Our Breederific Media and Reproductive Status

as an aside, I watch the resident. been watching that colossal jerk padme and her brain dead hysteria and blind obsession to breed. watching her deal with the two screaming little shits . screamed, pissed, and shit all day. frankly was sorta fun watching her fall to pieces... not as fun as you thought it would be asshole. this will be your life for years to come. at least they did show the negative aspects of stupid breeding. of course they'll smooth it all over with the usual 'it's wuuuurth it' shit. and after the stupid cunt has had reality tossed in her face she said something that was similar to 'maybe I wasn't thinking hard enough'.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

No one is more arrogant towards women, more aggressive or scornful, than the man who is anxious (insecure..my word) about his virility. Simone de Beauvoir

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children. The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

I was watching the news coverage about the UVA shootings. A female person in a position of power at the University issued a statement that was something like:

"As a mother of three, I am devastated by these events... (blah blah blah)..."

What does this woman's three brats have to do with this situation? Right, nothing.

Does anyone else think this kind of self-serving junk is in bad form?

The situation/story is about people who have lost loved ones, and she's not in that population. This woman gets to go home and hug her crotch nuggets. Others cannot, and not to mention the suffering of the people who saw these three men get shot right in front of them.

I wish bitches like this would STFU and do their jobs without being talking wombs. Just issue a compassionate statement and don't shoe-horn their own crotch nuggets in the conversation.

Quote
bell_flower
I was watching the news coverage about the UVA shootings. A female person in a position of power at the University issued a statement that was something like:

"As a mother of three, I am devastated by these events... (blah blah blah)..."

What does this woman's three brats have to do with this situation? Right, nothing.

Does anyone else think this kind of self-serving junk is in bad form?

The situation/story is about people who have lost loved ones, and she's not in that population. This woman gets to go home and hug her crotch nuggets. Others cannot, and not to mention the suffering of the people who saw these three men get shot right in front of them.

I wish bitches like this would STFU and do their jobs without being talking wombs. Just issue a compassionate statement and don't shoe-horn their own crotch nuggets in the conversation.

She is devastated because she has brats and the minute she had them an empathy chip was installed in her head and all of the sudden she can empathize, because she has brats! As if the only people on earth who are empathetic are moos or duhs. I've literally been in the room with a bunch of moos or duhs who assumed I have no empathy because I haven't sluiced. I've also heard a co-worker say a childfree worker doesn't have any depth of understanding (meaning he has no empathy because he is childfree). The man saying this didn't realize I was childfree, he thought I was childless.

Any parunt who would rather do drugs than take care of their brat must have missed the chip install?

I have to ask WHY they assume childfree means no empathy? But I know why, because before they had brats they had no empathy and assume everyone else is the same way. They overgeneralize the childfree but pitch a fit if we put them in any "breeder" category.

If you’re speaking as a representative of an organization (in this case, the university), why is your personal life relevant? I don’t want to hear about your mommy fee-fees, I want to know what actions the organization plans to take.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

I never understood this breeder logic that you don't become a complete human being with proper human emotions until after you've had children. Like that's not how it works?? Someone who has no empathy won't magically develop it simply because they perpetuated their genes. An unempathetic person will remain unempathetic even after reproducing. Being unchilded doesn't mean you don't feel feelings, nor does being a breeder make your feelings and opinions more valid than those of someone without kids. God people are dumb.

Don't we hear this shit enough? You don't know real love until you've had kids. You don't know what tired is until you've had kids. You aren't a real woman until you've had kids (conversely, you can be a real man without kids because I only ever hear this one about women). You don't know what compassion or patience are until you've had kids. You don't develop empathy until you've had kids. Kids have exactly nothing to do with your emotional response! With the possible exception being post-partum depression/psychosis/rage because in that case, they have everything to do with it.

I immediately assume anyone who begins a sentence with, "As a mother/father/parent of (X number) kids..." is a moron and I do not value what they have to say whatsoever.

Quote
Cambion
I never understood this breeder logic that you don't become a complete human being with proper human emotions until after you've had children.

So, by them, you cannot know what love is until you have had a child.
But one of those things that makes parenthood worthwhile is hearing "I love you" from their children.
Who can't know what love is, and therefore do not really love them, according to the initial claim.

Something about this logic seems faulty.

"Having baybees can half a womans risk of developing this type of cancer"
Ohhhh clickbait! Read it, be scarrred and decide to sluice over the holidays!

Quote
dr from article
Dr. Moen explained: “It could be the increase in protective progesterone in the latter stages of pregnancy, or it could be because the body potentially removes pre-cancerous endometrial cells from the uterus during birth."

Potentially removes pre-cancerous endometrial cells from the uterus during birth isn't the same as removing pre-cancerous cells. A Dr. should know better than this! Or just admit this type of cancer is more complicated than this. Read the article and find out obesity raises the chances of developing this type of cancer by 40%...and obesity isn't limited to the childfree.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/having-babies-can-halve-a-womans-risk-of-developing-this-type-of-cancer/ar-AA148uLp

Or better yet, talk about how hair straighteners are very likely to cause uterine cancer to try to stop more of this cancer from happening based on actual government cancer studies.

Hair straighteners cause uterine cancer:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/diagnosed-uterine-cancer-tumors-now-suing-makers-chemical-hair-straigh-rcna57667
https://www.curetoday.com/view/cancer-survivor-waits-36-hours-to-meet-houston-astros-player-armie-hammer-s-father-dies-of-cancer-and-more
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/study-suggests-link-between-chemical-hair-straighteners-and-chances-of-uterine-cancer
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/hair-straightener-lawsuits-mount-following-government-cancer-study-2022-11-21/

Great, so if having baybees helps to prevent uterine cancer then why use this STUPID bingo against CF women and just take their uteri out?? Oh yeah, we all know why.

But doesn't pregnancy also increase the chances of other cancers? I've seen mixed things on whether or not it increases or decreases the risk of developing breast cancer, but I've also seen things suggesting that it's more common for women to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer during pregnancy than not. Pregnancy is also considered a risk factor for endometrial cancer by Cancer.org.

But that's about par for the course because every goddamn thing will reduce your risk of one problem while raising your risk of another one. Like nobody seems to be able to agree on whether or not coffee is good for you or bad for you. Same with wine or pot.

All I know is if you're reproducing on the off chance your risk of getting cancer is lowered by a fraction of a percent, you're a fucking moron. So what happens when you get the cancer your pregnancy was supposed to prevent? Blame your child? Seems a little retarded to create an entirely new human being on the off chance being pregnant with them reduces your odds of getting one or two specific cancers.

Lowered risk does not mean a guarantee that you won't get that specific cancer, but I think that's what a lot of people figure when they get told to do (thing) to lower their risk of (illness) by (percent). Conversely, you can have ALL the risk factors for a disease and never get it, or you can have no risk factors whatsoever for a particular condition and still get it. It's all a crapshoot.

I don't care if not having a kid increases my chance of cancer. I'd rather have a shorter, happier life than a longer life with kyds.

Having a tubal ligation reduces one's risk of ovarian cancer, and it's significant. But you never hear that because.....

link

Plus another thing that is rarely given out in these articles is what that double risk entails. For instance, you can have an attention-getting headline: "Doing X doubles your risk of cancer!" If the risk of that cancer is 10%, I agree, going to a 20% risk is scary. But if the risk is, oh, .01%, and now it is .02%, big fucking deal.

Yep, many people don't understand the difference between absolute risk and relative risk.

See linky.

Quote
bell_flower
Yep, many people don't understand the difference between absolute risk and relative risk.

See linky.

I mean, I get why the researchers are going to write that it doubles the risk in their paper. If you find a relatively large effect size that is highly statistically significant, that's an important finding in terms of furthering the scientific discourse. It might lead people to ask why the effect exists, opening new areas of research and perhaps resulting in therapies which can achieve the same effect.

However, when the media picks up on it and reports it in a way that I can only call irresponsible, it encourages people to base decisions on their perception of the risk - which is definitely not derived from an understanding of absolute risk. Scientific literacy is not widespread, and the media absolutely makes use of that to create headlines.

Quote
Cambion
But doesn't pregnancy also increase the chances of other cancers?

I found a link that indicates risk of breast cancer increases. Source: www.vwhcare.net/pregnancy-short-and-long-term-effects/

The common side effects from pregnancy is a huge list! And womben experience these effects from a young age, as young as 20 something. Sex never feeling good again (or feeling anything at all) or ripping from stern to stem is more than enough to dissuade me.

I've known more than one woman who has had her body wrecked by pignasty and had to stop working at an early age. I've also known numerous women who have to use the bathroom every two hours or they will have an accident, so practically non-existent bladder control.

It is potentially one of the most disabling things a woman can do to her body (I didn't find a good list but it is extensive), her paycheck (18+ years of paycheck devastation per brat) and her future life (having a perma-brat that never is independent). And that is assuming she has a partner that is supportive and splits bratcare evenly; which is highly unlikely because once reality sets into the daily tedium anyone in their right mind would bail quickly.

Sometimes I think the devastation pregnancy wreaks on a woman's body is almost (and this is a big almost) worse than cancer because at least sometimes you can treat cancer and make it go away! You can almost never fix or never fully fix the things pregnancy does to you.

Pregnancy causes more than just ugly aesthetic damage too. It causes things like lifelong incontinence (both the urinary and bowel type, due to the development of a vasshole in some cases), I believe uterine prolapse is much more common in women who have been pregnant too, C-sections are invasive surgeries and those in general come with their own set of possible complications. With all the pressure put on a woman's abdomen for several months and especially after pushing in childbirth, I wouldn't be surprised if hernias are a possibility. No amount of kegels will fix this shit either.

I can't imagine being 20 years old and having to wear a Depends because I can't sneeze without peeing my pants. And for what? A creature that deprives you of sleep and sex, costs as much as a house to raise, and tells you it hates you? That's not a good tradeoff if you ask me. I know women's bodies have the equipment to incubate fetuses, but that doesn't mean it won't come with consequences. I'd liken pregnancy to wrecking your car and bending the frame. Sure it's still driveable and you can probably deal with the cosmetic damage to some extent, but the inside is all fucked up and won't work right or feel right ever again. The only difference is you can get a new car. You go and breed as a woman and you're stuck with the heap you turn your body into.

But I'm sure any woman you ask will say it's all wooooooooorth it. Okay Sheila, tell me that when you have to have your pelvic organs held up by metal mesh and need to replace all your shoes because pignasty caused your feet to go up a size and a half.

This story has been making the rounds on my local TV news with lots of Mooing.

A lot is wrong here. Single Moo of four; no daddy in sight and she's working two jobs to support them. They have unfettered access to electronic devices. Moo is quoted in print article saying they "love their devices."

One of her kyds (7 years old) charges $900 on Google Play.

When you set up the account, you can put a cap on money spent. You would think with four ill-behaved crotch goblins this may be a good idea.
Moo was lowing because mean Google will not refund the money her child blew, only $10.

In the local news coverage, Moo is saying her chyld is on the spectrum and he has a "hard time with limits." Of course he does. Moo was crying about not being able to afford her rent or Xmas presents. A GoFundMe was started and more money than she owed was raised.

All the newscasters were so sympathetic.

I'd like to think that the brat that spent $900 would lose device privileges since he's proven he can't be trusted with a device, but since Moo claims he has a "hard time with limits," my guess is there will be no consequences for his actions and therefore he will have no reason to not do this shit again. People may be sympathetic now, but they will have less sympathy when Moo is lowing to the media the seventh time her brat spends several hundred dollars on stupid shit. If she doesn't want her darling crotch dump to pull this stunt a second time, he needs to lose access to any devices or apps where it's easy to spend a ton of money.

Or for all we know, maybe she's making the whole thing up to get free shit. A poor overworked mommy with a gaggle of brats loses all her Giftmas money a week before the holidays because her precocious tard hit a button. You put a sob story like that in the news and people will line up to throw money at you because it's sooooo traaaagic. No, the real tragedy is that this idiot woman had four kids she obviously cannot afford (no baby-daddies in sight either, I presume) and lets electronic devices babysit them because I doubt she has much time for them when she's working two jobs.

I'm surprised Moo isn't campaigning to make it harder to spend huge amounts of money in Roblox to prevent this from happening again. Because, as we've seen in the past, Moos will blame everyone for their shit parenting except themselves. Otherwise, they might have to acknowledge the problem lies with THEM and not someone else.

Quote
Cambion
I'm surprised Moo isn't campaigning to make it harder to spend huge amounts of money in Roblox to prevent this from happening again. Because, as we've seen in the past, Moos will blame everyone for their shit parenting except themselves. Otherwise, they might have to acknowledge the problem lies with THEM and not someone else.

I've been watching this "story" come up time and time again over the years, and the comments get less and less sympathetic every time the story is presented. As people point out, there are parental controls, and you should enable those before handing over the device. There's really no excuse of ignorance - why are you giving them devices if you don't know what they can do, and were you sleeping every other time the story was mentioned?

Quote
bell_flower
In the local news coverage, Moo is saying her chyld is on the spectrum and he has a "hard time with limits." Of course he does. Moo was crying about not being able to afford her rent or Xmas presents. A GoFundMe was started and more money than she owed was raised.

All the newscasters were so sympathetic.

Sounds like mombie is the one who has a hard time with limits. Her concern after her brat spends $900 is being able to afford Xmas presents, tell the little brat he already has his gift with the $900 purchase he made. In all fairness he probably shouldn't get a Xmas or birthday gift for the next 5 plus year. After all, moo made such a big deal out of how she couldn't afford this so clearly she wasn't planning to spend $900 on the dunkin donut. Kinda hard to teach limits to your brat if one is too stupid to figure out limits for themselves. But please, blame the bad parunting on autism because that is the ultimate convenient excuse of bad parunting.

And of course the GFM. When I saw this same article several times within a day from different news sources I knew idiots would rally to bail the stupid bitch out.

And the brats learn that mooing and lowing means they get $900 worth of shit AND a bunch of Xmas gifts, so no accountability for any of this famblee. It is more about how much time elapses before there is a repeat performance (complete with over the top moo theatrics, of course) because this seven year old brat just figured out a great way to have a four figure Xmas bounty.

And how many unsupervised hours was the brat doing this in order to spend $900? Seems to be an element of neglect here that only happened because moo wasn't present. I'd guess she was physically present but clearly she wasn't paying attention.

Well, this is interesting.

Yahoo Headline reads "A Man" intentionally drove his Tesla off a cliff. A woman was in the passenger seat and two kyds were in the back of the car.

From the article:

Quote

Tue, January 3, 2023 at 8:42 PM EST
MONTARA, Calif. (AP) — The driver of a car that plunged off a cliff in Northern California, seriously wounding two children and a second adult after the 250-foot drop, was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and child abuse, the California Highway Patrol said Tuesday.

Dharmesh A. Patel of Pasadena will be booked into San Mateo County Jail after he’s released from a hospital, the highway patrol said in a statement. It wasn't immediately known if Patel has an attorney.

“CHP investigators worked throughout the night interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence from the scene,” the highway patrol statement said. “Based on the evidence collected, investigators developed probable cause to believe this incident was an intentional act.”

Patel was in the car with another adult, a 4-year-old girl, and a 9-year-old boy. It was not immediately clear if they were all members of the same family.

1. Guy was described as "a man." I wonder if he's the father of these kids. Surely if the police investigated through the night, they would have known whether the guy was the kids' father? Another scenario is that he was dating the Moo and wanted to kill her and her kids.

2. Because this guy was a male, it took all of one night and investigation of the scene to determine it was a deliberate act.

So why, when a Moo did the same thing with her kids, and witnesses told the police she was speeding deliberately toward the cliff, did it take an entire year of investigations and wasting public monies to finally determine it was a "deliberate act?"

We discussed that 2017 story here in this same thread. The authorities in that case farted around for a WHOLE YEAR. They even contacted LandRover to explore if it was MECHANICAL FAILURE in Moo's SUV.

Can you imagine all the wasted time and money and the discard of what witnesses were saying to go on that wild goose chase?

We all know why this happened--because that driver was a Mooooother and not "a man."

The original story is gone--all that's left is the discussion we had about it. When a Moo does something like this, I'm going to start copying more of the stories.

I did a search on his full name and city from the article and he is the father. All four of the people in the car survived (his wife and two kids), likely because they were in a Tesla? They're saying he did it intentionally, which seems to be an assumption because he hasn't given a statement at this point? He is a surgeon in CA.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It seems to be selectively innocent until proven guilty.

And not only that but what if the car was under autonomous drive when this happened? I highly doubt they've investigated this particular aspect at this point.

Not that it makes him faultless, but he could have fallen asleep.

I don't know how true it is because I've never driven a Tesla myself, but I think they have functions that allow the cars to predict potential accidents and try to prevent them. I don't know if Teslas have anything special about them that would otherwise protect the vehicle's occupants in the event an accident does occur. It's possible the guy could have had the car on cruise and dozed off at the wheel. If the guy is a surgeon, it's VERY possible the guy was drop dead exhausted from tending to a bazillion patients. Maybe he shouldn't have been driving it that was the case, but it's no reason to immediately accuse him of trying to kill his passengers.

It could have been something wrong with the car too. I know it's a big fancy electric car, but that doesn't mean it can't break.

Why are they not talking to the passengers in the car? They all survived, but unless they're unconscious or brain-damaged from the accident, can't any of them vouch for the driver and say whether or not he went off the cliff by accident or obviously re-enacted Thelma & Louise on purpose? Just because a car goes off a cliff with a famblee inside doesn't automatically mean it was an act of attempted murder.

I'd love to know what "evidence" the police found to indicate this was done on purpose. Because even if the guy had a dashcam that caught video of whole thing, there would be no way to tell for sure if the accident was a true accident or not. Also, Teslas aren't exactly cheap vehicles either. Who the hell would crash one on purpose? I'm sure even a surgeon who makes tons of money isn't that stupid.

Good points how the Tesla may have malfunctioned, since that has happened before. Maybe they talked to the Moo in the car?

Another GeezerBreeder story

Selfish asshole couple does IVF for NINE years and they eventually get their brat via frozen embryo and a surrogate.

I wonder how long this marriage will last. Any guy who demands his elderly wife (this one had CANCER) sprog is bound to be an asshole. Janet Jackson's marriage imploded within a year of her having her "mirakul baybee."

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

UGH she is my age!! Why tf do people do this???

I just can't believe these people who have so much going for them don't think it's enough so they have to throw a baybee in the mix. I remember reading about her story and just rolling and rolling my eyes over her "tragedy" of not being able to sluice. Yeah, let's see where they are at in five years. I'm sure we'll be reading updates about her mirakul loaf having all kinds of issues and/or how how it affected her marriage, health, etc. For fuck's sake, they could afford to adopt a tribe of sprogs who need homes.

Remember, you guys, we are the selfish ones!