rehmwa

^^^ Actually, this is all I'm trying to explore here with the analogies and discussions and, frankly, wide tangents and friendly poking. Agreed, the positions are flawed and trying to find one that's gender (and relationship) neutral is tricky. The problem is the emotional content - the bumper sticker quotes (eventually delivered with vulgarisms, I hate that point) and the "you wouldn't understand" comments really highlights the unreasonableness. But I'll continue to play - Note - I'm not invested in the discussion and much of this is just for debate sake - so I do appreciate it when the posters don't get all emotional about it. But I'll reply in kind just to demonstrate the silliness of it. Back to G-Don: So, you say that my analogy is ridiculous.... (BTW, I think it's over the top too - but it's a natural extension just to extend the discussion) My analogy is boiled down as follows: "two people hook up, as a result, one of them wants to keep a baby and requires the other to help pay for it" - (who are you to second guess why the one person decided to have the baby? if they claim it's because of the hookup, then that's it. Genetics doesn't apply, we've proven that society doesn't care, as they have forced non-biological parents into support - this is an extension of that. Establish need, and the courts should be able to act on that alone - this is your point frankly) 1 - in the way I present it, it's gender equal, heck, it even works with a gay couple as well. perfectly fair and even. And the focus is on helping the child be raised - ALL children, not just the narrow definition. 2 - in the other 'philosophy' it's only allowed in a hetereo-hookup, and only if gender biased. (here's an emotionally argumentative mortar shell - The point is that this isn't really about children, that argument is used to actually progress the male dominating position of society by punishing those males that don't follow the prescribed behavior defined by the other alpha males for tending to their genetic incubators). --- why do they hate orphans (is it because most orphans are minorities? ---disclaimer - just using the 'typical' attack mode here for demonstration) - don't orphans deserve the same opportunity to have two providers in their lives as the other situation with the biological mother and her partner/supporter who may or may not actually contribute genes to the equation? --- why do they hate gay people? doesn't a gay parent deserve help in raising that child too? --- Orphans are NOT 'ridiculous'. Lastly - the argument was also made that people are upset that their tax money is being used to raise these kids of single mothers. How selfish to claim one is concerned for the kids, and then complains about a bit of tax money.. (ok, that's a cheap shot). in the end - my discussion really does come down to the point that it's very inconsistent to claim the status quo is about ensuring responsibility, but only for one gender and not the other. It clearly smacks of a male dominated mental position hidden behind a false illusion of advocating for equality. (Truthfully? I have no issue with whatever solution society comes up with. Provided that it's fair for any relationship and both genders. Right now, emotions, outdated standards, and politics have certainly not gotten us there. 'but....."biology"' seems to be a false trail, or at least a very sexists argument - see court decisions. what else - oh yeah. people should make better decisions up front - if men and women took precautions together, less problems - if men and women just chose partners smarter, less problems - if men and women BOTH made the decisions together and accepted the results of their actions together less abortions and less conflict - if both CHOOSE to support the other, it's like the choice debate would even be a big deal - I really do hold deadbeat dads to be the worst pond scum. But I also sympathize with the man that would choose to do the right thing and have that option also taken away. hard to balance when I also sympathize with the woman that has the same decisions as well as the physical burden in addition to all the other stuff) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

the best I can get from these comments is 2 options: 1 - don't sleep with someone that you don't care about and have similar views about child bearing and rearing (clearly) 2 - men - don't let any woman to sleep with know your real identity. She has all the power (cynical) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Really? - I mean, seriously, your words "then no, she should not be bound by his decision, which he made on his own" switch the genders "then no, he should not be bound by her decision, which she made on her own" perhaps not so ridiculous if the focus is on making sure that child isn't impoverished (your main argument for supporting the disparity) - there is plenty of case law where a man has been forced to provide support to a child that isn't his biological child with just this rationalization. Why wouldn't the reverse be true? Heck, why couldn't someone just pick any stranger off the street and make them support their child - for the sake of that child. It's about who makes the decisions vs who has to own those decisions. As for any argument about a man being proactive about avoiding pregnancy - they ALL are applicable to both parties. What we are getting at is where it's different and looking at turning the logic around just to see if there's a fairness about it, or a true bias. I hate to pick on you, we have good discussions, so this is just for the debate, not persoanl, is that the verbage here is very male dominated when the arguments imply, essentially: the male is the 'adult', the female is the victim, or, even worse, just an incubator. Very male-dominated thinking is the basis for many of the discussions here. Unusual when it's cloaked in empowering and respecting women and their rights to live by their own lives and choices without unfair domination. I find it ironic, that, we say we don't want a situation where a man dominates and essentially has the ability to possibly enslave her body, by advocating the ability for that woman to enslave the man for a lifetime without his consent....... Me? I think a man should help raise his child. just for debate, I just am looking for the thoughts and clarity on how equality is best established when the male doesn't have the same option as the woman, and, in today's application, is clearly a contrived result. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

just practicing - it's all tongue in cheek ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

bumper sticker response, Don. But you write "adult who chose to engage in sex", but then followup with single gender references the entire time. The 1950's wants your attitude back. yet I still hold an analogy for you to consider that takes it into account - despite your male dominated, patriarchal bias on the subject Do you hold the woman and the man to equal expectations? AND you want to protect the child that either adult chooses to raise? Then my analogy is the question for you - if you hold the man responsible for the upbringing of the child (scenaro where the woman chooses to bear the child but the man doesn't want it) - will you hold the woman equally responsible for the upbringing if the man adopts a baby (scenario where the woman gets an abortion, but the man still wants a baby). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

ok - admit it. who did a google search? (I think the fact that she's trying to pay her own way is a lot more moral than trying of forcing taxpayers to do it. I'm also shocked that the usual suspects aren't all over this demanding that higher education should be "free"..((disclaimer - "free" being their normal twisted version of the word which has no relationship to the real meaning of the word)) ) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

actually, that's not as good an analogy as one could make. Let's try another and see if there's a better discussion than the same o same o Case 1 - couple hooks up and gets pregnant - both want the baby - no issues no conflict Case 2 - couple hooks up and gets pregnant - both do NOT want the baby - no issues - abort away (ignore the moral implications) Case 3 - couple hooks up and gets pregnant - she wants the baby, he doesn't. Her body, her choice, she keeps it....court forces the man to pay. Let's stick with Case 3 for a bit and turn it around as best we can considering.........(the poll option doesn't really have the same result if he 'aborts the financial responsibility in Case 3. Because in case 4, if turned around, she aborts and he still isn't stuck with raising a child alone right?) Case 4 - More aligned analogy - couple hooks up and gets pregnant -he wants the baby, she doesn't. Her body, her choice, she aborts it.... man also chooses unilaterally to adopt a baby.....court forces the woman to pay much more equivalent - ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

in your opinion it's unpalatable - because the father "opting out" might force the mother into a very difficult situation raising the child your solution - forcing the father into a very difficult situation raising the child he wouldn't want nope - no gender bias there at all if the mother gets to opt out, the father should get the same 'choice' IMO - hijacking the father to provide and raise for a child he doesn't want is analogous to forcing the mother to carry to term a baby she doesn't want. It's not a baby yet. I agree. but if it continues, the responsibilities that are being opted out on are raising a child. Both genders. the mental gymnastics to state it one way for the father and the other way for the mother are like going to watch Cirque. Each person makes their own choice and should not be subjugated by the other person in any involuntary way. 4 scenarios (mother wants/doesn't vs father wants/doesn't) - the mother gets the advantage in only one scenario - totally driven by biology (so there isn't a parallel fairness) - if she doesn't want the child and he does - her decision..... all the rest can be fair and equivalent. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - Pro-Life how it should be: An individual has the right to choose if they wish to not become a parent after the fact of a pregnancy happening. (for any reason). (Many politicize this position to female only as a means to unevenly empower women over men). 2 - It's a totally a different topic from the right to choose prior to a pregnancy happening when an individual wants to become a parent (provided they find an agreeable partner). (for any reason). (Pro-Lifers argue that this is how things "should" happen. But arguing against options for an accident based on 'shoulda-coulda' is a dick move and a bit of a tangent) The quoted option is the only position that respects both genders that is compatible with a gender fair pro-choice alignment. I don't have a solid view on the topic, personal choice would be to raise the baby and live by my accident - but I don't consider my personal choice strong enough to force onto others. But, since that is essentially pro-choice (and libertarian - respecting other people enough to let them make their own decisions), the the quoted option is the only one that seems to minimize the potential for gender bias (again, respect for every individual involved to have the same options and not let one take the other hostage in any way). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's bit of a twisted socialistic "we're all insiders" type of view of religion don't you think? or were you be wry and funny? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I believe in psychology affecting health. I believe in the placebo effect. In that context, I can agree with you - the reason why a person finds ways to heal themselves doesn't have to be rational. In fact, it can be quite powerful. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

yes to the first part YES to the second part ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

hee hee,,,,, 'rectory' (they are required to live in a 'rectory' - that explains a lot) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you are so badass ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

No point. I was just imagining the quality of show we could put together with some of our more, shall we say, interesting posters from SC. we'd need some sturdy shovels ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Trespassing is already illegal. Why do you need a specific law regarding ag businesses? this if they are already breaking the law, then a good way to fix this is the use of their own video as evidence to arrest them for trespassing and vandalism and whatever else they did to get the footage no need for extra videos - privacy and trespassing, etc already is protected It's like banning 'texting' specifically instead of just bad driving for any reason - ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Heck, some of the most ignorant get their own radio and TV shows. Yup, and after those fail miserably due to lack of talent and horrible on air personality, they then use fraud to get into the Senate your point? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you sir are anti-science, hate the planet and small children, and must want your taxes reduced GOOD DAY SIR ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I had a cartoon, but the republican cartoon pretended it looked the same as him and just ate it up until the real cartoon didn't like being called that anymore. At the same time, democrat cartoon actually painted on it until it looked just like the republican cartoon - only more so and with bigger ears and frothing mouth. ...until the real cartoon didn't like being called that anymore. It's now at work trying a make a little extra to pay for the neighbors electric bill. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

To what do you attribute that? I have my answer, but I'd like to see yours and others'. Is it George Bush? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I also understand that schools have different budgets required by law such that they can be forced to have a useless program or under utilized counselors yet core curriculums and even food service budgets are terribly weak. It's amazing how organizations can abuse their funding to the detriment of their members, isn't it. secular, public, religious, etc ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

works for me - If I use Skinnay's prejudice on cons, and this example for libs, it REALLY simplifies things greatly for me. Now I feel armed and ready for more Speaker's Corner posts.

C'mon Bill - it's not exactly rocket science. - then I'll leave it up to Wendy, our resident rocket scientist (NASA credentials are cool) can we arbitrarily define when one body is orbiting the other body? how about if the center of rotation of the system lies within the physical volume of one of the bodies....? I'm ok with that. (Simple case, empty universe except for the two bodies) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think things that go bang are generally rated according to how big the result is, not the starting point. 30kg of plutonium and uranium is pretty small, but under the right circumstances it can get very big very quickly. So, therefore, since I parse the question differently than you do, I can label you anti-science and uber-religious fanatic. Finished your comment for you in the context of the rest of Jerry's quote in the way he was saying others do it - "That's parsing the question, obviously. But a simple "yes or no" question can leave plenty of room for answers in between. " ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Frankly, I doubt if 99.9% of the people alive fully understand orbital mechanics and how they are described depending on a chosen (a probably subjective) set of reference options. Likely about 10% at least know enough to acknowledge it. (of course, this is a tangent, but most of the people stating that the earth goes around the sun are wrong in a very similar way to those that state the sun goes around the earth - but I digress - I'd still give more partial credit to the first group than the 2nd.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants