[davelj]

Marion, do you have rocks in your head? Seriously.

Marion: “You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic. Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

Weird? Lunatic? I prefer “eccentric” but use whatever adjective makes you feel better about yourself. That you think I’m a lunatic is actually comforting. I’d probably shoot myself in the head if I discovered my thinking resembled yours on anything meaningful. Self loathing of oneself? You cannot be serious. Ok, fess up, Marion. Did this come from Oprah or one of your self-help books? Your attempts at psychoanalysis are pitiful and obvious. If I’m not pro-human, I can’t be pro-Dave? What? You’re… just… uggh… Look, I hate the Yankees but like Mariano Rivera. I can root for the Yankees demise and still root for Rivera’s success. They’re not mutually exclusive. Catch the analogy? There are plenty of “critical thinking” classes that are available at the community college level.

Marion: I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. …We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to… Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

First of all, it’s not “contributed,” but rather “attributed.” Having said that…

I agree with your last sentence because it’s stating the obvious. Here are my questions to you, Marion, since you’re obviously a dedicated environmentalist: We don’t need cars, huh? Ok. Do you drive a car? We don’t need plastic bags, huh? Do you use plastic bags? We don’t need toys, huh? Do you have anything that would be considered a toy? All we need is a roof over our head and clean water and soil for food, huh? That sounds awesome, Marion. If you truly believe all of this stuff, then you should be living out in Ted Kaczynski’s shack. It’s available and it’s perfect for your professed beliefs. But, you see, that’s all BS. Because you drive a car, use plastic bags, have toys and live in the suburbs, with all that implies. Why? Because you don’t have any intention of giving up the conveniences of modern life to live the life that you described above. You’re a complete hypocrite. All hat and no cattle. Hell, Marion, you’re so full of crap that if you gave yourself an enema, what’s left would fit inside a match box.

Regarding my comments on two parent vs. one parent households, you said, “If you feel this way, I feel sorry for you.” Earth to Marion. I was just reporting what I’ve read on the subject. There’s no opinion on my part on that subject. I don’t “feel” any way on the issue. I thought that was obvious, but I should have made that clearer for folks like you that are a little slow on the uptake.

[As to your procreation comments… it’s too philosophical and would confuse you. Believe whatever you want. Frankly, I don’t have the time or the patience.]

It’s a gorgeous day. Even by San Diego standards. So I’m off to the beach… but not until after I’ve engaged in some self loathing. Anyone know where I can buy some of those cat-o-nine-tails for some self-flagellation? Bwahahahaha…

[davelj]

Marion, do you have rocks in your head? Seriously.

Marion: “You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic. Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

Weird? Lunatic? I prefer “eccentric” but use whatever adjective makes you feel better about yourself. That you think I’m a lunatic is actually comforting. I’d probably shoot myself in the head if I discovered my thinking resembled yours on anything meaningful. Self loathing of oneself? You cannot be serious. Ok, fess up, Marion. Did this come from Oprah or one of your self-help books? Your attempts at psychoanalysis are pitiful and obvious. If I’m not pro-human, I can’t be pro-Dave? What? You’re… just… uggh… Look, I hate the Yankees but like Mariano Rivera. I can root for the Yankees demise and still root for Rivera’s success. They’re not mutually exclusive. Catch the analogy? There are plenty of “critical thinking” classes that are available at the community college level.

Marion: I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. …We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to… Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

First of all, it’s not “contributed,” but rather “attributed.” Having said that…

I agree with your last sentence because it’s stating the obvious. Here are my questions to you, Marion, since you’re obviously a dedicated environmentalist: We don’t need cars, huh? Ok. Do you drive a car? We don’t need plastic bags, huh? Do you use plastic bags? We don’t need toys, huh? Do you have anything that would be considered a toy? All we need is a roof over our head and clean water and soil for food, huh? That sounds awesome, Marion. If you truly believe all of this stuff, then you should be living out in Ted Kaczynski’s shack. It’s available and it’s perfect for your professed beliefs. But, you see, that’s all BS. Because you drive a car, use plastic bags, have toys and live in the suburbs, with all that implies. Why? Because you don’t have any intention of giving up the conveniences of modern life to live the life that you described above. You’re a complete hypocrite. All hat and no cattle. Hell, Marion, you’re so full of crap that if you gave yourself an enema, what’s left would fit inside a match box.

Regarding my comments on two parent vs. one parent households, you said, “If you feel this way, I feel sorry for you.” Earth to Marion. I was just reporting what I’ve read on the subject. There’s no opinion on my part on that subject. I don’t “feel” any way on the issue. I thought that was obvious, but I should have made that clearer for folks like you that are a little slow on the uptake.

[As to your procreation comments… it’s too philosophical and would confuse you. Believe whatever you want. Frankly, I don’t have the time or the patience.]

It’s a gorgeous day. Even by San Diego standards. So I’m off to the beach… but not until after I’ve engaged in some self loathing. Anyone know where I can buy some of those cat-o-nine-tails for some self-flagellation? Bwahahahaha…

[davelj]

Marion, do you have rocks in your head? Seriously.

Marion: “You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic. Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

Weird? Lunatic? I prefer “eccentric” but use whatever adjective makes you feel better about yourself. That you think I’m a lunatic is actually comforting. I’d probably shoot myself in the head if I discovered my thinking resembled yours on anything meaningful. Self loathing of oneself? You cannot be serious. Ok, fess up, Marion. Did this come from Oprah or one of your self-help books? Your attempts at psychoanalysis are pitiful and obvious. If I’m not pro-human, I can’t be pro-Dave? What? You’re… just… uggh… Look, I hate the Yankees but like Mariano Rivera. I can root for the Yankees demise and still root for Rivera’s success. They’re not mutually exclusive. Catch the analogy? There are plenty of “critical thinking” classes that are available at the community college level.

Marion: I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. …We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to… Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

First of all, it’s not “contributed,” but rather “attributed.” Having said that…

I agree with your last sentence because it’s stating the obvious. Here are my questions to you, Marion, since you’re obviously a dedicated environmentalist: We don’t need cars, huh? Ok. Do you drive a car? We don’t need plastic bags, huh? Do you use plastic bags? We don’t need toys, huh? Do you have anything that would be considered a toy? All we need is a roof over our head and clean water and soil for food, huh? That sounds awesome, Marion. If you truly believe all of this stuff, then you should be living out in Ted Kaczynski’s shack. It’s available and it’s perfect for your professed beliefs. But, you see, that’s all BS. Because you drive a car, use plastic bags, have toys and live in the suburbs, with all that implies. Why? Because you don’t have any intention of giving up the conveniences of modern life to live the life that you described above. You’re a complete hypocrite. All hat and no cattle. Hell, Marion, you’re so full of crap that if you gave yourself an enema, what’s left would fit inside a match box.

Regarding my comments on two parent vs. one parent households, you said, “If you feel this way, I feel sorry for you.” Earth to Marion. I was just reporting what I’ve read on the subject. There’s no opinion on my part on that subject. I don’t “feel” any way on the issue. I thought that was obvious, but I should have made that clearer for folks like you that are a little slow on the uptake.

[As to your procreation comments… it’s too philosophical and would confuse you. Believe whatever you want. Frankly, I don’t have the time or the patience.]

It’s a gorgeous day. Even by San Diego standards. So I’m off to the beach… but not until after I’ve engaged in some self loathing. Anyone know where I can buy some of those cat-o-nine-tails for some self-flagellation? Bwahahahaha…

[davelj]

Marion, do you have rocks in your head? Seriously.

Marion: “You’re just here to observe??” Dave do you know how weird that sounds? You sound like a freakin’ lunatic. Considering Silo’s post, I would agree that it’s a loathing of humanity, but also, and most importantly, born out of a loathing of oneself. Are you aware that if you’re not pro-human, you can’t be pro-Dave?

