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/

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

1356789

Posts

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Proto wrote: »
    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.

    No, they're not. They rely on charity, the labour of their own children, and a financial 'education' scam that Jim Bob runs. The wife stays at home. You know, gestating?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • HowitzerHowitzer Registered User new member
    edited July 2007
    If there's one picture you need to support the One Child Policy, it's...

    Howitzer on
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I'm glad we're all agreed that the freedom to fulfill godly mandates is more important than looking reality in the face.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Yeah dude, because your example of a hyperbolic and exaggerated liberal is totally as valid as the real-world example of the Duggars.

    Considering I know some of those liberals? Yeah, they totally don't exist. The difference is I don't hate on them because of who they are.

    Until it's shown that there's real abuse, sexual or otherwise, because of their situation, I just see a lot of people getting pissed off because they are raising their kids with their beliefs, as if their beliefs in gender-roles, education, or birth-control are radical. They are radical when held against many people in this forum, but they aren't really that strange in the real world.

    Now, what's really funny is that these kids will likely all have large families themselves, and pretty soon, they'll be ubiquitous!

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA 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.

    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.

    Read it again. They care for those children only as long as they toe the line and grow up to be good little robots. The second any of them rebels, it'll be either squashed out of them or the child will be banished from the family. That's how these types work. They don't love their kids unconditionally, because they didn't have those kids for their own sake. They had them only because they convinced themselves that its their ticket to heaven.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    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

    Very good.
    Now, what that means is that it's selfish to use a "godly mandate" as an excuse to be irresponsible.
    See?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    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.

    You know, just as you don't like how all the Duggars have names beginning with J (which I agree with, by the way, more than anything it just starts to sound really odd) I really don't like the term 'breeder'. I've heard it used a lot recently - there's this whole air of 'you're either a hard-working, self-supporting, tax-paying individual, or a breeder'. Not a parent, or a person who's chosen to have a child, but someone who is perpetuating the Evil Human race. You can barely have one child these days before the childless start to whine about their huge taxes going to support you.

    Okay, I know you probably didn't mean it quite like that, but some people do have this sort of mentality and sometimes it does very much feel like childless vs parents.

    Although I think that fostering and adopting children is a marvellous, selfless thing to do, and I would willingly support anyone who chose to do this, I don't think that responsible people should be made to feel guilty for wanting to give birth to their own children over raising someone else's. I'd rather see more effort made to tackle the problem of those who are recklessly giving birth and then giving their babies up for adoption than giving bigger benefits to those whose children are not their own.

    Janson on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2007
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Yeah dude, because your example of a hyperbolic and exaggerated liberal is totally as valid as the real-world example of the Duggars.

    Considering I know some of those liberals? Yeah, they totally don't exist. The difference is I don't hate on them because of who they are.

    Until it's shown that there's real abuse, sexual or otherwise, because of their situation, I just see a lot of people getting pissed off because they are raising their kids with their beliefs, as if their beliefs in gender-roles, education, or birth-control are radical. They are radical when held against many people in this forum, but they aren't really that strange in the real world.

    Now, what's really funny is that these kids will likely all have large families themselves, and pretty soon, they'll be ubiquitous!

    D&D has predominantly liberal viewpoints, more news at 11.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    I would happily settle for a) the kids being raised to think for themselves, being exposed to a variety of viewpoints (you realise they don't even go to a church, right? Jim Bob is their pastor. And you can forget about non-family friends) and b) the kids being birthed because the parents like raising children and want to see them do well. Neither of those goals are evident, especially so for the girls.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Proto wrote: »
    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.

    No, they're not. They rely on charity, the labour of their own children, and a financial 'education' scam that Jim Bob runs. The wife stays at home. You know, gestating?

    I'm just going by the wiki article and the family's site. One would think it would be awfully hypocritical to claim to live dept free and still rely on welfare. But that wouldn't surprise me.

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Can I just say for the "selfish" thing.

    I dont know that the implication was that doing it for god = selfish.
    I think it was having children for a reason other than loving kids and wanting to raise them because of this = selfish .

    So, I dont think it was an attack of christianity as such.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Can I just say for the "selfish" thing.

    I dont know that the implication was that doing it for god = selfish.
    I think it was having children for a reason other than loving kids and wanting to raise them because of this = selfish .

    So, I dont think it was an attack of christianity as such.

    That's it. I don't have any real objection to large families, but there are good and bad reasons to have 'em, and here's a popular one. The other one would be 'we gotta outbreed those Other People', which makes my teeth itch.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • DjinnDjinn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    Djinn on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    I'm glad we're all agreed that the freedom to fulfill godly mandates is more important than looking reality in the face.

    I don't think I even know what you are trying to imply here.

    I'm a Christian. It's a Godly mandate that I forgive those who do harm to me. How does that oppose my ability to look reality in the face? I can still look at that person and know they are an asshole, or that they have personal issues, or maybe they didn't know what they did harmed me, but that's independant of my mandate to forgive them.

    Maybe Jews should just look reality in the face and say "the world is 24/7 now; therefore, the Sabbath is no longer important". How about Muslims? Can't pray towards Mecca if you have an all-day meeting! Reality stops that mandate as well.

    Honestly people.

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Zalbinion on
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Yeah this, the fact the daughters are raised as if the suffrage movement never happened is proof of that.

    CptKemzik on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Read it again. They care for those children only as long as they toe the line and grow up to be good little robots. The second any of them rebels, it'll be either squashed out of them or the child will be banished from the family. That's how these types work. They don't love their kids unconditionally, because they didn't have those kids for their own sake. They had them only because they convinced themselves that its their ticket to heaven.

    See, the problem is evident right in your response here. You choose words that have an inherently negative bias. "Robots", "These types", "squashed" and "banished". You presume a situation where procreating as a mandate from God and loving your kids is mutually exclusive, and that's not necessarily the case.

    Parents want their kids to grow up with their values, that's not news. But because these aren't proto-typical secular liberals, it's a problem for you. The kids have to do chores, so it's being demonized as slavery. They prefer traditional male/female roles, so they are the target of vitriolic hand-wringing by liberals. It's all crap.

    ryuprecht on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Read it again. They care for those children only as long as they toe the line and grow up to be good little robots. The second any of them rebels, it'll be either squashed out of them or the child will be banished from the family. That's how these types work. They don't love their kids unconditionally, because they didn't have those kids for their own sake. They had them only because they convinced themselves that its their ticket to heaven.

    See, the problem is evident right in your response here. You choose words that have an inherently negative bias. "Robots", "These types", "squashed" and "banished". You presume a situation where procreating as a mandate from God and loving your kids is mutually exclusive, and that's not necessarily the case.

    Parents want their kids to grow up with their values, that's not news. But because these aren't proto-typical secular liberals, it's a problem for you. The kids have to do chores, so it's being demonized as slavery. They prefer traditional male/female roles, so they are the target of vitriolic hand-wringing by liberals. It's all crap.

    What a load of shit. I grew up in a culture not much better than theirs. I am perfectly content in judging their motives as I have.

    And stop acting so holier-than-thou. If we were talking about a poor black woman with this many kids, you'd be screaming welfare-queen and calling for subsidised sterilisations.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    I'm not sure being closed-minded to closed-minded people is hypocrisy.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    I'm not sure being closed-minded to closed-minded people is hypocrisy.
    Unconditional tolerance is just tolerance without intelligence.

    Fencingsax on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    Yes, absolutely, of course! If I want to be TRULY "tolerant" then I need to keep my mouth shut when people spew racism.

    Liberals are nowhere near perfect, and I'm not going to claim that they are. Nevertheless, the segment of the population that's publicly anti-gay and anti-women identifies much, much more with conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity than it does with liberalism and secularism.

    Zalbinion on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    "You're intolerant because you won't tolerate my intolerance" is the height of disingenuousness. And fuck you firefox, that is a word.

