Setanta wrote:Duck woman said this:
FreeDuck wrote: Do we always have to go here in parenting threads?
Sometimes, in frustration, someone says "you/he/she obviously don't/doesn't have kids or you/they would understand." The implication isn't that only parents understand, it's that if you clearly don't understand (as in, if you expect a 19 month old to do anything other than scream his f-ing head off and/or be annoying and squirmy after spending 11 hours in an airport presumable strapped into a stroller and up way past his bedtime, or think that the parent of said child can flip a switch on him and make him completely quiet) then you probably don't have small children or don't spend a lot of time with them. That's really it. (emphasis added)
What precisely does "Do we always have to go here" mean, if not that people without children "always" bring this up?
Read the second sentence of hers you quoted, Set - the one that I made bold.
Doesnt sound like she's saying that it's the non-parents who bring the subject up, does it?
Oh FreeDuck already responded too, and made the very same point.
Well it was a pretty obvious one.
It required no "creativity" at all. If there were not people in parenting threads who are not parents, why would it come up at all? The use of "we" by no means indicates that you necessarily had all participants in mind--"we" does not tell us who lead the discussion in that direction--it just implies that everyone ends up "there."
The very next sentence, beginning as it does with "Sometimes, in frustration . . ." suggests that it is uncommon for parents to make such a claim, and does not at all suggest it is parents who bring this up. If it were, what would be the source of the frustration of said parents in the discussion? If it were common for parents to bring this up, why would you use to the word "sometimes?"
If anyone is being creative here, it is you, and in retrospect.
Setanta wrote:It required no "creativity at all." If there were not people in parenting threads who are not parents, why would it come up at all? The use of "we" by no means indicates that you necessarily had all participants in mind--"we" does not tell us who lead the discussion in that direct.
The very next sentence, beginning as it does with "Sometimes, in frustration . . ." suggests that it is uncommon for parents to make such a claim, and does not at all suggest it is parents who bring this up. If it were, what would be the source of the frustration of said parents in the discussion? If it were common for parents to bring this up, why would you use to the word "sometimes?"
If anyone is being creative here, it is you, and in retrospect.
Set, if you have to use such tortured reasoning to discern the meaning you took from my post then maybe, just maybe, you misinterpreted.
nimh wrote:Well it was a pretty obvious one.
Perhaps it seemed obvious to you--i guess you're prepared to ignore the use of the words sometimes and frustration. I have long entertained a low opinion of your reasoning skills, though, so it is a complete waste of your time to comment on what i write.
FreeDuck wrote:Setanta wrote:It required no "creativity at all." If there were not people in parenting threads who are not parents, why would it come up at all? The use of "we" by no means indicates that you necessarily had all participants in mind--"we" does not tell us who lead the discussion in that direct.
The very next sentence, beginning as it does with "Sometimes, in frustration . . ." suggests that it is uncommon for parents to make such a claim, and does not at all suggest it is parents who bring this up. If it were, what would be the source of the frustration of said parents in the discussion? If it were common for parents to bring this up, why would you use to the word "sometimes?"
If anyone is being creative here, it is you, and in retrospect.
Set, if you have to use such tortured reasoning to discern the meaning you took from my post then maybe, just maybe, you misinterpreted.
There is nothing "tortured" about it at all. You wrote sometimes--do you need a definition of that word to understand that it refers to an occassional occurrence, and not a regular occurrence? You also said "out of frutstration"--if someone is saying something "out of frustration" that suggests that they are responding to a discussion already in progress--not initiating the discussion themselves.
Set: Perhaps it seemed obvious to you--i guess you're prepared to ignore the use of the words sometimes and frustration. I have long entertained a low opinion of your reasoning skills, though, so it is a complete waste of your time to comment on what i write.
A "smartass."
Setanta wrote:You wrote sometimes--do you need a definition of that word to understand that it refers to an occassional occurrence, and not a regular occurrence? You also said "out of frutstration"--if someone is saying something "out of frustration" that suggests that they are responding to a discussion already in progress--not initiating the discussion themselves.
How does any of that lead you to:
Setanta wrote:Duck Woman felt compelled to make a comment about people who aren't parents responding in parenting threads, and how they always complain that people who are parents say that if you don't have kids, you don't understand.
You just can't get there, no matter how many definitions you want to post and how badly you pick out word by word. I did not say that people who aren't parents always complain that people who are parents say that if you don't have kids you don't understand. What I did say, is that these threads always seem to descend into that argument. And this thread is evidence of that.
Setanta wrote:I have long entertained a low opinion of your reasoning skills, though, so it is a complete waste of your time to comment on what i write.
Oh, I dont comment on your posts in some hope that you'll pick up on anything. I have no illusion that you'd ever reflect on what you'd written and where you might have misgrasped or mischaracterised; not openly, anyhow. My posts would certainly be the last to persuade you to. You're not in the business of critical self-reflection; your role is to bully and sneer at people whose reasonings you consider inferior.
If such threads descend in to this discussion, it certainly would not be the fault of people who are not parents, because they are obviously not going to assert that they themselves have no business responding because they are not parents.
You wrote: Do we always have to go here in parenting threads?--which was followed by yet another parent's snarky comment about what people who are not parents will or will not understand, prefaced by a comment about frustration. I league that comment with those which Linkat and Boomer have made to suggest that unless you are a parent you just don't understand.
If that's not what you meant, then my comment would be that you expressed yourself poorly.
cicerone imposter wrote:A "smartass."
Who, me or him? Well, either would work I suppose :wink:
nimh: My posts would certainly be the last to persuade you to. You're not in the business of critical self-reflection; your role is to bully and sneer at people whose reasonings you consider inferior.
You got that one in spades.
Setanta wrote:
You wrote: Do we always have to go here in parenting threads?--which was followed by yet another parent's snarky comment about what people who are not parents will or will not understand, prefaced by a comment about frustration. I league that comment with those which Linkat and Boomer have made to suggest that unless you are a parent you just don't understand.
(emphasis mine)
Yet another parent's snarky comment? So now because I'm a parent I couldn't possibly have been making an objective observation?
Mr. Logical, there was a very subtle logical distinction made in my post which you missed.
I saw the point you were attempting to make, i just don't agree that you had a point to make.
*********************************************
What's the matter, C.I., are you pissed because when you were trashing my thread with irrelevant copy and paste jobs, i told you were trashing my thread with irrelevant copy and paste jobs? Are you pissed because when you went overboard because of your irrational hatred of Bush, i told you you were going overboard because of your irrational hatred of Bush?
Set, That's not the only time, and I'm not the only poster you have attacked.
As for your description of "irrational hatred of Bush," that's YOUR opinion.
I see--so when someone points out to you that you are trashing a thread with off-topic copy and paste jobs, that's an attack?
No, the attack is when you insult the intelligence of any one.
How does it insult your intelligence to tell you that you are trashing a thread with irrelevant copy and paste jobs?
Go back and read your own posts.
