• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Myth of Male Power[W:166,W:829]

No offense, but you're being dishonest. I have said that a married couple isn't necessarily any different in the way they raise children compared to an unmarried couple and probably told you that's it's really none of your business which it's not.

As for the necessity of children, none of your business.

As to restriction on other people's sexual behavior, none of your business.

He's really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. He's resorting to misrepresenting everything that we've said here. In his last three posts, he dishonestly claimed that

1) I said ""Maybe single motherhood isn't really that bad because most unmarried women with children are really living with boyfriends / partners that are just as good as husbands, if not better!""

2) CLAX said that not having kids is selfish

3) You said that you do not believe in marriage, etc

In order to maintain his delusion that his moral code is superior, he has to divide everyone into two groups - those who are living according to his code, and everyone else who are selfishly persuing their own comfort and pleasure. In order to maintain that delusion, he has to ignore other possibilities, which requires that he misrepresent the facts that we have pointed out to him (about how there are other people who live different lives without "rejecting marriage and having children", etc)
 
I have seen no evidence to suggest that the children of unmarried couples or single parents are any better off in this regard. There is, as a matter of fact, a lot of evidence out there to suggest that the opposite often tends to be the case.

The evidence is all around you. There are plenty of kids who were raised by single mothers who have done quite well. You might want to look at who is in the White House.


The prevalence of divorce in our society is a different issue, and one that I also tend to disagree with. People do not approach marriage with anywhere near the level of commitment and maturity they should in the modern day and age, IMO.

No, it's not a different issue given how you've focused on single parent households and how divorce is one the biggest contributing factors to this


I never said that there wouldn't be. I said that it was foolish for our society to discourage people who actually can afford children from having them while the poor breed like rabbits.

The poor have always reproduced at higher rates. The rants about this were common amongst the eugenicists of the early 20th century, complete with the comparisons of the poor to vermin.
 
As much as I hate to say it, "happiness" really isn't all there is to life. As a matter of fact, most people don't have the slightest clue what real "happiness" even is, haven't got any idea how to pursue it, and wouldn't know what to do with it even if they found it.

This is one of the major problems our society has. People are too obsessed with chasing "feelings" to be able to see the bigger picture of the world around them. What they call "love" is really little more than a temporary chemical "high" that they have allowed themselves to become addicted to.

You don't seem to know what happiness is

Hint: It's not a "feeling"
 
None of this is new.people between 15-30 are the ones that have always been the most sexually active it is the way its supposed to be. Our culture has tried to change it extending childhood into the late twenties. Stifling that has led to a decline.

You're in for it now, CLAX. Get ready to hear someone who wasn't alive then to tell you about how what you saw with your own two eyes (ie the sex) didn't happen, while telling you that todays problems are the fault of all the sex our generation had.
 
He's really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. He's resorting to misrepresenting everything that we've said here. In his last three posts, he dishonestly claimed that

1) I said ""Maybe single motherhood isn't really that bad because most unmarried women with children are really living with boyfriends / partners that are just as good as husbands, if not better!""

2) CLAX said that not having kids is selfish

3) You said that you do not believe in marriage, etc

In order to maintain his delusion that his moral code is superior, he has to divide everyone into two groups - those who are living according to his code, and everyone else who are selfishly persuing their own comfort and pleasure. In order to maintain that delusion, he has to ignore other possibilities, which requires that he misrepresent the facts that we have pointed out to him (about how there are other people who live different lives without "rejecting marriage and having children", etc)

Well, all I have to say is if he thinks people are going to live the way HE would like them to, he has a rude awakening coming. That's why I tell him to concentrate on himself, to better his own life instead of being judgmental of others. It's like, take the log out of your own eye, especially after admitting to going to clubs to "get some," he is participating in and contributing to his perceived problems with the world.
 
Pathetic dodge.

You are the one claiming that promiscuity is more common now. So without proof its just a baseless claim. My point from the beginning.

If you had any proof for your claim you would post it. I guess ours just your opinion. Anyway we are done here until I see your proof.

He's done this (ie made claims and then demanded that others have to prove him wrong) several times in this thread

Then he ignores the evidence (ie stats show that age of first intercourse has risen, and # of lifetime partners has dropped)
 
Hey! The last ten thousand years of collective human cultural experience cannot be wrong, right? ;)

Honestly, I just think it's a damn shame that there aren't any more "frontiers" to run off to anymore. I'd probably be on the first boat over.

Not going to lie, I can kind of see where all those old timey Puritans were coming from when they decided to ditch Europe for the "New World." :lol:

Perhaps you can still find one. :lol: J/K.
 
Perhaps you can still find one. :lol: J/K.

I recommend Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, etc)

Living is cheap, there are plenty of single women, and the cultures are very traditional when it comes to gender roles.
 
I recommend Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, etc)

Living is cheap, there are plenty of single women, and the cultures are very traditional when it comes to gender roles.

:lol:

Gathomas, you might even be able to have your own Duggar family!!!

:2wave: Bon voyage Gathomas!
 
Pathetic dodge.

You are the one claiming that promiscuity is more common now. So without proof its just a baseless claim. My point from the beginning.

If you had any proof for your claim you would post it. I guess ours just your opinion. Anyway we are done here until I see your proof.

And I have posted PLENTY of evidence to back that assumption. STDs are up (in spite of the fact that people are practicing generally safer sex than at any other point in human history, I might add), pregnancy out of wedlock is up, and marriage is down.

You have posted literally NOTHING to support any of your arguments but baseless assertions. No offense man, but you don't seem to understand how this whole "debate" thing is supposed to work.

What you're doing now is little more than monologuing.

He's really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. He's resorting to misrepresenting everything that we've said here. In his last three posts, he dishonestly claimed that

1) I said ""Maybe single motherhood isn't really that bad because most unmarried women with children are really living with boyfriends / partners that are just as good as husbands, if not better!""

If that wasn't your position, why didn't you clarify what your position actually was then, instead of running away the moment I called you on your nonsense? :roll:

2) CLAX said that not having kids is selfish

It's hardly my fault if he cannot understand the logical implications of his own arguments.

He went on for nearly ten pages about the inherent "selflessness" of raising a child. Well, what's the opposite of "selflessness" as a generalized concept?

3) You said that you do not believe in marriage, etc

Because she has blatantly said as much, multiple times.

which requires that he misrepresent the facts that we have pointed out to him (about how there are other people who live different lives without "rejecting marriage and having children", etc)

A claim which is inherently meaningless if you're not going to provide any evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Again, Sangha, you can entertain wishful thinking and fantasy if you want. I will not.

The evidence is all around you.

Indeed it is!

Children in single-parent families more likely to suffer emotional problems, report finds

Children of Single Parents Much More Likely in Poverty

It does not, however; support the conclusion you seem to be implying. :(

The simple fact of the matter is that, in nearly all cases and by nearly all criteria we are capable of measuring, single motherhood can be shown to be objectively inferior to traditional marriage. It is harder on parents and children alike from an economic and emotional standpoint, and it contributes to many other problems in our society which are already far more common than they should be (i.e. poverty and government dependence).

While I applaud those people (like Chris) who managed to make it work in spite of all of that, the reality of the situation remains that their's is not what most single mothers experience.

By and large, they are exceptions, not the rule. Trying to pretend like this isn't true is nothing less than a blatant lie.

There are plenty of kids who were raised by single mothers who have done quite well.

Again, they are exceptions, not the rule. On an objective basis, single parenthood is simply inferior to the two parent model.

You might want to look at who is in the White House.

Because a single man constitutes a trend, right? :roll:

A) Obama's parents were married when they had him.

B) Even after they divorced, his mother remarried.

C) They had an exceedingly wealthy family to fall back on if all else failed.

Not only was Obama never really "raised by a single mother," but he came from a privileged background that hardly any other child born to a single parent in this country can claim.

For that matter, I wouldn't say that Obama came out of the experience completely unscathed on an emotional level either. In case you haven't noticed, he has more "daddy issues" than you can shake a stick at.

He wrote an entire book about it, for Chris'sakes.

Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance

No, it's not a different issue given how you've focused on single parent households and how divorce is one the biggest contributing factors to this

Your assuming that the same principles which applied to your generation still apply to mine. :roll:

For all age groups, childbirth outside of marriage now accounts for almost of half of all new births.

Single mothers have 48% of first births

For women under thirty, it is more than half.

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage


Divorce is still a major issue, but is no longer the largest contributing factor to single motherhood.

You don't seem to know what happiness is

Hint: It's not a "feeling"

Did I not say as much?

He's done this (ie made claims and then demanded that others have to prove him wrong) several times in this thread

Then he ignores the evidence (ie stats show that age of first intercourse has risen, and # of lifetime partners has dropped)

No such evidence has been presented. To claim that it has is a blatant lie.

It is hardly my fault if you people apparently don't know how to properly argue. :roll:
 
Last edited:
I recommend Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, etc)

Living is cheap, there are plenty of single women, and the cultures are very traditional when it comes to gender roles.

Eh, too dirty and too many transsexuals. Latin America, on the other hand...
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you can still find one. :lol: J/K.

:lol:

Gathomas, you might even be able to have your own Duggar family!!!

:2wave: Bon voyage Gathomas!

Frankly, I just might do it if I ever manage to land the contracting job I'm looking for. There is really nothing tying me to the United States, after all. Economic opportunities here are becoming more and more scarce as time goes by, and I strongly dislike the path our culture and government seem to currently be on.

My ancestors were immigrants who knew well enough to get out of a decaying culture while there was still time to escape. Why shouldn't I be? :shrug:

I simply require the funds to make it workable. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I just might do it if I ever manage to land the contracting job I'm looking for. There is really nothing tying me to the United States, after all. Economic opportunities here are becoming more and more scarce as time goes by, and I strongly dislike the path our culture and government seem to currently be on.

My ancestors were immigrants who knew well enough to get out of a decaying culture while there was still time to escape. Why shouldn't I be? :shrug:

I simply require the funds to make it workable. :mrgreen:

Good luck to you. :)
 

Sorry it took me a while to respond. Got busier than I expected to be.

They implemented the One Child Policy because some deluded Neomalthusian fool forty years ago predicted that their society would collapse if the population ever grew to exceed 750 million persons. That population not stands at 1.4 billion persons, and no such problems have ever arisen.

China has plenty of problems. Ya know those Ghost cities the PRC built? The cost of living is too high for the average person.

Ironically, China is actually in more danger of collapsing now as direct result of the problems brought about by the One Child Policy than it ever was from population growth alone. The policy was basically a misguided and counter-productive endeavor from the very start.

Regardless, China's population boom still spells troubles for a nation with limited resources.




They are both developing nations. Poverty is to be expected. The simple fact of the matter is that things are getting better, not worse.

Do you expect them to somehow jump up to first world standards of living overnight? No society in all of human history has ever managed to pull that off.

That doesn't mean they're straight on target. Poverty is a bitch to take care of, and with a government has convoluted as the PRC, it's not going away any time soon.


Regardless, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a nation with almost 1.5 billion potential consumers cannot thrive.

Reasons? How about limited reasons, are severe poverty? Remember those Ghost cities I mentioned? Most Chinese can't afford to live in them.




Fertility rates naturally tend to fall as a nation develops.

True.

This is only to be expected. The One Child Policy, however; goes well beyond this and is largely to blame for causing China's gender discrepancy, and the wildly uneven age distribution their population is currently experiencing.

True.

There simply aren't enough young people to replace the elderly leaving the workforce, and there aren't enough women to go around. This bodes ill for their future prospects.

Okay? Then why are you worried about Chinese domination over America?


and higher than what more than half the word can still claim today.

How many countries in the world have the industrial capacity of China?
 
China has plenty of problems. Ya know those Ghost cities the PRC built? The cost of living is too high for the average person.

Chinese "ghost cities" are largely a myth.

TheMoneyIllusion - Are Chinese "Ghost Cities" a Myth?

Don't get me wrong. They are problematic for other reasons (namely that they fuel speculative real estate bubbles similar to that which crashed our own economy in '08). However, "cost of living" and population size generally are not major issues.

Regardless, China's population boom still spells troubles for a nation with limited resources.

What "limited resources?" They're not struggling to feed or care for their population now, and population growth actually appears to be leveling out.

Other forms of wealth can be, and largely have been, created from increased productivity and economic growth. China has had absolutely no problems whatsoever in raising living standards using this method so far.

That doesn't mean they're straight on target. Poverty is a bitch to take care of, and with a government has convoluted as the PRC, it's not going away any time soon.

To the contrary, they've wildly exceeded expectations by just about every metric we are capable of measuring. Their standard of living has increased exponentially over the course of the last few decades, as has their economic productivity.

Suggesting that China could've ever been a world tier power in the 1950s and 1960s would've gotten you laughed out of the room. Suggesting that they could ever be anything but a world tier power today will result in much the same.

Okay? Then why are you worried about Chinese domination over America?

Because we're not doing any better, perhaps? We are facing almost all of the same demographic problems that the Chinese happen to be. We are also indebted up to our eyeballs, and our economy is a sluggish over-regulated mess to boot.

Immigration is basically our only saving grace at the present moment, and not even that can be counted on to last forever.

How many countries in the world have the industrial capacity of China?

That industrial capacity is a function of the sheer size of the Chinese labor force, not its level of development. China is actually remarkably undeveloped on the whole, with only roughly 50% of its population living in urbanized conditions.

That is exactly the problem.

If they're already beating us with half of their population still living in conditions barely better than the 19th Century, what's going to happen when they eventually catch up with us? They're basically going to be unstoppable.

Granted, China may or may not ever reach that point given how they've shot themselves in the foot with their authoritarian government and the One Child Policy. India, however; has no such problems.
 
Last edited:
If that wasn't your position, why didn't you clarify what your position actually was then, instead of running away the moment I called you on your nonsense? :roll:

It was already clear. Everyone but you understood it and agreed with it.




It's hardly my fault if he cannot understand the logical implications of his own arguments.

Everyone understood what he said and agreed with it, except you. You're the only one having a problem understanding what others are saying


He went on for nearly ten pages about the inherent "selflessness" of raising a child. Well, what's the opposite of "selflessness" as a generalized concept?

He didn't state any "generalized concept". He didn't say that not having a child is selfish. He made a comment about a specific subject - having and raising a child.


Because she has blatantly said as much, multiple times.

No, she hasn't. Again, everyone but you understood what she said, and we agreed with it.


[/QUOTE]
 
Eh, too dirty and too many transsexuals. Latin America, on the other hand...

Nonsense.

Thailand has modern facilities and is extremely clean. Thais have a reputation for cleanliness. If you go there, one of the obstacles you'll face is the (fairly accurate) perception that foreigners are less clean (relative to Thai standards)

And you'll only see ladyboys if you go to one of the red light districts. If you stay out of those areas you'll see plenty of modestly dressed and beautiful asian women who share your admiration for traditional gender roles and your enthusiasm for pumping out babies.

And you don't have stay in Thailand forever. Just marry a girl (that's the easy part in Thailand) and live there with her for a year or two. Then you'll be able to get a visa to bring her here where you can pump out some babies and they'll be american citizens.
 
It was already clear. Everyone but you understood it and agreed with it.

Lol. Would you like to select a volunteer to explain it in their own words then? Surely [/I]someone[/I] should be able to do your position justice if it is so "self-evident" as you seem to believe.

Everyone understood what he said and agreed with it, except you. You're the only one having a problem understanding what others are saying

You mean the overwhelming majority of 2 (heavily biased) posters, whom you have apparently taken it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for?

My, my. Whatever will I do? :roll:

The wildly inflated sense of self-worth on display here is humorous, but ultimately unfounded.

He didn't state any "generalized concept". He didn't say that not having a child is selfish. He made a comment about a specific subject - having and raising a child.

I don't care what he may or may not have said. I am pointing out the logical implications of his arguments.

He described raising a child as being an inherently "selfless" pursuit. What then, does that imply about those people in modern society who deliberately go childless?

What is the opposite of "selflessness?" It is a simple question.

No, she hasn't. Again, everyone but you understood what she said, and we agreed with it.

She has repeatedly stated in other threads that she does not believe marriage to be a worthwhile endeavor, and that she looks down upon the entire institution as being old fashioned, restrictive, and unnecessary.

She is certainly entitled to these opinions, but you can hardly deny that she carries them.

Lie all you want. It is not going to change the facts at play here.

Nonsense.

Thailand has modern facilities and is extremely clean. Thais have a reputation for cleanliness. If you go there, one of the obstacles you'll face is the (fairly accurate) perception that foreigners are less clean (relative to Thai standards)

And you'll only see ladyboys if you go to one of the red light districts. If you stay out of those areas you'll see plenty of modestly dressed and beautiful asian women who share your admiration for traditional gender roles and your enthusiasm for pumping out babies.

And you don't have stay in Thailand forever. Just marry a girl (that's the easy part in Thailand) and live there with her for a year or two. Then you'll be able to get a visa to bring her here where you can pump out some babies and they'll be american citizens.

Perhaps. However, there is absolutely no shortage of women to do that kind of thing with in the United States. Finding them is as easy as simply trawling any of a dozen online dating sites (preferably one of the religious variety) and tailoring your search to focus on women with a strong focus on traditional values. Hell! The online aspect might not even be necessary if you make a point of affiliating with the right social circles.

The only reason I'm not doing so already is that I do not happen to possess the financial resources necessary to provide such a woman with the level of stability she would deserve at the present moment.

My opposition to modern Western culture has nothing to do with any lack of availability where women who share my values are concerned. I'm not exactly Tigger here, in case you haven't noticed. :roll:

Edit:

Why did you post these twice?
 
Last edited:
Chinese "ghost cities" are largely a myth.

TheMoneyIllusion - Are Chinese "Ghost Cities" a Myth?

Don't get me wrong. They are problematic for other reasons (namely that they fuel speculative real estate bubbles similar to that which crashed our own economy in '08). However, "cost of living" and population size generally are not major issues.



What "limited resources?" They're not struggling to feed or care for their population now, and population growth actually appears to be leveling out.

Other forms of wealth can be, and largely have been, created from increased productivity and economic growth. China has had absolutely no problems whatsoever in raising living standards using this method so far.



To the contrary, they've wildly exceeded expectations by just about every metric we are capable of measuring. Their standard of living has increased exponentially over the course of the last few decades, as has their economic productivity.

Suggesting that China could've ever been a world tier power in the 1950s and 1960s would've gotten you laughed out of the room. Suggesting that they could ever be anything but a world tier power today will result in much the same.



Because we're not doing any better, perhaps? We are facing almost all of the same demographic problems that the Chinese happen to be. We are also indebted up to our eyeballs, and our economy is a sluggish over-regulated mess to boot.

Immigration is basically our only saving grace at the present moment, and not even that can be counted on to last forever.



That industrial capacity is a function of the sheer size of the Chinese labor force, not its level of development. China is actually remarkably undeveloped on the whole, with only roughly 50% of its population living in urbanized conditions.

That is exactly the problem.

If they're already beating us with half of their population still living in conditions barely better than the 19th Century, what's going to happen when they eventually catch up with us? They're basically going to be unstoppable.

Granted, China may or may not ever reach that point given how they've shot themselves in the foot with their authoritarian government and the One Child Policy. India, however; has no such problems.

Well alright then. I concede the debate.
 
And I have posted PLENTY of evidence to back that assumption. STDs are up (in spite of the fact that people are practicing generally safer sex than at any other point in human history, I might add), pregnancy out of wedlock is up, and marriage is down.
I am sorry Gathomas this link had nothing to do with your post.

condom-use.jpg


Its about teenagers practicing safe sex. Nothing at all about pregnancy out of wedlock or stds or marriage. This link is nothing.
You have posted literally NOTHING to support any of your arguments but baseless assertions. No offense man, but you don't seem to understand how this whole "debate" thing is supposed to work.
you have posted literally NOTHING to support your arguments and baseless assertions. I don't take offense to the pot calling the kettle black. You have no clue how to debate either. When you post a link you should look at it first.
What you're doing now is little more than monologuing.
What you are doing is cramming your fingers in your ears closing your eyes and saying, "la la la la la I am right la la la la la."
 
Lol. Would you like to select a volunteer to explain it in their own words then? Surely [/I]someone[/I] should be able to do your position justice if it is so "self-evident" as you seem to believe.

Several posters have said the same thing to you. You seem unable to understand it because it requires that you not believe as you do. Belief trumps facts for some


You mean the overwhelming majority of 2 (heavily biased) posters, whom you have apparently taken it upon yourself to unilaterally speak for?

There have been about a half dozen (or more) people who have pointed out how ridiculous your claims are, and they have come from a broad range of the political spectrum

But I guess everyone besides you is biased. :roll:

My, my. Whatever will I do? :roll:

I don't care what he may or may not have said. I am pointing out the logical implications of his arguments.

Your "logic" is inane. Pointing out that an action is selfless does not make inaction "selfish"

She has repeatedly stated in other threads that she does not believe marriage to be a worthwhile endeavor, and that she looks down upon the entire institution as being old fashioned, restrictive, and unnecessary.

No she hasn't

Perhaps. However, there is absolutely no shortage of women to do that kind of thing with in the United States. Finding them is as easy as simply trawling any of a dozen online dating sites (preferably one of the religious variety) and tailoring your search to focus on women with a strong focus on traditional values. Hell! The online aspect might not even be necessary if you make a point of affiliating with the right social circles.

The only reason I'm not doing so already is that I do not happen to possess the financial resources necessary to provide such a woman with the level of stability she would deserve at the present moment.

That sounds selfish. You should stop worrying about your personal comfort and live up to your responsibility to procreate. After all, you weren't born to make money; you were born to procreate

Edit:

Why did you post these twice?

I don't think I did, but if I did it was a glitch. The boards' software usually catches double posts and tells me about it.
 
I am sorry Gathomas this link had nothing to do with your post.

Its about teenagers practicing safe sex. Nothing at all about pregnancy out of wedlock or stds or marriage.

He keeps doing that. He posted about how our population was going to decrease, and then linked to stats about fertility rates, not population growth rates. He confuses "single parent households" with "children being raised by only one parent". He claims that sexual activity has gone up and then links to stats that only show current rates of sexual activity but not past rates.
 
She has repeatedly stated in other threads that she does not believe marriage to be a worthwhile endeavor, and that she looks down upon the entire institution as being old fashioned, restrictive, and unnecessary.

She is certainly entitled to these opinions, but you can hardly deny that she carries them.

Lie all you want. It is not going to change the facts at play here.

Wow, low blow, talking about me and telling people what I said when I'm not around to defend myself against your accusations?

The FACT is that I said I don't believe in marriage for MYSELF. I said that people can make their OWN choices about whether or not they want to be married. You have no IDEA anything about me or MY opinions. Let's get that cleared up right now.
 
He keeps doing that. He posted about how our population was going to decrease, and then linked to stats about fertility rates, not population growth rates. He confuses "single parent households" with "children being raised by only one parent". He claims that sexual activity has gone up and then links to stats that only show current rates of sexual activity but not past rates.

He is all wet. As I knew from the start. Now I have that confirmed.
 
I am sorry Gathomas this link had nothing to do with your post.

Its about teenagers practicing safe sex.

Ah. My mistake. I must have missed the header on that particular graphic. I thought it was referring to condom usage among the general population.

Here is a study on the subject that includes all age groups. It also notes the 62% figure.

Condom Use and HIV Risk Behaviors Among U.S. Adults: Data from a National Survey

Those kinds of rates were virtually unheard in the past.

Yet, STD rates continue to rise either way regardless.

std-stats.webp

That was my point in posting that particular graphic (which you apparently seemed to miss). STD rates continue to increase in spite of the fact that more people are practicing safe sex than ever before.

The only way this is possible is for there to simply be more sexual activity taking place than "safe sex" is able to offset.

Nothing at all about pregnancy out of wedlock or stds or marriage.

Because I've already posted them, multiple times at this point.

Is your short term memory really so poor that you have no recollection whatsoever of the following?

ScreenShot024.webp

Here is another.

205-FF-download.jpg


Here is a source concerning marriage rates.

US-Marriage-Rate-1980-2008.jpg


Every claim I put forward in that post is objectively verifiable.

you have posted literally NOTHING to support your arguments and baseless assertions.

:screwy

What you are doing is cramming your fingers in your ears closing your eyes and saying, "la la la la la I am right la la la la la."

No, that's what you're doing. I have meticulously sourced all of my claims.

You have categorically either chosen to ignore, or blatantly deny the validity of all of those sources, while posting absolutely none of your own.

I'm sorry, but that is simply unacceptable.

Several posters have said the same thing to you.

...

There have been about a half dozen (or more) people who have pointed out how ridiculous your claims are, and they have come from a broad range of the political spectrum

"Several" and a "half dozen or more," of course, consisting pretty much solely of you, Chris, Clax, and Rogue.

Henrin and Goshin, in turn, have supported many of my claims.

Liberal posters and Conservative posters disagree on social issues? Color me shocked!

That sounds selfish. You should stop worrying about your personal comfort and live up to your responsibility to procreate. After all, you weren't born to make money; you were born to procreate

Which I fully intend on doing, when I am able to do so. I have never once argued that people should have children that they legitimately cannot afford.

I argued that quite a lot of people who like to use that excuse are objectively full of crap. Considering the fact that I make all of 15 grand a year and still live at home, I pretty clearly am not.

I cannot even afford a steady girlfriend right now, let alone a wife and kids.

I don't think I did, but if I did it was a glitch. The boards' software usually catches double posts and tells me about it.

It might've been an issue with my phone.

He keeps doing that. He posted about how our population was going to decrease, and then linked to stats about fertility rates, not population growth rates. He confuses "single parent households" with "children being raised by only one parent". He claims that sexual activity has gone up and then links to stats that only show current rates of sexual activity but not past rates.

Predictably, Sangha continues to lie about the points made by other posters, and raise straw men in order to cover for his complete inability to argue honestly.

Wow, low blow, talking about me and telling people what I said when I'm not around to defend myself against your accusations?

Mea culpa. :(

It was not meant to be an attack, so I apologize if you took offense. It was only an observation concerning your stated position on the issue of marriage and traditional family life.

Put simply, you are "not a fan."

The FACT is that I said I don't believe in marriage for MYSELF. I said that people can make their OWN choices about whether or not they want to be married.

I don't believe that I said anything different.

You have no IDEA anything about me or MY opinions. Let's get that cleared up right now.

You just said that you believe exactly what I claimed you believed in the first place. What's the issue?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom