what should be the minimum i.q. in order to children

some quantum of emotional intelligence is valuable and education can be misapplied; children of the rich often struggle with lack of attention and bad values. my very limited success in raising children amounts to limiting screen use to almost nothing and spending a lot of time reading books to them, telling them fun stories and taking them out to play a lot. as far as getting them to eat enough and go to bed on time and be obedient, I know nothing.

162430 wrote:

Wait a minute… Are you saying that being able to support your family financially has nothing to do with parenting? Critical Thinking is not saying that you need to be rich to be a good parent, he is saying that you need to have enough money to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc. How could anyone be stupid enough to disagree with this? Are you trolling or just brain dead?

im sure you are trolling, but I will go ahead and respond to this rubbish.

first off, I think you should google "ethan couch" and see what comes up. he was a rich kid with rich parents. his parents did not monitor or discipline him, and he ended up getting away with murdering 4 people because of his richness. you are way off your rocker if you think that providing anything more gifts besides food and shelter (and maybe clothing) is necessary to be a good parent. the fact remains, even the poorest people on welfare are easily able to feed their kids and cloth them. this alone completely disproves your rubbish theory about needing a certain amount of money to be a good parent. the poorest scumbags in America are still keeping their kids overly clothed, overly fed, and overly video-gamed.

lets talk about the real question at hand. i.q. does NOT imply academic intelligence. i.q. only refers to cognitive dissonance and logic. yes, I think a decent parent needs to have logic and common sense. being a parent can have many political pathways, such as whether to spank and whether to tell your kids to stand up to bullies or go and snitch on them (which by the way, bullies don't even exist in America now. they just call you a name on facebook. back in my day, bullies beat the hell out of you and stole your lunch money). perhaps the most logical thing about being a good parent that requires an i.q. above 100 is what to do with your kids when they are sick and get an infection.

yes I think the bar we need to set is i.q. of around 100. if the parents i.q. is below 100, I honestly believe abortion needs to be mandatory in that situation and would be best for all parties involved.

money can keep your wife around forever, but it really just turns your kids into brats. I hope you, 162430, are never a parent. your offspring would be better off living in a foster home.

so titles to grammar

el pasos finest wrote:

162430 wrote:

Wait a minute… Are you saying that being able to support your family financially has nothing to do with parenting? Critical Thinking is not saying that you need to be rich to be a good parent, he is saying that you need to have enough money to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc. How could anyone be stupid enough to disagree with this? Are you trolling or just brain dead?

parenting involves more than just throwing money at kids.

you sir, are the ones thats braindead.

I'll certainly agree that being a good parent entails more than providing your child with material goods. However, I will hold to the view that leaving your children naked and starving makes you a bad parent.

Critical Thinking wrote:

I'll certainly agree that being a good parent entails more than providing your child with material goods. However, I will hold to the view that leaving your children naked and starving makes you a bad parent.

So poor people are incapable of loving someone? Being poor automatically makes you "bad and evil" caretaker?

I suggest a _maximum_ of perhaps 120. There are already too many geeks in this world.

Fred Gwynne wrote:

smarty pants wrote:

please don't use IQ as a gauge.

i'm around 130, my wife, 120. despite our efforts, we've been sub-par parents. i wish my kids could've been raised in a more typical home. they're wonderfully smart and are academically overachievers, but...

one's a recovering heroine addict, the other a video gamer who does nothing else

You would think with around a 130 IQ you would know how to spell heroin. Especially if one of your children is an addict.

And what makes you think that he misspelled heroin? I know lots of dudes who are definitely heroine addicts.

Yours plus one.

She's my Hero wrote:

I know lots of dudes who are definitely heroine addicts.

Sub 2 @ 800 (BMart), 4 @ 1500 (SFH), 15 @ 5000 (MollyH)

trackstar44 wrote:

money can keep your wife around forever, but it really just turns your kids into brats. I hope you, 162430, are never a parent. your offspring would be better off living in a foster home.

I know that I swore off feeding the trolls, but what the heck is going on today? I know that money is not the most important thing when it comes to parenting. Everyone knows this. I never even remotely implied that wealth was important when it comes to raising kids (nor did Critical Thinker, the person that I was agreeing with). However, I do think that preventing your family from starving and living in the streets is important. Who could possibly think otherwise?

Critical Thinking wrote:

I'll certainly agree that being a good parent entails more than providing your child with material goods. However, I will hold to the view that leaving your children naked and starving makes you a bad parent.

We are clearly being trolled (me more so than you). I have only run 50 miles this week and am now living on the message boards to try and forget about my (recent) piss poor training. I just woke up from a nap, but I probably need to go take another.

Ted Bundy,Wayne Gacy,Jerry Sandusky were no dummies but I doubt

anyone would say they were parent material.

how 'bout a minimum IQ required to vote? Save us all a lot of grief...