Show Posts

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.


Messages - ๐‘บ๐’†๐’„๐’๐’๐’…๐‘ช๐’๐’‚๐’”๐’”

Pages: 1 ... 386387388 389390 ... 1001
11611
Always comes back to anti-natalism, somehow.
Yeah a thread about giving birth led to anti natalism

what a twist

11612
The Flood / Re: MBTI
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:02:05 PM »
INTJ and INTP basically mean you have autism.

I'm like 90% sure that MBTI is full of shit, though.
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

11614
The Flood / Re: don't taze me bro
« on: May 15, 2016, 07:59:22 PM »
(yeah lol I know)

11615
The Flood / Re: don't taze me bro
« on: May 15, 2016, 07:40:56 PM »
can i ask you something
haha sure  :P
WHAT ARE THOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS E
omg youre so random!! I love it <3

be my best friend okay ;-;

11616
The Flood / Re: don't taze me bro
« on: May 15, 2016, 07:32:13 PM »
can i ask you something
haha sure  :P

11617
The Flood / don't taze me bro
« on: May 15, 2016, 07:29:24 PM »
hehe roflcopter XD

11618

>people derive humor from this in literally any amount

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"?

11621
The Flood / Re: AYO HOL UP
« on: May 15, 2016, 06:27:17 PM »
*hold

11623
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
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. 
Quote
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.
The human being isn't even considered human at this point, which is what I am trying to drive through. It doesn't matter that the fetus will become human, at the point of pregnancy it is not given the same rights as humans and as such should not impede on the woman's ability to do what she wants with her body.
First of all, "who I ask" doesn't matter. It's not fucking immoral.

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.

11625
The Flood / Re: MBTI
« on: May 15, 2016, 05:21:33 PM »
ISTP

11626
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 really isn't hard.
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.
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.

11627
The Flood / Re: Post score
« on: May 15, 2016, 05:06:38 PM »
128 we outcheaa
the 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 guys

and according to this test, you're successful if you've had sex with one or more romantic partners
The 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.

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.

Lol that was the easiest part of the test.
I didn't fail that part of the test, I'm 6'3"

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.

Ladies like tall fellas.
And racists don't like black fellas.

11630
The Flood / Re: Post score
« on: May 15, 2016, 04:52:43 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.

Lol that was the easiest part of the test.
I didn't fail that part of the test, I'm 6'3"

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 songs

like this one

YouTube

Cianwood 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
the fetus is a part of her body.

Except it isn't.
Except it is.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 really isn't hard.

11635
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

11636
The Flood / Re: How often do you change your avatar image?
« on: May 15, 2016, 02:33:48 PM »
idk

11637
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.
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.
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.

11638
Well that's retarded.

11639
The Flood / Re: Is blonde Scarlett Johansson...
« on: May 14, 2016, 08:51:30 PM »
she's too plain

just a generic actress looking woman

not saying she's not pretty, but there's just nothing special about her looks
yeah I reckon

Wouldn't even fuck her
you're a liar if you're being serious

way too plain tbqh
plain/boring looking but still obviously attractive

she's too plain

just a generic actress looking woman

not saying she's not pretty, but there's just nothing special about her looks
Make a thread of your choice for best girl.
I have

many times

11640
The Flood / Re: Is blonde Scarlett Johansson...
« on: May 14, 2016, 08:40:59 PM »
she's too plain

just a generic actress looking woman

not saying she's not pretty, but there's just nothing special about her looks
yeah I reckon

Wouldn't even fuck her
you're a liar if you're being serious

Pages: 1 ... 386387388 389390 ... 1001