View Single Post
  #36  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:15 PM
svxistentialist's Avatar
svxistentialist svxistentialist is offline
Jersey Girl
Alcyone Gold Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 8,270
Send a message via Skype™ to svxistentialist
Registered SVX
Re: What is worse? Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
Thank you, now only if this was the attitude we showed them.
Most of the attitude shown here is yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
I fully plan to, I'll post that shortly.
Neatly side-stepping the question. You do this well. Do you have politics in your list of future ambitions, by any chance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
You just stated that 18-21 is the biologically best suited age to have children? My feelings match this fact, if that offends you please accept my apology, but that is how I feel.
I'm not at all offended by this opinion so you don't need to apologise for it. You have the right to start a family any time you feel is optimal, and I would support you in this, absolutely. What offends me is your assertion that adults over 40 should not have children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
In no other way am I 'ageist', I fully respect, accept and appreciate the experience and opinions of my elders, I simply don't always agree with them. The majority of my elders that I come in direct contact with rarely agree with each other so I don't feel this should be offensive, sounds to me like reverse ageism when they take offense just because it was stated by a younger individual.
This statement does not hold water. The remark you made is offensive and ageist, and it would be regardless of the age of the person making the remark. Also, using a term like reverse ageism shows you don't fully understand the concept of ageism. You appear to be building an argument against prejudice towards teenagers who become pregnant, which is ageism because it is prejudice against a group based on their age, yet in defense of that argument you display ageism yourself against older parents. Stick with the political career. I can't see you making the grade as a lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
Now why is that necessary? I understand if you don't like what I have to say but do you be distasteful in return? I did not in any way intend to demean your choices, just how I feel personally. If that works for you, great! But as a person who has been overweight in the past in addition to smoking for a number of years, statistically I have already shortened my life. Based on that and a number of other reasons, I would like to preserve some of my 'post child rearing' years and spend more of my youth enjoying the time with my children.
I will support and not demean your choices also. Does being young and inexperienced and self opinionated give you the right to make distasteful statements, and not expect or earn a reply in like fashion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iizbeastie View Post
As you can see, I'm not alone. In this case, my decision led me to a lower number and there is no harm in that.
Low numbers are good. Lower numbers are good. High numbers are good. Higher numbers are good. This is called Freedom of Choice. It is something that the practitioners of eugenics would deny the general population.

Joe
__________________
Black Betty [Bam a Lam!] '93 UK spec, still languishing Betty
Jersey Girl Silver '92 UK [Channel Isles] 40K Jersey Girl @ Mersea
Candy Purple Honda Blackbird Plum Dangerous
White X2 RVR Mitsubishi 1800GDI. Vantastic

40,000 miles Jersey Girl
Reply With Quote