I'm not saying all homosexy couples abuse their adopted children, but here's one more pair of dudes busted for filming porn with their adopted children

submitted by iamonlyoneman from nypost.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Evola 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

I'll say it then. The fact that same sex couples even have children is inherently damaging to children's development, they deprive the children growing up with and around the other sex.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree but you have to consider the alternative as well. It would be best if there was a rating system that took all the variables into consideration and adopted to the best fit, but I doubt any such system would have the integrity to score gay couples lower.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

We're dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. The more complicated you make a system the harder it is to enforce justly. That is why unflinching cruelty has to be dealt out at times because violence is the most simple order one can make to establish order to put it simply.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What?

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All regulations are at some point are enforced by violence. How new to this are you?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How exactly do you need violence to enforce a rating system? If they don't comply they don't get the kid. If they try to kidnap a kid that is an entirely different problem.

And enforcement does not require cruelty.

You are all over the board and not making any sense.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah alright, that new to the job then. It's good that you're asking questions.

I'm mostly just agreeing with how libraratarians frame police officers and taxation to eventually be controlled by the violence of others to be enforced and applying it to any social constraint, it's a very drawn out and autistic argument if you want me to go through it but it's basically a way to balance out social good and inconvenience of others.

The state has to be more violent than criminals to maintain order, it's just common sense so to use a subjective word like cruelty is inappropriate to the argument I'm making (yes I know I used it).

While we're onto the idea of social inconvenience given the relative rarity of gay adoption I think an outright ban is better for the whole social system. The social welfare network is strained already and to create your system would take social workers that could be finding children homes instead running and maintaining a niche network of potential potent parents with a known risk level, to begin with.

At this point, you're on the level of trans activists arguing for a minuscule percentage of a percentage. Sometimes it's okay for people to be left by the wayside to protect the integrity of the majority and in that the future.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

This "fact" is in fact a "wrong opinion".

There's a stack of papers on this, and the evidence shows that there's no damage and a possible small benefit to the development of children brought up by same sex couples.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Modern science is fake and gay.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Science is how we come by facts.

So every claim of "fact" that also claims "Modern Science is fake" is fake.

Normal people don't see "gay" as some kind of negative thing. Only "love thy neighbour" people find it in themselves to hate someone for something that's not hurting anyone. Christianity and Islam are evils the world would do better without.

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I said modern science as the new religious culture sponsored by the state to doctor results.

Facts are not compatible with the process of science because that is admitting that there is nothing new to research about the subject.

The scientific process demands that all previous thoughts be rejected and all previous bias be rejected in favour of new data and thoughts. It's not a way of thinking that's compatible with the way most people think as they usually just accept the first thing they've been told and can't just drop all there previous notions like a true scientist operates.

You are commenting the sin of pride to assume that a scientifically proven fact is the truth because the process of science demands constant retesting and a constant pessimism that's incompatible with the culture you want.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You can have your flat earth, with CO2 not being a greenhouse gas, or not emitted by industrial processes that emit CO2. Whatever you reckon you're claiming.

Go nuts. (Charitably assuming that's not what you did first to get those opinions).

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Now you're just strawmaning. Any idiot with a lazer pen can prove the earth is round. Just because it was proven hundreds of years ago doesn't mean you can't prove it today.

I'm talking about social stuff with regards to the effects that the government sponsored institutions for the guidence for say charitably 75% of people. The easier and more consistent you make guidence the better it is followed that being the reason why religious institutions are important.

Science by design always is in some sort of flux so to get the people to live in accordance with science it also requires them to keep changing the way they live.

This is in theory a good idea but every change undermines the institutions that run them in the eyes of the common people. A change in policy is almost an admission of being wrong and that's seen as a weakness.

So the state doesn't want social research like phenomenology dealing with facial features coming back because it will make the people more aware of multiculturalism and to potentially root out the sociopaths in charge. Not throwing stuff that's called fake science is the key to understanding. In the process of science the claim should be judged with the technology of today not 100 years ago.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Now you're just strawmaning. Any idiot with a lazer pen can prove the earth is round.

Plenty of idiots don't even believe that. And they use the argument you just invoked. "Modern science is fake and gay."

Out of curiosity, how do you prove it with a laser pen?

[–]Evola 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Two hills and some cardboard. There's a bit of faff work but even from a mile away the light is off by a few mil at the same altitude pointing in a straight line.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How do you set up the pen so that it is exactly level to a few mill over a mile?