Most ignorant thing Ive heard...

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:35 pm

So I am a member of this fitness and nutrition forum...they have a section for general chit chat, right?

Well someone posted in there something about only children vs siblings. Here was one person's reply:

"God made Adam and Eve, Noah built the ark for 2 of every living creature...I believe that we are desitined to be at least a pair...so not having an only child is not the way nature intended... "

I swear, I havent heard anything that ignorant in a loooong time. I had to chuckle...

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:36 pm

And let me add, the amount of people who said all only children grew up to be spoiled brats was astronomical...very insightful to say the least...

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:59 pm

I was a spoiled brat and I was the second child by 10 years. And I knew my limits even then, asking my mother if we could afford something. So **** those idiots that make grand sweeping statements like that. What the hell do they know?

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 9:50 pm

Not sure what that person meant, but that sounds pretty ignorant to me.

My daughter had one child and then had a second when the first was 12.

Both her kids seemed to think they were the only child.

They were a tad self-absorded, for a while, but they settled down to be fine.

Don't sweat the Only Child thing. If you raise the kid right, He/She will be fine.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:34 pm

I'm confused. This person was against having one child but said "not having an only child is not the way nature intended..."

?

Do they understand double negatives? I, personally, have heard much more ignorant things uttered, even in passing, but if they were against having one child only then their statement does go up a notch in stupidity.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:47 pm

As an example of a stupid thing I've heard said:

I had a roommate who stopped paying their rent. On the second month it became necessary to discuss the issue. The young man sat on my couch proclaiming his woe with "You think I like this? Instead of being fired with no references you think I wouldn't rather be making tons of dough with some chick sitting here sucking my ****?? If I had rent I'd pay it."

The result of that stupidity was finding his stuff outside the door with the locks changed the next day. The question isn't how stupid can people be but what will you let them get away with before someone shows them it doesn't work.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:36 am

She was stupid and I didnt notice the double negative. It isnt my job to show her how her stupidity doesnt work. I just cant even believe she went there. Does she want siblings to mate?

Im proud "one and done" and my kid is nicer and more empathetic than most kids his age.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:54 am

One and done strikes me as the only ethical approach to global overpopulation. I suspect the fundamentalists who go forth and multiply annually for as long as they can keep it up are really trying to bring on the End-times. We should choose a sustainable global population profile and enforce it with a points system.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:59 am

Agreed. did I mention we are not only "one and done" but that are child was adopted. I have no desire whatsoever to experience pregnancy, change more diapers, or at the very least go through the terrible 2's EVER again. Here is a blog I posted about it(IF you care to read it, I know how busy people are):

The (mis)Adventures of William Alexander: Mommyland Part II, no thank you...

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:01 am

spot;1371906 wrote: One and done strikes me as the only ethical approach to global overpopulation. I suspect the fundamentalists who go forth and multiply annually for as long as they can keep it up are really trying to bring on the End-times. We should choose a sustainable global population profile and enforce it with a points system.

In my reply to that other forum I mentioned the Duggars (google them, theyre easy to find). Since everyone wanted to take it to the extreme of "all only-children are spoiled brats" I proposed we take it to the other extreme and asked if it was possible that a mother couldnt possibly provide adequate attention to too many children. To prove my point, this Duggar woman appoints older children to watch her younger children...

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:03 am

I had the Duggars in mind when I typed fundamentalist, yes.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:10 am

WAMOMMA;1371907 wrote: Here is a blog I posted about itAnd startling stuff it is too. They do improve, the phase is developmental and unavoidable, have you considered an iPod. For you, not for him. Soothy music.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:17 am

spot;1371910 wrote: And startling stuff it is too. They do improve, the phase is developmental and unavoidable, have you considered an iPod. For you, not for him. Soothy music.

I actually just started plugging it in and wearing the earphones when he is throwing one of his epic tantrums. God. I cant wait to get out of this stage. Its HELL. Everyone says three is worse but four is heaven. hee hee.

I am the parent that lays the screaming kicking child in the floor and walks away. I dont do tantrums. And surprisingly they are getting few and farther between.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:33 am

koan;1371895 wrote: I'm confused. This person was against having one child but said "not having an only child is not the way nature intended..."

?I was thinking the same thing. I assumed they meant "I believe that we are desitined to be at least a pair...so not having an only child is the way nature intended... " or alternatlively deleting the first "not" and leaving the second but in any case...

Was this a typo by you WOMMAMA or perhaps the ignorance you're emphasizing is in their contradiction? I suppose both is ignorant but then again for some reason or another I've concerned myself with knowing and I doubt I could continue the rest of the day without coming to terms with this

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:34 am

The invention of the naughty step was a great leap forward in calming the brutes. Remembering it's not their fault helps too.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:42 am

spot;1371906 wrote: One and done strikes me as the only ethical approach to global overpopulation. I suspect the fundamentalists who go forth and multiply annually for as long as they can keep it up are really trying to bring on the End-times. We should choose a sustainable global population profile and enforce it with a points system.Darwinism argues the exact opposite. Is it a global plague that worries you with "global overpopulation" or is it war?

