Should straights be allowed to reproduce?

[Urethra Franklin]

Or should we put child safety first?

 

[WI Crippler]

Or should we put child safety first?

Well if straights don't reproduce, then child safety won't be an issue anymore.... Lets just kill of the species......:roll:


Of course I realize your foolish question is meant solely in response to other peoples questions regarding gays raising children(something I don't personally have a problem with), so we'll leave it at that.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Or should we put child safety first?

I'm going to assume this is in response to the lesbian reproduction poll, which was in regard to scientific ethics. If you had read the poll you would know that no one wants to deny them the right to reproduce simply because of their sexuality.

 

[talloulou]

Only after they've been warned of the dangers of NOT aborting by a radicalized feminist. :violin:

 

[WI Crippler]

Only after they've been warned of the dangers of NOT aborting by a radicalized feminist. :violin:

:rofl

Perfect!!!!:2rofll:

 

[Kandahar]

Or should we put child safety first?

Maybe you should actually READ the thread you're trying to parody.

 

[Navy Pride]

This is obvious a thread to flame..........

 

[Doremus Jessup]

As long as they have a permit.

 

[debate_junkie]

As long as they have a permit.

*looks for my permit* uh oh... umm does that mean I have to give my kids back? And ummm since they came out of my body.. errrrr :shock:

 

[Doremus Jessup]

*looks for my permit* uh oh... umm does that mean I have to give my kids back? And ummm since they came out of my body.. errrrr :shock:

"Show me your papers!"
"Oh, you don't have them?"

To underlings: "Take her children!" :lol:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Yet another thread, exemplified by the poll options, created with no purpose other than to lampoon and or troll. To the Basement. Please stop doing this.

 

[teacher]

I'll give that one a 7...

outta 10.

Can't dance to it though.

But wo the fu*k cares in this dead thread?

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Maybe you should actually READ the thread you're trying to parody.

Kandahar sweetie, like Right of Centre you miss the point. This isn't about trying to parody a thread I do or don't agree with, it's about balance. You jumped to a conclusion, bad move.

I notice it's rattled Teacher's cage though. Don't know what he's said since he's been on my ignore list for ages now (due to him never having anything interesting to say) but amazed to see he's been moved to reply TWICE to one of my threads. See, he claimed a long time ago that he didn't give a **** about what I posted, but to have responded twice, he obviously does. If he wrote anything interesting do PM it to me, but since that's highly unlikely, I won't wait up for a message.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Kandahar sweetie, like Right of Centre you miss the point. This isn't about trying to parody a thread I do or don't agree with, it's about balance. You jumped to a conclusion, bad move.

BS and you know it. You failed to read a thread and simply assumed it was an attempt at discrimination. Now you try to cover it up with pointless arrogance.

 

[Thelost1]

Moderator's Warning:

Yet another thread, exemplified by the poll options, created with no purpose other than to lampoon and or troll. To the Basement. Please stop doing this.

Why would you put this in the basement? I think that UF is trying to make a point (one that I agree with). She's just not very good at it.

 

[Jerry]

As long as they have a permit.

*grabs self*
I goch yer permit right here!

 

[Jerry]

"Show me your papers!"
"Oh, you don't have them?"

To underlings: "Take her children!" :lol:

Possession of unauthorized children: Class 4 Felony

Existing without authorization: Class 5 felony.

 

[Thelost1]

Existing without authorization: Class 5 felony.

...resulting in immediate termination.

 

[Jerry]

...resulting in immediate termination.

Well, it works in the 51st state.

 

[Jerry]

Hay teacher, how long will it take for Capt'n to suspend me for talking **** in the Basement?

Moderator's Warning:

Yet another thread, exemplified by the poll options, created with no purpose other than to lampoon and or troll. To the Basement. Please stop doing this.

I don't get it man, I address a mod action and get banned, but Urethra Franklin recently makes this thread with the sole purpose of trolling and what? Suspended? No. All that happens is you come in and move the thread (rightfully so, I might add; that's all that needed to happen).

Are you and Stace realy so insecure that you see the address of a mod action in public up stairs as such a more egregious crime than creating a thread for the sole purpose of trolling, or is it just ego?

Did the mod team give WI Crippler any penalty for his post #2? How about Talloulou's post #4? Doremus Jessup's post # 8 and 10? I doubt it.

The fact that "temp-suspended" is not currently displayed under Urethra Franklin's name evidences that you and Stace need to work on your consistency

 

[1069]

I address a mod action and get banned, but Urethra Franklin recently makes this thread with the sole purpose of trolling and what?

I still don't get this assertion, which seems to be shared by basically everyone.
There was a thread entitled "Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce?"
No one accused the creator nor the participants of that thread of "trolling".
UF started this thread entitled "Should heterosexuals be allowed to reproduce?", presumably in response to that thread, and is automatically assumed to be trolling by everyone.

I view this more as tongue-in-cheek irony designed to get people thinking about what it would feel like to have society challenge your right to reproduce on the basis of your sexual orientation.
There are many bisexual and homosexual people in the world, and I'd venture to say that the majority of them are parents.
It is no doubt hurtful and offensive to many to have one's right to one's children repeatedly challenged and questioned by the privileged majority.
I see the creation of this thread as a very mild rebuke... no, not even a rebuke, per se, but merely a "Let's think about this from a different perspective/angle" type of thing, designed to challenge the "common wisdom", etc.
As such, I see it as a useful and valid thread.

I suppose I'm alone here (as usual) in viewing this as no more an attempt at "trolling" or being pointlessly offensive than that "Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce" thread was, and possibly less of one.

UF, I hope you read this, and if I am correct about your motives in posting this thread, I hope it serves as some consolation to you that at least one person here got the point.

 

[Jerry]

Hay teacher, how long will it take for Capt'n to suspend me for talking **** in the Basement?

Problably as long as it took for him to suspend you?

 

[Jerry]

I still don't get this assertion, which seems to be shared by basically everyone.
There was a thread entitled "Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce?"
No one accused the creator nor the participants of that thread of "trolling".
UF started this thread entitled "Should heterosexuals be allowed to reproduce?", presumably in response to that thread, and is automatically assumed to be trolling by everyone.

That post is a fairly good representation of your general ignorance and incompetence.

The original thread: "Should lesbians be allowed to reproduce?", addressed a legitimate ethical question regarding a new proposed method of generating sperm out of a woman's bone marrow for the purpose of 2 women creating a child which is genetically related to both women.

There is no such parallel for women impregnating men, (or 2 gay men creating a child similarly); therefore no such legitimate ethical question exists regarding couples other than lesbians, which means that the thread served some other purpose.

Any lay person with reasonable intelligence and normal access to the relevant data can clearly determine the point of this thread, which is probably why you’re confused.

I view this more as tongue-in-cheek irony designed to get people thinking about what it would feel like to have society challenge your right to reproduce on the basis of your sexual orientation.
There are many bisexual and homosexual people in the world, and I'd venture to say that the majority of them are parents.
It is no doubt hurtful and offensive to many to have one's right to one's children repeatedly challenged and questioned by the privileged majority.
I see the creation of this thread as a very mild rebuke... no, not even a rebuke, per se, but merely a "Let's think about this from a different perspective/angle" type of thing, designed to challenge the "common wisdom", etc.
As such, I see it as a useful and valid thread.

I suppose I'm alone here (as usual) in viewing this as no more an attempt at "trolling" or being pointlessly offensive than that "Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce" thread was, and possibly less of one.

UF, I hope you read this, and if I am correct about your motives in posting this thread, I hope it serves as some consolation to you that at least one person here got the point.

Of course you think that, you're an idiot, such nonsense is to be expected.

Here's your sign.

 

[1069]

That post is a fairly good representation of your general ignorance and incompetence.

The original thread: "Should lesbians be allowed to reproduce?", addressed a legitimate ethical question regarding a new proposed method of generating sperm out of a woman's bone marrow for the purpose of 2 women creating a child which is genetically related to both women.

There is no such parallel for women impregnating men, (or 2 gay men creating a child similarly); therefore no such legitimate ethical question exists regarding couples other than lesbians, which means that the thread served some other purpose.

Any lay person with reasonable intelligence and normal access to the relevant data can clearly determine the point of this thread, which is probably why you’re confused.



Of course you think that, you're an idiot, such nonsense is to be expected.

Here's your sign.

So, conversely, everyone else on the forum is intelligent, because they automatically assume that UF's thread constitutes nothing more than a mindless attempt at trolling?

Why was the original thread ("Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce?", or some variant therof) not broadly assumed to be an example of "trolling"?

I think this is the sort of thing that ought to be explored, and that will never be explored, as long as the privileged majority uses its power to silence any and all dissent against the status quo as 'offensive" and "hostile" and "trolling", instead of addressing and engaging it, and seeking to understand the motivations behind it.

 

[Jerry]

So, conversely, everyone else on the forum is intelligent, because they automatically assume that UF's thread constitutes nothing more than a mindless attempt at trolling?

Everyone who saw this thread for what it is has a greater mastery of logic and deductive reasoning then you.

Why was the original thread ("Should homosexuals be allowed to reproduce?", or some variant therof) not broadly assumed to be an example of "trolling"?

The original thread: "Should lesbians be allowed to reproduce?", addressed a legitimate ethical question regarding a new proposed method of generating sperm out of a woman's bone marrow for the purpose of 2 women creating a child which is genetically related to both women.

There is no such parallel for women impregnating men, ( or 2 gay men creating a child similarly); therefore no such legitimate ethical question exists regarding couples other than lesbians, which means that the thread served some other purpose.

I think this is the sort of thing that ought to be explored, and that will never be explored, as long as the privileged majority uses its power to silence any and all dissent against the status quo as 'offensive" and "hostile" and "trolling", instead of addressing and engaging it, and seeking to understand the motivations behind it.

Should straights be allowed to reproduce?
Or should we put child safety first?

Meaning: 'Children of straight couples are in danger because their parent's are not gay'.

This is why I out debated you while arguing your own side of abortion in the Reverse Debates.