Should mothers be allowed to breastfeed in public?

Discussion in 'Debate' started by virgin, Apr 10, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Imperial

    Imperial Registered User Member

    Messages:
    547
    Likes:
    176
    Local Time:
    11:20 PM
    Boon:
  2. Imperial
  3. You keep dancing from one thing to another. First of all what makes someone more likely to be selected could be anything. That doesn't make that anything a sex organ and once again MENS breast tissue can function the EXACT same way a womans can with an increase in estrogen that DOES happen to some men and guess what
    THOSE MEN CAN STILL BE TOPLESS IN PUBLIC

    So you can rule out your function argument, you can rule out your selection argument, and you can rule out your sexualization argument.

    What do you have left?
     
  4. Ralph

    Ralph KING Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes:
    376
    Local Time:
    6:20 AM
    Boon:
  5. ralph
  6. Honestly if you read the whole thread you'd know the arguments I came up with (not really with you, but with others, as I was half-assed when debating you) were valid and that there's really no counter-argument to them.

    Your statement that what makes someone to be selected could be anything is just uneducated and retarded. It's a biological instinct for males to search for women that seem more fit to bear children, and large breasts are one of the factors. Hence, a women's breasts are a sexual organ. The statement that men's breasts can be a women's with added estrogen is also stupid, considering it's a women's role to breastfeed their children, not a man's. I'm not even sure a man would be able to lactate even if he had the increase in estrogen, which would be a supplement and not naturally provided by the body.
     
  7. Pray

    Pray Registered User Member

    Messages:
    239
    Likes:
    49
    Local Time:
    10:20 AM
    Boon:
  8. Pray
  9. Nope. Just go home and do it whats the rush
     
  10. Imperial

    Imperial Registered User Member

    Messages:
    547
    Likes:
    176
    Local Time:
    11:20 PM
    Boon:
  11. Imperial
  12. Okay sorry to burst your bubble but biology and evolution is something I know lot about. A womans biological instinct to look for in a guy evolutionary speaking is for a strong man aka someone who can protect their children. By YOUR logic this makes a mans arms and abs and shoulders sexual organs. So no, you're the one at fault unable to apply your principle across the board.

    Secondly the statement that mens can develop breasts and do so naturally sometimes is a scientific fact. It's called Gyno and some men get it as they get older and some men get it as a teenager and others with unnaturally with medication and yes, some of these men CAN produce milk, your ignorance of biology is not an argument. Furthermore "A woman's role" is entirely up to her. She can choose not to breast feed if she wants to.

    Try again?
     
  13. Ralph

    Ralph KING Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes:
    376
    Local Time:
    6:20 AM
    Boon:
  14. ralph
  15. Apparently not, given the response you posted.

    I'll first address your claims about men lactating, as I think it can't get any dumber in that. Just because maybe 2% of the male population can develop breasts that lactate does not mean they should male breasts are a sexual organ. How do you think children were breastfeed long before the creation of powered milk? Obviously their dads sat at home breastfeeding them because they suffered from something called Gyno, right? No. Males would hunt and work while women stayed to take care of their children and breastfeed them. Hence, long before society's role in the sexualization of the female breast, breasts were always a sex organ used by females to breastfeed their children. It isn't my "ignorance of biology" that allows me to know that even if they have the ability to, it is not a man's job to breastfeed his children.

    Now we come to the part of the selection. Since you're a smartass at biology and evolution, you'd know that it is and always has been a biological instinct for men to want to reproduce with women that seem fit to bear children. Men's role has always been dominant in society and in many cultures such as India and China, hence women's biological instinct are sometimes ignored due to their obligation to marry someone their father/family picks out for them. (I'd also like to point out that women's ability to bear children was/is measured mostly by breast size, etc... which are mostly physical features, whereas as you say women's instinct is to reproduce with strong men, which can be either physical or on a deeper emotional basis.)

    The last line in your post made no sense, as as I said before, a woman's role was always to take care of the children. With our society, that may be reducing with the amount of working women and other stuff, but it does not change the fact that at one point in our historic timeline, women were obligated to take care of their children because no one else would if they didn't.
     
  16. Imperial

    Imperial Registered User Member

    Messages:
    547
    Likes:
    176
    Local Time:
    11:20 PM
    Boon:
  17. Imperial
  18. Okay I've had enough of your nonsense so It's about time I bury it.

    "Just because maybe 2% of the male population can develop breasts that lactate does not mean they should male breasts are a sexual organ"

    1. A Sex organ is what one uses to have sex, not what one uses to feed a child which is why it's not included here www.sexualityandu.ca/sexual-health/understanding-your-body/female-sexual-organs
    2. In your statement you concede that the ability to feed an offspring doesn't equate to a sex organ when you deny that men who can produce milk doesn't equate to their breasts being sexual organs. I invite you to look at how other species feed their infants and ask if you consider those parts sex organs as well. In terms of birds you're certainly screwed.
    3. "It's not a mans job to breastfeed their children" Guess what hotshot.. In 2016 it isn't a womans job either. If you want to bring up bronze age gender roles feel free to but you're living in the past while ironically using a computer. Gender roles do not imply sex organs.

    "ow we come to the part of the selection. Since you're a smartass at biology and evolution, you'd know that it is and always has been a biological instinct for men to want to reproduce with women that seem fit to bear children. Men's role has always been dominant in society and in many cultures such as India and China, hence women's biological instinct are sometimes ignored due to their obligation to marry someone their father/family picks out for them. (I'd also like to point out that women's ability to bear children was/is measured mostly by breast size, etc... which are mostly physical features, whereas as you say women's instinct is to reproduce with strong men, which can be either physical or on a deeper emotional basis.)"

    I like how you pick and choose what part of history you get your selection ideas from but regardless. It has always been a biological instinct of women not only in humans but throughout mammals to reproduce with the physically strongest male which would BY YOUR LOGIC make the upper body muscles of a man a sexual organ... you can shift the goal posts and ignore the vast majority of history, selecting only the bits you like much like a creationist does with the bible but our evolutionary roots and the traits that come from them are clear. If you are saying that what one looks for in a mate makes that part of them a sex organ then that would include a mans muscles. The fact that you're a hypocrite just shows how bankrupt your argument is.

    "a woman's role was always to take care of the children. With our society, that may be reducing with the amount of working women and other stuff, but it does not change the fact that at one point in our historic timeline, women were obligated to take care of their children because no one else would if they didn't"

    1. A womans role is whatever she wants it to be
    2. History, what you use to feed a child and gender roles do not make something a sex organ. It being involved in sex and giving birth makes it a sex organ. Breasts are not required nor have they ever been required for a woman to have sex or give birth.

    I don't need to argue against you anymore because you contradict yourself on your principles and therefore argue against yourself.
     
  19. Oscar

    Oscar cute Member

    Messages:
    292
    Likes:
    134
    Local Time:
    10:20 AM
    Boon:
  20. Oscar
  21. Fkin hell thought we established that breasts aren't sex organs a while ago

    I think if a woman feels she wants to get them out in public then that's her choice, people have way too much time on their hands to be offended just for the sake of being offended when in reality it's just a mother feeding her child
     
    Nerd likes this.
  22. Pedorito

    Pedorito Registered User Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes:
    0
    Local Time:
    11:20 AM
    You are one of the dumbest people I've ever seen.
     
  23. Pad

    Pad ginger snap -hacked by amelia- Member

    Messages:
    848
    Likes:
    591
    Local Time:
    10:20 AM
    Boon:
  24. Pad
  25. you gonna back your argument up or
     
  26. Ralph

    Ralph KING Member

    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes:
    376
    Local Time:
    6:20 AM
    Boon:
  27. ralph
  28. > calls me dumb
    > doesn't provide counter-argument

    Kys today
     
  29. bud

    bud yikes :( BoonForums Manager

    Messages:
    780
    Likes:
    544
    Local Time:
    2:20 AM
    Boon:
  30. bud
  31. this is a debate not a thread where you just call someone dumb and not explain why. (That aint even debating)
    Seeing as this thread is a month old and users only wanna message to bump themselves on debate threads. Thread closed.
     
    Nerd likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.