I think so. He's usually with the kids when I see him. He's really my brother's friend, so I don't know all the details. His kids are freakin' adorable though! And his wife was happy to have so many, so no harm there.
well so long as theyre not ugly, thats the main thing, yeah? :rolleyes:
So birth control is a sin but living off of other taxpayers is not? Bringing children into a world knowing he can't afford to feed them in is ridiculous. It's not like your friend hit hard times and needed assistance. He knows he's in a bind and willfully gets her pregnant again. Very irresponsible and very wrong. It's one thing for a rich family to have as many children as possible but an entirely different thing for the poor to be fools and keep popping them out because it's God's will. I'm pretty sure God would want him to be smarter about this.
I wish I was as fortunate, as fortunate as me.
__________________________________________________________
Shameless beer-related plugs:
Instagram/Twitter/Untappd: FtMyersBeerGuy
I believe that a lot of people are very judgemental, including the OP. Yes, Christians tend to be the first pointed out in this grouping. Especially Catholics. Ironically, a hell of a lot of people are judgemental towards Catholics in this area. Not saying this gent is Catholic. But, I think you are an ass for thinking he can't have as many children as he wants. It's his business. Yep he's going to be strapped and work like a psycho for the rest of his life. Guess what? Butt the F out. It's not your business.
The same people who would say butt the F out of the bedroom if it fits their agenda (Gay rights/abortion rights) are the same f'ing people who are judging people for having too many kids. Butt the F out. Be f'ing consistent.
Anyway, It's not like they are living below the substinance level. Let it go.
Yeah, I think people are getting up in arms over some perceived price tag that his behaviour is supposedly costing them. And I'd buy it too I guess, that they have a right to rag on people of low incomes for having too many children if for one minute I didn't think that exactly the same people that are ragging are also forking out hard earned cash to support things like war or corporate fuck ups. Some people take a great deal of interest in other people's sex lives. 7 kids wouldn't be my thing but they're low income, think of him doing a public service by supplying the next generation of undereducated cannon fodder for the wars.
some of us had this conversation in that dugger family thread.
it really does bug me when people can't afford to have lots of kids but do anyways. it bugs me when people can afford it and do, only because of the consumption thing (i hate thinking about how many diapers they're going to be throwing out in the process). but yah, more so even when they can't afford it.
its a form of child abuse if you ask me, if you can't afford to feed your children properly you should NOT be pumping them out.
in a sense, it is your business. if he is on welfare, thats your tax money. i'da said something... but that's just me and i can be too outspoken at times.
I believe that a lot of people are very judgemental, including the OP. Yes, Christians tend to be the first pointed out in this grouping. Especially Catholics. Ironically, a hell of a lot of people are judgemental towards Catholics in this area. Not saying this gent is Catholic. But, I think you are an ass for thinking he can't have as many children as he wants. It's his business. Yep he's going to be strapped and work like a psycho for the rest of his life. Guess what? Butt the F out. It's not your business.
The same people who would say butt the F out of the bedroom if it fits their agenda (Gay rights/abortion rights) are the same f'ing people who are judging people for having too many kids. Butt the F out. Be f'ing consistent.
Anyway, It's not like they are living below the substinance level. Let it go.
what part of living off government assistance did you miss here... and gay rights? that is no comparison. a personal choice for someone to be gay or not impacts themselves. a choice to keep bringing children into a home that you can't afford affects the entire family.
what part of living off government assistance did you miss here... and gay rights? that is no comparison. a personal choice for someone to be gay or not impacts themselves. a choice to keep bringing children into a home that you can't afford affects the entire family.
Here's my issue:
1. He's obviously religious. He has the right to practice in our country.
2. Yes, he may be receiving help from the govenment. Guess what, lots of people abuse the system and receive government help (crack dealers, father's who have impregnated 20 different single mothers, those respective single mothers, the list can keep going). Do you want to cut off the government assistance to all? Watch what you say.... cause if you do, you're most likely someone who leans to the RIGHT politically. Yep.... dreaded Republican.
