The Shrine

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 233878.ece

don't they know there's a recession? There will be no jobs for them, let alone their child!

Thoughts? It has no impact on us and is not worth thinking about. The only purpose to publishing this story is to grab your attention.

Kupek wrote:Thoughts? It has no impact on us and is not worth thinking about. The only purpose to publishing this story is to grab your attention.

That's why it falls under "entertainment" rather than "news". That's all most newspapers and "news" shows are nowadays anyways

Girl not surprised at her age. But the boy? WOW he looks young. They both lost any chance at a decent childhood. And what about that kid? Imagine the endless teasing that kid gets in school when they find out that his dad is only 13 years older than him

For some reason, I get no shock value out of this story. He's 13. I remember when I was 13. I think the only shock is that he hasn't "matured" and still looks like he's in elementary school.

Props to the 8 year old kid for nailing an older chick. Too bad she's hideous.

Thoughts? Teach kids about condoms and for god's sake, either abort or adopt. A 13-year-old can't raise a kid.

"That's my bobby. That boy ain't right." - Hank Hill.

All I can say is that he's sure getting more play than I did when I was 13!

Kupek wrote:Thoughts? It has no impact on us and is not worth thinking about. The only purpose to publishing this story is to grab your attention.

Thats a very narrow view that i wouldnt have expected to see from you. I guess we should never talk about any future plane crashes, natural disasters, or even foreign wars since it doesnt really affect us.

Personally i think this is crazy, there should be laws against it that force an abortion.

Flip wrote:

Kupek wrote:Thoughts? It has no impact on us and is not worth thinking about. The only purpose to publishing this story is to grab your attention.

Thats a very narrow view that i wouldnt have expected to see from you. I guess we should never talk about any future plane crashes, natural disasters, or even foreign wars since it doesnt really affect us.

Personally i think this is crazy, there should be laws against it that force an abortion.

I'm not sure you ought to be involved that heavily in other people's reproductive rights, Flip.

God Bless them both, they'll need it. That kid is so baby-faced...on the other hand, they'll certainly have the energy of youth on their side in parenting, and can probably look to their own parents for the necessary wisdom. I wish them the best, and protection from the more judgemental people in the world. It's not like they can go back.

Flip wrote:

Kupek wrote:Thoughts? It has no impact on us and is not worth thinking about. The only purpose to publishing this story is to grab your attention.

Thats a very narrow view that i wouldnt have expected to see from you. I guess we should never talk about any future plane crashes, natural disasters, or even foreign wars since it doesnt really affect us.

Personally i think this is crazy, there should be laws against it that force an abortion.

I find the idea of a forced abortion just as disturbing as outlawing them.

This is an anomaly - a single data point in a sea of billions. It doesn't tell us much, and trying to generalize from it is pointless and dangerous. If you're concerned about teen pregnancies, then this is not where you should start the conversation from. You start by looking at data over a long period of time.

Think about the kids who die every year while in school buses. It's tragic, for sure. So what should be done about it? Probably nothing. The number of kids that do die is completely dwarfed by the number that don't. When you're dealing with a population sample of tens of millions riding the bus twice a day about 180 times a year, only 20 deaths is a success. That's statistical noise.

But when it happens, we focus on how tragic this one instance is, and we want to "do something." This is a misguided impulse. With a sample that large, some deaths are bound to happen. Of course, we should have laws and procedures in place to prevent them from happening, but it's unrealistic to think we can prevent all of them.

I see this situation in a similar way.

Some things that have no direct impact on us aren't worth thinking about. Some are. Learning to differentiate the two is a useful skill.

That is a creepy picture. I dunno...

It seems unnatural to us, but think about human evolution. It took 6 million years for the first hominids to show up on the planet, 2 million for the first apes, and we have had 100,000 years of human history, within that time we have had brand new technological and societal advancements occuring closer and closer together. In short, it is taking less time for us to evolve.

It is entirely likely that these kids are reproducing earlier because they are evolving at a rapid rate. Within our lifetimes, it is predicted, we will likely see the next stage of human evolution.

On the other hand, they could just be stupid.

Kupek wrote:Some things that have no direct impact on us aren't worth thinking about. Some are. Learning to differentiate the two is a useful skill.

Then what about using this story as an example of how the lack of responsibility enforced onto our children (by definition, nurturing is the enforcement of non-instinctual behaviour) by a coddling society (and, by extension, parents) is allowing what would be considered by most to be unacceptable and irresponsible behaviour to be publicized and, in many ways, celebrated? You could use the Octomom story - another story that has no direct impact on us - as another point of reference to strengthen that viewpoint in such an argument. If we agree that all members of a society have an obligation to the overall health of that society and if such behaviour is occurring on a wide scale with these two stories as simply an example used to make a point rather than statistical outliers, you could go on and eventually discuss how the erosion of old-fashion morals in our society is leading to some very selfish behaviour which has serious negative effects on society as a whole (ie. who do you think is eventually going to pay for Octomom's $1.5M hospital bill?) even though it benefits the individual.

Is that something worth thinking about? Or do we only focus on stuff that has a visible, direct impact on us and ignore everything else?

Look, no pet names. Let's see if I get a serious discussion going now....

Those are exactly the kind of discussions that I think are a waste of time, because you're using anecdotes as basis for trends. That's not discussing the issues, that's grabbing a sensationalistic story and using it to push an agenda.

Personally, the only discussion that I do think is worthwhile that comes out of these stories is how much of the "news" is voyeuristic entertainment. Reading or watching news about these child-parents, the octuplet mom, and the latest child abduction featured on Nancy Grace is voyeurism.

If you honestly think I only want to hear news that has a "visible, direct" impact on me, then either you are misunderstanding what I am saying, or I'm phrasing myself poorly. I said it has no impact on me. None. Wars, natural disasters, the economy - these have indirect impacts on me, and the rest of society. They are newsworthy. But this story is no more newsworthy than Britney Spears bashing a car with golf clubs.

Flip wrote: Personally i think this is crazy, there should be laws against it that force an abortion.

How about you go propose that to your governing body. Let me know how that works out for you.

In the U.S.??!?!?

Dear God, don't tempt him. The abortion debates are fucked up enough as it is, Seek.

Kupek wrote:Those are exactly the kind of discussions that I think are a waste of time, because you're using anecdotes as basis for trends. That's not discussing the issues, that's grabbing a sensationalistic story and using it to push an agenda.

Personally, the only discussion that I do think is worthwhile that comes out of these stories is how much of the "news" is voyeuristic entertainment. Reading or watching news about these child-parents, the octuplet mom, and the latest child abduction featured on Nancy Grace is voyeurism.

If you honestly think I only want to hear news that has a "visible, direct" impact on me, then either you are misunderstanding what I am saying, or I'm phrasing myself poorly. I said it has no impact on me. None. Wars, natural disasters, the economy - these have indirect impacts on me, and the rest of society. They are newsworthy. But this story is no more newsworthy than Britney Spears bashing a car with golf clubs.

Using "voyeristic entertainment" to lead to more serious discussions about the erosion of society is a waste of time? Trying to bring to light the real issue which, IMO, has a very serious negative effect on our society rather than a superficial sensationalistic story is a waste of time?

I think you misunderstand the use of these stories; you've basically got it completely backwards. They're used not as a basis for a trend but as an example of one. The whole point of my post is trying to find out why such things happen. I see these stories as a symptom and I want to find and cure the disease not consider them as a disease and try to find more examples of this disease. By hypothesizing as to what the source of these stories is I'm trying to link to the more serious discussions.

Sure I have a bias, a pre-conceived "agenda" (I prefer to refer to it as a belief or theory as that's really what it is; agenda is a far more loaded word) and I'm using this story to elicit discussion on this topic (since I've linked this story to what I feel is the lack-of-morals-hurting society disease) which I feel is important to all of us and we need to discuss. As a scientist-to-be, I would think you would welcome such discussions rather than reject them (and understand that such discussion take time). Instead of using a "scientific" community as an audience for discussion (such as publishing a paper on it in a scientific journal) I'm using this community as the audience. You don't need any specialized education or theoretical training to contribute to such a discussion. All you need is the ability to think critically and engage in a constructive argument. That may be a bit of a chore for many here but I have faith (well, in most) and believe that nearly everyone here can. Hence my continuous- yet futile - attempts to try to engage this board in such discussions.

Kup, what I'm saying is these types of discussions are not a waste of time unless you feel that there's going to be no benefit in us here in a serious discussion since nothing is going to come out of it. If you don't have the time because you're so swamped with your own schooling and/or just don't want to spend the time engaging in what will ultimately be nothing but a discussion, I can fully understand that. But at least please tell me that you don't think it's a waste of time for the members of a society to be discussing serious issues such as the erosion of societal morals leading to the lack of repercussions the damage these actions are causing to society as a whole.

"These types of discussions" are a waste of time because they're completely divorced from reality. Some random human mothering octuplets + two idiot kids producing offspring do not grand trends make. You think society is falling to bits; fine. What have you got to prove it other than innate curmudgeonry and these two ridiculous examples?

It amazes me that some of you guys are hearing about teenage sex and pregnancy for the first time just now.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:"These types of discussions" are a waste of time because they're completely divorced from reality. Some random human mothering octuplets + two idiot kids producing offspring do not grand trends make. You think society is falling to bits; fine. What have you got to prove it other than innate curmudgeonry and these two ridiculous examples?

Again, they're an example of a deeper problem and not the source of a trend.

You want to seriously talk about the erosion of society? I could go on for a novel but every time I try to mention even a small bit, people ignore. You seriously want to have that discussion? It'll be a very long one

I'd like to see real evidence of this trend, yep. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're actually just a grumpy old man.

Lox wrote:

you win at this thread.

If what you're talking about is solely your perception, as Andrew has pointed out, then yes, it is a waste of time. It becomes productive we're actually able to get a fix on large scale trends. But what I usually see, particularly on cable punditry shows, but also in individuals, are commentators using sensational stories as springboards for their own agenda.

Disclaimer: I'm at a conference right now, and I'm giving a talk tomorrow that I still need to prepare for, so I haven't read your post as carefully as I would like.

Kupek wrote:If what you're talking about is solely your perception

Theory more than perception.

Fine. Give me a bit and I'll present my argument properly