In prepping a children’s program where I’d be recording all the Duggars from TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, I read a lot about this family on the Internet.
Boy was that unhelpful.
I wanted to make sure I got their characters right while scripting the dialogue for an episode of Life at the Pond. And even though well over a million people watch this show weekly, the Internet was fraught with misinformation. I’ll spare you the gory details, a quick Google of “Duggars” will provide a couple hundred thousand results and you can get a bowl of popcorn and make a day of it.
But there was one common theme, sometimes from quasi reputable sites, that permeated the Internet: The Duggar children are captives in their own home.
Before traveling to Arkansas to record, I’d only spoken on the phone with Jim Bob Duggar, the father of all 19. I watched the TLC program, and that was my only exposure to the children. They seemed pretty well behaved, which explains why I wanted to use them in this episode in the first place.
Jim Bob was kind enough to invite my entire family into his home. We ended up spending parts of three days there, and I can tell you first hand, this is no ordinary family.
You won’t find a television in their giant living room. The Internet is greatly restricted. The girls’ room (9 of 10 sleep in one room – the only exception is temporary, newborn Josie) didn’t have Hanna Montana or boy band or vampire posters or anything like it.
Lady Gaga did not make the cut.
The most prevalent thing on the walls of the Duggar house are family pictures and scripture. So, yes, you could say quite accurately popular culture was shielded by the walls literally built by the Duggar family.
Funny thing is, people tend to assume a child not immersed in popular culture is a child missing from reality. In some cases, that is true. Not the Duggars.
My wife and I spent considerable time talking to the three teenage girls, Jill, Jessa and Jinger. They are sharp, fun and informed. They know what’s going on out there. But it isn’t at all a part of their every day life. And, to the shock and dismay of so many, they’re okay with that.
While, admittedly, I admire the Duggars for much of what they do, I didn’t expect what I saw in these three girls. The world has yet to beat them into submission. They don’t watch the Disney Channel, so they’ve yet to learn that adults are buffoons and parents are embarrassing. They don’t listen to the local rock station, so they’ve yet do discover life is supposed to be one promiscuous event followed by another. They don’t attend public school, so they’ve yet to learn teenage girls are required to be filled with angst and riddled with insecurities.
As we spoke to the three of them, one word kept jumping out at me: Freedom. These girls were experiencing freedom teenagers rarely taste. Completely free to be themselves. The exact opposite of the words so often used by media folk to describe the 19 kids.
While many times teenagers can’t wait to get away from adults, these three were anxious to engage in conversation. And they were delightful. All of the Duggars were.
And here’s another thing that springs from the Duggar house throughout the day: Humor. The TLC show captures some of that, but I was surprised by the amount of laughter and joking in that home.
Again, it goes back to freedom. While the left reflexively assumes it’s a world of “don’t do that” leading to a house of misery, reality is quite the opposite.
As the Duggar family proves.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
87 Comments
I'm happy they're happy, and I'm happy the kids are well adjusted…..but every time I hear a story about them..the only thing I can think is……NINETEEN CHILDREN!!!!!!! and parts of my body start to ache.
I appreciate the morality and humanity that the family displays. I cannot, however, bring myself to watch the show. I have enough to think about in real life without adding 'reality' drama into the mix. Give me accurate scientific or historical programming.
I've also always thought, given media leftist elitism, that this show is on TV merely as a cynical jab at truly decent people.
My mind boggles at having nineteen kids in the same family without them all killing each other. It's good to see, however, that they're free to express themselves in such a way. I wouldn't watch the show since I'm not much of a fan of reality TV, but I'm glad that the family's happy.
I'm sure they are a nice family and the kids seem well adjusted, although I've never watched, but WHY subject your wife's body to all that and also why subject the older kids to being surrogate parents. Kids do need responsibility but IMO they shouldn't be bred just so that they can continue to parent their younger siblings. JMO of course. I came from a fairly large family and I was relegated to "parent" status for most of my growing up years and it was not fun at all.
Maybe they'll write a book on parenting. I'd read it.
I know several super-large families like the Duggars, and you could have written this about any of them. We've been taught that anything more than the ideal 2.5 children (or, in some countries, 1) is somehow detrimental to their growth and development or something…and they are almost always the most well-adjusted kids I know. Way more than the spoiled only children of helicopter parents.
Wow. I'd never heard of them before.
They sound like an awesome family, but it does remind me of the old – and, yeah, tasteless – "Hey, that's a womb, not a clown car!" joke. ~ducks~
This family is an inspiration to me and I admire them all very much, especially the children. I'm glad you wrote down your experience – thank you!
They do have a book–you can find it on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Duggars-Counting-Raising-Americas-Families-How/dp/141658563X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283265508&sr=8-1] It gives some insight into how they parent.
Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience with the Duggars. We've watched the Duggars on TLC for several seasons and have a lot of respect for their faith, their parenting, and the firm and gentle way that they live out their convictions.
Hey if the guy pays his taxes, who cares how many kids he has, some of you have no sense of humor.
OH yeah. All I can think of is pregnant THAT many times. I have medical problems, so I guess I am not unbiased
We did want more than two kids, but are pleased with our boys.
I know many families with LOTS of kids. They are not slaves or captives or oppressed. They are learning how to live with play, work, responsibility and that builds confidence to handle what life throws at you. Kudos to the Duggers for finding a way to support a big family and shielding their children from the unreality of being on tv.
"I love my cigar,too…but I take it out every once in a while"
~Groucho Marx~
I think their large brood has religious origins. They don't believe in birth control. If you and your wife really love each other and you don't believe in birth control, then you better be prepared to have a large family. And the only reason why families weren't so large in the days before birth control was due to a lack of modern medicine, but many women in those days went through numerous pregancies and lost children at very young ages. Walk through an old cemetary sometimes, it's heartbraking how tiny so many of the graves are.
As to responsibility, whose to say that kids don't turn out better when they work as surrogate parents and/or farm hands rather then playing xBox all day?
I love the Duggars. What a great testament to freedom. If you want to have 19 kids and you can care for them, as the Duggars do, then more power to you! One of the greatest joys the Duggars bring me personally is watching liberlas heads explode in anger at them. Liberlas hate them because they have so many kids, they use so many resources, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum. But I think the real reason liberals hate them is because the Duggars are so happy. They are the opposite of everything liberals preach and yet they seem to be, somehow, happy.
There I undid some of the damage. Heck I think even Mr. Duggar would at least chuckle at that…
**throws shoe**
First of all, since you don't watch, how can you make the judgment that the husband is "subjecting" his wife to all those pregnancies? She doesn't seem to be complaining. Yes, there are women who love being pregnant because they're incredibly healthy during gestation and, after a bunch of kids labor and delivery is not as traumatic. Seems like a mutual decision to me.
You're making all kinds of judgments in this post that have nothing to do with the Duggars. What in the world makes you think the parents are "breeding" the kids to be parents for the younger? That's, to be honest, a bit of a bizarre assumption. And all after not even watching the show.
Have you considered that perhaps your experience growing up was different from theirs?
I know a family with six kids and they get by really well. The mom can be a bit harried sometimes, but no more so than the rest of us moms who have kids in the public school system. Ultimately they're a team and I find them rather inspiring.
I love this family. They are so brave and so true that it just makes my heart smile. She is likely much healthier than most women because her body functions as God intended- cancel the chemicals please. May God bless them and keep them. It will be great to meet them in heaven some day.
Most of us could take some inspiration from this family. It's hard in the world of constant entertainment to remember that the family is more important than cable.
My mother's family had 11 kids, they were farmers. My father's family had 8, and they lived relatively urban, his dad was a trolley conductor & later operated a diner. Back then, there was popular culture, movies, radio music, but it didn't influence their lives to the extent it intrudes today. After my parents' divorce, I lived with my mother on her parents' farm in Vermont. This was in the '60s, and there were large families then as well. They too weren't as influenced by the so called popular culture as kids and families are today. I know that the left likes to talk down the Duggars, I know my daughter was at first unnerved by the family (we don't watch the show, or any other reality shows) when they were discussed on television, but when I pulled out my mom's old photo albums to remind her that large families didn't automatically equate to how they were being stereotyped, and how they could be close, happy, and in fact healthy, she did some unbiased reading, she seemed to have a better understanding of this being the family's choice, that they support themselves and view their lives as their responsibility.
Yeah, if one has so many kids that one has to start handing them off to other kids because one doesn't have the time/ability to care for them, its probably time to stop.
19 kids are not for me but the Duggars are happy and doing a great job! I look at them and the risk of any of those kids becoming crack heads is nil. We need more Duggars, even if they don't have that many kids.
My aunt has nine children. They are the kindest, nicest, most well-adjusted people I know. All are married now and each has 5-6 children of their own, and the great-grandchildren are coming now also. They are a very close family and enjoy being together. Rather than resenting looking after each other, they did it out of love for each other and it made them close to each other. Their support system in times of trouble is awesome. A friend has 10 boys. The same is true in her home. When people truly want and value their children, the children don't feel used and abused by helping to keep the family working. They feel valued, useful, and competent – all of which are qualities of a successful adult.
Homeschooling? Wonderful. 19 kids? Not so much.
Objection in two parts.
Part I
1. The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition).
2. Value is determined by supply and demand, therefore, a world in which human life is precious is a world in which human life is scarce.
3. The Earth's human population cannot grow without limit.
4. The Earth's human population will stop growing when either (a) the birth rate falls to meet the death rate or (b) the death rate rises to meet the birth rate.
5. The Earth's human population will stop grownig as a result of (a) deliberate human agency or (b) other.
6. Deliberate human agency is either (a) democratically decided or (b) other.
Now there is a fine example of what Beck has been talking about – family and good, sound beliefs and principles. 19 Kids is a crowd, but they seem healthy, well adjusted, and happy. And that's what counts. I see 19 good, voting citizens in the near future.
I have 8 brothers and sisters. We are all pretty happy and well adusted and we remember our childhood fondly. Large families can be a lot of fun, and not being a slave to popular culture can be very liberating. I think the Duggars are pretty nice folks, but the giving all the kids names beginning with J is kind of silly. Jinger?! Please!
Um, y our point is what? That the Duggars are going to over-populate the earth?
In your Part II you ask for agreement or disagreement. I cannot offer either as I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you HAVE a rational point? About the Duggars?
While I agree 19 kids is a bit much for my taste I'll have to disagree with your itemized reasons…
1. Assumes that violence among the people is always met with violence from the government. This is not true.
2. Assumes that value is always determined by supply and demand. This is not true in the case of human life.
3. True to an extent, if you discount colonization of other planets (not implausible in the future)
4. True, since "(b) other" encompasses all possibilities
5. True, since "(b) other" encompasses all possibilities
6. True, since "(b) other" encompasses all possibilities
7. May be true, unprovable at this time. In any case not all behavioral traits will be inherited
8. While I agree there would be non-compliant individuals in any voluntary population control program how would they be "selectively" bred?
9. Only true if lots of open space is hard to acquire.
10. Not provable and assumes misery exists to begin with.
11. Probably true
12. Probably true, however we'd still have to have some large areas devoted to agriculture.
Overall I'd say it was less of an indictment of a family having 19 kids and more of a list of reasons why overpopulation (which the human race is nowhere near) would be bad.
I'm not a fan of the Duggars. I have Asperger's Syndrome which sits atop the autistic spectrum. Like many women with AS I'm a tomboy. I despise wearing dresses, keep my hair short but 'girlish' and have always preferred 'snakes, snails, and puppy dog tails' to 'sugar, spice, and everything nice '. When my son was younger he loved that his MOM would play soldiers with him. While I'm a fairly conservative Catholic the Duggars form of Christianity DEMANDS that their daughters have long hair and wear dresses and do appropriately female activities. The girls remain 'wards' of their dad until they are 'given away' to their husband who essentially takes over dad's role. I'm sure they're nice people but a family like that would've destroyed my free spirit in the name of God.
As I said-I'm sure they're good people and I know that I share some of their values-but as a woman on the autistic spectrum(which is the reason for my discomfort with the Duggars) I'm glad I wasn't raised in a family like that.
Kit,
Your way seems to be working out for the 99.9% of the rest of the country, huh. High divorce, cutting, teen pregnancy, teen alcoholism, teen drug use, teen std rate, teen suicide, gangs. Yeah, I take your point, those Duggers don't have a clue as to how to raise kids.
My 16 year old daughter is dismayed at this entire family… I keep telling her that I am more and more inspired by them.
Yep. All left-leaning parents are up in their rooms getting high. That really makes sense. We are all just so miserable that we just sit in our rooms and get high all day. Our lives are so meaningless without jeebus in our hearts.
These two people do good work when it comes to making babies. I say that with all due respect. They all look happy and healthy. This not a woman (as far as I know) who has to take unnatural hormones to reproduce. No glasses to see, no obvious disabilities. They are truly blessed. Wonderful story!
The Leftist template defines pregnancy as a venereal disease, and describes the activity of child-rearing as a "burden". As the Baby Boomers–the most self-indulgent generation in the history of the world–begins this January to start overloading an already bankrupt Medicare system, it is going to be on "burdens" like the Duggar children that they'll be relying on to pay their medical costs and social security.
Part I
1. Max Weber defines "government" as the monopoly on legitimate violence. Since the State defines "legitimate" this part of the definition is circular. Since monopolies are seldom absolute, this part of the definition is technically incorrect. I prefer my version. It makes no assumption that the State always retaliates.
2. Always, although there are lags which relate to the speed with which information reachers decision-makers. The exaggerated valueation of human life is buried in our chromosomes. It will fall as population rises. Certain as dollar inflation given US monetary policies.
3. Colonization is sfi-fi fantasy.
4. There is no "other" in #4.
5. Think what "other" means in this context: we will have no choice (the "deliberate" part).
6. "Other" in this context means "undemocratic".
Part II.
7. Google the phrase "all human behavioral traits are heritable".
8. How are "non-compliant" individuals bred? By appealing to the reason and conscience of compliant individuals. Try talk a salmon out of reproducing.
9. Open space will become scarce as population grows. Go back to #3..The Earth is finite.
10. Sorry. Open your eyes. Misery exists.
11….
12. Soylent Green.
The Duggars belong to a specific sect of Evangelical Christianity called the Quiverfull Movement, which is mostly preoccupied with having as many children as a couple can have. Obviuosly, they don't believe in any form of birth control. It is partially a reaction against certain manifestations of women's rights victories such the feminist movement that began in the 1930s. It is called "quiverfull" after Bible verses in Psalm 127:3-5 that say that each child a person has is a "quiver," or weapon, in a culture war. The Bible passage is the inspiration for the movement. In addition to reacting against women's empowerment, Quiverfull believers are also preoccupied with population and demographic shifts. They trade statistics on the falling White birthrate in European countries like Germany and France. Every ethnic conflict becomes evidence for their worldview: Muslim riots in France, Latino immigration in California, Sharia law in Canada. The motivations aren't always racist, but the subtext of "race suicide" is often there. So there is a racial aspect to to this.
This is not, fundamentally, a Left versus Right issue. This is a cultural and a sociological issue that deals most specifically with religion and the very high degree of religious fanaticism that exists in the United States of America.
It's worth noting that among industrialized nations, the level of religious fanaticism falls as the level of industrialization increases. This rule of thumb does not apply for the US. In terms of religious fanaticism, Americans are off the charts. As a nation we have the same level of religious fanaticism as a shattered peasant society in Bangladesh or Iran. The reason for this unusually high degree of religious fanaticism is that the United states is a de-politicized society: we don't really have a say in the things that go on around us. The USA is the only industrialized nation in the world without a labor-based political party. If political life doesn't offer you a chance to participate in things that you care about, you need some kind of outlet and religion is a very obvious alternative outlet.
We should be careful! This can get very dangerous!
I think it's wonderful that you've taken the first step toward recovery, admitting that you have a problem. That's always the hardest part. Here is a link to a group that can help you take the next one: http://www.marijuana-anonymous.org/ It's full of wonderful people that know exactly what you're going through, and they really can help.
Please – I beg you, please call them. Your children are worth it.
"The Earth's human population cannot grow without limit. "
This statement is the equivalent of a monkey believing he can touch the moon by climbing a tree.
It's technically true, in the sense that the statement "there is a finite amount of space in the universe" is true. But you have no idea what concrete figures you're to use. You know how I know? Two hundred years ago the best scientists in the world were telling us that the Earth could not support more than one billion people. We're at six billion now.
Part I
1. By leaving off the word legitimate from your definition you've invalidated it. Given 2 parts, the government and the governed, in order for the government to be the largest dealer in interpersonal violence it would have to retaliate with violence for any act of violence perpetrated by the governed. What's more it would have to commit at least one extra act of violence to ensure that it's the largest dealer. A government cannot catch every single act of interpersonal violence committed so in order to be the largest dealer of violence it would have to do a whole lot of 'extra' violence that was not punishment. (It looks like you tried to include a link to a definition of government in your first post but it doesn't show up for me as a link)
2. This is just your belief of what would happen as the world becomes more crowded. Without actually experiencing it we can't know for sure. I happen to believe that as crowding increased violent crimes would increase but that doesn't mean that human life is devalued.
3 You really shouldn't discount sci-fi as a vision of things to come. Radar, satellites, space travel, ray guns, cloning, and computers were all part of sci-fi well before they were invented.
4. Yeah my eyes got crossed while reading, my big monitor blew up the other day and I had to downgrade to a small backup monitor. In any case #4 is a true statement
5. Ah, so the choice is between deliberate human agency or a human agency that is not deliberate. There's also a natural disaster that's an extinction event like a huge asteroid or a giant solar flare. Baring that sort of scenario then yes the most likely cause would be a deliberate human decision or a human making a mistake and blowing up the world.
6. If you count people deciding on their own that they don't want many kids and voluntarily shrinking the population as a democratic decision then yes, it's either democratic or non-democratic.
I don't think I've ever laughed so hard while on this website. Thanks for the laugh.
Part II
7. Alright, I Googled that phrase and apparently missed your point. While it's debatable whether ALL human behavioral traits are heritable the fact of the matter is that some heritable behavioral traits WON'T be inherited. Take substance dependency for example, while widely believed that this trait is heritable the fact of the matter is that the offspring of a person who exhibits this behavior is not guaranteed to also exhibit this behavior.
8. My problem with this wasn't that non-compliant individuals would be bred. My problem with your statement was you said they would be "selectively" bred. This statement means that every voluntary population control system would, by virtue of it's characteristics, bring forth a non-compliant family. This just isn't factual. While I would say that the probability of a non-compliant family showing up would be very large (almost a sure thing) the fact is it wouldn't be a sure thing. The possibility exists (however small) of everyone in a given population voluntarily complying.
9. The universe is very large, go back to #3
10. Sorry, I was a bit unclear. What I should have said is… It is an unprovable assertion and to legitimately count misery as a factor you must prove a) It would definitely be present in the situation you're talking about, and b) it would be widespread enough and strong enough to actually be a factor worthy of consideration.
11.
12. Soylent Green works only in movies, in real life it doesn't work at all. Even were you to assume that in the future the technology would exist to render a human being down into all the nutrients available within the body it's still an unworkable concept. Some of the human body's caloric intake is used up just in living, if humankind's sole source of nutrition is Soylent Green then those calories would be lost from the food chain forever. Without supplemental sources of nutrition the human race would soon die out, so you'd need some form of agriculture. The most efficient farming is carried out on large, unbroken tracts of land and with a max population earth that's what would have to be used.
Marijuana will do that.
No, what is dangerous is liberal zealots like yourself that cannot see RESULTS. This family is producing LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Go to the inner cities of NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, LA (Compton), and San Fran and try to help people who really need it.
1. "By leaving off the word legitimate from your definition you've invalidated it" Not at all. The State makes –laws– (root of "legitimate"). This makes that part of Weber's definition circular.
"in order for the government to be the largest dealer in interpersonal violence it would have to retaliate with violence for any act of violence perpetrated by the governed."
No. The State just has top be the largest dealer in interpersonal violence. It does not even have to dispence most of the violence, just more than any other single organization distributes.
2. "Value" means the rate at which one good or service trades for other goods or services. Just visit a crowded poor country to see how little a human life is worth.
6. One person's decision not to breed does not stop other people from breeding. In a voluntary system of population control, the people who cannot understand the argument or who see the implications for future generations but do not care will displace those with the brains and heart to limit their reproduction. Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals. Like salmon and sociopaths.
I provided a well thought out analysis and you respond with name-calling. I'm not a "liberal zealot," not that it actually matters.
The Duggar Family is an anomaly. I give them credit for making it work. As for the sense of freedom among the Duggar children, if this true, I'm very happy for them.
However, you seem to be missing the point of what I was saying. I explained, in very pointed detail, that the Duggar family is part of a fringe of a fringe. They are part of a sect of Evangelical Christianity called the Quiverfulls that treat the natural reproductive process as a weapon in an imagined "culture war." Let's not forget the racial undertones to this. My overall point was that religious fanaticism is a symptom of a society that is in trouble. For your information, I myself am actually a person of faith.
1. This is a disingenuous definition. On the one side you've got government (a collective made up of individuals) and on the other side you have the governed divided into any number of different organizations. If you split the population of the governed all the way down to individuals yes, the definition holds since a group of individuals is going to perpetrate more violence than one individual. As you group the governed into larger and larger groups the definition becomes less true since these larger groups are better able to compete with the government for a larger share of the total violence. If you don't split the governed into groups at all and instead treat them as one large set (the governed) your definition no longer holds true. The governed, being a much larger group than the government, is able to perpetrate more violence.
2. Each person values their life in accord with their own thoughts and feelings. The only one who can legitimately trade your life away is yourself. For myself I know the value my life holds does not fluctuate with the population of the earth. You seem to be arguing that the lives of OTHERS hold less value in a crowded society but that argument doesn't hold either. Take a society (We'll call them A), competing for resource B. As A grows, B becomes more valuable because more and more people desire it. Soon they start killing each other off in order to get their hands on B. Do their individual lives hold less value? Not at all, B has simply become precious enough to justify the taking of a life.
6. I see the point you're getting at with this now. This scenario is not reflected in the real world. There are countries now that are struggling with low population growth. Looking ahead they see that their population growth is not enough to sustain their economies in the future. In your proposed scenario this could never happen (baring a huge disaster that wiped out a good chunk of the population). In your scenario the breeders would always overwhelm the non-breeders and population would continually grow. Look at the 'baby boomers' in the United States. A huge population of breeders resulted in…not so many breeders. If the tendency to breed large families was always inherited the 'baby boom' should have just kept going. Since it didn't, the U.S. is in a spot of trouble now because there's not enough young people to sustain the huge population of elderly 'baby boomers'.
All in all a great family. The clothing choices for the girls is unfortunate. Modesty does not equal "Little House on The Prairie"
Good for your daughter. Looks like she is breaking out of the asylum that you have created for her.
(Snicker): "1. This is a disingenuous definition…."
Please do not do this. "Disingenuous" is the polysyllabic, gone-to-college way to call someone "liar". So far, I have tried to operate on the assumption that participants to this discussion argue in good faith. You could change my mind,
You raise an important issue in the definition of "government". Aggregates of humans (clubs, corporations, governments, etc.) contain individuals, who may depart from the group or operate against the will of other members. St\ill, if "corporation" or "church" may mean something, so may "government" mean something.
(Snicker): "B has simply become precious enough to justify the taking of a life."
You make my point: "value" means the rate at which one good or service trades for another.
(Snicker): "This scenario is not reflected in the real world. "
Give it time. Evolutionary time.
"Science will provide" is as sensible a policy as "the Lord will provide": no policy at all.
Absolutely. I've got the kids in an uproar off a contract buzz.
But it's profoundly more moral than your policy: "Murder, jail, or forcibly sterilize people until we're down to some arbitrary limit."
Pardon me but I'd rather just have freedom, and see where it goes. I categorically reject your basis for control over my life, and will back up my rejection with deadly force, if necessary.
Almost forgot: I have more evidence for my "science will provide" policy (because science *has* provided) than you do for your faith-based belief that the Earth can only support a finite amount of people. Your belief is conjecture (because, by definition, it hasn't happened), while mine is backed up by imperial evidence, in the form of 200 years of history.
(Hired Mind): (Science will provide) is "profoundly more moral than" involuntary sterilization.
Puts me in mind of the Milton Berle one-liner:
"How's your wife?"
"Compared to what?"
How'd you like to have your right leg amputated? Depends on the alternative. If the alternative is remaining healthy and bi-pedal, I'd prefer not. If it's dying painfully of gangrene, saw away.
A proper analogy would be: "Your leg is going to become gangrenous ten years from now. I have no evidence, I just know. Better saw it off to be safe. Oh – and when I told you the same thing a few years back and it didn't come true – just ignore that."
To which asylum would you be referring? The stable home environment of a two parent household, working parents, solidly middle class where she has the things many kids dont? She can't imagine a life of sharing, not being the center of her own universe. She thinks those kids are deprived and that the parents are insane for having so many kids. When I explain to her that they do it without any public assistance, she's flummoxed. She lives in a world where they teach them how to fill out welfare forms in school.
I like the way your daughter thinks. Sound like a future Democrat to me. Shake her hand for me and welcome her to the party.
Oh, she doesn't think that welfare works or that you should get hand outs when you're perfectly able to do work yourself. She helped her dad organize the first TEA Party rally here in Waco. The only thing she agrees with the Libs about is ecology, but real ecology, not kids with beards who are mad at their parents.
I know you don't get that, but it is my most sincere hope that one day, you will.
Looks like I'm out of luck. I'm sure she'll be the best of the flyover mud farmers someday.
I've noticed as the seasons have progressed, the girls' clothes have become slightly less "Little House."
I've been watching this show for several seasons, and I love it. It's a good lesson to see people who have specific values and actually live those values. Also, it's refreshing to see parents who take their parenting responsibilities seriously.
One thing I don't get is the no dancing rule. Come on, haven't they seen "Footloose?" Dancing is totally Christian…
More power to them, as long as they do not ask me to support them, they can have all of the kids they want to.
1. I'm sorry you took offense at my phrasing, however if you read what I wrote I specifically called the definition disingenuous not you. It appears to me that while you believe what you wrote, what you wrote does not reflect the real world although at first glance it seems to be true.
If you split society into two groups, a) the government and b) the governed your definition no longer holds true. Let's use the United States as the society and define violence as intentional killing. How many intentional killings in the United States are perpetrated by the government vs the governed? While I don't have the figures on hand we both know that the governed intentionally kill more people in the United States than the government. This holds true for any act of violence that you'd care to name, thus your definition is shown as false using a real life example.
The only way your definition will hold is if the governed are divided up into smaller groups. Does it work if you divide the governed along political lines? Do Republicans, Democrats, or Independents commit more intentional killings than the government? Sure. How about dividing into the sexes. Do males or females as a group commit more intentional killings than the government? Definitely. If you divide the governed enough you will come down to the individual. Does any one individual commit more intentional killings than the government? No. In some cases your definition holds, in others it doesn't.
2. (M_Kirkpatrick) You make my point: "value" means the rate at which one good or service trades for another.
I believe I get what you're trying to say, in overpopulated conditions people are more willing to kill for resources. That being said your definition as written is wrong even by your own definition of "value". I'll give a couple examples illustrating why your definition is incorrect. First I'll set the conditions. A is a person with food enough to sustain one person. B is a person with no food but the means to kill one person with impunity.
If B kills A and takes his food has the "value" of life increased, decreased, or did it stay the same? The answer is it remained the same. A did not trade B his life in exchange for anything, B stole A's life and his food, no change in life's "value" occurred.
If A gives B his food (effectively giving his life to B) does the "value" of life increase, decrease, or remain the same? Again it remains the same, no trade occurred, B did not buy A's life, A did not sell his life to B.
If B gives A a bar of gold for his food does the "value" of life increase, decrease, or remain the same? In this case the "value" of life decreases because a valid trade has occurred. The rate at which life is traded has increased making life less valuable than gold. How often do you think this last example will occur? Who's idiotic enough to trade their own life away for gold? I can reasonably foresee the first two examples occurring in overpopulated conditions but the last one? These examples hold true no matter what scenario you'd care to envision. A and B could be groups of people instead of just one person, you could add in more people or groups of people. The only way for life's "value" to decrease is for someone (or some group) to willfully trade their life (lives) for something that is not life.
3. (M_Kirkpatrick) "Give it time. Evolutionary time."
And with that statement it is my belief you have conceded the point. It is the obligation of the person making the assertion to prove their point and saying "I assert that it will be true eventually." proves nothing.
If I were to speculate however I would have to say that evolution doesn't support your theory. Given that the tendency to have large families is heritable, and given there's no outside agency to stop this tendency we could envision a world overpopulated with large families. The large families would breed and breed and people would die and die because there's finite resources in the world. If such a case were to occur and if the theory of evolution were to hold then the individuals best able to survive and thus pass on genes would be the individuals that didn't invest huge amounts of resources in breeding. Eventually the smaller families would breed out the large families. In the far, far future the individuals best able to survive would be those that bred just enough so that they didn't need to compete for resources and the earth's population would stabilize. Now I have no evidence for this, but it's at least as plausible as your assertion.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think then about people handing their children off to completely unrelated people, to basically raise for them?
How free are they to attend college? To take on a career? To leave home and live as a single, unmarried adult, alone? To even go on a date?
Not so free.
It's not about family size as much as it is about where the ATI mindset does to girls and women. There is no freedom in it.
I'm sure I'll get negged and deleted, but it won't stop the truth that ATI is a cult.
They have all the freedom in the world until they decide they would like to go to college(Which they wouldn't be able to get into anyway with their extreme lack of education) or decide that they would like to pursue a career that doesn't involve pushing out as many babies as possible. Yes, that is the kind of freedom all teen girls should have. The freedom to have their parents choose whatever it is they want to do.(Oh, but of course it's "their choice" because you haven't heard the father say it's what they have to do. It's very easy to figure out what's happening)
You don t have to copy things you see on TV. Not many are aware of the great lengths this family went thru to 'stay debt-free' . The Duggars are considered 'royalty' in their circle. Some of these poor Quiverfull kids are denied the basic comforts like air heat and real fodwhile their parents are trying to live 'debt free." If us 'liberals' allowed our kids to live with no running water the kids would get yanked away.
There's a sheet on the refrig to sign up for mommy time. Thats a sign of too many kids.
Whether or not I had a point new readers can not decide, as some moderator has deleted my argument. Why?
I have advanced this argument, which basically summarizes Garrett Hardin's thesis in his __Science__ article "The Tragedy of the Commons", elsewhere. Christians don't like it. Libertarians don't like it (I got banned from Samizdata and Bizzy). Feminists don't like it. They become uncivil, and shut down the discussion.
What on earth are you talking about? Who said anything about copying things I see on tv? I've never seen this show before, so I have no idea if their family is something I care to aspire to or not.
I was just commenting on the size of large families in the state of Utah, because most of us in Utah are LDS and most of us believe that the Lord wants us to have more than two children. I want at least six kids because I want a large family. I believe family is the most important thing we have, and I believe that being a mother is the greatest thing I could ever do on this planet. We are also encouraged by the church to live debt-free, except in cases of buying homes or finishing our education, because that's the healthier way to live, rather than living paycheck to paycheck and scraping to get by because you can't live within your means.
And for your information, while I have known quite a lot of large families, as I noted in my previous comment, I have never known any that have to go without air, heat, running water, or food. Just because you apparently don't like large families is no reason to start attacking those who do by inventing weird strawman arguments that have nothing at all to do with what was originally posted.
I experienced culture without being tarnished. Did anyone see the Ethiopian restaurant episode. the older kids rolled their eyes at the dancing. Michelle corrected Johanna for bopping her head to the music. On another episode Jim Bob stopped a musical toy because one if the boys started to bop their head. anyway, they are more cultured than most Fundamentalist / QF because of the show.
The boys don't have too much freedom about careers. either.Josh aspired to be a lawyer and Jon David a pilot. The parents told Jon David a pilot career may take him away from his family. Here is my understanding of their beliefs on careers and college: The boys are encouraged to take up an apprenticeship with the family or become self-employed like Josh. Demanding careers may be frowned upon since they take away from family. They also don't believe in partnerships other than with the spouse. Higher education isn't discouraged but college is. Some are lucky enough to take classes online to avoid secular schools . Josh's wife Anna got a degree online .I know Jill is looking into nursing a ATI approved career and Jana midwife another ATI approved career. More than likely they will go through ATI or a university that follows their beliefs- not much freedom
Yes you seldom see them around other ethnic backgrounds or races on the show except on 'mission trips'.
It kinda reminds me of the mass hysteria effect of the Salem Witch Trials. The witches were an imagined threat.
The QF intentions is to produce enough children in hopes of taking back sinful cities like LA and Las Vegas.
The wonderful Ghd Hair Straightener heating panels are painted with ceramic paste imported from Korea; it can generate infrared ray and negative ions which can lock in moisture,natural oils,Each pink patterned Cheap Ghd Hair Straightener comes with a gorgeous beautiful bag and compact mirror,so you can be sure your transformation will send hearts a flutter wherever you go.Come on to take the Ghd Hair Australia!The Ghd Mini Styler also comes with universal voltage for optimum performance wherever you travel. Welcome to order Ghd Straighteners in Ghd AU Store! We promise free shipping and within 7 days fast delivery to your door.
Realy nice,thanks alot.
http://www.pancardverification.com
Amaze! Thank you! I constantly wished to produce in my internet site a thing like that.
Liza
molarity calculator|decimal to hex|know your pan|draguer sur facebook|soprano regarde moi
I really like this site, its such a nice site.
ENT Instruments
I really like this site, its such a nice site.
ENT Instruments
I'am the regular visitor of your web. its very informative site.
Neurosurgery Instruments
I'am the regular visitor of your web. its very informative site.
Gynecology Instruments
You must be logged in to post a comment.