Anyone else feel like these Next gen conferences have been pretty lame? Like everything that's been announced so far for next gen systems has been pretty "meh". Im not getting the same excitement as when the PS2 was announced or the PS3/360 lol.
II_Seraphim_II's forum posts
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]
The way I see it, both people are equally as responsible and the law should recognize that. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want it, the woman can still choose to have the baby, fair enough. But if a man wants the baby and the woman doesnt want it, she can still get an abortion unilaterally, understandable cause its her body. But if you're going to let a woman unilaterally make such a decision, then it stands to reason that this isnt really a 2 person deal. Now, it makes absolutely no sense to force a woman to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months that she does not want only to give it to the father at the end of the day.
So my suggestion would be that if 2 people have sex, and the woman gets pregnant and wants the baby but the man doesnt, the man should offer to pay for an abortion. If the woman refuses and says she wants to keep the baby, the man should be able to sign away all legal responsibility towards the child and the woman can raise the child on her own without expecting any cash or money. That is the only solution that equally and fairly represents both people as having both played a part in the conception of the child. If the woman really thinks she can raise the child on her own and refuses the abortion, then it is her choice as a responsible adult, and she should be able to take care of it.
By saying the man should just deal with it, you are absolving the woman of any sort of responsibility. Yeah, the guy didnt have to go have sex with the woman, but at the same time, she didnt have to open her legs and let the man ejaculate in her without a condom. If she can unilaterally decide what to do in the situation of a pregnancy, then she should unilaterally deal with the consequences of her decision.
GamerForca
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).
That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] That seems like a technicality.BranKetra
technically correct, the best kind of correct
Maybe you misunderstand my point. As II_Seraphim_II explained, a woman makes changes to her own body causing the removal of a fetus from her body. While the operation is technically performed on the woman's body, the effects of the operation directly lead to the fetus' death. In fact, that is the entire point of the operation. I completely understand what you are trying to say. And it's a completely valid point. I just think that this is one of those issues where people have their own reasons for being on one side of the equation, all equally valid, its just a matter of where you personally stand. I'm pro choice, but I understand the concerns of pro-life people in certain instances (excluding the extremist who say a woman should still have the baby if she is raped or her life is threatened). I dont think there is a 100% right answer to this issue, but I picked a side that I felt most comfortable with :PWell, I certainly agree. But that doesn't mean abortion should be banned simply because I think it's irresponsible. It's like others have said... most pro-choice people aren't pro-abortion, we just don't believe we should be able to tell people what to do with their bodies. Are you including a fetus as part of a woman's body? No, the woman's body is her own body. The woman makes changes to her own body, which cause the removal of the fetus from her body. Unfortunately the fetus dies because it is unable to live without a host, but still, the changes are to the woman's body.[QUOTE="GamerForca"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] You addressed the actual problem which is people performing intercourse and then expecting a baby to not result from it. When pregnancy occurs, they think they should be able to terminate it for whatever reason they want similar to performing intercourse for whatever reason they want. I think that shows aborting a child for reasons besides health concerns is irresponsible. BranKetra
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] So essentially he has no vote. A more fair way would be to have it were the man has the right to prevent the abortion, but not the right to force it. This way he gets a definite say but he can only use it one direction.GamerForcaThe fairest way is that the man doesn't get a say in it at all, but that he is not forced to care/pay money for the baby. No. If he helped create it, he should help pay for it, even if he didn't want it. You're saying it's okay for men to knock up women left and right, and as long as they don't want her to get pregnant, then the child isn't their responsibility, which is ridiculous. The only say a man should get is to be able to terminate a relationship with a woman who chooses to abort his child. Nothing more.
The way I see it, both people are equally as responsible and the law should recognize that. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want it, the woman can still choose to have the baby, fair enough. But if a man wants the baby and the woman doesnt want it, she can still get an abortion unilaterally, understandable cause its her body. But if you're going to let a woman unilaterally make such a decision, then it stands to reason that this isnt really a 2 person deal. Now, it makes absolutely no sense to force a woman to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months that she does not want only to give it to the father at the end of the day.
So my suggestion would be that if 2 people have sex, and the woman gets pregnant and wants the baby but the man doesnt, the man should offer to pay for an abortion. If the woman refuses and says she wants to keep the baby, the man should be able to sign away all legal responsibility towards the child and the woman can raise the child on her own without expecting any cash or money. That is the only solution that equally and fairly represents both people as having both played a part in the conception of the child. If the woman really thinks she can raise the child on her own and refuses the abortion, then it is her choice as a responsible adult, and she should be able to take care of it.
By saying the man should just deal with it, you are absolving the woman of any sort of responsibility. Yeah, the guy didnt have to go have sex with the woman, but at the same time, she didnt have to open her legs and let the man ejaculate in her without a condom. If she can unilaterally decide what to do in the situation of a pregnancy, then she should unilaterally deal with the consequences of her decision.
[QUOTE="indzman"]L2Kendrick Because of a single person rap is still good? Even if Kendrick is good, the other 99.9% of rappers suck. And technically Kendrick is no where near as good Tupac or Biggie, or old school Bone Thugs, or WuTang, or NWA or all those amazing people, so yes, I would say rap is in decline.Rap sucks for a long period now. After Tupac, Eminem it had started to decline imo.
chaoscougar1
I'm seriously thinking about going to the gym. Never been to one before and I got some questions:
-Do I need to take supplements?
-How long would it take a skinny ass person to get noticeable results in terms of gaining muscle/weight and feeling stronger?
-Can you guys give me an example of what I should do in a week? Name the thing I gotta do like bench press, leg squats, use treadmill, etc.
-Best/easiest to make pre and post workout meals?
-Is $33/month for 12 months a lot? Planning on going to 24 hour fitness cause I plan on going after midnight. I used to get nervous and have anxiety attacks when I was younger during school when I'm around a lot of people.
-Anything else I should know?
SolidSnake2011-
1) No you dont need to take supplements. You can if you want but its not necessary. When I started out I went from 135lbs to 180lbs without supplements by eating a TON of fish and wild rice. Now, I wouldnt suggest you go on a strict fish only diet (not unless you want mercury poisoning), but Fish should be a big component of your diet. Mix in some other lean meat like Beef and chicken. You can bulk up clean or dirty. A clean bulk consists of eating healthy food in excess and working out, so you gain muscle with minimal fat gains. A dirty bulk means just stuffing your face with anything lol. I highly recommend a clean bulk, cause ive seen a lot of people just end up getting fat.
2) How long it takes to get big depends on your surplus caloric intake and how much you exercise. If this is your first time bulking up, you will see fast results. Within about 2 - 3 months I noticed that I was significantly bigger than before.
3) A lot of people go for the classic Mon/Wed/Fri set up for workout days, and I would suggest that. Its the perfect balance of work and rest. Now alot of people Like to do different body parts each day but I personally find that to be a waste of time. You telling me if I work my biceps on monday I gotta wait 7 days before they fully heal? I think not. I do 3 times a week, full body workout. My Schedule (When bulking) goes something like this:
Barbell Squats (Free weight not on Smith Machine if possible) - 3x8
Barbell Calf Raises (Do on Smith Machine) - 3x8
Dead Lifts 3x8
Barbell Rows or Close Grip Cable Rows - 3x8
Pull ups (body weight) 3x8 -- You can start lower, but do 3 sets. So if you have to, start at 3x3 or what not. And eventually add weights.
Flat Bench Press 3x8
Close Grip Bench Press 3x8
Full body Dips 3x8
Military Press 3x8
Barbell Curls 3x8
Weight Crunches 3x8
This should take you about 1hr - 1.5hr. Make sure you have a partner who can spot you because you wanna be lifting heavy ad try to increase your weight by as much as you can handle each week. Doesnt matter if it 1lbs or 10lbs, just increase it unless of course, you're at your maximum and cant do anymore :P I put Bicep curls in there cause people always moan about how they want bigger arms blah blah. Just do your compound exercises and your arms will follow. With this exercise you arent just isolating muscles, you are working entire muscle groups so everything should grow.
4) Dunno about prices of gyms. Different prices for different countries :P
5) Anything you should know? Umm...
try to eat a light meal about 1hr before working out.
Eat something post working out.
Make sure you eat a snack (or shake if youre into that) before going to bed.
Never skip breakfast.
Always stretch before and after.
Always do a quick set of every exercise with low weights just to warm up and get ur muscles ready and then go heavy.
Always have a spotter.
Unless you're bulking up for athleticism, keep cardio minimal. If you are working out hard and then jogging 2 hours a day, you are burning up any surplus calories you eat and thus wont gain much mass. When bulking keep cardio minimum or cut it out completely.
Log in to comment