Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

1912 big families/statistics

Posted by CFScorpio 
CFScorpio
1912 big families/statistics
October 09, 2006
"It's barely a blip on the nation's demographic radar — 11 percent of U.S. births in 2004 were to women who already had three children, up from 10 percent in 1995."

Here's a classic example of how statistics can be twisted to support any argument, no matter how illogical.

One extra percentage point may not sound like much to the author of the article, but exactly how many births are we talking about? One percent of what? 100? 1000? 1 million? 1 billion?
CFScorpio
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 09, 2006
Here's another charming quote:

"In South Orange, N.J., where Diana and Ronald Baseman have raised 10 children, trash output is a challenge — at one point, garbagemen needed to be tipped before they would haul away the family's refuse."

Thanks for helping destroy the planet, jerks!
GreenGrass
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 10, 2006
This girl I used to work with was having one of her usual conversations about baybees and marriage with another coworker, and she made the comment that "three is the new two" with respect to how many kids to have today. I wanted to slap her.
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 10, 2006
About ten years ago, the local paper did a spread on those large families. Of course, the Typipcal Catholic Breeders were featured. Daddio earned his living as a professional golfer. There were over six kids in that house. One of the younger children suffered from a mental handicap. I doubt the handicapped child got the attention she needed since moo was busy with the rest of the brood.

I was glad when a woman wrote the paper stating how it was interesting that two stories -- one about kids following a gang and the large Catholic family -- showed people who were followers. The kids mindless followed a violent gang while the other people mindless followed their religion when it came to serial breeding. It was nice to see this letter rather than pro-lifers yelling how "great" this all is.

Funny how moos scream of overcrowding in schools but they never seem to look at THEIR part in this whole thing!
Love this thread! : )

This, for sure, is one of my pet peeves. Just how many kyds does the average American family need? Considering the resources we in the U.S. consume, we are the ones damaging the planet with our wastefulness. Yet whenever National Geographic does an article on overpopulation, the photos always depict Africans or Asians. Ya think there's a bit of racism going on?

Can't wait till our government here decides to issues "mother's medals" like they used to in the Third Reich...more cannon fodder for the Homeland!
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 10, 2006
The American family with 2.5 children uses far more resources than the African or Far East families with 6+ children. The third worlders eke by on very little...something that most of us Westerners could not survive doing for five days much less five years. We use most of the world's resources while being less of the population.
Fattie
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 11, 2006
I read on some other CF board that the average American uses something like 131 times more resources versus the average Ethopian. It pisses me off on how wasteful Americans are (relax folks, I'm a Yank).
Yet John Stosel [sp?] did some "mythbusting" report on 20/20 saying that we're NOT running out of places to store garbage, there is NO global warning and the world is NOT overpopulated despite factual evidence proving him wrong.
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 11, 2006
Religious nuts love to claim how there is no such thing as overpopulation by stating that all of the world's people can ALL be housed in the State of Texas. Does any of that make any sense??? confused smiley
GreenGrass
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 11, 2006
India - they also say that God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith. Science and math generally are not their strong suits.
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 11, 2006
No, India, that doesn't make any sense because it's a lie. If by "housed" they actually mean "can fit everyone in shoulder to shoulder", then it would sound more realistic. Everyone in the world could not have a home in a land area the size of Texas. I think the religious zealots are in denial about the population problem, and from what I've seen, said people are notorious for sweeping the problems under the carpet and leaving them for their gods or someone else to deal with.
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 11, 2006
3 is the new 2??? Well, 0 must be the new 1. Bein' childfree rocks! Catholicism is full of dog damned breeders.



lab mom
Anonymous User
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 27, 2006
Hey WaterLily! I haven't "seen" you in a while. I guess you heard about Bella. It totally sucks now! (opps, can I say suck?)
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 30, 2006
karenb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey WaterLily! I haven't "seen" you in a while. I
> guess you heard about Bella. It totally sucks
> now! (opps, can I say suck?)

Ha Ha! Your so DAMN funny!!!!
I moved, so I wasn't able to post awhile at Bella. I got a post from Blossom/Free Spirirt, that it has been so fucked over there. I posted my last post EVER,



lab mom
Anonymous User
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 30, 2006
Fucked up it is mate big time ! Saw your last post as I was just finishing off deleting all mine.
Anonymous User
Re: 1912 big families/statistics
October 30, 2006
HI Karen smiling smiley How are ya? Nice to see you here!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login