Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's transparent here is that you're incapable of defending your original statement, which I made sure to include in its entirety so you wouldn't accuse me of taking it out of context. I didn't interpret your statement for my own purposes or for the sake of starting an argument. I interpreted it exactly how it's written.
Im not defending it because there is nothing to defend...it says exactly what it means...nowhere does it say some and nowhere does it say all...You dont even have to take my statement out of context to frame it into your own...as you said, its missing the word "all" AND its missing the word "some", and so you chose to insert "all" and assume that I mean "all"...others will assume I meant "some"...cool, Im not here to change the cynics
again there is nothing to defend other than your own imbalanced logic regarding the statement....you're taking it how you wanted to in order drum up your argument and Im letting you..thats all you or I can do with the original statement.
Your "damn" money is taken out of my and other taxpayer's paychecks to fund single mother school programs, welfare etc.; which you may or may not use (as I understand it, you dont), never the less the funds are allocated.
But on a more direct note: For whatever reason, you chose AND chose to have children with, a man who was unready for the commitment of fatherhood. As commendable as your efforts as a mom AND particularly as a single mom are, your mistake in selecting a father was no smaller in magnitude.
Thats not a personal slight at you...that is the nature of procreation...remember, Im not talking about "healthy loving relationships"...those are great, but Im talking about mate selection, for the purposes of choosing a father for offspring...when, for whatever reason, a female chooses a poor male to MATE with, (not just enter a relationship with) she has failed at one of her biological responsibilities. I say the same thing about males who fail to win the rights to mate with her...biologically he is a failure....the only difference is that everybody knows it...and not being able to procreate confirms it.
notice, at any given time, the first insult any male will receive is: "he cant get women/sex"...what people are essentially saying is that 'he hasnt won the rights to mate with a female..'... that speaks to his biological failure
No. I didnt get any of your money. Oh he was ready, he wanted children. He died when they were young. See how you have generalized and assume my DH was not ready for fatherhood and I made mistake in marrying him just because I stated I was a single mother.
Now you will say all that is irrelvant because I was a widow. But wouldnt I be just, according to your friend nature dictates, as much a biological failure because I could not forsee his death.
No. I didnt get any of your money. Oh he was ready, he wanted children. He died when they were young. See how you have generalized and assume my DH was not ready for fatherhood and I made mistake in marrying him just because I stated I was a single mother.
Now you will say all that is irrelvant because I was a widow. But wouldnt I be just, according to your friend nature dictates, as much a biological failure because I could not forsee his death.
WHAT!!!....
2MARES!!!..PLEASE tell me you havent wasted all this time arguing with me only to tell me that you're a widow...one of the first statements I made was that my philosophy didnt apply to widows, I know you read it...if not then my mistake was in assuming that you read it just because I wrote it.
One could certainly make the case for widows being "biological failures" if they just couldnt accept the fact that even when everything is positively controlled for, sh*t happens...yet this is only a provision that I make for widows
but me personally, I had already exempted widows for the fact that A) Unless he was killed in a one on one battle to the death with all things equal between the two gladiators, there is no way a person could be expected foretell whether your s/o was a weak loser or not...its very likely that he was just unlucky...nothing anyone can do about that.
B) Because we arent "lesser animals" as you say, an individual dying or being killed is hardly a useful determinant, by itself, in deciding whether a person/man was a fit father...Accidents, Wars, bad health etc. are all unfortunate and often (not always) unforeseeable causes of death...
Could a single mother be blamed for choosing a man who met his demise in one of those ways?... I guess that superficially, the truly calloused person could perhaps be so inhumane as to blame a single mother for choosing to mate with a man with bad health, a dangerous lifestyle (drug dealer, soldier, firefighter) or something..
But that blame could only ever be superficial, as those dangerous lifestyles mentioned are actually lifestyles that reveal desireable qualities <on a base level> (provider/protector/risktaker) ... but my own philosophy doesnt account for such trivia as widows, when considering the complexities of mating.
Last edited by solytaire; 04-09-2010 at 02:42 PM..
Im not defending it because there is nothing to defend...it says exactly what it means...nowhere does it say some and nowhere does it say all...You dont even have to take my statement out of context to frame it into your own...as you said, its missing the word "all" AND its missing the word "some", and so you chose to insert "all" and assume that I mean "all"...others will assume I meant "some"...cool, Im not here to change the cynics
again there is nothing to defend other than your own imbalanced logic regarding the statement....you're taking it how you wanted to in order drum up your argument and Im letting you..thats all you or I can do with the original statement.
So if I said "blacks are criminals" and didn't bother to qualify it by saying "some blacks are criminals", how would you interpret that first statement? You infer that I meant to say "some" or would you conclude that I meant "all"? This is the problem I have with your original statement. Rather than attempting to clarify or say "I misspoke", you're just leaving the statement as is. But given how the rest of your posts have generalized about single mothers and focused on stereotypes, I guess I should conclude that you really did mean to say ALL mothers receive your money.
So if I said "blacks are criminals" and didn't bother to qualify it by saying "some blacks are criminals", how would you interpret that first statement? You infer that I meant to say "some" or would you conclude that I meant "all"?
I would agree with you...and then I would tell you that obviously people of every other race are criminals too...The person who has convinced themselves that I meant EVERY person of EVERY race is a criminal will just have to live with that belief about the statement. I certainly wouldnt spend hours and hours splitting hairs over percentages and statistics when the truth is the same regardless.
Quote:
This is the problem I have with your original statement. Rather than attempting to clarify or say "I misspoke", you're just leaving the statement as is. But given how the rest of your posts have generalized about single mothers and focused on stereotypes, I guess I should conclude that you really did mean to say ALL mothers receive your money.
I didnt misspeak...I made a statement that was open to interpretation. And you interpreted it how you pleased...and Im ok with that...there really is nothing more I can do on my end. If I had've thought it critical to my overall point to clarify or qualify at the time, I wouldve done it when I wrote it...I didnt..
In all truthfulness, I was well aware that either you or montana_guy (Im truly surprised that it wasnt him who raised hell about it), or jsizzle would say something to the effect of "HEY
b@stard!! NOT ALL single mothers something something something.."....Im actually shocked it didnt start earlier....
But thats cool..thats what yall do...Not that thats bad at all, because we have enough women "bashers" like myself, but I didnt really expect anything other than that...Likewise obviously what I do is babble/complain about the relations between men and women and the responsibilities that women have within those relations...Ill carry on and Im sure you'll do the same and you will conclude whatever it was you wanted to conclude about me and my statements either way...trust me, as you alluded to in the last part of your statement, that one statement isnt what got your juices flowing...that was the only one you felt you could truly nitpick at me about so far...if it wasnt that statement, then it will be something else I say here shortly...Like I said, I accept your dutiful opposition.
Last edited by solytaire; 04-09-2010 at 03:31 PM..
I would agree with you...and then I would tell you that obviously people of every other race are criminals too...The person who has convinced themselves that I meant EVERY person of EVERY race is a criminal will just have to live with that belief about the statement. I certainly wouldnt spend hours and hours splitting hairs over percentages and statistics when the truth is the same regardless.
I didnt misspeak...I made a statement that was open to interpretation. And you interpreted it how you pleased...and Im ok with that...there really is nothing more I can do on my end. If I had've thought it critical to my overall point to clarify or qualify at the time, I wouldve done it when I wrote it...I didnt..
In all truthfulness, I was well aware that either you or montana_guy (Im truly surprised that it wasnt him who raised hell about it), or jsizzle would say something to the effect of "HEY
b@stard!! NOT ALL single mothers something something something.."....Im actually shocked it didnt start earlier....
But thats cool..thats what yall do...Not that thats bad at all, because we have enough women "bashers" like myself, but I didnt really expect anything other than that...Likewise obviously what I do is babble/complain about the relations between men and women and the responsibilities that women have within those relations...Ill carry on and Im sure you'll do the same and you will conclude whatever it was you wanted to conclude about me and my statements either way...trust me, as you alluded to in the last part of your statement, that one statement isnt what got your juices flowing...that was the only one you felt you could truly nitpick at me about so far...if it wasnt that statement, then it will be something else I say here shortly...Like I said, I accept your dutiful opposition.
I give up. If you can't see how your words are being misinterpreted, than you won't be able to have a normal discussion on this topic. Most people would look at the statement "blacks are criminals" and infer that it means "all blacks are criminals." But not you. This isn't splitting hairs and I'd love to see the reaction you get in public if you ever made such an offensive statement in front of actual people instead of just online. What's truly scary is that you don't see just how offensive it is.
I give up. If you can't see how your words are being misinterpreted, than you won't be able to have a normal discussion on this topic. Most people would look at the statement "blacks are criminals" and infer that it means "all blacks are criminals." But not you. This isn't splitting hairs and I'd love to see the reaction you get in public if you ever made such an offensive statement in front of actual people instead of just online. What's truly scary is that you don't see just how offensive it is.
My comment wasnt offensive..at least it shouldnt be to anyone who read it objectively. Can it be interpreted one way or the other? surely...but that is more indicative of the reader's bias than any bias the statement held. How could it truly be offensive when I didnt qualify anything either way? The only truth I spoke was that "single mothers do need taxpayer money"...do all of them use taxpayer money? of course not... do all of them receive taxpayer money whether they need it or not? yes...
now whether they want to use or spend that taxpayer money is ultimately up to them..its just a matter of deciding to accept and spend it. But regardless of their decision, as I said before, the taxpayer money has already been allocated specifically to programs for single mothers whether they take it or not.
I get your point but I would however like to move on. I just dont think Ive been all that out of line really.
No. I didnt get any of your money. Oh he was ready, he wanted children. He died when they were young. See how you have generalized and assume my DH was not ready for fatherhood and I made mistake in marrying him just because I stated I was a single mother.
Now you will say all that is irrelvant because I was a widow. But wouldnt I be just, according to your friend nature dictates, as much a biological failure because I could not forsee his death.
lame....stop playing games.
Women stop defending sleeping with the wrong man. Its a mistake you are not allowed to make. When you do make it you will be silently JUDGED. No man would say what we are saying on this forum...but many UN WED single moms know the drill and have been through it...
Single Moms. Remember that guy you meet went on a few dates, had some fun sex with but you never got him to commit you....well this topic explains that situation. At least 20 males have all come here and said the same thing! Poor men, rich men, white men, black men, old men & young men have all said the same thing...instead of you women believe in what we are saying you try to argue that our feelings are wrong? What a waste of time. The main goal of the topic is to keep young women who do not have kids from making the mistake you older women have made, but your so dang busy fussing & fighting about THE MISTAKE you made...your encouraging young women to make the same MISTAKE...Stop!
Gwynedd, I am not trying to offend you , sorry. It is a philosophical difference.
So in Conclusion:
Maybe the fact that I can easily afford to take a family of 4 on vacation to Disneyland, is the only reason I feel the way I do; however I would hope not.
I look for characteristics in women. Caring, compassion and the ability to love. Goals. Somebody that has a rich, full life, and does not need me to entertain them or babysit them.
Women without children can have these qualities. Women with children can be absent of these qualities. But, with me, talk is cheap, it means nothing. I need to be shown. A woman that is making time for her kids, and trying her hardest, would show me the 3 things above, I desire. Of course that isn't all I look for, but those are some of the things I look for first.
If I need a new T Shirt, my selection and availability are pretty much unlimited. If I require a new suit, it will be much tougher for me to find it, and the selection will be much more limited.
Single mothers, remember that last paragraph, in your search.
The problem with many single mothers is that their reasons for having a child without a father are rather selfish. What about caring enough about their children to provide them with their own dad?
To many think that they want a baby like a possession, something cute, or the baby brings in government handouts and so they won't have to work for a living, but what about the needs of their children? It's the single mothers (not widowed or divorced) who have made the decision that fathers are unimportant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
