Conquer Club

FabledIntegral wrote:
And my younger brother's best friend is black and was adopted by a white couple. They got divorced shortly after, and now is being raised by a single white father. Obviously this is preposterous, I believe he should get sent to an orphanage.

Not preposterous at all. My sister's best friend's cousin is being raised by a striped single parent. They all seem perfectly happy.

kentington wrote:Kids still get made fun of for being fat and many other childish things. How much more do you think it will be for a kid with gay parents?

I think it will be far less. Even though I hate to bring up anecdotal evidence like this, I did know a kid that was raised by two women who was nearly never picked on. All the ones I know off who got picked on had heterosexual parents. Kids, even though they're quite the bastards, do not generally tend to bully others for things that are not obvious on them.

In fact, I would say that the most common characteristic in victims of bullies is that they are weak. Kids do not get picked upon for being fat or having glasses, but because they are either unable or unwilling to follow the pack, the particular thing they get picked on about is not the reason for them being picked upon. This is why nearly every new kid gets picked on a little from the start, they have to prove that they are likeable and willing to follow the group. It's why not all kids who are fat or have glasses are picked upon, there has to be that weakness.

Bullies exist because they are tolerated. Much like the fact that illegal drugs do not exist in a community unless the police are corrupt. I remember being in the Navy when drugs were rampant. I knew who every drug source was. If I knew, then the authorities had to know because it was too easy to determine. Once the Navy got a policy of zero tolerance, the drugs disappeared. Same thing happens with bullies. If the school administration and parents don't tolerate it, it will not become a force in the social networks of the kids.

Sometimes i think the vehement anti-homosexual crowd are just desperately trying to hide something from themselves (and everyone else). I can't say I've missed the dribble that Nappy comes out with.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Yes, and until adopted, all boys found not playing with barbies will be caned, whilst girls will be forced to pit GI Joe dolls off against Action Man on a Bob the Builder set of their design, which the boys will then have little cuddly-toy tea parties on when the girls go out for rugby/gym training.

Oh Nappy, what splendid social commentary and accurate description of modern day gender roles! Now the fact that some boys do like playing with barbies, and plenty of girls do play rugyby and frequent the gym while being brought up in a heterosexual family environment must mean the whole world is going crazy!!

It seems to me that your (and every other biggots) fear of homosexual couples raising children stems from the fact that is shakes the very foundations of a patriarchal society. Who is to be the submissive housecleaner if both parents are men? How are we to re-instate that the kitchen and laundry are for women and the workplace is for the men if a child grows up with a man cleaning and cooking!!

This is the part of my posts where i would normally end by saying something brash like 'f*ck you and your backward stances towards gender based roles - it's the 21st Century, it's time you pulled your head out of your neo-conservative, backward thinking rear-end' - but, alas, I have saved you the privilege of being on the receiving end of said rant.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

Due to idiodic, uninformed, ignorant, arrogant, and thus to this point with NO intent on reading any source material comments by Ier I will cease speaking in this thread. Emperical evidence was supplied and not considered, yet comments with no backing or support are still supposed to be taken seriously? There's no point in me continuing, as my face has been smashed into the brick wall of non-acceptance enough times.

lgoasklucyl wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

Due to idiodic, uninformed, ignorant, arrogant, and thus to this point with NO intent on reading any source material comments by Ier I will cease speaking in this thread. Emperical evidence was supplied and not considered, yet comments with no backing or support are still supposed to be taken seriously? There's no point in me continuing, as my face has been smashed into the brick wall of non-acceptance enough times.

Well, that's the entire problem with talking to nappy. He keeps defending his position with the most idiotic and retarded comments phrased in an intellectual way that it is indeed the equalivant of smashing your head into a brick wall.


Remember though, he's only 15.

Asklucy,
Don't take it personally. It is just a throw away forum. Sometimes some interesting things get said, most times not. So read for the enjoyment of it, and comment only if you expect to be ignore, mostly.

I do like playing the games with you, so don't quit that.

mpjh wrote:Asklucy,
Don't take it personally. It is just a throw away forum. Sometimes some interesting things get said, most times not. So read for the enjoyment of it, and comment only if you expect to be ignore, mostly.

I do like playing the games with you, so don't quit that.

I love playing with you (and all of the society)- I would never stop that over ideological disputes, haha. I've merely given up on trying.

Snorri1234 wrote:Remember though, he's [nappy] only 15.

I wondered why he didn't know what the Maginot Line was.

Snorri1234 wrote:

lgoasklucyl wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

Due to idiodic, uninformed, ignorant, arrogant, and thus to this point with NO intent on reading any source material comments by Ier I will cease speaking in this thread. Emperical evidence was supplied and not considered, yet comments with no backing or support are still supposed to be taken seriously? There's no point in me continuing, as my face has been smashed into the brick wall of non-acceptance enough times.

Well, that's the entire problem with talking to nappy. He keeps defending his position with the most idiotic and retarded comments phrased in an intellectual way that it is indeed the equalivant of smashing your head into a brick wall.


Remember though, he's only 15.

Surely he's 16 by now... or has time not gone as quickly as I thought?

lgoasklucyl wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Quite apart from the fact that there is no shortage of prospective parents, to the extent that interracial adoptions don't go on in this country (even in this age of PC madness), just think about what you're saying. Imagine the life of that child who was raised by gays. I mean, n one would take him seriously.

Due to idiodic, uninformed, ignorant, arrogant, and thus to this point with NO intent on reading any source material comments by Ier I will cease speaking in this thread. Emperical evidence was supplied and not considered, yet comments with no backing or support are still supposed to be taken seriously? There's no point in me continuing, as my face has been smashed into the brick wall of non-acceptance enough times.

Yeah, to an extent I feel a little bad polluting your thread with more or less facile comments, but then how else to you respond to people who say males and females are "exactly alike"? It just verges on the absurd. I did take a look at your evidence though, and just as far as that's concerned, I genuinely have more respect for you and your data than to clutch at straws by contesting it on methodological grounds since I simply don't have the ability to make a serious evaluation of it, not having done Statistics at any advanced level yet.

Still, I'd have thought someone seeking genuine debate might have gotten past the whole "right wing + Roman Catholic = senseless bigot" phase, but you're a product of your socio-cultural context and I can't blame you entirely for that.

PS-(Yes Neoteny, I'm now legal).

Napoleon Ier wrote: Still, I'd have thought someone seeking genuine debate might have gotten past the whole "right wing + Roman Catholic = senseless bigot" phase, but you're a product of your socio-cultural context and I can't blame you entirely for that.

PS-(Yes Neoteny, I'm now legal).

It's rare to find that equation not holding true. Still happens though.

Senseless bigot, or revolutionary visionary ahead of his time? It's all relative...

since i love a good joke as much as the next guy, i think its a fair comment to claim that the Roman Catholic church may not currently be best known for being ahead of the times in a variety of arenas.

This isnt to say i dont think being a member of the church isnt a wonderful way to do the religious experience, but typically having "tradition" as one of the important elements to a set of beliefs isnt a way to claim being ahead of the curve.

got tonkaed wrote:since i love a good joke as much as the next guy, i think its a fair comment to claim that the Roman Catholic church may not currently be best known for being ahead of the times in a variety of arenas.

This isnt to say i dont think being a member of the church isnt a wonderful way to do the religious experience, but typically having "tradition" as one of the important elements to a set of beliefs isnt a way to claim being ahead of the curve.

Oh, tonky! How I've missed you, you old lily-livered soft science latté lib!

lol its good to see you around as well.

Have you started to argue about societies doing well to incentivize those who can benefit society by reproducing? I havent read much of the thread.

got tonkaed wrote:lol its good to see you around as well.

Have you started to argue about societies doing well to incentivize those who can benefit society by reproducing? I havent read much of the thread.

Don't think so, in as many words, but I'm trying to run the old "a family has to occur its biological context" line pas them, to no avail.

Unless you mean have I supported federal marriage incentives or whatever they call them, which I might have done some time ago for kicks, you'd have to quote me on it.

I believe at one point we got to the point where we argued for a few posts each about the idea, after we got through the bit i think you are on at now. I dont really recall entirely, but if i remember the idea it was something to counter the idea that one of the bigger gripes was the lack of benefits that could be conferred on same sex couples. The idea was ( i think) that since these couples (heterosexual ones) could go on to have kids they were more in line for some type of benefits.

Search function probably knows better than i do.

one word -- labensborn

mpjh wrote:one word -- labensborn

Right. Not that that's in any way a logical fallacy based on the crassest and most intellectually lazy ground possible. Or misspelt, for that matter.

got tonkaed wrote:I believe at one point we got to the point where we argued for a few posts each about the idea, after we got through the bit i think you are on at now. I dont really recall entirely, but if i remember the idea it was something to counter the idea that one of the bigger gripes was the lack of benefits that could be conferred on same sex couples. The idea was ( i think) that since these couples (heterosexual ones) could go on to have kids they were more in line for some type of benefits.

Search function probably knows better than i do.

Huh. That's kinda funny. Obviously I'm the last person to support any kind of government subsidy, but still...by the way, how's Korea?

its been a good life choice. Nothing special as far as marrying goes (thankfully), but otherwise i am enjoying my time here.

mpjh wrote:one word -- labensborn

They don't come much dumber than you do they?

Actually it is the correct spelling, see http://lebensborn.search.ipupdater.com/. As for lazy, well it clearly shows the consequences of government involvement in "encouraging" marriage among particular people, and in particular more births from those desirable parings.

Hey, hap, it is good to see you stringing an entire sentence together. Too bad it is still a question, seems that is all you are capable of, asking questions. There is a thread made especially for you. It is the answer a question with a question thread. You will be a star there.