3
   

should parental authority ever be questioned

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 May, 2012 01:37 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Since nature allows stupid/selfish/perverse/incompetent people to have children, as well as non-stupid/non-selfish/non-perverse/competent people, doesn't it make sense that some people might be doing a less than commendable job in raising a child?
I wanna be heard in opposition
to any notion that there is anything rong with SELFISHNESS.



Foofie wrote:
If all adults of childbearing age were of equal intelligence, compentency, morality and ethical thinking then possibly in such a world of veritable human ants/bees, parental authority would always be correct, since it would reflect a standardized correct procedure.
Is that self-defining ????





David
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:23 pm
@Tifinden,
says an American....
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2012 01:28 am
@Tifinden,
Quote:
should parental authority ever be questioned
I question that parents have any authority
(except on their own realty).





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2012 01:42 am
@Tifinden,
Tifinden wrote:
Please leave this forum promptly, for your comment has aroused elemental matter regarding parental abuse, perhaps, and I therefore have no further wish to continue this discourse, based upon the manner of your entreating comments and evocative spite.
I did not see this post,
when it was issued last year.
For that reason: I failed to reply to it. I will do so now:
1. I do not take orders from u.
2. I am not controlled, nor even influenced, by what u "wish".





David
Tifinden
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2012 10:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Someone who can hardly spell "you" has no use for orders, whether abided by or negated, for their first task is to master simplistic grammar.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2012 02:09 pm
@Tifinden,
OSD is a proponent of phonetic (or fonetic as he says) spelling

as for your telling anyone what to do, he's right,this is a public forum, unless one is violating the TOS they are free to respond and interact with anyone they choose
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 May, 2012 02:30 pm
@Tifinden,
Tifinden wrote:
Someone who can hardly spell "you" has no use for orders,
whether abided by or negated, for their first task is to master simplistic grammar.
Its hard to believe that anyone whose grammar is so defective
as to be inconsistent qua number ("someone" modified by "their" a plural pronoun)
will be so bold as to instruct as to grammar!!
That 's good for a laff (not "laugh").
Multiple be the chuckles!

For several years, since around 2OOO, I have been posting
in fonetic spelling (to a limited extent) in an effort
to show faster, easier n more convenient ways of spelling,
thereby to accelerate abandonment of atavistic throwbacks
to earlier uses of English, when it was closer to its Germanic origins.
For instance: I discourage jamming any Ls into wud, shud or cud
and I suggest that the letters UGH not be added to the word tho.

Incidentally, I detect uncommon hostility from u.
Possibly, u might consider visiting a psychiatrist to restore your mental health. Good Luck with that.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:45:31