User Tag List

First 2878118126127128129130138 Last

Results 1,271 to 1,280 of 1614

  1. #1271
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    I also hear stories about "entrapment" but I don't know how accurate they are; but it's not inconceivable that it could have happened in this scenario.
    I.. Have my doubts. Stories that assume conscious entrapment are more likely to be a narrative people tell themselves then accurate depiction... For one thing there's too much arrogance in the assumption. It's the male equivalent of the female counter "friendzone" complaint - except here it is the man who believes he is so desirable that a woman would devote her entire life deceitfully pretending she really wanting the child just so she can keep him around. Real life rarely has true villains, what is more likely is that the circumstances allowed a woman to simply not care about him and he made it about himself, as is the case with in most stories of offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    The male should not be responsible for providing financial support. The sex was protected., so it wasn't as though the man acted recklessly. I realize that the man cannot make the choice for the woman, but if the woman chooses to keep that baby vs. giving it up for adoption or getting an abortion, that's on her.
    The counter argument is that is that now there's a baby and their interest should be the highest interest of the state, and it makes the most sense for the state to first attempt to make the father provide for the baby rather then doing it as welfare. The implication of that is that she didn't have to think of the baby's future welfare at any point during the pregnancy, and yet the father would be obligated to devote his life to it or go to jail, shielding women from responsibility for the consequences of their agency but viewing man's forced labor as acceptable, while you could most likely avoid both scenario's if she wasn't legally enabled to do so in the first place and knew the responsibility of her choice would be for her to shoulder.

    More importantly: The child has a 50% chance to be a male, and growing up in the same reality where this can happen to him. This is about our sons as much it is about our men, and "For the children's sake" is a very poor excuse to fuck up your children's future.

  2. #1272
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Two consenting adults engage in protected sex, and the woman still ends up becoming pregnant. Given her choice to opt for abortion, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy, she refuses, but the man wants an abortion. The woman, not only refuses abortion, but also refuses to give the baby up for adoption, which was another choice the man had wanted to make. Thus, instead, the woman chooses to have and raise the child. Should the man be responsible for providing financial support? If so, why? If not, why?
    This is pretty much the nub of the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    No method is 100% safe and many, many people do not realise this. There is a child's life at stake and I can't place the desire for a man to do whatever the fuck he wants as more important than the quality of his child's life. A good man would sacrifice part of his freedom for this. If a grown man cannot be responsible for his actions, who will?
    And this is the current reasoning that influences family law.

    The big problem is that all of this is already decided. There is no decision-making process: the decisions are prescribed by law. Right now the woman has the right of "my body, my choice", and can thus choose whether to follow through with a pregnancy after the fact (whether by morning after pill or abortion). The man only has the "choice" not to have sex in the first place. The woman can have sex however and whenever she wants, and have full control whether she has children as a result, while men are necessarily constrained to not have sex if they don't want to be compelled to support a child.

    Whether or not one considers this to be a fair arrangement, it is clearly not an equal partnership. The man's rights are very limited while the woman has full rights.

    A more "equal partnership" arrangement might be along the lines of the woman having the full right of choice to have the child, the man also has the right to "decline paternity" for the child. So, before deciding to have the child, the woman could determine (by whatever legal means) whether the man intends to be a father to the child, and if he says, "Yes," then that act commits the father to child support payments, etc., along with full privileges of being a parent to the child for the next 18 years. If he does not consent to be the father, then she can decide whether or not she would want to have the child anyway, in full knowledge that she will be the sole parent and provider. In my opinion, this would provide something closer to "equal rights" w/r to sex, reproduction and family law given the current dynamics of how things play out these days.

    Requoting this:
    There is a child's life at stake
    Which the woman can choose to terminate at will before it is born.

    and I can't place the desire for a man to do whatever the fuck he wants as more important than the quality of his child's life.
    While the desire for a woman to do whatever the fuck she wants is enshrined in law.

    A good man would sacrifice part of his freedom for this. If a grown man cannot be responsible for his actions, who will?
    Back when there was no "my body, my choice", back when getting pregnant was a common and mostly unpreventable consequence of having sex, this was the definition of responsibility for a man. I feel that level of responsibility, as it was how I was raised.

    BUT while codifying that responsibility into law made a lot of sense in those circumstances, it's now abusive in two ways: a woman can terminate a child I would have gladly raised, and she can milk me for money for 18 years (money is fungible, and who'll notice how much actually gets spent on the child?) even as she makes it difficult for me to be involved in the child's life.

    In short, if a woman legally has 100% final choice, and the man 0% choice, in whether to bear a child to term, then she should have something close to 100% legal and financial responsibility for that child. Should we end up changing the law so that both partners share in that choice, then both partners should share responsibility.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #1273
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Sure, and perhaps instead of illegalizing murder we should deal with the legality of impacting the bloodflow to a penis, would that be ok with you? Any other issues you'd rather deal with one gender at a time? Stealing perhaps? Increases or decreases in taxes? Should we have looked at lesbian and gay marriage each as it's own issue? If people care about our ability to choose whether we want to be parents or not beyond the choice of sex, there is absolutely no reason other then sexism to do it one sex at a time.
    You still don't get it. The issues that should be dealt with one gender at a time are those that do indeed apply to only one gender based on physical reality. If you can find an example of stealing or tax avoidance that fits the bill, then yes, that would be dealt with one gender at a time. I suppose there might be laws concerning sperm donation, which would obviously apply only to men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    Feminism as a movement is largely about women's issues, which is why it's called feminism. I don't object to the existence of feminist movement and think it's necessary, even if I disagree with specific recent trends of which I shall not speak.

    The male equivalent to feminism isn't really a male equivalent at all. It's largely reactionary, populated by people who are afraid of change. I think that's because on the whole, American men are more afraid of change than American women. I think the reactionary nature of men's right's activism has more to do with men and common male attitudes rather than anything specific feminists have done.

    I do not, however, automatically assume that anyone identifying themselves as a feminist is necessarily in the right. In particular, I take issues with some of the beliefs of American feminists on the far left of the spectrum that seem to have a rather authoritarian bent to them, regardless of whatever fuzzy label they might dress it up as. I think it's possible for me to think some feminists are full of shit without dismissing the movement as a whole.
    Same with groups fighting racism, homophobia, or other prejudices. Some are extreme, in-your-face, or just plain irrational/impractical in their goals and methods. Men could easily argue for things like greater workplace flexibility, equal consideration in child custody/support where that is still lagging, and simply the right to make whatever lifestyle choice works for them, free of judgment and external pressure. This would complement the work of feminists well. In my limited experience with MRA groups, however, their goals are often something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Would you say a male equivalent that actually functions as one is necessary too?
    It is not necessary, but it would help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    The MRM attempt too - and it's largely pessimistic:
    Some of the research backing it up was linked earlier, but the core notion is that both men and women generally care more about women, perhaps culturally, quite possibly instinctively.
    Women have received much more attention in the quest for gender equality, just as blacks have received more attention than whites in the quest for racial equality, because both groups had the most ground to gain. The benefits for men (and whites) are not always as obvious, which is probably part of why we don't have men's rights groups on the same scale as women's rights groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Not necessarily, for the same reason we don't see that many stories of children as historical figures throughout history - it's the way in which the complaints of both sides fit quite nicely on the same coin - women getting "Treated like children" is probably the most apt analogy to describe it's coin for both its sides. Just like children, their lives and well being are more valuable, defending them is viewed as basic morality, positive traits are super imposed onto them regardless of agency and responsibility is generally stripped away from them, but just the same, as with children, they also lost a great deal of personal agency, and got coddled from opportunities to prove themselves in any way that would put them above the rest for their actions, while written history is mostly centered almost exclusively around heroes and leaders.
    This part you absolutely do get. Bravo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
    I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about literature from as far back as the Iliad to as recently as Lord of the Rings. The male friendships (and animosities) predominate. Romantic relationships are barely mentioned, if at all. I'm not holding it up as an ideal without problems; I'm just saying that contemporary American mores about the way men relate to each other aren't the way it's always been.
    Why do women have to appear in the context of a romantic relationship?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Two consenting adults engage in protected sex, and the woman still ends up becoming pregnant. Given her choice to opt for abortion, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy, she refuses, but the man wants an abortion. The woman, not only refuses abortion, but also refuses to give the baby up for adoption, which was another choice the man had wanted to make. Thus, instead, the woman chooses to have and raise the child. Should the man be responsible for providing financial support? If so, why? If not, why?
    Barring entrapment by either party, the answer is driven by obligations to the child, which are the same for both parents. The parents can agree that one will raise the child and the other bow out; or a court can determine one of the parents unfit/abusive; but barring that, both share responsibility. With that responsibility comes the right to a relationship with the child. The father may find eventually that he does indeed want that.

    The converse shows the inherent assymetry in the situation, though. Say the father wants the child, but the mother wants an abortion. He cannot overrule her decision and then force her to pay child support because he cannot force her to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth. This is simple physical reality. Were it possible for him to take the embryo from her, to gestate in a willing surrogate or artificial womb, then indeed he could make the same demand. The situations would be equivalent. As it is now, though, he can try to convince her to have the child, even offer to take it off her hands entirely once it is born, but that is it.

    If nothing else, this should highlight that sex is serious business, not to be undertaken lightly or with someone untrustworthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    The counter argument is that is that now there's a baby and their interest should be the highest interest of the state, and it makes the most sense for the state to first attempt to make the father provide for the baby rather then doing it as welfare. The implication of that is that she didn't have to think of the baby's future welfare at any point during the pregnancy, and yet the father would be obligated to devote his life to it or go to jail, shielding women from responsibility for the consequences of their agency but viewing man's forced labor as acceptable, while you could most likely avoid both scenario's if she wasn't legally enabled to do so in the first place and knew the responsibility of her choice would be for her to shoulder.
    Here we are back to assuming the father is the financial provider, and the mother I suppose the daily caregiver. So, while he is slaving away earning income for the child, she is slaving away feeding, changing, comforting, nursing, and otherwise raising it, while putting any ambitions of her own on hold. (Unlike Dad who can provide financial support just fine - perhaps even better - while advancing his career.) Which of them isn't thinking of the baby's welfare? Legally both should be equally responsible for the child in all ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In short, if a woman legally has 100% final choice, and the man 0% choice, in whether to bear a child to term, then she should have something close to 100% legal and financial responsibility for that child. Should we end up changing the law so that both partners share in that choice, then both partners should share responsibility.
    Women and men have equal choice in conception. They have equal choice and equal resopnsibilities concerning a child once born. They do not have equal choice in whether a pregnancy is carried to term because only one of them is capable of doing that, unlike the other two activities. See also above.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #1274
    The Senate Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    8,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post

    Why do women have to appear in the context of a romantic relationship?
    In the sort of literature I'm thinking about, this was pretty much the only time they appeared. The only other time would be as mothers. I'm not exaggerating, this is actually the way it was. And even then, their appearance would be rare.


    If nothing else, this should highlight that sex is serious business, not to be undertaken lightly or with someone untrustworthy.
    I agree, but I would be very careful around who I made such an assertion. I've made similar comments elsewhere and gotten accused of slut-shaming or being brainwashed by religious indoctrination.
    Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
    The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.
    Likes Lethe liked this post

  5. #1275
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If nothing else, this should highlight that sex is serious business, not to be undertaken lightly or with someone untrustworthy.
    In other words, "sex is serious business" means "women get their way, if they so choose," insofar as you are concerned.

    Women and men have equal choice in conception.
    You have even already admitted the asymmetry, yet you assert "equal choice." Of course there is no logical inconsistency, "because biology."

    They have equal choice and equal resopnsibilities concerning a child once born.
    Yet only the woman gets to determine whether the child is born.

    They do not have equal choice in whether a pregnancy is carried to term because only one of them is capable of doing that, unlike the other two activities. See also above.
    Therefore, your point is, "So sorry. The father is fully responsible for the mother's choices, because biology."

    I suggested a possible arrangement where responsibilities are assumed voluntarily by both parties, yet you insist that after conception, only the mother can make decisions, and the father is held fully liable for them.

    That might be logical to you, but you're pretty much making the points of your opposition for them. You are agreeing and saying, "Well, tough. That's how it is. Women get to fool around and be irresponsible, but hold men responsible whenever they so choose."
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  6. #1276
    Super Ape Luke O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    954
    Posts
    1,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    This is pretty much the nub of the issue.


    And this is the current reasoning that influences family law.

    The big problem is that all of this is already decided. There is no decision-making process: the decisions are prescribed by law. Right now the woman has the right of "my body, my choice", and can thus choose whether to follow through with a pregnancy after the fact (whether by morning after pill or abortion). The man only has the "choice" not to have sex in the first place. The woman can have sex however and whenever she wants, and have full control whether she has children as a result, while men are necessarily constrained to not have sex if they don't want to be compelled to support a child.

    Whether or not one considers this to be a fair arrangement, it is clearly not an equal partnership. The man's rights are very limited while the woman has full rights.

    A more "equal partnership" arrangement might be along the lines of the woman having the full right of choice to have the child, the man also has the right to "decline paternity" for the child. So, before deciding to have the child, the woman could determine (by whatever legal means) whether the man intends to be a father to the child, and if he says, "Yes," then that act commits the father to child support payments, etc., along with full privileges of being a parent to the child for the next 18 years. If he does not consent to be the father, then she can decide whether or not she would want to have the child anyway, in full knowledge that she will be the sole parent and provider. In my opinion, this would provide something closer to "equal rights" w/r to sex, reproduction and family law given the current dynamics of how things play out these days.

    Requoting this:

    Which the woman can choose to terminate at will before it is born.


    While the desire for a woman to do whatever the fuck she wants is enshrined in law.


    Back when there was no "my body, my choice", back when getting pregnant was a common and mostly unpreventable consequence of having sex, this was the definition of responsibility for a man. I feel that level of responsibility, as it was how I was raised.

    BUT while codifying that responsibility into law made a lot of sense in those circumstances, it's now abusive in two ways: a woman can terminate a child I would have gladly raised, and she can milk me for money for 18 years (money is fungible, and who'll notice how much actually gets spent on the child?) even as she makes it difficult for me to be involved in the child's life.

    In short, if a woman legally has 100% final choice, and the man 0% choice, in whether to bear a child to term, then she should have something close to 100% legal and financial responsibility for that child. Should we end up changing the law so that both partners share in that choice, then both partners should share responsibility.
    I agree that the law in many Western countries pretty much has a framework for this sort of thing. Enforcing it is another thing as well we know...

    What you said about the man deciding not to have sex is an important part. Is it not that stage (and not afterwards) where a man can decline paternity? I don't think I need to go into detail about sex there primarily for procreation, but is it a cultural thing (again, mostly in the West) that people can have sex without any consequence? My own case in mind - I decided I didn't want to have any more children, so I had a vasectomy, I didn't want to leave things to chance (especially as my wife wouldn't have terminated the pregnancy).

    I say cultural due to the way sex is portrayed in the media, not limited to pornography (though porn has a lot to answer for).

  7. #1277
    Super Ape Luke O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    954
    Posts
    1,729

    Default

    I designed a sexual consent form, for both parties to complete before engaging in the act. Would anyone like to see it?

  8. #1278
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In other words, "sex is serious business" means "women get their way, if they so choose," insofar as you are concerned.

    You have even already admitted the asymmetry, yet you assert "equal choice." Of course there is no logical inconsistency, "because biology."

    Yet only the woman gets to determine whether the child is born.

    Therefore, your point is, "So sorry. The father is fully responsible for the mother's choices, because biology."

    I suggested a possible arrangement where responsibilities are assumed voluntarily by both parties, yet you insist that after conception, only the mother can make decisions, and the father is held fully liable for them.

    That might be logical to you, but you're pretty much making the points of your opposition for them. You are agreeing and saying, "Well, tough. That's how it is. Women get to fool around and be irresponsible, but hold men responsible whenever they so choose."
    There are three obvious steps or stages in raising a child: (1) conception, (2) gestation, culminating in birth, and (3) caring for the child until it grows up. It takes two people to do (1), which is where the process starts. If a child is conceived, it is as much a result of the man's actions and choices as the woman's. There is nothing wrong with the arrangement you suggest as long as it is reached by mutual agreement and not coercion. I already mentioned that some women faced with unplanned pregnancy already decide not even to tell the father, because he is not someone they would want in their or their child's life. In doing this, they willingly forgo any material support he might provide.

    Some people here (mostly men) are quick to point out that men and women are different in an attempt to justify placing limitations of some kind on women. When those very real differences argue for according women a specific right that simply cannot be given to men due to anatomical differences, the shoe is on the other foot.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Luke O liked this post

  9. #1279
    Meta Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Two consenting adults engage in protected sex, and the woman still ends up becoming pregnant. Given her choice to opt for abortion, to terminate the unwanted pregnancy, she refuses, but the man wants an abortion. The woman, not only refuses abortion, but also refuses to give the baby up for adoption, which was another choice the man had wanted to make. Thus, instead, the woman chooses to have and raise the child. Should the man be responsible for providing financial support? If so, why? If not, why?
    My views on this might not be popular, but I'll say it anyway.

    I think men and women (read: mother and father) should be able to independently choose if they want to be a parent or not. Granted, a father can not, nor should he be able to force a mother to have a child since that puts extremely unreasonable pressure and effort upon her. That said, if the soon-to-be-parents aren't in a legally bound relationship, and one wants to keep the child, but the other doesn't, the one who doesn't shouldn't be required to involve themselves with it. Once you commit to it though before the birth of the child, you should have to stay legally bound. I don't want it to be this way, but this enters a problem where both parents could mutually drop children. In a vacuum that seems fine to me, but in practice I'm not so sure, so it's an area I am not settled on.

    I also operate under the notion that no parent is better than a bad parent, and parents that don't want to be very frequently are bad.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Mane, Lethe liked this post

  10. #1280
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Here we are back to assuming the father is the financial provider, and the mother I suppose the daily caregiver. So, while he is slaving away earning income for the child, she is slaving away feeding, changing, comforting, nursing, and otherwise raising it, while putting any ambitions of her own on hold. (Unlike Dad who can provide financial support just fine - perhaps even better - while advancing his career.) Which of them isn't thinking of the baby's welfare? Legally both should be equally responsible for the child in all ways.
    She made the choice to have the child, he didn't, and in the example above specifically advocated not too. You've previously said you identify as a feminist because you believe men and women should be equally responsible... You didn't specify they should be equally responsible and liable for women's life choices in regards to their own lives and the lives of others as apposed to equally responsible for their own choices.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    You still don't get it. The issues that should be dealt with one gender at a time are those that do indeed apply to only one gender based on physical reality.

    I already gave an example: Instead of generalizing with stupid anti murder laws let's focus on what counts which is the impact of violence on penis bloodflow. Women don't have their bloodflow to their penises stop just because their hearts seize to work, it's not a women's issue, and it's really just biology.


    But since you want more:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If you can find an example of stealing or tax avoidance that fits the bill, then yes, that would be dealt with one gender at a time.

    Sure, most medical expenses are towards the golden years, women live longer and have more of them, let's deal with women's taxation towards medical welfare for the elderly separately from men's. But if we do cover for both, well then - the difference between how much men & women eat on average is quite substantial - if we are covering together for the differences in the price it takes to hold people alive, then the government should finance male-only discounts, or at least food stamps for the poor.


    Almost any issue can be reframed to be dependent on external variables that will make it work to benefit one group more then another, you can even find this done in American anti drug laws prosecuting drug usage common to black drug culture in america more then drugs common to white drug culture. Those are artificial dependencies they are not inherit to the issue itself but a way to reframe the issue in a way that focuses on one impact over another. Even for your example - We could deal with the issue of sperm donations alongside surrogacy as a general factor of human rights or we can frame each by their respective means of production as it's own separate issue, and we unfortunately tend to do the later, ranging from not allowing one (Surrogacy) but allowing the other (Sperm donation) all the way to Allowing both but enabling one to reclaim parental rights but not the other (Both cases exist depending on state). Yet the underlining human right questions that all of those tackle are not in themselves dependent on those factors, and limiting the debate or laws in a way which does is not "separate but equal", it's a way to avoid addressing the issues beyond what your respective bubble of empathy may be limited too, which in this case, as you've demonstrated, is people who have the same mechanisms as you between their legs.




    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    This part you absolutely do get. Bravo.

    Do you need me to puppeteer and devil advocate for your position against my arguments for you? Because I am pretty sure I wouldn't need to start initiating an exchange of snide condescension as an alternative to reasoning and arguments in regards to the topic itself quite this fast. But i'll bite the bait:


    Measuring how much sources of arguments or information "get it" by whether they end up reaching the same conclusion you've had prior to having to consider new information or arguments instead of doing so based on the merit of their arguments or whether they address the "it" you are thinking of certainly helps explain and clarify how you are capable of feeling entitled to the "informed" opinions you've expressed here.... Mostly by continuously arguing with people who'll spend anywhere between minutes to a couple of hours of research ignoring it and then contradicting it later.


    No coriolis, the only "It" you've expressed that I didn't get was me not realizing you were wearing your signature ironically (Damn hipster). In regards to this discussion, I keep addressing the issue you think "i don't get", you keep ignoring it with "you don't get it" and repeat the very thing i was addressing without addressing anything I said about it.... I even respected you enough to stop into a mini meta discussion asking you if this is a conscious decision and whats the benefit of that structure for the discussion, no answer.

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts