Imponderables: Oh Mama! by nvghostrider

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Imponderables: Oh Mama!

POSTED BY: NVGHOSTRIDER
UPDATED: Saturday, August 9, 2008 08:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13535
PAGE 3 of 3

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 10:35 AM

I prefer that people work for things as well, but some people will never be able to do enough to earn even a subsistance level living. If we all started with the same opportunities, then fine...'work for it' is a great ideology. But the fact is that we don't start with the same opportunities. Just by being born to the 'right' people you can be leaps and bounds ahead of someone else.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
They're cute and cuddly and deserve to be treated like they're cute and cuddly.

I'm cute and cuddly and deserved to be treated as such. ;)

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 10:55 AM

AIKO

As for the children thing, I say I'm heavily in favor of eugenics and in decreasing the population. Not to the point of executing babies just because the rents were breaking the law or anything like that, just encouraging those talented individuals to have kids, and those not so talented to not have kids. Heck, with modern science, I bet those with talent wouldn't have to do anything more distressing than simply donating some eggs/sperm to a clinic, and the scientists there can do all the work.

And, also, there are those who say that "one more kid can't really make a difference"- but a thousand people thinking that can. And, also, for the "increasing population isn't REALLY hurting anything"- assuming you're right, then what's the harm in DE-creasing the population? Is there anything negative about less people choosing to have kids? And there are the benefits of "more resources avalible, etc" added, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 10:59 AM

MSB

Wow...we've definitely gone all serious

____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:18 AM

WHITEFALL

I apologize for bringing on the serious,

but with all due respect to the no-longer-present CK, she had a serious issue on her hands and I think it deserves introspection.

Random rant, nothing to do with anyone's comments directly: I hate it when people assume that Americans living off welfare are lazy. There is now a huge huge section of the poor who are "working poor." The social contract is straining, methinks, when people with jobs can't support their families.

Anyway, overpopulation already IS a problem. Ever hear of the water crisis? You will in twenty years, I guaruntee you. (This is more stuff I learned last quarter.) We use tons of water on agriculture, of course, but also on livestock: ironically, that theory that we could feed the world if we all became vegetarians is more or less true, due to the sheer lack of efficiency in feeding a cow all its life for a few pounds of beef or whatnot. Not saying no cows, I just mean we dont need the millions upon millions of livestock animals we have now. Keep in mind, of course, I'm one of those young liberal hipocrits who eats meat. I failz.

And when I said before "meh go ahead and have kids" all I meant was, in the US, our population is actually declining, which is a trend of wealthier countries when parents can afford to invest all their resources in a few children. But good points were made, maybe due to religious/cultural reasons, folks won't have fewer kids even if they had access to birth control. (Though that happened in a province in India a few years ago, the state did some family planning stuff and got their rampant population growth under control.) But... I mean I know it may be some western bias, but when it comes down to it it's basic numbers: two parents, technically speaking, are needed to procreate. so if they have two children, they have replaced themselves in the population. and if some people have more or some people dont have kids or of course people die, then we might come close to zero population growth. (ZPG)

As far as I can tell, the goal with all this sustainability, population growth worries stuff, is that if we could run the world on renewable fuels, give everyone a decent standard of living, and maintain ZPG, then... well... we might just have ourselves a utopia in terms of surviving the long term. So I guess that's the goal, though I'm not as idealistic as I may sound just because I know what the goal IS.

"But, these strong women characters?"

"Why aren't you asking 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?" -Joss Whedon.

"All love is unrequited... All of it." -Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:19 AM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Aiko:
And, also, there are those who say that "one more kid can't really make a difference"- but a thousand people thinking that can. And, also, for the "increasing population isn't REALLY hurting anything"- assuming you're right, then what's the harm in DE-creasing the population? Is there anything negative about less people choosing to have kids? And there are the benefits of "more resources avalible, etc" added, too.

