Taboo Topics (Heavily moderated)

swordplaymaster · Post by **swordplaymaster** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:58 pm

Religion: Fine as long as it doesn't get into the "Hang-and-Quarter" area that the Puritans did. Or was it the Angelivists? Some church in the James I-Charles I era.

Torizo · Post by **Torizo** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:01 pm

swordplaymaster wrote:Religion: Fine as long as it doesn't get into the "Hang-and-Quarter" area that the Puritans did. Or was it the Angelivists? Some church in the James I-Charles I era.

HELLOOOOOOOO SALEM!

I think at some point most denominations of Christianity have gone on a hanging spree. Of course other religions have too, but I think Christianity flaunts it more than the others.

Plasma · Post by **Plasma** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:03 pm

Adoption isn't quite as one-sided as you might expect, actually. For a start, the biggest problem is that the child gets very unsettled for quite a long time because of not truly having a permanent home.

Of course, 'because it should be a responsibility' is a ridiculous point, same for 'they could be raised in an abusive family'. So is calling it 'legalised lies', which is why I hate the first site straight-off.

Jonathonn · Post by **Jonathonn** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:17 pm

Torizo wrote:
Crawfish wrote:How the fuck can someone be anti-adoption? Holy what, it's like being anti-happiness.
Those exist too. Emo kids.

Okay, I'm gonna get bitched for this, but I have to correct it. T-T
Emo is a genre of music, Emotive Hardcore, branching from punk. All these whiney cutting suicidal idiots are not emo, just little bitchey rich kids who either really love attention, or for some reason want to be opressed.

And on the anti-abortion:
That's fucked up. Sure, some kids get bad homes, some get GREAT homes. But getting rid of adoption would BOOST abortion rates, and I think I'd rather live with some shitty ghetto parents or move often then never live.

Torizo · Post by **Torizo** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:19 pm

It began as a genre of music, then. Now it's a whole culture. Unfortunately.

swordplaymaster · Post by **swordplaymaster** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:22 pm

Jonathonn wrote: But getting rid of adoption would BOOST abortion rates, and I think I'd rather live with some shitty ghetto parents or move often then never live.

But you wouldn't care that you wouldn't be alive because you wouldn't be alive.

Jonathonn · Post by **Jonathonn** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:27 pm

Torizo wrote:It began as a genre of music, then. Now it's a whole culture. Unfortunately.

Eh, original emo subculture was quite different then these new emo kids. Either way, it's getting annoying.
'specially with every other punk or goth who doesn;t look just right being called "emo". these people are taking over. O.O

Torizo · Post by **Torizo** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:33 pm

They're all the same thing to me. Thus, I do not care.

Miss Starseed · Post by **Miss Starseed** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:44 pm

Eh, I SORT OF just barely understand the anti-adoption thing. I had a teacher who wasn't necessarily anti-adoption, but she insisted children were ALWAYS better off with their original parents, and should only be taken to new familys (foster or adoption, or I guess even moving in with other family members?) if the circumstances are that extreme.

I don't really agree with that. Unless the parent(s) give up the child willing, the decision of whether or not the circumstances are too extreme falls in someone else's lap. I might have had to stay in an environment where I didn't get to eat, didn't get to sleep, didn't go to school, etc. etc. because it might have been decided the environment wasn't too extreme. And that would've sucked major balls.

Plasma · Post by **Plasma** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:23 pm

Miss StarSeed wrote:I might have had to stay in an environment where I didn't get to eat, didn't get to sleep, didn't go to school, etc. etc. because it might have been decided the environment wasn't too extreme.

What the hell is your definition of 'extreme'?! Why on earth would you think that starvation, sleep deprivation, lack of education, etc. etc. could count as a relatively stable life?!

Torizo · Post by **Torizo** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:28 pm

It's not their definition of extreme. StarSeed is saying that someone else might not think it is extreme enough, which unfortunately happens too often in this world. Which means many children live in these conditions until they either die or become terribly injured. THEN social services gets off their asses and pays attention.

Karilyn · Post by **Karilyn** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:35 pm

Eh, my parents adopted my sister.

She went from a mother who was addicted to crack cocaine, including while she was pregnant...

To my family, where she was raped at 6 months old by my brother.

GG

Torizo · Post by **Torizo** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:38 pm

Goddamn. Some people just can't win, can they?

Blubber · Post by **Blubber** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:56 am

Fat people.

I'm not just ordinary fat people, who're slightly overweight, but fat people, y'know, the kind that if they had children, in a few generations time their family would be aquatic? That kind.

It's just earlier, when I was out shopping and this morbidly obese man rolled past me, and actually went up to an assisstant and, in a horrible sweaty, exasperated voice, asked for a wheelchair!
He was perfectly capable of walking! But he got given the wheel chair, and as he rolled past me again (this time bodaciously), an old woman who was clearly having trouble breathing, never mind walking, just hobbled past the sales assisstant and got on with it. Not even hinting for a wheelchair.

But my feelings are conflicted. On one hand, the man was clearly in need of help, he could barely breath thanks to the weight of himself on his lungs, and he did actually look like he was going to faint.
But on the other hand, he made himself that way. I could be that fat, if I wanted to be. I could give up on leaving the house quite happily. But I choose exercise (minimilistically), so I can retain the ability to cut my own toenails. But that's where I sense a contradiction appearing in my thinking once again.

A majority of fat people became 'at a diasadvantage' through the results of their own choices, i.e eating a crapload of food. But there are also people that I would feel sorry for, even if their circumstancs were their own doing. For example - Zookeepers. Even though they chose to work in the tiger pit, I would most likely feel sorry for them if they lost an arm.

And then there's the old lady. She did nothing to end up the way she had, weak and frail, except from having the good fortune to, well, not die.

So yeah, what I'm basically saying, is that I wouldn't classify 'being obese' as a handicap. Being blind, or deaf, or losing all feeling from the waste down are handicaps. And to an extent, being old. But having a non-existant 'glandular problem' isn't.

Discuss.

Post by **Superior Bacon** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:02 am

Um, being fat is not always just 'eating a crapload of food.'