Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
So is that a yes or a no?

What was the question?

If in fact there are no ill effects

That would depend on how one defined "ill effects".

We're back to the question of whether the one who loves the job is the best at it. Presumably a friend or relative loves the job of secondary care provider better than the hireling.

Why would the friend or relative love the job? Is that a definition of "friend or relative"?

If they didn't, they'd ask for money in exchange for the service.

Has there been a survey of friends and relatives to see if any of them would choose this course of action when asked to take care of children, assuming that they didn't love the job?

Even if the parents fail to always be there, the child will feel the intent to succeed in that regard.

Firstly, what is the point of saying that an infant needs someone who will always be there, when no one can promise this?

Secondly, how does the child "feel the intent"? Is that like "feeling the love" or "feeling the prickly heat rash"?

Oh, baloney. You know your own parents' weaknesses better than they do.

I think you should let me be the best judge of what I know.

The very ability to perceive any fault in a parent is what gets some children abused.

We are not discussing child abuse. Please stay on topic.

yguy

You're absolutely determined to annoy me at every opportunity, aren't you?

"Do you no longer agree that the best provider is the one who loves the job so much they'll do it for free?"

Because they have some regard for the parent, and, by extension, that parent's child.

In my mind, yes. A friend or relative who wouldn't take care of a friend's child in time of need (assuming they had the wherewithal to do so) isn't much of a friend or relative, it seems to me. For our purposes here, "relative" and "friend" are interchangable.

Damned if I know.

Because that's the ideal. The child also needs to avoid being run over by a truck, but we can't guarantee that either.

I don't know what the mechanism is, but when I was a child, I knew who gave a damn about me and who didn't.

I have a choice?

Look: everyone has a blind spot, right? That means a parent has one. Merely by virtue of being an observer, a child can see that blind spot. Living around them day in and day out, you will eventually put two and two together, even if the knowledge doesn't immediately coalesce into, "Mom has a mean streak," or whatever.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
"Do you no longer agree that the best provider is the one who loves the job so much they'll do it for free?"

If that's the definition of "best provider" that you gave, why would I not agree that that's the definition we're working from for the purposes of this debate?

Because they have some regard for the parent, and, by extension, that parent's child.

I can understand a friend having some regard for the parent, but my own experience suggests that being related to someone by blood/marriage doesn't automatically mean you love that person enough to want to take care of their children.

But if you want to provide evidence to show that all relatives have enough regard for parents to show an equal regard to their children, go ahead.

In my mind, yes.

In my mind, not necessarily.

Damned if I know.

In other words, you cannot back up your statement. No surprise there.

Because that's the ideal.

We don't live in an ideal world, so it might be best if people weren't told to try to be ideal, or to provide their children with Utopia.

I don't know what the mechanism is, but when I was a child, I knew who gave a damn about me and who didn't.

That's nice for you. Unless you can show evidence for your assertion, I don't see how other children can "feel the intent".

Look: everyone has a blind spot, right?

We are not discussing blind spots or how children sense things about their parents. Please stay on topic.

yguy

Fine, I'll take that as a yes. That being the case, it follows from that defintion that a mother is generally a better care provider than a hireling. Therefore it seems my logic is, if nothing else, internally consistent.

Can I get an amen?

That isn't central to my argument. Relatives can easily be child murderers, for crying out loud. Can we keep this within the bounds of common sense?

I am, of course, not suggesting anything Utopian. Welfare mothers who don't know who the fathers of their kids are and don't give a damn could make the same argument as you are. All I am suggesting is that kids be given the best start possible.

The evidence is within you, Your Majesty.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Fine, I'll take that as a yes. That being the case, it follows from that defintion that a mother is generally a better care provider than a hireling.

No, it doesn't. By this definition, a mother is equal to a hireling.

Therefore it seems my logic is, if nothing else, internally consistent.

What logic would that be?

That isn't central to my argument.

But knowing how much you value personal experience, I just had to share mine.

Relatives can easily be child murderers, for crying out loud. Can we keep this within the bounds of common sense?

I wasn't aware that discussing the definitions of "best mother" and "best care provider" was within the bounds of common sense.

I am, of course, not suggesting anything Utopian.

Just babies having benevolent gods who will always be there? That's beyond Utopian.

Welfare mothers who don't know who the fathers of their kids are and don't give a damn could make the same argument as you are.

What does that have to do with anything?

All I am suggesting is that kids be given the best start possible.

We're all suggesting that. Now we just have to decide what the best start possible is, bearing in mind that circumstances may be different for different families.

The evidence is within you, Your Majesty.

Maybe some infant could learn to "feel the evidence" as well.

yguy

This has to be the most absurd non-sequitur I've heard in some time. Since I doubt Her Majesty will vouchesafe me an honest defense of it, perhaps someone else can.

See what I mean, boys and girls?

From my perspective, the idea of the discussion is to herd these ideas to an area within the bounds of common sense.

That would be "perceive", not "feel". And they don't have to learn that. They have to unlearn it.

alek0

This is ridicilous statement. I don't know anyone who could afford to their job for free. I love my job, and I would rather do that than anything else in the world. But would I do it for free? Not likely. I would still do it even if it is less paid compared to other jobs, but I need to pay my bills so if I couldn't get paid for the work I do I'd do something else.

Also, you are assuming that every mother loves her job so much so that she would do it for free? What about those cases where mother does the job simply because she feels she must not because she wants to? What about abusive mothers? 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?

Or maybe you think that motherly instinct can compensate for lack of education and often lack of common sense? What about those mothers who forget their kids in the car in the summer heat and kids die? Where was their motherly instinct? What about those mothers who feel it is right to start feeding solids to their six week old? What about all those who feel that formula is "better choice for their family" in spite of demonstrated advantages of breastfeeding?

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.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
This has to be the most absurd non-sequitur I've heard in some time.

Why thank you, but I believe that honor should go to your own non-sequitur : "That being the case, it follows from that defintion that a mother is generally a better care provider than a hireling."

Since I doubt Her Majesty will vouchesafe me an honest defense of it, perhaps someone else can.

Since I doubt yguy will vouchsafe me an honest defense of his statement, perhaps someone else can.

See what I mean, boys and girls?

Observe the inability to point out the logic I asked to see, boys and girls?

From my perspective, the idea of the discussion is to herd these ideas to an area within the bounds of common sense.

And from my perspective, the idea of the discussion is to explore any consequences of placing infants in day care, not to decide on what a "best mother" is. But hey, it's the least of the digressions so far.

That would be "perceive", not "feel".

No, I believe you used the word "feel".

And they don't have to learn that. They have to unlearn it.

My intuition tells me that they have to learn it. In other words, I feel the wrongness of your statement.

pilaar

I agree.

pilaar

yguy

Her Majesty having understandably declined to defend her indefensible position, the y-man declares himself the winner yet again.