i know we joke around a lot about autism and shit but dismiss is legit retarded and you're wasting brainpower trying to use logic or reason with him.
human population growth is unquestionably a problem that poses greater and greater risk to itself the more mouths we have to feed. unfortunately, just about every option we have to curb it either lies on a slippery slope of human rights violations (i.e. government regulation) or is reliant on people not being fucking idiots (most contraceptives).
i don't see any way to solve this problem that wouldn't piss off a significant portion of the population, but its very likely that sooner or later for one reason or another there simply won't be enough food and/or water to support everyone. at least we'll still have dank memes though.
On March 19 2015 02:41 l3loodraven wrote: i know we joke around a lot about autism and shit but dismiss is legit retarded
im not sure this statement is good at justifying your use of retarded as if you're using it in the literal (i mean not literal, but medical establishment) sense
Unless you want to force people to get an abortion, which is arguably even less morally defensible than not "allowing" them to get pregnant in the first place, there's really no good way about it. :D
Glad to see you agree with me.
I'm not, since your point about contraception surpressing the issue of unwanted parency is empircally proven wrong, which you'd figure out by being a graph lord for 15 seconds. n_n
I'm afraid you can't read, then.
So 18% unwanted pregnancy rate for the average use of male condoms is my inability to read, okay. :D
Yes, it is, because of
and abortion clinics
I'm afraid you might need glasses.
Because abortion clinics totally do not pose a whole other dilemma. Oh wait shit, they do.
So were you really criticizing the notion of offering abortions to willing parties? If so, you should have said that earlier. Now I can correct myself and say instead that you are incapable of writing, not reading.
Of course not, not everyone is a backwards gamburger, I'm saying that the solution to handle for about 15-20% of pregnant women shouldn't be: "Oh my you got pregnant, let's rectify that by giving you an abortion really quick. Please just step over there and you'll be rid of your baby for an easy payment of $49.99."
so instead of abortions you're saying that it's ok to bring this kid into a world where he/she is going to bounce around within the confines of the foster child system, or grow up poor, contribute minimal to society, eek off social welfare, and more likely than not perpetuate this cycle? and you're not even pointing out anything of significance, you point out a problem which everyone knows is a flawed process, but fail to give a solution. like yes we know abortions are morally questionable but when contraceptives fail, then you only have one ugly solution.
It's remarkable how you guys fail to put this into the context of what we've been talking about before. It's imperative that there's a child support system in place which enables every single baby to lead a halfway decent life. The whole point I was trying to make about contraception is that people who claim that not having a child is as easy as "being responsible" are wrong and stupid. Unless you are willing to forcefully abort babies society has a moral obligation to provide for those who are weakest and have no means of defending themselves. That's what being responsible is about, not cutting child support from already disadvantaged parents because of some vague notion of "MUH TAXES AND FREEDOM".
On March 19 2015 02:44 l3loodraven wrote: sorry im autistic
No, you're just young and stay really stupid things to seem edgy. Please avoid using autistic improperly, as it is not an excuse for that behavior.
i'm gonna open up a can of worms
please refer to these urbandictionary definitions of sperglord:
Someone who feels the need to be correct and validate themselves by stating facts or truisms regardless of circumstance, despite being completely socially inept at gauging exactly how much of a nobgobbler this makes them.
Internet caricature of typical self diagnosed aspergers suffering shutin that has to provide input on everything and anything in the most obnoxious, self unaware, or creepy manner possible.
obviously this is a tendency that doesn't correspond with autism or aspergers further down the spectrum, but i don't think it's completely wrong to suggest that people on the lightest end of the spectrum might manifest these tendencies. i know these definitions sometimes apply to me, and i've had issues with socializing growing up that made me feel like i was on the shallow end of the spectrum. it is not an excuse, it is a lighthearted attempt at description. i recognize that this tendency tends to constitute a social faux pas in many situations, but i can't help but manifest it sometimes. thus, we're a bit autistic. or idk, it's become an internet colloquialism for some of these tendencies, even if it isn't aspergers at all physiologically.
EPT
i raise my sippy cup in solidarity