    As far as I can tell, no one in here besides wonder_hippie has even questioned that they be allowed to raise their family like this. Its certainly within their rights as parents, particularly in your assbackwards country. However, I reserve the right to comment on what i consider to be their fuckawful mindset, and and I'm also well aware that they wouldn't extend me the same right to choose my reproductive and parenting path that they were able to exercise. They want the law to force everyone to be like them.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • DjinnDjinn Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    Them and a hundred other wackos, no doubt. And we all gather round and tut-tut. But its still kinda ephemeral: we're always quick to bag the media for its celebrity obsession or trashy tabloid exposes of social deviants, then we turn around and make threads like this.

    Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

    Djinn on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Djinn wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    Them and a hundred other wackos, no doubt. And we all gather round and tut-tut. But its still kinda ephemeral: we're always quick to bag the media for its celebrity obsession or trashy tabloid exposes of social deviants, then we turn around and make threads like this.

    Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

    I think my pan's big enough for a whole passel of fish, thanks. If you're that uninterested, piss off and stop sabotaging the thread.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Djinn wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    Them and a hundred other wackos, no doubt. And we all gather round and tut-tut. But its still kinda ephemeral: we're always quick to bag the media for its celebrity obsession or trashy tabloid exposes of social deviants, then we turn around and make threads like this.

    Aren't there bigger fish to fry?
    Well, yes. But this is the internet. We can have simultaneous conversations.

    Fencingsax on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.
    Selective reduction is a little different than abortion. Also, this sort of thing increases the chances of having a kid with a serious congenital condition.

    Fencingsax on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Read it again. They care for those children only as long as they toe the line and grow up to be good little robots. The second any of them rebels, it'll be either squashed out of them or the child will be banished from the family. That's how these types work. They don't love their kids unconditionally, because they didn't have those kids for their own sake. They had them only because they convinced themselves that its their ticket to heaven.

    See, the problem is evident right in your response here. You choose words that have an inherently negative bias. "Robots", "These types", "squashed" and "banished". You presume a situation where procreating as a mandate from God and loving your kids is mutually exclusive, and that's not necessarily the case.

    Parents want their kids to grow up with their values, that's not news. But because these aren't proto-typical secular liberals, it's a problem for you. The kids have to do chores, so it's being demonized as slavery. They prefer traditional male/female roles, so they are the target of vitriolic hand-wringing by liberals. It's all crap.

    What a load of shit. I grew up in a culture not much better than theirs. I am perfectly content in judging their motives as I have.

    And stop acting so holier-than-thou. If we were talking about a poor black woman with this many kids, you'd be screaming welfare-queen and calling for subsidised sterilisations.

    Don't presume you know that I would change my argument based on race, that's bullshit. You can judge people all you won't, but don't get pissy when someone points out that your motives for judgment are a thin veneer.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.

    ...And you obviously aren't familiar with IVF, or the ability of the average woman's uterus to carry seven freaking fetuses at the same time to term.

    Sure, abortion's a touchy issue, but selective reduction is a necessary consideration when a woman's faced with large multiple births.

    Zalbinion on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    Yes, absolutely, of course! If I want to be TRULY "tolerant" then I need to keep my mouth shut when people spew racism.

    Liberals are nowhere near perfect, and I'm not going to claim that they are. Nevertheless, the segment of the population that's publicly anti-gay and anti-women identifies much, much more with conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity than it does with liberalism and secularism.

    Except of course you are the arbiter of which topics get to be defined as off-limits for this double-standard. That's the inherent issue with screaming "TOLERANCE".

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.

    Oh, stop throwing 'demonised' around. I disapprove of the decision to force an already infertile body into birthing, and I disapprove of the decision to make it carry over three times as many fetuses as it can safely handle. I thoroughly disapprove of purposefully creating children with a painful, chronic, lethal condition. they had a right to do it, but they're still terrible people in my opinion. deal with it.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Read it again. They care for those children only as long as they toe the line and grow up to be good little robots. The second any of them rebels, it'll be either squashed out of them or the child will be banished from the family. That's how these types work. They don't love their kids unconditionally, because they didn't have those kids for their own sake. They had them only because they convinced themselves that its their ticket to heaven.

    See, the problem is evident right in your response here. You choose words that have an inherently negative bias. "Robots", "These types", "squashed" and "banished". You presume a situation where procreating as a mandate from God and loving your kids is mutually exclusive, and that's not necessarily the case.

    Parents want their kids to grow up with their values, that's not news. But because these aren't proto-typical secular liberals, it's a problem for you. The kids have to do chores, so it's being demonized as slavery. They prefer traditional male/female roles, so they are the target of vitriolic hand-wringing by liberals. It's all crap.

    What a load of shit. I grew up in a culture not much better than theirs. I am perfectly content in judging their motives as I have.

    And stop acting so holier-than-thou. If we were talking about a poor black woman with this many kids, you'd be screaming welfare-queen and calling for subsidised sterilisations.

    Don't presume you know that I would change my argument based on race, that's bullshit. You can judge people all you won't, but don't get pissy when someone points out that your motives for judgment are a thin veneer.

    Feel free to reply to the six or seven other rebuttals that you're ignoring in favor of easy-to-answer points.
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I predict that there would be roughly 1/10 the indignation on these boards if the Duggers were raising their 16 kids to believe in good, liberal, non-religious values. There's something about an army of fundies that freaks people out.

    ...And that's in part because "good, liberal, non-religious values" usually include tolerance, open-mindedness, left-wing economic sympathies based on concern over the plight of the poor, etc.

    Let's be honest: the "fundies" don't have a great track record with women's rights, gay rights, education, poverty issues, etc., regardless of what else they stand for.

    Let's bash people for not being tolerant or open-minded when they don't agree with me! It's the height of hypocrisy!

    Yes, absolutely, of course! If I want to be TRULY "tolerant" then I need to keep my mouth shut when people spew racism.

    Liberals are nowhere near perfect, and I'm not going to claim that they are. Nevertheless, the segment of the population that's publicly anti-gay and anti-women identifies much, much more with conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity than it does with liberalism and secularism.

    Except of course you are the arbiter of which topics get to be defined as off-limits for this double-standard. That's the inherent issue with screaming "TOLERANCE".

    It's a good thing you were the first person to start screaming about it.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.
    Selective reduction is a little different than abortion. Also, this sort of thing increases the chances of having a kid with a serious congenital condition.

    Selective reduction is a euphamism for abortion.

    ryuprecht on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Yeah well, I don't accept that abortion is a bad thing, so your outrage tactic fails right there. Three or four kids in decent health is a superior outcome to more with crippling problems.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.
    Selective reduction is a little different than abortion. Also, this sort of thing increases the chances of having a kid with a serious congenital condition.

    Selective reduction is a euphamism for abortion.
    Yeah dude! Aborting a baby because you don't want one, and aborting a few babies so that the mother is far less in danger of dying, and because you can't afford to feed all of the babies, and because they're going to be born highly damaged (and thus even more expensive to keep alive) is totally the same thing!

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Djinn wrote: »
    I think this family is not really important or worth worrying about.

    There are worse cases, I think the McCaugheys should be mentioned here. Not only did they rely on IVF to produce their brood, they refused selective reduction of the resultant 7 fetuses, so two were born with cerebral palsy and one other has eyesight problems. Both parents only have a high school education and really do rely entirely on charity to survive. The birth procedure itself apparently cost a million dollars. And yeah, this was another case of 'doin' it for god'.

    That's disgusting. And I'm not talking about the McCaughey's -- you just demonized someone in part because they did not have an abortion.
    Selective reduction is a little different than abortion. Also, this sort of thing increases the chances of having a kid with a serious congenital condition.

    Selective reduction is a euphamism for abortion.
    Except there will still be children, a greater chance of healthy children, and less of a chance for something medically tricky to come up. I realize that some of the eggs will be rendered inert, as it were, but still, IVF isn't supposed to make 7 children. That's not how it's supposed to work.

    Fencingsax on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    Feel free to reply to the six or seven other rebuttals that you're ignoring in favor of easy-to-answer points.

    Of which most say the same thing. I don't need to reply to each in turn.
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    It's a good thing you were the first person to start screaming about it.

    It's a good thing that I used it first as a example of the intolerance and not a serious point like other people.

    ryuprecht on
Sign In or Register to comment.