Login   Register
 Login    Register
Having Kids
phillippa
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,400 | Offline
Joined: Mar 7, 2008
ebolarama wrote:It wasn't a slam on you personally. It's just that in my experience, most affluent white people who "blame whitey" are susceptible to the logical fallacy that "only A's are B's, therefore all A's are B's." In this case, replace A with white and B with rich and privileged.
Again, it's not personal, maybe you don't think this way, but there are plenty of people that do, and those are the types of people I was referring to. People who think that because they're white and rich and privileged and they feel guilty about it, that all white people must be all well.
Again, if you don't subsrice to this worldview then I'm not referring to you. But in my experience, people who started off poor and worked their way up from the bottom are much less supportive of welfare programs and than those who inherit their success.
EDIT: And it's not even just a racial issue, or even a class-based issue. If you work for a living, you'll probably be less supportive of handouts than those who don't work for a living.

I feel like an ass for getting bent out of shape, will try to reply with a bit more humor in the future.
Anyway I totally blame whitey for everything, but truth be told I was born into a upper middle-class life and have pretty much stayed at that level for my entire life. My family worked and I worked and my husband works, but let's face it, they weren't in the coal mines. They had/ have interesting jobs that earn a healthy amount of money. So I'll give you half credit on your post. However all the democrats and liberals I have met at the different income brackets have all been big on social programs though..
Whitey can be short-sighted and more greedy than other the groups on this planet. Bush and Co. suck, and are the cause of most of the world's ills. I'm not backing down from that one.
Be fruitful and multipy if you have something to offer your kids.

ebolarama
User avatar
intentionally bad ass wiper
 
Rank: User
Posts: 9,667 | Offline
Joined: Jul 1, 2007

phillippa wrote:Anyway I totally blame whitey for everything, but truth be told I was born into a upper middle-class life and have pretty much stayed at that level for my entire life.

Shocker

phillippa
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,400 | Offline
Joined: Mar 7, 2008

ebolarama wrote:Shocker

Trying to laugh it off... Hahaha.

absolut_dre
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,430 | Offline
Joined: Mar 8, 2007

4 is the limit. Any more than that you are being selfish in trying to spread your genetics or in a non philosophical/population genetics point having sex without contraception. It is impossible to give the attention, nourishment and knowledge to 18 kids so that they can grow up and be productive members of society. If you are tying to crap out kids for labor purposes that's one thing, but in addition to lack of natural resources, a majority of them will feel some abandonment at one point in their lives and it isn't fair to them to have to share affection for their parents with 17 siblings.
nienawidzę was

ebolarama
User avatar
intentionally bad ass wiper
 
Rank: User
Posts: 9,667 | Offline
Joined: Jul 1, 2007

absolut_dre wrote:4 is the limit. Any more than that you are being selfish in trying to spread your genetics or in a non philosophical/population genetics point having sex without contraception. It is impossible to give the attention, nourishment and knowledge to 18 kids so that they can grow up and be productive members of society. If you are tying to crap out kids for labor purposes that's one thing, but in addition to lack of natural resources, a majority of them will feel some abandonment at one point in their lives and it isn't fair to them to have to share affection for their parents with 17 siblings.

What if you have 4 girls?? You're allowed to keep going until you get a least one boy, right??

Surreal
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,720 | Offline
Joined: Jan 27, 2008

ebolarama wrote:What if you have 4 girls?? You're allowed to keep going until you get a least one boy, right??

Well girls don't count as people anyway so...yes yes you can.

absolut_dre
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,430 | Offline
Joined: Mar 8, 2007

ebolarama wrote:What if you have 4 girls?? You're allowed to keep going until you get a least one boy, right??

If you end up having 4 girls, go ahead and put the gun to your temple. Your Y chromosome must be so deficient that it gets left out of the meiosis everytime?
nienawidzę was

phillippa
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,400 | Offline
Joined: Mar 7, 2008

absolut_dre wrote:If you end up having 4 girls, go ahead and put the gun to your temple. Your Y chromosome must be so deficient that it gets left out of the meiosis everytime?

Charlie Sheen has three girls and counting (as per E Channel viewing last night).
My grandmother was born in 1915 and was one of 11. She and her siblings only spoke favorably about the experience. Maybe because of the era and immigrant status they were born into they were forced to have real relationships with one another, none of that fighting over the Wii (sp) for them. So I disagree with anecdoatal evidence on my side. You can definitely be part of a huge family and have a good childhood.
They were wily jews fresh of the ship so maybe that explains it. We are at the the top of the bell curve after all...

