J.D. Vance: Women who have not given birth, such as Kamala Harris, are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,”

[ozso]

Just a question, do Republicans and/or right-wingers tend to look down on childless women? I have to admit, this really bothers me when they do this.

JD Vance feels that politicians who are childless don't care as much about the future as those who do have children. That's what the comment meant. As I heard a parent once say regarding the future, "It's not us we have to worry about, it's our kids".

 

[Laodicean60]

...ah, and there we have it. Both parties are flawed....so let's just ignore J.D. Vance's comments. This is same old argument used to dismiss comments by DJT....comments that up to 2016, would have ended the race for any candidate.

What changed?

So what do you want me to do, jump on your bandwagon? Do you want a like or winner emoji the other idealogues give you for drumbeating? I will when you start posting some of the awful stuff said by the Democrats. Then I'll know you have a balanced mentality.

Nothing Changed! except for the extremism from both parties.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

JD Vance feels that politicians who are childless don't care as much about the future as those who do have children. That's what the comment meant. As I heard a parent once say regarding the future, "It's not us we have to worry about, it's our kids".

But is Harris truly childless? She has no biological children, but she has two stepchildren - why would anyone assume that she doesn't care about creating a bright future for them? Pete Buttigieg and his husband have two adopted children - why would he have no stake in their future?

I could understand his argument a bit more if he was talking about people who were truly child-free (even if I would still disagree with it), but he isn't. Instead, he comes off as condescending and utterly disdainful of any sort of "non-traditional" family. Could you, with a straight face, say that a heterosexual couple that adopts because they're incapable of having children doesn't care about the future?

 

[ozso]

But is Harris truly childless? She has no biological children, but she has two stepchildren - why would anyone assume that she doesn't care about creating a bright future for them? Pete Buttigieg and his husband have two adopted children - why would he have no stake in their future?

I could understand his argument a bit more if he was talking about people who were truly child-free (even if I would still disagree with it), but he isn't. Instead, he comes off as condescending and utterly disdainful of any sort of "non-traditional" family. Could you, with a straight face, say that a heterosexual couple that adopts because they're incapable of having children doesn't care about the future?

He probably didn't know Harris had step kids and that Buttigieg adopted.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

He probably didn't know Harris had step kids and that Buttigieg adopted.

Even if that's true, it's not really any better - that just means he's ignorant and insulting instead of condescending, disdainful and insulting. If you're going to attack someone over an easily-verified detail, maybe check to make sure you're correct first?

And again, I'd still disagree with the idea that someone without kids is not invested in building a future for the country. My great aunt never married and never had any kids, but she still loved children. She was one the primary caregivers for my mom and her sister, and was deeply invested in their education, as well as the education and upbringing of their children (myself, my siblings, and my cousins). I would never claim that her lack of children of her own prevented her from caring about the future.

 

[ozso]

Even if that's true, it's not really any better - that just means he's ignorant and insulting instead of condescending, disdainful and insulting. If you're going to attack someone over an easily-verified detail, maybe check to make sure you're correct first?

And again, I'd still disagree with the idea that someone without kids is not invested in building a future for the country. My great aunt never married and never had any kids, but she still loved children. She was one the primary caregivers for my mom and her sister, and was deeply invested in their education, as well as the education and upbringing of their children (myself, my siblings, and my cousins). I would never claim that her lack of children of her own prevented her from caring about the future.

I'm actually not defending the statement. I'm just pointing out what he likely meant by it. Fwiw I'm 62 and childless. And while I take the little ones in the family into consideration regarding the future occasionally, I mostly just consider how my last 20 years give or take are going to pan out. If I had kids and grandkids I think they would probably hold a much stronger place in my mind than grand nieces and nephews do.

 

[iluvatar5150]

He probably didn't know Harris had step kids and that Buttigieg adopted.

IIRC, he made his comments before Buttigieg adopted.

Either way, it’s a garbage take that belies some really twisted thinking.

 

[childeye 2]

So what do you want me to do, jump on your bandwagon? Do you want a like or winner emoji the other idealogues give you for drumbeating? I will when you start posting some of the awful stuff said by the Democrats. Then I'll know you have a balanced mentality.

Nothing Changed! except for the extremism from both parties.

There should be a distinction drawn between people in party A saying personally bad things about people in Party B, and people in party B pointing out the bad persons in party A for making it personal to begin with.

 

[Laodicean60]

There should be a distinction drawn between people in party A saying personally bad things about people in Party B, and people in party B pointing out the bad persons in party A for making it personal to begin with.

I don't understand. What distinction should be drawn when both parties bad mouth each other?

 

[childeye 2]

I don't understand. What distinction should be drawn when both parties bad mouth each other?

I'm saying not to get lost in the semantics. To elaborate, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell a positive from a negative. To elaborate further, don't get lost in the semantics so that you can't tell the truth from the lie.

Example: A calls B a liar without any proof, which is a lie in itself. So, B calls A a liar which is true and not a lie. <--- There is a distinction.

