Duggar is Welsh for Sociopath

[noxiousdog]

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.

If they didn't account for socioeconomic factors it would be really, really pathetic. That's way to common to miss.

[gbasden]

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.

If they didn't account for socioeconomic factors it would be really, really pathetic. That's way to common to miss.

I concur - but it's hard to know for certain without reading the full paper.

[msduncan]

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.

You have it backwards. Kids are sociopaths and *IF* you are lucky you manage to coax them out of it.

[Chesspieceface]

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

You mentioned this to me before also... the difference is whether you are looking for global per capitas or relative national ones. The concerns of overpopulation being the carrying capacity of the planet for human animals, I think the global per capita consumption is more relevant than the other. You seem to be saying that because certain individuals in this nation are very large producers that every citizen should be allotted a greater slice of the global pie just for being here and not 'there'. I think that we need to look in terms of sharing resources. If we are going to stop global problems, I don't think showing up to the pot luck and saying we made the most food so we get to eat the most is really going to work.

[Zarathud]

While I'm no fan of religious intolerance, I wonder if Mr. Fed has any idea of what Quiverfull means.

The Quiverfull movement is an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist evangelical christian movement based in returning to Biblical Patriarchy. The reason for home-schooling is to indoctrinate all those children into this particular set of beliefs. It's not friendly to women as anything other than child-bearers. My wife began running into the Quiverfull in the mommy boards and did a lot of background reading on the topic, and I'm horrified by just the small bits of what I've read and she's shared.

The Quiverfull's literal interpretation of the commandment in Genesis to increase and multiply (Gen 2:18) is countered in Catholic teaching under Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul 1968) that parents also have a responsibility to their families and to society to ensure that the children they have can be appropriately cared for -- including consideration of the mother's health. In other words, it's reckless parenthood to have pregnancy after pregnancy with no recuperative time.

It's sociopathic to demand that women accept this fate as a religious test of their faith. I don't believe it's religious bigotry, but an analysis of the narrow Biblical interpretation and the simple human element separate from any other economic, Quinnian and other arguments against the practice of making women become baby-factories in a modern world with low child mortality.

[Chesspieceface]

...an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist evangelical christian movement based in returning to Biblical Patriarchy. The reason for home-schooling is to indoctrinate all those children into this particular set of beliefs. It's not friendly to women as anything other than child-bearers.
....
It's sociopathic to demand that women accept this fate as a religious test of their faith. I don't believe it's religious bigotry, but an analysis of the narrow Biblical interpretation and the simple human element separate from any other economic, Quinnian and other arguments against the practice of making women become baby-factories in a modern world with low child mortality.

Did I say fuck those people? Cuz that's what I meant to say.

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.

[The Meal]

Did I say fuck those people? Cuz that's what I meant to say.

Considering the number of chitlins they're popping out, I think someone's already on it.

[Chesspieceface]

Did I say fuck those people? Cuz that's what I meant to say.

Considering the number of chitlins they're popping out, I think someone's already on it.

Nice segue Meal.

I'd like to add that religiously cloistered homeschooling is child abuse.

[Peacedog]

While I'm no fan of religious intolerance, I wonder if Mr. Fed has any idea of what Quiverfull means.

Do you presume that he would defend any and all things "religious" or possessing "religiosity"?

Why don't you just ask him what he thinks?

[RLMullen]

While I'm no fan of religious intolerance, I wonder if Mr. Fed has any idea of what Quiverfull means.

Confronting bigotry and 'hate speech' does not imply support of the group that is the target of said bigotry and 'hate speech'.

[Mr. Fed]

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.

[Mr. Fed]

While I'm no fan of religious intolerance, I wonder if Mr. Fed has any idea of what Quiverfull means.

In fact, I do.

The Quiverfull movement is an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist evangelical christian movement based in returning to Biblical Patriarchy. The reason for home-schooling is to indoctrinate all those children into this particular set of beliefs. It's not friendly to women as anything other than child-bearers. My wife began running into the Quiverfull in the mommy boards and did a lot of background reading on the topic, and I'm horrified by just the small bits of what I've read and she's shared.

I'm familiar with the doctrine behind Quiverfull. I'm not a fan of the ideas behind it or its application in general. I have no personal knowledge of how closely this family follows those ideas. My exposure to people of faith does not lead me to assume people who label themselves as group X believe in or follow all doctrine of group X. (For instance, I have read that the parents of this family have said that their daughters will get higher education to the extent they feel called to do so.)

The Quiverfull's literal interpretation of the commandment in Genesis to increase and multiply (Gen 2:18) is countered in Catholic teaching under Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul 1968) that parents also have a responsibility to their families and to society to ensure that the children they have can be appropriately cared for -- including consideration of the mother's health. In other words, it's reckless parenthood to have pregnancy after pregnancy with no recuperative time.

Of all the criticisms of Quiverfull doctrine, I am perhaps least concerned with whether it comports with Catholic doctrine, and fail to see why anyone other than a doctrinal Catholic should care about compliance with Catholic doctrine.

It's sociopathic to demand that women accept this fate as a religious test of their faith.

I suspect people are using "sociopath" in the non-scientific and colloquial sense of "bad." I don't agree with Quiverfull doctrine about the role of women, and would not participate in a faith that enforced it.

I don't believe it's religious bigotry, but an analysis of the narrow Biblical interpretation and the simple human element separate from any other economic, Quinnian and other arguments against the practice of making women become baby-factories in a modern world with low child mortality.

Here we get to the heart. Whether or not it is religious bigotry -- or whether at least it is dressed in the trappings of religious bigotry -- depends in large part upon how it is expressed. Here, I believe the critique by some has been dressed in the trappings of religious bigotry -- by attacking people rather than ideas, and doing so using the tropes and language traditionally used to demean disfavored groups. c.f. the thread I linked about Scientology.

[$iljanus]

...an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist evangelical christian movement based in returning to Biblical Patriarchy. The reason for home-schooling is to indoctrinate all those children into this particular set of beliefs. It's not friendly to women as anything other than child-bearers.
....
It's sociopathic to demand that women accept this fate as a religious test of their faith. I don't believe it's religious bigotry, but an analysis of the narrow Biblical interpretation and the simple human element separate from any other economic, Quinnian and other arguments against the practice of making women become baby-factories in a modern world with low child mortality.

Did I say fuck those people? Cuz that's what I meant to say.

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.

Oh, I thought you were coming around to their philosophy and were being so vehement about fucking them in order to produce progeny...

[GreenGoo]

Fed, I would call their behaviour as sociopathic in that if everyone made the same choices they have made, your country would be in dire straights within 1 or 2 generations. Your society as it stands now would break under the population pressure as it expanded 1000% per generation. They seem to have little regard for anything but producing more offspring. I feel that can be described as sociopathic behaviour.

I understand I do not have the full picture here.

[Mr. Fed]

Fed, I would call their behaviour as sociopathic in that if everyone made the same choices they have made, your country would be in dire straights within 1 or 2 generations.

Okay.

So childless people are sociopathic then, right?

[GreenGoo]

Fed, I would call their behaviour as sociopathic in that if everyone made the same choices they have made, your country would be in dire straights within 1 or 2 generations.

Okay.

So childless people are sociopathic then, right?

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

[noxiousdog]

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

This place is becoming more bizarre every day.

[Arcanis]

As in all things Google has the answer, in the form of their dictionary app for the side bar:

Sociopathy is a loosely-defined term that may be used to refer to: *Psychopathy *Antisocial personality disorder *Dissocial personality disorder

ok then then next step:

psychopathy (any disease of the mind; the psychological state of someone who has emotional or behavioral problems serious enough to require psychiatric intervention)

not much help there either.

fine we go with my definition since google apps aren't being helpful:
Sociopathy: asshat; prick; person who hates society; anyone who disagrees with me

[Tareeq]

According to the Times, the United Kingdom's birthrate, though it increased last year, is still far less than the 2.2 children per woman generally considered to be replacement level. The population of native-born Britons fails to replace itself. Britons are slowly dying out.

In this light, the Duggars' problem seems to be that they're preventing the British populace from dying out as fast as it possibly can, or at least as fast as some would like.

Whatever happened to the virtue of patience?

[Isgrimnur]

The definition of sociopathy would very much depend on the society forming that definition, no?

Would not what is considered ormal social behavior in the U.S. be considered sociopathic in the Far and Middle East and even in some parts of Europe?

[Tareeq]

Sociopathy is a construct. By current definitions, Edison and Tesla were both sociopaths. And yet, thanks to their sociopathic selves, we live in a world in which we can worry about the mental health of a woman who has nineteen children, most of whom would have died 100 years ago.

[Mr. Fed]

Fed, I would call their behaviour as sociopathic in that if everyone made the same choices they have made, your country would be in dire straights within 1 or 2 generations.

Okay.

So childless people are sociopathic then, right?

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

But that's not what you are arguing. You are suggesting that people are sociopathic if social harm would result in EVERYONE doing what they do.

By that definition, sociopathy is rather common.

[Chesspieceface]

My (perhaps mis-)usage of the term means basically what Goo said. A sociopath is a person who can not tell the difference between right and wrong, and doesn't care. I agree there are and have been many succesful and prominent sociopaths but their success does not validate the mindset. Not only are these people exhibiting reproductive behavior that could destroy any country if it caught on, they are quite deliberately depriving their children of information about the world at large and especially of information about any opposing or even contrasting religious or cultural views, ensuring that those children have the optimal chance to grow up and become child-abusing over-breeders themselves.

[RLMullen]

Sociopath -- A term once used for someone with what is now called antisocial personality disorder.
Antisocial personality disorder -- A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society. (Go to the link because this disorder, like most psychological disorders is incredibly complex and cannot be distilled into simple definition)

For those who don't want to read and learn, the term sociopath is not being used correctly anywhere in this thread. The exception may be Tareeq's response; I don't know much about the personal lives of Edison or Tesla, and frankly it would take an educated psychologist to posthumunously apply the label to them.

[Trent Steel]

Actually, a sociopath does know the difference between right and wrong, but doesn't care if he/she is doing something wrong that hurts others.

Someone who does not know the difference between right and wrong would be classified as insane.

edit - beaten by RLM

[silverjon]

A lot of words like "idiot" and "moron" started out as medical terms before becoming everyday pejoratives. And there's a quotation about this change in use but damned if I can remember who said it or how it was phrased.

But yeah, calling them sociopaths doesn't exactly do much for building a measured argument.

[GreenGoo]

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

This place is becoming more bizarre every day.

*bow*

[RLMullen]

But yeah, calling them sociopaths doesn't exactly do much for building a measured argument.

No worries. The whole "measured argument" thing went out the window in the OP when

Seriously, fuck these people.

[Chesspieceface]

Sociopath -- A term once used for someone with what is now called antisocial personality disorder.
Antisocial personality disorder -- A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and inability or unwillingness to conform to what are considered to be the norms of society. (Go to the link because this disorder, like most psychological disorders is incredibly complex and cannot be distilled into simple definition)

I did the same research, I was never diagnosing anyone with a psychiatric condition I was using metaphor to express how destructive and selfish that they are (Its a cheeky thread title for chrissake). I've also discussed socio-/psycho-pathy with psychiatrists. I didn't think explaining antisocial personality disorder was really germane to my point. No one has taken issue that I accuse the Duggars of being Welsh. I have no idea if they are; I made that part up too, see. If I change the title to "The Quiverfull's are bullshit assholes" will that make anyone feel better?

Is this really a more interesting nuance than whether or not they are abusing their children or taking more than their share of global resources?

[Mr. Fed]

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

This place is becoming more bizarre every day.

*bow*

Hmmm. We're established that the childfree are sociopaths.

By extension:

1. I am a sociopath for adopting rather than spawning. Were I a non-sociopath, I would divorce my wife and marry someone who could bear biological children. That would be non-sociopathic.
2. My friends, who are adopting for philosophical rather than biological reasons, are sociopaths.
3. Other friends, who lost a child tragically and have elected not to try to have another, are sociopaths.

But that's not all. We've established that you're a sociopath for not bearing children -- which, if copied by everyone, would lead to the extinction of humanity. But surely doing things that make it more likely that you won't have children (which, if copied, blah blah blah etc.)is also sociopathy -- right?

So:

1. Waiting too long to try to get married -- sociopath.
2. Women pursuing a career to the exclusion of serious dating, making it less likely they will get married and bear children -- sociopath.
3. Couples waiting into their 30s, past optimal breeding age, to start trying to have children --- sociopath.
4. Pursuing activities that pose a risk to fertility -- sociopath.
5. Consuming foods and beverages and substances that threaten fertility? Oh, you better believe that's sociopath.

Really, the only safe way to avoid the risk of sociopathy that attends failure to bear children would be to take cultural steps to avoid barriers to early marriage and childbearing.

Who do we know like that?

Next week: artists are sociopaths because they didn't go to law, business, or medical school. What would happen if EVERYONE just sat around and painted, Kadinsky, you selfish fuck? And don't get me started on musicians.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- you could solve the problem by taking a different view of the relationship between the individual and society.

[Mr. Fed]

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.

[The Meal]

After reading that post, I so want to create a new webpage:

http://www.sociopathichamsterdance.com" target="_blank

[The Meal]

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.

[Mr. Fed]

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.

[Chesspieceface]

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.

[Chesspieceface]

But inability to use apostrophes correctly is still acceptable?

This forum sucks.

Edit:

suck's.

Get a grip man. Do you think you are displaying more or less tolerance than I am?

[Mr. Fed]

But inability to use apostrophes correctly is still acceptable?

This forum sucks.

Edit:

suck's.

Get a grip man. Do you think you are displaying more or less tolerance than I am?

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.)

[Chesspieceface]

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.

[GreenGoo]

Excellent example. From a sustainable society standpoint, yes.

If everyone was sterile or somehow overcame the inherent genetic drive to reproduce and simply said we're not having kids, there would be nothing but crumbling buildings inside a couple of generations.

Doing your own thing while completely ignoring/not caring about the consequences to those around you is the very definition of sociopathy, isn't it?

This place is becoming more bizarre every day.

*bow*

Hmmm. We're established that the childfree are sociopaths.

By extension:

1. I am a sociopath for adopting rather than spawning. Were I a non-sociopath, I would divorce my wife and marry someone who could bear biological children. That would be non-sociopathic.
2. My friends, who are adopting for philosophical rather than biological reasons, are sociopaths.
3. Other friends, who lost a child tragically and have elected not to try to have another, are sociopaths.

But that's not all. We've established that you're a sociopath for not bearing children -- which, if copied by everyone, would lead to the extinction of humanity. But surely doing things that make it more likely that you won't have children (which, if copied, blah blah blah etc.)is also sociopathy -- right?

So:

1. Waiting too long to try to get married -- sociopath.
2. Women pursuing a career to the exclusion of serious dating, making it less likely they will get married and bear children -- sociopath.
3. Couples waiting into their 30s, past optimal breeding age, to start trying to have children --- sociopath.
4. Pursuing activities that pose a risk to fertility -- sociopath.
5. Consuming foods and beverages and substances that threaten fertility? Oh, you better believe that's sociopath.

Really, the only safe way to avoid the risk of sociopathy that attends failure to bear children would be to take cultural steps to avoid barriers to early marriage and childbearing.

Who do we know like that?

Next week: artists are sociopaths because they didn't go to law, business, or medical school. What would happen if EVERYONE just sat around and painted, Kadinsky, you selfish fuck? And don't get me started on musicians.

Or maybe -- just maybe -- you could solve the problem by taking a different view of the relationship between the individual and society.

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

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?

What's the solution Fed?

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

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. I wouldn't like it but I can see it. So until that time it's ok for uncontrolled population growth? No negative consequences at all, such as an internet forum calling them sociopaths for their obvious disregard for the future of other peoples' genetic line?

Government control over reproduction sickens me. But trusting your fellow man to keep his progeny under control so that everyone might have enough to eat this year is not something I can support.

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?

I hate to agree with CPF on this one, but fuck those people.

[Mr. Fed]

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.