Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

Not quite.

This post is one of yours from "Freedom of speech to be banned near abortion clinics" :

 

>>The_Daddy said : 

The right to free speech vs peoples feelings?

Banning free speech anywhere seems like a slippery slope to me.<<

 

You replied :

Yup.  On the one hand: freedom to make a dick of yourself screaming at women on their way into a clinic.  On the other: minding your own damn business and letting women go unharassed when they're getting access to their healthcare.  It's a toughy.

 

It's just the woman's "healthcare" is it ?

So, you are more bothered about the "feelings" of the woman terminating her child than you are about the life of that child.

My posts there neither state nor imply what you claim in your previous post.  And such a claim remains irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

If you want to continue the discussion of abortion, rather than a discussion about the effect on a child of the toxic environment created by the irretrievable breakdown of a parental relationship, feel free to post in the appropriate thread.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

At least you're being consistent.

Consistent in not caring about your anecdata nor your feelings about subjects irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

16 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Really ? Are you sure ?

If you were "concerned with the effect on the child" you would clearly state that parents should not be "messing around"  as that greatly increases the chances of said parents arguing and splitting up, both of which seriously affect the children.

More than once I have asked you if such "messing around" is wrong for parents of kids in particular, but you have studiously avoided answering the question.

Once again, this discussion started from the position of a relationship that has broken down irretrievably and the effect of the consequent toxic environment on the child.  Why that relationship has broken down is irrelevant. 

 

That's two strawman arguments you've attempted to introduce in order to disrupt the discussion because you can't make a coherent case for the relevant points.  Are you going to go for a third?

 

20 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I suspect if Hecate ever had kids her opinions may alter, both on this subject, and she may even mellow a bit on abortion.

That's what I meant.

No, they won't.  I will always consider the importance of the child first rather than my own feelings.  My views on abortion are not relevant to this thread.

[Tyke02]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I suspect if Hecate ever had kids her opinions may alter, both on this subject, and she may even mellow a bit on abortion.

That's what I meant.

Just like your view of your favourite subject might change if you exposed yourself to more authoritative information sources than the cherry picked headlines and soundbites that you repeatedly use.

 

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Those "experts" were wrong more than they were right, that's just a fact.

Go back and look at the previous replies to your laundry list and you'll see that your view on that does not seem to be the consensus view on this forum.  If you want to change minds you need better arguments, and they need better supporting data than anecdotes or selectively quoted news items. For example, it's wise to find and read the peer reviewed scientific publications that is being reported on, to find out whether the reporter has understood it or is misrepresenting what it means, otherwise you are just wasting your time.

[RJRB]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>You also obviously have no confidence in medical experts.<<

 

I have never said that at all.

I have no confidence in over cautious "virologists" * engaged in their giant experiment. In particular I have never had any confidence in their "computer models", and I was right :

 

(2 March 22) Covid modelling cannot accurately predict numbers, admits government expert
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...accurately-predict-numbers-admits-government/

 

(18 Dec 21) SAGE told to only model the most pessimistic scenarios
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee/
 

 

* That's most not all, because not all of them were making these scary predictions and recommending draconian suppression of society. 

So it’s just in the field of virology that you believe that you know better than those who have studied the subject.

Apparently also computer modelling which considers numerous factors and models a number of outcomes.

It may well be that worst case scenarios were given more consideration because to ignore them would be irresponsible.

Your usual list of the shortcomings contains a number of “could “

The other possibility would be to consider the least threatening outcomes in which case the approach would be to accept the herd immunity approach from the onset.

That was obviously the view of some ,but pretty quickly was dismissed although it did lead to widespread criticism of the slow response by Johnson and Co.

[trastrick]

4 hours ago, Hecate said:

No, they won't.  I will always consider the importance of the child first rather than my own feelings.  My views on abortion are not relevant to this thread.

When a formal marriage breaks down, (i.e. , a publicly declared and signed contractual marriage) the children are the ones most affected. They simply have no choice in the matter.

 

The mother often moves on to establish her new life.

 

Typically that includes finding a new partner by dating, locally or by online social sites, which, by necessity, takes her away from what should be the focus of her responsibility, her children in their most formative and vulnerable years.

 

Many men have found that they have become a  temporary  replacement in the children's lives, "uncles" to the children while the new relationship is in its testing phase, and have faced the daunting challenge  of developing a workable relationship with the kids.

 

These affairs don't always last so, forgetting the guy's feelings, the children may face yet more relationship losses.

 

Theory is one thing, but reality is another which is why I believe the marriage contract is something special, but which more and more people these days are unprepared to engage in, or take full responsibility for.

 

I personally don't see legal marriage is necessary, unless you are committing to stay together to raise the next generation.

 

Now it's marriage "celebrity style" Just another part of today's culture. Who are Jenn and Kim dating this week? 

 

Disclaimer: A man's view only, so please set me straight!

Edited August 7, 2023 by trastrick

[Al Bundy]

10 minutes ago, trastrick said:

When a formal marriage breaks down, (i.e. , a publicly declared and signed contractual marriage) the children are the ones most affected. They simply have no choice in the matter.

 

The mother often moves on to establish her new life.

 

Typically that includes finding a new partner by dating, locally or by online social sites, which, by necessity, takes her away from what should be the focus of her responsibility, her children in their most formative and vulnerable years.

 

Many men have found that they have become a  temporary  replacement in the children's lives, "uncles" to the children while the new relationship is in its testing phase, and have faced the daunting challenge  of developing a workable relationship with the kids.

 

These affairs don't always last so, forgetting the guy's feelings, the children may face yet more relationship losses.

 

Theory is one thing, but reality is another which is why I believe the marriage contract is something special, but which more and more people these days are unprepared to engage in, or take full responsibility for.

 

I personally don't see legal marriage is necessary, unless you are committing to stay together to raise the next generation.

 

Now it's marriage "celebrity style" Just another part of today's culture. Who are Jenn and Kim dating this week? 

 

Disclaimer: A man's view only, so please set me straight!

I think you're view is pretty much spot on.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, trastrick said:

When a formal marriage breaks down, (i.e. , a publicly declared and signed contractual marriage) the children are the ones most affected. They simply have no choice in the matter.

 

The mother often moves on to establish her new life.

 

Typically that includes finding a new partner by dating, locally or by online social sites, which, by necessity, takes her away from what should be the focus of her responsibility, her children in their most formative and vulnerable years.

Someone once told me that separated or divorced women with children often work outside the home too.  Imagine that!  I'm surprised she has time to turn off Listen With Mother and hang up her apron, let alone head out with her gentleman caller.

 

15 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Many men have found that they have become a  temporary  replacement in the children's lives, "uncles" to the children while the new relationship is in its testing phase, and have faced the daunting challenge  of developing a workable relationship with the kids.

 

These affairs don't always last so, forgetting the guy's feelings, the children may face yet more relationship losses.

 

[blather snipped]

I've even heard tell that men with children form new relationships following separation or divorce.  I was thoroughly shocked at such a notion.  Though you don't seem to have heard of such a thing, for some strange reason.

[trastrick]

25 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I think you're view is pretty much spot on.

I left out that women face the same complications when contemplating joining a divorced man and his family.

 

Ex wives can make things very difficult, to say the Least! 

 

Edit:

 

While I was  responding to AB, another poster took me to task. making the same valid point.

 

We all know how folks SHOULD behave, What causes the problems is how people actually behave.

 

It's a jungle out there! 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by trastrick

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, RJRB said:

So it’s just in the field of virology that you believe that you know better than those who have studied the subject.

Apparently also computer modelling which considers numerous factors and models a number of outcomes.

It may well be that worst case scenarios were given more consideration because to ignore them would be irresponsible.

Your usual list of the shortcomings contains a number of “could “

The other possibility would be to consider the least threatening outcomes in which case the approach would be to accept the herd immunity approach from the onset.

That was obviously the view of some ,but pretty quickly was dismissed although it did lead to widespread criticism of the slow response by Johnson and Co.

I have answered your post here.

[Chekhov]

4 hours ago, Tyke02 said:

Just like your view of your favourite subject might change if you exposed yourself to more authoritative information sources than the cherry picked headlines and soundbites that you repeatedly use.

Go back and look at the previous replies to your laundry list and you'll see that your view on that does not seem to be the consensus view on this forum.  If you want to change minds you need better arguments, and they need better supporting data than anecdotes or selectively quoted news items. For example, it's wise to find and read the peer reviewed scientific publications that is being reported on, to find out whether the reporter has understood it or is misrepresenting what it means, otherwise you are just wasting your time.

That's what these "experts" said at the time and it was used by our spineless government to suppress us all like they have never suppressed us before in our entire history. Stop trying to change history.