| | | Advertisement |  | | | |
 | GameBanshee Forums
| | 
08-04-2007, 06:58 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wanderlusting with my lampshade, like any decent k
Posts: 5,747
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon wench  Awwww, thanks Mah 
When I wrote that it wasn't even a request, only a clarification in case anybody thought I'd finally lost the precious few marbles I have left   | Well, there's no bother rectifying it and leave the lost marbles to BS when he goes tunnel searching again.
Now, on topic lest I be accused of hijacking this thread to another subject:
I find it selfish on the part of the parents to produce more offspring given their reasons. I find it humanly impossible for them to cater to the individual needs of each child --- and I'm not talking about food, clothing, and education/school - money can take care of that. I'm talking about the needs only parents can provide.
I have a pair of students who are 10 siblings in the family. Quite well off, I say. Judging their behaviour and personalities, it seems that their parents have raised them well and good.
Then again, that's 10 kids not 17. |
08-05-2007, 11:30 AM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
Posts: 4,468
| | | I find the word "quiverfull" strangely absent from the article, while a nagging feeling in me tells me it should be present. |
08-06-2007, 07:14 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,723
| | | Good god, someone clearly needs to finally write a manual on Life and get it on the bookshelves before the Christmas shopping season. I mean my god, this couple shows many signs of being people who should not be encouraged to have more kids but rather to have less (or preferrably none).
On the other hand, it isn't just in "modern" and "Western" societies where the idea of parents with multiple children comes up. In Saudi Arabia, certainly a wealthy and affluent non-Western nation, there are families with as many children as the Duggar family, and it's perfectly acceptible there. Who are any of us to judge the Duggars for wanting to have more than the socially accepted (for our respective regions) number of children? If they can afford it and don't find it too difficult and if it makes them happy, let them have at it.
__________________
General: "Those aren't ideas; those are special effects."
Michael Bay: "I don't understand the difference."
|
08-09-2007, 10:15 AM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Currently in Mid-word, on the path of the Beam
Posts: 149
| | | What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course.
__________________ Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky I want the world to become more appreciative of carefully constructed spam. The art of saying absolutely nothing with many beautiful words is the closest you can get to poetry without meaning. That's life, really. Spagnificant. | The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed. |
08-09-2007, 01:16 PM
| | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
Posts: 4,468
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartell What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course. | I find the concept of having children to satisfy God creepy. I'm also kind of judgmental though, so that might be it. |
08-09-2007, 05:32 PM
|  | Exalted Member | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hunting down the Billy Goats Gruff
Posts: 1,945
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartell What I can't understand is how you can call the couple that decides to have 17 children bad for the enviroment or irresposible. Nor can you having never met them, judge how well they can share attention or parental love to said children... Having 17 children is bad for the enviroment nor is it irresponsible.. They are simply a couple who loves children and is willing to deal with what comes of it... I was simply surprised at how judgemental you all were of them.. Apart from the few who cracked jokes of course. | I think, Cartell, that the general "irresponsible" argument, as Fable and Mah both stated, does not come based on the couple's sexual proclivites, or even their ablility to amass the necessary finances that raising so many kids would take, but rather, the sheer factor of time. Raising ANY number of kids is a hard, hard task, and even if these parents truly love, and truly want to care for, every single one of their 17 children, there simply aren't enough hours in a day to give every child the devoted attention that they all deserve. Like someone else stated, the older siblings probably serve more of a parental role to the younger, but that doesn't change the fundamental need of a child to have their parent around - a need that will be impossible to meet with 16 other kids present, all of whom need the same.
__________________ I sincerely wish we could re-consider this plan from a perspective that involved pants. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off |
| | | |
