Father of the year nominee.

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
11 women and 30 kids... so each woman theorectically has an average of 3 kids with him. (Some may have more, some only one, I suppose)

But women have responsiblity for birth control, too. I can say this as a woman who was a combination of ignorant and flippant about birth control when I was young.

And unless each of these women were utterly clueless about the other 10 women (which I doubt) they share in the utter lunacy of expecting money from a guy who's full-time job appears to be procreation.
 
Last edited:

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
11 women and 30 kids... so each woman theorectically has an average of 3 kids with him. (Some may have more, some only one, I suppose)

But women have responsiblity for birth control, too. I can say this as a woman who was a combination of ignorant and flippant about birth control when I was young.

And unless each of these women were utterly clueless about the other 10 women (which I doubt) they share in the utter lunacy of expecting money from a guy who's full-time job appears to be procreation.


----

I think he's in the wrong profession....:D
 

rwam

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
188
Location
Glen Carbon, Illinois
Good God. What happens to his behavior if he gets a 'hardship exemption' and has no financial incentive to use protection?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Er sorry for the mix-up. The Eugenics movement in the US wasn't particularly racist. Even in NC, poor whites were sterilized as much as blacks.

It was more classist and ableist. But yes I was referring to the practice of picking "undesirables" up off of the street and sterilizing them.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,936
Reaction score
5,316
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
As a parent, he is responsible for his children.

So no, he should get no break whatsoever in his support payments.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much one can legally do.

I feel very sorry for the children.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Interesting. When I think of eugenics, I always think of these couple of sentences from Wikipedia's account.
At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. Many members of the American Progressive Movement supported eugenics, seduced by its scientific trappings and its promise of a quick end to social ills.
Wasn't it Hillary that started the movement to reclaim the "noble term" progressive?

In the long run, minorities and the disadvantaged were fortunate Hitler came along when he did and crapped all over the concept. It still took until the mid-1960's before the last vestiges of "genetic do-gooding" was wiped out in the U.S..
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
In the long run, minorities and the disadvantaged were fortunate Hitler came along when he did

A great "when taken out of context" statement right there.
 

Manuel Royal

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
4,484
Reaction score
437
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Website
donnetowntoday.blogspot.com
Since the ongoing population explosion is probably going to collapse human civilization, I often wish I could stop humans from reproducing for the next forty years. I'd start with this guy.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
A great "when taken out of context" statement right there.
Correct, which is why I went on to qualify it. :) Hitler was like the first loon to get drunk in high school, and when he totaled his car, most everybody else wised up and said "what a stupid idea he had."
 

MattW

Company Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
855
If I may quote Rob Bass and DJ EZ Rock: "It takes two to make a thing go right."

And to add in another quote from our greatest of presidents: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Since the ongoing population explosion is probably going to collapse human civilization, I often wish I could stop humans from reproducing for the next forty years. I'd start with this guy.

The problem with population explosions is that they self-correct through famine, pestilence and war. You don't need to be so exacting with whom you choose to off!
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
The problem with population explosions is that they self-correct through famine, pestilence and war. You don't need to be so exacting with whom you choose to off!

Doesn't sterilization sound much more pleasant than those alternatives? :)

Interesting. When I think of eugenics, I always think of these couple of sentences from Wikipedia's account.

Wasn't it Hillary that started the movement to reclaim the "noble term" progressive?

In the long run, minorities and the disadvantaged were fortunate Hitler came along when he did and crapped all over the concept. It still took until the mid-1960's before the last vestiges of "genetic do-gooding" was wiped out in the U.S..

I didn't even realize some people had a racist assumption with the word until blacbird's comment. So I'll thank him for that.

You see it in science fiction all the time. It's almost interchangeable with "cultural breeding" as some sort of sociological movement. And it's not indefinitely a bad thing in those scenarios. Some examples that come to mind are Star Trek's Eugenic Wars, and Forever War where all of mankind is bred into homosexuals to control over population.

/geek out
 

Lady Goddess

*insert something epic here*
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2012
Messages
189
Reaction score
14
Location
at home
As a parent, he is responsible for his children.

So no, he should get no break whatsoever in his support payments.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much one can legally do.

I feel very sorry for the children.

I agree. And I actually applaud the women for getting child support from him, even if it's so very little. I'm surrounded by women who have children and won't sue for child support from the daddies. One of my sister's best friends is like that. Her son is 4, his daddy wants nothing to do with him and she's working two jobs trying to take care of her kid. My mother asked why she doesn't get child support from his father because he makes a six-figure income. Her answer was "It's not worth it."

Of course it is. That's his child too. He should be helping to take care of it.

But still, going back to the OP, that's no one's fault but his.
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
Such a regimen that corrects the overpopulation is just as scary as the other three. It's the fourth horseman.

I was being playful. I do think it would make sense if there were an indiscriminate way of enforcing it. There's not; historically mass sterilization attempts have been done with extreme prejudice.

