefits and SS disability benefits, refer to **social** security retirement benefits and **social** security disability benefits. And you will, of course, agree that whether or not your self-identify as a socialist, you suckle at the **social** tit. :rolleyes: Yeah, that must be true - if it has the word social in it, it must be socialist… > [@Muffin](#): > > So there you sit, able to do piecework transcription for an hour or so a day, which would generate about five grand a year for you, but instead you prefer to suckle on the social tit and be a kept woman. Uh huh. You find a (real) job that involves keypunching for an hour or so a day and I’ll take it. Again, if you had any clue about this, you wouldn’t make a suggestion like this. > [@CanvasShoes](#): > > My posts to you are based solely on what your posts say. I get that you’re trying to espouse financial responsibility, but the way you’re coming across is that (and this is what I’m getting from your own posts, not others’ replies to you) people who are broke and have kids did it on purpose and irresponsibly. Not if you read what I actually post. If nothing else, I have said over _and over_ that I am talking about people who either have kids knowing they cannot afford them, or people who have them without any plan as to what they would do should one or both parents lose their jobs. > [@](#): > > Your last sentence shows ignorance of how the public assistance program works. There is no viable way for a person on public assistance to assume large ticket item debt like cars and houses. This is a great example. I said “However, their definition of responsible does not appear to agree with mine, since I have little patience with people who assume long term debt - house, cars, children - without any fall back plan other than the government.” How you get “There is no viable way for a person on public assistance to assume large ticket item debt like cars and houses” from that I really don’t know since I said _fallback plan_, meaning they assume the debt _before_ they get into a situation where they would need help. > [@](#): > > Again, we don’t know what’s in each and every one of those people’s minds insofar as motive, so there’s no way for you to correctly, and definitively state which percentage of the poor got there through a reversal of fortunes, and which ones got there due to too many idiotic choices. Particularly in these times. I have never quoted any percentages because, as far as I have been able to find, no one bothers to find out how many people are going forth into life with no plan. And “these times” have zero to do with it since people have been doing this for decades - at least. I wouldn’t have near the issue with this if it were something that happened because we are in a recession, and we didn’t have recessions every 30 years or so. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2011, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/215 "2011-05-01T21:37:28Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > What she won’t say flat out is what the implication of her repeated denials actually is: she doesn’t believe that poor people have any right to have children. Actually, I’ve said it many times - I don’t believe that anyone has the “right” to have anything they cannot afford themselves, which includes children. I really don’t understand why it is OK with you that anyone can make such a selfish decision and then turn around and expect someone else, who was not involved in said selfish decision, to pay for it. > [@](#): > > I believe that this argument is generally referred to as class-based (with strong racial implications) eugenics. By stretching it I suppose. Will you also be making reference to this when poor people cannot afford big houses, new cars, etc? > [@Albatross\_On\_A\_Stick](#): > > As someone who was interested in the original subject of this thread, can I ask that the thread goes back to discussing that and that y’all ignore Curlcoat? It is disappointing, to say the least, when an interesting thread is derailed to become the “Poster X show”. Curlcoat’s views on class-based eugenics, bizarre and enraging as they are, are really not what this thread was supposed to be about! As much I as tire of certain people who seem to get their jollies by following me about and turning one comment into a giant rehash of things I haven’t said, I cannot support this whine. YOU want to discuss whether or not taking crayons from kindergardeners is socialist, YOU make a post about it, and then YOU ignore anything else. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/216 "2011-05-02T10:13:57Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Do you think that all retired people should just be shuffled off to the desert and left to die if they want to take their SS? Strangely enough I don’t. But then again I’m not the one preaching a half-lobotomised interpretation of Rand. You state that if people can’t pay their way, the state should give them nothing. So, I take it that the moment your cost to the state is greater than the amount you’ve so far contributed, it’s your duty to stop claiming any form of benefit. Also, does it not appal you that your husband is encouraging your parasitical ways? I mean, just because you’ve got fairly minor health problems is no excuse for leeching. Thanks to the internet, there’s all manner of webcam related income ust waiting for you to take advantage of. Admittedly you’re not the run of the mill candidate for sex chat/cam antics, but as embodied by Rule 34, there’s always somewhere out there into a particular fetish. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/217 "2011-05-02T21:42:11Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > You state that if people can’t pay their way, the state should give them nothing. Nope - have never said that. > [@](#): > > So, I take it that the moment your cost to the state is greater than the amount you’ve so far contributed, it’s your duty to stop claiming any form of benefit. Nope - have never said that. > [@](#): > > Also, does it not appal you that your husband is encouraging your parasitical ways? I suppose if I were a parasite, one or both of us would be appalled. > [@](#): > > I mean, just because you’ve got fairly minor health problems is no excuse for leeching. Uh, fairly minor? Good thing you aren’t a health care worker of any sort. > [@](#): > > Thanks to the internet, there’s all manner of webcam related income ust waiting for you to take advantage of. Admittedly you’re not the run of the mill candidate for sex chat/cam antics, but as embodied by Rule 34, there’s always somewhere out there into a particular fetish. You are suggesting I prostitute myself? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/218 "2011-05-02T22:49:29Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > By stretching it I suppose. Will you also be making reference to this when poor people cannot afford big houses, new cars, etc? Here’s an idea. When you see a word you don’t understand in a post, instead of yammering some non sequitur in response, try looking the word up in a dictionary. You can even Google a word and get its definition. The word in question here is eugenics. You clearly don’t know what it means, even while you continue to promote it. When you fully understand the discussion being had around you, feel free to come back and yammer some more. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/219 "2011-05-03T00:20:46Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Here’s an idea. When you see a word you don’t understand in a post, instead of yammering some non sequitur in response, try looking the word up in a dictionary. curlcoat does not understand how to use a dictionary. For further evidence, see: > [@curlcoat](#): > > I suppose if I were a parasite, one or both of us would be appalled. [Definition of parasite](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite): (noun) a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. And yet: > [@curlcoat](#): > > As I said, I rely on my husband. So, she’s not a parasite, she just ‘relies’ on him. Definitely no dictionary at the curlcoat house. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372/220 "2011-05-03T01:10:29Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > And you honestly believe that the simple act of sharing class supplies teaches children to be dependent wards of the state, not that cooperation is a good way for a group to accomplish a common goal? I suspect conservatives would prefer that common goals be accomplished not by some misty kumbayah called cooperation, but by obedience to petty authority wherever it rears its grumpy little head. This could be through the heavy hand of the teacher or principal, or just the kid who owns the best crayons exercising his natural rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-kindergardeners-to-share-things-is-now-apparently-a-socialist-idea/579372.md?page=12)