Jump to content

What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol


Recommended Posts

1. Psychologists and therapists. Their arguments and methods are fucking useless and they're a joke. You can literally JUST GOOGLE IT LOL or ask a random guy on the internet and get a better advice.

2. Steam Workshop blueprints/user made vehicles, ships etc. 99% of them are either bare bones junk that you can make in 5 minutes or overly complicated nonsense. I tried many of them in Space Engineers and I'm constantly struggling to keep this fucking junk functional. It barely moves, it brakes all the time, it sucks at everything, it's a massive pain in the ass to refuel. It looks cool and that's it.

It doesn't matter what I'm looking for, the results are always full of 10-20 vanilla blocks smashed together and called something like THE NUCLEAR PUSSY DESTROYER WARBRINGER OF DEATH MK II.

 

I guess I can compare it to Skyrim follower mods. They look cool or sexy, but in reality they will get mercilessly fistfucked by a dying rat after getting stuck on a fucking pebble.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

Said trespasser is disabled and entirely unable to leave under their own power, incapable of even walking or breathing.

All the more reason why the host/carrier should have a bigger and final say in the matter.

 

No consciousness/brain function = No right to stay.

Consciousness/brain function = Right to stay with some exceptions.

About to be born = Can't be aborted.

 

Simplicity is often the best way.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

Said trespasser is disabled and entirely unable to leave under their own power, incapable of even walking or breathing. Perhaps it somehow could be likened to a space alien dropping in through one's roof and into one's freezer unit where they can breathe the Freon?

 

Most laws about the right to evict people your home don't make any exceptions for the disabled.

 

Someday, we will have the technology to safely remove a fetus from one person and implant it into someone else. And on that day, the anti-abortion movement will vanish without a trace, because not a single one of them will be willing to host those fetuses in their own bodies.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, markdf said:

 

Most laws about the right to evict people your home don't make any exceptions for the disabled.

 

Someday, we will have the technology to safely remove a fetus from one person and implant it into someone else. And on that day, the anti-abortion movement will vanish without a trace, because not a single one of them will be willing to host those fetuses in their own bodies.

 The day where human fetuses can easily be extracted and implanted in a mechanical womb is the day that all reverence for women as mothers and givers of life vanish.

All human life will have equal value in the eyes of corporations who will likely produce them from extracted sperms and eggs. the loss of revenue from Mother's Day and family films can be off-set by that extra control, though. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

 The day where human fetuses can easily be extracted and implanted in a mechanical womb is the day that all reverence for women as mothers and givers of life vanish.

All human life will have equal value in the eyes of corporations who will likely produce them from extracted sperms and eggs. the loss of revenue from Mother's Day and family films can be off-set by that extra control, though. 

 

If society had any reverence for women as "givers of life", they wouldn't use the law to force them to be incubators for fetuses that they don't want. It's just about the most irreverential thing possible. The USA is one of the worst offenders there -- refusing to pay the very minor cost of providing natal and prenatal healthcare. Letting pregnant women die of preventable medical issues -- does anything about that suggest even a hint of reverence?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

If society had any reverence for women as "givers of life", they wouldn't use the law to force them to be incubators for fetuses that they don't want. It's just about the most irreverential thing possible. The USA is one of the worst offenders there -- refusing to pay the very minor cost of providing natal and prenatal healthcare. Letting pregnant women die of preventable medical issues -- does anything about that suggest even a hint of reverence?

Women are not so much being forced to be incubators as not being permitted to choose to terminate the pregnancies which resulted from actions which they have voluntarily taken universally in every state (it is not illegal on a national scale if that is what you were under the impression of). It is akin to saying that one is forced to be fat for over-eating because no one else is required to pay for one's liposuction. 

 

The baby can be put up for adoption afterward if the 'mother' still wants to return to playing around with their less efficient organic dildoes and the stretch marks can serve as a reminder to get a tubal ligation (after banking a few eggs for good measure) before resuming regular recreational activities.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Mr. Otaku said:

All the more reason why the host/carrier should have a bigger and final say in the matter.

 

No consciousness/brain function = No right to stay.

Consciousness/brain function = Right to stay with some exceptions.

About to be born = Can't be aborted.

 

Simplicity is often the best way.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

Women are not so much being forced to be incubators as not being permitted to choose to terminate the pregnancies which resulted from actions which they have voluntarily taken universally in every state (it is not illegal on a national scale if that is what you were under the impression of). It is akin to saying that one is forced to be fat for over-eating because no one else is required to pay for one's liposuction. 

 

The baby can be put up for adoption afterward if the 'mother' still wants to return to playing around with their less efficient organic dildoes and the stretch marks can serve as a reminder to get a tubal ligation (after banking a few eggs for good measure) before resuming regular recreational activities.

 

Birth control fails all the time, and more than a few people who get abortions were raped. And when unwanted pregnancies are the result of carelessness, that still doesn't remove people's right to decide who lives inside of them. No one has the right to live inside another person without their ONGOING consent.

 

And as for that ridiculous analogy about weight -- the heaviest person I know was eating under 1000 calories a day for YEARS and still gained weight over that period. My lazy ass eats around 4000 and doesn't gain any weight. I seriously hope you never find yourself with a thyroid imbalance and having to learn about uncontrollable weight gain the hard way.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, markdf said:

 

Birth control fails all the time, and more than a few people who get abortions were raped. And when unwanted pregnancies are the result of carelessness, that still doesn't remove people's right to decide who lives inside of them. No one has the right to live inside another person without their ONGOING consent.

I notice that you either entirely ignored the bit about tubal ligation. There are medical preventative measures that can be taken that prevents this whole 'Abortion' issue from even being an issue in the first place (if heterosexuals can not just abstain from casual vaginal sex for whatever reason).

 

If no life is conceived, then there are no members of one's larger society that express concerns over having anyone casually snuff out the life of their offspring which in turn creates concerns about their value for life of other members of their society who do not share their DNA. 

You also bought up an outlying occurrence with weight gain which I suppose is fitting since even the states in the USA which outlaw on-demand abortion still allow it for those rare exceptions such as rape or some other misadventure (such as transmission of stubborn sperm cells from some surface that the unwillingly impregnated sat upon or some such).

 

I would go further than suggest minor surgery to keep this from being a recurring area of debate, though, as a complete hysterectomy would keep any accidents from happening at all. That would render this tiresome topic extinct within a generation or two. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

I notice that you either entirely ignored the bit about tubal ligation. There are medical preventative measures that can be taken that prevents this whole 'Abortion' issue from even being an issue in the first place (if heterosexuals can not just abstain from casual vaginal sex for whatever reason).

 

If no life is conceived, then there are no members of one's larger society that express concerns over having anyone casually snuff out the life of their offspring which in turn creates concerns about their value for life of other members of their society who do not share their DNA. 

You also bought up an outlying occurrence with weight gain which I suppose is fitting since even the states in the USA which outlaw on-demand abortion still allow it for those rare exceptions such as rape or some other misadventure (such as transmission of stubborn sperm cells from some surface that the unwillingly impregnated sat upon or some such).

 

I would go further than suggest minor surgery to keep this from being a recurring area of debate, though, as a complete hysterectomy would keep any accidents from happening at all. That would render this tiresome topic extinct within a generation or two. 

 

1) You know heterosexuals aren't the only people who get abortions, right? 

2) The best way to avoid this "tiresome topic" is to stop legislating what people can do with their own uterus. Presto, the whole issue goes away. Just look at how rarely it comes up in places like Canada where the issue was settled decades ago.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, markdf said:

 

1) You know heterosexuals aren't the only people who get abortions, right? 

2) The best way to avoid this "tiresome topic" is to stop legislating what people can do with their own uterus. Presto, the whole issue goes away. Just look at how rarely it comes up in places like Canada where the issue was settled decades ago.

1) Heterosexuals tend to be the ones who get abortions as a result of their own consensual actions. 

2) The issue is also settled elsewhere in the rest of the world where it will draw a harsher sentence than it would in the West. It also does not come up very frequently since the people who try for them are no longer capable of telling anyone about it if they are caught. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

1) Heterosexuals tend to be the ones who get abortions as a result of their own consensual actions. 

2) The issue is also settled elsewhere in the rest of the world where it will draw a harsher sentence than it would in the West. It also does not come up very frequently since the people who try for them are no longer capable of telling anyone about it if they are caught. 

 

Also bisexuals, pansexuals, lesbians in relationships with trans women, gay trans men, endless varieties of non-binary folk, pretty much anyone whose fetus has a lethal birth defect, asexual people who decided to experiment, and so on.

 

Abortion rights come up all the time in countries where abortion is illegal. There are regular protests in many South American countries, in the US states where abortion is functionally illegal, in Russia and eastern Europe, and so on. 

Link to comment

I mentioned this sort of thing a few weeks ago somewhere on this forum.

 

Two police officers have been sacked after filming themselves breaking the speed limit at 89mph in a seized high-performance vehicle.

Devon and Cornwall Police officers PC Shaun Pearce and PC Daniel Pike shared the video with colleagues on WhatsApp.

They were taking part in a road safety campaign, which included preventing speeding, at the time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56698186

 

?

Link to comment
23 hours ago, markdf said:

If society had any reverence for women as "givers of life", they wouldn't use the law to force them to be incubators for fetuses that they don't want. 

Wait....what?  Surely you are trolling here.  Who in the west is forcing folks to get pregnant?  Sorry, but this is just nonsense.  I just love the logic wanting to have sex but then not wanting to put up with the consequences.   Stop having sex with things that have dicks that can bred with you.  It is so simple it is just mind boggling.  But no, let's continue to belly ache because this particular action has consequences.  Like it should be different than all the other actions that have consequences in life.  

23 hours ago, markdf said:

The USA is one of the worst offenders there -- refusing to pay the very minor cost of providing natal and prenatal healthcare.

Wait......Now you want to others to pay for someone to fuck around and find out?  Bullshit.  Your body, Your choice, YOUR COST.  Why in the fuck should I pay for ANYTHING that has to do with you?  I didn't bang you.  This is just absurd.  You don't get to run the your body, your choice bullshit and then tell me I have to help you pay for your abortion or care of your offspring.  What fantasy world are you living in?  I'm constantly amazed at this assumption.  Next you'll be wanting me to serve your jail time when you get caught doing a crime.

On 4/7/2021 at 5:15 AM, markdf said:

I don't know how someone can support the right to kill a trespasser in your home, but not the right to kill a trespasser inside your body.

Because the comparison is utter nonsense?  

Now if you said you invited someone into your house and killed them is the same as killing your unborn child, well then you have a fair comparison.

 

Not picking a fight with you here, but you stood out as slinging more than most of convoluted logical fallacies.  I'm more than willing to consider things logically, but none of the back and forth I've seen is anywhere close to anything approaching logic.  Just my opinion and of course, you can feel free to view my opinions as dead wrong.  But let's please stop the hyperbole.

 

Abortion is a controversial issue.  I get it.  As was said earlier, it all revolves around if you believe that conception equals a life or you don't.  Personally I think life begins at conception.  The concept of a fetus magically turning into a baby once it is wacked on the ass and breaths outside of the womb seems pretty damn unscientific to me.  I don't really view this as a religious issue.  I get that many do view it that way.  I have no intention of forcing my view on anyone else and unless you can come up with a medical or scientific data to prove otherwise, I'm not changing my mind anytime soon.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gregathit said:

Abortion is a controversial issue.  I get it.  As was said earlier, it all revolves around if you believe that conception equals a life or you don't.  Personally I think life begins at conception.  The concept of a fetus magically turning into a baby once it is wacked on the ass and breaths outside of the womb seems pretty damn unscientific to me.  I don't really view this as a religious issue.  I get that many do view it that way.  I have no intention of forcing my view on anyone else and unless you can come up with a medical or scientific data to prove otherwise, I'm not changing my mind anytime soon.

 

My point is that for many people, it DOESN'T revolve around whether a fetus is a person or not. People don't have the right to use another person's body without their ONGOING consent. If you're giving blood and decide halfway through that no, you prefer to keep it, they HAVE to stop. If you're donating a kidney to someone, you can change your mind at any point up until they give you the gas.

 

No one, even a tiny person without functional organs, gets to use someone else's body if that person decides they don't want to be used.

 

That's why the home defence analogy is apt; if you tell someone to leave your home, and they refuse, you have the legal right to remove them by force. Doesn't matter if they have nowhere to go, doesn't matter if they don't have a working brain, doesn't matter if they'll die if they leave.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, markdf said:

My point is that for many people, it DOESN'T revolve around whether a fetus is a person or not. People don't have the right to use another person's body without their ONGOING consent. If you're giving blood and decide halfway through that no, you prefer to keep it, they HAVE to stop. If you're donating a kidney to someone, you can change your mind at any point up until they give you the gas.

 

No one, even a tiny person without functional organs, gets to use someone else's body if that person decides they don't want to be used.

 

That's why the home defence analogy is apt; if you tell someone to leave your home, and they refuse, you have the legal right to remove them by force. Doesn't matter if they have nowhere to go, doesn't matter if they don't have a working brain, doesn't matter if they'll die if they leave.

My point is that you are trying to compare an apple with a hand grenade and insist that because both "appear" to look the same that they are.  

A 4 year old child that you created is dependent upon you.  Don't like that responsibility, well, should have thought about that before doing the boom boom.  

A 12 week old child/fetus is no different.  The location is the only thing that is different.  You are still responsible for them.  Don't want that, don't go boom boom.

You can't walk away from the 4 year old or the 12 week old.  To do so is irresponsible morally and ethically.  Why should it not also be illegal to boot?  I'm not saying it should be, but it is pretty much connecting the dots at this point.  I'll say it again, actions have consequences.  You are complaining about the consequences and forgetting about what brought them on.  YOU choose to have sex.  Sex can have consequences.  You can get knocked up, you can get STD's.  Proceed with the boom boom at your own peril.

 

Now once they are able to tube babies from some point soon after conception.......well........this discussion will probably then be mute.

 

Logical discussion over, now for some hyperbole:

Perhaps folks who are irresponsible should be neutered?  I mean, they can't seem to either keep their legs closed or keep it in their pants (both sexes being guilty as it takes two).  Typically they can't seem to pay for it themselves, so if society is going to have to foot a bill, I say sterilize them.  Ya know......since we are using way out there hyperbole.  :)

Obviously rape victims get a pass.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, gregathit said:

My point is that you are trying to compare an apple with a hand grenade and insist that because both "appear" to look the same that they are.  

A 4 year old child that you created is dependent upon you.  Don't like that responsibility, well, should have thought about that before doing the boom boom.  

A 12 week old child/fetus is no different.  The location is the only thing that is different.  You are still responsible for them.  Don't want that, don't go boom boom.

You can't walk away from the 4 year old or the 12 week old.  To do so is irresponsible morally and ethically.  Why should it not also be illegal to boot?  I'm not saying it should be, but it is pretty much connecting the dots at this point.  I'll say it again, actions have consequences.  You are complaining about the consequences and forgetting about what brought them on.  YOU choose to have sex.  Sex can have consequences.  You can get knocked up, you can get STD's.  Proceed with the boom boom at your own peril.

 

Now once they are able to tube babies from some point soon after conception.......well........this discussion will probably then be mute.

 

Logical discussion over, now for some hyperbole:

Perhaps folks who are irresponsible should be neutered?  I mean, they can't seem to either keep their legs closed or keep it in their pants (both sexes being guilty as it takes two).  Typically they can't seem to pay for it themselves, so if society is going to have to foot a bill, I say sterilize them.  Ya know......since we are using way out there hyperbole.  :)

Obviously rape victims get a pass.  

I love Apples to Hand Grenades. This however was more like mental gymnastics. Or Metaphors are a more accurate term.

 

People kill animals just because they hate eating vegetables so I don't see where they get their morals from. Now here is the flaw in your argument. Cows aren't even four when they get butchered. Ban slaughterhouse abortions?

 

I highly doubt this discussion will go anywhere or change anything so I'll end my... is it an argument or is it a joke? but I'm up for sterilizing stupid people. I mean why not?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, gregathit said:

My point is that you are trying to compare an apple with a hand grenade and insist that because both "appear" to look the same that they are.  

A 4 year old child that you created is dependent upon you.  Don't like that responsibility, well, should have thought about that before doing the boom boom.  

A 12 week old child/fetus is no different.  The location is the only thing that is different.  You are still responsible for them.  Don't want that, don't go boom boom.

You can't walk away from the 4 year old or the 12 week old.  To do so is irresponsible morally and ethically.  Why should it not also be illegal to boot?  I'm not saying it should be, but it is pretty much connecting the dots at this point.  I'll say it again, actions have consequences.  You are complaining about the consequences and forgetting about what brought them on.  YOU choose to have sex.  Sex can have consequences.  You can get knocked up, you can get STD's.  Proceed with the boom boom at your own peril.

 

Now once they are able to tube babies from some point soon after conception.......well........this discussion will probably then be mute.

 

Logical discussion over, now for some hyperbole:

Perhaps folks who are irresponsible should be neutered?  I mean, they can't seem to either keep their legs closed or keep it in their pants (both sexes being guilty as it takes two).  Typically they can't seem to pay for it themselves, so if society is going to have to foot a bill, I say sterilize them.  Ya know......since we are using way out there hyperbole.  :)

Obviously rape victims get a pass.  

 

Except that people CAN get rid of kids they can't or wont take care of. That's why we have the foster system, child protective services, and safe drop locations. You can 100% walk away from them. 

 

I'm sure you're aware that most western countries DO have a long history of sterilizing people against their will. The mentally ill, the poor, unwed mothers, black and indigenous people, pretty much anyone that the attending doctor personally believed shouldn't be having children. It's generally considered to be a monstrous practice. 

 

But if we're talking about society footing the bill, why are you so worried about spending a few pennies of your tax dollars on medical care instead of worrying about how thousands of your tax dollars are being spent on literally ANY other nonsense? Like pointless wars? Or making it harder to vote? Or border walls that are 50% imaginary and 50% falling over because they were built by grifters? Complaining about the "cost" of maternity care is laughable. 

 

Besides, those kids will cost you -- personally -- a lot more tax money in the form of schooling and medical care (which IS free for many young children) than they ever will if they're aborted.

 

Hopefully we do find a way to transplant fetuses, and the true believers can spend the rest of their lives in birthing farms while the rest of us get on with our lives.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

I love Apples to Hand Grenades. This however was more like mental gymnastics. Or Metaphors are a more accurate term.

 

People kill animals just because they hate eating vegetables so I don't see where they get their morals from. Now here is the flaw in your argument. Cows aren't even four when they get butchered. Ban slaughterhouse abortions?

 

I highly doubt this discussion will go anywhere or change anything so I'll end my... is it an argument or is it a joke? but I'm up for sterilizing stupid people. I mean why not?

LOL!  I like how you say I'm doing mental gymnastics and then promptly dive clear off the deep end by comparing child abandonment to eating cows?  I think you you are the one going for the joke.......or is it maybe a distraction........hmmmmm.........talking about cows so we won't think about eating pigs maybe?  No....no......that is too simple and could not possible be it.  ?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, gregathit said:

<snip> A 4 year old child that you created is dependent upon you. <snip> A 12 week old child/fetus is no different. <snip>

Did you just compare a 12 week old fetus to a 4 year old child? One that has barely formed as a being and the other that has been born for almost half a decade? You called them both children? Next you're gonna tell me a 16 year old is no different from 20 year old, so to hell with 18+ rights?

 

LOL

 

The rest of your comment(s) has some strong michael knowels/ben shapiro type energy so i'm not even gonna touch all that with a 12 feet pole but damn lmao that part is hul-arious i tell ya.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. For more information, see our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use