Weird? Lunatic? I prefer “eccentric” but use whatever adjective makes you feel better about yourself. That you think I’m a lunatic is actually comforting. I’d probably shoot myself in the head if I discovered my thinking resembled yours on anything meaningful. Self loathing of oneself? You cannot be serious. Ok, fess up, Marion. Did this come from Oprah or one of your self-help books? Your attempts at psychoanalysis are pitiful and obvious. If I’m not pro-human, I can’t be pro-Dave? What? You’re… just… uggh… Look, I hate the Yankees but like Mariano Rivera. I can root for the Yankees demise and still root for Rivera’s success. They’re not mutually exclusive. Catch the analogy? There are plenty of “critical thinking” classes that are available at the community college level.

Marion: I would say that any destruction of the planet has more to do with the industrialization of the planet, than the fact that human beings inhabit the planet. That can be contributed to the greed and outlook of SOME of us humans that inhabit it. We don’t need space shuttles, cars, guns, plastic bags, nuclear weapons, aresol sprays, etc that deplete our earth of its natural resources and f*ck up our ecosystem. …We don’t need all these toys. The best things in life are natural and free. A roof over our head to raise our children and to make love and make more children if we want, enriched soil to grow our own food, unpoluted water to drink, bathe and wash clothes. We don’t have to kill and eat animals if we don’t want to… Thus the destruction of the planet comes not from the fact that we are here, it’s how we behave while we are here.

First of all, it’s not “contributed,” but rather “attributed.” Having said that…

I agree with your last sentence because it’s stating the obvious. Here are my questions to you, Marion, since you’re obviously a dedicated environmentalist: We don’t need cars, huh? Ok. Do you drive a car? We don’t need plastic bags, huh? Do you use plastic bags? We don’t need toys, huh? Do you have anything that would be considered a toy? All we need is a roof over our head and clean water and soil for food, huh? That sounds awesome, Marion. If you truly believe all of this stuff, then you should be living out in Ted Kaczynski’s shack. It’s available and it’s perfect for your professed beliefs. But, you see, that’s all BS. Because you drive a car, use plastic bags, have toys and live in the suburbs, with all that implies. Why? Because you don’t have any intention of giving up the conveniences of modern life to live the life that you described above. You’re a complete hypocrite. All hat and no cattle. Hell, Marion, you’re so full of crap that if you gave yourself an enema, what’s left would fit inside a match box.

Regarding my comments on two parent vs. one parent households, you said, “If you feel this way, I feel sorry for you.” Earth to Marion. I was just reporting what I’ve read on the subject. There’s no opinion on my part on that subject. I don’t “feel” any way on the issue. I thought that was obvious, but I should have made that clearer for folks like you that are a little slow on the uptake.

[As to your procreation comments… it’s too philosophical and would confuse you. Believe whatever you want. Frankly, I don’t have the time or the patience.]

It’s a gorgeous day. Even by San Diego standards. So I’m off to the beach… but not until after I’ve engaged in some self loathing. Anyone know where I can buy some of those cat-o-nine-tails for some self-flagellation? Bwahahahaha…

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

I can’t tell whether some of you folks can’t read or just can’t comprehend what you read. Having said that…

sifo, if you read my entire post then you know that I’m NOT an environmentalist, so I have no idea why you’d write that I provide “refreshing honesty for once from the environmentalist perspective.” You also wrote that my view is “based on a true loathing of humanity– a core belief that the very presence of human beings is an offense to nature.” Also wrong. I’m neither pro-human, nor anti-human. I’m a neutral, disinterested observer. If humans wipe themselves out in a hundred years, fine. If our kind is still prospering in a million years, wonderful. Again, I’m just here to observe. Let the chips fall where they may. It makes no difference to me.

But… where this planet’s environment is concerned, I still haven’t heard a rebuttal to my point that having children is one of the most destructive things a couple can do. To repeat myself, I don’t care if people have 10 children because, again, I don’t have an emotional attachment to what happens to this planet beyond my own lifetime. But how you or Marion “feel” about children and perpetuating human life is not relevant. So I’ll ask you, Marion, or anyone else, AGAIN, to disprove my thesis. Stick to facts and leave out the “feelings.”

sifo, you also said that “what you do is insignificant and pales in comparison to the importance of creating and raising good human beings for the next generation, which by the way are not a burden to the planet, but the purpose of the planet.” Really? Says who (besides you)? I’m a reasonably objective, thoughtful person and I’ve gotta admit to you that I’m not really sure what the “purpose of the planet” is. And I’m pretty confident that you don’t know what it is either. But I’m pretty sure what it’s NOT – and that’s “raising good human beings for the next generation.” That’s spoken like someone with a fantastically myopic, self-important view of the world and our universe. I’ll say it again, in the scheme of the universe the existence of humans on the Planet Earth is just one of many accidents. No more, no less. There’s also no Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy or old guy named Peter waiting to let you into some fantasy world after you die. Sorry to disappoint you.

jpinpb, where to begin? You wrote that “Some men like the Daves of the world or paranoid men overestimate their need which they claim is for money and sperm.” Where on Earth did you get this from one of my posts? Please explain with specifics. I’m totally unnecessary. I’m the first one to admit it. And wouldn’t have anyone believe otherwise. Sure, technically if a woman wants to have children she’s gotta find some sperm. But if she has her own means and can access semen, then she sure as hell doesn’t need a man for anything. So I have no idea how you read any of my posts and came to the conclusion you did. Please enlighten me.

You also wrote, “The real purpose of men and women on the planet is to procreate. Why would you be given that ability if it were not meant to continue life?” That is the most illogical statement I’ve read in quite some time. Humans also have the ability to kill people. To use your logic, “Why would we be given that ability if it weren’t meant to extinguish life.” We exist because via evolution our human ancestors had the ability to procreate and we have that ability too. But to suggest that our “real purpose” is to procreate is a uniquely narrow, “humans are special” view of the world. I would argue that there is no “real purpose” of men and women on the planet. If you believe that YOUR real purpose is to procreate, then have at it. I’ve got no problem with that. But don’t lump those of us who view things differently in with yourself.

A generic comment on two parent vs. one parent households. The degree to which kids are “well adjusted” or “successful as adults” is much more highly correlated to the parents’ education level and the emphasis they place on education for their kids than it is as to whether there are two parents living under the same roof. To use an extreme example, statistically speaking, the kids of two divorced professionals are on average going to turn out more well-adjusted (and successful as adults) than the kids of a married couple in Bumfuck, Utah that didn’t graduate from high school. Again, on average. There are exceptions to every rule. But I see nothing magical about having two parents living under the same roof. The issue is the quality of the parenting and the emphasis on fundamentals, education being a very big one.

OK, off to watch a ball game.

[davelj]

Marion, get over yourself. You’re incapable of angering me. It’s mind over matter – I don’t mind because you don’t matter. But I do find you entertaining. And for that I’m grateful.

“Let’s stop this thread?” Why? I’m enjoying this. “It’s rather childish?” Well, yeah. Again, I’m enjoying this. How often do I, an adult, get to be this childish. Unfortunately, not often enough. By all means let’s keep this going.

But, alas, for my part, I’m going out for the evening. Who knows… maybe I’ll meet some floozy with questionable morals. With a little luck… Anyhow, until tomorrow…

(By the way, since you broached it above, one of the many differences between you and I is that I remain “alone” – defined here as unmarried – entirely by choice. It’s clear from some of your posts, on the other hand, that you’re searching for a mate… and failing. That’s known as a distinction with a difference.)

[davelj]

Marion, get over yourself. You’re incapable of angering me. It’s mind over matter – I don’t mind because you don’t matter. But I do find you entertaining. And for that I’m grateful.

