Duggar is Welsh for Sociopath

[GreenGoo]

I plead guilty to intolerance of intolerance.

Or, at least, to unrestrained joy in mocking intolerance (which, in my experience, is disproportionately accompanied by bad grammar. Also, mullets.)

Then actually mock the intolerance. Mocking misplaced apostrophes in homonyms is just internet douchebaggery.

In most cases, perhaps. But when the person who has persistent literacy problems is a person who has spent a thread talking about how terrible it is that low-class people breed instead of the elite like him, it's hilarious.

Ok, really Fed. Mullet jokes?

[Kraken]

[Chesspieceface]

Persistent literacy problems? Is that the best backdoor you have? Shout bigot and then mock some minor typos? Some childish shit dude.

[Rip]

If I change the title to "The Quiverfull's are bullshit assholes" will that make anyone feel better?

Well, I'm pretty sure it would give you a boner.

No naughty words in subject lines, plz.

But inability to use apostrophes correctly is still acceptable?

This forum sucks.

Edit:

suck's.

and you won't find anything that sucks better for free.

I think I feel a boner coming on!

[Mr. Fed]

[
Sigh, you win Fed. Putting fertility at risk is the same thing as not procreating apparently.

You're missing the larger point. I'm testing your proposition. Your proposition, as I understand it, is that conduct X is sociopathic if society would be harmed if everybody (or even too may people) did conduct X. I'm testing that proposition, applying it to other behaviors than the one you have chosen to focus upon, and suggesting that it is someplace in the triangle of nosy, controlling, and totalitarian -- and that it can't be right, or else all sorts of conduct you approve of is sociopathic by your own definition.

Let's take an analogy that is closer to home. Isn't American culture -- or the American style of living -- sociopathic by your definition? Wouldn't this family still be sociopaths under your definition if they had only 2 kids, but also had two cars and ate beef and went on vacations twice a year and shopped at the supermarket? After all, that conduct is not sustainable if everyone on earth attempted it.

Isn't everyone on this forum a sociopath, under your definition? Aren't you?

(You will object that not everyone on earth has the capacity to live an American lifestyle. I submit that it is precisely as likely that everyone on earth will adopt an American lifestyle as it is that everyone in America will elect to have 19 kids.)

I get that this is a touchy subject, but look at what's happening in China, which you are more aware of than anyone. How would you handle the soon to be catastrophic population explosion? Government has no power over a person's right to procreate, so...anarchy? Societal pressure that people easily ignore?

China's population grown will drop (at least compared to pre-one-child-policy levels) when it further transforms from third world to second world, rural to urban, and uneducated to educated.

Of course, all of that brings the Quinnite problems I allude to above -- 2 billion Chinese living like Americans are far more damaging to the planet than 4 billion living like current rural Chinese.

There's always going to be a tradeoff between birth rate and what we recognize as first-world status.

Can you imagine what would happen in China right now if 10% of their population had 20 fucking children?

Yes. I can also imagine what it would be like if Chinese people started pissing pure ammonium. Boy, would that smell.

Both are roughly as likely. Has there ever been a time in history when a statistically significant percentage of humans had 20 children? Do you think, just maybe, that's a function of something other than peer pressure from people who like to say "fuck" to them a lot?

Where do you draw the line? Do you bother to draw it at all? Let normal population controls take effect? Starvation, rioting, civil war, disease etc?

I think rioting would be really inefficient, unless you gave them pretty awesome weapons.

I think I would draw the line by encouraging education and economic development, which leads to lower birth rates. Or maybe encouraging stagnant culture and moral superiority does the trick; that seems to be working for the Europeans. People who are better educated and don't live or die based on the number of sons they have don't typically have lots and lots of kids. That's why America's birth rate -- and Europe's birth rate -- has gone down. That's why immigrants to first-world countries experience significant drops in birth rates within a couple of generations.

However much we would like to believe in the power of our own rhetoric, I think that setting out to be dicks to the statistical outliers who have 20 kids -- or 10 -- or 5 -- is going to have a negligible impact. Except with respect to our reputation for dickery -- and with respect to normalizing the idea of attacking unpopular belief systems.

Whether we like it or not, us or one of our future generations is going to have to answer this question. It is easy to see a future when having 20 kids is a crime punishable by jail time.

Yes. It's also possible to imagine Congress passing a law sternly warning Jessica Alba not to steal my seed in my sleep in order to raise up a race of hot little Feds. These measures would have roughly equivalent impact on actual population growth.

Look -- the Duggars get on TV so that people can gawp and gape at them and post "not a clown car" posters. How many people do you think will look at them and say, "wow, that looks great?" How many people will even be influenced to have 3 kids instead of 2?

Are the Quiverfull people close to getting a majority in Congress? I recognize that people like to sort of smush all Christians together, but is there a birth explosion in, say, evangelical Christians? (Answer: no. Google it. And in the much-vaunted studies showing that Bush won in higher-fertility states and Gore in lower-fertility states, even the Bush state average was below replacement level.)

If it's incredibly selfish and immoral to have 20+ children when population pressure already mean people will die from disease and starvation associated with overcrowding, why is it ok for 20+ children now? Uncontrolled growth until the crisis is perfectly fine?

Again, you are relying upon the "what if everyone did this" fantasy. There is zero chance that a statistically significant percentage of Americans wants to have 20 kids. There is a zero chance that a statistically significant percentage of Americans is biologically capable of doing so. The media-driven incentives to do so drop off dramatically the more such families there are. There is no chance not rooted in pure fantasy that leaving the Duggars alone will lead to a statistically significant increase in families with 20, or 10, or 5 kids. As a theory, it's rubbish. American birthrates began declining steadily in the 19th century, at least a century and a half before anyone started to push the idea that having too many kids was immoral.

Your argument is, at its base, taking an extreme improbability, extrapolating from it fancifully, and using the result to enforce conformity. I'm not worried about the fortunes of people who want to have 20 kids. I'm worried about the fortunes of people who want to have two or three. I'm worried that through your crusade against a statistical anomaly, despite you disclaiming interest in government control of fertility, you are helping to normalize the idea of it. You are also normalizing the idea that non-conformist behavior in general should be condemned if it could be socially harmful if an utterly improbable number of people did it.

[GreenGoo]

You're missing the larger point.

Let's take an analogy that is closer to home. Isn't American culture -- or the American style of living -- sociopathic by your definition? Wouldn't this family still be sociopaths under your definition if they had only 2 kids, but also had two cars and ate beef and went on vacations twice a year and shopped at the supermarket? After all, that conduct is not sustainable if everyone on earth attempted it.

Isn't everyone on this forum a sociopath, under your definition? Aren't you?

If you take the entire Earth as a single society, then yes, I would say that North America in general is consuming resources at an unsustainable rate.

Since people have pointed out that sociopath has a specific meaning and I meant it somewhat in jest anyway, maybe we can change this from sociopaths to selfish fucks.

Honestly, I'm scared shitless that China will convert over to a completely industrial, capitalistic society, following North America's trends, making the same mistakes along the way. They are already competing heavily for oil, and they are just getting started.

China's population problems already exist and don't require anyone to pump out 20 kids to cause chaos and collapse. Even if they reduced their birth rate to NA levels naturally as their population moves from rural to urban living, they are still doomed.

More later.

It probably won't surprise you that I consider people who drop litter on the ground assuming someone else will pick it up sociopaths as well.

[Mr. Fed]

China's population problems already exist and don't require anyone to pump out 20 kids to cause chaos and collapse. Even if they reduced their birth rate to NA levels naturally as their population moves from rural to urban living, they are still doomed.

In which case, there seems to be very little incentive to harangue the Duggars.

It probably won't surprise you that I consider people who drop litter on the ground assuming someone else will pick it up sociopaths as well.

I don't have a problem with that.

[silverjon]

You are also normalizing the idea that non-conformist behavior in general should be condemned if it could be socially harmful if an utterly improbable number of people did it.

Lahk dem dam hommasecshuls.

(Actually, I do feel pretty sensitive to that kind of gross generalization, being rather firmly planted on the slippery slope to the downfall of monoheteronormative marriages, and thus SOCIETY. Thank you Stanley Kurtz for showing me the error of my ways.)

