The Off Topic Thread

[WVUPharm2007]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ why are you so defensive about this? You are seriously arguing that anyone who has kids is selfish because there are suffering children out there?

It's actually an argument that can be made, interestingly. Parents just don't want to admit it because their attachment to their child puts them in denial.

I don't actually expect the average person to adopt, though. And I can see how many can't adopt because they don't fit a certain profile of person that can adopt children. And I'm so "defensive" about this because you claimed that having children is the opposite of having a life that's about "me." Which is complete bull****. Once I get pissed off, I don't quit.

And no matter what you say it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing selfless about having children at all unless you adopt. And nothing on the planet pisses me off more than parents whose brain function has changed telling me about how wonderful their damned snobby ass kids are and how I "just don't know what they are talking about." Its just like crackheads defending their addiction. Dylan Klebold's parents still claim that they had a nice boy for Christ's sake. The only difference is that one is caused by intrinsic evolutionary mechanism...the other by exogenous pharmacodynamic mechanisms.

Come on man, if you feel so strongly about starving children in Somalia why don't you adopt? Why don't you donate your salary to charities?

Maybe I do. And if I send $1000 to Unicef, I'd already have done more good for the world than you did for having a child. Because having a child isn't a selfless act unless you are birthing the aforementioned tapdancing christ.

If it makes you feel better, take that "life is about ME" comment as being about me and not necessarily applying to everyone.

For some reason I doubt it. Though saying as such is a good way to save face.

The fact remains, I hated children before I had one, Zyvox hated children before he had them, and no doubt you will probably hate children for a while until you have them.

So basically, you're agreeing with me?

Does your understanding of the neurophysiology of pleasure in the brain mean this is all us smoking crack? No, and you know that.

It doesn't mean you smoke crack, it just means that you're brain was changed because you had children. Once an attachment to a child is made, it changes you. It's very similar to other sorts of addiction. We don't like to admit this because having children, for some damn reason, is something that is revered in this country. It's called a "miracle." Even though it isn't. Hell, Bubba down the street on disability and welfare has 5 kids.

 

[meister]

And no matter what you say it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing selfless about having children at all unless you adopt. And nothing on the planet pisses me off more than parents whose brain function has changed telling me about how wonderful their damned snobby ass kids are and how I "just don't know what they are talking about." Its just like crackheads defending their addiction. Dylan Klebold's parents still claim that they had a nice boy for Christ's sake. The only difference is that one is caused by intrinsic evolutionary mechanism...the other by exogenous pharmacodynamic mechanisms.

It is quite clear that you just don’t “get it,” and you are admitting as such. Why not just leave it at that? Does lashing out at parents everywhere fill you with pride or something? Of the infinite differences between smoking crack and having children, one is that eventually children become productive members of society and can pay taxes and sustain the country. Therefore, children are not crack, thanks. I know you like to be “edgy” and all that but your argument here is pretty stupid.

This is kind of silly because if you actually go back to what I originally said I certainly did not say you were selfish because you were single, I said having kids was cool once you get over the whole "life is about ME" thing. That is entirely true, and it is only your reflexive defensiveness that gets us to where we are now.

Maybe I do. And if I send $1000 to Unicef, I'd already have done more good for the world than you did for having a child. Because having a child isn't a selfless act unless you are birthing the aforementioned tapdancing christ.

Hmmm, possibly. But what if my child grows up to do something selfless? That is the whole point, we don’t really know what our children are going to do. They could be drags on society or they could be presidents or Dalai Lamas.

For some reason I doubt it. Though saying as such is a good way to save face.

Well it definitely does apply to me, and it clearly doesn’t represent 100% of everyone else. But for a good majority of people that have children, life goes from “oh I wonder if I should buy this purse I like Gucci oh but I also really like Louis Vuitton but I also like shoes” to “oh crap when did I last feed little Johnny oh he just crapped his diaper oh damn I forgot to take out the trash oh dammit now little Johnny put a rock in his mouth.”

So basically, you're agreeing with me?

When did I ever say you were wrong about the fact that brain chemistry is similar for many different actions?

It doesn't mean you smoke crack, it just means that you're brain was changed because you had children. Once an attachment to a child is made, it changes you. It's very similar to other sorts of addiction. We don't like to admit this because having children, for some damn reason, is something that is revered in this country. It's called a "miracle." Even though it isn't. Hell, Bubba down the street on disability and welfare has 5 kids.

Well I don’t believe in miracles, but it is an amazing event. Anyway your sophomoric rant against child-rearing is cute and all but let’s be honest here, you don’t like kids and you’ll find any way possible to rationalize that. So you’ve chosen to demonize parents and find solace in the argument that you’ll never be one of them and that donating to Unicef makes you infinitely more charitable than someone having a child. You may have a point somewhere in your incoherence, but overall you are way off target.

 

[Glycerin]

Could you two take your topic to another thread? This is supposed to be off-topic thread, and you've both been on the same topic now for more than two posts each.

To be on-topic by being off-topic, I hate packing and getting ready for moving.

 

[meister]

Do you want kids Glycerin?

 

[Glycerin]

Do you want kids Glycerin?

Well, see, now I'm being baited to contribute to your off-topic-on-topic-off-topic debate. 😛 Anyway, I'll bite.

The verdict is still out on whether I want kids. Sometimes I think I do, sometimes I think I don't. Sometimes I don't feel old enough, even though I'm 30, because I think, "Wow, when my parents were my age, they had an 8 year old and a 4 year old, and I can't imagine having just one." Especially just becoming a pharmacist (in 6 weeks), I don't feel settled enough just yet to really think about it. Other times I think none of that matters and that no one is really ever "ready" for kids, so you just have them whenever and things'll be just fine.

 

[medicalCPA]

Aside from local commercials - which are crap, anyway - Geico and Hillshire Farms have some of the most ******ed commercials I've ever seen.

 

[fhx06]

I kind of like the commercial with the Geico executive guy wanting to do the trust test with the gecko.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It is quite clear that you just don't "get it," and you are admitting as such.

No duh, genius. I don't have children, ergo, I do not have altered brain chemistry that is manifested via attachment to a child.

Why not just leave it at that?

Because you started it and I never quit...

Does lashing out at parents everywhere fill you with pride or something?

Just the ones that think they are better than me because they decided to have children. Or the ones that insist that I hold the same view as them. Like you.

Of the infinite differences between smoking crack and having children, one is that eventually children become productive members of society and can pay taxes and sustain the country.

Hell, if you gave crackheads jobs where they were paid in crack based upon productivity, we'd have the most productive labor force on the planet.

Therefore, children are not crack, thanks. I know you like to be "edgy" and all that but your argument here is pretty stupid.

I already said they weren't crack...however, and this isn't debatable, having children changes your opinion of them and changes your intrinsic logic mechanisms. It's all ver similar in mechanism.

This is kind of silly because if you actually go back to what I originally said I certainly did not say you were selfish because you were single

I am?

I said having kids was cool once you get over the whole "life is about ME" thing. That is entirely true, and it is only your reflexive defensiveness that gets us to where we are now.

And this is what pisses me off, because the logical conclusion of this statement is that if you don't think having kids is "cool" then your life is self-centered...which, again, is bull****.

Well it definitely does apply to me, and it clearly doesn't represent 100% of everyone else. But for a good majority of people that have children, life goes from "oh I wonder if I should buy this purse I like Gucci oh but I also really like Louis Vuitton but I also like shoes" to "oh crap when did I last feed little Johnny oh he just crapped his diaper oh damn I forgot to take out the trash oh dammit now little Johnny put a rock in his mouth."

Lol, what the hell are you talking about?

Well I don't believe in miracles, but it is an amazing event. Anyway your sophomoric rant against child-rearing is cute and all but let's be honest here, you don't like kids and you'll find any way possible to rationalize that.

Child birth is routine. Hell, they've been doing that since before the development of language. The installation of an artificial heart...now there's an amazing event.

So you've chosen to demonize parents and find solace in the argument that you'll never be one of them and that donating to Unicef makes you infinitely more charitable than someone having a child.

No, I chose to demonize *******s that claim that having a child is something that is special and, in turn, look down upon those who don't have a similar viewpoint about the damned things because their brain chemistry has changed to make their logic skewed. And that argument about "never being one" is rather trite. I could just as easily say that you are finding solace in the argument that you will never be a person that lives a life without children.

You may have a point somewhere in your incoherence, but overall you are way off target.

Blah, blah, blah, good for you.

 

[Megas]

Aside from local commercials - which are crap, anyway - Geico and Hillshire Farms have some of the most ******ed commercials I've ever seen.

Do you object to the gecko, his capacity for speech, or the way he was squished? (I'm supposed to be doing taxes right now).

 

[meister]

No duh, genius. I don't have children, ergo, I do not have altered brain chemistry that is manifested via attachment to a child.

This has never been in question by anyone, yet you feel the need to keep repeating it as if you are the bestowing unto us some grand new understand of life and its mysteries.

Because you started it and I never quit...

Nope, it’s because you feel slighted by inferring I was saying everyone without children is selfish and got pretty defensive.

Just the ones that think they are better than me because they decided to have children. Or the ones that insist that I hold the same view as them. Like you.

Exactly when did I say I was better than you? Go ahead and point that out to me.

Hell, if you gave crackheads jobs where they were paid in crack based upon productivity, we'd have the most productive labor force on the planet.

Perhaps, although using meth addicts would be better bang for your buck.

I am?

I meant to say that I never said you were selfish because you don’t have children. That is the assumption you made that is incorrect.

And this is what pisses me off, because the logical conclusion of this statement is that if you don't think having kids is "cool" then your life is self-centered...which, again, is bull****.

Impeccable logic. Oh wait, no. Let’s go back to what I said.

Well, there are lots of reasons, but one of them is that kids are cool once you get over the whole "life is about ME" thing.

To which you replied with

Bull****. Having children is all about the theoretical "me." You can't have affection for a thing that doesn't exist yet. People have children because they want them...or because of an accident...and even then, they keep them because they want them...

And how the hell does NOT wanting children intrinsically equate to meaning that a person's life philosophy is thinking "life is about ME?" If anything, having children is the position that is selfish.

You are the one who made the incorrect logic leap from me saying that “kids are cool once you get over the whole ‘life is about ME’ thing” to somehow mean that “NOT wanting children intrinsically equate to meaning that a person’s life philosophy is thinking ‘life is about ME.’”
At that point you decided to go on your anti-child anti-parent rant to let everyone know just how cool you are by both thinking parents are crackheads and that having children is a crime against humanity, and also that donating to Unicef is the only way to contribute to this world.

Plus, despite all this, everything you're saying is rendered moot by actually reading what I originally typed. I said that one of the reasons people have children is that kids are cool when you get over thinking "life is about ME." Thus, there are other reasons. Thus, perhaps that particular reason doesn't apply to you. Oh no, I don't think I'm better than you or that you are a selfish child just because you don't have children! What will you rant about now?

How many children are there out there that don't have parents? How many are malnourished? And yet there are people that want their own children with the knowledge that so many already born that already need someone? So unless you adopted and elected to lessen the suffering of another human being that isn't your kin that you want molded with your own genetic code, I reject any and all notion that raising a child is some sort of selfless act.

Tell me again who is the one who made the offensive statements?

Child birth is routine. Hell, they've been doing that since before the development of language. The installation of an artificial heart...now there's an amazing event.

Child birth happens a lot, but when it’s your child coming out of your wife then you’ll see that it’s a very personal and inspirational event. You’re right, no one really cares outside of immediate family, but you are not saying anything that everyone doesn’t already know.

Furthermore, your statement that the installation of an artificial heart is different and somehow more amazing is a bit bizarre. Do you understand that when two people have sex, one gets pregnant and 9 months later gives birth that that is the culmination of millions of years of evolution? How do you not find that amazing?

No, I chose to demonize *******s that claim that having a child is something that is special and, in turn, look down upon those who don't have a similar viewpoint about the damned things because their brain chemistry has changed to make their logic skewed. And that argument about "never being one" is rather trite. I could just as easily say that you are finding solace in the argument that you will never be a person that lives a life without children.

It’s not rather trite, it is an obvious fact, and one that apparently you feel a little sensitive about. You could quite easily make your last argument, and it would be true and I would not find it offensive.

Seriously though WVU, you are coming off as a petulant sophomoric jerk equating children to crack and parents to crackheads. I know that you get off on being edgy and I’m cool with that, but you just used my off-handed comment to go into your little tantrum. And in the process of ranting against someone who clearly doesn't think he's better than you, you have revealed, rather ironically, that you do in fact think you're better than people who have children.

Nice, try telling your parents that one.

 

[medicalCPA]

Do you object to the gecko, his capacity for speech, or the way he was squished? (I'm supposed to be doing taxes right now).

I used to think the gecko was creepy, but he grew on me, I guess. I object the most to the wad of money with plastic eyes. "That's the money you could be saving with Geico." Ugh. Makes me want to tear out my hair. And don't get me started on the "Go meat!"


And guys...there is a kids-related thread now. Leave the poor kids and crackheads out of this off-topic thread.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Seriously though WVU, you are coming off as a petulant sophomoric jerk equating children to crack and parents to crackheads. I know that you get off on being edgy and I'm cool with that, but you just used my off-handed comment to go into your little tantrum. And in the process of ranting against someone who clearly doesn't think he's better than you, you have revealed, rather ironically, that you do in fact think you're better than people who have children.

So, we can sum all of this up as essentially:

1) You typed something I'm pretty sure you meant before you realized it was a statement you couldn't back up.

2) It pissed me off.

3) You recanted on said statement after you realized you couldn't defend it.

4) I'm probably mostly insane and I will blather on for hours in random tangents because that's how I am.

5) You still won't admit you were wrong on the original insult, upon which my glove slap and demand for satisfaction went kind of uncalled...and then rather you switched up and said "I didn't mean it in the way it was obviously meant, but in a way that was suppossed to be interpreted as a statement that only applies to me."

Which brings us to now.

Ok, cool. Sounds good.

 

[Glycerin]

And then there's always the case of having to have the last word. Right, moving on...

I'm rather disappointed that I ran out of sugar for my morning cup of hot caffeine, and honey just doesn't do the trick.

 

[meister]

I'm rather disappointed that I ran out of sugar for my morning cup of hot caffeine, and honey just doesn't do the trick.

Coffee is to be served black as night and hot as the sun. Anything else is blasphemy.

You still won't admit you were wrong on the original insult, upon which my glove slap and demand for satisfaction went kind of uncalled...and then rather you switched up and said "I didn't mean it in the way it was obviously meant, but in a way that was suppossed to be interpreted as a statement that only applies to me."

It's fine that you ignored the details of my post to post your summary, details are mostly unimportant as I'm sure you've now realized! We can all be sure of one thing though, you are pissed off at parents who think they are better than you! And in the process of explaining just how pissed off you are, you revealed that you do, in fact, think you are better than parents. The irony is obvious, wouldn't you agree?

I'm still waiting for you to post where exactly I said I was better than you, and also to post where exactly I said that because you don't have children you are selfish.

 

[Glycerin]

Coffee is to be served black as night and hot as the sun. Anything else is blasphemy.

It was English breakfast tea.

 

[Glycerin]

I am more grossed out by Andrew Zimmern than by the "bizarre" foods he eats.

 

[grizzlesgrizzlies]

I kind of like the commercial with the Geico executive guy wanting to do the trust test with the gecko.

the gecko rules!

"oh dear"

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It's fine that you ignored the details of my post to post your summary, details are mostly unimportant as I'm sure you've now realized!

I can go point by point if you want me to, but we're going in pointless circles at this point.

We can all be sure of one thing though, you are pissed off at parents who think they are better than you! And in the process of explaining just how pissed off you are, you revealed that you do, in fact, think you are better than parents. The irony is obvious, wouldn't you agree?

Nah, people are people. I'm just pissed off at people like you that think they are better than non-parents. Which you think you are. You can try to back peddle all you want, but that's pretty much what I get out of it. I'm just trying to give counterexamples of how such a philosophy is bull**** and you can't handle that.

I'm still waiting for you to post where exactly I said I was better than you, and also to post where exactly I said that because you don't have children you are selfish.

Are you little slow or just being obtuse for fun?

You typed something along the lines of "once you realize life isn't about ME children are great." This implies that a) its selfish to not want children b) you have reached some sort of enlightenment that I had not because you want children.

You then attempted to retract it by claiming that it only applied to you and not me, I didn't and still don't believe that's your stance as the above statement wouldn't logically be taken in that way.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You are the one who made the incorrect logic leap from me saying that "kids are cool once you get over the whole ‘life is about ME' thing" to somehow mean that "NOT wanting children intrinsically equate to meaning that a person's life philosophy is thinking ‘life is about ME.'"

Perhaps your you should learn to convey things in English. I still don't buy it, either. You're just backpeddling and I'm calling you on it.

At that point you decided to go on your anti-child anti-parent rant to let everyone know just how cool you are by both thinking parents are crackheads and that having children is a crime against humanity

And you're the one whining about making incorrect inferences. YOU claimed that having children is an unselfish act. *I* provided context for how that logic is bull**** by using the idea that helping a child with no parents is much more unselfish. Because it is. If you are going to put having a child in a dichotomy of selfish versus unselfish, in the grand scheme of things, its more selfish than unselfish. But I don't really expect anybody to actually think it through that much. Evolutionary urges are too strong to overcome. Having children is just having children. People have them because they WANT them. There is nothing really that special about it.

and also that donating to Unicef is the only way to contribute to this world.

It's one of many ways. Though I never implied that it was the only way. More hypocrisy from you. Brilliant consistency on your part.

Plus, despite all this, everything you're saying is rendered moot by actually reading what I originally typed. I said that one of the reasons people have children is that kids are cool when you get over thinking "life is about ME."

Ok. I read it again. It still reads as though you are implying that I'm selfish. "...having kids is cool when YOU get over thinking 'life is about ME."

Thus, there are other reasons. Thus, perhaps that particular reason doesn't apply to you.

It doesn't imply anything like that at all. You said something you can't back up. Just admit it and we can move on.

Oh no, I don't think I'm better than you or that you are a selfish child just because you don't have children! What will you rant about now?

So you are saying that you were either:
A) Wrong in making the mistake in writing something that is, at best, ambiguous.
B) Sorry for claiming that not having children is selfish.

If its either A or B, then, yeah, we're cool.

Furthermore, your statement that the installation of an artificial heart is different and somehow more amazing is a bit bizarre. Do you understand that when two people have sex, one gets pregnant and 9 months later gives birth that that is the culmination of millions of years of evolution? How do you not find that amazing?

Artificial heart is still more amazing. It's the culmination of the evolution of the human brain the be able to conceptualize such a contraption.

Seriously though WVU, you are coming off as a petulant sophomoric jerk equating children to crack and parents to crackheads. I know that you get off on being edgy and I'm cool with that, but you just used my off-handed comment to go into your little tantrum.

No, you questioned one of my major life decisions and implied that it was selfish...or at the least typed something in a manner that was easily taken that way. You set me off, this is what you get.

And in the process of ranting against someone who clearly doesn't think he's better than you, you have revealed, rather ironically, that you do in fact think you're better than people who have children.

I don't think I'm intrinsically better than the theoretical "them." Some, yes. I don't think I'm better than, like, Jim Webb...I mean, hell, he's awesome...and he has kids.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

There ya go, point by point...

 

[bananaface]

You two need to get a room.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You two need to get a room.

Like an off topic thread or something? 🙄

 

[Glycerin]

Like an off topic thread or something? 🙄

It's no longer off-topic with you two both blathering on about something on which you'll never see eye to eye.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It's no longer off-topic with you two both blathering on about something on which you'll never see eye to eye.

Ok, then start a non sequitur off-topic thread.

 

[Glycerin]

Ok, then start a non sequitur off-topic thread.

Many of us thought that's what this was. Several of us have tried to interject non-sequiturs in between the bitchfest, but when you both breakdown every sentence to reply, those non-sequiturs get lost in the page-long shuffle. I mean, seriously, agree to disagree and move on.

On that note, I keep sneezing and can't sleep.

 

[bananaface]

Or a bullfighting off-topic thread.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Where's that one thread where me and Priapism321 argued for like 10 pages about something (not the ncaa football rambling thread)? That was epic...back in like 2005...lasted weeks. This is just a minor skirmish.

 

[BMBiology]

In a Bayer's commercial, a woman said her doctor said the Bayer's aspirin saved her life. How would the doctor know?

 

[Glycerin]

In a Bayer's commercial, a woman said her doctor said the Bayer's aspirin saved her life. How would the doctor know?

Because the hot drug rep told him so?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

How would the doctor know?

Because he's a doctor. The same reason why you'd want to have a doctor around if you had an MI in the middle of Siberia. They are magical beings that can do anything. They can listen to your heart and tell if the ST segment is elevated and their tears act as Tissue Plasminogen Activator.

 

[BMBiology]

their tears act as Tissue Plasminogen Activator.

That's some big buck tears. Too bad most physicians rarely cry.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

That's some big buck tears. Too bad most physicians rarely cry.

That's why its so expensive.

 

[BMBiology]

That's why its so expensive.

Until you tell them how much they will be making in primary care.

 

[PharmDstudent]

I hear ya, WVU. We've been through this whole have vs. adopt children issue before.

Honestly, there are many things in life that are less selfish than having children. Off the top of my head, I can think of: adopting stray animals, picking up trash/litter, buying someone else's groceries, giving coupons away to people who can use them, visiting a sick person in a long term care facility, giving away skilled labor or professional counseling at no cost, etc.


I see children as an extension of the parents, sort of like a "mini me". It's like parents have the option of pushing more of themselves into society, not less, which is selfish in my opinion. Until the child is old enough, the parent has control over what their child will do and what mark it stamps on society. (Children waiting around to be adopted while parents keep having their own children is a completely different topic, and my views about that are similar to WVU's.)



Off-topic babble is stupid. It's a waste of time... Besides, I don't care about coffee or gecko lizards!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

To any and all fellow short-sighted fellows.

I've been looking for a new pair of around-the-house glasses. I went to the optometrist...the cheapest frame is $200...$450 including lenses. Sam's Club...best they could do was $170 total. When the hell did glasses get so ridiculous?

So by random browsing, I logged onto this site called goggles4u.com. I just had two pairs of glasses delivered to my door for $105. I had an inkling that it may be too good to be true, but I'm rather impressed. They only took 3 weeks to get to me. Fit perfect, look great, can see way better that the old ones. Saved me a TON of money. Highly recommended. 👍

 

[medicalCPA]

To any and all fellow short-sighted fellows.

I've been looking for a new pair of around-the-house glasses. I went to the optometrist...the cheapest frame is $200...$450 including lenses. Sam's Club...best they could do was $170 total. When the hell did glasses get so ridiculous?

So by random browsing, I logged onto this site called goggles4u.com. I just had two pairs of glasses delivered to my door for $105. I had an inkling that it may be too good to be true, but I'm rather impressed. They only took 3 weeks to get to me. Fit perfect, look great, can see way better that the old ones. Saved me a TON of money. Highly recommended. 👍

This may actually help me, because I am in need of glasses, but have been too poor to have my eyes checked.

 

[BMBiology]

Does anyone know when does Dell usually have its major sale?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

God damn, did anybody else just see Prince tear it up on Leno. The old boy still got mad skills...playing that guitar like Hendrix. Nasty.

 

[BMBiology]

Who cares about Prince. What about the Dell sale?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Who cares about Prince. What about the Dell sale?

Irrelevant. HP>Dell; Though Dell>Apple...hell...TI-83>Apple

 

[rphello]

hell...TI-83>Apple

I wrote a basic kinetics program on a TI-83, even though I know jack about programming. Can't say I've done anything as useful on my Apple.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Irrelevant. HP>Dell; Though Dell>Apple...hell...TI-83>Apple

I just got an HP. Always been a Dell girl in the past. The HP is pretty awesome though...it's a touch screen with a stylus, and you can swivel the screen down & around to make it a tablet. Very cool for PS!

 

[Pharmacy Kid]

I just got an HP. Always been a Dell girl in the past. The HP is pretty awesome though...it's a touch screen with a stylus, and you can swivel the screen down & around to make it a tablet. Very cool for PS!

That's the tx2500 series right? I got that. If you can, the program you definitely need to get is Microsoft OneNote.

 

[meister]

And you're the one whining about making incorrect inferences. YOU claimed that having children is an unselfish act.

Tsk tsk, now you’ve resorted to making **** up. Please provide a quote of me saying that having children is unselfish. You were the one who started this entire debate because you felt the need to tell everyone that children=crack and parents=crackheads. All I did was say that you had a very juvenile understanding of things if that is what you honestly think. You then proceeded to start arguing with yourself, hilariously. I never said having children was free from selfishness, just that having children wasn’t equivalent to getting a hit of crack nor was it horrible because there are starving children in Somalia. Your “starving children” logic is ridiculous and could be extended to every facet of our society. Do you drive a nice car? Live in a big oversized house? Use air conditioning? Drink bottled water? Use plastic? Holy **** you are wasting money and precious resources for your own selfish needs instead of donating everything you have to Unicef!

*I* provided context for how that logic is bull**** by using the idea that helping a child with no parents is much more unselfish. Because it is. If you are going to put having a child in a dichotomy of selfish versus unselfish, in the grand scheme of things, its more selfish than unselfish. But I don't really expect anybody to actually think it through that much. Evolutionary urges are too strong to overcome. Having children is just having children. People have them because they WANT them. There is nothing really that special about it.

Again, arguing with yourself. Let’s take another look at what I originally said that induced your defensive lashing out.

Dude...just because our brain processes pleasure a certain way doesn't mean that everything that gives us pleasure is for some reason undesirable. Kids have a lot to offer, there is a reason billions of people have had children up until this point. Well, there are lots of reasons, but one of them is that kids are cool once you get over the whole "life is about ME" thing.

Is it hard to read the part where I said “well, there are lots of reasons, but one of them is…”? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Never did I say that all parents aren’t selfish. Never did I say their motivation wasn’t selfishness. You are chasing windmills here.

The simple truth is that as a person without children your second-to-second life management is 100% dependent on your own needs and desires. When you are responsible for another human, this changes. What is so hard to understand about this? This is not saying you are selfish, precisely, just that you don't have to put someone else first. Many people without children have this same responsibility. But go ahead and keep misinterpreting what I said so you can continue your incoherent rant just so everyone knows just how much you hate those damn kids in the basketball court preventing you from being a White Guy Playing Basketball.

Later when I said

Jesus tap-dancing Christ why are you so defensive about this? You are seriously arguing that anyone who has kids is selfish because there are suffering children out there?

You countered with

It's actually an argument that can be made, interestingly. Parents just don't want to admit it because their attachment to their child puts them in denial.

So evidently you are endorsing the argument that everyone who has children is selfish because there are starving children out there. You explicitly endorsed that logic. Do you see how that is very, very stupid?

After that you went on with your incessant rambling again about how there is nothing selfless about having children even though no one ever, ever, ever said that.

And no matter what you say it doesn't change the fact that there is nothing selfless about having children at all unless you adopt.

Windmills.

It doesn't imply anything like that at all. You said something you can't back up. Just admit it and we can move on.

Actually, if I accept the logic you endorsed for why parents having their own children are selfish, everyone in America who isn’t donating most of their income or networth to charity is selfish. Back in reality, however, a non-defensive person would read the sentence that I typed and actually remember the entire first clause. Namely, where I quite explicitly state that there are a billion reasons for having children.

Evidently my general use of the pronoun “you” is what is confusing you, sorry!

No, you questioned one of my major life decisions and implied that it was selfish...or at the least typed something in a manner that was easily taken that way. You set me off, this is what you get.

This is what I get? Do you really feel as though you are dishing out some sort of Internet Tough Guy™ beat-down or something? lol.

I don't think I'm intrinsically better than the theoretical "them." Some, yes. I don't think I'm better than, like, Jim Webb...I mean, hell, he's awesome...and he has kids.

Oh ok, it only takes election to the United States Senate for someone with children to eclipse your awesomeness! Cool dude!

Just admit you took an off-handed remark stating simply that having a child is cool once you get over the fact that now not every second of the day is 100% devoted to yourself or your wants and desires way out of context, ignored half the sentence, and proceeded to self-fellate over the fact that you are just so awesome because you realize that having kids is really, really selfish and you are so not selfish precisely because you don’t have kids. I never said that having kids was unselfish, you 100% invented that.

Hope this helps!

PS Why did you drop your other WVU Windmill about pleasure and the brain, I quite enjoyed seeing the mental gymnastics you'd execute in each post as you constructed straw-man after straw-man in order to foist that tired crackhead analogy on us.

 

[meister]

Honestly, there are many things in life that are less selfish than having children. Off the top of my head, I can think of: adopting stray animals, picking up trash/litter, buying someone else's groceries, giving coupons away to people who can use them, visiting a sick person in a long term care facility, giving away skilled labor or professional counseling at no cost, etc.

Ok great, now we get to see that picking up trash and buying someone groceries is an intrinsically less selfish act than having children. Nice to know what everyone here thinks of their parents.

I see children as an extension of the parents, sort of like a "mini me". It's like parents have the option of pushing more of themselves into society, not less, which is selfish in my opinion. Until the child is old enough, the parent has control over what their child will do and what mark it stamps on society.

Oh, so children aren't people, they're "extension of the parents." Ooooooooooook.

Do you guys have major daddy/mommy issues or what? For serious. All the pro-children (lol) people ever really maintained was that once you have them they are very cool, despite assurances otherwise from those of you who are just so cool about not having them.

 

[fhx06]

I hear ya, WVU. We've been through this whole have vs. adopt children issue before.

Honestly, there are many things in life that are less selfish than having children. Off the top of my head, I can think of: adopting stray animals, picking up trash/litter, buying someone else's groceries, giving coupons away to people who can use them, visiting a sick person in a long term care facility, giving away skilled labor or professional counseling at no cost, etc.


I see children as an extension of the parents, sort of like a "mini me". It's like parents have the option of pushing more of themselves into society, not less, which is selfish in my opinion. Until the child is old enough, the parent has control over what their child will do and what mark it stamps on society. (Children waiting around to be adopted while parents keep having their own children is a completely different topic, and my views about that are similar to WVU's.)



Off-topic babble is stupid. It's a waste of time... Besides, I don't care about coffee or gecko lizards!

Hey... no hating on the gecko.

 

[Glycerin]

I'm watching Big Trouble in Little China for the first time in about 20 years.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

mindless blathering

This isn't that hard of a concept to understand. Even for an uber-genius like yourself. (Oh, no...I can play the idiotic "you're just trying to look like a smarty pants internet tough guy" rhetorical bull**** game myself, now what deflective device will you use?) You claimed that having children is great once you realize life isn't all about you. Again, that really, really irks me.

You can dress this up in whatever facade you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's what you typed. I then simply showed how, in the context of a selfless act, it isn't that selfless. In fact, in a certain context, it can even been seen as a selfish act. Hell, I even went on to acknowledge that I don't expect anyone to actually think anything about adoption and world hunger through that far, but that I was throwing it out there for comparative context. Yet, because you have tunnel vision as bad as the dude on American Idol, you still fail to see the entire reason why I bring all of this up - because I was using it all as a comparative device. If you think I'm actually attacking you for having a child, you don't see where I was going with all of this

I also liked the line about the use of plastics and such. I love how ridiculous that is. I could just as easily say that you don't really care about your child. Why? Because you are wasting your time on a message board debating a borderline psycho about the merits of birthing a child rather than actually being with said child. That made me chuckle for a bit...

But, look...ok...again. Just to make sure you understand. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS A SELFLESS ACT. We've been typing about it for days. How the hell can you say that "nobody said having a child is a selfless act?" You did. How the hell else is "...once you realize life isn't about you..." supposed to be interpreted? Its right there. None of your attempts at changing the meaning of that sentence has convinced me otherwise. Are we debating what the meaning of the word "is" is here?

But one specific line was worth response:

The simple truth is that as a person without children your second-to-second life management is 100% dependent on your own needs and desires. When you are responsible for another human, this changes. What is so hard to understand about this? This is not saying you are selfish, precisely, just that you don't have to put someone else first. Many people without children have this same responsibility.

WTF? Do you read Ayn Rand or something? Come on, really? I am married. I have parents. I have patients. Hell, for all you know, maybe I work with disadvantaged teens that aren't as annoying as children. And I devote a whole lot of my time to their needs because I legitimately care about them and because they need me. But let me get this straight - so now you are ACTUALLY saying that unless you have children every second of your life is devoted to your own needs? Ok...look...you don't really know a damned thing about me...just my goofball internet persona...which, actually, is pretty much how I am in real life...but nonetheless, I'd suggest you stop that line of logic. That will piss off a lot more people than me. I know you put the lame little "Many people without children have this same responsibility" disclaimer at the end, but that has to only be because you had to have known how idiotic this sounds. That's like saying "people with blue eyes are the only ones capable of having IQs higher than 120. Many people with brown eyes have IQs over 120, too." Granted, this is dumbed down, but the point is the same.

The only way I could see around this is that if you used to be an exceedingly self-centered person that needed the jolt of the parent-child attachment thing to get you to realize the joy of helping others. Upon which I guess that would make sense, but, if that's the case, you need to learn to write better....because the way that's written, it sounds pretty bad. I'm done getting annoyed...it's obvious we aren't going to agree any time soon about anything. You just don't get me and I apparently just don't get you.

But go ahead and keep misinterpreting what I said so you can continue your incoherent rant just so everyone knows just how much you hate those damn kids in the basketball court preventing you from being a White Guy Playing Basketball.

Wow, so you're a racist, too. I'm actually part black. Betcha didn't know that, didja? And you'd be pissed off if some little punk's ball made you twist your ankle, too. Especially if their ******* oblivious parents laughed with the brat at you.

Evidently my general use of the pronoun "you" is what is confusing you, sorry!

Close enough, apology accepted. You should try to communicate less ambiguously...and I mean the specific you, not the royal "you."

 

[WVUPharm2007]

All the pro-children (lol) people ever really maintained was that once you have them they are very cool, despite assurances otherwise from those of you who are just so cool about not having them.

And all we ever said was, "Well, no ****, you are evolutionarily preprogrammed to think that way. I'm I supposed to take a crackheads' word for the awesomeness of crack, too?"

...and thus the cycle begins anew...

 

[rphello]

I'm watching Big Trouble in Little China for the first time in about 20 years.

When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your head up against the barroom wall, and he looks you crooked in the eye and he asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."

The lightning master from that movie inspired the Mortal Kombat character Raiden.