By that sense, you are against abortion or adoption.
But since what you said is obviously stupid due to the fact that sex is mainly used for pleasure, not reproduction, all I can do is laugh at your "duh", since it is added on, as if your point was at all correct.
Child support is for kids, but most of the time the female spends the money on herself aswell. Like "you" said, "People shouldn't have to pay for othe peoples kids". And now you're syaing child support is for kids, as if it's not a bad thing for everyone but the mother and child.
Sorry, Wigsplitz, you're not a man, you have no idea on what a real man is, so don't try to pretend you do.
"Any real man would want to take care of the kid they never wanted". No, that's saying that a "real man" ahas tobend to the needs of the mother simply because the law allows it, even though he never wanted the child. That's what a "real man" is to you? Just demonstrates that you have no idea what a real man is.
I would supprt the child "If I intentionally impregnated the woman". By that logic, you deem all females that either adoptor abort their child as weak, and not real women. You're supposed to be on the female side, not unintentionally implying insults about them.
What I love is that now, since you know you can't prove any ofmy points wrong, you're filling your comments with insults more than actual points to say you're right. What's wrong? No good points to fall back on, so you have to fall back on insults?
Keep this coming, Wigsplitz, I can do this forever, and the outcome will be the same; me winning the debate.
Last night I wasextremely tired, and yet I was completely dominating the debate. Do you really think you'll get far with me when I'm fully awake? I litrally just woke up this second, eagr to see your reply, and in my wakened dazed state, I still accuratly prove you wrong.
Again, you THINK you're winning. The laws and common sense say otherwise. When this becomes law, then I'll concede that you won. So, that will be, um, never?
Why is it always win/lose? It IS possible to discuss things in a rational manner, you know. You have to look at all points of view. In order to defeat your enemy, you have to understand them, no? So how can you do that if all you do is rub people the wrong way and refuse to listen to the concerns of others?
Let's just say you got into a position to present your idea s an actual bill people could vote on. How do you expect to get the bill passed by the way you're acting and the way you talk to people? It's absurd. Calm down.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Shouldn't have sex in the first place if you don't want to support a kid. DUH. Problem completely solved.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
By that sense, you are against abortion or adoption.
But since what you said is obviously stupid due to the fact that sex is mainly used for pleasure, not reproduction, all I can do is laugh at your "duh", since it is added on, as if your point was at all correct.
Child support is for kids, but most of the time the female spends the money on herself aswell. Like "you" said, "People shouldn't have to pay for othe peoples kids". And now you're syaing child support is for kids, as if it's not a bad thing for everyone but the mother and child.
Sorry, Wigsplitz, you're not a man, you have no idea on what a real man is, so don't try to pretend you do.
"Any real man would want to take care of the kid they never wanted". No, that's saying that a "real man" ahas tobend to the needs of the mother simply because the law allows it, even though he never wanted the child. That's what a "real man" is to you? Just demonstrates that you have no idea what a real man is.
I would supprt the child "If I intentionally impregnated the woman". By that logic, you deem all females that either adoptor abort their child as weak, and not real women. You're supposed to be on the female side, not unintentionally implying insults about them.
What I love is that now, since you know you can't prove any ofmy points wrong, you're filling your comments with insults more than actual points to say you're right. What's wrong? No good points to fall back on, so you have to fall back on insults?
Keep this coming, Wigsplitz, I can do this forever, and the outcome will be the same; me winning the debate.
Last night I wasextremely tired, and yet I was completely dominating the debate. Do you really think you'll get far with me when I'm fully awake? I litrally just woke up this second, eagr to see your reply, and in my wakened dazed state, I still accuratly prove you wrong.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again, you THINK you're winning. The laws and common sense say otherwise. When this becomes law, then I'll concede that you won. So, that will be, um, never?
Why is it always win/lose? It IS possible to discuss things in a rational manner, you know. You have to look at all points of view. In order to defeat your enemy, you have to understand them, no? So how can you do that if all you do is rub people the wrong way and refuse to listen to the concerns of others?
Let's just say you got into a position to present your idea s an actual bill people could vote on. How do you expect to get the bill passed by the way you're acting and the way you talk to people? It's absurd. Calm down.