Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians, 'Spouse first, children second'?

Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:02:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without naming anyone, I saw something similar in a person's profile description. After browsing around for a bit on Google, it seems like this is actually a fairly popular position. I even read an article where the author stated that, if one has to choose between listening to a preteen who is in tears about something that happened at school, and listening to their spouse vent about bills, they should choose the spouse. I don't know, that just seems wrong to me. Am I just being a bleeding heart? Is this something that you don't really grasp until you're in that kind of adult relationship? I'm just curious what you guys have to say.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:23:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I saw this weeks ago http://abcnews.go.com...

I suppose I can kind of see where they're going with that... but I absolutely disagree. I've seen too many instances of abused children who told a parent and nothing was done about it because of the "spouse first" mentality.
yang.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:29:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 12:02:00 AM, Rusty wrote:
Without naming anyone, I saw something similar in a person's profile description. After browsing around for a bit on Google, it seems like this is actually a fairly popular position. I even read an article where the author stated that, if one has to choose between listening to a preteen who is in tears about something that happened at school, and listening to their spouse vent about bills, they should choose the spouse. I don't know, that just seems wrong to me. Am I just being a bleeding heart? Is this something that you don't really grasp until you're in that kind of adult relationship? I'm just curious what you guys have to say.

I'm in a long-term relationship now (though I might just sound like a kid to some saying that since I haven't been with her for even a decade) and I don't have a kid (and we plan to keep it that way), and I can't imagine loving another human being enough to care more about their problems than hers.

That said, I don't think there is any one absolutely correct answer; perhaps someone loves their child more than their spouse, and in that case, should prioritize the former's problems over the latter's (since the only relevant and significant enough conditional statement I can think to accompany "I ought to listen to my child's problem instead of my wife's" would be "if I care more for my child than my wife").
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:37:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 12:23:12 AM, tulle wrote:
I saw this weeks ago http://abcnews.go.com...

I suppose I can kind of see where they're going with that... but I absolutely disagree. I've seen too many instances of abused children who told a parent and nothing was done about it because of the "spouse first" mentality.

Yeah, I see what they're saying as well, but so many times the rhetoric that goes with it seems like it makes the kid out to be some leech. Of course you shouldn't let your kids run over you, and I agree that you should stand together on issues, punishment, authority, whatever, but I don't know, it just seems off somehow. Still trying to pinpoint exactly what it is. That's a good point though, I can definitely see how this kind of talking could very easily show up in abusive situations. :(
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 12:55:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 12:37:14 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/26/2013 12:23:12 AM, tulle wrote:
I saw this weeks ago http://abcnews.go.com...

I suppose I can kind of see where they're going with that... but I absolutely disagree. I've seen too many instances of abused children who told a parent and nothing was done about it because of the "spouse first" mentality.

Yeah, I see what they're saying as well, but so many times the rhetoric that goes with it seems like it makes the kid out to be some leech. Of course you shouldn't let your kids run over you, and I agree that you should stand together on issues, punishment, authority, whatever, but I don't know, it just seems off somehow. Still trying to pinpoint exactly what it is. That's a good point though, I can definitely see how this kind of talking could very easily show up in abusive situations. :(:

The spouse always comes first. You created the child with them and you are joined in one flesh. The child will grow, leave, marry, and be one flesh with their partner. This is designed by God. This does not detail mistreating or ignoring your child. It just means husband and wife are one and can not go against either in theory.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:07:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm definitely child first, spouse second. Your spouse is your partner, but your child is your responsibility.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:18:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although in general, I do support the notion that people should put their spouse before their children (since the well-being of the children depends a lot on the relationship between the parents), I don't think that means that in any situation, you should put your spouse before your children. For example, if your wife wants you to rub her shoulders while one of your kids is trying to drown the other in the bathtub, you need to go take care of your kids before your wife because the need to save a life is greater than the need for a shoulder rub.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:29:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
Although in general, I do support the notion that people should put their spouse before their children (since the well-being of the children depends a lot on the relationship between the parents), I don't think that means that in any situation, you should put your spouse before your children. For example, if your wife wants you to rub her shoulders while one of your kids is trying to drown the other in the bathtub, you need to go take care of your kids before your wife because the need to save a life is greater than the need for a shoulder rub.

I agree with this, but it should be pointed out that any wife who would demand you give her a shoulder rub despite knowing a child is in easily-fixable mortal danger in the next room (be it her child or not) should be no wife of yours.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 1:41:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 12:55:46 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 12:37:14 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/26/2013 12:23:12 AM, tulle wrote:
I saw this weeks ago http://abcnews.go.com...

I suppose I can kind of see where they're going with that... but I absolutely disagree. I've seen too many instances of abused children who told a parent and nothing was done about it because of the "spouse first" mentality.

Yeah, I see what they're saying as well, but so many times the rhetoric that goes with it seems like it makes the kid out to be some leech. Of course you shouldn't let your kids run over you, and I agree that you should stand together on issues, punishment, authority, whatever, but I don't know, it just seems off somehow. Still trying to pinpoint exactly what it is. That's a good point though, I can definitely see how this kind of talking could very easily show up in abusive situations. :(:

The spouse always comes first. You created the child with them and you are joined in one flesh. The child will grow, leave, marry, and be one flesh with their partner.

I don't see how any of these are relevant. Your spouse comes first because both of you made the child? What about rapists- should they take priority? What about someone's ex-spouse? And how does your statement account for adopted children? Nothing about this 'co-authorship' in itself seems to indicate what you're saying.

I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age. I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason. Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy. On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age? Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

This is designed by God. This does not detail mistreating or ignoring your child. It just means husband and wife are one and can not go against either in theory.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 2:47:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:41:27 AM, Rusty wrote:

I don't see how any of these are relevant. Your spouse comes first because both of you made the child?:

One reason.

What about rapists- should they take priority?:

Are they married?

What about someone's ex-spouse?:

They are not spouses.

And how does your statement account for adopted children? Nothing about this 'co-:authorship' in itself seems to indicate what you're saying.

Of course with adopted children the parents did not make them. This even helps my case.

I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age. I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason. Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy. On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age? Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

This has got off topic. This is about two married people and their child(ren).

This is designed by God. This does not detail mistreating or ignoring your child. It just means husband and wife are one and can not go against either in theory.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:08:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 2:47:00 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:41:27 AM, Rusty wrote:

I don't see how any of these are relevant. Your spouse comes first because both of you made the child?:

One reason.

What about rapists- should they take priority?:

Are they married?

See below.


What about someone's ex-spouse?:

They are not spouses.

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear, but I don't think you understand the way I was attempting to argue this. I took your argument as "Spouses should be number one because of characteristics A and B." From there, I was saying, "Well, these people (rapists and ex-spouses) also have these characteristics. Should they be number one?"


And how does your statement account for adopted children? Nothing about this 'co-:authorship' in itself seems to indicate what you're saying.

Of course with adopted children the parents did not make them. This even helps my case.

I'm not sure that it does, actually. Let me try to be more clear. Suppose that, after conceiving a child on their own, a couple adopts another one. Presumably, you agree that, in matters of well-being, they should be treated equally. In other words, they shouldn't adopt a baby and then treat it as inferior to the other one. However, if you're to accept this, then it seems that you're being inconsistent, since you clearly cite direct conception as relating to well-being responsibility. Unless I'm misinterpreting you (could very well be the case, it's very late/early here), you would be forced to either bite the bullet and have this callous sort of view towards the status of adopted children, or revise your reasons for why a spouse is to be given preference.


I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age. I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason. Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy. On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age? Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

This has got off topic. This is about two married people and their child(ren).

I've already answered this objection above, but for what it's worth, this was probably the most on-topic part of my response as far as being applicable to still-married couples. Not sure why you skipped over it. I would still appreciate a response.


This is designed by God. This does not detail mistreating or ignoring your child. It just means husband and wife are one and can not go against either in theory.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 5:11:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 4:08:12 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/26/2013 2:47:00 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:41:27 AM, Rusty wrote:


What about someone's ex-spouse?:

They are not spouses.

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear, but I don't think you understand the way I was attempting to argue this. I took your argument as "Spouses should be number one because of characteristics A and B." From there, I was saying, "Well, these people (rapists and ex-spouses) also have these characteristics. Should they be number one?" :

No the whole conversation implies that spouses are in fact married. Once spouses are no longer married the dynamics change. I came from this in a Biblical standpoint were men and women are one flesh. You can never have a relationship with your wife as your child and vice verse. No relationship or friendship is greater than your wife.

I'm not sure that it does, actually. Let me try to be more clear. Suppose that, after conceiving a child on their own, a couple adopts another one. Presumably, you agree that, in matters of well-being, they should be treated equally.:

Of course, we should all be treated equally but that does not mean it will happen.

In other words, they shouldn't adopt a baby and then treat it as inferior to the other one. However, if you're to accept this, then it seems that you're being inconsistent, since you clearly cite direct conception as relating to well-being responsibility.:

No, I simply stated that there is a distinct connection with most mothers and fathers and their actual conceived children. Some cases maybe not but that is not the norm.

Unless I'm misinterpreting you (could very well be the case, it's very late/early here), you would be forced to either bite the bullet and have this callous sort of view towards the status of adopted children, or revise your reasons for why a spouse is to be given preference.

This can go even further and you can say that the spouse comes first simply because they are adults and the child is not. That added to the fact you and your spouse are together for life and your child leaves.

I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age.:

I don't follow here really as it connecting to the discussion. You must think I am saying you should love your spouse more then a child but that is not what I am saying. Neither am I saying that for adopted children. Love and coming first is not the same.

I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason.:

Again they are not spouses. If you refer to common-law then I would accept they are married and my argument still applies.

Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy.:

You forget your OP implies marriage.

On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age?:

I don't see age as a issue and of it is, it supports me as the child should submit to a parent.

Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

I don't follow.

DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:18:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 5:11:55 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 4:08:12 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/26/2013 2:47:00 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 1:41:27 AM, Rusty wrote:


What about someone's ex-spouse?:

They are not spouses.

Perhaps it's my fault for not being clear, but I don't think you understand the way I was attempting to argue this. I took your argument as "Spouses should be number one because of characteristics A and B." From there, I was saying, "Well, these people (rapists and ex-spouses) also have these characteristics. Should they be number one?" :

No the whole conversation implies that spouses are in fact married. Once spouses are no longer married the dynamics change. I came from this in a Biblical standpoint were men and women are one flesh. You can never have a relationship with your wife as your child and vice verse. No relationship or friendship is greater than your wife.


I'm not sure that it does, actually. Let me try to be more clear. Suppose that, after conceiving a child on their own, a couple adopts another one. Presumably, you agree that, in matters of well-being, they should be treated equally.:

Of course, we should all be treated equally but that does not mean it will happen.

That might be relevant if I hadn't used the word 'should', and had it not been obvious that I'm talking about what we ought to think on that matter. Not quite sure what your response here really adds to the conversation.


In other words, they shouldn't adopt a baby and then treat it as inferior to the other one. However, if you're to accept this, then it seems that you're being inconsistent, since you clearly cite direct conception as relating to well-being responsibility.:

No, I simply stated that there is a distinct connection with most mothers and fathers and their actual conceived children. Some cases maybe not but that is not the norm.

I think it's really pretty clear what you were saying.

You: "The spouse always comes first. You created the child with them [...]"

Me: "Your spouse comes first because both of you made the child? [...] And how does your statement account for adopted children?"

You: "Of course with adopted children the parents did not make them. This even helps my case [that the spouse should come before the child]."


Unless I'm misinterpreting you (could very well be the case, it's very late/early here), you would be forced to either bite the bullet and have this callous sort of view towards the status of adopted children, or revise your reasons for why a spouse is to be given preference.

