Duggar is Welsh for Sociopath

[Chesspieceface]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/0 ... index.html" target="_blank

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar of Tonitown, Arkansas, who have 18 children and one grandchild on the way, are expecting a new addition to their household -- baby No. 19 will arrive in the spring.

...

"I love all of this, it is so fun," says Michelle. "Anna and I will have babies five months apart. My mother and my sister were pregnant at the same time and it was really wonderful. The kids were really close and still are. I have a nephew who grew up with me, we're just three months apart."

Seriously, fuck these people.

[Smoove_B]

The password is...Quiverfull.

[Mr. Fed]

What is the precise number of kids that people are allowed to have before becoming sociopaths in your mind?

[Chesspieceface]

The password is...Quiverfull.

Even scarier, well fuck that whole sect.

What is the precise number of kids that people are allowed to have before becoming sociopaths in your mind?

First of all no one can have any kids in my mind, that is strictly forbidden and probably dangerous, what with all the stray ideas flying around.

I find it very disturbing that people like myself and yourself will likely not pass on our genes, but idiots like this will flood the gene pool, its bad for America first. Then obviously I have my Quinnian leanings and I do take overpopulation to be 'real-ish'. I don't have a prescription in general I think the magic number is indeed two, to replace the lives of the parents. I don't think this is something that needs to be governed; I just think people should care about things bigger than how many baby's they can pump out before wife A's uterus collapses. Just think how much good these folks could do running an orphanage instead of infecting Arkansas with their seed.

[cheeba]

What is the precise number of kids that people are allowed to have before becoming sociopaths in your mind?

If you ask me that question, the answer is 1.

[Mr. Fed]

I find it very disturbing that people like myself and yourself will likely not pass on our genes, but idiots like this will flood the gene pool, its bad for America first.

Do you have any specific evidence that any of their children are mentally or physically inferior? Or are you simply saying you don't like people with religious beliefs you disdain to reproduce, or to reproduce to what you consider to be an excess?

Then obviously I have my Quinnian leanings and I do take overpopulation to be 'real-ish'.

Is the United States of America contributing to world overpopulation? Where do we stand in terms of birth rate in the world?

Are Quiverfull people having a statistically noticeable impact on birth rate or population?

How many posts saying "fuck you" to, say, Africans have you posted recently?

I don't have a prescription in general I think the magic number is indeed two, to replace the lives of the parents.

Okay. But is that the number above which we become sociopaths? We have three kids. Are we full-blown sociopaths, or just approaching sociopathy? About my partner with five kids? Should I convey a "fuck you" to him?

I don't think this is something that needs to be governed; I just think people should care about things bigger than how many baby's they can pump out before wife A's uterus collapses.

I see. Is it your position that the Duggars do not care about anything but having children?

And a question for the philosophers: how many of the Duggar children, execrable recipients of bad genes that you believe them to be, know that the word is "babies", not "baby's"? "Baby's" would only be grammatically correct if you were referring to possession, as in "That baby's education is necessary not complete, and his personality not yet developed, but at least we live in hope that he will not grow up to be a demi-literate pseudo-eugenicist douchestain."

Just think how much good these folks could do running an orphanage instead of infecting Arkansas with their seed.

So you think they are undesirable people whose genes should not be passed along, but you want them to take care of orphaned children?

[Jag]

So what are we calling this: Fed-pwnd or just Fwnd?

[pr0ner]

And a question for the philosophers: how many of the Duggar children, execrable recipients of bad genes that you believe them to be, know that the word is "babies", not "baby's"? "Baby's" would only be grammatically correct if you were referring to possession, as in "That baby's education is necessary not complete, and his personality not yet developed, but at least we live in hope that he will not grow up to be a demi-literate pseudo-eugenicist douchestain."

[Chesspieceface]

Wow, the treatment.

Yes. I 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. If these 19 kids each have 19 more kids then this backwoods asshole couple can spawn 400 people in three generations, great!

Not going to bite on Africans. This is a 'fuck you' for my countrymen who seem to value the words of clerics so very highly.

As for 'possessing and caring' for kids as a meaning of 'having' kids you are fine. I think people should adopt as many as they can support if thats what they want. But yes I think a couple birthing 5 of their own kids is fairly repugnant (hard to plan for twins though). You can tell your partner to fuck himself if you want but it probably won't work out well for either of us.

It's not my position that they care about nothing but birthing, but their press coverage, tv show, and religious movement seem to line up quite nicely. I mean they probably care about shelter and food, and I'd bet they are huge "Pro-Life"rs. But yes I am saying that these people seem to feel they are wasting their lives if they don't spawn as much as they can.

Turning a grammar niggle into a backhanded insult is a little beneath you isn't Fed?

I don't question these people's ability to care for said children. I'm sure they are quite good if they've kept 18 alive. I actually would not want them to run an orphanage simply because I strongly object to the doctrine they would be compassionately dispensing. It was an example, and if these people had adopted 16 of those kids there would be no point of argument.

[Mr. Fed]

Yes. I 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. If these 19 kids each have 19 more kids then this backwoods asshole couple can spawn 400 people in three generations, great!

So you're comfortable in deciding who should reproduce depending on whether or not you like their religious beliefs?

As for 'possessing and caring' for kids as a meaning of 'having' kids you are fine.

That's mighty white of you.

But yes I am saying that these people seem to feel they are wasting their lives if they don't spawn as much as they can.

Is mind-reading a dominant or recessive genetic trait?

Turning a grammar niggle into a backhanded insult is a little beneath you isn't Fed?

No, I think that if someone crows about their own genetic superiority and the inferiority of others and makes such a mistake in the course of doing so, Mother Teresa would probably take that shot. It's a gimme.

You find their ideas repugnant. I find yours repugnant.

[Chesspieceface]

I know you have a big hot button for religious intolerance. But is there no safe distance to criticize from? It would be repugnant if I were protesting their home or church. It would be repugnant if I were writing counter propaganda to suppress that movement. It would be repugnant if I were lobbying for legislative changes to enforce religious controls.

So where does voicing an opinion on an internet message board really lie on that spectrum? Repugnant, really?

These people had a front page CNN article today containing no criticism or objectivity about them, and no section for comments. I find it repugnant that the media wants to use this as a feelgood story while avoiding all of the painfully obvious realities about it.

The thing is Fed I don't think you really disagree that much you just hate my choice of words. Maybe you actually disagree that much, but in the past when we've reached this bridge I generally feel you simply don't care for my tone or style. That's fine, I still think you are a nice guy. Seeing as this is the only subject I've really seen you go apeshit about, I'll just leave it be.

Oh and 'Mother Teresa would do it', is as shite a comparison as there ever was. Unless you are trying to justify helping very sick people quietly starve to death.

[Mr. Fed]

I know you have a big hot button for religious intolerance. But is there no safe distance to criticize from? It would be repugnant if I were protesting their home or church. It would be repugnant if I were writing counter propaganda to suppress that movement. It would be repugnant if I were lobbying for legislative changes to enforce religious controls.

So where does voicing an opinion on an internet message board really lie on that spectrum? Repugnant, really?

I don't understand the question. The sentiment, for instance, that blacks should not reproduce because they are bad for America is ugly. It's ugly whether said to the face of the blacks or on a message board. I would criticize it in either case.

How is the sentiment that people whose religion you don't like shouldn't reproduce less ugly because it is expressed here?

Are you suggesting that this message board should be a safe place to express such thoughts without fear of criticism?

Now that I think about it, I recall you expressing such sentiments before here -- that criticizing you on this board is somehow illegitimate and a breakdown of the sort of reasoned discourse you offer. Is that your position?

The thing is Fed I don't think you really disagree that much you just hate my choice of words.

Having 19 kids is not something I would choose. I have doubts about whether parents can provide that many kids with a quality upbringing. But suggesting that they are sociopaths, and saying "Fuck them," annoys me. It annoys me even more when you bring ME into it by saying that you and I should spread our DNA but but the Duggars. Leave me the fuck out of your eugenicist fantasies, please.

[gbasden]

Having 19 kids is not something I would choose. I have doubts about whether parents can provide that many kids with a quality upbringing.

That's my concern. In my opinion, 2 adults cannot provide a decent childhood for 19 children. No single child can get any significant parental attention without further impacting the slight amount of time they can give the others.

It is their right to have as many children as they want. I think it is wrong of the media to glorify the people who make (in my opinion) poor choices, though. I won't watch the train wreck that is Jon and Kate +8 because I don't want to support that media glamorization. Well, and also because that much concentrated stupid makes my head ache.

I'm not religious, so maybe I just don't understand. Should they get a free pass on producing so many children because they believe that it is God's will?

[Chesspieceface]

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.

I don't think I am inscrutable nor am I trying to dictate who can/should breed. I just think these people and their sect should not be getting positive press.

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.

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 wasn't really bringing you into anything, sorry for the implication if you can call it that. I am simply declining to reproduce or raise children, I am eliminating my gene combo on purpose. 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.

[Kraken]

If they love them and can provide reasonably well for them, what business is it of yours? I, for one, value their future Social Security contributions. Somebody's got to pay that $9 trillion.

Having 19 kids is not something I would choose. I have doubts about whether parents can provide that many kids with a quality upbringing.

That's my concern. In my opinion, 2 adults cannot provide a decent childhood for 19 children.

My dad was the youngest of 11. He was raised mostly by his eldest sister, but they were part of a big extended clan. He was not deprived of adult attention.

[Chesspieceface]

If they love them and can provide reasonably well for them, what business is it of yours?

Ah yes the MYOB philosophy of social engineering. I was in Rite Aid last year and the woman in front of me was holding up the line and not advancing because she was reading a magazine in line. When she finally got to the front she puts the magazine back on the rack and buys some thingy. As she sets down the magazine, I mutter "Oh that's great now don't buy it, you know that's stealing". She turns around and her whole defense was a very hostile "What business is it of yours?"... I didn't answer, and I don't generally say shit like that anymore, but the truth is that if a person who shops at the same store as you steals, it is your business. It will impact your life by affecting the viability of that business and by affecting the relative cost of goods in that store.

So yeah someone having 19 kids in Arkansas is my business, especially if they want to put themselves on TV as if they were the greatest family ever; and extra specially if they belong to a large movement of people doing the same thing. This is not an open system, I choose to not eat meat, the effect of my choice is all but completely negated by the majority of people who don't make that choice. I guess I should mind my own business about nonrenewable resource consumption, and the industrialized cruelty of feed lots?

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

[gbasden]

If they love them and can provide reasonably well for them, what business is it of yours? I, for one, value their future Social Security contributions. Somebody's got to pay that $9 trillion.

Having 19 kids is not something I would choose. I have doubts about whether parents can provide that many kids with a quality upbringing.

That's my concern. In my opinion, 2 adults cannot provide a decent childhood for 19 children.

My dad was the youngest of 11. He was raised mostly by his eldest sister, but they were part of a big extended clan. He was not deprived of adult attention.

Do you think that the amount of adult attention given to a child is increased or decreased when then have more children, in general? Sure, very large families can work, but the older children often have to care for the younger children, as your Father's sister did. I personally feel that childhood should be about something more than being a surrogate parent before you are even a teenager. Conservatives are often outraged about single parent families because the children are getting shortchanged - how is two parents raising 19 children better than one parent raising 2?

Of course, as I mentioned before, this is all my opinion. I'd never make those choices myself, but others certainly have the right to as long as their children are getting adequate care. I don't have to think it's a good idea, though.

[Smoove_B]

Am I my brother's keeper?

I have a hard time separating their religious views from their reproductive ones. I mean...I don't think they'd be cranking out kids if it wasn't for their religious view. For reference, it also grinds my gears when people say they aren't trying [to get pregnant], but they're not preventing either. If you're not preventing, then you're trying -- whether you'd like to admit it or not.

If the Duggar family is 100% self-reliant, well, I guess I can't fault them for that. But they still weird me out.

[GreenGoo]

What is the precise number of kids that people are allowed to have before becoming sociopaths in your mind?

At 5 I raise an eyebrow. At 10 I would probably make disparaging comments in an attempt to be humorous as well as express my distaste. At 15 I would probably drop the humour aspect. At 20 I would start to lean towards "something is wrong with them".

[Moliere]

I was in Rite Aid last year and the woman in front of me was holding up the line and not advancing because she was reading a magazine in line. When she finally got to the front she puts the magazine back on the rack and buys some thingy. As she sets down the magazine, I mutter "Oh that's great now don't buy it, you know that's stealing".

How is browsing through the magazines while waiting in line stealing? The store still has the item to sell to another customer. That's like saying you can't go into a book store and browse the books. As soon as you open the cover you have to buy it or be arrested for stealing.

[Chesspieceface]

I was in Rite Aid last year and the woman in front of me was holding up the line and not advancing because she was reading a magazine in line. When she finally got to the front she puts the magazine back on the rack and buys some thingy. As she sets down the magazine, I mutter "Oh that's great now don't buy it, you know that's stealing".

How is browsing through the magazines while waiting in line stealing? The store still has the item to sell to another customer. That's like saying you can't go into a book store and browse the books. As soon as you open the cover you have to buy it or be arrested for stealing.

(Getting pretty OT)

I agree that there is some practical confusion over it, and chains like "Barnes & Noble" with their 'come and hangout all day' policies blurred the line, and now with internet its almost impossible to tell.

I can tell you that traditionally in both drugstores/markets and bookstores this behavior has been considered shrinkage, and I can promise that the magazine rack is not placed there for your entertainment while you wait (get many laughs from the candy, batteries or chewing tobaccos on those racks?) Most people who purchase books and magazines want 'new' copies. Want a harder thought experiment?

Is it theft to buy books that you need for a class from a retail outlet and return them after reading them cover to cover?

[Moliere]

Is it theft to buy books that you need for a class from a retail outlet and return them after reading them cover to cover?

Not if the store has a policy of buying used books.

Is it theft to buy an air conditioner with a 90 day return policy knowing in advance that you're going to return it within 90 days once the hottest summer months have passed?

[Chesspieceface]

Is it theft to buy books that you need for a class from a retail outlet and return them after reading them cover to cover?

Not if the store has a policy of buying used books.

Is it theft to buy an air conditioner with a 90 day return policy knowing in advance that you're going to return it within 90 days once the hottest summer months have passed?

The store I was talking about had to take the books as returned 'new'. Since it had a return policy intended for gift-givers and such.

And I never used that air conditioner. It was in fact returned unused. Don't get me started either.

[silverjon]

Is it theft to buy books that you need for a class from a retail outlet and return them after reading them cover to cover?

Not if the store has a policy of buying used books.

The store I was talking about had to take the books as returned 'new'. Since it had a return policy intended for gift-givers and such.

Payout on used books is considerably less than cover price, nor are they resold as new merchandise. Thus, the transaction doesn't particularly relate to the original purchase.

I would say there is a marked difference between browsing a magazine long enough to determine you don't wish to buy it, and reading it specifically to avoid buying it. And if it's unsellably mangled, is it any different than trying to hide something you've broken to avoid paying for it?

What was the original subject? Oh yeah... I question their judgment, but it's not up to me to decide how many kids anybody has except me.

[Kraken]

If they love them and can provide reasonably well for them, what business is it of yours?

Ah yes the MYOB philosophy of social engineering.

I don't have a philosophy of social engineering. Having or not having children is a fundamentally individual decision...maybe the most fundamental of all.

the older children often have to care for the younger children, as your Father's sister did. I personally feel that childhood should be about something more than being a surrogate parent before you are even a teenager.

You're free to feel that way, and people with a different idea of family roles can go their own way. I've chosen zero children, but I respect somebody else's right to chose 19.

[Arcanis]

I would just like to point out that they provide for all of the needs of their children and aren't in debt. As to the older kids raising the younger ones, i was practically raised by my sister and we were only 4 kids. It is a matter of being a family unit and working together. As long as the kids aren't feeling short changed and they aren't taking tax money to subsidize their having an entire sports team then who the hell am i to complain about their life.

i can't tolerate intolerant people.

[gbasden]

i can't tolerate intolerant people.

I'm pretty sure I said that they have the right to have as many children as they want. I'm also free to think it's a stupid idea and that they are being unfair to their children.

My view of parenting is that I need to do what is best for my child or children. At what point does my deciding to have another child stop being best for the ones I have? I'd say that in my opinion, after 5 or 6 you have stopped worrying about what is best for your kids and are firmly on the path of what doing what you want regardless of the consequences.

[The Meal]

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.

Yes, there's less 1-on-1 time with mom and dad, but is that really such a downside? There's also more social bonding time, learning-to-share or work-through-differences time, more just-do-your-part-so-that-mom-and-dad-aren't-overwhelmed experiences, etc. It's different than growing up in a household where mom and dad can run the man-to-man-defense, but I don't know that it's necessarily worse off for the kids.

[noxiousdog]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

[Moliere]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

What form of restraining are you in favor of?

[The Meal]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

fascinating - exciting?
fascinating - disappointing?
fascinating - perplexing?
fascinating - encouraging?

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

[noxiousdog]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

What form of restraining are you in favor of?

Instilling a sense of personal responsibility.

[noxiousdog]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

fascinating - exciting?
fascinating - disappointing?
fascinating - perplexing?
fascinating - encouraging?

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

Fascinating - bewildered.

Just because you don't believe that something isn't acceptable doesn't mean you believe in restricting people's freedom to choose that route.

[GreenGoo]

I find it facinating that people think unrestrained population growth is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Bingo. My objections have nothing to do with how the children are raised.

[The Meal]

Fascinating - bewildered.

Just because you don't believe that something should isn't acceptable doesn't mean you believe in restricting people's freedom to choose that route.

Gotcha, and that's a good point. My bad if I implied otherwise with my request.

[Peacedog]

"weasel-word". Nice.

[Trent Steel]

Seriously, fuck these people.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.

If your Quinnian leanings have taught you anything it's that Mother Culture has provided the nest for which these things can hatch. Individuals choosing or not choosing to have X children is not the driving factor in global overpopulation.

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

[Isgrimnur]

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.

[silverjon]

Is that taking into account infant mortality rates, or the size of the ecological footprint of an individual? 19 Americans is probably like 200 Malawians. Some people have a lot of babies because they don't really expect them to survive, and because if they don't have kids, there will be nobody to look after them when they grow old.

[noxiousdog]

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.