Ppf. We’ve got people like Angelina Jolie to take all the unwanted kids. They’ll be fine.
He started making movies for kids, which is essentially incompatible with his personality as a comedian.
I have a morbid track record of dating girls (in their 20s) who miscarried before meeting me. Not saying there isn’t a greater risk when you enter your 40s, but it’s not like pregnancy is foolproof pre-40 and you’re in Vegas once you’re 40 on the dot.
Unlike your early adulthood when you reach (and level off of) your cognitive prime, in your 50s and up your brain starts to turn into applesauce, and you stop reacting to every little dumbass thing your dumbass teenager does. Thinking too much about every goddamn thing is a silent killer, which probably makes the stress involved with raising kids a lot worse for younger parents.
(EDIT: Oh and my definition of ‘parenthood’ doesn’t exclude adoption)
Well…He needs to stop and go back to being funny.
Fuck now Carlos Mencia is on. Quick change da channel! Man…the fuck is wrong with this guy? Why the fuck does he have to yell all the fuckin time? Dude has no volume control at all. It’s a bunch of unfunny jokes being shouted at you, like saying them louder will make them funny. Maybe its the same theory that shouting louder will make people who don’t speak English suddenly understand.
For further reference, see: Chris Tucker.
Carlos Mencia is a ditto so he probably picked it up from Chris Rock. Except it doesn’t work for him because he’s a talentless idiot with no sense of timing.
Speaking of unfunny stuff, you guys hear that Jack and Jill is an elaborate troll by Adam Sandler?
(is still half-watching Hell’s Kitchen out of boredom after pausing it multiple times)
Oh, hey, Mother Jones. I completely forgot about that publication when I blanked out all the magazine-based horrors of the newstand–shudders–after my last job ended…horrors have all come flooding back now. Thanks.
Still, it’s a fine publication and I’m sure that I have at least a half a dozen of them that are unread, like virtually ever other one of the hundreds of magazines I bought at my time there.
Hunh, I didn’t know that Herman Cain had fucked up so egregiously so many times. It shows how little I’m paying attention to those current Republican candidates beyond who’s still in.
I…can’t agree with most of this because of how absolutist is. Let me count the ways:
[LIST=1]
[]You seem to be thinking that I was talking about children who have been in orphanages their whole life. Admittedly, they’re the last type of children I was thinking about. I was thinking more about the older children who are “less” cute and bounce around from foster home to foster home. Not the children you’re talking about aren’t valid, just that they’re not the only ones who need homes.
[]I agree that people who throw them away are the scum of the Earth…but hardly every child ends up in an orphanage or needing to be adopted because of that, which is why I saying calling it outright immoral for a good deal, if not majority, of cases seems nonsensical.
[]Additionally, you’re implying that single motherhood is solely to blame for “fucking children up” and that it’s always a less than ideal situation, which isn’t the case; this like one of those arguments some of those more militant advocates for marriage would make. I agree that single motherhood (or single fatherhood) shouldn’t be glorified, but at the same time, acting like it’s always a bad thing that always fucks up children is just as ridiculous.
[]Finally, define “normal kids”, please. I’m quite curious at this point, especially since you’re implying that everyone who is “dysfuctional”–please define that too–is going to be immediately dangerous and violent rather than the more likely conclusion of just being someone who can’t fit into society and goes otherwise unnoticed/unwanted, like many of the homeless.
[/LIST]
As for being swamped with “dysfunctional baddies” down 20 years the line, we’ll see if “we” even last that long as a country at this point or, far more optimistically, there isn’t some more research done that finds out a way to “cure” this.
Even for all that I’m disagreeing with you on, it was an interesting article, one that seems like it’s more worse than the viral just a click over. So thanks.
-
Did you read the article? These kids don’t need to be in an orphanage their entire lives for them to be adversely and permanently effected for their entire lives. I’m not sure why you’d think kids who are bounced from home to home would also be psychologically sound either. Especially when a large number of adoptive parents are abusive themselves and there is likely a reason why the kid is bouncing from home to home in the first place.
-
Where do they end up then? Would you say these kids end up in ideal situations more often than not? I’m pretty sure there are a staggering amount more children simply aging out of the orphanage system than ever finding a good home. Yeah, sometimes someone ends up alright. Does that meaning tossing a kid away isn’t immoral because every once in a blue moon everything turns out OK?
-
Single motherhood isn’t solely to blame but it is arguably one of the largest factors. I also bring it up because there seems to be a moratorium on talking about how single motherhood is detrimental. Yes, being raised by a single mother is always bad. Perhaps you’re confusing a child of a single mother being raised communally as a time when it’s fine. Maybe you think there are worse situations than being raised by a single mother. There are, but that doesn’t stop it from being a poor situation in itself. I think it better if you thought of single motherhood as something like smoking while pregnant.
-
Normal kids means children being raised by two parents outside of poverty. Dysfunctional means children who have higher rates of being incarcerated, becoming teenage mothers, behavioral disorders, dropping out of school, etc.
Superman was adopted. Superman is awesome. Therefore, adoption is awesome.
This post has been brought to you by alcohol: the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems.
(Superman’s liver is indestructible, yours isn’t.)
And once again, I spend one of my midnight hours on the Internet in a fruitless argument. [/first world problem]
Yes, I read the article, which is why I never said anything about foster kids that bounce from home to home being psychologically more sound–they likely aren’t, even if the foster parents tend not be abusive–or anything about the children being needing to be in the orphanage until they’re 18 (or whatever) and get kicked out (or whatever).
Since I apparently have to spell it out, all I was saying with the first item is that I was talking about children who go into orphanages lately in life, not kids who are there from birth, which is what the article in question deals with. That’s why I said the article wasn’t invalid–it’s just not the group of child that I was thinking about, especially since babies and toddlers still have a “cute” factor when it comes to adoption that older kids…don’t.
Uh…you misread that. Completely. It was perhaps aided by poor syntax on my part.
Regardless, what I was saying, was that I agree with the majority that it’s immoral to just “throw away” children. I was just rather confused by the fact that you seem to be implying that all children in orphanages or that need to be adopted in that situation because they were thrown away. That’s what I was calling absolutist. I thought I was being clear, but I guess not.
“Always bad”? That’s what I can’t get. I get that it’s “worse” and “not ideal”, but you’re acting like it always makes the kid dysfunctional, when we both knows that’s fucking lie, especially with how many dysfunctional kids from “ideal” two parent family.
I’m all for stopping single motherhood from being glorified and saying that it’s something you should avoid at almost all costs, but you seem to be outright saying single mothers and their children are doomed, especially if you honestly believe your analogy that I put in bold. That’s absurd.
As cynical as I am about society, I think you’re both underestimating the fact that some kids are still raised communally or, at least, by more caring people than just the immediate (single) parent or parents. Last I checked, there wasn’t a moratorium on caring about other people’s kids even if they aren’t related to you.
I can agree with the dysfunctional thing, but you honestly think that all it takes to be a “normal kid” is to be raised by two parents outside of poverty? Really?
Wow…that’s just…I don’t know what to say, even before getting into the unfortunate implication that the many, many children who grow up poor or near poverty will never be “normal”…whatever the fuck that is.
No offense mIRC…but that’s some stupid ass shit, and I don’t say that just cuz I was mostly raised by a single parent. I say that because it’s some stupid fucking shit. What a stupid comparison to make.
Damn those abnormal kids being rased in poverty, growing up to be things like professional athletes and music artists. Us white collar folk don’t frolic in that folly.
:u: And POTUS.
I’m curious of Million’s thoughts of Lady Gaga in light of HER nude spread in Vanity Fair.
I’m too lazy to quote and I’m falling asleep. You guys are picking diamonds in the rough. For every POTUS, music star, or pro-athlete there are a millions of people stuck living a life of destitution due to factors out of their control.
Damned, you glean too much from implications. Smoking while pregnant isn’t a guaranteed fucked baby. It raises the risks toward the well being of your child. It’s not as if one puff, oops your baby is dead. Likewise, single motherhood raises certain risks 4 to 24 times more depending on the variable. Furthermore, I separate being raised by a single mother and raised communally. They’re simply not the same.
smoking while pregnant is always a choice, being a single mother is usually not.
+1 for shitty analogies
it’s true though, you can’t really understand why having a kid is awesome until you have one. i didn’t like kids much and i thought that ‘oh i changed after having one’ line was bullshit. until it happened to me.
it’s not for everyone. i know an ex-friend who had kids and didn’t change at all and actually became a worse person because of it.
but there are plenty of specific awesome moments that i’d never trade back.
having someone who completely depends on you. who loves you unconditionally. someone always doing sweet things because they love you. someone who always wants you to be around, wants to do things with you. looks up to you and respects you and listens to you. thinks you’re awesome no matter what.
furthermore people tend to overblow how much a kid ruins your life. it’s not the end of the world. usually i hear it from people who are afraid of having to grow up and be responsible. if you want to be a teenager forever then yeah, don’t have children.
people bitch about the negatives because that’s what people do; complain. complaining is much easier than being happy, and the specifics are much more obvious and will have relevance to someone who doesn’t have children (because it’s mostly in terms of what they won’t have anymore, and they can immediately comprehend that)
Yeah, that’s where the “something like” comes in and comparing the two as something that causes a rise in an unwanted number of risks.
Being a single mother usually not being a choice is a good joke though. Being stupid having CHOSEN to have a child with a man who wasn’t ready for kids is still a choice. I’m going to sleep.
Know what else wasn’t the end of the world?
Nazis.
The risk of something vaguely bad maybe happening years from now to a single-parent child =/= something bad all-but-certain to result from pre-natal drug use, as soon as the baby pops out if not earlier. As if I need to say that.
We were talking about game magazines a couple days ago, here’s a well-informed article (longer than The Damned’s posts) written by a 20-year game journalism vet for anyone interested http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/threads/57257-Required-Reading-Nick-Rox-Approved
They were for a lot of people