The Media finally agrees.. homosexuals aren't human.

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Ghet for Prez, Oct 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Something interesting I just thought of. Does anyone know of a case where a women in the first trimester gets say punched in the stomach resulting in the death of the fetus?

    This would be a wet-dream type case for anyone trying to limit/stop abortion. It would be a very thin line to argue on the one hand that punching a woman in the stomach resulting in the death of a fetus is murder but an abortion is not murder. I could seee this type of case making it to the SC forcing at least a partial definition of Fetus Right to Life.
    test
  2. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Obviously abortion being legal will not end overpopulation by itself.
    Other steps must be taken. But, abortion is a start.





    Thank you for once again ignoring the request. Every time that you do it you show that you have no argument. If I'm wrong and the figures that I asked for are irrelevant then you will be able to discuss them. Why avoid the numbers?

    How many people have NOT come into existence during the last 50 years (around the world) because of abortions?

    It's not a difficult question to answer. Are you telling me that this is in no way relevant to the conversation? Try not to resort to the straw-man fallacy of disproving something that I did not say.

    Legalized abortion (and the dismissal of religious memes who proclaim that a 1 month old fetus is a human being) will influence birth rates in a very significant manner. You see, because of religious views Muslims must have 10 babies (that is their idea of a strong man). Christians (until recently) have done the same, especially Catholics. With the economy hiked up (requiring both parents to work) people will think twice before popping out a baby every year. Unfortunately we need to stop giving hand outs to the lazy, unemployed baby machines who don't even know who their baby's father is. Liberals have made it so that women who don't work and have more than three babies not only don't need to work, but can't work, otherwise they won't be able to survive. Add to that other strategic changes and you will watch as the population is cut in half within 1 century.

    Passing laws which sentence child molesters, rapists and murders to death will eliminate a lot of bad genes which also create more children when they're not raping, molesting or murdering other human beings. Quite a bit actually. Life is a blessing. No individual MUST be here. We get to stay here if we can work together and get along. The world will continue with or without any single man or woman. No man or woman is more important than humanity. It's time that human beings start acting like human beings and use logic and reason. That is, after all, what separates us from the animals. We can cause our progression or we can cause our regression. That is the freedom of being a human being. Animals cannot. They are slaves to nature.

    Weren't you talking about keeping people alive forever, as machines, a couple months ago? I don't think we really need to continue this conversation to see how stupid your ideas are and how unrealistically we can apply them.

    You think that you are much more intelligent than you actually are.
    Soultan was right, Ghet, you need to take some classes at UCLA.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    No, Girth, you don't get it. Abortion is not stopping the problem by itself. But, those charts would look much different without abortion and to pretend that they wouldn't is flat out dumb.
    test
  4. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Answer one question for me Ghet . . .
    How many people would be added to those charts if Abortion had been illegal?


    The fact that you think the government has a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with the baby in her stomach is just fucking stupid. Can the government force pregnant women not to drink or smoke? They can suggest that they don't, but it isn't illegal. Can the government make women eat healthy and walk regularly, take vitamins and avoid lifting heavy objects? If they cannot do this why should they be able to force a woman to carry a child that they do not wish to help take care of?

    Stop being so goddamn stubborn and think logically, with reason.
    test
  5. The government can do

    Whatever

    The government

    fucking

    feels like doing.

    A little piece of paper written 400 years ago isn't saving you from shit.

    If the government wants your land, they'll take it by force. The Government has wiped out one entire contient of people while enslaving another continent to build it up. What, you think your safe? Big federal government gonna come down and help some black kids into the first day of school? Awww, civil rights is so pwecious!

    Companies have already have patents on DNA sequences found in YOUR body already.

    The output of YOUR body (labor) has been taxable for almost 5,000 years by every government in history.

    Where the fuck do you come off with this 7th grad argument "MY BODY, DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO" as if that magical line of wording is going to save you from a government that has proven, time and time again, that it will go to any lengths to empower itself and prevent competition?

    There are direct paths to a goal, (we typically call this tyranny like the spoiled brats we tend to be as civilians) and then, there are indirect paths to a goal. (Creating market pressures and forces to essentially suggest the mob walks a certain way IE inflation, urbanization, and industry caps to prevent monopolies)

    A Government Allowing citizens the right to kill people that have no ability to argue otherwise is no different then government forces directly moving in and doing it themselves. No, I take that back. The only difference is that the citizen's convince themselevs it's there right and thus, have no cerntralized figure head to point the finger at.

    You have grown complacent in thinking as a permanent civilian. You are utterly incapable of viewing anything outside of that role. You still believe the fairy tales that rights are ordained by..... by who, Azeus? Who gives rights?

    God? What God? Which God? Yours or mine?

    Who creates rights, Azeus? A democractic mechanism? An economic imperitive? A tyrant with an agenda? You seem so keen on arguing from that comfy civilian position, surely, you can tell me where a right originates from. How a right evolves. What it's function is.

    Do you honestly think that the top 1% who controls, essentially everything on down, really give two squirts of piss about you, let alone some mystical "right" of a female?

    Here's a hint: Governments issue rights as a means of adapting. Rights are a survival trait that governments take on when they wish to continue existing. They have no other function what so ever.

    Don't even begin to talk to me from the position of rights. I am amoral. I do not believe in your simplified fairy tales. A grown man still believing that shit... *smh*
    test
  6. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    I think people would be more sympathetic to ghet's hypothesis if they had a more intimate knowledge of 'progressives' before they reinvented themselves as cuddly ethno lovers.

    And az, the cheif effect of magically removing abortion from human history would be a historically far higher rate of child mortality. I suspect its impact on today's global population would be insignificant.
    test
  7. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    who is this "the government" individual will you speak of? Is this the illuminati?

    last time i checked, the govt is composed of different offices with different powers. Each office can be filled by an individual, who, by virtue of their office, only have certain powers.
    none of these offices is "tyrant" who can do whatever the fuck they want to say, your land.

    or wait, are you talking about some african despotism government? or some government 300 years ago? in which case you have a point... A point that has no bearing on our discussion but an irrelevant point.
    ----



    congratulations you are amoral, yet somehow you are still effected by rights, laws and courts. Amazingly rights are connected to POWER, this is where they become important to you whether you believe in them or not.

    LOL have you ever looked at the original justification for modern property? Its complete rubbish, no one would believe it today. Something about how Noah/Adam were granted something or other by god. Shit isn't even Catholic OR protestant. AND YET, we still have property! why? because rights are connected to power. Original justifications are close to irrelevant. (i.e. who gives rights you ask? my answer: its irrelevant) You can't just tap your shoes, close your eyes, say you don't believe and have rights dissapear.
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    [funny]

    The people get what they take. Nothing more and nothing less.
    Government is a word. It is an institution established to control those who want to be controlled. Those who cannot live their own life will be told how to live and they will accept those laws and rules. Those who can live their own life will do it and will stop bitching and whining about rules made for those who cannot.

    Which are you going to be Ghet?

    I'll let you take this conversation wherever you would like to take it, since you clearly have submitted by avoiding the numbers and by changing the subject. What would you like to talk about Ghet?
    test
  9. It's not my fault you have no idea how to read graphs.
    test
  10. A government is, in it's most basic form, an organization that collects resources from people who cannot flee or have no desire to flee. Governments form naturally as part of our inherent comprehension of social order and communication. (emotions, facial expression, body language, inflection, etc.)

    As this entity (government) operates with collective resources, it quickly realizes the burden of this entire process. (Those being taxed want to understand why they are being taxed) A government has to interface with it's citizens (a method of localized communication which I will refer to as 'language') in a way that they understand why they are having their goods and labor tapped into. In the old days, this langauge was called "despotism" where a government demanded resources from a passive citizen base. As time progressed, new languages formed: theocracy, serfdom, militaries, empires, etc. The difference between each language are how they interface with their civilians. But in the end, this process of determining the limits of the language is fueled by technology. Specifically, technology that gives more and more people the ability to imagine new languages. (A book, a printing press, a carrier pidgeon network, telephones, televisions, radios, internet, etc.) As the technology of physical communication becomes more accessable to more and more people, the language of government have to add more words to their lexicon so that their citizens know what they are talking about. (IE. promote government survival)

    Enough metaphors.

    Rights are tools that are given to citizens to prolong the existance of a government entity. They are not holy end-all-be-all outcomes that we should strive to collect and horde like greedy idiots. They are no different in function than the whip, a garrison, or a curfew. A right is more desirable to our primitive, civilian tastes, but in the end, they achieve exactly the same ends.

    A whip reminds you of what you should do. It pisses you off, creating a desire to seek retribution. You will always question the whip when it strikes. You will never question when the whip isn't used.

    A right glorifies what you can do. It makes you lazy, creating no desire to extrapolate an event further. You will never question the right. You will question what the right doesn't cover.

    And that is why clever governemnts rely on them for their survival. Being amoral, I do not limit my questions based on physical response stimuli or emotional attachment. I will question the right just as much as what the right doesn't cover. I will question the whip just as often as why it does not strike. Morality gives you tunnel vision.
    test
  11. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    your probably correct that rights have inherently designed, as one of their functions, maintaining civil order. This is not a surprise really. A political theorists or judge or person in hte legislature wouldn't be much of one if he designed a system that undermined itself now would he?

    of course rights aren't meant to undermine stability... you oftne see in judges reasoning they go over what the impact of something would be if the right were interpreted differently.

    ---
    how does a right make you lazy? say lets take a property and compare it to a lack of a property right. A person with a property right is likely to maintain their home. i.e. they are not lazy. A bum without a property right who merely squats is not likely to fix up the home, in fact, he's likely to be incredibly lazy.

    a right is not something that necessarily or inherently makes someone lazy.
    ----
    also what is this of people not questioning what a right covers! you ever looked at a court case concerning a right? hell, their all about someone questioning what the right does/dosen't cover.

    ---
    also science is largely FUELED by rights. Where would science be without IP? where would science be without the structures of the scientific method? without hte universities? etc. It would be where it was in the dark-ages, alchemical with each inidividual having his own particular terms for everything leading to no progress between scientists. Rights/Govt Structures ALLOW for technological progress (and, admitably tech also has an impact on rights/govt)


    ---
    this brings us back to your contention that rights are just useless words. I maintain, and have yet to be refuted, that they are linked to power, are useful, and can be used to do shit like prevent pre-natal eugenics. And if you think that "people will just do it anyway" you do realize that people have money (especially if their engaging in DNA tests for their babies!), they are solvent, they ultimately do not want to go bankrupt. Thus, violating the law, often not a good idea. Especially if its criminal. What good is a designer baby without a home over its head or food for its belly?

    the problem is your thinking that i'm thinking of rights as some sort of moral imperative, whereas i'm simply seeing it as something that is key "language" block, as you would put it, in the government around which power is connected. Whether its right or wrong or how its established is irrelevant for the sake of our discussion, merely that its widely beleived and enforced is what matters (JUST LIKE $$$$...try complaining about how you don't beleive in money and its justification, whcih is afterall a legal right, and proceed to throw it away).
    test
  12. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    eugenics on some level WILL be necessary if only to prevent common diseases/conditions like say autism or some other wack shit people get born with like extra toes. so obviously this sort of thing WILL be legal. But how far can we stretch it? That is the question. Say I want my kid to have hops like jordan. And I have money for my medical business hustler of choice. Demand/supply, in my opinion, trumps any moral argument. So the little nigga will have hops. like jordan. Because Money >>>> Morality. And also with enough money, what I say can become the new morality. "it is evil to deny my child with jordan like ups" or "how dare they take away my parental decision to give what I feel is best for my child: jordan esque hops". You see - now pay attention because this is my big finishing move I've been trying to set up on you - because I have money (supply/demand) on my side in addition to my moral argument (choice) and you (moral arguments against eugenics/choice) do not have anything but an opposing view-------- I will Win! You hold no weight on my block.

    but also i think people are forgetting not everything is genetic. like homosexuality pfffffft shit isnt genetic lol @ your face and brain if you think that. There is no gay gene and I'd put my life on that.

