Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

MTS speed build challenge results - posted on 11th Nov 2018 at 8:38 PM
Replies: 141 (Who?), Viewed: 56089 times.
Page 3 of 6
Alchemist
#51 Old 10th Apr 2015 at 8:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinathi
2) Abortion is okay because essentially women can do whatever they want with their bodies - This argument always seemed counter-intuitive to me. Once you're pregnant, it's not just about you and your body. There is another human life/body involved. I've seen "scientific studies" that try to prove that the fetus is not technically alive, and thus abortion does not really kill him/her, but even a single bacteria (which can consist of one cell) is considered a living being. Also, this is just my opinion, but if I was pregnant but sincerely didn't feel ready, I would go through with it and drop the baby off at an orphanage. Then it would go to some loving gay couple or grow up in the orphanage and decide its future for itself.


Am I to understand that this means you're against treating cancer? o_O Anything to do with removing tumors? Parasites? How far does this rabbit hole go?


Additionally, orphanages/adoption agencies are not cure-alls. I highly urge you to look into even just the process of adopting a baby, let alone the horrible ways kids can end up going through the system. These facilities are often overflowing with children and underfinanced for resources. It's really, really nowhere near as simple and clean as you've made it sound.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance."~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Alchemist
#52 Old 13th Apr 2015 at 5:42 AM
@hugbug993 So, if you're an American, I can assume you're a Republican? No? You mean you're pro-slavery? The Republicans were the anti-slavery party, you know.

Really, the argument that because such-and-such a group in the past was in favor of a certain policy, then anyone who today agrees with the result of that policy must still owe allegiance to that group is quite absurd. Simply apply the Democrats' pro-eugenics rhetoric from the early twentieth century to President Obama and you can see how ridiculous it looks to claim that movements and parties are static entities. I think we do not want to take up the belief that just because a group once favored a certain aim means it always will pursue that aim.

My biggest disagreements with feminists today are over policies they continue to espouse quite prominently, such as women not being allowed to stay home and abortion for any reason other than saving the life of the mother. You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours, and fortunately, we live in a world where we can agree to disagree. I understand feminists have a problem in as much as they are a diffuse movement with no clear leadership, no agreed on platform and no way in which to agree on one. And, you know, if it should be happen that feminists in my town were to protest forced marriages among either our homegrown cults or other religious groups, I would be delighted to stand with them.

I simply commented here, after deciding I was up for disagrees, because I figured it would be interesting to all to see the view of someone with a different viewpoint.

Pics from my game: Sunbee's Simblr Sunbee's Livejournal
"English is a marvelous edged weapon if you know how to wield it." C.J. Cherryh
Née whiterider
staff: administrator
#53 Old 13th Apr 2015 at 3:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbee
And, you know, if it should be happen that feminists in my town were to protest forced marriages among either our homegrown cults or other religious groups, I would be delighted to stand with them.
Oh yeah, that's a very big issue in a lot of feminist circles, you're absolutely right about it being something that needs to be focused on. Maybe you should set up some activism about it in your local area, I'm sure we could find some organisations who would be ecstatic to help with that.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
The Great AntiJen
staff: moderator
#54 Old 13th Apr 2015 at 6:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbee
Really, the argument that because such-and-such a group in the past was in favor of a certain policy, then anyone who today agrees with the result of that policy must still owe allegiance to that group is quite absurd.

Right - you mean like taking the words and ideas of some people and saying a whole thing, say feminism, is not worthwhile based on the words/writings of those people because everyone who's a feminist must have allegiance to that right?

tflc is my tumblr with uploads not uploaded here: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/tflc

Polgannon: Who Murdered Blaise Penhaligan?
(3rd ed. neighbourhood now available with corrections). Poll: http://strawpoll.me/6689876

Thread for yakking about making TS2 stuff
Top Secret Researcher
#55 Old 13th Apr 2015 at 9:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbee
Really, the argument that because such-and-such a group in the past was in favor of a certain policy, then anyone who today agrees with the result of that policy must still owe allegiance to that group is quite absurd. Simply apply the Democrats' pro-eugenics rhetoric from the early twentieth century to President Obama and you can see how ridiculous it looks to claim that movements and parties are static entities. I think we do not want to take up the belief that just because a group once favored a certain aim means it always will pursue that aim.


Considering that the entire point of feminism was the liberation of women, and the Democrats/Republicans existed as platforms to gain votes on and not any sort of political statement, you're not exactly comparing apples to apples here.

But that's beside the point. So you're saying that it's a bad thing to consider that groups are static entities? You mean, like you're doing with the entirety of feminism by claiming that all of us are the assholes you're dealing with? I'm a wholly different breed of asshole, thank you very much.
Heck, if feminism is a group and groups aren't static, then try to change it so you like it more instead of declaring that you hate everything about it because of a few idiots who aren't even feminists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbee
My biggest disagreements with feminists today are over policies they continue to espouse quite prominently, such as women not being allowed to stay home and abortion for any reason other than saving the life of the mother.


Abortion, yes. But not allowing people to stay at home? That's ridiculous and anti-feminist. The entire point of feminism is that women should have choices. Lumping those people in with feminists is like saying that slave-owners are not racist because they give black people homes. It's completely stupid and shows your massive ignorance of the subject.

You're, presumably, a woman who knows that she has choices in life. With this knowledge, you've chosen a path that makes you happy. That is very feminist. Those idiots you're dealing with aren't feminists. And if they keep bothering you, ask them if they think women shouldn't have choices, because they're clearly trying to take away your choices. That'll probably shut them up.

And if you don't agree with abortions, then don't have them. What some other woman does with her body isn't your problem, and don't make that stupid murder argument because it's clearly false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbee
I understand feminists have a problem in as much as they are a diffuse movement with no clear leadership, no agreed on platform and no way in which to agree on one.


False. Our basic platform is that women should have rights and choices. That is the one thing all feminists agree on.


Frankly, I don't care if you're a stay at home mom. In fact, it'd probably be nice if more people could stay home and take care of their kids, whether they're men or women. I don't care if you're not a feminist, though someone who believes in womens' equality and ability to make their own choices in life sounds like a feminist to me. But as far as I'm concerned, claiming that all feminism hates stay at home moms is just as ignorant as saying that all stay at home moms are dominated by their husband, weak-willed, and just want someone to support them while they laze around.

The "feminists" in your town are not the only ones in the world. There are feminist groups for stay at home moms. There are feminist groups for women who prefer to be traditional. There are feminist groups for anti-choicers, stupid as it sounds. If you don't like the ones in your town, look for other people who agree with you. That's the beauty of the internet. You can interact with people you like instead of the ones in your immediate region.
For that matter, start your own group. Become a voice for stay at home feminists who like traditional dress and want to interfere with other women's wombs. Or if local cults and forced marriages are a problem, start a group around stopping those. I'm sure the ladies in town would be just as happy to protest forced marriages as you are. Don't wait for them to start it. And maybe you can make them stop harassing you or bring them to your point of view if they get to know you. Don't just roll over and say "oh, I can't change anything" while whining about not-feminists on the internet.
Lab Assistant
#56 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 3:19 AM
One problem with various progressive groups (not just feminists) is that they want an easy life without consequences. They think that taxing the heck out of the successful to fund their lifestyles (such as free abortions and birth control pills, std treatment, "free" education (which just results in degree inflation), "guaranteed minimum income" OR a right to work a job that pays decently with good benefits even if they have no marketable skills) is a good idea. My philosophy in life is utilitarianism, which means that every major decision by a major entity should ONLY be performed if it results in a net improvement on all those affected. This means the greatest good for the most people. The same set of standards for regulating the boardroom should be used to regulate the bedroom. This is not "make everyone equal" or "give everyone at least a minimum" (which lowers the average quality of life every time it is applied). Of course, the politicians and CEOs (also known as the elites and the rulers) only act in their own best interest and spin everything they do to make it seem like they are doing something good. If a man becomes infected with an STD from having frequent consensual sex, he should bare the consequences of not using a condom or restraining himself. If a woman becomes infected with an STD from having frequent consensual sex (on birth control pills to avoid pregnancy, pregnancy is another issue), she should bare the consequences of not using a female condom or diaphragm or not making her partners use a normal condom. If someone is born with an infection or is infected from activity against one's will, then one deserves to be helped out. One reason why I don't like modern feminism in the developed world today is that I see their priorities are in the wrong order. They ignore the oppression of women overseas but want to put women ahead of men over here instead of equal.

Conservatives are self-righteous and think that corporations should do whatever they want and that one has to be a prude. Progressives are self-righteous and want everyone to live a life free of consequences unless you are financially successful. If you are poor, then they will redistribute wealth your way in return for political favors.

I have formed strong opinions on utilitarianism and it would be extremely difficult to convince me that the greatest good for the most people is not the best course of action. However, I am open to hearing what people think will result in the greatest good for the most people and I always like hearing different opinions even if I disagree with them.

With honesty, sincerity, and truth,

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Top Secret Researcher
#57 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
I am open to hearing what people think will result in the greatest good for the most people and I always like hearing different opinions even if I disagree with them.


Allowing every member of a community to contribute by optimally utilising their unique skills and abilities will bring the most good to that community and all the people in it. This is why it is so confusing that some countries don't allow women to be educated or work in certain roles. The people that don't allow this are holding their country back.

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into getting it transported.
Instructor
#58 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
One problem with various progressive groups (not just feminists) is that they want an easy life without consequences. They think that taxing the heck out of the successful to fund their lifestyles (such as free abortions and birth control pills, std treatment, "free" education (which just results in degree inflation), "guaranteed minimum income" OR a right to work a job that pays decently with good benefits even if they have no marketable skills) is a good idea. My philosophy in life is utilitarianism, which means that every major decision by a major entity should ONLY be performed if it results in a net improvement on all those affected. This means the greatest good for the most people.


The greatest good for the most people would definitely involve taxing rich people a lot more. There are not very many rich people, and there are lots of poor people who could be so much happier and healthier with more money. Surveys repeatedly show that countries like Norway and Sweden, which tax a lot, are happier than the US, which has very low taxes.

Free education, to most people, means school education not university - the chance to learn to read and write and function in society. Doesn't everyone deserve that, whatever their parents' wealth? And even university education - why should only the children of wealthy parents get to continue studying and end up with the more interesting and better paid jobs that are available to someone with a degree? Shouldn't university be available to those who are most academically gifted and therefore would benefit most? And as for "guaranteed minimum income" - doesn't everyone deserve to be compensated for their work, even if all they can manage is manual labour? Everyone has to feed and clothe themselves, and find some kind of housing.

Sorry for derailing the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
One reason why I don't like modern feminism in the developed world today is that I see their priorities are in the wrong order. They ignore the oppression of women overseas but want to put women ahead of men over here instead of equal.


This bit is actually about feminism, so I'll talk about this.

Firstly, I have never heard of a feminist who wants to put women ahead of men. If there are any, they are the crazy extremists that don't at all represent feminism more generally. Feminism as a movement is about equality, although as it's about equal opportunities sometimes things like support for women in male dominated industries is involved, to level the playing field.

Second, I don't believe feminists do ignore the oppression of women overseas, and anyway this is a derailing tactic. You can support more than one cause - women in developing coutries AND women in developed countries - and it's easier to support feminism overseas if you don't still have issues at home. It's also something that works best when locals are involved - a lot of foreigners descending on a country and insisting they improve women's rights is likely to cause more harm than good. There needs to be a local movement, that can then be supported by feminists in other countries through money or diplomacy.
Alchemist
#59 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
They ignore the oppression of women overseas but want to put women ahead of men over here instead of equal.


May I ask in what explicit way is this happening? In what specific way is a mans rights being infringed upon or downplayed in favor of womens rights? Or are these just paranoid ramblings like I suspect that they are?
Does this statement involve mind reading, or does it have a factual event/basis?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"Science literacy is a vaccine against the charlatans of the world that would exploit your ignorance."~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Top Secret Researcher
#60 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 6:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
One problem with various progressive groups (not just feminists) is that they want an easy life without consequences. They think that taxing the heck out of the successful to fund their lifestyles (such as free abortions and birth control pills, std treatment, "free" education (which just results in degree inflation), "guaranteed minimum income" OR a right to work a job that pays decently with good benefits even if they have no marketable skills) is a good idea.


And what's wrong with any of that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
This means the greatest good for the most people. The same set of standards for regulating the boardroom should be used to regulate the bedroom.


Why is someone else's bedroom your business? Unless you're in it, it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
This is not "make everyone equal" or "give everyone at least a minimum" (which lowers the average quality of life every time it is applied).


