I feel sorry for you because one day no one will like you and you'll have no friends or father to talk with in case of an emergency or just to have someone to be with that cares for you.
What do you mean, "one day"? He's been posting here for years and it's clear that his life has been like this ever since he joined SciForums, if not long before that. He's very much like Darksidzz in terms of his social skills and attitudes, but he's got a wealthier family. Also more energy, so he's more angry than depressed. As Steven Wright said, "Depression is just anger without the enthusiasm."
I can never figure out if Muslim (the poster) is a troll, or just an immature idiot? What I really don't get is, why is he here, when he could be doing girls and coke???
He's just a sad little boy in a man's body. If he were only a tiny bit less rude, a lot of people would naturally feel sympathy for him.
come on guys, I am being serious. I have better things to do then fuck around on this website, I've just been feeling really shit, I don't get it.
You've been dumping on us for six or seven years, IIRC. So apparently you really don't have anything better to do.
Marriage's only real use is for raising children IMO. Other than that, it kinda sucks.
Most people like to pair off and build a life together. If your point is that the primary purpose of the institution of marriage itself is to improve the welfare of children, well then okay, we could form permanent pair bonds without marriage, which is rapidly becoming the norm in Europe as it sheds its Christianity. Even Europeans with children are forgoing marriage in increasing numbers, and it doesn't seem to be having any deleterious effect on the kids. It's staying together that counts, not the ring and the certificate.
Considering how poorly the legal institution of marriage actually improves the welfare of children, it's not clear that we even need it for that.
Let's be realistic. 1. First off, the whole reason a woman would take up a role as a housewife is when children are involved.
Indeed. We don't have children so we're not as rigorous about the role definitions. Nonetheless we grew up in an era when little girls were taught to cook and little boys were taught to play stupid games involving violence and balls of various shapes, so Mrs. Fraggle does the cooking.
2. We are currently ~50 years or so into the legacy of the women's lib movement. Women now routinely attend college, and establish their own careers. They are also empowered with their own money, own businesses, and buy their own things. The whole "kitchen" thing is so antiquated now that people use it as a joke.
Nonetheless, at any level of education and experience, women earn less than men. Factor in even the shortest reasonable gap in the work record for maternity, and at best a woman is lucky if her lifetime earnings are 60% of a man's.
Children need both parents.
Its been argued that children need more than that.
Homo sapiens is a peculiar species because we live long after our breeding cycle is over. The "elders" in the community, who no longer have children of their own at home, provide services to the rest of the members. Just within a family, grandparents are a very valuable resource.
I believe the stats show single motherhood has the strongest correlation with all the crap you don't really want your child to end up as.
I suspect that it has something to do with the manner in which she achieves the status of a single mother. One of my best friends is a widow, and she has done such a good job of raising her two children that people are in awe of her. She knew from the day he was diagnosed with leukemia that it was just her own damn bad luck and she had to make the most of it. I think that when a husband abandons his wife (whether it's to run off with a floozy, become a monk, discover his true sexual orientation, go to prison, or just decide to circumnavigate the world in a rowboat), it generates feelings that get in the way of doing all the things she needs to do. She told me, "You can't even be angry at him because it's not his fault. All you can do is suck it up and move forward." Considering that their children is all she has left of him, giving them all the attention and care they need, so they grow up to be happy and sensible (this is 12 years later and indeed they have), is a good way to keep him alive in their hearts.
Add to that when the mother works and puts her child in a child supervision facility... forget it.
That's also open to argument. When Mrs. Fraggle did her hippie-walkabout in the 1960s, she did a tour of duty in a kibbutz in Israel, and her particular kibbutz was participating in a program that has now become quite common there. During the week
all of the children are sent to a group home which is run by people with the ability, personality, training (and perhaps a gift from
Yahweh ) to do a good job of parenting. They only live with their "real" parents on weekends.
Four decades later, these kids have turned out to be the most happy, successful, prosperous, educated, tolerant citizens in the whole country.
One of the advantages of living in a home with several "parents," is that if one leaves you haven't lost
half of your family. It's much less of a shock to make the transition to a new one if there are seven others there for continuity.
Oh and following these kids through their lives resulted in an interesting discovery, the Westermarck Effect. Children who are raised together, even if they're not blood relatives, instinctively regard each other as brothers and sisters. Very few of them grow up to marry each other.
I have a friend who works with foster organizations in the USA, and he says that many of them have adopted the kibbutz model and they've had the same experience. Their kids grow up to be happy model citizens.
In other words,
really skillful foster parents can produce better kids than their real mother and father!
I've heard more than one person who barely survived childhood ask, "Why can't they pass a law requiring people to qualify for a license before they're allowed to have children?"
