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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I find it funnier that ryuprecht has as much of a fit about what he perceives as secular liberal crap as he says we do about people that are self-professed, identifiable radical fundamentalists.
He sounds like Bill O, the terminology is straight from the Talking Points Memo.
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God.
I don't know about that. If my god tells me to amass as much wealth as possible by fucking over as many people as I can and taking their money, does that somehow make me not selfish? What if my friend ElJeffe tells me to do the same?
Also, couldn't you argue that you ARE doing it for self benefit? Namely entrance into the magic sky kingdom.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I don't know if anyone mentioned it in this thread, but these people can't support their kids. Several churches donate money to support them as I recall.
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Wow. You really like to be wrong, don't you?
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom. Or because you need the workforce. Or any of the other reasons that these people give for consistently popping out kiddos. The reason the Duggars scare the living fuck out of us is because their worldview doesn't just stop at seeing if they can singlehandedly field a full football team, as Cat has pointed out (over, and over, and over, and over...). To give you another case, let's talk about Andrea Yates - it's pretty well known that her husband pushed her into pregnancy over and over using religion even when doctors said that the stress of carrying a child was no longer safe for her mentally.
Debating you isn't even sporting anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
ELJeffe already hit on your strange definition of "selfish", so I don't want to repeat him. Suffice it to say you're way off base here, and it seems like you were more excited about taking pot-shots as me than actually forming a real argument.
I'm just going to leave this part, because I don't even know what you are arguing here.
Doing good deeds is a Godly mandate as well, so I guess that makes those selfish.
You asserted that people were objecting to any and all things deemed godly mandates purely because they are godly mandates. And those godly mandates were by definition selfish. That is NOT what was meant by that statement.[/QUOTE]
It may not be what was meant, but it was how it was presented. The connection was clearly made. They are selfish because they did X, believing it to be a godly mandate. It wasn't asserted that they are selfish because of X. It wasn't asserted that it's selfish despite the mandate. It was asserted that it was because of the mandate.
I do have a problem with all exceedingly large families. Pretty much anything above four biological children in a situation where the children can't be supported or don't receive propoer care and attention for whatever reason. Do I think we should go the way of China? Absolutely not. It's a couple's right to fuck up all of their many, many chilluns. Does it stop me from judging them for it? Again, no. Some of my friends that just got married were talking about having a "whole mess of children," specifically seven or eight. I have a problem with that, and they're bigger hippies than I am (hint: I'm not that big of a hippie, but damn, these people are hippies).
I have an even greater problem when people go through fuck-all to make themselves have biological children. TLC runs shows about those all the time too, and they piss me off to no end. They do, however, have their rights. I can still be judgmental, however.
I have no issues with this. Your reasoning is logical and can be defended by a reasonable person. The means to support children is an important part of the decision to have them.
I have a problem with fundamentalist indoctrination in all its forms. When my uncle home schooled his kids because there were "dirty brown people" at the local school, I chastised him for it. I was alone against almost my entire family in a yelling fight because they're backwards assholes. But, you know, that's their right.
I'm not sure if you are stating that this was due to religious fundamentalism. It sounds more like blatant racism, which is wrong.
I have a problem with the Duggars specifically because they combine so many undesireable traits into a giant, writhing mass of red polo shirts, ugly dresses, and bad hair. I could buy that somebody wants kids because they love kids and they want to raise them if they're devoting time to their children, but these people don't. They fire off kids as fast as they possibly can, and, as The Cat has pointed out, the kids are raised mostly by the other kids. They're not a family, they're a settlement, but they just happen to have one last name and dwindling genetic material to distribute.
But, you know, that's their right. I can't stop them, but I can certainly call them selfish, fundamentalist bastards that are raising a generation of fucked up children because that's "God's will."
It's hard to debate the validity of your points when they are strewn with personal attacks about the people. "Bad hair"? You yourself have intimated that portion of (maybe even a majority of) your feelings about this family can be attributed to your feelings about the fact that they are fundamentalists, regardless of the particulars.
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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I don't. Division of labor between the sexes isn't the same as abortion. The mother is an adult, and I don't think anyone has stated that she is a slave to her husband and would choose a different role for herself otherwise.
The children are children. The parents can determine how they want to raise their children and what chores they want them to do. They can make the girls always wear dresses, keep the boys away from dolls, and whatever else they want without even touching the realm of institutionalized sexism and opression, which (I think) is the underlying accusation here.
It's not the same as abortion.
ryuprecht on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I don't. Division of labor between the sexes isn't the same as abortion. The mother is an adult, and I don't think anyone has stated that she is a slave to her husband and would choose a different role for herself otherwise.
The children are children. The parents can determine how they want to raise their children and what chores they want them to do. They can make the girls always wear dresses, keep the boys away from dolls, and whatever else they want without even touching the realm of institutionalized sexism and opression, which (I think) is the underlying accusation here.
It's not the same as abortion.
The point is that "Traditional male/female gender roles" is itself a euphemism. And not a positive one.
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom.
ITT: People don't know what the fuck the word "selfish" means.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.
Time to break out Atlas Shrugged.
If you are going to split hairs, then even your examples are selfish. Offering to be a surrogate mother can be selfish, because it makes you feel good to help. Altruism is in general selfish, because you do it to feel good and positive, you do it to get into heaven, you do it to impress the chick down the street, you do it for yourself as much, if not more than the other person.
You can call anything selfish if you want, but I think the point is that you do God's Will for Him. You will benefit as well, nobody is arguing that, but you run the danger of diluting the word down to being meaningless.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.
This is the same line of thinking that proposes that all acts are selfish, because they ultimately wind up benefitting the actor. If I donate all of my money to charity, it's selfish, because I do it for the happy feelings I get. In the non-trivial case, doing something for God is not selfish, because there's no real gain to be had. Especially since Christian doctrine states that you can disobey God all the live-long day as long as you're repentant and sell your soul to Jesus, and you'll still get to board the Heaventrain.
And regardless, the God thing is still no more or less selfish than having kids because you love the pitter-patter of little feet.
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.
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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I find it funnier that ryuprecht has as much of a fit about what he perceives as secular liberal crap as he says we do about people that are self-professed, identifiable radical fundamentalists.
He sounds like Bill O, the terminology is straight from the Talking Points Memo.
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I don't. Division of labor between the sexes isn't the same as abortion. The mother is an adult, and I don't think anyone has stated that she is a slave to her husband and would choose a different role for herself otherwise.
The children are children. The parents can determine how they want to raise their children and what chores they want them to do. They can make the girls always wear dresses, keep the boys away from dolls, and whatever else they want without even touching the realm of institutionalized sexism and opression, which (I think) is the underlying accusation here.
It's not the same as abortion.
The point is that "Traditional male/female gender roles" is itself a euphemism. And not a positive one.
What are you saying it's a euphamism for? Sexism, perhaps? That's probably a whole 'nother thread.
It's not the fact that they have 17 kids (and they ain't done yet), it's the fact that they will be passing on their bizarro quiverfull christian values to 17 offspring, who will grow up with the belief that they, too, should be having 17 kids. Population explosion.
Read the short story "Be Fruitful and Multiply" by F. Paul Wilson
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.
I find it pretty funny that you can get so incensed about "euphemisms for abortion" while using a phrase like "traditional male/female roles" with a straight face.
I find it funnier that ryuprecht has as much of a fit about what he perceives as secular liberal crap as he says we do about people that are self-professed, identifiable radical fundamentalists.
He sounds like Bill O, the terminology is straight from the Talking Points Memo.
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
And who's Bill O?
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
It's not the fact that they have 17 kids (and they ain't done yet), it's the fact that they will be passing on their bizarro quiverfull christian values to 17 offspring, who will grow up with the belief that they, too, should be having 17 kids. Population explosion.
Read the short story "Be Fruitful and Multiply" by F. Paul Wilson
It is kind of sickening that a woman that ugly would have that many kids.
fixed
It'd be something like 6 generations before they were statistically significant, even if each one down the line had 17 kids.
I'll start worrying in 2187.
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.
It's not the fact that they have 17 kids (and they ain't done yet), it's the fact that they will be passing on their bizarro quiverfull christian values to 17 offspring, who will grow up with the belief that they, too, should be having 17 kids. Population explosion.
Read the short story "Be Fruitful and Multiply" by F. Paul Wilson
The point is that "Traditional male/female gender roles" is itself a euphemism. And not a positive one.
What are you saying it's a euphamism for? Sexism, perhaps? That's probably a whole 'nother thread.
I don't think it is. One of the points of contention is that these children are being raised in a socially regressive environment, in which, among other things, the women are not expected to set their ambitions any higher than those of a fifties housewife. Calling that "traditional" is one heck of a euphemism.
You asserted that people were objecting to any and all things deemed godly mandates purely because they are godly mandates. And those godly mandates were by definition selfish. That is NOT what was meant by that statement.
It may not be what was meant, but it was how it was presented. The connection was clearly made. They are selfish because they did X, believing it to be a godly mandate. It wasn't asserted that they are selfish because of X. It wasn't asserted that it's selfish despite the mandate. It was asserted that it was because of the mandate.
No, it wasn't presented that way at all. But you don't get it, and you seem incapable of doing so because you want to find something to nitpick.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
Bill O'Reilly.
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.
ryuprecht on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
And who's Bill O?
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
Bill O'Reilly.
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.[/QUOTE]
They suck because they are Christian fundamentalists. I don't think anybody has tried to imply that they suck because they're Christians, but you're intent on shoving that accusation down our throats.
Again, they suck because they're fundamentalists Christians, and that's why they are the way they are. Reading comprehension FTW.
It'd be something like 6 generations before they were statistically significant, even if each one down the line had 17 kids.
I'll start worrying in 2187.
Sure, and one suicide bombing is hardly a meaningful event. It's the representation of a culture of violence which is worrying.
Though didn't that guy serve a term as congressman, even though his opponent should have had a field day noting his nuttiness?
I mean, I don't see this as an isolated case. Some people had to vote for him even though he's an ultra right wing christian nut, and some of those people might have similiar views, and some of those people might be pumping out as many kids as his family is.
I don't think that 17 kids, even over a few generations, is going to matter (for one thing, they need to find spouses who agree with their craziness) but the problem is rather that this isn't an isolated case, and other people are doing this even though they're on welfare.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited July 2007
Seriously, though, if it were a black couple who had 17 kids and some scheme of taking government money in order to support their lifestyle, would we really see the same resolute defense of this sort of thing from right-wing quarters?
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
And who's Bill O?
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
Bill O'Reilly.
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.
They suck because they are Christian fundamentalists. I don't think anybody has tried to imply that they suck because they're Christians, but you're intent on shoving that accusation down our throats.
Again, they suck because they're fundamentalists Christians, and that's why they are the way they are. Reading comprehension FTW.[/QUOTE]
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
And who's Bill O?
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
Bill O'Reilly.
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.
They suck because they are Christian fundamentalists. I don't think anybody has tried to imply that they suck because they're Christians, but you're intent on shoving that accusation down our throats.
Again, they suck because they're fundamentalists Christians, and that's why they are the way they are. Reading comprehension FTW.
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.[/QUOTE]
They are bad people because they follow what they perceive as a divine mandate to a fault. They have absolutely no discretion, no sense, no reason. That was the implication.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
any sort of ideological fundamentalism is bad. Acting on that sort of fundamentalism is even worse.
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.
You may be putting words into some of our mouths. Any douchebag and his fat wife who pumps out 17 kids is going to have a stigma in mine and others minds here.
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Wow. You really like to be wrong, don't you?
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom. Or because you need the workforce. Or any of the other reasons that these people give for consistently popping out kiddos. The reason the Duggars scare the living fuck out of us is because their worldview doesn't just stop at seeing if they can singlehandedly field a full football team, as Cat has pointed out (over, and over, and over, and over...). To give you another case, let's talk about Andrea Yates - it's pretty well known that her husband pushed her into pregnancy over and over using religion even when doctors said that the stress of carrying a child was no longer safe for her mentally.
Debating you isn't even sporting anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
ELJeffe already hit on your strange definition of "selfish", so I don't want to repeat him. Suffice it to say you're way off base here, and it seems like you were more excited about taking pot-shots as me than actually forming a real argument.
Except that ElJeffe's definition of "selfish" is wrong. (To be honest, it's very Objectivist.) Being selfish is to do something without regard for others. For them to breed to meet some "godly mandate" without consideration of the impact of the number of kids on the community and on the existing family is pretty selfish. And it's nice that you seem to happily ignore the Yates case, where she was pushed into having children beyond the point of where it was safe for her to do so. That's where the whole "selfish" angle comes in - they're putting stresses on their environment and the kids all because they believe that God has told them to produce like rabbits.
They are bad people because they follow what they perceive as a divine mandate to a fault. They have absolutely no discretion, no sense, no reason. That was the implication.
It's not just that, but that they cherrypick. For instance, the grant of dominion of the Earth comes with it the stewardship of said Earth. This means we are divinely commanded to take care of the planet and all the creatures living on it. To accept this means that while we are to be fruitful, we must be so in a responsible manner.
There's also the indications that Andrea Yates was also a Quiverfull. Her or her husband, one or the other.
It was more her husband, and she was basically forced into it. What has always infuriated me is that he knew that she was in danger mentally from further pregnancies, and yet he pushed on.
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.
You may be putting words into some of our mouths. Any douchebag and his fat wife who pumps out 17 kids is going to have a stigma in mine and others minds here.
Uh, look at the picture again, she isn't fat.
Also, they're weirdos, but having a bunch of crazy fundy kids who are well educated and can take care of themselves is worse then a bunch of fundy kids who aren't educated and are going to be on food stamps and welfare. Also, how much of an effect is this one crazy family really going to have on the environment compared to a large polluting company?
There's also the indications that Andrea Yates was also a Quiverfull. Her or her husband, one or the other.
It was more her husband, and she was basically forced into it. What has always infuriated me is that he knew that she was in danger mentally from further pregnancies, and yet he pushed on.
If you can find evidence that the mother is going insane from this, then your point makes sense. If you don't have any proof, and I haven't seen any, then you're just trying to unload all the hatred you have against crazy fundies on this one crazy fundy family who practically are the blueprint for how to raise 17 kids in a responsible manner (even though they shouldn't.)
Also, they're weirdos, but having a bunch of crazy fundy kids who are well educated and can take care of themselves is worse then a bunch of fundy kids who aren't educated and are going to be on food stamps and welfare.
Except they're really not well educated. The girls are basically chattel, to be married off, and the males are educated in such a way that they're thoroughly steeped in the fundy culture, no questions asked. And as Cat pointed out, they're on some form of support.
There's also the indications that Andrea Yates was also a Quiverfull. Her or her husband, one or the other.
It was more her husband, and she was basically forced into it. What has always infuriated me is that he knew that she was in danger mentally from further pregnancies, and yet he pushed on.
If you can find evidence that the mother is going insane from this, then your point makes sense. If you don't have any proof, and I haven't seen any, then you're just trying to unload all the hatred you have against crazy fundies on this one crazy fundy family who practically are the blueprint for how to raise 17 kids in a responsible manner (even though they shouldn't.)
Um, I wasn't referring to the Duggans. I was referring to Andrea Yates - you know, the woman who will be spending the rest of her life in the looney bin for killing her kids?
I think her issues with postpartum depression have been pretty well documented, seeing as she was declared insane...
they're selfish because they're breeding to fill what they see as a godly mandate
The because was already in there, and the statement stood by itself. It was never asserted as you claimed, ie, the assertion was not that "that godly mandate results in too many children to properly raise and care for". That's the only point I was arguing.
Wow. You really like to be wrong, don't you?
Yep, it's selfish to breed to meet a "godly mandate". Just as it would be selfish to breed because you can't figure out how to use a condom. Or because you need the workforce. Or any of the other reasons that these people give for consistently popping out kiddos. The reason the Duggars scare the living fuck out of us is because their worldview doesn't just stop at seeing if they can singlehandedly field a full football team, as Cat has pointed out (over, and over, and over, and over...). To give you another case, let's talk about Andrea Yates - it's pretty well known that her husband pushed her into pregnancy over and over using religion even when doctors said that the stress of carrying a child was no longer safe for her mentally.
Debating you isn't even sporting anymore. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
ELJeffe already hit on your strange definition of "selfish", so I don't want to repeat him. Suffice it to say you're way off base here, and it seems like you were more excited about taking pot-shots as me than actually forming a real argument.
Except that ElJeffe's definition of "selfish" is wrong. (To be honest, it's very Objectivist.) Being selfish is to do something without regard for others. For them to breed to meet some "godly mandate" without consideration of the impact of the number of kids on the community and on the existing family is pretty selfish. And it's nice that you seem to happily ignore the Yates case, where she was pushed into having children beyond the point of where it was safe for her to do so. That's where the whole "selfish" angle comes in - they're putting stresses on their environment and the kids all because they believe that God has told them to produce like rabbits.
Except of course that your assertion that he's wrong is wrong. You say that "eing selfish is to do something without regard for others", but that's not true. There are many things I can do without regard for others that aren't inherently selfish acts. I can eat my lunch. I can sit perfectly still for the next minute. I can sratch my ass. These aren't selfish acts, they are acts without selfishness or altruism.
In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
"Selfish" means you're doing something because it benefits you. Doing it because God says so is not selfish, because you're doing it for someone else - specifically, God.
...Except that the Duggars are only procreating for God because there's something in it for them. Specifically, adherence to God's law that helps them ensure entry into Heaven later, or something to that effect.
Here's what wouldn't be selfish, re: childbirth:
- offering to be a surrogate for a woman who couldn't carry a pregnancy to term;
- offering to adopt the children of parents who died or otherwise couldn't parent;
...because these reasons are closer to altruism than satisfying one's personal religious beliefs.
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.
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.
Posts
I find it funnier that ryuprecht has as much of a fit about what he perceives as secular liberal crap as he says we do about people that are self-professed, identifiable radical fundamentalists.
He sounds like Bill O, the terminology is straight from the Talking Points Memo.
I don't know about that. If my god tells me to amass as much wealth as possible by fucking over as many people as I can and taking their money, does that somehow make me not selfish? What if my friend ElJeffe tells me to do the same?
Also, couldn't you argue that you ARE doing it for self benefit? Namely entrance into the magic sky kingdom.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
ELJeffe already hit on your strange definition of "selfish", so I don't want to repeat him. Suffice it to say you're way off base here, and it seems like you were more excited about taking pot-shots as me than actually forming a real argument.
I'm just going to leave this part, because I don't even know what you are arguing here.
You asserted that people were objecting to any and all things deemed godly mandates purely because they are godly mandates. And those godly mandates were by definition selfish. That is NOT what was meant by that statement.[/QUOTE]
It may not be what was meant, but it was how it was presented. The connection was clearly made. They are selfish because they did X, believing it to be a godly mandate. It wasn't asserted that they are selfish because of X. It wasn't asserted that it's selfish despite the mandate. It was asserted that it was because of the mandate.
Oh, I live for that.
I have no issues with this. Your reasoning is logical and can be defended by a reasonable person. The means to support children is an important part of the decision to have them.
I'm not sure if you are stating that this was due to religious fundamentalism. It sounds more like blatant racism, which is wrong.
It's hard to debate the validity of your points when they are strewn with personal attacks about the people. "Bad hair"? You yourself have intimated that portion of (maybe even a majority of) your feelings about this family can be attributed to your feelings about the fact that they are fundamentalists, regardless of the particulars.
I don't. Division of labor between the sexes isn't the same as abortion. The mother is an adult, and I don't think anyone has stated that she is a slave to her husband and would choose a different role for herself otherwise.
The children are children. The parents can determine how they want to raise their children and what chores they want them to do. They can make the girls always wear dresses, keep the boys away from dolls, and whatever else they want without even touching the realm of institutionalized sexism and opression, which (I think) is the underlying accusation here.
It's not the same as abortion.
Time to break out Atlas Shrugged.
If you are going to split hairs, then even your examples are selfish. Offering to be a surrogate mother can be selfish, because it makes you feel good to help. Altruism is in general selfish, because you do it to feel good and positive, you do it to get into heaven, you do it to impress the chick down the street, you do it for yourself as much, if not more than the other person.
You can call anything selfish if you want, but I think the point is that you do God's Will for Him. You will benefit as well, nobody is arguing that, but you run the danger of diluting the word down to being meaningless.
The bad hair bit's a stab at the lack of individuation that's happened on a genetic level between all the children.
This is the same line of thinking that proposes that all acts are selfish, because they ultimately wind up benefitting the actor. If I donate all of my money to charity, it's selfish, because I do it for the happy feelings I get. In the non-trivial case, doing something for God is not selfish, because there's no real gain to be had. Especially since Christian doctrine states that you can disobey God all the live-long day as long as you're repentant and sell your soul to Jesus, and you'll still get to board the Heaventrain.
And regardless, the God thing is still no more or less selfish than having kids because you love the pitter-patter of little feet.
Oh, I'm definitely not a fan of secular liberal crap, but for different reasons I think than people here are against religion.
And who's Bill O?
What are you saying it's a euphamism for? Sexism, perhaps? That's probably a whole 'nother thread.
Read the short story "Be Fruitful and Multiply" by F. Paul Wilson
fixed
Yeah, I highly doubt that. You seem to think all liberals are "secular progressives" of a very radical variety, and treat the very term with derision. I, on the other hand, have no illusion that you've strayed so far from rational thought that you're a radical conservative, you're just conservative to a fault.
Bill O'Reilly.
It'd be something like 6 generations before they were statistically significant, even if each one down the line had 17 kids.
I'll start worrying in 2187.
There are tens of thousands of these Quiverfalls, though.
I don't think it is. One of the points of contention is that these children are being raised in a socially regressive environment, in which, among other things, the women are not expected to set their ambitions any higher than those of a fifties housewife. Calling that "traditional" is one heck of a euphemism.
Sure, and one suicide bombing is hardly a meaningful event. It's the representation of a culture of violence which is worrying.
No, it wasn't presented that way at all. But you don't get it, and you seem incapable of doing so because you want to find something to nitpick.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.
Atlus Shrugged.
To be fair, I try my damndest to only throw out the stereotypes in reponse to the same against conservatives. In this case, it wasn't meant to be a out-of-the-blue attack and summation of all liberals, but in response to the "they suck because they are Christian" mentality that was permeating the thread.[/QUOTE]
They suck because they are Christian fundamentalists. I don't think anybody has tried to imply that they suck because they're Christians, but you're intent on shoving that accusation down our throats.
Again, they suck because they're fundamentalists Christians, and that's why they are the way they are. Reading comprehension FTW.
Though didn't that guy serve a term as congressman, even though his opponent should have had a field day noting his nuttiness?
I mean, I don't see this as an isolated case. Some people had to vote for him even though he's an ultra right wing christian nut, and some of those people might have similiar views, and some of those people might be pumping out as many kids as his family is.
I don't think that 17 kids, even over a few generations, is going to matter (for one thing, they need to find spouses who agree with their craziness) but the problem is rather that this isn't an isolated case, and other people are doing this even though they're on welfare.
They suck because they are Christian fundamentalists. I don't think anybody has tried to imply that they suck because they're Christians, but you're intent on shoving that accusation down our throats.
Again, they suck because they're fundamentalists Christians, and that's why they are the way they are. Reading comprehension FTW.[/QUOTE]
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.
At least you'll admit to your prejudice and use of the term as a prejorative. The original beef I had (and what started this) was a comment made by The Cat that because they followed the Godly mandate to procreate, they are selfish (and by extention, it was asserted that they were bad people). That's not fundamentalism. Many non-fundamentalist Christian groups share that mandate without the stigma.[/QUOTE]
They are bad people because they follow what they perceive as a divine mandate to a fault. They have absolutely no discretion, no sense, no reason. That was the implication.
You may be putting words into some of our mouths. Any douchebag and his fat wife who pumps out 17 kids is going to have a stigma in mine and others minds here.
Except that ElJeffe's definition of "selfish" is wrong. (To be honest, it's very Objectivist.) Being selfish is to do something without regard for others. For them to breed to meet some "godly mandate" without consideration of the impact of the number of kids on the community and on the existing family is pretty selfish. And it's nice that you seem to happily ignore the Yates case, where she was pushed into having children beyond the point of where it was safe for her to do so. That's where the whole "selfish" angle comes in - they're putting stresses on their environment and the kids all because they believe that God has told them to produce like rabbits.
It's not just that, but that they cherrypick. For instance, the grant of dominion of the Earth comes with it the stewardship of said Earth. This means we are divinely commanded to take care of the planet and all the creatures living on it. To accept this means that while we are to be fruitful, we must be so in a responsible manner.
It was more her husband, and she was basically forced into it. What has always infuriated me is that he knew that she was in danger mentally from further pregnancies, and yet he pushed on.
Uh, look at the picture again, she isn't fat.
Also, they're weirdos, but having a bunch of crazy fundy kids who are well educated and can take care of themselves is worse then a bunch of fundy kids who aren't educated and are going to be on food stamps and welfare. Also, how much of an effect is this one crazy family really going to have on the environment compared to a large polluting company?
If you can find evidence that the mother is going insane from this, then your point makes sense. If you don't have any proof, and I haven't seen any, then you're just trying to unload all the hatred you have against crazy fundies on this one crazy fundy family who practically are the blueprint for how to raise 17 kids in a responsible manner (even though they shouldn't.)
Except they're really not well educated. The girls are basically chattel, to be married off, and the males are educated in such a way that they're thoroughly steeped in the fundy culture, no questions asked. And as Cat pointed out, they're on some form of support.
What makes you think there's only one?
Um, I wasn't referring to the Duggans. I was referring to Andrea Yates - you know, the woman who will be spending the rest of her life in the looney bin for killing her kids?
I think her issues with postpartum depression have been pretty well documented, seeing as she was declared insane...
Except of course that your assertion that he's wrong is wrong. You say that "eing selfish is to do something without regard for others", but that's not true. There are many things I can do without regard for others that aren't inherently selfish acts. I can eat my lunch. I can sit perfectly still for the next minute. I can sratch my ass. These aren't selfish acts, they are acts without selfishness or altruism.
In this case, even supposing that the procreation is done without regard for their own children (or even that it's a bad thing in and of itself), it's not a selfish act if it's done as a Godly mandate, because that implies it's not being done for themselves, which is a fundamental part of selfishness.
RE: Andrea Yates. Her situation is a sad one, and in her case, it was wrong. Roping her situation (which was WAY different) to this one by making the weak link of both believing procreation to be part of their religion is a stretch. I don't think anyone has asserted or suggested that Mrs. Duggers is a post-partum candidate (I could be wrong, because I don't know her, but neither do you).
As stupid as it is to quote myself,
This is so untrue. Many first world countries tend to have the opposite problem.
As for the OP: What?? If someone wants tons of kids, go for it. My dad was one of 8.