Jump to content


- - - - -

Having Many Kids: An Essay


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
23 replies to this topic

#1 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 12:33 AM

An 5-paragraphed informal essay regarding this matter. The author is inspired by Scotty to write this. :D

----------------
Kids in large families do not get as much attention and love from parents as those in smaller families. That is because in large families, parents are constantly worried about money, so that they can support your children. The time they spend to work and take care of other things around the house takes away the time they should spend with the children. However, this is not to say that the parents in large families do not love their children; they simply do not have enough time and energy to take good care of them.

I imagine it must be very stressful for parents in large families to, say, go shopping for back-to-school items for their children. Indeed, the kids would most likely get less than what they need. The parents would perhaps take them to thrift shops or get items that they do not want because they are on sales. The budgets in such families must be very tight and the parents must have headaches throughout the years in which they have to raise their kids.

The burden does not stop there. It is most likely that kids in such large families will lack the love they require during their youth. They may not, for instance, be hugged enough as infants. Hence, they might grow to be men and women of cold and morose natures. However, perhaps this lack of attention may lead them to be unnecessarily mature and indepedent when young and to know how to take care of themselves, but I personally do not like this: I believe that kids should be loved as much as possible during their youth.

I, your humble essayist, am now growing up in a family where I always get constant attention and the things I want. I am an only child of wonderful parents, who are great enough to know how to raise their "perfect kid" (as they call me). I never have to worry about anything; in fact my parents do not let me worry about anything, save matters concerning school and learning. I suppose I am very lucky to be raised up in such a favourable environment, which allows me to retain my ecstatic spirits: I am and will always be a kid, for I am a kid forever.

I write this essay to encourage adults to have only children or, at most, two children in a family. That way, these adults will be able to raise their kids better and most likely, if they know how, they might raise up talented kids of fine natures! Having many kids will, with a high chance, take away this opportunity.
-------------------

I wrote that in 10 minutes, so the quality is not very good, as you can see...Anyway, criticisms, counter-arguments, and comments are :welcome:. I will try to write more essays on here from now on. :D :roll:

#2 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,310 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:07 AM

Quote

An 5-paragraphed informal essay regarding this matter. The author is inspired by Scotty to write this. :D

----------------
Kids in large families do not get as much attention and love from parents as those in smaller families.

This is a generalization, as well as an unsupported assertion.  :wink:

Quote

That is because in large families, parents are constantly worried about money, so that they can support your children. The time they spend to work and take care of other things around the house takes away the time they should spend with the children. However, this is not to say that the parents in large families do not love their children; they simply do not have enough time and energy to take good care of them.

This depends entirely on the family income level. Many people can support a number of kids quite well, and have time to spend with them. Each situation is different. Even in large, poor families, there is not necessarily any shortage of love or support for kids, though admittedly most such families probably endure a lot more stress.

Quote

I imagine it must be very stressful for parents in large families to, say, go shopping for back-to-school items for their children. Indeed, the kids would most likely get less than what they need. The parents would perhaps take them to thrift shops or get items that they do not want because they are on sales. The budgets in such families must be very tight and the parents must have headaches throughout the years in which they have to raise their kids.

All this depends on the income level. Also, what's the difference between need, and greed? So what if kids get thrift shop items? Do kids in wealthy families actually need all the energy-consuming junk that they have? Probably not. A generation ago all kids got along quite well without personal computers, because they didn't exist. Another generation from how they might not exist again, unless we can solve our energy problems. Note also that love and support in a family can be considered quite apart from the presence or absence of material goods.

Quote

The burden does not stop there. It is most likely that kids in such large families will lack the love they require during their youth.

This is another gross generalization, and an unsupported assertion.

Quote

They may not, for instance, be hugged enough as infants.

Or, they might be.

Quote

Hence, they might grow to be men and women of cold and morose natures.

Here you'd have to establish that not being hugged enough in childhood produces adults of cold and morose natures. I doubt this is supportable.

Quote

However, perhaps this lack of attention may lead them to be unnecessarily mature and indepedent when young and to know how to take care of themselves, but I personally do not like this: I believe that kids should be loved as much as possible during their youth.

Sure, they should, but you haven't established that big families = lack of attention. On the contrary, there are numerous stories from people who grew up in big, loving families and relished the experience. You also need to realize that one could argue like this: only children, or children from small families, are missing out on growing up with brothers and sisters who also provide love and support.

Quote

I, your humble essayist, am now growing up in a family where I always get constant attention and the things I want. I am an only child of wonderful parents, who are great enough to know how to raise their "perfect kid" (as they call me). I never have to worry about anything; in fact my parents do not let me worry about anything, save matters concerning school and learning. I suppose I am very lucky to be raised up in such a favourable environment, which allows me to retain my ecstatic spirits: I am and will always be a kid, for I am a kid forever.

That's great, P, but you should keep in mind that just as it's wildly wrong to suggest that big families equate with unhappiness, you can also find cases of people who were only children who were and are unhappy. You are making unwarranted generalizations.

Quote

I write this essay to encourage adults to have only children or, at most, two children in a family. That way, these adults will be able to raise their kids better and most likely, if they know how, they might raise up talented kids of fine natures! Having many kids will, with a high chance, take away this opportunity.

Unsupported assertion, and contradicted by much data showing very many successful, happy people coming from large families. However, it might be a good idea to limit the number of children you have as a means of helping stabilize population growth. Population growth at current global levels is economically and environmentally unsustainable.
-------------------

Quote

I wrote that in 10 minutes, so the quality is not very good, as you can see...Anyway, criticisms, counter-arguments, and comments are :welcome:. I will try to write more essays on here from now on. :D :roll:

It's not bad as a piece of writing, but as you've seen, it's the premises and conclusions I've taken issue with.  :o

#3 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:09 AM

davidm said:

This is a generalization, as well as an unsupported assertion.

No, no! This is just in the introduction. I tried my best to support this in the body of my essay...Didn't you see?  :shock: "unsupported assertion"..."unsupported assertion"...lol :twisted:

davidm said:

It's not bad as a piece of writing, but as you've seen, it's the premises and conclusions I've taken issue with. :o

I didn't mean that it's bad in term of mechanics and styles; it's a good informal essay. But it is just some generalisation used to stimulate further thoughts on the matter! :D

#4 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:17 AM

I agree though that having few children is no better than having many. I know amazing 5 kid families with really happy members and only children that are extremely immature and still can't make it on their own, at ages 16 or 17. They are much more needy. I come from a 3-children family... I am independent enough to take care of myself and entertain myself, as I am the oldest, I care about people a lot (and I learned this from caring about my siblings, I'm sure), and can have fun both alone and with others. I know many only children who are selfish and egotistical, aside from immature. Like the youngest child or 2 in large families, who also get a lot of attention.
Anyway, I do not think the number of children affects the parents' ability to raise them, and I don't think coming from large or small families makes a difference in how happy a person is.

#5 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,310 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:18 AM

Philosophy][quote name= said:

This is a generalization' date=' as well as an unsupported assertion.[/quote']

No, no! This is just in the introduction. I tried my best to support this in the body of my essay...Didn't you see?  :shock: "unsupported assertion"..."unsupported assertion"...lol :twisted:

Granted you may think you supported your introduction in the body of the essay, but now that you see I've rebutted your arguments, you must try to rebut my rebuttals.  :wink:

#6 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:19 AM

davidm][quote name= said:

Quote

This is a generalization' date=' as well as an unsupported assertion.[/quote']

No, no! This is just in the introduction. I tried my best to support this in the body of my essay...Didn't you see?  :shock: "unsupported assertion"..."unsupported assertion"...lol :twisted:

Granted you may think you supported your introduction in the body of the essay, but now that you see I've rebutted your arguments, you must try to rebut my rebuttals.  :wink:

Meh, this issue is subject to different opinions. Remember the famous saying "That's just your opinion" :D

Ok, in fact I think that having 2 children is enough. I don't know why you want to have, say, 7 children running around your house! That'd be pretty irritating, I suppose...

If you don't agree with my proposal, then what is your ideal number of children you want to have? :o

#7 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:21 AM

Three children. But I want them to have friends or cousins over all the time.

#8 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:25 AM

uninspired, I suppose that having 3 kids can be fun, but you'll get a little more stress, for sure  :shock: . Howe are you going to raise those 3 kids, with stress and a supposedly tight budget (unless you get six-figured job)? :mrgreen:

#9 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:31 AM

I want 3 kids. I think it's a perfect number of children. How am I going to raise them? The same way I was raised, hopefully. Treating them all the same. Money is really not the most important thing you know? I don't care if my kids, as teenagers, don't change cars every year and shop in expensive boutiques, and I hope I will raise them right to care about more important things as well. I will raise them listening to music, all kinds of it, reading books, playing sports... Because I want them to be able to choose the music the like, their favorite author or novel-style, which sports they like when they are older. I want them to keep a broad spectrum in all these things, and everything else. I will show them what publicity is like, teach them proper history, and to eat sushi. I will go to work every morning after dropping them off at school, and be home at 5 so I'll be there when they arrive, then when they're older maybe I'll be home later. And I want them all to have many friends, but also to spend time by themselves.
I think that is all. I can think of right now, anyway, I'm 17!

