I can't decide if I'm more disgusted by the idea that you think you can deny someone their personal identity because they disagree with you politically, or if I'm more amazed at the mental gymnastics it took to write this utter garbage.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/10/14/peter-thiel-shows-us-theres-difference-between-gay-sex-and-gay

The entirety of enlightened/liberal rhetoric regarding matters of sexuality (and eroticism itself) across my lifetime has been variations on the theme It's no big deal. The game seems to be about [A.] feigning imperturbability and, as in so many contexts of our public bazaar [B.] making social distance from people who don't want you around anyway.

(If sexuality —your own as well as that of others— doesn't rattle your cage now and then, you're doing it wrong.)

In two centuries, people will look at our times as being as weird, misguided and cowardly as Victorianism seems to us, and those people will be correct.

No wonder I'm confused. They keep "inventing" words to make themselves feel above others.

I just recently realized that "Pansexual people" did not worship the Greek God Pan.

(I thought "bi-" explained it pretty well but ...)

What is this?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2016/10/16/doj-demands-mass-fingerprint-seizure-to-open-iphones/#273bf0168d9d

No, of course not. Next question.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-looming-pension-crisis-of-state-and-local-governments/

Hint: bailouts, quantitative easing part XXX, and just general inflation.

Magical thinking.

https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry/status/787705327223537664/photo/1

"I just recently realized that "Pansexual people" did not worship the Greek God Pan."

Maybe they're people who have sex with pans. But (riffing on what Crid said), hey, who am I to judge.

Slightly more seriously: If our educational system were still functional, they might have learned in school that the prefix "pan-" literally means "all" or "everything", so when they claim to be pansexual, they are saying they have sex with everything -- trailer hitches, PVC pipe, knotholes, disk drives, Russian dolls, swords, airplane propellers, etc. Somehow, I doubt that that's what they mean.

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a22189/i-regret-having-kids/

"It's unthinkable, and it's definitely unspeakable, but women all over the world are coming forward to say it: I regret having my children."

Just part and parcel of the zero-responsibility, pay-for-my-college-and-then-my-lifestyle-regardless-of-my-employment, free birth control, free healthcare, kept as "children" on policies until age 26, living at home, progressive mindset. Anything-anything at all-that causes the slightest inconvenience to their "self-fulfillment" (whatever that is-_I say if you can't fulfill yourself it's probably due to a hole in you, not someone else's fault) must go. No kids. No jobs. No bills. No assignment deadlines. No expectations on them of any kind.

I have 4 kids. I stated college for my career (second time around for college) after having 2 of them. Had the other 2 during. No one ever paid for my childcare. No one ever denied me anything due to my gender or kids. I never missed a deadline, or got a bad score. Those too weak to do so, probably are too weak to succeed no matter how few responsibilities they have. Saying "I couldn't ____ because of my kids" is a pathetic cop-out of the hopelessly incompetent. People go to med school as single moms. People travel the world with their kids. People live in an RV administering in South Africa with their kids. People win Nobels with kids. People live in homeless shelters with their kids while interning to start their career. About the only thing a person might not could do, with kids, is haul one up Mt Everest in a backpack-because it'd be too cold for the kid. So, if you're a parent looking to climb Everest, you probably need a sitter. Anything else? Quit blaming kids for your inadequacies and just admit you could never write a novel, or get an advanced degree, or whatever.

See, it's their choice so we have to agree. Can't be judgemental. That's a bad thing.

So, there was a king tide today. Anyone run into an Arthur Curry?

I regret having my children.

So, who do you think will care for you when you are old and grey? Don't be surprised when you are called upon to do your patriotic duty and drink the hemlock tea when you are no longer useful to the state.

I don't have kids. If I get something terminal like pulmonary fibrosis, which my aunt is currently dying from, I won't have kids to care for me, so my caregiver might be a gun pointed at my own head with bullets inside.

So, do NOT regret having kids, people!

Can I regret some other people having kids? The mothers in Kevin's link are correct. They shouldn't have had kids. They are terrible parents. Probably terrible people too.

So, who do you think will care for you when you are old and grey?
___________________________________

You could have the perfect two or even three children and still see them die in traffic accidents (or become quadriplegics) several decades before YOU expect to die. Life is a gamble. Deal with it - and pay for your own nursing home, which is where old parents are likely to end up anyway. (If you don't have kids, you can save a lot of extra money for that.)
___________________________________________

They are terrible parents. Probably terrible people too.
__________________________________________

Not necessarily. Just because people like Einstein and Gandhi were at least semi-rotten parents (Einstein was neglectful; Gandhi wouldn't let his children get an education) doesn't mean they didn't do incredible amounts of good. They just shouldn't have had kids - and neither should anyone else who KNOWS he/she wouldn't be a better parent than that.

By and large, the people who criticize people for not having children are just jealous - and/or fearful of not being able to control childfree adults in one way or another. (Example: When there's a shortage of poor young cannon fodder, politicians get nervous.)

BTW, I read the Marie Claire article and the women in it don't sound nearly as "terrible" as Einstein and Gandhi did. Of course, they need to be sure that their kids don't find out what they said, but they don't sound neglectful - or even worse than, say, a remote father, whatever that means these days. (Not to mention that section where a mother who loved her kids but still put her husband first was actually BOOED by other mothers - why do the latter THINK divorce is so common? Jeez. Putting kids first is very often a terrible idea for everyone concerned.)

Reminds me of a great post by blogger Sylvia Lucas (her blog isn't working right now, unfortunately):

"He Says He Wants Kids - But Does He Mean, 'I want YOU to have kids'?"

In a nutshell, she suggested that a lot of men who claim they want kids would be just as happy NEVER to have kids if the alternative was to do half the dirty work that mothers traditionally do - such as the exhausting work of managing bored, screaming babies and preschoolers. That clearly lasts a few years longer than even diapers.