turkish14 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 This thread is brilliant!! Wumming or not it is still an important topic of discussion. The state will hopefully stop supporting a parent(s) that produce a certain number of offspring. And agree those that are long term unemployed through choice and those with history of prior child neglect should not be permitted to raise children. Not sure how I feel about disabled individuals being able to raise children, would depend on the level of disability and if the support was in place see no reason why not.
Zingari Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I've changed my mind. One of the trolls used the word "archaic" earlier, and that is a favourite word of none other than Mr indierich06. He was also angered in the gay marriage thread when not everyone agreed with him, so this could be retaliation. Also, he's obviously online right now. I think we have a winner. Blimey moosey , if that's right you should be a fookin top CID detective
21st Century Fox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I've changed my mind. One of the trolls used the word "archaic" earlier, and that is a favourite word of none other than Mr indierich06. He was also angered in the gay marriage thread when not everyone agreed with him, so this could be retaliation. Also, he's obviously online right now. I think we have a winner. It's like those one of those TV programmes where they get a convicted burglar to look around someones house to find how they would've broken in.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Author Posted 8 February 2013 This thread is brilliant!! Wumming or not it is still an important topic of discussion. The state will hopefully stop supporting a parent(s) that produce a certain number of offspring. And agree those that are long term unemployed through choice and those with history of prior child neglect should not be permitted to raise children. Not sure how I feel about disabled individuals being able to raise children, would depend on the level of disability and if the support was in place see no reason why not. A voice of sanity. Unfortunately people do tend to become blinded by emotion in topics such as this so it can be difficult to have considered, logical debate. With the advance of science maybe one day we can eliminate the so called gay gene along with other anomalies.
indierich06 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I've changed my mind. One of the trolls used the word "archaic" earlier, and that is a favourite word of none other than Mr indierich06. He was also angered in the gay marriage thread when not everyone agreed with him, so this could be retaliation. Also, he's obviously online right now. I think we have a winner. It's honestly not me, I actually feel a bit foolish for getting suckered into arguing with it. I do like the word archaic though, it's a lovely one.
Windsorfox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Turkish, what would you class as 'disabled'? Would a woman with no arms pass your test?
Zingari Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I like the word "bollox" , if you see anyone arguing and using it you'll know it's me wumming
hantsfoxy Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 But what if the woman had been made disabled as a result of female genital mutilation whilst very young? Surely, she should not be prevented from having children, merely because she cannot enjoy full sexual arousal?
Finnegan Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 It's like those one of those TV programmes where they get a convicted burglar to look around someones house to find how they would've broken in. !!
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Looking at this country I would say people with a long history of joblessness and over reliance on benefits save those who have a valid reason, people with certain levels of criminal convictions are two easy and I assume uncontentious criterias. I don't agree with the extreme measures being proposed, but the sentiment behind it is about spot on.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Author Posted 8 February 2013 I don't agree with the extreme measures being proposed, but the sentiment behind it is about spot on. Problem is these people cannot be dealt with in a civilised way. It needs extreme measures. Just think how much better the cuntry would be without such scum. Think of future generations.
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Problem is these people cannot be dealt with in a civilised way. It needs extreme measures. Just think how much better the cuntry would be without such scum. Think of future generations. A law-abiding society which all works for the greater good, with no lazy scroungers? Sounds awful!
Necro Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 But what if the woman had been made disabled as a result of female genital mutilation whilst very young? Surely, she should not be prevented from having children, merely because she cannot enjoy full sexual arousal? She would have the same genes of people who believe that a mass murdering, mass raping, paedophile, who talked to imaginary friends in a cave was a prophet sent by God. Therefore she shouldn't be deemed fit to pass her genes on.
HEGGSY Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Who's fredzavelli, he must be the same person too
Guest BlueBrett Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'm the product of 12 generations of selective breeding. I'm incredibly handsome and intelligent but I have brittle bones and a susceptibility to eye infections
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'd definitely breed people for height & strength, and breed out intelligence. It'll be like creating my own army of Hulks. Then I'll probably take over the world and start sending people I don't like to gulags. What a wonderful world that will be - where all torys are forced to run in rat wheels to power cities and daily mail readers are burned for fuel.
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'd definitely breed people for height & strength, and breed out intelligence. It'll be like creating my own army of Hulks. Then I'll probably take over the world and start sending people I don't like to gulags. What a wonderful world that will be - where all torys are forced to run in rat wheels to power cities and daily mail readers are burned for fuel. No one actually reads the daily mail, its just become a really easy and a bit of a lame put down. I've used it myself, but lets be honest its unimaginative and usually inaccurate.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 No one actually reads the daily mail, its just become a really easy and a bit of a lame put down. I've used it myself, but lets be honest its unimaginative and usually inaccurate. ****, then my dystopia shall need a new power-source. However I think the Daily Mail does still have a fairly decent sized readership.
ithuriel Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Since I have never read said news paper and have no interest in reading said news paper why is it such a put down, and the peeps who use it has a put down must have read it themselves yes? Ps, selective breeding? What is this Crufts
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I used to read the Independent but I find that is now a pile of poorly written horsesh1t, produced by a slightly wordier and verbose class of hack than employed by the mail or mirror. The smaller version of the Independent was the final nail in the coffin. Newspapers are effectively just barriers between people on a train.
turkish14 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 A voice of sanity. Unfortunately people do tend to become blinded by emotion in topics such as this so it can be difficult to have considered, logical debate. With the advance of science maybe one day we can eliminate the so called gay gene along with other anomalies. Ha ha brilliant! Won't be taking the bait..... Even though I did first time ;-)
turkish14 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Problem is these people cannot be dealt with in a civilised way. It needs extreme measures. Just think how much better the cuntry would be without such scum. Think of future generations. Which is why hitler was a genius ( joking of course)
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Author Posted 8 February 2013 Which is why hitler was a genius ( joking of course) The main problem with dear Adolf is he wanted to do too much too soon. His undoing was his impatience. HIstory is written by the winners so he will never be looked upon favourably. Was he completely wrong though?
MooseBreath Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Could it be rincewind? It ticks all the right boxes in terms of beliefs. But the problem is that rincewind has a fairly distinctive way of writing and I don't see that in the trolls. If indierich's denial is to be believe then I'm back to capshrap.
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Could it be rincewind? It ticks all the right boxes in terms of beliefs. But the problem is that rincewind has a fairly distinctive way of writing and I don't see that in the trolls. If indierich's denial is to be believe then I'm back to capshrap. Perhaps it's a Rincewind who can spell? Does Rincewind have an evil twin? There is also an evil one amongst twins right? ps which was the evil twin out of the two lovelies in funhouse?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.