Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Queen of Swords · 07-12-2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by yguy
Her Majesty having understandably declined to defend her indefensible position

I perceive that it is your position which is the indefensible one - hence your inability to defend it. I don't even recall putting forward a definite position myself, since this thread was started in order for me to learn more about the subject.

the y-man declares himself the winner yet again.

The winner of what? The non-sequitur contest? Yes, you get the prize for that one.

yguy · 07-12-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
This is ridicilous statement. I don't know anyone who could afford to their job for free.

It appears you have not followed the "discussion" between QOS and me. My premise is that the person who loves a job the most does it best. QOS, hoping to find an internal contradiction in that premise, said if one really loves a job one will do it for no pay. I pointed out that this is the definition of a parent, not a hireling. Nowhere have I suggested that anyone care for a child without pay who doesn't want to, besides the parent of that child.

Quote:

Also, you are assuming that every mother loves her job so much so that she would do it for free?

Of course not.

Quote:

What about those cases where mother does the job simply because she feels she must not because she wants to?

If the mom is doing the job grudgingly, something is obviously wrong with her.

Quote:

What about abusive mothers?

They don't do it for free, because they see a value in having a weaker person in their control whom they can take out their frustrations on.

Quote:

What about uneducated and not very bright mothers? Would such a mother do a better job in raising a child than educated professional in the field?

Insufficient information. If by bright you mean low IQ, that is not a sure sign of lack of intelligence.

Quote:

Or maybe you think that motherly instinct can compensate for lack of education and often lack of common sense?

Love for the child (not possessive, selfish love) and common sense are inextricably interwoven.

Quote:

What about those mothers who forget their kids in the car in the summer heat and kids die? Where was their motherly instinct?

It's supposed to be news that there are parents who don't give a damn about their children? So what?

Quote:

Your premise that mother is always the one who can and will provide the best care is false.

Your premise that parent can always make right decisions based on some kind of natural instinct is false as well.

Those were not my premises. Can any of you find it in yourselves to argue against what I actually SAY?

alek0 · 07-12-2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Can any of you find it in yourselves to argue against what I actually SAY?

Maybe it would help if you would say it clearly, and it would help even more if you'd back up your statement with some facts for a change.

Queen of Swords · 07-13-2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by yguy
My premise is that the person who loves a job the most does it best. QOS, hoping to find an internal contradiction in that premise, said if one really loves a job one will do it for no pay. I pointed out that this is the definition of a parent, not a hireling.

If the definition of "best" person for the job includes "does it without pay because of the sheer love of it", that can apply to both parent and care provider. There is nothing inherent in the definition to exclude care providers while including parents, therefore the definition applies equally to either.

yguy · 07-13-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by yguy
My premise is that the person who loves a job the most does it best. QOS, hoping to find an internal contradiction in that premise, said if one really loves a job one will do it for no pay. I pointed out that this is the definition of a parent, not a hireling.

If the definition of "best" person for the job includes "does it without pay because of the sheer love of it", that can apply to both parent and care provider.

True statement. What percentage of such people would you guess are not parents? And what percentage of the remainder are not either relatives or good friends? Can we agree that both percentages are likely to be rather low?

Quote:

There is nothing inherent in the definition to exclude care providers while including parents, therefore the definition applies equally to either.

Of course it does, as long as the provider is not paid.

yguy · 07-13-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
Maybe it would help if you would say it clearly,

Seems to me I was perfectly clear. It's not my fault you misinterpreted what I said.

And no, it wouldn't help. Generally I'm pretty good at saying what I mean. On those occasions when people find me unclear, they tend to jump to the conclusion that suits them.

Quote:

and it would help even more if you'd back up your statement with some facts for a change.

How would that preclude anyone from misinterpreting me?

Queen of Swords · 07-13-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by yguy
True statement. What percentage of such people would you guess are not parents? And what percentage of the remainder are not either relatives or good friends?

What do you mean by "such people"? People who fall under the definition of "best"?

I don't think it's possible to arrive at a percentage answer when such a vague and arbitrary definition is involved.

Of course it does, as long as the provider is not paid.

And since this definition has not been shown to have any relevance to the real world, that's just fine.

yguy · 07-13-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by yguy
True statement. What percentage of such people would you guess are not parents? And what percentage of the remainder are not either relatives or good friends?

What do you mean by "such people"? People who fall under the definition of "best"?

Yes.

Quote:

I don't think it's possible to arrive at a percentage answer when such a vague and arbitrary definition is involved.

So gimme a wild guess, already. Anybody.

Quote:

Of course it does, as long as the provider is not paid.

And since this definition has not been shown to have any relevance to the real world, that's just fine.

There do not exist people in the real world who love the job of parenting so much that they'll do it for free?

Queen of Swords · 07-13-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by yguy
So gimme a wild guess, already. Anybody.

The wild guess is within you.

There do not exist people in the real world who love the job of parenting so much that they'll do it for free?

Maybe there are such people. But are they necessarily the best people for the job? I couldn't answer this until I know what a specific child needs from them and what they are able to give this child.

yguy · 07-13-2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
Originally posted by yguy
So gimme a wild guess, already. Anybody.

The wild guess is within you.

Ooooooohhh, a wiseguy, huh? <poke to the eyes>

Quote:

There do not exist people in the real world who love the job of parenting so much that they'll do it for free?

Maybe there are such people.

Maybe?? Why the equivocation?

Quote:

But are they necessarily the best people for the job? I couldn't answer this until I know what a specific child needs from them and what they are able to give this child.

Amonng other things, they need to love the child enough to protect them with their life, and to put up with the child's stupidity when it happens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2003, 09:20 PM	#271
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by yguy Her Majesty having understandably declined to defend her indefensible position I perceive that it is your position which is the indefensible one - hence your inability to defend it. I don't even recall putting forward a definite position myself, since this thread was started in order for me to learn more about the subject. the y-man declares himself the winner yet again. The winner of what? The non-sequitur contest? Yes, you get the prize for that one.

07-13-2003, 02:37 AM	#274
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by yguy My premise is that the person who loves a job the most does it best. QOS, hoping to find an internal contradiction in that premise, said if one really loves a job one will do it for no pay. I pointed out that this is the definition of a parent, not a hireling. If the definition of "best" person for the job includes "does it without pay because of the sheer love of it", that can apply to both parent and care provider. There is nothing inherent in the definition to exclude care providers while including parents, therefore the definition applies equally to either.

07-13-2003, 09:43 AM	#277
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by yguy True statement. What percentage of such people would you guess are not parents? And what percentage of the remainder are not either relatives or good friends? What do you mean by "such people"? People who fall under the definition of "best"? I don't think it's possible to arrive at a percentage answer when such a vague and arbitrary definition is involved. Of course it does, as long as the provider is not paid. And since this definition has not been shown to have any relevance to the real world, that's just fine.

07-13-2003, 09:05 PM	#279
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by yguy So gimme a wild guess, already. Anybody. The wild guess is within you. There do not exist people in the real world who love the job of parenting so much that they'll do it for free? Maybe there are such people. But are they necessarily the best people for the job? I couldn't answer this until I know what a specific child needs from them and what they are able to give this child.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.