Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Now why don't you go run along and play. One day you'll grow up and be able to talk to people like an adult.>>> I have a brother in law who I love dearly in SPITE of some real differences he and I have. I was his best man a couple years ago, he and I are "tight." He often gives me advice on dieting, yet he is easily 60 lbs overweight. Now here is the hard part. Do I totally dismiss everything he is saying about dieting, or do I listen, try to glean some truth in his advice? The latter of course, I just may find a tiny bit of something to benefit me. So speak on jonvn, maybe there is something in your comments that will ring through.
Originally Posted By jonvn "When backed into a corner" Except I'm not backed into a corner. "think the ultimate insult is to call someone a child" No. I call you a child, because you act like one. I've called no one else here a child. They are not acting like a child. You see, you have this pattern. When someone says something you don't like, you think it's ok to call them names and think by doing so, you are being witty. You're not. You're being childish, and it is sad to see.
Originally Posted By jonvn "So speak on jonvn, maybe there is something in your comments that will ring through." And if they do, what are you going to do then, abandon some of your kids? You asked for articles. <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCG/is_1_23/ai_n19054728" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti cles/mi_m0PCG/is_1_23/ai_n19054728</a> <a href="http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/biorder.htm" target="_blank">http://researchnews.osu.edu/ar chive/biorder.htm</a> From this last article: “In reality, if you look at these larger families, the fourth-born child is just as intelligent as the first-born. But they all don't do as well as children from a smaller family.†<a href="http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224" target="_blank">http://links.jstor.org/sici?si ci=0003-1224</a>(199510)60%3A5%3C746%3AWBINBF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T Quote: "Although the inverse relationship between the number of siblings and children's educational performance has been well established...." It is a discussion of parental resource dilution, which is something I spoke of earlier. <a href="http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft6489p0rr&chunk.id=d0e26072&toc.id=endnotes&brand=eschol" target="_blank">http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/v iew?docId=ft6489p0rr&chunk.id=d0e26072&toc.id=endnotes&brand=eschol</a> And so on. It's a bit late now. Enjoy your kids, have a nice life.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<you tell someone else you don't even know their parenting skills are lacking>> <Much like they said that my concern for children was fake, and that they were a better parent than I.> DVC Dad specifically retracted that part of his statements, to his great credit, in #148: " I agree, Inspector, that last statement that you are referring to is basically loaded with venom. It isn't a logical statement and I openly apologize and retract it. I was striking out in frustration." It takes a big man to do something like that, and I really respect it. So, jon, can you be equally big and admit you were striking out in frustration by questioning DVCD's parenting skills, even if only in response to his earlier statement (now retracted)? Especially considering that people who DO know him consider him a fine parent? I'd really respect that.
Originally Posted By jonvn If he actually did retract his statement towards me, then that's great. I started out by trying to talk in generalities, but also regarding my specific experiences of seeing families with large numbers of children, and how damaging it is to those kids, and how the parents are absolutely not concerned with how the number of children in that family will affect them growing up. Regarding his situation, I have no idea. Six isn't that many. If he can actually do a good job of it, then that's wonderful. I am not a misanthrope, in fact, quite the opposite. I care a great deal about kids and want to see them grow up in as happy and healthy manner as possible.
Originally Posted By jonvn To be more clear: As far as striking out in frustration, I don't know if I'd call it frustration, but I would say that my comments were directly in response to the ones now retracted. So I'll just say that I have no idea what sort of parent he may be, and that it is possible to raise a family up in a good atmosphere like that. I would have liked to have more kids myself. But we were unable to, due to medical issues. There is nothing wrong with large families, as long as you are able to properly take care of each child.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No. I call you a child, because you act like one. I've called no one else here a child. They are not acting like a child. You see, you have this pattern. When someone says something you don't like, you think it's ok to call them names and think by doing so, you are being witty. You're not. You're being childish, and it is sad to see." Siggh. Well, tell you what. How about responding to something in post 147 instead of perpetuating crap?
Originally Posted By jonvn I have. In post 152 I said this: "if I'm for a woman's right to choose, and I am, then I can't have it both ways" If someone had 17 abortions, I'd think rather low of them, actually. Just because you CAN do such a thing does not mean you SHOULD do such a thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To be more clear: As far as striking out in frustration, I don't know if I'd call it frustration, but I would say that my comments were directly in response to the ones now retracted. So I'll just say that I have no idea what sort of parent he may be, and that it is possible to raise a family up in a good atmosphere like that. > There ya' go. Wonderful. Thank you.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<children's educational performance has been well established...." It is a discussion of parental resource dilution, which is something I spoke of earlier. <a href="http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/v" target="_blank">http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/v</a> iew?docId=ft6489p0rr&chunk.id=d0e26072&toc.id=endnotes&brand=eschol And so on. It's a bit late now. Enjoy your kids, have a nice life.>>> It's a bit late now? Have a nice life? What does that mean exactly? Do you really believe that based ONLY on the number of children I have, and the number of siblings they have, that my kids will be what...I need a word, underacheivers? I don't understand what you are saying. Just spit it out. You want to say it, so just say it. I can't read between your lines.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I am offended more by a specific remark made by SingleParkPassholder in this thread than anything else. In an analogy, he inferred a female named "Bambi" was a "hot babe". This is a Disney board. The only Bambis around here are male, bub.
Originally Posted By jonvn "It's a bit late now? Have a nice life? What does that mean exactly? " It means, what difference does it make what these studies show, it's a bit late to make changes. So, enjoy your kids, and your life, and be happy with what you have. "Do you really believe that based ONLY on the number of children I have" I only go by what I have personally seen, and what studies show. Those studies were the ones I came up with rather quickly to respond to your question about kids from large families not doing as well in life. "You want to say it, so just say it." I really have little problem saying what I feel. Haven't you noticed this? Do you want me to be insulting and say your kids are going to end up stupid? I don't know that. I do know that for people I've met that will be the case. DO you want me to say you're irresponsible and a drag on society? I don't know that, either. I do know these others I have met in similar, but not identical, circumstances are. You want to have 15 kids? Be my guest. I think it's not right. I've seen what such families are like who don't have your apparent resources. I think it is a cruel thing to do to children who have a hard enough time as it is.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad jonvn I have read what you have posted in the way of articles. First let me say that I think it's probably not wrong, but for my kids I think it is at least not relevanat. Here is an article that you may want to look at, and it is fittingly named, "IQ Will Put You In Your Place Every Time" It is a bit dated (1997) and it's written fron the UK but it still hits home. Last year my oldest son, my daughter, and my thrid child all took the ITBS (standardized test.) My daughter tested the lowest, cumulatively speaking, with a shocking overall average of the 89th percentile and only two test areas were under the 90th. My oldest son, had an overall average of the 96th, and my thrid child barely made the 91st. I know you think family size and sibling size is the thing to look at but see, it isn't, not according to my beliefs. Now here is the funny thing. I have for about a year now, believed that my 4th child, the dreaded 4th child that is so often mentioned as the one that offically comes from a "large family" (because to be a 4th child you have 3 older siblings, and someone decided that 4 kids constitutes a "large family") my 4th child is by far the most intelligent of all my kids combined. He is too young for the ITBS. He is 4 years old. He teaches himself things. He can beat his 6 year old sibling at any video game. Oh? This isn't important? Think about it. He is only 4. My 4 year old can read, and I mean read well. He can add, subtract, do some pretty scary things. I credit the gene pool, but its probably dumb luck. You can post about family size all you want. I actually like the catchy term "parental resource dilution." It means that parent with more kids than average (which the academics say is 4) just have to work 4 times as hard. I think its almost all in the science. I think the I.Q. cream will rise to the top no matter what the obstacles. I have seen it far too many times in my life to believe otherwise. I'm not saying that environmental factors do not matter. But I am coming very close to saying it. Read the link.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Let's face it. There are plenty of kids from large families that have done well and contributed to society in significant ways. There are likewise children from very small families, even "only children" who have likewise done extremely well, and again contributed to society in significant ways. Life. It's all a crap shoot, but I'm couting on resolve and a little help from lady luck. I tell my brother-in-law that with so many kids, I am bound to have atleast one that will become something really special. He replies that I likely will have at least one that will go to jail. LOL We'll see. I hope we aren't both right.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper What jonvn has been keeping secret all this time is that he is #12 of 15. Shh...let's see if anyone figures it out. I have run across "jonvns" on lots of different message boards. Some might say Beau was a version. The best recourse? Completely ignore that personality type. Perhaps he has a good point here or there...but is it really worth it to read through all the rest of the nonsense just to realize that one point?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I think this is the last time I am going to mention my personal parenting beliefs, children, or anything of the like. I think I come on way too strong, because I am so passionate about them...sometimes I think I'm so opinionated about this, that I have trouble accepting the fact that I might be wrong in some areas, or that I might be able to learn something that I didn't know before.
Originally Posted By Lady Starlight shooosh.. I'm still laughin at the "clown car" remark....but please by all means continue...
Originally Posted By barboy May I take a stab or two at 147?--- a lot of good material there. "Who the hell is ANYONE to tell these people enough's enough" I am that person and I say pumping out baby after baby is irresponsible and selfish today because we are overpopulated and more urban than before. Most resources are finite. I don't know my exact threshhold on this topic but I do know 17 is way beyond acceptable; at 15 I would be appalled. This story is not funny at all and the fact that it has been played up as cute and hartwarming is equally irresponsible. For emphasis sake this isn't 1902 out on a Kansas wheat farm where many hands were needed and child death rates were higher. "It is a free country" Not compared to other places. "I don't believe I have any business telling Fran she can't fall in love with Phillis and marry her." I agree--- leave them alone and let them marry--- but if Fran starts pumping out reaching 17 I say enough is enough. "How about if we tell some of you hey, you better stop at two, your parenting abilities aren't that hot." --Sounds good to me. If parents of two are allowing their children to run out in busy streets in 3 day old urine and fecal drenched pull-ups, then yes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You can post about family size all you want." "not according to my beliefs." I'm going to go by what's actually being said by people who study such things, much like in global warming. You can believe what you want, but the things I have mentioned are rather well known. "Read the link." You forgot the link. But it is a 10 year old article. It really does not matter, because you already have your family. What is supposed to happen here, you're going to be convinced I'm right, and jettison a couple of kids? The thing is you can show me articles. But things are pretty much as I've said they are. You can just google up article after article if you want. But if you have a belief, what is all the evidence in the world going to do for you?
