I think i need to knock up my wife again

Thorn Bird said:
see, this is what i don't get. why does there have to be a reason to have/not have kids? why is it that those who don't want them seem to have to validate why they don't, and they do so by tearing those who do want families down? especially on here, many of those who don't want kids think that those who do are selfish and greedy and stupid. how is that ok to do?

i want kids, but i don't think everyone should want them. i don't think there's something wrong with those who don't want them. i don't think i should have to defend my right to have a child because the ones who don't want kids find that there's something wrong with it. why not just say, i don't want kids, and let that be that? what if i were to say, "well, all those who don't want kids are stupid for not wanting them and selfish and blahblahblah..." why do that? why does either "side" have to validate what they want?
Click to expand...

You ask these questions as if you want someone to answer them? I could pull a few answers outta my azz....however, I'd much rather remain friends. ;) :heart:

Kids or no kids, everyone justifys their decisions/opinions. That's just what happens when people engage in discussion.
 
Pandora said:
You ask these questions as if you want someone to answer them? I could pull a few answers outta my azz....however, I'd much rather remain friends. ;) :heart:

Kids or no kids, everyone justifys their decisions/opinions. That's just what happens when people engage in discussion.
Click to expand...

That's why instaed of discussions, everyone should practice proper conversation protocol like they are teaching us at work!

Everyone should have a common goal on a team. It is to this point that you must ensure that the team pushes forward towards this goal in the most efficient manner possible. This is where proper Conversational Protocol comes in. The point isn't to justify your position or opinion, it's to openly listen to everyones thoughts and align on a proposal. The topic is reviewed, someone makes a proposal, and asks if anyone is not aligned. If someone is not aligned, they can raise their hand. If multiple people are not aligned, the person who made the proposal choses who to start a conversation with.

During this conversation, only the person who made the proposal and the person they chose to converse with may speak. They have to come to a decision. Either the person who was not align must become aligned, or the person who made the proposal must withdraw their proposal.

Now I know this sounds like an open debate, but it's not. You must follow the protocol. You present your facts as you see them, and then so does the other person. You do not try to force your opinion onto the other person, but instead try to understand theirs via active thinking. Ask questions, try to understand better their view of things. This goes for both people.

In the end, in order to progress the conversation, someone will need to come to a decision. Even if you don't align with the decision to withdraw your proposal, you should do it anyway to avoid getting stuck in a standoff. Then the floor is open for a new proposal, at which point people will declare alignment again. This continues until a full alignment has been reached on a singular proposal. You do not agree, for agreeing is part of a discussion, and we are not looking for agreement. We are looking for alignment on a proposal. The choice to align should not be based on your own personal opinions, but on what will best move the game forward, and the the team closer to their common goal.


This is what they are trying to get a paper mill staffed with over 1200 hourly operators to begin using when talking about work . . . :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back