Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. I agree on taking measures on limiting illegal firearm trafficking, as well as I do think guns should go properly registered and to be used by the designated person only, and not be handed out to criminals, but I do not agree with a ban on firearms, or even very restricted access. Again - removing guns from the picture does not stop people from killing in other ways, rather the other way around.
  2. Two men with knives can just as easily kill a person surprised in one's home. Not having guns does not stop people from killing. Guns being not allowed only puts people with little physical strength at disadvantage. Gun murders might go down when you forbid firearms, but blade and blunt weapon killings usually go up, as tend to robberies and rape incidents.
  3. Am I the only person who, when attacking bullies back was brought to topic, thought that a quite probable outcome is that the situation might escalate entirely out of control? Punch them back, and the next thing one knows is that one's head is being slammed violently into the floor? Good, if one gets out of it alive, since such freak-deaths have happened. (Now, I am what might be called a fearless person who can't be insulted, and who does not feel physically sick if set face-to-face with disturbing things. Sometimes it is a good thing and means I handle certain situations better. Sometimes it simply means that I put myself at more risk than necessary. Also, I am that kind of an odd person in whose case being alone will work out better than talking to someone if I am feeling off.) Regardless, back to topic? I think greylight nicely brought attention to the fact that there is is a massive rift between being forced to and choosing to do something. One can choose to be the kind to wear jeans and T-shirts and do hard physical work, one can love cooking and cleaning and choose being at home with children (or like to move around with one's head covered, etc.). It seems that both ends of the scale will inevitably take flak, and those in between won't be spared, either. Worse yet, as was brought to attention, spouses and friends would not always be left out of the equation, either.
  4. The matter here is that there is no 'toughen up' button in people's brains. A human is born as an individual with certain capacities, and that's it. 'Impervious to verbal abuse by strangers (or other similar)' is not an option one can choose. One might become more numb to it than initially over time, but if it gets an automatic emotional response in one's mind, one gets it. No one can consciously switch it off. And by the time one has gotten that emotional response, the damage (if only a tiny bit of it) has already been done. Yes, in the sense that another might endure something without taking any damage while one person does not, the one who does suffer as a consequence might indeed be 'weaker' than that other person. Are they any worse as people for it? No. I do not know what the physical analogue of it would be... Forcing a person with a heart-condition run a marathon? Should anyone blame a person who was born with a weak heart for not being able to run a marathon within a better-than-average time, or at all? No.
  5. ...I've been fairly lucky with video games and net-communities in general, too. In the other end, it might be the result of me picking the right places to frequent.
  6. On the subject of video games (though it also applies otherwise) I do not mind the females having "sexy" bodies. There is nothing wrong with it. Being good-looking/attractive by itself does not make a woman less capable or, forbid it, someone with 'loose morals'. (Give her at least so much muscle that I (thin woman myself) do not get the impression that I can lift her into the air and fling her halfway across the room like a rag-doll using just a single hand, though.) What I say is: keep them realistic. If the female character naturally looks like a DD-size long-legged supermodel, so be it, but give her outfit which suits the situation and do not make her act in a way that seems so pathetic that it makes one want to strangle rather than aid her. If the character is attending a beach party for whatever reason, then let her wear a bikini suit (or go topless for what I care), since in that particular situation, the outfit is explainable and fits the scenario. We are not advocating making showing bare skin a taboo, either. However, if the character is in a cold weather and requires some extra warmth, in a dangerous situation and needs her vital parts protected, et cetera, et cetera, let her wear an appropriate outfit. A bullet vest that leaves the stomach bare is, I tell you, a very poor investment. Similarly, one would want to protect your thighs, since those have finger-thickness blood-vessels in them, and it does not take three guesses to figure out what happens if one of those gets severed by a well-aimed sword-stab. Also, hypothermia is a serious threat if the weather is not sufficiently warm; you do not want to lose a fight because your fingers are too numb to hold a sword, not to mention that you can actually die from it if it gets bad enough. Sure, the males are 'idealized' (plenty not to my tastes, sorrily), too, and some guys claim not to have a problem with it. (As people occasionally like to point out as a counter-argument.) However, would the guys under question still have no problems with it if the 'idealized' males were forced to attend gun- or sword-fights wearing nothing but what looks to be an exceptionally fancy thong?
  7. I second that. The only times I've done something with Norton are those on which I've removed it. It is more effective at making the computer slow than doing its intended job.
  8. I've never worn skirts/dresses simply because I find those far less comfortable than pants, no other reasons. I couldn't imagine myself sitting as I do now in a skirt - on top of one foot and with the knee of the other leg drawn up to my chin.
  9. Defining gender after likes and activities is exactly what I am advocating breaking out of. The fact that I own no skirts and only one dress and haven't worn the latter for dozen years, that I never wear makeup or dye my hair, that I can name and explain the functions of every piece of a gun, computer or car, but know almost nothing of the current fashion, that I play computer games and preferred cars and constructing things over dolls when a child, et cetera, et cetera does not make me any less of a woman, and I disagree with the notion that those things make me 'less feminine'. (Though people over the net have been surprised that I, in fact, am a straight woman in a woman's body. )
  10. Does it need explanations? I feel I am this gender, thus I am this gender. I know my mind would have immense problems with being in the wrong body, and overall I simply know what I am. From the moment on when I would try to determine my gender after the things I do or like, things would get confusing, as in the above examples, especially since I almost exclusively seem to fall to the categories generally associated with the opposite sex/gender. Good that I had such accepting parents and society around me, I tell!
  11. What you like and what activities you prefer play absolutely no role in what gender you are.
  12. I agree on the female haircuts. I know plenty of women who, in real life, have short hair - the inch or two-three long kind. Yet, none of the women in the posted pictures have a pixie cut.
  13. +1 ...And, at that, many women don't even get PMS, myself amongst them. Besides, emotions are just as likely to be caused by it being a bad day, the person having gotten not enough sleep or having a headache, problems at work, you name it. Blue, by the way, was mostly associated with girls (and red/pink with boys) for a long time. It was swapped sometime during the 20th century. As for me, I am not particularly fond of pink - but then again, I generally hold a preference to darker colors. I don't wear yellow either.
  14. You don't have to kill the body to kill a person. If you put a woman through something emotionally devastating and thus render the would-be mother a mental wreck, you essentially have killed her as a person. Those wounds inflicted on the mind might never permit her living a human's life again, if she'll even live to the end of the pregnancy without slashing her throat or hanging herself. And after giving birth? See post-partum depression. See post-natal psychosis. And the would-be child? Let's assume it does not miscarry. If it does not suffer from its mother eating random medicine, drinking herself onto the verge of passing out, throwing herself down the stairs, all in an attempt to rid herself of the thing inside her, if it does misdevelop from simply the stress-hormones in the mother's body, then it will be birthed to become unwanted. It is more than probable that it will suffer through enough abuse to never become a functional member of society. Likely, it would have killed itself before reaching adulthood.
  15. Being a person requires the ability to think. An early fetus does not have anything to think with. Thus, an early fetus is not a person.
  16. I, unlike an early fetus, have a brain. Before I had one, there was no 'I'. An early fetus is a human, yes - but it is not a person, thus it is not equal to a human who is already born, or who is at least about viable for life outside of the mother's womb.
  17. Which is all that should count. Pregnancy is a blessing for those who want it and a terror to those who don't. With all the hormones, changes in body and emotional turmoil, those who are not strongly edging towards either end of the scale are fairly rare.
  18. I've always been seeing 'pro-life' as the more generic term, and 'pro-birth' as a very specific subcategory. The first includes everyone who say that abortion should not exist because it eliminates the potential life, the second focuses on the much narrower group amongst them which only focuses on making a woman give birth no matter what the consequences to the woman would be ... and then loses all interest in the child's and mother's wellbeing alike.
  19. There is the person's sex, which indicates which genitalia one has. Then, there is the gender, which indicates who one's brain considers the one to be. - Both are equally physical as I see it. Out of the two, gender is not a matter of choice or a temporary flick of mood - it's the hardwiring in either case. (Also, I am fairly certain that the 'that' in Tikindi's post referred to the term/label, and not the people who fall under the said term/label, so no objectification of people was done.)
  20. I myself am naturally on the thinnish side - but I mostly consider it to be the permission to eat whatever I want and whenever I want. On the overall, I tend to think either extreme is not good - if not for other reasons, then for the extremes being unhealthy. If I can tell how many pairs of ribs you have from five meters away, you're too thin, if your middle is wider than your shoulders, you should lose some of it. Will it decrease my opinion of you as a person when you fit either category? No. ...I sure like to be clean, but is the makeup really needed? Or fancy clothes? Or haircut? I think the last I wore any makeup was around 16-17 years ago, the last I wore a dress was around 10-11 years ago, and my hair has had the same very basic cut (I practically only trim off the broken ends of my otherwise fully outgrown a bit past hipline hair) for maybe 14 years.
  21. I think you might have slightly misunderstood my point. Whether or not it is capable of feeling pain doesn't make a difference. It was merely the example someone else brought up that I used for further describing the concept of judging personhood based on general brain-development. (I spoke of having the nerve-endings that sense pain being inferior to the ability to acknowledge it, more specifically.) And on the matter of animals - quite a few of them do have proper self-awareness.
  22. I once even saw an article which claimed ~32 weeks, though it would take me quite some time to find from the site's archives. I might do so afterwards; it is quite late here. (It had an in-English source, too, I recall.) For me, the ability to feel pain (=there are appropriate nerve-endings) isn't much of a factor, though - the ability to process it (=there is a section of the brain devoted to it) is. If it can comprehend that it is in pain, then it has a part of the base what it takes to be a person. In the other words, I judge personhood after brain-development and, to about as great extent, viability. If it can survive outside the mother's body (with the aid of technology), the amount of reasons for terminating it drop very abruptly. (And note, abortions aren't performed in that stage.)
  23. Correct me if I am wrong, but are those not the symptoms of clinical death more precisely? Biological death, as far as I've read into it, is still defined after the brain-cells only. As for the rest of the facts listed (not quoting here)... I personally still maintain that whether or not someone has fingerprints or working heart-muscle does not determine the said as an individual. What, for me, defines an individual, is the cognitive capability - and higher brain-functions do not develop out before well after the first trimester.
  24. I'm pro-choice. Yes, what I brought out were examples given as specific circumstances, but as it tends to be, most of what we do or don't do relies on the situation - what might be the best course of action under some conditions might be restrictive or outright harmful in the other, to lesser or greater consequences respectively. As I already brought out, a couple on good terms is likely going to discuss the matter - if they don't, there is a high probability they do not trust each other or the relationship has some other issues - such as the other side of it being either highly controlling or even abusive. (And mind, especially emotional abuse is extremely hard to prove, at least as long as it is not on tape, meaning that turning to police might not help; sometimes, even a violent relationship might go unreported, since the woman is afraid of reporting it for one reason or another.) If the woman feels convenient enough telling him, he of course would have a say as long as he stays respectful, but still I think the woman should have the ultimate decision. - It might be hard for a man to evaluate the exact condition of a woman - such as the mental condition and ability to cope with pregnancy can't always be accurately estimated. A forced (not any, mind you!) pregnancy is usually a horrible torment, both physical and mental, and some might not be able to take it without the said leaving behind lasting damage, or, in a few cases, they might not be able to endure it at all. In any case, there are usually reasons why the woman wants an abortion - carrying to full term, even if the role of both parents might ideally be equal afterwards, has a much greater impact on the woman than on the man. In some cases, the woman might not feel ready for a child or even going through pregnancy, in others, the woman's career or studies might be affected, or financial situation might not be stable enough, etc., etc. In many cases, it might simply suffice for the man to wait for a few more months or years, till the woman feels ready for a child and wants one - that child will be more loved and likely lead a better life, whereas a reasonable man shouldn't have a problem with waiting just a little longer. If the woman doesn't want a child at all, then perhaps it would be better if the man (who definitely wants children) found himself someone else who wants them too, else the family isn't going to work out in the long run. I don't find not having the right to determine whether the mother would or would not be able to abort renders the man secondary.
  25. If the father and the mother are in a good relationship, they probably would discuss it anyway. If they aren't in a good relationship, I agree with the man never having to know - sadly, there are plenty of abusive relationships, some husbands might try to quilt-trip, threat or otherwise emotionally or physically abuse their wives to get what they want, others might have tampered with the birth control method in use or outright forbidden the woman from using it to begin with, etc. Horrible, but sadly fairly common. In no way should the man be allowed to force the woman to carry to term.