DVD Talk
A bit overboard? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : A bit overboard?


HHS
11-03-05, 12:34 AM
I found a link to this article on another site. I'm neither Christian nor have a family as large as the one in this article (which is quirky). But it really seemed to me that this author was rather invidious and hateful in his criticism.

What is this family's crime?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/DDGJSF9UDD1.DTL&hw=Morford&sn=010&sc=255

Rockmjd23
11-03-05, 12:45 AM
Uhh, its San Francisco. You have to ask?

natesfortune
11-03-05, 12:46 AM
Ouch.

I doubt anybody in the Duggar family(who live less than ten miles from me), would write anything even half as mean-spirited about this guy, no matter what he did to them.

Oh yeah - but they have class.

Myster X
11-03-05, 12:53 AM
Thankfully, I stop buying that crappy paper years ago.

crazyronin
11-03-05, 05:26 AM
'Not to judge, Mr. Morford, but its none of your fecking business."

-rolleyes-

AGuyNamedMike
11-03-05, 06:20 AM
endangered caribou stew :drool:

Nazgul
11-03-05, 07:54 AM
Mark Morford rotfl

KitchenSink
11-03-05, 08:27 AM
Maybe we should send this article to the guy:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/oct05/361410.asp

About halfway down the story, we find out this woman has 16 children (5 adults, 11 children in foster care).

DVD Polizei
11-03-05, 10:35 AM
The last paragraph of that article makes the most sense.

X
11-03-05, 10:37 AM
This may have something to do with the average number of children per two adults in a committed relationship in SF being about 0.1.

dtcarson
11-03-05, 10:45 AM
I thought San Francisco was full of tolerant, openminded, understanding liberals?
Or is that only if you're gay, I'm sorry, alternately-oriented?
Hypocrites. I'm not homophobic, I'm asshole-phobic, and this guy is now on the top of the list.

DVD Polizei
11-03-05, 01:10 PM
I'm not homophobic, I'm asshole-phobic...

You do realize how funny that sounds.

Myster X
11-03-05, 02:21 PM
I thought San Francisco was full of tolerant, openminded, understanding liberals?
Or is that only if you're gay, I'm sorry, alternately-oriented?
Hypocrites. I'm not homophobic, I'm asshole-phobic, and this guy is now on the top of the list.

You have to be a liberal in order to receive any sort of tollerant in this city.

Tommy Ceez
11-03-05, 02:30 PM
I found a link to this article on another site. I'm neither Christian nor have a family as large as the one in this article (which is quirky). But it really seemed to me that this author was rather invidious and hateful in his criticism.

What is this family's crime?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/DDGJSF9UDD1.DTL&hw=Morford&sn=010&sc=255

I'm confused...what does this article have to do with White Supremacy, jews, or the cheap Scotsmen?

joeblow69
11-03-05, 02:56 PM
What is this family's crime?

Well maybe the author is assuming that there's no way that these 2 parents can afford to pay for all these kids themselves, so the burdon to raise these kids is going to fall on the taxpayers (via foodstamps and whatnot).

I didn't read anything in the article about what these people did for a living, or what their income is. If you ask me, though, anyone who continually sprouts children out of their uterus when they can't pay for them deserves our scorn. If, on the other hand, the family is financially secure, and not taking any handouts, then I think the author of the article went too far.

Josh H
11-03-05, 03:03 PM
I didn't read anything in the article about what these people did for a living, or what their income is. If you ask me, though, anyone who continually sprouts children out of their uterus when they can't pay for them deserves our scorn. If, on the other hand, the family is financially secure, and not taking any handouts, then I think the author of the article went too far.

I agree. And also have no idea about their financial sitaution.

The author does make a fair point about the kids being disadvantaged as they'll get much less attention than kids in a regular sized family. I think that's a fair point, but not worth lambasting the parents over as long as theres no out and out abuse or neglect going on. And there's been no reports of such.

natesfortune
11-03-05, 03:10 PM
Well maybe the author is assuming that there's no way that these 2 parents can afford to pay for all these kids themselves, so the burdon to raise these kids is going to fall on the taxpayers (via foodstamps and whatnot).

I didn't read anything in the article about what these people did for a living, or what their income is. If you ask me, though, anyone who continually sprouts children out of their uterus when they can't pay for them deserves our scorn. If, on the other hand, the family is financially secure, and not taking any handouts, then I think the author of the article went too far.

The Duggars live not far from me. They are not on any kind of public assistance. They are not rich, either, but are hardworkers and have everything they need without being on the dole.

dtcarson
11-03-05, 03:12 PM
So the "author" is engaging in willful stereotypes and assumptions, that the family can't afford the kids, and OBVIOUSLY a Southern religious family with 16 kids is ignorant and Biblethumping and a drain on society.
And I thought that we had welfare and Family Assistance for precisely that type of family, the ones who need help "For the Children!" Oh, I get it: this family isn't eligible because they're
a) white
b) Christian
c) married.

Rockmjd23
11-03-05, 03:20 PM
What is this family's crime?
They're pushing their evil heterosexual agenda onto us all.;)

joeblow69
11-03-05, 03:20 PM
So the "author" is engaging in willful stereotypes and assumptions...
I have to admit, when I first read the story, the first thing I thought of was:
http://webpages.charter.net/solinari/cletus.jpg

Josh H
11-03-05, 03:45 PM
And I thought that we had welfare and Family Assistance for precisely that type of family, the ones who need help "For the Children!"

Oh, I get it: this family isn't eligible because they're

a) white
b) Christian
c) married.

Don't be absurd. None of that had anything to do with it. The point was that needing welfare to take care of 16 kids is absurd. People should only have as many kids as they can afford ideally, and obviously if you need welfare having 16 kids is way too extreme. Having a couple kids and needing welfare is ok. Needing welfare and continually popping out children is not, and is abusing the system IMO.

But anyway, that's a moot point since natesfortune said they're not on public assistance.

But that was the generalization the author was making, not one based on race, religion or marital status.

Venusian
11-03-05, 03:48 PM
it seems the author is more pissed that they are presumedly conservative and christian than anything else.

Nazgul
11-03-05, 03:53 PM
I think this quote reveals how Morford views the world..

"Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our birthin' tale: Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation."

Josh H
11-03-05, 03:55 PM
it seems the author is more pissed that they are presumedly conservative and christian than anything else.

Maybe a little.

I think it was just more bitterness that people bitch and moan and try to keep gays for being able to adopt kids (or have their own through artifical insemination for lesbian couples) and yet no one bitches when a woman has 16 kids and presumably raises them on welfare becasue they are hetero, conservative and christian.

Again, it was a stupid and misguided article as they're apparently not on welfare, but I think that was the crux of the argument.

The author was just looking for a hypocracy where there is none in this case.

Actually, I guess there could be some as I imagine a gay couple with one or two kids would probably do better parenting simply because they can give the kids more individual attention than parents with 16 kids. So it's lame for people to bitch that gays can't be adequate parents an then to say this is ok.

dtcarson
11-03-05, 04:00 PM
Don't be absurd. None of that had anything to do with it. The point was that needing welfare to take care of 16 kids is absurd. People should only have as many kids as they can afford ideally, and obviously if you need welfare having 16 kids is way too extreme. Having a couple kids and needing welfare is ok. Needing welfare and continually popping out children is not, and is abusing the system IMO.

But anyway, that's a moot point since natesfortune said they're not on public assistance.

But that was the generalization the author was making, not one based on race, religion or marital status.

What if 15 kids were fine, and with the 16th, you needed a little bit of aid?

So the author assumes that since they have 16 kids, without doing any more research, they *obviously* are on welfare, and since they're Southern white heterosexual Christians, that's a bad thing [both the welfare and the having 16 kids]?

Why is having 2 kids and using welfare for both of them ok, when 16 is not? The difference is only one of quantity, not of kind. If people "should" have only as many kids as they can afford, then lets eliminate all welfare to help the children. Forced sterilization would be much cheaper, and more in line with your ideas of what people 'should' do with their own bodies.

In fact, having reread that article, I see the author says *nothing* about the family needing public assistance. It's all Mother Earth and "overpopulation"; somehow it's the fault of this middle American family that African dictators starve their millions of 'citizens'.
Oh, and though he mocks and insults religion and religious people, he claims to be able to know what God thinks/wants.

Having reread it, I stand by my opinion: hypocritical judgemental jerk, whose primary form of 'writing' is stereotyping and insulting those different from him, all in the 'I'm so much better than you' vein.

Josh H
11-03-05, 04:06 PM
Hey, I agree the article is lame. I was just clarifying his point, and that it wasn't really about race, religion etc. At least not directly.

As for the number, people can have a couple kids through stupidity or whatever and not be able to support them. That's an acceptable use of wel-fare.

Having 15-16 kids or whatever and needing welfare is unreasonable. Having that many kids period is unreasoable as the parent's will never be able to give them all the individual attention they deserve.

But, I'm not saying they shouldn't get welfare for the kids if they deserve it. It's not the kid's fault and it's our responsibility to help take care of them. But that doesn't mean a hypothetical family with 16 kids and welfare shouldn't be scorned more than the family with 2 kids on welfare.

joeblow69
11-03-05, 04:18 PM
The Duggars live not far from me. They are not on any kind of public assistance. They are not rich, either, but are hardworkers and have everything they need without being on the dole.
Another criticism, I suppose, could be that they keep popping out kids because they need the cheap slave labor to keep their farm running. Is that at all the case? Are they even on a farm?

natesfortune
11-03-05, 04:55 PM
Another criticism, I suppose, could be that they keep popping out kids because they need the cheap slave labor to keep their farm running. Is that at all the case? Are they even on a farm?

No. They don't have a farm.

And actually, he's had various jobs over the years, but got serious about getting out of debt and never "owing" anything about ten years ago. He saved up at work - over a long period saved up enough to start doing some investing, and now he can spend most of his time with his family, as he's saved up and invested wisely - not rich by any stretch, but comfortable, and completely debt free.

It's very important to them.

joeblow69
11-03-05, 05:10 PM
No. They don't have a farm.

Well I'm all out of plausable ideas. :shrug: Maybe they're trying to start their own Branch Dividian type cult or something. They've got to have some kind of angle...

Josh H
11-03-05, 05:16 PM
They've got to have some kind of angle...

Maybe they're trying to maximize their chances of having a kid become famous/ultra rich and able to buy them a retirement mansion in Cancun or something. ;)

Nazgul
11-03-05, 05:39 PM
hypocritical judgemental jerk, whose primary form of 'writing' is stereotyping and insulting those different from him, all in the 'I'm so much better than you' vein.

That's Morford in a nutshell.

dtcarson
11-03-05, 05:45 PM
[QUOTE=natesfortune]And actually, he's had various jobs over the years, but got serious about getting out of debt and never "owing" anything about ten years ago. He saved up at work - over a long period saved up enough to start doing some investing, and now he can spend most of his time with his family, as he's saved up and invested wisely - not rich by any stretch, but comfortable, and completely debt free.
[QUOTE]

That right there already tells me he's a better, more 'decent' person than the vast majority of this entitlement, not-my-fault society.

Josh: I didn't get a big 'how dare they suck off the government' vibe from the article. I got a 'these people are different from me, so how dare they have that many kids who will obviously learn WRONG ideas, ie, not 'progressive'.' He even alludes to that, where he says "Where are the gay artist types having sixteen kids" [Hey Mr Morford, check your biology, a gay couple *can't* have kids.]

If a family voluntarily has 16 kids, and needs welfare for *all of them*, yes, I would lose respect for that particular family. However, I'd rather my tax dollars help support those kids, than go toward killing them before they were born. If a family was doing fine with 15, but 16 was the final straw, I wouldn't resent them getting a little aid.

And you're assuming that they can't provide a solid 'family' for 16 kids. It would be difficult [doing the same for *one* child is difficult], but obviously, as evidenced by the post about his debtlessness, at least the father has a great deal of willpower. And even if the dad isn't very 'active', the kids can learn a lot just observing him. Based on what I know of this family, I have no complaints with them. I'd much rather them have 16 kids, and those kids learn values of family, religion, ownership, desire to live debtfree, etc, than, say, Mr Morford having one kid, who learns his bigotry, fear, and vitriol.

Josh H
11-03-05, 06:13 PM
dtcarson,

You're right. I read this thread first and specifically this post:

Well maybe the author is assuming that there's no way that these 2 parents can afford to pay for all these kids themselves, so the burdon to raise these kids is going to fall on the taxpayers (via foodstamps and whatnot).



I think reading that first biased my skim of the article, as reading it more carefully, I didn't get that vive.

Like I said it's a worthless article. Though I can see why gays would be upset that people think they can't raise 1 kid properly, but have no problem with a family having 16 kids that won't get the attention they need, will be deprived in terms of clothes and luxuary items, vacations etc that they're peers enjoy.

It's a double standard based on ignorance, intolerance and hatred.

However, the gay community responding in kind with similarly based diatribes will not help their cause.

I understand why he feels that way, and I have numerous problems with the religious right myself. But writing those types of columns will not further their cause.

He has a decent point, he just needs to express it intelligently. One could write a very good column about the illigocial view of thinking gays can't be good parents and thinking a religious, hetero couple can raise 16 kids just fine. No need for all the conservative and religioius bashing in the column. You can't defeat hatred and bigotry by responding with more of the same.

natesfortune
11-03-05, 06:45 PM
You can defeat hatred and bigotry by responding with more of the same.

