Foundlings are actually fairly common. The only novelty here is that the adoptive individuals are nontraditional.
We Found Our Son in the Subway
71–80 of 182 posts
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#72Ugh. This yanked a couple of thug tears outta me. And for those wondering what place this has on HN, I actually read HN for interesting, often-not-technically-related news.
But there are plenty of other places for that and although these stories are heart warming I come here for technical articles and discussion. These stories just clog that up and keep other more technical stories deeper in the site.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#73I don't know why people would say this does not belong here. Social hacking gets so little respect. Two thumbs up.
WTF is social hacking? Such a trendy, useless, word.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a shame really. Someone's open-minded curiosity shouldn't be cast aside because of a hypothesis that is politically incorrect.
I consider "political correctness" to be the sort of back-bending linguistic contortionism typical of politicians and PR departments terrified of offending anyone. That's not what's going on here. I'm gay, and while I don't have children, the idea that, were I to adopt one, I'd risk sexually damaging said child with my gayness is offensive. Can you imagine the reaction there would be to someone asking a parallel ques…
I consider your hypothetical question to be a legitimate one.
The problem is that these sorts of questions are often the precursor to banning unconventional families until someone proves that no harm is done. That sort of thinking is harmful, but I don't think asking the questions is harmful.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#75Good god this has nothing to do with HN. Good god am I glad that it got to the front page so I read it.
Ergo it has everything to do with HN.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the only location where you receive all of your information about the world? This site is for technical and business discussion. There are other sites serving chicken soup for your soul.
This site is for technical and business discussion. Where did you get that from? This site is for things that are interesting. This story is so unusual that it's interesting. Meta subthreads are not interesting.
I would have thought the word "Hacker" in the title would give away the fact that yes, it is in fact a site for technical discussions.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#77I don't know why people would say this does not belong here. Social hacking gets so little respect. Two thumbs up.
WTF is social hacking? Such a trendy, useless, word.
Figuring out effective social solutions. The article is a great example of the judge cutting through red tape, a gay couple getting a child without having to fight social crapola tooth and nail, and culminates with a gay marriage which couldn't have previously taken place but is now possible. Plus the couple used the marriage as an opportunity to give some closure to their adopted child. I think it is brilliant on several fronts. And this social stuff is something a lot of hackers seem to feel is a personal weak area, so articles like this potentially have more value for them than for someone like me who already has good skillz in this area.
But thanks for proving my point that it gets way undervalued here.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
This site is for technical and business discussion. Where did you get that from? This site is for things that are interesting. This story is so unusual that it's interesting. Meta subthreads are not interesting.
I would have thought the word "Hacker" in the title would give away the fact that yes, it is in fact a site for technical discussions.
[deleted]
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#79Ugh. This yanked a couple of thug tears outta me. And for those wondering what place this has on HN, I actually read HN for interesting, often-not-technically-related news.
Yup. Got me too. Beautiful story. Lots of love there.
Neither my wife nor I were ready for any of our kids. I don't think you ever are. What these guys did was, among other things, down-right heroic. Not everyone would be open to changing their lives to such an extent by choice.
It's also a wonderful representation of real values found in the gay community.
This country will be far better off when we start to seriously pull away from fanatical religiously-motivated phobias, discrimination and down-right bigotry.
As an atheist I am actually seen as worst than a gay person by the religious extreme right. I bet you a pile of cash not one of those self-righteous a--holes would even think about adopting a non-white kid someone found in the subway.
Anyhow, enjoyed the story. Something socially positive to point to for the day. And, yes, I think it definitely belongs on HN's front page. Personally, when I only focus on tech I feel like I become less of a human being. This is one thing my kids taught me by force over the years.
Re: We Found Our Son in the Subway
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider "political correctness" to be the sort of back-bending linguistic contortionism typical of politicians and PR departments terrified of offending anyone. That's not what's going on here. I'm gay, and while I don't have children, the idea that, were I to adopt one, I'd risk sexually damaging said child with my gayness is offensive. Can you imagine the reaction there would be to someone asking a parallel ques…
I consider your hypothetical question to be a legitimate one. The problem is that these sorts of questions are often the precursor to banning unconventional families until someone proves that no harm is done. That sort of thinking is harmful, but I don't think asking the questions is harmful.
I agree that there are potentially-interesting sociological questions to be asked, but it's possible to ask them in a way that's not loaded. The parent poster asks about whether the kid has "problems with his sexuality," which I take to be asking either whether as a result of having gay parents, the kid is gay (implying that gayness is a "problem"), or alternatively, whether the gay parents have caused some problem other than gayness... like what, one wonders? Is the implication that being around gay people makes one asexual, or that gay people abuse children such that they grow up sexually stunted, or something? I have difficulty envisioning an implication that isn't based on an underlying assumption that gayness is bad. Had the poster instead asked, "did having gay parents make the child gay?", that question would have ended up in the "good-natured but misguided" category, and I would have felt more comfortable just answering the question instead of complaining about it.
Likewise with the race question: if a poster had asked "does the white child raised by black parents identify more strongly with black culture than other white children?" that might be a legitimate sociological question, but the implication that that's a problem is what makes the question problematic.