First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
If you could change one thing in the world, who would you change?
1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

aeminence wrote:


daverrd wrote:



Lolikon wrote:

Allowing people to have more than 2 children. It just shouldn't happen.


Why can't people have more than 2 children?





Uh, im kinda out of it right now. But isnt it because of the over population in some countries, I think China, that the law doesent allow more than one kid.




I think it is injustice for the government to control how much children you can have.

If you can support a certain number of children then you deserve to have that much.
1049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / home is where the...
Offline
Posted 12/31/08 , edited 12/31/08

AHTL wrote:


HappilyEverAfter wrote:


AHTL wrote:

No drugs = nothing to lower the pain you feel



Just because people abuse drugs, doesn't mean drugs are bad.


you're an idiot. they are bad.

anyways, the elimation of drugs would force people to face life, and find other means for "entertainment".

I would eliminate apathy.


1. I'm drunk
2. I'll make more sense than you
3. Drugs are not bad, the abuse of drugs are bad.
4. So when you are giving birth, I guess you don't want to have anything to make it less PAINFUL
5. Drugs have to purposes;
a. Make things easier by lowering the pain
b. Abuse it, by abusing it you are fucking up your body and getting joy/great feelings that will not last for a long time - and in the end, make you feel worse
6. I am making more sense than you, and backing up my arguments better than you. Because all you said, was that I was an idiot.
7. Just because a lot of people abuse drugs, and don't use them for the purpose they were intended for (medically speaking), doesn't make them bad. People decide to abuse them, the people that abuse them are bad. Not the drugs. Saying that drugs are bad, is the same as saying that guns are bad. Guns can protect you against a wild animal, or a person that is a) evil b) completely irrational c) both d) insane e) combination of previously mentioned possibility
8. If you're going to call me an idiot, at least show why I am an idiot, instead of writing something that is completely subjective and not correct. Saying that an object is wrong, is like saying that a sword is an murderer. Which it can't be, since it's not in control of its actions.


Prove me wrong.

P.S. I am drunk, yet try hard to write correct. Thanks to my dictionary add0ns I can quickly fix my errors, and still make more sense than you. My logic is not as flawed as yours. Think again before posting.



Ok, drugs meaning illegal drugs.
not medical drugs.
LOL.
And drugs are illegal...why?? Why would they make something illegal if its not bad? I did drugs, but I knew they were bad. To say they arent bad is idiotic. Like eating fattening food, its bad but you do it anyways.
Just proved you wrong.
And its pointless for me to argue with a druggie drunk.... >.>
411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42
Offline
Posted 12/31/08
All the Corrupt people
Ghost Moderator
AHTL 
87563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / Norway
Online
Posted 12/31/08

HappilyEverAfter wrote:
Ok, drugs meaning illegal drugs.
not medical drugs.
LOL.
And drugs are illegal...why?? Why would they make something illegal if its not bad? I did drugs, but I knew they were bad. To say they arent bad is idiotic. Like eating fattening food, its bad but you do it anyways.
Just proved you wrong.
And its pointless for me to argue with a druggie drunk.... >.>


Drugs are drugs, drugs real purpose is to lessen pain. Just because people decide to abuse its real purpose, does not make it bad. It makes the abusers bad and/or foolish.

Trying to defend yourself by saying that you meant "everything but medical drugs" are just silly, because you're just saying that now to defend your argument, which was flawed from the very beginning.

Drugs are illegal for the common people because it's too easy to abuse it. Fattening food is not bad, eating too much of it can be bad for your health, but the food itself it not bad. Why? Because it is an object, not a subject. It have no will on it's own. It does not force you to eat it. Therefore it can't be bad.


It's not pointless to argue with a "druggie" drunk, why?

1. I'm not a druggie
2. I still make more sense than you

P.S. I accidental clicked on cancel, so I had to re-write this.
2292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In a dumpster
Offline
Posted 12/31/08

daverrd wrote:


aeminence wrote:


daverrd wrote:



Lolikon wrote:

Allowing people to have more than 2 children. It just shouldn't happen.


Why can't people have more than 2 children?





Uh, im kinda out of it right now. But isnt it because of the over population in some countries, I think China, that the law doesent allow more than one kid.




I think it is injustice for the government to control how much children you can have.

If you can support a certain number of children then you deserve to have that much.


Ahaha and will you still be calling it injustice when our natural resources disappear for good?
Just because a family can support them doesn't mean it will be good in the long run. Lets say a couple has 4 children, each of those children need food and water and when they grow older each one of them is given the option to own a car. And those children will grow up to be consumers causing companies to create more factories in order to keep the supply going. Don't forget each of these children will be buying products that contain disposable packaging, which means more items staying in a landfill forever.

I'm not against having a family, but with well over a billion people on this Earth I think we can all limit the size of our families. I mean you do want your children to grow up in a thriving world and not a dead planet right?
Posted 12/31/08

kyoukoujin wrote:

Weird.

The title of the thread says, "If you could change one thing in the world, who would you change?"

It's asking for "who."




1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

Lolikon wrote:

Ahaha and will you still be calling it injustice when our natural resources disappear for good?
Just because a family can support them doesn't mean it will be good in the long run. Lets say a couple has 4 children, each of those children need food and water and when they grow older each one of them is given the option to own a car. And those children will grow up to be consumers causing companies to create more factories in order to keep the supply going. Don't forget each of these children will be buying products that contain disposable packaging, which means more items staying in a landfill forever.

I'm not against having a family, but with well over a billion people on this Earth I think we can all limit the size of our families. I mean you do want your children to grow up in a thriving world and not a dead planet right?


The resources disapearing is nothin to do with justice. As population grows. Prices will most likely rise. and the people who can afford it can get it. Like I said b4, if your not capable of supporting your family then dont have children. : ).
2292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In a dumpster
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:

Ahaha and will you still be calling it injustice when our natural resources disappear for good?
Just because a family can support them doesn't mean it will be good in the long run. Lets say a couple has 4 children, each of those children need food and water and when they grow older each one of them is given the option to own a car. And those children will grow up to be consumers causing companies to create more factories in order to keep the supply going. Don't forget each of these children will be buying products that contain disposable packaging, which means more items staying in a landfill forever.

I'm not against having a family, but with well over a billion people on this Earth I think we can all limit the size of our families. I mean you do want your children to grow up in a thriving world and not a dead planet right?


The resources disapearing is nothin to do with justice. As population grows. Prices will most likely rise. and the people who can afford it can get it. Like I said b4, if your not capable of supporting your family then dont have children. : ).


You still didn't address pollution, another way resources will disappear. And as of right now prices are dropping thanks to the economy. People will have no choice but to purchase food and water and will use wood made products daily. At this point people cannot live without those luxuries and will not stop using them.
1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

Lolikon wrote:


daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:

Ahaha and will you still be calling it injustice when our natural resources disappear for good?
Just because a family can support them doesn't mean it will be good in the long run. Lets say a couple has 4 children, each of those children need food and water and when they grow older each one of them is given the option to own a car. And those children will grow up to be consumers causing companies to create more factories in order to keep the supply going. Don't forget each of these children will be buying products that contain disposable packaging, which means more items staying in a landfill forever.

I'm not against having a family, but with well over a billion people on this Earth I think we can all limit the size of our families. I mean you do want your children to grow up in a thriving world and not a dead planet right?


The resources disapearing is nothin to do with justice. As population grows. Prices will most likely rise. and the people who can afford it can get it. Like I said b4, if your not capable of supporting your family then dont have children. : ).


You still didn't address pollution, another way resources will disappear. And as of right now prices are dropping thanks to the economy. People will have no choice but to purchase food and water and will use wood made products daily. At this point people cannot live without those luxuries and will not stop using them.


Hahah nice, but more population means more knowledge. More knowledge means better technology.
I'm sure pollution wont be a problem sometime soon.
2292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In a dumpster
Offline
Posted 1/1/09 , edited 1/1/09

daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:


daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:

Ahaha and will you still be calling it injustice when our natural resources disappear for good?
Just because a family can support them doesn't mean it will be good in the long run. Lets say a couple has 4 children, each of those children need food and water and when they grow older each one of them is given the option to own a car. And those children will grow up to be consumers causing companies to create more factories in order to keep the supply going. Don't forget each of these children will be buying products that contain disposable packaging, which means more items staying in a landfill forever.

I'm not against having a family, but with well over a billion people on this Earth I think we can all limit the size of our families. I mean you do want your children to grow up in a thriving world and not a dead planet right?


The resources disapearing is nothin to do with justice. As population grows. Prices will most likely rise. and the people who can afford it can get it. Like I said b4, if your not capable of supporting your family then dont have children. : ).


You still didn't address pollution, another way resources will disappear. And as of right now prices are dropping thanks to the economy. People will have no choice but to purchase food and water and will use wood made products daily. At this point people cannot live without those luxuries and will not stop using them.


Hahah nice, but more population means more knowledge. More knowledge means better technology.
I'm sure pollution wont be a problem sometime soon.


It's a better chance for the world to have great leaders and thinkers, but those can also be achieved with motivation and hard work, something any person can do. Plus even if we do gain more knowledge what good is it if we can no longer sustain life on this planet? And where is your evidence that pollution will lessen sometime soon?
1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

Lolikon wrote:

It's a better chance for the world to have great leaders and thinkers, but those can also be achieved with motivation and hard work, something any person can do. Plus even if we do gain more knowledge what good is it if we can no longer sustain life on this planet? And where is your evidence that pollution will lessen sometime soon?


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/china-leads-wea.html

Theres a start for us.
2292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In a dumpster
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:

It's a better chance for the world to have great leaders and thinkers, but those can also be achieved with motivation and hard work, something any person can do. Plus even if we do gain more knowledge what good is it if we can no longer sustain life on this planet? And where is your evidence that pollution will lessen sometime soon?


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/china-leads-wea.html

Theres a start for us.


Well that is a good start, let's hope there are no downsides to it (You know like when everyone thought lead paint was safe). I don't mean to seem like such a downer but you can't ignore the current state of the world. Now we are in the early stages of being able to control the weather, but there's still the matters of air, light, and water pollution as well as increased land development. Oh well we can go around in circles forever. I don't intend to change my views and I don't think you do either. It was a fun little discussion though. (:
1618 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

Lolikon wrote:

Well that is a good start, let's hope there are no downsides to it (You know like when everyone thought lead paint was safe). I don't mean to seem like such a downer but you can't ignore the current state of the world. Now we are in the early stages of being able to control the weather, but there's still the matters of air, light, and water pollution as well as increased land development. Oh well we can go around in circles forever. I don't intend to change my views and I don't think you do either. It was a fun little discussion though. (:


haha true .

But your saying you wouldnt mind if your government said you can only have 1 child?
2292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / In a dumpster
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

daverrd wrote:


Lolikon wrote:

Well that is a good start, let's hope there are no downsides to it (You know like when everyone thought lead paint was safe). I don't mean to seem like such a downer but you can't ignore the current state of the world. Now we are in the early stages of being able to control the weather, but there's still the matters of air, light, and water pollution as well as increased land development. Oh well we can go around in circles forever. I don't intend to change my views and I don't think you do either. It was a fun little discussion though. (:


haha true .

But your saying you wouldnt mind if your government said you can only have 1 child?


2, so then we can still have brothers and sisters. (:
Posted 1/1/09
world wars.. forgotten an never did happen
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.