h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmmm an innocent person accused of a crime is as much a victim as someone who is a victim of crime.

I just think that if we have the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven then people should not have their name dragged through the mud until they are proven guilty. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree eh bud?

hi Mullet,

Well, perhaps you *should* take the time to read *all* the backlog and see what you began by making such inflammatory remarks without properly thinking them out first.

Perhaps better to do that then just butt in again with some wishy-washy 'liberal-guy talk' about being a masculinist/feminist.

This is called being responsible for one's actions. And who knows? You might even learn something. Enjoy the read!

az

Thing is women are stil in a inferior position to men overall. We cant have gone too far as you put it or this would not be the case would it?

That men think women have more rights than them has got everything to do with men not being aware of all the blessings rigged into the system that men created for themselves and nothing to do with women suddenly being in charge with all the laws on their side.

When will us men deal with the fact that things changing will mean pushing women forward and their rights that the friction it creates proves that the institutional biases would not have dissolved by themselves no matter how many times we said "lets be fair".

A level playing feild only works if we all start from the same line. Some people in society dont. So we can change the rules to allow those born into inferior positions the chance to catch up. The fact that some have a head start is due in large part to injustices of the past. We dont have to feel guilty for past injustices because we are not, but pretending that they dont still have an effect makes people guilty of stupidty of the highest order.

onw love

Az and both badgers, as strange as it may seem I tend to agree with you all but for different reasons. You all seem to agree that in our system the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but the manner of presenting that innocence seems to differ amoungst you. As to the illegality of false accusation, that to is something we all agree on as well it would seem. The difference is the stigma attached to the accusation and the subsequent treatment by the media. That stigma is not easily erased but presently IMO it is the thing we should be attacking, not the present law.

Ooops, forgot to change the title.

Fair enough Ferret.

I agree that they are victims, but the bigger picture is that we can protect a few in that way or strive to protect more the other way.

one love

Nay problemo mate!

Oh dear az.....I was just trying to clarify my opinions as quickly as possible in an attempt to clear upi what I started somewhat. But I'm not resposible for what people here have said.

Thanks for coming back, Mullet. I'm glad you cleared it up, although I must say your terminology was a little loose. I'm also sorry that I enrage you. Sad, since you don't know me. And you say you are also a feminist, but in your first post you said that feminists want to keep the advantages women have but get what men have too. It's beginning to sound like that scene in Life of Brian: I will certainly defend your right to bear a child, Mullet. Likewise, if some woman ever plants a baby in your body, I'll defend your right to make the decision of what to do with it without having to consult the woman. If a man has the right to be the sole decision maker concerning his own abortion and a woman has the right to be the sole decision maker concerning her abortion, will you be satisfied? Or does your "equality" have to be "she has to consult him when she wants an abortion"? Where's the equality? She has to give up some control over her body and he can do what he wants with his. Doesn't seem equal to me. The child support issue is another red herring: child support is the right of the child not a gift from one parent to the other. The child has the right to child support from both parents. In the (unlikely) case that the father wanted the child aborted but then afterward becomes the prime residential parent, the mother would be responsible to pay child support to the child through the child's guardian. Sounds equal to me. Equal responsibility to provide for the rights of the child.

There has been some confusion here about the abortion thing. And, strangely enough, the rights of the child have been forgotten or changed into an onerous burden imposed on the father who wanted the child aborted. Sorry, abortion is about a mother, her body, and a fetus. Child support is about the legal rights of a child. The rights of the child can't be tossed into the scale against the rights of the father. If you want to talk about equal abortion rights, then you must enter into the biological absurdity, but what I'm sure would be a common law actuality: both men and women already have equal rights concerning abortion: if either a man or a woman wish to have a fetus removed from their respective uteruses, they have equal rights; the man may feel disappointed or relieved, depending on his outlook, that he does not have a uterus, but he can rest secure in his knowledge that he can have an abortion if he wants one.


Are we done with this ridiculous conversation, or what? It's been shown that what Mullet originally said is a logical absurdity: feminists don't want what he said they wanted. Mullet has himself said that what he said wasn't what he meant, and that he is, in fact, a feminist. Member has agreed on a fundamental theoretical level with the rest of us that men start life with a headstart and that headstart needs to be eliminated.

And, most importantly, fourteen women were murdered simply because they were women, an event which for a society has been a sacrifice which has spurred a conscious, grass roots effort to build a better society in which an effort is made to prevent future disadvantages and to reach out to the disadvantaged with us today to help them to better their situation. This is what we want in Canada. If some of you don't want this in your lands, even without the pain of having fourteen of your fellow citizens make this sacrifice, then you really should ask yourselves what it is you want in your society. We've turned our backs on "tough luck". What have you turned your backs on?

Funny. I really thought there was nothing controversial about the entry. I really expected that people would find it cathartic and uplifting. Go figure.

I'm done now.

"If you want to talk about equal abortion rights, then you must enter into the biological absurdity, but what I'm sure would be a common law actuality: both men and women already have equal rights concerning abortion: if either a man or a woman wish to have a fetus removed from their respective uteruses, they have equal rights; the man may feel disappointed or relieved, depending on his outlook, that he does not have a uterus, but he can rest secure in his knowledge that he can have an abortion if he wants one."

But, since men can't carry a child, compensation should be made. That fetus, carried (usually) by the mother, has a good deal of genetic material from the father. If said father feels that he would like to have a child with the child's mother, should he not have a voice? Or, if it is the father's opinion that their lives would be thrown into too much chaos and the pregnancy, should he not be given the opportunity to give that opinion? I, myself, am pro-life -- I believe that abortion, effectively, constitutes murder -- but I don't think that just because I think abortion is wrong means it's wrong in all cases. If having that child is going to absolutely ruin the lives of the parents, then the parents (the plural here is key) should be allowed the option of preventing that.

In regards to a long-previous post on thread, Voltaire was (approximately) quoted: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

JargonCCNA,
The father of the child SHOULD have an input into whether or not a woman keeps his child and of course in an ideal world he WOULD have. On the other hand, if a man feels that the birth of a child is going to disrupt his life too much but the mother of his child doesn't agree with him, he can always sign a civil contract with the mother of his child to absolve himself from any responsibility - that is after all what men that donate sperm at a sperm bank do.
On rape - women should be able to accuse a man/men of rape and have their allegations investigated and proven or not proven. As has been shown in NSW, Australia, recently if a woman accuses someone of rape and they deny all accusations and their mates or team members back them up then the case can be dismissed for lack of evidence. And as happened last week the woman gets all the blame for asking for it and being a slut.
In another recent case, 3 or 4 brothers have been charged and covicted of sexual assault of 3 young girls and 2 of the brothers have appealed their sentences because they dismissed their legal representation, and then wanted to cross-examine the victims themselves, but the government legislated against it. Each of these victims has already given evidence, in the same courtroom as their rapists, but they will have to go through the ordeal again, later this year. A victim of a rapist has already withdrawn all charges because her attacker appealed his sentence.
Oh, and in Australia the names of offenders are kept confidential, same as the victims. The name of the accused can be revealed afterwards if the case is dropped.

Annie

Hmmm... if I wasn't so proud of being Canadian, I'd want to emigrate to Australia. Those laws just look really.. you know, fair. Makes me wonder what other remarkably fair laws there are down there.

..but then I remember the talks about a US-Australia "free trade" agreement that will only practically serve to extend the DMCA. Maybe not. Oh well. I'm Canadian and I'll always been Canadian. Maybe it's time for me to get the maple leaf tattoo.

Hi Jargon, you are absolutely right! If [a prospective] father feels that he would like to have a child with the child's mother, should he not have a voice? Of course he should have a voice and he does! just like I have a voice and I can use it to say for instance: I think you should actualy read what anhaga has written in post 109 or I have here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=262768&post=5252991#p5213777 . Thing is I cant make you and I cant force you to think what I would like you to, which is exactly what you seem to be asking that fathers should be allowed to do. one love

I, myself, am pro-life

Good to hear it Jargon, those anti-life people are such a terrible lot.

-- I believe that abortion, effectively, constitutes murder -- but I don't think that just because I think abortion is wrong means it's wrong in all cases.

What you dont think that murder is wrong in some cases? Which is what you are saying.

What I think you are trying to say in your muddled way is that terminations are murder but you dont know enough about every situation to be sure of that. Well if you're not sure then why not keep such strong language to yourself till you are sure of what you're saying.

You call yourself pro-life yet only mention your distaste for termination not the fourteen actual and legally recognised as such murders in the entry which this conversation is refering to, why is that?

It seems that your idea of pro-life extends no further than bullying women (with verbal abuse) over a subject you dont really have much understanding about into accept your poorly expressed personal views of what is right and wrong. Still I could be wrong and you might be doing something to help the women who die at the hands of men everyday, doing something about the thousands of children who die daily from preventable illnesses or be a member of a movement for peace and non-violent resolution of problems or even be commited to living your life in a way that encourages bio-diversity and sustainable production that values not just unborn human life, but the life of other species too. Now that really is being pro-life! I hope the latter is true.

one love

Aargh, this was why I didn't want to bring abortion into this, being a pro-lifer my self anyway. I accept that I may very well feel different if I were a woman but as it is I'm not. Anyway, I didn't mean to start another abortion debate. I'm sure there are plenty already. And I really do apologise for what I said when I started this thread. I realy explained myself poorly. I cannot ever condone murder and what that guy did was wrong. When I said feminists enrage me I didn't mean it in the sense of anyone who stands for the rights of women which would be the actual definition of the word (and therefore would make me a feminist, I'm sorry if anyone thinks that's "wishy-washy nonsense", to quote one researcher). I just meant the rather over the top, "militant" if you will, feminists who seem to support the view that women are in some way "better" than men. Which really makes them sexist. Though, in our society, many people seem to hold the view that women can't be sexist and that is one of the things that annoys me and makes me "enraged at feminists". Sadly the word is dirtied by the small minority who seem to fell they have the right to be hideously chauvinistic.

So in summary my views are:

Murder = Bad
Equal Rights = Good
Feminism = Good
Chauvinistic feminists = bad

Blicky

When doing internal h2g2 links you can do them thus

F19585?thread=262768&skip=1640&show=20

The long way of doing it makes the post too wide for the screen.

Nothing else to add, as it seems to have all been said, but for Anhaga in particular.

Noggin

I feel some good has come out of this thread.

Hopefully quite a few people have learned that rhetoric can be destructive, and generalisation leads to valid arguements being dismantled a piece at a time.

Hopefully some people have learned that even the most unlikely example can impact directly on someone who has sufffered similarly.

Hopefully some people have learned that generic insults are too easily banded about. I also have somehow become a Holocaust denier, despite being of part Jewish descent, and having relatives with a tattoo. (Now deceased.)

I personally have learned quite a lot about how blinkered some people are. (Though to be honest, in some cases I already suspected it.)

"What you dont think that murder is wrong in some cases? Which is what you are saying."
I think murder is wrong in every case. I guess I wasn't being too clear.. Put it this way -- if I ever get someone pregnant and the abortion issue comes up, I will almost always favour taking the pregnancy to term. We got ourselves into this situation and now it's time to deal with it. The only time I ever advocate abortion is in the case of an etopic pregnancy -- if the pregnancy isn't terminated, in that case, both mother and child will die, and that's worse.

However, I believe, above everything else, that trying to force one's views on anyone is the highest crime you can commit. Just because I believe in fetal rights doesn't give me the right to deny someone else a choice. If a close friend of mine feels that abortion is the only reasonable course of action -- otherwise, their life would be forever damaged -- then I will support them. I don't agree with them, but they're the one who has to live with their choice.

Make sense? If I'm involved with the pregnancy, I'm pro-life. I'm if not, I'm pro-choice, because it's not my decision to be made.

In the case of murder of an air-breathing person (someone who has been born), it's wrong. Again, just about every time. The only time that I feel it's justified to take the life of another person is when that person is putting your life in immediate danger; the only possible way that you'll get out alive is for the other person to die. In retrospect, that's the same way I'd act on abortion -- the only abortion I ever condone is that of an etopic pregnancy.

Long story short, I feel that ending the life of a human being -- unless that life is putting your life in danger -- is wrong, regardless of how long that particular combination of genes and chromosomes has existed.

I'd like to think that I live in a way that "encourages biodiversity and sustainable production [and] that values ... the life of other species too", but I'm not really sure.. I live my life day to day and I try to treat everyone I meet with respect. I do my bit and I do my best to not anger other people, because anger results in people getting hurt and I'm not a big fan of that. If I had the means, I'd probably act on my beliefs a little more, but I'm a poor student who owes more than $10000 to the bank.. They say you have to love yourself before you can truly love anyone else.. well, I figure you gotta help yourself before you should help someone else, because what's the point in making yourself suffer so someone else benefits for a little while? If, say the women's shelter asks for help, I will if I feel I can.. but given my financial state, I probably can't. That's really the extent of it.

Hi Jargon, glad you responded and clarified your position.

If you really do care about the feelimgs of others " I do my bit and I do my best to not anger other people, because anger results in people getting hurt and I'm not a big fan of that.

Maybe you should be more careful when equating terminations with murder. I dont know of a single woman who feels entirely good or atease with the often painful decision. Effectively calling them murders is quite an unecessary thing really

There are other medical physiological reasons that terminations are decided as the best course of action for pregnant women as well as ectopic pregnancy. There are also immensely destructive pyschological problems that can have major effects on women to be considered.

If I'm involved with the pregnancy, I'm pro-life. I'm if not, I'm pro-choice, because it's not my decision to be made.

Why do you say it as if the two are mutually exclusive. Im pro-life, I think life is a good thing (but not necessarilly that every child must be carried to term no matter what) and Im pro-choice. i think that women should get our help no matter what they decide.

but given my financial state, I probably can't. That's really the extent of it.

Money is not the only way to help people you know. You could get involved with fund raising, work in a charity shop, just ask they'll tell you if you can be of help

One major thing is this:

If a woman who is being beaten on a regular basis by her husband decides to terminate her pregancy rather than bring another child into a house dominated by violence and fear not making her feel like a murder for her choice would be a good start.

The world is a dizzying place with too many things going on for us to grasp them all properly. We should remember that before we jump to conclusions and judge people. You seem like a decent and smart guy, please dont go blinkering yourself before you see a lot more of the world.

one love

"Maybe you should be more careful when equating terminations with murder. I dont know of a single woman who feels entirely good or atease with the often painful decision. Effectively calling them murders is quite an unecessary thing really"
Yeah, that's a really good point... I look at the fetus as more than just "tissue"; I look at it as a valid, human life. I don't like to think that my opinions at the moment are necessarily perfect. They're certainly not set in stone and I know I have a lot to learn about the world.

"Why do you say it as if the two are mutually exclusive. Im pro-life, I think life is a good thing (but not necessarilly that every child must be carried to term no matter what) and Im pro-choice. i think that women should get our help no matter what they decide."
Oh yeah, I think they deserve support no matter what they decide, hence my pro-choice-ness. Again, I think I'm not exactly being clear... I respect every person's right to choose -- in anything they do -- but if I'm the father of a unborn child, it's my choice that the child should be born, even if its presence could have an adverse affect on my life. There's always the option of adoption.

"Money is not the only way to help people you know."
Well, without money I also find myself more or less without transportation. I carry very little change which makes taking the bus a problem.. and then there's also classes during the day that I have to deal with, of course. Maybe I'm just making up excuses, I don't know. Throw in the factor that I really don't know where I'd need to go in order to help -- damn not having a phone book!

"If a woman who is being beaten on a regular basis by her husband decides to terminate her pregancy rather than bring another child into a house dominated by violence and fear not making her feel like a murder for her choice would be a good start."
Agreed. Again, her choice. I can appreciate her reasoning, too; taking the pregnancy to term would result in the child suffering, and possibly her even more as well. If it were me involved.. well, I wouldn't be an abusive husband, so I don't think it'd be an issue ... unless it was my child, and then the situation just gets really sticky.

"You seem like a decent and smart guy, please dont go blinkering yourself before you see a lot more of the world."
-laughs- Very good idea. I find I react very quickly, fire off a scathing response and then only after people have misinterpreted what I said do I think about it and create a coherent thesis to my arguments. I really need to work on that.