Feminism is Good.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Answer the question. This conversation will not go forward until you do.

I'll take that as a concession then...

Of course you will. I'll take your reluctance to answer the question as a concession. How about them apples?

You know what, I actually thought to myself, I'll bet he say that...and I'm kind of glad you did because then I get to remind you that I have no assertion to concede. You made the assertion, I challenged it, burden of proof falls upon you buddy.
You can't exactly point the finger at me and say, well you need to prove something about nothing just because I said so, otherwise you have to concede... I don't have to concede anything because I never made any outrageous claims. Seriously, what point do I have to concede? Only women can have abortions because they have wombs? Women are liable for child support too? Those are not assertions, they are facts. So what exactly am I conceding Macai?

Is this what you're resorting to? Debating with me about how to debate?

Your concession that compulsory child support is noted.

You can't find a point of concession so you make one up.... whatever Macai, you note those imaginary concessions to pretend you beat me...

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Jacque De Molay

Anouska

Robot Macai

Answer the question. This conversation will not go forward until you do.

I'll take that as a concession then...

Please answer the question.

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.
Now, firstly I have no idea what nonsense the above is, I only have a key that tells me

M- is the seller
W-is the buyer
A- purchase of car
B- is a car accident
C- is car repairs

Okay so seller and buyer can buy cars. They can both have accidents in cars. But only the buyer can choose to repair the car, and if the buyer repairs the car, then the seller is liable to pay.

Well if we were to justify this in the real world, the only time a garage or car dealership would be liable to pay for the buyers accident, is if the car had a mechanical failure which was a consequence of poor design or faulty parts. Maybe shared liability would apply if the dealership contacted the buyer to inform them that the vehicle was dangerous to drive and that they needed to bring it into them asap to be fixed, and the buyer choose to ignore the seller's advice.
Even so, would the seller really be liable? Wouldn't it be the company or the manufacturer of the products? Or their insurance companies...or the buyer's insurance company. Technically neither of them would be financially liable then because it goes through the insurance companies....

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work. A car is not a baby, the position of sellers and buyers of cars are unaffected by issues of gender- meaning that a woman can sell a car to man...so the implication of gender discrimination is moot. Plus seller is not liable to a car in the same way a father is liable to its biological child...

False analogy is false.

...oh and boys,

This doesn't answer the question. I'm not budging until you give me a straight answer.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

Who chooses to make the repairs? The mechanic.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Answer the question. This conversation will not go forward until you do.

I'll take that as a concession then...

Of course you will. I'll take your reluctance to answer the question as a concession. How about them apples?

You know what, I actually thought to myself, I'll bet he say that...and I'm kind of glad you did because then I get to remind you that I have no assertion to concede. You made the assertion, I challenged it, burden of proof falls upon you buddy.
You can't exactly point the finger at me and say, well you need to prove something about nothing just because I said so, otherwise you have to concede... I don't have to concede anything because I never made any outrageous claims. Seriously, what point do I have to concede? Only women can have abortions because they have wombs? Women are liable for child support too? Those are not assertions, they are facts. So what exactly am I conceding Macai?

Is this what you're resorting to? Debating with me about how to debate?

Your concession that compulsory child support is noted.

You can't find a point of concession so you make one up.... whatever Macai, you note those imaginary concessions to pretend you beat me...

You do realize I'm just yanking your chain, right? Declaring yourself the victor in a debate is idiotic outright, which is the point raised. If you've won, there's no need to declare yourself the winner. Others will see things your way, because people, despite their many flaws, can be very reasonable critters.

Now answer the question:
When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Jacque De Molay

Anouska

I'll take that as a concession then...

Please answer the question.

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.
Now, firstly I have no idea what nonsense the above is, I only have a key that tells me

M- is the seller
W-is the buyer
A- purchase of car
B- is a car accident
C- is car repairs

Okay so seller and buyer can buy cars. They can both have accidents in cars. But only the buyer can choose to repair the car, and if the buyer repairs the car, then the seller is liable to pay.

Well if we were to justify this in the real world, the only time a garage or car dealership would be liable to pay for the buyers accident, is if the car had a mechanical failure which was a consequence of poor design or faulty parts. Maybe shared liability would apply if the dealership contacted the buyer to inform them that the vehicle was dangerous to drive and that they needed to bring it into them asap to be fixed, and the buyer choose to ignore the seller's advice.
Even so, would the seller really be liable? Wouldn't it be the company or the manufacturer of the products? Or their insurance companies...or the buyer's insurance company. Technically neither of them would be financially liable then because it goes through the insurance companies....

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work. A car is not a baby, the position of sellers and buyers of cars are unaffected by issues of gender- meaning that a woman can sell a car to man...so the implication of gender discrimination is moot. Plus seller is not liable to a car in the same way a father is liable to its biological child...

False analogy is false.

...oh and boys,

This doesn't answer the question. I'm not budging until you give me a straight answer.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

Who chooses to make the repairs? The mechanic.

I see no mention of a mechanic here:

Me

M and W can choose to do A. When they do, there is a possibility that B happens. When B happens, W decides if C happens.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

So, for the umpteenth time:
When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

[Anouska]

Keltoi Samurai

Anouska

the proposition for a male fiscal abortion was coined by a feminist. The argument you are using now was created by a feminist, Karen DeCrow who explained her stance by stating "independent women making independent decisions should not expect men to finance those decisions".
How does it feel to be spouting feminist ideology wahmbulance

mighty fine, actually.

see, a good idea's a good idea, regardless of where it comes from. not all feminists are arsebiters, and there are even a few on Gaia who aren't all bad, or even mostly bad.

so, the question ultimately becomes, how do you feel about the fact that the concept came from a member of your own side of the fence? how does it feel for you to be actively against a feminist who had a message of real equality?

I don't feel anything. There are a tonne of issues that feminism diverge on... so what? That's the nature of the beast.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Jacque De Molay

Please answer the question.

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.
Now, firstly I have no idea what nonsense the above is, I only have a key that tells me

M- is the seller
W-is the buyer
A- purchase of car
B- is a car accident
C- is car repairs

Okay so seller and buyer can buy cars. They can both have accidents in cars. But only the buyer can choose to repair the car, and if the buyer repairs the car, then the seller is liable to pay.

Well if we were to justify this in the real world, the only time a garage or car dealership would be liable to pay for the buyers accident, is if the car had a mechanical failure which was a consequence of poor design or faulty parts. Maybe shared liability would apply if the dealership contacted the buyer to inform them that the vehicle was dangerous to drive and that they needed to bring it into them asap to be fixed, and the buyer choose to ignore the seller's advice.
Even so, would the seller really be liable? Wouldn't it be the company or the manufacturer of the products? Or their insurance companies...or the buyer's insurance company. Technically neither of them would be financially liable then because it goes through the insurance companies....

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work. A car is not a baby, the position of sellers and buyers of cars are unaffected by issues of gender- meaning that a woman can sell a car to man...so the implication of gender discrimination is moot. Plus seller is not liable to a car in the same way a father is liable to its biological child...

False analogy is false.

...oh and boys,

This doesn't answer the question. I'm not budging until you give me a straight answer.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

Who chooses to make the repairs? The mechanic.

I see no mention of a mechanic here:

Me

M and W can choose to do A. When they do, there is a possibility that B happens. When B happens, W decides if C happens.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

So, for the umpteenth time:
When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

If mechanics don't exist then no one can make the repairs.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

You do realize I'm just yanking your chain, right? Declaring yourself the victor in a debate is idiotic outright, which is the point raised. If you've won, there's no need to declare yourself the winner. Others will see things your way, because people, despite their many flaws, can be very reasonable critters.

Now answer the question:
When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

I want my damn moment of glory!!! scream

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.
Now, firstly I have no idea what nonsense the above is, I only have a key that tells me

M- is the seller
W-is the buyer
A- purchase of car
B- is a car accident
C- is car repairs

Okay so seller and buyer can buy cars. They can both have accidents in cars. But only the buyer can choose to repair the car, and if the buyer repairs the car, then the seller is liable to pay.

Well if we were to justify this in the real world, the only time a garage or car dealership would be liable to pay for the buyers accident, is if the car had a mechanical failure which was a consequence of poor design or faulty parts. Maybe shared liability would apply if the dealership contacted the buyer to inform them that the vehicle was dangerous to drive and that they needed to bring it into them asap to be fixed, and the buyer choose to ignore the seller's advice.
Even so, would the seller really be liable? Wouldn't it be the company or the manufacturer of the products? Or their insurance companies...or the buyer's insurance company. Technically neither of them would be financially liable then because it goes through the insurance companies....

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work. A car is not a baby, the position of sellers and buyers of cars are unaffected by issues of gender- meaning that a woman can sell a car to man...so the implication of gender discrimination is moot. Plus seller is not liable to a car in the same way a father is liable to its biological child...

False analogy is false.

...oh and boys,

This doesn't answer the question. I'm not budging until you give me a straight answer.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

Who chooses to make the repairs? The mechanic.

I see no mention of a mechanic here:

Me

M and W can choose to do A. When they do, there is a possibility that B happens. When B happens, W decides if C happens.

When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

So, for the umpteenth time:
When C happens, who chose for it to happen?

If mechanics don't exist then no one can make the repairs.

God damnit, are you this stupid? The variables are just that: they change. The car accident scenario was just one that fits into these variables.

Now answer the question.

[Knobist]

Anouska

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.

But we reached differing conclusions and I disagree about the reasonable course of action.

Quote:

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work.

I didn't equate car ownership to reproduction and child support. People aren't property! I was just voicing the logical conclusion I arrived at based on his analogy.

STOP YELLING AT ME! crying

[Knobist]

Robot Macai

God damnit, are you this stupid?

Don't bring people down like that man.

[Mika Talanis]

worse than i seem

Yoshpet

worse than i seem

Is it fair he gets no say in the abortion process? Nope. But life isn't fair and he consented to having to deal with that child when he had sex with a woman who would have and keep the child.

Double standards are ugly, and they only get uglier when people pretend there's no alternative to endorsing them. "Life isn't fair" is the dumbest platitude a lazy, hands-off enabler ever concocted. Roll again.

It isn't fair because there aren't any other options. The issue with abortion deals with the women's body so she gets a final say. Do I wish there was a way we could takes the man's opinion into this consideration but until there is a way to carry the child to term outside the mother's body it doesn't work.

There is no way to make this situation completely fair because it never will be. With pregnancy it is always the women who has to carry the child, handle the pregnancy and the results of that.

The woman makes the conscious choice to carry to term though. Sex =/= parenthood. If we use that philosophy to allow women to choose to not be parents then we need to use it for males as well. since they cannot abort physically, they should be allowed to abort financially. If I choose to do something, knowing it will cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars over the course of eighteen years, then the only person who should be held accountable for that choice, the only person who should be responsible for it, is me.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

God damnit, are you this stupid? The variables are just that: they change. The car accident scenario was just one that fits into these variables.

Now answer the question.

I have. You purposeful selected the variables you wanted to manipulate the outcome. I added the variables that you selectively left out to demonstrate firstly it has no grounding in the real world, and secondly its a false analogy.
I could construct a question where I controlled the rules and variables to smudge the outcome in my favour... but then again why would I? I don't need to gloss out any variables to make my points valid.

[Anouska]

Jacque De Molay

Anouska

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.

But we reached differing conclusions and I disagree about the reasonable course of action.

Quote:

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work.

I didn't equate car ownership to reproduction and child support. People aren't property! I was just voicing the logical conclusion I arrived at based on his analogy.

STOP YELLING AT ME! crying

Sorry heart It's been a long thread.

But in all seriousness that question, with it's rules and selected variables, the question has no basis in the real world.

[Chitsa Black]

Jacque De Molay

Robot Macai

Jacque De Molay

Robot Macai

Jacque De Molay

Robot Macai

Not in this situation. Granting M more responsibility does not, by extension grant him more power. Given that, how much responsibility should M be made to bear if C is to take place?

M shouldn't be held accountable for C as much as W should. You could blame M for partaking in B but you can't blame M totally for C because M isn't the final decision maker as to whether C happens. W deserves more responsibility than M because they ultimately determine C.

How much more? Can you give me a ratio, maybe? M:W could be anywhere from 1:0 to 0:1.

1:2 Give W double the responsibility that M has had because they essentially determine the desired outcome.

That sounds fine. Let's apply this policy to something:

M (seller) and W (buyer) can choose to do A (exchange money for a car to be used as primary vehicle). When they do, there is a possibility that B (a traffic accident resulting physical damage to the car) happens. When B happens, W decides if C (repair of the vehicle) happens.

In a hypothetical example, the repairs cost $900. Under your thinking, M should pay $300 and W should pay $600.

Does this sound fair to you?

W should only pay double if they can afford it. Can they afford the 600$?

Good luck with trying to get the person you bought a car from to pay part of YOUR car repairs when you have an accident.

[Chitsa Black]

Anouska

Jacque De Molay

Anouska

If you want to sit in the corner playing hypothetical games with Macai, because you share the same rhetoric and reach the same conclusions and this makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside...fine, but its luring you into a false sense of security.

But we reached differing conclusions and I disagree about the reasonable course of action.

Quote:

Okay boys, that was pointless. Do you see what happens when you try to equate car ownership to reproduction and child support... it doesn't work.

I didn't equate car ownership to reproduction and child support. People aren't property! I was just voicing the logical conclusion I arrived at based on his analogy.

STOP YELLING AT ME! crying

Sorry heart It's been a long thread.

But in all seriousness that question, with it's rules and selected variables, the question has no basis in the real world.

I don't often agree with Macai, but I'd have to agree with him in this. It does have basis in the real world. In no other situation do we hold another person responsible for the choices a completely different person makes for themselves. If I choose to drink a fifth of liquor and get behind the wheel of the car, I am the only person held accountable for my actions. Liquor companies and store owners aren't arrested and sent to jail because I chose to drink and drive.