- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How man kids does Elon have?
Posted on 2/21/25 at 3:49 pm to MoarKilometers
Posted on 2/21/25 at 3:49 pm to MoarKilometers
quote:
quote:
He has been openly consistent about this since at least 2007, if not earlier. In his speech at that year's R&D 100 awards, he told the entire audience that, as some of the smartest people around, they all had a moral duty to procreate as much as possible with other smart people. Dr Wife and I had just had our 2nd, and were in the audience.
How do you feel about superior athletes doing the same i suspect you feel differently about the cromarties or travis henrys of the world emulating this mindset.
Judgmental much?
First of all, I made no statement about how I felt about his philosophy. I just presented the facts. I don't make a judgement as to whether his thinking is right or wrong strictly WRT to producing more smart kids that will grow up to solve problems. I DO have a problem with not being an active Dad, which was clearly implied.
Second, athletes aren't going to solve any world problems, nor do many of them financially support their baby mommas, so no, I don't support that at all. Athletic superiority is only good for entertainment, which we place FAR too high a value on in the West in general.
0
Posted on 2/21/25 at 4:09 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
Elon is a natalist - ie, believes that the best and brightest need to procreate as much as possible, because a smart, capable next generation is the best solution to all problems.
Just one man’s opinion, but he doesn’t seem to be doing a great job executing on that.
Someone already posted the tweet from Grimes, just one of his baby mommas who he apparently isn’t talking to, even about their kids.
She’s a weird song artist and together they have thee kids; X Æ A-Xii, Exa Dark Sideræl and Techno Mechanicus.
Then there’s the tranny kid who he is also not on speaking terms.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that for sure, these 4 aren’t going to be at the forefront of pushing humanity forward. I’ll consider it luck if they don’t end up being pill-addicted trust fund baby adults.
This post was edited on 2/21/25 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 2/21/25 at 4:12 pm to Dadren
quote:
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that for sure, these 4 aren’t going to be at the forefront of pushing humanity forward. I’ll consider it luck if they don’t end up being pill-addicted trust fund baby adults.
May want to add the one that ate the booger in the Oval Office to this list, doesnt seem to be master race timber.
Posted on 2/24/25 at 8:33 am to TigerHornII
quote:
Elon is a natalist - ie, believes that the best and brightest need to procreate as much as possible, because a smart, capable next generation is the best solution to all problems. EDIT Just to be clear for the comprehension-impaired, this is a presentation of Elon's beliefs.
He has been openly consistent about this since at least 2007, if not earlier. In his speech at that year's R&D 100 awards, he told the entire audience that, as some of the smartest people around, they all had a moral duty to procreate as much as possible with other smart people. Dr Wife and I had just had our 2nd, and were in the audience.
He clearly can't wrap his head around actually being a dad, but he has been consistent and outspoken in his beliefs for a very long time. He was wealthy then, but he wasn't R I C H yet.
all of this, yet you still missed the point...
my comment wasn't about Elon... he's a crazy person, who's clearly in the the grips of drug addiction, among other clear personality issues.... my comment was more an indictment of the mainline Evangelical right wing that like to pretend that they have this "higher calling" of morality, yet choose to be led by guys who share NONE of the same beliefs, as evidenced by the the way they live their lives... their "leaders" are just as heinous and openly sinful as the other side... if that "moral authority" and being Christ-like was THAT important, how do you choose leaders who are nothing like what you claim to value so much?
and i'm not saying you meaning, you specifically, I'm just saying it as a generality....
Posted on 2/24/25 at 8:47 am to chRxis
quote:
my comment was more an indictment of the mainline Evangelical right wing that like to pretend that they have this "higher calling" of morality, yet choose to be led by guys who share NONE of the same beliefs, as evidenced by the the way they live their lives... their "leaders" are just as heinous and openly sinful as the other side
I’ll push back on this a little bit by saying that there’s a difference between voting for someone because they will at least take what you believe into consideration, and voting for someone who literally throws Christian’s out of their rallies (cough cough Kamala) or tries to turn Easter Sunday into a day for people who are doing things that are completely antithetical to what you believe.
There are no “Evangelical candidates”, so you pick the one that is most likely to act in support of your worldview, even if they don’t share it.
This post was edited on 2/24/25 at 8:48 am
Posted on 2/24/25 at 1:49 pm to Dadren
quote:
I’ll push back on this a little bit by saying that there’s a difference between voting for someone because they will at least take what you believe into consideration, and voting for someone who literally throws Christian’s out of their rallies (cough cough Kamala) or tries to turn Easter Sunday into a day for people who are doing things that are completely antithetical to what you believe.
There are no “Evangelical candidates”, so you pick the one that is most likely to act in support of your worldview, even if they don’t share it
again, if holding the morality and message of Christianity is so important, and it is supposed be, apparently, how do you align yourself with someone with the character and moral makeup of what we are seeing with the figures on the right? i'm not saying that you have to align yourself with the left, but there are many, MANY other politicians on the right that would agree with your ideology and exemplify your beliefs/morality 1000x better than what we are seeing as "leaders" from the right.... that's my biggest complaint... everyone wants to make it binary choice... no, there are others ON THAT SIDE that are much more moral, upstanding, and have more integrity that could have been chosen... but they weren't, and THAT, is the hypocrisy that i'm speaking about
Posted on 2/24/25 at 3:11 pm to chRxis
quote:
how do you align yourself with someone with the character and moral makeup of what we are seeing with the figures on the right?
Simple, I don’t.
I simply vote for the individual who is (IMO) best suited to carry out the duties of that role/office. I’m not a fan of some team, I’m not even a supporter so I don’t consider myself to be “aligned” with anyone or anything but my own values and beliefs. Voting for someone does not mean I agree with and support everything they say and do.
I understand that some do see casting a vote as being linked at the hip with whatever candidate they vote for but I just don’t think that makes a bit of sense. Again, we basically have two candidates/parties to vote for. If everyone needed a perfect “match” of ideology, beliefs and actions, nobody would vote for anyone.
Posted on 2/24/25 at 3:20 pm to Night Vision
He built a private school for at least some of his children. Before the Left decided he was evil, there was a 60 minutes on him that painted him in a more positive light.
Posted on 2/24/25 at 4:01 pm to Dadren
quote:
we basically have two candidates/parties to vote for. If everyone needed a perfect “match” of ideology, beliefs and actions, nobody would vote for anyone.
again, within those 2 parties there are clearly people that are better fit candidates, that more closely align with beliefs, morals, etc, and if character and morality is so important to that group of people, should that not weigh pretty heavily when considering a candidate? and i'm talking intraparty, not R vs. D...
and again, i'm not saying you specifically, so don't take it that way, it's just a general question
Posted on 2/25/25 at 8:13 am to chRxis
quote:
again, within those 2 parties there are clearly people that are better fit candidates, that more closely align with beliefs, morals, etc, and if character and morality is so important to that group of people, should that not weigh pretty heavily when considering a candidate? and i'm talking intraparty, not R vs. D...
Sorry, way late coming back to this.
As a general question, yes the character of the candidate should absolutely be a consideration. So should pragmatism. Can my, let’s say, “ideal candidate” win a general election? Does he/she have significant influence in the party? Can he/she unify the different constituents and interest groups who might be at odds with each other? Can he/she effectively deal with foreign heads of state?
It doesn’t matter if I get a candidate on the ticket who can’t win, or if they do win, can’t actually function in the role. All political activities are a compromise, and at the end of the day, every elected office is a job.
So, you hire the best person with character as a criteria, but only one of many. You obviously don’t want someone you believe to be an objectively terrible person (or worse, someone who speaks and acts in opposition to what you believe), but rejecting a flawed candidate who can get the job done is probably missing the forest for the trees IMO. If I, as a believer in whatever feel that it’s essential that leadership in government model, support and push forward my belief system…then my belief system is almost definitely garbage.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 11:18 am to Dadren
quote:
If I, as a believer in whatever feel that it’s essential that leadership in government model, support and push forward my belief system…then my belief system is almost definitely garbage.
interesting... so you vehemently support the separation of church and state and believe that religion/religious beliefs has absolutely no place in governing bodies, "the government", etc... correct?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 1:55 pm to chRxis
quote:
so you vehemently support the separation of church and state and believe that religion/religious beliefs has absolutely no place in governing bodies, "the government", etc
That’s not what that post says at all.
I’m saying I personally do not need a president who talks about Jesus and lives by biblical principle to aid me in my own belief.
If he/she does, that’s great. If he/she is Hindu and lives by things that Buddha or whoever says and those things happen to align with my values, also great. If he/she is a complete atheist and lives by some set of axioms that just so happen to align with my values, also great.
I’m actually not really sure what you mean by “separation of church and state” and “ religious beliefs has absolutely no place in governing bodies”…because as far as I’m concerned, those are two very different things. The former I agree with, the latter…not only do I disagree with it but don’t even think it’s possible.
Posted on 2/25/25 at 3:07 pm to Dadren
quote:
I’m saying I personally do not need a president who talks about Jesus and lives by biblical principle to aid me in my own belief.
and that's not what i'm saying either... i'm saying that if character and morals are so important to Evangelical believers of Christ, then selecting a person of character and morals to be your leader should come before the power grab... holding your nose and picking a piece of shite human being to represent you all b/c they could win you an election is the height of hypocrisy if, again, character and morality is supposedly so important...
quote:
“separation of church and state”
what i mean is that EVERY religious doctrine, belief, mantra, dogma, etc should be strictly left out of state and federal government associated organization, public service, public office, etc... so no prayers in public school, no ten commandments, no Quran, no nothing... being a devout believer is fine, but i shouldn't be intermingled with state and government run facilities..
Posted on 2/25/25 at 3:10 pm to chRxis
quote:
it’s essential that leadership in government model, support and push forward my belief system…then my belief system is almost definitely garbage.
so you'd be inclined to say that those people are wanting prayer in school, the ten commandments up on the walls in school, etc are wrong for wanting to push forth THEIR belief system?
Posted on 2/25/25 at 3:52 pm to Night Vision
If you read any book on Elon, you learn quick that there's 2 things he's hellbent on. Getting to Mars and having as many kids as humanly possible.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News