24 ms·

Umm, are you an MRM markov chain?

by 1457389 10y ago

jimmywanger 10y ago
Depends. Is the post I responded to a product of a SJW markov chain? Also, please add something to the discussion. You simply made an ad hominem attack and didn't address my points at all.
belorn 10y ago
Instead of name calling, lets try to create a productive discussion and define some general goals on what reproductive rights should be as human rights, rather than women rights or men rights. 1# No person should be handed responsibility to create or support a offspring without their consent. 2# No child should be without enough financial support to live and grown into an adult. Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world. In every case there isn't, that is a problem we as a society should try to fix as best we can without causing too much harm to either the unwilling parent or child.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I appreciate you taking the time to find something worth responding to in the mess I seemed to have touched off. I agree with all of your points, but I'm also careful to suggest that if raising a child is something you're unwilling to do, you need to restrict your sexual activity accordingly. That can just mean protected sex with someone you trust, and know would be willing to terminate an unexpected and accidental pregnancy.
  - celticninja 10y ago
    What happens when the condom splits and someone changes their mind on termination when the rubber meets the road? Who gets the final say? I do not expect you to have the answer, just that regardless of every precaution taken, shit can get complicated once their is a fetus in play.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say, and both parties going in knew that was a possibility. You can't honestly be shocked that sex can have consequences, including some you might not foresee. If you can't afford, under any circumstances including the very unlikely, to have a kid? Don't. Screw.
      - celticninja 10y ago
        I agree in the final say being with the woman carrying the child however the father should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities pre-birth if they do not want the child. Sex can lead to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to kids, both parties know the potential outcome so blaming it on one party seems a bit silly.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        It's not blaming anything on one party, two people made a baby, two people have to pay. Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? Again, pregnancy is a known potential complication of sex, and both parties knew that going in.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? So now I'm confused. Do you support abortion or not? I completely agree. If abortion is illegal, yeah, the man should have no say just like the woman has no say in giving birth and raising a baby. If abortion is legal, it's the logical equivalent of a woman saying "no thanks" to the baby unilaterally. "My body, my choice" and all that. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where you're coming from.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I doubt that you're confused, so much as confusing the issue for a reason, but what the hell. "No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists. Needless to say, you'll find some inequalities in situations which are unequal, and where one person assumes all of the biological burden, they get the call in regards to their own body. So yes, I clearly support abortion, and I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child. To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest. Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world Do you mean, only when a child has two parents, or only when sex is with consent?
  - belorn 10y ago
    Sex is precursor for reproduction, but since recreational sex is not only common but (in my view) the majority, I don't find it a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction. Just because a woman got a unwanted pregnancy through consenting sex doen't mean she should be forbidden to take an abortion. Both women and men can and do have consenting sex without consenting to be a parent. The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction Excellent point; thanks for the insight. > My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      There is unlikely to be anything like a perfect solution, and placing the burden on the taxpayer anytime a parent decides to brush the kid off seems unfair as well. A good guideline though, is that you can't force people into medical procedures, or force them not to get one they want/need. Given that life is unfair in that way, or at least not equal, the law is going to reflect that inequality to some extent.
- 1457389 10y ago
  Markov chains are bad at understanding context, and so is the GP. This post is about village women's rights in India, how did we get a thread several comments deep about the rights of wealthy white men? Oh right, we are on HN I forgot...

Umm, are you an MRM markov chain?

by 1457389 10y ago

Umm, are you an MRM markov chain?

Depends. Is the post I responded to a product of a SJW markov chain? Also, please add something to the discussion. You simply made an ad hominem attack and didn't address my points at all.

belorn 10y ago

Instead of name calling, lets try to create a productive discussion and define some general goals on what reproductive rights should be as human rights, rather than women rights or men rights. 1# No person should be handed responsibility to create or support a offspring without their consent. 2# No child should be without enough financial support to live and grown into an adult. Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world. In every case there isn't, that is a problem we as a society should try to fix as best we can without causing too much harm to either the unwilling parent or child.

M_Grey 10y ago
I appreciate you taking the time to find something worth responding to in the mess I seemed to have touched off. I agree with all of your points, but I'm also careful to suggest that if raising a child is something you're unwilling to do, you need to restrict your sexual activity accordingly. That can just mean protected sex with someone you trust, and know would be willing to terminate an unexpected and accidental pregnancy.
- celticninja 10y ago
  What happens when the condom splits and someone changes their mind on termination when the rubber meets the road? Who gets the final say? I do not expect you to have the answer, just that regardless of every precaution taken, shit can get complicated once their is a fetus in play.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say, and both parties going in knew that was a possibility. You can't honestly be shocked that sex can have consequences, including some you might not foresee. If you can't afford, under any circumstances including the very unlikely, to have a kid? Don't. Screw.
    - celticninja 10y ago
      I agree in the final say being with the woman carrying the child however the father should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities pre-birth if they do not want the child. Sex can lead to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to kids, both parties know the potential outcome so blaming it on one party seems a bit silly.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        It's not blaming anything on one party, two people made a baby, two people have to pay. Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? Again, pregnancy is a known potential complication of sex, and both parties knew that going in.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? So now I'm confused. Do you support abortion or not? I completely agree. If abortion is illegal, yeah, the man should have no say just like the woman has no say in giving birth and raising a baby. If abortion is legal, it's the logical equivalent of a woman saying "no thanks" to the baby unilaterally. "My body, my choice" and all that. I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where you're coming from.
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I doubt that you're confused, so much as confusing the issue for a reason, but what the hell. "No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists. Needless to say, you'll find some inequalities in situations which are unequal, and where one person assumes all of the biological burden, they get the call in regards to their own body. So yes, I clearly support abortion, and I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child. To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest. Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
hackuser 10y ago
> Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world Do you mean, only when a child has two parents, or only when sex is with consent?
- belorn 10y ago
  Sex is precursor for reproduction, but since recreational sex is not only common but (in my view) the majority, I don't find it a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction. Just because a woman got a unwanted pregnancy through consenting sex doen't mean she should be forbidden to take an abortion. Both women and men can and do have consenting sex without consenting to be a parent. The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction Excellent point; thanks for the insight. > My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    There is unlikely to be anything like a perfect solution, and placing the burden on the taxpayer anytime a parent decides to brush the kid off seems unfair as well. A good guideline though, is that you can't force people into medical procedures, or force them not to get one they want/need. Given that life is unfair in that way, or at least not equal, the law is going to reflect that inequality to some extent.
1457389 10y ago
Markov chains are bad at understanding context, and so is the GP. This post is about village women's rights in India, how did we get a thread several comments deep about the rights of wealthy white men? Oh right, we are on HN I forgot...