Introversion

The GoldFish wrote:
another edit - do you even know who Wendryn is?

some female on this forum that is in one way or another connected with xander.
but what does it have to do with anything ?
i don't "know" anybody on this forum actually

zjoere wrote:the no side affects was aimed at the claim of torig that a condom has an effect on the sensation of sex. there he pill doesn't have any affect i'm aware of.

Maybe not the sensation, but certainly interest in sex. One pill turned off my interest like turning off a light. It was impressive.

zjoere wrote:ps: is it just me or does wendryn appear to be obsessed with withness and class ?
white-guilt?

I am referring to class and whiteness a lot in these posts because it gives a different view from Feud's. My parents raised me in the inner city specifically so I would know what it was like to be a minority and so I would experience more than just being around white people. I have also worked a lot with people with disabilities, and if that subject gets touched I'm likely to go off a bit. It isn't because I feel guilty for not being disabled or for being white; it's because I see things from a different perspective than those who have been in white, "normal" enclaves all of their lives. A significant percentage of my high school class didn't graduate due to pregnancy, drug use, and/or jail time. Feud kept referring to things that upper class people take for granted and few others can, so I tried to give a different view of life.

zjoere wrote:frustrated because she can't escape the lower class ?

Chuckle. I'm an aerobatic pilot. Somehow I don't think not being able to escape the lower class is the issue. Amusing attempt at sniping, though.

wendryn

zjoere wrote:ps: is it just me or does wendryn appear to be obsessed with withness and class ?
white-guilt? frustrated because she can't escape the lower class ?
or am i the only one that notices it

Perhaps she's a Marxist philospher? And yes, you are

EDIT: Marxist, aerobat, same difference.

wendryn wrote:Maybe not the sensation, but certainly interest in sex. One pill turned off my interest like turning off a light. It was impressive.

Makes for one hell of an effective birth control pill though.

Feud, my reasoning for figuring you were upper to middle class and white and had not experienced much else came from your attitudes. Most people who have seen what life is like in the inner city do not wander around telling people how life really is and that a child (or, in your case, a fetus) is always sacred if the father wants it. I agree that children should be welcomed into a family that can completely support them, but that doesn't happen, and until education and a lot of other services can be improved for lower class, lower income people, you end up with kids in foster care who are never adopted, parents who don't get around to feeding their kids because they are too busy getting their next fix, and kids who leave home at seven because life on the street is far preferable to life at home, for many reasons. You sound like an entitled white man. I've met a lot. I know what they sound like. You fit right in.

I sound like an "entitled white man"? That's tip toeing along the border of making racist, sexist remarks to defend your argument. Has it ever occured to you that people can experiance all of those things and reach a differant opinion then you? You seem happy to file away opposing arguments as some form of racial class based elitism, but has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you aren't the only one who can reach conclusions based upon life experiances?

I'm trying to get you to look at the fact that you are taking away the rights of women by saying that someone, anyone, else can force her to carry a child to term. You aren't hearing that. You say you've seen everything I have. So be it; if your conscience is happier with forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child than with allowing her to be treated like an adult and make her own decisions, that's not going to change. I will not be splitting more hairs with you in this discussion, but I will allow myself to hope that at some point your blinders come off and you can see from a standpoint other then the prescribed one you have been fed.

I know what you are saying. I'm trying to get you to look at the fact that you are saying that a person's legal rights should be based upon thier gender. For as stupid and sexist you think that sounds, has it occured to you that I feel the same way about your opinion, and that maybe mine is just as valid as yours? If your conscience is happier with creating a double standard of law, where gender is the deciding factor of what rights a person is allowed to hold, that's not going to change.

Now, the grand finale of your argument, attributing my opinions to "blinders" and opinions "I've been fed". I hope it's nice to sit in your "pity me" bubble and decree that everyone who does see things as you do are victims of some form of social brainwashing. I hope that some day you will learn that you are not the end all source for impartial decision making, and that those who differ in opinion from you may have reached those decisions by seeing those situations first hand, and coming to a differant conclusion on how they can be solved.

Feud wrote: I'm trying to get you to look at the fact that you are saying that a person's legal rights should be based upon thier gender.

If the rights are relevant to gender, then this makes perfect sense. This is not baseless discrimination, it is discrimination based on a relevant factor.

And, since I'm regrettably yet to say it - welcome, Wendryn!

It isn't because I feel guilty for not being disabled or for being white; it's because I see things from a different perspective than those who have been in white, "normal" enclaves all of their lives. A significant percentage of my high school class didn't graduate due to pregnancy, drug use, and/or jail time. Feud kept referring to things that upper class people take for granted and few others can, so I tried to give a different view of life.

Well, thanks for telling me where I live and who else lives there. Last time I checked, there are more then a few minorities living in Arizona. I also used to live in Mobile Alabama, spending most of my time walking and talking with people on the inner city streets. I knew I had arrived when two thirteen year olds and a twelve year old decided to stick a gun to my face and rob me. I've sat in the homes of drug dealers and talked to them about thier life. I have a very dear friend who is a single mother of three, the father of whom beats her within an inch of her life whenever no one is around to stop him (or when he isn't dealing drugs or in jail). I've been there, I've seen it, and based upon years of those exerpiances I have made decisions on how I think they can best be solved.

I'm sorry if you think that my opinion is an ivory tower pipe dream, but you aren't the only one to have seen the hardships of the inner city.

edit

Feud wrote:I sound like an "entitled white man"? That's tip toeing along the border of making racist, sexist remarks to defend your argument. Has it ever occured to you that people can experiance all of those things and reach a differant opinion then you? You seem happy to file away opposing arguments as some form of racial class based elitism, but has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you aren't the only one who can reach conclusions based upon life experiances?

To be honest you're arguments are the same that I see from highly sheltered relatively well off people. These sorts of people tend to have little respect for the troubles of others and have no problem allowing or forcing others to suffer if it keeps their view of the world intact.

Arguments similar to those you have been makeing are what are being used by rich, sheltered, white men to justify torture and indefinite imprisonment of people in the name of defending the US. According to them being tortured is just a consequence of these people's choice to be in a certain place at a certain time (i.e. Afghanistan or Iraq over the past few years).

Feud wrote:I know what you are saying. I'm trying to get you to look at the fact that you are saying that a person's legal rights should be based upon thier gender. For as stupid and sexist you think that sounds, has it occured to you that I feel the same way about your opinion, and that maybe mine is just as valid as yours? If your conscience is happier with creating a double standard of law, where gender is the deciding factor of what rights a person is allowed to hold, that's not going to change.

It is not gender based. If men could carry children they should have the same rights to decide what happens inside their bodies. The right in question is whether a person (regardless of gender) can decide to terminate the life of something inside of their body. Do people have the right to kill intestinal parasites? Do people have the right to treat their cancer? The answer is yes. Abortion is just an extension of this right. Certainly there are some differences, but the underlying legal principal is really the same. What happens inside a persons body should be up to that person.

Feud wrote:... when two thirteen year olds and a twelve year old decided to stick a gun to my face ...

How did they get their hands on that? ;)

kentuckyfried wrote:edit

Eloquent as ever.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:To be honest you're arguments are the same that I see from highly sheltered relatively well off people. These sorts of people tend to have little respect for the troubles of others and have no problem allowing or forcing others to suffer if it keeps their view of the world intact.

Arguments similar to those you have been makeing are what are being used by rich, sheltered, white men to justify torture and indefinite imprisonment of people in the name of defending the US. According to them being tortured is just a consequence of these people's choice to be in a certain place at a certain time (i.e. Afghanistan or Iraq over the past few years).

The arguments I have been making are the ones used as the basis of modern law, that individuals should have to face the consequnces of their actions, even when they find them disruptive to their daily life, and that gender should not be a qualifying factor in determining equal protection under the law.

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:It is not gender based. If men could carry children they should have the same rights to decide what happens inside their bodies. The right in question is whether a person (regardless of gender) can decide to terminate the life of something inside of their body. Do people have the right to kill intestinal parasites? Do people have the right to treat their cancer? The answer is yes. Abortion is just an extension of this right. Certainly there are some differences, but the underlying legal principal is really the same. What happens inside a persons body should be up to that person.

Is an intestianl worm human, or does it have the potential, if allowed to develope naturally, to become human? Will a cancer result, if allowed to grow, in an independent, sentient being? I agree, what happens inside a person's body should be up to them, but I feel the by the time pregnancy occurs they have already made that choice.

KingAl wrote:

zjoere wrote:ps: is it just me or does wendryn appear to be obsessed with withness and class ?
white-guilt? frustrated because she can't escape the lower class ?
or am i the only one that notices it

Perhaps she's a Marxist philospher? And yes, you are

EDIT: Marxist, aerobat, same difference.

Perhaps she didn't read the disclaimer on the first post...


This thread and any information enclosed within this thread may contain provocative and/or extreme views and is intended only for civilized debate and/or discussion. If you take it upon yourself to post within this thread, you must not disseminate, modify, copy/plagiarize or take action in reliance upon it. None of the information posted in this thread may be taken out of context or twisted, in any form or by any means philosophically, neither by Cynicism, Stoicism, Averroism, Empiricism, Marxism, or Existentialism. Author of thread retains no liability for any post, resulting opinion's of any forum member, or action taken in response to aforementioned posts.

KingAl wrote:

kentuckyfried wrote:edit

Eloquent as ever.

I would have deleted my post if I could have, I've had a frigging migraine since yesterday morning and couldn't get what I wanted written down.

Shove off.

KingAl wrote:

Feud wrote:... when two thirteen year olds and a twelve year old decided to stick a gun to my face ...

How did they get their hands on that?

To be honest, I have no idea. But, it shows once again that only those who obey the law in the first place obey the gun laws.

Feud wrote:The arguments I have been making are the ones used as the basis of modern law, that individuals should have to face the consequnces of their actions, even when they find them disruptive to their daily life, and that gender should not be a qualifying factor in determining equal protection under the law.

You are stuck on this concept of gender equality. It is, in every sense, not relevant. Something is only legal discrimination when it is based on a factor which is unrelated - e.g. hiring whites over blacks as waiters, when it has no effect on their waiting skills.

kentuckyfried: I was only joking - no offence intended.

Feud wrote:To be honest, I have no idea. But, it shows once again that only those who obey the law in the first place obey the gun laws.

Well, yes, but you'd be hard pressed to find twelve year olds with guns in Australia or the UK.

Feud wrote:…that individuals should have to face the consequnces of their actions, even when they find them disruptive to their daily life...

But getting an abortion is a way of reacting to the consequences of one's actions.

Feud wrote: I agree, what happens inside a person's body should be up to them, but I feel the by the time pregnancy occurs they have already made that choice.

Well, based on the examples and explanations which you have given to support this, I ‘feel’ you are wrong.