Human or Dog? 16 Babies? WTF?
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 20 2005, 02:04 PM
I'm going to save a screenshot of this, exceltoexcel. Now, whenever we disagree, I will point to this page and say "But you ONCE agreed with me". 

Originally Posted by S2020,Oct 20 2005, 11:38 AM
at first I thought this was a thread about that picture of the human-dog hybrid with babies nursing.
can't find the pic but some of you know what i'm talking about.
can't find the pic but some of you know what i'm talking about.
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 20 2005, 07:46 AM
Judging from his writing, he's gay, an only child, an atheist, and thinks that he's got everything going for him.
and I think he is a jerkoff and his article is terrible. Don't be guilty of stereotyping atheist only children who think they have everything going for them the way he stereotyped Christians.
"and you cannot help but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no, no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that. "
Originally Posted by wantone,Oct 20 2005, 11:21 AM
I guess this is some pretty sensational news to us peeps in the Bay Area. To raise just one child in the Bay Area costs $$$! Imagine 16. Some more interesting thoughts from this thread...
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=329051
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=329051
Sometimes, it seems the self-defined "liberal-minded" can be the most closed-minded. Apparently it is OK to be gay, but not OK to procreate. It is OK to be atheist, but not OK to believe in God and go to church. It is OK to dress in leather chaps and parade through the street, but not OK to go to Great Clips for a haircut and shop at Walmart for clothing. Not liking the flaunting of homosexuality is a character flaw, but comparing a loving mother to a dog is OK, because said mother had kids. WTF? Liberal, my ass. Unless "California Liberal" just means "unsufferable knee-jerk conservative."
Originally Posted by TrojanHorse,Oct 20 2005, 02:20 PM
Other than the gay part I fit that criteria
and I think he is a jerkoff and his article is terrible.
Don't be guilty of stereotyping atheist only children who think they have everything going for them the way he stereotyped Christians.
and I think he is a jerkoff and his article is terrible. Don't be guilty of stereotyping atheist only children who think they have everything going for them the way he stereotyped Christians.

at the end, but just to clarify, I was joking about that part. Well, as stated, I was sort of joking and more making the point that even such a broad statement isn't nearly as broad as the one(s) he made in that article.I guess you're just an atypical only-child atheists.

That article is, plain and simple, trash. It's crude, it's illogical, it's fully of stereotypes, embellishments, and false information, and it's flat out misguided.
If he'd put that much effort into bashing people that have three cars (or two eight-passenger SUVs for a family of three), he'd get somewhere in life.
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl,Oct 20 2005, 09:26 AM
Could be quite scary if all of them grew up w/ the mentality that a woman's goal in life should be to pop out as many kids as she can.
I personally don't agree with it, but if they can raise their kids well (big if), more power to them.







