[CCS]

Uhhh... no, that's completely wrong. I invoke people into arguments? Like, I'm somehow forcing them to argue about things they don't want to argue about? What a load of fucking nonsense.

Look, I posted an article about a woman who is so poor she can't afford to give her children a decent life and now she's just had a sixth child and is whinging that the government hasn't done anything for her. I made some suggestions about how people in that position could be discouraged from having more children than they can handle (free tube tying!). It takes a special kind of retard - namely fixed_truth and a few others - to go from that to "You're suggesting that people be limited to how many children they have! That's population control! We don't even have an overpopulation problem!"

Like I said, a special kind of retard. It's as though fixed_truth reads my post, feels like he needs to formulate an argument (because he certainly couldn't agree with me!) and despite thinking hard about it, can't come up with an argument. So instead he looks at the buzzwords and searches his memory banks. "Hmmm... population... birth... OMG, CHILD LIMITS TO CONTROL POPULATION! JUST LIKE RED FUCKING CHINA! Thanks buzzwords, you've saved the day again!"

It's just a shame that people like Lolspeed and fixed_truth are too intellectually dishonest to actually debate what it is I've said and instead try to completely misinterpret my words. I guess it makes it easier to formulate an argument, but it's a most disingenuous way of doing it, isn't it?