Sterilizing our male children?

[Mabel]

I grabbed this quote from KL from another thread -
I also believe that fixing our male children could be a great way to prevent a bunch of problems in the human race. I however would only support this idea if it were 99.999999% failproof. Scientificly possible, but not probable.
And I longed to derail that thread, but decided against it LOL! KL, I'm just curious why you think that could be a good idea?

[Epicurus]

I will see if I can find the old thread. Your eyes will pop out of your head when you read it:)

Collette

[Epicurus]

Found it
http://www.theconversationcafe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=966&page=1&pp=10

Collette

[kingclick]

I grabbed this quote from KL from another thread -

And I longed to derail that thread, but decided against it LOL! KL, I'm just curious why you think that could be a good idea?
I think you were there for both of the threads before Mabel. So I think you are just trying to make good debate and not actually hash out past discussions so I will answer you here.

I see many of our problems as a society have to do with unwanted pregnancies. And by sterilizing our male children with a reversable procedure would be a good step to prevent many unwanted pregnancies.

Why men? Because in theory, men can impregnate much more than one woman at a time. As well the bits and pieces are easier to get at therefore easier to manipulate.

[kingclick]

Collette,
I find it funny that you would want to point out that old thread. Because that thread kept focused on the "danger" that would be posed to the boys. Well this thread doesn't deal with that danger. So really, that thread is not really representitive of this topic (then OR now). A number of people tried to derail that discussion into a "too dangerous" or "too impossible" discussion.

That doesn't seem to be the issue in this thread though. What seems to be at issue is my beliefs and why I might think it's a good idea. I hope that my statement of 99.999999% safe wont be ignored this time around.

[Peanut]

I think you were there for both of the threads before Mabel. So I think you are just trying to make good debate and not actually hash out past discussions so I will answer you here.

I see many of our problems as a society have to do with unwanted pregnancies. And by sterilizing our male children with a reversable procedure would be a good step to prevent many unwanted pregnancies.

Why men? Because in theory, men can impregnate much more than one woman at a time. As well the bits and pieces are easier to get at therefore easier to manipulate.

I wasn't a part of any old threads, and decided after looking I did not want to wade through the China's Rule thread. I must say, however, KL, your theory sounds great IN THEORY. In theory only. However, how many men would realistically allow such a surgery to be done on their sons? Especially since the first thousands would be entirely experimental.

Truth of the matter is, it would never "fly". Men just don't like folks messing with their jewels in such a manner. It is also too practical to nip the problem at it's basic source as defined per your impregnation comment.

[kingclick]

Yeah. I know, it's a Utopian idea. If we could get men on board for this......we would be able to get them to be great parents from the get go AND get them to only procreate when they WANT to.

That is one reason why I am leaning less to getting them to allow it. And just making it a mandate. But again, that wouldn't be prudent unless the whole world could be done. Which in the forseeable future is not a possible option.

[Epicurus]

Well, if that sounds great to you I think you need to read MORE sci fi books;) I do not want anyone getting our population to "be great parents" by surgically altering them and removing the choices that make us so human. That is completely frightening to me.
Beyond that, once such an outrageous plan is in motion there would be spill over into other of our human rights that would likely be equally or even more frightening. Once you remove freedom in one area it paves the way for other freedoms to be removed. That is what makes living in a free county so wonderful. We have the freedom to make our own mistakes AND good decisions alike. I would like big brother to keep to himself. Re-read brave New World to be refreshed on how wonderful your Utopia might be.
Whatever is or is not the issue in this thread shall be determined by the participants. I will watch and see just as you will KL:)

Collette

[Echo2]

The slipery slope is only slippery to those who are too lazy or too stupid to balance themselves.

[kingclick]

The slipery slope is only slippery to those who are too lazy or too stupid to balance themselves.
Is that your own quote Echo? Because WOW!!! that puts it SO succintly what I was thinking.

[Echo2]

I just made it up. It's how I feel whenever anyone brings up that dumb slippery slope excuse for not doing anything progressive. They make it sound like everyone on the planet is so stupid they are going to do the dumbest, most immoral, most horrible thing possible if we do (insert progressive idea here).

