kelem_ryu

So about chance then... =P~ According to my math 100% divided by 12 equals 8.3% I wonder if even half of the people bashing astrology here have ever seen a horoscope chart before. They look like this and are strictly astronomical. They just display the constellation of planets viewed from the earth at a given time and place. Interpretation of the chart is astrology. ) (That's my birth chart taken from this site) Most peoples assumptions are based on what is called a "newspaper horoscope". Every astrologist will tell you that newspaper astrology can't be taken seriously. In fact nobody could possibly take them less serious then astrologers. It should be obvious that you can't make any individual statements only by using the so called sign of zodiac that is the same for every 12th perso who ever lived.

Then again this is paradise. So you might be in a state of mind, where things just don't get boring.

I just explained why it works some posts above yours. Yah and that's why i can guess a persons Ascendent with about 30% to 50% accuracy.

I have. Love it. Both parts. Cyberpunk ftw =)

Astrology does work for me. I'll stick to the traditional 12 signs of zodiac though. That's the first time i even ever read about a 13th sign and i read a lot on the subject.

As often as you want to! Keep them coming!

I guess i have to change my post a little. The question is how you want it to be, rather then how you'd expect it to be.

I'd be really curious to know how you picture heaven/paradies to be. I don't want this to be seen as a religious question. If you have a religious view on this, maybe say wich religion. If you aren't into religion or don't believe in heaven/paradise then just picture how it would look like to suit you. Make it as fancy or plain as you want it to be! Remember it's about how paradise/heaven would look for you, (if it were real). If you don't believe in such things, it shouldn't stop you from imagining it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I got all turned on making her.

Me neither.

I guess agriculture is more important =P

I'd like to put it on test sometime maybe. I'm really good at guessing peoples Ascendent. Since there are twelve possibilities for Ascendents (whatever Love may say on this 13th sign. There are a couple of ideas that are only used by some astrologists, like Lilith, Chiron, or idk what. I would work with 12 signs, because it works for me.), if i could get say one third right it would be good evidence. Then again i don't really care about that too much, so i'm not so sure if i want to go trough the hassle to make this experiment.

The girl od my dreams would look something like that. (I liked the leopard print dread pigtails better, but this style is okay as well i guess.)

I always thought most dreamt of becoming an actor or a rock star. Well i'd like to be a rock star, or an author of some kind, hm.. or a spiritual leader of some kind, or maybe a dancer, or some kind of person with a huge budget i could spend on various intersting projects. I find recycling to be very exciting for example. I hate wasting things and recycling is something that really does something important. Also i think the buisness has quite a future, because we'll hardly ever run out of trash. Well.. or that of course. Although the sword master part isn't the important thing about it. Not to my standards. Let's leave that there, because i don't want this thread to develop into a debatte about astrology.

A child usually reflects the relationship between its parents in some way. I can't imagine the mother not seeing the rapist in the child eyes. I sincerly doubt there would be much opportunity for something good to come out here, as much as i like the thought of something good developing out of something bad.

My sense of morality has nothing to do with my argumentation. For all i know i can't tell the difference between morality and hypocrism. Hellz yes it does. You're arguing your point of view, so at least tell us your gut feeling on the issue, what your morality tells you is right. What's wrong with mentioning that? It's a vital part of your position, especially on a topic such as abortion, so if you don't mind, answer the question please: Would you walk out on some girl after impregnating her? "Yes" or "no" will suffice (and this scenario involves intercourse, so don't try and fall back on the anecdote of Boris Becker you used below). I won't answer that question, but i'll tell you my gut feeling about abortion: I think the embryo isn't consscious until a certain point. I think that point would be three weeks after impragination (i might be wrong about the three weeks), because that's the time the pineal gland first appears. I think the pineal gland is the seat of counsicousnes. So during the first three weeks there is no moral problem whatsoever to abortin. Imo. Yet it will be a problem to discover pregnancy that early. Imo since the embryo is inside the womans body she can do whatever she wants with it. It's her body and imo she has to have the right to have th choice what she wants to keep in there. Imo an embryo at first has barely any consciousness at all, maybe like that of a plant (i assume a one month old embryo barely has any consciousness at all), but as it evolves the consciousness expandes and it becomes more and more human like. So if she wants to abort she should decide to do so as soon as possible. I think the three months limit as it is in my country (idk about others) is a good compromise. At that stage the consciousness is still pretty dormant and it is justifyable cruel to abort. Of course abortion is cruel, but it is also cruel to force a woman to carry out a baby. No matter what, forcing somebody to do anything he or she doesn't want is cruel. So you have to find a compromise between being cruel and being cruel. What the compromise will look like is a matter of opinion. Imo the three months solution is as good as possible. I'll say it again: Just because the woman has more control doesn't mean that both parents don't share equal responsibility for the child that they created. If the parents raise the child together this isn't an issue anymore, but if one side wants the child and the other doesn't then the woman obviously is in a stronger position. If the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does, the child will get aborted. If the woman does want the child, but the man doesn't the child will get carried out. So in a conflict of interest the woman can make the choice. (I said that before i think.) That's why i think the man should have the choice to care for the baby in any way or not to. At the end of the day the woman does have this choice to anyway and if the man happens to get the child with the woman doing whatever, she shouldn't be forced to care (in these cases care always equals cash, as if that would be care.) The not so ideal situations are pretty common to. That's about the most extreme example imaginable. If you think he should be legally forced to do aynthing about his child whatsoever then you can't possibly agree with anything else i said about child care. Usually both parents feel some responsibility for the children anyway and if they don't live together they'll usually come to an agreement to. I just don't think anybody should be forced to even financially cover for a child they didn't want in the first place. I do even think that would be in the childs best interest. i mean: "Yes your father doesn't want you, but i sued him so i can buy you .."

My sense of morality has nothing to do with my argumentation. For all i know i can't tell the difference between morality and hypocrism. Ideally a child would be made by loving parents and the thought of abortion would never cross their mind. Since we are discussing abortion, we have to assume that whatever circumstances there are, they weren't ideal in the first place. Let's go through some possible devergence from ideal: -The parents decide together to get the baby. -The parents decide together that an abortion would be best. -The father wants the baby to be carried out, but the mother doesn't want to and gets an abortion. -The father doesn't even know the woman was pregnant in the first place, because she aborted without telling him. -The mother wants to carry out the baby, but the father would want an abortion. The baby gets born. -The couple trusts each other and know what kind of birth control they are each using. -The couple doesn't trust each other and both don't want babies, so they both use birth control. -The couple doesn't trust each other and both want babies, or don't care. They both don't use birth control. -The wo/man doesn't trust the wo/man and doesn't want a baby. S/he uses birth control. -The man does want a baby, but the woman doesn't. .) The man knows that so they use birth control. .) The man doesn't know that, so she uses birth control, without letting him know. -The woman does want a baby, but the man doesn't. .) The woman cares about the mans wishes and they use birth control. .) The woman doesn't care about the mans wishes and she lets him believe she is using birth control, but doesn't. Now you can't tell me that man and woman have equal control over pregnancy. Still you are saying both should have the same responsibility. Of course ideally this shouldn't matter at all, because ideally a child would come from an ideal relationship, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'll give you an extreme example: Boris Becker became a father from a woman he hardly knew that gave him a [bleep] and used the sperm from her mouth to impregnate herself. I realize your concern is that a part of the male population wouldn't care about birth control at all anymore. My concern is that part of the woman population abuses their power. Oh well.. doesn't really matter at all. The topic is purey academic anyway.

... We are talking about humans here. Not animals. I don't care if you are from Earth First, we are not discussing that. Trees are not sentient. And soldiers know they have the risk of death. A child does not. So your argument against abortion isn't that killing inherently is wrong, but just that killing humans is wrong? And you reason that killing humans is wrong, because you say so i guess? EDIT: double post. sorry about that.

Period. A statement. You paid attention in school. Care to explain, why this makes more sense then what i proclaim? So i am wrong about that? A woman doesn't know if i put on a condome and i in turn can read on her forehead wether she took an anti baby pill, has a hormone spiral or whatever? Also who ultimately makes the decision wether to abort or not? (ideally we will discuss this together, but who has the final say?)

Are you serious? We don't eat the meat of humans. I'm sorry, but that analogy is absurd. Well then tell me when killing is okay in your eyes! Is it okay to kill for food? for freedom? is it okay to kill a tree to make toilet paper out of it? how do you justify killing? as answer i give you: There is an important difference here. In case 2) the mother can give the child to child care or whatever, if she doesn't want the baby. In case 1) the baby is inside her body. What if she doesn't want it there?

There is an important difference here. In case 2) the mother can give the child to child care or whatever, if she doesn't want the baby. In case 1) the baby is inside her body. What if she doesn't want it there? What options does she have? Instead of aborting she could of course as well just starve for a week or two. This would probably kill the baby. I doubt this is illegal. She could also do excercise like mad. This would also kill the child and would hardly be illegal. Or she could just abort the pregnancy. Mothers to be all through history choose that option, even though it was illegal. Women died during the process, because it was unsave and they knew it would be. I don't get what anti abortion people are suggesting. Do they want to force women to carry out their babies? You can't, short of tieing them to a bed and feeding them intreavenous. Is abortion killing? I think so. Eating meat is killing to. Killing is about as natural as pregnancy is. Is killing right? Probably not. Yet there is no line you could draw. There are some Hindus, who wear face masks and sweep the floor they step on with a broom, so they don't kill smallest creatures. Where do you want to draw the line? Not killing humans you say? But killing a random animal to feed on is okay? It's certainly not necessary to feed on meat. Sure abortion shouldn't be done too lightly probably, but i can't shake the feeling that people who just claim "killing is wrong" or even "killing humans is wrong" just see in black or white. Imo even killing is okay, if it is what you must do. We all know the story of the tree of knowledge. Enough people miss that there is a second tree there. The tree of life. My interpretation is that eating from that tree would make you realize that life just is good and evil and nobody asks of you to just do good. I might be wrong of course.. hm.. i could make a topic about this one. Might be interesting. I guess i got pretty emotional myself.

It depends on what you consider a moral action to be. So explain to me what you consider to be a moral action, and then I will answer your question. Oh.. thought this would be a game, where you pretend to be Kant and argue on his behalf using his set of ideas and Hume would hold against using Humes ideas. Guess i kinda misinterpreted. :oops:

Guh. Thanks for single-handedly warping us back in the middle ages. Just because women carry children, does not mean they're the only ones responsible for the conception and education of the kids. Men need to share some of the responsibility unless we want them to cheerfully spread their seed wherever they see fit. That is bloody obvious. You missed my point. Everybody can choose their partner, so i can't "cheerfully spread my seed" to the woman who doesn't decide me to be fitting. Also women have a) more means for birth control and B) knows when a condome is used. A man doesn't know if she really uses the anti baby pill (correctly) ("you don't need a condome, i'm using the pill anyway." does she? how am i supposed to know?). A man can't decide to abort. Seeing that women have way more control over the whole progress they have more responsibility. If the parents don't live together and the child stays at only or mainly with one of them, then the one the child lives with obviously is responsible for the childs education. Okay i put it somehow misleading. Nobody should be forced to pay allimente. I think it should be the responsibility of the state, to make sure it's citizens have enough to life of. As soon as the child is born it's a citizen after all. However you shouldn't be able to force somebody to pay for the child. If you would have given it to child care, nobody would have to pay, but if one of the parents keeps the child all of the sudden the other parent can be forced to pay. And here is my point again. The mother can choose to carry the baby to birth. The father can't. I mean for all i know a woman could trick me into making her a baby and then force me to pay allimente just out of spite. I couldn't do that. It would be technically impossible.

Only because people tend to get so emotional on this subject.