That's going in my sig!
Advertisement
by AiliailiA » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:01 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Galloism » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:03 pm
by Liriena » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:20 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Gauthier » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:22 pm
Liriena wrote:Disregarding the fact that it sounds an awful lot like eugenics, it also sounds downright abusive. These are vulnerable people we're talking about, and she's manipulating them into sterilizing themselves for a quick buck.
by The Lone Alliance » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:49 pm
To be fair, Rich White Drug addicts don't need 300 dollars, they're rich remember? They can sterilize themselves.Gauthier wrote:Liriena wrote:Disregarding the fact that it sounds an awful lot like eugenics, it also sounds downright abusive. These are vulnerable people we're talking about, and she's manipulating them into sterilizing themselves for a quick buck.
Not to mention she's cricket chirping on rich white drug addicts.
by Benjabobaria » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:09 pm
Zizou wrote:it's the natives fault for getting beat the fuck up by raiders because the founder cted or they were dumb enough to make the del exec
Altino wrote:The number of "Benja this is amazing, I love it!!!" conversations and also "Benja wtf were you thinking, you're ruining my life" conversations we've had go so hard.
by Gauthier » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:12 am
by Great Nepal » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:15 am
Galloism wrote:Im extremely skeptical of paying drug addicts for sterilization, for much the same reason as paying people for organs. It tends to exploit the poor and desperate for possibly irreversible bodily harm.
Now, for long term contraception (IUDs, vasalgel (if it works)), I feel no skepticism or concern. They may be long lasting, but are still temporary.
Benjabobaria wrote:This woman is messed up and Vice is messed up. Water is wet.
The woman is giving money to drug addicts to fuel their habits and sterilizing them. Not just giving them birth control, STERILIZING THEM.
The OP does make a good point about how awful it is for a drug addict to have a kid. The kid will likely have cognitive disabilities and the drug addicted mother's live will somehow get even worse. I do think giving drug addicts free birth control would be nice to prevent their lives from further being fucked up. Permanently sterilizing them seems a bit fucked up though.
Benjabobaria wrote:It's really hard for these women to give consent. They likely just want money for their drug habits and probably don't think about the fact that if they somehow get their lives back together they would never be able to have children.
by Aethrys » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:53 am
by Vassenor » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:54 am
by The Princes of the Universe » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:06 am
by Aethrys » Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:13 am
by DnalweN acilbupeR » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:15 am
The Princes of the Universe wrote:This is at best analogous to thinking a beach umbrella will protect against nuclear fallout, and that's ignoring the numerous ethical issues with this pathetic excuse for a plan.
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.
by Mattopilos II » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:05 am
by Ifreann » Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:31 am
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Ifreann wrote:What are the colons meant to convey here?
I'm secretly an alt-right antijew bowing to our Lord and Savior, Kek and those were used as substitutes for triple parantheses, you caught me red-handed
They're used to symbolize a stereotype, like for example how one might respond to a picture containing imagery perceived as stereotypically American with " 'merica.jpg " . The colons are like the .jpg . Used either in an ironic fashion or to actually show you agree with the stereotype, although I haven't seen them used too much.
In this particular instance it was meant to ridicule people so easily equating sterilization with eugenics.
by Hurdergaryp » Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:33 am
Ifreann wrote:DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:I'm secretly an alt-right antijew bowing to our Lord and Savior, Kek and those were used as substitutes for triple parantheses, you caught me red-handed
They're used to symbolize a stereotype, like for example how one might respond to a picture containing imagery perceived as stereotypically American with " 'merica.jpg " . The colons are like the .jpg . Used either in an ironic fashion or to actually show you agree with the stereotype, although I haven't seen them used too much.
In this particular instance it was meant to ridicule people so easily equating sterilization with eugenics.
Why colons? Why not scare quotes?
by AiliailiA » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:12 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:AiliailiA wrote:That's fucked. Sterilization is essentially permanent: reversal operations, besides being expensive, usually fail. Just because you're a drug addict now, by the loose definition "need money for drugs that bad", doesn't mean you'll always be a drug addict and therefore not capable of raising kids properly.
Just because you're an abuser once, doesn't mean you'll always be an abuser.
We have to draw the line somewhere.
Not everyone gets to be a parent. Save that job for people who are better at it.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Gloriana Americana » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:21 am
by Great Nepal » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:26 am
Gloriana Americana wrote:I don't know what's more sickening, paying people to get sterilized or the fact some of you people are okay with it.
You guys realize addictions can be kicked, right?
There is some serious Social Darwinism in this thread and it's appalling.
by Gloriana Americana » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:29 am
Great Nepal wrote:Gloriana Americana wrote:I don't know what's more sickening, paying people to get sterilized or the fact some of you people are okay with it.
You guys realize addictions can be kicked, right?
There is some serious Social Darwinism in this thread and it's appalling.
Children born in environment where the parents are addicts, or where parents don't want them are unlikely to have a good childhood - a not good childhood leads to poorer results and continuing of the loop. As long as the whole process is voluntary and consenting, it is good.
by Katganistan » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:35 am
by Katganistan » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:36 am
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:AiliailiA wrote:That's fucked. Sterilization is essentially permanent: reversal operations, besides being expensive, usually fail. Just because you're a drug addict now, by the loose definition "need money for drugs that bad", doesn't mean you'll always be a drug addict and therefore not capable of raising kids properly.
I still fail to comprehend why it is such a great deal for people who want to have kids whether or not they are biologically theirs. Isn't this supposed to become an antiquated principle at some point? Shouldn't we become advanced enough at some point that we only reproduce once we've adopted every child that could be adopted?
by Free Maronites » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:38 am
Gloriana Americana wrote:
You deliberately missed my entire point.
Sterilization is irreversible, so if they pick their life back up they're essentially fucked if they want to have kids and can afford to do so. Child services exists to take care of children in bad homes and give them good families. It's not perfect, but it works and it's better than this disturbing "charity".
by Great Nepal » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:43 am
Gloriana Americana wrote:Great Nepal wrote:Children born in environment where the parents are addicts, or where parents don't want them are unlikely to have a good childhood - a not good childhood leads to poorer results and continuing of the loop. As long as the whole process is voluntary and consenting, it is good.
You deliberately missed my entire point.
Sterilization is irreversible, so if they pick their life back up they're essentially fucked if they want to have kids and can afford to do so. Child services exists to take care of children in bad homes and give them good families. It's not perfect, but it works and it's better than this disturbing "charity".
by Katganistan » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:44 am
Taostic Aesthetics wrote:It's a contract between two people, voluntarily, and I fail to see any objections against it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Cavirfi, Port Carverton, Ravemath, Teclana
Advertisement