I think the problem with decreasing the population is on the economy. If there are less people then the economy shrinks and that causes all sorts of problems.

That's at least one issue with a shrinking population.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:21 AM

WHITEFALL

If there are less people there are more resources to divide among the population. Not that we live in a society where the resources GET divided, as such, but just a little counterpoint to your argument there.

"But, these strong women characters?"

"Why aren't you asking 100 other guys why they don't write strong women characters?" -Joss Whedon.

"All love is unrequited... All of it." -Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:31 AM

MSB

Serious is fine sweety...

and yes US population is definitely declining and it's cool that they are able to get birth control to India..it would also help if they upped the age of consent.

____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:32 AM

RUGBUG

Quote:
Originally posted by Aiko:
As for the children thing, I say I'm heavily in favor of eugenics and in decreasing the population. Not to the point of executing babies just because the rents were breaking the law or anything like that, just encouraging those talented individuals to have kids, and those not so talented to not have kids. Heck, with modern science, I bet those with talent wouldn't have to do anything more distressing than simply donating some eggs/sperm to a clinic, and the scientists there can do all the work.

Not to get all Gattaca on you, but who gets to decide the definition of talented. Who is worthy of procreating? And what about the factor of nuture on character formation? You'd have to test possible parents for appropriate skills, mental stability, etc.

Quote:
Is there anything negative about less people choosing to have kids? And there are the benefits of "more resources avalible, etc" added, too.

Want to decrease the population? Increase education. There is a high correlation between education level and family size.

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 11:42 AM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Quote:
I'm cute and cuddly and deserved to be treated as such. ;)

Lol, Bug, did the Find Rugbug A Deserving Man organization finally get their charity status? ^_^ You are cute and cuddly and deserve to be treated as such, though I don’t know that that really discredits Zeek’s point, lol.

As far as the discussion about keeping what you earn vs. giving away all but what you actually require, I don’t think US society could function on the latter. I think charity is important, both giving money and giving time, but there’s a reason that we all just got “stimulus” checks from the government. Spending money, purchasing things is what keeps our country thriving. I don’t 100% buy in to “trickle-down economics”, but there’s some truth to it.

Also, if people could be supported on the charity of others, and top-earners were expected to donate all their money, what motivation would there be for anyone to work? Why work, when you could just sit on your ass and let other people take care of you? Being able to live a luxurious lifestyle is the motivation for most people to work hard. I think both charity and government programs to help people out are important, but the goal of having money and then spending said money is what keeps our country functioning.

Quote:
And, also, there are those who say that "one more kid can't really make a difference"- but a thousand people thinking that can. And, also, for the "increasing population isn't REALLY hurting anything"- assuming you're right, then what's the harm in DE-creasing the population? Is there anything negative about less people choosing to have kids?

I don’t think there’s any harm in decreasing the population, but the point is choice. My husband and I are choosing not to have kids, for a variety of reasons, while my parents, grandparents, and some of my siblings have chosen to have large families. It’s a choice, and one, IMO, that shouldn’t be second-guessed or preached about, the same way that I take offense at those who preach pro-life or anti-gay-marriage.

I don’t think anyone can make a blanket statement that every third, fourth, fifth, etc child in a family is a drain on society or the world’s resources. It doesn’t matter what order you’re born in, each person should strive to make the world a better place. We should strive to reduce our carbon footprint, add to the world’s knowledge, help those less fortunate, and raise the next generation to be better than the current. First and second children aren’t born into goodness, and third and fourth children aren’t destined to be a drain on society. We each have a personal responsibility to be a benefit to the world, not a detriment, no matter how many siblings we have.

My father is a productive member of society, who holds several patents, has done research for the Department of Defense, and created the UI used on most MRI and CAT-scan machines in the US and Canada. He had a direct hand in creating an instrument that made previously inoperable brain cancer operable. He is also the third of six children. How is he more of a drain on our resources and less deserving of life than my eldest aunt, a second child, who has been on and off welfare her entire adult life?

