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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (105351)	5/28/2005 2:02:45 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You have managed to mistake what I said (I am assuming it was a mistake, and not an intentional misstatement- I hope that is ok), and tell me I prefer something that is completely inaccurate. That's too bad. I thought my post was pretty clear, but apparently not. "ionesco would prefer not to discuss child abuse and neglect unless and until proponents of such practices show up."

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (105351)	5/28/2005 4:21:35 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I think that what Ionesco was saying is that it is mostly controversies of some sort that people like to discuss at Feelies. In my post I said that I believe most people here are really good parents, and express concerns for children by mentoring, coaching and all sorts of other kinds of participation in children's lives. Since there is no conflict about children here, there isn't much discussion. How you got from Ionesco's post that she would prefer not to discuss child abuse and neglect until proponents of it show up is unclear to me. She was saying that it was fine to discuss, but since there is not a conflict there is not a lot of discussion. Do you see the difference there? To further respond to what you said last night about how you wished I was more concerned about children than animals (which is not true) I would like to note that I cannot understand how anyone could profess to being concerned with child abuse and neglect without showing that concern by advocating for U.S. participation in global warming treaties, being willing to pay enough taxes to fully fund Head Start and high quality public schools, national health insurance for children, full coverage for mental illness treatment for adults and children, generous and nutritious school breakfast and lunch programs for disadvantaged children, and a host of other programs that help children at risk develop properly. I emphatically cannot understand how anyone who professes to be concerned about children would not be extremely involved in environmental issues at home and abroad. Forty thousand children are still dying every day of easily preventible diseases. How many people here talk about leveling the playing field so most of the world is middle class? Not too many, and they are all liberals. While conservatives seem to care for their own children, I am not hearing very much discussion about children's issues in general from them, and yet I talk about these things here frequently. Some of the things people who are really concerned about children advocate for are the end of child labor in sweatshops across the world, environmental regulation of global corporations, and stopping deforestation. I cannot understand how anyone who loves children would not be horrified about the world we are leaving them, and be doing everything they can to make it a better place instead of a warming, foul, degraded one where species are dying and most children do not even have access to clean, drinkable water.