As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

2456789

Posts

  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    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.

    so even if this family was albert einstein's family (assuming he was rich and good at raising children), you'd think, woah, bad idea?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    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.

    I want population growth to be zero for awhile.

    No growth, no decrease.

    Until the species can figure out how to increase the lowest living standard to something above trailer park.

    One of the easier ways to do this is to increase the population of people with better backgrounds, and decrease the population with shittier backgrounds in relation to one another.

    Poor people tend to breed, rich people tend to not (highly variable, obviously).

    If you have replacement numbers only, you will eventually reach a rough equilibrium between the extremes WITHOUT running around castrating people.

    The poorer people, having fewer kids, can devote more resources to them, and maybe even improve their lot in life.

    Obviously it isn't going to happen, but I think it could work in a more cooperative reality.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    so even if this family was albert einstein's family (assuming he was rich and good at raising children), you'd think, woah, bad idea?
    Yes. But handily I also don't subscribe to the idea that intelligence is nearly as genetically preconditioned in the way people like to think it is - but that's for another thread.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    aesiraesir __BANNED USERS regular
    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.


    Yea, well im bothered by you liberal hippies who keep breeding like rabbits but you dont see me bitching about it. As far as them being super christian, GOOD. If they are truly super christian, then that would make them super nice people. Have any of these people done anything morally offsensive to you besides exist? Besides, theres like 16 of them. Is that really a big fucking deal? I can think of millions of people that I wish would go away to some other planet. 16 people who you will NEVER meet is not a big deal.

    aesir on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Wait, what?

    Hippie liberals breed like rabbits?

    When did this happen?

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    You realize that the vast majority of the population on this planet would kill to live in a trailer park, right? Like, two whole continents, maybe 3/4 of a third.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    You realize that the vast majority of the population on this planet would kill to live in a trailer park, right? Like, two whole continents, maybe 3/4 of a third.

    That would be exactly my point.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    You realize that the vast majority of the population on this planet would kill to live in a trailer park, right? Like, two whole continents, maybe 3/4 of a third.

    That would be exactly my point.
    Dude, like 1/3 of the Earth would kill to go to jail in a 1st world prison.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Dude, like 1/3 of the Earth would kill to go to jail in a 1st world prison.

    :|

    So would about 1/5 of the 1st World.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon 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.

    Hey wait a minute, I have seen their house on a TLC special.
    Don't worry, their kids are going to be fine, they somehow got the money to renovate a factory building into their house, they're living great.
    Though I'm amazed at how much this woman's reproductive system has gone though, and apparently its still ticking, I heard that she was pregnant in the last Duggar thread.
    This breeding control sounds like something out of Ender's Game, but really, one rich, well educated family breeding out of control isn't a problem, because they're going to just make up for all the other rich educated people just wanting one kid. The poor uneducated hyperconservative nutjobs breeding out of control is a problem though.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    STATE OF THE ART ROBOTSTATE OF THE ART ROBOT Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I don't have a problem with large familes, as long as they can support themselves without state/federal help. I am so fucking tired of seeing a hick family buy a shitton of groceries for their 6 kids and whip out the foodstamp card. Seriously, it pisses me off that the taxes I pay are feeding a family that cannot support themselves because they don't stop having kids.

    STATE OF THE ART ROBOT on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    so even if this family was albert einstein's family (assuming he was rich and good at raising children), you'd think, woah, bad idea?
    Yes. But handily I also don't subscribe to the idea that intelligence is nearly as genetically preconditioned in the way people like to think it is - but that's for another thread.

    The mans gray matter was 15 percent larger than average.
    But thats beside the point.
    You guys, America is reproducing at pretty close to replacement levels. The problem is that we're consuming way too many non-renewable resources and pollute more per capita then anyone else.
    Simply enough, the population boom thats occurring has nothing to do with us.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    You realize that the vast majority of the population on this planet would kill to live in a trailer park, right? Like, two whole continents, maybe 3/4 of a third.

    That would be exactly my point.
    Dude, like 1/3 of the Earth would kill to go to jail in a 1st world prison.

    I find this very ironic, and also a solution to overpopulation.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Already too many people for the roads around Seattle. Rush hour here is a pain in the ass. I wish we'd get a bird flu outbreak or something.

    Doc on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    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.

    That's basically my point. The populations that are growing the fastest are not the populations having the greatest destructive impact on the environment.

    So the solution is not to go tell the Malawis of the world "Hey, stop making babies" (they'd retort a resounding 'fuck you!' anyway), the solution is to tell the Americas and Australias of the world, "Hey! Stop polluting! Go nuclear! Start using local farms instead of shipping food by semi truck across time zones!"

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Already too many people for the roads around Seattle. Rush hour here is a pain in the ass. I wish we'd get a bird flu outbreak or something.

    Want I should bring up one of my sister's pet geese when I move up there?

