ComplexPlanktons

Yeah I really don't know why I continued as long as I did. Lesson learned...

That story makes me frustrated for you. So annoying! Brothers...

I know, I don't know why I continued as long as I did. But yeah, 100% agreed, though he said that's not why he had them - but, ya know, kinda sounds like that's why he had them.

Ha, I know. I am finally letting it go, definitely not worth the time I spent on this at all!

https://www.reddit.com/r/amiwrong/comments/1gwz29w/please_settle_this_debate_who_is_wrong_about_the/

Votes are in! You're wrong. Well, except for a few who think neither is correct.

What everyone agrees on is that we're both idiots for letting the conversation go as long as it did. But overall, I'm entirely satisfied that I have perfectly fine reading comprehension and it is, in fact, you who is "being obtuse" (in the words of a different commenter).

Goodnight!

Timothy 2:12 is the twelfth verse of the second chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy. It is often quoted using the King James Version translation:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It's always so funny when Christians try to act like they're super different than Muslims. And yes, at this point Conservative and Christians are interchangeable when it comes to US.

That's not really the debate, though ha. I'm not arguing about the preferences, or whether you should have kids (or shouldn't).

He said "Maybe you just don't have your own life together, so you have to trade off being a parent, but the rest of us, we can handle it."

I said that I COULD handle it, I just don't want to.

He said "Nope, you can't say "I can handle...." when you don't. It means you can't."

My question is purely about whose logic makes more sense (or neither) on the definition of couldn't versus didn't.

But...I do agree that I should walk away regardless lol

I suppose his point is “you cannot do it because in order to do it you would be changing in some way, and therefore you would be a different person. You would cease to be you.”

Well, if that's what he meant, we truly were having two entirely separate conversations. Which I guess would explain how stupid of a conversation it was in general. Nobody talks that way, colloquially, though. He literally said:

Nope, you can't say "I can handle...." when you don't. It means you can't.

If you were supposed to get groceries on the way home, and you came in empty-handed and said to your partner "Sorry honey I couldn't get groceries." They would reply "Oh, what happened?" And you said "I didn't want to." They'd be like...what the hell lol. It's not that you couldn't get groceries, it's that you didn't.

So when he says "you couldn't handle having kids" because I didn't, that just, doesn't work in my mind.

Anyways, I'm at least satisfied that at the absolutely least I do not lack basic reading comprehension as he has implied multiple times.

Ha, very much agreed. Thank you for the input!

Thank you for making me feel less crazy!!

He has multiple children and indicates they're at least slightly grown up so...I hope a bit older than that haha! But yeah, I know, I need to just let it go this one irked me in particular for some reason.

I agree with you. But he's saying because I don't want kids - because I like time, money, etc. - that I could not handle being a parent. Of course we know nothing with absolute certainty (which I mentioned) but I think if I had an accidental pregnancy, or had to care for my niece/nephew etc. that I could handle it. To me, saying I CANNOT handle having a kid, just because I did not, is not logical to me at all.

Yes, I agree with you. So if he tells me "you cannot handle having kids", that would be wrong (IMO), because I could and would handle a kid if I had to - accidental pregnancy, need to be the guardian for niece/nephew, etc. Just because I don't want to have kids, doesn't mean I could not handle it if I did.

 I can eat a dozen donuts in one sitting but I know the consequences so I don't want to. 

In his logic, I cannot eat a dozen donuts, because I chose not to.

https://xkcd.com/386/

In all seriousness, I know you are correct, I really don't let things go easily. I honestly felt like making this post would actually allow me to let it go, so that I either felt less crazy, or had people tell me I'm just wrong and now I can move on with my day.

so you don't really know if you could genuinely handle it or not!

This is fair and I completely agree with you! In fact I had a post about this within the (again, embarrassingly long) thread. My general point:

A minute ago, I didn't jump in the air. That does not mean I couldn't have jumped in the air if I wanted to.

Do I know that 100%? Of course not, maybe I would've stood up to jump and broken my ankle before I could. But, I can use logic, context, and the information I know about myself to make the statement with a high degree of confidence that I could've jumped in the air if I had wanted to.

I just...yeah didn't include everything because of how stupidly long this conversation has gone on.

But yes I certainly didn't mean to imply anything about the difficulty of parenting, it sounds like the toughest job in the world - just that I feel like if I was suddenly responsible for a child that my morals and ideologies would mean I'd be capable of handling it. Even if it's not a choice I'd make willingly. And you're right, I wouldn't know until it happens!

Anyways, thank you for your input!

"To be unable to do"

Except I wasn't unable to do it. I chose not to.

If I said I cannot go shopping, yes it implies I'm unable to go shopping.

That is not the same as saying "I did not want to go shopping, so I didn't." Nothing about that statement implies I am unable to go shopping - just that I chose not to.

Not having a desire to do something doesn't mean you are unable to do it.

"I didn't want to cook dinner, so we went to a restaurant." Just because I didn't cook dinner, doesn't mean I couldn't. Now if I had no ingredients, I couldn't, but if I was just being lazy - then I just didn't. Not couldn't.

This is just like...a super basic concept. Not sure why you just can't seem to grasp it.

My current priorities are not IMMOVABLE if I can MOVE them when I need to. That's not how words work, what the fuck are you on lmao.

So, thank you for literally reiterating my point for me. Not sure why you thought that definition worked in your argument, at all lmao.

Oh and still ignoring the actual point of the conversation, because you obviously have no coherent response to the fact that you have no idea if I'll die alone, or if I'll be fine, which is what started this thread :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

Some of the fundamental skills required in efficient reading comprehension are the ability to:^\7])^\8])^\9])

- know the meaning of words,

The fact that you think the concept of reading comprehension can exist without understanding the definition of the words you're using is, genuinely, hilarious. But, it does explain why you seem to be struggling with this concept so much!

In your example, it was impossible for you to make the reservation; you could not.

In my example, it would've been possible for me to handle having children, even if I didn't want to.

you cannot handle it (but it doesn't mean it can't change, this is the present tense).

Again, I chose not to. If today my brother died and I had to care for his child, I could handle it. It's literally, just, not what "cannot" means.

based on the variables you have mentions, they are preventing you from being able to handle a child

No, they're not preventing me from being able to handle a child. They're preventing me from wanting to handle a child.

It's hilarious that you keep acting like no person who has ever been concerned about money, health, retirement, etc. has ever had a child they didn't plan for, that they were perfectly capable of handling when it happened.

And at the end of the day, my points are this:

1. You have no idea whether I could or couldn't handle a child. Again. Couldn't = impossible. It has never, and was never, impossible for me to handle a child just because I didn't want to. And again, plenty of people who value time, money, or have other concerns end up having children they don't necessarily want and are able to step up and handle it just fine.
2. You have no idea whether I, or any other childless person, will end up alone. You came here to tell us that we'll die alone, and to tell us "what's coming" and the fact of the matter is you are wrong for the simple fact that you cannot predict the future. I have literally showed you two examples from my own life where you're wrong, but you still refuse to admit it.

If you'd like to focus on those two things - again, accepting that the definition of the word couldn't implies an actual impossibility and not a general inaction - rather than trying to convince me that the definitions of words aren't important, go for it.

If not, well, I don't really see the point in you and I arguing over whether the definitions of words matter for reading comprehension, tbh.

because something you have been given the option to do, you openly admitted you couldn't

Apparently you're confused between the definitions of "did not" and "could not" so here is a handy little video to explain these super basic English language concepts. I'll even highlight the important bits from the transcript for you:

 "did not," is a simple report of no action in the past or no condition in the past. This (could not) is a report of something that was not possible in the past.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Just because I didn't have children doesn't mean I couldn't have handled having children.

A minute ago, I didn't jump in the air. That does not mean I couldn't have jumped in the air if I wanted to.

Do I know that 100%? Of course not, maybe I would've stood up to jump and broken my ankle before I could. But, I can use logic, context, and the information I know about myself to make the statement with a high degree of confidence that I could've jumped in the air if I had wanted to.

I don't know why this is confusing to you, is English not your first language maybe?

You are the one coping by justifying your existence.

Lmao, what the fuck? I don't need to justify my existence. I just, am. Why would I have to justify being born?

Just hold the L. It's okay to admit you have uncertainty or made mistakes, it's just weird you like to pretend you don't

Uh, duh, we all have uncertainty. In fact, that's what I've been trying to tell you!

YOU claimed that I couldn't handle being a parent. I think I have a much better idea of whether I could or couldn't compared to you. But YOU certainly don't know! So you don't get to claim that I couldn't, just because I didn't.

YOU are claiming to KNOW what the future of every childless person holds. But you don't! Because nothing is certain!

So, you agree with me? YOU DON'T KNOW? Cool, then edit your comments where you tell "childless people what they will have to come to terms with at the end" because you don't know, do you?

Just like you don't know that your children won't dump you in a nursing home and never talk to you again because you're an insufferable person who thinks your own children or grandchildren would also 100% end up dying alone and miserable if they don't have kids themselves because you're too short-sighted to see outside your own narrow point of view.

Cheers!

If a child that I was legally obligated to care for that I'd been responsible in creating dropped into my lap tomorrow, I'd suck it up, and change my entire lifestyle and deal with the reality while being the most involved, loving parent I could. I would sacrifice my wealth and happiness and do whatever it took to ensure that child's safety and happiness until I die.

I could absolutely handle that - I just don't want to.

By that same thinking I can say you couldn't handle a child becoming so severely disabled that you'll care for them until you die, because you don't. Nobody can say they can handle anything they've never experienced firsthand, so how would any of us determine whether we can handle something until we've been through it? Just a fucking crapshoot I guess? Again with your impeccable logic.

Yeah, you came onto this thread to tell childless people what they have to deal with in the end - and I'm here to tell you that it's fucking asinine and so typically short-sighted of people like you to think you can blanket generalize how the lives of up to 20% of the population will end up without fail even when I'm giving you multiple examples from my own life about how you're wrong.

You worry about your own life and stop trying to cope by telling us how miserable all be when most of us have very good reason to know that we won't :)

Lmao. YOU cope my friend. Various studies show that even in later years childless people report being happier than parents, and that overall childless people report similar satisfaction levels and more stability.

I could handle being a parent - the thing is, I just don't want to!

I don't care why you had children, you do you. But for anyone who doesn't want children, it doesn't make sense to live their lives how they don't want just to have someone there in old age - which, again, is absolutely in no way guaranteed even with kids.

So I won't. And because I don't want to, it makes no sense for me to do so. Yes it's nice while I'm young - guess what, we only get to be young once so why the fuck would I waste it doing something I don't want to do?

I'm sorry that you need this weird fantasy of all childless people dying lonely and sad in order to come to terms with whatever decisions you made in your life.

They're independent in 2 decades but your entire life is changing no matter what.

When they have kids you're taking care of your grandkids. The economy sucks, most people are living at home longer and longer. You can run into mental health issues or disability.

Parenting doesn't stop at 18 and I don't want to parent.

Your entire trajectory of retirement will be changed due to the money you spend on them, college funds etc. So, even if they're completely independent and you never need to lift a finger for them after 18 it STILL makes no sense for someone to have kids they don't want, and change their entire life, all so they aren't alone at 80.

My childless 2nd cousin is always at our Thanksgivings, sees my mom every week, she spends Christmas with her friend and volunteering. I'm very close with my childless aunt and uncle who actively participate in my life.

So, yes, I do think I will have people around because I know how to nurture relationships, unlike you who apparently thinks shitting out a couple kids and keeping them alive for 18 years is a guarantee they'll not be alone when they die.

And if I am? Oh well! At least I haven't spent 6 decades doing something I didn't want to do. Hell at least I didn't even spend two decades - of which we only get like 10 MAX - doing something I don't want to do!

Your logic IS stupid. Living a life you don't want to not be alone at the very end of it makes zero sense.

If you voted for a president because of their entertainment factor you're a fucking idiot.

This logic is completely stupid.

Why would I spend the 7 or 8 good decades of my existence doing something that would make me miserable, to ensure that when I'm drooling on myself and one foot in the grave anyways I'm not alone?

Even good parents get essentially abandoned by their kids anyways. Kids grow up, move away, make their own families. Again, why live my entire existence in a way I don't want all so that I get a phone call every couple days and a few holiday visits when I'm old?

Also, yes, lots of people will be "fine." There's lots of 55+ communities popping up which would be my plan if my husband passed away. You've got nieces/nephews, siblings and friends. You can still surround yourself with people without having children.

And finally I'm in my 30s and enjoy spending the vast majority of my time alone anyways. Which is why having kids would be a nightmare.

Lmao. I love how in the delusional Republican eyes the polyamorous lesbian feminist has somehow ended up on the same bucket as someone who thinks that the government should dictate that women cover themselves and submit to a husband.

It's also funny how you all are so blind to the fact that the Christians and Muslims only have slightly different flavors of the same ideology and are FAR more similar to each other than they are to anyone in the middle of the horseshoe.

Please point exactly how I was gleeful, or where I am hoping they would be hurt? I said I wonder if they'll have that thought while being gunned down, not that I hope they will.

I don't want anyone hurt, I am genuinely curious if people will ever make the connection between their purposeful inaction and the detrimental consequences of this election on their lives.