If we’re really trying to save resources and make the planet a more comfortable place for the “deserving” citizens, maybe we should just summarily execute everyone who isn’t a productive member of society?

I don’t know that I can adequately express how offensive I find this stance. I understand and accept that there are people who hold this view, but I strongly believe it’s one of those views that should be kept to one’s own self. Teach it to your children if you must, but keep your views out of my choices regarding my private family life.

And yes, I find it as offensive as gay bashing. People who hold this view think my parents should have been aborted. They think I shouldn’t exist. How am I expected to be anything other than offended by that?

Emma, I’m sorry I came down on you so hard after your first post. I wasn’t trying to tell you not to talk about that topic here. I was answering the question, “when is a good time to tell my friend she’s wrong?” and I strongly believe the answer to that is unequivocally never. You’re welcome to your opinion, but someone else’s choice to have a third child is none of your business. And I do see it exactly the same as telling someone they’re going to hell for being gay. But I didn’t mean for my post to come off as an attack on you personally, and so I apologize for that.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:12 PM

RUGBUG

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Quote:
I'm cute and cuddly and deserved to be treated as such. ;)
Lol, Bug, did the Find Rugbug A Deserving Man organization finally get their charity status? ^_^ You are cute and cuddly and deserve to be treated as such, though I don’t know that that really discredits Zeek’s point, lol.

Eh...no charity status and no discrediting. ;) Just me makin' a tiny funny. :D

Quote:

As far as the discussion about keeping what you earn vs. giving away all but what you actually require, I don’t think US society could function on the latter. I think charity is important, both giving money and giving time, but there’s a reason that we all just got “stimulus” checks from the government. Spending money, purchasing things is what keeps our country thriving. I don’t 100% buy in to “trickle-down economics”, but there’s some truth to it.

The money doesn't go away, it just gets redistributed for others to spend, be it on better food, better clothing, better housing, etc. It's not like a rich person pooring money into a vacuum. That money goes somewhere and is used differently than Mr. Rich person would've use it, but it is still used.

Quote:

Also, if people could be supported on the charity of others, and top-earners were expected to donate all their money, what motivation would there be for anyone to work? Why work, when you could just sit on your ass and let other people take care of you?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking hand-outs. I'm talking subsidies. You don't get to just sit back and take. You contribute, whatever that looks like for you (for your education level, your abilities, your intellect, your talents, etc.)

I'm going to stop now before I get too communist (or really, early christian church). I really don't think any of this could ever happen, for a myriad of reasons, but a girl can dream, yes?

Quote:
And, also, there are those who say that "one more kid can't really make a difference"- but a thousand people thinking that can. And, also, for the "increasing population isn't REALLY hurting anything"- assuming you're right, then what's the harm in DE-creasing the population? Is there anything negative about less people choosing to have kids?

Quote:
I don’t think there’s any harm in decreasing the population, but the point is choice. My husband and I are choosing not to have kids, for a variety of reasons, while my parents, grandparents, and some of my siblings have chosen to have large families. It’s a choice, and one, IMO, that shouldn’t be second-guessed or preached about, the same way that I take offense at those who preach pro-life or anti-gay-marriage.

Quote:

I don’t think anyone can make a blanket statement that every third, fourth, fifth, etc child in a family is a drain on society or the world’s resources. It doesn’t matter what order you’re born in, each person should strive to make the world a better place. We should strive to reduce our carbon footprint, add to the world’s knowledge, help those less fortunate, and raise the next generation to be better than the current.

Absolutely.

Quote:

I don’t know that I can adequately express how offensive I find this stance. I understand and accept that there are people who hold this view, but I strongly believe it’s one of those views that should be kept to one’s own self. Teach it to your children if you must, but keep your views out of my choices regarding my private family life.

I think you've expressed how offensive you find the sentiment quite well. :D However, I think wanting it kept to one's self is taking things a little far. Population control is an interesting theory and pondering it brings up all sorts of moral dilemmas. If you can't talk about it, how do you learn, grow and possibly alter those ideas? Someone holding and expressing a 'population control' opinion is not affecting your choices one iota. You can still choose to have no children or 18 if it suits you. Just as the equalizing of wealth in America is unlikely to happen... so is population control.

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:21 PM

ZEEK

CK didn't leave for good. Hooray!!

I was worried for a while there.

RugBug I think your quotes got messed up a bit there. That your you have a husband that you haven't told us about :-P

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:27 PM

RUGBUG

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:

RugBug I think your quotes got messed up a bit there. That your you have a husband that you haven't told us about :-P

Heh. Well, I only indicated it wasn't charity...it was good old fashioned hard work.

Just kiddin'. There's no husband. No spectre of a husband in the future and I'm more and more okay with that. I think I'm incorigible. (sp? I'm being lazy and I need to get outta here to ride the pony).

But there is an age appropriate, very cute, very charming (alarms should be sounding right about now) and sort-of single oral surgeon that wouldn't get turned away if he knocked on my door. :D

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:29 PM

CALIFORNIAKAYLEE

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking hand-outs. I'm talking subsidies. You don't get to just sit back and take. You contribute, whatever that looks like for you (for your education level, your abilities, your intellect, your talents, etc.)

So really, you’re talking about higher taxes and more government programs, yes? I’m actually down with that, because it preserves our culture of working so you can buy things, and I would gladly sacrifice some of my luxuries so that every birth in the US was covered by government health issuance, say. OTOH, our tax code is so messed up that it’s the upper middle class that ends up paying for those programs, rather than the super-rich. I think we would need a more fair tax policy before we could really support those sorts of programs.

Quote:
However, I think wanting it kept to one's self is taking things a little far. Population control is an interesting theory and pondering it brings up all sorts of moral dilemmas. If you can't talk about it, how do you learn, grow and possibly alter those ideas?

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be discussed, just as I think that refusing to discuss the intricacies and various levels of abortion doesn’t help the situation at all. What I’ve been objecting to from the beginning is the idea of telling someone who has chosen to have a third child that they are wrong. Discussing it in the abstract is one thing, discussing it in academics or research, sure. But telling someone else they made the wrong choice, based on your own personal beliefs? I’m never going to be ok with that.

~CK

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:42 PM

MSB

HUGS CK so glad you're back...

My brother is the 3rd child in my family and he's a gifted engineer who graduated 1st in his class and works on the space shuttle...

but I don't think that anyone was saying your parents shouldn't have been born or that my brother shouldn't have... I think they were just talking about people being more thoughtful about having kids. I agree with that. Every child should be a planned and desired. I know way to many kids ( students) who weren't planned and who are resented and neglected by their parents as a result..so keep that birth control coming:)

____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 12:50 PM

ZEEK

Quote:
Originally posted by MSB:
Every child should be a planned and desired. I know way to many kids ( students) who weren't planned and who are resented and neglected by their parents as a result..so keep that birth control coming:)

Oh oh tangent ponderer. I don't know if I've already pondered it but I'm throwing it out there again.

I have a friend who's in a relationship that's getting pretty serious. She's definitely thinking this guy might be the one. Now for the past 5 years I've known her she's always said that she doesn't like kids or want one. Now that she thinks her guy wants kids she's trying to lighten up on the subject and compromise to having maybe one kid. Anybody else have a problem with the idea of someone having a child as a compromise? Personally I think it's nuts. A child is a lifelong commitment. That's not something to take lightly IMO. Apparently her girlfriends disagree and think that once she has one her opinion will change. Thoughts?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 1:54 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER

I don't know Zeek. It seems that if she is willing to compromise than she may have considered a child not JUST for him. I don't think I've known a woman (aside from a gold digger or two) who would consider such a thing for such a seemingly unhealthy reason. I would encourage her to consider that before making any sort of hasty decision.

