Should Dwarves(Dwarfs?) be allowed to have children?

[Lightbringer]

you lack even a basic education to discuss with me. You don't even know what a strawman is as I can clearly prove in the bernie sanders ftt thread

See, that right there is delusions of grandeur. No matter how wrong you are and no matter how many people tell you that you are an idiot, you simply cannot accept the reality.

You're like the splitting image of Eric Cartman from South Park.

 

[Claymantan]

If you phrase the argument a certain way you don't get people's true intentions.


See when I phrase the argument that changing the definition of marriage may allow incest to become a real thing, the gay marriage supporters almost unanimously said "their babies can have defects, it's different". All of a sudden their views on the dangers of defects have changed because it's about dwarfs not incest. I'm proving that they're hypocrites when it comes to societal norms they support. They discriminate against the incesters while supporting the gays. I support neither.

Actually, your argument is just a non argument. "This policy should not be enacted because the people who want to enact it are hypocritical."

So hypocrisy (of random citizens even, not even necessarily the law itself) makes for bad law now? Nah. Who cares. Like I said, the possibility of a law being challenged does not mean that law should not be passed.

Besides, framing an argument in order to lead your opponents into making a potentially hypocritical argument (half, if not most of the people in this thread didn't even fall for the trap), just shows that you're very insecure about your argument to begin with. Like I said, if you were legit, you would have made a thread titled "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal" with a list of arguments, one of them being about things like dwarfism. But in order to avoid having to make a good argument, you tried to rely on this deceptive strategy, which was only marginally effective in accomplishing what you wanted it to. Three or more people plainly said they didn't care about incest, some people didn't take a stance, etc.

Congratulations, you illuminated the possibility of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it doesn't invalidate the passage of equal rights to gay people.

Classic slim thread

 

[slimreaper]

See, that right there is delusions of grandeur. No matter how wrong you are and no matter how many people tell you that you are an idiot, you simply cannot accept the reality.

You're like the splitting image of Eric Cartman from South Park.

Make a better argument. Your argument always falls back to other people's thoughts as if that's some form of validation.

you for real don't know what a strawman is though.

Actually, your argument is just a non argument. "This policy should not be enacted because the people who want to enact it are hypocritical."

So hypocrisy makes for bad law now? Nah. Who cares.

Besides, framing an argument in order to lead your opponents into making a potentially hypocritical argument (half, if not most of the people in this thread didn't even fall for the trap), just shows that you're very insecure about your argument to begin with. Like I said, if you were legit, you would have made a thread titled "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal" with a list of arguments, one of them being about things like dwarfism. But in order to avoid having to make a good argument, you tried to rely on this deceptive strategy, which was only marginally effective in accomplishing what you wanted it to. Three or more people plainly said they didn't care about incest, some people didn't take a stance, etc.

Congratulations, you illuminated the possibility of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it doesn't invalidate the passage of equal rights to gay people.

Classic slim thread

I never mentioned gay marriage legislation based on this, I just don't support the changing of definition of marriage the way they did. they could have taken literally 5 minutes more and come up with a better wording.

I guess all blind studies are deceptive then.

 

[Claymantan]

I never mentioned gay marriage legislation based on this, I just don't support the changing of definition of marriage the way they did. they could have taken literally 5 minutes more and come up with a better wording.

I guess all blind studies are deceptive then.

Maybe they could have.

Yep, all blind studies are deceptive. What you wanted to sarcastically express was "I guess all blind studies are invalid then," which I am not saying. Blind studies are valid in proving what they prove; i.e.; a blind study conducted to see if people will press a button that tortures somebody simply because they're ordered to, proves (or well, provides supporting evidence) that people will likely give into direct authority over morality.

Your blind study was invalid for proving...anything...? You brought up the incest stuff yourself, and then people said that they didn't really care about incest.

 

[Lightbringer]

Make a better argument. Your argument always falls back to other people's thoughts as if that's some form of validation.

you for real don't know what a strawman is though.

Uh yeah, cause the opinion is rather unanimous in this case. You're a moron.

Also you do make straw-man arguments. That's all you ever do. You literally go off tangent on every single issue. So I don't even understand what you're talking about.

 

[slimreaper]

Maybe they could have.

Yep, all blind studies are deceptive. What you wanted to sarcastically express was "I guess all blind studies are invalid then," which I am not saying. Blind studies are valid in proving what they prove; i.e.; a blind study conducted to see if people will press a button that tortures somebody simply because they're ordered to, proves (or well, provides supporting evidence) that people will likely give into direct authority over morality.

Your blind study was invalid for proving...anything...? You brought up the incest stuff yourself, and then people said that they didn't really care about incest.

I said this would happen a few posts ago. You don't remember the gay marriage threads where incest was condemned for the same reason dwarfs are being supported. I was wanting incest to be supported in this thread for hypocrisy to be achieved.

 

[Claymantan]

I said this would happen a few posts ago. You don't remember the gay marriage threads where incest was condemned for the same reason dwarfs are being supported. I was wanting incest to be supported in this thread for hypocrisy to be achieved.

Was it the same people? How do you show that hypocrisy was achieved if you don't show that people were actually being hypocrites? Slim, what is this thread? XD

 

[slimreaper]

Was it the same people? How do you show that hypocrisy was achieved if you don't show that people were actually being hypocrites? Slim, what is this thread? XD

it was just for me. It's not like I was saving and publishing findings though.

 

[Claymantan]

it was just for me.

I know:

Besides, framing an argument in order to lead your opponents into making a potentially hypocritical argument (half, if not most of the people in this thread didn't even fall for the trap), just shows that you're very insecure about your argument to begin with.

 

[Lightbringer]

If you phrase the argument a certain way you don't get people's true intentions.


See when I phrase the argument that changing the definition of marriage may allow incest to become a real thing, the gay marriage supporters almost unanimously said "their babies can have defects, it's different". All of a sudden their views on the dangers of defects have changed because it's about dwarfs not incest. I'm proving that they're hypocrites when it comes to societal norms they support. They discriminate against the incesters while supporting the gays. I support neither.

So if you had a dwarf or gay child, you wouldn't support them?

 

[slimreaper]

So if you had a dwarf or gay child, you wouldn't support them?

dwarf sure. I'd judge the hell out of the gay kid though

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

Genetics? Can't be sure. And why compare Incest? That's fallacious to the core since dwarves are completely different from that....

 

[Pukkake Pokayo]

I love this accusation.


You ****s can't even have a discussion about the topic without assuming that because I've noticed hypocrisy in the gay marriage argument that I want to bang a relative. Childish

If this is what you wanted to talk about, just go ahead and make that thread instead.

EDIT: What the hell did I just tell slim to do

Put a quarter in your ass cuz you just played yourself XD

 

[Lightbringer]

dwarf sure. I'd judge the hell out of the gay kid though

Wow, this is a better reason to not be able to reproduce than your entire thread.

You're an awful person. I hope you one day realize this.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

are you suggesting we should "unban" incest? :lol

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Incest is primarily banned because it's unethical and not morally right to have sexual affairs with very close relatives not because there may be a chance that the baby might come out deformed.. This has nothing to do with said dwarves so yes.

 

[slimreaper]

Incest is primarily banned because it's unethical and not morally right to have sexual affairs with very close relatives not because there may be a chance that the baby might come out deformed.. This has nothing to do with said dwarves so yes.

I believe homosexuality to be unethical and not morally right.

Wow, this is a better reason to not be able to reproduce than your entire thread.

You're an awful person. I hope you one day realize this.

you'll get over it

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

I believe homosexuality to be unethical and not morally right.


you'll get over it

What? How is homosexuality unethical?

 

[slimreaper]

What? How is homosexuality unethical?

How is incest unethical? Ethics is subjective. I think it's obvious that two male genitalia don't work together, and two female genitalia don't work together. It's obviously wrong.

Are far as ethics goes both are detestable, but by supporting one and not the other you're a hypocrite

 

[paratise]

People are not allowed to have romantic/sexual affairs in certain workplaces aswell. Incest is really prone to abuse, violence and deception due to power dynamics and family structures our families have.

Here is a good article about incest and why it is not like homosexuality:

You must be registered for see links

The point is, we (regarding to thread) the "pro-gay libtards" do not put links between homosexuality and incest. The homophobes do that because to them there are 2 way of relationships: traditional heterosexuality and pretty much anything else. So yeap, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, beastality, polyamory are in the same bundle and if you pick one, the rest is tangled; if you try to pick one or two you are a hypocrite.

What is disregarded here is we did not put all these in same bundle, homophobes did to any relationship other than traditional heterosexuality. So why should we be judged by classic homophobic rhetorics and measuring sticks when what they essentially say is "oh if you want oranges instead of apples you gotta like all the fruit; or else you are a hypocrite."

No need to waste time with this.