Messages

1

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 06, 2009, 08:39:47 pm »

But you just replied! You've broken your word once, how can I trust it now? For all I know, you'll be posting when I'm not looking. Sorry, you'll have to earn my trust-that-you-wont-post all over again; I can't reasonably just take your word for it now.

I swear, I won't ever do it again! I can stop any time I want, I swear! I have self-control, let me prove myself, why can't you trust m- *gets dragged away by men in white coats*

2

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 06, 2009, 06:36:09 pm »

@Thought, Faust: As I said earlier, I will not be participating in any continuation of this debate. So, don't expect any replies from me. I will comment on the hilarious irony though, that I, an aromantic asexual, staunchly defend sexual freedom, haha.

In recent frustrations, two huge bruises on both of my knees, complete with petechiae! I just woke up and they were there. Yowch!

3

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 05, 2009, 11:06:24 pm »

Ah, you're making an error in that Zelbess. You say 'a woman should not sacrifice...' You are making a statement of opinion in that, or at least a moral judgement in that you think that it should not be so.

You're missing the point; she is making a sacrifice. She is sacrificing a potential outcome of the future, one that might be better for her. Whether it be better or worse for her, she is now faced with a road that has been barricaded and no longer can be taken.  All, by your standards, so she can be "taught a lesson in responsibility".

And, to make the issue worse, you cannot argue for moral relativism, because then one could well argue to the extent a good extent that even mass murder is justified by someone of superhuman character, if that fits within their personal moral framework. Unfortunately to say 'everyone should do as they see fit' isn't exactly a good solution either.

I don't see how you can make the comparison between the freedom to terminate of a fetus and the freedom to commit mass-murder. That's incredibly extreme, and as such, does absolutely nothing to bolster your point.

The thing is, there are ways around it all. Avoid sex. If you have sex, there's this chance. You know, if it's that much a peril to you, if you're job is that valuable, you know what? You can avoid sex, too! Heavens, there's always that! It sounds to me like you want your cake and want to eat it, too. If there's this danger with getting pregnant, and if your job is really that valuable, if your future is that valuable, then you can put your sex life on hold. But you wouldn't... which seems to imply the issue is rather about wishing to be selfish. People are thinking they have a right to be selfish. To be able to have everything, and get rid of the consequences.

It's got me utterly overthrown that you don't consider that option. That it must be that one can have sex with the possibility of pregancy but still not accept the responsability that entails if it damages the career. As I said, if it's that perilous, if your career is really that valuable as you say it is, you'll avoid the sex. And if you don't... well, maybe it's not the career that's valuable, maybe it's the ability to do exactly what you want and damn the consequences, which, in its barest, baldest, form, is actually just being selfish, and nothing more noble than that.

Wow, I find this extremely sexist and incredibly ridiculous. Women want sexual equality, which would mean they should have their cake and eat it to. Why? Because men certainly can. Not only can they have their cake and eat it too, by your view, they also get a complementary scoop of ice cream because they lack a uterus and do not have to deal with pregnancy, therefore, have a complete right to sexual freedom and expression. Men can have sex and not worry about the repercussions of pregnancy ruining their career. They don't have to take time off to birth the child, to recover; they can take an optional paternity leave if they wish, though. Add another cherry to that scoop of ice cream! By your view, it seems that only women should deny their sexual urges because of risk to their careers, hopes and dreams. If women value their careers, their contributions to the world through their work, they should just completely avoid sex, not express their sexuality and deny part of their human nature? All because of the risk of getting pregnant and possibly denying a mere potential future life? Yeah, that's completely reasonable. Women have a right to their sexuality as much as men; they are sexual creatures, just like men. To deny that part of themselves because it's "selfish"? The fact is, you have to be selfish in life sometimes; You can't live selflessly and get by. People have a right to be selfish. Frankly, if you are preaching about the evils of selfishness, I would truly hope that you are not being a hypocrite and have lived a completely selfless life, in which every action you did contributed to the benefit of others. Complete selflessness is not conducive to emotional happiness. I value the happiness of the life already on this planet, which is more substantial than anything "potential".

Your viewpoint doesn't promote equality, it just makes the chasm between women and men even larger and deeper. Frankly, like Zephira, your view sickens me (and I'm asexual!) and your expectations out of women who wish not to currently have a child are completely and utterly ridiculous. I guess if a couple marries eachother and wishes to be child-free, they should just abstain from sex and masturbate til the day they die. Because apparently, sex without the purpose of baby-makin' is "selfish". I can't even wrap my head around that... I'm done with this debate. I know when something is hopeless, and this situation truly is.

4

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 05, 2009, 10:13:56 pm »

And by what standard do you consider the life impaired? Don't yell at me, it's a valid question. You're assuming your own standard of worth to be correct, after all. But you must consider that the impairment of a life according to how you measure success might not be evil absolutely. This is the error of many of your arguments, in that you base them upon such an assumption that the actualization of life in this manner is the highest good. What if it is not?

I personally think you are missing the point; you are looking too much into philosophy swirling the situation. It's not nearly as complex as you make it out to be. Notice he said, his friend's life would be significantly impaired, not the lives of all women; he was no speaking for all women, just his friend. It's the individual woman's call of judgment to decide whether bringing a child into the world is for her greater good, based on her personal situation and her feelings. For example, perhaps Zeality's friend found out she was pregnant during her first month of work at the job of her dreams, which happens to be very time-consuming and demanding. Having a child might force her to drop the career and future of her dreams, that she's strived her whole life to achieve. Perhaps she never wanted children; perhaps she wanted to live a childfree lifestyle. Another woman might have completely different circumstances, desires and attitudes towards children, which would make her perception of whether bringing an unexpected child into this world would impair her life or not. A woman's priorities are individual and subjective, and it's up to her to decide.

5

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 05, 2009, 09:53:47 pm »

However, on another note, since, as you have said, it certainly is the responsability of both parties involved, why is the modern response then to absolve both of the responsibility (ie. have an abortion), rather than enforcing responsibility upon both? Personally I would much prefer the second option. Absolving people of responsibility is not a good way of running a society - if you will, there's my social commentary. This is one of the perils involved in abortions. Not to mention pregnancies in which abortions might be desirable are for the most part quite avoidable and, as you have said, it does take two. Except in instances such as rape, there is a willingness in both parties and, in some manner, in engaging in such activity they do enter into a sort of social contract in which their actions have reprocussions. The question of whether or not they want it after the fact is moot, in doing what they do - most especially unexusable since there are such methods as birth control - they have the responsability for the outcome. Or, so it should be, I think. To admit abortion, save for the most extreme circumstances, is a disrespect of the woman.

Look, the fact is a woman (or man, if he chooses to stay involved) should not have to sacrifice the outcome of her entire life for one irresponsible moment or lapse of judgment. Forcing a child upon a woman or couple and saying, "Ha, bet you'll learn your lesson now!" is not the right approach. What I mean by "responsibility" is both parties owning up to the fact they created a potential life together, and making the best choice for themselves and their situation, whether that be keeping the child, adoption or abortion. Responsibility involves admitting their mistake and taking the proper steps to educate themselves and learn better, more responsible behaviors as well. You may prefer the option of having the child, but it's not your right to say what a woman should or should not do with her life and her body. Later in your post, you argue whether abortion is morally justified or not, and how complex the situation is; the fact is, because of the many different approaches to morality, there will never be an answer wholly agreed upon. That is why it's so essential to leave the choice open and let the women (or couple) decide for themselves and act in accordance to their own beliefs and moral system.

As for the father having a say in the fate of his child, to me, he only reserves that right if he plans to man-up and be a father to the child, emotionally and financially supporting it in life. If he chooses to abandon the woman while she is pregnant, then to me, he gives up his right to have a say in what the woman will do concerning her pregnancy. You can't just abandon your potential child and then claim, "Well, even though I don't plan on raising the child, I don't like the idea of my genetic spawn being aborted. Because it is half mine, I should be able to have a say yet dump all the responsibility on my wife/girlfriend".

You know, I've been watching this discussion for a couple of iterations now, and what bugs me is that most of the people posting here (not all, but most) seem to assume that birth control is 100% effective. Guess what? It isn't. Not even vasectomy or tubal ligation is an absolute guarantee that a woman won't get pregnant (the failure rate for either of those is on the order of 0.01%, IIRC, but it does happen). Both parties can take absolutely every precaution against pregnancy and still have it happen.

Very true! My father had a vasectomy, and it spontaneously reversed itself and my mom ended up pregnant. Not to mention, the birth control pill's failure rate is placed at about 1 to 5%, when used properly! Women increase this risk by not taking their pill at the same time everyday, missing pills, or taking antibiotics while on the pill. Certain other medications and supplements can lower it's effectiveness. It's definitely still very much up to chance, it seems. Discovery Health Channel's show "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant" is very well living proof of that. A lot of those women were on the pill, had husbands with vasectomies or were deemed infertile, and still became pregnant.

6

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 05, 2009, 08:36:14 pm »

But as you have just shown those woman then in turn blame the men, after all there are responsible. True Woman get more of the shame but to say the men deserve it is just as sexist.

In no way did I insinuate that men alone "deserve the shame"; you are imagining some sort of bias in my post that is simply not there. I made no mention of women desiring the majority of blame placing upon men; I did, however, make a genuine social criticism on the fact that society views an unwanted pregnancy in a completely skewed way. More often than not, the woman is lambasted as "stupid", "irresponsible", and told statements like "You messed up, now live with the consequences", completely overlooking the male's contribution the situation as well as his responsibility to take care of the child. Look up the term "slut shaming" sometime; it applies perfectly to situations like these. The fact is, men are responsible for the situation equally as much as the woman, yet our culture frequently chooses to overlook that fact. That was why I pointed out the use of singular nouns in IAmSerge's post; it completely overlooked the fact that it "takes two to tango" and was a prime example of the culturally ingrained sexist bias when it comes to criticizing teenage pregnancy.  Both sexes should be included; if two people had unprotected sex and ended up with a pregnancy, then both should be hailed as irresponsible and take responsibility for their actions, not just the woman because she is the one who must deal with the longterm consequences, not only due to pregnancy, but because of culturally ingrained gender roles that dictate the woman is supposed to be a child's primary caretaker.

I personally do not think sexual activity - premarital or otherwise - should be "shamed", nor should unwanted pregnancy; I think attaching a stigma to human sexuality is ridiculous. But at the same time, I think if the criticism must exist (and it will until the public's traditional attitudes towards sex miraculously revolutionizes itself), it should be applied to both sexes involved.

Then let it be a group decision. It's something boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife should work out together. But along that same line, it should be the family that makes the decision of whether or not to abort, not the government, church groups, or whoever else.

Well said! My only beef is that the men should only have a say in what the woman should do with her unwanted pregnancy if he plans to support the child and be an active participant and father in it's life. If he plans on bailing and denying his responsibilities, then his opinion should mean squat.

7

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 05, 2009, 09:26:48 am »

Thank you, Lord J Esq for mentioning everything I ever wanted to say and more. Denying abortion is blatantly sexist. I sometimes feel this country has regressed back to the dark ages, considering the  horrible levels of female sexual oppression that exist currently. Just look at the government funded "Purity Balls", where young girls swear their virginity to their fathers and promise to wait until marriage. Adolescent females are swearing their virginity not to their mothers, not to themselves, not to their god, but to their fathers. They are essentially giving control of their sexuality to a man. (It's pretty metaphorical for what the right-wing government and religious groups would like women of America to do.) Boys are not involved in these events - they have seperate events, where - you guessed it - they are taught to be "virginity warriors" for women. People don't fret over male sexuality - it's female sexuality people aim to repress and control. A very enlightening book to read about society's approach to female sexuality is "The Purity Myth" by Jessica Valenti. It's a real eye-opener!

But if its just an irresponsible teenager who had an "accident", I don't give a shit and its your own damn fault.

An inherently sexist attitude is revealed in this one line. "Irresponsible teenager" - singular. Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant on their own. Society loves to dump blame on the woman and often wholly leave men out of the picture. Women have to deal with carrying the child and the life-altering consequences of pregnancy. Men? They can run, and frequently do. Yet it's the woman who is often given the scarlet letter of shame, and labeled as "irresponsible", "stupid" or "whore". The man's involvement in her condition is often completey overlooked.

Also, on the subject of Dr. Tiller's death, I can't help but to notice the blazing hypocrisy. Pro-lifers... who kill. Whatever happened to "all life is precious"? I guess only republican, Christian, morally-conservative life is "precious". The irony also exists in the fact that pro-lifers are usually republican, which typically supports the death penalty, rights to firearms, and emphasis on war over diplomatic relations. None of these things are very conducive to life, to be frank. "Pro-Zygote" or "Pro-Fetus" might be a better term for them. Or even better yet, "Anti-Woman".

My vocal experience is limited to karaoke'ing Robert Palmer, but I want to say something like, even if you do have them removed and there's a slight difference, perhaps it can be overcome or even used to an advantage if it expands your range. This is a pretty unqualified opinion, but there are at least several good high-profile cases in which athletes or other public figures have injuries that threaten their livelihood and are told they'll never have it the old way again, only to lay down serious effort and do the impossible. Mental conditioning plays a lot in this recovery, so in addition to believing that they'll recover, believe with total conviction that you'll have the strength to overpower any hiccups from the removal. It's probably very painful to consider this, but as long as you engender that complete faith in your resolve and alacrity, you can rest knowing there will be a future no matter what the outcome. Make yourself an ∞ multiplier in this equation.

Thanks for the great support, Zeality! Everyone else, too. I'll be mentally-conditioning myself for a positive outcome! I know Josh Groban said getting his tonsils removed in his early twenties helped him tremendously vocally, so maybe that will be the case for me as well.

8

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 03, 2009, 02:16:47 pm »

The cover of OK magazine. It's so disrespectful and completely unnecessary. It's a new tabloid low, that's for sure...

My second frustration is that I might have to have my tonsils and adenoids removed. I've been having issues with them since early May, and been on a few two-week rounds of antibiotics with no avail. Both a strep test and a mono test came back negative! We have no idea why my tonsils are misbehaving. I have another two weeks to show improvement, and if they don't, I can kiss my tonsils goodbye. My doctor tells me getting them removed as an adult is much more painful than having them taking out as a child. I also heard I won't be able to sing for a good four weeks. As a vocal music major, I didn't like that news at all. Last thing I need is to be rusty before the new semester starts! I also heard it can permanently alter your voice, because removing your tonsils and adenoids affects the resonance quality in your mouth. I'd be horrified if I came out of surgery with a completely different timbre. Here's to hoping I'll have a miraculous improvement and won't have my tonsils and adenoids removed.

9

Polling / Re: Which Chrono character would you date?

« on: July 01, 2009, 03:22:45 pm »

Voted Miki. Love her! We could dance and sing together. Nikki would be amusing as well.

10

Chrono / Gameplay Casual Discussion / Re: Why the Chrono Cross Hate?

« on: July 01, 2009, 02:23:35 pm »

HAHAHA, yeah, Chrono Cross really suffers horribly from 1) characters that don't look like they all have Down's syndrome and 2) Dragon Ball Z ripoffs.

Amen, hallelujia! Finally, someone who agrees with me. I personally loathe Toriyama's style. In my opinion, changing character designers was a huge advantage for Chrono Cross. In a game with so many characters, you really need a character designer with a style that isn't so confining.

I personally like Cross more than Trigger; it might be because I played Cross first, but Trigger just didn't appeal to me as much. Cross has one of the most memorable atmospheres I've encountered in a game. It has a very distinctive style to it: colorful, bright, beachy - almost a bit Polynesian. A fun juxtaposition to the dark nature of the plot! I just love the game's quirks and eccentricities. The fact it's it's a bit "outside of the box" and did away with a few RPG norms is what makes it so refreshing to me. I loved the fact I didn't have to spend time grinding for levels and the ability to customize my characters with interchangeable elements as opposed to set skills. My only complaint with the large cast is that some of the characters were just awful, stat-wise. Gave me no incentive to use them, especially when some characters were just all-around amazing (like Harle).

For reference, though, my taste is a bit non-standard; I love quirky games like the Shadow Hearts series and adore the Suikoden series, which is known for it's large casts. My somewhat off-beat taste probably has a bit to do with why I prefer Cross over Trigger.

11

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: July 01, 2009, 01:41:38 pm »

The Facebook application I can't stand is "Compare People". I'm always getting notifications about it, "See what your friends think of you!" Very annoying. Not to mention, I dislike the idea of comparing people. I wonder how many petty fights between friends have arisen from that application?

12

General Discussion / Re: BULLIES!

« on: June 30, 2009, 04:41:47 pm »

It would have been pretty neat had you squirted them with the Supersoaker. Say, filled it with vinegar or a soap/water solution and got them right in the eyes.

13

General Discussion / Re: The $%*! frustration thread

« on: June 30, 2009, 11:50:02 am »

Right now, my current frustration is Twitter! I try to like it, I really do. I think I'm just too introverted/private to maintain one, haha. Plus, keeping up with all those new tweets is overwhelming! I have come to this conclusion: I fail at social networking. I have a Myspace only to read my favorite celebrity blog, I never check my Facebook, and now I manage to fail even at Twitter. To make matters worse, I don't find most tweets particularly interesting... I guess I'm just apathetic to the mundane things people do.

I'm such a party pooper!

14

General Discussion / Re: Stuff you LOVE, baby

« on: June 30, 2009, 09:10:48 am »

Just sat on my favorite chair outside with my cat on my lap, watching local cats pass by. My cat - an indoor cat - likes to "cat watch". Taking her outside is a special treat, and she really likes it. It's relaxing for me, too!

15

General Discussion / Re: BULLIES!

« on: June 30, 2009, 04:50:39 am »

The bully was actually a girl! As for her "insult", I've always considered MJ an extremely innovative performer and talented musician; I was actually more offended for MJ, being used as an insult like that. (The poor man had bad enough self-esteem as it was without people tactlessly attacking his appearance.) The girl was overall just a mean person who liked to bring others down; she also constantly picked on my (male) best friend for having a high voice and participating in our school's choir. Incredibly lame! I definitely paid her no mind.