Duggar is Welsh for Sociopath

cheeba · Post by **cheeba** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:13 am

I don't think birth per capita is much of a measure. Is it worse for someone in Africa to have 10 kids than for someone in America to have 2 kids, when those 2 American kids will likely consume far more resources over their lifetime than those 10 African kids? A better metric would be resources consumed per birth.

Edit - Screw you silverjon and noxiousdog!

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:15 am

Trent Steel wrote: If they can fully support each other and are upstanding people, more power to Jim Bob and Michelle.

You think they make their own gasoline and electricity?

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:23 am

Chesspieceface wrote: I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.

Thank you.

Chesspieceface wrote:I don't really want a world of people minding their own ethical business, thats sort of how the holocaust started.

Someone please tell me that this is deliberate comedic irony.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:24 am

noxiousdog wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:If you want to fight the population boom, fighting the battle in industrialized nations is so far off the front lines that you're never going to make any progress.
Now multiply those numbers by energy consumption.

and divide by energy production

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:29 am

Moliere wrote:and divide by energy production

Don't you mean energy extraction?

Matrix aside, people don't really produce much in the way of energy.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:36 am

Moliere wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:If you want to fight the population boom, fighting the battle in industrialized nations is so far off the front lines that you're never going to make any progress.
Now multiply those numbers by energy consumption.
and divide by energy production

If you subtract imports, I believe you'll wind up with a negative number

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:34 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:If you want to fight the population boom, fighting the battle in industrialized nations is so far off the front lines that you're never going to make any progress.
Now multiply those numbers by energy consumption.

Bingo again. We're already locusts on this planet. Increasing the number of people in North America consumes 10 times (or more) the resources of the same number of people in 3rd world countries.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:36 pm

cheeba wrote:I don't think birth per capita is much of a measure. Is it worse for someone in Africa to have 10 kids than for someone in America to have 2 kids, when those 2 American kids will likely consume far more resources over their lifetime than those 10 African kids? A better metric would be resources consumed per birth.

Edit - Screw you silverjon and noxiousdog!

Er, and screw you too! I guess I should read ALL posts before piling on with a "me too!"

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:41 pm

The Meal wrote:Maybe they'd feel guilty about how they were raising their children if they "only" had five or six. I've roomed with a (really wonderful) guy who had 12 brothers and sisters, and growing up there was a family with 12 kids two doors down. There kids were also really well behaved and joyful people. I'm sure it's possible to raise your own football team and end up with some bad apples in the group, but my (anecdotal) direct experiences with this situation is 100% the opposite.

I'm sure my viewpoint is colored by my anecdotal experiences as well. My friend in college came from a huge household, and he was pretty bitter about his experiences. I don't doubt that it is possible to raise 19 well adjusted children, I just think the odds tend to decrease the more the children outnumber the parents.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:57 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Trent Steel wrote: If they can fully support each other and are upstanding people, more power to Jim Bob and Michelle.
You think they make their own gasoline and electricity?

Who cares? As long as they have the means to get by within the bounds established by our system, who am I to judge?

We need to stop worrying about what people are actually doing as opposed to how they're getting away with it.

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:08 pm

gbasden wrote:I just think the odds tend to decrease the more the children outnumber the parents.

I think if you did actual research, you'd find the exact opposite. I've known a great many people from large families, and the children generally seem to become better adjusted adults than children from small families. This may be a case of "me seeing what it is that supports my claim", but out of six families with greater than 10 children (one of which is in my immediate extended family), I cannot recollect one "bad apple" in the bunch. From my immediate extended family, my mother's oldest sister has 12 children... 1 entrepreneur, 2 MDs, 3 lawyers, and 2 engineers (both MSEE)... two of the lawyers are now professors at ivy league colleges. I've lost count of the grandkids and great grandkids that extend from this bunch, but I do know that there are 2 Westpoint grads amongst them now.

YMMV...

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:16 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:Now I don't understand the question. Are you comparing being black to being a member of a particular religious sect? The are "black" people who's spoken languages don't even have a word for "black person". There are not christian sectarians who do not know the common name of their own sect.

Skin color is comparable to religion in this respect: there is a history of people who think folks ought not reproduce based upon both. You keep venerable company.

Racial Intolerance for its own sake has no practical value in this society AFAICT. Intellectual Religious Intolerance has some merit in my opinion. Religions are philosophies and are subject to analysis and scrutiny.

Of course they are. As are the people analyzing and scrutinizing them.

Say you were choosing whether to be a Baptist or a Mormon. Objectively speaking Mormonism is at least by an order of magnitude a more ludicrous philosophy than generalized christianity. Should that just be ignored in the name of 'tolerance'? Should it not be pointed out which faiths make some sense and which make no sense at all? Or should we just all be 'tolerant' and act is if all quackery is equally dangerous?

I think you mean something different by "objectively speaking" than other people do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ignored." There is no law preventing you from criticizing people based on their religion. Similarly, there is no law against me calling you out for it and pointing out that your attitude has scary historical echoes. That's the appropriate more speech remedy for bigot speech.

I apparently exist on the continuum of dangerous quackery. I attend church, and in fact serve a minor church office. Can you articulate how I am a danger to society? Challenge: see if you can do it without using language that religious people use to explain how gays or feminists are dangers to society.

So yes it disturbs me that many intelligent, affluent, and socially conscious people are opting to adopt or limit reproduction while whackjobs pick up the slack.

The notion that affluent people pass on better DNA that poor people is, well, curious -- though it's not new, certainly. So is the implication that social consciousness is passed on genetically or at least reliably transmitted through parenting (pop quiz: how many people here share the religious and political views of their parents?) Preferring reproduction by the "socially conscious," however, is not new -- it's simply another new expression of old eugenicist ideas.

Certainly intelligence is associated with genetics. Do you have a specific basis to believe that the Duggars are of poor intelligence, other than believing that (1) people who have more children than you approve of must be of inferior intelligence, and (2) people who have religious views you don't like are less intelligent than you?

(By the way, I have religious views you no doubt pin upon the continuum of silliness. That probably makes me less intelligent than you, right? Somehow I've managed to struggle by. I even use utensils most of the time. I can only pray to my moon-man god that your unearthly intellect will not blast my mind away in this thread.)

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:22 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.

Says you now. What do you expect will be achieved by doing so?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:25 pm

- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Having 19 children is something I think displays a lack of "enlightenment" but to each their own. Have at it. Most people who come from large families have a great sense of family. They are deeply involved in family life, have family roles, and take care of each other.

OTOH if I were in charge, I'd begin sterilizing some people and would be the arbiter of passing on genes. Those choices wouldn't be based on large existing families though. It's always a good thing I'm not in charge.

The Meal wrote:In that sentence fascinating is a weasel-word. Tell OO how you really feel about population growth restriction in the US.

Hell yeah, it is. I like weasel words. They are interesting.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:31 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:I apparently exist on the continuum of dangerous quackery.

Mr. Fed wrote:I have religious views you no doubt pin upon the continuum of silliness.

Can you please pick a continuum and stick to it? If I was picking for you it would definitely be "Dangerous Quackery".

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:33 pm

Trent Steel wrote: Who cares? As long as they have the means to get by within the bounds established by our system, who am I to judge?

We need to stop worrying about what people are actually doing as opposed to how they're getting away with it.

How do you change the 'getting away with it' part by not caring?

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:35 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Trent Steel wrote: Who cares? As long as they have the means to get by within the bounds established by our system, who am I to judge?

We need to stop worrying about what people are actually doing as opposed to how they're getting away with it.
How do you change the 'getting away with it' part by not caring?

By caring about the cause and not the effect.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:39 pm

First you say this

RLMullen wrote:I cannot recollect one "bad apple" in the bunch

then this???

... 3 lawyers

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:42 pm

Trent Steel wrote: By caring about the cause and not the effect.

If you come up with a good idea I'm all ears.

Trent Steel · Post by **Trent Steel** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:52 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
Trent Steel wrote: By caring about the cause and not the effect.
If you come up with a good idea I'm all ears.

Indeed.

farley2k · Post by **farley2k** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:17 pm

I do wonder if some sociologist has done a study comparing large families to small ones. Things like economic status, perceived happiness, etc.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:38 pm

farley2k wrote:I do wonder if some sociologist has done a study comparing large families to small ones. Things like economic status, perceived happiness, etc.

Yes, they have. Here are two examples.

When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and Children's Educational Performance

Family Size and the Quality of Children

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:28 pm

RLMullen wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote: I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.
Thank you.

Chesspieceface wrote:I don't really want a world of people minding their own ethical business, thats sort of how the holocaust started.
Someone please tell me that this is deliberate comedic irony.

Dude... go find someone else to piss off, I hear RM9 has recovered. Either have a discussion or don't.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:48 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:Skin color is comparable to religion in this respect: there is a history of people who think folks ought not reproduce based upon both. You keep venerable company.

Please, that's really reaching. You know perfectly well this has nothing to do with racism or hate. I don't think I ever said I wanted to dictate who could breed or not, I think it was actually you who said that I wanted that. All I really said was fuck the Duggars and well I still basically feel that way. ND put it best, I just think these people are being blatantly selfish and destructive.

I think you mean something different by "objectively speaking" than other people do.

Nope. Religion 'A' believes its messiah will return some day. Religion 'B' believes the same messiah will return at a very specific time and place in the future. Assuming messiah appearances are extremely unlikely, Religion B is objectively more ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ignored." There is no law preventing you from criticizing people based on their religion. Similarly, there is no law against me calling you out for it and pointing out that your attitude has scary historical echoes. That's the appropriate more speech remedy for bigot speech.

I apparently exist on the continuum of dangerous quackery. I attend church, and in fact serve a minor church office. Can you articulate how I am a danger to society? Challenge: see if you can do it without using language that religious people use to explain how gays or feminists are dangers to society.

Ok man you are getting carried away here. First of all, this thread was never an assault on christianity or any particular religion. I just thought it was just this family who were assholes, it was Smoove that led me to water. I also have been very careful not to generalize about 'religious people' or to discuss the reasonableness of faith. I've stayed on this side of the line, deliberately. I have not said here that churchgoers are a danger to society. All I've said is that people in industrialized nations who reproduce unchecked are assholes, and if their reason for doing it is adherence to a religious sect then fuck them and that sect. Not because it is any particular persuasion/denomination of sect but because of this whole aggressive birthing thing.

The notion that affluent people pass on better DNA that poor people is, well, curious -- though it's not new, certainly. So is the implication that social consciousness is passed on genetically or at least reliably transmitted through parenting (pop quiz: how many people here share the religious and political views of their parents?) Preferring reproduction by the "socially conscious," however, is not new -- it's simply another new expression of old eugenicist ideas.

Certainly intelligence is associated with genetics. Do you have a specific basis to believe that the Duggars are of poor intelligence, other than believing that (1) people who have more children than you approve of must be of inferior intelligence, and (2) people who have religious views you don't like are less intelligent than you?

See I never said any of that. I think that the educated, affluent and socially conscious are more likely to raise children who share those values, that would be a good thing. This isn't about DNA, its about society. I don't like the idea of a future society where well-educated thinkers are the exception to the rule of cloistered homeschooled zealots.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:49 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:
Dude... go find someone else to piss off, I hear RM9 has recovered. Either have a discussion or don't.

That's right! Don't criticize or complain or point out that someone's viewpoint is offensive! That's not appropriate message-board behavior! Sit quietly, and receive the wisdom!

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:54 pm

Chesspieceface wrote: See I never said any of that.

You say a lot of things that you subsequently retreat from when someone calls you on it. People can read this thread and make up their own minds.

Edit: But just so we're clear:

You know perfectly well this has nothing to do with racism or hate. I don't think I ever said I wanted to dictate who could breed or not, I think it was actually you who said that I wanted that. All I really said was fuck the Duggars and well I still basically feel that way.

Awesome.

More non-hate:

Duggar is Welsh for Sociopath

Seriously, fuck these people.

Even scarier, well fuck that whole sect.

but idiots like this will flood the gene pool, its bad for America first.

do not want these zealots having as many zealot children as possible who will go on and have as many zealot children as they can ad infinitum. I don't think their genes are inferior (though I wouldn't be surprised, don't the QF's have to start inbreeding at some point?), but I think their ideas are inferior.

Intellectual Religious Intolerance has some merit in my opinion.

Or should we just all be 'tolerant' and act is if all quackery is equally dangerous?

So yes it disturbs me that many intelligent, affluent, and socially conscious people are opting to adopt or limit reproduction while whackjobs pick up the slack.

First of all, this thread was never an assault on christianity or any particular religion.

If you want to be a bigot, be a bigot. But don't be a coward too. Be the best bigot you can be. Be a proud bigot!

RLMullen · Post by **RLMullen** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:04 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:
RLMullen wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote: I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.
Thank you.

Chesspieceface wrote:I don't really want a world of people minding their own ethical business, thats sort of how the holocaust started.
Someone please tell me that this is deliberate comedic irony.
Dude... go find someone else to piss off, I hear RM9 has recovered. Either have a discussion or don't.

Why are you pissed? I simply thanked you for not breeding.

I do not want you zealots having as many zealot children as possible who will go on and have as many zealot children as they can ad infinitum. I don't think your genes are inferior (though I wouldn't be surprised, don't the Intellectual Elites have to start inbreeding at some point?), but I think your ideas are inferior. If any of your kids were to have kids then an intellectual elitist asshole couple could spawn a great many people in three generations, great!

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:04 pm

Trent Steel wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote:I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.
Says you now. What do you expect will be achieved by doing so?

Well for starters I don't want to care for a child, and I've never really liked them...
I am not a fan of my bloodline or of my particular apparently genetic disorders...
My idea of marriage involves separate apartments, and I'm 34 already...
I really don't care for existing, I don't want to inflict that on anyone else.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:11 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:
Trent Steel wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote:I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose.
Says you now. What do you expect will be achieved by doing so?
Well for starters I don't want to care for a child, and I've never really liked them...
I am not a fan of my bloodline or of my particular apparently genetic disorders...
My idea of marriage involves separate apartments, and I'm 34 already...
I really don't care for existing, I don't want to inflict that on anyone else.

It sounds more like you have some depression and possibly self-hate issues. I honestly recommend seeking some help for that.

Beyond that please continue the discussion and do your best to validate to us your opinions. I like when someone i disagree with actually tries to change my mind rather than yelling at me and telling me i'm wrong and should be punched in the nuts for not agreeing.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:18 pm

Mr. Fed wrote: You say a lot of things that you subsequently retreat from when someone calls you on it. People can read this thread and make up their own minds.

I'm not backpedaling at all I'm trying to deccelerate the shitstorm. To keep the discussion civil and interesting. But since you went full cylinder out of the gate I was caught a bit off guard.

If you want to be a bigot, be a bigot. But don't be a coward too. Be the best bigot you can be. Be a proud bigot!

You can do better than that, come on really dig deep. I'm such a coward that I post my unpopular opinions and then take the time to try and field all of the flak I get. I am intolerant of religious fanaticism of any kind, including atheistic fanaticism. I believe that it is always to some extent dangerous and harmful to people, I also see that there are some distinct benefits to casual religiosity. My aim is compassion, you just don't want my brand. Don't slander me please, I can do that fine all by myself.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:23 pm

Chesspieceface wrote: To keep the discussion civil and interesting.

See list of quotes above.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:44 pm

This thread is like a police officer tasing a 76-year old tractor driver in a parade.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:44 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:If you want to be a bigot, be a bigot. But don't be a coward too. Be the best bigot you can be. Be a proud bigot!

Wait, so you're ok with bigots but it's cowards you don't like?

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:45 pm

Stress of evacs + bugaboo =

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:48 pm

Enough wrote:Stress of evacs + bugaboo =

Complete agreement.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:18 pm

Moliere wrote:
farley2k wrote:I do wonder if some sociologist has done a study comparing large families to small ones. Things like economic status, perceived happiness, etc.
Yes, they have. Here are two examples.

When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and Children's Educational Performance

Family Size and the Quality of Children

The summary of the first article really sums up the general discomfort I have about the ideas of really large families...

Although the inverse relationship between the number of siblings and children's educational performance has been well established, explanations for this relationship remail primitive. One explanation, resource dilation, posits that parents have finite levels of resources (time, energy, money, etc) and that these resources are diluted among children as sibship size increases. I provide a more rigorous investigation of the dilation model than previous studies, testing its implications with a sample of 24,599 eighth graders from the 1988 National Education Longitudinal Study. My analyses support the resource dilution model in three ways. First, the availability of parental resources decreases as the number of siblings increases, net of controls. The functional form of this relationship is not always linear, however, and depends on the whether the resource is interpersonal or economic. Second, parental resources explain most or all of the inverse relationship between sibship size and educational outcomes. Finally, interactions between sibship size and parental resources support the dilution model as children benefit less from certain parental resouces when they have many versus few siblings.

I hate to distract from the interesting eugenics argument, but I thought this was worth discussing. Hopefully this doesn't put me in the bigot camp.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:27 pm

gbasden wrote:Hopefully this doesn't put me in the bigot camp.

Throw in a few "fuck group X" and I'll give it some thought.

It would be interesting to inquire (1) first whether level of parent education is correlated with level of child school performance, and then (2) how parent education level is correlated with number of children. It is my impression that number of children declines statistically with level of education, which might have some impact on performance.

GuidoTKP · Post by **GuidoTKP** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:31 pm

Remember:

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:49 pm

Mr. Fed wrote:
gbasden wrote:Hopefully this doesn't put me in the bigot camp.
It would be interesting to inquire (1) first whether level of parent education is correlated with level of child school performance, and then (2) how parent education level is correlated with number of children. It is my impression that number of children declines statistically with level of education, which might have some impact on performance.

I'd be interested to know this as well, but those links only go to summaries. Does anyone happen to have access to the full papers?

The article does state that:

The inverse relationship between the number of siblings and educational outcomes is one of the most consistent findings in the status attainment literature

I wish I could see the full article. It's certainly possible that the correlation you mention is the root cause behind it, but the first page of the paper seems to point to something else.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:55 pm

Much Ado about Siblings: Change Models, Sibship Size, and Intellectual Development

The Educational Benefits of Being Spaced Out: Sibship Density and Educational Progress

test your google-fu at Google Scholar to see if there are full studies available without having to purchase them.