|
On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew???
a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing.
|
On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing.
You can't be serious...
|
On July 01 2013 21:37 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate? i just assumed a worst case scenario. it has nothing to do with what women actually want right now; and since you can't guarantee that women will always want to procreate ... logic can't be twisted.
My worst case scenario is that everybody will turn into brain-eating zombies. Lets quickly make laws to deal with that! Oh wait.. no. That makes no sense, because it is a completely unlikely situation. About as unlikely as women (this magical group of people worldwide) deciding unilaterally at some point in the future that they no longer want to procreate.
/mind is boggled.
|
On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing.
Your girlfriend is the luckiest woman on the planet. :D
|
On July 01 2013 22:14 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing. You can't be serious...
about? (just don't start with love...)
|
On July 01 2013 22:14 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing. You can't be serious...
Give him a break. He's just speaking from his personal experience.
Edit: Though I must say this explains a lot. lol
|
On July 01 2013 22:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 21:37 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate? i just assumed a worst case scenario. it has nothing to do with what women actually want right now; and since you can't guarantee that women will always want to procreate ... logic can't be twisted. My worst case scenario is that everybody will turn into brain-eating zombies. Lets quickly make laws to deal with that! Oh wait.. no. That makes no sense, because it is a completely unlikely situation. About as unlikely as women (this magical group of people worldwide) deciding unilaterally at some point in the future that they no longer want to procreate. /mind is boggled.
turning into a zombie isn't decision based, stopping a pregnancy is.
zombie = shit that you've no control over just happened. there are no insurance policies for an 'act of God' because you can not deal with those.
|
On July 01 2013 22:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:20 Acrofales wrote:On July 01 2013 21:37 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 20:46 Acrofales wrote:
xMz, just one question in your whole twisted logic thingy: what makes you think women do not want to procreate? i just assumed a worst case scenario. it has nothing to do with what women actually want right now; and since you can't guarantee that women will always want to procreate ... logic can't be twisted. My worst case scenario is that everybody will turn into brain-eating zombies. Lets quickly make laws to deal with that! Oh wait.. no. That makes no sense, because it is a completely unlikely situation. About as unlikely as women (this magical group of people worldwide) deciding unilaterally at some point in the future that they no longer want to procreate. /mind is boggled. turning into a zombie isn't decision based, stopping a pregnancy is. zombie = shit that you've no control over just happened. there are no insurance policies for an 'act of God' because you can not deal with those.
Ah sorry, that is only my second-worst case scenario. The real worst case scenario is that we make a designer drug that cures all forms of cancer, alzheimer and malaria, but upon death turns you into a brain-eating zombie. Now it IS a decision (not that I think that matters in the slightest), we should TOTALLY take this into account when making laws.
|
Errr, I think we have strayed so far offtopic that we can no longer even see it with the Hubble telescope.
Abortion should be legal up until 24 months, regardless of why the woman is pregnant! Discuss 
|
On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye.
I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right, and on the way it finds laws and theory's that have real world immeadiatly application that actually improves the lives of people. This is what we should think about when creating laws. It is true that it says nothing about morales which are important when making law, but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. You are ignoring facts, probability, and honesty, in order to put yourself on a pedistal as the guy not arguing for anything because nothing is certain. You can do that all you want alone but when it ends with alowing the government to force women to carry the baby of their rapist you need to wake up. Also, lol I'm not even mad.
|
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
because he is arguing after the fact and i'm arguing before the fact. kwizach assumes that scenario already happened and puts forth arguments against it/tries to show how it could be balanced/made fair, while i was talking only about prevention and how the idea should not be allowed to happen (that should never happen, it should never be allowed to happen) but whatever, lets argue after the fact.
No, I am not "arguing after the fact" at all. Can I ask you to pay attention to what I'm saying instead of casually dismissing my points? I have been repeating myself for several posts and it is getting increasingly annoying to see you are still not addressing what I'm saying.
Nowhere am I "try[ing] to show how it could be balanced/made fair". I am pointing out that your own scenario, exactly as you described it, does not support your point. Why? Because it inherently supposes a situation where the alliance between women (which you described as being united together to control procreation) would without a doubt allow them to provide abortions to each other regardless of what the official legal means to get aborted would be. Let me repeat myself again: if half of humanity is working together, there is absolutely no doubt that this half of humanity would be able to take care of its own abortions.
All I'm doing is explaining to you how the very scenario you imagined to support you point would imply conditions that invalidate your point.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
1) women are the majority, they do whatever they like. if shit is not legal, they'll make it legal just because they can and because they're one body. that is your argument
No, that is not my argument. Women would not need to "make it legal". If every single woman is working together, they can take care of their own abortions together without going through the official, "legal" channels, such as public hospitals.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
which i think will result in an all out war because there is a difference between making a new law to impose your believes onto others (men here) and upholding an old law that was democratically passed, by both men and women, some time ago. as i said the former will result in war and the later, in men crying themselves to sleep for being that stupid. when men could do something they didn't and now they don't have the power.
You are fabricating new developments that are completely irrelevant to both your scenario and my refutation of your argument. See above.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:2) all men would want to procreate. them making a body to fight against procreation (your argument) + Show Spoiler +Men grouping together would have just has much power to prevent pregnancies if they wanted to doesn't even make sense. i said countless of times that MEN WANT TO get women pregnant. who would spend time/money/resources for/to do something they don't want to do?(to say the least). how is the ability to do what you don't want make things fair?.
You are confusing two different things. I understood your scenario fine (men want to get women pregnant, women control procreation by grouping together). What I did was present you with another, different scenario, which uses the exact same logic as yours except in this case it is men who group together to control procreation. This is just as much a "worst case possible" scenario as yours, and since you conclude from your scenario that we have to place limits on women's freedom based on the worst that could happen, you should according to your own logic place limits on men's freedom as well because there could just as well be a "worst case scenario" where men end up grouping together and restricting procreation. Since you completely ignore this latter scenario that should lead you to place limits on men's rights and only consider the scenario which leads you (incorrectly, as my first point underlined) to place limits on women's rights, I can rightly call you hypocritical.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +2. Men grouping together would have just has much power to prevent pregnancies if they wanted to, so following your logic we should place restrictions on men's possibility to use a condom/pull out. - but let's assume the absurd here and go against my original point just for your sake. men can not prevent pregnancies because women would control the sperm banks too?, 'cause they are the majority and they have the power.
You are again confusing the two scenarios. Read above.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
- if it's war, men are being oppressed anyway so who's to stop women from getting men, tying them up, jerking them and get semen. it's a process the men can not physically stop.
at the same time, you can't tie up a woman and have her cough up her eggs; or tie her up for 9 months to force her to have a baby.
You are again confusing the two scenarios. Read above.
On July 01 2013 18:21 xM(Z wrote:
edit: context - 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.
my settings: all women don't want to procreate, all men do. you saying that men don't want to procreate creates a totally different context. i said 3 pages ago that you're not arguing within my context, within my settings.
if you have a different context, present it as such. a different context it's not a counterargument.
I presented you both with a refutation of the conclusions you reached from your scenario and with a different scenario mirroring yours, that I presented as such. Feel free to read my posts as many times as you need until you understand this. Here's a summary to help you (again):
1. Your scenario inherently presupposes conditions which would make it irrelevant for abortions to be officially illegal. This means that your real-world position that abortions should be made illegal (after the 20th week or before is irrelevant) is not supported by your hypothetical scenario.
2. You refuse to take into consideration a second scenario which according to your own logic should lead you to want to place restriction on men's rights. This makes you hypocritical, since you only take into account the scenario which leads you to place restriction on women's rights.
|
Kwizach, he's not hypocritical. He's sexist.
|
Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive :p
|
On July 01 2013 22:14 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing. You can't be serious...
I don't know about romania, but this is quite true in the US. Most men can't find a clit even if you give them a map.
|
Considering he just admitted to being unable to please a woman, it's not that far fetched to him that only men want to "procreate" and women never want to "procreate."
|
On July 02 2013 00:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Considering he just admitted to being unable to please a woman, it's not that far fetched to him that only men want to "procreate" and women never want to "procreate."
He could just be young and have grown up on a diet of modern t.v. shows that depict a sexually frustrated husband who is constantly turned down for sex from his attractive wife because she has a "headache".
|
- how is "women can do whatever they like" a refutation to "women can do whatever they are legally allowed to" without transgressing into anarchism?. also keep in mind that the law existed before women organized themselves.
- how is your different scenario, your different context, relevant?. i could say i was looking at the glass half full and you are looking at it half empty. how can the existence of a different context be in anyway a rebuttal, a proof of how wrong/biased my context is?. the best case scenario for you is that both scenarios can exist/are plausible.
your quote:Men could by the way create the exact same body you describe
that, does not explicitly imply a different context. that body of men could've just as well be organized within my context, when the body of women ruled. something like a "La Résistance of Men" kind of thing. that is how i took it, then i explicitly asked you to define/put it in a different context which you finally did, after 3 pages of repeating yourself.
now, if you want to have a 'women choose not to procreate' vs 'men choose not to procreate' debate then go ahead but you'd have to argue about which is more likely and why, which is easier to achieve and why, who benefits in each case and why and so on and so forth and do all that, while keeping in mind the evolution/perpetuation of our species.
you can't just tell me that the glass is half empty and leave it at that. as if ... what?
if the topic would be about men wanting to make rape legal or some other shit like that and zygote = personhood, i'd argue about how fucked up is that men want to monopolize evolution but, as long as men do not have a saying in abortion cases, i'll aways pick on women first.
|
On July 02 2013 00:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Considering he just admitted to being unable to please a woman, it's not that far fetched to him that only men want to "procreate" and women never want to "procreate."
pleasing a woman and impregnating a woman are 2 different things. one is a necessity and the other a luxury. i'll let you guess which is which but just as a hint, neanderthals were not pleasing their women.
|
On July 02 2013 01:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 00:46 DoubleReed wrote:
Considering he just admitted to being unable to please a woman, it's not that far fetched to him that only men want to "procreate" and women never want to "procreate." pleasing a woman and impregnating a woman are 2 different things. one is a necessity and the other a luxury. i'll let you guess which is which but just as a hint, neanderthals were not pleasing their women.
And you know this... how?
|
On July 02 2013 00:42 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2013 22:14 nihlon wrote:On July 01 2013 22:12 xM(Z wrote:On July 01 2013 21:58 DoubleReed wrote:
See? How are you continuing to take this guy seriously? It's pure misogynistic and misandristic drivel.
Apparently women don't enjoy sex. Who knew??? a basic/primitive sex act consists of 2min of throbbing at the end of which men receive gratification/satisfaction for their efforts while women get ... nothing. You can't be serious... I don't know about romania, but this is quite true in the US. Most men can't find a clit even if you give them a map.
Real men don't use maps.
Not they don't need them, they just don't use them, or even ask for directions. It's the american way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