Wow. Is that Confucius? The Pope?

:)










Just kidding - I know it was a typo. Just funny.

Josh H
11-03-05, 07:02 PM
Damn typos. :D Fixed now.

HHS
11-04-05, 12:23 AM
Well I'm all out of plausable ideas. :shrug: Maybe they're trying to start their own Branch Dividian type cult or something. They've got to have some kind of angle...Who knows. Maybe they're secretly hoping that one of their kids will buy out that newspaper? -wink-

Jalizarin
11-04-05, 06:28 AM
Having that many kids period is unreasoable as the parent's will never be able to give them all the individual attention they deserve.

[and in a later post:]

16 kids that won't get the attention they need, will be deprived in terms of clothes and luxuary items, vacations etc that they're peers enjoy.
Mr. Hinkle -- This isn't a post bashing you; you have debated politely and have summed up your posts with excellent points. I just wanted to add some insight to the above statements.

My mom is the next to youngest of 12 biological kids (only one set of twins) and had three more adopted siblings close to her age. After following this thread for the last couple days, I asked her if she ever felt that she and her brothers and sisters weren't given a lot of individual attention. I was honestly curious -- as a mom of two, it sounded reasonable. She's never said anything of the sort, and has never given me that idea, but I figured I'd ask.

She responded with a quick (and amused), "No. Not at all." I shared the article and responses to let her see where I got the idea. She repeated to me, that her mother always joked when she got older, that the last eight would never have been born if she had known about birth control, heh. But my mom said that every one of them were loved and got plenty of attention, as a family and as individuals, from my grandparents.

She remembers my grandma teaching her how to sew, and standing on various boxes with some of her sisters rolling out biscuits in the mornings alongside her. (Gran made four dozen biscuits from scratch every single morning for decades! Ack! I can't imagine, lol!) She remembers my grandad taking just her up to Krispy Kreme sometimes because both of them loved hot, glazed doughnuts, and getting a whole dozen to share between the two of them. They'd eat them all before they went back home! You'd think an old guy with 15 kids wouldn't have the time or interest in taking number 11 out for an individual treat, but she says that he always did. Mom also emphasizes her point with the statement that she was born on Father's Day and says that her dad always told her that she was the "best Father's Day present [he] ever got!"

She has lots of stories to tell, but that'd bore everyone to tears. My point is only that my mom has actually experienced a similar situation to the family in the article, and is able to share that it is possible to love and raise well a whole swarm of kids. I couldn't do it, personally, and I don't think many people could (especially nowadays), but if they can and want to, then great for them.

As far as the financial end of it, I agree with you that if you cannot afford them, then please, don't keep popping them out! Anyone can have an 'oops', try hard, and make the best of a situation, but chronic multipliers who have neither the income nor/or the emotional dedication to nurture a houseful of kids fall into the realm of selfish or foolish.

That being said, my mom's family was dirt poor (no anecdotes, I promise!), but the siblings seem to have been instilled with a very strong sense of hard work and responsibility, down to the very last one. Their lots in life range from very poor to very comfortable, but all are happy, have families of their own, and have never positioned themselves to be a drain on society. Vacations and luxury items seem to hold far less importance when one is loved and part of a stable home.

Apparently necessity was the mother of responsibility in this case. I must draw the conclusion then that although it would seem a difficult situation for most people, some are capable of accomplishing it with flying colors. More power to them! :)

HHS
11-05-05, 02:46 PM
It's obvious that irresponsible people create larger dillemas for themselves and the public when they have huge families. But I don't see anything wrong with responsible people having a lot of children. If there is any ulterior motives at all, perhaps it is an "investment" in their own future. It sounds to me like these children will receive lots of love and will likely reciprocate love back to their parents, especially when they become old.

How selfish of the Duggar parents! To think that they will escape the closed fists of nursing home orderlies!

No, seriously. It's financially possible to raise a large family when the parents are thrifty and know how to manage their money. They might have a shoe-string budget, but it sounds as if they have lots of love. Money can buy lots of things, but not that kind of love.

When I read that article, it made me remember the movie, Saving Private Ryan. Private Ryan's 3 brothers were killed during war, and he was the last son alive who could carry on the family line. The theme of that movie was to save his life, and get him the hell away from that foreign war and back home where he belonged. Americans have been sent, and continue to be sent, to fight and die in foreign wars. At least the Duggar family line will survive them.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0