Taking sides: Children vs. (non-human) animals

I wasn't talking about you there lex, as I said ages ago I think a simple statement of "I don't enjoy the company of children" is understandable and reasonable

there was a whole wild tangent that ∞ was getting into about expression and communication and ideas that bears no resemblance to my experience of what individual humans - kids or adults - can share with us if we're receptive to them, or about what interactions and relationships really are about, or about any experience I recognise about being one being in a world full of beings tbh

i'll leave that for others to decide xpost.

lex started it

theyre not capable of thinking in complex ways due to their lack of real life experience

you can talk to them about social justice, the environment, equality, but it ends there. their reactions cannot be compared to an adult and are scientifically primitive

I mean, there are umpteen ways that this is just wrong, to me, but the heart of the wrongness is that somehow "complex" thinking produces the kinds of interaction most worthy of our time. I mean, to go back to animals for a minute, how much I value interacting with a dog or a cat is not remotely predicated on what I believe to be the complexity of their abstract thought

what is it that children fail to do, in conversations, which adults have learned to do?

i'll leave that for others to decide xpost.

― Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Friday, December 16, 2016 9:57 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

others can decide what they want but you've consistently exaggerated everything i've said to a ludicrous extent. you're a fucking disingenuous weirdo for it.

i don't think that's true, the previous time you said this was when you forgot you used the word "hated".

and when you wilfully misinterpreted "irritated" as "irate"?

do not try it with me ronan. leave me the fuck alone.

i mean you revived a thread called "children v dogs" - you could take a minute and think "maybe some of the things i'm saying are offending people, why is that?"

i say that as someone not personally offended by anything you said itt.

the original thread didn't seem to contain any offended people despite several posters opting for dogs???

is there a reason for that? i haven't read the original. it might contain different words i suppose.

oh is this still going on? yes yes children are terrible they bang on and on about the same thing for days and get mardy when people don't say what they want

fair comment but we need to hear from hunde for balance

is there a reason for that?

Fewer ILXors had kids 12 years ago.

I like asking parents about their experiences - or rather their kid experiences, particularly with technology. The subject fascinates me although I'm not set on having kids myself.

I've still got it in for anyone who puts 'Dad' (or, worse, 'Husband') in their Twitter bio though. What is that about?

DONT TRY IT

Wilf is annoyed with the turn this thread has taken. You really don't want to annoy Wilf.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czy_XHCWEAEX1fl.jpg

I would never annoy Wilf! I choose Wilf!

whippet I'd like to f?

Wilfred!

LOL, his owner is gay and Wilf makes a beeline for any well-dressed man in the street, so one of his owner's many nicknames for this guy is Cock Magnet.

I ran some tests. I found that dogs instinctively know how to swim and children do not. Point goes to dogs.
Unfortunately I'll need a good amount of time before I am reequipped and able to run the next test.

But how long would a dog survive on a roof

we put a baby and a dog on a roof. what happened next will shock you

Did they have a complex interaction

Never put kiddies where fiddlers have been known to hang out imo

i thought babies actually could swim if you put them in the water. i never tested this.

that one on the nirvana cover seems to be doing ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbrMcH63XM0

oh okay, they are faking it:

"it's not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are. A reflex called the bradycardic response makes babies hold their breath and open their eyes when submerged in water, says Jeffrey Wagener, a pediatric pulmonologist in Colorado."

that scares the shit of me, what kind of monster would put their baby in a pool

any adult could argue a 5yo is as good a conversationalist just encapsulates how boring and awful people get on parenthood, when their level of conversation is reduced to talking about their child, in whom i am uninterested. it explains a lot

― lex pretend, Friday, December 16, 2016 2:56 AM (eight hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think you are willfully being a dumb asshole

p much

no one claimed "a 5 yo is as good a conversationalist"

toddler on the roof

that scares the shit of me, what kind of monster would put their baby in a pool

Welllll arguably someone who knows their kid is going to be around water a lot and believes this will reduce their risk of accidental drowning or panicking in water situations?

sorry i meant unsupervised

i mean i guess the baby clearly knows what shes doing in that video but id be terrified of testing the "bradycardic response" on my kids

that scares the shit of me, what kind of monster would put their baby in a pool

― marcos, Friday, December 16, 2016 11:04 AM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sorry i meant unsupervised

― marcos, Friday, December 16, 2016 11:34 AM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Are you implying there is a parent out there that might be having a kind of "did I leave my stove on?" style moment right now about whether they left their baby in the pool?

lol right, there's lots of "baby & me" type swimming classes out there where you hold your baby while in the water and first you just hold them and then you dab water on their face, and gradually get closer to submerging their face and etc etc with the idea being that they're more comfortable in the water during infancy than they will be later if they never try it.

i think you are willfully being a dumb asshole

no. the wilfully dumb and offensive people in this thread have been entirely parents, who took a low-level grouse and responded with aspersions on my normality and morality (not at all loaded towards a gay person, oh no) for daring to express a pretty commonplace annoyance. i don't give a shit whether you agree with my preference - plenty of people i actually like obviously don't, having had children - but this immediate shift into "well that makes you a BAD, STRANGE PERSON" is why this thread has gone on for several hundred answers more than it should have. parents are consistently the most offensive people towards those who haven't chosen their lifestyle and this has been no exception.

DONT TRY IT

otm

lol does lex know any gay parents genuinely curious

I mean I'm sure they are boring inconsiderate monsters like all other parents but the accusation of homophobia here is p weird

it is much less of a stretch than "annoyed by children" turning into "pro child abuse" upthread

WHY would anyone choose to have a child instead of a dog is national newspaper trollumnist material.

trying to think of what toddler lex must have been like. i'm guessing temper tantrums. he's still a lovable scamp though.

i am all for people not having kids. it's a wise choice. when i see these older people panic and decide at the last minute that they need kids i go.....bbbbbut you can go anywhere and do anything and you are old and why????

having a dog was too aggravating for me. they are the toddlers who never grow up. we had a lovely dog and we found her a better home. she was a big strong dog that could easily run 50 miles a day and we felt bad that we were never home. now she has an outdoor running life. never want another dog.

I like how you keep dialing back "hatred" to "annoyed" cool rhetorical move there bro

xp

(growing up we just let the dog out the door all day. that's more like it. can't do that anymore.)

yike this if ru rere rorn in re raties