Posted by Jonsered Par for the course Hydro. Wouldn't be UER without the bums rush to judgement.

You are a wise man, good sir. And perhaps Hitler yourself as well!

Posted by Esoterik A conversation best saved for another thread, not one where a specific individual was being called out and a bunch of bandwagon jumpers put in their 2 cents on how stupid everyone else is (and conversely, how smart and perfect they are) Throne from whence Pronouncements About Society are made: http://www.michell...ctures/layzboy.jpg

Eh, I scanned through it and it did not click on the link about the individual until after the fact. But that is besides the point.

You called bullshit, I delivered (without even getting into overpopulation or how the social safety net is crumbling)

Now may I please see your facts for when having children at a young age is a good idea?

Posted by jukebox fuckup I delivered (without even getting into overpopulation or how the social safety net is crumbling)

Oh really? May I please see your facts, then, for why having children at any age is a good idea?

Don't like kids? Don't have them. But don't act all melodramatic about the end of the world, our society, etc. and be preaching about what you think everyone else should be doing. It's really not that serious, that stuff has been going on for a long time. Somewhere out there a 16 yo is having a baby and it does not affect you in the least. Just take care of #1 and everything else falls into place. Maybe live life a little, get your hands dirty and make your own mistakes, then see how much you like someone you don't know harping and criticizing.

Or, if you don't like babies, eat them

Posted by jukebox fuckupNow may I please see your facts for when having children at a young age is a good idea?

Wait what were we arguing about? I called bullshit on the idea that someone/the state should set criteria on who can reproduce and I don't need facts to know that is a really bad idea!

Posted by Esoterik Wait what were we arguing about? I called bullshit on the idea that someone/the state should set criteria on who can reproduce and I don't need facts to know that is a really bad idea!

...you asked why it is my problem if somebody at a young age ("lets say 16 or so"), decides to have a child. I mentioned the negative consequences, and you said "I don't know all about that", to which I cited studies as to why it is bad.


Anybody with an invested interest in public health/mental health or anything remotely related has a concern towards the negative consequences of teen pregnancy.

Social science/scientific research also has an interest in these consequences, as they study populations and/or phenomena & such. If it were not for their ability to prove causation or assess risk, then incidents such as Love Canal would be more commonplace.

hydro- Godwin's law, FTW.

Posted by willskith Oh really? May I please see your facts, then, for why having children at any age is a good idea?

Haha... well, that is a classic case of "to each their own", with a better prognosis if one does not reproduce until adulthood.

May I refer you to the childfree private board.

Posted by jukebox fuckup Haha... well, that is a classic case of "to each their own", with a better prognosis if one does not reproduce until adulthood.

No, it is not a case of to each their own. You stated a bunch of facts that are caused by people reproducing. Overpopulation is overpopulation. It doesnt matter how mature you are when you conceive or how big your IQ is. Your offspring is still going to contribute to all of the problems that you just laid out for us, no matter how great its genes are or how well taken care of it is. It appears to me that your theories of eugenics are just a front for your inflated ego.

2 kids arguing, lol.

Posted by willskith No, it is not a case of to each their own. You stated a bunch of facts that are caused by people reproducing. Overpopulation is overpopulation. It doesnt matter how mature you are when you conceive or how big your IQ is. Your offspring is still going to contribute to all of the problems that you just laid out for us, no matter how great its genes are or how well taken care of it is. It appears to me that your theories of eugenics are just a front for your inflated ego.

BAHAHAHAHAHA.

I won't say why I'm laughing to be polite. =]

And no Will, it's not just you, it's you, me, and a lot of people here. But you can use your imagination.

click to view

Posted by Esoterik http://www.dailywa.../03/gross-meat.jpg

Meat Babies FTW

Posted by NAN So there's this guy at work here who weighs like 400 pounds. His wife is like 400 pounds too. They both had bypass operations and only lost like 100 pounds each. (bringing them to 400 pounds) They are both 40 years old. They decided they had to have a baby but they were too fat to even have thier body parts meet. They decided to get in vitro fertilization to the tune of 18 grand. The women had problems through out her whole pregnancy and it finally went so wrong that the baby was removed, early by cesarian. It's bones were all broken. It turned out that this baby had osteogenesis imperfecta. This is a condition where the bones are brittle and break for no reason. The doctors gave her a week to live, she lived like two weeks. Now this guy walks around holding pictures of her, he's got pictures of her ultrasound, a book about her, he held a walk to raise money, he's got her as a screen saver AND THEY ARE GOING TO TRY AGAIN!!!

I feel sorry for those people. It is so said to realize that these people want a child so badly, they can't even see that it is a huge mistake for them.

Posted by big dave There's always someone available to belittle and whine about someone having kids before they are ready, but never anyone available to educate a person and help prevent it. My guess is that he didn't have anyone positive in his life to guide him, so he took what love he could get and his judgment was clouded. Now that he has a child, don't give him a hard time. Why don't you try to motivate him and help him out with suggestions on improving himself?

I agree with you, perhaps this pregnancy was an accident, perhaps not. Education before the pregnancy is what was needed. Financial education, realationship education, parenting education, life education, and even sex education.

Too late now, hopefully he takes care of his baby.

