Posted on 09/22/2014 4:52:54 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
E.g., domesticated dogs and cats now live much longer with better care, including better veterinary care—but they don’t have a need to extend their kittenhood or puppydom for twice as long.
I believe the intellectual stimulation to which this writer refers has been shown to be important for health right up through old age. If his anti-marriage and anti-settling down argument holds for youth, presumably it would hold throughout our lifespan.
I think it’s also competitive. Because some parents give their children greater resources—e.g., financial support through unpaid internships—other parents must provide similarly, or else their children (and they in old age) will be at a significant social and economic disadvantage.
So far I’ve found that, when you really have to scratch hard, when it really counts, by God’s grace you can make it.
Cats and dogs don’t have the pressure of paying taxes, holding a job, supporting a family. I don’t buy your analogy at all as valid.
And in fact, I do have an analogy with cats and dogs that prove my point: inside cats and inside dogs far outlive outside cats and dogs measured species to species.......
That is exactly what is going on in our household. We got hit with job loss/major health problems in a matter of 2 months. We subsequently lost our home. We are in recovery stage, but it’s been at a snails pace. My 23 yr old son has worked since he graduated high school, but hasn’t moved out because we are pooling our resources. He could live on his own, but right now we can’t quite make it without him because we have 2 more still in school, and we all are living better together than we would be apart. He’s a great young man, nothing immature about him, I think he’s very generous and caring to stick around. And he loves his younger brother and sister, and wants to help them and us.
I agree with that - but it doesn’t apply to everybody. I’m thinking in the macro, you are thinking in the micro. Both valid POV - but very different POV.
That’s the issue. Parents cant “force” their child to grow up. The child has to “want” to grow up.
Sex used to provide the drive for a child to “want” to grow up.
But birth control changed everything. And it is no longer necessary to grow up to have sex without consequences. Both girls and boys are being taught from a very young age that it is ok to have sex outside of marriage.
The problem is... the drive to have sex is what gave children to drive to want to grow up.
Now they can have their cake and eat it too!
Now I’m not getting your point. Indoor cats and dogs live longer than their outdoor counterparts, thus...
And I don’t see how tacking on another decade as a taxpayer requires more years of preparation.
Lets move the voting age back to 21.
We wanted to get out of the house as early as we could to escape our parents rules. In many families today, the parents are the kids’ friends and there never were any rules.
bingo!
If they are delaying adulthood, then they should all delay voting as well. I would support a law that would prevent any person still being supported by a parent or by the government (as in on welfare, not with a government job) from voting. In the first case, they really have no skin in the game and will not suffer the consequences of their choices. In the second, they have an interest in keeping taxes high and government big to keep supporting them, but have no responsibility to contribute to that support.
Might I suggest reading a little more carefully and quit making up things I said. I made it clear that this is a complicated issue, lots of moving parts, and that the perpetual kid on govt or mama assistance is indeed a problem.
I’m not going to debate things I never said, ever, in this or any other thread in internet history.
As for the cat and dog: my main point is that it is an absurd analogy. My little teaser point is that actually those who live with mama and daddy do fare better......but that was just a little teaser point. Again, READING. COMPREHENSION.
That is basically the way our government was originally formed!
Only landowners were allowed to vote originally.
This in my opinion is THE biggest problem with our system today. No one that is taking ANY form of direct government assistance should be allowed to vote. No citizen should be allowed to vote themselves the treasury.
I have lived a sheltered life.
Here in their entirety are your two posts to which I responded:
1: “’Perpetual childhood is NOT a good thing.’
Indeed it is not - but perpetual and delayed are not exactly the same thing. While I’m sure this NYT liberal and I would not agree on much- and a lot of these delayed adults will never get there - I would say this: if people are living a lot longer, it would only be logical that some stage development would skew by a few years.”
2: “Cats and dogs don’t have the pressure of paying taxes, holding a job, supporting a family. I don’t buy your analogy at all as valid.
And in fact, I do have an analogy with cats and dogs that prove my point: inside cats and inside dogs far outlive outside cats and dogs measured species to species.......”
For you, I would suggest perhaps some writing and thinking exercises. It is neither polite nor honest to falsely accuse a fellow FReeper of”making things up. A little mind plasticity in your case might be helpful.
Oh, and of course I was responding to this as well:
“’Why? Doesn’t seem as if we see that elsewhere in nature.’
Would love to comment, but I do not understand your question. Please clarify when you get a minute. “
When my sister's son was 12 I asked why he was watching his dad cut the grass? My sister felt he was to young to cut the grass. WHAT! Girls have to go to babysitting classed given by the Red Cross and get certified before they can sit. WHAT!
This is not helping ease kids into adulthood. I was cutting grass and baby sitting at 10! We can't even let them walk to school or ride a bike without a helmet.
So in short I don't think we can just blame the kids. How about the fact that from the time they are infants they are off to day care? Or we set them in front of the TV so we don't have to deal with them? If they are outside playing, then we have to get off our butts and go check on them to make sure no one took them. It's not all their fault.
Oh, I disagree. You can make them pay rent. You can kick them out of the house, if need be. Sometimes responsible parenting requires that.
When on his own for the first time, a kid's perspective can change quite rapidly.
The more kids you have the more likely it is that some are going to strike out on their own to alleviate the burden on their parents or they stay and contribute to the household.
Another point if I might. As so many single women are raising kids, it seems to me that there would be some what less desire to kick the kids out of the nest. When that happens then mom is alone. Most people don't like to be alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.