Brangelina

[omnivorette]

As always, you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion, and our perspectives may certainly differ.

[yvonne johnson]

As always, you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion, and our perspectives may certainly differ.

Then why present your opinions as fact?

[omnivorette]

You are welcome to interpret, filter, or otherwise read my posts as you wish. But I will not fight with you.

[FaustianBargain]

As always, you are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion, and our perspectives may certainly differ.

Then why present your opinions as fact?

 

ideas are like viruses. she has been infected.

 

but it's alright.

[Ron Johnson]

we should merge this with the the horse racing thread.

[Orik]

You are welcome to interpret, filter, or otherwise read my posts as you wish. But I will not fight with you.

 

[omnivorette]

Or you either.

[Orik]

but will you launch an extensive PM campaign against me?

[Wilfrid1]

I am simply repeating something I said hundreds of pages ago, but any fule kno you can't go around calling gay people or disabled people "abnormal" and then claim it's not pejorative. See also "pervert", "deviant", "freakish", any of which might be literally true reflections of statistics, but all of which are rude.

 

To wish "abormal" a neutral term is the Humpty Dumpty theory of language approach: a word means what I want it to mean.

 

Yvonne: Some have argued that Wittgenstein's view leads to behaviorism. In a sense I think it does, but one needn't imagine strict Skinnerian behavorism where we are no more than rats in mazes (although the scientists here would be happy for that). I don't think Wittgenstein is committed to denying an interesting, animated, mental life* - but I do think he's right to say:

 

1. That we are not certain of our own thoughts and feelings because we can empirically observ[ them;

 

2. Therefore, it's muddled to expect to gain certainty about other peoples' thoughts and feelings by that method.

 

*One of victims followers (that's "follower" in the sense of "friend"), Norman Malcolm, did write a book about dreaming based on Wittgenstein's approach. He argued, as you'd expect, that we can't have direct observational knowledge of dreams; we can know about them only through dream reports. But he did then go on to say that there is no evidence, therefore, that dreams take place. I think that's an unnecessary step; and more than that, everyone knows it's false.

[omnivorette]

How about "not the norm?" Is that better?

[g.johnson]

"Unusual" seems entirely neutral.

[Lex]

"Unusual" seems entirely neutral.

How about "special?"

[Jaymes]

They have. But I remind you of several stories of the childless being chided for "selfishness".

Where? On this thread? I've not seen them....

 

Because boy, I sure don't feel that way. If you're not absolutely positive you want to raise children, and I mean be "all in" for life, please don't have any. If you change your mind after they're here, or otherwise screw it up in some way, I and society, are the ones that have to pay.

hmm..i hate to bring this up now, but it's actually the other way around. just like healthy people pay insurance premiums to pick up the costs of illnesses for sick people.

 

 

Isn't that just exactly what I said? That healthy happy I, and my healthy happy children, and the rest of healthy happy society have to pay in a myriad of ways for your screwed-up children that you didn't want and shouldn't have had?

 

I thought I was making myself perfectly clear and that you would have no trouble reading it and understanding me. Perhaps that's part of the problem.

[yvonne johnson]

Yvonne: Some have argued that Wittgenstein's view leads to behaviorism. In a sense I think it does, but one needn't imagine strict Skinnerian behavorism where we are no more than rats in mazes (although the scientists here would be happy for that). I don't think Wittgenstein is committed to denying an interesting, animated, mental life* - but I do think he's right to say:

 

1. That we are not certain of our own thoughts and feelings because we can empirically observ[ them;

 

2. Therefore, it's muddled to expect to gain certainty about other peoples' thoughts and feelings by that method.

 

*One of victims followers (that's "follower" in the sense of "friend"), Norman Malcolm, did write a book about dreaming based on Wittgenstein's approach. He argued, as you'd expect, that we can't have direct observational knowledge of dreams; we can know about them only through dream reports. But he did then go on to say that there is no evidence, therefore, that dreams take place. I think that's an unnecessary step; and more than that, everyone knows it's false.

But can't we empirically observe our own emotions (maybe not thoughts) by feeling them? If empirical involves use of senses, then I can be certain of my emotions. I think.

 

I've read that book by Malcolm. I remember him also suggesting that dreams do not occur when we are asleep. They just come to us when we wake up and it feels as if we've dreamt them. Very whacky.

[FaustianBargain]

They have. But I remind you of several stories of the childless being chided for "selfishness".

Where? On this thread? I've not seen them....

 

Because boy, I sure don't feel that way. If you're not absolutely positive you want to raise children, and I mean be "all in" for life, please don't have any. If you change your mind after they're here, or otherwise screw it up in some way, I and society, are the ones that have to pay.

hmm..i hate to bring this up now, but it's actually the other way around. just like healthy people pay insurance premiums to pick up the costs of illnesses for sick people.

 

 

Isn't that just exactly what I said? That healthy happy I, and my healthy happy children, and the rest of healthy happy society have to pay in a myriad of ways for your screwed-up children that you didn't want and shouldn't have had?

 

I thought I was making myself perfectly clear and that you would have no trouble reading it and understanding me. Perhaps that's part of the problem.

 

people who desire children and have them also end up having screwed up children. given the ratio of those who find parenthood necessary vs the other side, it is highly unlikely for the numbers of those resisting parenthood to end up abandoning children be higher than the former.

 

in another case, i pay taxes. those with a zillion children also pay taxes. they benefit from the school system, but my tax dollars end up supporting the education of their children.