Jump to content

OT - I wish I could have been at the Falls to see this! :-)

FogBat

By FogBat
in The Aud Club

Recommended Posts

FogBat First Liner

FogBat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

condom. it's like a raincoat.

 

he has 19 kids.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU&feature=related

Well, if anyone here has a problem with a man having 19 children with his wife, all I have to say to you is this: shame on you.

 

He's actually more of a man than some of these pop culture icons you go chasing after. After all, he didn't abandon her and the kids, did he?

 

Would you rather he be like Travis Henry? I didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bunomatic All Star

bunomatic

Posted
Posted

Well, if anyone here has a problem with a man having 19 children with his wife, all I have to say to you is this: shame on you.

 

He's actually more of a man than some of these pop culture icons you go chasing after. After all, he didn't abandon her and the kids, did he?

 

Would you rather he be like Travis Henry? I didn't think so.

That man right there obviously thinks with his johnson. Why in Gods name wouldn't T.H. get himself neutered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SwampD Hall of Famer

SwampD

Posted
Posted

This jackass should have used a different kind of "raincoat". <_<

That right there is just funny.

 

 

I personally don't care if someone decides to have (sorry, if someone allows God to decide for them to have) 19 kids, as long as they can afford them. The most disturbing thing in that video, though, was that person who knew all their names in order. oof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BuffaloSoldier2010 Third Liner

BuffaloSoldier2010

Posted
Posted

Well, if anyone here has a problem with a man having 19 children with his wife, all I have to say to you is this: shame on you.

 

He's actually more of a man than some of these pop culture icons you go chasing after. After all, he didn't abandon her and the kids, did he?

 

Would you rather he be like Travis Henry? I didn't think so.

I have no problem with the man or the size of his family, i was merely relaying the underlying logic beneath the previously stated joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdexchange Third Liner

cdexchange

Posted
Posted

Well, if anyone here has a problem with a man having 19 children with his wife, all I have to say to you is this: shame on you.

Yes, I do have a problem with it, as would most sane and responsible citizens of the planet. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out why - some simple mathematics (exponential functions in particular) and the realization that many of our natural resources are finite would be a good start.

 

Fortunately, birth rates in "developed" nations are way down due to higher standards of living, better access to contraception, and women's rights. And the rate of increase in birth rates is down slightly even in poorer nations so there is a bit of hope. Still, despite this, the human population is expected to rise by another 3.5 billion (about 50%) by the year 2050. Who in their right mind thinks this is a good thing?

 

I'd like to ask you a serious question: how many people would be too many? Is it unlimited? Since you have no problem with these people having 19 kids...do you realize that if everyone on Earth did what these people are doing that the population would be in the trillions in a very short period of time? Is a trillion people too many? Is 100 trillion? If you are in favor of this, then you'd also better be in favor of devoting 95% of world GDP toward space exploration starting right now.

 

Aside from that, I also think this guy and his wife are tools because with that many kids, each child cannot possibly be getting as much attention and affection as he or she would in a normal-sized family. I honestly hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm confident that many of these kids will have serious emotional issues when they get older as a result of being in this freakishly large family.

 

He's actually more of a man than some of these pop culture icons you go chasing after. After all, he didn't abandon her and the kids, did he?

Where do you get this stuff? :doh:

 

 

Would you rather he be like Travis Henry? I didn't think so.

 

Of course not. Nice straw man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weave Hall of Famer

Weave

Posted
Posted

Yes, I do have a problem with it, as would most sane and responsible citizens of the planet. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out why - some simple mathematics (exponential functions in particular) and the realization that many of our natural resources are finite would be a good start.

 

Fortunately, birth rates in "developed" nations are way down due to higher standards of living, better access to contraception, and women's rights. And the rate of increase in birth rates is down slightly even in poorer nations so there is a bit of hope. Still, despite this, the human population is expected to rise by another 3.5 billion (about 50%) by the year 2050. Who in their right mind thinks this is a good thing?

 

I'd like to ask you a serious question: how many people would be too many? Is it unlimited? Since you have no problem with these people having 19 kids...do you realize that if everyone on Earth did what these people are doing that the population would be in the trillions in a very short period of time? Is a trillion people too many? Is 100 trillion? If you are in favor of this, then you'd also better be in favor of devoting 95% of world GDP into space exploration starting right now.

 

Aside from that, I also think this guy and his wife are tools because with that many kids, each child cannot possibly be getting as much attention and affection as he or she would in a normal-sized family. I honestly hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm confident that many of these kids will have serious emotional issues when they get older as a result of being in this freakishly large family.

 

Meh. These folks are merely offsetting the trend towards DINKS and one child families. There are plenty of one child/no child families. It's an outlier. No big deal in my book. If the can afford it, want it, and can be good parents to all of them (and I disagree with you about the level of attention they all might not be getting), then I;ve got no problem with it. It sure isn't for me but who am I to say it shouldn't be for them.

 

I'm betting you don't want them pushing their morality on you. Probably best if you didn't push your morality on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FogBat First Liner

FogBat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Meh. These folks are merely offsetting the trend towards DINKS and one child families. There are plenty of one child/no child families. It's an outlier. No big deal in my book. If the can afford it, want it, and can be good parents to all of them (and I disagree with you about the level of attention they all might not be getting), then I;ve got no problem with it. It sure isn't for me but who am I to say it shouldn't be for them.

 

I'm betting you don't want them pushing their morality on you. Probably best if you didn't push your morality on them.

:clapping: :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdexchange Third Liner

cdexchange

Posted
Posted

Meh. These folks are merely offsetting the trend towards DINKS and one child families. There are plenty of one child/no child families. It's an outlier. No big deal in my book. If the can afford it, want it, and can be good parents to all of them (and I disagree with you about the level of attention they all might not be getting), then I;ve got no problem with it. It sure isn't for me but who am I to say it shouldn't be for them.

 

I'm betting you don't want them pushing their morality on you. Probably best if you didn't push your morality on them.

 

How am I pushing my morality on them? I'm merely expressing my opinion that they suck, in a forum that they will never see. That does not qualify as "pushing my morality on them". :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FogBat First Liner

FogBat

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes, I do have a problem with it, as would most sane and responsible citizens of the planet. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out why - some simple mathematics (exponential functions in particular) and the realization that many of our natural resources are finite would be a good start.

 

Fortunately, birth rates in "developed" nations are way down due to higher standards of living, better access to contraception, and women's rights. And the rate of increase in birth rates is down slightly even in poorer nations so there is a bit of hope. Still, despite this, the human population is expected to rise by another 3.5 billion (about 50%) by the year 2050. Who in their right mind thinks this is a good thing?

 

I'd like to ask you a serious question: how many people would be too many? Is it unlimited? Since you have no problem with these people having 19 kids...do you realize that if everyone on Earth did what these people are doing that the population would be in the trillions in a very short period of time? Is a trillion people too many? Is 100 trillion? If you are in favor of this, then you'd also better be in favor of devoting 95% of world GDP into space exploration starting right now.

 

Aside from that, I also think this guy and his wife are tools because with that many kids, each child cannot possibly be getting as much attention and affection as he or she would in a normal-sized family. I honestly hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm confident that many of these kids will have serious emotional issues when they get older as a result of being in this freakishly large family.

 

To say that you and those who agree with you are more sane than those who have large families is condescending and disrespectful to say the least. I could be wrong, but something tells me that you do not believe in the right of a child to make it all the way through to birth. If that's the case, then I really feel sorry for you. AFAIAC, I would love to for me and my wife to be blessed with at least one child. I cannot begin to tell you just how painful it is for us not to have one - and yet women who won't keep their legs crossed murder their own. If you don't think that's despicable and worthy of outrage, then I have to wonder how you can sleep at night with your conscience.

 

BTW, to say what you said about the Duggars being tools and their kids having all sorts of issues in the future is a strawman argument in and of itself. The fact that this is a family that has had the same parents is a much stronger testament than kids who come from broken homes. I come from a broken home and so does my wife. I would have loved to come from a healthy home. But who knows? Maybe if Christ eventually blesses us with kids, we'll succeed where our respective parents failed due to their unjustified selfishness.

 

Oh, and BTW: When you say, "Nice straw man," with all due respect, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cdexchange Third Liner

cdexchange

Posted
Posted

To say that you and those who agree with you are more sane than those who have large families is condescending and disrespectful to say the least. I could be wrong, but something tells me that you do not believe in the right of a child to make it all the way through to birth. If that's the case, then I really feel sorry for you. AFAIAC, I would love to for me and my wife to be blessed with at least one child. I cannot begin to tell you just how painful it is for us not to have one - and yet women who won't keep their legs crossed murder their own. If you don't think that's despicable and worthy of outrage, then I have to wonder how you can sleep at night with your conscience.

 

BTW, to say what you said about the Duggars being tools and their kids having all sorts of issues in the future is a strawman argument in and of itself. The fact that this is a family that has had the same parents is a much stronger testament than kids who come from broken homes. I come from a broken home and so does my wife. I would have loved to come from a healthy home. But who knows? Maybe if Christ eventually blesses us with kids, we'll succeed where our respective parents failed due to their unjustified selfishness.

 

Oh, and BTW: When you say, "Nice straw man," with all due respect, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. <_<

 

 

Not at all. You're comparing apples to oranges ("large vs small" as opposed to "good vs. bad"). Of course good parents are better than bad parents, of course Travis Henry is a d-bag, everyone would agree with that. That really has nothing to do with the argument of whether exponential population growth is desirable or not.

 

Did you want to address any of my other points or answer any of the questions I asked you, or is your only response going to be "well, they haven't divorced yet so they must be good parents and therefore everything is fine"?

 

BTW, I'm not saying they should be legislated against or anything like that. I was just trying to explain why some reasonable folks would find this kind of thing offensive, in response to your "shame on you" comment after I made a harmless joke (and you're lecturing me for being condescending...<_<)

 

PS - I'm sorry to hear that you and your wife have been unable to have children thus far and that it's caused you such pain. That sucks and I wish you good luck in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
carpandean First Liner

carpandean

Posted
Posted

and yet women who won't keep their legs crossed murder their own.

And when they are forcibly uncrossed for them? I digress ...

 

 

 

(Note: don't get me wrong, I do completely understand and sympathize with you and your wife's troubles. It's not something that anyone should have to deal with.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...