    So lets sum up: eugenics WILL be legal with I guess some restrictions but for the most part pretty open to whatever the parent wishes and only limited by how much money they have to spend. And uh homosexuality isn't genetic so there.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    That's what's happening here.
    What a waste of time.
    test
  14. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    And you call me a paranoid liberal...[funny]
    test
  15. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    overpopulation doesnt exist

    the earth can only support so many people

    those it cant support will die

    there is a maximum

    itll take care of itself

    as far as a gay gene

    its been very difficult to find and test things like this

    and the regulation/expression of them

    not much is known about regulation/expression of neurons/astrocyte genes (yet) and im assuming the genes leading to homosexuality begin in the brain... (maybe wrong?)

    even still neurons have different functions themselves and tend to self-differentiate into different types almost unexplicably

    i dunno how to formulate a testible hypothesis at this rate with a gay gene, it might be multigenetic itself but certainly it isnt on the sex chromosomes

    the X (which carries most of the sex genes, the Y only has testes producing factor on it, the rest of the code is introns) has been thouroughly mapped and nothing has connected to homosexuality at this point

    beleive though, it is being worked on to find the genetic link to homosexuality
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I'm confused on one thing here.


    Number 1.) It's been claimed that signs of homosexuality can't even be known until later as in after the baby is born. So tell me, How can the mother discriminate against the fetus sexual preference? That doesn't make a hell of alot of sense to me.



    I think abortion should be left up to the mother and father. After all the father had envolvement and could continue to have evolvement depending on the decision whether to keep or abort. I also think there should be a fetus amendment that stipulates number 1.) Any woman who is raped has the right to choose abortion. However, in this rape scenario if the women is married her husband/baby daddy has no say espeically if he is the rapist himself. Number 2.) If the child shows signs of mental retardation such as down-syndrome the women has a right to choose abrotion. However the womens husband/baby daddy also has the right to choose to be in on the final decision. Number 3.) No women may abort the fetus simplely because she decides she doesn't want to take care of it or that she can't afford to take care of it. Both the women and the male who created the fetus whether by accident or not must be held accountable for their irresponsibleness and the innocent fetus must be given his/her right to live.

    And yes governments have been about forced poplution control (russian communist> non communist) (Nazis > jews, slavs, poles, homosexuals, the unevolved etc) (Japanese > china, nanking) (China > china youth in asia) (europeans > indians) (Turks of Ottoman Empire> Armenians ) The civilized free world just doesn't enforce that way no more so their governments nolonger enforce population control purpously through defacto or genocide. Of course unless your government is in the third world. ie.. Durfur. kosovo. tribal groups. rwanda. But even rwanda government is taking a more western/libertarian apporach by suggesting the choice of contraception now.

    Will it work? So far statistics says, it hasn't. In the past most the population control was due to epidemics, pandemics, famines, and planned genocide, however time passes populations recover. Today people are simplely ignoring the contraception message and strongly advocating instead right to abortion. But the practice of brith control through contraception is what most the civilized world needs the problem is in a free society people aren't responable therefore they make poor free will decisions and then they think they can correct their poor irresponsible decision making by taking a innocent life through abortion. What I suggested should be considered reasonable into days age. It involves thinking from two perseptives to form a unison ideal that not all but a majority can agree on. It will even cut down on the millions upon millions of babies we kill each year through senseless abortion due to irresponsible selfishness. Not to mention, gives two sexes equal right to choose abortion in a rational light.
    test
  17. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    exactly. its obvious. i don't see why ppl are having trouble with this.


    Also, if anything western countries are trying to increase the birth rate. There's all sorts of policies in western countries where they give money/subsidies to families that have several kids.
    its places like china which want to decrease the rate. and they have succesfully with their one child policy, even though it has not been 100% perfect.
    test
  18. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    well the whole argument in this thread is that IF its genetic...
    so your right to point out there is definitely a presumption there. If it was found that gay was 100% not genetic, it wouldn't make much sense to have that sort of legal distinction.
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    thanks for clearing that up. I only asked because it sounded like you were impling it was.
    test
  20. Offbeat

    Offbeat New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    43,056
    alot of genes have late life expression

    like male pattern baldness

    the baby wont go bald untill like 35 years after birth but itll have the gene for it ever since its a full headed haired 5 year old.

    the gay gene might not be expressed untill age 6 or 7 etc
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)