Note to WillSkith... perhaps you are right that your taxes will pay for the welfare of that child, but maybe this guy will take care of the child. 20 may be young, but he is old enough to make a living, if he puts the welfare of the child before himself. You are already blaming him for actions that have yet to happen, although I do think you have guessed the most likely outcome

Posted by jukebox fuckup At risk of offending people... ...I believe in birth control in the water. Take a test to prove you are a competent human being and prove that you are economically/emotionally stable. Then, you will receive the antidote. I am not down with non-violent drug offenders serving prison sentences, but I will say this.

Seriously.... what the hell is wrong with you.

You believe that the 'state' should prevent people from having children unless they prove they are economically/emotionally stable, by use of a potentially dangerous drug in our water supply. Then you turn around and state that non-violent drug offenders shouldn't serve prision sentences. Are you high?

Go ahead and flame, but even drug users should be incarcerated until they are clean again. Drugs cause far more problems then some low-life parents. Actually, drugs cause many people to become low-life parents. How can you be okay with drug use, but stand so firm against the most natural of human conditions? You are definetly high right now.

Posted by Oryx Stupid people breed stupid kids and we eventually have to deal with them.

LMFAO

Posted by 944kid Wow, Will. Personal attack much? You have ZERO knowledge of my family situation, monetary stability, etc. Who are you to judge? Have you ever thought that maybe... just MAYBE there existed a couple who didn't want to party and fuck everything that had two legs, and that maybe they wanted to settle down earlier than everyone else? I'm not saying you have to like it, but jesus. Way to blow shit up. Also, had you read my thread, you would have known that I couldn't have been there even if I wanted to. So go you. You're a champ. Classy to not even link me to this thread, too.

Like I've already stated, take good care of your baby, when you get the chance. Due to your young age, and to the mothers young age... you'll need to prove yourselves to everyone you interact with for a very long time, hopefully you both will be good parents. There are benefits to having children early, such as you'll be closer in age to your children, and therefore can relate better. Also you'll be in younger grandparents, and will have a closer relationship with your grandchildren.

This is a wonderful time in your life, make the best of it and be the father you need to be for that little child. Good luck to you.

Posted by willskith No, it is not a case of to each their own. You stated a bunch of facts that are caused by people reproducing. Overpopulation is overpopulation. It doesnt matter how mature you are when you conceive or how big your IQ is. Your offspring is still going to contribute to all of the problems that you just laid out for us, no matter how great its genes are or how well taken care of it is. It appears to me that your theories of eugenics are just a front for your inflated ego.

FYI, none of my arguments were about IQ.

Do you know what the term "eugenics" means? No offense, but you totally used it incorrectly.


"Main Entry: eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: \yü-ˈje-niks\
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
Date: 1883
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed" (from merriman Webster).


My arguments had nothing to do with heredity or genetics. By definition, use of the term "eugenics" always involves heredity or genetics. The term was coined by Francis Galton after he attempted to study heredity & inheritance in the late 1800s.

My argument was about the risks and costs of having a child at a young age, and not terribly different from somebody stating the risks of oh, lets say, smoking while pregnant.


...with that being said, I really hope you run up to anybody that says/thinks/feels that smoking while pregnant is dangerous and yell at them for having an "inflated ego" ;D

Posted by Nvr2loud Seriously.... what the hell is wrong with you. You believe that the 'state' should prevent people from having children unless they prove they are economically/emotionally stable, by use of a potentially dangerous drug in our water supply. Then you turn around and state that non-violent drug offenders shouldn't serve prision sentences. Are you high? Go ahead and flame, but even drug users should be incarcerated until they are clean again. Drugs cause far more problems then some low-life parents. Actually, drugs cause many people to become low-life parents. How can you be okay with drug use, but stand so firm against the most natural of human conditions? You are definetly high right now.

Well, I used the example of marijuana, which is relatively harmless, even when compared to alcohol.


...did you know the prison population has increased 200% in 16 years due to drug offenses? (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1147683).

...remember Love Canal? The Hooker Chemical Company, which was responsible for illegally dumping chemicals there and causing generations of birth defects, leukemia, and other horrible diseases, was never held accountable in the court of law for their misconduct. They were not even fined, and the site was later cleaned up at the government's expense.

Since the "War on Drugs" has started, the prison population has increased eightfold. There are 2 million currently in federal prison.

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, the severely mentally ill are heavily overrepresented in prisons (16%), where they have one licensed psychologist per 2,000 inmates. The severely mentally ill do not belong in prisons where they have almost no hope of receiving quality treatment.

In the state of PA, it costs roughly $30,000/year to incarcerate somebody. There is no evidence proving that mass incarceration reduced crime. If anything, many researchers have evidence stating that mass incarceration of non-violent offenders causes more crime than it prevents.

African Americans make up 12% of the population, but represent nearly 50% of the prison population, yet there is much convincing evidence that Caucasians are engaged in more drug use than African Americans (
http://www.ncbi.nl...ticles/PMC2377408/). My professor just conducted a study and found that the darker the shade of skin, the harsher the sentence administered by the judge.

People go to prison... unless if they can afford to hire a private attorney. The system is designed to benefit the wealthier segment of society (ie. the CEOs of Hooker Chemical Company that were responsible for the premature death, pain, and suffering of hundreds of people) at the risk of screwing over the "lesser evils" (ie. nonviolent drug offenders)


The criminal justice system is very flawed.