Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

That is the implication of what you are saying.

No, it certainly is not; in fact, it's quite the reverse.  I've stated explicitly that once a parent leaves a relationship that is not necessarily the end of that parent's active and important involvement in that child's life.  Once again, you're seeing what you want to see to suit your own agenda and beliefs, and attributing to others things that they've neither said nor implied.

 

22 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

The great majority of relationship failures are not as a result of violence or abuse.

Didn't say that either. 

 

23 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I would think the majority are people who think this relationship is not all I expected, there's too much arguing and bickering, forget the kids I would be happier out of it.

And neither did I say that.  My points have all been concerned with the importance of the child and the effect on that child of living in an environment where the parents' relationship has broken down irretrievably. 

 

I haven't stated or implied that either parent might have an irresponsible attitude towards the child in any context other than being ignorant or otherwise wrong-headed about how the environment created from that broken relationship affects the child.

 

[Chekhov]

5 minutes ago, Hecate said:

And neither did I say that.  My points have all been concerned with the importance of the child and the effect on that child of living in an environment where the parents' relationship has broken down irretrievably. 

I haven't stated or implied that either parent might have an irresponsible attitude towards the child in any context other than being ignorant or otherwise wrong-headed about how the environment created from that broken relationship affects the child.

So what is your response to my own story :

 

My parents used to argue quite a lot and it upset me at the time, but it was definitely better for me, my bother and my sister that they stayed together, and I am CERTAIN they would both agree with me. My parents stayed together partly because of their religious beliefs, partly the sense of duty and responsibility back in those days, and partly social pressure as divorce was more frowned on back then. I suspect these days the chances of them divorcing would be much higher, and it would NOT have been a good thing for us kids.

Incidentally, they stayed together for over 60 years till they died, and their relationship improved as they got older, in particular after they retired. There's a very valuable lesson their I feel......

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I cannot think there are any studied which conclude that kids do as well with one parent as two, on average.

Have you looked or investigated beyond your confirmation bias?

 

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What we are then into is subjective measurement how "bad" the parental relationship is and into political considerations. What I said about The Guardian carrying more positive stories about single parents households and the Daily Telegraph more about how two parents being better for the kids, probably sums it up.

Nope.  Politics doesn't come into my argument.  I quoted a research paper; you brought up articles in The Guardian and the Telegraph.

 

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I still find it hard to believe you really think a one parent household is as good for the kids as a two parent one. I might have more time for your arguments if you started off by admitting that then said but it depends how badly the parents are getting on. If you said that I might agree but disagree just how bad the parental relationship would have to be for divorce to be the better option for the kids.

Once again, I said that a parent leaving the home and the relationship does not necessarily end the active and important involvement of that parent in the child's life.  For further details, read the conclusions of the paper I quoted; I'm not repeating myself.

 

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

My parents used to argue quite a lot and it upset me at the time, but it was definitely better for me, my bother and my sister that they stayed together, and I am CERTAIN they would both agree with me. My parents stayed together partly because of their religious beliefs, partly the sense of duty and responsibility back in those days, and partly social pressure as divorce was more frowned on back then. I suspect these days the chances of them divorcing would be much higher, and it would NOT have been a good thing for us kids.

Incidentally, they stayed together for over 60 years till they died, and their relationship improved as they got older, in particular after they retired. There's a very valuable lesson their I feel......

Once again, nice anecdata.  I'm glad it worked for them and for you.

 

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Did you miss this question ?

No.  As I said above, that bizarre tangent has nothing to do with my point.

 

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

So what is your response to my own story :

See above.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Guest

[Chekhov]

11 minutes ago, Hecate said:

Have you looked or investigated beyond your confirmation bias?

 

Nope.  Politics doesn't come into my argument.  I quoted a research paper; you brought up articles in The Guardian and the Telegraph.

 

Once again, I said that a parent leaving the home and the relationship does not necessarily end the active and important involvement of that parent in the child's life.  For further details, read the conclusions of the paper I quoted; I'm not repeating myself.

 

Once again, nice anecdata.  I'm glad it worked for them and for you.

 

No.  As I said above, that bizarre tangent has nothing to do with my point.

 

See above.

Confirmation bias !

Have you looked in the mirror at all ? ! ?

 

There is no way on God's earth that, certainly on average, it is as good for kids to have only one parent as two.

I cannot believe any parent would agree with that hypothesis and the fact you appear to be making that argument indicates to me this is a pointless debate, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I suspect your position is reflective of your politics and the fact you do not have any kids.

 

>>Once again, nice anecdata<<

 

You are implying I am making it up, which says more about you than me.

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Confirmation bias !

Have you looked in the mirror at all ? ! ?

 

There is no way on God's earth that, certainly on average, it is as good for kids to have only one parent as two

Apparently I do have to repeat myself.  What are we on now?  Third time or fourth?: Once again, I said that a parent leaving the home and the relationship does not necessarily end the active and important involvement of that parent in the child's life.  For further details, read the conclusions of the paper I quoted; I'm not repeating myself.

 

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I cannot believe any parent would agree with that hypothesis and the fact you appear to be making that argument indicates to me this is a pointless debate, there are none so blind as those who will not see my position and tell me I'm right.

I suspect your position is reflective of your politics and the fact you do not have any kids.

Fixed that for you.

 

The hypothesis you attribute to me is not that hypothesis I proposed.  I refer you to my previous comments, again, re. politics and childlessness or otherwise.

 

7 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You are implying I am making it up, which says more about you than me.

No, I'm not.  Once again, I neither said nor implied that.  I said that it's anecdata, which means that it's an anecdote of your own singular, subjective, personal experience, which is neither use nor ornament in supporting your position beyond demonstrating a role in establishing that position.

 

[Tyke02]

45 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I certainly think nobody should be recommending suppression measures which affect others more than they affect them.

For example, having a safe job whilst recommending shutting down society which puts others in less safe jobs in jeopardy of unemployment. Or recommending shutting swimming pools if they themselves do not swim in them much. 

 

However, my basic point stands, the "experts" record during Covid was no better than the toss of a coin.

It seems that you believe that when you have experience of a subject, that makes your opinions authoritative. When others have experienced another subject that you haven't (e.g. managing disease outbreaks)  and you disagree with them, you still think your opinions are authoritative.  Can you not see the problem there?

[Chekhov]

15 hours ago, Hecate said:

I said that a parent leaving the home and the relationship does not necessarily end the active and important involvement of that parent in the child's life. 

Yeah, good idea, let's play pass the soddin' parcel, I'm sure that's just as good as a family unit living together. 

No, it's very much a "sub optimal" alternative. 

To some extent you have an excuse for your outlandish ideas because, er, you do not have kids.

Let me tell you something, short of unfaithfulness (nobody should have to live with a lying unfaithful sod*) nothing would make me move out of the house my beautiful boy lives in. Nothing. I cannot understand any parent having an affair, I can only assume they do not love their kid(s) as much as I love mine.

You do not know what you are talking about, and you are more bothered about  some arcane theoretical political / societal point than children but at least you are consistent because you have stated before that you have zero empathy for them before they are born.

 

* though I notice you have pointedly avoided agreeing that parents (in particular) should not be "playing away". Your silence is deafening.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

5 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

It seems that you believe that when you have experience of a subject, that makes your opinions authoritative. When others have experienced another subject that you haven't (e.g. managing disease outbreaks)  and you disagree with them, you still think your opinions are authoritative.  Can you not see the problem there?

Stop avoiding the point I am making.

The "experts" (certainly the ones the government were listening to) were so inaccurate in their forecasts and pronouncements that, literally, the toss of a coin would have been more accurate. So, the fact I was more accurate than them is not really saying very much at all, even that infamous octopus was right more often than them.....

As an example I recommend reading the linked to article, it's comedy gold :

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/15/omicron-probably-the-biggest-threat-of-covid-pandemic-says-health-chief

 

It [Omicron] is probably the most significant threat we’ve had since the start of the pandemic 

Jenny Harries (Head of UK Health Security Agency)

 

Dr Susan Hopkins [Chief Medical Advisor at the UK Health Security Agency], telling MPs on Tuesday that Omicron infections in Britain could reach 1m a day by the end of the month. [1m : that's one million (a day)]

 

What actually happened :

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England

Edited August 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[Tyke02]

23 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Stop avoiding the point I am making.

I thought your point was that people who don't have experience of a subject (parenthood) shouldn't express an opinion. 

 

Yet you express contrarian opinions on disease control without experience.

 

This is another of your changes of subject to avoid admitting your epistemic arrogance.

 

Your shopping list of grievances with "experts" has been answered many times, and a change of subject seems to be your "go to" response  when faced with rebuttal.

 

 

 

[RJRB]

39 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Stop avoiding the point I am making.

The "experts" (certainly the ones the government were listening to) were so inaccurate in their forecasts and pronouncements that, literally, the toss of a coin would have been more accurate. So, the fact I was more accurate than them is not really saying very much at all, even that infamous octopus was right more often than them.....

You have repeated this ridiculous claim so often that you must believe it to be true.

You also obviously have no confidence in medical experts.

So if faced with a personal medical condition where treatment may or may not be successful would you reduce the options to a simple 50/50 bet,when in fact the true odds may be anything from odds on to a remote possibility.

That makes no sense at all to me.