Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: InPassing: Walking is cute, Talking is bad. 17

Journal by Chacham

From the hallowed halls of the men's bathroom today i heard something like the following, when two people were talking about (one who's wife was) having a kid:

Walking is cute, talking is bad. Trust me.

Then:

Once they start talking, they don't shut up.

And after guy one left, guy two continued with guy three:

Well, the baby didn't have a cell phone in his ear, so it can't be a girl.

--

I can't say much for the latter, but the first comment seemed quite backwards to me. Walking enables the child to get into all sorts of trouble, yet talking allows you to know what they are thinking.

I guess that to him a child is just a toy, when they walk it's an upgraded model, but as soon as they talk they're as annoying as a U-Scan checkout lane in the market.

I find it sad that such people lack the appreciation of the beauty and wonder of a child.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

InPassing: Walking is cute, Talking is bad.

Comments Filter:
  • Well except for the cell phone one...

    If you deal with teenagers on a regular basis you sometimes do wish that the talking fucntion were disabled. Usually because it has a tendency to get stuck in "obstinate argument mode." ;-)

    • Usually because it has a tendency to get stuck in "obstinate argument mode." ;-)

      Heh.

      But seriously, think about it. Imagine teens actually couldn't talk. Do you think all that angst would just delightfully dissappear?
      • No, they would still know everything, they just wouldn't feel compelled to share the wealth.

        Seriously though, that's just what most fathers do. They commiserate over the trouble of children. It's a release valve. Most still feel fiercely protective of and caring about their children, they just don't show it as publicly.

        And besides, have you never seen one of those, "Kids Say The Darndest Things" shows, or whatever? They can really get you into trouble with guests, bosses, relatives, etc. :)
        • No, they would still know everything, they just wouldn't feel compelled to share the wealth.

          I think they would, they'd just find another avenue.

          Seriously though, that's just what most fathers do. They commiserate over the trouble of children. It's a release valve. Most still feel fiercely protective of and caring about their children, they just don't show it as publicly.

          Probably. Regardless, it's hard to ignore such nonsense.
    • Walking enables them to get into trouble. Talking confirms that it wasn't by mistake :-)
  • He's probably just venting. You were there, maybe not, but I can see myself saying something like this, but it doesn't mean I don't want them to talk. It is just expressing that sometimes this ability can be trying. Here's how it went this morning with me and my son. I'm gonna give you a slice of it, but you loop this for about 15 minutes (I am not exagerating) and you might see what I mean.

    Watch star wars daddy?
    no- not this morning
    star wars?
    no- not right now
    luke good guy?
    yes, luke is the good g
    • Interesting, thanx.

      I'm not trying to say that his comment was wrong. Just that he thought walking was fine. I'd have to say walking is a lot worse for the kid given the new areas he can reach. That made an impression on me as stated.

      The main point of the JE though is just to repeat it. Agree or not, it's just an interesting subject.

      • oh, as far as walking/talking, i totally agree. i always tell my friends, 'Once they can crawl, you can kiss the easy life goodbye.' In fact I like it when they can't roll over. You put 'em somewhere and you know you can turn around for a second and they'll still be where you put 'em. It is amazing how fast they can get around once they start crawling.

        And once they walk they climb. A 6 year old died last week when he tried to climb a pile of bricks in his yard and they fell on him. Man, being
  • I have a complete lack of, maybe even a inability for, appreciation of the beauty and wonder of children. I don't like immature people, and that is by definition what children are, hence... But that's okay, because I don't plan on having any.

    Some people see children as "pets that talk". Not really consciously think that, but act as if it were so, in that they give them the level of attention as they would the family dog. They also should not have children. What I find sad is people who don't particularly li
    • I don't like immature people, and that is by definition what children are,

      But that immaturity is not because they can be mature but choose not to be, which would annoy me as well.

      Thanx for the comment. I agree and disagree with your point. I agree with the sentiment, but not with the choice not to have children. I believe in propogration of the species and all that, though there is room for discussion about the unworthy.
      • This is an interesting subject, for while I don't plan on participating in real life, I seem to have opinions about it nonetheless. :-)

        But that immaturity is not because they can be mature but choose not to be, which would annoy me as well.

        Then you have the correct mentality to have kids.

        For me, I'm not annoyed by the intent to be immature, I'm just annoyed by the immaturity itself. Of course I know kids can't help it and I don't blame them, but I dislike it all the same.

        I believe in propogration of the spe
        • Do you?

          Yes. It's a verse, Isaiah 45:18 [blueletterbible.org]. So that's where the basic belief comes from. Of course, Genesis 9:1 [blueletterbible.org] more or less commands it.

          Now, with that said, competency must come into the picture, though, i'm not one for legislation.
          • A seemingly strange choice of verses. Isn't the Isaiah one referring to the return of the Jews to their land after a judgment by and their scattering by God? And the Genesis one is the command to Noah to repopulate the earth after God wiped out all its inhabitants in the flood. Both are restorative in nature, the intent being to set things back to what they once were, and I don't think have the additional inferred meaning that we must crank out babies in perpetuity.
            • While both verses are within the context of restoration, they both also mention the basic idea that G-d wants the world to be populated. The English on Isaiah is clear on that, the Genesis one is not. The word "muhlay" does not mean "replenish" it means "fill". This mistranslation can be seen in Genesis 1:28 [blueletterbible.org] as well, where there was no population to replenish.

              To see that more directly, go to the Genesis 9:1 [blueletterbible.org] verse, click on the "C" [blueletterbible.org] and look at the Concordance entry for "male'" then click on Strong's entry 04 [blueletterbible.org]
              • ...they both also mention the basic idea that G-d wants the world to be populated.

                Agreed. And since the world is populated, I think we're off the hook on this one.

                That's an interesting mistranslation you point out. Thankfully my NIV and NKJV each correctly have "fill" for both. And thank you for bringing that web site to my attention.
                • And since the world is populated, I think we're off the hook on this one.

                  We'll have to disagree on that. I appreciate where you're coming from on that one. Personally, until G-d says that's enough, i'll go with the "we're not done yet" idea. :)

                  That's an interesting mistranslation you point out. Thankfully my NIV and NKJV each correctly have "fill" for both.

                  OK, good. I just use the Hebrew, as any translation is missing something. A language is the speech of the soul, and a soul is just a point of view. Well,

If you do something right once, someone will ask you to do it again.

Working...