Farm Chores Debate - Pittsburgh, PA

WTF!?

This is the Pittsburgh Forum, as in an URBAN area.

Relevancy, TOPIX?

You post from New Castle, a meth infested country area.

Just Observing wrote:

You post from New Castle, a meth infested country area.

And your posting from Mckeesport. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black...

Just Observing wrote:

You post from New Castle, a meth infested country area.

You obviously understand little about ISP locations posted in TOPIX; they're often quite spurious, and do not relate to the poster's actual location. I haven't been to New Castle in year, but if it's meth-infested, I'm sure YOU have!

I am sure the parents want what is best for their kids. The problem with calling some type of task "child labor" is that while there is good child labor and bad child labor(the latter should be regulated, of course) some people will protray any type of child work as (bad)child labor, not separating between the two types.Also, realize that many, many Americans in the 1700's worked on farms, including a number of famous Americans, and the work back then was much harder work than it is now, and farms were often bigger back then.

Free Thinker wrote:

I am sure the parents want what is best for their kids. The problem with calling some type of task "child labor" is that while there is good child labor and bad child labor(the latter should be regulated, of course) some people will protray any type of child work as (bad)child labor, not separating between the two types.Also, realize that many, many Americans in the 1700's worked on farms, including a number of famous Americans, and the work back then was much harder work than it is now, and farms were often bigger back then.

No, farms weren't bigger in the 1700s; ever heard of mechanization, fertilizer, and pesticides? They lead to agribusiness and commercial farms to replace to small family farm. And "good" child labor? What kind of whack job are you?

In the 1700's, most American farms were huge. Many, many American farms were hundreds and hundreds of acres. Part of the reason, to be truthful, was an excuse to take away land from the Native American Indians. Soldiers who served in the American Revolutionary War and other wars received incredibly huge amounts of land as free gifts from the American colonial government. You don't seem to understand that farmland does not last forever; though farmland can be very, very old. The ground itself becomes part of an unnatural system which is man made through plowing. The ground, itself, in very slow stages tries to fight off this foreign domination. Often times, farms fail because the soil does not grow crops anymore; the soil chemically changed itself to stop producing. At one time long, long ago, farms were a common sight in America. And there is good child labor. Again, you don't seem to understand. Any job a child does is considered by many people as "child labor". A ten year old boy or girl who delivers newspapers to people's homes-that is "child labor". An eight year old child who assists in the family's yard sale, that is "child labor". What's wrong a newspaper delivery kid? What's wrong with a child assisting with lightweight items at a family yard sale or at a family bake sale? Some people are too protective in the world of kids.

According to the USDA, the average American farm today is over 400 acres, and many are several thousand acres. Some ranches in the plains can be millions of acres.

There are fewer farms today because advancements in science & technology has made them far more productive, and factory farms have emerged particularly for rasing meat, eggs and milk in concentrated (and often inhumane circumstances)venues. And farms are far less obiqutous today because of transporation and refrigeration.

Ah, but it is everyone else who does not understand, you arrogant putz! And newspaper delivery kids are going the wayside as is the print media itself!

Here is something to consider that your mind has simply failed to comprehend: what is to be done when there are farms that are financially struggling to survive? If the farmer wants his or her family to help out physically with farm chores and the farmer shall be fair in meting out the work according to a person's physical attributes. That the farmer cannot afford to hire extra help, and the family has to "pull together" as a family to save the family farm, which the family possessed for generations and generations. We are living in economic recession times, for many, many, many Americans. A big number of farms went broke during the Great Depression. A lot of farms were struggling in the 1980's, so singer and song writer Willie Nelson created special concerts to help struggling farmers. He had other singers help, as well. There was "Farm Aid One" and later on "Farm Aid 2". Well, things today are economically much worse than in the 1980's and many, many, many people today have big financical troubles.

Numnutz, nobody disagrees that some family farms have and are experiencing tough times; my dispute with you related to the bullsh*t you attempted to pass off as "facts," you arrogant lil' azzhat.

Pontificate on the trials and triulations facing family farms all you want... but you will be called on it when you fling the cow pucks!

Chores shouldn't be listed as child labor.... PERIOD.
Living on a farm means farm chores.
Whats to stop the government from calling taking out the trash a form of child labor? Or making the bed?

Starting with the farms, then its the kids who sweep up at mom and pop stores.
Then its kids making there beds at home, cuz after all thats housekeeping... which is a job for a maid, not some poor innocent child. O_o

This law is insane!