“Let’s stop this thread?” Why? I’m enjoying this. “It’s rather childish?” Well, yeah. Again, I’m enjoying this. How often do I, an adult, get to be this childish. Unfortunately, not often enough. By all means let’s keep this going.

But, alas, for my part, I’m going out for the evening. Who knows… maybe I’ll meet some floozy with questionable morals. With a little luck… Anyhow, until tomorrow…

(By the way, since you broached it above, one of the many differences between you and I is that I remain “alone” – defined here as unmarried – entirely by choice. It’s clear from some of your posts, on the other hand, that you’re searching for a mate… and failing. That’s known as a distinction with a difference.)

[davelj]

Marion, get over yourself. You’re incapable of angering me. It’s mind over matter – I don’t mind because you don’t matter. But I do find you entertaining. And for that I’m grateful.

“Let’s stop this thread?” Why? I’m enjoying this. “It’s rather childish?” Well, yeah. Again, I’m enjoying this. How often do I, an adult, get to be this childish. Unfortunately, not often enough. By all means let’s keep this going.

But, alas, for my part, I’m going out for the evening. Who knows… maybe I’ll meet some floozy with questionable morals. With a little luck… Anyhow, until tomorrow…

(By the way, since you broached it above, one of the many differences between you and I is that I remain “alone” – defined here as unmarried – entirely by choice. It’s clear from some of your posts, on the other hand, that you’re searching for a mate… and failing. That’s known as a distinction with a difference.)

[davelj]

Marion, get over yourself. You’re incapable of angering me. It’s mind over matter – I don’t mind because you don’t matter. But I do find you entertaining. And for that I’m grateful.

“Let’s stop this thread?” Why? I’m enjoying this. “It’s rather childish?” Well, yeah. Again, I’m enjoying this. How often do I, an adult, get to be this childish. Unfortunately, not often enough. By all means let’s keep this going.

But, alas, for my part, I’m going out for the evening. Who knows… maybe I’ll meet some floozy with questionable morals. With a little luck… Anyhow, until tomorrow…

(By the way, since you broached it above, one of the many differences between you and I is that I remain “alone” – defined here as unmarried – entirely by choice. It’s clear from some of your posts, on the other hand, that you’re searching for a mate… and failing. That’s known as a distinction with a difference.)

[davelj]

Marion, get over yourself. You’re incapable of angering me. It’s mind over matter – I don’t mind because you don’t matter. But I do find you entertaining. And for that I’m grateful.

“Let’s stop this thread?” Why? I’m enjoying this. “It’s rather childish?” Well, yeah. Again, I’m enjoying this. How often do I, an adult, get to be this childish. Unfortunately, not often enough. By all means let’s keep this going.

But, alas, for my part, I’m going out for the evening. Who knows… maybe I’ll meet some floozy with questionable morals. With a little luck… Anyhow, until tomorrow…

(By the way, since you broached it above, one of the many differences between you and I is that I remain “alone” – defined here as unmarried – entirely by choice. It’s clear from some of your posts, on the other hand, that you’re searching for a mate… and failing. That’s known as a distinction with a difference.)

[davelj]

Marion wrote: “Dave, I understand you have to pay prostitutes, as mentioned previously, no decent woman would have you. I, on the other hand, don’t have to resort to such tactics.”

Apparently you do, Marion. How’s the search for that vaginamoney lawyer coming along?

As a point of fact, I’ve never actually directly paid for sex before (not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course – I’m not ruling it out for the future), but I’ve paid for a lot of meals, gifts, vacations, etc. for women over the years (that could be interpreted as “indirect” payment for sex). Of course, if these women are considered “prostitutes” by you… and I recall from an earlier post of yours that you were complaining about a guy not treating you to a “nice dinner” (I believe it was)… wait a minute, Marion… this whole prostitute thing is starting to take an interesting turn…

[Author]

Posts