• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Duggar baby #20 is on the way -- UPDATE, Miscarried

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HamburgerBoy said:
Their family is, at least the present time, self-sufficient. They aren't crowding you or infringing on your property so there is no rational reason for you to care.
Click to expand...

They are wasting resources and oxygen and their children will be brainwashed to have 20 kids...they're like fucking rabbits! They need to be stopped before one of them gives birth to the antichrist!
 
pcgeek11 said:
My comment was they are having children for MONEY. IMO. I didn't say that was their original intent.
Click to expand...

Okay maybe I'm just a little slow here, but how is the reason they are having children different from their intention for having children? Are you trying to say the only reason they're continuing to have kids is for money? I highly doubt that, considering that they've never really strayed from their original pattern. This is the difference in birth dates between their kids in months, courtesy of wiki (the zeros are twins):

22, 0, 16, 17, 13, 12, 19, 14, 14, 0, 15, 14, 16, 18, 16, 21, 16, 12

There's barely any change to that pattern, except for the fact that the most recent one will be at least 24 months older than the last, which would mean they're actually slowing down their production line.

pcgeek11 said:
No they are doing a really good job of it. And my opinion stands.
Click to expand...

How are they doing a good job of it? They were raising a litter for nearly 20 years before they ever made a cent. Maybe RIGHT NOW they're milking it, but that doesn't change the fact that they were pumping out kids like rabbits whilst not making a penny for it. I'd also think that the money they've made off the TV show is a lot less than the cost they are incurring (and have historically incurred) for raising 20 kids instead of 3 or 4.

pcgeek11 said:
You got one right. My opinion doesn't have anything to do with how many children they have. I never claimed that it did. I just think exploiting children for money and fame is wrong, just like those retarded parents and the baby beauty contest...You're probably fine with that too.
Click to expand...

I never said I was alright with the TV show, just that I didn't think they were having kids for the purposes of making money. I think they'd be spitting out these kids even if the TV show never existed, and their first 17 are a good indication of that. There are other families with as many kids who don't have a TV show. Maybe they did it for money, but if so they took a huge risk, and took a LONG time to get paid off for it.
 
I'm nothing short of astounded. They should be sterilized, there should be a law against having to many children, they did it for the money, they're contributing to to the population explosion, they're driving insurance premiums up. I won't even get into the juvenile stupidity about her vagina.

I always knew that a lot of the members here were intolerant, but I'm surprised at how deep that stupidity runs. I'm also surprised that none of you have the balls to spell out the real reasons behind your hate. Fools can be tolerated, fools that are cowards are a lot tougher to put up with.
 
JulesMaximus said:
No they shouldn't. The world is too crowded as it is. We need to start limiting the population.
Click to expand...

well, you lead by example and not produce any kids... Then let us all know when you have it figured out who should and who shouldn't be allow to have kids.

if the world is too crowded, we might as well stop trying to cure diseases, shut down hospitals and clinics, not send help during natural disasters, etc... let's actually thin the herd a bit
 
Last edited:
Zivic said:
well, you lead by example and not produce any kids... Then let us all know when you have it figured out who should and who shouldn't be allow to have kids.

if the world is too crowded, we might as well stop trying to cure diseases, shut down hospitals and clinics, not send help during natural disasters, etc... let's actually thin the herd a bit
Click to expand...
All-or-nothing fallacy.
"Oh no, I got a papercut while I was falling into a ravine, which broke my femur! Drop everything else until that papercut heals!"


China's got the 1-child-per-couple policy, probably because they didn't want to have an even bigger population problem than they already have.
A policy of that type (though perhaps not their exact implementation of it) decides who does and doesn't get born: In that case, "FIRST!" is a matter of existence or non-existence. 😀
 
Last edited:
Zivic said:
well, you lead by example and not produce any kids... Then let us all know when you have it figured out who should and who shouldn't be allow to have kids.

if the world is too crowded, we might as well stop trying to cure diseases, shut down hospitals and clinics, not send help during natural disasters, etc... let's actually thin the herd a bit
Click to expand...

Do you think the world should be as overcrowded as India?

Fuck that. I think it will come to pass sooner or later...but I don't want to live in such a world.
 
Zivic said:
well, you lead by example and not produce any kids... Then let us all know when you have it figured out who should and who shouldn't be allow to have kids.

if the world is too crowded, we might as well stop trying to cure diseases, shut down hospitals and clinics, not send help during natural disasters, etc... let's actually thin the herd a bit
Click to expand...

I have only 1 child. No plans to have any more than that.

Having more than 2 children contributes to positive population growth. Every couple must limit themselves to no more than 2 children. If you have more than 2 children, you must give the 3rd up for adoption to a couple who can't have children.
 
Jeff7 said:
All-or-nothing fallacy.
"Oh no, I got a papercut while I was falling into a ravine, which broke my femur! Drop everything else until that papercut heals!"


China's got the 1-child-per-couple policy, probably because they didn't want to have an even bigger population problem than they already have.
A policy of that type (though perhaps not their exact implementation of it) decides who does and doesn't get born: In that case, "FIRST!" is a matter of existence or non-existence. 😀
Click to expand...



I think the duggars are the least of the world's "over population problems" you want to make a difference, there are better places to start than the duggars.

You want a 1 child policy, go live in china. How many children I have should be up to me and my wife if I have the means to care for them, not you or the government.
 
Y'know folks - you can disagree with them and their proclivity to pump out a new unit like clockwork....

They've lost their child... Have just a bit of compassion... it won't hurt you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top