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

[Q Classic]

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

Well, yes, so do many other states. That's why many programs got cut.

http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9480464

I don't think it's completely solved it, but.

[Dis]

Yes our taxes are down and we have to cut. You kind of have to expect that since we are sliding into a global depression. Our unemployment rates are at 9% and gaming revenue is severely down. We might not make it if this keeps up. Our state could turn into ghost town- or ghost state.

[Dis]

nevertheless I just want one of her children. it's not a crime to take one is it? I saw it in a movie once. (name that movie)

[Alinestra Covelia]

... Raising Arizona?

[Dis]

yup

[Jon Miller]

Are you on crack or something?

I would do it if I could afford it and my wife was willing.

I don't expect to have either ever occur though.

Also, I think that Homeschooling can be really good as long as the kid gets good socialization. Many of the public schools are disaster areas which I wouldn't send my kids within 100 feet of.

JM
(Wifeless and childless)

[GhengisFarb™]

Are you on crack or something?

You haven't seen "The Waltons"?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Sure I can. The circumstances honestly don't matter. That is what you don't understand about my way of thinking. Sure they can be positive or negative circumstances, but for me bringing a child into the world is always positive. As I said, it would be one of the best days of my life.

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.

Why do you presume that I would feel the same way? As I said we have very different ways at looking at the world.

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.

Fair enough, but you have no experience with what it would be like for me, so I don't really see how your experience has any value to me. Now if you saw the world the same way I did and then described your experience, I would find it valuable.

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'm talking on standardised testing, like SAT. Homeschooled kids perform better then their peers.

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?).

Most of the divide is family structure, which just reinforces my point. Black people are much less likely to have an intact family, which is the primary reason why they don't do as well on average.

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.

Which is the point I have been trying to get across to you. Homeschooling is a benefit to the children, not a detriment.

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 what you are saying is that homeschooled children do just as well as those in public and private schools? That's a positive not a negative. You are trying to prove that they would do worse, not better. If it was as you said, that they are 'stunted', you'd expect them to perform worse, but as you've said that's not the case.

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.

I don't know what to say.

Kids learn how to act around the opposite sex by watching their parents if they have them. Same with bullies. Same with dating.

As for questioning your beliefs, I have to admit that I learned that in one class in history. However, that was not in the public schools, but in IB which is a completely different curriculum.

I would hazard to say that the concept that you should question authority isn't a concept that is important to education in this day and age.

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.

I mentioned some very specific twaddle, which has been taught by teachers and not parents, to my knowledge. Again, it raises my point that anything that makes parents unreliable is also applicable to teachers. Teachers are not some infalliable oracle. I'm actually rather disappointed that for someone who prides himself on seeing through twaddle is defending public schools so rigorously. They aren't in the business to churn out discernment.

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.

I mentioned two concepts, abiogenesis and the universe being eternal, both of which are secular concepts outside current scientific orthodoxy. Twaddle isn't restricted to theists, DFloyd.

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.

Point taken. I retract the statement. I would argue that the outcomes are advantageous, which would lead one to be either neutral or supportive of the practice. Of course, that's a utilitarian ideal, which you might have a problem defending.

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?

Organised?

Lets see. I played Soccer, Volleyball. I did track and cross country running and skiing all at an organised level throughout elementary and high school.

What I found is that unorganised sports were good at keeping me in condition for the rest. I honestly think organised sports are way overhyped and that kids, especially younger kids are better served to just play and enjoy 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?

I didn't have a choice in that equation growing up.

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.

Selfish? What's wrong with being selfish, David? I didn't take you for one of those share the wealth folks.

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.

You are assuming they lack social skills when your own statistics state that they have equal chances of finishing university. If they were lacking in social skills, you would expect them to have lower graduation rates, but that is not the case.

Why does this logically follow? Especially for guys?

Observation. Education is also negatively correlated with family size, for the most part. Years that you spend in education are years that you are delaying building your own family. Guys, you are right this will have less of an effect, but it will still be there.

No, my argument is that "its hard, and it can't be done while simultaneously providing your 14 kids with a comfortable lifestyle".

So it's simply a quality of life issue. I don't think that's as substantial a criticism as you make it out to be. Who decides what is a sufficient quality of life for another person? This is as much an issue of perception as anything else. I believe that you can provide the basics and a few of the wants, but I've never said that the life will be a comfortable one for either, not in the sense that it might be for a smaller family.

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?

The benefits are in the children themselves, not in the material goods. Benefit is a very broad concept.

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.

Exactly. You have a family when you are old.

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?

That is not because they are impoverished because they have children, but because as they get wealthier, they choose not to have as many.

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.

So what's the point of me bothering to address this critique if it cannot be falsified?

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.

Your family couldn't afford vaccinations for two children? All I'm saying is that it's not a significant cost compared with say housing, or food, or transportation.

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.

I'd call that reasonable which would put your families' health care the same as the transportation for 1 vehicle.

50 dollars for a tank of gas which lasts you a week is 50 x 50 = 2500 dollars a year.

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.

About in line with other costs such as transportation, food, etc.

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.

That's how it was for me growing up. My two best friends were just down the road by me and we spent all our free time together. I don't know why it would be considered to be deprived. They were about a 10 minute walk away.

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.

Medical care is 300 a month. Transportation is about 250. I'd imagine their rent would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800 a month. Food for 14, would probably be around 1000 a month.

So that would come out to under 2.5k a month, which would correspond to a salary of 30 thousand a year take home on one income.

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?

Don't know her, and nor can I say that I love her as I would a wife.

[DaShi]

Are you on crack or something?

Ben, in a desperate attempt to pretend to be Catholic, is embracing all its stereotypes.

But he's forgotten the one about penance! You owe me an apology, Ben!

[Tuberski]

Link about violent offenders?

you're kidding right? From Ben?

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

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...

Which is what scouts are for.

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

I said it was a good thing to have the children, but bad that she isn't married and is on state support.

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

Good or bad, not necessarily a bad thing either.

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

Floyd argues that the quality of life would suffer. We'd both agree here, but where we disagree is that the children would be worse off.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs...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.

Ok. Still, it's not a huge cost compared with say food.

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

Well it's just to come up with some quick and dirty numbers for the total health care expenses of a family of 14, assuming that they are uninsured and scrimp wherever possible.

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

If you know an insurer who would insure a family of 14 for the same cost as a smaller one, I'd be surprised.

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

No, I'm just saying why family size declines as people get richer.

[Ben Kenobi]

But he's forgotten the one about penance! You owe me an apology, Ben!

I did go to confession and told the priest about our exchange. He said I had to do a hail mary.

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29129126/

Tuberski, google is your friend.

[Tuberski]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29129126/

Tuberski, google is your friend.

I didn't make the claim, you did.

And according to your article:

"There's going to be a lot more child molesters out there, drug dealers, all of them are "non-violent..." [They] are going to be out on the streets a lot more," said Bauer.

Google isn't your friend.

ACK!

[SlowwHand]

So now comparisons with Anglina Jolie? Let me ask this, was her lip enhancement state sponsored?