religion

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

ROFL

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

The only implication of more men than women is an increase in sex work. Wow. I guess you're unaware of the biological imperative and how humans reach maturity. You clearly don't think much of the family structure. Unfortunately, the study of sociology does.

More importantly, please drink a Dos Equis. You are without a doubt the least interesting man in the world.

I don't always read your posts, but when I do, I fall asleep. Stay mind numbingly dull, my friend.

I'm ignoring you though because I realize now you're just trolling. That or you're G13.

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

NOPE. KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.

(Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just making fun in general.) [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

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

"Jhiu Hongying is 19 and pregnant. The pressure on her to produce a boy is huge. Family and community demand it. A boy will bring status. He will continue the family line.

"Boys are the best, because they can work," says the girl's mother, Zhang Hongying. "They're stronger.

"If my daughter has a son, everyone will celebrate.

"All the neighbours want her child to be a boy."

At a Beijing temple, women come to pray that the foetus in their womb is that of a boy. Chinese tradition despises the girl child. This powerful cultural preference for sons is heightened by the one-child policy.

The result - millions of nameless baby girls in China are simply disappearing.

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...

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by DetroitVelvetSmooth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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...

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.

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Wat?.. I was talking about your fucked-up dismissiveness about the female infanticide of epic proportions going on in China and the resulting sociological disaster that Patriam mentioned; what you refer to, again flippantly, as a "sociological experiment". Oh my, you make it sound so benign. LOL...

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.

Are you saying that selectively aborting female fetuses is just another form of birth control now? What the fuck are you even trying to say here? What, is being female a fucking birth defect to be used as perfectly reasonable excuse for abortion? Holy shit, Kagatob....

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

What is the confounding variable in his example then? Please enlighten us.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

"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."

You have multiple personalities or something?