Skagens
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Skagens
-
-
I found an example of how people seem to be in this movie comedy "This is the End"
I remember that movie, but it's been a while since I last saw it. I suppose when it's an "end-of-the-world" scenario then morals, ethics and principles all go out the window, and it's all about survival. Thankfully though I don't think we as a civilization will ever experience something close to world ending, but it's interesting even with events going on around the world the lengths some people are willing to go.
-
I'd say people aren't born good or bad, it depends on their upbringing and what kind of morals and ethics that are instilled in them. Seemingly good people with genuinely good intentions can be seduced by wealth or power, but to me that only shows a lack of morals and a weak will. It's a complicated subject since depending on the scenario, the line between good and bad is blurred.
-
Pity. Yeah it's not necessarily that they're breaking the rules but that they're purposefully misinterpreting or being bad faith, along with a couple of insults and bad attitude. Makes it a bit difficult to argue or even have any discussion. But I get it.
-
Is there a way to limit certain users ability to post comments in a forum post or just remove their ability to post altogether? It's quite difficult to have a discussion on something when there are bad actors who only resort to insults or intentionally misinterpret what you mean.
-
its on you to clarify your stance and show your best side using appropriate words. you set the tone with your choice of words and with no other data points, that choice of words is going to colour how people perceive you. Going to be honest, you've set quite a low bar.
I feel like I've clarified my point plenty at this point. If you're still confused, I can try to clarify my comments again. Is there any comment specifically? I personally don't believe I came of as malicious, but if you disagree, I would like to hear how. Also, the topic is fairly broad so you're welcome to give your opinion about anything associated with abortion, be it the responsibility argument, the autonomy argument or any argument put forth in my initial post. Hopefully in a respectful manner going forward :happy:
-
it would be interesting to discuss such a topic. but do you think this is the right place here probably without any female contribution at all ? i have severe doubts that this works and makes sense. why should a women take part if a topic is opened like that ? study all the debate topics and see how a discussion works here. i learned much and my conclusion: sadly most topics and discussions are not worth the time because you will turn in circles after a short time with only a few and probably always the same participants with their always same attitude and behavior and living in their more or less limited own world. cheers and all the best to all of you!
Well, this is the debate side of the game forum so I figured why not give it a shot. I would love to get a woman's perspective, they're more than welcome to discuss. I agree that so far, this post hasn't started off the way I would've hoped, my own temptation to join in was a bit too great. Perhaps I should retreat a bit and just look at the responses :laugh:
-
You obviously do not understand the difference between what you say, and the words you use to say something. So let me pick ONE example.
"The man's child". Where is the woman in that phrase? Do you not see the exclusion and dismissal in that phrase? Do you not comprehend that such phrases are deliberately meant to diminish women and their role? Do you not see the propriety implications for ownership in that phrase?
No, I don't. It's not only the man's child, it also belongs to the woman. "The man's child" is not the same as "Only the man's child".
You use that phrase, and every time you use it, you tell the world "the woman is nothing, the child is the man's, and he has the authority to control what happens to it". Your protestations to the contrary fall on deaf ears, because anyone can see the truth in the words you use.
Wow, no that's not even close to what I'm saying. If that's your interpretations then that's fine.
I feel confident that at some point you have heard the phrase "What you do speaks louder than what you say". The same holds for words and phrases when writing about "what you believe".
Yes, I am familiar with the phrase, but I disagree it can be applied here. How you interpret what I've written has told me much about you as well. If you had any questions about what I meant behind certain phrases then you could've just asked and I could've clarified, instead of interpreting how you want.
-
knowledge of reproduction not your strongest subject?
how about picking up a book and educating yourself?
It was my understanding that sperm is required. Is that no longer the case, or was this an attempt at humor?
-
"Giving the man a say" when it involves the termination of a pregnancy is the semantic equivalent of "give the man a right". Any belief otherwise is delusional. Any insistence that it is not delusional is based in self delusion.
"The man's child" is the semantic equivalent of "Not the woman's child". "The man's child" implies ownership and proprietary rights. "The man's child" dismisses the woman and her role. It is as chauvinistic as many other phrases you have used.
The "survivability outside of the womb" test is used to arbitrarily limit the freedom of the woman to terminate a pregnancy when she wants. No more, on less. It is just an arbitrary point as "has a heart beat" or "begins movement". All are just an excuse to legally meddle in someone else's life and limit their freedom.
A parasite is any organism which is dependent on a host or another animal for its survival. Given that a child cannot survive without a host or another animal until it reaches maturity qualifies is as a parasite. The reality that the child consumes resources without contributing to the collection or production of those resources qualifies is as a parasite.
Saying that "the father should have some say" is not the same as "the man decides". That is not what I've said and it's not what I believe. How you choose to interpret what I say is up to you. The child is both the man and the woman's. One does not exclude the other, no matter how much you want it to. If believing that both parent's opinions matter is in your mind being a male chauvinist then fine.
Again, semantics. I addressed the asininity of "the man's ..." above.
If you want to discuss this topic in an unbiased way, you need to examine your use of vocabulary. How you say things is as important as what you say. You keep using words and phrases which imply that men somehow have rights and ownership when it comes to a pregnant woman. And as I pointed out, you use these words and phrases in such a way as to directly contradict other things you say. I know that most of that is semantics, but repeated use of the same phrases and words reflects your attitudes and thinking. And what I have come away with it that you have a male dominated, male superiority, male rightness attitude which is anathema to a sane discussion of this topic. Rail as you will, but you are a male chauvinist, whose attitudes are worthy of disgust.
Let the excuses and rationalizations begin.
I've already stated it but I'll repeat however many times is required: The man doesn't have a right to her body, nobody does. Her body is her own to do with as she wish. An argument can be made, though, that the man should have some say or some easy-off when it comes to pregnancy. You make me out as some monster who hates women, which is an interesting deduction from a few comments. I know what I believe and I know nothing I can say at this point can convince you of otherwise. If I were to base my entire opinion of you on these few comments then what I'd take away from this is that you seem care very little for children and will in all likelihood never have them. You see them as nothing more as taking resources, being a burden and contributing nothing, parasites. I don't believe one can completely know a person from a handful of comments, though. I am a little concerned you are upset with me. If it means anything, that was not my intention. In any regard, this was fascinating, and I wish you a good day.
But ok, if abortion should be available, which both of us agree it should, then what is your opinion, if you have one, of the child support system as it is now? Should it be dismantled or restructured to better serve both parties? Is it fair for a man to be financially stuck to support a child that he never wanted, and took reasonable steps to prevent? If not, how come?
-
PS. A pregnant woman is not carrying any man's child. It is her child. The male supplied some raw material, but the woman nurtures the growing result in her body. The belief that a woman has a man's child is an old, archaic, outdated Judaeo/Christian patriarchal belief based in the assumption that women are the property of men. And if it were "the man's child", there is an implication of ownership here again, making the child a slave.
The woman is carrying the man's child, because it is his child. The woman is at the same time also carrying her child, because the child is also hers. A woman can't develop a fetus by herself.
-
On one side you say, "One could argue the 'sperm chucker' has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child". The implication here is that depositing sperm in a vagina gives you proprietary rights over a woman's body. I do not understand your position. It is two faced to say the least.
On the other side, you say "And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone". Yet above you have already established proprietary rights over the woman's body, meaning you do view the woman as "an object".
Which is it. Your position seems hypocritical.
Saying that "the man should have some say" is not the same as giving him ownership over the woman to do with as he pleases. Saying that the man should have some say in the pregnancy and women having the right to do what they want with their own bodies can both be true. As I already previously stated, the ultimate and final decision is up to the woman.
And if I may be allowed tuppence on "viable", the legal definition is just so much vapor and is meant only to erode freedom. A fetus is not viable at birth. If t'were, a woman could give birth and walk away, and everyone here knows that to be false. Viable after 22 weeks is meaningless, and believing so is foolish. A child requires care and nurturing from others until if is capable of thriving on it's own. Only when a "person" can survive without the support of others is it "viable", until then it is no different than a parasite.
Interesting. Much to unpack. The legal definition is survivability outside of the womb, which most consider is around 24 weeks. That doesn't include the obvious support the child would need from the mother in order to continue surviving. What about that is eroding freedom? A child of 2 can't survive without an adult, but I think most people would agree it would be wrong both ethically and morally to consider that child a parasite. By your logic, the mother could just choose to kill her 2 year old baby if she suddenly changed her mind.
Also, a parasite is a very specific thing with it's own definition. A parasite is an organism that benefits at the other's expense. A fetus would qualify if it develops at the cost of the mother and her health, which most would agree is just not true. I suppose you could make an argument that the relationship between a fetus and the mother is close to being parasitic, but you can't really make that argument to fully formed babies. A fetus is not a parasite, nor is a 6 month old baby, nor is a 2 year old baby, nor is a 5 year old child. They can't fend for themselves, true, but that in it of itself doesn't make them parasites. Maybe you consider them to be, though.
-
I believe the 'legal' definition here is 'viable outside the womb'...... something like 24 weeks. (6 months..... give or take) The whole 'qualifies as life at conception' thing is likely not a topic open to discussion here, simply due to whom its proponents are.
Yeah, this is also why many countries with legal abortions has about a 20-22 week cutoff period for having the procedure. "Before this time, the fetus is not a person, therefore it has no human rights, therefore it is not murder." That's an argument I hear a lot of people in the pro-choice side make.