3. I'd rather pay for this gents kids to grow up in a healthy environment than some no good crack dealer. But, guess what... it's not my say. Nor do I want it to be. That's all I'm saying to you all. If it fits your agenda your fine with handouts. If it doesn't, you're not. This scenario doesn't fit your agenda because it appears religion is involved. So, that rules out him deserving a handout. Once again, be F'ing consistent.
It just find it almost criminally reckless and stupid in this day and age. We have enough humans thank you.
Agreed. My point is that a lot of people who are judging this dude for being reckless and stupid are the same people sympathizing with some crack mother and her 15 kids. I'm not claiming him to be "right". I'm saying
1. it's judgemental to say he's wrong.
2. I'd much rather pay for him and his kids than some other people who are abusing the system (free riding). Atleast he is still married, appears to have a job and his family is intact.
****P.S. It use to piss off my ex gf and her family to no end when people would make negative comments under their breath about her family of 10. As if they were better than her parents because they would never make that decision. After seeing the way people behaved towards them first hand, I've decided that it is wrong to gang up on large families and be "publically judgemental" as the OP was "considering". These people were good people. Would I choose to go that route? F No. But, am I going to sit around and bitch that they are awful people? F No.
Agreed. My point is that a lot of people who are judging this dude for being reckless and stupid are the same people sympathizing with some crack mother and her 15 kids. I'm not claiming him to be "right". I'm saying
1. it's judgemental to say he's wrong.
2. I'd much rather pay for him and his kids than some other people who are abusing the system (free riding). Atleast he is still married, appears to have a job and his family is intact.
****P.S. It use to piss off my ex gf and her family to no end when people would make negative comments under their breath about her family of 10. As if they were better than her parents because they would never make that decision. After seeing the way people behaved towards them first hand, I've decided that it is wrong to gang up on large families and be "publically judgemental" as the OP was "considering". These people were good people. Would I choose to go that route? F No. But, am I going to sit around and bitch that they are awful people? F No.
I never said that they were awful people. And I was not "gaging up" on people who have large families.
Yes they are on public assistance, and yes he has a job, and yes they are nice people who try to make it a happy home. But the question is not about his right to have as many children as he wants to. My question, if you look back, was - is it a detriment to the family if you can't support them, to bring another into the mix?
And the religious aspect- I mentioned- was not about him believing in birth control or not- but as an excuse to why he has more kids. Him saying "God willing" is a bit of a cop-out for not taking responsibility for his actions. Yes God has a role in some peoples lives, but that does not mean that you should not take responsibility for what you do in your life.
My question, if you look back, was - is it a detriment to the family if you can't support them, to bring another into the mix?
OK. Let me ask you, is it OK for 90% of the population in Africa to bring another child into the world? I would argue that as poor as this guy is, he is probably living above the means of atleast 50% of the world. Moreover, none of his kids are living below the substinance level. All I'm asking for is consistency.
And the religious aspect- I mentioned- was not about him believing in birth control or not- but as an excuse to why he has more kids. Him saying "God willing" is a bit of a cop-out for not taking responsibility for his actions. Yes God has a role in some peoples lives, but that does not mean that you should not take responsibility for what you do in your life.
First, did it ever occur to you that he answered your question "God willing" because he knew you'd overreact. Did you even for a second feel as though the question (are you going to have more kids) in and of itself may have been a bit judgemental and abrasive?
Second, he said "God willing". Big deal. That's not a cop out. It's the same as saying if fate intervenes or if by chance it happens. Because he said "God willing" does not necessarily mean he doesn't take responsibility for what he does in his own life. The only way he can stop the chance is to chop off his balls or use contraception (which he doesn't believe in). And you said that it's not about birth control. Hmmm I think it is. I use birth control with my wife... But, I'm not going to judge someone who believes it's wrong. Let him live his life. If you don't agree with it, fine, don't do it.
Agreed. My point is that a lot of people who are judging this dude for being reckless and stupid are the same people sympathizing with some crack mother and her 15 kids. I'm not claiming him to be "right". I'm saying
2. I'd much rather pay for him and his kids than some other people who are abusing the system (free riding). Atleast he is still married, appears to have a job and his family is intact.
Wait - so are you judging those other, free-riding, people then?
Wait - so are you judging those other, free-riding, people then?
Also, what's marriage got to do with it?
Nope. Read what I said. All of my posts. My point was that, if you support the system of giving out handouts, then you should support it regardless of the individuals who are receiving them. If it's a crackdealer. If it's a person who's views on contraception are different from your own. It should not matter. People were talking about government involvement. Preference of who's more fitting to receive, sure we all have an opinion. But, we either support handouts or we don't to all. You can't handpick. I'm calling "hypocrite" to a large amount of people in this thread cause I know a large amount most likely support handouts.... and yet they didn't show support it in this case, which I think may have more to do with the religious component than people are willing to admit. Hence, the call of "judgemental".
Marriage makes it more likely that his family won't need public assistance forever. Because one party can work while the other cares for the children.
OK. Let me ask you, is it OK for 90% of the population in Africa to bring another child into the world? I would argue that as poor as this guy is, he is probably living above the means of atleast 50% of the world. Moreover, none of his kids are living below the substinance level. All I'm asking for is consistency.
I am consistent- I believe that if you know you can't support the size of your family- then you should not have them. Yes, that person may be the one to bring up the person that saves the world, etc... but is fair for me- who is working 2 jobs to not be on public assistance, so that you can have them on my hard work?
Yes, we in America are living above the means of some other countries-Does that mean that I can not want more for my children than just living on the bear minimum? They may not be living "below" the substance level- but is that a good life?
Second, he said "God willing". Big deal. That's not a cop out. It's the same as saying if fate intervenes or if by chance it happens. Because he said "God willing" does not necessarily mean he doesn't take responsibility for what he does in his own life. The only way he can stop the chance is to chop off his balls or use contraception (which he doesn't believe in). And you said that it's not about birth control. Hmmm I think it is. I use birth control with my wife... But, I'm not going to judge someone who believes it's wrong. Let him live his life. If you don't agree with it, fine, don't do it.[/quote]
If I decide to kill someone- and use the term- It was Gods willing- what would you think of me? Just because you think that it is his will, does not make it right.
Note: I did not tell him my "judgment" of him having another child- I congratulated him. He has no idea of my evil thoughts.
Yes, that person may be the one to bring up the person that saves the world, etc... but is fair for me- who is working 2 jobs to not be on public assistance, so that you can have them on my hard work?.
Well, I hope you vote Republican. Because you are certainly not a Democrat.
Yes, we in America are living above the means of some other countries-Does that mean that I can not want more for my children than just living on the bear minimum? They may not be living "below" the substance level- but is that a good life?.
If I decide to kill someone- and use the term- It was Gods willing- what would you think of me? Just because you think that it is his will, does not make it right.
Note: I did not tell him my "judgment" of him having another child- I congratulated him. He has no idea of my evil thoughts.
If you decide to kill someone, regardless of what you say, I would think you deserve to go to prison. I would also think you may be slightly mental because.... you killed someone.
That's fine. You can have your beliefs. That said they are judgemental.
Well, I hope you vote Republican. Because you are certainly not a Democrat.
Capitalism rocks.
Sorry- I am a democrat.
I believe in social programs. I don't believe that they are there for you to live your life on. If you need a hand, to get yourself together, that is one thing. But to base your life on that, is not a good thing.
If you decide to kill someone, regardless of what you say, I would think you deserve to go to prison. I would also think you may be slightly mental because.... you killed someone.
So its ok to say its Gods will to have a lot of children without conscience (sp?), but if I say it to kill someone then I should go to jail?
I know killing is bad- but for this example- the meaning behind the words are the same. If God wills it, then its so.
Sorry- I am a democrat.
I believe in social programs. I don't believe that they are there for you to live your life on. If you need a hand, to get yourself together, that is one thing. But to base your life on that, is not a good thing. .
Sound like a republican. Maybe you should read up on political platforms.
So its ok to say its Gods will to have a lot of children without conscience (sp?), but if I say it to kill someone then I should go to jail?
I know killing is bad- but for this example- the meaning behind the words are the same. If God wills it, then its so.
This doesn't make anysense.
Killing someone is definitive, having unprotected sex with the chance of kids is not. When you kill someone, they are always dead. When you have unprotected sex, you don't always have kids... there's chance involved. God's will is another way of saying Chance. It's saying something out of one's hands. Sure you can improve your chances. But chance remains.
Nope. Read what I said. All of my posts. My point was that, if you support the system of giving out handouts, then you should support it regardless of the individuals who are receiving them. If it's a crackdealer. If it's a person who's views on contraception are different from your own. It should not matter. People were talking about government involvement. Preference of who's more fitting to receive, sure we all have an opinion. But, we either support handouts or we don't to all. You can't handpick. I'm calling "hypocrite" to a large amount of people in this thread cause I know a large amount most likely support handouts.... and yet they didn't show support it in this case, which I think may have more to do with the religious component than people are willing to admit. Hence, the call of "judgemental".
Marriage makes it more likely that his family won't need public assistance forever. Because one party can work while the other cares for the children.
What is with you bringing up this non-existant religious persecution?
You pose it in a black an white argument of welfare for all or welfare for nobody, like there is no grey area. Most people are ok with public assistance helping people and families out who are struggling, but to a degree... if you are already on welfare it's irresponsible to have more kids, knowing that you cannot afford them. It doesn't matter if this family is religious, atheist, married, separated, crackdealers, plumbers or whatever... none of that is the point.
Well, I hope you vote Republican. Because you are certainly not a Democrat.
Right... because there is only one single issue and one single viewpoint in a political party.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
say... if you was his wife- and felt that you had enough- would you go on contraception without telling him?
He is a very strong believer in no birth control.
personally, i'd not have married such a man.
so, i would NEVEr be in such a situation. however, hypothetically speaking, if i were the wife, was not anti-BC, i would say to my husband we have been blessed with many children, it is not right to bring more into this world we cannot afford.....i'd like to get a tubal ligation, you a vasectomy, use BC, whatever option...if not, no more sex. of course, i am then punishing myself cutting off intercourse, but one needs to prove a point. a relationship involves TWO people, and BOTH need to have a say.
all of this is one of the 'problems' in modern-day society of those of a religious nature who refuse BC and believe to procreate with abandon, have as many children as God will bless you with with NO thought to their future care and support. it just makes ZERO sense in this day and age, if it ever made sense. having children IS a gift, but it should be a gift you WANT, and one you can AFFORD. just b/c one CAN get pregnant doesn't mean they SHOULD.
He should do what my friend did. His wife asked him to get the big V. He said "Screw that, I'll just turn you over and spunk on your back". True story.
Comments
well so long as theyre not ugly, thats the main thing, yeah? :rolleyes:
__________________________________________________________
Shameless beer-related plugs:
Instagram/Twitter/Untappd: FtMyersBeerGuy
Yeah, I think people are getting up in arms over some perceived price tag that his behaviour is supposedly costing them. And I'd buy it too I guess, that they have a right to rag on people of low incomes for having too many children if for one minute I didn't think that exactly the same people that are ragging are also forking out hard earned cash to support things like war or corporate fuck ups. Some people take a great deal of interest in other people's sex lives. 7 kids wouldn't be my thing but they're low income, think of him doing a public service by supplying the next generation of undereducated cannon fodder for the wars.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
it really does bug me when people can't afford to have lots of kids but do anyways. it bugs me when people can afford it and do, only because of the consumption thing (i hate thinking about how many diapers they're going to be throwing out in the process). but yah, more so even when they can't afford it.
its a form of child abuse if you ask me, if you can't afford to feed your children properly you should NOT be pumping them out.
in a sense, it is your business. if he is on welfare, thats your tax money. i'da said something... but that's just me and i can be too outspoken at times.
what part of living off government assistance did you miss here... and gay rights? that is no comparison. a personal choice for someone to be gay or not impacts themselves. a choice to keep bringing children into a home that you can't afford affects the entire family.
