magekillr

cryztalwing, you and your Ron Paul craziness are so out there that I seriously think you need help. Here, these people can help: http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries? Do you care about the poor? I sure hope you are donating all of your money to them Do you care about the crime rate? I sure hope you are working as a probation officer/criminal psychologist/investigator etc. see why this logic isnt a good idea? Yes I care about the poor and the homeless, this is why I am a part of a service fraternity in college, and why I go to the homeless shelter every Thursday. Yes I care about crime rate, which is why I am a part of the "Students for Sensible Drug Policy" and I attend conferences for Single-payer health care in America to discuss how we implement such a system here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that logic at all. If you care about a politician to get into office, you don't sit on a blog website telling people to vote, you get up and make phone calls/knock on doors to garner support. If an issue is of importance to you, you will find a way to support that cause that actually does something, because yelling about it online sure doesn't help any. And banning it DEFINITELY doesn't help any. If he cared about abortion and lowering it, he would try and educate people and/or support in-depth sexual education classes in school rather than support banning it. It's going to happen illegally, either in a back alley or in a doctor's office, or across the Canadian border....or worse, miscarriage via drinking.

So I guess arguing about it on a runescape forum is going to reduce the amount of abortions then, eh? Sounds to me you don't really care about abortion that much, or you'd be educating people about safe sex and protection. Rather than yelling about it, holding signs outside of Planned Parenthood, and making women feel like [cabbage], why don't you go around educating kids about protection, and encourage birth control/condom dispensaries?

Sly, let me ask you, what have you done to prevent abortions from taking place?

JC is dead, now stop celebrating Christmas, unless you admit that it's a Pagan holiday. Happy birthday, Chuck! None of the evidence we have would make sense without your theory.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 58f5611022 In the original paper, they show that there's no real reason to believe that it's more mutagenic than drugs that are already on the market for treating HIV, and may well in fact be less. So anyone worried about some weird mutation ala "I am Legend", it seems about as likely as a giant black hole to suck us in from the Large Hadron Collider.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1881 ... d_RVDocSum Sounds like media sensationalism as usual, I'll wait for the research itself.

Why should just the doctor be prosecuted? Again: Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted? Right, but that's not the point of the analogy. This is a "what if I had this machine". Would it be murder?

While I don't find this to be true, typically if it's your third abortion the doctor will suggest tubal. It's also dangerous to have that many surgical procedures in one area. And most people, barring extremely radial people that compose of about less than 0.05% of the pro-choice movement, completely agree with you. If the fetus is viable, that is where I give it person hood. The Freedom of Choice Act agrees with you in this regard as well. Are you arguing for late term abortions or abortions altogether? From your previous post it'd seem you were arguing for the former. I shall address the latter, though. What of a woman that took every precautionary measure that she could; her boyfriend wore a condom, she used birth control. The condom broke/tore, and the BC didn't cut it. These things happen. Is she guilty of murder if she has an abortion? Let's make it a bit more clear cut with you. I walk down my garden towards some carrots, with full intention of using my machine to make them sentient. Say, with an equal chance of actually doing so that a fetus has of coming to term, just to make the analogy easier. You come into my garden, barge in front of me and eat one of those carrots before I use the machine. Is that wrong? Are you a murderer?

This is what I don't get about the prolife types. They bleat on about claiming to believe that abortion is murder, and yet when it comes down to treating it like it they suddenly get cold feet. Come on. She tried to have someone murdered. Do you think someone who hires a hitman to kill their husband should be treated as "the second victim of murder" and not be prosecuted? Everyone should watch this video, btw, it's hilarious and full of the same hypocrisy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw How to stump anti-abortionists by asking one simple question!

This is fair, and I can accept that. Again, I suppose this is a fair point, but I'll wait for further studies to be conducted. With respect to my own experiences and anecdotal evidence, part of me was slightly passive aggressive towards my mother when I found out my bio-father wasn't allowed to visit. I didn't even know the guy raising me wasn't my own father until I was like 12. Still, I understood why he wasn't allowed to do so, but I do think my mom was far too protective. I met him when I was 18, and I think he's a really sweet man that just happened to be an immature person when I was younger, that just couldn't quite get his life together. I retract in that I misunderstood your point. I thought that with 'father-figure' you were immediately referring to biological father/male-gender. Basically in that "Oh, single parents/gays can't possibly raise children correctly because they need a man in their life" is how I originally took the statement. I think two lesbians can accomplish that by adopting both those roles (and as such many do in general with one person sort of being the "male" in the relationship, and by that I do not mean "butch"). Besides, most of them can involve other male family members and acquaintances. In short: I agree with the study when it comes to this. I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you had said. This is fair I guess and I'm sure it happens, but I'm not so sure that it is as extensive as you're trying to make it out to be. I remember certain statistics that supported unfitness as the main cause of disqualifying a parent of custody. If I find that study, I'll post it here. Unfitness being the lacking certain resources, like a vehicle, driver's license, stable job, secure shelter, which would result in his or her unfitness to attain shared custody. Unfitness could also include gambling, drugs, drinking, promiscuity, etc. Anyway, sorry for the misinterpretations/misrepresentations of what you were trying to say.

I can't disagree with you here. However, Asian culture dictates this and values learning above anything else, which would probably explain why these discrepancies are there (I can't say for sure, this is just my own hypothesis). To them, the "nerds" are cool instead of the football players (so my buddy in Korea tells me). Here's a few: Planned Parenthood worldwide Development Gateway Feminist Majority That's all I got off of the top of my head.

*sigh* This all started because Sly made a comment that somehow men are being discriminated against with respect to visitation and child custody. I called this "cute" because it's usually for good reasons that they are "discriminated" against (denied): a. Usually it's a case of spousal abuse b. Failure to pay child support (like with my own biological father) c. Sometimes it's a simple matter of safety/custodial interference d. The majority of the times though, men simply do not want any visitation rights as they feel that doing that would make them further liable for child support. Apparently this led you to go and say why, despite ANY OF THESE THINGS, fathers should still be allowed visitation rights, in that "children need a father figure". This led me to falsely believe that you were arguing that children need a gender-male when it comes to child rearing, rather than a "male role model". For this false misrepresentation of your argument, I apologize. So now this leads to a new argument: Why does the male role model have to be restricted to the biological father through visitation? And moreover, why does this support Sly's other argument which I'm sure would be, "Women are preferred in custody trials." Women are preferred in these hearings because: 1. The father was never the primary care giver. 2. The father was never involved. 3. The father doesn't want custody. 4. The father has been abusive to the mother (and/or the child), deeming him an unsuitable parent. I would tend to agree with those studies' results, but it does not argue that men should be given visitation because of those circumstances. THAT was my main argument. and for one final edit, just for Sly as to why his claim was myth... Less than 15-16% of women are non-custodial parents and within this 16% or so, about less than half are ordered to pay child support. So even if this entirety of 8% fails to pay (I believe the non-payment rate is around 40% of this number)---it's very tiny compared to the 46% fathers or so who pay nothing to very tiny fractions of the child support. But I suppose it's easier for the MRAs to claim that a greater percent of women fail to pay the child support than men, and therefore child support is somehow biased against men.

They're most certainly not "preferable". What matters is love and attention. The reason there is a discrepancy for the seeming loss of "father figures" is not because they are a father figure, but because it's very difficult to juggle the various aspects of parenting and a job with just one person. Why are they preferable? There's no differences between gay couples and straight couples, so it's obviously NOT because of the lacking of a "father-figure/mother-figure". Thusly why I responded with Post hoc ergo propter hoc. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/1182 ... 90406.html

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Do you support gay adoption? The psychological effects of not having a father figure in childhood are well-documented; kindly educate yourself. The psychological effects of losing a father-figure mid-childhood are even worse. I'm afraid latin phrases are no more effective in disproving an argument than shouting "myth". As for gay (and lesbian) adoption yes, I support both. If you're for lesbian adoption, why aren't you making the same arguments that the adopted children need a father figure in order to "come out ok"? It'd be my understanding that you should be against gay adoption for this reason.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, with not only this, but the other pieces of your statistics. Do you support gay adoption?

Quotas were struck down by the SCOTUS, as I stated in my post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of ... a_v._Bakke

I should also address affirmative action, and why I feel that it is necessary. Despite what many people think, AA has worked very well to correct these disproportions in wages. Due both to the direct and indirect consequences of AA, minorities and women in the US are faring much better than their counterparts in other developed countries. To those against AA, I ask you how else are we suppose to mend these societal injustices? I think declassifying race is a terrible idea. Take France for example, minorities have major societal problems among them being that they have almost zero representation in their national government. Yet, no one can address these issues because for France race doesn't exist. Ignoring race, only ignores the problem. AA cannot be replaced a purely socio-economic based system. I do agree that more emphasis needs to be placed on socio-economic backgrounds when applying AA but it cannot be just that. The problem isn't that there are poor people in America. The problem is that women and minorities disproportionally fall into this category. AA is by no means perfect as it is intrinsically puts one individual ahead the next. However, when viewed in the context of this nation's past and even current injustices, AA is still vital social program Some say it's 'counterproductive", but I'm not sure what they mean by "counterproductive". Affirmative Action, and the Civil Rights Act of '64 in general, was meant to alleviate the poverty rates of African Americans; they were poor because they couldn't get into good jobs or good universities on account of their race. And in that regard, it did a fantastic job; just look at poverty rates before and after the act. However, affirmative action was somewhat counterproductive in that it forces racism and racists to hide what they are. When a black person is denied a job, the interviewer can't say "I don't like what you look like". He instead has to make up some other excuse. Before, his racism would have been on the surface, and it could have been addressed as such. Now that the significant amounts of racism in this country is essentially buried, reforming and exposing racists becomes very difficult. This is why free speech is very important. and in closing, to quote Thomas Nagel:

Perhaps in your "feminist blogs and zines" it would be considered a myth, but it is in fact a reality. The statistics speak for themselves, and screaming "myth!" doesn't change them. It depends. I am largely unsympathetic given a vast majority of them either DON'T want visitation or want visitation as a means of control. Also, the site that you gave has a whole bunch of false as well as outdated statistics (and blatant misrepresentation in the child support section). You're right, screaming "myth" doesn't change them, so here's some facts of my own: http://family.findlaw.com/child-support ... stats.html http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf http://www.resource4familylaw.com/topic ... stics.html Way to address my concern. When you are subjected to the stresses on both the body and mind that a pregnancy brings, then you can have "equal rights" when it comes to deciding what to do with your OWN body. If somehow pregnancies were dealt with in a neutral caregiver that both the male and female had no part of, then your argument would be legit. Yes, Dubay v. Wells is one of the most frequently cited cases by Men's rights activists. They think that a woman should either not have the right to abort if the father must pay child support or if she has the right to abort, then the father must have the right to abandon duty of care for the born child. Its a piss-poor reasoning given the woman has no right to be free of duty of care to a born child. Even with adoption, if there is an active male parent involved---she has to get his consent. Otherwise she cannot adopt out. If he becomes the custodial parent of that child, she would be the one paying child support. There is no right to be free of parental responsibility; this is what Dubay was going for. For more reading: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20071127.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20060322.html Not at all. However, women ARE still not treated as well. Women still make up the vast majority of sexual abuse/assault cases. Women are still the vast majority of victims of domestic abuse. Male partners/relatives still make up for the largest chunk of perpetrators in the murders of pregnant women. Women still face much more sexual and pay discrimination than men overall do. Murder, robbery, etc ARE all reported on a much higher rate than rape is. Rape is THE MOST underreported crime in the world, next only to domestic abuse. Not to mention that the conviction/prosecution rates are higher for other crimes than sexual assault/rape.

Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver). "Cute"? Men who want to be involved in their childrens' lives are routinely denied access and your response is "cute"? What a fantastic example of a feminist you are - belittling issues that affect men (and children, who have a right to a father) and responding to arguments by putting words in peoples' mouths. Way to bring respect to your cause. I referred to it as a "cute" because it was a massive generalization, and in many circles it would be considered a myth. Not because I was belittling a man wanting to see his child. Sorry for not being clearer, but I thought it was quite clear when I referenced ANOTHER myth in the same post.

Blue, while I don't find it at all "trivial" or "irrational" to take a stand and demand that pay discrepancies are rectified, I do find it a bit odd that you'd say they're not directing their efforts towards those areas. Feminists are doing more to move towards a view of feminism that includes the third world than people in other fields such as civil rights, if you read any feminist blogs or zines you'd know this, so it would strike me that feminism is actually one of the areas where this criticism applies less. In the U.S., it is unfair to expect women to fulfill the role of "someone taking care of livestock and children at home during the day" because that does not present them with equal opportunity, which is what we are supposed to be boasting ourselves of. Cute. The next thing you're going to tell me is that divorce favors the woman as well. Divorce often is initiated by the female and hardly "costs" the man anymore than it costs the woman. Usually in terms of child support, it often sucks to be the woman (who often is also the default caregiver). What double standard? Name some. edit: Oh joy, I can't believe I missed this little gem: Here's something that goes far above "less pay", the most UNDER-REPORTED crime in the US, and probably the world, RAPE. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618 Many people feel it's being "falsely" reported, when it's being UNDER-REPORTED. Physical and mental abuse in relationships is also another, ahem, key point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-worl ... d_feminism Um...?

Conservatism helps another family! http://www.miamiherald.com/277/story/892447.html Aww, prop 2 is so touching with how well it is bringing families together.

I'm really sick and tired of the far right demonizing feminism, civil rights, and liberalism. Liberalism does not mean listening to what bigots have to say and making sure that what we do does not "offend" them. Liberalism means recognizing that bigots are wrong and that our views should not change to accomodate them, but rather the other way around. What this guy thinks is "liberalism/feminism" is "nihilism", and he needs to learn the difference. Moderation has never achieved lasting political change or gotten anyone to stand up and take notice. All moderation achieved for the democrats was eight years of failure in congress and an election win by default against a geriatric and an imbecile. Radicals won civil rights and the end to apartheid, women's right to vote, and the right to be homosexual without being locked up. All moderation has ever achieved for liberals is failure, while the O'Reillys and the Coulters of the right shift the Overton Window of acceptable discourse to the right, to the point where self declared liberals will happily defend bigots in the name of inclusiveness. No matter what South Park told you, the truth is not always in the middle. When one side advocates genocide and another peace, "moderacy" is not a virtue. This guy's assessment of feminism is not only inaccurate, it's insulting. Oh yes, let's just apply this argument to your own favourite racial slurs for bonus fun times! Who on earth could think that "the way things have always been" needs changing? Oh, right... Your average ANYONE (barring creationists and Ludwig Von Mises supporters) will disregard any scientific argument unless the conclusion supports their existing beliefs. This guy comparing fascism and feminism is exactly like Rush Limbaugh, and it's why my original post still remains relevant. "Feminazi" is a term coined by Rush, and for people to allow a bigot to push these comparisons and words into the mainstream is sickening. His rant about equal pay is ridiculous. Oh yes, Maddox, the scientists are just SOOOO stupid to not think of controlling for the same work when they conduct studies about pay discrepancies. Thank you so much for pointing this out so we can control for the same work next time. :roll: Yeah, because all feminists are women, tool. --Katha Pollitt --Signed, a bleeding heart liberal/feminist.