NewStats: 3,262,391 , 8,177,011 topics. Date: Monday, 02 June 2025 at 06:55 AM 172y64

Kaczynski:
✓ e go reach you last last

Isn't that a dumb conclusion to reach.

Do all humans on the planet eventually end up in a wheelchair? Of course not! So what makes you so sure of that which runs contrary to logic?

pansophist:
For example, we see how slippery slope happened to homosexuals. It was first to legalise same-sex relationships, then they fought to be able to marry...


..., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The evil you permit because you are not the victim, will haunt you later when it runs out of victims.

This is...most interesting.

Your thought process is confounding.

So you understand the idea that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere... and gay rights' was a fitting example of how slippery slopes work?

Would it not be the other way round, that it is in criminalising some people's sexual orientation, that other forms of abuse against human rights set in?

If criminalising a sexual orientation is justifiable, I would assume that criminalising procreation based on a defect of nature can be justified as well under the same logic.

I recall a comment of yours too. You said feminism was the catalyst to many "woke" problems we have now. That because women fought for their rights, other 'minorities' too latched onto the momentum, and had the boldness, backing, whatever to demand for rights for themselves too. Not your exact words, but that was the point you were making.

Even though I (personally) think the confluence of Western feminism with many leftist/academic schools of thought has done it a huge disservice (and I think this is how it honestly should be viewed as. So many movements claim to fight for freedom and rights, and their merit should naturally be examined on an individual basis instead of a force-teaming one- 'You're a feminist? Oh, you must this!' 'You want rights for women? Then you must co-sign this.').

But all these aside, it's curious how you believe that injustice anywhere, in any form, is wrong but the women and gay rights movement were floodgates to cultural/moral depravity.

I mean, just like the OP thinks that dwarfs shouldn't procreate, that's exactly the same way some people think women should not be educated, etc. Or that homosexuals deserve to dai.

How would you propose that the injustice women faced in the past was dealt with without feminism/a women's rights movement/whatever term you want to call it? And if women deserve basic rights, why not other groups of people (which includes gays, dwarfs, Blacks)? Are there some people who deserve rights more than others? Where does basic rights stop, and where does the pandering/slippery slope begin? How do you judge or draw the line on this? Who will even be the 'judge?' An in-group or out-group member?

#IComeInPiss

Magnoliaa:


This is...most interesting.

Your thought process is confounding.

So you understand the idea that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere... and gay rights' was a fitting example of how slippery slopes work?

Would it not be the other way round, that it is in criminalising some people's sexual orientation, that other forms of abuse against human rights set in?

Everything you wrote stem from a wrong understanding of my point. Being against the excesses of something doesn't mean one is against that thing.

You might argue that gay rights was not a fitting example of how slippery slope works, and you may be right, but you cannot argue that using gay rights as an example of slippery slope infers discrimination against gay people.

Most importantly, I was pointing out the thinking process of societies that do not gay marriages. Most countries do not gay marriages, but lots of gays live in peace without anyone disturbing them.

They have their own clubs, dating sites, and so forth, without putting it in people's face, or forcing it down the throats of children with their rainbow nonsense.

About every other thing you wrote, please quote me on that particular comment, to avoid going out of context.

Thank you.

Balablue64:
I don't know if you know nkubi the dwarf that talks on tv, radio and on Facebook, now i don't mean to insult or mock him o
But what am saying is that he shouldn't he have reproduced? Why going on to bring another short person into this world to come and suffer all u have been suffering as a dwarf.
Agree or not there are a lot of things that a dwarf can't do because of their condition and i don't wanna go into all that.
Am saying why not adopt a child, must you born? Have sex and troway sperm or do disectomy, Africans in general are selfish and if i was in his shoes i would just adopt.

That child will always have times that she would regret inheriting the dwarf genes from her father. Looking at the poor girl baby dwarf i already feel sad and kind of angry at the father.
am just saying my point of view and what i would have done if i was in that situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.[5

Na your mama wan marry dwarf?

Balablue64:
I don't know if you know nkubi the dwarf that talks on tv, radio and on Facebook, now i don't mean to insult or mock him o
But what am saying is that he shouldn't he have reproduced? Why going on to bring another short person into this world to come and suffer all u have been suffering as a dwarf.
Agree or not there are a lot of things that a dwarf can't do because of their condition and i don't wanna go into all that.
Am saying why not adopt a child, must you born? Have sex and troway sperm or do disectomy, Africans in general are selfish and if i was in his shoes i would just adopt.

That child will always have times that she would regret inheriting the dwarf genes from her father. Looking at the poor girl baby dwarf i already feel sad and kind of angry at the father.
am just saying my point of view and what i would have done if i was in that situation.

After reading your post I understand your point.
If they go for adoption or even surrogacy
It will help to reduce reproduction of dwarfs and gradually it will vanish

But they too want their own biological offspring despite the fact that they know that it will produce the same thing

The civil one will go for your options and those who sees no reason for it, will keep reproducing

Balablue64:
I don't know if you know nkubi the dwarf that talks on tv, radio and on Facebook, now i don't mean to insult or mock him o
But what am saying is that he shouldn't he have reproduced? Why going on to bring another short person into this world to come and suffer all u have been suffering as a dwarf.
Agree or not there are a lot of things that a dwarf can't do because of their condition and i don't wanna go into all that.
Am saying why not adopt a child, must you born? Have sex and troway sperm or do disectomy, Africans in general are selfish and if i was in his shoes i would just adopt.

That child will always have times that she would regret inheriting the dwarf genes from her father. Looking at the poor girl baby dwarf i already feel sad and kind of angry at the father.
am just saying my point of view and what i would have done if i was in that situation.

What's disectomy??

pansophist:
Most importantly, I was pointing out the thinking process of societies that do not gay marriages. Most countries do not gay marriages, but lots of gays live in peace without anyone disturbing them.

Most countries? For example, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Pakistan, Uganda? You really believe homosexuals in these countries are living in peace without anyone disturbing them? The gay men that are always being paraded in the news for being "caught" in sexual acts, were they doing that in public? Straight men constantly pose as gay men on dating sites to lure gay men to locations where they get beaten up -- those innocent men did not do anything to them.

Even though I don't believe there can be an 'air of peace' alongside a state-sanctioned criminalization, but if there were one or two countries you can point where gay people live peacefully without nobody disturbing or ing them, I'll like to think that there are very fair conditions everyone there lives in, and that's basic gay rights in practice, the way i see it, even if it not written down as law on some paper.

But where I'm coming from, with my 'surprise' at your confounding point is this - how do you criminalize something without having it encroach on people's basic rights (at some point)? If it's not discrimination against them, then how does their rights/its legalization lead to a slippery slope? You either legalise or you don't. And if you don't, how do you make sure their rights to exist are protected and enforced if it's not in the law or socially acceptable?

The 'excesses' of gay people that you point to is simply just a given in human nature. As an average Nigerian, you're used to noise pollution from religious houses- from prayers at dawn to vigils at midnight. You have people walking up to you, knocking on your door, sharing fliers to you and disseminating gaslight-y, propaganda beliefs. There are those who pray on the roadside, on the literal road, and every other cars have to stop, thereby leading to traffic build-up, until they are done praying. The entertainment industry is saturated with sexual objectification. Nollywood is there peddling beliefs about spiritual attacks, money rituals, and the 'evils' of traditional religion. Let's not even get into politics, but the summary is this- humans are excessive in EVERY spaces they find themselves, and they are always trying to push their own will and perspectives down on others. Alpha male redpillers are there. Femininity coaches are there. Even atheists (even though you can find them on NL blaspheming God, I know that in real life they can get killed for doing that, so I understand that I have more social privileges over them in that regard and I don't go crying that they are forcing their unbelief down my throat- as annoying or illogical I find them).

But no one bats an eye at these just because they are already 'normal'. So call out depravity all you want, call out moral decadence as you please, but if any group of people deserves to be called out more for these - it's straight people. It's heterosexuality that should be banned if the fight is against lasciviousness/slippery slope into societal's breakdown.

Do you know how much the pornography industry alone contributes to the way everything is - from families to relationships to spirituality?

pansophist:
They have their own clubs, dating sites, and so forth, without putting it in people's face, or forcing it down the throats of children with their rainbow nonsense.

Like this is literally how I understand their rights to be.

That they can also apply to jobs, attend public events, etc. And everyone knows they are gay, not because they are parroting it everywhere, but just because.

Your previous posts made it sound like giving them access to these rights and privileges will inevitably lead to a slippery slope of all sort of nonsense.

gay rights as an example of slippery slope

But you literally just made reference to gays rights in the first part of this quote. You said they have their own bars, they live peacefully with other people.

Therefore this cannot be true and simultaneously be a slippery slope. A slippery slope is granting one thing, which opens up the door to another thing. Or when one thing is given allowance, it makes it much more easier and inevitable for other similar things to happen.

So evidently, the freedom of existence and of association that gay people enjoy in some countries, while not putting their sexuality in people's faces IS proof that their rights haven't led to a slippery slope, no? That you can point to countries where gay people are granted exclusive spaces and coexist with non-ers peacefully shows that there is no slippery slope that follows the granting of these privileges.


And in countries where you can find a 'slippery slope' resulting from the legalisation of gay rights, I can bet you'll find other excesses too, in other groups of people, due to a structural failure, and not because of homosexuality. That two things happened concurrently doesn't mean one caused the other...

And really the freedom that some homosexuals enjoy in some Western countries, where they don't 'force it down people's throat' is all that's needed and enough to be replicated in the majority of the African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries where homosexuals face extreme violence and victimisation, and the world will be a slightly more better place.

They are humans with emotions. They have right to love, marry and reproduce.