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 »

basic law of life - "what goes up, must come down"

you can't have the good without the bed, etc. etc. etc.

when you're choosing to have sex you're also taking the risk of getting (someone) pregnant. it's ignorant to think "well what the hell, i'm just doing this for pleasure, motherfuck the concequences."

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica you can't have the good without the bed

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica basic law of life - "what goes up, must come down" you can't have the good without the bed, etc. etc. etc. when you're choosing to have sex you're also taking the risk of getting (someone) pregnant. it's ignorant to think "well what the hell, i'm just doing this for pleasure, motherfuck the concequences."

read all my posts in this thread and try again .


p.s. that basic law is called gravity, just fyi.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T read all my posts in this thread and try again . p.s. that basic law is called gravity, just fyi.

17 pages!? f*ck that! i'll just be ignorant (and very very russian) and think my opinion is obviously the most important and right one.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica 17 pages!? f*ck that! i'll just be ignorant (and very very russian) and think my opinion is obviously the most important and right one.

as i said before, removing one consequence doesn't automagically remove all the 'bad', nor does it stop the cycle of action-reaction.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T as i said before, removing one consequence doesn't automagically remove all the 'bad', nor does it stop the cycle of action-reaction.

well my point is that you can't remove any concequences. good goes with the bad... in bed.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica well my point is that you can't remove any concequences. good goes with the bad... in bed.

all it takes is a change in the laws governing that, which is what is being discussed here for the most part.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T all it takes is a change in the laws governing that, which is what is being discussed here for the most part.

right, well what i'm saying is - even if the law gets passed, a good human being should disregard it and take responsibility anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica right, well what i'm saying is - even if the law gets passed, a good human being should disregard it and take responsibility anyway.

so, should the law remain to insure our dubious goodness as human beings? or should it perish, so as to let some genuine goodness be?

in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T so, should the law remain to insure our dubious goodness as human beings? or should it perish, so as to let some genuine goodness be? in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

either way it doesn't work really. and i'm tired of debating goddamn it.

basically i say there shouldn't be legislation about this.

lira: from what i gathered in my discussion with you earlier in the thread, you approve of birth control measures (condoms and such) but not of abortive measures, is that correct?
if so, i feel i should note the fact that you're choosing an arbitrary point to seperate between the moral and the immoral.

if i'm not mistaken, the reasoning you use to determine that point is whether the cells in question are haploid (in the 'moral' case) or diploid (in the 'immoral' case), because in the case of the diploid cells they "spontaneously" become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us.

the point i wish to make is that haploid cells become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us spontaneously too, only they require one additional stage, namely the merging of two haploid cells.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T in other words, should (your idea of) morality be legislated?

Yes, actually.

And I am reading what you are writing as well as what I am writing and I am sorry you didn't pick up on the fact that I didn't contradict myself and you inadvertently emphasized what I was stressing.

You seem to have this idea that government exists as an entity outside of the people, even though its only purpose is to serve the people. Really though, few governments actually pull this off (perhaps none?), so it is easy to see why people would think this way. I pretty much blame JFK for all his 'what you can do fer yer guvvament" b.s.

Bottom line: men who skip out on where they sow their seed are irresponsible. Every time you put your penis into a girl, you are signing a contract. I think that most people actually know this, but some people would rather deny it simply because they are a.) idiots b.) irresponsible or c.) self-proclaimed "logicians" who like to fancy themselves as ministers of reason.

Perhaps this seems preachy - perhaps this seems stuffy and traditional and full of obviously biblical pretext, but there are several reasons why there is a tacit agreement between man and woman and they are the same reasons that much of our society is based upon. If a man and a woman have an agreement otherwise - and it is stated specifically - that the man will have no financial or emotional involvement in the raising of the child, then fine - sure. Whatever. That is what they want to do. But authorizing a cop-out that could be used for men who want nothing more than all the pleasure and none of the price would really fuck up generations upon generations of children who need father figures in their lives.

Perhaps this is where sexism comes into play yet again. Except it has more to do with how males view themselves. We are not just mobile seed pouches. We are not just alphas who wander from city to city, spreading our seed as though we are rarities within our species. Biologically and ecologically, humans are. not. built. this. way. We are not flowers or insects - we are sentient mammals who owe it to the rest of our species to carry through within our society the raising of specific children to the best of our ability. Questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, it makes one a coward and it makes one deny what he has been programmed not only by society, but by the very nature of his corporeal existence.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes, actually. And I am reading what you are writing as well as what I am writing and I am sorry you didn't pick up on the fact that I didn't contradict myself and you inadvertently emphasized what I was stressing.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Contracts are a nice idea, but good luck getting people to sign them. I think it would actually create more legal problems, if anything. The child support argument would be brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact.

how does the fact that people won't sign contracts entitling them to rights and responsibilities towards a child (when not signing said contracts leads to casual sex and nothing but) lead to child support arguments being brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact? (italicized portion = absurd if you've indeed read and understood mine and distant's suggestion)

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You seem to have this idea that government exists as an entity outside of the people, even though its only purpose is to serve the people. Really though, few governments actually pull this off (perhaps none?), so it is easy to see why people would think this way. I pretty much blame JFK for all his 'what you can do fer yer guvvament" b.s.

i might seem to, but i can assure you that as far as i know, i do not have that particular notion in my head. i hardly understand what that concept means in the particular way you've phrased it.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Bottom line: men who skip out on where they sow their seed are irresponsible. Every time you put your penis into a girl, you are signing a contract. I think that most people actually know this, but some people would rather deny it simply because they are a.) idiots b.) irresponsible or c.) self-proclaimed "logicians" who like to fancy themselves as ministers of reason.

under the current laws, of course that's the case (and even with a change, there'd still be a figurative contract being signed, only with a different set of clauses). the question isn't what do we have, it's what should we have.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On ...authorizing a cop-out that could be used for men who want nothing more than all the pleasure and none of the price would really fuck up generations upon generations of children who need father figures in their lives.

assuming that's actually an accurate prediction of the result, it's one easily (heh) dealt with: require pregnancy license for single-mothers-to-be.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps this is where sexism comes into play yet again. Except it has more to do with how males view themselves. We are not just mobile seed pouches. We are not just alphas who wander from city to city, spreading our seed as though we are rarities within our species. Biologically and ecologically, humans are. not. built. this. way. We are not flowers or insects - we are sentient mammals who owe it to the rest of our species to carry through within our society the raising of specific children to the best of our ability. Questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, it makes one a coward and it makes one deny what he has been programmed not only by society, but by the very nature of his corporeal existence.

if we're "not. built. this. way.", and questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, rather making us corwards who deny our societal programming and our very nature. why are two (maybe three) people i doubt you usually consider to be "illogical"/weak/unreasonable/cowardice arguing with you?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how does the fact that people won't sign contracts entitling them to rights and responsibilities towards a child (when not signing said contracts leads to casual sex and nothing but) lead to child support arguments being brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact? (italicized portion = absurd if you've indeed read and understood mine and distant's suggestion)

This is a bit of a contrived question, but I do not see how you would feasibly be able to require people to sign contracts regarding theirbody functions, ever. And as far as I could tell, yours and Distant's suggestion was that men would automatically be forfeit of all responsibility for a child when it was determined that the woman was pregnant and would have to sign a contract saying that he wished to financially support the child, as it was his own? Or was it that men are automatically responsible (along with the mother) unless they file for some sort of status where they don't have to be financially responsible if they don't want to be?

quote:

i might seem to, but i can assure you that as far as i know, i do not have that particular notion in my head. i hardly understand what that concept means in the particular way you've phrased it.

Then it was just an observation and nothing more.

quote:

assuming that's actually an accurate prediction of the result, it's one easily (heh) dealt with: require pregnancy license for single-mothers-to-be.

Man, I really wish we could do that. Along with internet licenses. And stricter drivers license requirements. And television licenses. And clean water licenses. Sounds pretty easy to do: just set up several new ministries that regulate the licensing for everything people do in life. I don't know where you'll get the money for that, but I am sure that if you raised everybody's taxes by 50%, you might be able to get the job done.

quote:

if we're "not. built. this. way.", and questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, rather making us corwards who deny our societal programming and our very nature. why are two (maybe three) people i doubt you usually consider to be "illogical"/weak/unreasonable/cowardice arguing with you?

I didn't say that people who argued with it were cowards - people who turn away from their responsibilities are cowards though. None of you are illogical/weak(did I say that one?)/unreasonable/cowards - but how many of you have children out there you know about but are ignoring?

All these long-winded ways of saying that once a man gets a woman pregnant, he no longer has any real rights at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T lira: from what i gathered in my discussion with you earlier in the thread, you approve of birth control measures (condoms and such) but not of abortive measures, is that correct?

Aye, that is correct.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T if so, i feel i should note the fact that you're choosing an arbitrary point to seperate between the moral and the immoral. if i'm not mistaken, the reasoning you use to determine that point is whether the cells in question are haploid (in the 'moral' case) or diploid (in the 'immoral' case), because in the case of the diploid cells they "spontaneously" become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us. the point i wish to make is that haploid cells become what we'd recognise as being strikingly similiar to us spontaneously too, only they require one additional stage, namely the merging of two haploid cells.

Not just two haploid cells - it can't be that random: you need, specifically, two different kinds of haploid cells. Also, neither of them become spontaneously a human being; they're, as to say, the ingredients you need to have a human being - claiming that ingredients are the product before they're actually combined is just non-sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Aye, that is correct. Not just two haploid cells - it can't be that random: you need, specifically, two different kinds of haploid cells. Also, neither of them become spontaneously a human being; they're, as to say, the ingredients you need to have a human being - claiming that ingredients are the product before they're actually combined is just non-sense.

yet their combination requires only our natural inclination towards sexual gratification.

quote:

Originally posted at answers.com's dictionary spon�ta�ne�ous (spŏn-tā'nē-əs) pronunciation adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.

hence an arbitrary selection.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On This is a bit of a contrived question, but I do not see how you would feasibly be able to require people to sign contracts regarding theirbody functions, ever. And as far as I could tell, yours and Distant's suggestion was that men would automatically be forfeit of all responsibility for a child when it was determined that the woman was pregnant and would have to sign a contract saying that he wished to financially support the child, as it was his own? Or was it that men are automatically responsible (along with the mother) unless they file for some sort of status where they don't have to be financially responsible if they don't want to be?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T require some bureaocracy for planned pregnancy rather than for casual sex (and i don't mean only for the females either - if a male is interested in fathering a potential offspring from a random sexual encounter, then he must fill such a form too, and notify his potential partners, whereupon they either agree via signing it, or disagree via declining him as a sexual partner).

(i forgot to mention 'disagree via declining to sign his form')

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T how many women out there looking for some sexual fun are hoping to be impregnated as a result? not many, i'd say - yet if it happens despite whatever precautions are taken, how many of them are going to want to carry the child to term? enough for it to become seriously problematic. what responsibility should they take in such a case? staying true to their original intentions? or carrying it to term? the current default assumption is (imo) unfortunately the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Man, I really wish we could do that. Along with internet licenses. And stricter drivers license requirements. And television licenses. And clean water licenses. Sounds pretty easy to do: just set up several new ministries that regulate the licensing for everything people do in life. I don't know where you'll get the money for that, but I am sure that if you raised everybody's taxes by 50%, you might be able to get the job done.

that's another easy one, you get the money for pregnancy related bureaocracy by taking it from whatever budget is being raped to track down eloping fathers under the current scheme.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I didn't say that people who argued with it were cowards - people who turn away from their responsibilities are cowards though. None of you are illogical/weak(did I say that one?)/unreasonable/cowards - but how many of you have children out there you know about but are ignoring?

none, as far as i know, however regarding what you did or did not say:

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps this is where sexism comes into play yet again. Except it has more to do with how males view themselves. We are not just mobile seed pouches. We are not just alphas who wander from city to city, spreading our seed as though we are rarities within our species. Biologically and ecologically, humans are. not. built. this. way. We are not flowers or insects - we are sentient mammals who owe it to the rest of our species to carry through within our society the raising of specific children to the best of our ability. Questioning the "logic" in this does not make one strong or smart or reasonable, it makes one a coward and it makes one deny what he has been programmed not only by society, but by the very nature of his corporeal existence.

the people arguing with you are doing exactly that - questioning the aformentioned "logic".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T (i forgot to mention 'disagree via declining to sign his form')

You know, I don't exactly have the data, but as logical as prenuptial agreements are, I would say that they are criminally uncommon.

Just something to think about when considering human nature...

quote:

that's another easy one, you get the money for pregnancy related bureaocracy by taking it from whatever budget is being raped to track down eloping fathers under the current scheme.

Oh, and how much money is that? Do you know for a fact that it is enough? Because I sure don't, but my ignorance in the matter rarely outweighs my doubt.

quote:

the people arguing with you are doing exactly that - questioning the aformentioned "logic".

I think you are trying to derail this into some sort of match where we argue about what we said/didn't say, rather than the topic at hand. You think I really meant that people who question things are "weak"? Were you hurt by this or something? No, it's not logical. Very little of the law actually is. Yes, it's sexist. Yes, it's asymmetrical - good point. What you are suggesting as a resolution has far more potential to be abused though - or at least just as abused as the current system, except by the other gender. Getting people to sign contracts to approve of their guardianship of a child is something I very much doubt you will pull off successfully - even if you did succeed on a level, you would only be able to get cooperation from the class of society that is the least affected by financial support issues anyways. It would fail to benefit the people who actually needed it - a common affect of logical, symmetrical legislation.

So, if we are to acknowledge the fact a lot of men are only out there for the fun rather than the consequences of making kids, perhaps it would be better off for everyone concerned if we make things like getting a vasectomy cheaper. Government subsidised sterilisation, your choice.
Works on dogs and cats, keeps the amount of stray and unwanted kittens and puppy's down quite effectively.

Who'd object to that?

Put your hand up!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You know, I don't exactly have the data, but as logical as prenuptial agreements are, I would say that they are criminally uncommon. Just something to think about when considering human nature...

and what you're deriving from this is that pregnency-related agreements would likely be just as rare? suppose they will be - what would that lead to? and why do you feel the result will necessarily be bad?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Oh, and how much money is that? Do you know for a fact that it is enough? Because I sure don't, but my ignorance in the matter rarely outweighs my doubt.

can't say that i do, but my ignorance in this matter outweighs my doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I think you are trying to derail this into some sort of match where we argue about what we said/didn't say, rather than the topic at hand. You think I really meant that people who question things are "weak"? Were you hurt by this or something? No, it's not logical. Very little of the law actually is. Yes, it's sexist. Yes, it's asymmetrical - good point.

i was just discussing this 'tactic' in the pdd the other day, you should check out the thread in question (it's called The Pie-Man Argument or something like that), in which i explained precisely why i use it.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What you are suggesting as a resolution has far more potential to be abused though - or at least just as abused as the current system, except by the other gender. Getting people to sign contracts to approve of their guardianship of a child is something I very much doubt you will pull off successfully - even if you did succeed on a level, you would only be able to get cooperation from the class of society that is the least affected by financial support issues anyways. It would fail to benefit the people who actually needed it - a common affect of logical, symmetrical legislation.

it seems you're suggesting that the only people who desire to become fathers are well off. if so, reconsider.

it also seems you're still misunderstanding the sort of agreements being proposed here - their authority does not end with the financial arrangements, and in most cases, they'd be used to 'clinch' parenthood, and largely prevent the whole need for direct financial support.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith So, if we are to acknowledge the fact a lot of men are only out there for the fun rather than the consequences of making kids, perhaps it would be better off for everyone concerned if we make things like getting a vasectomy cheaper. Government subsidised sterilisation, your choice. Works on dogs and cats, keeps the amount of stray and unwanted kittens and puppy's down quite effectively. Who'd object to that? Put your hand up!

I'm pretty sure the home secretary of Japan would have a thing or two to say about that..

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith So, if we are to acknowledge the fact a lot of men and women are only out there for the fun rather than the consequences of making kids, perhaps it would be better off for everyone concerned if we make things like getting a vasectomy cheaper. Government subsidised sterilisation, your choice. Works on dogs and cats, keeps the amount of stray and unwanted kittens and puppy's down quite effectively. Who'd object to that? Put your hand up!

*cough*


p.s. i'd have no significant objections to not being able to impregnate as long as everything else keeps fuctioning as it should and i get to keep some seman stored away for use in case i decide to become a father at some point.

Vasectomies are reversible, I'm pretty sure.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Vasectomies are reversible, I'm pretty sure.

so are condoms!

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak so are condoms!

LOL...so wrong.

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