It's a moot point. And I don't want anyone to think I seriously want people to be sterilized by any government.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I just think it's curious that we are required to obtain a license to keep and maintain certain animals but not to keep and raise a human being.

I understand the reasoning, but really, raising a human is much more potentially dangerous than a certain type of lizard or a chimp.
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
Why would you want to raise a non-domesticated animal as a pet? That's just cruel.


But yeah, if we're really going to talk about how much government we need in the home, my opinion is that they stay out of it except in cases of child and spousal abuse.

Hmm... Does this example constitute abuse?
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
I just think it's curious that we are required to obtain a license to keep and maintain certain animals but not to keep and raise a human being.

I understand the reasoning, but really, raising a human is much more potentially dangerous than a certain type of lizard or a chimp.

Raising humans is potentially dangerous?
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Raising humans is potentially dangerous?

Well yeah. You're much more likely to be killed by another person than you are by a dog or lizard. Imagine if humans were another species that we were able to take on a raise as pets/companions whatever, I think there would be a lot of restrictions the way there are with pit bulls. It's much more difficult (and expensive) to raise a human child than it is to raise most other animals. And the ramifications, should you fuck it up, are much more dire.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
Eugenics is Evil. Always Was, Always Will Be.

This kind of thing makes me understand why there was ever a widespread eugenics movement in the US.

What?

We can all shake our heads at the kind of recklessness, selfishness and ignorance of this stupid sperm sprayer (and I'll save a little scorn for women who willingly become receptacles for dumb asses looking for a warm spot to make a DNA deposit) but that is hardly a justification for endorsing eugenics.


Er sorry for the mix-up. The Eugenics movement in the US wasn't particularly racist. Even in NC, poor whites were sterilized as much as blacks.

"Wasn't particularly racist?" You can't be serious because you are demonstrably wrong.

The eugenics movement still exists in the United States. It is no longer state-sponsored, but it still thrives and remains a safe haven for academic racists (yeah, I used the "R" word, deal with it) to practice the junk science of eugenics with like-minded quacks.

The leading organization promoting this discredited theories is The Pioneer Fund led by J. Phillipe Rushton.
Jean-Philippe Rushton is a psychology professor, author of a handful of academic tomes and numerous articles, and a onetime fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation — and probably the most important race scientist at work today. His most infamous research concludes that brain and genital size are inversely related, implying that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Now head of the race science outfit the Pioneer Fund, Rushton’s position puts him in control of substantial funds that he doles out to his fellow academic racists.

Although his training is unrelated to biology or genetics, Rushton has not hesitated to spread his controversial opinions far and wide, especially through his major published work, Race, Evolution and Behavior. His findings: black people have larger genitals, breasts and buttocks — characteristics that Rushton alleges have an inverse relationship to brain size and, thus, intelligence.

Although the University of Western Ontario has always been careful to defend Rushton’s academic freedom, officials did reprimand him twice for carrying out research on human subjects in 1988 without required prior approval. In the first incident, Rushton surveyed first-year psychology students, asking questions about penis length, distance of ejaculation, and number of sex partners. In the second, he surveyed customers at a Toronto shopping mall, paying 50 white people, 50 black people and 50 Asians five dollars apiece to answer questions about their sexual habits.

Since 2002, Rushton has been president of the Pioneer Fund, which has for decades funded dubious studies linking race to characteristics like criminality, sexuality and intelligence. Pioneer has long promoted eugenics, or the “science” of creating “better” humans through selective breeding. Set up in 1937 and headed by Nazi sympathizers, the group strove to “improve the character of the American people” through eugenics and procreation by people of white colonial stock. Pioneer has financed a number of leading race scientists, lavishing large sums each year on those who work to “prove” inherent racial differences that the vast majority of scientists regard as nonsense.
The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies The Pioneer Fund as a White Nationalist hate group.

If that's the kind of thing you want to endorse, missesdash, I'm sure they'll happily accept a contribution.

Regarding forced sterilization in North Carolina, let's be clear: it isn't ancient history. It only ended in 1974, it was administered by a state board, and it was disproportionately applied to Black women.
They were wives and daughters. Sisters. Unwed mothers. Children. Even a 10-year-old boy. Some were blind or mentally retarded. Toward the end they were mostly black and poor. North Carolina sterilized them all, more than 7,600 people.

For more than 40 years North Carolina ran one of the nation's largest and most aggressive sterilization programs. It expanded after World War II, even as most other states pulled back in light of the horrors of Hitler's Germany.


Contrary to common belief, many of the thousands marked for sterilization were ordinary citizens, many of them young women guilty of nothing worse than engaging in premarital sex.


I don't want it. I don't approve of it, sir. I don't want
a sterilize operation.... Let me go home, see if I get along all right.
Have mercy on me and let me do that.
— A woman pleading with the eugenics board, 1945.

The sterilization program ended in 1974, but its legacy will not go away. Many of its victims are still alive and they bear witness to a bureaucracy that trampled on the rights of the poor and the powerless.

