Faith in Humanity drops another notch.Follow

Actually, we're having a philosophical discussion on the nature of man and his iherant goodness or evilness. You, on the other hand, are likey 15 and should really be paying more attention in English class.

Or maybe he realized what a total ***** she was. Maybe he learned that she is not the kind of person who should be raising kids, especially his kids. He can't take away her right to raise kids but he has a right to decide who raises his. He might very well be an ******* but like Nobby pointed out she sounds like a total cnut.

She knew each step had to have consent from both parties. She knew what she was getting into. She made the decision and now has to live with the consequences. Sucks for her yeah but such is life. Just because some freak of nature accident happened doesn't increase her rights over somebody else's.

The nature of man is to spread his seed as much as possible in a vain attempt to grasp immortality, because of his own fear of death and the uncertainty of what lies beyond. Therefore this man is going against nature, being overridden by emotions particularly hate.

I'm just pharming, I don't really care one way or the other.

Ok, let me rephrase:

I don't start threads that are interesting.

Of course we're not excited about it "anymore". At this point in society man is held responsible. If you had no responsibility you wouldn't care. A person goes to work to amass wealth, If wealth is amassed by say winning the lottery they stop going to work. This is directly proportionate to this situation. If society didn't hold man responsible or if the responsibilities were very slight it would not be an issue.

My God, but teenaged "philosophy" is annoying. Listen, you obviously don't know what the f'uck you're talking about, so why continue?

Ok, before the thread gets hijacked again, I'll try and rephrase my point in the form of a question to answer, so there's (hopefully) less confusion on who stands where.





Ok, I think we can all agree that his rights are indeed protected by the law in this issue, and therefore any further comments to the validity of them (or your incessant attempts to try and incorrectly say that I'm advocating the violation of his rights *looks at MentalFrog* ) are moot at this point. Yes?

So, keeping that in mind, he had a choice (and you can correct me if you want):

To think of what would happen to him and his situation, and take steps in his own best interests.

Or

Feel partially responsible (or pity) for her plight, and through altruism/selflessness/whatever allow the baby to be created, and do his best to keep his involvement minimal.


Right?



So, if that was his basic choice here, what would you have done in his position? And what are you basing your opinion on? Personal scruples, upbringing, ethics, (or in chëster's case, continuation of his perversions :) )...?



I think it's obvious on what I would have done, so I won't bore you to tears with it.

Duh.

And I could say the sky is lime green...

No, they're not. And who needs to poke holes in your points when you present them the way you do?

I'm smarter than you. So what?

You're new here, aren't you?

Yes im new here.

Last I checked a smart person has better arguments than It's not worth my time.

I am going to express my opinions whether you like it or not, And though it's apparent my respect means little to anyone, I'll let it be known I have alot of it for people opposed to me as long as they can debate in a more mature manner.

We couldn't tell.

It's not you should leave now I think the recess bell rang.


Using ne1 at any time voids any maturity in your debate. jOO los3!!!!111onelven

Seriously who's sock is this.

I refuse to believe that yet a third person (Proroc and Jroc Lyroc) with a 'roc' in their name has used the exact same **** poor argument style.

Cory what kind of sissy name is cory?


f'ucking tugger