Warning: Harsh language follows.

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833

First post (it's a short thread):

Christhead
"There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."

mumofsixbirds
"How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to bitch about."

Etc.


Lenona.

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>
> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
>
> First post (it's a short thread):
>
> Christhead
> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."
>
> mumofsixbirds
> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to bitch about."
>
> Etc.
>
>
> Lenona.

What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.

> wrote in message
...
Warning: Harsh language follows.

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833

First post (it's a short thread):

Christhead
"There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure
what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee
of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false
advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most
of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be
four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people
have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have
that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to
satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't
want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had
so many brats."

mumofsixbirds
"How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop
bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when
businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and
they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I
think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to
bitch about."

Etc.


Lenona.

========

Muh, dud, and breeders tells me that it's from a childfree forum without the
"bratfree" giving it away, some are particularly hateful people IMO.

Cheri

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>
> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
>
> First post (it's a short thread):
>
> Christhead
> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure
> what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical
> famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is
> false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR
> famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six,
> which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or
> duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the
> breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer
> (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented
> that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of
> $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."
>
> mumofsixbirds
> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one
> slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens
> when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the
> breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about.
> Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they
> need something to bitch about."
>
> Etc.
>
>
> Lenona.

What's really happening is people whining about their inability to
reproduce. That's sad.

Or at least live and let live, it's about choices and some of the childfree
don't factor choices in without a bunch of name calling.

Cheri

On 1/12/2016 2:07 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10,
> wrote:
>> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>>
>> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
>>
>> First post (it's a short thread):
>>
>> Christhead
>> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not
>> sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a
>> typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about
>> how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill
>> up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have
>> families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five
>> kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them
>> to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to
>> expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these
>> piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to
>> have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so
>> many brats."
>>
>> mumofsixbirds
>> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one
>> slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what
>> happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough
>> for the breeders, and they will always find something to become
>> outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in
>> the ------- and they need something to bitch about."
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>
> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to
> reproduce. That's sad.
>
> Or at least live and let live, it's about choices and some of the
> childfree don't factor choices in without a bunch of name calling.
>
> Cheri

I believe that "breeders" is a term mostly used by *******s to describe
straight people. Please don't hold me to that because I'm no expert in
these things.

Cheri wrote:
> Or at least live and let live, it's about choices and some of the
> childfree don't factor choices in without a bunch of name calling.
>
> Cheri

+1

On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>>
>> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
>>
>> First post (it's a short thread):
>>
>> Christhead
>> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."
>>
>> mumofsixbirds
>> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to bitch about."
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>
> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.

I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.

--
Bruce

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >> Warning: Harsh language follows.
> >>
> >> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
> >>
> >> First post (it's a short thread):
> >>
> >> Christhead
> >> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."
> >>
> >> mumofsixbirds
> >> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to bitch about."
> >>
> >> Etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lenona.
> >
> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>
> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
>
> --
> Bruce

I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask..

P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.

Bruce wrote:
> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>>> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>>>
>>> http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,399833
>>>
>>> First post (it's a short thread):
>>>
>>> Christhead
>>> "There was a kfc ad on facebook for the $20 family fill-up. I'm not sure what this entails but I supposed it's enough slop to feed a typical famblee of four. Cue breeders bitching in the comments about how this is false advertising because the family fill-up does not fill up THEIR famblees. Most of the breeders commenting state they have families of six, which could be four kids with two parents or five kids and a single moo or duh. Some people have commented telling them to buy two fill-ups, but the breeders won't have that and seem to expect kfc to beef up their offer (but not the price) to satisfy these piglets. So far nobody has commented that maybe if they don't want to have to buy two buckets for a total of $40 they shouldn't have had so many brats."
>>>
>>> mumofsixbirds
>>> "How is it the restaurant's fault that you have so many brats that one slop bucket isn't going to feed your entire famblee? THIS is what happens when businesses pander to breeders. It is NEVER good enough for the breeders, and they will always find something to become outraged about. Personally, I think it's because their lives are in the ------- and they need something to bitch about."
>>>
>>> Etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>
>> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>
> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
>

Reality is sad to you?

I guess...

On 13/1/2016 13:45 dsi1 wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>>
>> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
>>
> I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask.
>
> P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.

I don't like the word 'breeder', but what if I show up at KFC with ten
ankle biters?

--
Bruce

On 13/1/2016 15:41 sf wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 04:33:10 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/1/2016 13:45 dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> >> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>> >>
>> >> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
>> >>
>> > I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask.
>> >
>> > P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.
>>
>> I don't like the word 'breeder', but what if I show up at KFC with ten
>> ankle biters?
>
> If they're all approximately the same age, I'd assume you're a coach.

LOL

--
Bruce

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 04:33:10 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
wrote:

> On 13/1/2016 13:45 dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> >> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
> >>
> >> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
> >>
> > I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask.
> >
> > P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.
>
> I don't like the word 'breeder', but what if I show up at KFC with ten
> ankle biters?

If they're all approximately the same age, I'd assume you're a coach.

--

sf

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:35:56 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On 13/1/2016 13:45 dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> >> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
> >>
> >> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
> >>
> > I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine.. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask.
> >
> > P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.
>
> I don't like the word 'breeder', but what if I show up at KFC with ten
> ankle biters?
>
> --
> Bruce

I don't have a problem with the word "breeder." I think it's a pretty funny usage actually. What if you show up at KFC with 10 brats? I would't care. It would probably be a pretty funny scene. I might be concerned it I owned a KFC but I don't so that's how that goes.

Sqwertz wrote:
> We don't need to read those snippets from ghetto forums here.
>
> -sw
**** you straight to Hell with your sick woman-stalking, you subhuman
piece of shit!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw


"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw


"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.

-sw

You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
written down the once you realized you liked it.

-sw

Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
spite.

-sw

Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.

[High Five]

-sw

Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.

-sw

You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.

-sw

You tell him Julie!

<snort>

-sw

That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
explain why the proposed solution won't work.

Same 'ol song and dance.

-sw

<snip rest unread>

-sw

So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
have been your direct experience with the New York public school
system in the early 2000's?

-sw

What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
world.

-sw


Again, only in YOUR house.

-sw

Julie's brain is made of squishy and squeaky cheddar cheese curds.

-sw


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:35:56 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On 13/1/2016 13:45 dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:59 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On 13/1/2016 07:47 dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>>>>
>>>> I knew you could be nasty. You were just pretending all along.
>>>>
>>> I'm not enamored with malicious whiners. It's a character fault of mine. Am I a bad person? I think I could be but I'm probably the last person to ask.
>>>
>>> P.S.: Ya koo tocha ka poonoo nee sok nyee.
>>
>> I don't like the word 'breeder', but what if I show up at KFC with ten
>> ankle biters?
>>
>> --
>> Bruce
>
> I don't have a problem with the word "breeder." I think it's a pretty funny usage actually. What if you show up at KFC with 10 brats? I would't care. It would probably be a pretty funny scene. I might be concerned it I owned a KFC but I don't so that's how that goes.
>

Hey you made his reflex wag, that was funny!

;-)

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:

>
> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.

What proof do you have of THAT?

To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.

The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
(and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.

As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
something from another site:

http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply

Excerpt:

Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
necessary to be so 'activist' about it."

Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
about lack of social services and help available for those without
children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."


And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
"The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.

As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:

"...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.
They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."


Lenona.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >
> > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>
> What proof do you have of THAT?
>
> To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
> reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
>
> The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
> about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
> foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
> even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
> foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
> anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
> as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
> (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
> they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
> while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
> it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
> case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
> serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.
>
> As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
> something from another site:
>
> http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
> necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
>
> Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
> don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
> still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
> birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
> been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
> or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
> want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
> of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
> frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
> practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
> about lack of social services and help available for those without
> children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
> Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
> being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
> your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
> that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
> people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
> getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
>
>
> And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
> "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
> interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
> the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
> have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
>
> As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
>
> "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
> neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
> mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
> next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
> misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
> snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
> outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.
> They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
> in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
> with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
> perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
> are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
> pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
> targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."
>
>
> Lenona.

As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word. The group could be just a bunch of people that eschew children and parenthood but my guess is that they envy the people they choose to proclaim their disdain for. They'll never fess up to that though. My gut-feeling analysis is based only on the section you copied and pasted so don't blame me if I don't see it the way you do.

I have no problem with gays or curmudgeons. I don't care if people want to have a club of breeder-haters. We have clubs for women haters and people that hate black folk and all kinds of clubs that cater to the dark hearts of people so why not? I heartily endorse this group and any group's freedom to bitch and moan - this is America, after all. Just don't expect me to find anything admirable about bitchy folk - I'm not made that way.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
> >
> > What proof do you have of THAT?
> >
> > To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
> > reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
> >
> > The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
> > about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
> > foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
> > even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
> > foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
> > anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
> > as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
> > (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
> > they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
> > while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
> > it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
> > case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
> > serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.
> >
> > As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
> > something from another site:
> >
> > http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> > Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
> > necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
> >
> > Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
> > don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
> > still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
> > birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
> > been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
> > or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
> > want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
> > of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
> > frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
> > practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
> > about lack of social services and help available for those without
> > children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
> > Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
> > being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
> > your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
> > that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
> > people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
> > getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
> >
> >
> > And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
> > "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
> > interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
> > the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
> > have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
> >
> > As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
> >
> > "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
> > neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
> > mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
> > next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
> > misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
> > snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
> > outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.
> > They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
> > in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
> > with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
> > perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
> > are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
> > pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
> > targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."
> >
> >
> > Lenona.
>
> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word. The group could be just a bunch of people that eschew children and parenthood but my guess is that they envy the people they choose to proclaim their disdain for. They'll never fess up to that though. My gut-feeling analysis is based only on the section you copied and pasted so don't blame me if I don't see it the way you do.

Well, here's something from a poster at Vox Day's website (VD is VERY opposed to childfree people, especially women - he calls them failures in life. Thankfully, his commentators don't always agree with him.)

galt2014 said:

"The psychological read is so easy to make here. Guys who subconsciously or consciously resent their muledom (fatherhood) hammer away at guys who made a different choice. They absolutely hate seeing proof that they had another option and their hamster is off and running. The only thing left to do is to completely negate the legitimacy of the childless (Sorry, dads, but we're going to ENJOY our short lives. You be the miserable hero--a pat on the head for you, good boy. Happy fathers are not a part of this discussion, btw) Louis CK is a great example. He had a completely humorless and vitriolic bit simply railing against childless people, like he wanted them dead almost. It was DURING his comedy routine so not just an aside on a talk show or something. Now, here's where it's interesting; Guess who divorced shortly thereafter? Guess who regularly did bits seriously lamenting fatherly duties and lamenting his boredom with his wife and lack of sex life? All the information is right there. The miserable have to attack those who chose differently. Happy people wish the world the best."


Lenona.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
> > >
> > > What proof do you have of THAT?
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
> > > reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
> > >
> > > The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
> > > about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
> > > foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
> > > even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
> > > foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
> > > anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
> > > as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
> > > (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
> > > they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
> > > while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
> > > it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
> > > case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
> > > serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.
> > >
> > > As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
> > > something from another site:
> > >
> > > http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
> > >
> > > Excerpt:
> > >
> > > Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
> > > necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
> > >
> > > Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
> > > don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
> > > still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
> > > birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
> > > been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
> > > or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
> > > want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
> > > of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
> > > frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
> > > practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
> > > about lack of social services and help available for those without
> > > children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
> > > Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
> > > being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
> > > your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
> > > that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
> > > people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
> > > getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
> > >
> > >
> > > And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
> > > "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
> > > interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
> > > the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
> > > have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
> > >
> > > As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
> > >
> > > "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
> > > neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
> > > mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
> > > next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
> > > misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
> > > snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
> > > outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment..
> > > They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
> > > in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
> > > with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
> > > perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
> > > are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
> > > pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
> > > targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Lenona.
> >
> > As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word. The group could be just a bunch of people that eschew children and parenthood but my guess is that they envy the people they choose to proclaim their disdain for. They'll never fess up to that though. My gut-feeling analysis is based only on the section you copied and pasted so don't blame me if I don't see it the way you do.
>
> Well, here's something from a poster at Vox Day's website (VD is VERY opposed to childfree people, especially women - he calls them failures in life.. Thankfully, his commentators don't always agree with him.)
>
> galt2014 said:
>
> "The psychological read is so easy to make here. Guys who subconsciously or consciously resent their muledom (fatherhood) hammer away at guys who made a different choice. They absolutely hate seeing proof that they had another option and their hamster is off and running. The only thing left to do is to completely negate the legitimacy of the childless (Sorry, dads, but we're going to ENJOY our short lives. You be the miserable hero--a pat on the head for you, good boy. Happy fathers are not a part of this discussion, btw) Louis CK is a great example. He had a completely humorless and vitriolic bit simply railing against childless people, like he wanted them dead almost. It was DURING his comedy routine so not just an aside on a talk show or something. Now, here's where it's interesting; Guess who divorced shortly thereafter? Guess who regularly did bits seriously lamenting fatherly duties and lamenting his boredom with his wife and lack of sex life? All the information is right there. The miserable have to attack those who chose differently. Happy people wish the world the best."
>
>
> Lenona.

I hearty support your right to be against other people and other ideas. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.

dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>>>>
>>>> What proof do you have of THAT?
>>>>
>>>> To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
>>>> reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
>>>>
>>>> The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
>>>> about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
>>>> foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
>>>> even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
>>>> foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
>>>> anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
>>>> as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
>>>> (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
>>>> they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
>>>> while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
>>>> it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
>>>> case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
>>>> serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.
>>>>
>>>> As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
>>>> something from another site:
>>>>
>>>> http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
>>>>
>>>> Excerpt:
>>>>
>>>> Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
>>>> necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
>>>>
>>>> Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
>>>> don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
>>>> still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
>>>> birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
>>>> been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
>>>> or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
>>>> want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
>>>> of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
>>>> frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
>>>> practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
>>>> about lack of social services and help available for those without
>>>> children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
>>>> Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
>>>> being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
>>>> your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
>>>> that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
>>>> people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
>>>> getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
>>>> "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
>>>> interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
>>>> the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
>>>> have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
>>>>
>>>> As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
>>>>
>>>> "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
>>>> neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
>>>> mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
>>>> next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
>>>> misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
>>>> snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
>>>> outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.
>>>> They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
>>>> in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
>>>> with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
>>>> perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
>>>> are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
>>>> pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
>>>> targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>
>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word. The group could be just a bunch of people that eschew children and parenthood but my guess is that they envy the people they choose to proclaim their disdain for. They'll never fess up to that though. My gut-feeling analysis is based only on the section you copied and pasted so don't blame me if I don't see it the way you do.
>>
>> Well, here's something from a poster at Vox Day's website (VD is VERY opposed to childfree people, especially women - he calls them failures in life. Thankfully, his commentators don't always agree with him.)
>>
>> galt2014 said:
>>
>> "The psychological read is so easy to make here. Guys who subconsciously or consciously resent their muledom (fatherhood) hammer away at guys who made a different choice. They absolutely hate seeing proof that they had another option and their hamster is off and running. The only thing left to do is to completely negate the legitimacy of the childless (Sorry, dads, but we're going to ENJOY our short lives. You be the miserable hero--a pat on the head for you, good boy. Happy fathers are not a part of this discussion, btw) Louis CK is a great example. He had a completely humorless and vitriolic bit simply railing against childless people, like he wanted them dead almost. It was DURING his comedy routine so not just an aside on a talk show or something. Now, here's where it's interesting; Guess who divorced shortly thereafter? Guess who regularly did bits seriously lamenting fatherly duties and lamenting his boredom with his wife and lack of sex life? All the information is right t
here. The miserable have to attack those who chose differently. Happy people wish the world the best."
>>
>>
>> Lenona.
>
> I hearty support your right to be against other people and other ideas. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
>

Some wind up toys only take a slight turn of the key to go off...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_73NU6OlNuw

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:

> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.


What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often and see.

At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack each other. Not smart - or likely.

Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)


Lenona.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:14:11 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
wrote:

> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.

I think of the term as being initiated by the child-free community and
heard it first said (30+ years ago) by someone who is far from ***.
Maybe some in the *** community use the term too, but they probably
also buy into the derogatory speech part of the childfree community's
thinking.