[tgb]

Seriously, where I come from 'fuck those guys' doesn't mean you hate them, or that you are going to take action against them. It means "FUCK THEM". It means if they want to blatantly damage the things I hold dear, I do not care about them.

I think there's a Lenny Bruce routine about this.

There is. Unfortunately I couldn't find footage of Lenny doing it, so y'all have to settle for Dustin Hoffman

[GreenGoo]

In which case, there seems to be very little incentive to harangue the Duggars.

No one is haranguing anyone. CPF called them sociopaths. I call them selfish fucks. On an internet message board. What kind of real world impact do you think that is going to have on the lives of the Duggars?

[GuidoTKP]

In which case, there seems to be very little incentive to harangue the Duggars.

No one is haranguing anyone. CPF called them sociopaths. I call them selfish fucks. On an internet message board. What kind of real world impact do you think that is going to have on the lives of the Duggars?

ha·rangue (h-rng)
n.
1. A long pompous speech, especially one delivered before a gathering.
2. A speech or piece of writing characterized by strong feeling or expression; a tirade.

[GreenGoo]

Sounds like I'm haranguing you guys here at OO. I ask, is it haranguing someone if you have zero contact with them whatsoever?

[Mr. Fed]

Sounds like I'm haranguing you guys here at OO. I ask, is it haranguing someone if you have zero contact with them whatsoever?

See, I interpreted your comments and CPF's to suggest that it was your duty to call people sociopaths in order to fight the inclination to drown humanity in a tidal wave of babies.

I suppose you could say that is haranguing us. Though I am pretty sure no one here is on the verge of having 20 kids.

Some are probably on the verge of 2 or 3, though, and (perhaps one or two of folks here) more.

Is your purpose in calling the Duggars sociopaths -- and CPF's duty in saying "fuck you" -- to deter people on this message board from having more than [x] kids, with [x] being the number you deem acceptable, through peer pressure?

Or is it pure venting?

[GreenGoo]

Sounds like I'm haranguing you guys here at OO. I ask, is it haranguing someone if you have zero contact with them whatsoever?

See, I interpreted your comments and CPF's to suggest that it was your duty to call people sociopaths in order to fight the inclination to drown humanity in a tidal wave of babies.

I suppose you could say that is haranguing us. Though I am pretty sure no one here is on the verge of having 20 kids.

Some are probably on the verge of 2 or 3, though, and (perhaps one or two of folks here) more.

Is your purpose in calling the Duggars sociopaths -- and CPF's duty in saying "fuck you" -- to deter people on this message board from having more than [x] kids, with [x] being the number you deem acceptable, through peer pressure?

Or is it pure venting?

Well, I was trying to interpret the definition posted above and reconcile it with your statement regarding haranguing the Duggars, but I was having trouble making it work.

Before I answer your question, I'd like to ask one of my own. What percentage of the posts here (here being OO outside of the game forums) are questions looking for answers or genuine attempts to create meaningful dialogue. Versus of course, fyi posts, random opinion posts, hey take a look at this posts, stuff like that.

CPF expressed distaste for people who would produce an unusually large brood. I expressed my opinion, and told you why (which you almost completely ignored except for touching on China slightly). You are so focused on how completely wrong it is to tell people how to breed (which I agree with by the way) that you don't seem to care about the eventual consequences. Hell, Noxiousdog stepped in with the comment of how he was amazed (or some such weasel word) at all the people who think uncontrolled growth is not a problem.

Listen. Uncontrolled growth is normally brought to heel by death. Lots and lots of death. Food riots, disease, violence etc etc. Do we really want to behave like animals with no natural population control? Are we really no better than rabbits in Australia?

I would hope that people realize that we all live here together and that we have to continue to do so for a very long time. There has been a major change in attitude from the industrial revolution through the 1900's right into now. We are more and more aware of the need to reduce our ecological footprint. The public schools here are chock full of discussion on the need to reduce, reuse, recycle. And I'm not even a tree hugger. I just see that the planet is not a limitless source. I fully expect to see peak oil and then steady decline (with the potential for anarchy if we don't find a replacement) during my lifetime (I'm 40, same as you).

My ideal solution is for people to be rational and control their own propagation. As I pointed out earlier, I find 5 a questionable number in middle class NA. 20? Insanity.