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:04 am

I thought the ignorant part was bringing the whole religous aspect of creationism and animals on a boat into it. Forget the grammar.

Edited to add: Just to give some persepctive, the whole thread was about the benefits of having an only child or children.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:28 am

K.Snyder;1371916 wrote: Darwinism argues the exact opposite. Is it a global plague that worries you with "global overpopulation" or is it war?

Neither. It's setting aside enough of the planet - or, long-term, additional planets - for most other terrestrial species to flourish indefinitely, especially the large ones. That just about sums up my entire concern for the future, nothing else matters as much.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:49 am

spot;1371930 wrote: Neither. It's setting aside enough of the planet - or, long-term, additional planets - for most other terrestrial species to flourish indefinitely, especially the large ones. That just about sums up my entire concern for the future, nothing else matters as much.Ah. The anti-existentialist solution. Very nice.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:10 am

WAMOMMA;1371921 wrote: I thought the ignorant part was bringing the whole religous aspect of creationism and animals on a boat into it. Forget the grammar.

Edited to add: Just to give some persepctive, the whole thread was about the benefits of having an only child or children.

That's your polite way of asking people to stay on topic, isn't it. LOL

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:35 am

SnoozeAgain;1371943 wrote: That's your polite way of asking people to stay on topic, isn't it. LOLShe'd have to be polite when considering her own train of thought.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:15 am

WAMOMMA;1371885 wrote: So I am a member of this fitness and nutrition forum...they have a section for general chit chat, right?

Well someone posted in there something about only children vs siblings. Here was one person's reply:

"God made Adam and Eve, Noah built the ark for 2 of every living creature...I believe that we are desitined to be at least a pair...so not having an only child is not the way nature intended... "

I swear, I havent heard anything that ignorant in a loooong time. I had to chuckle...

You don't read my posts do you?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:26 am

K.Snyder;1371951 wrote: She'd have to be polite when considering her own train of thought.

Maybe it's me but that make no sense at all. Gibberish. Nonsensical.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:59 am

K.Snyder;1371951 wrote: She'd have to be polite when considering her own train of thought.

Yeah, what does that even mean?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:39 am

It means that no one could have went off topic other than the OP who edited the last post referenced to include the very reasoning behind the thread...

If that doesn't make sense let me know and I'll try and reword

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:58 am

I still dont understand what you mean and I quite frankly dont care if anyone goes off topic. its not that big a deal.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:13 am

K.Snyder;1371994 wrote: It means that no one could have went off topic other than the OP who edited the last post referenced to include the very reasoning behind the thread...

If that doesn't make sense let me know and I'll try and reword

You know... here and there, there are posts In threads you have posted In saying they don't understand your posts.

You make perfect sense to me Kev even with the Atlantic divide..

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:33 pm

oscar;1371999 wrote: You know... here and there, there are posts In threads you have posted In saying they don't understand your posts.

You make perfect sense to me Kev even with the Atlantic divide..

I'm not sure what you understand is what he intended though. There's too little meaningful information for you to extract anything other than a guess. Your guess may be a well-formed intelligible comment but I see no means by which it can be a paraphrase of the intention, you can't strike lucky every time.

We could test the notion if you type your paraphrase and let us compare it back to both of Kevin's versions. Which post is Wamomma accused of editing, for instance?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:49 pm

Life is frequently the voice of raspberries working in the labor of the sun.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:52 pm

Heads up, the bachelor hyena is in the building.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:55 pm

spot;1372026 wrote: Heads up, the bachelor hyena is in the building.

I labor under the illusion that skynet isn't my future yet I frequently bray at the moon in protest. You might smite me with the title of bachelor yet I eat cuties every holiday since I enjoy citrus so much. How dare you.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:01 pm

SnoozeAgain;1372028 wrote: I labor under the illusion that skynet isn't my future yet I frequently bray at the moon in protest. You might smite me with the title of bachelor yet I eat cuties every holiday since I enjoy citrus so much. How dare you.

You know what's disturbing? That actually made more sense than most of K's posts.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:08 pm

At which point does it become a failing on the part of the communicator when her/his post is not understood? Is the point reached when two or more people don't understand it?

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:37 pm

SnoozeAgain;1372029 wrote: You know what's disturbing? That actually made more sense than most of K's posts.

You were quoting one of his posts from last year, as an example. I can't find it but I remember seeing it.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:13 pm

spot;1372041 wrote: You were quoting one of his posts from last year, as an example. I can't find it but I remember seeing it.

I don't believe I was but proving me wrong might be an entertaining way to spend your Saturday night.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:31 pm

It seems the thread was about whether or not this is the most ignorant thing W should expect to hear in life and, potentially, asking for help in coming up with an argument in response. I ventured that she should brace for much worse and offered the easy starting point of attacking that he obviously meant the opposite of what he said. She seemed to take that approach personally so I'm now not sure if we're dealing with an actual quote or something W paraphrased.

Assuming it's a quote, once again, I'd next go for the fact that the animals were brought on the ark in twos so that they could mate together and reproduce so this gentleman should kill any second children who are not of opposite sex to the first and he should be prepared to live in the deep backwoods so his children can mate without being ridiculed.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:02 pm

In my usual annoying way, I really feel compelled to add that the thread title was massively disappointing. For one, whether or not to have an only child is such an obscure point of lifestyle choice to pick on... sometimes not even within the control of an individual and second, because the comment is so easy to expose as downright idiocy I can't believe it had the ability to cause upset. Really. My question isn't why this person said such a stupid thing... because lots of stupid things get said every day. My question is why did it **** you off? I'd have laughed my ass off. And I have an only child.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:58 pm

I must very poorly express myself through the written word.

1) It didnt **** me off in the least.

2) I laughed harder than I have in a long time because clearly, it has no logical reasoning/train of thought for the reasons you stated koan.

3) Its a direct quote from a woman on a fitness/nutrition board.

Imagine me rolling my eyes and laughing while saying this thread title. Thats more my feeling about the whole damn thing.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:01 am

koan;1372072 wrote: In my usual annoying way, I really feel compelled to add that the thread title was massively disappointing. For one, whether or not to have an only child is such an obscure point of lifestyle choice to pick on... sometimes not even within the control of an individual and second, because the comment is so easy to expose as downright idiocy I can't believe it had the ability to cause upset. Really. My question isn't why this person said such a stupid thing... because lots of stupid things get said every day. My question is why did it **** you off? I'd have laughed my ass off. And I have an only child.

I just went back to the OP, what would have given you the impression this person pissed me off? It says clearly I had to chuckle. That means laugh in American...

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:06 am

WAMOMMA;1372077 wrote: I just went back to the OP, what would have given you the impression this person pissed me off? It says clearly I had to chuckle. That means laugh in American...
hmmm

lets see...

WAMOMMA;1371903 wrote: She was stupid and I didnt notice the double negative. It isnt my job to show her how her stupidity doesnt work. I just cant even believe she went there. Does she want siblings to mate?

Im proud "one and done" and my kid is nicer and more empathetic than most kids his age.
I responded as if this was all laughable and you kinda freaked out.

hopefully the inbred line of response will give you something more useful and less likely to be angry with me for trying to help.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:13 am

Im not angry at all. Not even miffed, perturbed, whatever...

Just sharing something funny as hell to me.

I would have never even replied to that woman or her post because I (my opinion) believe her stupidity is so vast its kind of pitiful.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:15 am

K. whatever. if you don't have an issue with the subject being offensive then I don't see why I was off topic discussing whether or not it's the stupidest thing you'll hear.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:19 am

who said anything about being off topic? Are you upset about something? Im lost.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:28 am

oscar;1371999 wrote: You know... here and there, there are posts In threads you have posted In saying they don't understand your posts.

You make perfect sense to me Kev even with the Atlantic divide..

Ah thank you, how charming :yh_bigsmi :yh_wink

Uh, oh,..I think I just angered someone...

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:29 am

WAMOMMA;1372081 wrote: who said anything about being off topic? Are you upset about something? Im lost.
WAMOMMA;1371921 wrote: I thought the ignorant part was bringing the whole religous aspect of creationism and animals on a boat into it. Forget the grammar.

Edited to add: Just to give some persepctive, the whole thread was about the benefits of having an only child or children.

SnoozeAgain;1371943 wrote: That's your polite way of asking people to stay on topic, isn't it. LOL
call me guilty of skim reading

Today a woman nearly quit her job because she couldn't figure out why the debits didn't equal the credits. She was following a chart that had "Enter A... B... C..." and was so stressed she couldn't step back and figure it out logically. The woman in question is quite intelligent, she was just misled by a piece of paper that said A will be followed by B pay no attention to the rest of the data. Imagine now if that piece of paper had a microphone and an historic piece of literature ascribed to saving souls in front of them. One can hardly be blamed for thinking A will be followed by B and blaming X for any disturbance in the force of C.

Perhaps we're all lost.

I still think that you should be prepared for more ignorant and relevant statements than the one that inspired this thread.

Do you really wish to inspire a thread extolling the virtues of only children? I don't see why one is better than the other.

WAMOMMA · Post by **WAMOMMA** » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:41 am

Whatever that means...

Im sure I'll hear more ignorance, because I am quite young.

I dont think one child vs. multiplie children is any better than the other, I would just prefer one not use Noah and the Ark and Adam and Eve as examples to support your position on multiple childern being a "better option". One doesnt have anything to do with the other.

And as far as MY OPINION, it clearly states in my blog (I dont expect you to read it, but I'll share the relevant part) having one child is what is best for me. Having muktiple children might be what is best for someone else.

Is that clear?