Yes being a parent of 3 I realise its hard work, I meant in paid employment.
I wonder if this guy would have 7 kids if he wasn't assisted from the public purse.
We get them in this country too and it pisses me off!
Here's my issue:
1. He's obviously religious. He has the right to practice in our country.
2. Yes, he may be receiving help from the govenment. Guess what, lots of people abuse the system and receive government help (crack dealers, father's who have impregnated 20 different single mothers, those respective single mothers, the list can keep going). Do you want to cut off the government assistance to all? Watch what you say.... cause if you do, you're most likely someone who leans to the RIGHT politically. Yep.... dreaded Republican.
3. I'd rather pay for this gents kids to grow up in a healthy environment than some no good crack dealer. But, guess what... it's not my say. Nor do I want it to be. That's all I'm saying to you all. If it fits your agenda your fine with handouts. If it doesn't, you're not. This scenario doesn't fit your agenda because it appears religion is involved. So, that rules out him deserving a handout. Once again, be F'ing consistent.
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
Agreed. My point is that a lot of people who are judging this dude for being reckless and stupid are the same people sympathizing with some crack mother and her 15 kids. I'm not claiming him to be "right". I'm saying
1. it's judgemental to say he's wrong.
2. I'd much rather pay for him and his kids than some other people who are abusing the system (free riding). Atleast he is still married, appears to have a job and his family is intact.
****P.S. It use to piss off my ex gf and her family to no end when people would make negative comments under their breath about her family of 10. As if they were better than her parents because they would never make that decision. After seeing the way people behaved towards them first hand, I've decided that it is wrong to gang up on large families and be "publically judgemental" as the OP was "considering". These people were good people. Would I choose to go that route? F No. But, am I going to sit around and bitch that they are awful people? F No.
I never said that they were awful people. And I was not "gaging up" on people who have large families.
Yes they are on public assistance, and yes he has a job, and yes they are nice people who try to make it a happy home. But the question is not about his right to have as many children as he wants to. My question, if you look back, was - is it a detriment to the family if you can't support them, to bring another into the mix?
And the religious aspect- I mentioned- was not about him believing in birth control or not- but as an excuse to why he has more kids. Him saying "God willing" is a bit of a cop-out for not taking responsibility for his actions. Yes God has a role in some peoples lives, but that does not mean that you should not take responsibility for what you do in your life.
I am capable of adoring people for traits other than the physical...
OK. Let me ask you, is it OK for 90% of the population in Africa to bring another child into the world? I would argue that as poor as this guy is, he is probably living above the means of atleast 50% of the world. Moreover, none of his kids are living below the substinance level. All I'm asking for is consistency.
First, did it ever occur to you that he answered your question "God willing" because he knew you'd overreact. Did you even for a second feel as though the question (are you going to have more kids) in and of itself may have been a bit judgemental and abrasive?
Second, he said "God willing". Big deal. That's not a cop out. It's the same as saying if fate intervenes or if by chance it happens. Because he said "God willing" does not necessarily mean he doesn't take responsibility for what he does in his own life. The only way he can stop the chance is to chop off his balls or use contraception (which he doesn't believe in). And you said that it's not about birth control. Hmmm I think it is. I use birth control with my wife... But, I'm not going to judge someone who believes it's wrong. Let him live his life. If you don't agree with it, fine, don't do it.
I agree.
Wait - so are you judging those other, free-riding, people then?
Also, what's marriage got to do with it?
Nope. Read what I said. All of my posts. My point was that, if you support the system of giving out handouts, then you should support it regardless of the individuals who are receiving them. If it's a crackdealer. If it's a person who's views on contraception are different from your own. It should not matter. People were talking about government involvement. Preference of who's more fitting to receive, sure we all have an opinion. But, we either support handouts or we don't to all. You can't handpick. I'm calling "hypocrite" to a large amount of people in this thread cause I know a large amount most likely support handouts.... and yet they didn't show support it in this case, which I think may have more to do with the religious component than people are willing to admit. Hence, the call of "judgemental".
Marriage makes it more likely that his family won't need public assistance forever. Because one party can work while the other cares for the children.
I am consistent- I believe that if you know you can't support the size of your family- then you should not have them. Yes, that person may be the one to bring up the person that saves the world, etc... but is fair for me- who is working 2 jobs to not be on public assistance, so that you can have them on my hard work?
Yes, we in America are living above the means of some other countries-Does that mean that I can not want more for my children than just living on the bear minimum? They may not be living "below" the substance level- but is that a good life?
Second, he said "God willing". Big deal. That's not a cop out. It's the same as saying if fate intervenes or if by chance it happens. Because he said "God willing" does not necessarily mean he doesn't take responsibility for what he does in his own life. The only way he can stop the chance is to chop off his balls or use contraception (which he doesn't believe in). And you said that it's not about birth control. Hmmm I think it is. I use birth control with my wife... But, I'm not going to judge someone who believes it's wrong. Let him live his life. If you don't agree with it, fine, don't do it.[/quote]
If I decide to kill someone- and use the term- It was Gods willing- what would you think of me? Just because you think that it is his will, does not make it right.
Note: I did not tell him my "judgment" of him having another child- I congratulated him. He has no idea of my evil thoughts.
That's fine. You can have your beliefs. That said they are judgemental.
Well, I hope you vote Republican. Because you are certainly not a Democrat.
Capitalism rocks.
If you decide to kill someone, regardless of what you say, I would think you deserve to go to prison. I would also think you may be slightly mental because.... you killed someone.
Sorry- I am a democrat.
I believe in social programs. I don't believe that they are there for you to live your life on. If you need a hand, to get yourself together, that is one thing. But to base your life on that, is not a good thing.
So its ok to say its Gods will to have a lot of children without conscience (sp?), but if I say it to kill someone then I should go to jail?
I know killing is bad- but for this example- the meaning behind the words are the same. If God wills it, then its so.
Sound like a republican. Maybe you should read up on political platforms.
This doesn't make anysense.
Killing someone is definitive, having unprotected sex with the chance of kids is not. When you kill someone, they are always dead. When you have unprotected sex, you don't always have kids... there's chance involved. God's will is another way of saying Chance. It's saying something out of one's hands. Sure you can improve your chances. But chance remains.
This is old at this point.
What is with you bringing up this non-existant religious persecution?
You pose it in a black an white argument of welfare for all or welfare for nobody, like there is no grey area. Most people are ok with public assistance helping people and families out who are struggling, but to a degree... if you are already on welfare it's irresponsible to have more kids, knowing that you cannot afford them. It doesn't matter if this family is religious, atheist, married, separated, crackdealers, plumbers or whatever... none of that is the point.
Right... because there is only one single issue and one single viewpoint in a political party.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
personally, i'd not have married such a man.
so, i would NEVEr be in such a situation. however, hypothetically speaking, if i were the wife, was not anti-BC, i would say to my husband we have been blessed with many children, it is not right to bring more into this world we cannot afford.....i'd like to get a tubal ligation, you a vasectomy, use BC, whatever option...if not, no more sex. of course, i am then punishing myself cutting off intercourse, but one needs to prove a point. a relationship involves TWO people, and BOTH need to have a say.
all of this is one of the 'problems' in modern-day society of those of a religious nature who refuse BC and believe to procreate with abandon, have as many children as God will bless you with with NO thought to their future care and support. it just makes ZERO sense in this day and age, if it ever made sense. having children IS a gift, but it should be a gift you WANT, and one you can AFFORD. just b/c one CAN get pregnant doesn't mean they SHOULD.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
nice judgment there.
thought we weren't supposed to do that?
so your friends children are ugly then?
i have no doubt you are capable of adoring people for traits other than their looks, but let's face it no one likes an ugly child.