--

sf

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:31:51 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
> >>>>
> >>>> What proof do you have of THAT?
> >>>>
> >>>> To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
> >>>> reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
> >>>>
> >>>> The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
> >>>> about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
> >>>> foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
> >>>> even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
> >>>> foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
> >>>> anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
> >>>> as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
> >>>> (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
> >>>> they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
> >>>> while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
> >>>> it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
> >>>> case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
> >>>> serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are..
> >>>>
> >>>> As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
> >>>> something from another site:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
> >>>>
> >>>> Excerpt:
> >>>>
> >>>> Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
> >>>> necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
> >>>>
> >>>> Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
> >>>> don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
> >>>> still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
> >>>> birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
> >>>> been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
> >>>> or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
> >>>> want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
> >>>> of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
> >>>> frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
> >>>> practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
> >>>> about lack of social services and help available for those without
> >>>> children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
> >>>> Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
> >>>> being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
> >>>> your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
> >>>> that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
> >>>> people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
> >>>> getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
> >>>> "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
> >>>> interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
> >>>> the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
> >>>> have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
> >>>>
> >>>> "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
> >>>> neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
> >>>> mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
> >>>> next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
> >>>> misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
> >>>> snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
> >>>> outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.

dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:31:51 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:19:03 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 7:17:21 AM UTC-10, wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:47:23 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's really happening is people whining about their inability to reproduce. That's sad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What proof do you have of THAT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To my knowledge, any posters at Bratfree who show ANY sign of wanting to
>>>>>> reproduce (or any sign of already being parents) get thrown out the door ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The site is for those who do not want to have children and want to vent
>>>>>> about badly behaved parents and THEIR children, etc. It's loaded with
>>>>>> foul language - but at the same time, I'm sure most people who post or
>>>>>> even lurk there know very well that the members do not necessarily use
>>>>>> foul language or even bad manners in real life - or even on different
>>>>>> anonymous forums that demand clean language. I.e., they can talk very much
>>>>>> as they please, since it's clear enough that they're more anti-bad-manners
>>>>>> (and anti-sentimentality) than anything else. I've noticed, too, that
>>>>>> they NEVER seem to use racist language or even much stereotyping - and
>>>>>> while they complain a good deal about children with mental retardation,
>>>>>> it's mainly about those who are allowed to disturb the peace or (in the
>>>>>> case of adults) ignore or harass the customers they're supposed to be
>>>>>> serving, all of which are clearly unacceptable no matter who you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As to why they feel such a strong need to vent in the first place, here's
>>>>>> something from another site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://asylums.insanejournal.com/chi...tml?mode=reply
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excerpt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Belief: "So Childfree people don't want kids - we get that, but it's not
>>>>>> necessary to be so 'activist' about it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Truth: "It is, actually. We network, we share information on doctors who
>>>>>> don't make us jump through hoops and undergo psychological testing and
>>>>>> still stay 'sorry, won't do it', no matter what. We share information on
>>>>>> birth control, we share frustration with others who understand and have
>>>>>> been there - at being told we'll 'change our minds', or nagging in-laws,
>>>>>> or getting told by a spouse after five years of marriage that they
>>>>>> want children and that's that. We vent about not being allowed time off
>>>>>> of work to care for infirm parents or roommates, when coworkers can
>>>>>> frequently take off as much as they want to run their kids to soccer
>>>>>> practice, and dump the rest of the workload on us. We vent about taxes,
>>>>>> about lack of social services and help available for those without
>>>>>> children, and at how baby-centric society has become - and it has.
>>>>>> Haven't you ever personally experienced the relief and pleasure of
>>>>>> being able to congregate and converse with people of like minds? If
>>>>>> your whole family and most of your friends followed one political party
>>>>>> that did not match your views, how would you feel if you met a group of
>>>>>> people who do share your outlook on things, and you can talk to without
>>>>>> getting yelled at or told you're crazy? It's no different here."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, there's a lot of nasty spleen-venting in the classic 1980s book
>>>>>> "The Portable Curmudgeon" (edited by Jon Winokur; it includes 15
>>>>>> interviews/profiles as well as a lot of quotations), but the point of
>>>>>> the book is simply to be anti-sentimentalist, even if some of the members
>>>>>> have inflated egos. So it is with Bratfree, most of the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Winokur says in the introduction to TPC:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "...A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're
>>>>>> neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just
>>>>>> mankind's excesses. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the
>>>>>> next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of
>>>>>> misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. They
>>>>>> snarl at pretense and bite at hypocrisy out of a healthy sense of
>>>>>> outrage. They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.
>>>>>> They hurl polemical thunderbolts at middle-class values and pop culture
>>>>>> in order to preserve their sanity. Nature, having failed to equip them
>>>>>> with a serviceable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute
>>>>>> perception and sly wit. Offense is their only defense. Their weapons
>>>>>> are irony, satire, sarcasm, ridicule. Their targets are pretense,
>>>>>> pomposity, conformity, incompetence. And they'll tell you that their
>>>>>> targets are everywhere and multiplying like Smurfs..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word. The group could be just a bunch of people that eschew children and parenthood but my guess is that they envy the people they choose to proclaim their disdain for. They'll never fess up to that though. My gut-feeling analysis is based only on the section you copied and pasted so don't blame me if I don't see it the way you do.
>>>>
>>>> Well, here's something from a poster at Vox Day's website (VD is VERY opposed to childfree people, especially women - he calls them failures in life. Thankfully, his commentators don't always agree with him.)
>>>>
>>>> galt2014 said:
>>>>
>>>> "The psychological read is so easy to make here. Guys who subconsciously or consciously resent their muledom (fatherhood) hammer away at guys who made a different choice. They absolutely hate seeing proof that they had another option and their hamster is off and running. The only thing left to do is to completely negate the legitimacy of the childless (Sorry, dads, but we're going to ENJOY our short lives. You be the miserable hero--a pat on the head for you, good boy. Happy fathers are not a part of this discussion, btw) Louis CK is a great example. He had a completely humorless and vitriolic bit simply railing against childless people, like he wanted them dead almost. It was DURING his comedy routine so not just an aside on a talk show or something. Now, here's where it's interesting; Guess who divorced shortly thereafter? Guess who regularly did bits seriously lamenting fatherly duties and lamenting his boredom with his wife and lack of sex life? All the information is right
t
>> here. The miserable have to attack those who chose differently. Happy people wish the world the best."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>
>>> I hearty support your right to be against other people and other ideas. That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
>>>
>>
>> Some wind up toys only take a slight turn of the key to go off...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_73NU6OlNuw
>
> Jeepers creepers, where'd you get those peepers?
>

Dunno, might have been when we were playing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82oepNoBKz0

wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
>
>
> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often and see.
>
> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack each other. Not smart - or likely.
>
> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>
>
> Lenona.
>
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder

1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks
the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do
not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder
a duh.
2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
"Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:41:44 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
>
>
> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often and see.

Cut me a break - *** couples are a TV and movie cliche. You ought to watch more television and see.

>
> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack each other. Not smart - or likely.

You must be a person that thinks if you believe in something, it's true.

>
> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>
>
> Lenona.

I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:45:53 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:14:11 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
> > As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
>
> I think of the term as being initiated by the child-free community and
> heard it first said (30+ years ago) by someone who is far from ***.
> Maybe some in the *** community use the term too, but they probably
> also buy into the derogatory speech part of the childfree community's
> thinking.
>
> --
>
> sf

I love these breeders, they're great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PghwbxtcJo8

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> >> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
> >
> >
> > What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often and see.
> >
> > At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack each other. Not smart - or likely.
> >
> > Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
> >
> >
> > Lenona.
> >
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder
>
> 1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
> and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks
> the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do
> not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
> comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
> can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
> their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder
> a duh.
> 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
> heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
> contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
> "Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
> restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
> and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
> and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."

The term has been around for decades. That's language for you - the usage of a subculture can easily be adopted by the rest of society. It does take some time. I think breeders is gonna be one of those words. Language is like water - it flows.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:45:52 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:14:11 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
>wrote:
>
>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
>
>I think of the term as being initiated by the child-free community and
>heard it first said (30+ years ago) by someone who is far from ***.
>Maybe some in the *** community use the term too, but they probably
>also buy into the derogatory speech part of the childfree community's
>thinking.

I never thought of it as a *** term. I also think that "Why add 4 or 5
or 6 children to an already overpopulated world" is a legitimate
question, even though it's everybody's own business.

And then there's the matter of single mothers on welfare with 6
children. In Australia, an ex-minister wants to make welfare dependent
on the use of a contraception device under the skin. Kind of creepy if
you ask me.

--
Bruce

dsi1 wrote:
> I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.

I'll give you some cover, and let's see if she's got the stone to argue
it down with ME, lol!

I do NOT agree in gays adopting young children in general.

It deprives the children of a normal male/female pair-bonding
relationship to model their coming lives on.

And ours remains a 97% straight society.

Next!

dsi1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's their special, secret, word.
>>>
>>>
>>> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often and see.
>>>
>>> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack each other. Not smart - or likely.
>>>
>>> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>>
>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder
>>
>> 1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
>> and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks
>> the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do
>> not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
>> comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
>> can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
>> their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder
>> a duh.
>> 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
>> heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
>> contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
>> "Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
>> restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
>> and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
>> and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."
>
> The term has been around for decades. That's language for you - the usage of a subculture can easily be adopted by the rest of society. It does take some time. I think breeders is gonna be one of those words. Language is like water - it flows.
>
Exactly!

Bruce wrote:
> In Australia, an ex-minister wants to make welfare dependent
> on the use of a contraception device under the skin. Kind of creepy if
> you ask me.

So how big is your ward of the state problem?

Breeders paradise?

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:25:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>> Warning: Harsh language follows.
>
> We don't need to read those snippets from ghetto forums here.
>
> -sw

at least Tarantino was drunk

what's your excuse?

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:38:40 PM UTC-5, cibola de oro wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> > I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.
>
> I'll give you some cover, and let's see if she's got the stone to argue
> it down with ME, lol!
>
> I do NOT agree in gays adopting young children in general.
>
> It deprives the children of a normal male/female pair-bonding
> relationship to model their coming lives on.

Just like those of us who were raised in a single-parent
household.

Next!

Cindy Hamilton

On 1/13/2016 10:38 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I
>> applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.
>
> I'll give you some cover, and let's see if she's got the stone to argue
> it down with ME, lol!
>
> I do NOT agree in gays adopting young children in general.
>
> It deprives the children of a normal male/female pair-bonding
> relationship to model their coming lives on.
>
> And ours remains a 97% straight society.
>
> Next!

I can't imagine what being raised by a *** couple would be like but I do
know that there's not enough people willing to take on this long term
responsibility. There are straight couples that are totally unsuited for
parenthood. OTOH, there are couples that thrive in such an environment.
My guess is that it's pretty much the same way with *** couples.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 3:38:40 PM UTC-5, cibola de oro wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.
>>
>> I'll give you some cover, and let's see if she's got the stone to argue
>> it down with ME, lol!
>>
>> I do NOT agree in gays adopting young children in general.
>>
>> It deprives the children of a normal male/female pair-bonding
>> relationship to model their coming lives on.
>
> Just like those of us who were raised in a single-parent
> household.

Impossible.

1 =/ 2.

You do the maths, yeah?

> Next!
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Yes, yours.

Explain to us how a single parent is analogous to two parents.

Take all the screen you need.

LOL!

We'll get back to the actual role-coupling issue when your done with
your homework, dear.

On 1/13/2016 10:39 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's
>>>>> their special, secret, word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY
>>>> ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over
>>>> two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often
>>>> and see.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep
>>>> using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since
>>>> that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack
>>>> each other. Not smart - or likely.
>>>>
>>>> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist
>>>> Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted
>>>> when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were
>>>> going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of
>>>> reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>>
>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder
>>>
>>> 1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
>>> and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks
>>> the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people who do
>>> not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
>>> comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
>>> can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
>>> their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male breeder
>>> a duh.
>>> 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
>>> heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
>>> contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
>>> "Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
>>> restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
>>> and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
>>> and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."
>>
>> The term has been around for decades. That's language for you - the
>> usage of a subculture can easily be adopted by the rest of society. It
>> does take some time. I think breeders is gonna be one of those words.
>> Language is like water - it flows.
>>
> Exactly!

I should have said that language is like water - it flows and permeates
and fills up crevices but I blew that one!

dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:38 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> I have no opinion on *** couples if that's what you're digging for. I
>>> applaud the adoption of kids by *** or hetro.
>>
>> I'll give you some cover, and let's see if she's got the stone to argue
>> it down with ME, lol!
>>
>> I do NOT agree in gays adopting young children in general.
>>
>> It deprives the children of a normal male/female pair-bonding
>> relationship to model their coming lives on.
>>
>> And ours remains a 97% straight society.
>>
>> Next!
>
> I can't imagine what being raised by a *** couple would be like but I do
> know that there's not enough people willing to take on this long term
> responsibility.

A compound thought.

I can roughly imagine it - it involves a lot of schoolyard teasing and
bullying, in my mind.

And it offers a splinter demographic on a daily basis as if it were a
normal function that those who choose same-sex relationships could produce.

Face facts, gays can't normally reproduce, so the equation is unbalanced
from parenting day one.

> There are straight couples that are totally unsuited for
> parenthood.

Which is a third aspect.

> OTOH, there are couples that thrive in such an environment.

Yes.

> My guess is that it's pretty much the same way with *** couples.

That's logical but also beside the point.

No *** couple can model normal male-female coupling for a child and what
it entails by way of communication, physicality, and the availability of
each sex to help a child understand their emerging sexuality in a whole
manner.

Those are just simple facts.

dsi1 wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:39 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro
>>> wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's
>>>>>> their special, secret, word.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY
>>>>> ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over
>>>>> two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often
>>>>> and see.
>>>>>
>>>>> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep
>>>>> using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since
>>>>> that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack
>>>>> each other. Not smart - or likely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist
>>>>> Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted
>>>>> when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were
>>>>> going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of
>>>>> reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder
>>>>
>>>> 1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
>>>> and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren, thinks
>>>> the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people
>>>> who do
>>>> not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
>>>> comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
>>>> can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
>>>> their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male
>>>> breeder
>>>> a duh.
>>>> 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
>>>> heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
>>>> contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
>>>> "Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
>>>> restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
>>>> and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
>>>> and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."
>>>
>>> The term has been around for decades. That's language for you - the
>>> usage of a subculture can easily be adopted by the rest of society. It
>>> does take some time. I think breeders is gonna be one of those words.
>>> Language is like water - it flows.
>>>
>> Exactly!
>
> I should have said that language is like water - it flows and permeates
> and fills up crevices but I blew that one!

Not so much, but your second take is even better.

So language then might be like money which, like water, follows the path
of least resistance?

That could handily explain *** adoption too.

On 1/13/2016 11:26 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> On 1/13/2016 10:39 AM, cibola de oro wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 8:59:35 AM UTC-10, cibola de oro
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 1:14:20 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, the term "breeders" is mostly used by *******s. It's
>>>>>>> their special, secret, word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think that's the case in THIS century, since MANY
>>>>>> ******* couples have decided to have children for maybe well over
>>>>>> two decades? Plus maybe ******* singles as well? Get out more often
>>>>>> and see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At any rate, it wouldn't look right for *******s, per se, to keep
>>>>>> using that word IF they were ever the main ones to use it, since
>>>>>> that would be encouraging people in the same small group to attack
>>>>>> each other. Not smart - or likely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that things didn't used to be different, of course - columnist
>>>>>> Dan Savage wrote, in "The Kid," about how his fellow gays reacted
>>>>>> when he announced, in the late 1990s, that he and his boyfriend were
>>>>>> going to adopt. (In their case, a lawyer talked them out of
>>>>>> reproducing with friends or with a surrogate, for many good reasons.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder
>>>>>
>>>>> 1: slang term used by some childfree people for one who has a child
>>>>> and/or has many after that, refuses to discipline the child/ren,
>>>>> thinks
>>>>> the sun rises and sets for their child/ren, look down upon people
>>>>> who do
>>>>> not have children, and are in general very selfish and greedy when it
>>>>> comes to their whims and those of their child/ren, especially if they
>>>>> can use their parenthood status or their children as an excuse to get
>>>>> their way. A female breeder is commonly called a moo, and a male
>>>>> breeder
>>>>> a duh.
>>>>> 2: slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to
>>>>> heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of
>>>>> contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.
>>>>> "Can you believe the nerve of those breeders? They come in to a nice
>>>>> restaurant and proceed to sit by and watch while their progeny shriek
>>>>> and run all over the place, and then let the children make a huge mess
>>>>> and do not even tip the waitstaff. Disgusting..."
>>>>
>>>> The term has been around for decades. That's language for you - the
>>>> usage of a subculture can easily be adopted by the rest of society. It
>>>> does take some time. I think breeders is gonna be one of those words.
>>>> Language is like water - it flows.
>>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>
>> I should have said that language is like water - it flows and permeates
>> and fills up crevices but I blew that one!
>
> Not so much, but your second take is even better.
>
> So language then might be like money which, like water, follows the path
> of least resistance?
>
> That could handily explain *** adoption too.

I feel a little guilty about this - I use language to fulfill my evil,
dark, designs when I should only be using it for goodness and light.
Well, maybe next year.