Was That Ignorant ***** in California Discussed?

[Dinner]

What's the rule in California for a constitutional amendment ending the Proposition system, or at least mandating that spending Propositions have to be accompanied by tax Propositions?

A constitutional amendemnt must either be passed by 2/3rds of the legislature and signed by the governor or passed as a proposition and then passed by a simple majority of the legislature and then signed by the governor. Both are pretty hard to do.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nevada, RI, Arizona, Florida, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont, SCarolina, and Georgia are all Republican governorships, and all of them have deficits.

With your line of logic, you could say that since some other Democratic governorships are in the black (Kansas, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, to name a few), the blame shouldn't be on them, either.

The second point is a much better one.

Thank you.

I don't really look at the governorships, which is basically irrelevant. You have to look at the legislatures.

There really is no excuse for California being in the red.

[Ben Kenobi]

Right now they're holding the whole state hostage and refusing to do their legally required jobs because they don't want to go on record as voting for tax increases.

The people have to see the effects that their legislation has on the state. I am sure that the Republicans would be glad to repeal the mandatory spending increases (passed by Democrats), which you were so good to mention.

Get half of the Democrats to support it and there you go. It would be repealed, and the state can work on their budget problems.

Even the state's Republican governor has told them to do it but they're refusing to do their jobs. I mean even if you cut the entire descressionary budget there isn't enough in it to cover the short fall. I doubt people want all the state prisons shut down so really the only solution is tax increases which shouldn't be to bad given that there have been a lot of tax cuts over the last 10 years.

They are 50 percent over their revenues which is just insane.

Arnie needs to blow up ALL the boxes and start over.

[David Floyd]

Kids are a blessing from God.

Repeat after me: Pregnancy IS a disease. Pregnancy IS a disease. Pregnancy IS a disease. Pregnancy IS a disease.

Trust me, start having sex. Once you have sex a few times, inevitably you will have a pregnancy scare of some sort. Believe me, you will be scared out of your mother****ing mind - Ebola will seem like a pleasant alternative.

If she were married, I can't see why a family of 14 is a bad thing.

Sure you can. Put down the Bible (figuratively, that is - literally, ditch the dogma) and think about it. A family of 14 is not really viable financially, without making all sorts of sacrifices that will inevitably result in some or all of the kids being maladjusted and so completely socially inept they can't function. I promise you, it'll happen.

Depends on how long a view you take. Yes, in the short run it's more expensive, but in the long run, the benefits of 14 children are far more then the benefits of 1 or 2. The other thing you have to remember is that your marginal costs go down for each child. There are many tricks that you can use to get by.

Well, then riddle me this, Batman. You were 16 once. How much did you eat? A lot, yes? Now multiply that by 8, and calculate the simultaneous cost, just of the appetites of 8 16 year olds. Marginal costs may go down somewhat, but the absolute cost goes way up. Also, some costs can't be marginally decreased - diapers, for example. Health care, for another example.

Also, especially once the kids are teenagers, transportation becomes a HUGE issue, doesn't it? Logistically, it's nightmarish to think about.

That's an excellent point. The only reason she is going on student loans is because it's basically free money while you are away at school. It makes perfect sense for me that she would go on student loans, given the field that she plans to study.

A field which, incidentally, is not going to pay her enough to pay down her student loans while simultaneously feeding, clothing, and otherwise raising 14 children.

How is this a hard concept?

[Ben Kenobi]

Trust me, start having sex. Once you have sex a few times, inevitably you will have a pregnancy scare of some sort. Believe me, you will be scared out of your mother****ing mind - Ebola will seem like a pleasant alternative.

Why would it be a bad thing? I'd be thrilled to have a kid with my wife.

Sure you can. Put down the Bible (figuratively, that is - literally, ditch the dogma) and think about it. A family of 14 is not really viable financially, without making all sorts of sacrifices that will inevitably result in some or all of the kids being maladjusted and so completely socially inept they can't function.

Such as homeschooling? Bias much? I think I would have done better with homeschooling, then I would have had in the public system.

I promise you, it'll happen.

I know families like this, and they are just fine.

Well, then riddle me this, Batman. You were 16 once. How much did you eat? A lot, yes? Now multiply that by 8, and calculate the simultaneous cost, just of the appetites of 8 16 year olds.

I'm 5'5'' and 130 pounds. You lose that bet. Remember, that with 14 kids, assuming that you have one a year, on average, half of them will be girls. On average you will have 3 teenage boys, which is what my mother had to deal with having three boys, (13, 16 and 19.)

Now the thing about this, is that going from 6 kids to 14, isn't that much of an increase, because as the older ones move out, your costs go down, and you won't have more then you would have with the 6 all at once.

Marginal costs may go down somewhat, but the absolute cost goes way up. Also, some costs can't be marginally decreased - diapers, for example. Health care, for another example.

Depends on whether you go cloth.

Health care? If you are having 14, chances are most of them are healthy. You aren't going to be getting health insurance on all of them (as your employer won't likely cover them). It would be more efficient to actually save and pay up for coverage when you have that many.

Also, especially once the kids are teenagers, transportation becomes a HUGE issue, doesn't it? Logistically, it's nightmarish to think about.

What makes you think a family like this would be living in the city? It's a much different life. You just don't go out where you have to drive. You play with friends and each other in the neighbourhood. Since you would be homeschooling, you'd have them all at home, and the only one you are transporting would be the father there and back. You'd have a trip once a week to town to go shopping, and that would be it.

You could do it on one really big vehicle, although you'd probably have two big ones.

A field which, incidentally, is not going to pay her enough to pay down her student loans while simultaneously feeding, clothing, and otherwise raising 14 children.

How is this a hard concept?

Where am I arguing in her favour? I think she should get married.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Her mother has described her has been absolutely obsessed with having more and more children. If her mother thinks she's mentally obsessed with an idea then why should we argue?

We only force incarcerate mental patients if they are physical danger to others.

[David Floyd]

Why would it be a bad thing? I'd be thrilled to have a kid with my wife.

Seems simple, in theory, doesn't it?

Such as homeschooling? Bias much? I think I would have done better with homeschooling, then I would have had in the public system.

Yes, homeschooling is one thing that tends to render people socially inept, but not the only thing. Homeschooling just is not a good idea, on the whole. Granted, I'm sure there are individual cases where it worked out fine, but there is just too much risk of over-protective parents sneaking their dogma into education. What if the parents believe in Young Earth Creationism? What if the parents believe the Earth floats on the back of a turtle? What if the parents are fanatical Muslims? What if the parents are just flat out crazy? What if they don't believe in germs? What if they are Scientologists? What if they believe the Moon landings were faked? It just goes on from there, and unfortunately, the segment of the population most likely to believe the above craziness is also the segment of the population most likely to have large families and/or homeschool their children.

Growing up with any of those beliefs - and many others - ingrained into them by whackjob parents is bound to leave a kid very maladjusted and unable to deal with society as it really is.

Let's move on to organized sports - trust me, it's going to be very difficult for the parents to pay for that. I know, because I come from a family with only one other sibling, and it was tough for my family to afford it. Organized sports (as just another example) play a MAJOR formative role in a child's development. They learn teamwork, out to interact with others, the trait of competitiveness, etc.

Or how about this? One of the sacrifices that a kid in a 14 sibling family will have to endure is very rarely getting new and/or nice things. They will wear hand-me-down clothes, not be able to go to the movies with their friends, won't be able to get the newest toys, etc. I'm not saying that we should give kids anything and everything they want, but a lack of everything will simply set them up as social outcasts.

I can keep going, but I'll move on for now.

I'm 5'5'' and 130 pounds. You lose that bet.

Don't be pedantic.

Remember, that with 14 kids, assuming that you have one a year, on average, half of them will be girls. On average you will have 3 teenage boys, which is what my mother had to deal with having three boys, (13, 16 and 19.)

Now the thing about this, is that going from 6 kids to 14, isn't that much of an increase, because as the older ones move out, your costs go down, and you won't have more then you would have with the 6 all at once.

You don't have to assume any such thing when we are talking about this particular case of OCTUPLETS!

Additionally, what makes you assume the cost of kids goes down once they move out? Odds are, those kids - even if they are socially well-adjusted, which seems unlikely - will require some form of support through college (which the family probably won't be able to afford) and even after. This is very, very common.

Yes, you may only "average" 3 teenage boys, but girls cost money in other ways, too, don't they? In some ways, girls can be just as expensive - their clothes tend to cost more, makeup is a concern, "feminine products" are a necessity. Oh, and girls eat, too.

And finally, going from 6 kids to 14 may not seem like it adds much on a scale of cost per kid, but it adds a TON in absolute costs. People aren't poor because of percentages and such, people are poor because they lack money in an absolute sense.

Health care? If you are having 14, chances are most of them are healthy.

You mean shots don't cost anything? Regular checkups? Dental visits? What about when Jimmy breaks his arm playing with all the friends that you assume he's going to have? Tina's first trip to the gynecologist? Health care doesn't mean just taking care of illnesses, it means taking preventative steps. Multiply all of this by 14, and you have a serious problem - ESPECIALLY if you don't have insurance, which seems to be the course you are suggesting.

What makes you think a family like this would be living in the city? It's a much different life. You just don't go out where you have to drive. You play with friends and each other in the neighbourhood. Since you would be homeschooling, you'd have them all at home, and the only one you are transporting would be the father there and back. You'd have a trip once a week to town to go shopping, and that would be it.

And in your imaginary Leave it to Beaver society, this is all a Good Thing. Unfortunately, raising a family of 14 kids outside of the city, where they get little interaction with normal kids and don't get the outings and such that most normal kids get isn't conducive to the emotional well-being of those kids, either immediate or long-term.

Where am I arguing in her favour? I think she should get married.

What idiot would marry this bat**** crazy *****? She had octuplets via IVF, on top of the 6 kids she already had! No one can afford that brood, and what guy would want to deal with it, especially when none of the kids are his??

Actually, I have an idea. Why don't YOU go marry her?

Thought so.

Also, some food for thought:

The average birth rate is always higher among families (remember, I said AVERAGE) who are lower on the socio-economic scale. This means that poor people have more kids, in layman's terms.

Ever think that their birth rate might be an ongoing contributing factor towards their poverty? :hmm:

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems simple, in theory, doesn't it?

We have very different attitudes on family. I wouldn't be scared at all. It would be one of the happiest days of my life.

Yes, homeschooling is one thing that tends to render people socially inept, but not the only thing. Homeschooling just is not a good idea, on the whole.

If your goal is education, homeschooled children outperform their peers.

Granted, I'm sure there are individual cases where it worked out fine, but there is just too much risk of over-protective parents sneaking their dogma into education.

As opposed to teachers doing the same? You expose your child to 12 years of education, and yes, it will have an influence on them, above and beyond their parents. It's not a question as to whether they will be taught a dogma, but which one. You cannot have education without an ideology of some sort.

What if the parents believe in Young Earth Creationism? What if the parents believe the Earth floats on the back of a turtle?

What if the parents believe that the universe is eternal? What if they believe in abiogenesis?

What if the parents are fanatical Muslims?

What if they are grapefruit snorting granola crunching atheists?

What if the parents are just flat out crazy? What if they don't believe in germs? What if they are Scientologists? What if they believe the Moon landings were faked? It just goes on from there, and unfortunately, the segment of the population most likely to believe the above craziness is also the segment of the population most likely to have large families and/or homeschool their children.

You, sir have hit on the principle of liberty. Yes, people are crazy, but they should be permitted to educate their children. Do you sincerely believe that parents are crazy, but teachers are not? It's not a matter as to avoiding craziness, but as to whether parents have the obligation to educate their children. If they do, then they have the right to choose how their child ought to be educated.

Growing up with any of those beliefs - and many others - ingrained into them by whackjob parents is bound to leave a kid very maladjusted and unable to deal with society as it really is.

I agree. There are all kinds of crackpot ideas out there. Some of them quite persistant. However, why do you believe that when children are educated in public schools, that it acts as a firewall against crackpots?

Let's move on to organized sports - trust me, it's going to be very difficult for the parents to pay for that. I know, because I come from a family with only one other sibling, and it was tough for my family to afford it. Organized sports (as just another example) play a MAJOR formative role in a child's development. They learn teamwork, out to interact with others, the trait of competitiveness, etc.

Organised sports are a luxury. I don't see what's different between playing on an organised team or an unorganised team. The skills are the same. You would think no one learned to play baseball just hitting around with their friends.

Or how about this? One of the sacrifices that a kid in a 14 sibling family will have to endure is very rarely getting new and/or nice things. They will wear hand-me-down clothes, not be able to go to the movies with their friends, won't be able to get the newest toys, etc. I'm not saying that we should give kids anything and everything they want, but a lack of everything will simply set them up as social outcasts.

Why would that make them an outcast? I could care less about the movies, and to a kid, they don't care very much about brands and images, and by the time they do, they are old enough to get a job and pay for it themselves.

You don't have to assume any such thing when we are talking about this particular case of OCTUPLETS!

Where did I say I was defending this? In the case where you are married, the kids are going to be spread out, not 8 at a time.

Additionally, what makes you assume the cost of kids goes down once they move out? Odds are, those kids - even if they are socially well-adjusted, which seems unlikely - will require some form of support through college (which the family probably won't be able to afford) and even after. This is very, very common.

You speak more of yourself and your expectations. It completely depends on the family. I should think that if you have 7 younger siblings that you understand you have to take the initiative to support yourself at an earlier age then you would otherwise. I'd say that's just the opposite of the overprotection that you condemn. They would also be more likely to get married at an earlier age too.

Yes, you may only "average" 3 teenage boys, but girls cost money in other ways, too, don't they? In some ways, girls can be just as expensive - their clothes tend to cost more, makeup is a concern, "feminine products" are a necessity. Oh, and girls eat, too.

You only mentioned the boys and their food. Boys are actually quite a bit cheaper.

Your argument says "it's too hard so it can't be done." I'm not saying it will be easy, I am saying that it is possible. You have to work hard, but that should be a given.

And finally, going from 6 kids to 14 may not seem like it adds much on a scale of cost per kid, but it adds a TON in absolute costs. People aren't poor because of percentages and such, people are poor because they lack money in an absolute sense.

I presume you are speaking of material poverty? There are certain choices which will be made for you (ie, living out in the country, jobs you can take, homeschooling, single income, etc).

Statistically, we don't see a correlation between poverty and family size. The correlation is between poverty and marital status. If you are a single mom, you are more likely to be poor. Your kids are less likely to go to school. If your concern is poverty then you should be looking at the more important factors then family size.

You mean shots don't cost anything?

Which ones do you need? MMR + DPT? That's at most, 50 bucks per kid. It's not a significant cost.

Regular checkups?

You can go to a clinic and save quite a bit of money this way. I'd say with 14 kids, if you had them do an annual checkup, it would be about 1,400 a year.

That's about half what your transportation costs would be every year. Expensive, but still, not one of your most significant costs.

Dental visits, again, you would probably go to a dental school, just because you would save money. You'd probably pay about 20 bucks a visit. If you go once a year, you'd have 20x14 = 280 bucks total for dentists.

What about when Jimmy breaks his arm playing with all the friends that you assume he's going to have?

Well with three boys having a total of one break in 20 years, you'd probably expect 5 broken arms.

ESPECIALLY if you don't have insurance, which seems to be the course you are suggesting.

I'm not convinced you could get a good deal from the insurance company that would warrant the cost of coverage for every year. The only reason I suggest that is because of the number of people you are talking about would likely mean that you get hosed for coverage.

And in your imaginary Leave it to Beaver society, this is all a Good Thing. Unfortunately, raising a family of 14 kids outside of the city, where they get little interaction with normal kids and don't get the outings and such that most normal kids get isn't conducive to the emotional well-being of those kids, either immediate or long-term.

Wow, I don't know what to say. Have you ever lived in the country? I grew up out there. I wouldn't trade that life for anything else. 'Normal' kids can have the city. The country is far better.

What idiot would marry this bat**** crazy *****? She had octuplets via IVF, on top of the 6 kids she already had! No one can afford that brood, and what guy would want to deal with it, especially when none of the kids are his??

Someone who likes kids and wants a family.

Actually, I have an idea. Why don't YOU go marry her?

You really think the kids are a deal-breaker? I'd be thrilled to get married to a woman who loves me, and the kids would be a bonus.

The average birth rate is always higher among families (remember, I said AVERAGE) who are lower on the socio-economic scale. This means that poor people have more kids, in layman's terms.

That is true, but you've got it backwards.

1. Rich people, usually don't have kids, want them, etc. It's been true throughout the world, that as you get wealthier you don't want to give up your toys for kids.

Ever think that their birth rate might be an ongoing contributing factor towards their poverty? :hmm:

It's more the inverse. If you have wealth you can't imagine what life is like without it, and you don't want to sacrifice.

[Elok]

Wanting a big family is a sign of mental illness? You know, perhaps if there were more men willing to step up she wouldn't have to be using IVF. This is an indictment of the men in California, that they can't satisfy this woman's desire for a big family.

This is an indictment of all the people who say we should permaban Ben. We're approaching Neddish levels of bat****titude here.

[Kuciwalker]

The humor to noise ratio is too low.

[Elok]

There's a trick to skimming out the humor, similar to the way prospectors pan through silt for gold nuggets. You start reading snippets of response, and if they don't look promising (e.g., they appear to be his standard repeat-invalid-argument stonewall), you skip to the next snippet. I certainly didn't read all that junk he posted to find that just now.

[David Floyd]

We have very different attitudes on family. I wouldn't be scared at all. It would be one of the happiest days of my life.

Again, you just won't know until you get there. You might not be in a financial place to have kids, for any number of reasons. You just can't make the blanket statement that a pregnancy is always a good thing, regardless of other factors in your life. Or at the very least, you can't make that statement until you've been in that position. I, at least, am qualified to speak from experience. I've known for quite a while that I consider kids the worst thing (just about) that could happen to me. A couple of years ago, there was a pregnancy scare involving a girl I was sleeping with, and my first thoughts were a combination of horror and abortion.

The point is, don't make statements you can't back up with experience. I know your opinion about how you would feel dovetails nicely with your religious beliefs, but you just won't know until and if you get there.

If your goal is education, homeschooled children outperform their peers.

Yes, that's true. In some areas. On the other hand, I think looking at the performance of homeschoolers opens a number of things open to examination - for one, the objectivity of the parents/teachers when grading their kids. I understand your point, though - homeschoolers tend to do better on standardized tests than public school kids. But at the same time, there are factors not taken into account just by looking at those scores- for example, the vast majority of homeschooled kids don't come from households torn apart by drugs, violence, and divorce (this is also a racial divide, by and large, and guess what race most homeschooled kids are?).

Furthermore, saying that homeschooled kids outperform, on average, kids in public schools isn't saying much. US public schools are for ****. Just because a homeschooler can outperform Tyrone the future gangbanger in a spelling bee doesn't mean that a homeschool education is worth very much.

When you take performance on standardized tests below the college level out of the equation, and focus solely on college performance, you will note that studies have repeatedly shown that homeschooled students do not, in fact, perform better than their non-homeschooled peers. They are right on the median line for first year retention, college acceptance, GPA, etc., etc., etc.

So, if your point is that homeschooling is equally effective with US public schools, you probably have a point when it comes to education. However, there are many valuable things that kids don't learn in books, that they aren't going to learn at home with Mommy and Daddy - how to stand up to bullies, how to act around the opposite sex/how to date, how to question the beliefs they have been taught all along, etc. All of that is pretty valuable, most people would admit, and you won't get that to nearly the same degree in a homeschool environment.

*a bunch of points about dogma being in education, whether kids are taught by their parents or teachers*

Yes, that's true to an extent, but remember, a large amount of the unscientific twaddle taught in schools is the result of meddling parents/religious nutters. Take the recent debate in Texas, for example. To briefly sum it up, there was a debate over public school science curriculum, regarding the language in evolution textbooks. Essentially, an evil ***** named Cynthia Dunbar, and some like-minded associates, most of whom are out to wreck, not benefit Texas public education, decided they knew better than people with advanced degrees what should go in science textbooks. Fortunately, they lost. Sort of. The point is, dogma does leak into public schools, and much of it is the fault of the same people I am saying should butt out of the education system.

However, I imagine you are more referring to taking God out of public schools and putting evolution in as being dogma. If that's the case - and if I'm beating up a strawman, please, be more specific - I fail to see how removing an unscientific concept and putting in a scientific concept meets the bar of being dogmatic.

You, sir have hit on the principle of liberty. Yes, people are crazy, but they should be permitted to educate their children. Do you sincerely believe that parents are crazy, but teachers are not? It's not a matter as to avoiding craziness, but as to whether parents have the obligation to educate their children. If they do, then they have the right to choose how their child ought to be educated.

I don't recall arguing the question of whether or not parents have the right to homeschool their children. I simply question the wisdom of doing so, and whether it is in the best interest of the child. Strongly question, in fact.

Organised sports are a luxury. I don't see what's different between playing on an organised team or an unorganised team. The skills are the same. You would think no one learned to play baseball just hitting around with their friends.

Remind me again, what sports did you play growing up? This is something I think I probably know more about than you, seeing as how in addition to playing pickup games, I was involved in organized baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, boxing, and martial arts at various points in my childhood, some of which has continued on today, and I can tell you that there is a huge difference in environment - in the pickup game, you aren't keeping score, there isn't much teamwork, it's just a bunch of guys goofing off. In organized sports, the exact opposite is true.

So again, what organized sports did you play?

Why would that make them an outcast? I could care less about the movies, and to a kid, they don't care very much about brands and images, and by the time they do, they are old enough to get a job and pay for it themselves.

Kids don't care about brands, but they certainly care about their own image. You don't think that if you're the only kid in your class wearing clothes that appear a bit ragged and maybe don't quite fit right due to them being hand-me-downs that have been repaired by hand, that you won't get mercilessly mocked? Sorry, but kids are cruel. It'll happen. Don't put your kids in a position where they will have to endure that, because of your own selfish desire to spam the world with as many kids as possible.

You speak more of yourself and your expectations. It completely depends on the family. I should think that if you have 7 younger siblings that you understand you have to take the initiative to support yourself at an earlier age then you would otherwise. I'd say that's just the opposite of the overprotection that you condemn.

Hey, I'm not the only one talking about averages - you're the one, after all, who brought up the stats saying that homeschool students outperform their peers, without discussing context. What, you can do it but I can't?

Of course it depends on the family. It also depends on the person. But while logic may dictate that you lean on yourself and not your family, your 18 years of homeschooling experience, where you didn't learn many of the social skills required to succeed, might lead you in a different direction.

They would also be more likely to get married at an earlier age too.

Why does this logically follow? Especially for guys?

Your argument says "it's too hard so it can't be done." I'm not saying it will be easy, I am saying that it is possible. You have to work hard, but that should be a given.

No, my argument is that "its hard, and it can't be done while simultaneously providing your 14 kids with a comfortable lifestyle". I don't really understand - what are all these benefits you keep talking about of having tons of kids, when all we are discussing is sacrifice?

Oh, I see. The benefits come later on in life, when you're old. This way, you have plenty of kids around to take care of you.

Statistically, we don't see a correlation between poverty and family size. The correlation is between poverty and marital status. If you are a single mom, you are more likely to be poor. Your kids are less likely to go to school. If your concern is poverty then you should be looking at the more important factors then family size.

Sure we do. The correlation is obvious all over the world. Nations with higher birthrates tend to be poorer. We had this discussion a while back and you were heavily PWNED. Do I really need to bring up average birthrates vs GNP per capita, again?

Of course, we're not talking about the whole world, just the US. But the point still holds. You don't see millionaires with 10 kids. Point out one, and I'll show you the exception that proves the rule.

Which ones do you need? MMR + DPT? That's at most, 50 bucks per kid. It's not a significant cost.

Are you insane? $50 per kid (of course, if you have twins, triplets, etc., it's $50*x) actually is a meaningful expense to many, many families in this nation. Especially large families. It certainly was to mine growing up, and I only had one sibling.

You can go to a clinic and save quite a bit of money this way. I'd say with 14 kids, if you had them do an annual checkup, it would be about 1,400 a year.

That's about half what your transportation costs would be every year. Expensive, but still, not one of your most significant costs.

Dental visits, again, you would probably go to a dental school, just because you would save money. You'd probably pay about 20 bucks a visit. If you go once a year, you'd have 20x14 = 280 bucks total for dentists.

Well, let's tag another $1700/year onto the medical bills. Of course, occasionally the kids are gonna actually get sick, and need things like, I don't know, medicine, so let's just round the number up to $2000/year. Wow, that's getting expensive, especially for families making at or less than the average yearly income in this country - which again, is going to apply to most families with the number of kids we're talking about.

Well with three boys having a total of one break in 20 years, you'd probably expect 5 broken arms.

Any idea of what it costs to fix a broken arm, especially without insurance? I think we can safely say somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000 or so, and that's assuming it isn't a serious break requiring surgery. So, 5 broken arms * $5000/20 years. Let's do the math: 25k/20 = $1250/year, on average. Let's go ahead and add that in. So on top of the shots, the annual doctor/dentists visits, and now the inevitable broken arms, we're up to $50+$2000+$1250 = $3300/year. This starting to sound expensive? I mean, we're talking about what is probably approaching 10% of the family's annual income, pre-tax.

Wow, I don't know what to say. Have you ever lived in the country? I grew up out there. I wouldn't trade that life for anything else. 'Normal' kids can have the city. The country is far better.

Says you. I disagree. *shrug* It's a matter of personal taste, I guess. But it's not living in the country I have a problem with, it's the lifestyle you're describing - one in which (it seems) the kids have very little social interaction, especially early on, with any other kids their age, other than each other and whoever happens to be living nearby. Although "out in the country" I can't imagine there are that many neighbors close by. Tack onto that the fact that the kids are most likely getting religion mixed with their education on a daily basis, which is gonna **** with their critical thinking skills, and the fact that the family has essentially no money once you factor in the massive food and medical bills that a large number of kids *IS* going to incur, and all of a sudden I'm pretty worried about these kids.

Someone who likes kids and wants a family.

You really think the kids are a deal-breaker? I'd be thrilled to get married to a woman who loves me, and the kids would be a bonus.

Then why aren't you? I mean, you're the one who castigated men for not providing Octuplet Woman with the kids she wanted, so I guess my question is, why aren't you being that guy?

[MrFun]

If she were married, I can't see why a family of 14 is a bad thing.

Are you on crack or something?

[Q Classic]

What if the parents believe that the universe is eternal? What if they believe in abiogenesis?

Then they shouldn't ****ing complain when no self-respecting university with an actual science curriculum refuses to accept their science education.

Organised sports are a luxury. I don't see what's different between playing on an organised team or an unorganised team. The skills are the same. You would think no one learned to play baseball just hitting around with their friends.

Actually, not all the skills are the same. Teamwork, for instance, or self-sacrifice. On unorganized teams, there's that much less incentive to work with that ****ing ******* neighbor kid named Ben because you can usually arrange for him to be on the other team. Or maybe you don't want to run up and down stadium steps to train, because, let's face it, that's about as much fun as listening to SSPX members try to explain how the Holocaust never happened. Then there are the matters of rules...

Where did I say I was defending this? In the case where you are married, the kids are going to be spread out, not 8 at a time.

But you are defending this. You've not condemned the woman, so far as I can tell, about her irresponsibility.

You speak more of yourself and your expectations. It completely depends on the family. I should think that if you have 7 younger siblings that you understand you have to take the initiative to support yourself at an earlier age then you would otherwise. I'd say that's just the opposite of the overprotection that you condemn. They would also be more likely to get married at an earlier age too.

Which is not necessarily a good thing, the early marriage.

Your argument says "it's too hard so it can't be done." I'm not saying it will be easy, I am saying that it is possible. You have to work hard, but that should be a given.

David Floyd's argument is that it's extraordinarily difficult, and that in most circumstances, shouldn't be done. There's a difference.

Which ones do you need? MMR + DPT? That's at most, 50 bucks per kid. It's not a significant cost.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/cdc-vac-price-list.htm

Maybe you have it cheaper there, but the CDC's average for the MMR is $80 from them, and the DaPT ranges from $20 to $50.

Well with three boys having a total of one break in 20 years, you'd probably expect 5 broken arms.

I like how you're pulling this **** from your ass, like you do everything else.

I'm not convinced you could get a good deal from the insurance company that would warrant the cost of coverage for every year. The only reason I suggest that is because of the number of people you are talking about would likely mean that you get hosed for coverage.

And not taking insurance means that incase****happens, you get hosed for the cost.

1. Rich people, usually don't have kids, want them, etc. It's been true throughout the world, that as you get wealthier you don't want to give up your toys for kids.

It's more the inverse. If you have wealth you can't imagine what life is like without it, and you don't want to sacrifice.

So you're making a case for poverty, then? I suppose it is one of the common themes found in religion.

[Dis]

Nevada has a deficit? I think not. We have a balanced budget amendment.