Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,611 comments
- 138,200 views
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
Well, let's see what the regret might be like in 20 years' time. I think there's going to be a fair percentage of 'innocents' in the future who regretted getting them because it was culture/peer pressure/idols all doing it.
I'm not lost in 2020, I just see what appears to be more dysfunction, and we can only assume more unhappiness. You can choose to sink or swim, and I chose to swim and didn't hold the situation against anyone as I have seen others in worse/better situations than myself and choosing to sink. The only honest family systems that seem to work is that of Practicing Christians, Indians and Chinese in the UK. The secular system seems to be evolving towards an informal arrangement of how tribes used to and still organise themselves, except with more pain, confusion, expense and drama.
Just an impossibly complex subject to talk about, other than I think that if conditions were more stable and young people took their time and were more sensible in difficult situations, then this would probably help in at least creating more stability when children are growing up. I don't see the point in two people being together if they can't stand one another after 20 years if they aren't religious.
It's old data, so we would need to do a neutral survey in 20 years' time because of the explosion and ever more daring images that are being done, especially at younger ages.
I know how human nature is. This is partly why the manosphere came about didn't it?
Just a general intuitive thought; but research suggests this also. I reckon there's an optimum number of partners to get enough experience to be discerning in order to get most satisfaction.
"Sexual satisfaction increases with level of education, but appears to be inversely related to the number of sexual partners. On the whole, more partners = less satisfaction. "
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-satisfaction-highly-valued-poorly-understood
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Causality/Correlation breakdown again. People who are less satisfied seek more sexual partners? People who have more partners become less satisfied? People who have some other condition seek more partners and are less satisfied both a result of this other condition? Maybe it's just coincidence?
Ok, let me try to explain this as clearly as I can. When you find a correlation... for example, a person that does A also tends to do B, you do not understand the how or why those appear to be linked. It could be that they are both linked to C and you haven't discovered C yet. Or it could be that A causes B, or it could be that B causes A. Or they might not be linked at all, and just appear to be.
Not following? Here's a chart that explains how global temperatures can be predicted by piracy:
As temperature goes up, piracy goes down. Now, does this mean that higher temperatures cause pirates to stop pirating? Does it mean that pirates cause the temperature to decrease? Is it possible that the pirates are stealing something that was keeping the temperature down? Or perhaps they are not actually related.
Edit:
By the way, if I had to take a wild guess, based on no data at all, on just intuition, I'd say that if you're less satisfied you're probably looking for more ways to satisfy yourself, meaning low satisfaction causes partners. But I have no data to support that.
- 29,942
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I got my first tattoo before I was of legal age, and there was no exception made for those with permission from their parent/guardian (not that I'd have gotten that permission anyway). It wouldn't be a stretch to say I felt pressure to get it, and after getting it, it wouldn't be a stretch to say I regretted it...but then that was largely because it sucked.
Fast forward four years, I had a little money I could afford to not have anymore and I decided to do something about that awful tattoo. Rather than have it lasered off (this wasn't really a thing back then; it existed, but it wasn't mainstream like it got to be in ~1993 when I started seeing print ads), I opted to get some seat time and have it covered with something better.
I'd get a few more tattoos over the next few years until eventually stopping with the one I got to commemorate my daughter's birth (the date in simple script and no additional adornment, about an inch below my collarbone) nearly 23 years ago. It wasn't a conscious decision I made to stop, rather I haven't been sufficiently compelled to get more.
The last tattoo I felt even the least bit pressured to get was the first one, and not only do I not regret any of them, but a couple years ago I got some more seat time to have some of the colors refreshed as they'd begun to fade.
My tattoos are for me and only me. In fact, the only time any ink is on display in public is on the very rare occasion that I'm wearing a short-sleeved shirt (even then it's only the bottom of one on the side of my arm), I'm shirtless at the beach or I'm changing at the gym. I tend to wear long-sleeve shirts, even in the summer when it's a lightweight material in a light color (because Texas), largely as a result of years of conditioning by my clinical dermatologist wife, but also because I find them comfortable. Speaking of my wife...she doesn't get anything out of me having tattoos, and while I'd be delighted if she got something, she has no interest in having any.
Hey, look at those goalposts shift!
"Here's data that proves my point."
*data countered, hilariously*
"That wasn't the right data. The data I need doesn't exist yet."
Oh, misogyny...how you confound us so.
Innocents? You mean children? Or are you still attacking women?
Your idea that the only family unit that can work is a Christian one, is not backed up by anything other than your misogynistic, rose-tinted glasses and an idea of a history that never existed.
Well if we’re making assumptions... let’s assume this chart below is meaningful of anything...
This poll shows Americans dwelling in a golden age of personal satisfaction. Can this possibly be true?
Not only, he’s now also debunking his own evidence for his misogynistic and confused views!
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,604
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Do you actually know many people with tattoos? As it certainly doesn't seem so at all.
Then I would say you don't have enough experience of other people experiences.
Odd then that the most secular countries on earth also rank highest on the happiness surveys!
You seem to be equating morality with religion, which would be utterly incorrect.
And yet you have made assumptions about that now, without data to support it at all!
Out of interest, as you seem to have bugger all real-world experience with tattoos, what exactly are these 'daring' images?
Then you don't know 'how human nature is' at all, but you do seem to have swallowed the 'Peterson' cool-aid.
What utter bollocks! 'An optimum number of partners to get enough experience to be discerning in order to get the most satisfaction', did you even give that an iota of thought before posting it?
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
Innocents? You mean children? Or are you still attacking women?
Your idea that the only family unit that can work is a Christian one, is not backed up by anything other than your misogynistic, rose-tinted glasses and an idea of a history that never existed.
Well if we’re making assumptions... let’s assume this chart below is meaningful of anything...
Not only, he’s now also debunking his own evidence for his misogynistic and confused views!
Oh, what joy you must savour at saying that.
I've a right to question, when indeed we do come across more up to date statistics
Tattoo Removal Statistics 2016, 2017-2018
Updated 9-6-2017:
- 70% of US business owners do not favor tattoos on employees
- Tattoo removal clinics have grown by 400% in the past decade
- 11% of all people with tattoos have them removed
- 26% of inked millennials regret their tattoo
- Laser tattoo removal clients are 70% female
Never mind me commenting in this thread because my main concerns were significantly more important than commenting about tattoos, that are believed to be linked to promiscuity.....with the greater likelihood of abortion. But my sources were debunked, and so we must wait until someone does a more comprehensive peer reviewed study.
As I'm gen-X, the only people I've known with them sported old-skool ones they got in the navy, or from being in an organisation. They didn't bother me, but gen X Y and Zs getting daring images covering their arm(s) or getting most other visible parts done.......I mean it's a very major, and expensive commitment to make, seeing that vast amounts of your flesh will never look the same again assuming you don't go in for removal. A sort of final farewell, which is quite profound.
I’m waiting for you to draw the lines between people choosing to remove tattoos... and women being undesirable sluts who’s only purpose is to please men.
Or...
“I’m not going to change my mind, regardless of the facts. I’m just going to wait for some statistics turn up to prove my misogynistic views to be true”
I do wonder why it is you hate women so much.
- 626
- Northern Ireland
- GTRP_mirial
The ones that remove them, well I need more research, but the undesirable sluts? The liberal system you espouse has made them this way don't you think? It's also highly likely they only get the tingles from men much more misogynistic than me which is ironic.
Yeah, I don't trust a good many of them, so I don't bother with them. But then there are many I do trust. They already have good hearts that weren't interested, or brought up to be promiscuous. If I really hated women, I'd have used many of them in the past.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,315
- Australia
- GT-MIC
A long way off topic but it would be fairly safe to say these would be a fairly substantial percentage of those having them removed:
Source:http://www.historyoftattoos.net/tattoo-facts/tattoo-statistics/
One of my best friends is a tattoo artist and he stresses this point to all of his clients, especially hammering this point to young people getting their first tattoo. He refuses to do these type of tattoos if they are too prominent (places that can't easily be covered like face, neck and hands).
Last edited:
“The liberal system I espouse” ...being women treated as equal humans to men?
No I women having equal rights to men didn’t make them sluts, didn’t ruin society or make women unhappy. No evidence exists proves otherwise, which is why you’re struggling to come up with any statistics to back up your hateful and misogynist views....
...which is why you’ve gone down the route of tattoo removal... something you don’t even understand yourself
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Show me where in that post you linked to that I have a "misunderstanding of science"? I even tried to use an analogy in that post to show where others might be tripping up in their understanding of basic statistics.
Also you linked to an article citing reports from 2005 and 2010, which don't disprove the hypothesis that a fully developed (or even partially developed) cortex is necessary for the perception of pain. The authors of my report in 2020 considered that the thalamic connections to the subplate may be sufficient to create a sensation of pain, but then again, I have a "misunderstanding of science" * so I couldn't possibly know what that means....
* Perhaps you could educate me on the role of the subplate in the formation of the cortex?
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
??? That’d be a grammar mistake...
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
@Scaff has you covered on that and has explained it to you multiple times within that thread.Oh then I give up..can you show me where I displayed a misunderstanding of science
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
So that's yet another no then.
You have to remember in that thread too there was the interesting conclusion that even though Islam was cited as at least one of the religions involved when religion was a causative factor for conflict in all occasions that this was irrelevant because it wasn't the only causative factor. Based on that, and numerous other posts I wouldn't be so confident to go around saying other people (I.e. Me) are more scientifically illiterate
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
You're a time-traveler from the 1950s. That's the only possible explanation. If you were from the 1960s or any time later, you wouldn't sound like this. For the record the 1960s are 60 years ago. And that's not far enough back for this post.
Ok, so let's check the completely unsubstantiated premises shall we?
- Tattoos make you undesirable (maybe they do to you, and that's your prerogative, but you present this as universal)
- Promiscuity makes you undesirable (maybe it does to you, and that's your prerogative, but you present this as universal)
- Politics makes you promiscuous (you may be confusing causality with correlation here again)
- Politics makes you get tattoos (you may be confusing causality with correlation here again)
- Misogynistic men prefer promiscuity (this one is hilarious coming from you)
- Misogynistic men prefer tattoos
- Promiscuity makes you untrustworthy
- Tattoos make you untrustworthy
I think that's the round-up. That's a lot to pack into 4 sentences.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,604
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
So from your own source (which given its nature is going to be bias towards wanting removal) the vast majority of tattoo owners do not regret then or want them removed.
Quite significant figures.
So that's very little then.
As someone with tattoos I know exactly what it's like in the workplace, however more importantly I know exactly what tattoo artists are like in regard to work on the hands or face, and the majority will not do them unless the person in question already has a solid collection and knows the commitment they are making.
I also know that far more people have cover ups against removal, I also know that not all people who go for removal stop having work done.
Oh, and I'm gen-x as well, so that has nothing to do with it at all.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Based on?I'm very confident in my appraisal of you being scientifically illiterate.
Just one thing....anything....
Go on, it's not hard.....
You must be so much more advanced in scientific knowledge and the scientific method that I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement and validate the likes it received no problem
-------
Back on topic, what do the members who are more liberal towards abortion consider a cutoff gestational age for abortion on demand?
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Birth? Functionally I could see there being earlier limits being placed depending on risk to the mother on a case by case basis, but I certainly don't think that there's ever much of a case for aborting after birth.
I'm sure you'll be able to back up that statement and validate the likes it received no problem
Maybe the issue isn’t that you are scientifically illiterate, but just illiterate? You are seemingly unable to read posts and keep going round in circles...
Either way, the fact you keep pushing for race and IQ to be linked is a nice clear example of you either being openly racist and/or scientifically illiterate.
Given your stance on Islam and your many, many discussions with @Scaff and others I’m of the opinion that you are both a racist and are scientifically illiterate.
Though... if you felt my posts where validated through likes, why did you need further clarification?
...well I guess, unless they where very naughty after birth
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm not pushing for anything. You asked for a cutoff, I suggested an upper limit of birth with lower limits in specific cases where medically appropriate. That's based on simple semantics, if you do it after birth it's generally considered murder rather than abortion.
If someone has an argument for why the limit should be lower I'd be keen to hear it. But until then I rather think that being pregnant is a bit like having sex; you can say no and stop any time you like, even halfway through, even right before the end. As a human, I don't think you should be required to let someone else use your body without your consent.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Nah. I am not on that wave length. I think after 30 weeks when brain activity really starts in full swing, that's the hard cut off for me ethically for elective abortions. I don't subscribe to the "let someone else use your body without your consent" "ideology." Everyone knows there is a probability of getting pregnant when they have sex. And very rarely does someone go that far to term without knowing they are pregnant. That is generally figured out within the first 60 days. By week 30, I think at that point consent is established enough by not practicing safe sex and not actively pursuing an abortion.
Edit: I think it also important to establish that getting pregnant is really not comparable to sex at all. The biggest difference that really breaks the comparison is that sex is a shared activity, where as pregnancy is creating. To me, it's much more akin to someone getting a puppy, then deciding to get it put down because you dont really want it once its 2. That's a monstrous thing to do. Before that 30 weeks. Before brain activity develops, it's a bit like looking at shelters and talking to breeders. But once you hit that point, once you let that puppy into your house, let that brain become functional, for better our worse, you created that human and it's now your responsibility. And some responsibilities should not be shirked.
Last edited:
Similar threads
