What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumoured and Confirmed Signings and More Crap V

Status
Not open for further replies.

caylo

Bench
Messages
4,870
Mate anyone who comes from a big family is going to carry on like a f**kwit compared to people from smaller families. It's all about your first exposure to social dynamics.

The good thing is that when people come from the third world (where you have to have big families for security) to somewhere like Oz, within two or three generations they're having small families themselves.

The ancestors of Anglo-Australians used to have big families too. Hell, less than 100 years ago we had 'the Catholics' who were considered loud, rude and violent, and had big families too. How many Catholic families these days have more than two kids?

Everyone fits in eventually.

No that is the biggest generalization I have ever heard.

I know people who came from families in Egypt that have a history of having two children, aunties and uncles all have just two children, grandmother etc as far back as they can remember going from Egypt until even after they moved to Australia.

Also I have multiple aunties in Australia who have had 6-7 children each and none less then four on my father side. While it is no longer financially viable to have 10+ children as it was in Lebanon 50 years ago they obviously still enjoy popping them out. Also my two aunties that stayed in Lebanon had 5 and 4 children respectively just to show that having 10+ children is not financially viable there either anymore and it wasn't purely location.

So sorry Pou your struggling!
 

Daneel

Bench
Messages
2,581
Mate anyone who comes from a big family is going to carry on like a f**kwit compared to people from smaller families. It's all about your first exposure to social dynamics.

The good thing is that when people come from the third world (where you have to have big families for security) to somewhere like Oz, within two or three generations they're having small families themselves.

The ancestors of Anglo-Australians used to have big families too. Hell, less than 100 years ago we had 'the Catholics' who were considered loud, rude and violent, and had big families too. How many Catholic families these days have more than two kids?

Everyone fits in eventually.


Mine for starters. My sister in law, my brother in law, numerous cousins, we are all catholic families with more than 2 children. I could go on an on, what is your point.
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,558
Lol, 1 of the dumbest posts ever. Big families for security. Now I heard it all.


Sorry mate dumbest response ever. Pou is spot on about the security thing.

You and the rest of the boofheads that are laughing should go educate yourselves a little. Really how geniused are some of you guys? To much fluoride in the water maybe.
 

87eelman

Juniors
Messages
98
lol there's no way he'll leave the Tigers..

x2 i can't see him leaving either.

The only reason this talk of a 'rift' between benji and farah persists is because it creates hype and sells newspapers.

Ohh and the fact that they are now on a 5 game losing streak simply gives all the idiots more ammo.
 

mickdo

Coach
Messages
17,355
People used to have bigger families because plenty of them would be dead before age 10. Frangas weren't exactly easy to get your hands on either.
 
Messages
19,235
You and the rest of the boofheads that are laughing should go educate yourselves a little. Really how geniused are some of you guys? To much fluoride in the water maybe.

You've to got to see a touch of irony in telling people to get an education and then following it up with the use of 'to' instead of 'too'.

Anyway, the big families will get smaller as soon as Adidas / Nike start making brandname condoms.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
86,951
People used to have bigger families because plenty of them would be dead before age 10.

The main issue was security; both economic and physical. In lawless areas you have to provide your own security force and the most loyal troops are the young blokes who are related to you.

Then there's the matter of how you're going to feed yourself when you're too old to work. Without a welfare state you need young people - i.e. your adult children (where 'adult' means 'old enough to work') and their spouses - who are willing to dedicate part of their labour to putting food on your table.

This is why people in poor countries have heaps of kids.
 

IFR33K

Coach
Messages
17,043
Sorry mate dumbest response ever. Pou is spot on about the security thing.

You and the rest of the boofheads that are laughing should go educate yourselves a little. Really how geniused are some of you guys? To much fluoride in the water maybe.

Lol. Assuming you and poo are either of Lebanese descent or dumb merkins, how the f**k would you know why they had large families.

Btw, my guess is the latter.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
74,927
People used to have bigger families because plenty of them would be dead before age 10. Frangas weren't exactly easy to get your hands on either.

Exactly. My ancestors had a high mortality rate. I researched my folk back to early 1600's and their survival rate would be less than 40%. That covers the Irish, Scotts, Poms and Canadians all the way into late 1800's. Death almost always occurred under the age of 10.

I read somewhere last week that a dribbler in Mali is 87 times more likely to die before the age of 5 than a kid in Sweden. Clean water and malnutrition the culprit.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
86,951
Lol. Assuming you and poo are either of Lebanese descent or dumb merkins, how the f**k would you know why they had large families.

Btw, my guess is the latter.

I've worked extensively in the third world mate. People make decisions like that based on environmental factors (by 'environment' I mean the human terrain).

Individuals might have their own separate reasons for making these kinds of choices but they're the exception that proves the rule. It's all well and good to complain about generalisations but the fact is we can generalise and say people in Afghanistan/East Timor/Solomon Islands have bigger families than people in Australia. Even if you can point to someone in Sydney with eight kids, or find a childless couple in Kabul.

An exception doesn't disprove a generalisation. That's how we know it's an exception.
 

MrT

Juniors
Messages
2,497
any rumoured signings?

If it's true what I heard, the "T-Rex done deal at the Dogs" couldn't be further from the truth
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
86,951
If he likes Des and his coaching staff I doubt he will have a problem playing there.

For us fans we can hate a club for a variety of emotional reasons, based on certain players we don't like, or even negative experiences with the club's fans.

But the players have a more practical view of things (i.e. money) and are more likely to personally know players at other clubs, or have mates who know them. And when you get to know people they're never as bad as the caricatures we build them up to be.

Look at Jarryd Hayne - most opposition fans hate him, and you're always hearing about his arrogance. But I have a friend who knows him personally, and she says he's just a dumb, confident bloke who tries his hardest to be humble (not Tom).

Likewise Michael Ennis. Anyone who doesn't support the Bulldogs thinks he's just a shit human being, but consider that he was selected by his coach to be the captain of an NRL club. That doesn't happen if the people who know you don't respect you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top