Feminism is Good.

[Anouska]

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.

Abortion is a choice. Conception isn't. Neither man or woman has control over whether they conceive or not. The only thing either one can do is either increase/decrease the chances of conception occurring by using birth control ect. But even that fails.
Now under Macai's qustion the traffic accident is caused by the buyer aka the woman. In reality the traffic accident, aka the conception is caused by the actions of both man and woman. The buyer and seller analogy is not great. It's like saying, the man sold the woman his sperm and she inappropriately used it thus causing an accident or conception. It doesn't work. Both parents are liable for the conception, why assign it just to the woman?
So the accident is caused by both parties which results in the conception of the baby. At this point the man's reproductive rights end, but the woman is extended because of her ability to have an abortion. This is product of nature not inequality, and what many people in this thread have done is assumed that the availability of abortion makes it a universal choice. However this complicated by two factors, one is belief and the second is time.
For example a pro-lifer would not have an abortion, so it is a fallacy to assume it is choice for her. Secondly, a person can only have an abortion before a certain point. The nature of accidental pregnancy means its unplanned, so can the mother be held accountable for not knowing she was pregnant...this is possible, there is a whole TV series dedicated to it on Discovery which is crazy...but I digress.
Now at this point I'm not sure what part of the car analogy was suppose to represent abortion, so clearly some variables have been wiped out from the equation to manipulate the outcome- which is very naughty of Macai dramallama
There is a kind of hypocrisy and fallacy when the assertion is made that only the men that have no choice after conception...well that's not true, because its the same for pro-life women or those women who found out too late.
So the woman gives birth and at this point both parents are held liable for the child. Either man or woman can pay child support depending on who stays and who walks away- and women do walk away from their kids in the same way men do.
Now going back to the question, the buyer and seller are both held liable for the buyer's accident, which creates the illusion of inequality. However when you look at the situation for what it is, the accident was caused by both buyer and seller, and the real outcome is that they are both held accountable.

To sum up, people assume inequality because of the availability of abortion. Which is kind of surprising considering its long history controversy and the strong opinions it evokes.

[Robot Macai]

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.

You haven't answered the question. The very fact that you insist you have indicates that you're either yanking my chain and refuse to answer it, or you don't understand the point of abstractions like this at all.

And secondly, no, the analogy is not "false." The analogy is very real, you just happen to dislike it because it comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

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.

Abortion is a choice. Conception isn't. Neither man or woman has control over whether they conceive or not. The only thing either one can do is either increase/decrease the chances of conception occurring by using birth control ect. But even that fails.
Now under Macai's qustion the traffic accident is caused by the buyer aka the woman. In reality the traffic accident, aka the conception is caused by the actions of both man and woman. The buyer and seller analogy is not great. It's like saying, the man sold the woman his sperm and she inappropriately used it thus causing an accident or conception. It doesn't work. Both parents are liable for the conception, why assign it just to the woman?
So the accident is caused by both parties which results in the conception of the baby. At this point the man's reproductive rights end, but the woman is extended because of her ability to have an abortion. This is product of nature not inequality, and what many people in this thread have done is assumed that the availability of abortion makes it a universal choice. However this complicated by two factors, one is belief and the second is time.
For example a pro-lifer would not have an abortion, so it is a fallacy to assume it is choice for her. Secondly, a person can only have an abortion before a certain point. The nature of accidental pregnancy means its unplanned, so can the mother be held accountable for not knowing she was pregnant...this is possible, there is a whole TV series dedicated to it on Discovery which is crazy...but I digress.
Now at this point I'm not sure what part of the car analogy was suppose to represent abortion, so clearly some variables have been wiped out from the equation to manipulate the outcome- which is very naughty of Macai dramallama
There is a kind of hypocrisy and fallacy when the assertion is made that only the men that have no choice after conception...well that's not true, because its the same for pro-life women or those women who found out too late.
So the woman gives birth and at this point both parents are held liable for the child. Either man or woman can pay child support depending on who stays and who walks away- and women do walk away from their kids in the same way men do.
Now going back to the question, the buyer and seller are both held liable for the buyer's accident, which creates the illusion of inequality. However when you look at the situation for what it is, the accident was caused by both buyer and seller, and the real outcome is that they are both held accountable.

To sum up, people assume inequality because of the availability of abortion. Which is kind of surprising considering its long history controversy and the strong opinions it evokes.

The tl;dr version of this is: "My body, my choice, your responsibility."

And no, the traffic accident analogy doesn't determine who caused the accident. The choice part (C) is whether or not the buyer repairs that car after the fact or just says ******** it and let it rot (carry to term or abort).

The fact that you need to have this explained to you speaks volumes on your intellect.

EDIT: Also lolol, pro-life women can't choose to get an abortion. Someone doesn't understand what a "choice" is.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

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.

You haven't answered the question. The very fact that you insist you have indicates that you're either yanking my chain and refuse to answer it, or you don't understand the point of abstractions like this at all.

And secondly, no, the analogy is not "false." The analogy is very real, you just happen to dislike it because it comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I have answered the question, Macai. We are talking about the same issue here, but you have tried to change the game play by creating a riddle that has rules and exclusions and purposefully distorts the subject. For example you blame the buyer for the car accident, and then ask how is it fair that the seller is expected to pay for part of that accident? But in reality conception is caused by both parties, its not like the man sold the woman his sperm which she in turn misused thus causing an accident, conception, therefore she should have sole liability for misusing sperm.....which yeah is a false analogy and a funny one too.

So your riddle is effectively crap, and not only that it's kind of sad. You can't win the game, so create a new one with your own rules and exceptions...then can't understand why other people don't want to play with you.

Like I said before, I don't need to manipulate or exclude variables to make my argument work. And if the only way to make your argument work is by manipulating and imposing rules on the question and its variables indicates that your argument is not a good argument. Either way I'm not going to feed your self-delusion by playing the same game that has already been played, but to your rules, so you can pretend that you had a good argument.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

The tl;dr version of this is: "My body, my choice, your responsibility."

No its not, you should have read it.
Secondly why do your always say 'your' instead of 'our'? The man and woman both consented to sex, and they are equally liable for the conception and equally liable for the child. However this is always conveniently forgotten, like in your car analogy...

Robot Macai

And no, the traffic accident analogy doesn't determine who caused the accident. The choice part (C) is whether or not the buyer repairs that car after the fact or just says ******** it and let it rot (carry to term or abort).

The accident determines who pays the repairs. You can't suddenly change the analogy so that the accident is now superfluous and now the woman just has a random car that needs repairs.
False analogy is false.

Robot Macai

The fact that you need to have this explained to you speaks volumes on your intellect.

All because I see your car analogy for the turd that it is, and you don't.

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also lolol, pro-life women can't choose to get an abortion. Someone doesn't understand what a "choice" is.

Like we haven't been over this. Availability does not equate to universal choice.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

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.

You haven't answered the question. The very fact that you insist you have indicates that you're either yanking my chain and refuse to answer it, or you don't understand the point of abstractions like this at all.

And secondly, no, the analogy is not "false." The analogy is very real, you just happen to dislike it because it comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I have answered the question, Macai. We are talking about the same issue here, but you have tried to change the game play by creating a riddle that has rules and exclusions and purposefully distorts the subject. For example you blame the buyer for the car accident, and then ask how is it fair that the seller is expected to pay for part of that accident? But in reality conception is caused by both parties, its not like the man sold the woman his sperm which she in turn misused thus causing an accident, conception, therefore she should have sole liability for misusing sperm.....which yeah is a false analogy and a funny one too.

So your riddle is effectively crap, and not only that it's kind of sad. You can't win the game, so create a new one with your own rules and exceptions...then can't understand why other people don't want to play with you.

Like I said before, I don't need to manipulate or exclude variables to make my argument work. And if the only way to make your argument work is by manipulating and imposing rules on the question and its variables indicates that your argument is not a good argument. Either way I'm not going to feed your self-delusion by playing the same game that has already been played, but to your rules, so you can pretend that you had a good argument.

>thinks the use of variables is a "riddle"

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

And no, the traffic accident analogy doesn't determine who caused the accident. The choice part (C) is whether or not the buyer repairs that car after the fact or just says ******** it and let it rot (carry to term or abort).

The accident determines who pays the repairs. You can't suddenly change the analogy so that the accident is now superfluous and now the woman just has a random car that needs repairs.
False analogy is false.

No, it doesn't determine who pays for the repairs. The traffic accident analogy fits into a specific scenario. It does not determine who pays for anything. It raises the question of who chose for C to take place. You might want to read it again:

Me

But since you want to just talk about that, here's a little experiment you can go through:

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?

Anouska

Robot Macai

The fact that you need to have this explained to you speaks volumes on your intellect.

All because I see your car analogy for the turd that it is, and you don't.

You think the use of variables, an algebraic concept, makes something a "riddle."

Anouska

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also lolol, pro-life women can't choose to get an abortion. Someone doesn't understand what a "choice" is.

Like we haven't been over this. Availability does not equate to universal choice.

Yes, we have been over this. Choosing not to get an abortion for religious reasons doesn't mean you didn't choose not to get one. I don't see why this hasn't sunk in yet.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

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.

You haven't answered the question. The very fact that you insist you have indicates that you're either yanking my chain and refuse to answer it, or you don't understand the point of abstractions like this at all.

And secondly, no, the analogy is not "false." The analogy is very real, you just happen to dislike it because it comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I have answered the question, Macai. We are talking about the same issue here, but you have tried to change the game play by creating a riddle that has rules and exclusions and purposefully distorts the subject. For example you blame the buyer for the car accident, and then ask how is it fair that the seller is expected to pay for part of that accident? But in reality conception is caused by both parties, its not like the man sold the woman his sperm which she in turn misused thus causing an accident, conception, therefore she should have sole liability for misusing sperm.....which yeah is a false analogy and a funny one too.

So your riddle is effectively crap, and not only that it's kind of sad. You can't win the game, so create a new one with your own rules and exceptions...then can't understand why other people don't want to play with you.

Like I said before, I don't need to manipulate or exclude variables to make my argument work. And if the only way to make your argument work is by manipulating and imposing rules on the question and its variables indicates that your argument is not a good argument. Either way I'm not going to feed your self-delusion by playing the same game that has already been played, but to your rules, so you can pretend that you had a good argument.

>thinks the use of variables is a "riddle"

Strawman.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

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.

You haven't answered the question. The very fact that you insist you have indicates that you're either yanking my chain and refuse to answer it, or you don't understand the point of abstractions like this at all.

And secondly, no, the analogy is not "false." The analogy is very real, you just happen to dislike it because it comes to a conclusion you don't agree with.

I have answered the question, Macai. We are talking about the same issue here, but you have tried to change the game play by creating a riddle that has rules and exclusions and purposefully distorts the subject. For example you blame the buyer for the car accident, and then ask how is it fair that the seller is expected to pay for part of that accident? But in reality conception is caused by both parties, its not like the man sold the woman his sperm which she in turn misused thus causing an accident, conception, therefore she should have sole liability for misusing sperm.....which yeah is a false analogy and a funny one too.

So your riddle is effectively crap, and not only that it's kind of sad. You can't win the game, so create a new one with your own rules and exceptions...then can't understand why other people don't want to play with you.

Like I said before, I don't need to manipulate or exclude variables to make my argument work. And if the only way to make your argument work is by manipulating and imposing rules on the question and its variables indicates that your argument is not a good argument. Either way I'm not going to feed your self-delusion by playing the same game that has already been played, but to your rules, so you can pretend that you had a good argument.

>thinks the use of variables is a "riddle"

Strawman.

You don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. You fail to understand that differences between two things does not render comparisons between them "false." You don't comprehend the concept of a choice. You condescend to the people that know better than you.

Why exactly should I continue this discussion with you?

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

You don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. You fail to understand that differences between two things does not render comparisons between them "false." You don't comprehend the concept of a choice. You condescend to the people that know better than you.

There are fundamental flaws within your application and interpretation of human behavior through the analysis of probability outcomes. Your inconsideration of the extraneous variables is consider a type 1 error, which means you failed to measure and/or consider the influence of any external variables on the probability outcomes.
Your analogy is false and it is a turd...and that's not opinion, that fact.

Robot Macai

Why exactly should I continue this discussion with you?

You think that this has been a discussion? For the last god knows how many posts, you have just thrown that dumb a** analogy at me and said answer it...answer it. To which my reply has consistently been...false analogy is false and blatantly manipulated by you for desired answer.

If you want a discussion that's great. But if want to throw the same stupid question at me, about that stupid car accident, that in reality doesn't even fit a car accident, then there is no discussion to be had.
I'm not here to feed your delusions or validate your faulty logic. You can not penalize women for having wombs, and the fact that you have consistently attacked single mother only alludes to something more worrying about your views on women.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Robot Macai

You don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. You fail to understand that differences between two things does not render comparisons between them "false." You don't comprehend the concept of a choice. You condescend to the people that know better than you.

There are fundamental flaws within your application and interpretation of human behavior through the analysis of probability outcomes. Your inconsideration of the extraneous variables is consider a type 1 error, which means you failed to measure and/or consider the influence of any external variables on the probability outcomes.
Your analogy is false and it is a turd...and that's not opinion, that fact.

>probability outcomes

I never once used probability outcomes in any of my arguments on here. Please continue to prove me right about how you don't understand anything.

Anouska

Robot Macai

Why exactly should I continue this discussion with you?

You think that this has been a discussion? For the last god knows how many posts, you have just thrown that dumb a** analogy at me and said answer it...answer it. To which my reply has consistently been...false analogy is false and blatantly manipulated by you for desired answer.

If you want a discussion that's great. But if want to throw the same stupid question at me, about that stupid car accident, that in reality doesn't even fit a car accident, then there is no discussion to be had.
I'm not here to feed your delusions or validate your faulty logic. You can not penalize women for having wombs, and the fact that you have consistently attacked single mother only alludes to something more worrying about your views on women.

>implying single mothers didn't choose their fate

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

You don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. You fail to understand that differences between two things does not render comparisons between them "false." You don't comprehend the concept of a choice. You condescend to the people that know better than you.

There are fundamental flaws within your application and interpretation of human behavior through the analysis of probability outcomes. Your inconsideration of the extraneous variables is consider a type 1 error, which means you failed to measure and/or consider the influence of any external variables on the probability outcomes.
Your analogy is false and it is a turd...and that's not opinion, that fact.

>probability outcomes

I never once used probability outcomes in any of my arguments on here. Please continue to prove me right about how you don't understand anything.

Anouska

Robot Macai

Why exactly should I continue this discussion with you?

You think that this has been a discussion? For the last god knows how many posts, you have just thrown that dumb a** analogy at me and said answer it...answer it. To which my reply has consistently been...false analogy is false and blatantly manipulated by you for desired answer.

If you want a discussion that's great. But if want to throw the same stupid question at me, about that stupid car accident, that in reality doesn't even fit a car accident, then there is no discussion to be had.
I'm not here to feed your delusions or validate your faulty logic. You can not penalize women for having wombs, and the fact that you have consistently attacked single mother only alludes to something more worrying about your views on women.

>implying single mothers didn't choose their fate

Fine discussion over.