If people can't be counted on to self regulate, then I feel they are being selfish fucks. My purpose on posting all this? Is simply to state my opinion and provide my reasoning for thinking they are selfish fucks.

What is your purpose for defending them? I'm sure it's a good one, and probably one I agree with (in principle).

And you constantly were focusing on 100% of families producing 20+ offspring each, because that was the extreme example I used to illustrate my point. Unlike your artist example which is simply impossible from a food production standpoint alone, the only reason that everyone doesn't produce 20+ kids is because they don't want to (and some can't afford as many children as they'd like). Ok, agreed, everyone producing 20+ kids is not happening. What percentage of families producing 20+ kids would you be comfortable with? 10%? 40%? 80%? 100% simply because no one should be able to regulate other people's reproductive choices?

The consequences of uncontrolled growth are dire. I consider 20+ kids uncontrolled growth. In this day and age when we are informed enough to know what happens when populations get too big, I feel that people who choose to produce as many children as physically possible in their lifetimes are selfish fucks. I actually find the idea mildly sickening.

Do I want to force birth control on these people or walk up to them and spit in their faces? No. Do I want to chime in when the topic pops up here on R&P, sure.

I've already mentioned that I used sociopath incorrectly and mostly in jest. I've actually said "selfish fucks" more times than sociopath, but you keep mentioning it if it keeps your outrage kindled.

[pr0ner]

I plead guilty to intolerance of intolerance.

Or, at least, to unrestrained joy in mocking intolerance (which, in my experience, is disproportionately accompanied by bad grammar. Also, mullets.)

Then actually mock the intolerance. Mocking misplaced apostrophes in homonyms is just internet douchebaggery.

In most cases, perhaps. But when the person who has persistent literacy problems is a person who has spent a thread talking about how terrible it is that low-class people breed instead of the elite like him, it's hilarious.

You'd think someone who describes himself as intelligent would always know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

[GreenGoo]

You'd think someone who describes himself as intelligent would always know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

I remember missing that one on my IQ test in the 5th grade. I got an F.

[silverjon]

Your IQ is F? That's amazing.

[gbasden]

Your IQ is F? That's amazing.

Is that in Hex?

[Brian]

You'd think someone who describes himself as intelligent would always know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

I remember missing that one on my IQ test in the 5th grade. I got an F.

A friend of mine from high school eventually became a nuclear engineer. He was the smartest guy I've ever met but he couldn't spell worth a damn. Intelligence can be measured in more ways then just proper apostrophe usage.

[RLMullen]

Since this thread is devolving into a vocabulary lesson, I'd like to propose that the official linguistic resource for OO is this:
http://www.hotforwords.com

[GreenGoo]

You'd think someone who describes himself as intelligent would always know the difference between a possessive and a plural.

I remember missing that one on my IQ test in the 5th grade. I got an F.

A friend of mine from high school eventually became a nuclear engineer. He was the smartest guy I've ever met but he couldn't spell worth a damn. Intelligence can be measured in more ways then just proper apostrophe usage.

I thought my sarcasm would have come through (given that IQ results are not graded A+, B-, F etc) to illustrate this very point. Especially since grammar and spelling are normally not a part of an IQ test.

Warlord, you should probably be quoting Mr. Fed and Pr0ner, since they are the ones making the claim that intelligence and grammar are linked.

Such serious faces around here.

[Brian]

I was indirectly quoting pr0ner via your quote instead of having to bother with editing a much larger quote. Chalk it up to laziness on my part instead of a severe case of serious face.

[Isgrimnur]

celebs.gather.com

The Duggar family of 19 Kids & Counting fame took pictures of their baby miscarried by mom Michelle Duggar last week. Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar handed out photos of their daughter's fetal corpse during the memorial service they held on Wednesday for her—their 20th child. The service took place at the Duggar's church in Arkansas.

According to a report from TMZ, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar named the little girl, who was due in April, Jubilee Shalom. At the memorial service on Wednesday, they distributed a photo of Jubilee—her tiny hands and feet on her mother's hand. Some people will likely find the photo a bit disturbing.

The photo of little Jubilee Duggar was accompanied by the following phrase: "There is no foot too small that it cannot leave an imprint on this world."

She was at five months of gestation. TMZ (which I will not link) has posted the picture.

[silverjon]

Perhaps this is unusual for this stage of development, but I know it's not uncommon for parents who experience a stillbirth to have memorial photos taken and hold a service. It's part of grieving, and acknowledging the loss.

Whatever you think of their reality-TV lifestyle, this was their child.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't begrudge them their mourning. Everyone does it differently, and even if I wouldn't do it this way, I think it's legitimate.

My wife told me that this was only their second miscarriage. That stuns me given how many pregnancies they've had, and the overall high rate of miscarriage.

[Grifman]

Perhaps this is unusual for this stage of development, but I know it's not uncommon for parents who experience a stillbirth to have memorial photos taken and hold a service. It's part of grieving, and acknowledging the loss.

Whatever you think of their reality-TV lifestyle, this was their child.

I just feel like sharing this for some reason. There are three sons in our family, me and my two brothers. But there was actually a fourth. My mother had a still born child who would have been the oldest son (instead of me). I don't know at what age in the womb he was, but they named him and buried him. His grave happens to be next to my grandparents' grave (my father's parents) which we usually go by once a year while we are at a family reunion. We went there a few years ago and my father said something like, "There's our first baby", and I looked to my mother and she had tears in her eyes. And this is from a woman who was 80+ years old. Memories and hurts can still run deep after many years, far more than I had ever considered.

[RunningMn9]

Still births are rough. They say it was a miscarriage, but at 5 months, that's pretty far along for a miscarriage. Most of those are in the first trimester. At 5 months, I can see substantial attachment and subsequent mourning. My wife had a miscarriage fairly early on in her first pregnancy. It sucked, and she still gets upset about it around the anniversary, and it's been almost 12 years I believe.

A still birth is orders of magnitude worse in my estimation. The longer the pregnancy, the worse it will be.

[ImLawBoy]

I believe they knew the baby had died, but for religious reasons she wanted to birth her normally instead of having her removed surgically. Not sure that makes a whole lot of difference here, but there you go.

[Mr. Fed]

I was in a bit of a mood.

[GreenGoo]

I was in a bit of a mood.

It's a touchy subject (assuming you are talking about your participation in the thread in general, and not the miscarriage/still birth which bumped the thread).

[Mr. Fed]

I was in a bit of a mood.

It's a touchy subject (assuming you are talking about your participation in the thread in general, and not the miscarriage/still birth which bumped the thread).

Well, I was referring to earlier in the thread.

But yes, that's a touchy subject. As much as I despite Santorum, I always hate it when people ridicule his family's death rituals.

[GreenGoo]

Figured, but wasn't sure.

As for death rituals, I try not to judge, because death is such a personal thing not to mention a difficult thing, and mourning is so important for dealing with it, emotionally.

[Isgrimnur]

Random Randomness doesn't need more Duggar news.

WaPo

Five women have sued the Institute in Basic Life Principles, once a leader in the Christian homeschooling movement, charging that the organization and its board of directors enabled and covered up sexual abuse and harassment of interns, employees, and other participants in its programs.

Each of the plaintiffs — Gretchen Wilkinson, Charis Barker, Rachel Frost, Rachel Lees and a Jane Doe — seeks $50,000 in damages, alleging that the organization and its board acted negligently, with willful and wanton disregard for them, and engaged in a civil conspiracy to conceal the wrongdoing.
...
Last year, IBLP’s founder and longtime president, Bill Gothard, resigned amid allegations by more than 30 women that he had sexually harassed them. Former followers have said that Gothard was revered as an almost saint-like figure, and that members of IBLP’s homeschooling arm, the Advanced Training Institute, feared questioning him.
...
The new lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in DuPage County Circuit Court in Illinois, where IBLP’s headquarters is located, charges that IBLP, its employees and directors “frequently received reports” of “sexual abuse, sexual harassment and inappropriate/unauthorized touching.” But, the lawsuit said, they never reported “these serious, potentially criminal allegations to law enforcement authorities or the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services” as required by state law.

David Gibbs III, the attorney representing the women, said in an interview the women decided to litigate only after unsuccessful efforts to address the issues with the IBLP board of directors, who are also named in the lawsuit. Gibbs added that his clients did not want to sue, but that the board “rather stubbornly and in my opinion rather arrogantly basically challenged the girls to bring the case.”
...
Despite the positive depictions on reality television, IBLP recently has seen a decline in support, particularly since the Web site Recovering Grace, created by disaffected former followers, began drawing attention to the sexual harassment charges in 2012. Recovering Grace compiled the stories of more than 30 women who said they had been sexually “groomed” and inappropriately touched by Gothard over a three-decade period, and sought to address the charges internally at IBLP.

[GreenGoo]

I stumbled across Prophet's Prey last night. The blurb you posted reminded me of it. I actually had trouble watching the documentary and changed channels multiple times.

When Warren Jeffs rose to Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, he took control of a religion with a history of polygamous and underage marriage. In a short time, Warren managed to expand these practices and the power of his position in unprecedented ways. He bridged the gap between sister wives and ecclesiastically rape, befuddling the moral compass of his entire congregation. The film examines Warren Jeffs' life and shows how he became a worshipped and adored Prophet. Warren has a devout following numbering in the tens of thousands - many of whom would give their life at any moment with just one word from the Prophet. Despite a trail of abuse and ruined lives, Warren has maintained his grip on power.

[LawBeefaroni]

Random Randomness doesn't need more Duggar news.

With that in mind...

PHILADELPHIA --
An adult film actress is suing Josh Duggar, claiming the reality TV star assaulted her on two occasions when consensual sex turned rough.

Ashley Stamm-Northup, known as Danica Dillon in movies, filed the lawsuit Tuesday. She says Duggar approached her at a Philadelphia strip club in March and paid $600 for lap dances. She alleges he then paid $1,500 for "her company" and they had sex at a hotel.

During the act, she claims, he "physically assaulted her to the point of causing her physical and emotional injuries." A few days later, he came to a suburban Philadelphia strip club where she was performing, she says, and tried to apologize for his earlier actions. The lawsuit says she was then assaulted a second time. She's seeking $500,000 in damages from the former star of TLC's now-canceled "19 Kids and Counting" reality show.

[Holman]

Duggars' Homeschooling Mentor Accused of Rape and Sexual Abuse.

A prominent leader in the conservative Christian homeschooling movement was accused of sexual abuse and rape in a lawsuit filed Wednesday by 10 former members of his ministry, The Washington Post reported.

The suit alleges that Bill Gothard, the former head of the Institute in Basic Life Principles, sexually abused some of the women and concealed sexual abuse committed against other young women by family members. One unnamed plaintiff also alleged that Gothard raped her after she reported to the ministry that she had been raped by her father, according to the report.

...

His teachings—which rely upon absolute submission to patriarchal authority—were given a national platform by the Duggar family in their TLC show “19 Kids And Counting.” GOP presidential candidate and Duggar ally Mike Huckabee has also made public appearances with the Christian leader.

After it was reported last summer that the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, molested five underage girls when he was a teenager, the IBLP's culture came under renewed scrutiny. As TPM reported at the time, former members of the IBLP have said they were taught to obey ministry authorities and relatives even if they were enduring sexual abuse at their hands.

These 10 accusers are presumably a subset of at least 30 who have accused him of molestation and harassment in the past.

[LawBeefaroni]

Institute in Basic Life Principles:

Upcoming Events

...
Fathers' Journey
Mar 12-Mar 20, 2016

Guys' Journey
Mar 12-Mar 20, 2016

Young Ladies' Journey
Mar 12-Mar 20, 2016

Guys' Journey (Northwoods, MI)
Jun 18–Jun 26, 2016

Fathers' Journey (Northwoods, MI)
Jun 18–Jun 26, 2016

Young Ladies' Journey (Northwoods, MI)
Jul 16–Jul 24, 2016

Guys' Journey (Northwoods, MI)
Aug 20–Aug 28, 2016

Young Ladies' Journey (Northwoods, MI)
Sep 24–Oct 2, 2018

Women's Journey
Sep 24–Oct 2, 2016

[hepcat]

Never try to present yourself as righteous. It never works with humans.

[Pyperkub]

Never try to present yourself as righteous. It never works with humans.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Rip]

Never try to present yourself as righteous. It never works with humans.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone shoot the first load.

Mortoned