Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

[rgraham666]

As my favourite Taoist saying goes, "What you resist, you become."

I won't bother to quote Nietszche this time.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There was a Dilbert cartoon awhile ago in which Dogbert ran a Parent Licenses Shop. I'll just copy the dialogue.

Father: We'd better check it out.

Father: Why do we need a license to become parents?
Dogbert: Something had to be done.

Dogbert: Under the old system all you needed to be a parent was a few body parts and a brain the size of a garbanzo bean.

Dogbert: So I developed this written test to weed out the major bozos.

Mother: If a Baby cries, you should: A) Feed it B) Discipline it C) Call it "Stupid"
Father: You have to show it who's the boss.

Mother: If a child gets poor grades you should: A) Tutor him B) Discipline him C) Call him "Stupid"
Father: What does "Tutor" mean?

Mother: An acceptable nickname for a child is: A) Junior B) Ugly C) Stupid
Father: Depends if it's a boy.

Father: Well? Can we be parents?
Dogbert: No. And you'll have to leave some body parts at the front desk.





I think this is what SZ is mad about. Idiots who really shouldn't breed or vote still doing so. Anti-kid assholes who get or get someone pregnant and then fail to cope with the new reality.

Or perhaps that's just what I'm extracting from the PC/PI debate. I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. I am wrong. An affront to nature. Fear the horror.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

There was a Dilbert cartoon awhile ago in which Dogbert ran a Parent Licenses Shop. I'll just copy the dialogue.

Father: We'd better check it out.

Father: Why do we need a license to become parents?
Dogbert: Something had to be done.

Dogbert: Under the old system all you needed to be a parent was a few body parts and a brain the size of a garbanzo bean.

Dogbert: So I developed this written test to weed out the major bozos.

Mother: If a Baby cries, you should: A) Feed it B) Discipline it C) Call it "Stupid"
Father: You have to show it who's the boss.

Mother: If a child gets poor grades you should: A) Tutor him B) Discipline him C) Call him "Stupid"
Father: What does "Tutor" mean?

Mother: An acceptable nickname for a child is: A) Junior B) Ugly C) Stupid
Father: Depends if it's a boy.

Father: Well? Can we be parents?
Dogbert: No. And you'll have to leave some body parts at the front desk.





I think this is what SZ is mad about. Idiots who really shouldn't breed or vote still doing so. Anti-kid assholes who get or get someone pregnant and then fail to cope with the new reality.

Or perhaps that's just what I'm extracting from the PC/PI debate. I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. I am wrong. An affront to nature. Fear the horror.

That's the impression I got too. And that's a good analogy. I think the only reason financial status came into play was that the taxpayers were more likely to be responsible for the outcome with lower income people involved.

You aren't wrong so far as I can tell (though I reserve my right to fear the horror).

And as scheherazade_79 pointed out with her "A rose by any other name" it took guts to speak his mind, especailly with the terms he used, and that should be admired. As far as those who said they would be "more inclined to listen to him.." had he worded things otherwise. Hey, if you didn't listen, don't reply. The words culminate the point, and many different word choices can get the speaker there. If he chooses to be foul-mouthed or polite, it doesn't change what he's trying to say.

Just my viewpoint.

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

If he chooses to be foul-mouthed or polite, it doesn't change what he's trying to say.


Q_C

Then why, pray tell, do we have different words in which to say it? Changing words does in fact change meaning.

It takes no special courage to use unpleasant language, and especially not to post venom-laden missives anonymously on an Internet bulletin board. There's no challenge to it, only a desire to attract attention to oneself and paucity of other resources for doing so. It achieves nothing and contributes nothing to any serious discussion of ideas.

I did observe that it makes others disinclined to read one's argument. As it happens, I did read Zack's, found it unexceptional and not particularly stirring or startling, and have not to my knowledge attacked any of his major tenets on the topic of reproduction and child care. In fact I agree with many of his ideas, which is all the more reason for me to object to his childish manner of expressing them. It would pain me for anyone to associate my opinions with Zack's vulgar linguistic antics.

 

[Guest]

Well, I notice the PC crowd is already saddlin' up, so before I abandon this thread to the AH clique wasteland of invictive pedagoguery let me mention....

The "breeder cows" as I refer to them are these single mothers that continue to have children ... and damn the consequences.

Not the women that were married and tragically widowed. Not those who were raped as a child and now have to deal with the consequences as a result.

How many kids is enough? People don't choose poverty, as Perdita pointed out, but women decide whether or not to have children. And single women in poverty ... have as many as you fucking want -- five children is an appropriate choice? Six? Seven? With those children come an enormous societal cost.

Of course I don't protest other "grevious spending" of my tax dollars as vehemently as this. I would rather more of my tax dollars went to higher education, which is woefully underfunded (in my childless opinion). I would support universal healthcare for children, rather than tax breaks for billionaires. Don't get me started. I'd prefer that the kids we have on this planet already get a chance at a real career, than encouraging more kids that we can't pay for.

The first sentence above is what irked me the most, actually.

Yes, SZ began this with an inflammatory post. But that can be a good thread starter and it seems to be fairly common these days, especially after the insane U.S. elections.

Some AH folks attempted discourse, others were bothered by SZ's obvious biases and it showed in their angry posts.

And then he attacked. Not views or opinions, he attacked personally.

If someone is being rude, I'm not interested in what they have to say. If I can't respect the person how can I respect their opinion?

So - end of discourse - beginnings of flirting thread hijack.

 

[Liar]

Well, I notice the PC crowd is already saddlin' up, so before I abandon this thread to the AH clique wasteland of invictive pedagoguery let me mention....

The "breeder cows" as I refer to them are these single mothers that continue to have children ... and damn the consequences.

Not the women that were married and tragically widowed. Not those who were raped as a child and now have to deal with the consequences as a result.

See how much clearer your point comes across when you use civilised diiscourse instead of spiteful invectives?

The thing is, you had something valuable to say here, insights and a perspective worth communicating. If it's then PC to ask of you to say what you mean and specify your targets instead of hauling out dumb generalizing catchphrases, then hell yeah I'm PC. And if a more nuanced approach makes you less of a lone ranger rebel, or whatever it is you're trying to be... Well, tough titty, it does the job.

#L

 

[BlackShanglan]

So - end of discourse - beginnings of flirting thread hijack.

By all means. It's got to be better than another round of this.

Personally, I'm fantasizing about George Orwell *wistful sigh* Any decades-dead-writerly-folks you've got an itch for?

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

By all means. It's got to be better than another round of this.

Personally, I'm fantasizing about George Orwell *wistful sigh* Any decades-dead-writerly-folks you've got an itch for?

Shanglan

What about Dick? Sexy name, good writer, and cyberpunk paranoia visionary.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think this is what SZ is mad about. Idiots who really shouldn't breed or vote still doing so. Anti-kid assholes who get or get someone pregnant and then fail to cope with the new reality.

Now see, what I thought (and still think) he was saying that poor people (and poor by his standard) shouldn't *have* kids and those who do (esp. those who have more than 1 because only one can be called 'accidental') are stupid. They should know better- they should feel the way he does about it, and they should do what it takes to prevent it. And those who don't agree and have kids anyway are stupid and contmepatble.

I did not see an exeption for people who are on assistance who work to get off. NO- he said if you can't afford to pay for everything yourself you shouldn't have them period. And if you do, you're a stupid breeder.

He didn't even* say, or even suggest in his clarification that he was talking about abused, neglected or otherwise damaged children such as that he might be working with at the boys and girls club. Oh, it was out there and people went to that conclusion trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he has had many opportunities to say that was what he was talking about and he's never doen so.

With my eyes, I see that Zack has decided that *he* should be the one to decide who has a moral right to have children. Who should or shouldn't- and those who disagree are selfish and stupid. The rich should have children, the poor should not. Us poor- he has decided that we know better, or at least we should, and that it is our duty to prevent pregnancy, because poor parents are a drain on society and generally bad parents.

I don't see anywhere that he has presented a 'softer' message than this.

I know my typing/spelling is really bad at this hour. It's 2am where I am.

 

[SlickTony]

SZ ought to have known that his rant would have had a slew of deterimined, enterprising, hardworking single moms or kids of single moms coming out of the woodwork to tell him how off-base he is.

Of course, the belief that the poor shouldn't reproduce has been around a long time. Fortunately, the poor never took this advice, or the rich would have been hard up, in a pre-mechanized age, to find people to do for them.

In in a post-industrial, electronic/knowledge based society under capitalism, you have a lot of erstwhile factory workers complaining about the loss of their jobs until they figure out something else to work at. At the same time, you have a lot of immigrants, whose treatment depends on the need for them, combined with their vulnerability.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I am so tired of these breeder cows that keep squirting out children with no regard for the consequences.

It was right here, sweetnpetite. The first sentence he posted; the second half: "keep squirting out children with no regard for the consequences." If you're raising the kids, and in a positiion where you have to rely on government aid, or someone else's aid for that matter, then you have regard. You're raising them, and being a parent, with or without aid. You're not letting them starve to death while you're off getting your nails done, which was the group of single mothers I thought of when I read this, or giving birth at the prom and letting the child die in the public restroom.
When I think of single-mothers, I think first of my Ex. Two kids, husband gone raising them alone, relying on charities when she has to and her parents and other family heavily just to get by. And if she needed to go on assistance? If those family members weren't there for her? She's no more a breeder cow with no regard, she's a mother who's doing what she has to do for those kids.
The "breeder cow" wouldn't bother to do what those kids need her to, but has the kids and acts as she does for her own purposes alone.
How is this hard for people to understand? Is it just the emotional connection to the topic 9or what they've confused the topic to be) that makes it hard to see? If that's the case, just say so, and I'll stop trying to point this out. Because you can't speak rationality with emotion; if we've clearly stated anything in this thread, it's that exact point.

Then why, pray tell, do we have different words in which to say it? Changing words does in fact change meaning.

It takes no special courage to use unpleasant language, and especially not to post venom-laden missives anonymously on an Internet bulletin board. There's no challenge to it, only a desire to attract attention to oneself and paucity of other resources for doing so. It achieves nothing and contributes nothing to any serious discussion of ideas.

I did observe that it makes others disinclined to read one's argument. As it happens, I did read Zack's, found it unexceptional and not particularly stirring or startling, and have not to my knowledge attacked any of his major tenets on the topic of reproduction and child care. In fact I agree with many of his ideas, which is all the more reason for me to object to his childish manner of expressing them. It would pain me for anyone to associate my opinions with Zack's vulgar linguistic antics.

Point taken, but I still don't really agree. If I ask you: "Shanglan, what do you think?" Is it that much different than "Shanglan, what the fuck do you think, asshole?" When people are angry, they speak that way. What else do you expect? I hate to be negative about things, but let's face it, educated or not, intelligent or not, we all swear and we all have one-sided views, even if we think or wish we don't/didn't.
And as far as "It achieves nothing and contributes nothing to any serious discussion of ideas," You're on an anonymous BB on the 'Net. Lit. isn't the intergrated center for anything, save for a shitload eek: vulgarity) or porn writers or porn-writer wannabes, or writers who happen to be dabbling in porn. We don't change the world here. We bullshit. Then we go read smut.

*shrug*

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

If I ask you: "Shanglan, what do you think?" Is it that much different than "Shanglan, what the fuck do you think, asshole?"

Absolutely. One indicates a desire for my opinion and communicates a neutral, receptive state of mind. The other suggests inherent hostility and a pre-made decision that I'm wrong and an asshole. There is in fact a world of difference.

When people are angry, they speak that way. What else do you expect? I hate to be negative about things, but let's face it, educated or not, intelligent or not, we all swear and we all have one-sided views, even if we think or wish we don't/didn't.

I don't dispute this. I only feel that those who express themselves in this fashion should expect to have their comments received differently, and probably dismissively. "I'm an irate, unpleasant person with an unbalanced viewpoint" is an unlovely message, and one that merits being ignored or rejected. Zack's complaints that his actual opinions were the problem are off base; it's the way he conveyed them that is objectionable, and my point is that the treatment he received was exactly what he merited - with the exception of those who chose to see his comments as somehow excitingly daring or ground-breaking, which I would argue is rather charitable for this sort of vulgarity-ridden rant.

And as far as "It achieves nothing and contributes nothing to any serious discussion of ideas," You're on an anonymous BB on the 'Net. Lit. isn't the intergrated center for anything, save for a shitload eek: vulgarity) or porn writers or porn-writer wannabes, or writers who happen to be dabbling in porn. We don't change the world here. We bullshit. Then we go read smut.

Our discourse is what we make it. If we choose to be profane, base, and illiterate, we will be. If we choose otherwise, we will be otherwise. At any rate, I don't believe I've suggested that anyone deny Zack his right to speak however he wants; I'm only suggesting that decrying those who disagree with his unpleasant manners is unreasonable. I'm very much in favor of people speaking in whatever way they wish, but if they wish to be profane and offensive, they should have the grace and courage to accept the consequences rather than blaming others for finding their comments distasteful. I think it neither required nor in fact desirable for people to treat vulgar, epithet-laced language as if it were civil discourse. It destroys the meaning of language to pretend that all words mean the same thing. It takes all of the beauty out of it, and more importantly still, it takes all of the power out of it.

Shanglan

 

[cloudy]

Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

I don't dispute this. I only feel that those who express themselves in this fashion should expect to have their comments received differently, and probably dismissively. "I'm an irate, unpleasant person with an unbalanced viewpoint" is an unlovely message, and one that merits being ignored or rejected. Zack's complaints that his actual opinions were the problem are off base; it's the way he conveyed them that is objectionable, and my point is that the treatment he received was exactly what he merited - with the exception of those who chose to see his comments as somehow excitingly daring or ground-breaking, which I would argue is rather charitable for this sort of vulgarity-ridden rant.



Our discourse is what we make it. If we choose to be profane, base, and illiterate, we will be. If we choose otherwise, we will be otherwise. At any rate, I don't believe I've suggested that anyone deny Zack his right to speak however he wants; I'm only suggesting that decrying those who disagree with his unpleasant manners is unreasonable. I'm very much in favor of people speaking in whatever way they wish, but if they wish to be profane and offensive, they should have the grace and courage to accept the consequences rather than blaming others for finding their comments distasteful. I think it neither required nor in fact desirable for people to treat vulgar, epithet-laced language as if it were civil discourse. It destroys the meaning of language to pretend that all words mean the same thing. It takes all of the beauty out of it, and more importantly still, it takes all of the power out of it.

Shanglan

Hear, hear.

After reading a rant full of hate-filled invective, I'm not very inclined to answer in a reasonable manner, nor do I think it actually invites any sort of discussion. A post written that way screams "I'm an angry asshole who'll shout you down if you dare to disagree with me," and that's all it says. I'm all for people speaking their minds, but you get back what you put out there.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

... It destroys the meaning of language to pretend that all words mean the same thing. It takes all of the beauty out of it, and more importantly still, it takes all of the power out of it.

It's so refreshing to see someone speaking from 'the big picture', and in our case, as writers, taking language seriously and respecfully is critical, particularly when trying to communicate what one is passionate about. The original post had no beauty, grace or power.

Everything Shanglan has posted here (and oft' elsewhere) I find interesting and valuable, and usually beautiful and powerful.

Perdita

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

Point taken, but I still don't really agree. If I ask you: "Shanglan, what do you think?" Is it that much different than "Shanglan, what the fuck do you think, asshole?"
Q_C

Uh, gee whiz, lemme ponder this one for awhile.

("what do you think?") is asking someone to give input into a discussion, express their views, offer advice or suggestions.

("what the fuck do you think, asshole?") is asking someone if they would like to fight, argue, insult each other, not because of their views which you consider ignorant and worthless anyway, but because you consider that person to be ignorant and worthless.


I finally made a serious statment in this thread because I felt strongly about something.

I wasn't demeaning or insulting or vulgar. I felt strongly about something and expressed myself without profanity. It is a small thing to be civil and rational while not agreeing with someone else's views.

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

Uh, gee whiz, lemme ponder this one for awhile.

("what do you think?") is asking someone to give input into a discussion, express their views, offer advice or suggestions.

("what the fuck do you think, asshole?") is asking someone if they would like to fight, argue, insult each other, not because of their views which you consider ignorant and worthless anyway, but because you consider that person to be ignorant and worthless.


I finally made a serious statment in this thread because I felt strongly about something.

I wasn't demeaning or insulting or vulgar. I felt strongly about something and expressed myself without profanity. It is a small thing to be civil and rational while not agreeing with someone else's views.

What the hell do you know, Denton, and what makes you think I give a shit?


Edward The Instigator

 

[Guest]

Yet again, Lisa, you've made me a proud mum.

Mum

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

It was right here, sweetnpetite. The first sentence he posted; the second half: "keep squirting out children with no regard for the consequences." If you're raising the kids, and in a positiion where you have to rely on government aid, or someone else's aid for that matter, then you have regard. You're raising them, and being a parent, with or without aid. You're not letting them starve to death while you're off getting your nails done, which was the group of single mothers I thought of when I read this, or giving birth at the prom and letting the child die in the public restroom.
When I think of single-mothers, I think first of my Ex. Two kids, husband gone raising them alone, relying on charities when she has to and her parents and other family heavily just to get by. And if she needed to go on assistance? If those family members weren't there for her? She's no more a breeder cow with no regard, she's a mother who's doing what she has to do for those kids.
The "breeder cow" wouldn't bother to do what those kids need her to, but has the kids and acts as she does for her own purposes alone.

Q_C

If what he meant to say was "People who don't want children, or who don't want to take care of them because they only care about themselves should stop having children." then he should have said that. But nowhere did he say that. In that whole rant, you found one sentance and took it to mean what you wanted him to be saying. I'm not trying to be rude here (well, not to you Q_C) I am just pointing out that many have come to SZ's defense saying 'he meant this or surely he meant that' but SZ has never once said- "yeah, s/he get's it, that's all I'm saying" SZ has repeated the same message and people keep finding excused for him in the message thinking that they should give him the benefit of the doubt. But I am looking at his whole message and regardless of how you may interpret his 'squirting out children w/ no regard' -- your interpretation does not seem to me to match the rest of the content of his message.

And to tell you the truth- I find 'squirting out children' to be a completly ignorant and offensive term. No matter how many you have, or how you care for them, rest assured you can *never* *ever* *ever* 'squirt them out.' Not only is the terminology vile but babies don't come out that way- as a mother of more than my allotted 2.5 I can only say there were a few times when I wish that they did. I find that phrase offensive to all mothers- regardless of how much money they have or weather or not they fall under the terms of this rant. Babies are born in one of two ways and niether involve the child 'squirting out'-- to refure to it that way in *any* case is to imply something about all childbirth weather you want to or not. To use that phase implies to me *no respect for the process of childbirth under any circumstance* else one would never use such degrading terminology. If that makes me the PC police- so be it. I'm not saying he can't use that term- I am saying what it says to me about him.

From your post, I see a respect for women who do what needs to be done. From his post I see no respect for anyone.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

Uh, gee whiz, lemme ponder this one for awhile.

("what do you think?") is asking someone to give input into a discussion, express their views, offer advice or suggestions.

("what the fuck do you think, asshole?") is asking someone if they would like to fight, argue, insult each other, not because of their views which you consider ignorant and worthless anyway, but because you consider that person to be ignorant and worthless.


I finally made a serious statment in this thread because I felt strongly about something.

I wasn't demeaning or insulting or vulgar. I felt strongly about something and expressed myself without profanity. It is a small thing to be civil and rational while not agreeing with someone else's views.

This was beautiful and elegant and right on point.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

What the hell do you know, Denton, and what makes you think I give a shit?


Edward The Instigator

Why you twat!!!!!! Come here so I can kiss you.

Is that as big instigator you have in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

Why you twat!!!!!! Come here so I can kiss you.

Is that as big instigator you have in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

 

[Guest]

Hey Pirate -

Just how big is your instigator, anyway?

(Inquiring minds and all of that ~)

 

[Lisa Denton]

Yet again, Lisa, you've made me a proud mum.

Mum

Thanks mum, I was flirting with SSS on here once but hadn't joined the bedlam and chaos seriously till now. I think SZ might have had some good points in his original post but couldn't agree with anything through the forest or trees, or flames and cows, or something like that.

That remark from QC, whom I dunno, to Black Shanglan, whom I also dunno, was just a bit too much so I popped up.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop having kids ... just fucking stop

This was beautiful and elegant and right on point.

Gosh, I don't think anybody ever said that to me before, can I print this up and hang it on the wall, with a nice frame and all of course. Really, thanks.

 

[Guest]

Always glad to see you pop up, Lisalove. Mum