TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Male freedom of choice?
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue frenchie was actually agreeing with you there lol

as much as i love having my ego stroked... in this context, it wasn't such a spetacular point.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man. It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term. It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one. Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do.

yet another good point. this has been a fascinating conversation so far..

See both sides are running into one another coming to the same conclusion. Adoption is opting out, and a man not wanting to pay for the child IS opting out.

It's not winnable, you just have it agree to disagree with both sides not being correct to the other party.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man. It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term. It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one. Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do.

Umm. Yeah. I agree with this guy. But that's not to say the male shouldn't help out. You fuck up (no pun intended), it's your responsibility to accept it.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchie party.

did someone say party!?

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica did someone say party!?

wwwwhhhoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

edit: that's my party cry. impressive eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica Oh, no sorry I misunderstood you.

That's right LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue but you can use that same exact argument to disprove your point. a woman "already made her decision" that she is "ok with this by having sex." sex = possibility of pregnancy as you said. if you don't want to get pregnant.. if you are "unable to accept reality", keep your pants on. for the sake of all humanity. same analogy. it's like you're implying that a guy should be abstinent if he doesn't want to risk unplanned pregnancy, but it's ok for a girl to fuck whenever she wants because she can always get an abortion. that's fucked up.

Yes....

sex = possibility of pregnancy

By having sex, a woman agrees to this fact, as does a man.

However, being that it is her body, she has the choice not to support the pregnancy with her entity by having an abortion.

If you want to argue abortion, there is an abortion thread. I don't wish to argue it here.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how about guys who donate to spermbanks, should they be held responsible as fathers? if only i could turn back time... fact - women = practically slaves. fact - being a woman = accepting those terms. if you are unable to accept reality (back then), then you should commit suicide.

I find it pretty offensive that you would even compare this. There is nothing to even argue, as the two are not of the same grounds to be compared.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchie It's not winnable, you just have it agree to disagree with both sides not being correct to the other party.

The opposition has been throwing the same "that's life" argument at us since the beginning of this thread, which has absolutely no logic to it. I think that proves that we have indeed won.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa If you want to argue abortion, there is an abortion thread. I don't wish to argue it here.

yeah the abortion thread got both of us nowhere last time as i recall. i'm willing to drop it.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa However, being that it is her body, she has the choice not to support the pregnancy with her entity by having an abortion.

And to re-iterate Arbiter's point, the woman has the choice (you're actually admitting this) and thus the ultimate responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by distant The opposition has been throwing the same "that's life" argument at us since the beginning of this thread, which has absolutely no logic to it. I think that proves that we have indeed won.

As much as I have a lot of Respect for Theresa, I do disagree with her here. I see her point and as a women I understand what she is saying to the T (lol I said T). I just don't agree. I am on the quote other side un quote. So you don't need to explain to me

I mean as in they weren't winnable to the other side, as in she doesn't think you're right and you don't think she is right.

this fucking thread is nuts. all this has been discussed about 10 pages ago... either bring some fresh new inspiring ideas or shut the fuck up and quit going around in circles over the same goddamn arguments.

seriously!

conclusion: to each his own and fuck off.


And I want a pet liger...

/drunk.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I find it pretty offensive that you would even compare this. There is nothing to even argue, as the two are not of the same grounds to be compared.

it's only the 2nd out of 3 times this analogy has been noted, glad you finally took notice.

the one that's offensive to you used to be the status quo.
the one that's offensive to me is the status quo.

to the current status quo you say "that's life". as in, we shouldn't do anything about it.
to the past status quo i say "that used to be life". as in, the female gender is lucky that some of them actually did something to change it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica this fucking thread is nuts. all this has been discussed about 10 pages ago... either bring some fresh new inspiring ideas or shut the fuck up and quit going around in circles over the same goddamn arguments. seriously! conclusion: to each his own and fuck off. And I want a pet liger... /drunk.

hey I did bring something new up. I totally reversed the roles on the situation. So you STFU! aghhhh

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchie hey I did bring something new up. I totally reversed the roles on the situation. So you STFU! aghhhh

babe this wasn't directed just towards you but everyone in general

so i pooped today

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue so i pooped today

on the right track. THANK YOU!

let's piss on this thread together.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue well according to theresa she felt that in the acorn example AND the somewhat crappy jizz-on-the-toilet analogy that the man was responsible for the jizz. according to theresa the male should "know" that by jackin on a shitter there's a possibility of pregnancy and should therefore take responsibility for his sperm, no matter what. in the same respect the male should take responsibility for the sperm he donated, no matter what. so supposedly the male should "know" that by donating sperm he may get a woman pregnant and should therefore take responsibility for his actions. that's bullshit.

Donating sperm is a totally different concept. With donating sperm, you are giving it entirely to someone else for them to do as they wish, and it is accepted by both parties that you no longer have any involvement afterward.

You are suggesting that you should be given the same treatment as a sperm donor. Is that what you are?

quote:

Originally posted by distant [way back machine] You're a slave. Live with it. [/way back machine] I consider this argument won.

This is the most insulting/ridiculous thing I have ever heard of, and it offends me greatly.

Comparing a natural, biological, chemical reaction to a choice of a patriarchal society to submit people to abuse and degradation is ludicrous.

Only of said pissing involves writing names in piss.

quote:

Originally posted by Frenchie Only of said pissing involves writing names in piss.

names of future children.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T it's only the 2nd out of 3 times this analogy has been noted, glad you finally took notice. the one that's offensive to you used to be the status quo. the one that's offensive to me is the status quo. to the current status quo you say "that's life". as in, we shouldn't do anything about it. to the past status quo i say "that used to be life". as in, the female gender is lucky that some of them actually did something to change it.

I was ignoring it because I simply can't be bothered to deal with ignorant crap like that.

i was thinking boy - Alessandro (for the greatest football player alive). call him Ales for short.

and Katia for girl. that's a good name since my parents stole the one I wanted for my sister.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Donating sperm is a totally different concept. With donating sperm, you are giving it entirely to someone else for them to do as they wish, and it is accepted by both parties that you no longer have any involvement afterward. You are suggesting that you should be given the same treatment as a sperm donor. Is that what you are?

obviously since the man has no say in the matter then we must be. NO MORE THERESA!!






i'm watching bloodsport 2 right now. it's pretty tight. anyways back to poop. blue poop is rare... alright then later

Yea, I am tired of this thread too.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.