Journal tomhudson's Journal: 19 kids? F*ing breeders! 84
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/duggars.new.baby/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Put a clothes-pin on it, Jim-Bob! And Michelle, there's more to being a woman than being a baby factory!
These people are as sick as Octo-Mom.
And yes, you guessed it - they're fundies.
So they want to know what the 19th should be named (it has to start with a 'J')? Here's a few suggestions:
- Jesus H Christ WTF Duggar
- Junk DaNA Duggar
- Jastity Belt Duggar
- Juture Jelfare Jother Duggar
- Just Don't Digg Duggar
- Jenetic Damag Duggar
- Jism Happenz Duggar
- Jondom Failz Duggar
- Jore Buggared Duggar
- Juggar Fugger Duggar
- Jijiot Jijea Duggar
Do you thing Lorena Bobbit could bobb Jim-Bob as a public service?
Re: (Score:2)
Celebrity for popping out kids - something any crack momma can do - is stupid, whether it's the Duggans or the Gosselins. These are not role models. If a significant portion of the worlds' population did the same thing, you'd be screaming about how other countries are trying to over-run the world with their breeding habits.
Birth rates generally decline with higher levels of education. Ditto attitudes towards large families change, from favourable to less so. The "larger family is better" mentality is
Re: (Score:1)
We'll settle this once and for all. Do you, the person known on Slashdot.org, as "tomhundson" have a penis? Please verify this fact by dropping your pants and photographing your genitals for us and posting them (your genitals) on the Internet. Also please post a copy of a doctors note (a licensed medical doctor) stating what gender you are, and what gender you were at birth.
Thanks. I look forward to the reply, and will keep the pictures in strictest confidence,
UTW
Re: (Score:2)
Shows how little you know. The Caster Semenya case shows that there's a lot more to consider (and that gender is more than just the presence or lack of a y chromosome).
Even the Olympics haven't used that as the definitive test because it was too embarrassing for them - one of the athletes who they "determined" was male ended up giving birth years later.
So what's the big deal - you jealous or something? That I have the courage to share what I've learned with others in order to help someone, even thoug
Re: (Score:2)
It's no big secret or anything - start here [slashdot.org], or this one just before it, which started the whole discussion [slashdot.org]. Read the comments - they're instructive, and apparently helped a few people.
That an AC happens to think they can do any sort of damage by making it an issue is beyond me - that they haven't got the guts to post except as an AC shows that they're more worried about push-back from others.
Then again, I'm from Kanuckistan, where we're all just a bunch of pinko commie socialist anti-democratic frenc
Re: (Score:1)
My comment was actually meant as a bit of casual humour, with some latent social commentary. If I new there were issues I probably would have refrained from posting. A few of my comments lately (mainly in journals) were related to identity, so it is somewhat of an interesting topic for me (how people define themselves and others, i.e. through "race", gender, pseudonyms even, etc).
In regards to the family size I'm more inclined to think it's nobody's business. I went to college with a person from Africa (can
Re: (Score:2)
Identity is an interesting thing ... and studies show that, contrary to what we long believed, it's not fluid - it's pretty much set in stone, and attempts to change it, or to get people to adapt their mental self-image to their physical body when the person perceives themselves as being the opposite gender, are both foolish and dangerous to the patients' well-being.
Besides, who we are is our brain. A "cure" would in reality substitute one persona for another.
Now on to the 19 kids ... a few generation
Re: (Score:1)
...we know that natural resources are finite, that there are Malthusian boundaries that we are bumping up against...
I was commenting from the perspective that you gave the family as "fundies" who sold their lives to network TV;
If you talked about the family in terms of being irresponsible because of the environmental impact of their lifestyle then I would have given a very different post(if at all). So far I have seen no evidence that they are "sick".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't matter, they're a dying breed anyway - atheism is the fastest-growing belief system even in the US, and atheists tend not to hide behind a belief that god will ultimately save them from the consequences of their follies (such as over-breeding).
Forgot to add; don't confuse non-Fundamentalism or speckles of agnosticism for Atheism. Cultures can change far more easily than the human brain, and the brain was programmed to be religious, but that's something completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Birth rates generally decline with higher levels of education.
Actually, in the most recent Economist issue, there is some evidence coming to light that that trend is shaped like a hockey stick. After a certain level of affluence and education is reached, the number of children per mother goes up again.
And while the tone of the AC up yonder bugs me a bit, I do have to ask: They're not on welfare, they're paying their own way, and the kids seem well-adjusted. Where's the problem?
