Nicole wants peace. That’s what she said. She’s over it. That’s what she said.
Only she’s monitoring every word posted everywhere.
A couple of pages posted a link to this.
The article, which is one of those types of articles reporting the findings of the “latest study,” is the sort of thing one should take with a huge grain of salt. Remember that it’s the result of one study. One study does not make for definitive science.
And some of what it says is pretty much common sense.
The researchers found that the more the children, the lesser is the investment of parents on each child, which is defined on the basis of time spent with children, home environment safety, affection and resources such as money, books and other materials. “If you are in a well-resourced family, some of these things do not apply,” Juhn said.
In other words, you run out of money. You run out of time.
Just like it takes several boxes of macaroni and cheese to feed a family of 13, where it might only take one or two boxes to feed a family of three or four, less time means less time per child. And unlike boxes of mac and cheese, you can’t just buy more time.
The scientists, of course, took into consideration the fact that rich families have less problem with this because they can buy more books, or clothes, or food. (They cannot, of course, buy more hours in the day, but they can purchase help in the form of nannies.)
The same thing would hold true of a school. The more students per teacher, the worse the students tend to do academically. Smaller classes, better outcomes. That’s not a universal truth, of course—you find exceptions to almost anything—but generally it is a fact.
Anyway, that’s the gist of the study. Not really earth-shattering, but these websites have to have something new to post, so they glom onto anything that appears even slightly interesting to get people to click.
. . . anti-Christian, anti-large family propaganda.
Actually, no. It isn’t. It never even mentions religion at all. Not once. And it’s not really “anti-large-family.” It’s the result of a study and just presents some findings. And as I said, it’s the sort of article one should take with a big grain of salt.
But this is what happens when you go on a tirade without even reading what you’re all pissed off about.
Tossing out the whole “anti-Christian” moniker is especially low. That’s just red meat for Nicole’s little supporters. OMG, the article doesn’t love Jesus. Because, naturally, if you’re interested in actual science, you can’t possibly be Christian, can you?
. . . ignorant, rude, disgusting, hateful, damaged goods. . .
Gee, that’s an interesting list. I have not interacted with the Naugler children (knowingly) except for one, once, who tried to post here and I declined to allow him to do so. His comment here was, in fact, sort of rude, and a bit profane, but I tossed him some slack because he’s a kid and was peeved. He actually sounded like a teenager. He blustered a bit about how great he is (probably because his folks keep telling him that he’s better than other kids his age). But generally, he sounded like a kid.
Most of the photos of the children that I have seen show them dirty. Dirty faces, hands, skin, clothing, surroundings. That’s not something I am making up. It’s simply a fact. That might mean something and it might mean nothing.
And it remains to be seen if those kids are, in fact, ignorant. My guess is that yes, they are and will be. But it’s possible that I am totally wrong and one of them will become a nuclear physicist and come up with an alternative energy source that saves the planet. I wait with breathless anticipation.