“Now class, repeat after me: ‘A is A’”.
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?
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.
Nope. As I said, I rely on my husband.
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.
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?
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.
:dubious:
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.
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.
Barney and Timmy: http://www.randompics.net/wp-content/main/2010_06/1277676918803.png
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes: Yeah, that must be true - if it has the word social in it, it must be socialist…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By stretching it I suppose. Will you also be making reference to this when poor people cannot afford big houses, new cars, etc?
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.
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.
Nope - have never said that.
Nope - have never said that.
I suppose if I were a parasite, one or both of us would be appalled.
Uh, fairly minor? Good thing you aren’t a health care worker of any sort.
You are suggesting I prostitute myself? :dubious:
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.
curlcoat does not understand how to use a dictionary. For further evidence, see:
Definition of 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:
So, she’s not a parasite, she just ‘relies’ on him. Definitely no dictionary at the curlcoat house.
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.