Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Vagina - it's not a clown car.

1234568

Posts

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    I'm crossing my fingers that they have at least one lesbian daughter who has heard of financial aid.
    Actually, statiistically speaking women from large families are highly likely to be childless themselves, or bear few children. Reason being that they spent most of their teens playing mum.

    Ryu: Please, I know the conservative line on this. if they weren't anglo christians, you wouldn't be supporting them. And quite frankly, all the ancillary reasons in the world don't compensate for the ones I condemned above.

    I can't seem to find stats to support your comment. In fact, I only found a summary stating that women from large families were more likely to have large families. If I am wrong, please cite some recent studies.

    It sounds more like you are the one with prejudice here. I've made no comments, and even stated to the contrary regarding the race of the family, and yet you feel you can summarily dismiss entire swaths of conversation and chalk it to racism with nary a shred of proof. Party foul on you.

    ryuprecht on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.
    Even if the guy was making $100,000 a year, that's a little more than $5,000 a person. That isn't enough to survive without major charity work.

    Not true at all. One of my best friends fed a family of 6 on $30,000 a year without any assistance. He didn't have cable, multiple cars, a cell phone, or anything luxurious, but he did it comfortably enough.

    ryuprecht on
  • HooraydiationHooraydiation Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    Hooraydiation on
    Home-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.
    Also in terms of medical expenses and DT when people get sick, kitchen necessities etc. This isn't a linear scale we're talking about either especially when you factor in time with the parents etc.

    Also - link plskthx ryu for that study.

    EDIT: Also jesus fuck, between me and my girlfriend it costs around $2600 a year for groceries alone - and that's the conservative calculation and we're by no means lavish in that regard.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    Economies of scale, baby.

    ryuprecht on
  • astrobstrdastrobstrd So full of mercy... Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Statistically, at least 2 of those kids will be gay, right? Maybe even more with the late born males.

    That should be fun.

    astrobstrd on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    Economies of scale, baby.
    When applied to the household mean the opportunity cost of servicing more customers grows higher because there's a complex interplay of supply economics over extremely finite resources.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.
    Also in terms of medical expenses and DT when people get sick, kitchen necessities etc. This isn't a linear scale we're talking about either especially when you factor in time with the parents etc.

    Also - link plskthx ryu for that study.

    EDIT: Also jesus fuck, between me and my girlfriend it costs around $2600 a year for groceries alone - and that's the conservative calculation and we're by no means lavish in that regard.

    $2600 is a lot for two people, I probably pay a little less that for 3. Of course, my wife clips coupons and loves sales.

    Link: casual reference.

    The Census Department says it has no national data specifying which demographic sectors are having more kids these days.

    I did a lot of searches, but found one saying no data exists, and one casual reference to Cat's comment being false. I'm not sure of the answer, but anecdotally I know many people from large families who want large ones of their own, including my own wife. Since anecdotal evidence isn't sufficient to prove a point, I wanted to see some proof of Cat's assertion.

    ryuprecht on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    Economies of scale, baby.
    When applied to the household mean the opportunity cost of servicing more customers grows higher because there's a complex interplay of supply economics over extremely finite resources.

    That makes no sense as written. Can you rephrase that? Economically speaking, the marginal cost of each additional child decreases dramatically as you have more.

    ryuprecht on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    astrobstrd wrote: »
    Statistically, at least 2 of those kids will be gay, right? Maybe even more with the late born males.

    That should be fun.
    If by "fun" you mean "really sad and will probably end in severe depression and/or suicide" then I totally agree.

    Unless they're cool and teach the kids that you can actually be gay and still incorporate religion into your life, tolerance, etc.

    But, uh. Probably the first one.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    $2600 is a lot for two people, I probably pay a little less that for 3. Of course, my wife clips coupons and loves sales.

    I live in Australia, that's $2600 AUD, so figure maybe 66% of that value would be it in USD?

    electricitylikesme on
  • astrobstrdastrobstrd So full of mercy... Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Blackjack wrote: »
    astrobstrd wrote: »
    Statistically, at least 2 of those kids will be gay, right? Maybe even more with the late born males.

    That should be fun.
    If by "fun" you mean "really sad and will probably end in severe depression and/or suicide" then I totally agree.

    Unless they're cool and teach the kids that you can actually be gay and still incorporate religion into your life, tolerance, etc.

    But, uh. Probably the first one.

    The only fundie in my family had two kids, and both turned out gay. Luckily, the rest of my family is awesome. Just one more fucked up thing to add to reasons to hate these people.

    astrobstrd on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • furiousNUfuriousNU Registered User
    edited August 2007
    I think the problem that a lot of people have with "fundamentalist Christians", especially in the case of the "quiverfull" sect is that their heavy handed enforcement of traditional female/male roles. These "fundamentalist Christian" values also undeniably cheapen the value of the female individual in society, not only does a man "have authority over a woman", even her 2 cell fetus/baby(which has contributed nothing to society) has more rights to a "life" than her. While there are females that truly enjoy being an homemaker (which is perfectly fine), strictly following these rules takes away a female's ability to choose. Why shouldn't women have the same access to opportunities as men, especially when there are plenty of females that they have the potential to accomplish just as much?

    While I know nothing I write will change the minds of the "Quiverfull" sect, I do find some comfort in knowing that they represent a very small minority, which tells me their life style isn't sustainable under most circumstances. Fundamentalist Christians take the Bible too literally when there are so many inconsistencies within it. It is a great resource for teaching basic morals that apply in any age, but its extremely traditional values have no place in a mostly non-agrarian modern society of today where we no longer need to struggle to survive.

    furiousNU on
  • JinniganJinnigan Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    Actually, George Lakoff argues that political beliefs only change in people if it's stated in a way that they'll agree with.

    Jinnigan on
    whatifihadnofriendsshortenedsiggy2.jpg
  • DodgeBlanDodgeBlan PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    within this thread:

    why conservatives/fundamentalists are evil and what apathetic cynical you can do about it!

    DodgeBlan on
    Read my blog about AMERICA and THE BAY AREA

    https://medium.com/@alascii
  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    Economies of scale, baby.
    When applied to the household mean the opportunity cost of servicing more customers grows higher because there's a complex interplay of supply economics over extremely finite resources.

    That makes no sense as written. Can you rephrase that? Economically speaking, the marginal cost of each additional child decreases dramatically as you have more.

    Yeah really, have you ever heard of buying in bulk and hand-me down clothes. feeding and clothing 18 kids does not cost 3 times as much as feeding 6. If you have ever worked in a food-industry that does large scale feeding you would know this. Cost per meal for serving 200 people is incredibly less expensive than feeding 2 the same amount of food each.

    Snarfmaster on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    Agreed. Democratic Party sucking at politics /= American public becoming more conservative. By and large, the public is slowly becoming more liberal, at least with regard to social policies--gay rights, abortion, gender issues, etc. It's not going to happen overnight, and the Supreme Court can definitely be a short-term impediment to progress, but eventually ideas like gay marriage and unrestricted on-demand abortion will become "safe."

    Zalbinion on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    Actually, George Lakoff argues that political beliefs only change in people if it's stated in a way that they'll agree with.

    Who is George Lakoff, why should I care, are you sure he's right, and are you even interpreting that statement correctly? I certainly can't tell what you mean by this random regurgitation of someone else's thoughts. Express yourself clearly pls.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    Agreed. Democratic Party sucking at politics /= American public becoming more conservative. By and large, the public is slowly becoming more liberal, at least with regard to social policies--gay rights, abortion, gender issues, etc. It's not going to happen overnight, and the Supreme Court can definitely be a short-term impediment to progress, but eventually ideas like gay marriage and unrestricted on-demand abortion will become "safe."

    There will never be completely on demand unrestricted abortion. There will always be people opposed to third trimester abortions, the vast majority of people in fact. Something about sucking out a viable fetus with a vaccum cleaner gets people all up in arms.

    Snarfmaster on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Speaking of. 19 babies is a lot of labor. Painful, that.
    I don't know.

    Not to at all diminish the pain and fatigue of child birth, but I imagine that after 17 kids the whole thing becomes a little blasé.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Anyone else recalling Life of Brian right about now?

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    There will never be completely on demand unrestricted abortion. There will always be people opposed to third trimester abortions, the vast majority of people in fact. Something about sucking out a viable fetus with a vaccum cleaner gets people all up in arms.

    Okay, I should have been more clear: there will always be opposition to abortion, but the slowly changing attitude of the American public will keep legal on-demand abortion safer as time goes on. People don't have to like something in order for it to be legal.

    Zalbinion on
  • HaphazardHaphazard Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Anyone else recalling Life of Brian right about now?

    The whole thing reminds me of the catholic family in Meaning of Life.

    Haphazard on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Haphazard wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Anyone else recalling Life of Brian right about now?
    The whole thing reminds me of the catholic family in Meaning of Life.
    Someone should point that out to the Duggars and the rest of the "quiverfulls".

    When they realise that Catholics, of all "people", would agree with them, that'd be the end of the whole thing.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    I agree with you; I think that the birth rate of those in largely liberal areas is far more responsible than those in largely Republican areas. So I would not support any movement to increase birth rates pretty much anywhere. Creating additional incentives to have smaller families would be one place to start.

    I agree in part with your assessment of the Democratic party but I do want to note that Kerry received more votes than any other candidate in the history of the US during the 2004 election................other than Bush in 2004. So I would hardly say that they failed in turning out their base and changing minds.

    That said, I think that the tides are turning. The Democratic candidates for '08 are largely in agreement on major issues and are presenting at least some talk of a new direction. The Republican candidates are simply repeating the old tired lines against abortion, against taxes, etc etc and pointing backwards to Ronald Reagan. I would definitely say that the Democrats are the ones with a vision of a better world while the Republicans are appealing to a past that never existed.

    sanstodo on
  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Haphazard wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Anyone else recalling Life of Brian right about now?
    The whole thing reminds me of the catholic family in Meaning of Life.
    Someone should point that out to the Duggars and the rest of the "quiverfulls".

    When they realise that Catholics, of all "people", would agree with them, that'd be the end of the whole thing.

    Actually if someone wants to stop them, they should just point out that the more older brothers you have the greater the chance you'll be gay.

    Combine that with the other study that showed that the more siblings you have the lower your Iq the further down the line you are.

    So to sum up, if you present them with a case saying that they're promoting retarded gay kids that perhaps would stop them.

    Snarfmaster on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    ?

    Breeding combined with population movements sorta HAVE to have an effect eventually.

    Yes, but it's sort of important that you look at overall trends, not the habits of a fringe minority. The birth rate of Muslims vs Israelis in Israel is notable because first, there are a significant number of Muslims already, and second, they are, as a class, reproducing much faster than the Israelis.

    The Duggars and their ilk are a non-event, because they are a tiny, tiny fraction of pretty much any relevant subset you care to talk about.

    Otherwise, hey - there are a lot of liberal couples who don't have any children at all! Clearly this means that the population in the US will die out, right? Right?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    $2600 is a lot for two people, I probably pay a little less that for 3. Of course, my wife clips coupons and loves sales.

    I live in Australia, that's $2600 AUD, so figure maybe 66% of that value would be it in USD?

    Ah, then that makes sense and seems more reasonable if you are not going buck-wild with your buying.

    I have not said "buck-wild" in years. I don't know where that came from.

    ryuprecht on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    ?

    Breeding combined with population movements sorta HAVE to have an effect eventually.

    Yes, but it's sort of important that you look at overall trends, not the habits of a fringe minority. The birth rate of Muslims vs Israelis in Israel is notable because first, there are a significant number of Muslims already, and second, they are, as a class, reproducing much faster than the Israelis.

    The Duggars and their ilk are a non-event, because they are a tiny, tiny fraction of pretty much any relevant subset you care to talk about.

    Otherwise, hey - there are a lot of liberal couples who don't have any children at all! Clearly this means that the population in the US will die out, right? Right?

    Not if I have anything to say about it. :winky:

    moniker on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Otherwise, hey - there are a lot of liberal couples who don't have any children at all! Clearly this means that the population in the US will die out, right? Right?

    No, it just points in the direction of the creation of a vast underclass with poor critical-thinking genes. They can do the bidding of their liberal overlords blasting instructions from a megaphone atop their ivory towers.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I guess I don't share your optimism that things are going to keep getting more "liberal." Recent Supreme Court decisions are frightening because they blatantly ignore precedent. Scalia even scolded Roberts for not being more forthright about this disdain for precedent. SCOTUS is a huge factor in molding culture because they can be an engine for change (Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade) or an impediment to it (recent rulings on abortion for instance).

    So what's your solution, force liberal women to breed? Mmmm, way to become the enemy there.

    The democrats aren't losing because they're not breeding enough, they're losing because they're crap at marketing their position, crap at staking out a coherent worldview, and are continually moving towards the right in an attempt to steal away people who aren't going to be stolen away. They have no leadership and no philosophy anymore. Political beliefs change in people, but only if coherent reasons for doing so are presented.

    Agreed. Democratic Party sucking at politics /= American public becoming more conservative. By and large, the public is slowly becoming more liberal, at least with regard to social policies--gay rights, abortion, gender issues, etc. It's not going to happen overnight, and the Supreme Court can definitely be a short-term impediment to progress, but eventually ideas like gay marriage and unrestricted on-demand abortion will become "safe."

    Even I can agree that in some issues the American publics is becoming more liberal (by the current definition of liberalism), especially with regards to gay rights and gun control. But it's definitely become less liberal on abortion. There are numerous studies showing that the balance between pro-choice and pro-life are changing, with more people becoming pro-choice. This is most likely due to a combination of the Roe-Effect and hotbutton issues like partial-birth abortion and the increased access to ultrasounds and 4D imaging. Gallup also shows an increase in desire to overturn Roe v Wade in the last several years (poll data from this spring).

    I'm not trying to derail with an abortion debate, just showing that support is not moving towards abortion, but away (although not terribly fast).

    ryuprecht on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    The home, at least, costs them nothing. They built it themselves as a "family project". They live completely debt-free.

    The income from two real-estate agents can go a long way when you have no mortgage payment.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Naturally, around 3 times as many people means spending around 3 times as much. Never mind how much a home that can house 19 people compares to a home that can house 6 people in cost.

    The home, at least, costs them nothing. They built it themselves as a "family project". They live completely debt-free.

    The income from two real-estate agents can go a long way when you have no mortgage payment.

    How can the mom be a real estate agent while simultaneously being barefoot in the kitchen and gestating? I thought they were teaching the kids traditional* values where the man is the sole breadwinner of the house and everyone gets on with his single salary.


    *All traditions, morals, and values in the United States originated between 1946 and 1961

    moniker on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    ryuprecht on
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    I'm not trying to derail with an abortion debate, just showing that support is not moving towards abortion, but away (although not terribly fast).

    I don't think so, although it looks like public opinion isn't moving in either direction.

    For what it's worth.

    EDIT: So the "welfare queens" that don't really exist are a bigger problem than the religious conservatives whose publicly-avowed political goals include repression of women in patriarchal "traditional family" roles?

    Zalbinion on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »

    *All traditions, morals, and values in the United States originated between 1946 and 1961 in an episode of Leave It to Beaver.

    Fixed that for you.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    It should be patently obvious that a single middle-class income cannot possibly support 19 people.

    But a single middle-class family with the support of their community, living in an area with a low cost of living can.

    So... they pop these things out at the cost of other individuals? Wonderful.

    Fucking fundies.

    If their community wants to support this, then what's the harm? Lots of people survive at the cost of other individuals, the problem comes when it's forced under the threat of jail (see: taxes as applied to welfare, social security, medicare, etc). Here's an example of people who, from all we can tell, receive community support (financial and otherwise) for their lifestyle and you shoot back with "fucking fundies".

    Welfare queens deserve more ire than these people. Now, if somone can show that they are collecting welfare for their kids, then I'll support your outrage.

    Bingo. There ya go Cat, he said it. Welfare, a non-permanent system that actually does ween participants off in a set amount of time and gives benefits for becoming independent is a bigger problem than a family that receives almost limitless charity because they won't every stop having kids until one of them dries up or dies.

    Welfare Queens are a myth based around some mythical woman Reagan created. It's an incredibly rare circumstance that involves fraud of the highest order to happen.

    Wonder_Hippie on
    Your sig was too tall. -Thanatos
    Feral wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    i'm just a loveologist
    love me some lovin'
    gonna study up on lovin'

    Ain't no problem you can't solve in loveology with a larger sample size.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Welfare Queens are a myth based around some mythical woman Reagan created. It's an incredibly rare circumstance that involves fraud of the highest order to happen.

    It also ignores the fact that most welfare goes out to white families in rural locations which mostly lack government provided housing. Maybe there are some section 8's and a habitat house, but nothing that would be able to cover a continually rising number of babies to get a bigger check.

    moniker on
Sign In or Register to comment.