#10 Scotty

Scotty

    Galilean

  • Moderators
  • 1,785 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:55 AM

Quote

Kids in large families do not get as much attention and love from parents as those in smaller families.
That is because in large families, parents are constantly worried about money, so that they can support your children. The time they spend to work and take care of other things around the house takes away the time they should spend with the children. However, this is not to say that the parents in large families do not love their children; they simply do not have enough time and energy to take good care of them.

Even though my situation matches this pretty well, I can see it working out differently, at different times in history and with different people, and different parts of the world.
There are many factors involved, I could imagine that would change all of the factors.  Just too many to think about really.

Quote

I imagine it must be very stressful for parents in large families to, say, go shopping for back-to-school items for their children. Indeed, the kids would most likely get less than what they need. The parents would perhaps take them to thrift shops or get items that they do not want because they are on sales. The budgets in such families must be very tight and the parents must have headaches throughout the years in which they have to raise their kids.
I am sure this happens to some.

Quote

The burden does not stop there. It is most likely that kids in such large families will lack the love they require during their youth. They may not, for instance, be hugged enough as infants. Hence, they might grow to be men and women of cold and morose natures. However, perhaps this lack of attention may lead them to be unnecessarily mature and indepedent when young and to know how to take care of themselves, but I personally do not like this: I believe that kids should be loved as much as possible during their youth.

Again, I can see that happening in some cases but it isn't something that always happens in large families, I am sure.

Quote

I, your humble essayist, am now growing up in a family where I always get constant attention and the things I want. I am an only child of wonderful parents, who are great enough to know how to raise their "perfect kid" (as they call me). I never have to worry about anything; in fact my parents do not let me worry about anything, save matters concerning school and learning. I suppose I am very lucky to be raised up in such a favourable environment, which allows me to retain my ecstatic spirits: I am and will always be a kid, for I am a kid forever.

But, really, how do you know this is the perfect environment if you haven't experienced any other?  Maybe it is for you, maybe others in the same situation would be depressed and lonely, even with the same level of attention and caring you receive.

Quote

I write this essay to encourage adults to have only children or, at most, two children in a family. That way, these adults will be able to raise their kids better and most likely, if they know how, they might raise up talented kids of fine natures! Having many kids will, with a high chance, take away this opportunity.

I think this is a very large topic, very broad.  I don't think you covered near enough to say what people should have for a family.  It is fine to have an opinion about it, but go ahead and go into more depth if you want to explore it.
What other factors might influence people to have more or fewer children?  Religion?  Resources?  Commitment?  Genetics?  Social pressure?  Infertility?  Money?

I think you need more options in your poll. :)

-Scott

#11 davidm

davidm

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 9,310 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:55 AM

P, it is a matter of opinion, correct. But your OP kind of stated your opinion as a matter of fact. That's all I'm responding to.

#12 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:57 AM

davidm said:

P, it is a matter of opinion, correct. But your OP kind of stated your opinion as a matter of fact. That's all I'm responding to.

Hmm, you're probably right! My OP essay seems to be quite affirmative and to deny all the different opinions, but I didn't intend for it to do so.  :o

#13 Hugo Holbling

Hugo Holbling

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  • Administrators
  • 3,870 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Paul

Posted 04 September 2005 - 06:39 AM

I think many parents of large families would find this "essay" offensive. It is full of the unsupported assertions David mentioned and sweeping generalisations about areas you have no understanding of - and more importantly, absolutely no empathy with. If you talk this way to people when you are older you will at best get no respect from them and probably find yourself in considerable pain.

This is exactly the kind of elitism we are trying to discourage here.
"In everything that he'd ever thought about the world and about his life in it he'd been wrong." - Cities of the Plain

#14 mosaic

mosaic

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,184 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 07:13 AM

I would suggest  trying to approach these issues with questions not answers because I dont know why you presume to know so much about 'large families' or any of the things you've made such gross generalizations about. In order to write "essays" one hopefully has an idea of what they're talking about or at least has researched it. Lets put this in perspective, man. What do you know about 'large families'? And the distribution of love? Where are your arguments coming from?  Why do you feel so comfortable speaking broadly about them (hint: you shouldnt)? And let me say this upfront, ten minutes is simply not good enough if you're writing an 'essay.' Musings, random thoughts, perhaps but if you want to write an essay about such an area it behooves you to spend some more time with the issues. Or ask questions. I see no reason for 'writing an essay' about this issue in ten minutes.

#15 Big Blooming Blighter

Big Blooming Blighter

    Galilean

  • Members
  • 1,989 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Rob

Posted 04 September 2005 - 09:26 AM

Quote

An 5-paragraphed informal essay regarding this matter. The author is inspired by Scotty to write this. :D

----------------
Kids in large families do not get as much attention and love from parents as those in smaller families.

I'm going to assume 'large' means 3 and above? I think you'll find the amount of love and attention depends on the parent, rather than the family. However, psychological studies across the US have shown that first-borns receive most attention, with kids born later into the family feeling less loved (better term lacking) whether this is true or whether the kids just feel that way is something I'm not sure has been addressed. What is apparent is that the later born kids feel obligated to live up to the perceived parental views of the elder siblings.

Hence it seems a single child family would be best, but then these kids lack sibling love. Further, as I said, it depends on the parent, not the family, hence even a single child may not be cared for as much as the youngest of 6.

Quote

That is because in large families, parents are constantly worried about money, so that they can support your children.

No, not really. Childless couples may worry about money because they are materialistic or below the breadline. Some poverty-stricken large family parents don't worry about money because their loved ones keep them going, so to speak and pardon the cliche.

Quote

The time they spend to work and take care of other things around the house takes away the time they should spend with the children. However, this is not to say that the parents in large families do not love their children; they simply do not have enough time and energy to take good care of them.

This simply isn't true. Compare the parents who watch TV all day and ignore their kid/s with the large family parents who work while their kids are at school, then pick the little sprogs up and spend the evening with them. Are they knackered? Probably, but they love their kids and want to spend time with them. Heck, the mother's had to rip her arse apart to get these parasites out of her! She may as well make the most of it.

Quote

I imagine it must be very stressful for parents in large families to, say, go shopping for back-to-school items for their children.

Parents who have hyperactive kids, or who can't discipline their kids, look most stressed to me. With large families, some responsibility is passed on to the older siblings. You also seem to be assuming that kids in large families are born simultaneously and have some sort of ADD or hyperactivity problem.

Quote

Indeed, the kids would most likely get less than what they need. The parents would perhaps take them to thrift shops or get items that they do not want because they are on sales. The budgets in such families must be very tight and the parents must have headaches throughout the years in which they have to raise their kids.

I don't get how you establish this? A lawyer may have a large family, and a man on the dole who's wife is terminally ill (without medical insurance) may have, at most, one child. Which one will have a smaller budget?

Quote

The burden does not stop there. It is most likely that kids in such large families will lack the love they require during their youth. They may not, for instance, be hugged enough as infants.

Or they may be an only child with abusive parents.

Quote

Hence, they might grow to be men and women of cold and morose natures.

Thanks, Phil  :Cry:

Quote

However, perhaps this lack of attention may lead them to be unnecessarily mature and indepedent when young and to know how to take care of themselves, but I personally do not like this: I believe that kids should be loved as much as possible during their youth.

Is this a false dichotomy between love and maturity? Very old studies suggest that kids whos parents divorce are most mature, but this is a gender-affected thing. Boys become more street-wise, but fare less well academically. I can't remember what was said about girls, but I think they either feel the need to grow up quicker to bridge the parental gap or cling more to the remaining parent.

Quote

I, your humble essayist, am now growing up in a family where I always get constant attention and the things I want. I am an only child of wonderful parents, who are great enough to know how to raise their "perfect kid" (as they call me). I never have to worry about anything; in fact my parents do not let me worry about anything, save matters concerning school and learning. I suppose I am very lucky to be raised up in such a favourable environment, which allows me to retain my ecstatic spirits: I am and will always be a kid, for I am a kid forever.

Your dad is an education-obsessent who makes you read, read, read and write, write, write. You have practically no social life and choose to study instead of going out. Your parents are overly-strict and you are wasting / have wasted your childhood.

Quote

I write this essay to encourage adults to have only children or, at most, two children in a family. That way, these adults will be able to raise their kids better and most likely, if they know how, they might raise up talented kids of fine natures! Having many kids will, with a high chance, take away this opportunity.

Wrong. I suggest you do more research than anecdotal evidence and unsupported generalisations in future.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince of a Thousand enemies. And when they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you; digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

#16 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 01:46 PM

Hugo Hobling said:

It is full of the unsupported assertions David mentioned and sweeping generalisations about areas you have no understanding of

*sigh*I didn't intend this to be offensive. :( Let us do it again:

Assertion: Kids in large families do not get as much attention and love from parents as those in smaller families.
Support 1(tried my best): That is because in large families, parents are constantly worried about money, so that they can support your children.
Support 2(tried by best): The time they spend to work and take care of other things around the house takes away the time they should spend with the children.

Hugo Holbling said:

I think many parents of large families would find this "essay" offensive....you have no understanding of - and more importantly, absolutely no empathy with. If you talk this way to people when you are older you will at best get no respect from them and probably find yourself in considerable pain.

*sigh* :( what is this: [Sympathy]However, this is not to say that the parents in large families do not love their children; they simply do not have enough time and energy to take good care of them. [/Sympathy]

Hugo Holbling said:

This is exactly the kind of elitism we are trying to discourage here.

:shock:

Dear Hugo,

All arguments must leave traits to be exploited. No single argument, to tell the truth, can be so perfect and objective that it contains no fallacies, no traits, no nothing. In fact, writing gives way to further argument. Every single fact can be bended to the arguer's wish. For example, the fact that you said this "essay" may be "offensive" is an argument. A nice argument, even, but it wounds the essayist. But this cannot be avoided: arguers wound each other. That is something that needs tolerance, that is all, in argumentation. There has been, and should be, no elitism intended howsoever, not in the least intention was plotted.

Sincerely,
P.

#17 Hugo Holbling

Hugo Holbling

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  • Administrators
  • 3,870 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Paul

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:06 PM

Thanks for attempting to patronise me. Your "support" is nothing of the kind and applies the sweeping generalisations mosaic noted you have no experience of at all. Not all large families have financial concerns and love is not a commodity that is in limited supply, rationed according to how many children the profligate are foolish enough to have. Not everyone lives the sheltered existence you do, but they manage just fine without your "sympathy". If you cannot make the effort to explore ideas here instead of talking down to people, i suggest you find somewhere else for your "arguments".
"In everything that he'd ever thought about the world and about his life in it he'd been wrong." - Cities of the Plain

#18 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:19 PM

Hugo Holbling said:

Thanks for attempting to patronise me. Your "support" is nothing of the kind and applies the sweeping generalisations mosaic noted you have no experience of at all. Not all large families have financial concerns and love is not a commodity that is in limited supply, rationed according to how many children the profligate are foolish enough to have. Not everyone lives the sheltered existence you do, but they manage just fine without your "sympathy". If you cannot make the effort to explore ideas here instead of talking down to people, i suggest you find somewhere else for your "arguments".

Hugo,

I wonder why you always think that I talk in a haughty fashion? Certainly perhaps you interpret far too beyond the limitation of interpretation, for I do not mean to be such? I suppose next time I will only give explanations, for there is no more argument I can satisfactorily give on here.

Sincerely, :(
P.

#19 Hugo Holbling

Hugo Holbling

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  • Administrators
  • 3,870 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Paul

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:24 PM

Philosophy said:

I wonder why you always think that I talk in a haughty fashion?

It isn't just me, unfortunately. I wonder why you always dodge the criticism of others saying exactly the same thing?

Quote

Certainly perhaps you interpret far too beyond the limitation of interpretation?

"Certainly perhaps" [sic] i might, or i might not - just as the other critics saying the same "certainly perhaps" [sic] might or might not.

Quote

Could you be candid, please?

Sure:

HH said:

If you cannot make the effort to explore ideas here instead of talking down to people, i suggest you find somewhere else for your "arguments".

I can change the suggestion to a certainty, if you like.
"In everything that he'd ever thought about the world and about his life in it he'd been wrong." - Cities of the Plain

#20 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:28 PM

Quote

i might, or i might not - just as the other critics saying the same "certainly perhaps" [sic'] might or might not.

Ach, that's a mistake...Take out the "certainly", we have "perhaps", and perhaps "perhaps" alone would've done better.

#21 Hugo Holbling

Hugo Holbling

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  • Administrators
  • 3,870 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Paul

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:31 PM

Since you edited your post, i should add something:

Philosophy said:

I suppose next time I will only give explanations, for there is no more argument I can satisfactorily give on here.

That might be a sensible thing to suppose, given how often you've been told to do so. If you aren't going to address the criticism you've received - yet again - then this thread will be closed.
"In everything that he'd ever thought about the world and about his life in it he'd been wrong." - Cities of the Plain

#22 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:51 PM

mosaic]I would suggest

ask[/i'] questions. I see no reason for 'writing an essay' about this issue in ten minutes.

Ok, questions, but you're asking me so allow me to answer you.

"What do you know about large families?"
--I know that they have many kids, many things to be worried about, attention for kids divided (instead of putting total attention into one or two kids, one would have to divide it amongst, say, 7 kids)
"And the distribution of love?"
--Divided love
"Where are your arguments coming from?"
--Ach, perhaps from thinking and using the Cartesian "good sense". :? Does one necessarily need to experience something to be able to write about it? (there, you told me to ask question! :twisted:)
" Why do you feel so comfortable speaking broadly about them (hint: you shouldnt)?"
--"you shouldn't" is just your opinion (indeed :twisted:) but as I said to davidm, the "essay" (in quotation marks because some may not consider it one) is used to stimulate further thoughts. Although, as davidm said, the tone of the essay assumed that its matter be true, but I did not claim it so. Your opinion has 50% chance of being right, so perhaps you're right perhaps you're wrong in saying "you shouldn't"...

I wonder, what if at the beginning I took stance on large families instead of advocating that adults should choose to have as few children as possible so that they can raise their kids better? This is a sincere advice, but somehow, it is misunderstood as an evil omen :evil:. What if at the beginning I said that, "to be happy, one must have as many kids as possible, even though one has to work one's very stressful best to raise them all". Your choice, to say the truth. If you would like to have 17 kids in your house, the stress will be much greater than having just, say, 3 kids. Don't tell me that this is not true! More kids = more stress, one can imagine.  :x Kids aren't machines, and they're hard to raise! In fact they are more evil than my cats themselves! :kitty:

#23 Philosophy

Philosophy

    Salviatian

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 04 September 2005 - 02:56 PM

TheBeast said:

Is this a false dichotomy between love and maturity? Very old studies suggest that kids whos parents divorce are most mature, but this is a gender-affected thing. Boys become more street-wise, but fare less well academically. I can't remember what was said about girls, but I think they either feel the need to grow up quicker to bridge the parental gap or cling more to the remaining parent.

:shock: Is that so? Boys become more street-wise and less well academically? In my experience, one of my greatest academic opponents at school is a boy, of fine nature, whose parents are divorced. He ain't no mature, to tell the truth. He ain't no street-wise, to tell more truth. But one thing one knows for certainty is that he is academic-wise...

TheBeast said:

Your dad is an education-obsessent who makes you read, read, read and write, write, write. You have practically no social life and choose to study instead of going out. Your parents are overly-strict and you are wasting / have wasted your childhood.

Thanks, TheBeast... :shock: *TheBeast doesn't know that I go out, too...And in summer, I do travel, so I have some social life, to tell the truth*

Ok, today I've used too many "to tell the truth" phrases... :o

#24 Hugo Holbling

Hugo Holbling

    Corruptio optimi pessima

  • Administrators
  • 3,870 posts
  • LocationUK
  • Real name:Paul

Posted 04 September 2005 - 03:08 PM

Once again you've dodged most of the criticism on offer and hand-waved your way around the rest. You haven't explained why we can make an easy count of "things to be worried about"; why love is something that can be divided; why mosaic has a 50% chance of being right (another hint for you: he doesn't); or why stress stacks up in proportion to the number of children (thereby dodging what TheBeast told you). You could've started by advocating large families instead but you would've been told the same given your propensity for doing no more than assert the way things are.

Let's be "candid": you've been given far too many chances already on account of your age, a precedent we don't intend to set. Either you follow the warnings you've been handed and make more of an effort than this or you will not be a member of this forum by nightfall GMT. This site is not paid for, supported and developed through considerable effort to provide a platform for elitist children to hold forth on how the world should be according to their painfully limited experience of it. You won't be told again.

With apologies to anyone wishing to respond to the small amount of content here, this thread is closed.
"In everything that he'd ever thought about the world and about his life in it he'd been wrong." - Cities of the Plain




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users