We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Stupid Science


  • Please log in to reply
873 replies to this topic

#1 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted Yesterday, 08:08 PM

What also dismays ME is an increase of seeing young girls having babies NOT out of any sense of a willingness to start and build a family for any kind of noble motive, but having babies as some sort of fashion accesory.  Usually left in the care of some family member who's really concerned about the child while "Mommy" goes out and "parties"  with her "buds". 

 

Got a Grandniece doing that very thing.  And the MEN they pick to be fathers are only fathers in the acedemic sense.  They gave their seed, and drop in now and then for a "piece".  Or call whenever they need bail money.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

The law sees them as fathers in the legal sense.  Ask any paying child support.  Bill Clinton did one good thing, it was the 1996 federal welfare reform (family cap), I don't see young girls having kids just to get welfare anymore.

 

There is another issue, having children to please their parents.  How many time I've heard, when are you going to give me a grand baby?

 

http://www.aboutkids...ndchildren.aspx



#2 Sepiatone

Sepiatone

    Enhanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,956 posts
  • LocationLincoln Park, MI

Posted Yesterday, 07:30 PM

Mitt Romney is a Rich Man - - he can afford that nonsense. And besides he doesn't have to give birth to any children anyway.LOL

What I've never understood, is why people who cannot afford to have numerous children, insist upon having large numbers.

For decades I've observed in the grocery stores how you see the people who can least afford scads of children having more than two, three or even four.

It's not fair to the children, nor is it fair to the society who ends up having to pay for their exorbitant lifestyle.

What also dismays ME is an increase of seeing young girls having babies NOT out of any sense of a willingness to start and build a family for any kind of noble motive, but having babies as some sort of fashion accesory.  Usually left in the care of some family member who's really concerned about the child while "Mommy" goes out and "parties"  with her "buds". 

 

Got a Grandniece doing that very thing.  And the MEN they pick to be fathers are only fathers in the acedemic sense.  They gave their seed, and drop in now and then for a "piece".  Or call whenever they need bail money.

 

 

Sepiatone


  • hamradio likes this

I started out with NOTHING...and still have most of it left!


#3 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,298 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 27 May 2017 - 10:20 PM

I noticed the shirts also, must have been one of those buy 2 or 3 and get one free sales. Every dollar counts. :lol:

A penny saved is a penny earned.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#4 Princess of Tap

Princess of Tap

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,953 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 07:42 PM

Having a large family is anti social????? :huh:

(my remark in the Mitt Romney photo was NOT sarcastic)


Mitt Romney is a Rich Man - - he can afford that nonsense. And besides he doesn't have to give birth to any children anyway.LOL

What I've never understood, is why people who cannot afford to have numerous children, insist upon having large numbers.

For decades I've observed in the grocery stores how you see the people who can least afford scads of children having more than two, three or even four.

It's not fair to the children, nor is it fair to the society who ends up having to pay for their exorbitant lifestyle.
  • jamesjazzguitar and Sepiatone like this

#5 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 07:34 PM

No, I think it's great.  I just want to know how he plans to provide for them without dipping into welfare.

 

Father's day requires some ahead planning. :P

 

park-inn-pribaltiyskaya-hotel-st-petersb



#6 MovieCollectorOH

MovieCollectorOH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • LocationLand of Bread and Circuses

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:16 PM

Good to know (literally) Mitt Romney's family don't listen to the zero population extremists.

 

ht_ann_romney_family_lpl_120510_wmain.jp

 

My family used to be that large a couple generations ago, probably still is.  Just don't know everyone as various branches have spread out geographically over the years, multiplied, and spread out further.



#7 MovieCollectorOH

MovieCollectorOH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • LocationLand of Bread and Circuses

Posted 27 May 2017 - 06:13 PM

This may freak some out, meet Ed Houbon, the most fertile man in the world.  Has fathered 106 kids and counting. :o

 

ed-houben-3-716361.jpg

 

No, I think it's great.  I just want to know how he plans to provide for them without dipping into welfare.



#8 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:24 PM

This may freak some out, meet Ed Houbon, the most fertile man in the world.  Has fathered 106 kids and counting. :o

 

ed-houben-3-716361.jpg



#9 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:16 PM

Of course it is.    One is using up more natural resources then others (those that have 'average' families) and creating excessive pollution.     That is being anti social to the society at large.   

 

Hey, you can disagree with this POV,  but the fact you can't even see a connection is scary.

 

Family size in America: Are large families back?

 

https://www.babycent...back_1503367.bc



#10 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:08 PM

Having a large family is anti social????? :huh:

 

Of course it is.    One is using up more natural resources then others (those that have 'average' families) and creating excessive pollution.     That is being anti social to the society at large.   

 

Hey, you can disagree with this POV,  but the fact you can't even see a connection is scary.



#11 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:08 PM

Bet Mitt got a bulk discount on the kiddies' shirts. And he has

reached a new tipping point--more grandchildren than elevator

garages.

 

I noticed the shirts also, must have been one of those buy 2 or 3 and get one free sales. Every dollar counts. :lol:



#12 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 05:04 PM

So you celebrate selfish antisocial behavior.    What a cad.   

 

Having a large family is anti social????? :huh:

 

(my remark in the Mitt Romney photo was NOT sarcastic)



#13 Vautrin

Vautrin

    Quel siecle a mains!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,298 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 27 May 2017 - 04:26 PM

Bet Mitt got a bulk discount on the kiddies' shirts. And he has

reached a new tipping point--more grandchildren than elevator

garages.


Curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get.


#14 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,737 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 27 May 2017 - 04:02 PM

Good to know Mitt Romney's family don't listen to the zero population extremists.

 

 

 

So you celebrate selfish antisocial behavior.    What a cad.   



#15 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,202 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:53 PM

Let's flip out over a comment a former kids show host made in some interview. Sounds reasonable. 

but zero population measures implemented against a populace arbitrarily without their consent is not. :D


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#16 hamradio

hamradio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,781 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:45 PM

Good to know (literally) Mitt Romney's family don't listen to the zero population extremists.

 

ht_ann_romney_family_lpl_120510_wmain.jp


  • NipkowDisc likes this

#17 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Micklewhite

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,340 posts
  • LocationSouff London

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:44 PM

Let's flip out over a comment a former kids show host made in some interview. Sounds reasonable. 



#18 JR33928

JR33928

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 932 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:29 PM

for years liberals have accused conservatives of wanting to control people, women in particular because of the abortion issuie, but who is it who now wants to tell everybody just how many children they can have?!!!

:angry:

 

how do you appoint a few arrogant zero population extremists numbering how many kids people can have to any reasonable definition of a free society?

 

and conservatives are out to control people's lives huh? BS!

 

it's liberals who are obsessed with that godless and undemocratic sheet.

 

eventually liberals slip up and reveal their gargantuan level of hypocrisy...

 

he said it! it's something they should consider. liberals are such godless self-appointed schtootzes.

 

consider what? telling millions of people that a totalitarian federal bureaucracy has ordained only this number of kids to a couple?

 

no, liberal won't tell the public. they will just implement it forcibly!

 

like the phony schtootzes that they are.

Sounds a lot like somebody wants to move towards the communist Chinese's one child only policy.

IIRC they levied a heavy fine on couples who broke the law,or maybe worse.



#19 NipkowDisc

NipkowDisc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,202 posts
  • Locationzaygon hegemony

Posted 27 May 2017 - 03:14 PM

Bill Nye Considers 'Climate Impact' Tax on Large Families

Scientist Bill Nye and a panelist on his Netflix show discussed penalizing families for having "extra kids" because of their claimed effect on climate change.

 

"Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?" Nye asked Travis Rieder, an academic at Johns Hopkins University.

"I do think we should at least consider it," Rieder replied.

"Well, 'at least consider it' is like, 'do it,'" Nye countered.

Known for his children's television program "Bill Nye the Science Guy," Nye believes in climate change and often bashes anyone who casts doubt on the belief that man has contributed to rising temperatures across the Earth.

*********************************************

Bill Nye is a fake scientist, how he gets away with it is amazing. Here he wants to tax people for having more children of all things.

 

for years liberals have accused conservatives of wanting to control people, women in particular because of the abortion issuie, but who is it who now wants to tell everybody just how many children they can have?!!!

:angry:

 

how do you appoint a few arrogant zero population extremists numbering how many kids people can have to any reasonable definition of a free society?

 

and conservatives are out to control people's lives huh? BS!

 

it's liberals who are obsessed with that godless and undemocratic sheet.

 

eventually liberals slip up and reveal their gargantuan level of hypocrisy...

 

he said it! it's something they should consider. liberals are such godless self-appointed schtootzes.

 

consider what? telling millions of people that a totalitarian federal bureaucracy has ordained only this number of kids to a couple?

 

no, liberal won't tell the public. they will just implement it forcibly!

 

 

like the phony schtootzes that they are.

 

imagine, any government telling it's citizenry how many kids they will be allowed to have. cute huh?

 

oh, of course they will start out with talk about a tax. what are they gonna call this tax?

 

a population tax or a procreation tax?


"okay, so we're moving right along, folks" -al pacino, dog day afternoon


#20 scsu1975

scsu1975

    Tor B the Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,503 posts
  • LocationEd Wood movie

Posted 27 May 2017 - 02:54 PM

Climate change is keeping Americans awake at night. Literally.

The CDC randomly dials Americans to inquire about where they live, their income, age, how much they drink, if they wear seat belts, if they were sunburned recently and other public health questions. Questioners also ask how many nights of insufficient sleep a person had in the past month. The study authors meshed these responses with weather station records to determine if respondents may have been exposed to unusual nighttime temperatures.

Equipped with this information, the researchers calculated that every nocturnal temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius produced an additional three nights of restless sleep per 100 people per month. Scaled across the United States, the authors wrote that this 1 degree bump translated to about "110 million extra nights of insufficient sleep” each year.
 

I'd have to see this study to properly judge it, but at first glance, it doesn't look very convincing. Beyond the obvious amateur mistake of conflating correlation with causation, there are just so many factors which affect sleep that anyone would be hard pressed to point to one factor as the culprit.


I'm a big boy.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users