Why I didnt' want a baby girl

No. He was adopted though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Human vs animal seems to replace the classic catfight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, that's T. There is your photo, too, there (in the sciforums photo album). I haven't update it for some months, lets see if I have time this weekend.

@John: who was adopted??

p.s.: I gtg, later.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa was.

 

And it was a poorly said statement I corrected later, Bells. I realize Tiassa addressed heterocentric stuff re. what he should do.

I certainly have a brother who felt a pressure to conform. I'm not without sympathy.

 

You're starting to sound like Draqon.

 

My ego is gratified

Just to cover the digression quickly:

• Born in Tacoma, Washington, 1973
• Adopted at birth, one sibling (older, also adopted)
• Japanese-Scandinavian biological parentage (allegedly)
• Bisexual; off the long-term market, don't officially date
• One daughter, Emma Grace (first known blood relative)
• That photo is from Christmas, 2003; there is also the Puyallup Fair 2004 picture with my daughter (my favorite); the pretentious tarot image from 2001, and the picture of me getting high in 2001 (aka "Smoking a Rat", "Petrified Basilisk Fewments").​

I suppose I should get some more current pictures. Or would that just be egotism?

If I wasn't eternally losing my phone cable, I would post the "Liverpool" photo of my daughter, taken in December at a Seattle restaurant.

Never mind, never mind. I now return this discussion to its original subject.

 

Therein lies the problem. What most people and humanity in general has failed to grasp is that, despite our hormonal and emotional ties to our children and wanting our children to succeed, if our children fail, life goes on. Earth keeps turning. Someone else fills in the blanks. It's no different in the business world, if you need a microcosm to experiment with. If you have some employee who appeals to you and just doesn't cut it, by firing him you open up a new avenue for someone who eventually will. (Note, not "may", but "will", given a stable environment and hiring managers who don't suck.) The focus should be on a successful society, because as we've seen for quite some time, focusing on successful singular offspring just doesn't cut it. (This may seem like an attack on all children, but various organizations have been instrumental over the years in keeping children relevant: The Boy Scouts, 4H, YMCA, local park districts, etc. Some organizations attempt to replicate these successes and fail miserably, typically geared toward inner-city children, such as the Big Brothers/Big Sisters. They're just addressing the symptoms, and that will never work.

Most people will comment on how heartless and cold this sounds. That's fine. However, it's how it works. Nature doesn't care if your PTA meetings don't go well. It doesn't care if your kid cries over math homework. It doesn't even care if you survive through the next hurricane. You don't mean anything when measured against the whole.

Now, as an average, individuals can change the course of events greatly. That doesn't mean that every "innocent" gangbanger and toddler in a family of 16 shot dead in a hail of gunfire, as every bleeding heart crybaby mothers' association would like you to believe, could be the next Einstein. The odds are slim, but given the relatively good odds of simultaneous invention, someone else will certainly fill in the gap.

Go to Iraq. Go to Afghanistan. Go to Africa. Nobody cares. Nobody's heartstrings are torn when we see babies with flies on their lips. Those people will die and the world will keep moving. McD's will keep serving. The lights will stay on. Even if some "tearist" organization stars anew in one of those Stone Age armpits and sends our own weapons, paid by us, against us, we'll still be fine. The only people who will wince when their husbands touch them, thinking about the child "slaves" in India and Thailand, will be those frigid Oprah-watching chubbies who have their bills paid and nothing left to do. It's no different than the entitled trustafarian PETA /vegan/vegetarian cultists.

Also, cock.

 

Children are the future in many ways. And people care about those children. And people can care about children that aren't their own.

Inner city children? It's wrong to care about them? They're just addressing symptoms, which are troubled or disadvantaged children who maybe could use a better role model? From everything I know, the condition of poverty or low-income and broken families only feeds upon itself. I certainly hope that a mentor or role model from a different sphere or an influence from outside a closed system like a ghetto or low-income culture would be a positive step forward for an individual, rather than be seen as a failure for the larger society. Change for the better often starts at the personal, individual level.
You can't expect major changes for a whole bunch of people if you can't even influence a few people.

I won't beg to differ, because I DO differ. Sure people have their own individual worries and stuff, and people tend to look out for themselves and their own. But many people do make an effort to care for those less privileged or perhaps affected by something like a hurricane. People lend a hand when nothing is to be expected in return. Just to be nice.
You can't claim to speak for the whole.
Nature is EVERYONE and EVERYTHING and it isn't nearly as simplistic as you paint it.

Shit! Thank GOD!!! I was beginning to worry there for a second! ALSO, COCK! Don't forget that!
:shy:

 

Sounds funny. What happened there?
Was she really gross? I suspect by the fact you called her a "tartlet".

Normal?

It happens. A guy I used to work with had a "gay" friend (his term, not mine) that had a kid, obviously because he impregnated someone (a woman I'm guessing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). You don't have to be drunk or on drugs to give in to pressure to have sex with someone of the opposite gender against your will. Or even be someone who IS into the opposite gender, but have a child against your better judgement because you're expected to. Or marry someone because you had a child that was unintended.

People have been married for years and had children only to have one of the partners run off to be with someone of their own gender.

Human sexuality and what it does to the psyche is never a simple matter.

 

Making mental note. I sort of fill in the blanks with details about my brother. You remind me too much of M. (I assume you are a lawyer until you prove otherwise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Pictures, yes.

And, Varda, we agree on this.

 

Six billion people Bells. Sorry but your child is no more important than anyone elses. What I've said above can be made by a person with a selfish attitude, or one with a totally selfless attitude.
If I ever have a child, I will do what a parent is supposed to do and try my best to raise and protect it the best I can. But I'll never have the holier than thou 'I'm more entitled than you' attitude that you and mad have and I'll always understand that my child is not more important than the greater good of humanity...which is something that your pea brain does not seem to get.
CHILDREN are our future, not your individual child(or children).

As far as making this thread about me, show me where. Please.
Besides, the last time I checked, I started this fucking thread Bells.

 

In relation to OP I would say raising children is challenging regardless of sex. Sweeping generalisations about both sexes abound. And, yes, you will be judged by how far from or near to the 'norm' your kids turn out, so brace yourselves everyone.

In relation to the 'humans are better than other animals' comments that have been made I'd say:

Just as an excercise ask yourselves these two questions:

Can animals live without humans?
Can humans live without animals?

The answers might give you something to think about.

And in relation to parenting Mike. It is hard when you are not one to imagine the array of protective feelings having a child engenders in a parent. It is in our interest as organisms to be thus afflicted. It's a drive; the desire to protect one's offspring. As is the very desire to have children in the first place. The urge to breed is hard-wired into most organisms not just humans so throwing 'choice' into the fray assumes that the human will is strong enough to overcome the desire to reproduce. Whilst we may well have the mechanisms to delay reproduction I'm not sure the majority have the corresponding mechanisms to dismiss having children entirely. There are, of course those who don't have children but for many of those choice may not have come into it....

 

And yet you're in here making EXTREMELY relevant comments about sex again, instead of arguing in favor of the point in which we agree.

 

Hmm. You seem to have changed your argument. Previously you were going on about how children (or even humans in general) were no better than animals and to dare assert that humans were in any way superior to any other species was arrogant braggadocio. Now you're saying one child in no more important than another.

So are you then conceding that a child is more important than a pig, a crow, or a tomato plant?

 

How could a child not be? I feed those things to my kids. (don't tell them about the crow. I call it chicken

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Exactly, yet Mike said:

 

Humans are not more important than tomato plants. It's just that humans feel that they are more important. Just like tomato plants would if they could. We are (of course) biased.