Support NeoGAF

[ascii42]

I just take offense to the way you insinuate all people who get pregnant unintentionally are stupid.

This is in a thread about people living with their parents. I'd imagine most people who live with both of their parents were not the product of rape.

 

[Dunlop]

In the context of being in a relationship and not being responsible when it comes to contraception, but of course you knew this and still decided to try and make the comments about more than what they were because making a stupid ass point is more important to you than understanding the context the comments were initially made in.

It's weird how you are deflecting on this weird tangent but ignoring the part of the post where it was expressed that parents might one day like to have privacy again. Expecting that kids in their 20's would be venturing out on their own is not unreasonable.

 

[gamz]

It's weird how you are deflecting on this weird tangent but ignoring the part of the post where it was expressed that parents might one day like to have privacy again. Expecting that kids in their 20's would be venturing out on their own is not unreasonable.

It's funny because my Wife's parents raised 9 kids and there's always a kid or two living there. Just when they think they have all the kids out of the house one moves back in. Her father said do you know many years we've had just us in the house --- 1 year out of 45 years of marriage. I laughed, he wasn't.

 

[I'm an expert]

Living at home at 30 represents a failure of one thing: career.

The reason most* live at home is money, right? As much as Miles wants to run around in circles about irrelevant shit, it comes down to people living at home because of money. If everyone in this thread living at home made $200k, would they live at home?

*Now there are cultural and personal reasons too, no one denies that. But let's take the most vanilla case that keeps getting thrown around here: need to live at home to save money.

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

If I meet a 30 year old living at home, the first thing I'd think is sick family member or their culture. Any other reason can only mean one thing: they fucked up. And that's why it's judged, not because I think they're immature or afraid of failure or play games all day. It just means they lost at the easy game of life.

 

[Greddleok]

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

Hi, I live in the real world, where jobs are hard to come by. I wish I lived where you do.

It took me a couple of months after graduation to find a job, I didn't move home because I had savings, but seriously, when I finished college slap bang in the middle of the recession, no one was hiring.

Spoiler

Well, no one was hiring for what I wanted to do. There was no way I wanted to work for Goldman Sachs or any of the big finance firms.

 

[I'm an expert]

Hi, I live in the real world, where jobs are hard to come by. I wish I lived where you do.

It took me a couple of months after graduation to find a job, I didn't move home because I had savings, but seriously, when I finished college slap bang in the middle of the recession, no one was hiring.

Spoiler

Well, no one was hiring for what I wanted to do. There was no way I wanted to work for Goldman Sachs or any of the big finance firms.

I can't really respond to this without getting details on where you are, what school, your academic/internship accomplishments, what industry, etc. etc. but sure, if people still want to use the 2007/8 excuse, go for it.

 

[hiro4]

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

Does this mean NYC shouldn't have Librarians (or Libraries)?
Or that Librarians in NYC should earn more money than a Librarian in Kansas?

 

[travisbickle]

Living at home at 30 represents a failure of one thing: career.

The reason most* live at home is money, right? As much as Miles wants to run around in circles about irrelevant shit, it comes down to people living at home because of money. If everyone in this thread living at home made $200k, would they live at home?

*Now there are cultural and personal reasons too, no one denies that. But let's take the most vanilla case that keeps getting thrown around here: need to live at home to save money.

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

So New York doesn't need librarians?

Edit: same thoughts as above. I think we're talking to a true blue capitalist. You obviously can't pay a librarian more in NY because that would mean admitting the rents are too high, lol!

 

[Greddleok]

I can't really respond to this without getting details on where you are, what school, your academic/internship accomplishments, what industry, etc. etc. but sure, if people still want to use the 2007/8 excuse, go for it.

Sigh, I don't even know why I replied to you.

 

[hiro4]

So New York doesn't need librarians?

Edit: same thoughts as above. I think we're talking to a true blue capitalist. You obviously can't pay a librarian more in NY because that would mean admitting the rents are too high, lol!

Well or that there should be a minimum wage!

 

[Wreav]

So why'd you have kids?

If you value these things so much, you had to have known they'd be a inhibiting presence on you doing them. Hard to argue this position after the fact when you chose to have kids and should have known they'd change your way of living.

Your posts are gross and myopic.

 

[I'm an expert]

Does this mean NYC shouldn't have Librarians (or Libraries)?
Or that Librarians in NYC should earn more money than a Librarian in Kansas?

Putting aside that of course a librarian in NYC should be paid more, which is how any real job works.. It means a 22 year old graduate shouldn't be a librarian. Or a Macy's clerk. Or a call center assistant. The libraries will handle their recruiting on their own. I'm sure they can bring plenty of librarians from West Virginia.

So New York doesn't need librarians?

Edit: same thoughts as above. I think we're talking to a true blue capitalist. You obviously can't pay a librarian more in NY because that would mean admitting the rents are too high, lol!

Any normal job addresses area's cost of living. A 22 year old at my firm doesn't make the same in NYC/Miami/Milwaukee/Austin. They're all adjusted. A librarian's salary is more to do with the local government's budget so whatever. Point was if you're in NYC and at 22 you want to be a librarian, make sure you're clearing your nights for your second job.

 

[ascii42]

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

Never got an internship. Applied for several, but was never accepted. Generally took classes or worked a minimum wage job during the summer instead. Graduated with a respectable 3.74 in Computer Engineering. Went to a multiple career fairs, did many interviews. Didn't get offers from any of them. I did manage to secure a job before I graduated, but I feel I almost lucked into it. On a whim, I applied to a government job on an Air Force Base, and they more or less accepted me without interviewing me. I did eventually hear back from Microsoft regarding a second round interview, but that was after I had already accepted my current job. And *gasp* they contacted me after I had graduated, so I would have been living with my parents.

I can't really respond to this without getting details on where you are, what school, your academic/internship accomplishments, what industry, etc. etc. but sure, if people still want to use the 2007/8 excuse, go for it.

That would be when most people around 30 would have graduated from college.

Putting aside that of course a librarian in NYC should be paid more, which is how any real job works.. It means a 22 year old graduate shouldn't be a librarian. Or a Macy's clerk. Or a call center assistant. The libraries will handle their recruiting on their own. I'm sure they can bring plenty of librarians from West Virginia.

A 22 year old graduate wouldn't be working as a librarian because generally you need a Master's degree. So they'd be pursuing their Master's in Library and Information Science.

 

[RulkezX]

So why'd you have kids?

If you value these things so much, you had to have known they'd be a inhibiting presence on you doing them. Hard to argue this position after the fact when you chose to have kids and should have known they'd change your way of living.

Jesus Christ....

You know if my kids are selfish enough to expect to stay with me when they're 30 I'm just going to have lots of noisy sex alkyl over the house till they get the hint and move the fuck out.

 

[travisbickle]

Putting aside that of course a librarian in NYC should be paid more, which is how any real job works.. It means a 22 year old graduate shouldn't be a librarian. Or a Macy's clerk. Or a call center assistant. The libraries will handle their recruiting on their own. I'm sure they can bring plenty of librarians from West Virginia.



Any normal job addresses area's cost of living. A 22 year old at my firm doesn't make the same in NYC/Miami/Milwaukee/Austin. They're all adjusted. A librarian's salary is more to do with the local government's budget so whatever. Point was if you're in NYC and at 22 you want to be a librarian, make sure you're clearing your nights for your second job.

WTF. You need a Masters Degree to be a librarian, most Central Libraries in major cities would expect a PhD.

I'm sure at some point people will be saying University lecturers should get a second job working at Starbucks if they want to work in a major city.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Your posts are gross and myopic.

How is that gross of short sighted?

Jesus Christ....

You know if my kids are selfish enough to expect to stay with me when they're 30 I'm just going to have lots of noisy sex alkyl over the house till they get the hint and move the fuck out.

You do you.

You chose to have kids and they couldn't leave home for whatever reason. You value having loud sex more than them, so why wait until they are 30? Do this from the day they are born, so they know where things stand from an early age.

 

[Symphonia]

I pray to God that Miles never has kids.

 

[Mendrox]

How is that gross of short sighted?



You do you.

You chose to have kids and they couldn't leave home for whatever reason. You value having loud sex more than them, so why wait until they are 30? Do this from the day they are born, so they know where things stand from an early age.

Please stop.

 

[I'm an expert]

So New York doesn't need librarians?

Edit: same thoughts as above. I think we're talking to a true blue capitalist. You obviously can't pay a librarian more in NY because that would mean admitting the rents are too high, lol!

Never got an internship. Applied for several, but was never accepted. Generally took classes or worked a minimum wage job during the summer instead. Graduated with a respectable 3.74 in Computer Engineering. Went to a multiple career fairs, did many interviews. Didn't get offers from any of them. I did manage to secure a job before I graduated, but I feel I almost lucked into it. On a whim, I applied to a government job on an Air Force Base, and they more or less accepted me without interviewing me. I did eventually hear back from Microsoft regarding a second round interview, but that was after I had already accepted my current job. And *gasp* they contacted me after I had graduated, so I would have been living with my parents.

That would be when most people around 30 would have graduated from college.

I can't continue this convo because I'm going to get flamed to hell, but we didn't stop hiring during that time, we just only accepted the best of the best. If this thread is filled with people who weren't the best of the best, there you go. By your own admission you didn't get any internships or jobs you wanted. That means someone else did. That's all it comes down to.

I was going to cite my own firm but it's pointless. Basically, 2007/8 should be the golden standard of how recruitment and hiring intake are handled. Very precise, very specific. Nowadays we're so overstaffed we have 22 year olds making 63k doing nothing and going home at 430 every day. It'll bite us in the ass again.

Putting aside I chose librarian as a random example: who is paying for librarian grad school, and what's the roi once they get their masters and start. Is starting salary minimum $90k as someone with a phd should expect?

 

[AlimNassor]

Living at home at 30 represents a failure of one thing: career.

The reason most* live at home is money, right? As much as Miles wants to run around in circles about irrelevant shit, it comes down to people living at home because of money. If everyone in this thread living at home made $200k, would they live at home?

*Now there are cultural and personal reasons too, no one denies that. But let's take the most vanilla case that keeps getting thrown around here: need to live at home to save money.

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

If I meet a 30 year old living at home, the first thing I'd think is sick family member or their culture. Any other reason can only mean one thing: they fucked up. And that's why it's judged, not because I think they're immature or afraid of failure or play games all day. It just means they lost at the easy game of life.

Life isn't easy. Awfully arrogant of you to act as if we failed. Calling people failures for not having an easy life. Must be nice to be rich.

 

[RulkezX]

How is that gross of short sighted?



You do you.

You chose to have kids and they couldn't leave home for whatever reason. You value having loud sex more than them, so why wait until they are 30? Do this from the day they are born, so they know where things stand from an early age.

You're arguing that parents should be beholden to their kids until the day the kids decide they shouldn't be.

I'm confident they'll not be sitting in a thread like this at 30 with people like you blaming everyone but themselves for their shitty life.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I pray to God that Miles never has kids.

You see fault with my position but agree with the people who are calling their potential children selfish and lazy for staying at home when they can't leave?

Yeah okay.

Please stop.

How dare I offer a counter to some of the nonsense posted in here.

 

[I'm an expert]

Life isn't easy. Awfully arrogant of you to act as if we failed. Calling people failures for not having an easy life. Must be nice to be rich.

It is nice. It wasn't nice when I was a poor immigrant too. Here's the guide to life in America:

Do well on your SATs, get full ride scholarship.
Do well in your college classes, get internships.
(Do well on GRE/GMAT/LSAT, get paid GA/TA position for free grad school).
(Do well in grad school, get internships).
Do well at internships, get guaranteed offer.
Do well at job, double salary in 5 years.
Post on GAF.

All of this can be done while working full time btw.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

You're arguing that parents should be beholden to their kids until the day the kids decide they shouldn't be.

I'm confident they'll not be sitting in a thread like this at 30 with people like you blaming everyone but themselves for their shitty life.

They should be. You brought them into the world, so they are your responsibility until the day they are ready to be responsible for themselves. If you've done a good job as a parent, your children will be ready to leave at an earlier age than they would be if you haven't done a good job in ensuring they are ready for adulthood.

 

[GSG Flash]

Well there is one really good reason, if I can offer a slightly different perspective on this (and I'm not picking on you Ogodei, just wanted a post to hang this comment off).

See, I'm a parent in my late 50s - with two kids in their 20s still living at home. And a lot of the posts in this thread seem to kind of miss the parents' point of view. And it isn't just about paying rent and doing chores, it's about the parents' social life as well.

For example, there's a post somewhere here about waiting until the parents are asleep so you can have sex. But, um, when are the parents supposed to have sex eh? Kids can be kind of an inhibiting presence.

Ditto wild parties, ditto having people round, ditto having your own space. Ditto ditto all the way.

Of course, we loving parents wouldn't ever actually say that to you. But it is there all the same.

I'd say this is one viewpoint of a parent and not typical of every parent, especially not my parents who would have the totally opposite viewpoint as you.

For my parents, kids are a large part of their social life.

 

[Mendrox]

They should be. You brought them into the world, so they are your responsibility until the day they are ready to be responsible for themselves. If you've done a good job as a parent, your children will be ready to leave at an earlier age than they would be if you haven't done a good job in ensuring they are ready for adulthood.

Now I am not even sure anymore if you are trolling or not.

 

[ascii42]

I can't continue this convo because I'm going to get flamed to hell, but we didn't stop hiring during that time, we just only accepted the best of the best. If this thread is filled with people who weren't the best of the best, there you go. By your own admission you didn't get any internships or jobs you wanted. That means someone else did. That's all it comes down to.

Because there more people than jobs. The number of openings is not necessarily equal to the number of good candidates. It seems you feel there are more openings than good candidates. I feel at that point there were fewer openings than good candidates.

There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

There's a big gulf between the best of the best and people who did fuck all and become worthless employees. I'm sorry I was only really good, and not the best. Honestly, I'm glad. I like my job, and the people I work with are glad to have me.

 

[Foffy]

Living at home at 30 represents a failure of one thing: career.

The reason most* live at home is money, right? As much as Miles wants to run around in circles about irrelevant shit, it comes down to people living at home because of money. If everyone in this thread living at home made $200k, would they live at home?

*Now there are cultural and personal reasons too, no one denies that. But let's take the most vanilla case that keeps getting thrown around here: need to live at home to save money.

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

If I meet a 30 year old living at home, the first thing I'd think is sick family member or their culture. Any other reason can only mean one thing: they fucked up. And that's why it's judged, not because I think they're immature or afraid of failure or play games all day. It just means they lost at the easy game of life.

It would be infuriating to sit next to you in a room, I would imagine.

You lack empathy, if you're that clear-cut about it.

 

[RulkezX]

They should be. You brought them into the world, so they are your responsibility until the day they are ready to be responsible for themselves. If you've done a good job as a parent, your children will be ready to leave at an earlier age than they would be if you haven't done a good job in ensuring they are ready for adulthood.

So...

Not only should people be willing to live with their kids forever (potentially), but those who do have kids stay with them into their 30's or whatever are actually bad parents.

You're on a roll today bro.

 

[travisbickle]

Why doesn't everyone just do the same well-paid job in the same industry. Then we'd all make enough money?

 

[Miles Quaritch]

So...

Not only should people be willing to live with their kids forever (potentially), but those who do have kids stay with them into their 30's or whatever are actually bad parents.

You're on a roll today bro.

So you disagree that bad parenting = kid isn't ready or capable to take on the responsibility of being an adult and will stay at home?

Parents have no control over how responsible and independent their kids will be when they grow up?

 

[ascii42]

So you disagree that bad parenting = kid isn't ready or capable to take on the responsibility of being an adult and will stay at home?

Parents have no control over how responsible and independent their kids will be when they grow up?

It's not all or nothing. They don't have no control, but they don't have 100% control either, as their kids are their own persons and ultimately make their own decisions. I know plenty of families where one sibling was far more responsible than another. Though of course, their parents may have parented them differently.

 

[Mendrox]

So you disagree that bad parenting = kid isn't ready or capable to take on the responsibility of being an adult and will stay at home?

Parents have no control over how responsible and independent their kids will be when they grow up?

Yes I disagree, because some younglings these days are also lazy assholes that have to be kicked out of the house to grow up. Like many people in this thread already said is that it also helped them to move out. If you don't push your kids into that direction too and make it clear that they won't live their all the time, then you fucked up. It's okay to let them stay to get ahold of some ground in this world, but many exploit that too.

