We match you with mondy for school
join studentawards | the forum | membership benefits | surveys français? visitez boursetudes.com  
Welcome Guest to the Studentawards Forum Forum Home | Search | Active Topics | Forum Members | Forum Log In | Forum Register

Bringing Girls Overnight at U of T St. Michael's College Options
lytherebel
Posted: December 14, 2010 9:43:12 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/30/2009
Posts: 540
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
What if they don't want to have children?


It is every person's duty and responsibility to procreate. Everyone needs to have children, unless they are physically unable to have kids by way of a physical limitation.

Two things I don't want to do are get with a chick and have children. I don't feel as if it's my duty or responsibility.

Applied to:
University of Waterloo - Electrical Engineering
University of Waterloo - Physical Sciences
University of Guelph - Mechanical Engineering
Wilfrid Laurier University - Chemistry
University of Toronto - Physical and Mathematical Sciences [Victoria University]
LawStudent
Posted: December 14, 2010 9:46:26 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
lytherebel wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
What if they don't want to have children?


It is every person's duty and responsibility to procreate. Everyone needs to have children, unless they are physically unable to have kids by way of a physical limitation.

Two things I don't want to do are get with a chick and have children. I don't feel as if it's my duty or responsibility.


How will the human race continue if you don't at least replace yourself?

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 14, 2010 9:47:00 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
1. Obesity can be the cause of fertility problems in women. Just so you know, in case you ever decide to breed with a 200 lb megawoman, but find that you can't.

2. Women are not 'designed' to stay with one partner and raise his children. And even if they WERE (e.g. nature made it so), it doesn't entail that they SHOULD.

3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.

University of Toronto '11
lytherebel
Posted: December 14, 2010 9:52:17 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/30/2009
Posts: 540
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.

I wouldn't mind cloning myself.

Applied to:
University of Waterloo - Electrical Engineering
University of Waterloo - Physical Sciences
University of Guelph - Mechanical Engineering
Wilfrid Laurier University - Chemistry
University of Toronto - Physical and Mathematical Sciences [Victoria University]
LawStudent
Posted: December 14, 2010 9:53:22 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
1. Obesity can be the cause of fertility problems in women. Just so you know, in case you ever decide to breed with a 200 lb megawoman, but find that you can't.


Can yes, but will not necessarily. If the woman has fertility problems then she obviously can't bear children, but if she can, then she should.

Quote:
2. Women are not 'designed' to stay with one partner and raise his children. And even if they WERE (e.g. nature made it so), it doesn't entail that they SHOULD.


Yes they are. Look back to history: the women were naturally supposed to stay at home and raise the children while the men were actively out hunting, farming, and protecting that community. The women were supposed to devote their attention to raising that child and eventually children. You can also look at common sense: women only have about 30,000 eggs for their lifetime, while men can re-generate 5 million sperm in a matter of hours. Clearly men are intended to be getting "around" more and impregnating many women.

Quote:
3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.


Cloning to date has massive complications and is usually not successful. Sexual reproduction is natural and it's been done successfully for thousands of years.

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 14, 2010 10:32:03 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
LawStudent wrote:

Quote:
2. Women are not 'designed' to stay with one partner and raise his children. And even if they WERE (e.g. nature made it so), it doesn't entail that they SHOULD.


Yes they are. Look back to history: the women were naturally supposed to stay at home and raise the children while the men were actively out hunting, farming, and protecting that community. The women were supposed to devote their attention to raising that child and eventually children. You can also look at common sense: women only have about 30,000 eggs for their lifetime, while men can re-generate 5 million sperm in a matter of hours. Clearly men are intended to be getting "around" more and impregnating many women.


This argument has been done to death already by many philosophers. You can appeal to nature all you want, but it isn't sufficient to establish the claim that women should behave this way and men should behave that way. I concede that evolution has made it so that women and men have different, often conflicting, interests and strategies for reproductive success, and that society developed in a way that promoted different gender roles. HOWEVER, just because nature made it this way doesn't mean it SHOULD be the case that women ought to have sex with one/few partners (and get punished for doing otherwise) while men get to fool around all they want. You need two more premises thrown in there to reach your conclusion: that what is natural is good in some way (which you have yet to prove - and which I can very easily shoot down), and that we should do what is good (which, admittedly, is not very controversial).

Quote:
Quote:
3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.


Cloning to date has massive complications and is usually not successful. Sexual reproduction is natural and it's been done successfully for thousands of years.


I was mostly joking about cloning, but again, just because it's natural doesn't mean we all have the moral imperative to procreate. Also, should people who can't afford kids procreate? Should the mentally incompetent and psychotic procreate?

University of Toronto '11
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 14, 2010 10:34:36 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
lytherebel wrote:
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.

I wouldn't mind cloning myself.


I think cloning yours truly is about as close to perfection as you can get. happy feet

University of Toronto '11
LawStudent
Posted: December 14, 2010 10:48:24 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
This argument has been done to death already by many philosophers. You can appeal to nature all you want, but it isn't sufficient to establish the claim that women should behave this way and men should behave that way. I concede that evolution has made it so that women and men have different, often conflicting, interests and strategies for reproductive success, and that society developed in a way that promoted different gender roles. HOWEVER, just because nature made it this way doesn't mean it SHOULD be the case that women ought to have sex with one/few partners (and get punished for doing otherwise) while men get to fool around all they want. You need two more premises thrown in there to reach your conclusion: that what is natural is good in some way (which you have yet to prove - and which I can very easily shoot down), and that we should do what is good (which, admittedly, is not very controversial).


lol. You're funny.

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 14, 2010 11:00:11 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
LawStudent wrote:
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
This argument has been done to death already by many philosophers. You can appeal to nature all you want, but it isn't sufficient to establish the claim that women should behave this way and men should behave that way. I concede that evolution has made it so that women and men have different, often conflicting, interests and strategies for reproductive success, and that society developed in a way that promoted different gender roles. HOWEVER, just because nature made it this way doesn't mean it SHOULD be the case that women ought to have sex with one/few partners (and get punished for doing otherwise) while men get to fool around all they want. You need two more premises thrown in there to reach your conclusion: that what is natural is good in some way (which you have yet to prove - and which I can very easily shoot down), and that we should do what is good (which, admittedly, is not very controversial).


lol. You're funny.


erm

University of Toronto '11
j-fo
Posted: December 14, 2010 11:01:28 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 560
Location: Vancouver
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
What if they don't want to have children?


It is every person's duty and responsibility to procreate. Everyone needs to have children, unless they are physically unable to have kids by way of a physical limitation.

Two things I don't want to do are get with a chick and have children. I don't feel as if it's my duty or responsibility.


How will the human race continue if you don't at least replace yourself?


Overpopulation is a much more serious issue than underpopulation. (In fact, underpopulation is such a non-issue that it even has a red squiggly line under it.)

McGill - Linguistics & Computer science // U of T - Linguistics & Computing // UBC - Computer science & Linguistics
Queen's - Cognitive science // SFU - Computing science & Linguistics
lytherebel
Posted: December 14, 2010 11:09:28 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/30/2009
Posts: 540
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
O. Tannenbaum wrote:
3. If you want to replace the dying population, I suggest cloning.

I wouldn't mind cloning myself.


I think cloning yours truly is about as close to perfection as you can get. happy feet

I agree!

Applied to:
University of Waterloo - Electrical Engineering
University of Waterloo - Physical Sciences
University of Guelph - Mechanical Engineering
Wilfrid Laurier University - Chemistry
University of Toronto - Physical and Mathematical Sciences [Victoria University]
LawStudent
Posted: December 14, 2010 11:17:51 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
j-fo wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
What if they don't want to have children?


It is every person's duty and responsibility to procreate. Everyone needs to have children, unless they are physically unable to have kids by way of a physical limitation.

Two things I don't want to do are get with a chick and have children. I don't feel as if it's my duty or responsibility.


How will the human race continue if you don't at least replace yourself?


Overpopulation is a much more serious issue than underpopulation. (In fact, underpopulation is such a non-issue that it even has a red squiggly line under it.)


Overpopulation is a myth. The world has enough resources to support 10 times our current population. Underpopulation is an obvious issue: if the population is shrinking you'll have less people to pay taxes, less people to work, etc.

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011
j-fo
Posted: December 14, 2010 11:19:24 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 560
Location: Vancouver
LawStudent wrote:
j-fo wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
LawStudent wrote:
lytherebel wrote:
What if they don't want to have children?


It is every person's duty and responsibility to procreate. Everyone needs to have children, unless they are physically unable to have kids by way of a physical limitation.

Two things I don't want to do are get with a chick and have children. I don't feel as if it's my duty or responsibility.


How will the human race continue if you don't at least replace yourself?


Overpopulation is a much more serious issue than underpopulation. (In fact, underpopulation is such a non-issue that it even has a red squiggly line under it.)


Overpopulation is a myth. The world has enough resources to support 10 times our current population.


THE MESSIAH HAS ARISEN. queen

McGill - Linguistics & Computer science // U of T - Linguistics & Computing // UBC - Computer science & Linguistics
Queen's - Cognitive science // SFU - Computing science & Linguistics
kaloolah
Posted: December 15, 2010 1:30:09 PM

Rank: Posteur Expérimenté
Groups: Member

Joined: 12/12/2010
Posts: 122
To address the idea that all women were created to stay with only one partner: are you forgetting that there are other benefits to sex other than procreation? Why is that being pushed aside? Men can get many women pregnant, whereas women can only endure one pregnancy at a time, but so what? Maybe the whole world isn’t aiming to make babies all of the time! Maybe some people just want to get laid.
It is absolutely absurd to conclude that one should or MUST procreate. I really don't care about fulfilling your silly little idea of what is natural, Lawstudent. What exactly are you aiming for with this idea? Of course it is not a new idea ,but it seems like absolute folly to me. Even if overpopulation is a myth, and the world can support more people, that does not mean that we need any more! We have enough people to function as a society; is that not enough for you?
I fully intend to have children, although I would not if I did not want to. A woman shouldn't be shamed for not bringing new bodies into this world.



EC's:
Auditioned for the National Youth Band for 2011 (haven't heard back yet, fingers crossed!)
4 years provincial honor band
4 years provincial honor jazz band program
5 years in the honors district music program: choir, band (first chair flute/ piccolo), big band (playing lead sax)
6 years school music program, playing/ singing in various groups such as the choir, concert band, jazz band, jazz combo, sax ensemble, flute ensemble
1 year school debate team
1 year school newspaper
11 years girl guides
Grade 8 RCM flute (working on grade 9)
LawStudent
Posted: December 15, 2010 1:54:27 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
kaloolah wrote:
Maybe the whole world isn’t aiming to make babies all of the time! Maybe some people just want to get laid.


That's a very simplistic, selfish way to go about looking at sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. Sure, it's also pleasurable, but that comes second to the main purpose of procreating.

Quote:
Even if overpopulation is a myth, and the world can support more people, that does not mean that we need any more! We have enough people to function as a society; is that not enough for you?


Clearly you know nothing about Canada's shrinking population. Canada does not have enough people to sustain itself. Canadians only reproduce 1.7 kids for every 2 people. We also have a large portion of the work force moving into reduced hours or full retirement, which means we'll have the same number of jobs but less people to fill them. That is simple math and we certainly do not have enough people to function as society long term.

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 15, 2010 2:34:06 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
LawStudent wrote:
kaloolah wrote:
Maybe the whole world isn’t aiming to make babies all of the time! Maybe some people just want to get laid.


That's a very simplistic, selfish way to go about looking at sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. Sure, it's also pleasurable, but that comes second to the main purpose of procreating.


What a simplistic and arbitrary way to determine the (main) purpose of the reproductive organ(s). Organs perform various functions - you need a better reason to justify why procreation is the MAIN function, given that people usually have sex for the purpose of experiencing pleasure, not the other way around.

University of Toronto '11
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 15, 2010 3:11:48 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
Let's ship people to Mars. I heard the scenery is gorgeous there.

University of Toronto '11
dancee
Posted: December 15, 2010 3:45:18 PM

Rank: Posteur Expérimenté
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/24/2010
Posts: 112
Location: Ontario
So what I got out of this conversation was:

1) I'm probably a wh0re.
2) I am useless unless I procreate.
3) I am simply a toy.
4) It is the utmost importance that I reproduce more than 1.7 children so that I won't be responsible for .7 of a child. What a shame, only being .7 of a person! I guess that puts them on par with how women should be perceived, according to LS.
O. Tannenbaum
Posted: December 15, 2010 4:09:30 PM

Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member

Joined: 10/4/2009
Posts: 6,190
Location: Robarts
I didn't know people are easily offended by space colonization. erm

University of Toronto '11
LawStudent
Posted: December 15, 2010 4:50:02 PM

Rank: Posteur Intermédiaire
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/18/2010
Posts: 683
Location: Ottawa, ON.
dancee wrote:
1) I'm probably a wh0re.


Sorry to hear that.

Quote:
2) I am useless unless I procreate.


Sorry to hear that.

Quote:
4) It is the utmost importance that I reproduce more than 1.7 children so that I won't be responsible for .7 of a child. What a shame, only being .7 of a person! I guess that puts them on par with how women should be perceived, according to LS.


The average is what makes it a decimal point, considering that some families reproduce 1 child and others produce 4 or 5 (for example). Nice try trying to imitate intelligence, smartass.

Nowhere did I say anything about women being lesser people than men.

Carleton University
Bachelor of Arts in Law 2011


Forum Jump

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1998-2008 studentawards.com & boursetudes.com - Studentawards Inc. All rights reserved.