Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
edited August 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
You might have heard of the Duggars. Headed by the hyper-conservative Jim Bob Duggar, this is a family of (currently) 18. We're not talking "John and Kate Plus Eight," here, where somebody is just very fetile and likes to randomly pop out six kids. We're talking no contraception because of some crazy moral value, wife-firing-off-babies-like-a-pop-gun-because-I-don't-know-how-reproduction-works-due-to-conservative-indoctrination kind of shit here.

Now, aside from the judgmental twinge in me that wants to slap this woman for being a sheep, I have a serious problem with this kind of behavior. In a time and place where almost all children survive the first few years of their lives because of improved medical care, this behavior isn't only superfluous, it's irresponsible. I don't expect everybody to hold the same sort of environmentalist values that I do, and I respect that people want to have their biological children, but I see a problem in two ways:

1) They've created a comparably massive footprint, rather like the carbon footprint that irresponsible industries create, and

2) They've chucked sixteen kids, maybe more by now, from that vagina of hers, all because they are opposed to contraception and because the wife wants a big family. I look at this as the most selfish, conceited behavior when you think about the kids out there that need to be adopted. Angelina Jolie swipes all the cute ones up from other countries, so there are plenty here that need the help.

If you really want to have your own biologicals, make one or two of your own, then adopt. It's the quick road to a big family anyway, without all the trouble of pregnancy and birth. Am I right to feel like that? Are these people, and others like them, acting as irresponsibly and selfishly as I think they are? I have an immense moral objection to this behavior because I feel a responsibility to this earth that we live on, so I definitely won't take part of that behavior and will probably wind up adopting more than producing my own biologicals, but should I hold these people to the same standard?

Wonder_Hippie on
Spoiler:
«13456789

Posts

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    They're creating a socio-economic power base for themselves. It's the beauty of democracy. You can breed your way into power.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    this is one of those things that I don't like but I also am aware we can't do anything about.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Hearthstone%20DoA.png
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    as long as they can take care of their children properly, i don't have any objections. it might be almost impossible with 16 kids, but if they have lots of relatives who can help out in the early years (and then have older ones help out with younger ones), i can see it working.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

    The problem here: "You first."

    You have to get the whole planet to stop, otherwise one culture can just out breed another culture and take it over directly or indirectly.

    Numbers are power on the world stage as well, once technology is more or less equalized.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

    Most first world countries have negative growth rates and overpopulation is not really an issue

    If you're in India or China, I agree, of course

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    this is one of those things that I don't like but I also am aware we can't do anything about.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Man, you are just twisted.

    Their kids are pretty awesome. They are well-educated, hard-working, they built their own house, the oldest one makes documentaries and shit. They should have 500 kids. Because we need more people like them in the gene pool. And less people who randomly bitch about shit that hasn't nothing to do with them.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

    I disagree with this.

    I think that most of the environmental problems befalling us are due to each individual taking up too much of an environmental footprint, not to there being too many people. If you look at birthrates worldwide, the general trend is that the more developed a nation economically, the lower their birthrates. It's not a leap to say that as each third- and second- world country creeps towards a first-world economy, their birthrates will fall.

    Now, in more developed nations, each human represents a greater ecological burden. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if there were fewer people, each person would demand a quality of life requiring more energy and more natural resources. Besides, how else would growth economies continue to, er, grow, if not by demanding greater consumption from a population whose growth rate is itself diminishing?

    However, if we attack the problem from the footprint angle, rather than the raw numbers angle, and strive towards a system where each individual is at or close to equilibrium, while birth rates simultaneously diminish as economies develop, then overpopulation seems a lot less scary.

    As for the OP... yep, those Duggars. They're fucking loonies.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Man, you are just twisted.

    Their kids are pretty awesome. They are well-educated, hard-working, they built their own house, the oldest one makes documentaries and shit. They should have 500 kids. Because we need more people like them in the gene pool. And less people who randomly bitch about shit that hasn't nothing to do with them.

    They're also indoctrinated with hyper-conservative Christian values and have a nice TV face. It's not how they're raising their kids that bothers me, it's that they're raising that many, creating that many, when there are some kids that have already been created that desperately need care themselves.

    Edit: Also, each kid has a "J" as the first letter of their first name. It's a personal thing, but that just irks the shit out of me. It's almost as if it's an effort to remove their personalities, as are the dresses all the girls are seemingly forced to wear all the time.

    Spoiler:
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

    First world nations are almost all below replacement right now, even America. This woman is no doubt polluting the genetic pool by overloading it with her genetic sequence for "poor judgment," and additionally dooming her brood to a relatively poor existence. Still, she's not really significantly altering anything on her own, and the large number of no-or-one kid couples are counterweighing her "contribution".

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    I know most people instantly disagree with this, but governments really need to discourage their citizens from procreating. There are simply too many of us.

    I disagree with this.

    I think that most of the environmental problems befalling us are due to each individual taking up too much of an environmental footprint, not to there being too many people. If you look at birthrates worldwide, the general trend is that the more developed a nation economically, the lower their birthrates. It's not a leap to say that as each third- and second- world country creeps towards a first-world economy, their birthrates will fall.

    Now, in more developed nations, each human represents a greater ecological burden. I don't think it's a stretch to say that if there were fewer people, each person would demand a quality of life requiring more energy and more natural resources. Besides, how else would growth economies continue to, er, grow, if not by demanding greater consumption from a population whose growth rate is itself diminishing?

    However, if we attack the problem from the footprint angle, rather than the raw numbers angle, and strive towards a system where each individual is at or close to equilibrium, while birth rates simultaneously diminish as economies develop, then overpopulation seems a lot less scary.
    I don't see how this can possibly work at the current worldwide growth rate. The average North American individual, the most voracious consumer of resources on earth, consumes as much as thirty Bangladeshis. And Bangladesh is not exactly a third-world backwater. If all 6.6 billion of us were consuming, say, one-third of what a North American does today, we would still be fucking screwed because there will be nine billion people by 2050. The planet Earth simply cannot physically sustain our numbers beyond the next century, even at current consumption rates.

  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited July 2007
    You guys saw the circumcision thread, right?

    You think people get upset about them doing THAT, just wait until people have to be neatured and spayed. (figuratively speaking, as cutting off a baby's balls would keep it from developing masculine characteristics, but you know what I mean)

    Spoiler:
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The thing about the footprint issue is that it's really all about enforcing correct pricing of goods, relative to the effort required to contain their environmental damage.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    First world nations are almost all below replacement right now, even America. This woman is no doubt polluting the genetic pool by overloading it with her genetic sequence for "poor judgment," and additionally dooming her brood to a relatively poor existence. Still, she's not really significantly altering anything on her own, and the large number of no-or-one kid couples are counterweighing her "contribution".
    Other than a bunch of bigoted bullshit, I don't get where you guys get off criticizing their judgment and such. And relatively poor existence? Have you seen them? I'm pretty sure these kids will do just fine.
    Azio wrote: »
    I don't see how this can possibly work at the current worldwide growth rate. The average North American individual consumes as much as thirty Bangladeshis. If all 6.6 billion of us were consuming, say, one-third of what a North American does today, we would still be fucking screwed because there will be nine billion people by 2050. The planet Earth simply cannot physically sustain our numbers beyond the next century, even at current consumption rates.
    I'm not sure where you got 30, the numbers I see are usually 10 - 14. How much does the average American produce compared to the average Bangladeshi? About 20 times. When you measure production vs. consumption, we're one of the most efficient countries in the world.

    And overpopulation is a myth. Particularly among middle-class educated people like the Duggars.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    A lot of it is that you need to bring everyone up to a certain minimum level before you have any chance of getting them to be able to afford to care about their "footprint."

    Whole Foods is fucking expensive, yo.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    You guys saw the circumcision thread, right?

    You think people get upset about them doing THAT, just wait until people have to be neatured and spayed. (figuratively speaking, as cutting off a baby's balls would keep it from developing masculine characteristics, but you know what I mean)

    I'm not for eugenics or anything, but maybe a system where the government offers greater benefits to adopting parents rather than breeders. It certainly wouldn't cut down on the breeding significantly, but it would significantly lighten the load that foster care and adoption agencies have under their oversight.

    Spoiler:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    See, here's the thing.

    We still need replacement population.

    We don't need to -decrease- our numbers. We need to -stabilize- them.

    We should be encouraging couples to have about two kids.

    Not more than two kids.

    Not less than two kids.

    If we drop below a certain level, we can up that to three kids for a generation, then go back to two.

    But there's a serious need for some good, healthy, SMALL families, rather than people having one or none, or bazillions.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yeah, but isn't life a little bit more human and interesting when there's the oddball 16-kid family thrown in there now and then, so long as they educate them and care for them and make them productive members of society, like the Duggars have?

    Do you really want that much control over everyone else on the planet?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    That's not much better than the argument that we need bullies in school so kids can learn about the pecking order.

    Besides that, I'm not saying "Ban large families."

    Just incentivize the hell out of "just right size" families.

    I'm especially tired of the well-educated people with lots of money not having kids, so that their years of awesome basically die with them.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    It's the fucking complete opposite of that argument.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Duggars are well-educated and have lots of money. You fail.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.

    Well, I mean, we should, but I wanted to talk about this.

    That's not really cracking down on anything, is it?

    Spoiler:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.

    From what I've read, there was a period of the environmental movement that was heavily anti-growth, but it became hidden.

    There's some pro-family site that's suggested that the Union of Concerned Scientists are, at least partly, an anti-growth group.

    It sort of clicks with their badly-considered push for the diesel regulations in California as written, if nothing else.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.
    I think it's just a sensationalized doomsday thread. They're all the same, really.

    I think the argument is that people having a ton of kids is bad because those kids will grow up to buy SUVs and use too much electricity.

    Maybe those 16 kids will grow up to be CEOs of companies that voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint. Ya never know!

    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yeah, but so far, this seems to be a lot of irrational frustration with no substance.

    How are the Duggars hurting anything? Why are they so bad? Conservative? They dress well? Their names all start with J? That's really all you've got?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    The Duggars are well-educated and have lots of money. You fail.

    Did I say the well-educated, money-having people should have a bazillion kids?

    No.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    The Duggars are well-educated and have lots of money. You fail.

    What's Jim Bob's education? I know they're supposed to live debt-free according to some crazy, cult-like Christian financial plan or something, but I don't know much about their education.

    Spoiler:
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.

    Well, I mean, we should, but I wanted to talk about this.

    That's not really cracking down on anything, is it?

    no i guess not :)

    i guess i just feel your distaste (outrage?) is a bit misdirected.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    The Duggars are well-educated and have lots of money. You fail.

    Did I say the well-educated, money-having people should have a bazillion kids?

    No.
    Your point makes no sense. You want educated wealthy people to have more kids. The Duggars are making up for 7 other wealthy educated familes who don't have kids. And you revile them for it.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah, but so far, this seems to be a lot of irrational frustration with no substance.

    How are the Duggars hurting anything? Why are they so bad? Conservative? They dress well? Their names all start with J? That's really all you've got?

    It's selfish. To me, it's the worst kind of selfishness. That, and Jim Bob's strong pushes for home schooling vouchers when he was in the Arkansas state government was clearly self-motivated rather than in the interests of his state.

    Spoiler:
  • Bear CavalryBear Cavalry Registered User
    edited July 2007
    If the kids are being raised well, and not in horrible conditions, than I don't have a problem with that. It might have been better if they adopted 16 kids instead though.

    Anyway, I have the pic from the title:
    itsnotaclowncar.jpg

    EDIT: It is kind of sickening that a woman would have that many kids.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    is this kind of like a weird environmental thread?

    because if it is, we should be cracking down on companies much more so than on families who have lots of children.

    Well, I mean, we should, but I wanted to talk about this.

    That's not really cracking down on anything, is it?

    no i guess not :)

    i guess i just feel your distaste (outrage?) is a bit misdirected.
    The point is no one should be thinking that doing something like this is in anyway a good idea. Just because obviously this means one or two crazies will go ahead and do it, doesn't stop it from being distasteful for a whole myriad of reasons nor something that should be encouraged or okayed.

  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited July 2007
    To me this family is an isolated incident. I don't see too terribly many families having tons of kids, and I don't think this one family doing it is going to encourage everybody else to it. It's just one family's quirkiness, and has no real effect on the world.

    I mean, Ferraris have terrible gas mileage and poor emissions ratings, but so few of them are made every year, and those few are driven so rarely, that they don't really have an effect on the climate at all.

    This family is like the Ferrari of families. Just not as awesome.

    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    What's Jim Bob's education? I know they're supposed to live debt-free according to some crazy, cult-like Christian financial plan or something, but I don't know much about their education.
    I'm still really confused by your attitude on this. Do you have to shit on a very sound economic lifestyle by spouting crap you know nothing about?

    I'm just confused by the level of hate coming out of you on this. They seem to be really swell people.

    I don't know their education level except that the kids score very high on standardized tests, and that the parents are both licesnsed real estate agenst and that the Dad served on the state senate or something.

    I also know they were on birth control for years until they were ready to have children.
    Yar wrote: »
    Yeah, but so far, this seems to be a lot of irrational frustration with no substance.

    How are the Duggars hurting anything? Why are they so bad? Conservative? They dress well? Their names all start with J? That's really all you've got?

    It's selfish. To me, it's the worst kind of selfishness. That, and Jim Bob's strong pushes for home schooling vouchers when he was in the Arkansas state government was clearly self-motivated rather than in the interests of his state.
    You haven't explained how it's "selfish." Raising children is about the most unselfish thing most humans ever do.

    And I don't see how you wouldn't think that someone who believes in home-schooling might also think home-schooling is a good thing. They sort of go hand-in-hand.

    Again, it's like you are reaching really really hard for a reason to hate them, and you're coming up with weak nonsense.

    Also: I agree, a lot of kids out there need to be adopted. That is just as true for a family who has one kids as it is for a family who has 17.

  • Mr. PokeylopeMr. Pokeylope Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    What's with all this breeder non sense. Making it sound like an insult, every society needs to have a next generation to carry it on. Atleast the Duggars are doing their part.

    A society that can't even replace it self is a dying society. Negative population growth is not a sign of progress and all the things that you care about like say the environment are for nothing if your beliefs die with you right.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    What's with all this breeder non sense. Making it sound like an insult, every society needs to have a next generation to carry it on. Atleast the Duggars are doing their part.

    A society that can't even replace it self is a dying society. Negative population growth is not a sign of progress and all the things that you care about like say the environment are for nothing if your beliefs die with you right.
    It's not true negative population growth. The world's population is still increasing and it is still increasing in the poorest areas. Personally I favor increasing 1st world immigration in order to make up our perceived population deficits, as well as (ideally) generate migrants with good educations in our systems and increase the liklihood they will pass some of that on back to their countries of origin.

  • GimGim Support purple causes, listen to Black Sabbath, count only blue cars Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    If the kids are being raised well, and not in horrible conditions, than I don't have a problem with that. It might have been better if they adopted 16 kids instead though.

    Anyway, I have the pic from the title:
    itsnotaclowncar.jpg

    EDIT: It is kind of sickening that a woman would have that many kids.

    They must spend a small fortune in WASP clothes.

    F9RE9J8.png
  • QuazarQuazar Registered User
    edited July 2007
    What's with all this breeder non sense. Making it sound like an insult, every society needs to have a next generation to carry it on. Atleast the Duggars are doing their part.

    A society that can't even replace it self is a dying society. Negative population growth is not a sign of progress and all the things that you care about like say the environment are for nothing if your beliefs die with you right.
    Most of the people on the PA forums are young, single males (like myself).

    If there were a lot of married people, engaged people, and/or females on this forum, the responses would likely be vastly different. I don't think you have anything to worry about as far as society goes.

    I, for one, think if you have the money and time to truly watch after, raise, and take care of that many kids... go for it.

    Spoiler:
Sign In or Register to comment.