The Wardroom

[Mark M]

Well there has been no mention in the story of a baby maybe He's Shoting blanks so to speak. Frankly i can agree with Eric almost, only because i see other kids my age (ok one year Younger) Jumping into adventures that gets them into trouble rather then an adventure with no horrible consequesnces.

 

Personaly i'm definatly not picturing him as my age at all. For the sex he has yes, but for the talk and risks he takes no. He seems to before hand know how to read people, and with nannies growing up i think learning to read people would be hard for him, we havent learned anything really of the kind of education he has had, meaning socialy.

 

We do know he visits court(well the king and prince) often enough that they are not intimidating, that's fine, and he is keyed up on politics because of the book education he apperantly has, i just do not see how his reading people comes in....i'd like to know where he was a socialight in school.

 

Anyway Granger is Smart, maybe if he was real and in this day and age they'd classify him as a prodigy. Remember guy's this is a fictious story to so technically Mark can bend any rule he wants, of course he wants to follow as best he can to real history, but sometimes it doesn't work. If anyones read Enders game, by Orson Scott Card i beleive i can picture Granger as smart as Ender. Or Enstien

[Enric]

I gave you one instance, which in itself bucks the trend.

Frankly, I do not think that the said one instance which you presented, is proven within objective standards.

 

Therefore, it's meaningless to claim it 'bucks the trend' - because it's not proven. An objective evaluation of the said instance made by an outsider expert would be another matter.

 

By the way, I have heard that all Americans have a therapist, a shrink. This of course could be a mistaken assumption (I certainly am not personally familiar with lives of most Americans). However, it makes me to inquire whether the shrink of the person raised in the said instance, would vouch for it having been a stable home.

[Enric]

Now this to me reads as if you're implying ALL kids in the armed forces, who have one parent away, have some sort of stability problem at home.

Don't they have?

 

To me, at least it's clear that in said situation, one parent is away, and only one parent resides at the home.

 

By the way,

I am not saying that kids of single parents necessarily all suffer insurmountably by that. Some grow to be approximately as stable as kids of two-parent homes. Despite of there having been a stability problem at their childhood home.

[Enric]

I'm pretty sure Granger has the emotional depth to be fearful about having his first kid

I agree.

[Enric]

I think it's really easy to see this story through the lens of our times and judge the characters by the the childrearing practices we know, and not through the times as they were lived by the real people in them.

well, it's *possible* that the today people are dead wrong about what is good for kids.

[Enric]

actually, this drift was unexpected and in some way somewhat funny. Odd too, imo.

 

I wrote, in the beginning of the drift:

"Although, he possibly is tad too young for becoming a father at the emotional level."

 

which was apparently something which was entirely wrong in opinion of several - so much contrariness ensued

 

it led to various and sundry to try to convince that the 17-yo guy in question IS not in any way too young for fatherhood at the emotional level.

 

rhetorical question: would not such pursuit (to convince) border to ridiculous ?

[Hoskins]

Don't they have?

 

To me, at least it's clear that in said situation, one parent is away, and only one parent resides at the home.

 

By the way,

I am not saying that kids of single parents necessarily all suffer insurmountably by that. Some grow to be approximately as stable as kids of two-parent homes. Despite of there having been a stability problem at their childhood home.

Who ever said that being in the armed forces = being away from home? Unless you're in an active war zone, on a ship at sea, or detached in some form from your home base, this is quite untrue. Most military families simply move with the servicemember, therefore "home is where the family is". Look outside any American military base at the housing situation and you'd see military families living quite ordinary lives. And I know this from experience. You're "supporting" your argument with opinion, not fact.

It sucks when the servicemember goes to war, goes to sea, etc. - but even then, modern technology goes a long, long way towards keeping families in touch with each other - being a half world away doesn't stop my cousin from grounding her teenager when he won't listen to Dad.

 

And your opinion that single-parent homes are more unstable than two-parent homes - do you have any way to substantiate this with statistics, a study, anything? I think you're trolling to stir shit up with this, more than anything.

[DragonFire]

Frankly, I do not think that the said one instance which you presented, is proven within objective standards.

 

Therefore, it's meaningless to claim it 'bucks the trend' - because it's not proven. An objective evaluation of the said instance made by an outsider expert would be another matter.

 

By the way, I have heard that all Americans have a therapist, a shrink. This of course could be a mistaken assumption (I certainly am not personally familiar with lives of most Americans). However, it makes me to inquire whether the shrink of the person raised in the said instance, would vouch for it having been a stable home.

Considering I'm not American, and I don't have a shrink, I think your assumptions are way off the mark! I certainly don't need someone else to tell me what I know already is a fact. I've lived it all my life, and I certainly don

[Enric]

.... in some instances the armed forces can provide the stability that kids need.

do you mean this ?

that the armed forces provide the stability.

[Enric]

Who ever said that being in the armed forces = being away from home? ..... Most military families simply move with the servicemember, therefore "home is where the family is". Look outside any American military base at the housing situation and you'd see military families living quite ordinary lives....

Isn't that a strawman.

 

I have surely carefully limited this by mentioning that it's question of those servicemembers who ARE away from home.

 

So, your argument falls flat upon your misunderstanding, upon that creation of a strawman.

[DragonFire]

do you mean this ?

that the armed forces provide the stability.

I have edited the main post indicating parents in the armed forces, not the armed forces themselves.

[Enric]

Considering I'm not American, and I don't have a shrink

Well, it was just an inquiry. Because I do not know your situation, I am not claiming that you were in need of a shrink.

 

Like I wrote already earlier, an assessment of an objective outsider expert is missing.

[Enric]

....to not even consider the fact, that in some instances parents in the armed forces can provide the stability that kids need.

I haven't surely claimed that all parents in the armed forces would be unable to provide that stability.

 

Of course there are some who are unable. And some are able.

 

This again looks like like a strawman.

[DragonFire]

I haven't surely claimed that all parents in the armed forces would be unable to provide that stability.

 

Of course there are some who are unable. And some are able.

 

This again looks like like a strawman.

If they serve long times away from home, yes, they are somewhat neglectful. In that situation, the kid does not receive the stability of parenting

As we are talking about people who serve away from their families in the armed forces, this post implies that you were referring to all, not some!

[Enric]

As we are talking about people who serve away from their families in the armed forces, this post implies that you were referring to all, not some!

You wrote about "parents in the armed forces", not qualifying it with any mention of presence or absence.

And what you thusly claimed, is a strawman. Something *I* never postulated.

[DragonFire]

You wrote about "parents in the armed forces", not qualifying it with any mention of presence or absence.

And what you thusly claimed, is a strawman. Something *I* never postulated.

Umm, what have we been talking about throughout this thread? My whole argument has been about the parents who are absent due to duties in the armed forces, not about the armed forces in general.

Plus, considering I was replying to your point about my original post, I thought the subject was obvious!

[Enric]

Umm, what have we been talking about throughout this thread? My whole argument has been about the parents who are absent due to duties in the armed forces, not about the armed forces in general.

Plus considering I was replying to your point about my original post, I thought the subject was obvious!

then you should read my that post where I expressed my view about the long-time absence of one of parents meaning a stability problem. No use for you to try to insert allegations of your own production to my mouth.

 

Besides, I see that you have expressed that you view of the two-parent home (presumably both present) being preferable. Why then do you need to be so contrarian in this, as even trying to insert your own strawmen to others, and using rudenesses. I underline that I have refrained from calling you unstable.

 

My view is that the long-time absence of one of parents from home is a stability problem. And there are several other reasons why a home could be unstable in that or another situation. Still, some (but not all) of the kids grow up to be relatively balanced.

 

Also my view is that your personal example is not proven. You should not get angry over that point, because you should understand the requirements of objective assessment.

[DragonFire]

then you should read my that post where I expressed my view about the long-time absence of one of parents meaning a stability problem. No use for you to try to insert allegations of your own production to my mouth.

 

Besides, I see that you have expressed that you view of the two-parent home (presumably both present) being preferable. Why then do you need to be so contrarian in this, as even trying to insert your own strawmen to others, and using rudenesses. I underline that I have refrained from calling you unstable.

 

My view is that the long-time absence of one of parents from home is a stability problem. And there are several other reasons why a home could be unstable in that or another situation. Still, some (but not all) of the kids grow up to be relatively balanced.

 

Also my view is that your personal example is not proven. You should not get angry over that point, because you should understand the requirements of objective assessment.

I have never inserted any allegations that weren't without foundation. You even stated above that you think there is a stability problem when one of the parents is away, I merely argued against it, and I stand by my point that it's not always the case. I had two parents growing up, yes my dad was away for long periods sometimes, but he was also home for small stretches as well. This I think you'll find is quite the norm for service families.

 

Trust me I wasn't being rude, you'll defiantly know when that happens.

 

Also, I don't give a rat

[Enric]

.... I had two parents growing up, yes my dad was away for long periods sometimes, but he was also home for small stretches as well.

 

I merely state the facts as I see them. I don't need to see something down on paper when I have seen the situation with my own eyes, and in this case lived it.

That is a way to get twisted and warped results. They are subjective.

[sat8997]

Okay then...I've had enough.

 

While the last gazillion posts have been fascinating in their circular repetitiveness, if you two wish to continue your endless argument over who said what, you should consider taking said argument to PMs.

 

Could we please get back to discussing Mark's story?

[Mark M]

Yeah me too! this is just wow...lol alot to read and vary seriousness. Although i enjoy the topic a little the story is what is supposed to be talked about in this form. Anyway! How big is Grangers dick anyway? lol

[DragonFire]

Yeah me too! this is just wow...lol alot to read and vary seriousness. Although i enjoy the topic a little the story is what is supposed to be talked about in this form. Anyway! How big is Grangers dick anyway? lol

Well, if you read my earlier post........

[Hoskins]

Wheee!

[Sir Galahad]

Believe me, there are a few things I could say here, and I have no problems being rude!

[Pats DragonFire on back]

 

That said, what's it gonna be like in here when she does have a baby? WWIII?

[Mark Arbour]

[Pats DragonFire on back]

Wait a minute...aren't Knights supposed to slay dragons, or get barbecued trying? :mace: :2hands: