*coughs* allow me to clear my throat.

Kart

Resident /b/tard
nothing is an excuse, it help though, personally I could live withou my mother, i'd be alot happier, but as I said, my dad is dead, so i don't have a choice, and I'm not stupid, I'll live through this shit so I can get out and into a good place not into the streets. I don't think mothers are really that important, to some children they are, but it's really whichever parent they bond to the most.
 
Hey,
you said for yourself that if your mother knew half things you are doing she would have don't know what.
That's a good sign...







...for her role.
not for yours ;D
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
So? i'm taking resonsabltiy, it isn't TV, or music, I'm doing this of my own accord, I don't blame anyone for my direction, my mom doesn't help but i'm going down this path and i'm going to go where I want, because I can do it.
 

SaiyajinNoOuji

I'm still better than you
You know Kart, if you really want to change how you are living, I would consider the military. Its just an option out there for you. It helped me and gave me a lot of skills that I can use now. Sure the BS would out weigh the good things sometimes, but I dont regret doing it. Just an option, think about it.
 

Lauralana

That's Hot
SaiyajinNoOuji said:
You know Kart, if you really want to change how you are living, I would consider the military. Its just an option out there for you. It helped me and gave me a lot of skills that I can use now. Sure the BS would out weigh the good things sometimes, but I dont regret doing it. Just an option, think about it.

Ya, if u are looking for direction in your life... the military really is a good place to find structure. Alot of my friends have been/ are in military instituions...and while there is alot of shit that they have to go through, they are better people at the end of the day.

I would have done it....but schooling is easier for me....and i cry when people yell at me :-[
 

SaiyajinNoOuji

I'm still better than you
Lauralana said:
Ya, if u are looking for direction in your life... the military really is a good place to find structure. Alot of my friends have been/ are in military instituions...and while there is alot of shit that they have to go through, they are better people at the end of the day.

I would have done it....but schooling is easier for me....and i cry when people yell at me :-[

its all good. The military isnt for everyone, besides, its like being in college! Ahhh the memories of running around my barracks with just a sock on. ;)
 

Mizar

Œ©‰Ž•·‚©‰ŽŒ¾‚퉎
xechnao said:
I was aking if you are qualified to name that point pseudo-scientific. Which means that I was asking if you are able to prove that the point respects no scientific truth.

Your words: "Yeah, sorry but what I said it's not my opinion but medical fact, at least for now. Influenece to psychology in regards of human relationships due to scents of each sex. Mechanisms of psychology development while growing up from infantile age to maturity."

It might be because of your broken English, but this really sounded like random pseudo-scientific babble to me. It's vague, doesn't make much sense and doesn't even seem to relate to what you were saying before. That's why I was using the term pseudo-scientific; it sounds interesting at first glance, but you don't seem to be making any valid point at all here. It's a medical fact that children need a female parent? Due to scents of each sex and mechanisms of psychology development?

Anyway, let's get back to the focus of this discussion. To summarize here, you were saying that gay couples and singles shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because you are of the opinion that a child has a higher chance to grow up healthy by having both a male and female parent. You try to back this up by saying that according to current medical research the female scent is important for a baby's development. Well, let me show you my two main objections with this argument here.

The first one is that I think you fail to realize that there's just so much more to psychological development than this. Its entire role (if any) in the entire process is completely insignificant if you compare it to the importance of other factors, like the amount of love and support a child receives from its parents, or how well the parents are able to guide their child on the road to adulthood. Also the rest of the (social) environment of the child plays a large role as well, of course. So, within this context I have just described I find the actual influence of the presence or absence of a female parent to be completely insignificant. There are in my opinion simply much more important factors to consider when you look at the psychological development of child --> adult as a whole.

My second objection is that it's just not necessary and even entirely impossible to create an ideal situation for a child to grow up in. Only having both a male and female parent is far from ideal; to make it ideal you should also need to look at the personal relationship between the parents, their sense of responsibility, personality, habits (smoking, alcohol, drugs), intelligence, income, social status, etc.. You can't control all these variables, so it's an illusion to think that you're creating a better situation for the child by giving only heterosexual couples the right to adopt children.

Ok, I hope to have explained my personal view on this well and thoroughly enough now, without sounding too arrogant this time. ;)
 

DarkBlademaster

Jesus cries when he looks at me.
Kart said:
HOLY FUCK IM GOING TO KILL MYSELF THERE IS A SHOW ABOUT MIDGET DATING

IT IS OFFICIAL I AM WRITING IN ALL CAPS AND I THINK THAT SATAN IS FINALLY COMING, WE HAVE A SHOW ABOUT MIDGETS FALLING IN LOVE, WE HAVE SUNKIN THE LOWEST WE COULD POSSIBLY SINK, ITS TIME FOR MASS SUICIDE!!

Heh, and to think we started with this one post by Mr. Kart
 
Mizar said:
The first one is that I think you fail to realize that there's just so much more to psychological development than this. Its entire role (if any) in the entire process is completely insignificant if you compare it to the importance of other factors, like the amount of love and support a child receives from its parents, or how well the parents are able to guide their child on the road to adulthood. Also the rest of the (social) environment of the child plays a large role as well, of course. So, within this context I have just described I find the actual influence of the presence or absence of a female parent to be completely insignificant. There are in my opinion simply much more important factors to consider when you look at the psychological development of child --> adult as a whole.
I don't disagree about the amount of love or all the rest you are talking about but there are can be some other factors too that come to one's mind. Things more specific, like for example an ipothetical hazardous environment where the parents live for a child with asthma. Or a child suffering of some kind of depression that would be better in a family with another kid of near his age. Or a child with some kind of phobia and an ipothetical living condition with that parents that could be bad for such phobia.

Mizar said:
My second objection is that it's just not necessary and even entirely impossible to create an ideal situation for a child to grow up in. Only having both a male and female parent is far from ideal; to make it ideal you should also need to look at the personal relationship between the parents, their sense of responsibility, personality, habits (smoking, alcohol, drugs), intelligence, income, social status, etc.. You can't control all these variables, so it's an illusion to think that you're creating a better situation for the child by giving only heterosexual couples the right to adopt children.

Yes, I don't disagree, but there are criteria. You may not give a child to a tossic or a criminal for example. There are many, many categories and classifications as you said that make up the whole deal of adoption or not and I just threw one of them inside. I said that I believe gays or as that be the only or last criteria should be outfavoured in the place of a straight couple.
Yes, I would give a child to a gay couple that seem ok than a mafia couple or a couple of alcoholics for example.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
you're saying that just because someone lives life one way they are bad, there are plenty of good people who do evil deeds, I'm sure many criminals have raised great children.
 

Pyotr

It is my destiny to lead
Kart said:
you're saying that just because someone lives life one way they are bad, there are plenty of good people who do evil deeds, I'm sure many criminals have raised great children.

So are you saying we should let criminals adopt children?

Yes, there are plenty of "good people" who do "evil deeds", but how can we judge whether a person is good or not without looking at their deeds? This directly leads to the argument of whether homosexual people should be able to adopt. It all lies in whether a person views homosexuality as acceptable or not. While the Gay couple could very well be great people, some people will still see homosexuality as an "evil deed" and thus decide that they are bad people and should not be allowed to adopt children.

This is not a statement of my opinion on the subject in the least. I am simply saying that a person is judged by his deeds. How acceptable a deed is, on the other hand, is something that everyone will view a little differently.
 

Kart

Resident /b/tard
no, i'm saying that a persons deeds don't make the person in all cases, but i'm going to stop arguing, i'm tired..
 
Top Bottom