But I will stop discussing with you now because you think your position is 100% correct, but there is a bit more to your posts which you don't see it seems or you come from a culture where that lifestyle is normal which would be okay. But sorry I won't waste my whole life privacy just because my kids won't move out with 30.

 

[Vicetrailia]

It is nice. It wasn't nice when I was a poor immigrant too. Here's the guide to life in America:

Do well on your SATs, get full ride scholarship.
Do well in your college classes, get internships.
(Do well on GRE/GMAT/LSAT, get paid GA/TA position for free grad school).
(Do well in grad school, get internships).
Do well at internships, get guaranteed offer.
Do well at job, double salary in 5 years.
Post on GAF.

All of this can be done while working full time btw.

Lemme guess. This was done growing up with a single mother on drugs, who you supported through selling drugs starting at age 12, in a gang infested neighborhood while going to schools that often didn't have heat in the winter time, nevertheless having good teachers or free books.

 

[Foffy]

Lemme guess. This was done growing up with a single mother on drugs, who you supported through selling drugs starting at age 12, in a gang infested neighborhood while going to schools that often didn't have heat in the winter time, nevertheless having good teachers or free books.

Such a mom fucked up at the easy game of life, of course.

 

[CrocMother]

Living at home at 30 represents a failure of one thing: career.

The reason most* live at home is money, right? As much as Miles wants to run around in circles about irrelevant shit, it comes down to people living at home because of money. If everyone in this thread living at home made $200k, would they live at home?

*Now there are cultural and personal reasons too, no one denies that. But let's take the most vanilla case that keeps getting thrown around here: need to live at home to save money.

If you need to live at home to save money, you fucked up. Before you ever leave college you should have secured a position to begin upon graduation. This is what internships, career centers, recruiting fairs, open houses, etc. exist for. There should never be a reason to go home because you need to look for a job. That is laughable. That means you did fuck all in college.

If you did secure a position and still need to live at home, that means you picked a career that doesn't make enough money for your area's basic lifestyle. If you live in NYC you know how much you have to make and which careers give you that option. If you chose to be a librarian making $20k, then you living at home is a result of you making poor choices. Not rising rent or the economy lol. If you live in Kansas and chose to be a librarian making $20k, you're absolutely normal because you knew that would be fine to support a life there. If you're working and living at home, you either fucked up your studies or didn't find the job that you need to make your career thrive.

If I meet a 30 year old living at home, the first thing I'd think is sick family member or their culture. Any other reason can only mean one thing: they fucked up. And that's why it's judged, not because I think they're immature or afraid of failure or play games all day. It just means they lost at the easy game of life.

Not everybody values money and career the same way you do.

 

[Symphonia]

They should be. You brought them into the world, so they are your responsibility until the day they are ready to be responsible for themselves. If you've done a good job as a parent, your children will be ready to leave at an earlier age than they would be if you haven't done a good job in ensuring they are ready for adulthood.

I think it's best if you just shut up from now on. You clearly have no clue about parenting or raising a child.

 

[Anime lover 69]

I'm 18 and moving out in a couple months so I couldn't be happier. Op do you not have any friends who can move in with you? That's what I'm doing atleast.

 

[I'm an expert]

Lemme guess. This was done growing up with a single mother on drugs, who you supported through selling drugs starting at age 12, in a gang infested neighborhood while going to schools that often didn't have heat in the winter time, nevertheless having good teachers or free books.

No, I didnt have it that bad. I came to the US at 13 and had my own troubles with drugs and gangs (I've written stories on GAF over the years about some). But of course what I'm typing cant encompass every single possible situation. There are people who have tremendous odds against them. I'm targeting the vanilla, normal middle class guy who in general has the ability to do what I typed, but choose not to or are afraid of the work to do it. This forum is made up mainly of those types.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It's not all or nothing. They don't have no control, but they don't have 100% control either, as their kids are their own persons and ultimately make their own decisions. I know plenty of families where one sibling was far more responsible than another. Though of course, their parents may have parented them differently.

This suggests to me that the parents did a better job with one kid than the other.

Yes I disagree, because some younglings these days are also lazy assholes that have to be kicked out of the house to grow up. Like many people in this thread already said is that it also helped them to move out. If you don't push your kids into that direction too and make it clear that they won't live their all the time, then you fucked up. It's okay to let them stay to get ahold of some ground in this world, but many exploit that too.

But I will stop discussing with you now because you think your position is 100% correct, but there is a bit more to your posts which you don't see it seems or you come from a culture where that lifestyle is normal which would be okay. But sorry I won't waste my whole life privacy just because my kids won't move out with 30.

I'm sorry, but kids don't just become lazy. It's part of the parents responsibility to ensure they aren't and can become productive people. If the kid doesn't become one, it can usually be traced back to bad parenting.

 

[Mendrox]

This suggests to me that the parents did a better job with one kid than the other.



I'm sorry, but kids don't just become lazy. It's part of the parents responsibility to ensure they aren't and can become productive people. If the kid doesn't become one, it can usually be traced back to bad parenting.

How naive. You think you can model kids like you want them to? You can try to put them into the right direction, help them making thoughtful and wise decisions, but changing their personalities which are not only made out of your teachings, but rather their social field, school life and interests? You seem to be the best (future) parent ever Sir. Thank you for your posts (where you also said that people that got kids by accident in general are stupid which you should be ashamed of).

 

[Vicetrailia]

This suggests to me that the parents did a better job with one kid than the other.



I'm sorry, but kids don't just become lazy. It's part of the parents responsibility to ensure they aren't and can become productive people. If the kid doesn't become one, it can usually be traced back to bad parenting.

You can treat both kids similarly as a parent and yet they both still come out wildly different.

As a parent you want to set your kids up for success, but there are no guarantees even with what you do.

 

[ascii42]

This suggests to me that the parents did a better job with one kid than the other.

Some kids are more difficult than others. Take my younger sister. She was very difficult in her late teens. My parents did their best, but ultimately it was my sister who had to figure out what she wanted to do with her life. Which she did, and got her shit together.

I'm sorry, but kids don't just become lazy. It's part of the parents responsibility to ensure they aren't and can become productive people. If the kid doesn't become one, it can usually be traced back to bad parenting.

So...from what you've been saying, if a parent lets their kid stay with them at 30, it's because they are bad parents, but if they kick them out to try to make the kid stand on their own two feet, they are also bad parents.

 

[Symphonia]

I'm sorry, but kids don't just become lazy. It's part of the parents responsibility to ensure they aren't and can become productive people. If the kid doesn't become one, it can usually be traced back to bad parenting.

Sorry, but it sounds like you're suggesting that children aren't their own people, with their own personalities and character traits. Good parenting doesn't necessarily mean the children will grow up to be a saint. To think that it does makes you either extremely naive, extremely stupid, or extremely ignorant.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

How naive. You think you can model kids like you want them to? You can try to put them into the right direction, help them making thoughtful and wise decisions, but changing their personalities which are not only made out of your teachings, but rather their social field, school life and interests? You seem to be the best (future) parent ever Sir. Thank you for your posts (where you also said that people that got kids by accident in general are stupid which you should be ashamed of).

Again, the idea is that you as a parent instil certain values that will remain regardless of their personality or social setting.

And what's there to be ashamed about for saying that people in a relationship who 'accidentally' get pregnant aren't particularly smart? They shouldn't be held responsible for their inability to use contraception?

You can treat both kids similarly as a parent and yet they both still come out wildly different.

As a parent you want to set your kids up for success, but there are no guarantees even with what you do.

Sure, things can happen and kids have their own personalities, but the idea that kids are born lazy is a weird one and what's been suggested. Your kids will be as responsible as you make them be. They'll be as independent as you encourage them to be.

 

[RulkezX]

Sorry, but it sounds like you're suggesting that children aren't their own people, with their own personalities and character traits. Good parenting doesn't necessarily mean the children will grow up to be a saint. To think that it does makes you either extremely naive, extremely stupid, or extremely ignorant.

He's just set his position to get quoted. The guy loves attention.

Another internet dweller who's an expert on things he has no practical real life experience with.

 

[I'm an expert]

Miles how many kids do you have again and how old are they.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Miles how many kids do you have again and how old are they.

You need to have kids to be able to talk about them?

 

[Wreav]

You need to have kids to be able to talk about them?

With the degree of certainty that you seem to possess, yes.

 

[Symphonia]

You need to have kids to be able to talk about them?

When it comes to someone saying how a kid should be raised, as if they have the experience themselves, yes.