This can go even further and you can say that the spouse comes first simply because they are adults and the child is not. That added to the fact you and your spouse are together for life and your child leaves.

I've read this about three times and I have no idea how this is related to the point you're responding to. You say it's 'going even further.' Is this supposed to be a sort of extension to the point I'm making? Would you mind making it more explicit? I don't follow.


I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age.:

I don't follow here really as it connecting to the discussion.

If you don't follow, I'll try to be more clear. One of your central notions is the idea of the child growing up, moving out and starting a family of their own. My response is that it's extremely easy to think of real-world examples where that isn't the case. A child might be severely handicapped and fail to move out at the usual age, they might choose celibacy for religious reasons and thus not start a family of their own even when they do move out, and I could go on. These seem like adequate counterexamples.

You must think I am saying you should love your spouse more then a child but that is not what I am saying. Neither am I saying that for adopted children. Love and coming first is not the same.


I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason.:

Again they are not spouses. If you refer to common-law then I would accept they are married and my argument still applies.

Oh, my, goodness. I'm talking about the child. The child who you keep saying will move out and start a family of their own. There are children who don't grow up to get married.


Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy.:

You forget your OP implies marriage.

Talking about the child here... still. Even if the child has married parents, that child might end up choosing to be celibate for religious reasons when they grow up.


On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age?:

I don't see age as a issue and of it is, it supports me as the child should submit to a parent.

That doesn't even make sense....... See below.

Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

I don't follow.


How is it right to say that they shouldn't ever have preference because "Well, they'll move out and have a spouse of their own soon enough anyhow..." when that's hardly helpful if they're currently ten years old? Like, why would their future prospects even factor in at that age?
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 6:18:42 AM, Rusty wrote:


Of course, we should all be treated equally but that does not mean it will happen.

That might be relevant if I hadn't used the word 'should', and had it not been obvious that I'm talking about what we ought to think on that matter. Not quite sure what your response here really adds to the conversation.

Look up, my answer is underlined.

In other words, they shouldn't adopt a baby and then treat it as inferior to the other one. However, if you're to accept this, then it seems that you're being inconsistent, since you clearly cite direct conception as relating to well-being responsibility.:

No, I simply stated that there is a distinct connection with most mothers and fathers and their actual conceived children. Some cases maybe not but that is not the norm.

I think it's really pretty clear what you were saying.

You: "The spouse always comes first. You created the child with them [...]"

Me: "Your spouse comes first because both of you made the child? [...] And how does your statement account for adopted children?"

You: "Of course with adopted children the parents did not make them. This even helps my case [that the spouse should come before the child]."

You have not shown otherwise.

I've read this about three times and I have no idea how this is related to the point you're responding to. You say it's 'going even further.' Is this supposed to be a sort of extension to the point I'm making? Would you mind making it more explicit? I don't follow.

You do not follow that a man and woman are together for life(except divorce) and the child leaves. You are the adults compared to the child and the adult should come first(most circumstances, sure some exist that makes this mute).

I also don't understand how your future prospects argument can account for the fact that it would be incredibly easy to think of real-world examples where this isn't the case. I'm thinking of extremely disabled children who don't end up moving out of the house at a regular age.:

I don't follow here really as it connecting to the discussion.

If you don't follow, I'll try to be more clear. One of your central notions is the idea of the child growing up, moving out and starting a family of their own. My response is that it's extremely easy to think of real-world examples where that isn't the case. A child might be severely handicapped and fail to move out at the usual age, they might choose celibacy for religious reasons and thus not start a family of their own even when they do move out, and I could go on. These seem like adequate counterexamples.

You must think I am saying you should love your spouse more then a child but that is not what I am saying. Neither am I saying that for adopted children. Love and coming first is not the same.


I'm also thinking of people who don't end up getting married for whatever reason.:

Again they are not spouses. If you refer to common-law then I would accept they are married and my argument still applies.

Oh, my, goodness. I'm talking about the child. The child who you keep saying will move out and start a family of their own. There are children who don't grow up to get married.

So you are saying that I should make my child equal to my wife because he stays at home when he is grown. Utter nonsense. My house, my rules, my wives house, her rules, not childs house, no rules.

Perhaps they never end up finding someone or they're practicing religiously-motivated celibacy.:

You forget your OP implies marriage.

Talking about the child here... still. Even if the child has married parents, that child might end up choosing to be celibate for religious reasons when they grow up.

Still what does that have to do with the spouse coming before the child?

On top of everything else, how does your statement account for age?:

I don't see age as a issue and of it is, it supports me as the child should submit to a parent.

That doesn't even make sense....... See below.

Can a parent treat a child in a particular way simply because they'll (although, again, this isn't even necessarily true) one day have the type of support system that many mature adults have?

I don't follow.


How is it right to say that they shouldn't ever have preference because "Well, they'll move out and have a spouse of their own soon enough anyhow..." when that's hardly helpful if they're currently ten years old? Like, why would their future prospects even factor in at that age?:

Dude why marry at all if you are going to hold your child in a higher ranking then your partner and spouse? Is your child going to be your spouse? Is your child going to devote many years of friendship as a wife would? NO.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:52:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pennington, I can't do this if you're going to keep straw manning and paying attention to maybe four words from every paragraph I respond with. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying you should live in your mom's basement. I'm not saying children should have some kind of creepy spouse-like relationship with their parents. I was simply criticizing your argumentation by giving some counter-examples and bringing some of your assumptions (for instance, that all children will grow up to be married) to light. I can't re-explain myself every post though.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:58:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 6:52:00 AM, Rusty wrote:
Pennington, I can't do this if you're going to keep straw manning and paying attention to maybe four words from every paragraph I respond with. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying you should live in your mom's basement. I'm not saying children should have some kind of creepy spouse-like relationship with their parents. I was simply criticizing your argumentation by giving some counter-examples and bringing some of your assumptions (for instance, that all children will grow up to be married) to light. I can't re-explain myself every post though.:

You have yet to respond to the very first and most important contention I mentioned. A husband and wife are one flesh. How can one body choose between itself? A body should work with itself.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 6:58:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Pop-quiz hot shot:

You have a toddler with a diaper so full of diarrhea it's dripping down the back of his leg and he already has one tag on the diaper undone.

You have a spouse that wants to plan the meals for the week.

Who comes first, spouse or the child? What'll it be?
Sui_Generis
Posts: 493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:05:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 12:05:37 AM, Rusty wrote:
To add on to that, I guess I have more of a problem with that particular example than with the notion as a whole.

Same here. That example could be biblically argued either way, though I lean against it. As the poster above said, you should pick your wife such that she will defer to a child in tears when she herself is not in tears. (or perhaps even still)

Given the choice, "Your wife and child are overboard and there is one lifesaver, to whom do you toss it?"

My wife, with one exception: If my wife is a Christian and my child is not, then I would save my child. My wife I know I will see in heaven, regardless of when she dies. If I choose my wife I know I will never see my child in heaven.
"Mundus vult decipi--the world wants to be deceived. The truth is too complex and frightening; the taste for the truth is an acquired taste that few acquire."
-Martin Buber, I and Thou
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:05:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 6:58:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
Pop-quiz hot shot:

You have a toddler with a diaper so full of diarrhea it's dripping down the back of his leg and he already has one tag on the diaper undone.

You have a spouse that wants to plan the meals for the week.

Who comes first, spouse or the child? What'll it be?

I am sure the standard of planning the weekly meals are not important enough to even place in this conversation. That aside, why can not plan the meals while changing the diaper?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:07:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 6:58:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
Pop-quiz hot shot:

You have a toddler with a diaper so full of diarrhea it's dripping down the back of his leg and he already has one tag on the diaper undone.

You have a spouse that wants to plan the meals for the week.

Who comes first, spouse or the child? What'll it be?

Spouse, duh. They're going to live with you forever and ever! Your child's going to be gone in, like, two-ish decades. Eff them. It's not like the toddler is a toddler and your spouse is a grown-@ss adult or anything. Besides, the kid will probably feel better just to see you and your spouse getting along!

... Sorry, long, frustrating conversation with some people in this thread.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:05:32 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 6:58:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
Pop-quiz hot shot:

You have a toddler with a diaper so full of diarrhea it's dripping down the back of his leg and he already has one tag on the diaper undone.

You have a spouse that wants to plan the meals for the week.

Who comes first, spouse or the child? What'll it be?

I am sure the standard of planning the weekly meals are not important enough to even place in this conversation.

No you aren't. You and your husband are one fvcking flesh. How can you CHOOSE BETWEEN YOUR OWN BODY?! Let the little fvck wallow in his own feces. You can just make another, right?

That aside, why can not plan the meals while changing the diaper?

That's not an option.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:11:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 6:58:10 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 6:52:00 AM, Rusty wrote:
Pennington, I can't do this if you're going to keep straw manning and paying attention to maybe four words from every paragraph I respond with. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying you should live in your mom's basement. I'm not saying children should have some kind of creepy spouse-like relationship with their parents. I was simply criticizing your argumentation by giving some counter-examples and bringing some of your assumptions (for instance, that all children will grow up to be married) to light. I can't re-explain myself every post though.:

You have yet to respond to the very first and most important contention I mentioned. A husband and wife are one flesh. How can one body choose between itself? A body should work with itself.

Don't think so, sir. You can't just ignore entire points I make and then ask me to respond to one of yours. If you want to get back into this, start by giving me a real response to that last one.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:17:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Pennington:

You just lost the argument.

1. You conceded that the importance of the issues determines the outcome, meaning there isn't a general rule to adhere to.

2. You proposed a compromise, thus negating the necessary dominance of one over the other.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:19:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:09:35 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2013 7:05:32 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 6:58:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
Pop-quiz hot shot:

You have a toddler with a diaper so full of diarrhea it's dripping down the back of his leg and he already has one tag on the diaper undone.

You have a spouse that wants to plan the meals for the week.

Who comes first, spouse or the child? What'll it be?

I am sure the standard of planning the weekly meals are not important enough to even place in this conversation.

No you aren't. You and your husband are one fvcking flesh. How can you CHOOSE BETWEEN YOUR OWN BODY?! Let the little fvck wallow in his own feces. You can just make another, right?

That aside, why can not plan the meals while changing the diaper?

That's not an option.

It very much is a option. Are you saying you can not talk and discuss while changing a diaper?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:21:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 7:11:30 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 4/26/2013 6:58:10 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/26/2013 6:52:00 AM, Rusty wrote:
Pennington, I can't do this if you're going to keep straw manning and paying attention to maybe four words from every paragraph I respond with. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not saying you should live in your mom's basement. I'm not saying children should have some kind of creepy spouse-like relationship with their parents. I was simply criticizing your argumentation by giving some counter-examples and bringing some of your assumptions (for instance, that all children will grow up to be married) to light. I can't re-explain myself every post though.:

You have yet to respond to the very first and most important contention I mentioned. A husband and wife are one flesh. How can one body choose between itself? A body should work with itself.

Don't think so, sir. You can't just ignore entire points I make and then ask me to respond to one of yours. If you want to get back into this, start by giving me a real response to that last one.

Ok, I guess this is over then. You have not made any points. You think up invalid arguments while ignoring the base of my case.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 7:55:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 1:18:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
Although in general, I do support the notion that people should put their spouse before their children (since the well-being of the children depends a lot on the relationship between the parents), I don't think that means that in any situation, you should put your spouse before your children. For example, if your wife wants you to rub her shoulders while one of your kids is trying to drown the other in the bathtub, you need to go take care of your kids before your wife because the need to save a life is greater than the need for a shoulder rub.

This^. Most of the time a spouse would come first.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:31:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
bumpity
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:31:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
bump
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.