I'm used to getting shit about it, though yes, lawl.jord wrote:
No I was talking about a rl kid. Nice of you to assume I was talking about you though, lawl.Acerider wrote:
Oh. Sorry. Does he try to be unnannoying?jord wrote:
I'm not overeacting at all. The kid is annoying as hell and I hence labelled him as annoying...
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Aand does this kid happen to be someone posting in this thread?
Depends... If he's already been to rehab 3 or 4 times, yes.EVieira wrote:
Fine, but would you offer him money to do so? Or provide the needles and drugs?Turquoise wrote:
I also support euthanasia. If he wants to overdose and die... that's on him, not me.EVieira wrote:
Its practical, no doubt about that. But in reality, when you offer a heroin addict money for a sterilization you're just giving him one more fix in exchange for him being neutered. THAT'S what makes it immoral.
I believe in a certain amount of compassion. I also believe in putting someone out of their misery.Acerider wrote:
You still should try to help someone from destroying themselves. If they don't listen and continue to destroy themselves,keep trying to help themuntil you succeed or until they destroy themselves.Turquoise wrote:
I also support euthanasia. If he wants to overdose and die... that's on him, not me.EVieira wrote:
Its practical, no doubt about that. But in reality, when you offer a heroin addict money for a sterilization you're just giving him one more fix in exchange for him being neutered. THAT'S what makes it immoral.
I also believe in putting caps on spending taxpayer's money.Turquoise wrote:
I believe in a certain amount of compassion. I also believe in putting someone out of their misery.Acerider wrote:
You still should try to help someone from destroying themselves. If they don't listen and continue to destroy themselves,keep trying to help themuntil you succeed or until they destroy themselves.Turquoise wrote:
I also support euthanasia. If he wants to overdose and die... that's on him, not me.
Uzique wrote:
fm just be quiet and stay quiet
That's a contradiction if ever I saw one. We should pay heroin addicts to not have children but we shouldn't reward "bad" behavior?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Good, even if later they regret it.. Which they will once a lawyer whispers in their ear. They can collect up the children that they've already had. We shouldn't be rewarding bad behavior.
That too.Trotskygrad wrote:
I also believe in putting caps on spending taxpayer's money.Turquoise wrote:
I believe in a certain amount of compassion. I also believe in putting someone out of their misery.Acerider wrote:
You still should try to help someone from destroying themselves. If they don't listen and continue to destroy themselves,keep trying to help themuntil you succeed or until they destroy themselves.
Fair point, but I think the idea is that paying an addict to not have kids is a greater good for society than the initial negative of the payout.jord wrote:
That's a contradiction if ever I saw one. We should pay heroin addicts to not have children but we shouldn't reward "bad" behavior?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Good, even if later they regret it.. Which they will once a lawyer whispers in their ear. They can collect up the children that they've already had. We shouldn't be rewarding bad behavior.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-19 10:53:03)
It depends on a case by case basis. Paying an addict... Those 3 words just don't sound right, meh.Turquoise wrote:
Fair point, but I think the idea is that paying an addict to not have kids is a greater good for society than the initial negative of the payout.jord wrote:
That's a contradiction if ever I saw one. We should pay heroin addicts to not have children but we shouldn't reward "bad" behavior?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Good, even if later they regret it.. Which they will once a lawyer whispers in their ear. They can collect up the children that they've already had. We shouldn't be rewarding bad behavior.
Nothing, obviously some people can't do things like others so they need to do it differently.JohnG@lt wrote:
What's wrong with simply wearing a condom or using birth control?Turquoise wrote:
What's the problem with a voluntary sterilization program? No one is being forced to be sterilized.JohnG@lt wrote:
And Eugenics needs to go back on the historical trash heap.
Yes addicts need money too. I say we don't just do it for addicts, I say anyone who wants to get sterilised the government should open this program up to. That way it's not considered "racist" or anything, this is why people get into these troubles.jord wrote:
It depends on a case by case basis. Paying an addict... Those 3 words just don't sound right, meh.Turquoise wrote:
Fair point, but I think the idea is that paying an addict to not have kids is a greater good for society than the initial negative of the payout.jord wrote:
That's a contradiction if ever I saw one. We should pay heroin addicts to not have children but we shouldn't reward "bad" behavior?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-10-19 11:48:58)
Doesn't the vasectomy procedure come under obamacare?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yes addicts need money too. I say we don't just do it for addicts, I say anyone who wants to get sterilised the government should open this program up to. That way it's not considered "racist" or anything, this is why people get into these troubles.jord wrote:
It depends on a case by case basis. Paying an addict... Those 3 words just don't sound right, meh.Turquoise wrote:
Fair point, but I think the idea is that paying an addict to not have kids is a greater good for society than the initial negative of the payout.