If it passes no one is going to follow it.

Free Thinker sux wrote:

According to the USDA, the average American farm today is over 400 acres, and many are several thousand acres. Some ranches in the plains can be millions of acres.
There are fewer farms today because advancements in science & technology has made them far more productive, and factory farms have emerged particularly for rasing meat, eggs and milk in concentrated (and often inhumane circumstances)venues. And farms are far less obiqutous today because of transporation and refrigeration.
Ah, but it is everyone else who does not understand, you arrogant putz! And newspaper delivery kids are going the wayside as is the print media itself!

You have wrote:"There are fewer farms today because advancements in science & technology has made them far more productive"; then, in that case, there should be MORE farms today than a century ago. Yet, a century ago there were more farms and more wilderness. And a whole lot less of the population of today.

Women and children are chattel, not cattle.

Anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
You have wrote:"There are fewer farms today because advancements in science & technology has made them far more productive"; then, in that case, there should be MORE farms today than a century ago. Yet, a century ago there were more farms and more wilderness. And a whole lot less of the population of today.

Oh, fer gawd's sake... just how stupid are you? In 1910, 72% of the US population was rural; today, that percentage is just 16%. More efficient & productive farming practices, and the concomitant rise of industrialization in the US, made this possible. We simply don't need so many people involved in agriculture, and other, more attractive- and lucrative- lifestyles beyond the countryside emerged, and Americans embraced them.

Did you graduate from high school, fool.

Free Thinker sux wrote:

<quoted text>
No, farms weren't bigger in the 1700s; ever heard of mechanization, fertilizer, and pesticides? They lead to agribusiness and commercial farms to replace to small family farm. And "good" child labor? What kind of whack job are you?

You are a simple minded, irrational hate monger. When someone peacefully posts sentimental things with integrity on this forum, you do not engage scientifically nor etiquettely in debate; you argue, swear, insult, and use sexually offensive language, vis. your "suks" language. The whole miserable affair of yours becomes quite clear that your real purpose for being on the internet is to be an internet punk; an internet bully.

Just Saying wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, fer gawd's sake... just how stupid are you? In 1910, 72% of the US population was rural; today, that percentage is just 16%. More efficient & productive farming practices, and the concomitant rise of industrialization in the US, made this possible. We simply don't need so many people involved in agriculture, and other, more attractive- and lucrative- lifestyles beyond the countryside emerged, and Americans embraced them.
Did you graduate from high school, fool.

Hey fool, what has that information got to do with anything? I was just saying there were more farms that could be seen a century ago than now. I did not talk against better technology. I did not talk against industrialization. I did not say we must return to more farms then than today. People can be in whatever lifestyles of work they wish, I never said people had to be in agriculture. You are some sort of fanatic who falsely accuses people, directly or indirectly, of ridiculous things. Fool, I went to college.

Anonymous wrote:

<quoted text> Hey fool, what has that information got to do with anything? I was just saying there were more farms that could be seen a century ago than now. I did not talk against better technology. I did not talk against industrialization. I did not say we must return to more farms then than today. People can be in whatever lifestyles of work they wish, I never said people had to be in agriculture. You are some sort of fanatic who falsely accuses people, directly or indirectly, of ridiculous things. Fool, I went to college.

Numnutz, you said there WERE more farms a century ago, not that more could be SEEN. Obviously you're trying to weasel your way out of the corner you painted yourself into, but anyone can simply scroll up the topic thread to see your lie. You're simply a fool.

Where's your proof that there are more farms now, then a century ago, mister hyper? Because you find fault with the statement that "there were more farms a century ago"; then obviously you are saying there are more farms now. So where's your proof, Mister Mouth off. There are many, many places that once were farms but now they completely don't exist; something else entirely different is in their places.

Anonymous wrote:

Where's your proof that there are more farms now, then a century ago, mister hyper? Because you find fault with the statement that "there were more farms a century ago"; then obviously you are saying there are more farms now. So where's your proof, Mister Mouth off. There are many, many places that once were farms but now they completely don't exist; something else entirely different is in their places.

You idiot, that's your contention, not mine; and your logic to infer an implication on my part to that end is so obviously flawed, it demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding an explanation... so I will not waste my time, foolish one. And "mister hyper" and "Mister Mouth off?" Putting aside the inconsistent capitalization... that's the very best you can do?