NationStates

Geniasis wrote:

Hathradic States wrote:Ignoring the trollish comments...all of them...

You're free to report me in Moderation if you actually think I'm trolling.

Of course, I'm not.

I said trollish, which means not quite trollling, yet still mocking.

Shikkago wrote:

Carnatoa wrote:Surprising, I know. That's the problem with religion: it exists outside of the realm of rationality, but people use it to make important decisions.

yea well some people choose the lazier option. Thinkin's HARD!

in all seriousness, tho, I have met Christians who were cool. So it's not impossible. Just takes a bit of courage and empathy.

What it takes is secularization. There's nothing wrong with religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with everyday life. Keep your god to yourself, and I'm happy. Start ranting about it, and it annoys me, but I have no right to stop you. But if you use religious ideals to make laws? That's true idiocy.

Shadow25 wrote:

The Kings Council wrote:right cause i got all of the symptoms and she got none, gain no weight, slept regularly didn't thow up one time. When she left me i had no rights to even know how my child was doing. While she was on drugs and sleeping i stayed awake for 7 days in the hospital until my son was born. i was the one who had the hormone shift happen to me(my doctor was stunned). She said her c-section was easier then she ever expected. i moved her into my house and took care of her and my son. don't tell me all i had to do was ejaculate. you know nothing. to this day i'm fighting in court just to even see my son. reproductive rights extend past birth those same laws say i'm not as fit of a parent because i'm not a woman.

why would you have to do that to impregnate a woman in the first place? most people don't have such problems in impregnating a woman and i really don't think that you suffered all the pregnancy period as much as her (if you did that would be a rare occurrence), we don't have the same laws of who gets custody of children as in USA so i can't judge on that, the thing is children have been a way for men to control their wives here for a long time, and it ends badly for both women and the children

so it ends well for the men there?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Hathradic States wrote:Why must the guy always ask the girl? Why the fuck can't she just be transparent and say it!?

Because you're the one demanding she keep it for nine months and then give very painful birth to it.

Indeed. You ninjaing bastard.

Hathradic States wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Maybe you can ask her if she want's children before you do the act?

Why must the guy always ask the girl? Why the fuck can't she just be transparent and say it!?

transparent women? That's an oxymoron. Unless you mean "slime girls"

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Hathradic States wrote:Why must the guy always ask the girl? Why the fuck can't she just be transparent and say it!?

Because you're the one demanding she keep it for nine months and then give very painful birth to it.

Well duh. I could not live with myself if I let an innocent life die without at least saying something.

Carnatoa wrote:

Shikkago wrote:
yea well some people choose the lazier option. Thinkin's HARD!

in all seriousness, tho, I have met Christians who were cool. So it's not impossible. Just takes a bit of courage and empathy.

What it takes is secularization. There's nothing wrong with religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with everyday life. Keep your god to yourself, and I'm happy. Start ranting about it, and it annoys me, but I have no right to stop you. But if you use religious ideals to make laws? That's true idiocy.

agreed.

Hey kids, let's dissect a post dripping with misogyny! Sound like fun? Of course not! But you're all here because you didn't want to take PE. Now shut the fuck up and pay attention.

Euronion wrote:totall agree

Totes magotes!

don;t you find it funny how women blame everything on men

Ha ha ha, yeah I d--wait, what? Everything?

^Skeptical.

one of the most common things I hear is, if men gave all the power to women there would be no wars

Who? Who actually says this? Names, I want to see them.

then I think about how many crazy bitches that are out there

All them crazy bitches. +10 Misogyny.

and I find that the person is wrong, there would still be war, just ask yourself, what would you rather be fighting for, Liberty, Freedom, Independence, Land, money, survival, or the newest pair of juicy Catore stuff, or Coach Purses or something like that.

Ha ha ha. See, the joke is that women are shallow and would only be fighting over fashion and cosmetics because their puny woman brains can't comprehend abstract concepts like us men can.

Penises cause higher brain functions. That's science, motherfucker.

Personally I'd rather die for the first one rather than the second

So... what brand of purse was Joan of Arc fighting for? Because it sounded a lot like liberty.

The Kings Council wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:

no one is saying a woman's menstration (chicken's egg) is a child nor something inanimate (silk) nor is anyone saying a plant is comparable in any way to a human.

A fertilized egg isn't a chicken, either.

Silk is only inanimate in the way a fetus is, since it is effectively part of larvae. The concept that it is not a dress still fully applies in relevance to this, since something is not something else until it is made into that.

Hathradic States wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Because you're the one demanding she keep it for nine months and then give very painful birth to it.

Well duh. I could not live with myself if I let an innocent life die without at least saying something.

Ok. Why not limit your women to those who are against abortion?

Risottia wrote:

The Kings Council wrote:my spiritual beliefs nothing scientific just something that that majority of the world believes(or claims to)in.

So, something that has no necessary correlation to reality, as consensus does not reality make. Hmmm.... thrilling story there, pal.

I just don't have enough faith for science it changes too much and has a hard time backing some things up by it's own standards.

Geniasis wrote:

Personally I'd rather die for the first one rather than the second

So... what brand of purse was Joan of Arc fighting for? Because it sounded a lot like liberty.

nah, she only fought because, as everyone knows, the brits can't make a decent purse to save their lives and she had a VERY important shopping trip coming up!

fine then lets stop thinking about reprodcutive rights in the manner of a woman being pregnant, how about adoption, if ou and your girl friend adopt a child cna she say, no I'd don't feel like changing dipers today, and return the child without your consent, no, because that would be illegal, she would have to take you to court for that yet for some reason, you can't when it comes to reproduction

Hathradic States wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Because you're the one demanding she keep it for nine months and then give very painful birth to it.

Well duh. I could not live with myself if I let an innocent life die without at least saying something.

Aren't you the one who said nobody is "innocent" when I asked you about the ethics of killing millions of "innocent" people in an unjust war?

Shikkago wrote:

Carnatoa wrote:What it takes is secularization. There's nothing wrong with religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with everyday life. Keep your god to yourself, and I'm happy. Start ranting about it, and it annoys me, but I have no right to stop you. But if you use religious ideals to make laws? That's true idiocy.

agreed.

And it's nice to find people who can do that. It shows humanity may not be hopeless after all.

Euronion wrote:fine then lets stop thinking about reprodcutive rights in the manner of a woman being pregnant, how about adoption, if ou and your girl friend adopt a child cna she say, no I'd don't feel like changing dipers today, and return the child without your consent, no, because that would be illegal, she would have to take you to court for that yet for some reason, you can't when it comes to reproduction

no because in the case of adoption it's not her body and therefore not entirely her choice.

EDIT: on the other hand you lost most of your credibility with that last post about women.

Euronion wrote:fine then lets stop thinking about reprodcutive rights in the manner of a woman being pregnant, how about adoption, if ou and your girl friend adopt a child cna she say, no I'd don't feel like changing dipers today, and return the child without your consent, no, because that would be illegal, she would have to take you to court for that yet for some reason, you can't when it comes to reproduction

A rather strange argument.

Euronion wrote:fine then lets stop thinking about reprodcutive rights in the manner of a woman being pregnant, how about adoption, if ou and your girl friend adopt a child cna she say, no I'd don't feel like changing dipers today, and return the child without your consent, no, because that would be illegal, she would have to take you to court for that yet for some reason, you can't when it comes to reproduction

Do you know why this is?

Hint: think about the differences between parenthood and pregnancy for this one.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Hathradic States wrote:Well duh. I could not live with myself if I let an innocent life die without at least saying something.

Ok. Why not limit your women to those who are against abortion?

Maybe I already have. Unlike you and the rest of NSG things, I am more than capable of thinking for myself and doing what is right for me. I know that most of you here can't comprehend that right-wing men of faith can think for themselves, but it does happen. That is why we are right wing.

This debate is ridiculous. The way I see it, we either give people an obligation to preserve their unborn children, or we do not. If we do so, then why stop at fetuses? Why not care for all those little sperm and eggs, shouldn't they get a chance to live too? If we're treating those with the potential for human life as humans, we have to take them into account. So let's run the numbers on this, shall we? To maximize the number of possible infants brought into this world, we must make sure that every egg a woman produces, from menarche to menopause, is fertilized. Now, fertilization is not a given, so to account for that, we'll use high-end estimates for the onset menarche, and low-end estimates for the onset of menopause. Let's say... 15 and 45. That's a thirty-year period (no pun intended). The average menstrual cycle is 28 days, but for simplicity, we'll bias it against my argument and make it a month. Thirty years times twelve months is three-hundred and sixty eggs, or three-hundred and sixty potential children. Now, again, for simplicity, and to avoid accusations of bias, let's use the low-end estimate of two billion women in the world. Three-hundred and sixty times two billion is seven-hundred and twenty billion people, in only thirty years. This shows that those who argue that a fetus, with the potential for human life, is a person, are either logically inconsistent (supporting fetuses, but not ovums) in which case their arguments should be disregarded, or planning to create a massive population boom that spreads the earth's resources incredibly thinly, in which case they should be executed for conspiring to commit crimes against humanity. As a result, all logical discussion must assume that people, specifically women, don't have an obligation to bear unborn children. Now, the man may want a child, but the woman has no obligation to carry it, either for him or at all, so if she simply doesn't want to go through the experience of pregnancy, birth, and either motherhood or child support checks, he has no right to stop her. However, as the man also has no inherent obligation to preserve the existence of this child, if he advocates an abortion, but the mother chooses to keep the child, he has no obligation to pay child support. There is no inherent obligation, and, by arguing for abortion, he has refused to take on the obligations of a father. He advocated a course of action in which there was no end result; he has quit the endeavor to reproduce.

Hathradic States wrote:Maybe I already have. Unlike you and the rest of NSG things, I am more than capable of thinking for myself and doing what is right for me. I know that most of you here can't comprehend that right-wing men of faith can think for themselves, but it does happen. That is why we are right wing.

And so you're bitching at us because...?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Hathradic States wrote:Well duh. I could not live with myself if I let an innocent life die without at least saying something.

Aren't you the one who said nobody is "innocent" when I asked you about the ethics of killing millions of "innocent" people in an unjust war?

How long ago was this? You must understand that a lot of my beliefs have changed in a relatively short time as I have become awaken to the world around me.

Hathradic States wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Ok. Why not limit your women to those who are against abortion?

Maybe I already have. Unlike you and the rest of NSG things, I am more than capable of thinking for myself and doing what is right for me. I know that most of you here can't comprehend that right-wing men of faith can think for themselves, but it does happen. That is why we are right wing.

I suspect that would be a rather difficult statement to prove. . . . I mean how does one prove that they are thinking for themselves?


but more importantly, how in the hells is that relevant?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

The Kings Council wrote:no one is saying a woman's menstration (chicken's egg) is a child nor something inanimate (silk) nor is anyone saying a plant is comparable in any way to a human.

A fertilized egg isn't a chicken, either.

Silk is only inanimate in the way a fetus is, since it is effectively part of larvae. The concept that it is not a dress still fully applies in relevance to this, since something is not something else until it is made into that.

okey, I guess you could regard the chicken yolk and the silk as not being stuff but it is not the same, I do not think that sperm is living, I do not think an egg is livivng, but when the egg and sperm some together, the form a full genetic code and given time will grow, like the seed and dirt+water, seperate they are not really living but together they can form a tree

Shadow25 wrote:

DaWoad wrote:the majority of the world? er . . .I don't think the majority of the world is christian.

yes as i said in Islam it is only after the first 120 days and i think in Judaism it is after 3 months (not sure though)

Christians make up 1/3 of the total world population and Islam and Judaism are right behind them. I am also a member of none of the above.