Originally Posted by Patriam1066 (Post 1642708)

"What are you on about".... Lol you're british now? What is wrong with you dude

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu (Post 1642821)

You keep expanding your minor implications into broader and broader baseless implications.
Now you're implying that UV protection doesn't exist. You're also implying that eugenics as a practice is so black and white that you either are totally against the practice or you're a fucking nazi.
Get a clue man. Genetic engineering is a very real thing, bacterial and viral diseases are being wiped off the face of the planet, genetic diseases are the next step.

Xenophobia is by definition the intense hate of people from other countries. Recognizing a problem from one specific country is not by definition anything close to xenophobia. Get your words straight if you're going to attempt to argue semantics. As it stands you are losing, by a lot.

That whole intelligence and reading comprehension thing. I'm sorry that the bullshit that you spew out of your ass every day is what seems to pass as 'intellectual' these days.

So in this part you say that abortion could be immoral. Virtually any action taken can be performed immorally so even if the comparison wasn't wrong in the first place it would be pointless.
That said, I'd love to see your evidence for this "sociological disaster" that china has on their hands. They have 10 percent more men than they would of otherwise had. Ok. There will be an explosion in sex work down the road. Total "sociological disaster" indeed. :rolleyes:

Again, eugenics isn't this cut and dry black/white policy. Eugenics via extermination is. A zygote isn't a person, if you think it is then you fail science, end of story.

That's just like, another one of your opinions, man.

Originally Posted by Sidelle (Post 1642852)

(Meanwhile, at the Argumentum Ad Hominem Arena...)

http://img.pandawhale.com/51987-Are-...ined-1a5I.jpeg

NOPE. KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

(Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just making fun in general.) :D

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu (Post 1642821)

I'd love to see your evidence for this "sociological disaster" that china has on their hands. They have 10 percent more men than they would of otherwise had. Ok. There will be an explosion in sex work down the road. Total "sociological disaster" indeed.

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth (Post 1642861)

Sometimes people can be so wrong or misinformed that attacking their "argument" inevitably entails an attack on the person's character. If the person has repeatedly shown a disregard for reason or demonstrated willful ignorance in the furtherance of justifying hateful or otherwise abhorrent beliefs then pointing out their despicable nature is, in fact, ad argumentum rather than ad hominem. - As always, fuck you all, you are like children to me. Except of course you, Sidelle.

Originally Posted by Sidelle (Post 1642883)

You sound like such a heartless asshole in your flippant reply... I'm kinda shocked by your attitude and you should be ashamed of yourself, to be honest.

So you wouldn't call a situation where a country is aborting an astounding number of baby girls just because they're female a sociological disaster? What about the abandonment and murder of tens of thousands of newborn females in trash dumps, or the countless ones that just disappear? It seems to me like it could even be classified as a holocaust. You should read the following article. It's heartbreaking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1506469.stm


These backward-thinking people are pieces of shit and shouldn't be able to procreate at all when this is the shit they're pulling for the simple fact that they don't value females in their society. And ironically, just how do they expect their sons to find wives and have children "to continue their line" if they run out of fucking females? I've just discovered a type of retardation even worse than Down's Syndrome, wow...

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu (Post 1642908)

That's issue conflation. In a vacuum, yes it's a horrible policy, its also been a policy for nearly twenty years. It's still not eugenics. Even though such policies could work in a eugenic system it does not make the policy "eugenics".

Context is king.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu (Post 1642908)

That's issue conflation. In a vacuum, yes it's a horrible policy, its also been a policy for nearly twenty years. It's still not eugenics. Even though such policies could work in a eugenic system it does not make the policy "eugenics".

Context is king.

Now in the context of patriam's post, he is incorrect that such a policy lead or will lead to a sociological problem, he had it backwards. China has been a (for lack of a better description) massive sociological experiment for decades. There have been countless atrocities within their borders since the end of the second world war, nobody is denying this. My bone to pick is the flippant implication of the sources of the moral dilemma within that system. Correlation does not equal causation.

I hope you realize that your exact logic is used to demonize the use of birth control by pointing to sociological problems but ignoring that they existed long before your implied cause.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu (Post 1642923)

You clearly have zero reading comprehension, I said nor implied any of those things.