- Calgary, Canada
- Last Active
LordBy said:Lindsay Graham needs to update his talking points. You can’t just continue to repeat what you were saying yesterday.
russkelly said:Murderbear said:I don't think my excitement for Red Dead 2 can get any higher. They recently demoed it for a bunch of outlets and I've been listening/reading as many as I can. This game sounds stupid good. There is a podcast called Red Dead Radio and the episode from September 20th got me hyped than anything.
Also, it was discovered via box art that you need 105gb free on PS4. That's pretty crazy.It's not terribly complicated to replace the HDD on a PS4 with a bigger one. Mine came with a 500GB spinner and I replaced it with a 1TB SSD this year. It can be done without breaking the warranty seal.https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/get-help/help-library/system---hardware/storage---data/upgrade-playstation-4-hdd/
“They just keep saying ‘He was in high school—boys will be boys,’” says Maurielle, a 17-year-old from Houston. “But I’m in high school—I don’t want that to happen to me.”This is exactly where I keep ending up on this. We all pay lip service to educating young people about consent and changing the culture that teaches young men that "no means keep trying." Social conservatives are so focused on Roe that they are willing to send teen boys the message that sexual assault isn't a big deal and tell teen girls they're disposable.There are plenty of regressive assholes dying to overturn Roe who will gladly "answer Trump's call." This is yet another example of wanting to win at all costs - as long as someone else pays the bill. We've seen plenty of examples in this very forum of this attitude and I think it's bullshit. It should matter how you get what you want and the price matters even if you're not the one to pay it.
CretanBull said:akritenbrink said:
Why aren't you in love with it?
I'd be interested to see some of these men talking about chips chime in too.I think that it's a poorly argued, valid point. I'm assuming that she's intentionally not being sincere in order to make a provocative argument that will generate discussions like this one.These things are mostly non-issues in most Western countries...a lot of the problems that she points to aren't really about 'men' generally, but rather about the particular men with a puritanical streak who have a disproportionate influence on various levels of government in America.As a slight outsider (it's not like Canada is Mars compared to America!), your collective obsession with sex is a little odd. We all think about it - it's in our nature! - but America seems really preoccupied with what gay people get up to, which washrooms people want to use, a woman's right to choose (that criticism is aimed at the people who are against it, not those fighting for it) etc. It's that puritanical streak - which exists everywhere is smaller doses - but nowhere else in the Western world is it given as much credence as it is in America.So back to the original point....You only have to make a somewhat silly argument about men being "100%" responsible because the issue is clouded by how it intersects with health care, the right to chose and all of the other barriers that exist largely from a puritanical influence. Solve those problems, and this one disappears.
I don't think it's poorly argued at all. I think it's well argued. I think some of the punishments would be difficult to implement, but maybe that's what you mean, that there should be arguments about how to implement the punishments... (Ah, I just read your last paragraph. It sounds like you think the argument is superfluous, not that it's poorly done.)
"...a lot of the problems that she points to aren't really about 'men' generally..." - She's talking about how men are the only cause of unwanted pregnancies, and how it would be more rational for the pro-life movement to push for legislation on sperm. I think it's a great idea to push for punishment for the irresponsible treatment of women's bodies and lives, and in some cases, abortions. It might be the thing necessary to get pro-life men to take a look in the mirror.I'm onboard with the overall thrust (ahem) of her argument. Abortion is best prevented with education, cheap and available birth control, and basic health care being reachable on a modest income.The nits I could pick are just that: nitpicks. Vasectomies do carry risks and are not "totally reversible". No one should get a vasectomy as temporary birth control, assuming it can be undone. Doctors are very clear about this when you make these arrangements. She has about as good an understanding of vasectomy as she thinks men do of female-centric birth control.She uses "many" and "a handful" interchangeably to suit her point.Some women do prefer sex without a condom.100% never is 100%.
Those pregnancies are still unwanted, at least by one of the involved people. I suppose they are less likely to end in abortion if that's what we're really trying to prevent. My point is when you start throwing around 100%, you're begging people to come up with even a single example to "refute" what you're saying.The food analogy dilutes the point as it doesn't bring a new perspective or introduce a new, more relatable angle. The argument is stronger without it in my opinion. It might have been better used as a tool to highlight the disproportionate attention sexual pleasure is given over other kinds of pleasure.None of this invalidates the overall argument, but it does expose the whole thing to attack. An unassailable position doesn't generate much discussion though and frank discussions are what's needed. So maybe these small flaws are by-design?Yes, everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions. Men have been getting a huge pass on acting irresponsibly in this area and in so many others. The real solution will be holding people accountable for their actions in realistic ways and teaching boys to think of girls as real, full-fledged, people. As a culture, we need to stop depicting persistence harassment as romantic. As men, we need to stop pretending we've never even approached the line, much less stumbled over it. We need to accept that some past heinous and harmful acts will have real consequences in the new social context. We need to make room for honesty and reconciliation between men and women who sincerely want to de-normalize this bullshit.That's why you retract a Supreme Court nominee who tried to rape a girl. To avoid sending the message to the next generation that what you do as a teenager won't have consequences and youthful indiscretions crimes - even if they inflict massive physical, emotional, and mental trauma - aren't really that big a deal and won't keep you from being a fucking Supreme Court judge.So as Gabrielle Blair says, maybe the means for reducing abortion isn't castration and mandatory vasectomies, but making the cure illegal doesn't do anything to prevent the disease. Making abortion harder to get doesn't stop women from getting them - it makes them get dangerous ones. The fact that the tool (both meanings acceptable) Republicans are trying to use to reverse Roe is LITERALLY PART OF THE PROBLEM is some serious dark poetry.
- Males are raped.
- Rarely, women take action to sabotage or circumvent birth control.
- Males are raped.