Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Anthony

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It is assumed that climate change will be disastrous for the planet/ vast population of people, yet there is very little talk on how it might benefit the planet/vast pollution of people. Ignoring the causes, I would like to see a real debate between two professional scientists on opposing sides, one pro climate change and one against. But as far as I know, for phd climatologists and physicists that would be a career wrecker if they were seen to be debating on the "wrong" side. When did science become a religion? Where if you show opposing views of the climate status quo, you are a blasphe
  2. Rue, I was not aware of difficulties pertaining to premeditated sabotage. This is concerning for both parties involved as that means realistically two people having sex take an extremely high risk by assuming that both parties are of the same opinion for the outcome of the sex. You could be right, it is a trust issue between the two parties. I was more proposing that if people continue to have sex without a strong trust between them, that either party may not fully understand the risks involved. I was hoping to mitigate the risks by creating a choice for both parties if an unwanted outco
  3. (Sorry I do not want to quote the entire text as it might get a little long. ) None of those links have statistical facts, they are based on a single survey. I also question the intended bias, why were only women surveyed? "Reproductive control including pregnancy coercion (coercion by male partners to become pregnant) and birth control sabotage (partner interference with contraception) may be associated with partner violence and risk for unintended pregnancy among young adult females utilizing family planning clinic services." This is a bias sample set, this is only wo
  4. "use a contraceptive" My proposal was walking through the idea that a contraceptive was used or that an unjustified deliberate action taken by the man or the woman was used to sabotage the contraceptive. " You mind telling me how a pregnancy is accidental?" Failure rate of common contraceptives: Male condoms 13%, female condoms 21% https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/index.htm "Your entire premises tries to make up an excuse for discharging your sperm in a vagina without a contraceptive." It does? Did you read what I wrote? "We have a man and
  5. Yes women will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the key holders to reproduction. Yes men will be censured for making bad decisions and carelessness with sex since they are the providers of sperm. I do not think this is a bad thing, you do not want to encourage people to make bad decisions in society. Men are censured especially if they go around having unprotected sex with women, not only STI transmission but also the high risk of getting a woman pregnant. It is very irresponsible and looked down upon in a social setting, even with other men.
  6. Absolutely, both men and women contribute to reproduction and share the risk of reproduction. Yes women are at a higher risk and are affected by the consequences of pregnancy. Women are the holders of reproduction, women inherently have to be smart when having sex, because it effects them more than a man. IE if this is a one night stand and not a long term possible "dad" then maybe strong birth control should be used. Vise versa if a man has a one night stand and the woman is not a long term possible " mother" than strong birth control should be used, yet he has no control after the fact if t
  7. I was not aware of how known this is, known enough that Dave Chapelle can talk about it freely apparently, thanks for sharing. I agree, and what ends up happening is completely up to the woman even though the intent was not to reproduce. Or the " you know how hard it is to get pregnant, it wont happen just this one time", many children have been made by irrational in the moment decisions. But I do wonder how many children would exist if both parties had a choice in the manner. I also wonder how many children would still be around if the mother knew that she would get no fin
  8. I agree a responsible person generally does not get surprised by a pregnancy, since they have the self control to use proper protection. I was more referring to failed birth control or possible malicious actions caused by either party ( ie poking holes in condoms). One of the more common surprised pregnancies is when birth control pills are accidentally not taken.
  9. Over the past few years I have learned that some pregnancies were accidental and not entirely preventable. But I have also learned that a lot of those accidents ended in full term pregnancy and birth with the intent of only the woman. For example : We have a man and a woman, they agree to have sex with each other for the sake of pleasure, thus a strong birth control is used. However due to potential statistical birth control failure it turns out two months later she finds out that she is pregnant. Now legally speaking she has a few options, she can abort the pregnancy or allow a full te
  10. I do like your suggestion of encouraging a free society, but I have a feeling such a system is not based in the real world. For instance, in a virtual world where everything was digital, everything would be "free" to all for all, with an infinite amount for all. Imagine a system where you would be able to craft your own "digital sandbox" world in every way, shape or form. Your world would be among the millions of other worlds available to people like yourself to experience. Once food, shelter and safety are guaranteed, the only thing that is desired is experiences. If you find
  11. Thank you Turnigrite, I am curious what you mean by consultative rather than binding, can you elaborate? There appears to be a few major problems within some representative democratic government, for the elected to be held accountable for action/inaction and conflict of interest for personal gain resulting in corruption. One could hope with the implementation of direct democracy the citizens could prevent concentration of power and hold those in power accountable for complacency. Again a lot of direct democracy is a bit of a fantasy as most citizens will not partake in the voting or
  12. I apologize if you felt I decontextualized your sentence, I was merely remarking upon the same premise of "if you do not want to listen to others perspectives why join a site like this?". I agree, your question is valid and fair.
  13. From this response it seems to me that you have no intentions of explaining your proposed system, other than generalized statements which lack in depth exploration. I evolved my questions to match your idea, since your have changed your ideas structure, you have not answered any of my examples to support your idea, I will revert to turningrite statement If you have no intention of having a discussion or elaboration on your or others ideas what is the point in all this? If this is true, we are just wasting time making others feel good by thinking they have "contributed" to society
  14. By this token it more seems that your are implying any misleading comments should be censored, not comments that hurt others on a physical or emotional level, so for a hypothetical example someone saying: " hurt all blue eyed people" would be allowed in your system, since it is not a misleading statement. or Hypothetically if someone says " I have evidence to believe brown eyed individuals are not human, and should not be treated as human" is this considered allowed speech according to your logic based analysis?
  15. Well I am not the one who is trying to support the claim " logic based" negative speech protocol, it is up to you to do the work and find us some example of what you would like to propose for a control measure. When does something become negative speech in this " logic based negative speech" what are the logical steps one would follow? Okay so this would be an example of something that would be illegal to say or censored from speech Altai? What if someone were to question an ideology or a belief or a emotional felling, since critical thinking, science and philosophy tend to intac
  • Create New...