Sounds to me like a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Economic factors play a role in how many children people decide to have, so it would be expected to see a rise when people make more money - but only to the level of people having as many kids as they actually want. So the "rebound" is not going to be l-shaped, and I
Re: (Score:2)
Economic factors play a role in how many children people decide to have, so it would be expected to see a rise when people make more money - but only to the level of people having as many kids as they actually want. So the "rebound" is not going to be l-shaped, and I suspect that in most economies it's really not much more than statistical noise, when you look at long-term trends.
Ummm...you apparently haven't read the article. It is a very clear trend, and yes, it is L-shaped [economist.com]. Whether or not you observe
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing that, and it's simply not true. Increasing population is destabilizing society by putting more pressure on limited resources. Case in point - the oil wars. If the world's population were only 1 billion, there would have been no invasion of Iraq, the middle east wouldn't be a hotbed, etc.
Contrast that to the way that we increase productivity per person - we don't need more people any
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing that, and it's simply not true. Increasing population is destabilizing society by putting more pressure on limited resources.
Thus your "solution" is to dramatically increase the economic and social burden on the young by making them pay for the care of proportionately ever more elderly. Which is a recipe for a downward spiral in prosperity.
Besides, if modern agriculture was used in the Third World, the planet could easily sustain upwards of 12 billion people with little trouble. The idea
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, if modern agriculture was used in the Third World
Modern agriculture is already used in the 3rd world to the detriment of the 3rd world. The terms "modern agriculture" and "3rd world" have about as much meaning as the words "death panel" and "grok". Knowledge of a subject is not equivalent to understanding.
Fun fact: If each man, woman and child on Earth would be allocated one square meter, they would all fit, for example, in Algonquin Park
Non sequitur. However, the whole human race can fit on the moon, so we can all be joyful. Play Ode to Joy by Ludwig van Beethoven for the spiritual effects to seep in.
Tip: read everything with the understanding that the person who wrote it is probably no
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge of a subject is not equivalent to understanding.
You appear to want to prove this by example.
Tip: read everything with the understanding that the person who wrote it is probably not very intelligent despite their job title, certifications or pseudonym.
Thanks for the warning: I'll keep it in mind when reading your posts from now on.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Hope is what I live and breath on (Score:1)
Thanks for the warning: I'll keep it in mind when reading your posts from now on.
Use it on me, but really, it's best to use that tip on the people or articles you trust the most, because that's where your logic is more likely to be trumped.
I've learned from experience that people are more likely to believe their own mythologies and back them up with confabulations and rationalizations from what they have read from what they consider to be reliable sources.
Most people will just ignore my advice (which is why I usually don't offer any). But there is always that little bit of hope, sort of
Re: (Score:2)
I've learned from experience that people are more likely to believe their own mythologies and back them up with confabulations and rationalizations from what they have read from what they consider to be reliable sources.
As opposed to people who offer no sources at all. *shrug*
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:1)
As opposed to people who offer no sources at all. *shrug*
The source from which you are reading. On a higher level, it could be a premise to which a hypothesis is formed. On a secondary level it could be your own statistical data that is derived from an observation from the modern scientific method.
For example, when discussing the "3rd World", one could easily look that term up on Wikipedia to verify that it has no relevance to a discussion that is framed in logic or science, and that the term has its origins in colonialism and racism, and that it is generally use
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to factor in two effects I've pointed out:
Re: (Score:2)
Modern agriculture requires lots of cheap energy in the form of petro-chemicals. And modern pesticides, and modern fertilizers, etc., which also come from - you guessed it - non-renewable resources.
You're apparently not up to date on your agriculture, or only half informed (why am I not surprised). GM foods would go a long way to resolving problems in the Third World. So would using modern organic methods. So would having access to modern information sources (for things like weather reports and long-ter
Re: (Score:1)
GM foods would go a long way to resolving problems in the Third World.
I thought I taught you that there is no such thing as the "Third World". You know nothing of what you are talking about. Really. It's so incredibly obvious here that no citations are needed. That's why I'm not even bothering to look up references or support my arguments further; because they would not support your Weltanschauung and therefore would be ignored, therefore my efforts would be completely futile and a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I taught you that there is no such thing as the "Third World".
You "taught" me?
Sorry massa, I didna know! I be good boy now massa!
It's so incredibly obvious here that no citations are needed.
Riiiiiiiight. [wikipedia.org]
because they would not support your Weltanschauung and therefore would be ignored, therefore my efforts would be completely futile and a waste of time.
Von der Verwendung eines deutschen Begriffs bin ich ganz und gar nicht beeindruckt. Aber netter Versuch.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:1)
You made up your mind that I was an idiot a long time ago. Many people think I'm stupid. Mainly human resource professionals. I spent about 100K going to school to prove that I am not stupid but that didn't work. Obviously people who use references to back up their bogus arguments are more successful than myself.
Translation:
By using a German word, I am not at all impressed. But nice try.
Your assholeness is showing through. Using citations to make you seem less ignorant of the topics you claim to have an understanding of only works on the very, very lame.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the 100K figure is an approximation based on (todays) real dollars and the different schools I went to over the years. It may be off. I'll admit that I probably should have been more articulate in my arguments. Yes it's being lazy, but I'd rather argue when I know somebody seems interested in learning something as opposed to defending something. I'll give this argument/thread a rest.
best regards,
UTW
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same definition that everyone uses. Try to find a definition of a hockey stick curve chart that doesn't match it.
Same definition used by the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Associated Press, etc. [highbeam.com]
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:1)
Until we either invent time travel, or find out that the Neanderthals had a written language and learn how to read it, any claim that they had religion is purely speculative...
Science is speculative. If there wouldn't be anything to prove it wouldn't be science. Prehistory, history and the future are all speculative as well. It's all a matter of degree. Whether I have any food to feed myself next week is also speculative. Whether SCO will eventually win there lawsuits is also speculative (they are like the little train who can't get up the hill, but they just keep on trying. There's an aphorism in there somewhere).
I wonder who will win this argument and get the brass ring. Though
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously people who use references to back up their bogus arguments are more successful than myself.
Or maybe it's your arguments are bogus because you can't back them up with references...fairly basic concept in school dontchaknow. [wikipedia.org] *shrug*
Using citations to make you seem less ignorant of the topics you claim to have an understanding of only works on the very, very lame.
If you had bothered to read the link (which you clearly haven't), you would see why I use the term. (Hint: I'm a child of the Cold
Re: (Score:1)
If you had bothered to read the link (which you clearly haven't)
Wrong again. You waste my time.
Re: (Score:2)
lulz. The feeling is mutual. :-p
Somehow you managed to read it without understanding it -- what was that again?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same definition that everyone uses.
Funny, none of them define it specifically the way you do. While also conveniently ignoring the simple fact that the data presented does show a rebound, just as I originally stated.
The review writer admits it's their own conclusion, not the study's. Which brings up the question, why didn't you link to the actual study, rather than one that contained several flaws, as pointed out in the comments to the page you cite?
One, the writer doesn't "admit" any su
Re: (Score:2)
Though my Bullshit antennae are always rather sensitive.
Probably because you wandered into Tom's journal of all places. (You're neck deep in it.)
Needless to say, Tom and I go a ways back (well, in online years anyway). Though I must correct her: "TOM" doesn't stand for "the online me". It stands for "trolling's only mutual".
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:2)
The burial of human remains, along with tools and weapons, is fully explained without needing to resort to religion.
And there is the source of your error. While it could in theory be explained without resorting to a religious explanation if taken in a vacuum, we have the later history of what developed as an indication that there was at the very least a ritual element, and we have the simple common-sense parallels visible with today's practice as well as with practice throughout civilized history. If it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot! You're not supposed to talk about that!
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:2)
Tw quick points:
So:
You believe that humanity was always religious. So there must be a gene or chromosome or something innate to man to make him thus, that is common to humanity, and only to humanity. That would imply either t
Re: (Score:2)
The hilarious part about that is that atheists pushing that theory are sawing on their own proverbial tree branch. If religion provided an evolutionary advantage, they are effectively arguing for removing something that gave us that advantage. How's that for stupid. What next, decree that nearsightedness is the gold standard?
Not to mention, whether they mean to or not, they entrench a form of bigotry. By implicitly calling one sort of person "inferior" because of their genetics, it opens Pandora's box: Wh
Genetics and evolution - the god gene (Score:2)
Um, no - a mutation can be detrimental, but as long as it doesn't kill off the host before they've reproduced, it still gets passed on. Otherwise, all genetic diseases would disappear.
Even stuff that is detrimental can provide associated advantages - witness the topic a few days ago about some of the advantages of depression.
Another example - sickle-cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. Evolution isn't as cut-and-dried a process as you make it out to be.
Colour blindness is a disadvantage, and y
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no - a mutation can be detrimental, but as long as it doesn't kill off the host before they've reproduced, it still gets passed on. Otherwise, all genetic diseases would disappear.
Except that geneticists have indeed posited that religious belief carries with it an evolutionary advantage [economist.com]. You said it yourself: Religious people tend to have more children. QED.
Also, agnostics are definitely NOT atheists.
I didn't say that they were. Nice try. I did point out that the thesis I mentioned was propose
Re: (Score:2)
More children is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Again, you fail to understand evolutions' implications. To imply that more children is an evolutionary advantage would mean that we're at a disadvantage to animals such as salmon and frogs and catfish and flies and mosquitos, that have huge numbers of offspring, most of which don't make it.
Having more children is a disadvantage in times of scarcity, and mammals have evolved counter-strategies to cull their own numbers. That's why lions, for e
Re: (Score:2)
More children is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage. Again, you fail to understand evolutions' implications. To imply that more children is an evolutionary advantage would mean that we're at a disadvantage to animals such as salmon and frogs and catfish and flies and mosquitos, that have huge numbers of offspring, most of which don't make it.
Except that the overwhelming number of people in the world continue to identify themselves as religious, thus providing further evidence that it provides an
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, this is a HUGE WTF! Before we go anywhere else ...
Agnostics are NOT just people who say they have no particular leaning one way or another.
Agnostics say that we cannot be sure one way or another.
Big difference.
Since they admit they can't be sure, they by definition leave open the possibility of the validity of religion and god. They accept that some particular religion *might* be valid,
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, you missed the qualitative difference when you wrote:
I had pointed out that they would be considered the odd ones, not because of the fact that they came from a family of 19, but because they won't have the same skills and same interpersonal dynamics as those raised
Re: (Score:2)
I had pointed out that they would be considered the odd ones
With all due respect, this coming from a tranny? You really must be joking.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: this coming from a tranny? (Score:2)
Again, you choose to miss the point (this time, I suspect, on purpose - it's fun to debate the issues tongue-in-cheek :-)
There's 19 kids. Those kids won't have developed the same expectations, or coping mechanisms, for dealing with interpersonal situations as children from families of one or two offspring.
It's not about how other people will treat them - it's about
Re: (Score:2)
There's going to be as much of a cultural divide as between, say, people from different religions, on all sorts of things, some obvious, some more subtle.
And my suggestion to those that have a problem with it: Grow. Up.
Your attempt at feigned sympathy is really quite amazing. Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out a fact has nothing to do with sympathy, feigned or otherwise. I definitely am not sympathetic to the parents, though. There's no excuse for over-breeding and being a resource hog in the current environment; there's even less excuse to make it a cause of celebrity. To do so in the name of god is just more stupidity. Do you believe that god gave them orders to multiply exponentially? And if it's so great and godly, why don't you do it, to help fill the void left by all those kids that were
Re: (Score:2)
To do so in the name of god is just more stupidity.
To argue for depriving them of their right to have whatever size family they please (so long as they are not an actual burden on the rest of society, which this family apparently isn't) when you yourself demand similar rights to live your life they way you choose (and get public recognition of it) is the height of hypocrisy.
Do you believe that god gave them orders to multiply exponentially? And if it's so great and godly, why don't you do it, to help
Re: (Score:2)
A burden we all share, just they're hogging way more than their fair share.
Their right to over-breed stops at the commons. They're doing the equivalent of over-drawing at the community well, or over-grazing the community range. We have limited resources, and we'd better get used to it before we end up having to implement a version of
Re: (Score:2)
Only if everyone does it (or many people do it). I don't think that that is terribly likely.
Some people have no kids; some have lots. It tends to average itself out anyway, most especially in industrialized societies (for which which Arkansas amazingly manages to qualify). So no, I'm not terribly concerned.
Do they deserve praise? I didn't claim that they did. But do they dese
Dominionist (Score:1)
The most fundamental of the fundamental. Religious authoritarians.
They're not doing this for fun, or because they don't believe in birth control.
They're literally trying to out-fuck the rest of us. Their reasoning is that if there's more of them, they can win elections and bring the USA under theocratic law.
Who's going to break it to them that two of their little preciouses are gay?
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to be more than 2.
The "standing level" of testosterone in the womb rises with each male birth (female births don't "reset" it, either), and higher levels of in utero tetosterone mean the foetus is more likely to be gay. With at least 10 boys already, the last one is pretty much guaranteed to be gay, and the probability of the 8th and 9th being gay is almost as high. Also, very probable that at least one of the
Re: (Score:1)
I heard that at least 1 out of ten people are gay. Puts you in perspective (as a straight guy....) considering the average class is 20 pupils. 2 of them are gay. I can't stop of thinking of my class... We were 8 boys or so, and 13 girls. Must not think of the hot lesbians....must not think.
That said, one of my best friends is gay and he's a fine guy. Wouldn't exchange him for anbody in the world
Re: (Score:1)
I heard that at least 1 out of ten people are gay.
You seem to be assuming that being "gay" is a binary condition. In the sense that people are able to label themselves and other people then this is true. In the realm of reality things are usually more complex than culturally derived labels.
There isn't any "gay" gene, neurotransmitter, hormone, or any specific series of conditioned responses to make a person gay. Nor are there any of the above to make people "straight", or attracted to fury Earthlings like dogs or sheep, attracted to or repelled from childr
Re: (Score:2)
My take on it is "why would anyone be interested in someone else's sexual orientation unless they were looking to hook up?" IOW, it should properly be a non-issue for most interactions.
As for expressing one's gender identity, or taking measures to align their body with their gender, again, unless it's germane to the situation at hand, why should it even enter into someone's brain as an issue?
For all practical purposes, there's no difference between a post-op m2f (transexual) woman, and a post-menopaus
Re: (Score:1)
Tranny pr0n! Love that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
[X] I'm a clone, you ignorant clod!
So you obviously lack any knowledge about the whole issue - or you'd know that it's the psychiatrists who recommend the plastic surgeon, as the preferred form of treatment.
If you're goint to troll, at least make a half-decent effort to play. Stupid amateur!
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you display your lack of knowledge and your harping on old stereotypes that only the fundies and other retrograde elements of society that are proud of their ignorance still give any credence to.
A real troll could do better. Then again, a real troll would at least try to come up with some original material. Like I said, stupid amateur. So, how's that birther thing working for ya?
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you display how easy it is to troll you and get a knee jerk reaction. Funny, I thought trolling you would be harder than it actually was. In the end, trolling you was really no challenge at all.
A real troll could do better. Then again, a real troll would at least try to come up with some origin
Re: (Score:2)
WRT transexualism, I'm still disappointed, because for a troll, it didn't "engage" me. Didn't make me feel at all irritated or angry or raise my blood pressure or anything. I expect better from you.
It's possibly due to the fact that this last few weeks I've been dealing with a couple of people who don't approve what's been going on in my life, and they too have the same tired arguments. It's like everyone is reading from the same play-book, rather than coming up with something original. Or funny. Or
Re: (Score:1)
People are sheep.
Re: (Score:2)
why would anyone be interested in someone else's sexual orientation unless they were looking to hook up?
Sorry Barb, I'm just not into boobs as large as yours. :D
Re: (Score:1)
Amen, brother.
You seem to be assuming that being "gay" is a binary condition.
My sexuality is analog, and I'm willing to demonstrate!
Re: (Score:2)
Most slashdotters sexuality is now digital - as in "Mrs. Palmer and her 5 sisters". "Palm Pilot" takes on a whole new meaning ...
Re: (Score:1)
Assigning numbers (Score:2)
In my Psychology of Sex class, we were given the figure of "6 or fewer same-sex encounters, not gay - most likely just exploring."
Of course, the figure is both arbitrary and craptastic, since it doesn't have any basis in research.
Just goes to show how, when people feel uncomfortable with a topic, they pick some numbers out of the air and use them as arbitrary labels so they can feel more in
Re: (Score:1)
Hehehe.... You're probably 100% right about that one. :-)
Typo in journal (Score:1)
Suggestion for a new name: "He Duggar"... Get it?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing out the typo ... I won't fix it, so that people won't think you're seeing things :-)
As for the new name, I get it, but they're insisting that it start with a "J", same as all their brood.
Re: (Score:1)
As for the name: Jesus Made Him Duggar
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me tempted to add a typo, with a link to your post saying "typo fixed by CT" :-) This is slashdot - how many people would bother to follow the linky?
(I'm just SO evil today ...)
Hey Tom and Eth... (Score:2)
...this is one of the hugest idiot-fests I've seen on Slashdot so far. Keep it up!
Eth, arguing about religion is like arguing who has the coolest imaginary friend. Ceremonial burial probably *is* proof that religion is very old, but religion basically is believing in supernatural powers caused by a perception of helplessness (lack of knowledge about the environment).
Religion is and was the #1 reason for wars all around man's history, so it hardly is an advantage, much less a prerequisite for civilization, q
Re: (Score:2)
And just for the statistics, I have three kids, all without believing in that bearded guy in the sky. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, we're just having fun!
Debates like this may seem brain-damaged, but they actually help ward off alzheimers and other forms of mental deterioration (same as doing crossword puzzles), as well as allowing a bit of punning :-)
They're also a good opportunity to re-examine old points of view and make sure that they're not only still valid, but to see what other alternate explanations might have been overlooked - and to remember that there ARE alternate points of view, and that we don't have to agree with