Retribution

[quote name='Japan_86][COLOR=DarkRed']As I learned from online relationships....IM is great and all, but nothing beats the physical aspect of real life.[/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]Very true. I don't think the internet hinders social development, but when it becomes a replacement for real life social interaction it is detrimental. Using internet conversation as a retreat from real social interaction is a problem... you end up being afraid of talking to a physical person.[/size]

[size=1]I like this topic quite a bit. Very interesting pasts thus far. I'm afraid my younger years were normal, devoid of tragedy and heartbreak. I was not considered a genius, I did not learn to read, write, or speak ahead of time. In kindergarten we learned things like colors and numbers, and I played with the starship (and yes, damnit, that is a relevant detail! lol). In first grade I wrote stories about space exploration. In second grade, my future would be heavily impacted. I tested into a TAG (Talented and Gifted) Magnet School. My parents admitted to me a year ago that they were surprised I got into the program. In any event, I learned information a grade accelerated and with greater rigor that a typical school, public or private. This affected my future because it gave me an enormous academic advantage over my peers. This advantage bleeds over to my current standing as a senior in high school, but we'll get to that in a minute. So I was basically a moderate-to-less liked kid in grade school. I played soccer fairly well, I was pretty good in school, but I just was never a cool kid. But I have always, for as long as I can remember, have had a disconnect with other black kids. There is a rift between me and the majority of black society due to a culture shock. They liked different sports, didn't care too much about school, and had a certain bravado about them I lacked. They hated that my hair is partially straight, so I was considered a half-breed (despite the fact I'm only 1/4th white). High school wasn't much of a change from the aforementioned. But in junior year I decided to break out of my shell after hanging out with my extremely outgoing friend and I made many friends. I discovered I'm witty, I can be funny, people generally like me, and I don't look half bad. Over the summer, I went to this Notre Dame University black scholars program and realized that I wasn't alone in my disconnection from the black community. I had my first girlfriend this summer (and break up, interestingly enough). Senior year is basically I got into Columbia University, which is in the Ivy League. Aside from that, I've been dealing with ladies. And that's always great fun.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2]I'm beginning to think that your annoyance stems from the feeling that you [i]are[/i] impressed with me. Why else would you attack me, unless I have provoked you somehow? My provocation, then, must be a challenge to your own intelligence. You must be so [i]insecure[/i'] to be threatened by one such as I.[/size][/quote][size=1]Don't flatter yourself. I'm not impressed with people who can't communicate what they mean to say clearly and concisely. [quote name='2007DigitalBoy']Why does it seem like every time Adahn starts a topic it's littered with sarcastic, breif, off-topic posts which to nothing but to degrade the conversation and generate needless controversy? Just tell us why your here, why you gotta be hatin?[/quote]Adahn can create pretty good topics (see the gay marriage one), and I participate actively in those. But topics created to essentially ramble on philosophically are rarely if ever good ones. To quote Shakespeare, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I don't ask for much, just a topic that asks a question without being superfluously roundabout or long winded. Just ask "Why are you on OB?", and you have a decent topic.[/size]

[size=1]Adahn, your topic is ridiculously pseudophilosophical and as a result, comes off only as [b]un[/b]interesting and mildly irritating.[/size]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth]1. [u]Everyone has a right to pursue happiness[/u']: I think this is fair. It?s right there in the founding document of our nation (changed from the original ?pursuit of property? Locke idea to ?happiness? by Jefferson). Obviously, we set normative and legal limits to our pursuits. I can?t justifiably take my neighbor?s pool in my pursuit of happiness. Everyone has individual rights as well.[/quote][size=1]Very true. I always thought that it operated on a "your rights end where my nose begins" sort of premise. As long as you didn't obstruct another's pursuit of happiness, it should be allowed. [QUOTE]Here?s the question that follows in my mind: Is granting marriage to homosexuals going to have no exterior social or economic impact?[/QUOTE]I say there will probably be a negligible [or none at all] impact. Look at other developed countries who allow gay marriage... it's not like they're economically or socially stagnant. In fact, many of them are flourishing. There is no drawback (aside from upsetting the Bible Belt), economically or socially, to allowing gay marriage. [QUOTE]2. [u]Marriage is about love[/u]. This would ideally be true, but our legal society cannot really define love. I doubt this is true in most instances of marriage. This argument does not really hold water when I look at it; we should not justify legalizing marriage for this reason if we cannot even define objectively what it is![/QUOTE]I guess it's about the aforementioned 'pursuit of happiness' more so than 'love'. [QUOTE]3. [u]Homosexuals cannot get married[/u]. This is where the 2nd premise falls apart. Homosexuals cannot legally be married. However, there is nothing preventing them from that religious/spiritual union. Ask yourself; when are you going to consider yourself married, at the alter, or at the (judge?s) bench?[/QUOTE]Very few, if any gays are looking to get a Christian marriage in a church. They would be content with skipping the ceremony in a church [i]if that meant they'd get the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple.[/i] Yeah, it's about that spiritual jazz for some, but the crux of the debate is about the legal benefits that result from being married. So basically they're looking for a state marriage. [QUOTE]What do you think are the benefits toward a society that allows for legal homosexual marriages?[/QUOTE]Well for one, you stop discriminating against a group based on something they can't really change. I liken it to the civil rights movement of the 60s on a lesser scale (in terms of magnitude of discrimination). [QUOTE]What do you think are the disadvantages?[/QUOTE]None, aside from upsetting the Bible Belt and the Evangelicals/Catholics. I haven't seen much of a counter argument aside from "it ain't right!". [QUOTE]Do you think these civil liberties should apply to instances of polygamy or incest relationships (obviously, the slippery-slope argument isn?t really one that holds too much water with me, but it is worth addressing)?[/QUOTE]Certainly not for incest. You're a science guy, you know about the far reaching detrimental effects of incestuous relations. Polygamy, sure if the woman/man feels comfortable with effectively being a side dish, lol. [QUOTE]5. [u]You are born gay[/u]. I am not opposed to this argument, but I think the burden of proof requires some evidence. No one (from what I?ve seen, correct me if I?m wrong) has cited any evidence in support of this argument.[/QUOTE]It's widely accepted as fact, but you're right, no one knows for certain. [QUOTE]If the Bible, or some other religious text doesn?t serve as your moral guidebook, where would you say your morals come from (I?m just curious, not challenging)?[/QUOTE]It's quite alright if your morals are drawn from a religious text, but I think the main objection people have is if you blindly accept it as the word of God and follow it unquestioningly. I personally gleaned quite a bit from my Ethics class I look last year (Catholic school, yeah, but I constantly debated my teacher about the points, and through that I gained a deeper understanding of where I stood on the issues).[/size]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']That may be true, but I can think of a good many other books with some great advice that don't rely on rediculous stories and religious cults run by corruption and lies. Good ideas... if you're Hitler.[/COLOR][/quote] [size=1]You fail. Godwin's Law has been invoked. If you want to debate about the legitimacy of the Bible, do so intelligently and articulately.[/size]

[size=1]Very true, Adahn. You have no right to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye when you have a plank in yours, right? Christianity is waaaay presumptuous for the "it's for your own good!" thing. Christ will determine what was sinful and what was petty at the Final Judgment, no?[/size]

[size=1]For a while, I was for civil unions. After careful deliberation, I am now against them. I believe that calling it a "civil union" just because the couple is gay is a manifestation of [b]separate but equal[/b], which was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court a while back. If the two are the same -- civil unions and state marriage -- it is discrimination to call them different things if they perform the same function. It's an impermissible compromise, a stab at appeasing the moderates on the issue who just feel "uncomfortable" calling it a marriage. Suck it up, call it a state marriage, and call it a day.[/size]

[size=1]If you want to follow the Old Testament as a point of reference, do keep in mind you need to stone disobedient children at the city gates, that a woman is essentially untouchable while on her period, and that God killed everyone in the world because they weren't worshiping him. Basically, you don't want to use the OT to justify a position against homosexuality, because it's an enormous double standard.[/size]

[size=1]Welcome to OB, earthbender. Basically, you need to tell people what you'd like on your avatar so they can help you. What picture would you like (link us to them)? What colors? Any specific text you'd like on it? These are a few of the questions you should ask yourself, as well as tell us. So, please revise your post. I'll give you a chance to do it. If you don't bother, I'll just close it. Thanks for your cooperation![/size]

[size=1]I believe you're talking about schema. Basically, they're categories you create in your brain based off of previous observation and experience, and you place everything you see and recognize into these. For example, you see millions of "trees," and no two are exactly alike. Your mind generalizes the object as a thing with green leaves and a trunk, and the next time you see something similar, you think it's a "tree". This phenomena is most observable in little children learning names of objects. So if they see a picture of a cow, they'll ask "What's that?" you, of course, reply "That's a cow." They create a schema for "cow" that is a mental image of that picture. When they see a moose for the first time, however, they'll go "It's a cow!" because they've assimilated that object into a pre-existing schema. You correct the child "No, that's a moose," and now another schema is created. So when you confused a sock for a foot or something, it's probably because they look very similar. So similar for that instant that it more closely resembles your mental image of a foot that you think it such. But I'm sure that once you look at it closer, you know it's a sock. Your mind basically just goes "Oh wait, its not x object, it's y." Psychology ftw.[/size]

[QUOTE=2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange]i know all the answers and people have called me [b]'the human dictionary'[/b] in every english class i've ever had. [...] My dad is cool and [b]rediculously[/b] smart, especially in theology.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][size=1]Irony! Anyway, I love the idea Adahn. Everyone loves bragging. [size=6][b]+[/b][/size] As everyone else has said, I'm smart. I got accepted early decision into Columbia University, which is an Ivy League college, and I believe in the top 10 (possibly top 5) for the US. I'm socially gifted; most people enjoy my presence and conversation, mostly because I'm engaging and don't let things dip into awkward silence. I can think quickly, I make witty jokes (mostly in person, though) that relate to the moment, which also contributes to my conversational ability. I look decent, perhaps I'd go so far as to say I look good. Both of the aforementioned give me pretty good chances with women. I enjoy taking risks. I'm physically fit to the extent that I played varsity soccer for my school. I've got a great eye for aesthetics and can catch on quickly to pretty much anything in the field. I'm an articulate writer, and I used to specialize in creative writing (which totally gets you chicks), but school has beaten the creativity out of me, so now I'm an amazing academic writer. [size=6][b]-[/b][/size] Ah, the bad. I'm annoyingly cynical and pessimistic. I make fun of people behind their backs if I think they're A) an angst bag, B) annoying and particularly bothersome C) funny looking/sounding. I feel entitled to things, especially when I'm not. Most notably would be my recent college acceptance -- because I was [i]expecting[/i] a "Welcome!" letter, I didn't flip out, but I was definitely very happy. I'm vain, I'm self conscious, I feel inadequate when it comes to talking to a particularly pretty lady, despite my ability to hold my own fairly well. I absolutely despite authority, almost to a fault... which leads to petty arguments over doing the dishes and trash. Or I just start cursing out the teacher in front of them, giving them the finger, etc. That has landed me in quite a bit of trouble. With that being said, it's quite obvious I have an anger management problem, although I have come a LONG way from freshman year. But I am prone to outbursts when I feel overstressed. Ah, good times. That was enjoyable.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']If you're not going to argue it anymore, it's not because I refuse to listen to reason, it's because the argument for removing her breast buds is becoming weaker and weaker.[/size][/quote] [size=1]That's weak and pretentious. He's not going to argue it anymore because he's already given his argument, which is rational, but you disagree with it. There is no changing your mind, therefore the debate is pointless. Here are the points on the breast removal: - Laying on breasts isn't comfortable. Unfortunately, that's one of her favorite laying positions. - Removing the breast buds will in the long run prevent more discomfort than your 'solution' of just making her suck it up and deal with it. - Removing breast buds to prevent imminent discomfort is not akin to delimbing her to prevent her from smacking her arms into things, simply because one is more likely to cause discomfort in the future than the other, and to a large extent. Dead put it succinctly -- unless you fricking smack your arm into something, you won't really be able to hurt yourself with it. And that's pretty much end of debate. We see your point of view as callous and unsympathetic towards the child, and you see our point of view as "disgusting". Neither is willing to move.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']Why is it okay to remove her breasts and uterus, but not her arms and legs?[/size][/quote] [size=1]Because she's still a human. As a human, her brain (I'm assuming) understands her arms and legs. Not on a complex level that allows motor skills to develop, but those limbs are 'hooked up' to her brain (pardon the crude language). Breasts, on the other hand, are outside the realm of a three month old's understanding. And at some level, you've got to draw the line somewhere. lol Edit: There's a difference between stopping the growth of what's not there, and lopping off something that is there. Just thought of that.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']Which reminds me, Retribution, why do you call for a thread to be closed that continues to generate intelligent, if heated, discussion?[/size][/quote] [size=1]I wasn't calling for anything, I was predicting the thread's demise due to the brusqueness of Allamorph's (and yours to a lesser extent) replies. And Dead covered what I was going to say. Perfectly.[/size]

[size=1]Ah, I feel it in the air. This thread's getting closed down soon. [quote name='Adahn][size=2']So you have a problem with me saying that menstruation is treated like a disease? I'll keep it really simple for you. They had a hysterectomy performed on their daughter because having a functional uterus leads to monthly pain and bleeding. Let's see if this is in any way related to disease.[/size][/quote] Please ask yourself whether this point has any relevance to the debate at hand, you will find the answer is a resounding "no". You've gotten sidetracked, and now what we have is trench warfare over a point that has little bearing on the larger issue. What matters? Menstruation will, mostly likely, cause her pain on a monthly basis. Normal bathing will be an [i]insanely[/i] arduous task for her parents, let alone during menstruation. And in large part, the size of her breasts are insignificant to the debate as well. The biggest part is that she will develop breasts, and the problems that will arise from their development. [QUOTE][size=2]The parents' decision to perform a breast bud removal on their daughter on the assumption that she [u]would definitely[/u] develop large breasts is at the very least misinformed. If they had consulted any geneticist on the issue, they could have told them this much. Perhaps they did, and ignored it. Perhaps they didn't want to seek out any information that could contradict their plans. If genetics didn't play a large role in their decision to remove her breast buds, then what caused them to have the operation done?[/size][/QUOTE] Even if she developed moderately sized breasts, they would still be an additional burden. I mean, the child is essentially a sack of potatoes. A really heavy sack that can only feel pain and want food and warmth. Adding any more weight/mass to that sack only makes it more cumbersome, to be blunt. The more cumbersome she becomes, the lower quality of care she receives. It's not because of neglect, it's because it's [i]so damn hard[/i], and I don't think you're acknowledging the magnitude of difficulty these parents would have dealing with a full grown woman. But at this point, I realize that the fundamental difference in opinion you and I have is that [i]you[/i] don't seem to think that pragmatism is justified in this situation, while I do. It's an irreconcilable difference, so there's no real point in debating this further.[/size]

[size=1]Uh, folks. I think the menstruation point is beating a dead horse.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']When the Human Genome Project was started, it was estimated to take a significant amount of time, 250 years being a reasonable idea. How long ago was it that people died of tons of diseases because there was no such thing as vaccines or antibiotics? I'd say it's been about of lifetime, and the breakthroughs come faster and faster. I do not share your position that cures are hopeless and impossible. I intend to eliminate those sentiments about some diseases myself. As for your 'likening', you've omitted a couple important details. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to keep a brain-dead patient alive. It costs an infinitessimal fraction of that money to allow a healthy female human body to perform its natural functions. Also, the girl has brain activity, and the cause of what limits her development is unknown. I'm having trouble coming up with a worse example to describe my 'ridiculous' notions.[/size][/quote] [size=1]Cures are not hopeless or impossible, but living your life under the supposition that there will be a cure during your lifetime is blind and presumptuous. Until a cure looks likely, you have to live your life as if a cure does not and will not ever exist. The fact that what is limiting her brain activity is unknown furthers my argument that the probability of a cure coming out is even more improbable. You're placing too my faith in the limited scientific method. [QUOTE][size=2]The pain and length of menstruation varies from person to person. If pain is exhibited (3 month olds can let people know they're in pain), one can take ibuprofen, a muscle relaxer, to lessen the pain. Now for that last part, about it not talking about menstruation as a disease in the article. Come on. We're interpreting the choices made, and sometimes, you need to read between the lines. This isn't about what is or isn't written in the article, it's about what was done to the girl.[/size][/QUOTE] There is of course the added burden of using pads/tampons, replacing them, and bathing a full grown woman who is unwieldy at best. And I'm sorry, but interpreting menstruation as a disease is a leap of logic. There is nothing that supports your claim. You have no ground to stand on. [QUOTE][size=2]You cannot successfully predict breast size before breasts grow.[/size][/QUOTE] Genetic inheritance, anyone? It's safe to assume you can estimate within a reasonable margin of error. [QUOTE][size=2]I can't even believe you're arguing for this! What do you think was going to happen? Are her breasts going to blow up overnight like a peep heated up in a microwave? If they become too large, one can get breast reduction surgery. No, they didn't want to wait to see if it would ever actually become a problem. They didn't want their child, who THEY want to always be a child, to develop breasts, ever.[/size][/QUOTE] Yay, surgery for a three month old child. Surely [i]that's[/i] best for her personal well-being. See above about the breast size comment. And again, you're reading into things where there is [i]no support for your claim.[/i] You're assuming that they just don't want their kid to grow up for selfish purposes, when you [again!] have no ground to back your claim. [QUOTE][size=2]The parents were ashamed of their daughter becoming a woman, so they sought scientific and moral support for their decision to permanently keep her from doing so. If you want to buy it, fine, but it makes me want to vomit. I don't empathize with monsters who mutilate their children. The only part the girl's physical discomfort plays into the parents' decision is as an excuse for them to avoid their own discomfort with their brain-damaged daughter developing secondary sexual characterisitcs.[/size][/QUOTE] An appeal to emotion that completely bucks all logic. Congrats on that.[/size]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']It's not so much an issue of semantics as it is of understanding. Knowing the cause of a disease, and knowing that no cure exists can lead to hopelessness. When less is known, there is more room for hope. More hope doesn't mean a cure will be easier to find, it only makes it easier for one to believe that a cure will be found.[/size][/quote] [size=1]The probability that a cure will be found is low enough that it was reasonable to assume that it would not exist within this girl's lifetime. Do keep in mind that the brain is the organ of the body we know least about, and also happens to be the most intricate part of us as well. Our primitive and clumsy knowledge pertaining to the brain could not feasibly 'repair' her brain so that it developed normally. I would liken your stance to keeping a comatose and brain-dead patient alive under the supposition that "there might be a cure that can reverse this". You're being ridiculous. [QUOTE][size=2]Menstruation is associated with shame. I wish it weren't so, but it's true. Are you calling the procedures performed on the young girl a [i]remedy[/i]? You're serving to perpetuate the notion that development into a woman is a disease.[/size][/QUOTE] It's a remedy not because of the shame it induces, but because of the pain it would inflict on what is essentially a three month old child. Monthly. It's not a disease, it's the fact that menstrual cramps are apparently excruciatingly painful, and it just wouldn't be fair to make a three month old child go through that sort of [relatively] agony monthly. There was no part of the article that even hinted that menstruation was a disease or state of dirtiness, please, stop trying to make it into something it's not. [QUOTE][size=2]How is this relevant to the discussion? The newsworthy part of this story involves ridding a young girl of menstruation, breast development, and growth. Do you think that the parents' unwillingness to see their mentally deficient daughter develop into a sexually viable human being didn't play a part in their decision?[/size][/QUOTE] Listen to what you just said. Breast development, which in her family apparently, is very large breasts. This would take away her favorite laying positions, snuggling positions, and would only be a hindrance to [i]her personal comfort.[/i] No, I would posit that her becoming sexually viable did not play a significant (if at all) role in the parent's decision. They based their decision on what would be best for their daughter, and what would allow for them to make their daughter's life more comfortable. It's only shameful for those who refuse to empathize. What [i]your[/i] position stands for is essentially causing a three month year old girl more physical discomfort and her parents more difficulty in taking care of her. The result is caretaking of inferior quality when compared to if she had the operation.[/size]

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff']If anyone is going to Otakon, let me know. I'll be there! =D[/color][/quote] [size=1]I've never been to a con, but all of my friends go to Otakon every year. So this time around (it being my last year in the area for quite a while) I'll make a concerted effort to get there. Depending on how rooming works out with all of us, I might stay for the entire thing. Oh, and I don't think I'm going to cosplay. I had trouble enough with dressing up for Halloween, let alone those intricate outfits you see at Otakon[/size]

[size=1]Thread moved to Art by Request. Xyandar, you're a Member now. You should know where to post a thread such as this one. It's not a huge deal, but take care to read the rules in the future.[/size]

[size=1]Call me lame, but I really like "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" by Bob Dylan in Subterranean Homesick Blues. To me, it says that you don't need a commanding figure to tell you what is truly essential, and as a result, obvious. I guess you could weave anti-authoritarianism in there.[/size]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Fear is a very complex question that psychologists and thinkers have tackled for a long time. Retribution's post seems lauded, and rightfully so, but it is somewhat incomplete. Research in neurochemistry and neuropsychology has given new insight into some of the fundamental mechanisms that cause us to feel the emotion we describe as "fear".[/quote] [size=1]I skipped those because I thought I covered them by saying "they exist" rather than "this is what makes them exist". But you did bring up some good points about sudden noises/sights/light that make us afraid, and I really have no [scientific] reason to give. That's really the biggest hole in the conditioning-only philosophy. Then again, ascribing to only one philosophy to explain human behavior lands you in a world of inaccuracies (Freudian analysis, behaviorism, etc). [quote name='Hanabishi Recca']Well, I'm just saying that Satan made the fear in people. Seriously, if you met Jesus (just saying even if you don't believe in Jesus) do you think he would be afraid? He was never afraid in the Bible and he wasn't afraid whenever it wasn't recorded.[/quote] Not even when he was in Gethsemane praying profusely to his father to let the cup pass from him? I vaguely remember something about Jesus sweating blood due to his anguish... that would be fear and apprehension. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with Jesus being afraid, you know. He was a human just like the rest of us.[/size]

[IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/retri_trib/MyPicture_3.jpg[/IMG] [size=1][b]What's your favorite hobby?[/b] Although I don't do it too frequently anymore, I think graphic design would be my favorite thing to do when I have free time. Since I quit piano after a month, I fail horribly at drawing and singing, and I don't do creative writing, digital art is really the best way I can express myself. It's a very fulfilling experience when I create something I feel especially proud of. My best pieces were made when I drew from within. [b]What do you think your best personality trait would be?[/b] Although many would think it a negative quality, I would say my confrontational attitude and inability to accept things at face value. I think my skepticism and constant questioning have taught me to think for myself. Passive thinking and silent consent are for the afraid and weak-minded. A constant search for the truth and knowledge has lead to major scientific advances, but I also think people can benefit from that spirit on a more personal day-to-day level.[/size]

[size=1]The procedure being "iffy" with you is not a valid counterargument against the procedure. And Dead did explain how it would be easier for the child if her body were kept at it's current size, just look at his latest post.[/size]