Has Obama ever read the constitution?
:D you're getting distracted by the small issues. I'm saying that having children itself is an immoral and indefensible act. Adopting versus making your own children is a more moral act. However you're still avoiding the central question: justify having children period. A voluntary human extinction will improve innumerable lives.
This is something I have actually given a bit of critical thought on. In many ways, society the world over does in fact set itself up for failure along these lines. Instead of birthing a child, for example, the best thing to do instead would be to adopt a child. There are two things that kill this notion- for one, people want 'their own' child. This in itself is, at it's core, an irrational desire and only exists because of the dynamics of society itself. People pride their kin> one wants to take pride in their own kin as well. And so a person goes insofar as to birth a child in an already overpopulated, poverty-rich world to fulfill that desire. Secondly, in the event that a person wants to adopt, the going rate for a newborn is $20000 and that is just the application process. It is not certain even then, and yet there is no shortage of orphaned or deprived infants. It is, though sadly, a fact that this is a major money maker for other people. They take this money and further widen the gap between the rich and the oppressed, and these babies continue to be produced a dime a dozen.
As someone whose job is to work WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABLILITES smurf the people who say this. Seriously. We are all people, and all have a purpose, and all deserve the right to live. It doesn't matter if you have this or that disability. Where is the line drawn? If a child is born with Cystic Fibrosis, Asthma, a cleft foot, a speech impediment...they are not perfect, therefore they should be killed as well. My point is, we all have problems, and the person who thinks that someone with a DD is the problem, is the problem THEMSELVES. It's just another prejudice.
:D I started to yell at you but I realized that I still trust the justice system despite it being a government organisation (that said I will still vote to acquit ANYBODY regardless of evidence if I were ever put as a member of the jury, however unlikely that might be). The problem I think is that it's not a double standard per se (as the situation is only similar if you generalised it) because we perceive men to be incapable of being raped, as the subject indicates. A woman can completely appear to be consenting to a sexual act and then either under coercion or because she 'changed her mind afterward' seek recompense under the guise of being raped. The reasoning for this is numerous, from viewing men as the active agent in a sex act to excess rights granted to females as de facto eternal victim status characters in 'society'. This active agent argument might be the only way I can successfully argue that it is okay to be a rape victim while drunk (female) but not be a rape victim while male (active agent) - a drunk driver is still the active agent - a man who has sex is the active agent (because male).
The double-standard of responses for women who have sex with underage boys and men who have sex with underage girls is ridiculous, yes, but I think is more of a statement against the absurdity of statutory rape laws as they are now written (and how a 17.99-year-old magically develops the ability to consent the next day). I think an examination of all of the circumstances (including how the willingness of the kid) IS more appropriate rather than just throwing away the key on all the women who do it just because we do the same with men.
:D I would get my blogging privs removed if I said what I felt. If society doesn't give a crap about women who screw underaged kids, that law should be codified to say 'if an adult male has sex with a child, he gets gang raped in prison' and not mention anything about females. that way the crime does not exist and they cannot be charged. The sad thing is she'll get a slap on the wrist compared to what a man would get. Equal under the law my ass.
Most of those guys are just joking around. Though, that does seem to be the view regardless.
i agree with peter. humans are just way to sorry for theyre own kind. we want to nurture everything. maybe ill scream different if im ever going to have a kid of my own but if i knew my unborn child would have a birth defect i would let i get aborted. a defect will make your own life harder and you dont know what kind of quality life that child will have. people keep saying you have to give everything a good life etc, but isnt it sometimes better to not let those 'defects' born, and have a healthy child instead? humans problem is that there is no Natural Selection. we embrace everything in our world. nature is better (and perhaps cruel) in that: if there is something wrong with the baby, either the mother wil abandon it, it will die, or get killed by hunter' The right of the fittest!
I use mine as wank rags. Thank God I don't live in a country with ridiculous extradition laws that, for every request made, goes out and buys another tub of political lube. Oh wait.
"...only upon an owner's property..." This does not justify tethering a cat outside. This only means that cats can tether their humans out on the lawn.
*didnt respond so i clicked twice... resulting in double post
you have a cat that you walk with a leashe? thats not verry costum no :P ive seen it before. But i think.. what the heck, why not? if i had a cat i would learn my cat to walk on a leashe :P it would be awesome to go somewhere with my cat haha i had guinea-piggs in the past wich i 'walked' with a leashe outside on some summer days ^^. ofcourse most of the time i'd carry it. but they did actualy follow me haha!! it was nice jsut sitting on the grass with a guinea-pig peacefully eating next to you ^^ though you had to keep attention and watch out for lose walking dogs haha!! .. .. .. .... .. the good old days
:D I'm just quoting the article, which unfortunately does not cite any (if any) laws about leashing animals in public Sometimes no animals can be leashed in public, but I think the problem is that people are less accustomed to seeing cats tethered.
this is a case of: it depends on how you look at it... Some ppl house theire dogs outside... some in a kennel and others with a leashe which is quit normal actualy. and what you discribe/quote is not leaving the animal behind becaus it says 'on the owner's property' ... so its not about leaving behind, but the accomodation of the dog.
:D If you think the 'joke' was in poor taste then my attempt to pass a point was done with flying colours Oh crap I'm going to lose my blagging privileges
:D Every man who talks to women without their consent should be killed
See above comment
Have you actually read the story PG? the guy tried to do a decent thing and got slammed for it, if however your joking, then its done in extremely poor taste.
:D awe it was just a 'mistake' i still maintain it's a zionist plot to take over the world PG the news report will save the day!
Blog Categories
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