Surreal
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,720 | Offline
Joined: Jan 27, 2008

phillippa wrote:Charlie Sheen has three girls and counting (as per E Channel viewing last night).
My grandmother was born in 1915 and was one of 11. She and her siblings only spoke favorably about the experience. Maybe because of the era and immigrant status they were born into they were forced to have real relationships with one another, none of that fighting over the Wii (sp) for them. So I disagree with anecdoatal evidence on my side. You can definitely be part of a huge family and have a good childhood.
They were wily jews fresh of the ship so maybe that explains it. We are at the the top of the bell curve after all...

Different era. Not enough entertainment options. Not as much education (in general).
My mother is one of nine...they all hate each other. The cousins are cool but the aunts/uncles all hate each other. Just one generation later, a few more options and everyone hates each other.

Black Happy
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 672 | Offline
Joined: Dec 17, 2007

Surreal wrote:We're going to have to start polluting Mars or maybe shoot the waste into the sun and vaporize it. (Is that feasible? I may have just solved all our recycling challenges!)
What do you think folks?

I think Tomlin is more retarded than Whoopie.

Fourdoor
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 406 | Offline
Joined: Dec 18, 2007

absolut_dre wrote:4 is the limit. Any more than that you are being selfish in trying to spread your genetics or in a non philosophical/population genetics point having sex without contraception. It is impossible to give the attention, nourishment and knowledge to 18 kids so that they can grow up and be productive members of society. If you are tying to crap out kids for labor purposes that's one thing, but in addition to lack of natural resources, a majority of them will feel some abandonment at one point in their lives and it isn't fair to them to have to share affection for their parents with 17 siblings.

You are forgetting that kids grow up.
If you have a new child ever two years, by the time you get to number 9, number 1 is moving out of the house either getting a job or going off to University level education.
As kids get older, they help with the taking care of the younger kids, and by the time they move out of the house, and start their own family they have 6 years of experiance in raising children.
I am youngest of 7 kids myself, and my oldest brother and oldest sister were out of the house on their own befor I was born, and the next two in line were out of the house before I went to kindergarden.... on a social scale, they are more like uncles or aunts in relation to me than they are siblings.
I am NOT advocating having huge familys here... I will most likely have two or three myself.... not my own baseball team.
Keith

4k78
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,529 | Offline
Joined: Dec 17, 2007

The number of kids should depend on the couple and how it will effect society. Some families shouldn't have any, while I've known families with 8 children who didn't use any public assistance, etc. Just having a certain number be the max is very short sighted.

absolut_dre
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 1,430 | Offline
Joined: Mar 8, 2007

Fourdoor wrote:You are forgetting that kids grow up.
If you have a new child ever two years, by the time you get to number 9, number 1 is moving out of the house either getting a job or going off to University level education.
As kids get older, they help with the taking care of the younger kids, and by the time they move out of the house, and start their own family they have 6 years of experiance in raising children.
I am youngest of 7 kids myself, and my oldest brother and oldest sister were out of the house on their own befor I was born, and the next two in line were out of the house before I went to kindergarden.... on a social scale, they are more like uncles or aunts in relation to me than they are siblings.
I am NOT advocating having huge familys here... I will most likely have two or three myself.... not my own baseball team.
Keith

If they are spread out as you set in your example, then the mother would be getting pregnant past the age of 35 guaranteed, which in itself has hazards for both the mother and the child. People who tend to do this thought don't spread them out as you suggested, but instead have kids back to back to back to back to back to back to back, etc.
Plus using your children as 3rd, 4th and 5th parents in itself is a form of abuse, which again proves my theory correct in stating that 2 parents alone cannot do the job.
nienawidzę was

ebolarama
User avatar
intentionally bad ass wiper
 
Rank: User
Posts: 9,667 | Offline
Joined: Jul 1, 2007

absolut_dre wrote:If they are spread out as you set in your example, then the mother would be getting pregnant past the age of 35 guaranteed, which in itself has hazards for both the mother and the child. People who tend to do this thought don't spread them out as you suggested, but instead have kids back to back to back to back to back to back to back, etc.
Plus using your children as 3rd, 4th and 5th parents in itself is a form of abuse, which again proves my theory correct in stating that 2 parents alone cannot do the job.

One of my friends is 1 of 12 children... his mom had a kid once every 2 years for 24 years. The boys are all drug addicts (except for my friend) and the girls are all knocked up by 17. What's the problem??

Hollywood
User avatar
....chubby, fat face, and B cups
 
Rank: User
Posts: 48,060 | Offline
Joined: Jul 28, 2008

ebolarama wrote:What if you have 4 girls?? You're allowed to keep going until you get a least one boy, right??

No dummy, you don't need to wait like that. Just as soon as you find out the sex, just abort if it is a girl then try again
SharonNeedles wrote:I'm with Jewdo on this one

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron