welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feminism because why not make a thread for it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 162, 163, 164 ... 287, 288, 289  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6375

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those proportions are pretty wacked out, I guess. Plus she seems to be suffering from vanishing nipples. The pose itself isn't so bad, especially considering the context. It's not like a GOOD fighting pose or anything but then you have Fabio in the background there.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:00 am    Post subject: Re: Thy is not fond of the loopholes in these laws. Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Thy Brilliance wrote:

There are kids who come from perfectly functional families and would be better off with parental involvement in this decision.

There are kids that lie about abuse from their guardians in order to avoid getting in trouble with them about such a decision.


as to 1) - how do you know that girls from functional families _don't_ involve their parents? girls who have good bonds with their parents are less likely to become pregnant, so they are less likely to be in a situation where they need approval. girls who have a secure relationship with their parents go to them with problems. those girls don't need a law to force them to involve their parents.

as to 2) - there are also a lot of girls who are genuinely the victims of abuse. which is worse - deliberately forcing a girl to put herself in harm's way, or letting one get away with a (possibly unnecessary) lie? i personally would rather let any number of girls make their own decisions, even if they deprive themselves of parental advice, rather than subject one to being beaten within an inch of her life.

so you are making a law that will have no effect on most girls, at the cost of subjecting some girls to considerable harm. which is why they are stupid laws.


Vague laws made with little to no forethought are stupid laws.

I have no actual problem with the intent of the law, I have a problem with its wording.


Compare and contrast to the debate concerning choosing security over choosing freedom.

I hear Obama is very interested in "securing our networks" from Iran.

Would you say he's protecting us from serious harm at the price of some of our freedoms?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17092
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

and (to reiterate) - _i_ have a problem with the intent. it mandates an action that girls in good situations would probably do anyway, one that will result in foreseeable harm to girls in bad situations. so it has no benefit, only harm.

and it has absolutely no relationship to choosing security over freedom.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10277
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's what it really comes down to: the decision to have an abortion or not is going to affect an underage girl for the rest of her life, well past the point she is a dependent under her parents care and responsibility. Barring disease or accident, the majority of ANY person's life is as an adult, not under their parents.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
and (to reiterate) - _i_ have a problem with the intent. it mandates an action that girls in good situations would probably do anyway, one that will result in foreseeable harm to girls in bad situations. so it has no benefit, only harm.

and it has absolutely no relationship to choosing security over freedom.


The freedom of the parents to influence the decisions of their very own children is being threatened EXACTLY BECAUSE the security of a few children is at risk.

This discussion has EVERYTHING to do with security vs freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not a freedom, Thy; it's a responsibility. Parents who do not attempt to teach their children values deemed good by society, and thus to influence their children's decisions, are generally considered to be negligent in their parental duties.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
It's not a freedom, Thy; it's a responsibility. Parents who do not attempt to teach their children values deemed good by society, and thus to influence their children's decisions, are generally considered to be negligent in their parental duties.



You seem to be under the impression that a freedom can't also be a responsibility.


It's hard to imagine why you would feel that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10654
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not certain you could call it a freedom in the colloquial sense (but far be it from me to assume I know what Thy means by it, or anything else). It's certainly not a freedom that can't be abridged - we prohibit all sorts of ways parents might use to "influence the decisions of their very own children." Like beating them half to death. So I'm not certain it's an unbridled freedom... you might have an intellectual freedom to pass on any ideas you want. Except, er, those which inspire them to harm others (inciting violence is illegal)... anyway.

So, Thy, how would you protect children who were victims of incest, live in abusive homes, or would otherwise be put into danger if they told their parents they were pregnant?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17092
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

not passing such a law in no way prevents parents from influencing (or trying to influence) the decisions of their children. it in no way deprives them of the freedom of talking to their children, of being good parents, of doing all the things that ensure their teenage daughter will want to talk to them if she gets pregnant.

seems to me, the only instances in which a parent has to have that "freedom" mandated is when they have totally failed to communicate with their child about sex. and forcing them to suddenly have the discussion they couldn't be bothered with in what is essentially an emergency situation is really not likely to improve the amount of influence they have on their children. in fact, it completely takes the decision out of the girl's hands - if they refuse to approve, she's stuck with the pregnancy, and all the problems that entails.

the freedom to bully your children is a pretty sucky freedom, and since that can so easily result in things like the child being beaten, thrown out, etc...doesn't strike me as one we need to preserve.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
I'm not certain you could call it a freedom in the colloquial sense (but far be it from me to assume I know what Thy means by it, or anything else). It's certainly not a freedom that can't be abridged - we prohibit all sorts of ways parents might use to "influence the decisions of their very own children." Like beating them half to death. So I'm not certain it's an unbridled freedom... you might have an intellectual freedom to pass on any ideas you want. Except, er, those which inspire them to harm others (inciting violence is illegal)... anyway.

So, Thy, how would you protect children who were victims of incest, live in abusive homes, or would otherwise be put into danger if they told their parents they were pregnant?


I am almost certain I have said this before somewhere, but I'll say it again anyway.

We are reaching the point in our civilization where it is becoming increasingly harder to sustain our population growth.


As is such, we must eventually take measures to control population growth.

Examples of such measures are: You aren't allowed to have children until you have passed a full psychological evaluation, financially stable job, etc etc.

This is to ensure dysfunctional families won't be created.


Some form of mandatory pharmaceutical drug will be feed to the entire population, much like vaccinations, and will be used to control the virility of mens sperm, making the concept of abortion almost obsolete.


That's pretty much where we're going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
not passing such a law in no way prevents parents from influencing (or trying to influence) the decisions of their children. it in no way deprives them of the freedom of talking to their children, of being good parents, of doing all the things that ensure their teenage daughter will want to talk to them if she gets pregnant.

seems to me, the only instances in which a parent has to have that "freedom" mandated is when they have totally failed to communicate with their child about sex. and forcing them to suddenly have the discussion they couldn't be bothered with in what is essentially an emergency situation is really not likely to improve the amount of influence they have on their children. in fact, it completely takes the decision out of the girl's hands - if they refuse to approve, she's stuck with the pregnancy, and all the problems that entails.

the freedom to bully your children is a pretty sucky freedom, and since that can so easily result in things like the child being beaten, thrown out, etc...doesn't strike me as one we need to preserve.



You must know some pretty shitty parents.

You shouldn't let them ruin the law of the land for the rest of us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thy Brilliance wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that a freedom can't also be a responsibility.


It's hard to imagine why you would feel that way.

I guess you can look at it that way, but I tend to draw a line between obligations and freedoms. We're free to pay our taxes, too, after all, but most of us don't look on it that way.

Facetiousness aside, I may be free to raise my children as I see fit, but I am also obliged to raise them in a manner that is fit, healthy, and in keeping with the dictates of society. Watching out for my daughter's health is an obligation; I may be "free" to do so, but I must do so. This brings into question precisely how "free" I am in such regard. Similarly, informing her of moral issues, guiding her with what little wisdom I may have gleaned from my own life, and looking out for her full well-being, are "freedoms" I must undertake. They are the obligations of parenthood. That they are obligations I happily accept does not make them freedoms, as I view it.

Dogen wrote:
So, Thy, how would you protect children who were victims of incest, live in abusive homes, or would otherwise be put into danger if they told their parents they were pregnant?

Legislation already exists against incest, abuse, and neglect. And most courts will compound punishments if the victim is pregnant at the time of the infraction, often citing the fact that two lives were thus threatened as justification for the harsher sentence. Perhaps enforcement needs greater vigilance and perhaps victims need more education on what recourses are available to them, but isn't existing legislation sufficient means to accomplish your goal of protection?
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Feiticeira



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 1774

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a novel argument for totalitarianism: there's just too many people not to!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, ya gotta admit: Thy is pretty good at coming up with novel arguments in favor of some of the most horrific human experiences!
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3535
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feiticeira wrote:
a novel argument for totalitarianism: there's just too many people not to!


Option B, let people starve to death from lack of resources.

Option C, Endless War.



I'm sure it's going to be a mix of all three anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 162, 163, 164 ... 287, 288, 289  Next
Page 163 of 289

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group