(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		05-18-24 06:48 AM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 05:53 PM, in Do you smoke up? Link
Originally posted by Snow Tomato
And people who are addicted to really really harmful drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. Who's honestly going to get off of crack in prison? They should be checked into a hospital, nursed back to good health and go through intensive rehab. This idea that people who are addicted to harmful drugs are criminals... is ridiculous. They have a dependancy problem, a severely addiction prone additude and they need help not handcuffs. They need to be shown how to make a better life for themselves, so that harmful activities don't become second nature. Most drug abusers are poor or vagrant. If we helped these people instead of having a policy that denies them housing, welfare and healthcare... America would be safer. Obviously things like crack and such should remain illegal, as they are actually harmful... but when an addict is found he or she shouldn't be handcuffed by a cop and thrown into jail... they need to be helped. Jesus would help them.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
It'd be better for America if we admitted that not everyone is responsible for themselves. Not everyone can be expected to make the right choices all of the time. We need to help these people, not punish them. Maybe take them off the streets, for sure, but not punish them in the way prison does. Prison creates criminals. Almost everyone who goes to prison... winds up back there. Have you ever wondered why that happens? The system we have creates more problems than it solves. If we just admitted we had problems and dealt with them rationally... we'd make society safer.

I'm not trying to argue that all people who break the law should be coddled and let off the hook. I'm saying they need intensive care and conseling which doesn't punish them and encourages positive change. I can tell you right now that when you tell someone "What you did is wrong. So we're sending you to jail, a horrible place where all the wrong people go."... they'll continue to be wrong... because.. that is what they are.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
And all the things I said about how we treat the poor is true. We have a system where the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and the middle class stays middle class. There is very little oppurtunity for social mobilization. And we treat the poor like crap. It's in the best interests of our society to start treating the poor better, help clean up the ghetto's and provide sensible housing and jobs for the poor. If you don't want to worry about crime, that's how you would go about eliminating it. Eliminate the need to steal. Most European countries, and Canada have realized this and their crime rates are much lower for it.
Yeah, I love the idea of throwing my tax dollars at a group of irresponsible, self-interested degenerates who ruined their own lives by willfully, intentionally turning to a harmful substance. That idea really appeals to me.

I'd gladly pour money into helping those poor people who are making honest efforts to better themselves, but I would not be alright with paying for every crackhead's hospital visit, rehabilitation efforts, and God knows what else. Sorry.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 06:18 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by DarkSlaya
But before I even talk about that (I mean, weren't we supposed to not go that way with the topic?).
That was definitely my original intent, but I've since given up that idea .

Originally posted by DarkSlaya
I strongly agree with whoever said that the choice is to the parents, and only the parents. The best way is to reach an agreement between the parents.
Even so, this was never the original discussion in the first place . Maybe my thread title is misleading, but the initial topic was not about who should be able to make the decision regarding a specific abortion case but, instead, whether men should be allowed a say in the greater abortion debate.

Originally posted by DarkSlaya
[entire post, cut for length]
Your entire argument rests on the notion of moral relativity. That is, that no such thing as "right and wrong" or "good and evil" exist, period. While I would agree with you to a small extent - the idea of right versus wrong is often tied to underlying cultural influences - I cannot and will not bring myself to accept that there is no concrete definition of a "wrong" act. The analogy I tend to use is, if you were to travel to live with a primitive culture in the middle of nowhere, and one of their cultural traditions called for you to murder another human being without any reason whatsoever, would you do it? You say that, since there is no universal morality, that primitive group is just as "right" as we are, no?

Originally posted by Tauwasser
That's very righteous of you to say. Dolphins for example are a very intelligent and sentient species as studies have shown.
You're taking my quote out of context. I explicitly placed that remark adjacent to the idea that, while injuring or killing a human is not morally equivalent to injuring or killing an animal, it is hardly "alright" to brutally, maliciously harm any non-human being that has even minimal intelligence. Insects and such might be a different matter, but I doubt many people would flip out at you for swatting a mosquito.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
I never said equivalence anywhere. Don't twist my words. Feeling somewhat empathetic for something or -one isn't the same as feeling of equivalence.
"Equivalence" is the word I used, but it's the concept you used. "What I'm actually trying to say is, that either all beings should be treated equally or none. It's that simple when it comes down to. I mean. You already go there"

Originally posted by Tauwasser
So you're saying you can perceive how a foetus would feel inside its mother womb getting slaughtered? Aside from the fact, that it is unable to feel because nervous strains aren't built up when abortions commonly take place, how so?
No, of course not. I don't have to have been tortured to feel empathy for a torture victim, I don't have to have had cancer to feel empathy for a cancer patient, and I don't need to have been aborted to feel empathy for a fetus that is being aborted. Maybe "sympathy" would be the better word to use, but I think "empathy" fits my meaning better.

In any case, what difference does it make whether the fetus suffers or not? Should I be allowed to kill someone so long as I sedate them first? Is murder really wrong just because the victim feels physical pain in the process, or is it something more than that?

Originally posted by Tauwasser
And you do know, when abortion didn't exist, people would go back and do shove a hanger in there until everything is smooched enough to be put in a smoothie, don't you?
What's your point?

Originally posted by Tauwasser
Why? Where is the difference? Goddammit, a dog has feelings of pain, too. Why is it different from abusing a human when you abuse a dog? I don't see the difference in there. I just see how the world works and go "Well, I don't necessarily need to care." Else, I couldn't stand living in this place.
Tell me, honestly, do you not understand the fundamental difference between harming a human and harming an animal, or are you being facetious?

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
I don't like this arguement. Particularly the "only for the United States" part. Borders mean nothing. Aren't we all god's children? So, issues like poverty, starvation, disease and warfare... which affects a far greater number of people on earth... are less important that abortion? Abortions are the most pressing issue here? I don't know about that.
I only cited American statistics because (a) they are far easier to obtain, and typically far more accurate, than worldwide numbers, (b) because I was comparing them only to war casualties of American troops, and so a comparison of any other scale would be inappropriate, and (c) because you and I really have no say regarding how they rest of the world administers laws. Surely I would love to wipe out abortion on a global scale, and certainly I think that would be a righteous goal, but it's not realistic and, frankly, it's beyond my scope at this point in time.

Anyway, like I've said before, even though poverty, starvation, disease, and warfare are widespread problems that need to be addressed, they don't overtake abortion so immensely that the latter is a non-issue. Every aborted child was an absolutely innocent life that could have done nothing to deserve its fate, while victims of poverty, starvation, disease, and warfare, while largely innocent as well, cannot blindly take precedence. Tell me, why do you think abortion is a less important issue than the others?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 07:12 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Tauwasser
My point being, that in the end, I for one would prefer the clinical way to abort a foetus rather than having women staggering with hangers to kill it. That's all.
No, if abortion were outlawed, it's not as if every woman who would undergo the procedure if it were legal would suddenly opt for an unsafe illegal method instead. Making abortion illegal would drop the number of abortions dramatically. It wouldn't cause it to totally vanish, but it would have an effect.

But, this was never the point of the discussion, and so you can't have any idea how I feel about the actual process of outlawing abortion. Let me give you a rundown of how I see things: if it were up to me, our foremost priority would be committing resources to the institution of alternatives to abortion. That is, improving adoption programs, strengthening organizations that counsel rape victims, and maybe even boosting contraception. Actually outlawing the act of abortion would be secondary but, ideally, it would have little actual effect because the earlier measures would make a huge dent in decreasing the number of procedures that are performed.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
You say that no animal deserves the same consideration as a human because they are "lower species". That won't fit with your stance on abortion, because it can be seen pretty much as the same thing. It's not a human yet, so it certainly according to you must be lower. Then why would anyone have to consider it with like rights as humans'?
The fetus is human. It is not a "lower species" that lacks human rights because it is human. I don't know where you got the idea that I consider a fetus to be non-human, especially because that has been my main point for a while now.

Originally posted by Tauwasser
And hopefully it stays that way and conservative people like you don't take over the world. I would definitely hate to see a good solution to this problem (in the clinical sense at least) get wiped out because some jerks with only Jesus and how he loves all his children on their minds have the rights to say what'll happen. You see such prats every day in the American Congress (though that should've hopefully changed now).
A "good solution" to the problem of two people being irresponsible is to end an innocent human life. Right.

Please cite one instance in which I've invoked God or Jesus or Christianity or religion at all in defending my side. Abortion is not a religious issue, it's a respect for human life issue. Certainly a person's opinion may or may not have emerged based on his religion, but the debate itself does not need to involve Christianity at all.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 07:14 PM, in Are you ready for some College Football?!? (Bowl Picks) Link
Originally posted by Sin Dogan
I go to Rutgers and man from 3 o clock onwards, the streets were jammed. And after the game I could hear literally thousands of people chanting "R U! R U! R U!". It sounded like a riot. Intense.
Their next home game is the day after Thanksgiving, I think, and it's against Cincinnati. As of now, it's sold out, even with the extra seating behind the south endzone. If Rutgers blew it against Louisville, I can guarantee you the stadium would only be half full for Cincinnati.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 09:37 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
And this, right here, is your opinion. Treat it as such. Don't wave it around like it's a fact.
A fertilized egg is alive. There is no disputing that.

A fertilized egg has the genetic material that would indicate that it belongs to the human species. There is no disputing that.

Take those two objective statements, mix 'em together: a living organism that belongs to the human species is a human. No opinion there. Simple logic. I can point you to any number of testimonies from qualified professionals that would agree with that idea.

The abortion debate isn't based around whether the fetus is a human life or not - people who say that it is are misrepresenting the issue - but instead relies on the notion that one human being (the mother) should not unwillingly be forced to host another, parasitic human being (the child).

Originally posted by Lakithunder
Egg-sactly (get it?)
Thank you for contributing something of value to this thread.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 09:47 PM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
Not to sound malicious, because that is certainly not my intent, but whenever someone complains about the media having a detrimental effect on their self-image I can't help but feel disgusted. "The media" - what a vague, impotent buzzword that phrase has become - presents entertainment and information and advertisements and a bunch of other things, but how do they force you to dress or look or feel a certain way? I've been exposed to all sorts of "media" for all my life, I've seen that ideal male image and I've known forever that I hardly live up to it. I don't have chiseled, rugged good looks, I don't have a six-pack, I don't have any sort of fashion sense whatsoever...but who cares? Why the hell should it bother me?

Honestly, what Americans need to do is grow thicker skins and stop making themselves feel inadequate and then blaming it on that nebulous "media" that is the looming evil everywhere you look today. The media makes little girls become anorexic, the media is corrupt and unfairly influences politics, the media is ruining our citizens...it goes on and on. Instead of looking at that model on TV and becoming bulimic because of it, either take some action and find a healthy means to accomplish your goals, or sit around all day and stop complaining. Don't keep blaming this faceless, omnipresent "media."

Edit: By "Americans," I of course mean "people in general," because Tarale is Australian...heh.

(edited by Silvershield on 11-12-06 08:54 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 10:23 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School
It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.


Originally posted by Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.


Originally posted by Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.


Originally posted by Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic
By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.


Originally posted by Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School
The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.

Now, of course, I would typically avoid citing secondary sources to argue my case for me - everything I've said so far has been exclusively my own words straight from my own head - but I feel like it's appropriate to quote some legitimate sources in this case.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-12-06 10:52 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
I'll concede that it is human life then. Still isn't a person. It's lower than a born animal.

I believe I told you before that we're nothing without our mind.
Define "mind." We are nothing without our physical brain, or we are nothing without the actual ability to produce coherent thought?

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
(by the way, cite your sources with a web page, book entry, magazine article, or something. You could type those and that would be the end, but it doesn't matter anyways.)
Probably the most comprehensive pro-life site you'll find.

Originally posted by wikipedia
[many irrelevant remarks have been cut]

To help make a distinction between 'person' and 'biological human', Warren notes that we should respect the lives of highly intelligent aliens, even if they are not biological humans. She thinks there is a cluster of properties that characterize persons6]

1. consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain
No infant is "conscious," at least any moreso than a fetus is at the stage at which abortion is still legal.

Originally posted by wikipedia
2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems)
Any child before several years of age cannot reason to any appreciable extent. Is a one-year-old infant not a person?

Originally posted by wikipedia
3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control)
Likewise, an infant acts on instinct and reflex. Is it not a person?

Originally posted by wikipedia
4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics
Any communication performed by an infant is instinctive and reflexive, so as to communicate a basic need to its caregiver. Is it not a person?

Originally posted by wikipedia
5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both
Sorry, no infant fulfills this criteria, either.

So, essentially the author has made the case for murdering infants. Lovely.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
I actually find this as over kill for an easy issue of it isn't human in any real sense. No brain. Just a glob of flesh.
Abortion is still perfectly legal after the point at which there is quite certainly a real, physical brain. If you refer more to the abstract mind than to the physical brain, you must realize that a newborn infant is hardly more intellectually advanced than a fetus. Until a few months into life, the child is absolutely helpless and absolutely dependent.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 01:07 PM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
He didn't single you out, he said "People in General," simply b/c his original statement "Americans blah blah blah" is incorrect in this context and probably in general anyways.
Thank you for not misreading me. I was hardly singling Tarale out - I made that edit because I realized that the problem hardly effects only Americans, since I remembered that Tarale is Australian and so she is clearly at least one non-American who feels media pressure .

In any case, I wonder if it's really fair to generalize the faults of the media onto all of men. Maybe TV and movies shouldn't portray rail-thin women as the only "ideal" women, but, honestly, I cannot alter my personal perception of beauty. If I don't find obese women attractive, I can hardly "change my mind" and start thinking they're beautiful just of my own conscious will (nor would I want to - what reason would I have, simply that they need a self-esteem boost?). As has been said plenty of times before, no guy likes a girl who literally resembles a skeleton but, by the same token, if a girl is grossly overweight then she is hardly attractive, either. It's not a conscious choice for me to find that heavy girl unattractive, and I'm not generally a shallow person, but I would be lying if I said that I didn't need even the smallest amount of physical interest in a girl in order to have any sort of romantic interest in her.

The point is that it's not like the only girls out there who have boyfriends, husbands, or even just hook-up buddies, are the ones who look like supermodels. That couldn't be further from the truth. Girls of every shape and size can and do attract men. But it's not like a 5'3" 240lb girl is going to be hooking up with Brad Pitt. Just like I, as a short guy with a pot belly, will never find myself in bed with (insert popular movie actress). The complaint seems to boil down to the fact that an "ugly" girl cannot get with an attractive guy, not that such a girl cannot get any guys in general. And, sorry to break it to anyone, but that's how attraction typically works; not to put it into terms that are too clinical, but that old silly remark that a guy who is appearance-wise a "6 out of 10" will only be able to get with a girl who is a 6 or lower on that scale is actually fairly true, barring any outside influences (like the guy is filthy rich). It may be a crude simplification of human relationships, but it is real insomuch as no overweight girl is going to attract a super-attractive man. That's just the fact of the matter.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 01:17 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
It deals with all your infant points in that link.
The link says that the woman who created those points is actually in favor of infanticide. Well, not so much in favor, but she doesn't have a moral objection to it. And to say that I think that's a bit silly would be an understatement.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
I'm also no fan of late term abortion when the child has a very real chance to survive outside the womb and is practically fully developed.

Those are exceptionally rare though.
They are rare - the dilation and extraction procedure itself kills roughly 3,000 infants a year, which is a substantial number but still a small percentage overall - but they are still vile. I mean, whatever a person's beliefs regarding abortion, how can anyone argue that a child that literally resembles a fully-formed human baby can be pulled from the womb and killed legally just based on the grounds that its head remains within the mother? I feel like that's a bit of a technicality.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Mind? I mean thought. What do I think of a comatose patient? If it isn't reversible, I don't see the point in keeping them alive, I mean, you can if you want, but I wouldn't. It's just... we're really nothing special. We're just living things with the ability to think at a very high level, compared to things around us, and that is the only thing I view as special.

Read the article, because you're going to say infants don't show signs of that until 3-4 years old...
Maybe not 3-4 years old, but one year at the earliest. A child at one year old shows no conscious mental activity significantly beyond the capabilities of a fetus or even of a nonhuman animal. When you argue based on that point, you're rhetoric applies to the murder of postnatal human infants, as well. Maybe you aren't in favor of that, but the line of reasoning you use to defend abortion can also be used, unaltered, to defend the killing of human babies.

Originally posted by Arwon
According to the Koran, life begins at 60 days after conception, or some exact number like that. That's when the soul enters the body.
Yeah, I actually read that too, and it kinda surprised me. For whatever reason, I had just assumed that all Abrahamic religions share a common opinion regarding this matter, but I guess not.

Originally posted by Arwon
As for mine, I've decided life begins at the quickening.
Just out of curiousity, why is that the point at which fetus becomes "alive?" It sounds kind of arbitrary.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 01:53 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
Point of order: how many of those 3,000 D&X's were performed for birth-control reasons? As in, as opposed to because the fetus was endangering the life of the mother. I'm guessing you can't tell. So you can't really talk about those procedures as if they're ALL being performed for non-medical reasons.
I never intended to imply that they are all for non-medical reasons. But, in any case:

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Reasons to have a late abortion include:

* Deteriorating financial situation
* A change in relationship with the father
* Lack of awareness of the pregnancy until its later stages
* Discovery of the pregnancy by others who persuade an abortion, for example parents of a minor
* Inability to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy (e.g. lack of funds, or lack of transportation)
* Discovery of a fetal abnormality undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
* Pregnancy a risk to life or health


There is very little data on how common each of these reasons are. In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy." 71% responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 abortions after 16 weeks were performed because of maternal health problems.
Wikipedia may be of questionable accuracy, but it cites a legitimate study. That study itself is not ideal, but it does give some hint of the true state of affairs.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 04:33 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Morally correct does not equal right.

Morally wrong does not equal wrong.
For the life of me, I cannot understand this concept. If something is wrong, it is wrong. If something is right, it is right. If something is morally neutral or morally irrelevant, than it's a moot point whether it is right or wrong. But how can killing a baby be morally wrong yet still be right? Or vice versa?

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
And that study is 20 years old, an entire generation of kids has grown up, so I doubt it's accurate. It's also very limited in its numbers.
I specifically pointed out that the study is both dated and is based on a small sample size, but that selection itself is prefaced with the fact that very little data exists regarding the reasons for late-term abortions. Which means that, while it is wrong for me to conclude that all such procedures occur for non-medical reasons, it is likewise wrong for anyone to conclude that they occur exclusively for medical reasons.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 07:19 PM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
Originally posted by Tarale
Well... the edit could have simply said "people in general" instead of putting me specifically in the edit, cause then it looks like the post is criticizing me.
The post originally assumed that only Americans are plagued by the increasing prominence of the media in determining self-image, but the fact that you started this thread is evidence enough that the problem is more global. If I just wrote "people in general" without any explanation, it wouldn't be apparent why such a change was necessary; instead, acknowledging that you are not an American explains the issue to the reader. There is no inherent criticism of you in that statement, and maybe it was phrased poorly to make you think otherwise. I thought it was alright when I wrote it.

Anyway, the fact remains that everyone who is not a hermit is equally exposed to the effects of the media. Some people, for whatever reason, take that media message to heart and let it rule their self-image. That is unhealthy and, simply, kind of stupid. Like I said before, I see the Ideal Male in TV, movies, on billboards, in magazines, and everywhere else - I would argue that that image is no less ubiquitous than its female equivalent - but I haven't developed any sort of mental illness of inferiority complex as a result. I can see, quite objectively, that I fall far short of what the media hawks as perfection, but it doesn't bother me. Why should it?

I'm not going to generalize and say that every person who becomes anorexic or bulimic or has any other problem is a weak-minded follower or anything like that, but there must be some common personality trait that causes such people to cling so desperately to these media images and try to impersonate them.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 08:47 PM, in Do you smoke up? Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
Really? Because... you're kinda paying for their incarceration right now. So you're kinda throwing your tax dollars at them already.

As I'm told ALL the kids are saying, decriminalize, y0.
I'm more than willing to fund any criminal's jailtime. What I'm not willing to fund is the coddling of such people through rehabilitation and treatment that is free to them. Hey, I might as well get addicted to crack too, because it would be free for me to be treated for that habit if I ever decided I wanted to quit.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 08:50 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Arwon
The quickening is, medically, when it starts kicking or something. Around the 18 week mark I think. A lot of folk beliefs place the beginning of life around there, I think it's a reasonable way to reconcile the fact that pregnancy starts with a clump of tissue and ends with a baby, without having to jump to the ridiculousness of either extreme.
Yeah, I know what it refers to, but I wonder why a fetus' movement should be indicative of its life. Like I said, it sounds like an arbitrary distinction. Even weeks before that 18-week mark, the fetus is more than just a "clump of tissue."
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 10:20 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Arwon
[...] demands of the host woman [...]
I just woke up from a nap and am still feeling kind of loopy so, when I first read this, I thought you wrote "demands of the hot woman. And it sounded absolutely ridiculous. Don't ask me why I needed to tell you that, I'm still a little silly from just waking up...

Originally posted by Arwon
Of course it's arbitrary. That's the point. Rationality and absolute logic aren't everything--without being ameliorated by common sense they become loopy and rigid.

You use the term "arbitrary" like it's pejorative but arbitrary cut-off lines are widespread and necessary when you need to reconcile two contradictory demands or needs. Age of consent laws, for example, are a sloppy, inexact and necessary reconciling of basic personal autonomy and the need to protect young people. We set an arbitrary numerical value on the amount of a drug that is "for personal use" and the amount that constitutes a "dealer". THere's no reason for the line being exactly where it is, no rational justification... just the need to draw a sensible line.

Likewise, an arbitrary cut-off between "abortion is okay" and "abortion is not okay" is necessary to reconcile the competing rights demands of the host woman and the potentiality of human life she supports. When you have directly conflicting rights you need a way to trade them off with each other.
The reason this is a different issue than drug laws or age of consent or anything like that is the fact that abortion is quite literally and directly a life and death matter, while the others are clearly not. In such a case where two people's rights - the child and the mother - are conflicting with one another, I feel like it is wise to risk erring in the direction of the child's rights (by outlawing abortion from conception) rather than in the direction of the mother' rights (by outlawing it at a later point, whether quickening or after x months or whenever); if abortion is not allowed, period, there is no chance of that procedure occurring after the fetus has become "human," while allowing it at any point in time raises the risk of having an abortion happen after that point. Since we cannot know when that actual point is (mainly because it is certainly not a concrete, single moment), we are more wise to err in the direction of protecting the fetus, even at the expense of the mother, because if we go too far in one direction a human dies, but the other direction only means that a woman is inconvenienced for nine months. So, to me, that means disallowing it from the start.

Originally posted by Arwon
I like the quickening because it has a long folksy history and it passes the "common sense" test so central to explaining why what you do to a 2-month old foetus isn't the same as what you do to an 8-month old baby.
The fact that is has a folksy history might be a sort of nice touch, but I don't see why it should be grounds for forming an opinion about an issue so urgent and vital as this.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 10:42 PM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
Originally posted by Tarale
I was just trying to state what it was that gave me that impression, Silvershield. Thanks for clearing that up.


The fact of the matter is, this is not necessarily an issue with the advertising and media itself, but with the people who are made to feel inadequate by it. I'm trying to sum up my point now, because I've been quite wordy in my past few posts, but to put it simply: everyone is exposed to similar or identical influences - we all see the same billboards, the same commercials, the same magazines. Yet, some people are negatively affected by such things and begin to feel personally inadequate in comparison, while others (like myself, who I am using simply as a model and not because I am some sort of paragon) don't take it heart and can separate what we see in advertisements from what we really are. It's not as if I am superior or am making some conscious effort to do this, I simply have some personality trait that allows me to do so; many people lack that trait, whatever it is, and so find themselves affected by the media. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

Originally posted by Tarale
And I'm also curious as to things outside of weight alone people For example -- build (ie, athletic), shape (ie, pear) style/dress sense (ie, do you find a girl who shows off a lot of cleavage attractive, or offputting?) etc. Some women are really fussy about their skin... but I think freckles can be cute. And do guys even notice a girl's hair? C'mon people, there's more to this than just weight
I love long hair, and am generally not attracted to blonds; dark hair makes me melt, and the odd redhead is wonderful, too. I won't go for a girl who is stick thin, just like most guys, but I definitely have an aversion to those who are significantly overweight. That's not a conscious decision, but a subconscious one; I hold nothing against such people, but am simply unattracted to them on a physical level.

I really don't like excessive tanning, because I see it as a sign of vanity. If a girl has naturally dark skin, that's one thing, but if it is a purely Caucasian girl who is perpetually orange then I am immediately repelled. That's not to say I prefer ghostly pale (though there's something to be said for pale girls ), but unless you are somehow ethnically diverse (especially people of mixed ethnicity, like girls who are only half black [though I haven't seen many] *drool*) your natural tone should be enough.

Makeup is a turnoff. I won't fault someone for using it sparingly, but if you literally look like a porcelain doll because you're using that much then I want nothing to do with you romantically. I've known girls who can't leave home without applying it that thick, and though they would normally be quite attractive, the makeup thing is kind of a deal breaker.

I don't know a thing about fashion, but I won't be attracted to a girl who is dressing like a slut. (Pardon the word, but it's a common enough term that you can understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with its usage.) That's not to say I won't lust after such a girl, but I would only be legitimately interested in one who dresses modestly. Even sweatpants and an old t-shirt can be pretty attractive - I'm not stickler in that regard.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 10:47 PM, in Abortion: whose choice is it? Link
Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Moral being relative has a lot to do with it. Deciding what is right and what is wrong has a lot to do with it. Saying your right in anything that isn't dead set right, 1 + 1 = 2 for instance, is foolish. Pressing your "rightness" onto others is just plain oppressive.
I addressed the idea of moral relativity in an earlier post.

Originally posted by Pvt. Prinny
Not everyone believes killing a "baby" is wrong, you believe it is wrong. Some believe it is justifiable and so they do it.
Not to take the concept to the extreme, but aren't you just saying that I can do whatever I want as long as I think it's alright? I should be able to steal, and cheat, and kill, because such acts do not conflict with my personal morals. I think that's a pretty questionable philosophy.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 10:58 PM, in Photo Album thread. Link
I decided to finally upload a picture, even though my MySpace link has been in my profile for some time now and you could see a few pictures there if you were really interested .



It's the one I've been using on my Facebook for a while, because I like it. Yes, that is a Dog the Bounty Hunter t-shirt. Good stuff.

It was taken in Grand Central Station while my friends and I were waiting for our train out of the city after we saw a comedy show a couple of months ago. It was a really fun night, and the station is absolutely stunning. Just though I'd throw that in there.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6310 days
Last view: 6298 days
Posted on 11-13-06 11:09 PM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
Originally posted by Danielle
Ah yeah, you make a really good point. I like *naturally* tan skin, not skin that is orange from going to the beach too often.

I hate the beach.
If a girl is tan from going to the beach, that's one thing. It won't make me think she's any more attractive than if she were tan through artificial means, but I would at least think she's less vain. It's girls who are somehow tan in the middle of January that bother me. Because they're obviously going out and paying money just so they can get that disgusting orange color.

Originally posted by Danielle
What I like is that natural mixed complexion that makes for a gorgeous skin color. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
Are you talking about a complexion that results from mixed ethnicity? Because yesterday, when I was at the induction ceremony for an English honors society, one of the requirements was for each inductee to read a short selection or poem for the audience, and one girl read a poem she wrote about being of mixed heritage. Prior to that, I just couldn't tell what her background was, but I thought she was stunning, but when she read it I immediately understood. Somehow the combination tends to yield good results .
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.021 seconds; used 509.27 kB (max 655.02 kB)