Anything from stem cell research to handing out needles for addicts has been a victim of the slippery slopeaphobes.

[Mabel]

I think that is a surgery that one would need the person's consent for, and a baby cannot give consent. I don't think it's a good idea at all.

[Lady Thatcher]

Hey here's an idea. How about instead of forcing sterilization on our children, we instead instill values in them that are proactive against unwanted pregnancies? How about we get off our fat asses and start taking back the responsibility that we've so readily pushed on the shoulders of the government and schools. How about we stop making excuses and stop trying to find easy outs to make our job as parents easier. Sterilize our children. Just one more lazy lame brain idea to parenting. Why not, everyone else is doing it.

Who is going to pay for our sons to be sterilized? I better not have to pay for it. I'm already paying for all the lazy parents out there who don't want to take care of their children the way they should... I don't need one more debt piled on my plate thank you very much. I can see the insurance companies getting all money happy over this idea already! Darn, and I thought my insurance premium was already insanely high! And how much will this reversal be? Current information on reversal of a vasectomy (I am assuming we are talking about vasectomy because there is no other method to sterilize men at this point)

How much does reversal surgery cost?

As with most medical procedures, costs vary according to the doctor and part of the country, but reversal surgery is expensive. First, you will be charged for the screening tests that will help the surgeon decide whether you are a good candidate for reversal. If you go ahead with the operation, the cost will include the surgeon's fee and the costs of the operating room, the assistant surgeon, the anesthesiologist, and the hospital stay.

You will want to ask your surgeon for an estimate of the total cost of the procedure before you decide to go ahead with it.

Will my medical insurance pay for a sterilization reversal?

At the present time, most insurance plans do not cover reversal surgery. Assistance from Medicaid is available in some states. You should check with your source of medical insurance to find out just how much financial help you will have.

See, most folks can have a child, support the child, and live a happy life, and still be unable to afford the cost of a reversal of their vasectomy. So basically if we decided to implement this hair brained idea, we are essentially saying that only the rich are worthy of having children. I suppose that is a good thing in some ideas.. survival of the fittest perhaps? Breed out the poor? An elite society of rich folks. Eventually all those poor folk will be extinct! Woohoo!

Currently success rates of a vasectomy reversal is only 50%. That's 50% of our population who is just shit out of luck because we wanted to stop parenting, and start forcing sterilization of our children. Well that is one way to prevent pregnancies, unfortunately men who really wanted children aren't going to be able to because again, we decided to be lazy parents and get our kids sterilized. Will we also instate laws saying that our sons can't sue anyone if they are unable to procreate? And don't forget about all the case law already on file that we're going to have to throw out that the right to procreate is fundamental. Out goes the Supreme Court's rule in Skinner v. Oklahoma that states procreation is a basic liberty and is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race. Maybe Bush was on to something when he expressed his wishes to undo the 14th amendment of our Constitution. Perhaps we can write to Bush and ask him to throw out the entire Constitution, you know, since it's sited time and time again as one of the main reasons why courts can't mandate forced sterilization on Untied States Citizens.

But with all that said, yeah, lets do it. Should be easy right?

[Slabobbin]

I don't really like the idea of steralizing babies but I love the "slippery slope" quote. I get so tired of hearing that. It comes up all the time in abortion debates and I feel that the quote applies there as well.

[kingclick]

I grabbed this quote from KL from another thread -

And I longed to derail that thread, but decided against it LOL! KL, I'm just curious why you think that could be a good idea?
I also forgot to point out that in the original thread, I mentioned several hundred times that it must be reversable and easy to reverse.

[kingclick]

Hey here's an idea. How about instead of forcing sterilization on our children, we instead instill values in them that are proactive against unwanted pregnancies? How about we get off our fat asses and start taking back the responsibility that we've so readily pushed on the shoulders of the government and schools. How about we stop making excuses and stop trying to find easy outs to make our job as parents easier. Sterilize our children. Just one more lazy lame brain idea to parenting. Why not, everyone else is doing it.

Who is going to pay for our sons to be sterilized? I better not have to pay for it. I'm already paying for all the lazy parents out there who don't want to take care of their children the way they should... I don't need one more debt piled on my plate thank you very much. I can see the insurance companies getting all money happy over this idea already! Darn, and I thought my insurance premium was already insanely high! And how much will this reversal be? Current information on reversal of a vasectomy (I am assuming we are talking about vasectomy because there is no other method to sterilize men at this point)



See, most folks can have a child, support the child, and live a happy life, and still be unable to afford the cost of a reversal of their vasectomy. So basically if we decided to implement this hair brained idea, we are essentially saying that only the rich are worthy of having children. I suppose that is a good thing in some ideas.. survival of the fittest perhaps? Breed out the poor? An elite society of rich folks. Eventually all those poor folk will be extinct! Woohoo!

Currently success rates of a vasectomy reversal is only 50%. That's 50% of our population who is just shit out of luck because we wanted to stop parenting, and start forcing sterilization of our children. Well that is one way to prevent pregnancies, unfortunately men who really wanted children aren't going to be able to because again, we decided to be lazy parents and get our kids sterilized. Will we also instate laws saying that our sons can't sue anyone if they are unable to procreate? And don't forget about all the case law already on file that we're going to have to throw out that the right to procreate is fundamental. Out goes the Supreme Court's rule in Skinner v. Oklahoma that states procreation is a basic liberty and is fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race. Maybe Bush was on to something when he expressed his wishes to undo the 14th amendment of our Constitution. Perhaps we can write to Bush and ask him to throw out the entire Constitution, you know, since it's sited time and time again as one of the main reasons why courts can't mandate forced sterilization on Untied States Citizens.

But with all that said, yeah, lets do it. Should be easy right?
See this is why I hate being taken out of context. A bunch of crap that I already answered in the previous thread. So before you start attacking an idea, read the original thread where it was brought up, because even though Mabel thought it would be neat to start a new thread, I'm not gonna write another dissertation.

[kingclick]

Collette,
I find it funny that you would want to point out that old thread. Because that thread kept focused on the "danger" that would be posed to the boys. Well this thread doesn't deal with that danger. So really, that thread is not really representitive of this topic (then OR now). A number of people tried to derail that discussion into a "too dangerous" or "too impossible" discussion.

That doesn't seem to be the issue in this thread though. What seems to be at issue is my beliefs and why I might think it's a good idea. I hope that my statement of 99.999999% safe wont be ignored this time around.
Well. I guess I was wrong. It was again ignored.

[Lady Thatcher]

See this is why I hate being taken out of context. A bunch of crap that I already answered in the previous thread. So before you start attacking an idea, read the original thread where it was brought up, because even though Mabel thought it would be neat to start a new thread, I'm not gonna write another dissertation.

Well see, now you have me confused. Did you or did you not state, in this thread...

I find it funny that you would want to point out that old thread. Because that thread kept focused on the "danger" that would be posed to the boys. Well this thread doesn't deal with that danger. So really, that thread is not really representitive of this topic (then OR now). A number of people tried to derail that discussion into a "too dangerous" or "too impossible" discussion.

Now, if the previous thread is not really a representitive of this topic, why are you now crying foul and demanding that I read a thread that is not a representitive of this topic? At what point, during the last 4 hours, did the previous thread become a representitive of this topic? I wasn't a part of the previous thread. You made it very clear that it wasn't a representitive of this topic, so I am debating this topic without polluting my mind with another thread that you've already stated is irrelevent.

However, you are getting some things confused. The thread that Mabel took the original quote from is the thread about spaying or neutering your pet. I have been reading about it, and the quote that you claim is being taken out of context is as follows

Ok. I guess my experiment of actually arguing the issue instead of pinning it to my own personal beliefs is....a failure.

I believe in fixing animals.
I don't believe that animals are equal or above humans. They are below and subject to OUR desires.
I also believe that fixing our male children could be a great way to prevent a bunch of problems in the human race. I however would only support this idea if it were 99.999999% failproof. Scientificly possible, but not probable.

You post roughly with the following:

Thanks for clarifying that....

Someone asked a question about "devil's advocate" arguing. So I was trying to do that, and now I see it wont work for me. And many people actually admited to doing just that on occasion, so I don't see where you are getting the "rest of us". Unless you are talking about a mouse in your pocket.

Could you point out please where you were honestly taken out of context? Or are you simply getting confused about what thread you are referring to, and in that case, perhaps Collette was perfectly logical to link to the thread that you stated was not a representitive of this topic?

Could you clarify all this please? I mean, we really should be on the same page, even when the previous page might be something you've already dubbed as not a representitive of this topic

[Lady Thatcher]

Well of course it was ignored, it was ignored because you didn't say 99.999999% safe. You said 99.99999% failproof. Failproof isn't an english word, so I'm assuming you meant "foolproof" which means: Designed so as to be impervious to human incompetence, error, or misuse. Personally, foolproof doesn't mean safe, especially in the context for which you used it.

[kingclick]

In the previous thread about dogs and cats Echo asked me if I was the person that said something. I said yes. When she did that, she didn't state the entire case that I made for it. So basically my post was taken out of context for ANYONE who hadn't participated in the numerous threads.

Then when Mabel moved my one sentence answer over, it may seem to some that I was saying something different than what I was actually saying.

Therefore I was being taken out of context.

Part of your attack on the idea based on 50% success rate is pointless. Why? Because I already dealt with that.

I also believe that fixing our male children could be a great way to prevent a bunch of problems in the human race. I however would only support this idea if it were 99.999999% failproof. Scientificly possible, but not probable.

See the bold part? That says failproof. So not 50% like it is today.

So let me AGAIN state my stance...

I would support the idea of mandatory reversable sterilization of all earth males. Just as long as there would be a 99.999999% success rate.

[Lady Thatcher]

I would support the idea of mandatory reversable sterilization of all earth males. Just as long as there would be a 99.999999% success rate.

99.9999995 success rate of what? :lol Keeping it in context, and even taking it in context, it still reads to me (and I think many others) the following:

99.9999% success rate that the sterlization works.

Please stop getting all pissy because you don't clarify your wording correctly.

[kingclick]

Well of course it was ignored, it was ignored because you didn't say 99.999999% safe. You said 99.99999% failproof. Failproof isn't an english word, so I'm assuming you meant "foolproof" which means: Designed so as to be impervious to human incompetence, error, or misuse. Personally, foolproof doesn't mean safe, especially in the context for which you used it.
Did it SAY foolproof? No it said failproof. Meaning IMPERVIOUS TO FAILURE.

[Mabel]

Then when Mabel moved my one sentence answer over, it may seem to some that I was saying something different than what I was actually saying.
Actually I moved it over because I didn't want to derail that debate, but I DID want to know what you were "actually saying" - that was the point. It was a statement that sparked my curiousity, so instead of just assuming what you meant, I asked you.
I was not a part of the other debate, or if I was, I did not recall you ever making such a statement.

[kingclick]

99.9999995 success rate of what? :lol Keeping it in context, and even taking it in context, it still reads to me (and I think many others) the following:

99.9999% success rate that the sterlization works.

Please stop getting all pissy because you don't clarify your wording correctly.
Success rate of REVERSABLE STERILIZATION.

Please don't get pissy with me when you don't know how to read.

[kingclick]

Actually I moved it over because I didn't want to derail that debate, but I DID want to know what you were "actually saying" - that was the point. It was a statement that sparked my curiousity, so instead of just assuming what you meant, I asked you.
I was not a part of the other debate, or if I was, I did not recall you ever making such a statement.
I think I may be confusing you with someone else then. Were you on WannaDebate?

[Mabel]

I think I may be confusing you with someone else then. Were you on WannaDebate?
Yes.....I was an admin LOL!

[kingclick]

And you don't recall this GIGANTIC discussion over there?

[Mabel]

Nope, I seriously don't.

[kingclick]

Oh well.....

[Lady Thatcher]

:lol So to sum this up, one must have been a member of this board and WannaDebate for decades and pay attention to every thread in order to follow Kinglozer's rants. Got it :)

P.s. Could someone please find FAILPROOF in the english dictionary. When I look it up all I get is the following:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for failproof:
1. foolproof
2. flopper
3. fireproof
4. flappier
5. fallopian
6. flapper
7. floppier
8. fearful
9. fireplug
10. fearfully

[kingclick]

:lol So to sum this up, one must have been a member of this board and WannaDebate for decades and pay attention to every thread in order to follow Kinglozer's rants. Got it :)

P.s. Could someone please find FAILPROOF in the english dictionary. When I look it up all I get is the following:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for failproof:
1. foolproof
2. flopper
3. fireproof
4. flappier
5. fallopian
6. flapper
7. floppier
8. fearful
9. fireplug
10. fearfully:lol So to sum this up, one must have been a member of this board and WannaDebate for decades and pay attention to every thread in order to follow Kinglozer's rants. Got it :)

P.s. Could someone please find FAILPROOF in the english dictionary. When I look it up all I get is the following:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for failproof:
1. foolproof
2. flopper
3. fireproof
4. flappier
5. fallopian
6. flapper
7. floppier
8. fearful
9. fireplug
10. fearfully




This didn't start as a "rant" this started as Epicuris asking me a question about something I had previously posted. And I answered it. I didn't think I was going to need to give another complete rundown of my stance.

Google search for failproof

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,350 for failproof

[Echo2]

The rant king.
King of rants.
Rantaholic.
McRant
rantnoxious
rantlicious
Lord of the rants.

Rantaphobe

I need a nap. :troll:

[kingclick]

The Rant Turn of the King
Mr Rantalot!
Rantalicious
Rantalator
Rants in my pants

[Echo2]

King - "Rants in my pants" ---- ROFLMAO

[Lady Thatcher]

Google search for failproof

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,350 for failproof

:rofl Last time I checked Google wasn't a dictionary, or a leading source of precise and accurate information. But I did google it, and there are 412,000 results. So really all you've proved is that there are 412,000 other people who are: A. idiots B. don't understand, or C. won't accept that FAILPROOF is not in the English dictionary. Congrats for that brillant show of intelligence on your part. :thanku:

Point still stands... you are getting pissy at others because of your ill use of the English language and the fact that you made a broad statement that could be attributed more to the discussion of the sterilization and not the reversal of the sterlization. I'm not the only one here who wanted clarification, which you didn't give at the beginning of this thread.

[kingclick]

:rofl Last time I checked Google wasn't a dictionary, or a leading source of precise and accurate information. But I did google it, and there are 412,000 results. So really all you've proved is that there are 412,000 other people who are: A. idiots B. don't understand, or C. won't accept that FAILPROOF is not in the English dictionary. Congrats for that brillant show of intelligence on your part. :thanku:

Point still stands... you are getting pissy at others because of your ill use of the English language and the fact that you made a broad statement that could be attributed more to the discussion of the sterilization and not the reversal of the sterlization. I'm not the only one here who wanted clarification, which you didn't give at the beginning of this thread.

The point still stands that I didn't "make any statement" I just acknowledge someone's question, then you came in and made a bunch of assumptions that were completely unsupported in my "answer" to a specific question. An answer which was not intended to give an "complete statement of the issue".

As for the options. It also shows that there are thousands of more people out there that actually understand the phrase and have used it.

Interesting how you, not understanding a basic term used by thousands would actually bring MY intelligence into play. Maybe next time you should not assume so much.

[Mabel]

I thought the phrase was "foolproof" - I just figured that's what you meant.

[kingclick]

If I meant foolproof I would have said foolproof. However I said failproof which is what I meant. Failproof.

[Lady Thatcher]

Interesting how you, not understanding a basic term used by thousands would actually bring MY intelligence into play. Maybe next time you should not assume so much.

You are honestly going to continue to use the "well if Google has it, it must be so" tactic? You are beyond comedy. I have nothing to win, or lose in this debate. I almost rarely post in the debate forums. You on the other hand can't find the balls to conceed that you didn't word your statement properly and then got pissed when you were taken the wrong way. That is your short coming, not mine. You can try to make me the bad guy here.. but I'm not the one who posted a comment such as you did, nor try to back it up with the almight and godly Google as your proof of credibility. Comedy I tell you. I'll let you have the last word sweets.. hopefully this time around you'll find one that is actually a word according to Webster, not Google.

[Mabel]

Okay...if foolproof is not what you meant...what the heck does failproof mean? I genuinely am asking. Because I'm a word lover, and can't find a dictionary definition of it. Please use a dictionary and not google, as I can google nonsense and get results!

[Lady Thatcher]

Okay...if foolproof is not what you meant...what the heck does failproof mean? I genuinely am asking. Because I'm a word lover, and can't find a dictionary definition of it. Please use a dictionary and not google, as I can google nonsense and get results!

I'm going to make it that when you input "Supreme ruler of the Universe" my name comes up in the top 1,000 hits ;)

[kingclick]

Okay...if foolproof is not what you meant...what the heck does failproof mean? I genuinely am asking. Because I'm a word lover, and can't find a dictionary definition of it. Please use a dictionary and not google, as I can google nonsense and get results!

Impervious to failure.

Tell me, you understand what fail means! And please tell me what you know proof means.

I mean, it's simple logic.

Childproof.
Waterproof.
Leakproof.

Yet you can't grasp the concept of failproof?

[Mabel]

Impervious to failure.

Tell me, you understand what fail means! And please tell me what you know proof means.

I mean, it's simple logic.

Childproof.
Waterproof.
Leakproof.

Yet you can't grasp the concept of failproof?
So, the same meaning as foolproof, according to the dictionary. Gotcha, thanks. Next time you ask a genuine question I'll be sure to respond to you like you're an idiot :)


I could not find it in any dictionary. I assume it is a word that was made up, and people pass it off as a legitimate word. Any dictionary suggests to use foolproof in the instance where one would use Failproof.

[kingclick]

So, the same meaning as foolproof, according to the dictionary. Gotcha, thanks. Next time you ask a genuine question I'll be sure to respond to you like you're an idiot :)


I could not find it in any dictionary. I assume it is a word that was made up, and people pass it off as a legitimate word. Any dictionary suggests to use foolproof in the instance where one would use Failproof.

If it's the same meaning I don't even know what the hell Thatcher was making a big deal out of it.

So basically what you two have been pissing and moaning about is a what then? You GOT my meaning? Oh, this was just the equivalent of making fun of my spelling.

Wow, I thought we were all above that by now.

[Mabel]

No silly, you TOLD me you DIDN'T mean foolproof, when I figured that is what you meant LOL! So I couldn't figure out WHAT you meant, if it did NOT mean the same as foolproof! Truly, it was an honest question. You responded to me like I was an ass, and I was simply asking you a question. In my mind I'm going, if he definitely knows he does NOT mean foolproof, then I have no idea what he's trying to say....

Bottom line is the actual word is foolproof. No biggie, but now I know that IS what you meant!

[Mabel]

So basically what you two have been pissing and moaning about is a what then?
Please KL, quote where I was pissing and moaning LOL. Or stop exaggerating.

[Mabel]

Okay...if foolproof is not what you meant...what the heck does failproof mean? I genuinely am asking. Because I'm a word lover, and can't find a dictionary definition of it. Please use a dictionary and not google, as I can google nonsense and get results!
Here is my post. This is pissing and moaning to you? Sheesh.

[kingclick]

No silly, you TOLD me you DIDN'T mean foolproof, when I figured that is what you meant LOL! So I couldn't figure out WHAT you meant, if it did NOT mean the same as foolproof! Truly, it was an honest question. You responded to me like I was an ass, and I was simply asking you a question. In my mind I'm going, if he definitely knows he does NOT mean foolproof, then I have no idea what he's trying to say....

Bottom line is the actual word is foolproof. No biggie, but now I know that IS what you meant!

Ok. But why was it even brought up in the first place? If everyone knew that it meant basically the same thing?

I think I know why. It because Thatcher wanted to divert the discussion and make me look stupid. Well la-di-da! Success!

I'm sorry but it just seems that it was just a waste of time to point out that a word isn't in the dictionary when everyone knows what it means.

Going back....

Personally, foolproof doesn't mean safe, especially in the context for which you used it.

If a medical procedure leaves "no room for human error", that would then mean it's safe.

Wow. All this just because I answered a question. Maybe next time I will have second thoughts about answering a question.

[Lady Thatcher]

Did it SAY foolproof? No it said failproof. Meaning IMPERVIOUS TO FAILURE.

I did post the definition of foolproof. You stated it wasn't that definition. So we're back to the fack that you can't express yourself in a manner in a form of English that anyone here can understand. I am far above pointing out misspellings and grammar mistakes. I'm horrible at both of them. But when the misspelling, grammar or wording so skews the understanding of a comment, it's worthy of being pointed out and debated upon. Hell, as of right now, we don't know what the hell you are talking about since you keep flipping back and forth on what you believe the word to mean.

[Mabel]

Wow. All this just because I answered a question. Maybe next time I will have second thoughts about answering a question.
Well I know for damn sure I'll think twice before asking YOU a question - man!! Defensive much?? I brought it up after it was mentioned that I assumed you meant foolproof. You said you did NOT mean foolproof. Never mind, next time I will just drop it, and not bother asking you.

[kingclick]

Please KL, quote where I was pissing and moaning LOL. Or stop exaggerating.

It just seemed to me that you were making a big deal out of nothing.

[Lady Thatcher]

If a medical procedure leaves "no room for human error", that would then mean it's safe.

No, it does not.

No room for human error means no room for malpractice. If humans ability means that a doctor can only guarantee a 50% chance of reversal, that is not safe, that is medical limitations... that is the limitation of his human ability based on today's technology, and if you were to be unable to have a child, because you were in that 50%, that doctor was not in error, because he performed the procedure to the best of his ability, with no human error.

That does not equate SAFE. The only way he can be within human error is if he performs a reversal, he screws up the surgery, on his own merits, and causes you to be infertile. That is a human error. Not a limitation on techology or human limitation.

And that is the point of YOUR wording.

FOOLPROOF does not mean that it's perfect.

[Mabel]

How was I making a big deal out of nothing. When I asked you what failproof meant because you told me I was thinking of the wrong definition and I explained to you that I was interested in words, and was genuinely curious what it meant? Or maybe you felt I was making a big deal out of it because you realized it *wasn't* a word? Either way, it's silly. For 1, I *wasn't* making a big deal out of it, I *wasn't* being rude to you, I was ASKING you a question.
And 2, if you realized it wasn't a word, or wasn't the word you thought it was, all you had to say was oops, I *did* mean foolproof, thanks. Not a big deal.

I think you were in the wrong on this one,and falsely accused me of being pissy and moany when I was trying to ask you a genuine question.

[Lady Thatcher]

I think I know why. It because Thatcher wanted to divert the discussion and make me look stupid. Well la-di-da! Success!

You give me way to much credit, but thank you anyways. *I* was debating this topic, per the wording of the first post. You are the one who threw a hissy fit about how I was taking your words out of context. *I* tried to debate this, you're the one who can't conceed that you didn't clarify your position properly. I'm pretty sure we all knew what my position was right after my first post. This could have been solved a long time ago had you said "Listen, let me submise exactly what my thoughts were" instead of him hawing back and forth about threads from yester years.

[kingclick]

How was I making a big deal out of nothing. When I asked you what failproof meant because you told me I was thinking of the wrong definition and I explained to you that I was interested in words, and was genuinely curious what it meant? Or maybe you felt I was making a big deal out of it because you realized it *wasn't* a word? Either way, it's silly. For 1, I *wasn't* making a big deal out of it, I *wasn't* being rude to you, I was ASKING you a question.
And 2, if you realized it wasn't a word, or wasn't the word you thought it was, all you had to say was oops, I *did* mean foolproof, thanks. Not a big deal.

I think you were in the wrong on this one,and falsely accused me of being pissy and moany when I was trying to ask you a genuine question.

Yes. I'm defensive much about this issue. I just PM'd you an apology with an explanation.

[kingclick]

You give me way to much credit, but thank you anyways. *I* was debating this topic, per the wording of the first post. You are the one who threw a hissy fit about how I was taking your words out of context. *I* tried to debate this, you're the one who can't conceed that you didn't clarify your position properly. I'm pretty sure we all knew what my position was right after my first post. This could have been solved a long time ago had you said "Listen, let me submise exactly what my thoughts were" instead of him hawing back and forth about threads from yester years.

Ok. Now that we have wasted 30 or so posts trying to point out that failproof isn't in your dictionary....

"Let me submise exatly what my thoughts were".....

I believe that IF we as a human race focused enough scientific energy into a nearly perfect reversible sterilization we can prevent a bunch of social problems.

I would only support it if it was 99.999999 percent reversible and proved to not be damaging to the child.

[Book Wizard]

Mabel, look up FAILSAFE in the dictionary. I think that is the word KL really wants. There is no such word as failproof. Words are my stock in trade.

[kingclick]

Mabel, look up FAILSAFE in the dictionary. I think that is the word KL really wants. There is no such word as failproof. Words are my stock in trade.

Failsafe!!! Thanks!

[Book Wizard]

You are most welcome KL.

You see the benefits of reading the dictionary for amusement? I have ten or twelve dictionaries on my desk and the OED in the Library. And a Latin and a Greek dictionary in the Family Room. Linguistics is fastinating.

[Peanut]

Ok. Now that we have wasted 30 or so posts trying to point out that failproof isn't in your dictionary....

"Let me submise exatly what my thoughts were".....

I believe that IF we as a human race focused enough scientific energy into a nearly perfect reversible sterilization we can prevent a bunch of social problems.

I would only support it if it was 99.999999 percent reversible and proved to not be damaging to the child.


Damn, I cannot believe I actually waded through all five pages posted after I agreed with KL's theory In theory before BookWizard finally settled an issue of semantics.

[Mabel]

Failsafe! Thank you Book Wizard!

I still would not support something like that. Do I see its benefits? Yes. But I heartily disagree with a *law* that would force us to do something to our own bodies - to our babies' bodies. It just freaks me out! I can't imagine allowing the government to have such control over our personal beings.

[Epicurus]

I can't believe I read it all either! I don't even remember what we are debating hardly anymore. Oh yeah, in the event of the impossible, KL would support the outrageous use of sterilization of all human males in infancy.
It was worth it to read the hilarity of the previous pages to get to this point;)

My stance has not changed at all from the beginning to the end. I do not support the non medically indicated alteration of any infant period. I do not support it no matter what level of technology we have reached. I believe it to be immoral and against our basic human rights.

Just for the record, I also do not support "playing devils advocate" just for the sake of it on this BB. I consider it a form of trolling unless it is stated that is what one is doing in order to widen the scope of understanding of a topic. It is a sort of bait game intended to inflame for the sake of inflaming when used without disclosure. Just my opinion.

Collette

[Mabel]

Just for the record, I also do not support "playing devils advocate" just for the sake of it on this BB. I consider it a form of trolling unless it is stated that is what one is doing in order to widen the scope of understanding of a topic. It is a sort of bait game intended to inflame for the sake of inflaming when used without disclosure. Just my opinion.
I would agree, IF IF IF the "stance" you decide to argue as the devil's advocate is specifically and obviously baiting, or inflammatory. If you just decide to argue the positives to the *other* side of the arguement, I dont see that as inflammatory.

Example - if we are arguing pro life vs. pro choice, and you are pro choice, but choose to point out the positives of pro life, in order to learn a bit more - I don't see the harm in that.
If you are arguing circ vs. uncirc, and you are uncirc, but you choose to debate on the "circ" side using some crazy arguement like "circed men get more girlfriends and have better jobs" just to get people riled up - that I think is trolly. Not against the rules mind you, but *personally* trolly.