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    OtakuD00DOtakuD00D Can I hit the exploding rocks? San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I just hope at least one of those kids ends up ideologically opposed to the rest of the family for some sheer lulz.

    OtakuD00D on
    makosig.jpg
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    See, I had hope for this planet when mad cow came around - but then it was contained.

    Then the avian bird flu...now there was a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, we've somehow managed to contain it.

    Now our last hope is our very own president. If ol' George can't start up some sort of massive world war, no one can, but the clock's a tickin' - he's only got a few more months to make it happen.

    Go go population control.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    NewresNewres Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    As long as the kids are raised well I really do not see the problem with this. I honestly do not see that much of a difference if they would have adopted that many kids. It's not like Arkansas is dangerously overpopulated....

    Newres on
    960751-1.png
  • Options
    ZeeBeeKayZeeBeeKay Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I just saw part of the TLC program earlier today! Sorry, that was really random.

    What I meant to pop in here and say is that I've got no problem with these people. Yes, I find the way Mrs. Duggar and her daughters have chosen to dress, wear their hair, and behave in all the same manner a bit creepy, as do I find the way Mr. Duggar and his sons follow the same pattern a bit creepy. Their being incredibly Christian is also a bit weird to me (I think the first time I heard of them I thought they were a little mini baby factory and cult.)

    HOWEVER.

    Despite the differences in opinion I have with the Duggars, they seem to be raising their children well. Yes, they're indoctrinated into the faith, but so are children who have fewer siblings. So long as it is truly Mrs. Duggar's choice to keep popping out kids like there's no tomorrow (which she may very well believe), I don't see much of a problem with this.

    That said, if there ever became evidence of serious child abuse, neglect, or indoctrination into harmful practices (I'm thinking the daughters of many polygamists being married to older men at a young age), then I would definitely think that they'd had about sixteen kids too many.

    EDIT (way late): Based off of what The Cat said about differences in treatment between their girls and boys, fuck the Duggars.

    ZeeBeeKay on
  • Options
    VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Already too many people for the roads around Seattle. Rush hour here is a pain in the ass. I wish we'd get a bird flu outbreak or something.

    they tried with AIDS doc... they tried.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Variable wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Already too many people for the roads around Seattle. Rush hour here is a pain in the ass. I wish we'd get a bird flu outbreak or something.

    they tried with AIDS doc... they tried.

    Not hard enough, I say.
    And I'll keep saying that until I see the Malthus Patrol walking the streets of Rainier Valley with dart guns in hand. Get cracking, guys, that retrovirus isn't gonna spread itself!

    Feral on
    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.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    They can't; the family is heavily dependant on welfare. Jim Bob's not very well educated, works at some kind of trade. Momma doesn't work at all, of course.

    This tends to be the case with non-fundamentalist families that wind up with quintuplets and more as a result of IVF or accident, too. Large families aren't economically sustainable.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    And what the hell is this crap about the children being treated well? Jim Bob's been asked in interviews whether he's sending the daughters to college, but no, boys only. The girls are on their own in that respect, he's not saving up to fund their schooling. They're going to be married off as soon as he can find suitable candidates, and I'm willing to bet they won't get much of a say as to who. In addition, they do most of the housework, because of course mum couldn't do it all herself if she wasn't constantly knocked up. The boys have far lighter responsibilities and more leisure time, the girls are being used as underage labour. And their education, such as it is, is a non-standard fundie curriculum. They'll learn to read and write, but I guarantee their scientific, cultural, and historical knowledge will be significantly sub-par, and also that they will have abnormal responses to authority. Its a bullshit way to run a family.

    And lets not forget that the Duggars are only one prominent (self-promoting, I might add) family among the Quiverfull movement. There's a fair number of these types around.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Oh, and before I fucking forget, the Duggars and the rest of the Quiverfull movement are lobbying for total bans on all contraception. Unlikely to ever happen, yes, but the point is that they're not just making a choice for themselves. They want to force everyone else to be just like them.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Off with their heads.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    And what the hell is this crap about the children being treated well? Jim Bob's been asked in interviews whether he's sending the daughters to college, but no, boys only. The girls are on their own in that respect, he's not saving up to fund their schooling. They're going to be married off as soon as he can find suitable candidates, and I'm willing to bet they won't get much of a say as to who. In addition, they do most of the housework, because of course mum couldn't do it all herself if she wasn't constantly knocked up. The boys have far lighter responsibilities and more leisure time, the girls are being used as underage labour. And their education, such as it is, is a non-standard fundie curriculum. They'll learn to read and write, but I guarantee their scientific, cultural, and historical knowledge will be significantly sub-par, and also that they will have abnormal responses to authority. Its a bullshit way to run a family.

    And lets not forget that the Duggars are only one prominent (self-promoting, I might add) family among the Quiverfull movement. There's a fair number of these types around.

    When you were talking about the difference between the male and female educational upbringing, I could only think of how stupid the males are going to turn out anyway, considering the skew the parents could put on historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    Gunner2150Gunner2150 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    When you were talking about the difference between the male and female educational upbringing, I could only think of how stupid the males are going to turn out anyway, considering the skew the parents could put on historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge.

    Because people never escape the foibles of their upbringing, ever.

    Gunner2150 on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    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.

    Again, TV faces. I have the distinct feeling that neither of us know that much about them, but I'm assuming the worst, and you're assuming the least. I feel safer going with my assumptions based on the kinds of things that generally go along with their Christian fundamentalism.
    Yar wrote:
    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.

    I did leave out the important part about the homee schooling vouchers: he favored those, but rejected the public and private school vouchers right out.

    I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    One of my aunts and her husband have 12 kids, and each boy's name starts with a J. Luckily the kids are very well-educated and extremely socially conscious: organic foods, recycling, growing their own vegetables, etc. But, they have that same fundamentalist upbringing and I know most of my opinions would not be shared by their parents.

    I genuinely like almost all of those cousins - they're bright, energetic, and usually kick my ass in Settlers. I just feel like their inability to laugh at an off-color joke or enjoy a cold beer is a little sad.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.

    Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I genuinely like almost all of those cousins - they're bright, energetic, and usually kick my ass in Settlers. I just feel like their inability to laugh at an off-color joke or enjoy a cold beer is a little sad.

    Those are pretty poor reasons to pity someone.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • Options
    LondonBridgeLondonBridge __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    A major problem with adoption (especially in the States) is that many babies come from drug addicted mothers and the adoption agency may not disclose that information. So later on when the kid grows there may be developmental issues. If I had to adopt it'd be a kid from a country without a rep for drugs like China or parts of Africa.

    LondonBridge on
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.

    Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.

    Oh horror among horrors!! They feel that procreation is a Godly mandate and so that makes them selfish? How do you reconcile that logic? Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish. Love thy neighbor and all, it's all just selfishness couched in fundamentalist speak so as to make then seem pious.

    There really is no logical reason for the hatred you're spewing at these people. One could easily make the same argument against so-called enlightened secular white liberals who abort their first few children, then keep the last one and raise them to hate themselves for the atrocities committed by their forefathers upon minorities, indoctrinate them into self-esteem as a replacement for real achievement and coach them in the double-speak of tolerance for everyone except Christians, who are really really evil for their beliefs.

    ryuprecht on
  • Options
    SkyGheNeSkyGheNe Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gunner2150 wrote: »
    SkyGheNe wrote: »
    When you were talking about the difference between the male and female educational upbringing, I could only think of how stupid the males are going to turn out anyway, considering the skew the parents could put on historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge.

    Because people never escape the foibles of their upbringing, ever.

    I'd say the probability of doing so if it isn't abusive is small.

    SkyGheNe on
  • Options
    ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    They can't; the family is heavily dependant on welfare. Jim Bob's not very well educated, works at some kind of trade. Momma doesn't work at all, of course.

    This tends to be the case with non-fundamentalist families that wind up with quintuplets and more as a result of IVF or accident, too. Large families aren't economically sustainable.

    To be fair, they seem to live debt free (which would include not receiving welfare I would assume). Plus they are both real estate agents.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Options
    JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yeah dude, because your example of a hyperbolic and exaggerated liberal is totally as valid as the real-world example of the Duggars.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • Options
    CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yes and also the wimmens just do the housework and stay in the kitchen till they're married off and continue that same way of living. Yeah they're just a swell family alright.

    EDIT- I was suprised it took as long as it did for The Cat to come in and tear shit up.

    CptKemzik on
  • Options
    ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.

    Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.

    Oh horror among horrors!! They feel that procreation is a Godly mandate and so that makes them selfish? How do you reconcile that logic? Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish. Love thy neighbor and all, it's all just selfishness couched in fundamentalist speak so as to make then seem pious.

    Learn to read man. It's not selfish because it's a godly mandate, it's selfish because that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • Options
    ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Proto wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm going to be hard pressed to argue this point reasonably, but I consider it selfish because, basically, their position is that, because the point of any human being is to procreate no questions asked end of story good bye, they deserve more than the average family of one or two children. They breed to fill any space they can, all under the iron rule of the men of the household. It's like the mormons in that they're growing in size not because of popularity, but because they make so many of themselves on their own.

    Try this: they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate, not because they like children and enjoy raising them. The younger duggars are raised largely by the older ones. Its a breed-your-own-cult kit, not a family. I can't wait until the family rebel breaks free and writes a book.

    Oh horror among horrors!! They feel that procreation is a Godly mandate and so that makes them selfish? How do you reconcile that logic? Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish. Love thy neighbor and all, it's all just selfishness couched in fundamentalist speak so as to make then seem pious.

    Learn to read man. It's not selfish because it's a godly mandate, it's selfish because that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for.

    Allow me to quote:
    they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate

    ryuprecht on
Sign In or Register to comment.