Citation needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
If a man becomes infected with an STD from having frequent consensual sex, he should bare the consequences of not using a condom or restraining himself. If a woman becomes infected with an STD from having frequent consensual sex (on birth control pills to avoid pregnancy, pregnancy is another issue), she should bare the consequences of not using a female condom or diaphragm or not making her partners use a normal condom.


So you're saying that curing STDs, including ones like HIV or syphilis, which are fatal and cause insanity respectively, will NOT produce the greatest net good?

Not to mention the word "frequent". You can catch an STD from having unprotected sex once. So if someone catches an STD from having unprotected sex once, should they be helped? I mean, it's a consequence of their action. Or do you just object to people having a lot of sex?

Also, note the wording. Men are responsible for condoms or restraining himself. Women are responsible for their own protection and for what their partner does. Well, isn't that special?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
One reason why I don't like modern feminism in the developed world today is that I see their priorities are in the wrong order. They ignore the oppression of women overseas but want to put women ahead of men over here instead of equal.


Citation needed. I belong to a lot of feminist groups, and they frequently talk about what's happening overseas. In fact, I probably know more than you just for skimming the headlines.
Everyone else has already touched on the "putting women ahead of men".
Wait a second, didn't you say that women are better people than men? So if women are better than you, how come they don't care about overseas women like you do? Are you just trolling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
Conservatives are self-righteous and think that corporations should do whatever they want and that one has to be a prude. Progressives are self-righteous and want everyone to live a life free of consequences unless you are financially successful.


And you are self-righteous, use arrogant language, trumpet your views all over the place, especially when they're not welcome or relevant to the topic at hand, and want people to suffer if they get laid more than you. I don't think you're better.
Lab Assistant
#61 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 8:13 PM
First off, I am sorry I got some of my information wrong. Some persons I know and many persons I know of who identify themselves as feminists are apparently not feminists, just radicals who pretend to be.
Second off, I apologize for upsetting the sensitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyCarey
1.The greatest good for the most people would definitely involve taxing rich people a lot more. There are not very many rich people, and there are lots of poor people who could be so much happier and healthier with more money. Surveys repeatedly show that countries like Norway and Sweden, which tax a lot, are happier than the US, which has very low taxes.
2.Free education, to most people, means school education not university - the chance to learn to read and write and function in society. Doesn't everyone deserve that, whatever their parents' wealth? And even university education - why should only the children of wealthy parents get to continue studying and end up with the more interesting and better paid jobs that are available to someone with a degree? Shouldn't university be available to those who are most academically gifted and therefore would benefit most? And as for "guaranteed minimum income" - doesn't everyone deserve to be compensated for their work, even if all they can manage is manual labour? Everyone has to feed and clothe themselves, and find some kind of housing.
Sorry for derailing the discussion.
3. This bit is actually about feminism, so I'll talk about this.
a) Firstly, I have never heard of a feminist who wants to put women ahead of men. If there are any, they are the crazy extremists that don't at all represent feminism more generally. Feminism as a movement is about equality, although as it's about equal opportunities sometimes things like support for women in male dominated industries is involved, to level the playing field.
b) Second, I don't believe feminists do ignore the oppression of women overseas, and anyway this is a derailing tactic. You can support more than one cause - women in developing coutries AND women in developed countries - and it's easier to support feminism overseas if you don't still have issues at home. It's also something that works best when locals are involved - a lot of foreigners descending on a country and insisting they improve women's rights is likely to cause more harm than good. There needs to be a local movement, that can then be supported by feminists in other countries through money or diplomacy.

@KittyCarey
1. I agree that the wealthy individuals and the corporations should pay more in taxes. However, I do not believe it is a good idea to tax them above 75%. If you tax them too high, they move, taking their money and employees with them. I think that the payroll tax should be removed (because it is regressive) and the income tax lowered on the lower 20% of those burdened with income tax. I also think that there should also be a flat, non-refundable (no tax credits available) tax on artificial emissions of pollutants including carcinogens and greenhouse gasses with the rate being different for each pollutant (and proportional to their damaging effects). However, I do not think that giving free money, no-strings attached to the poor is at all a good idea.
2. I think that education should only be mandatory until age 16 but have public education paid for through grade 12 with special grants and scholarships for high performing high school graduates to help them attend higher education. I think there should be a minimum wage but a guaranteed minimum income is a hypothetical (it has yet to be successfully implemented anywhere) amount of money given to everyone in a constituency (some progressives want to guarantee all citizens of the USA to receive at least 5 times the poverty level regardless of work). I also think that the minimum wage should be tiered based off of education and hours (which means that overtime should also be tiered for every 10 hours so that someone working 20 hours a week gets paid more per hour than someone working 19 hours a week yet less than someone working 40 hours a week, those who work 30 hours a week get paid almost as much per hour as those who work 40 hours a week, those who did not pass 10th grade and only work 9 hours a week should only get nutrition credits and $5-10/hr--this will help prevent companies from taking advantage of workers who are only on the clock for 39 hours a week).
3. I like feminism. Equality is a good ideology. a) I guess that I have been most exposed to radicals who are not truly feminists but merely consider themselves such. b) Your explanations are good and I think your suggestion is best. It is also rather similar to some of the charities and missionaries that I am aware of that help the oppressed overseas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
1. And what's wrong with any of that?
2. Why is someone else's bedroom your business? Unless you're in it, it's not.
3. Citation needed.
4. So you're saying that curing STDs, including ones like HIV or syphilis, which are fatal and cause insanity respectively, will NOT produce the greatest net good?
5. Not to mention the word "frequent". You can catch an STD from having unprotected sex once. So if someone catches an STD from having unprotected sex once, should they be helped? I mean, it's a consequence of their action. Or do you just object to people having a lot of sex?
6. Also, note the wording. Men are responsible for condoms or restraining himself. Women are responsible for their own protection and for what their partner does. Well, isn't that special?
7. Citation needed. I belong to a lot of feminist groups, and they frequently talk about what's happening overseas. In fact, I probably know more than you just for skimming the headlines.
Everyone else has already touched on the "putting women ahead of men".
Wait a second, didn't you say that women are better people than men? So if women are better than you, how come they don't care about overseas women like you do? Are you just trolling?

@hugbug993
1. I think that physical contraception (which lowers the risk of disease as well as the risk for pregnancy) should be encouraged when people engage in sexual activity and these proven effective things should be provided free of charge (male condoms, female condoms, femcaps, and diaphragms). However, if both birth control pills and std treatment are provided free of charge without repercussions, that just encourages irresponsible behavior. I already mentioned above that public education should be free through 12th grade but students should be allowed to fail (and teachers should be allowed to give failing grades) and truancy should not apply to those over 16. However, I think that those who have proven that they are hardworking, dedicated, intelligent, and studious enough to benefit from higher education (through academic achievement in public school) should be able to have at least some of their tuition covered. The best and brightest students should not be encumbered with debt but we should not try to put everyone through school that won't benefit from it (or who do not think they will benefit from it).
2. Many conservatives think that businesses can do no wrong and that the free market will correct any problems but think they have the moral authority on all matters. I merely think that the government should fund or defund certain programs in order to improve the average situation for the most people.
3. See: USSR; the spending habits throughout the month with respect to proximity to payday; welfare fraud; and contribution to society by those with all their needs provided for without requirement to work
4. Syphilis already has a cure but I think that research into curing or vaccinating against HIV is a waste of resources.
5. If one becomes infected with an STD after having unprotected sex once or twice with seemingly low-risk individuals, then they should be supported. However, I must admit that I object to people having a lot of unprotected sex and I object to sex-work.
6. My wording is merely an outcome from the fact that physical contraception is the only way to reduce the spread of STDs from sexual activity. My wording had 'or' because women can use the female condom or the diaphram to reduce the risk of them becoming infected with STD's although it has been proven that the best way to reduce the spread of STDs from sexual intercourse is if the woman uses a diaphragm properly and the man uses a condom properly.
7. I apologize, the majority of the self-identified "feminists" I communicate with or am made aware of fall into the category that I mentioned, which you consider not to be actual feminists. That means that I no longer have any problems with actual feminists and I never had any objections to feminism as an ideology (and I already said that I like the outcomes of the 1st and 2nd waves). The women I am aware of who care most about those oppressed overseas (and make actual efforts to help them, not just # Activism) tend not to consider themselves feminists and consider themselves either conservatives or progressive (or moderate) Christians.

Respectfully,

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Top Secret Researcher
#62 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 8:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
1. I think that physical contraception (which lowers the risk of disease as well as the risk for pregnancy) should be encouraged when people engage in sexual activity and these proven effective things should be provided free of charge (male condoms, female condoms, femcaps, and diaphragms). However, if both birth control pills and std treatment are provided free of charge without repercussions, that just encourages irresponsible behavior. I already mentioned above that public education should be free through 12th grade but students should be allowed to fail (and teachers should be allowed to give failing grades) and truancy should not apply to those over 16. However, I think that those who have proven that they are hardworking, dedicated, intelligent, and studious enough to benefit from higher education (through academic achievement in public school) should be able to have at least some of their tuition covered. The best and brightest students should not be encumbered with debt but we should not try to put everyone through school that won't benefit from it (or who do not think they will benefit from it).


If people can prevent pregnancy and can easily get rid of any diseases before they become a problem, then how is sex irresponsible?

If students fail, 90% of the time it's because the teacher is failing in their job. Teachers don't teach concepts, they teach passwords to exam answers. If a student takes a little longer to truly understand the answer, then they'll fail the test. Should we punish the student for the teacher's incompetence?

And who decides who will benefit from higher education? If a student is excellent in English, but sucks in math and science, does that mean that the student won't get a scholarship for a Literature degree? If a student only manages a straight C because they're taking care of an ailing parent, does that mean they can't go any further when their parent is dead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
2. Many conservatives think that businesses can do no wrong and that the free market will correct any problems but think they have the moral authority on all matters. I merely think that the government should fund or defund certain programs in order to improve the average situation for the most people.


First, that doesn't answer my point. What other people do in their own time is not your business. It does not matter how someone gets an STD, because diseases are a threat to public health, no matter who they're in.
Second, you're arguing that we shouldn't cure a deadly disease because you dislike promiscuity. What were you saying about moral authority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
3. See: USSR; the spending habits throughout the month with respect to proximity to payday; welfare fraud; and contribution to society by those with all their needs provided for without requirement to work


The USSR put impossible standards on their people; unreachable quotas, poor working conditions, and substandard materials to work with. They reported that people were lazy because they did not reach the quotas and were passing out on the floor. They reported that the reason the substandard products were falling apart was because of the lazy workers. The people weren't lazy, they just had a really bad lot in life.

Welfare fraud makes up less than 5% of people who are on it. That's actually better than the average percent of people who steal. Obviously, the government is doing a good job at keeping those people out.

Ooh, like people on disability? The entire reason people are on disability is because they can't work. Or food stamps? If you're not working, then they force you into looking for work for 30 hours a week. And people who are working can get on food stamps, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
4. Syphilis already has a cure but I think that research into curing or vaccinating against HIV is a waste of resources.
5. If one becomes infected with an STD after having unprotected sex once or twice with seemingly low-risk individuals, then they should be supported. However, I must admit that I object to people having a lot of unprotected sex and I object to sex-work.


Right. So curing a deadly disease is a waste of resources because you don't like how it's transmitted. And if people don't meet your requirements, then they should be killed. You are proposing executing people because you don't like their personal choices in life.

You are an arrogant snot.

You know what the problems with unprotected sex are? Disease and pregnancy. Get rid of disease, make pregnancy preventable, and there are no problems. And yet you disagree with getting rid of disease because you think there need to be consequences to punish people. You literally want to keep unprotected sex unsafe so you can disapprove of it. You disgust me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
6. My wording is merely an outcome from the fact that physical contraception is the only way to reduce the spread of STDs from sexual activity. My wording had 'or' because women can use the female condom or the diaphram to reduce the risk of them becoming infected with STD's although it has been proven that the best way to reduce the spread of STDs from sexual intercourse is if the woman uses a diaphragm properly and the man uses a condom properly.


No, the best way to reduce the spread of STDs is to get rid of all STDs.

Right, and that's why the woman is responsible for what her partner does. So if a woman has a lot of sex with condoms on, but her partners keep slipping the condom off, does that mean she can't get treatment for HIV? Should she just die because of what her partners did?

And diaphragms do not prevent STDs. They are solely birth control. The diaphragm is placed up against the cervix, but the vagina is a mucus membrane, so it can take in viruses or bacteria at any point. Even from just outside the entrance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AzemOcram
7. I apologize, the majority of the self-identified "feminists" I communicate with or am made aware of fall into the category that I mentioned, which you consider not to be actual feminists. That means that I no longer have any problems with actual feminists and I never had any objections to feminism as an ideology (and I already said that I like the outcomes of the 1st and 2nd waves). The women I am aware of who care most about those oppressed overseas (and make actual efforts to help them, not just # Activism) tend not to consider themselves feminists and consider themselves either conservatives or progressive (or moderate) Christians.


Then you need better reference pools.
Test Subject
#63 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:21 PM
I totally agree with the fact that women should earn equally as men in terms of salary and etcetera.

Not really trying to start an argument and also not really saying that EVERYONE is like this, but I just don't approve the other side of "feminism" that wants privileges for women saying that it's the women's choice to have a baby (when it clearly should be the couple's choice and the man also has a say in it because if it wasn't for the man, the baby wouldn't reproduce himself) and that men should not get maternity-license (however you call it) because men aren't the ones that qualify to stay at home taking care of the children (the so called "gender-roles", seriously?), if those feminists want equality then they should try and fight for men rights aswell (in some countries like Brazil, men only get 2 or 3 days of maternity-license to stay at home with the baby(ies)).

I was watching a video yesterday about a transgender woman that is civilly known as a man (in the birth documents and so on). She stopped the police car and took off her top (I know that it's just common sense) but then she made her point clear, if she is "oficially known as a man by the law" then why can't "he" take "his" top off?

She says: "If I can't take off my clothes (t-shirt) then that means I am a woman, but if you say that I am a man then that means I can take off my shirt and walk away just like a man". She ended up in the court and she told that if she was going to jail then that means she was recognized as a woman, and if they else said that she is indeed a "man according the law" then that means she can't go to jail. At the second time she goes to the police department with her also transgender husband and she says that she can't go to jail because she's legally known as a man, and her husband takes his shirt off and says that actually he's the one that should be in trouble because legally the husband is known as a woman and he shouldn't be taking his shirt off and in a police department on top of that.

It just shows that men and women are NOT equal.

I'll leave the video here in case someone wants to watch it (it's in portuguese, sorry!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFYPiD6yw4I
Top Secret Researcher
#64 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishMuffin
Not really trying to start an argument and also not really saying that EVERYONE is like this, but I just don't approve the other side of "feminism" that wants privileges for women saying that it's the women's choice to have a baby (when it clearly should be the couple's choice and the man also has a say in it because if it wasn't for the man, the baby wouldn't reproduce himself) and that men should not get maternity-license (however you call it) because men aren't the ones that qualify to stay at home taking care of the children (the so called "gender-roles", seriously?), if those feminists want equality then they should try and fight for men rights aswell (in some countries like Brazil, men only get 2 or 3 days of maternity-license to stay at home with the baby(ies)).


Actually, feminists are working towards getting men paid time off to help with the baby.

As for the choice not to have a baby, the man does not get a say because it's not his body. When men can get pregnant, they can have all the say they want in whether or not they carry the pregnancy. In the meantime, the woman's the one with the womb-parasite, and she's the one facing disfigurement, disability, and even death in carrying it. The man does not.

Besides, what happens if they have equal say? If the man wants it and the woman doesn't, does that mean he can force her to carry it to term? If that's the case, then a one-night-stand could end with a woman getting forced to essentially become an incubator for a stranger. That is incredibly disturbing.
Test Subject
#65 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
As for the choice not to have a baby, the man does not get a say because it's not his body. When men can get pregnant, they can have all the say they want in whether or not they carry the pregnancy. In the meantime, the woman's the one with the womb-parasite, and she's the one facing disfigurement, disability, and even death in carrying it. The man does not.

Besides, what happens if they have equal say? If the man wants it and the woman doesn't, does that mean he can force her to carry it to term? If that's the case, then a one-night-stand could end with a woman getting forced to essentially become an incubator for a stranger. That is incredibly disturbing.


The man might not have to carry the baby, but the baby can't be done with just a woman, so it's a part of a man aswell. See it as like sharing the diner bill from a restaurant, both want, both pay for it.

What happens if they have equal say? Then that's a great thing actually. If the man wants it and the woman doesn't, then the answer should be no, the man should learn how to respect the woman's say aswell as if it would be the other way around. If the woman wants and the man doesn't want then she should respect his wish to not have a baby. You're just seeing the bad side from things here. Start looking at the bright side of things and you'll see that it's not really like that.
Top Secret Researcher
#66 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:46 PM
Wow, that last part was patronizing.

So now you're saying that the man can force a woman to undergo a medical procedure that is costly and as painful as a miscarriage. That does not sound better.
Test Subject
#67 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Wow, that last part was patronizing.

So now you're saying that the man can force a woman to undergo a medical procedure that is costly and as painful as a miscarriage. That does not sound better.


Did you even read what I wrote?
Top Secret Researcher
#68 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:52 PM
Why, yes. You said "You're just seeing the bad side from things here. Start looking at the bright side of things and you'll see that it's not really like that." Which implies that I'm just looking at things the wrong way, I'm misguided, and I need to change my entire worldview so that I agree with you.

And you're still saying that a man can force a woman to undergo a procedure that is pretty painful.
Test Subject
#69 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Why, yes. You said "You're just seeing the bad side from things here. Start looking at the bright side of things and you'll see that it's not really like that." Which implies that I'm just looking at things the wrong way, I'm misguided, and I need to change my entire worldview so that I agree with you.

And you're still saying that a man can force a woman to undergo a procedure that is pretty painful.


Could you please quote the part where I said "A man can indeed force a woman to undergo a procedure that is pretty painful"? Because I never said such a thing, actually you're the one that's saying that.

I'm not saying you're misguided and that you need to change your entire worldview so that you agree with me.

I am making my point clear, if a couple want to have a baby it's the woman's ASWELL as the man's choice TOGETHER. If one says NO then that means it's a NO.
No men wanting other women to have babies for him or women wanting sperm donations or anything like that.

I am talking about the COUPLE themselves choice, and it's limited to the couple themselves only.

You are just refusing to understand.
Top Secret Researcher
#70 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:58 PM
"If the woman wants and the man doesn't want then she should respect his wish to not have a baby."

So she should have an abortion, which is a painful procedure.
Test Subject
#71 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
"If the woman wants and the man doesn't want then she should respect his wish to not have a baby."

So she should have an abortion, which is a painful procedure.


What the fuck? How can you misinterpretate an obvious statement like that?

If the woman comes saying she wants a baby and a man says no, then that means that the woman will have a baby just because she wants it? Where's the equality in that?
Top Secret Researcher
#72 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:07 PM
Okay, so she should respect his wish not to have the baby, while having the baby? Is that like Schrodinger's Womb, where the baby both exists and doesn't exist until someone looks?

Where's the equality in being able to force someone to have an abortion? For that matter, where's the equality in one gender facing death, disfigurement, and disability to reproduce and spending nine months with their body out of whack, when the other can just jizz and get on with life?
Test Subject
#73 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Okay, so she should respect his wish not to have the baby, while having the baby? Is that like Schrodinger's Womb, where the baby both exists and doesn't exist until someone looks?

Where's the equality in being able to force someone to have an abortion?


Ok, first off: She should NOT become pregnant and THEN ask the man to have a baby, that's just breaking the trust between the couple.
Second off: Basing off your point of view you're seeing things as:

Woman: Want to have a baby?
Man: No I don't want one just yet, maybe in a couple of years.
Woman: But I'm already pregnant!
Man: What the fuck why didn't you tell me that?

How I mean is ASK BEFORE YOU MAKE THE BABY, and not AFTER. That way you just don't come off as being a complete idiot.

And also... dude, no one here is talking about abortion, would you mind not pushing it into the conversation?
Top Secret Researcher
#74 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:16 PM
...So you... I can't even...

"I just don't approve the other side of "feminism" that wants privileges for women saying that it's the women's choice to have a baby"

THAT REFERS TO ABORTION. WOMEN'S CHOICE, IN FEMINISM, MEANS SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ABORT.

You seriously don't even know that? And you say I'm misinterpreting obvious statements?
Test Subject
#75 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
...So you... I can't even...

"I just don't approve the other side of "feminism" that wants privileges for women saying that it's the women's choice to have a baby"

THAT REFERS TO ABORTION. WOMEN'S CHOICE, IN FEMINISM, MEANS SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ABORT.

You seriously don't even know that? And you say I'm misinterpreting obvious statements?


That was not intended to refer to abortion, that was intended to refer to men's say in the choice of having a baby and not just women's. You're confusing two different things. Yes, she has the right to abort, that's great. But that's not what I meant when the man has a say in having a baby aswell.

What I meant is when a couple wants to have a baby, then the woman AND the man should decide and not just the woman.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top