Oh, oh, oh, I'm making a Ludicrous Claim®! Read the first post!

  • Thread starter Der Alta
  • 5,760 comments
  • 491,991 views
Pupik
Having been to Port Angeles four times, the image looks like the surrounding areas along the Peninsula and US 101. Since owning a $5000 car isn't exactly Ludicrous, I say we ask him to provide a photo with his name at the City Hall...
Click to expand...

Of course :lol: I'm not saying owning an S14 is a ludicrous claim (Though that particular one looks like it's had a few grand dropped into it) just this particular claim seemed off to me so I did the reverse image search.

Either he's lying about his name and location or he's lying about owning this car - or I'm making a fool of my self and Speedhunters just happen to have the wrong information.
 
That's Rick Knoop's car.

Rick Knoop is a 59 year old man with a 35 year long racing career, not a 17 year old boy.
 
That wouldn't make the statement "it's my race car" true, because it's Rick's...
 
Famine
That's Rick Knoop's car.

Rick Knoop is a 59 year old man with a 35 year long racing career, not a 17 year old boy.
Click to expand...

Sure is, this should be interesting :lol: I've asked him about his relation to Rick Knoop in the thread.
 
Has anyone considered that, if the boy were 17 years old, and Rick Knoop, 59, Rick would've had to have been (how do you say that in English?) 41 or 42 when the boy was conceived? Seems a little too old...
 
^Not that I believe the kid, but it's definitely possible for a 41 or 42 year old couple to have kids. My best friend's parents were that age when they had their last kid about 3 years ago.
 
xXKingJoshXx
^Not that I believe the kid, but it's definitely possible for a 41 or 42 year old couple to have kids. My best friend's parents were that age when they had their last kid about 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

In my area, it seems like everyone's under the age of 30, when they have kids. My parents were 30, and 29, and that's considered old. Hmmmm, that's surprising.

Edit: My birthday is six days before my dad's, so roughly 30 years old...
 
The demographic trend in the United States nowadays is for couples to have children later than their parents did.

Not uncommon to have a first child at 35-40. And if you have several, it's possible for the last one to be born at 45 or later (possible, but dangerous for the child).

And this is not taking into account the possibility of an older man (as older men are wont to do) taking on a younger wife or girlfriend.

That said, as late as last year, I couldn't find anything about Rick and his wife having a son.
 
niky
...last one to be born at 45 or later (possible, but dangerous for the child).
Click to expand...

"Dangerous?" How about ridiculous?


I've heard, -and this is something that, you'll remember, is dear to me- that conception that late in life increases the likelihood of a child being born with Autism, and various other problems. It's a bad idea. I don't approve, really.


My aunt, who grew up with spina bifida, had her first child at age 27, I believe, and her second at age 30. Both were/are healthy. The second born is extremely strong for her age, noteably being able to hold her own head up almost immediately after birth. The first born was/is extremely smart.


Had they waited, would it have been the same? We won't know, but... I can see a pattern.


Anyways, back on topic, I think the kid's lying.
 
70+ yr old man locally knocked up 20 something gal. Dude will pay support till his dies. Talk about a moron!!!

Just thought this was in line for the conversation at hand.

Has said person even defended themselves?
 
OwensRacing
70+ yr old man locally knocked up 20 something gal. Dude will pay support till his dies. Talk about a moron!!!

Just thought this was in line for the conversation at hand.

Has said person even defended themselves?
Click to expand...
Isn't that always locally?

Oh wait unless you put it on the internet, then it becomes global....





I'll leave now:ouch:
 
I'm currently 26 and my dad is 72. A bit unusual for sure, but possible. I have 3 older brothers with age gaps to me of 16, 15, and 10 years respectively. The older ones feel like a cross between brothers and uncles.

I seemed to turn out OK (for the most part :lol: ), and I'm not sure if the late conception had anything to do with my hearing, but if they had decided not to have a kid at such an age I would never have been born. Soooo... I can't complain too much, :lol:
 
MrMelancholy15
"Dangerous?" How about ridiculous?


I've heard, -and this is something that, you'll remember, is dear to me- that conception that late in life increases the likelihood of a child being born with Autism, and various other problems. It's a bad idea. I don't approve, really.


My aunt, who grew up with spina bifida, had her first child at age 27, I believe, and her second at age 30. Both were/are healthy. The second born is extremely strong for her age, noteably being able to hold her own head up almost immediately after birth. The first born was/is extremely smart.


Had they waited, would it have been the same? We won't know, but... I can see a pattern.


Anyways, back on topic, I think the kid's lying.
Click to expand...

A first child at 45 is extremely dangerous.

But if you've had children before, it can be done.

And yes, having children later in life increases the chances of those kids having genetic abnormalities like Autism and Down's Syndrome.

But there's no absolute cut-off. If you want to ignore all chances of that, you'll have several kids from the age of sixteen on through 21 and then tie your tubes off there.

In this kind of economy, that's suicide. Or welfare.

And the risk increases, but the overall risk remains small. Saying you should stop having kids at 30 because of that risk is like saying you should stop jogging at 40 for fear of sudden heart attacks.
 
niky
A first child at 45 is extremely dangerous...And yes, having children later in life increases the chances of those kids having genetic abnormalities like Autism and Down's Syndrome.

But there's no absolute cut-off.
Click to expand...

Based on the number of first-time mothers-to-be at our local hospital (this was back in 2006), the ages were surprisingly high. Now, this is from an area where there are lots of "working professionals", whereby the parents are usually highly-educated and in career paths that didn't easily permit the idea of parenthood while climbing the career ladder. Our idea was to go have fun and go see what's out there before resigning ourselves to being parents, as well as tempering our responsibilities and behaviors.

They were in their late-30s and even two couples into their early-50s. I get odd looks from some folks for having our first kid at a 29-32 age pair, especially in small towns. While the risks are there, they're still a small enough chance...

I can only see one benefit of having kids when young: it's far easier coping on a lack of sleep, especially for multiple days in a row.
 
Last edited:
MrMelancholy15
That would mean, that your dad was 18 when you were born. That would not mean he was 42 when you were born.
Click to expand...

Yes, but OK, got your point.

Both my parents now have infant children and they are both mid 40's. My youngest sister is just 3, so my father was 42 when she was born.
 

Similar threads

Famine
  • Locked
  • Sticky
READ ME FIRST: Gran Turismo 7 Connection Issues
Replies
0
Views
40K
Famine
Famine
Suzumiya
The New Blood - A story based off of a GT4 Spec-II playthrough.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Suzumiya
Suzumiya
G
YouTubers are being odd with the PS5 PRO vids, there is a NOTICEABLE difference !
Replies
12
Views
2K
Meythia
Meythia
K
Any interest in a group with these rules?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Kayl669
K
Tenacious D
The Tenacious quick (read: slow) and dirty tuning method
Replies
15
Views
14K
Boxster
B

Latest Posts

Back