The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude

Page 6 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 May 2011, 2:15 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

91 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

First, if sex were "supposed to" equal pregnancy, humans wouldn't be one of the few species which engages in it year-round and regardless of whether the female is ovulating-

Sounds like the feminism 101 textbook. I do not buy it, while humans certainly do engage in sex year-round I do not think this absolves them in any real way from the consequence of the action.

It's actually Biology 101, sweetie. You made an assertion about EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, that being that reproduction is the sole imperative behind the motivation to have sex. That assertion is flat-out wrong.

Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Abortion doesn't "absolve anyone of 'consequences'" (interesting word choice) of having sex- it is a consequence. Cause-effect.
Although it is somewhat-comical that you a. conflate factual statements with ideological ones (IE, feminism) and b. think feminism is a perjorative.

Abortion = murder because you find the child inconveinent

heylelshalem
Raven
Raven

Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 101
Location: spokane washington

27 May 2011, 2:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

91 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

First, if sex were "supposed to" equal pregnancy, humans wouldn't be one of the few species which engages in it year-round and regardless of whether the female is ovulating-

Sounds like the feminism 101 textbook. I do not buy it, while humans certainly do engage in sex year-round I do not think this absolves them in any real way from the consequence of the action.

Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Abortion = murder because you find the child inconveinent

WAR is murder too.

_________________
VERITAS LVX MEA

CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

27 May 2011, 3:26 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

CaptainTrips222 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

So, like, child support and alimony bug you more than a multi-billion dollar global sex trafficking trade,
as far as "indentured servitude"?

Strange, that.

Yeah, strange you even brought it up. It's totally irrelevant.

I thought mentioning slavery would be relevant in a thread whose title mentions it.

Silly me.

C'mon genius. Sex trade. It's irrelevant here. Tying it in was asinine.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

27 May 2011, 3:32 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

91 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

First, if sex were "supposed to" equal pregnancy, humans wouldn't be one of the few species which engages in it year-round and regardless of whether the female is ovulating-

Sounds like the feminism 101 textbook. I do not buy it, while humans certainly do engage in sex year-round I do not think this absolves them in any real way from the consequence of the action.

Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

If the sole purpose of sex were reproduction, we would't have sex past menopause; we wouldn't have sex during monthly infertile times; and having ourselves sterilized would destroy our sex drives.

Reproduction is the origin of sex, but it is no longer the sole or even primary purpose.

CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

27 May 2011, 3:49 pm

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

91 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

First, if sex were "supposed to" equal pregnancy, humans wouldn't be one of the few species which engages in it year-round and regardless of whether the female is ovulating-

Sounds like the feminism 101 textbook. I do not buy it, while humans certainly do engage in sex year-round I do not think this absolves them in any real way from the consequence of the action.

Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

I agree. Sexual expression is a huge part of our identity (most people) and there's no reason we shouldn't incorporate it into our lives and happiness.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

27 May 2011, 4:09 pm

CaptainTrips222 wrote:

LKL wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

91 wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

First, if sex were "supposed to" equal pregnancy, humans wouldn't be one of the few species which engages in it year-round and regardless of whether the female is ovulating-

Sounds like the feminism 101 textbook. I do not buy it, while humans certainly do engage in sex year-round I do not think this absolves them in any real way from the consequence of the action.

Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

I agree. Sexual expression is a huge part of our identity (most people) and there's no reason we shouldn't incorporate it into our lives and happiness.

Agreed. Chimpanzees, especially the bonobos, use sex as a form of social bonding and cohesion. Sex is an important part of the social life of most humans, and it's most certainly not "just for reproduction."

I'm asexual and even I know that. Sheesh.....

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

27 May 2011, 4:10 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

[Actually, sex's sole purpose is reproduction; the fact that people desire it and get pleasure from it is hardwired into us so we would have children and continue the species.

[

It isn't. That's something that sets us apart from other species. Other species have advertised fertile times that let the animals know when to have sex in order to reproduce. We have hidden fertility which means that sex is divorced from pure reproduction since nobody can tell when that's going to happen. Anthropologists say that this is because sex (for humans) cements social bonds. The social bonding aspect is just as much part of our biology as the reproduction.

This doesn't advance any relevent arguments in the thread but it's a point of pedantic annoyance when people say that the only biological reason for sex is reproduction. Hidden fertility says otherwise.

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

27 May 2011, 11:06 pm

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in, the court can probably compel an answer if need be, I don't see why not considering they can order a paternity test. Yes to collect child support it does need to declare him a father but they shouldn't be declaring fathers when the person in question cannot be found or confirmed in some way.

@Valentine, It was irrelevant a discussion on a specific type of slavery does not diminish the importance of any other form of slavery.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

27 May 2011, 11:12 pm

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in ...

Understood, but the court does not typically go looking for fathers for that purpose.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

28 May 2011, 4:15 am

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in ...

Understood, but the court does not typically go looking for fathers for that purpose.

I am saying a father should not be declared unless it can be proven he is the father or unless he agrees to it. What do you think I am saying?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 May 2011, 5:03 am

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in ...

Understood, but the court does not typically go looking for fathers for that purpose.

I am saying a father should not be declared unless it can be proven he is the father or unless he agrees to it. What do you think I am saying?

In the way you had worded your statement, I had heard what you are saying about a man not be declared "father" unless/until proved so. In spite of that kind of personal belief or feeling we might have, however, I am saying a civil court is not likely to go looking for someone just so the someone can have his or her say.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

28 May 2011, 2:54 pm

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in ...

Understood, but the court does not typically go looking for fathers for that purpose.

I am saying a father should not be declared unless it can be proven he is the father or unless he agrees to it. What do you think I am saying?

So if a couple messes around for a month for no protection, the gal gets pregnant, and the boyfriend splits for parts unknown, he should get off scott free?

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

28 May 2011, 6:23 pm

LKL wrote:

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

ikorack wrote:

The state does not Need to make an assumption it just does.

If the state wants to try to find "George" and use the point of its gun to collect child support, it first "needs" to declare "George" as "father".

It doesn't need to declare him a father to find him and allow him to put his say in ...

Understood, but the court does not typically go looking for fathers for that purpose.

I am saying a father should not be declared unless it can be proven he is the father or unless he agrees to it. What do you think I am saying?

So if a couple messes around for a month for no protection, the gal gets pregnant, and the boyfriend splits for parts unknown, he should get off scott free?

No, he should be found and proven the father, not declared without proof. That is what I am saying, what is distasteful about that?

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

28 May 2011, 7:45 pm

ikorack wrote:

LKL wrote:

So if a couple messes around for a month for no protection, the gal gets pregnant, and the boyfriend splits for parts unknown, he should get off scott free?

No, he should be found and proven the father, not declared without proof. That is what I am saying, what is distasteful about that?

Nothing, of course, but only a criminal court would/could actually do that, and only if the girl was a juvenile at the time or had been raped. In contrast, a civil court just does not go out and pick people up in order to see whether they might have copulated with someone who now happens to be pregnant.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Page 6 of 6 [ 94 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Jump to:

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude Post Reply New Topic

The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude