chunsh

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2008-12-17 18:59 發表
chunsh & hyde,
Go do some research, street kids/trouble teens don't become that way because their parents are low income.

邊__個話街童一定係來自低收入家庭呀
我係話﹐如果一對couple要日做夜做先可以support個小朋友﹐甘點會有時間陪小朋友同埋小朋友學校以外既知識呀?

個的有錢老豆老母"pag"底個仔女自己去做生意/美容/打麻將個的並唔係呢個topic既話題呀

我唔係話男人可以有膽上床之後唔駛負責。不過我覺得大家都係係度吹水唔抹嘴o羅
講者碼﹐邊個唔識呀。講完﹐logout左/close左個browser就唔駛負責

chunsh

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2008-12-17 19:37 發表
點都好啦, 總之我就一定唔會叫女朋友落左佢啦.
唔落左佢, 就唯有生左佢出黎啦. 既然要生佢出黎, 點都要比番個名份女朋友卦. (除非女朋友要仔唔要公啦)

窮, 都可以養到小朋友的. 細個既時候我屋企都好窮, 而家都可以 ...

actually this topic is about moral view of lives and moral views that each of us has are closely related to religions

chunsh

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2008-12-17 20:37 發表


pills are better than condom, however, your girl should take the pills regularly to make it effective.

some girls are reluctant to pills because some people said it can cause cancer
anyone can confirm?

Hyde

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2008-12-17 20:37 發表


pills are better than condom, however, your girl should take the pills regularly to make it effective.

i wish she isn't on pills tho....

shutterbug

原帖由 chunsh 於 2008-12-17 21:02 發表

邊__個話街童一定係來自低收入家庭呀
我係話﹐如果一對couple要日做夜做先可以support個小朋友﹐甘點會有時間陪小朋友同埋小朋友學校以外既知識呀?

not you, I was referring to hyde, he said if parents work day & night, the kids will hang out on the street...so indirectly they could be a low income family

anyway, lots of people work like a dog ga la...so?

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2008-12-17 21:12 編輯 ]

Ultraman

原帖由 mcjohnjohn 於 2008-12-17 19:36 發表

that's the problem of those kids. ppl should think first before act.

I didn't say that is not the problem of those kids (and surely it is their problem, no excuse). But cuz you asked me why that situation can't be avoided, right? I just to tell you why.

hahahaha, how can you be sure if my family got everything, my and my brother could be a lot better than now? well, would I be Obama?

Yes, I can't be that sure. I'm just analyzing probability. It's like, I would say there should be no snow during summer time in Vancouver, but I won't/can't say 100% not. But do you think there is a big chance that would be snowing during summer time in Vancouver?

yes, it is my point of view only. were you talking with Obama's pov? you are so great~

Nope. I don't of Obama's pov, and that's why I'm not planning to have any kids.

[ 本帖最後由 Ultraman 於 2008-12-17 20:31 編輯 ]

Ultraman

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2008-12-17 19:42 發表
Ultraman, I think you and me value things very differently.  I'm against abortion.  So what's high quality and low quality family?  I'm afraid that most families in this world are low to mediocre quality families....so they all shouldn't have babies?  If that's the case, then I would NOT be in this world now...LOL

Yes, I think our values are quite different.
First I need to declare, I have no religious background, yet I do not have any intention to against any particular religion.
I know some religious against abortion. However, what's their main purpose? I believe, they think people have no rights to kill a life, no right to "treat others badly". Now the question is, what is the best way (or a good way) to "treat others in good"? Killing a baby seems not right, seems not good; but to raise up a baby with nothing good in hand means good or bad? I think people also have no rights to minimize a baby's future development.
Yes, to "kill" a baby is to take away its life right away. But how if to "ruin" a baby's (a future adult) whole life even it's still alive? Ever heard about these old Chinese statements: "life is so valuable, but love worths a lot more." and "no freedom, rather die." ? There are a lot of things worth so much more than lives. (without particular religious pov.)

And I didn't say/mean low quality families shouldn't have any kid. Back to the original discussing point, I'm comparing "responsible" and "irresponsible" families/parents. Yes, low quality families surely can have kids, yet I think they're less responsible or even irresponsible; but on the other hand, "high quality" families/parents don't necessary mean they are very responsible (because they can have all good elements on hand, but just not acting them out).

I guess his friends, relatives, parents, siblings, employer, teachers, etc can all confirm if he/she is a good person right?  I guess if one's happy about him/herself, then at least he/she should not be suffering right?  So growing up for a poor family not necessarily mean sufferings right?

All depends on how ambitious and zealous you rank and want your life to be. Yes, there are many people who are satisfied for their current stages and not working on their next stage for further improvement and development. 90 marks is pretty good already, how about 100 marks? Then 100 marks is damn good indeed, but how about 105 marks?...
Of course, this kind of character might not only be brought up by the family itself but also depends on one's own thinking and personality etc.

shutterbug

Killing a baby is to treat someone good, care, responsible, love?  Even not talking about this religiously I don't see how this is so.  I think being a responsible parent means to do whatever it takes to take care of your kids, not to kill them!  Your method is "cut toes to avoid worms".  How do you know the kid will be ruined, how much higher (significant?) is the probability of that?  I think there are too many unknowns in this equation.  So it's OK to kill for these "unknowns"?  Have you heard "tomorrow will be a better day"?

According to your logic, it's irresponsible to have kids if you're low quality family, isn't that what you said?  So to be responsible (a virtue of human being is that they want to be good and being responsible is a good thing), you shouldn't have kids then right?

shutterbug

Hypothetical case:
If someone lost some limps because of an accident, you should tell him to suicide to end this pain and not ruin the rest of his life?  And be responsible for his family/government too so that they don't have to take care of him for the rest of his life?  If he doesn't suicide, then he's irresponsible?

[ 本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2008-12-17 22:36 編輯 ]

Ultraman

原帖由 shutterbug 於 2008-12-17 21:29 發表
Killing a baby is to treat someone good, care, responsible, love?  Even not talking about this religiously I don't see how this is so.  I think being a responsible parent means to do whatever it takes ...

Once again, proves that our POV and value is really different.
Despite any religious background, here are some other examples:
- Why telling "lie" is not good but "white lie" is OK? Doesn't any kind of lie mean dishonesty?
- What do you think to put a coma patient "true permanently sleep", is it good or bad to "itself" and "its" family and relatives and friends "it" cares?
- If one day my wife and I being kidnapped, and the terrorist wants to kill either one of us in front of the other, and release the other, what would you choose?
  My answer to this: at first I may think to let the terrorist kill myself instead of my wife. But wait, once I got killed and leave my wife behind, it's really cruel and difficult for her to leave alone without me, to face each single heart breaking day for the rest of her life. So I will definitely let my wife being killed, let her life ends over there and I'll face all the heart breaking days.

Debating point: How come I let somebody kills my wife but not myself?

Any thought?