Family of 15 .. and want more..

vonhelmet said:
Like I said, everyone indoctrinates their kids one way or another.

See, for example, any reasonably ardent football fans.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between indoctrination towards something as harmless and indeed physically tangible and proveable as a football team and the concept of an all powerful being creating us and ruling over our souls for eternity.

It is the job of a parent to instill things into their children. What football club to support is one thing, whether God is a reality is quite another. Sure present the opinions, present the options and present the arguments BUT if you tell a child that God DOES exist, then up to a certain point/age the child will believe in a concept which can never be proven simply because they have a biological imperitive towards trusting their parents. This is wrong and this is what people are hinting towards in this thread.
 
If they want to have that many children and they have the means to look after them, then whose to say they can't? At least, unlike the scrounging families of that ilk over here, they actually work for a living rather than claiming whatever benefit they can.
 
manic_man said:
There is a difference between indoctrination towards something as harmless and indeed physically tangible and proveable as a football team and the concept of an all powerful being creating us and ruling over our souls for eternity.

It is the job of a parent to instill things into their children. What football club to support is one thing, whether God is a reality is quite another. Sure present the opinions, present the options and present the arguments BUT if you tell a child that God DOES exist, then up to a certain point/age the child will believe in a concept which can never be proven simply because they have a biological imperitive towards trusting their parents. This is wrong and this is what people are hinting towards in this thread.
Click to expand...

You are trying to force your views on the net in a forum and saying a parent should not, isn't that double standards
 
Last edited:
manic_man said:
Undoubtedly Earth can sustain more life than it currently is.

We currently live VERY comfortable lives where our day to day existence isnt about surviving, its about innovating, consuming, things that are pleasant.

As the population increases, this quality of life decreases for everybody. It'll be a slow thing relative to one persons life, but relative to planetary timelines we are tallking hundreds of years unless something is done.. a mere blip.

I'm not sure why people are never able to grasp just how small we are in the scale of time. I believe this inability to conceptualise is what leads people to say "oh things arnt changing with our climate, it was sunny last summer but rainy this summer" wow... one rotation of the Earth, yeah cos thats how long it takes for a planets climate to change noticably.

Population growth is easily calculated, the amount of natural resources we have and indeed usable space we have is easily calculated. If every couple had 15 children, this space would be used up in literally hundreds of years, to the point where everybodies lives were negatively affected. If people stick to 1 or 2 children voluntarily, then in theory, with improved space usage and resource usage, the birth:death ratio would roughly be equal, with enough extra births to compensate for unnaturally short lives.

15 children is too many, they are being selfish.
Click to expand...

Actually currently the way we farm crops and the amount of meat we produce isn't enough to sustain the current human population due to the increased number of floods, natural disasters and droughts hitting Africa and Asia.

National Geographic recently had an article that illustrated how much more farming we'd have to do, how we'd have to produce far more crops per hectare quickly not to end up with massive starvation - mostly of poorer countries that rely heavily on rice for food. We in the richer nations won't be as affected, but the 3rd world could be hit very hard.

Population growth isn't helping either, but even in wealthy countries like Australia there's vast areas that were previously used for growing crops which are now desert after poor water management and the increased use of water in the cities has poluted or reduced the available water for crop irrigration.

It's not looking too great, we need to start using GM more or we'll be in serious grief soon. "food and crop technology" will become incredibly important in coming decades especially if the population in Africa and Asia continues to rise at the rather alarming rate it has been.
 
manic_man said:
There is a difference between indoctrination towards something as harmless and indeed physically tangible and proveable as a football team and the concept of an all powerful being creating us and ruling over our souls for eternity.
Click to expand...

Tell me what the difference is then.

manic_man said:
It is the job of a parent to instill things into their children. What football club to support is one thing, whether God is a reality is quite another. Sure present the opinions, present the options and present the arguments BUT if you tell a child that God DOES exist, then up to a certain point/age the child will believe in a concept which can never be proven simply because they have a biological imperitive towards trusting their parents. This is wrong and this is what people are hinting towards in this thread.
Click to expand...

Right, so football fan parents should present their children with the option of supporting any team, rather than just instilling in them the idea that their team is the best, statistical proof to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
deuse said:
You are trying to force your views on the net in a forum and saying a parent should not isn't that double standards
Click to expand...

Oh come on now, so an argument saying I don't believe others should force an unprovable belief onto their children, rather they should prsent facts and opinions and, sure, offer guidance, means that i am forcing my opinion onto you?

This sounds like a cyclic argument to me, when clearly it isnt.

I present my opinion as just that, my opinion. Please feel free to disagree.

A very young child being told that if they are evil then they will burn with the devil forever, by the one person they trust the most in the whole world? Thats indoctrination.
 
vonhelmet said:
Tell me what the difference is then.



Right, so football fan parents should present their children with the option of supporting any team, rather than just instilling in them the idea that their team is the best, statistical proof to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

it's a metter of scale and importance.

On the one hand we have a football team, for most people they just support their hometeam that their parents supported, they throw a bit of cash the teams way and it offers them somebody to cheer for down the pub.

On the other hand we have a wholly unprovable "truth" about life the universe and everything.

No, indoctrinating your kids with your football team is not the same as instilling a fear/reverence towards your own religion.
 
manic_man said:
it's a metter of scale and importance.

On the one hand we have a football team, for most people they just support their hometeam that their parents supported, they throw a bit of cash the teams way and it offers them somebody to cheer for down the pub.

On the other hand we have a wholly unprovable "truth" about life the universe and everything.

No, indoctrinating your kids with your football team is not the same as instilling a fear/reverence towards your own religion.
Click to expand...

I'm really not seeing the difference. If you don't believe in a given religion, that's fine, but why is it objectionable to impress it upon your children? If it provides a moral framework and social network, how is that a bad thing?
 
vonhelmet said:
I'm really not seeing the difference. If you don't believe in a given religion, that's fine, but why is it objectionable to impress it upon your children? If it provides a moral framework and social network, how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I have no more argument for you, I have already presented why I believe what I believe in a very plain and clear fashion.

ifyou cant see the difference between a football team and faith then there really isnt a way i can explain why I do.
 
vonhelmet said:
I'm really not seeing the difference. If you don't believe in a given religion, that's fine, but why is it objectionable to impress it upon your children? If it provides a moral framework and social network, how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Moral framework? if you have to rely on religion for that then you're in trouble to start with.
 
rghjones said:
As long as they're not claiming benefits and each of their children and their children has only one or no children to offset the population problem then it's fine. Although I seriously doubt both.

Also, which is the mum? I'm guessing second in but three and four in both look older :confused:.
Click to expand...

Why don't the children deserve benefits if it stops them from being in poverty? The position they are in isn't of their own making.

I'm just gonna read through this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit#Qualifying_child.28ren.29

to see how so many children affect the benefit system.

I know in the UK, child tax credit would be worked out per child and so total payments will be sky high (this is of course if the family are poor enough to be eligible). Then there is child benefit which is I believe £15 per child a week regardless of family income.

Then of course there is both housing benfit(UK) and home rental assistance(USA). I imagine the UK system will be more generous.
 
Last edited:
manic_man said:
Fair enough, I have no more argument for you, I have already presented why I believe what I believe in a very plain and clear fashion.

ifyou cant see the difference between a football team and faith then there really isnt a way i can explain why I do.
Click to expand...

You've not really explained why indoctrination of one form is OK, but not another. That's what I'm asking for.
 
vonhelmet said:
You've not really explained why indoctrination of one form is OK, but not another. That's what I'm asking for.
Click to expand...

Why is it ok for somebody to crush a spider but not kill their own parents?

Both are forms of killing, but one is ignored by most sane people, while the other is the ultimate nono.

Its all about scale.

If you want to get all black and white and literal then actually i guess telling your kids which football team to support is also wrong, they should have the choice. However, what does it matter? It's harmless. A family of 13 kids being indoctrinated into beleiving its ok if they also have 13 kids of their own as God said they shouldn't use contraceptive measures means an extra 169 children to add to our already overpopulated planet.
 
Last edited:
She should be sterilised, america has enough religious loons without breeding more of em, years ago when the british threw out all the different people, america got the loony religious crowd, australia got the convicts, i think australia got the better deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom