11611
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:03:34 PM »Always comes back to anti-natalism, somehow.Yeah a thread about giving birth led to anti natalism
what a twist
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 11611
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 08:03:34 PM »Always comes back to anti-natalism, somehow.Yeah a thread about giving birth led to anti natalism what a twist 11612
INTJ and INTP basically mean you have autism.nice I'm one letter off 11613
The Flood / Re: Post here and I'll describe why I hate you« on: May 15, 2016, 08:00:15 PM »Are you slow?he's trying to dunk everyone in two posts 11615
The Flood / Re: don't taze me bro« on: May 15, 2016, 07:40:56 PM »omg youre so random!! I love it <3WHAT ARE THOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS Ecan i ask you somethinghaha sure be my best friend okay ;-; 11618
The Flood / Re: >It's a "Theon gets his cock back" episode - GoT S6 Episode 4 discussion« on: May 15, 2016, 07:26:46 PM »>people derive humor from this in literally any amount 11619
The Flood / Re: Post here and I'll describe why I hate you« on: May 15, 2016, 07:01:36 PM »was i skippedyou just didn't get beta access 11620
The Flood / Re: >when this happens« on: May 15, 2016, 06:40:26 PM »
I don't get why that bothers you. What's the alternative, just have the sentence end at "not"?
11622
Serious / Re: Something I've noticed about black people« on: May 15, 2016, 06:25:38 PM »HOL UP*hold 11623
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 06:06:02 PM »
Giving birth isn't some kind of human right, you're affecting other people by doing so. I think it's sad and vicious to bar women with hereditary disorders from giving birth, but I wouldn't be against it.
11624
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 05:54:18 PM »First of all, "who I ask" doesn't matter. It's not fucking immoral.Which is nebulous as all fuck, whereas the consumption of alcohol is a direct harm. There is no "potentiality" there--if you drink while pregnant, you ARE harming your unborn child.You are sure, but as a fetus, it isn't considered human yet, which is one of the reasons why abortion is free game. Since it's not considered human, it shouldn't be afforded the same rights and protections as a human.No, I'm not. I'm talking about reality. Preventing a fetus from being born isn't immoral, it's no different than never having sex in the first place.Well, that depends on who you talk to, because a sizeable amount of the populace equate it to murder. And secondly, the difference here that, somehow, you're still failing to grasp, is that an aborted fetus will never be a human. It begins and ends as a woman's body part. A fetus victim of FAS will grow up into a person. And the deformities that the mother inflicted on it while it while it was a fetus will be inflicted on it while it's a child. It's no different than destroying your liver with alcohol before you donate it to someone else. "But AT THE TIME, it was my liver." That doesn't matter, because you knew it wouldn't just be your liver for very long. 11626
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 05:19:14 PM »No, I'm not. I'm talking about reality. Preventing a fetus from being born isn't immoral, it's no different than never having sex in the first place. Forcing someone to not only be born, but born with a serious birth defect, is evil. When you have an abortion, you're only affecting your body part. A human being isn't even in the equation. When you get drunk at bars while you're pregnant, a human being is definitely involved. The baby will be born, and they will have a a birth defect.There's no cherrypicking, you're literally comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between smashing a fertilized chicken egg and modifying the egg so the baby chicken is born a monstrosity. You're focusing on the now. Right now, the fetus is a part of the woman's body. Later, it won't be. So you can either do no damage to the fetus, or only damage the fetus. Drinking while pregnant doesn't only damage the fetus, an abortion does.Which as I said, your entire argument boils down to potentiality, which is the same shit pro-lifers use when they argue against abortion. Pro-lifers would argue you're not only harming the fetus but the potential life they could have had if they weren't aborted. If we cared about the potential, abortion along with drug use while pregnant would be outlawed. Our system already decided that autonomy should take precedence to the potential, so abortion is legal, and along with that, other acts that make sure a pregnant woman has autonomy should also be legalized. 11627
The Flood / Re: Post score« on: May 15, 2016, 05:06:38 PM »128 we outcheaathe grand wizards who made this test will love you 11628
The Flood / Re: Post score« on: May 15, 2016, 05:03:59 PM »i don't think anyone's denying that it's a bigotry, but women do tend to like tall guysThe social part was easy, though. You got ridiculous amounts of points for just not being a virgin and having had a girlfriend. Physical was the worst, I pretty much didn't get a single thing that wasn't health/cleanliness related. 11629
The Flood / Re: Post score« on: May 15, 2016, 04:59:13 PM »you're not 6'3''Unfortunately, I am. You can ask Ian, I met him in real life. And racists don't like black fellas.I didn't fail that part of the test, I'm 6'3"97 11630
The Flood / Re: Post score« on: May 15, 2016, 04:52:43 PM »I didn't fail that part of the test, I'm 6'3"97 It's just one of the most widespread and ridiculous ways to judge a person. No different than judging someone on account of their skin color. 11631
The Flood / Re: Post score« on: May 15, 2016, 04:49:11 PM »
97
This test is fucking ridiculous. "lol if ur a guy and not six feet tall then ur trash LMAO manlet" Literally a test made for judging peoole. Take your score with a grain of salt. 11632
Gaming / Re: when you walk away, you dont hear me say« on: May 15, 2016, 04:14:38 PM »probs a lot of pokemon songsCianwood is the best track from those games, IMO YouTube When I was a kid, I'd just walk around Cianwood/Ecruteak for a while every time I visited them. (But mainly Cianwood, since that was my favorite location aside from the music) OT, pretty much any song from KH 1 and 2, but especially Traverse Town. I spent an unnecessary amount of time in that "safe zone" of the town. 11633
Septagon / Re: an idea to get more activity« on: May 15, 2016, 03:14:36 PM »wouldn't that kill activity?wtf, it would literally do the opposite if we ban all of the people who don't post much, the high post count users are more concentrated and undiluted hence, more activity 11634
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 03:09:00 PM »Except it is.the fetus is a part of her body. There's no cherrypicking, you're literally comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between smashing a fertilized chicken egg and modifying the egg so the baby chicken is born a monstrosity. You're focusing on the now. Right now, the fetus is a part of the woman's body. Later, it won't be. So you can either do no damage to the fetus, or only damage the fetus. Drinking while pregnant doesn't only damage the fetus, an abortion does.This whole arguing "what ifs" about the child after birth is just the same shit the pro-lifers pull though. This whole shit about the child's future is irreverent because at the time of pregnancy, the only one affected is the mother because we don't provide the same human rights to a fetus. The fetus is part of the mother as far as we are concerned. Like Door said, we need to stop cherrypicking and decide whether the same human rights are given to fetuses or not. Anyhow, I got to go, so I won't be able to respond.And a human isn't part of her body. If there was an abortion procedure that hurt the fetus but didn't kill it, that would be no different. When the injury happens, it's happening to the woman's fetus, but long-term, it's an injury to the woman's child. An abortion is only an injury to the woman's fetus, because the child never happens.You just said it yourself, at the time of pregnancy the fetus is part of her body. Ergo, drinking while pregnant means she is only affecting herself at the time. This whole applying person hood to the fetus in one case but not the other is just silly. Shit man, I'm pro choice but this shit is just another one of the hypocrisies I hate about the whole thing.A woman, and anyone in the world, has complete bodily autonomy unless it affects other people. An abortion only affects the woman, because the fetus is a part of her body. Drinking alcohol and doing drugs affects the unborn child because you're not destroying the fetus by doing so. You're still letting it develop and grow into a human, but with significant physical and mental birth defects. That's the difference. I didn't think this needed explaining, but bodily autonomy only applies to affecting your body.imo, the end result of what happens to the fetus doesn't count as a variable because the argument is that a woman's autonomy should not be compromised because she is pregnant. Abortion deals with the woman having the autonomy to do with her body that surgery. Ingesting drugs is also an argument from autonomy. If the woman's bodily autonomy is more important than a fetus up to a certain point of development, there shouldn't be all this situational cherrypicking, because that just counters their original claim.I can understand it from a purely legal standpoint. Drawing comparisons to the abortion argument, it's been deemed that the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence to an unborn child. Drawing from that same comparison, why should the woman be denied ingesting substances that she wants to if her autonomy is more important than the child? I'm honestly not in support of NYC's law, but can see the autonomy argument being even more of a shitfest when you say "x is allowed but y isn't."Well there is a very clear distinction between forcing a baby to go through their life with fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disorders and not forcing that baby to go through anything. Maybe this is a by-product of mainstream adherence to the notion that non-existence is worse than any living condition. This really isn't hard. 11635
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 02:51:26 PM »And a human isn't part of her body. If there was an abortion procedure that hurt the fetus but didn't kill it, that would be no different. When the injury happens, it's happening to the woman's fetus, but long-term, it's an injury to the woman's child. An abortion is only an injury to the woman's fetus, because the child never happens.You just said it yourself, at the time of pregnancy the fetus is part of her body. Ergo, drinking while pregnant means she is only affecting herself at the time. This whole applying person hood to the fetus in one case but not the other is just silly. Shit man, I'm pro choice but this shit is just another one of the hypocrisies I hate about the whole thing.A woman, and anyone in the world, has complete bodily autonomy unless it affects other people. An abortion only affects the woman, because the fetus is a part of her body. Drinking alcohol and doing drugs affects the unborn child because you're not destroying the fetus by doing so. You're still letting it develop and grow into a human, but with significant physical and mental birth defects. That's the difference. I didn't think this needed explaining, but bodily autonomy only applies to affecting your body.imo, the end result of what happens to the fetus doesn't count as a variable because the argument is that a woman's autonomy should not be compromised because she is pregnant. Abortion deals with the woman having the autonomy to do with her body that surgery. Ingesting drugs is also an argument from autonomy. If the woman's bodily autonomy is more important than a fetus up to a certain point of development, there shouldn't be all this situational cherrypicking, because that just counters their original claim.I can understand it from a purely legal standpoint. Drawing comparisons to the abortion argument, it's been deemed that the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence to an unborn child. Drawing from that same comparison, why should the woman be denied ingesting substances that she wants to if her autonomy is more important than the child? I'm honestly not in support of NYC's law, but can see the autonomy argument being even more of a shitfest when you say "x is allowed but y isn't."Well there is a very clear distinction between forcing a baby to go through their life with fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disorders and not forcing that baby to go through anything. Maybe this is a by-product of mainstream adherence to the notion that non-existence is worse than any living condition. 11636
The Flood / Re: How often do you change your avatar image?« on: May 15, 2016, 02:33:48 PM »
idk
11637
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 02:10:28 PM »A woman, and anyone in the world, has complete bodily autonomy unless it affects other people. An abortion only affects the woman, because the fetus is a part of her body. Drinking alcohol and doing drugs affects the unborn child because you're not destroying the fetus by doing so. You're still letting it develop and grow into a human, but with significant physical and mental birth defects. That's the difference. I didn't think this needed explaining, but bodily autonomy only applies to affecting your body.imo, the end result of what happens to the fetus doesn't count as a variable because the argument is that a woman's autonomy should not be compromised because she is pregnant. Abortion deals with the woman having the autonomy to do with her body that surgery. Ingesting drugs is also an argument from autonomy. If the woman's bodily autonomy is more important than a fetus up to a certain point of development, there shouldn't be all this situational cherrypicking, because that just counters their original claim.I can understand it from a purely legal standpoint. Drawing comparisons to the abortion argument, it's been deemed that the woman's bodily autonomy takes precedence to an unborn child. Drawing from that same comparison, why should the woman be denied ingesting substances that she wants to if her autonomy is more important than the child? I'm honestly not in support of NYC's law, but can see the autonomy argument being even more of a shitfest when you say "x is allowed but y isn't."Well there is a very clear distinction between forcing a baby to go through their life with fetal alcohol syndrome and other developmental disorders and not forcing that baby to go through anything. Maybe this is a by-product of mainstream adherence to the notion that non-existence is worse than any living condition. 11638
Serious / Re: Bars in NYC can not refuse alcohol to a pregnant woman« on: May 15, 2016, 01:49:29 PM »
Well that's retarded.
11639
The Flood / Re: Is blonde Scarlett Johansson...« on: May 14, 2016, 08:51:30 PM »plain/boring looking but still obviously attractiveyou're a liar if you're being seriousshe's too plainyeah I reckon I haveshe's too plainMake a thread of your choice for best girl. many times 11640
The Flood / Re: Is blonde Scarlett Johansson...« on: May 14, 2016, 08:40:59 PM »you're a liar if you're being seriousshe's too plainyeah I reckon |