-
I gave my beliefs. They are what helps me deal with the issue without strain or discomfort. Your approval is neither sought nor needed.
I do not really give a s*** what rights you or anyone else thinks they may have. Nobody, saying again, NOBODY, has the right to meddle in someone else's life. Not the sperm chucker, not the church, not the state. It is not their uterus, and it is not their decision.
Now, consider this from another angle.
Is the pregnant person a slave? Is the pregnant person a mechanical life support system for a fetus? Is the pregnant person property, which may to be possessed and controlled by another? If the answer is yes, then by all means, the owner has a right to do as they wish.
However, it the answer is no, then the only thing left to the rest of humanity is to sit down and STFU. Your opinions, your advice, your desire to muck about in someone else's life are all moot. The actions of a free individual are none of anyone's business. Like I said up front, MYOFB.
I'm not giving you my approval of anything. You seem to take my comments personally for some reason which is interesting if nothing else. I'm not trying to upset you. I just wondered what you meant when you initially said that my framing of the debate seemed strange to you.
Now to the topic at hand: One could argue the "sperm chucker" has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child. The child (if you consider a fetus as such) belongs to both parents. What if the dude doesn't want it but the mother decides to keep it, should the father be stuck financially even though protection was used? Obviously, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, as the dude can't force her to do anything. I personally believe it's a discussion to be had amongst the parents, and not up to some institution or state.
Also, I have to disagree, you should give a s*** about rights, they're kind of important. The question is weather or not the aforementioned rights are applied to the fetus.
And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone. The question isn't weather or not the man owns the woman, it's if he should have some say in the pregnancy. I would argue, yes. That doesn't reduce the woman to some meat bag whose only purpose it to be life-support to the fetus, which isn't even an argument I'm making.
-
Your framing of the debate makes no sense to me. But, so be it.
You can debate however you like, I didn't plan to set up any rules. The topic is abortion, how you want to go about discussing it is up to you. Perhaps I made my post too wordy.
Right up front, I am a male. Being convex, I have no right to an opinion on abortion, right, wrong or indifferent, because I cannot become pregnant. Put simply, I don't have a dog in that fight.
The decision to have an abortion or not belongs to the person who is pregnant, and is between her and her medical practitioner.
What anyone else thinks or believes is just so much self aggrandizing ego inflation and is not germane to the person who is pregnant. Quite frankly, the decision is none of anyone's business.
So what ever your opinion or belief about abortion, unless you are pregnant right now, you're wrong and should sit down and STFU. If you are pregnant, keep your beliefs and opinions to yourself and do what ever you think is right for you.
I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I am pro MYOFB (with apologies to author Eric Frank Russell for my adding the "F").
I disagree. Shouldn't a potential father have some say? I feel like you have a right to an opinion on whatever topic you wish. Just because I'm not and cannot become pregnant doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on abortion. A woman's decision to have or not have an abortion doesn't only affect them. Then again, I believe that's a discussion the concerned parties should have amongst themselves.
-
Pro-life? Pro-choice? Are they mutually exclusive? If I am pro-choice, does that make me anti-life?? Hhhmmmm.......
Labels. Just like republican and democrat, you don't have to adhere to all of their opinions in order to be put in their respective camp. I don't like it, but that's kind of where we are. Best not to dwell on it.
In any event, I believe it is EVERY persons right to choose what happens to their body. And that includes ending that life. (suicide, euthanasia, call it what you like.) The state is not the populations nanny, telling them to stay away from the stove, lest they get burned.
Ah, but if you believe the fetus to be life, then it is a human being, no? And as we all know, human beings have certain rights. Killing another human being would ordinarily be considered murder. What makes this different?
As for men 'opting out' of their responsibility....... I don't see that option ever coming about. As it stands now, it's gives women a certain amount of power over the men they have sex with..... so they have no interest in giving men an out. Curiously, given our (at one time) male dominated society, I'm kinda surprised this issue hasn't come up before...... I am not sure of the ramifications of the sperm donor signing off all parental rights for a child, I don't think it relieves them of responsibility for support though..... So far as I know, the man is responsible for paying support, until the child turns 18....... (or dies, I suppose)
And this is kind of my point. If both parties have taken reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, and it occurs anyway (ie, unplanned pregnancies), and the woman decides to keep it, why should the man be responsible for the rest of that child's life to support it financially? It feels like a man having children is primarily a financial investment.
-
Hello everyone
I've been thinking a lot recently about abortion and all that goes with it. If women are allowed to get abortions, and therefore duck responsibility for pregnancy, why are men stuck holding the bag when it comes to children? Why can women choose not to be mothers, but men can't choose not to be fathers? I figured it would be interesting in hearing people's opinions and arguments for or against it and decided to make this post. Now, I understand the topic of abortion is far from settled, and I also acknowledge that it is quite a sensitive topic, but the point is to hear and try to understand each side's positions on the matter and see if we can't have reasonable and amicable discussion about it. With that out of the way, I figured I would explain what the abortion paradox mean.
As far as I understand it, it goes a little something like this: If we value equal rights between men and women, we either need to ban all access to abortion OR dismantle the child support system, because if one gender has an easy-out from the responsibility of pregnancy, then in the name of equality, both genders must have an easy-out.
To start off, I'm pro-choice, meaning I believe it is ultimately up to the woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion. I don't like abortion, but I do not consider it murder, more like a necessary evil. However, I'm not so settled when it comes to the pro-choice arguments. The arguments of both sides (as far as I understand it) are:
Pro-choice
- Equality. If men can have sex without the fear of pregnancy, then women must also have the fear of pregnancy removed from the equation, in the name of equality and sexual liberation.
- Lack of personhood: The fetus is not a person, up until it's viable outside of the womb.
- The bodily autonomy: The right for a person to determine what happens to their own bodies, without the interference of the state. Meaning that a woman has the choice to abort or not abort, based on these bodily autonomous rights.
Pro-Life
- Responsibility. Consenting to sex is the same thing as consenting to pregnancy and motherhood. They're linked by cause and effect. Having an abortion is therefore ducking responsibility for ones actions.
- Sanctity of life. The moral authority comes not from religious beliefs, but from a reverence for sentient life. The uniqueness of humanity and the existence of a "soul" is also often brought up.
So I would be interested in hearing what your positions are about this. Do you consider yourself pro-life? If yes, why? And if you don't, why not? I ask the same of those pro-choice. What are your positions? I don't know how many there are here on the forum, but it would also be interesting in hearing from women on this topic. From what I've heard, half of those who consider themselves pro-life, are women, which is fascinating to me. Remember, be respectful.
-
It wasn't released in 2020 but it's my favorite of the year, which is "Visceral" by Getter. It's not typically what I listen to but my god it's good.
-
He's talking about installing mods in his game, using Nexus Mod Manager on one account of his computer, and when the other user logs onto his computer using their account, whether they have access to his Nexus MOD Manager so they can or can't uninstall/change the MODS he's using on his Computer.He's not even talking about that.
It would appear so, but as others have pointed out, an option would be to create a separate account for the other individual and make it so NMM can only be run on the login credentials. Two accounts, two profiles.
-
Account sharing is not allowed on the Nexus. The other person you're sharing the computer with has to have an account of their own.
From the terms and policies:
One account per person
Members are only allowed to be in possession of one account on the site. Members caught using more than one account will be regarded as attempting to exploit or circumvent features on the site and will have both their accounts banned. If you are experiencing problems with your account please contact the admins using the Contact Us links on the sites and we'll work to resolve the issue for you.If it's a relative or someone from the same household, this applies as well:
Accounts from the same household
If more than one person from the same household wishes to create an account then please report such intentions to our moderator team to avoid potential misunderstandings. Be aware that if a member of your household receives a ban and we have enough reason to believe that the user has created or is using another account your entire household may be blocked from accessing Nexus Mods to prevent that user from gaining access to the site. -
Most gaming communities are total cesspools and filled with people espousing horrible things because of the anonymity. They're the worst they can be because that's the only place they can be without repercussions. Not just MMO's but most multiplayer games are the same. It's just the way it is. Either keep the chat permanently off or find the game's profanity filter (if it has one).
-
Welcome to the forums. Looking forward to see what you type of mods you might create.
-
I usually see posts like these in the "Newbies" section, but welcome to the forum! If you're looking for game-specific help, these should be posted in the appropriate game forum which can be located here.
-
I couldn't tell you how many times I've talked with fellow Swedes in online games and had random Swedish words(whole words or just part of them) censored because they mean something else in English.
This is a good point that I didn't think to bring up.
As far as I know, the owner and staff want the nexus site and forums to be primarily in English - which I agree with. But in private messages, to my knowledge, one is free to use any language they want. And if someone wants to communicate with someone that speaks the same language, you may very well have random words get blurred because they mean something else in English. Isn't that a bit ridiculous? I would like to have a profanity filter be applied to the entire forum, but I'd be ok with it being limited only to private messages for this exact reason.
-
Oh, I was actually told to have it checked. Anyway, thanks for helping me out man, I appreciate it.
Beards
in Debates
Posted
Depends weather or not you find it attractive or fashionable. I have a beard because I look better in one, and I take good care of it. I shower every day and make a habit of using both shampoo and conditioner. It feels quite nice when it's soft, and my girlfriend is into beards so she doesn't want me to shave it either. I do trim/style it up a bit every once in a while and when I go to the barber he really trims it and fashions it. Some people don't like beards, some do. It's a preference thing.