phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I'm not getting angry at all. I don't really get angry. Annoyed is a different thing, but like I said, I'm not really annoyed yet :) Good for you. I wasn't trying to wind you up though. That's not the name of the game... ← once again your ignoring the important bits in my post, the real point of that post was for you to swallow your pride and talk normally with me about this 2 day debate we've had. i have more constructive arguments with my little brother dude.(£10 says you quote this and totally ignore the sentence above it as thats what you've done every time, the sentence above is the one you're supposed to quote and comment on not the cheeky remark at the end, if you did this then the debate would then become constructive) whatever this will be my last post ..........unless you reply how a constructive person would! lol, ta, phil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp) Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 i have more constructive arguments with my little brother dude.(£10 says you quote this and totally ignore the sentence above it as thats what you've done every time, the sentence above is the one you're supposed to quote and comment on not the cheeky remark at the end, if you did this then the debate would then become constructive) Then why put the 'cheeky remark' in. If you want a reply to your question why not just put that and leave the cheekiness out. Maybe with out the immature comments in some of your posts this would have been more of a constructive debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONGO Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 ohhh, you the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan phil. The world ain't against you. You don't HAVE to argue with everything others say in the thread cos you don't agree. You aren't right, you just think something else to others. go eat some ice n cool off :) stressed eric. john Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Then why put the 'cheeky remark' in. If you want a reply to your question why not just put that and leave the cheekiness out. Maybe with out the immature comments in some of your posts this would have been more of a constructive debate? ← i take it you haven't red his posts then as there is an equal amount of stupidity! what is it with everyone. if you didn't reply maybe he would of seen the question and replied but now your sending the conversation down a different path. brilliant! jeez bongo jumped on the wagon aswell, this is officially no longer a fair fight, azeurus has brought his boys round so i'll give up now! and bongo, you're right i do reply to everything don't i, its not stress i guess i just like typing! lol byeeeeeeee Edited January 6, 2005 by phil white Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I saw the question FYI ( :) ). But I didn't think there was any point in replying, I didn't think I'd rise to you. It seems likely that if I'd carried on, then the conversation would turn into stupid name-calling. I don't really understand what "pride" I have to swallow, but obviously you seem to think this is a game of one-upmanship. So I'm gonna stay out of this thread now. You "win". Now does your eDick feel an inch longer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Now does your eDick feel an inch longer? ← there you go again! see jimbo and bongo. tell him off aswell! lol yeah, cheers azeurs, nice debate, no hard feelings! officially closed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp) Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 ok, read through my posts in this topic and for once read them carefully. you will notice that at no point did i suggest marching in and telling them not to have children or using birth control! i've basically said every time THE PARENT SHOULD REALISE THAT GIVING BIRTH TO A CHILD IS POINTLESS AND IS AS GOOD AS MURDER (COMMON SENSE REALLY)! *1st quote, "why dont they start by helping themselves and stop shagging" *2nd quote, "If they stop giving birth to children who will eventually end up on one of those adverts, crying and dying from starvation then perhaps they could feed a few more of those who are alive and starving now! thus keeping people alive thus helping themselves!" *3rd quote, "How can they watch there own children die and there families children die then go and have a shag and give birth to another poor little b*****d just to watch him slowly die from malnutrition!" as you can see from the three quotes i'm talking about them taking responsibility themselves and stopping the needless suffering and death of a child by not shagging! i never said anything about marching in and telling them what to do via birth control or whatever! it seems you're so eager to be correct that you're actually making things up so you can argue with me!lmao. not too bright are you matey! ← In a way you have a point, in that if they did all stop reproducing then the population would go down. But then what about the next generation? What happens when everyone has become too old to work and there is no-one left to take over? You could argue that there could be a birth-limit or something, but that would take people to enforce it etc..... The purpose of being alive is to reproduce. To carry on your family genes or whatever. You cant just say people should volantarily not have sex anymore, because although its easily said, its not realistic in the real world. Look at the situation here, we have readily available contraception, everyone is educated about the dangers of unprotected sex. But yet there is still a high rate of teenage unwanted pregnancies and abortions. People find it hard to resist their body's sexual urges in this country, which is aparently civilised, think what it must be like in poorer countries. Perhaps you should also consider that not all these sexual encounters are going to to consentual either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp) Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 there you go again! see jimbo and bongo. tell him off aswell! lol yeah, cheers azeurs, nice debate, no hard feelings! officially closed! ← I'm deeply shocked and appauled by Azureus's remarks. At the next possible oportunity I will spank him with a very large plank and call him some nasty names. Officially closed ay? You dont have the pooooooooooooooooower :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 In a way you have a point, in that if they did all stop reproducing then the population would go down. But then what about the next generation? What happens when everyone has become too old to work and there is no-one left to take over? You could argue that there could be a birth-limit or something, but that would take people to enforce it etc..... The purpose of being alive is to reproduce. To carry on your family genes or whatever. You cant just say people should volantarily not have sex anymore, because although its easily said, its not realistic in the real world. Look at the situation here, we have readily available contraception, everyone is educated about the dangers of unprotected sex. But yet there is still a high rate of teenage unwanted pregnancies and abortions. People find it hard to resist their body's sexual urges in this country, which is aparently civilised, think what it must be like in poorer countries. Perhaps you should also consider that not all these sexual encounters are going to to consentual either. ← ahhhhh, i can't stop replying (sorry bongo)! jimbo you're absolutely right, i was enforcing the laws of common sense which dont always prevail in the real world i suppose! but i never suggested birth control, i would never think such a thing! i just think of all the body bags with babies in that didn't deserve such pain and suffering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONGO Posted January 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 ahhhhh, i can't stop replying (sorry bongo)! ← nah pure entertainment!!! keep goin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Limbo (Trials Chimp) Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 ahhhhh, i can't stop replying (sorry bongo)! jimbo you're absolutely right, i was enforcing the laws of common sense which dont always prevail in the real world i suppose! but i never suggested birth control, i would never think such a thing! i just think of all the body bags with babies in that didn't deserve such pain and suffering! ← Nah,Keep repling, this thread has been very entertaining, if not a tad bitchy :) I agree the babies didnt deserve the pain and suffering, and I can see the sense in your argument. I just dont think its practical for people in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Nah,Keep repling, this thread has been very entertaining, if not a tad bitchy :) I agree the babies didnt deserve the pain and suffering, and I can see the sense in your argument. I just dont think its practical for people in that situation. ← yeah, i see it like. well put yourself in this situatution, you're sitting in your shanty hut and you've got a body bag next to you with your son in, how can you even think of putting another little guy through that, why not get your food and when you're getting enough food and you're getting on well (farming or whatever) then think about sex and creating another mouth to feed. if you can barely feed yourself common sense says you don't create a baby as theres nothing to feed it with! but as i said, common sense doesn't always prevail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomturd Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 yeah, i see it like. well put yourself in this situatution, you're sitting in your shanty hut and you've got a body bag next to you with your son in, how can you even think of putting another little guy through that, why not get your food and when you're getting enough food and you're getting on well (farming or whatever) then think about sex and creating another mouth to feed. if you can barely feed yourself common sense says you don't create a baby as theres nothing to feed it with! but as i said, common sense doesn't always prevail! ← Now imagine your sitting in your shanty hut, and some narrow minded arrogant nob who you have no relation to, lives a totally different life to you, in a different world with a view on life which you can not possibly comprehend comes along and tells you you cant have sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Now imagine your sitting in your shanty hut, and some narrow minded arrogant nob who you have no relation to, lives a totally different life to you, in a different world with a view on life which you can not possibly comprehend comes along and tells you you cant have sex. ← tomturd i'm not saying that, jeez read the thread as you are unearthing the original argument. i said they should be able to make there own mind up that they shouldn't put the kid through that.ie; the common sense thing...not that they should be forced to stop having sex! crikey you guys are hard work, what have you been smokin......... i'm tired of typing the same explanation to everyone but worded differently every time so no more numbskulls. pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :P BTW. "narrow minded arrogant nob" i believe was aimed at me! well you can ermm kiss my left bollock you chickabillywinpop! :- Edited January 6, 2005 by phil white Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giptown Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Does the number of people who have rejected your "suggestion" not convince you that: a) it is a badly explained/ill informed viewpoint b ) short of being ill informed, you are a fairly ignorant (cheers) indevidual, whoes knowledge of world issues should be re-assessed before starting a debate. Edited January 6, 2005 by giptown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on that? u must be joking Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Does the number of people who have rejected your "suggestion" not convince you that: a) it is a badly explained/ill informed viewpoint :- short of being ill informed, you are a fairly ingorant indevidual, whoes knowledge of world issues should be re-assessed before starting a debate. ← But you see that assumes that the people on the forum disagreeing with him are sufficiently intelligent to understand the problem to a greater depth than Phil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_Fel Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Does the number of people who have rejected your "suggestion" not convince you that: a) it is a badly explained/ill informed viewpoint b ) short of being ill informed, you are a fairly ingorant indevidual, whoes knowledge of world issues should be re-assessed before starting a debate. ← just because most people don't think the same way dosen't mean he is wrong. Most people use to think the world was flat Most people believe in god etc. Most people think walking unser a ladder is bad luck. Most people haven't got a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giptown Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Based upon Phil's arguement i would say that is highly likely. I am not (intentionally) saying that Phils arguement is a invalid one (although i would find it difficult to reason), i am mearly stating that the manner in which his oppinion/view is being stated is without (what i would consider) knowlege of the situation in question. EDIT: In case i didn't make this clear previously, I am not saying Phil/anyone else is wrong, mearly that their viewpoints seem to be based around fairly limited knowledge. Edited January 6, 2005 by giptown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Does the number of people who have rejected your "suggestion" not convince you that: a) it is a badly explained/ill informed viewpoint b ) short of being ill informed, you are a fairly ingorant indevidual, whoes knowledge of world issues should be re-assessed before starting a debate. ← cheers anal for not jumping on the bandwagon! in response to your question. a)I personally do not think it is badly explained, but one person has taken offence to it as they have not red it properly and all the bummers jumped on the bandwagon and i tried to explain what i meant repeatedly but people keep commenting on the subject without reading the thread correctly so i get a constant barrage of abuse from people and they don't even know what i'm arguing about! b)if you think i'm an ingorant indevidual then fair doos but i personally like to think of myself as an ignorant individual! lmao please read below very carefully! my point is nothing to do with forcing birth control or telling anyone to do anything they do not want to. my point is that i feel sorry for the masses of babies and toddlers that have died/are dying in africa. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, i feel the parents of these children should think about the suffering they will cause to a child by bringing it into a world of starvation and almost certain death. this is my point, they should take responsibility, they should not be controlled or forced but think for themselves and make the right decision not to put a child through all that suffering if they cannot clothe or feed it thats it! simple as that , theres nothing ignorant or narrow minded there! just a very fair opinion that the african people should stop the suffering of babies by making their own decision on whether or not they can provide an enviroment in which that child will survive!you all made the mistake of skipping through the posts in this thread, totally missing the point and attacked me for the above, for trying to protect children! this is a moral opinion, and as some have pointed out will probably never happen but it would be better for those who are suffering if it did hopefully everyone understands now, if not please be sure to tell me exactly what you don't understand about the above comments! phil Edited January 6, 2005 by phil white Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giptown Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 why dont they start by helping themselves and stop shagging. i mean for f**ks sake. How can they watch there own children die and there families children die then go and have a shag and give birth to another poor little b*****d just to watch him slowly die from malnutrition! did you know that a majority of the men that are fed and clothed by these charitys rape babies<<<yes BABIES as they believe it gets rid of the aids virus i'd rather spend my money on helping my own country. ← It is nice to see that your argument has progressed from this quote, to a fairly well explained and eloquent response. I see your point, but aren't you really advocating education and contriception as a means of helping to stem the tide of famine? If so, this is something that not only has been mentioned in this thread, but is also a goal of sever major charities. Wouldn't contriception be a better way to limit the birth rate, rather than simply discouraging sex? Something that is highly likely to be unpopular. (Oh and cheers for the spelling tip :P ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 I care about this sort of thing. But I won't be bothered about doing something about it until the goverments of these countries are removed. Prime example - Swaziland. Severe poverty. Prime minister went out and bought himself a £250,000 fully equiped Bentley. Now, until this sort of thing is prevented, "Band Aid" can forget about my money. you're wasting your time. Before the benefit is seen by the people who need it, it is taken by the government, who control the corrupt police who in turn control the borders - where the "aid" is stolen from the Aid workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picki Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 i got stopped by some fundraiser bird in town today and put the 'why dont they stop shaggin' thing accross to her. apparantly she says that the reason they have kids by the dozen is so they get all the work done to make what bit of money they can....i dont think its right that we give them like 3p for like a million quids worth of coffee. But giving them tonnes of cash? its selfish but when our country could do with the pennies, we give it away. although how we spend our own money, we might aswell give it away! and not its a case of whoever gives the most money are the winners game....society suks ass! and i appologise for the spelling! :P" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil white Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 It is nice to see that your argument has progressed from this quote, to a fairly well explained and eloquent response. I see your point, but aren't you really advocating education and contriception as a means of helping to stem the tide of famine? If so, this is something that not only has been mentioned in this thread, but is also a goal of sever major charities. Wouldn't contriception be a better way to limit the birth rate, rather than simply discouraging sex? Something that is highly likely to be unpopular. (Oh and cheers for the spelling tip :P ) ← yeah, right from my first post i was giving a personal point of view, talking about how i feel about the suffering, yes everyone should be given condoms but as quoted below mine was a moral point of view about having common sense which as you say is likely to be highly unpopular. BUT is still morally the right thing to do to stop the kids suffering! everyone attacked me and called me ignorant so i had to fight my corner, thats life! this is a moral opinion, and as some have pointed out will probably never happen but it would be better for those who are suffering if it did phil ← Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_anderer Posted January 7, 2005 Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 i feel the parents of these children should think about the suffering they will cause to a child by bringing it into a world of starvation and almost certain death. this is my point, they should take responsibility, they should not be controlled or forced but think for themselves and make the right decision not to put a child through all that suffering if they cannot clothe or feed it Could you do that? Could I do that? Would the overwhelming death rate prevent me from trying to increase my family against all odds? I severely doubt it. Poverty is all they know, they were brought into the same world, and they see nothing wrong with it. WE cannot understand fully given the luxury we enjoy. They will have come from a family where many of their siblings did not make it to adulthood, and will have accepted that many of their own children may not make it. It is different to our life, but can you not just be happy that you can live in such assurance of life? Yes, 50% of their offspring may not survive into adulthood, but 50% may survive to produce their own children in years to come. Hope springs eternal in the human breast (forget who said that but it is pretty applicable here.)This hope gives humans such amazing natural resiliance to hardship. And furthermore, this hope is not easily quashed, especially in those that have been raised on such stony ground. If past people in this country had not has such hope in a better future, you would not sit comfortable in your warm house now. BUT is still morally the right thing to do to stop the kids suffering! So none of us should have children on that basis. A child is going to grow into an adult, and at some point in that they will undoubtedly die, and before that inevitable death they will know the equally inevitable suffering. Therefore it is wrong to bring anyone into this world. Joel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONGO Posted January 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2005 just because most people don't think the same way dosen't mean he is wrong. Most people use to think the world was flat Most people believe in god etc. Most people think walking unser a ladder is bad luck. Most people haven't got a clue. ← but that one is true :P i walked under one yesterday, then last night my exaust fell clean off down the road.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.