Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (71601)	8/5/2003 9:17:50 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But Neo, the real question is about your thinking on this. Since these childless people, who choose not to procreate, are doing the same thing (not reproducing) are they afflicted and maladaptive? It's an important point. If what makes homosexuals maladaptive is their failure to procreate (and we can't take that as a given Neo- lots of them DO have children) are childless straight people, childless by choice, and not because of religion, maladaptive? And further, is the gay person who reproduces not "afflicted" and "maladaptive"?

To: Neocon who wrote (71601)	8/5/2003 10:13:29 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

what possible objection could you have to my thinking that having children is generally a better way to live? I don't have any objection to your holding that opinion. I would disagree with that opinion, though. I think it is better that children are raised by only those well qualified to do so and who want them enough to make the sacrifices. I think it is a mistake for society to encourage others to breed. A bigger mistake than allowing the promiscuity you're so concerned about protecting us against. But then that's just my opinion. I think my opinion is better than your opinion. <g> Regarding my earlier response to those comments about choosing to not have children, I was not objecting to your opinion, simply trying to point out an obvious example of your propensity to judge everything, which I brought up first thing this morning. IMO it is maladaptive to pre-ordain alleged choices. Society, like the marketplace, benefits from individuals testing various approaches. Individuals benefit because it allows them to do what's best for them and society benefits because it provides some data on the consequences of various approaches. You stifle that when you overstructure a hierarchy of right and wrong and wrong with mitigating circumstances. One more thing. Let me start by saying I'm not offended by what you wrote, just pulling out my mirror again. I do, in fact, think that childlessness is generally an inferior state, although I admit that there may be overriding considerations that dignify it as a choice, such as religious vocation. That's what you said. That has the same raw language your comments about homosexuals have had. Like, the contempt just oozes. Can you not see that? Do you really mean it that way? So inferior a state that only a religious calling can DIGNIFY it? Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. I don't require an apology or an explanation. <g> Regarding PC, I think we're using the term differently. When I sneer at PC, I'm sneering at what I see as the perceived need to tippy-toe around minorities, to cater to the oversensitivities of professional victims. You seem to mean it as being nice to and accepting of "others." If the definition of the latter is what you meant when you called my approach PC, then I'll accept the label. Otherwise, I protest.