(July 10, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?
Another question in regards to the bolding... does this mean  you think the bearing of children should be "controlled?" If so, how?

Don't quote everything, it's annoying. Try doing it like me. Choose only what you're responding to.

Stable. Hah. Now that's laughable.
No, I don't, and I wouldn't not even if all families were perfect(no such thing though). There might be far better ways to raise children than this. 

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I want the species to survive.
Why, by restricting the number of children allowed to be born overall, of course. I couldn't care less if for every kid who doesn't get to be born now, another 1 trillion do in the remote future.

(July 10, 2015 at 1:32 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?
Another question in regards to the bolding... does this mean  you think the bearing of children should be "controlled?" If so, how?

Don't quote everything, it's annoying. Try doing it like me. Choose only what you're responding to.

My apologies. I will try to accommodate that for you.

---

(July 10, 2015 at 1:32 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?
Another question in regards to the bolding... does this mean  you think the bearing of children should be "controlled?" If so, how?

Stable. Hah. Now that's laughable.
No, I don't, and I wouldn't not even if all families were perfect(no such thing though). There might be far better ways to raise children than this. 

I know nothing is perfect. I'm not saying it is.

But as a general rule, most people would say that a home with 2 parents who love each other and are committed to each other tends to be better for the children than a home with a mom who has a few different children from multiple different men who are never around.... and vice versa.

So just to be 100% sure, you are saying you don't believe this is true, correct?

And when you say there are "better ways to raise children" than in a home with both parents, what other ways are you referring to?

(sorry to ask for clarification for the third time, I just want to be 100% I am understanding you correctly)

---

(July 10, 2015 at 1:32 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote:

Quote:Catholic_Lady:
So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?
Another question in regards to the bolding... does this mean you think the bearing of children should be "controlled?" If so, how?

Yes, I do. Of course I do. I want the species to survive.
Why, by restricting the number of children allowed to be born overall, of course. I couldn't care less if for every kid who doesn't get to be born now, another 1 trillion do in the remote future.

Can you elaborate on how you think the government should go about dictating the number of children people are allowed to have, and how they should enforce this law?

(July 10, 2015 at 4:50 am)pocaracas Wrote: Esq, it seems you missed the fact that, at least, one of the spouses is a cheater... quarantine would only work if the cheater was removed from the group.

Hey, if I had put in the hard work with several other people to keep a relationship together, and one of those people not only cheated, but infected us all in the process, that's exactly what would happen.

My point, though, was that even if the cheater stays put in the group, whatever STDs they bring in stop in the group and do not leave it, except via the cheater. In that case, one person spreads the STDs, and five people are not in a position to do the same. In the case of a monogamous marriage, one person continues to spread the STDs, and one person is not in a position to do so. Polygamy reduces the number of potential vectors in the general population.

@ Cathy, I never said anything about preferring any kind of families. I only ever meant to say I don't think the current state of affairs is the best possible one.

I only ever said there might be far better ways to raise children than this. Not that there are any and certainly not that I know what they are.

You are not understanding me correctly because you are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. It might be because of the chaotic way you manage your responses.

(July 10, 2015 at 1:54 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: @ Cathy, I never said anything about preferring any kind of families. I only ever meant to say I don't think the current state of affairs is the best possible one.

I only ever said there might be far better ways to raise children than this. Not that there are any and certainly not that I know what they are.

You are not understanding me correctly because you are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth. It might be because of the chaotic way you manage your responses.

Ok. I apologize and did not mean to put words in your mouth, but that is why I am asking for clarification. So that I am sure I understand you correctly. Can you answer my questions then so I can fully understand what you mean? Can you break down my post and answer me one by one? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Quote:So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?

Depends, doesn't it?

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/crime/.../29794753/

Quote:(NBC NEWS) Two South Carolina parents were arrested this week after forcing their 14-year-old daughter to live in a tent in the woods because she ate a Pop-Tart without permission, authorities said.
The Sumter County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday James Driggers, 33, and his wife Crystal Driggers, 36, had been denying their child entrance to their home for two days — and she was expected to remain away from the home for a week.
The child was ordered by her parents to set up a tent — in a wooded area known to have wild hogs — and was provided with only a roll of toilet paper, a flashlight, a whistle, and a watch, police said.

(July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So just to clarify, as a general rule, you don't think it's better for society for children to be raised in a stable home with both parents?

Depends, doesn't it?

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/crime/.../29794753/

Quote:(NBC NEWS) Two South Carolina parents were arrested this week after forcing their 14-year-old daughter to live in a tent in the woods because she ate a Pop-Tart without permission, authorities said.
The Sumter County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday James Driggers, 33, and his wife Crystal Driggers, 36, had been denying their child entrance to their home for two days — and she was expected to remain away from the home for a week.
The child was ordered by her parents to set up a tent — in a wooded area known to have wild hogs — and was provided with only a roll of toilet paper, a flashlight, a whistle, and a watch, police said.

Mini, that's why I'm specifically saying "as a general rule" and "it tends to be better."

Obviously, there are exceptions, and obviously just because a home has 2 parents doesn't mean things will be perfect and that those 2 people will be good people.

Are you saying then that you don't think, generally speaking, it tends to be best for the children to have both parents raising them together at home, verses a single parent with children from multiple different people who are never around?

Oh, I could run through the news and find lots of stories about parents abusing their kids. Do you want to play that game?  What's the point?  I doubt we seriously disagree.  There are no requirements for being a parent beyond a certain degree of manual dexterity to insert tab "a" into slot "b."

Quality of parenting is more important that quantity.

(July 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, I could run through the news and find lots of stories about parents abusing their kids. Do you want to play that game?  What's the point?  I doubt we seriously disagree.  There are no requirements for being a parent beyond a certain degree of manual dexterity to insert tab "a" into slot "b."

Quality of parenting is more important that quantity.

(my bold)

I agree with that too, of course, but the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I can think "quality it more important than quantity" while still thinking that 2 parents in a committed, loving relationship generally tends to be better and more stable for the child than 1 lone parent with the other not being present. Obviously, if the father was a psycho, for example, it would be better for the mother to raise the child alone. But if 2 people are good people and committed to each other and love each other, this would still be a generally better scenario than a scenario where one good person is alone raising kids. Would you agree with that, or do you think it's completely irrelevant?

Thanks for the response.

(EDITED TO ADD)

I do agree as a general rule at least because two parents provide more financial support and generally because both parents work it's possible to always have someone taking care of the kid as long as you schedule things correctly. I don't have anything against single parenting though, I was raised from age 11 just with my mom, and yeah it was a lot thougher than before, but I survived.