Have the moderators retired?

blondieblue227

Drowned Out wrote:

I think we're all on the same page...if it gets you upset, don't come here.

i can agree with that.
Beware of the moving train. It can hit you like a ton of bricks. Must have skin two feet think to post here.

Drowned Out

blondieblue227 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

I think we're all on the same page...if it gets you upset, don't come here.

i can agree with that.
Beware of the moving train. It can hit you like a ton of bricks. Must have skin two feet think to post here.

Message Board for Rhinos?
context...I'm saying it shouldn't be that way tho. Without the mudslinging, normal human skin should suffice

blondieblue227

Sadly, it’s not the human way.
But I’m glad there’s people that say it should be.

Two feet thick is a PJ reference, no?

cincybearcat

Everytime I see this thread title I read it as "Are the Mods retarded?"... not sure why, but I can't stop.

Byrnzie

This is now officially my number one all time favourite:

"if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

This is now officially my number one all time favourite:

"if you didn't realize how much having a kid is, then you shouldn't have had one."

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

I think this Moving train must be traveling through a tunnel right now because all I'm seeing here at the moment is noise and pollution.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

I think this Moving train must be traveling through a tunnel right now because all I'm seeing here at the moment is noise and pollution.

So you don't agree with my post either?

Are you saying that people should be able to have kids and cost shouldn't be a factor? If that's the case, I understand and wish it was the case, but it's the real world. And even if you have free health care to have the kid and for the kid's entire life...it take some $.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

i don't think the issue is not knowing the cost ... it's how much it ACTUALLY does cost ...

it's like i told you it was gonna cost $50 to cross the street to go to a job ... i think OP was saying it's unbelievable that it should cost that much ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

i don't think the issue is not knowing the cost ... it's how much it ACTUALLY does cost ...

it's like i told you it was gonna cost $50 to cross the street to go to a job ... i think OP was saying it's unbelievable that it should cost that much ...

Oh, ok, gotcha. I must have misunderstood.

he still stands

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

well fuck me. I really started something here. All of the assumptions (Cincy, Jlew) that are made are extremely frustrating. You don't know my situation and I would appreciate it if you stop telling me and Byrnzie that it is "irresponsible" to have kids if money is a concern. I never said that we can't afford it or that I "didn't know how much it costs"... just that it is going to take awhile to pay for all the bills and that I'm lucky my employer stepped up and got Blue Cross to stop it with the "pre-existing condition" shit (I switched employers right about the time we found out she was preggo). Certainly, our health care system isn't perfect if it costs me $4,200 to have a child and my parents paid less than $100 to have me in 1980... don't you think?

And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You don't like responsibility do you?

Although, to be fair, a better statement is that if you don't realize or can't afford how much it costs to have and raise a kid, you should not be having any unprotected sex.

Because, BC fails and puts people in a bad position as well.

well fuck me. I really started something here. All of the assumptions (Cincy, Jlew) that are made are extremely frustrating. You don't know my situation and I would appreciate it if you stop telling me and Byrnzie that it is "irresponsible" to have kids if money is a concern. I never said that we can't afford it or that I "didn't know how much it costs"... just that it is going to take awhile to pay for all the bills and that I'm lucky my employer stepped up and got Blue Cross to stop it with the "pre-existing condition" shit (I switched employers right about the time we found out she was preggo). Certainly, our health care system isn't perfect if it costs me $4,200 to have a child and my parents paid less than $100 to have me in 1980... don't you think?

And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.

I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

[And why would you assume we were having unprotected sex? The sort of contraception we use is less than 100% effective and my wife can't take the pill because of... personal reasons. Should we be abstinent if we aren't trying to have kids then? That might be the ONLY option for some of you but certainly not for me.

Did you actually read my post? If not do so again. I understand things are misread sometimes, as I did with the other thread about this discussion.

Why does everyone think a post is about a specific situation. If it were, I'd have posted it in the other thread.

he still stands

cincybearcat wrote:

I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.

That is a fair statement. My only problem with that is it would basically preclude anyone making less than $50k USD from ever having a child.

My apologies if I came across as attacking you.

cincybearcat

he still stands wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I wasn't refering to you in anyway...that's why it's on this thread instead of the other thread. I was just saying I don't think it's a terrible statement to say that if you can't afford a kid you shouldn't be having unprotected sex, just in general. I have no idea what your circumstances are/were/will be. And I already said (responding to Polaris) that I missed the point of you comment in the other thread.

That is a fair statement. My only problem with that is it would basically preclude anyone making less than $50k USD from ever having a child.

My apologies if I came across as attacking you.

No worries. I'm learning that I may have become lazy in my postings as it seems they are not coming off as I intend.

Again, it's me who is sorry for the confusion if you thought I was directing it at you or your situation at all. Enjoy the kid...truly the hardest and greatest thing you will ever be involved in.

know1

I agree that most of those comments are very confrontational and divisive, but the first one on your list isn't the same thing as the others.

he still stands

know1 wrote:

I agree that most of those comments are very confrontational and divisive, but the first one on your list isn't the same thing as the others.

Contextually it was (confrontational and divisive), at least to the person on the receiving end

know1

he still stands wrote:

know1 wrote:

I agree that most of those comments are very confrontational and divisive, but the first one on your list isn't the same thing as the others.

Contextually it was (confrontational and divisive), at least to the person on the receiving end

Then I guess we shouldn't even speak or write.

Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.

fuck

know1 wrote:

Then I guess we shouldn't even speak or write.

Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.

Telling someone something that, as you phrase it, is common sense depends on the assumption that the person you're speaking to doesn't know common sense and is condescending. does that really have to be explained?

he still stands

know1 wrote:

Then I guess we shouldn't even speak or write.

Telling someone what should be common sense - ie that you should know the costs before you have the child - is not slamming them.

I did know the costs. I knew it would be ridiculously expensive and would take me a long time to pay off. It was a simple example of how health care costs have inflated to ridiculous levels to showcase my opinion that reform of some sort is needed.

Then someone threw in this whole argument about how I didn't know what the costs were and I shouldn't have had the child and I was IRRESPONSIBLE for having a child. Casting judgement on someone based on false assumptions is tolerated here? Do we live in the middle-ages?

Most importantly, I have a newborn baby and am so damn proud of that boy, I've never been so happy in my life... and it has been suggested that I'd be better off without him because financially we will struggle to get by in the short-term (don't all new parents???). That is so sickening to me...