Anyone know a good divorce lawyer?

[drunkle]

marion:

there’s no disagreement per se. there’s just… amusement.

[Anonymous]

Ok, drunkle, I gotcha. Let’s Rock!

🙂

[Anonymous]

Ok, drunkle, I gotcha. Let’s Rock!

🙂

[Anonymous]

Ok, drunkle, I gotcha. Let’s Rock!

🙂

[Anonymous]

Ok, drunkle, I gotcha. Let’s Rock!

🙂

[Anonymous]

Ok, drunkle, I gotcha. Let’s Rock!

🙂

[NotCranky]

I already gave my reason for not sweating the per kid carbon foot print. Peak oil doesn’t bother me either.

This statement by Arraya is interesting.I don’t feel it lays out anything dismal except that it causes fear for its extremism.

“So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?

It seems less selfish to create children in a civilization where they might actually have the opportunity to further technology and therefore possibly affect the opportunity for people to thrive well into the future and answer anything nature presents including the possible need to take our evolution off the planet and into the universe on a ever widening basis or a million other life preserving technologies not yet advanced.

Just thought I would present an alternate extremist view.Now you all go make some babies.

Of course I do not agree with abandoning Africa or any other people of any country of the world and technology is also a curse in many ways. I think there may be some middle ground to find on these two extremist theories.

Back to the frightening part of such views as Arrya expressed…What is frightening is the self righteousness on these types of issues and the political swarming around them. These are the types of wacko theories that drive barbaric policies like democracy in the middle east, murder of babies by gender, slavery, the inquistion, or the holocaust.

Peace.

[NotCranky]

I already gave my reason for not sweating the per kid carbon foot print. Peak oil doesn’t bother me either.

This statement by Arraya is interesting.I don’t feel it lays out anything dismal except that it causes fear for its extremism.

“So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?

It seems less selfish to create children in a civilization where they might actually have the opportunity to further technology and therefore possibly affect the opportunity for people to thrive well into the future and answer anything nature presents including the possible need to take our evolution off the planet and into the universe on a ever widening basis or a million other life preserving technologies not yet advanced.

Just thought I would present an alternate extremist view.Now you all go make some babies.

Of course I do not agree with abandoning Africa or any other people of any country of the world and technology is also a curse in many ways. I think there may be some middle ground to find on these two extremist theories.

Back to the frightening part of such views as Arrya expressed…What is frightening is the self righteousness on these types of issues and the political swarming around them. These are the types of wacko theories that drive barbaric policies like democracy in the middle east, murder of babies by gender, slavery, the inquistion, or the holocaust.

Peace.

[NotCranky]

I already gave my reason for not sweating the per kid carbon foot print. Peak oil doesn’t bother me either.

This statement by Arraya is interesting.I don’t feel it lays out anything dismal except that it causes fear for its extremism.

“So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?

It seems less selfish to create children in a civilization where they might actually have the opportunity to further technology and therefore possibly affect the opportunity for people to thrive well into the future and answer anything nature presents including the possible need to take our evolution off the planet and into the universe on a ever widening basis or a million other life preserving technologies not yet advanced.

Just thought I would present an alternate extremist view.Now you all go make some babies.

Of course I do not agree with abandoning Africa or any other people of any country of the world and technology is also a curse in many ways. I think there may be some middle ground to find on these two extremist theories.

Back to the frightening part of such views as Arrya expressed…What is frightening is the self righteousness on these types of issues and the political swarming around them. These are the types of wacko theories that drive barbaric policies like democracy in the middle east, murder of babies by gender, slavery, the inquistion, or the holocaust.

Peace.

[NotCranky]

I already gave my reason for not sweating the per kid carbon foot print. Peak oil doesn’t bother me either.

This statement by Arraya is interesting.I don’t feel it lays out anything dismal except that it causes fear for its extremism.

“So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?

It seems less selfish to create children in a civilization where they might actually have the opportunity to further technology and therefore possibly affect the opportunity for people to thrive well into the future and answer anything nature presents including the possible need to take our evolution off the planet and into the universe on a ever widening basis or a million other life preserving technologies not yet advanced.

Just thought I would present an alternate extremist view.Now you all go make some babies.

Of course I do not agree with abandoning Africa or any other people of any country of the world and technology is also a curse in many ways. I think there may be some middle ground to find on these two extremist theories.

Back to the frightening part of such views as Arrya expressed…What is frightening is the self righteousness on these types of issues and the political swarming around them. These are the types of wacko theories that drive barbaric policies like democracy in the middle east, murder of babies by gender, slavery, the inquistion, or the holocaust.

Peace.

[NotCranky]

I already gave my reason for not sweating the per kid carbon foot print. Peak oil doesn’t bother me either.

This statement by Arraya is interesting.I don’t feel it lays out anything dismal except that it causes fear for its extremism.

“So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?

It seems less selfish to create children in a civilization where they might actually have the opportunity to further technology and therefore possibly affect the opportunity for people to thrive well into the future and answer anything nature presents including the possible need to take our evolution off the planet and into the universe on a ever widening basis or a million other life preserving technologies not yet advanced.

Just thought I would present an alternate extremist view.Now you all go make some babies.

Of course I do not agree with abandoning Africa or any other people of any country of the world and technology is also a curse in many ways. I think there may be some middle ground to find on these two extremist theories.

Back to the frightening part of such views as Arrya expressed…What is frightening is the self righteousness on these types of issues and the political swarming around them. These are the types of wacko theories that drive barbaric policies like democracy in the middle east, murder of babies by gender, slavery, the inquistion, or the holocaust.

Peace.

[Anonymous]

arraya: “So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

It’s all in the way you look at it. If you look at it from purely environmental perspective, then you may have a point. However, if you approach the problem from a purely environmental standpoint and make that the basis of your argument on what we need to do to responsibly fix things, then that’s not an intelligent viewpoint. As I’ve already made clear, I believe we are here to procreate. I don’t advocate people having 10, 12 kids with the planet in the shape it is. However, to deny a man and a woman their own biological child is for chose who are dictators, control freaks, and know-it-alls. God didn’t want it this way, and for those of you who don’t believe in God, though I don’t believe the two can be separated, from a purely biological standpoint it’s not supposed to be this way. Reference my post regarding our reproductive organs.

There has to be another way. A way to heal this planet without denying those in technologically advanced countries their God-given, and constitutional right to have a child. Arraya and those who feel this way I suspect voted for Bush and all that brought with it. To put that aside for a moment, with all the money this country has spent in the past and is now spending on useless wars, that money could have been put forth to battle world hunger.

My point, find another way to heal the planet instead of trying to deny people the right to procreate. In addition, don’t try to claim having children is the most destructive and selfish thing that people can do to the planet. War is. Our GREED is.

Rustico: “One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?”

If you’re talking about people in Africa and other third world countries that are starving, these people don’t have birth control. What do you expect, Rustico?? For them to abstain from sex? Their culture and/or religious beliefs advocate they create and maintain families. Would YOU be willing to abstain from sex? If their ability to love and express that love is taken away, they have nothing left. Think about it.

[Anonymous]

arraya: “So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

It’s all in the way you look at it. If you look at it from purely environmental perspective, then you may have a point. However, if you approach the problem from a purely environmental standpoint and make that the basis of your argument on what we need to do to responsibly fix things, then that’s not an intelligent viewpoint. As I’ve already made clear, I believe we are here to procreate. I don’t advocate people having 10, 12 kids with the planet in the shape it is. However, to deny a man and a woman their own biological child is for chose who are dictators, control freaks, and know-it-alls. God didn’t want it this way, and for those of you who don’t believe in God, though I don’t believe the two can be separated, from a purely biological standpoint it’s not supposed to be this way. Reference my post regarding our reproductive organs.

There has to be another way. A way to heal this planet without denying those in technologically advanced countries their God-given, and constitutional right to have a child. Arraya and those who feel this way I suspect voted for Bush and all that brought with it. To put that aside for a moment, with all the money this country has spent in the past and is now spending on useless wars, that money could have been put forth to battle world hunger.

My point, find another way to heal the planet instead of trying to deny people the right to procreate. In addition, don’t try to claim having children is the most destructive and selfish thing that people can do to the planet. War is. Our GREED is.

Rustico: “One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?”

If you’re talking about people in Africa and other third world countries that are starving, these people don’t have birth control. What do you expect, Rustico?? For them to abstain from sex? Their culture and/or religious beliefs advocate they create and maintain families. Would YOU be willing to abstain from sex? If their ability to love and express that love is taken away, they have nothing left. Think about it.

[Anonymous]

arraya: “So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

It’s all in the way you look at it. If you look at it from purely environmental perspective, then you may have a point. However, if you approach the problem from a purely environmental standpoint and make that the basis of your argument on what we need to do to responsibly fix things, then that’s not an intelligent viewpoint. As I’ve already made clear, I believe we are here to procreate. I don’t advocate people having 10, 12 kids with the planet in the shape it is. However, to deny a man and a woman their own biological child is for chose who are dictators, control freaks, and know-it-alls. God didn’t want it this way, and for those of you who don’t believe in God, though I don’t believe the two can be separated, from a purely biological standpoint it’s not supposed to be this way. Reference my post regarding our reproductive organs.

There has to be another way. A way to heal this planet without denying those in technologically advanced countries their God-given, and constitutional right to have a child. Arraya and those who feel this way I suspect voted for Bush and all that brought with it. To put that aside for a moment, with all the money this country has spent in the past and is now spending on useless wars, that money could have been put forth to battle world hunger.

My point, find another way to heal the planet instead of trying to deny people the right to procreate. In addition, don’t try to claim having children is the most destructive and selfish thing that people can do to the planet. War is. Our GREED is.

Rustico: “One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?”

If you’re talking about people in Africa and other third world countries that are starving, these people don’t have birth control. What do you expect, Rustico?? For them to abstain from sex? Their culture and/or religious beliefs advocate they create and maintain families. Would YOU be willing to abstain from sex? If their ability to love and express that love is taken away, they have nothing left. Think about it.

[Anonymous]

arraya: “So in terms of carrying capacity of the earth which was passed back in the late 40s to early 70s according to most experts in the field, one could only conclude that breeding is the most environmentally irresponsible, selfish thing a couple can do especially in the 1st world. Unless you think your life is more important than poor 3rd world people. In that case breed away it will just kill off people in countries that we exploit for resources and compete for
food with.”

It’s all in the way you look at it. If you look at it from purely environmental perspective, then you may have a point. However, if you approach the problem from a purely environmental standpoint and make that the basis of your argument on what we need to do to responsibly fix things, then that’s not an intelligent viewpoint. As I’ve already made clear, I believe we are here to procreate. I don’t advocate people having 10, 12 kids with the planet in the shape it is. However, to deny a man and a woman their own biological child is for chose who are dictators, control freaks, and know-it-alls. God didn’t want it this way, and for those of you who don’t believe in God, though I don’t believe the two can be separated, from a purely biological standpoint it’s not supposed to be this way. Reference my post regarding our reproductive organs.

There has to be another way. A way to heal this planet without denying those in technologically advanced countries their God-given, and constitutional right to have a child. Arraya and those who feel this way I suspect voted for Bush and all that brought with it. To put that aside for a moment, with all the money this country has spent in the past and is now spending on useless wars, that money could have been put forth to battle world hunger.

My point, find another way to heal the planet instead of trying to deny people the right to procreate. In addition, don’t try to claim having children is the most destructive and selfish thing that people can do to the planet. War is. Our GREED is.

Rustico: “One could also say that people who are in a place where they can’t feed themselves and are breeding just to die of hunger and famine induced massacres are selfish.What can uneducated people dieing of starvation sucking minerals out of the mud in the local riverbead do for evolution and the advancement of technology, which may at this phase of human existence pratically be the same thing?”

If you’re talking about people in Africa and other third world countries that are starving, these people don’t have birth control. What do you expect, Rustico?? For them to abstain from sex? Their culture and/or religious beliefs advocate they create and maintain families. Would YOU be willing to abstain from sex? If their ability to love and express that love is taken away, they have nothing left. Think about it.

[Author]

Posts