474 réponses à ce sujet

[bzombo]

TSamee wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

TSamee wrote...

Sorry, the whole cop seduction thing was my poor attempt at a joke. The Australian accent thing is very true. Assuming you're in the States (Never been there, will go soon. Not sure about coming in with a green passport), it's quite funny that European accents net you better tips. "What's a classy foreign girl like you doing in a place like this?" I joke (badly), naturally. Yeah, if I were a cop, I'd be happy if people didn't act like dicks whenever I decided to hand out a ticket, so it's to be expected. Even so, it's nice to know that the police can treat someone with a decent attitude with civility/politeness where you are.

Lol, cops in Abu Dhabi (north of where I live) released this ad recently, to give the force an approachable image... hilarous XD

www.youtube.com/watch

Most Americans can't do a Boston Massachusetts accent either.  Other than actors that grew up there like Mark Wahlberg  and Matt Damon..."The Departed" was a train wreck. 

It is funny about the accent thing.  I do tend to slip into accents just for fun.  Southern accent is disarming if I do "southern belle" and not "Welcome to Deliverance."

That video is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. 

Yeah, thought you might feel that way about the video. They show it at cinemas (was in Abu Dhabi last week), so that everybody knows that the Force is paying to delay their movie starting. Question, hypothetically, if someone were to enter the States with a Pakistani passport (taking the recent airport bomb event into account),do you think there'd be much suspicion in the airport? Are we even allowed to enter the US right now? not sure.

as long as you're not on the no fly list obama and his cronies fail to maintain properly, you should be fine.

[Sialater]

Actually, it's acceptable to be gender neutral if the speaker uses the pronoun for their own gender. If I'm speaking gender neutrally and it's clear, I'll use "her/she" to define the generalities. I expect the same for men.

[Recidiva]

JAMiAM wrote...

Before this thread gets locked down for being so off-topically derailed, I just thought I'd throw out a personal opinion. Feminist extremism of the type displayed by the OP is counter-productive, and ignores an indisputable advantage that women have over men. Namely, their own sexual nature. Men are much more likely to be ruled by their "dumb-sticks" than women are by their "honeypots" and almost all human social constructs within the last several millenia of recoverable history acknowledge this tacitly.

The questions that such self-labeled feminists should ask are:
"Does this result in a particular culture acknowledging this fact out of fear, or reverence?"
"Do women find gender-based advantages or disadvantages in the particular culture?"
"What difference can I make?"
"Change or stasis, what's in it for me?"

To anyone that thinks a woman is less ruled over by her sexual nature...

AHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp*  *gasp*  *gasp*  AHAHAHAHA

Oh...man...that's...funny.

Wheee.  Okay. I'm good.  Basically I disagree.  But okay.

[Squiggles1334]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I dont mind. After all, isnt it sexism to have different articles for man and woman?
We should use "it" for both genders, or someone will definitely whine about the English language:

Strange you should say that... I have often wished their were a neutral pronoun, although for the purposes of grammar rather than feminism. Having to use 'they' as a singular pronmoun if you don't know the sex of the audience or the person you are speaking about just ruins the grammar of a sentence completely, whereas using 'he/she' is just unwieldy, and straight 'he' sounds sexist.

So I have often wished I could invent a new word that covers both men and women. Problem solved.

If this post doesn't make much sense I apologise. It's a torrent of thought just chucked onto the screen, and it makes sense to me but that's because I'm the one thinking it. Anyway...

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Hate having to say "he or she" all the time when it's third person singular with indeterminate gender when "they" is grammatically incorrect.

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the embryo is a genetically separate and unique entity. it is not part of the woman's body. it is more like a parasite in the woman's body. in fact, a lot of the hormonal changes from pregnancy are a result of the woman's body making sure that her immune system doesnt kill it and expel it as an intruder. the whole "it's my body" thing is a complete fallacy.

But it's...regardless of wanted or unwanted or parasite or beloved offspring..it's like...physically inside the female's body and topographically you'd really be wrong.

It's not like you can tell her that her pregnancy is a fallacy and therefore it dispels itself like a mirage.

You still pretty much have to deal with the whole "But it's inside MY body" thing.

This is not an imaginary being in Oz.  This is physically attached by a shared blood supply.  Kinda entangled.

[JAMiAM]

Recidiva wrote...

JAMiAM wrote...

Before this thread gets locked down for being so off-topically derailed, I just thought I'd throw out a personal opinion. Feminist extremism of the type displayed by the OP is counter-productive, and ignores an indisputable advantage that women have over men. Namely, their own sexual nature. Men are much more likely to be ruled by their "dumb-sticks" than women are by their "honeypots" and almost all human social constructs within the last several millenia of recoverable history acknowledge this tacitly.

The questions that such self-labeled feminists should ask are:
"Does this result in a particular culture acknowledging this fact out of fear, or reverence?"
"Do women find gender-based advantages or disadvantages in the particular culture?"
"What difference can I make?"
"Change or stasis, what's in it for me?"

To anyone that thinks a woman is less ruled over by her sexual nature...

AHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp*  *gasp*  *gasp*  AHAHAHAHA

Oh...man...that's...funny.

Wheee.  Okay. I'm good.  Basically I disagree.  But okay.

It's okay to laugh at the nature of my argument.  Just don't giggle at the *size*...

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the embryo is a genetically separate and unique entity. it is not part of the woman's body. it is more like a parasite in the woman's body. in fact, a lot of the hormonal changes from pregnancy are a result of the woman's body making sure that her immune system doesnt kill it and expel it as an intruder. the whole "it's my body" thing is a complete fallacy.

But it's...regardless of wanted or unwanted or parasite or beloved offspring..it's like...physically inside the female's body and topographically you'd really be wrong.

It's not like you can tell her that her pregnancy is a fallacy and therefore it dispels itself like a mirage.

You still pretty much have to deal with the whole "But it's inside MY body" thing.

This is not an imaginary being in Oz. This is physically attached by a shared blood supply. Kinda entangled.

not to deliberately sound callous, but unless the woman/girl was raped, she put it there herself. i find it hard to have any pity.

the point of saying it is a fallacy, is that the whole logic behind the structure of the law is wrong. basically, the woman created a new child and then refuses to accept responsibility for it, citing a claim that just plain incorrect. it's her responsibility, or at least it should be. simultaneously it's the man's responsiblity as well. but we've already forced men into that. we just havent forced the women into it as well.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 08 janvier 2010 - 08:49 .

[Bullets McDeath]

just in case no one mentioned this in the last 10 pages or so



feminist troll is obvious HAR HAR



now go play with your dollies and make me a sammich, b*tch

[bzombo]

Tirigon wrote...

Ethical Scabs wrote...

A counter-point-- if I, as a man, abhor the idea of my child being aborted, and wish to raise it on my own, I have no right to do that.  Again, as a man, I have no control over the course of my life.

This actually IS sexist, because the inherent basis of these two issues is that people see women as being more involved with child-rearing.  Because men aren't built to be stay at home moms --the thought-train goes-- we don't get a say.  That offends me.

This is actually true.
At least in Germany, there are many unmarried or divorced fathers fighting for their rights atm. Even successfully, sometimes, what is giving me hope. But there is still a long way to go until this inequality between men and women is overcome.

um, ok. i can see how this relates to a line of dialog in dragon age. bottom line is the line is not sexist and men aren't getting the chance to tell a woman she must have a baby. can we move on now?

[Tirigon]

Recidiva wrote...

But it's...regardless of wanted or unwanted or parasite or beloved offspring..it's like...physically inside the female's body and topographically you'd really be wrong.

It's not like you can tell her that her pregnancy is a fallacy and therefore it dispels itself like a mirage.

You still pretty much have to deal with the whole "But it's inside MY body" thing.

This is not an imaginary being in Oz.  This is physically attached by a shared blood supply.  Kinda entangled.

I always thought that all that pregnancy stuff is quite .... gross, somehow.
I mean, growing in someone else´s body? Come on...
Really sad that it is the only means of getting children atm.

[Recidiva]

JAMiAM wrote...

It's okay to laugh at the nature of my argument.  Just don't giggle at the *size*...

No, never.

But although I understand testosterone can be a curse, thus can estrogen.

Or I'd happily give up a period and all the fun headaches and hormone swings that go with them. 

I apparently I also have a sex drive that got me the nickname "Terminator."   And I'm not alone.  Lots of women experience the same syndrome.

"It's what she does!  It's all she does!  And she absolutely...will...not...stop...until you are dead..." (Nickname courtesy of second husband.)

[bzombo]

outlaworacle wrote...

just in case no one mentioned this in the last 10 pages or so

feminist troll is obvious HAR HAR

now go play with your dollies and make me a sammich, b*tch

[Recidiva]

the_one_54321 wrote...

not to deliberately sound callous, but unless the woman/girl was raped, she put it there herself. i find it hard to have any pity.

the point of saying it is a fallacy, is that the whole logic behind the structure of the law is wrong. basically, the woman created a new child and then refuses to accept responsibility for it, citing a claim that just plain incorrect. it's her responsibility, or at least it should be. simultaneously it's the man's responsiblity as well. but we've already forced men into that. we just havent forced the women into it as well.

No, I'm not rejecting your argument on the basis that it's callous, I'm just saying that medically that's like saying that cancer doesn't affect the host.  Yeah.  It does.  It's not pretend, it's not "out there" and it's not a "separate entity" in any way.  It's tangled up and has to be treated as part of the host.

I can agree that the structure of the law in this case may be flawed, but I'm addressing biology.

Current law DOES treat the baby as if it were a separate entity, and it is not, and cannot be so until at the minimum, 25 weeks in a highly-functioning NICU.

[Kohaku]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Oh come on, that's the best bit! I don't think I ever want to have kids, but I do find it sad that if I don't I never get to grow a little pet inside my uterus. It's AMAZING! And the leaky boob bit - that's got to be... interesting.

Ha. I already told my mother and family it wasn't going to happen. They are STILL trying to push me to have one. I just don't know why. I know I don't want to be responsible for a child.

[Recidiva]

Tirigon wrote...

I always thought that all that pregnancy stuff is quite .... gross, somehow.
I mean, growing in someone else´s body? Come on...
Really sad that it is the only means of getting children atm.

Well, it's totally gross. And awesome.  Like DAO in persistent gore phase.

[Ethical Scabs]

What else can we say to bring this back to a Dragon Age topic?



There HAS to be a tie-in to Morrigan's Dark Ritual.

[TSamee]

Recidiva wrote...

Obtusifolius wrote...

That is a very tricky one. I mean, if the woman accidentally gets pregnant then both parties are to blame for being careless, unless she's lied about being on the pill. The abortion part, though, is difficult. I do think it completly unfair that a guy has to pay maintenance for something he had no choice about keeping, but can you imagine how awful abortion is for some women? Some women are fine with it, others (morons) use it as a method of contraception, but if you are one of those women for who the idea is abhorrent, then it's going to be a pretty nasty decision to make between doing something you find immoral or just incredibly emotionally painful or raising a child with no support from anyone.

So... I couldn't say either point of view is ideal, but... I think the male having to pay maintenance is the better of two crap compromises.

Yeah, it's a very tricky one.  But since it's entirely legally up to the woman, then there has to be a legal choice for the male, who at this point...has none.

I'm a little annoyed that birth control options aren't covered by most insurance companies and certainly not ones that get federal funding...but that just means there's some more work to be done on that front as well.

Kids are tricky, get used to tough questions.

I get angry at women using children as entitled income sources.  To my mind, raising a child is a gift, and if you're not willing to do it on your own and with your whole heart, don't do it.   The law granted women an inalienable right, and with that comes the full weight of the responsibility as well.
 
The options aren't fun and you can always put a child up for adoption.  In the end I truly hope the law would result in more people thinking and fewer people taking advantage of sperm donors and trying to make them parents.

The kids deserve better.  The adults involved need to act like adults.

In other words - don't like it?  Use a condom or abstinence, I'm fine with it.  But don't use a kid to trap an expense account.

^this. Personally, though it has to be tough as a single mom, and the money helps, using that as an excuse to get a fixed monthly income isn't right in my books. Question: When this happens (in the contexts you see it), is the mother generally desperate, or simply wishing to squeeze cash out of an unwilling father? I don't have much experience here, as this rarely happens in the UAE, and the healthcare available to poorer people in Pakistan is utter balls, thus you just accept the child and marry the girl, or just leave, and she's supported by her family (if she has one. If not... yeah, you get the idea.)

So could someone please explain the current stance on abortions, birth control and family support in the US?

[Recidiva]

Obtusifolius wrote...

Oh come on, that's the best bit! I don't think I ever want to have kids, but I do find it sad that if I don't I never get to grow a little pet inside my uterus. It's AMAZING! And the leaky boob bit - that's got to be... interesting.

It all kinda hurts.  A lot.

Intelligent Design?  Noo...I don't think so.  I did not check the "boobs rock hard and leaking" box anywhere...I swear.

[Sialater]

Someone else said it reduced her and all women in the game to the sum of their reproductivity. I had a field day with that.

[the_one_54321]

Recidiva wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

not to deliberately sound callous, but unless the woman/girl was raped, she put it there herself. i find it hard to have any pity.



the point of saying it is a fallacy, is that the whole logic behind the structure of the law is wrong. basically, the woman created a new child and then refuses to accept responsibility for it, citing a claim that just plain incorrect. it's her responsibility, or at least it should be. simultaneously it's the man's responsiblity as well. but we've already forced men into that. we just havent forced the women into it as well.

No, I'm not rejecting your argument on the basis that it's callous, I'm just saying that medically that's like saying that cancer doesn't affect the host. Yeah. It does. It's not pretend, it's not "out there" and it's not a "separate entity" in any way. It's tangled up and has to be treated as part of the host.



I can agree that the structure of the law in this case may be flawed, but I'm addressing biology.



Current law DOES treat the baby as if it were a separate entity, and it is not, and cannot be so until at the minimum, 25 weeks in a highly-functioning NICU.

it only treats it as a separate entity if the woman so chooses. if she chooses not to, before the "deadline," then it is treated as object. the fact of the matter is that the embryo is a separate living thing from the moment of fertilization. normally, people arent allowed to have people killed. in this situation it seems to be an exception since the woman put the other person inside of her.



again, unless she was raped, she put it there. why shouldnt she have to take responsibility for her own actions?