Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

A bit overboard?

Old 11-03-05, 12:34 AM
  #1  
HHS
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 38
A bit overboard?

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/articl...&sn=010&sc=255
HHS is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 12:45 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,006
Uhh, its San Francisco. You have to ask?
Rockmjd23 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 12:46 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
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.

Last edited by natesfortune; 11-03-05 at 09:09 AM.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 12:53 AM
  #4  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Thankfully, I stop buying that crappy paper years ago.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 05:26 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
'Not to judge, Mr. Morford, but its none of your fecking business."

crazyronin is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 06:20 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
AGuyNamedMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 15,223
endangered caribou stew
AGuyNamedMike is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 07:54 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Mark Morford
Nazgul is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 08:27 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Franklin, WI
Posts: 6,082
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).
KitchenSink is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 10:35 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,450
The last paragraph of that article makes the most sense.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 10:37 AM
  #10  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,730
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.
X is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 10:45 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,770
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.
tonyc3742 is online now  
Old 11-03-05, 01:10 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,450
Originally Posted by dtcarson
I'm not homophobic, I'm asshole-phobic...
You do realize how funny that sounds.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 02:21 PM
  #13  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Originally Posted by dtcarson
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.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 02:30 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Originally Posted by HHS
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/articl...&sn=010&sc=255
I'm confused...what does this article have to do with White Supremacy, jews, or the cheap Scotsmen?
Tommy Ceez is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 02:56 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by HHS
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.
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:03 PM
  #16  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Originally Posted by joeblow69
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.
Josh H is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:10 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by joeblow69
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.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:12 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,770
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.
tonyc3742 is online now  
Old 11-03-05, 03:20 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 17,006
Originally Posted by HHS
What is this family's crime?
They're pushing their evil heterosexual agenda onto us all.
Rockmjd23 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:20 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
joeblow69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Palm Springs
Posts: 8,867
Originally Posted by dtcarson
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:
joeblow69 is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:45 PM
  #21  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Originally Posted by dtcarson
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.
Josh H is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:48 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
it seems the author is more pissed that they are presumedly conservative and christian than anything else.
Venusian is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:53 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
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."
Nazgul is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 03:55 PM
  #24  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Originally Posted by Venusian
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.
Josh H is offline  
Old 11-03-05, 04:00 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Posts: 8,770
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
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.
tonyc3742 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.