The Winston-Salem Journal obtained and examined thousands of these documents. It found that:
More than 2,000 people ages 18 and younger were sterilized in many questionable cases, including a10-year-old who was castrated. Children were sterilized over the objections of their parents, and the consent process was often a sham.

The program had been racially balanced in the early years, but by the late 1960s more than 60 percent of those sterilized were black, and 99 percent were female.

Doctors performed sterilizations without authorization and the eugenics board backdated approval. Forsyth County engaged in an illegal sterilization campaign beyond the state program.

Major eugenics research at Wake Forest University was paid for by a patron whose long history of ties to science had a racial agenda that included a visit to a 1935 Nazi eugenics conference and extensive efforts to overturn key civil-rights legislation.

North Carolina's eugenics law, passed in 1929 and rewritten in 1933, allowed sterilizations for three reasons — epilepsy, sickness and feeblemindedness. But the board almost routinely violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the law by passing judgment on many other things, from promiscuity to homosexuality.

Though more than 30 states had eugenic sterilization programs, North Carolina's record of dramatically expanding the program after 1945 and targeting blacks in the general population was different from most.

“That's quite astounding,” said Steve Selden, a professor at the University of Maryland and author of Inheriting Shame: the Story of Eugenics & Racism in America. “It's simply a story that has not been told.”
Forced sterilization in America is more than a story that has not been told, it is a story that should be taught in history books and acknowledged.

Maybe then we could avoid people glibly and carelessly endorsing eugenics. Feeling disgusted over a fool who spreads his seed without care or responsibility is understandable, but even a backhanded endorsement of a Nazi-era idea is an elephant gun solution to a buzzing fly problem.

missesdash said:
It was more classist and ableist. But yes I was referring to the practice of picking "undesirables" up off of the street and sterilizing them.

It was far more sinister than being born on the poor side of the tracks or suffering from a disability. It was the state deciding who is worthy and unworthy to reproduce and it was monstrous.

Even now North Carolina is struggling with how to make amends for prior wrongs.

When the elites choose to play God it's the poor, the uneducated, the helpless who suffer. To find out anyone thinks that's the way things should be frankly appalls me.

I just think it's curious that we are required to obtain a license to keep and maintain certain animals but not to keep and raise a human being.

So now you're advocating purchasing a license for a baby as if it were a pet?

Should you be able to return it to the hospital or donate it to charity if you don't like it after 30 days?

missesdash said:
I understand the reasoning, but really, raising a human is much more potentially dangerous than a certain type of lizard or a chimp.

Unless you raise a chimp as if it were human including giving it alcohol and drugs until it becomes so psychotic it spazzes out and literally rips someone's face off.

You've dug yourself a big enough hole with your endorsement of eugenics. If you really want to get out of it, stop digging.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
Why would you want to raise a non-domesticated animal as a pet? That's just cruel.


But yeah, if we're really going to talk about how much government we need in the home, my opinion is that they stay out of it except in cases of child and spousal abuse.

Hmm... Does this example constitute abuse?

But does that "staying out" include federal aid? I think that's the question. When you request the state to help you pay for a small army, there will be a point where the state will expect more of a say on how you raise said army.

I've always been a little conflicted over that. But in the end the money benefits the children and the children can't be unborn. So I'll always support federal aid for them.

@nighttimer overly long, melodramatic tirades aside, no I don't endorse eugenics. I was pontificating.
 

Gale Haut

waxing digital artistic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
574
Location
The Swamplands
Website
www.galehaut.com
We should rename this thread A Modest Proposal.

The eugenics comment was meant as satire or a joke, and it had nothing to do with the man's ethnicity. It's just an unfortunate misunderstanding.

Nighttimer, I for one did not realize that there were recent travesties like this one in North Carolina, and I have to thank you for pointing it out.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
@nighttimer overly long, melodramatic tirades aside, no I don't endorse eugenics. I was pontificating.

There is nothing "melodramatic" about being stunned any sentient human being could advocate something as evil as eugenics.

What you dub "overly long" and a "tirade" is simply a detailed delineation of the truth and facts about eugenics. Your mistaken statements about how forced sterilization in North Carolina was conducted were too egregious to let stand uncorrected.

If you want to pontificate you're liable to be taken far more seriously when you know what you are pontificating about. :e2shrug:
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
There is nothing "melodramatic" about being stunned any sentient human being could advocate something as evil as eugenics.

What you dub "overly long" and a "tirade" is simply a detailed delineation of the truth and facts about eugenics. Your mistaken statements about how forced sterilization in North Carolina was conducted were too egregious to let stand uncorrected.

If you want to pontificate you're liable to be taken far more seriously when you know what you are pontificating about. :e2shrug:

Yes, I should have specified that the programs were racially balanced "until the last five years."

My point was that the eugenics movement in the US wasn't driven by the desire to kill off any particular race.