I'm talking about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy. The ad hominem attack is a tactic where a person engages in a personal attack against the character of their opponent to avoid arguing the substance of their argument.

Since engaging in personal attacks to avoid the substantive argument is a show of bad character in itself, it's not an ad hominem attack logical fallacy to discredit the character of a person who engages in an ad hominem attack logical fallacy.

In propaganda the intention is to turn positives into negatives, and negatives into positives, but more common, is to use propaganda to make them both look neutral so that no one can tell the difference.

 

[DaisyDay]

I am waiting for Yeshua to return also. The nations are already starting to fight each other, but it will get worse shortly before Jesus returns. Keep well, brother in Christ. Remember, Jesus died for our sins, and He will protect us from wars.

Can you name a single year when there has been no war between nations?

 

[Robban]

....so Harris should pick a woman VP? : )

Well, with saying women first, it happened when the time came for the giving of Torah.

Because that is the order by which Torah enters the world.

First fundamentals, then the details.

Bringing all that info ,the details of time and space..........this is where men come in useful.

(from the text Likutei Sichot vol 31, Yitro 1)

Women their role, lighting Shabbos candles,

I have heard that we are in the Friday afternoon of history and with that women will play a deciding role.

Otherwise I do not give two hoots for politics, unless they are peace seeking.

 

[bekalc]

IIRC, he made his comments before Buttigieg adopted.

Either way, it’s a garbage take that belies some really twisted thinking.

Okay but Pete was talking about how at the time he and his husband were trying to adopt and had an adoption fell through. So that was a particulary painful time for him for Vance to be throwing being childless.

And that yeah Vance wouldn't know that but maybe he shouldn't be talking about other children.

Here is the thing: You don't know why someone is childless. There may be a couple trying really hard to have children. And they cannot.

There are a lot of Christian women struggling to find spouses. After all a lot more women than men.

And so people throwing in their lack of children is cruel.

Having children is a gift.

We don't know why Kamala didn't have kids. She may have really wanted biological kids but didn't want to be single mom and none of her relationships in her twenties and thirties worked out. She clearly loves being a stepmom.

Women get hit for being single parents to I am sure by Vance

 

[Laodicean60]

I'm talking about the ad hominem attack logical fallacy.

You are speaking too educated for me, I don't know what these words mean. I just say what is on my mind emotion and all. I've stuck my foot in my mouth plenty because I don't read well (ADD) and have apologized for the misunderstanding. I've spoken positive and negative about both parties usually on policy not what someone says.

In context, Alex criticized The Republicans and I added Democrats

AlexB23 said:
That is sad. Will the Republican party ever return to the times of classiness, such as what it was 20 years ago, and especially back in the 1970s-1980s?
Not just the Republicans but both parties. Media loves to stir the pot.

Apparently, Wing got triggered by me mentioning to Alex both parties.....

Laodicean60 said:
Not just the Republicans but both parties. Media loves to stir the pot.

...ah, and there we have it. Both parties are flawed....so let's just ignore J.D. Vance's comments. This is same old argument used to dismiss comments by DJT....comments that up to 2016, would have ended the race for any candidate.
What changed?

Then my triggered reply:
So what do you want me to do, jump on your bandwagon? Do you want a like or winner emoji the other idealogues give you for drumbeating? I will when you start posting some of the awful stuff said by the Democrats. Then I'll know you have a balanced mentality.
Nothing Changed! except for the extremism from both parties.

 

[childeye 2]

You are speaking too educated for me, I don't know what these words mean. I just say what is on my mind emotion and all. I've stuck my foot in my mouth plenty because I don't read well (ADD) and have apologized for the misunderstanding.

For what it's worth, I think that for the most part you have good things to say in your posts.

Are you sure you can't see the distinction between A and B below?

A calls B a liar without any proof, which is a lie in itself. So, B calls A a liar which is true and not a lie. <--- only A is a liar even though they both called each other liars.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think the point is that people that don't have kids, by the time they reach middle age, are less prone to by mindful of the future past their lifespan. Key word, "less". Some are driven to help mankind, kinda like the Apostle Paul. but still...

That's not the impression that I get from the clip. Here's the transcript:

We are effectively run, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and at the choices they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too. And it's just a basic fact; you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children, and how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't have a direct stake in it.

 

[DaisyDay]

We reached a point decades ago where it's not about whether or not there is war, but how much is there, and how impactful is it on the world. I know the early 1940's were a bit of a challenge. I'm a bit concerned that we are headed in that direction now.

Do you understand the context?

 

[AlexB23]

Can you name a single year when there has been no war between nations?

I can not. There has always been war. Maybe the 1920s, though there were wars in Europe in the 1920s, or right after WW2 ended in late 1945, though the Cold War started up pretty quickly.

 

[DaisyDay]

I can not. There has always been war. Maybe the 1920s, though there were wars in Europe in the 1920s, or right after WW2 ended in late 1945, though the Cold War started up pretty quickly.

It helps to remember that the United States is not the center of the world.

 

[AlexB23]

It helps to remember that the United States is not the center of the world.

Agreed. Lot of people are US-centric, sadly.