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.
I volunteer my time coaching youth soccer. I know nothing about soccer, and none of the kids are related to me? Is this ridiculous?
Your argument is ridiculous, and you keep doing it. I see no benefit continuing with you. You keep creating false dichotomies, and I already explained, I am not interested in teaching people introductory rhetoric.
Your proposal to adopt children or hate them is a classic fallacy..
They aren't my assumptions. They are observations of assumptions I see being made. Nobody wants to stand behind their assumptions. I can only chaulk it up to ignorance. Or bitterness, I guess. Either way, you ladies are better off with out these boys.
Sorry I didnt mean to write that as tho they were yours. I should have worded it differently, thank you for clearing that up. My bad. Its Friday and Im distracted.
And you're the one who decided to place it into your own context. You pointed out HALF of what was "missing" from my statement for the purposes of advancing a feeble/petty argument. Why didnt you decide to point out the fact that I didnt say "all"? Oh I guess its because you're trying to drum up discord. Thats fine and all, but dont blame me if you were too sensitive to accept my statement at face value.
You didn't say all. Here is your original statement:
single moms do most certainly need my money...who do you think pays for their food stamps, welfare and WIC assistance?
single mothers arent always responsible for failed relationships....but they are responsible for choosing to have children with men who are irresponsible/poor fathers and who are failures at relationships.
Where does it say all? The second paragraph doesn't correct the first. All you really admit is that some single mothers aren't responsible for failed relationships, which is entirely different than saying they don't all need welfare.
I made no assumption at all. I was just stating a fact. Men looking for sex know that single mothers are often their best option. Do some reading, on line on this topic. It is pretty blunt.
Over the years, I've heard a lot of brave talk from single mothers but the real issue is how they put that into practice. Face the fact that very few are going to snag an uber type with a high net worth.
1. It's true that a lot of men view single mothers as easy. But how does that prove that those women are desperate?
2. You say that you've observed single mothers say one thing, but do another. So what? Personal observation doesn't prove anything. I could just as easily say I've observed a lot of single mothers raise their standards after they had kids. All you're doing is stating an opinion. Declaring it be factual doesn't make it so.
3. Most single mothers may not snag an "uber type with a high net worth." Again, so what? How does this prove that those women are desperate?
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.
I doubt I will be exchanging many posts with you since I generally need something of value. Your effeminate appeals to the majority are false tactics of which any beginning student of rhetoric is well aware.
Your biased argument to my use of "hammered" was meant, by me, to elicit the notion of my aggression since I used no literary device to do so. There was no skill involved in an execution. I will not discuss it further because I do not indirectly attack other posters. Stop dragging other people into it.
This is your projection. I just reacted to your instigation, again. Stop telling people to grow up. I could not possibly prove I was good at debate against you. Its like saying I am better than nothing. I attacked your "Ad Hominid" monkey tactics. You don't even know the difference. As a consequence, I feel perfectly free to attack you when you initiate.
One does not "get" informed. Its "be informed". One gets an umbrella for the rain of rhetorical miscegenation.
Be informed. I never made that statement.
At one time, as a matter of exercise, I found value in picking apart fallacious rhetoric, but I am afraid following the moose tracks of a clod will not lead me to the front row, center seats of insight. It is simply more yawning ennui than I can stand. When I don't answer, that is the weakness you have exploited.
This post is laughable. First, you're retreating from your arguments that you can no longer support. I see you doing the same thing with JSizzle225.
Second, you talk about the rules of intelligent debate and yet violate them yourself. You say that it's wrong to wage personal attacks against another debater and yet you've called me an infant and now accused me of making "effeminate" appeals and even implied that I'm a clod.
Third, my discussion of your use of your "hammered" comment was on point. Your problem is you can't defend it so now you're just attacking me instead.
You can pretend to take the high road and be the master debater you think you are. Too bad you're not fooling anybody. And tossing out definitions of logical fallacies doesn't prove you're above any of us. If anything, it proves the opposite. A truly confident debater wouldn't need to do so. I think you just use that to avoid engaging in a true debate.
BTW, learn to read whose posts a comment is being directed at before responding.
I had plans to spend money on myself and be selfish with my time, on my day off. But my dad's wife called, she babysits during the day. She didn't know what to do, since her daughter may be going into labor...she was going to call all the parents to come pick up the kids. That could be a hardship to some of these single mothers...
....so I'm going to foolishly drop everything, and go babysit a bunch of other guy's kids...and I'm stupidly not going to ask for money.
I hope one day I grow up and can be awesome and maybe even "go my own way."
Well give me some damn money then. I have been a single mom for some 26 yrs. and have not been given money from any man or government.
Following that line of though no one would ever have children. When you are in a healthly loving relationship and decide to have children, you can not always forsee future events.
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
Last edited by solytaire; 04-09-2010 at 02:04 PM..
You didn't say all. Here is your original statement:
single moms do most certainly need my money...who do you think pays for their food stamps, welfare and WIC assistance?
single mothers arent always responsible for failed relationships....but they are responsible for choosing to have children with men who are irresponsible/poor fathers and who are failures at relationships.
Where does it say all? The second paragraph doesn't correct the first. All you really admit is that some single mothers aren't responsible for failed relationships, which is entirely different than saying they don't all need welfare.
No point made here whatsoever..just repeating more of the same circular argument: 'You didnt say some, and you didnt say all either...so I decided to take it how I wanted for the purposes of dragging out this petty discrepancy.'
Like I said -- I have no problem with you framing the statement in your own contexts for the purpose of creating an argument..but you cant expect me to take the argument serious when the motive is so transparent.
No point made here whatsoever..just repeating more of the same circular argument: 'You didnt say some, and you didnt say all either...so I decided to take it how I wanted for the purposes of dragging out this petty discrepancy.'
Like I said -- I have no problem with you framing the statement in your own contexts for the purpose of creating an argument..but you cant expect me to take the argument serious when the motive is so transparent.
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.
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.