Well, this has been one of the greatest threads in a while.

On that note,

NEW THREAD!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being an artist means not having to avert one's eyes.
-Akira Kurosawa

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 1:56 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Have you all read this article? It is posted in the "Girl in the window" thread. Jesus Christ, I want to beat someone to death right now.

Warning. You. WILL. Cry.

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article750838.ece

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

"Yes-- Cheney are Bush are men of peace-- this we know. It is terrible that their good deeds are being thwarted, misinterpreted-- so much so that they are forced to direct others to torture prisoners." Professor Michael Levine

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 2:18 PM

GORRAMGROUPIE

I've stayed mum on most of this discussion, cause I don't want slapped down for mis-speaking

, but Zeek, as far as your friend, she shouldn't have a child for the guy, if SHE doesn't want to. Doing something that you think the other person wants you to always leads to problems, and not just in sitcoms and movies. There will always be an undercurrent of "I did this for YOU", that even if denied, will be there, apparent in actions. And, heaven forbid, they split, and she gets the kid, who she didn't really want in the first place....

Yes, having a kid is work, and you can grow to love one, but why risk not having the love, and instead being the symbol of resentment and anger?

Jullian Lennon was resented a bit by his father, and as a result his father said he came out of a whiskey bottle. Just one example of how that could turn out wrong.

I will steer clear of the rest, I will however let you know I am married, for 14 years, with 4 kids, and have found ALL the arguments well thought out and obviously strongly felt.

'Who are you and how did you get in here?' 'I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.'
Police Squad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 3:57 PM

AIKO

Zeek- I think, that kids are the woman's right, not the man's. After all, the woman is the one that does all the work. And yes, I have a serious problem with having a child as a compromise. And I don't think her opinion will change if she actually has a child... opinions like that aren't lightly set aside, and I personally think the whole "after birth, gazing in your child's face and losing your heart to it" syndrome is overrated. It doesn't stop mothers abusing their kids, or letting them be abused by the father. And you're right about the child being a lifelong commitment, and it is DEFINATELY not something to be taken lightly. I'd say tell her this, and also- you said she THINKS her guy wants kids? Tell her to ask him how badly he wants a kid, and to not be afraid to be "selfish" about being insistant on not having a kid. No child wants a mother that doesn't want them, even if they get a father that wants them alot.

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Discussing it in the abstract is one thing, discussing it in academics or research, sure.

Which is exactly what I have been doing. Have I ever said that there should never be any third children? Hell, I think that with talented parents, the more children coming from them the better!

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
What I’ve been objecting to from the beginning is the idea of telling someone who has chosen to have a third child that they are wrong. ..... But telling someone else they made the wrong choice, based on your own personal beliefs? I’m never going to be ok with that.

Yes, and if I happened to know someone who wanted a third child/was pregnant with a third child/whatever, I would absolutely never tell her that was wrong. I DO agree with personal choice. Is the reason why I'm pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. And I am not saying that you, or your parents, should have been aborted, or any of your ancestors. And I am not entirely against large families, as long as the children become good people (productive member of society, yada).

As for a definition of "talented"... I'd say things like good genes. High IQ or photograpic memory. High athletic ability, sure. (I personally think the high IQ would be the most important thing, but that's just me). I don't fancy myself a dictator, so I'm not going to be outlining every single good or bad trait concievable or something like that.

I am absolutely not saying that people who haven't been gifted don't have the right to a child. They absolutely have that choice, as long as they can raise the child(ren) well. And I am not saying that those children who didn't happen to have genetically gifted parents should be "less than", or have less opprotunities than the ones specially breed.

As for whether the talented parents have the proper qualities to raise the children (and odds are, they probably won't)... well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Aiko:
Heck, with modern science, I bet those with talent wouldn't have to do anything more distressing than simply donating some eggs/sperm to a clinic, and the scientists there can do all the work.

And then once the baby is fertilized, it can be implanted in a willing woman with a nurturing nature, and voila! The child gets a nurturing mother, human society gets a gifted child, and everyone wins!

Oh, and I'm still posting this on this thread because I don't think issues should be carried over to a new thread, but in case NV's announcement passed by unnoticed... there is a new thread about, and here's the link- http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=34457

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 1:04 PM

EMMARIGBY

Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Emma, I’m sorry I came down on you so hard after your first post. I wasn’t trying to tell you not to talk about that topic here. I was answering the question, “when is a good time to tell my friend she’s wrong?” and I strongly believe the answer to that is unequivocally never. You’re welcome to your opinion, but someone else’s choice to have a third child is none of your business. And I do see it exactly the same as telling someone they’re going to hell for being gay. But I didn’t mean for my post to come off as an attack on you personally, and so I apologize for that.

~CK

Sorry to answer in the wrong thread but I just wanted to post a quick response to this.

CK, thanks for your apology, I do appreciate this as I was a bit hurt and upset by what I had considered an attack that I felt I hadn't deserved. I realise this is a topic that you feel very strongly about but please do note that I think you have let these emotions distort your perception of what I and others have said. At no point has anyone here suggested aborting children or even saying that any parent should be forbidden from having children. My original question (that sparked off all this debate) was actually

Quote:
"If someone were to happily announce that they were pregnant with a third child, is there ever a good time to debate with that person the problems of overpopulation and dwindling long term resources"

i.e. should the subject ever be discussed? I know now that you feel the whole topic is distasteful, and in certain circumstances I would agree with you that it would accomplish nothing but upset. I hope you can see that your interpretation of the question I asked is not at all the same as what I really meant. I no not make it a policy to tell anyone that they are wrong. I hate that some people argue from a standpoint of assumed moral superiority. I like to DEBATE, i.e. exchange ideas and philosophies in an attempt to understand opposing viewpoints and compare them to my own opinions. If after that comparison I find myself unconvinced by their arguements I try to come up with counter arguements in the hopes that they will do me the courtesy of actually considering my words in the same way. That's why I thing a full and frank exchange of ideas is so valuable, it tests our convicions in the crucible of debate and clears out weak or muddle headed thinking (of which I've had pleanty and have had my mind changed on a number of important issues in the past). Yes there are some people it would be innappropriate to debate with (e.g. someone who would not or could not be open to new ideas either through emotional investment, mind set, social conditioning or circumstances) but many people who don't want to discuss things are, in my opinion, guilty of laziness that they can't be bothered to examine opinions they just accept without thinking about (please note, I am not including you in this rant, you have shown that, you feel strongly about this issue and you have explained your reasons for doing so. You have never said that 'I'm right because it's obvious I am, everyone who thinks differently is wrong, now shut up and never contradict me' like someone I tried to debate with a while ago)

Sorry, this turned into a long and convoluted rant. I blame the wine (it's my birthday, I'm allowed to be drunk!). What I actually meant to say was:

Thanks for making me feel better, sorry if I misunderstood and took offence if you weren't meaning to have a go at me and hope we can exchange opinions more in the future (although possibly on a less sensitive issue?!)

___________________

Hissssssssss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 9, 2008 4:13 AM

FREELANCERTEX

holy crap, lightning posts :-P

Just saw the whole firefly-themed wedding postage, holy crap. that would be AWESOME. If NV and MSB actually did that they had BETTER post pictures, cuz I wanna see ^_^

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 9, 2008 7:11 AM

GORRAMGROUPIE

Indeed. I second the pics thingy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here?' 'I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.'
Police Squad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 9, 2008 8:18 AM

MSB

Guys... wrong thread....

NEW THREAD HERE!!!

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=2&t=34457

____________________________________________

Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE