The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on July 17, 2008, 07:54:56 PM
-
ZombieHorde (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 05:19 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3636170
Poll question: Is it unethical, due to over population, to breed many children.
Poll result (117 votes)
No, It is not unethical to breed many children. (23 votes, 20%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed more than two children. (61 votes, 52%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed more than one child. (8 votes, 7%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed, people should adopt. (7 votes, 6%) Vote
I am a better person now that I have voted in this poll. (3 votes, 3%) Vote
Some other answer, which is much better than the ones provided. (15 votes, 13%) Vote
Uh....what?
seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. The word breed is strange
to me anyway
Bobbieo (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. We are breeders because we are the human animal
Lorien (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #82
92. I wish I didn't believe it
but nearly every man I've ever been involved with was just a user of women. Seems like the norm to me.
Stop hanging out with DUmmies.
Indenturedebtor (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #92
125. Nearly every woman I've ever been with was shallow and conceited
Maybe the both of us just have bad taste.
OOO- ZING!!! :owned:
seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
110. It is an insult to me to be called a breeder because some one else
doesn't have the capacity to be a good parent
Oh, here we go... ::)
thecatburgler (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Maybe it's a good thing if it shakes you out of the romantic illusions you seem to have.
Your personal magical and emotion-laden experience with parenthood is not universally applicable. The plain fact is that a lot of people are mindless breeders. Instead of being upset at a word, why don't you do something to advance the cause of responsible parenthood?
:couch:
seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. I don't have any romantic illusions WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THAT IDEA?
Edited on Thu Jul-17-08 07:26 PM by seemslikeadream
I believe MOST parents are decent human beings and love their children that's not romantic it is the truth
How many children do you have? Where did you get your masters in motherhood?
:catfight:
thecatburgler (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. Oh here we go with the "I'm a parent therefore an expert" bit.
I don't have kids but I did have a childhood. And I have eyes to see and ears to hear the people around me.
I also agree that *most* parents are decent. But a sizeable minority are not. There's a reason why therapists always do a brisk business.
Indenturedebtor (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #50
127. People are NOT ANIMALS
We're a virus that is poised to burst the cell of our host. Magical thinking and oxitocyn swishing around in the brain aside.
:mental:
ZombieHorde (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #60
74. To be honest, I like the word "breed" because I like to call my straight friends "breeders".
Edited on Thu Jul-17-08 06:21 PM by ZombieHorde
As in; "Shut up and go breed some ****ing babies you ****ing breeder."
I am not anti-straight by the way, I have two kids of my own.
edit to add: I also wanted to make sure that people knew that I was excluding adoption.
And that, as Dr Siggy says, explains that.
-
Indenturedebtor (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #50
127. People are NOT ANIMALS
We're a virus that is poised to burst the cell of our host. Magical thinking and oxitocyn swishing around in the brain aside.
Spoken like a true self-hating DUmmie. And it's "oxytocin", genius.
Indenturedebtor (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
126. That's the same argument of SUV buyers I heard every day for 3 years
"I know it burns a ton of gas but hey if I can afford it then why not."
I always felt like saying "I can stab you in the throat with a screwdriver... so why not?"
Back to their violent murder fantasies. Can we please lock these people away, before a tragedy happens?
DiktatrW (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. It should be against the law
to breed children, as a matter of fact, I think it is.
It should be against the law to be that ****ing stupid.
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
But I know the Chinese, and Indians will never go for it.
You first.
-
DiktatrW (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. It should be against the law
to breed children, as a matter of fact, I think it is.
That was my first impression of the OP statement. Being a party to breeding children can get you some serious trouble.
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
But I know the Chinese, and Indians will never go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
The idiots calling for self extinction never off themselves.
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-17-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. We are animals-in many ways some of the most toxic ones on the planet right now
We treat each other so badly that I am not surprised that we treat other species even worse often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
:lame:
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
But I know the Chinese, and Indians will never go for it.
This here's a big part of what separated us (or at least me, and I suspect the rest of the gang here as well though I won't speak for you) from the DUmmies.
They feel that if the human race must be extinguished to continue this planet's perpetuation, that is an acceptable price.
I, on the other hand, feel that if we must utterly destroy this planet, even if it means blasting it until there's not a piece left greater than ten atoms in size, in order to ensure the existance of the human race, that is an acceptable price.
Not that I think that is necessary, only that it is acceptable.
-
No, It is not unethical to breed many children. (23 votes, 20%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed more than two children. (61 votes, 52%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed more than one child. (8 votes, 7%) Vote
Yes, it is unethical to breed, people should adopt. (7 votes, 6%) Vote
I've got to wonder...what will they adopt if no one has kids? :lmao: :loser:
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
But I know the Chinese, and Indians will never go for it.
This here's a big part of what separated us (or at least me, and I suspect the rest of the gang here as well though I won't speak for you) from the DUmmies.
They feel that if the human race must be extinguished to continue this planet's perpetuation, that is an acceptable price.
I, on the other hand, feel that if we must utterly destroy this planet, even if it means blasting it until there's not a piece left greater than ten atoms in size, in order to ensure the existance of the human race, that is an acceptable price.
Not that I think that is necessary, only that it is acceptable.
Really, what it is they want to believe is that mankind is just another passenger on this Big Blue Marble twirling through space. They cannot admit that creation (earth, etc) is for mankind, and if mankind ceases to exist, there is no reason for creation to be.
Without man around to be aware, there is no point to anything.
-
I got no problem with the thinking that we're just a passenger on the big blue marble. Differance between me and the DUmmies though?
This passenger is hijacking his ride.
DUmmies are so hypocritical in their thinkings. Their always up in arms about being evolutionists, and hating creationism, but then go on these rants about wanting to off the entire race to save the planet. They forget that the meaning of life is to survive as a species, to reproduce and multiply. All other species on this planet consume the resources they require to continue on. If not, they die out.
We are exponentially more advanced then other species. Hence our needs are that much greater. Eventually we will wear this big blue marble out, and we'll have to find a new one. But for the sake of our survival, for our whole reason of existence, we shall.
Thats what the DUmmies need to keep telling themselves. Not that the answer is extinction.
-
Guess I'm gonna have to disagree with you guys. I do believe it's unethical for liberals to breed.
-
They don't breed anyway.
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
-
They don't breed anyway.
Uh, it seems unfortunately some of them do.
Think of the wily primitive, "Wiley50," that worthless freeloading bum building an ark in the middle of Tennessee; he's got offspring by several different women, and one suspects his life-style is to evade child-support, sticking the rest of us with the bill.
-
Not breeding (and abortions) is why the mexicans are here in the US and the muslims are in Europe. ....but if the free loading would quit breeding, I think we could still manage.
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any asshole can have a kid?
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
So what you're advocating is more government interference in private life?
These calls for licensure to procreate make me sick. And they come from both sides of the political spectrum.
-
ZombieHorde is a relative newbie. His ambition is to rise to the top of the DUmp pile. Frank, and only Frank makes social status rankings. :bow:
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
Not to threadjack or anything but I think the proper question there is "Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car?"
"Over population" is a myth. Another liberal bogie man. :whatever:
-
Hey, I'm all for it.
A couple should have to pass an IQ test to procreate.
A couple should have to demonstrate they have the ways and means to support a child for 18 years.
And I'm all for eugenics too.
I'm with you BC. I also think there should be an IQ and proof of net contributor to society tests for voting.
Oh and I will gladly supply razor blades and bullets to any DUchebag that walks the talk.
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
Not to threadjack or anything but I think the proper question there is "Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car?"
"Over population" is a myth. Another liberal bogie man. :whatever:
beat me to it!
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
Not to threadjack or anything but I think the proper question there is "Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car?"
"Over population" is a myth. Another liberal bogie man. :whatever:
beat me to it!
Great minds think alike! :cheersmate:
And so do ours.
-
So this homo calls hetros breeders and that isn't a hate crime?
By extension I can then call him: dirt poker, rump ranger, dick smoker, cock gobbler, fudge packer, cum gargler, bun darter, or any other various terms for fagots?
Or is this just another one way liberal street?
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
So what you're advocating is more government interference in private life?
These calls for licensure to procreate make me sick. And they come from both sides of the political spectrum.
Hey, I'm all for it.
A couple should have to pass an IQ test to procreate.
A couple should have to demonstrate they have the ways and means to support a child for 18 years.
And I'm all for eugenics too.
I fully understand what you're getting at, but I'm troubled by that whole "The ends do not justify the means" thing.
Life would be so much easier if I were a bit more Machiavellian.
-
DUmmies hate humans. They think we are killing "Gaia". They think we should just die off.
So, I guess my question is, what are they waiting for?
-
It's called child birth you fuc*king morons!
Only completely useless :censored: like the DUmmies would refer to the miracle of childbirth as "breeding".
-
The Ehrlich book the Population Bomb was published forty years ago, he is now a global warming stooge...
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
But I know the Chinese, and Indians will never go for it.
An Earth with no humans serves no purpose DUmbShit!
Kill you and your family first then I'll ponder your asinine statements.
-
So this homo calls hetros breeders and that isn't a hate crime?
By extension I can then call him: dirt poker, rump ranger, dick smoker, cock gobbler, fudge packer, cum gargler, bun darter, or any other various terms for fagots?
Or is this just another one way liberal street?
:rofl:
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
And I'll supply the guns.
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
And I'll supply the guns.
I'll sell the tickets & popcorn.
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
And I'll supply the guns.
I'll sell the tickets & popcorn.
Damn. Buncha entrepreneurs
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
And I'll supply the guns.
I'll sell the tickets & popcorn.
Damn. Buncha entrepreneurs
Dang right. :popcorn:
-
ileus (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-17-08 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
79. Self extinction is earths only hope.
I'll supply the method! :fuelfire:
And I'll supply the guns.
I'll sell the tickets & popcorn.
Damn. Buncha entrepreneurs
Dang right. :popcorn:
It's what makes America great. :cheersmate:
-
Like so many myths, DU buys into the myth of overpopulation because it puts human beings in a bad light. The volume of self and species hatred at DU is most amazing.
-
Like so many myths, DU buys into the myth of overpopulation because it puts human beings in a bad light. The volume of self and species hatred at DU is most amazing.
Then they should sacrifice themselves on the altar of Mother Gaia and end their selfish abuse of her resources! :evillaugh:
-
Like so many myths, DU buys into the myth of overpopulation because it puts human beings in a bad light. The volume of self and species hatred at DU is most amazing.
Then they should sacrifice themselves on the altar of Mother Gaia and end their selfish abuse of her resources! :evillaugh:
As long as they're not gathering naked in the woods with a camera near by....
-
Like so many myths, DU buys into the myth of overpopulation because it puts human beings in a bad light. The volume of self and species hatred at DU is most amazing.
Then they should sacrifice themselves on the altar of Mother Gaia and end their selfish abuse of her resources! :evillaugh:
As long as they're not gathering naked in the woods with a camera near by....
That image would fry whatever digital cards were in whatever digital cameras . . .
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
So what you're advocating is more government interference in private life?
These calls for licensure to procreate make me sick. And they come from both sides of the political spectrum.
You must not be a parent.
No, I'm not advocating for more government interference. But my POINT was that you need a license to do some things, but not THE most important job you can possibly have? Why is it that if I want a dog, I have to go get a license and fill out paperwork and take the dog to the vet, but to have a kid I didn't have to prove that I would be a capable and caring parent? Owning a dog is so not as hard as having a kid.
I wouldn't go so far as BC and say I'm for eugenics, but let me tell you...after the amount of really, truly stupid and selfish people I have seen become parents, I could be persuaded.
-
The eugenics discussion is a troubling one. Some truly valuable, contributing members of society have been the product of dysfunctional families, and selfish parents and some real losers have come out of a good homes and good parents. Eugenics focuses on the faults of the parents and not the outcome of their offspring. Eugenics also focuses on selectively breeding people based on certain traits. How many on this very forum would be deemed 'disqualified' to breed based on medical histories or personal values(remember, who could be deciding which 'thought' is right to raise a child in). Conservatives(as well as liberals) likely think this is a good idea as long as they are the ones deciding who meets the bar for 'breeding'. It's a good thing to keep in mind that these tables could get turned real quick depending on who is in power as to who possesses the right stuff for parenting.
For those who have any religious belief, I'm curious how you would justify eugenics in the confines of those moral beliefs? I'm NOT asking that flippantly--let me say that ahead of time. I am genuinely curious how this would fit into a system of religious beliefs where life, with all its imperfection, is prized above all.
-
They don't breed anyway.
Some do, and that vexes me.
Same. Why is it that you need a license to own a gun, a dog, and to drive a car, but any ******* can have a kid?
So what you're advocating is more government interference in private life?
These calls for licensure to procreate make me sick. And they come from both sides of the political spectrum.
You must not be a parent.
No, I'm not advocating for more government interference. But my POINT was that you need a license to do some things, but not THE most important job you can possibly have? Why is it that if I want a dog, I have to go get a license and fill out paperwork and take the dog to the vet, but to have a kid I didn't have to prove that I would be a capable and caring parent? Owning a dog is so not as hard as having a kid.
I wouldn't go so far as BC and say I'm for eugenics, but let me tell you...after the amount of really, truly stupid and selfish people I have seen become parents, I could be persuaded.
Nope, not a parent yet, just a former foster kid, so believe me when I say I'm well aware of how awful some people are at parenting.
The thing is, there is no foolproof way of preventing those people from becoming parents without becoming a tyrant in the process. Now everyone here is aware that freedom isn't free, but what some don't seem to realize is that the price paid isn't always borne by the military. Sometimes it's borne by the victims of shootings, paying for our freedom to bear arms. Sometimes it's borne by the victims of hate speech, paying for our right to free speech. And sometimes it's borne by children who grow up in f**ked-up households, paying for our freedom to have children without government approval.
Just as it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of the vast majority of responsible gun owners in order that we may be protected from the loonies, and just as it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of every speaker in the nation in order that we might be protected from speech that some will doubtless find hurtful, it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of every would-be parent by subjecting them to government examination in order to create a child.
The intact nuclear family is the basic unit of our society, and as such must be protected. Consequently, the burden of proof is not and cannot be placed on the leaders of that unit to prove their competence, but on any outside party attempting to engage in the destruction of said unit to prove said leaders' incompetence. Justice demands it.
Of course our system of family law is hardly just, but that's another subject for another time.
Though I personally dislike arguments from practicality (it's part and parcel of being a student of higher mathematics), let me offer you one. If the government were to license childbirth and/or parenthood, it seems obvious to me at least that the ones presiding over the examination process would be social workers. I don't know how much you know about social workers, but I feel pretty confident in saying that if this were to pass, conservatives would be banned outright from procreating. Social workers as a group are some of the most partisan leftists of any occupation in the nation (there are individual exceptions of course, just as in teaching, although fewer in number it would seem from my personal experience).
If your desire is to prevent libtards from procreating and/or raising children, licensure is the absolute worst decision you could make in furtherance of that desire.
-
Oh and I do find it amusing that the gay individual who would likely start a riot over being called disparaging names for his sexual proclivities finds it acceptable to call the NATURAL sexual habits of heterosexual people and its likely outcome in the most unsavory of terms. I've found gays that speak like this actually think they are enlightened in some way beyond the normal human experience and that their gayness somehow seperates them in some divine, lofty way from the rest of the breeding masses ie they think they have evolved beyond the 'average' human experience. :whatever:
-
Nope, not a parent yet, just a former foster kid, so believe me when I say I'm well aware of how awful some people are at parenting.
The thing is, there is no foolproof way of preventing those people from becoming parents without becoming a tyrant in the process. Now everyone here is aware that freedom isn't free, but what some don't seem to realize is that the price paid isn't always borne by the military. Sometimes it's borne by the victims of shootings, paying for our freedom to bear arms. Sometimes it's borne by the victims of hate speech, paying for our right to free speech. And sometimes it's borne by children who grow up in f**ked-up households, paying for our freedom to have children without government approval.
Just as it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of the vast majority of responsible gun owners in order that we may be protected from the loonies, and just as it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of every speaker in the nation in order that we might be protected from speech that some will doubtless find hurtful, it is unconscionable to violate the liberty of every would-be parent by subjecting them to government examination in order to create a child.
The intact nuclear family is the basic unit of our society, and as such must be protected. Consequently, the burden of proof is not and cannot be placed on the leaders of that unit to prove their competence, but on any outside party attempting to engage in the destruction of said unit to prove said leaders' incompetence. Justice demands it.
Of course our system of family law is hardly just, but that's another subject for another time.
Though I personally dislike arguments from practicality (it's part and parcel of being a student of higher mathematics), let me offer you one. If the government were to license childbirth and/or parenthood, it seems obvious to me at least that the ones presiding over the examination process would be social workers. I don't know how much you know about social workers, but I feel pretty confident in saying that if this were to pass, conservatives would be banned outright from procreating. Social workers as a group are some of the most partisan leftists of any occupation in the nation (there are individual exceptions of course, just as in teaching, although fewer in number it would seem from my personal experience).
If your desire is to prevent libtards from procreating and/or raising children, licensure is the absolute worst decision you could make in furtherance of that desire.
I am a parent of three children and I happen to agree with what you wrote here. HI5!
*fixed broken quote tag*
-
Oh and I do find it amusing that the gay individual who would likely start a riot over being called disparaging names for his sexual proclivities finds it acceptable to call the NATURAL sexual habits of heterosexual people and its likely outcome in the most unsavory of terms. I've found gays that speak like this actually think they are enlightened in some way beyond the normal human experience and that their gayness somehow seperates them in some divine, lofty way from the rest of the breeding masses ie they think they have evolved beyond the 'average' human experience. :whatever:
It's a self-loathing thing! Makes them feel better about their own proclivities to disparage others. Many homosexuals no matter how out and proud they claim to be really don't like the fact that they are gay. Alot of unhappy people.
-
Oh and I do find it amusing that the gay individual who would likely start a riot over being called disparaging names for his sexual proclivities finds it acceptable to call the NATURAL sexual habits of heterosexual people and its likely outcome in the most unsavory of terms. I've found gays that speak like this actually think they are enlightened in some way beyond the normal human experience and that their gayness somehow seperates them in some divine, lofty way from the rest of the breeding masses ie they think they have evolved beyond the 'average' human experience. :whatever:
It's a self-loathing thing! Makes them feel better about their own proclivities to disparage others. Many homosexuals no matter how out and proud they claim to be really don't like the fact that they are gay. Alot of unhappy people.
I'd say not exactly self-loathing, more of a rationalization - a mental construct to validate their own superiority, in the face of the majority of humankind regarding them as pathetic freaks.
-
Oh and I do find it amusing that the gay individual who would likely start a riot over being called disparaging names for his sexual proclivities finds it acceptable to call the NATURAL sexual habits of heterosexual people and its likely outcome in the most unsavory of terms. I've found gays that speak like this actually think they are enlightened in some way beyond the normal human experience and that their gayness somehow seperates them in some divine, lofty way from the rest of the breeding masses ie they think they have evolved beyond the 'average' human experience. :whatever:
It's a self-loathing thing! Makes them feel better about their own proclivities to disparage others. Many homosexuals no matter how out and proud they claim to be really don't like the fact that they are gay. Alot of unhappy people.
I'd say not exactly self-loathing, more of a rationalization - a mental construct to validate their own superiority, in the face of the majority of humankind regarding them as pathetic freaks.
Most of the gays I know are really bad alcoholics. I put that down as unhappiness in their situation.