ParanoiA

yes. we had definately discussed it' date=' we were definately exclusive at that point. i dont like the drunk card either, but it does make a slight difference. it changes the level of malice behind it. if she were completely unimpaired and just decided to have a fling i would have told her she was a dirty whore and i never wanted to see her again. the fact that she was drunk changes that to her getting ready to pass out and then "haha, megan, move your head that tickles" and then megan thinks its funny to do something that tickles more and my gf is too plowed to really put thought into what affect this will have on our relationship.

 

not at all excusable. not even close a free pass. still shows a huge disrespect toward me and our relationship. but not as much as if it had been a truely concious decision. sort of like 3rd degree murder instead of 1st.[/quote']

 

Did you really read this after you wrote it? Do you really believe that you'd be kicking her to the curb if only she wasn't "drunk"? You'd think your way around anything, even if she was sober. You're the kind of guy that looks for a way to live with it rather than take up for himself. Sad...

How does one have a 3 person orgy 'by accident'? Seriously, I would like to know...

Well I don't know about "accident" but maybe "not intentional" ????

I've seen women literally change from loyal innocent gems to drunken hoes in just a matter of a couple hours of drinking and lots of male attention. Unintentional n-somes usually trace back to a drunken female becoming the center of attention, for whatever reason. With so many male eyes and smiles validating their sexual image and feeding their need for star status, it really isn't that difficult for them to give in to it all. Unless they have someone in their life that means more to them than that moment of sexual empowerment.

That's why I'd focus more on her actions than anything else. I'm a big believer in zeroing in on someone's true feelings and emotions. You're not going to get that by simply forgiving this girl and chaulking it up to "relationship health".

I would be concentrating on why "I" didn't matter enough to her to keep her from giving it up like that. I would also be trying to find out what "I" lack, that motivated her to do this. Not so I could keep her, but so I could learn from this event.

You can continue to play the guilt trip monogamy card in all of your relationships to keep your girl true to you. OR, you can learn something uncomfortable about yourself, and improve your "techniques", and keep your future girls true to you for more effective reasons than monogamous pledges.

What she deserves and what im going to lower myself to are two very different things. im sure she deserves to have me yell and scream and use her as a sex toy and tell her shes all sorts of horrible kinds of dirty streetwalking nastiness. but im not gonna do any of it. as of yet, im the only boyfriend shes had who WASNT using her. thats the way its going to stay.

 

if we stay together it will help the health of our relationship, if we break up it will help her realize what she lost with her stupidity.

Ok, appeal number two...

I most definitely wouldn't stay with her. Keep your dignity. You can think yourself around all kinds of violations, rationalizing dirty deeds chaulking them up to growth and development. It's all bs. Get real. There's a reason she wanted that. If you don't deal with it, it will come back again. The more attached you are with her, the more you get kicked around and treated like a shmuck.

Ok, dude, listen carefully...

I had a gf years ago that apparently had a crush on me all through high school. When we dated I wasn't really into her that much but she was fun and when you're single and fresh out of high school you compromise for anything you can get. Later I find out she's been dancing at a gentlemen's club and so I dump her. That was stupid.

Hindsight tells me I should have just dumped her in my mind, but kept her physically because she was crazy about me, at the time anyway, and being a stripper could have opened up new channels of sexual liberation.

So, all that just to say - don't dump her! She had a threesome. In terms of a serious relationship, that sucks, so break yourself off emotionally and use her for a while. Does she not deserve it? And if you have any issues with that, then just be honest and tell her that you're no longer interested in her seriously, but you'd love to practice some things you've seen in your favorite porn flicks.

Not the popular opinion, but certianly a male opinion.

Is it ridiculous for the government to ensure that poison is not included in the food you eat? A poison that tastes good, but makes you sick later on. (e.g. CPL Snark putting soap in the sweet potatoes in Catch-22). That's for your own good. Is it ridiculous?

 

What is the distinction between getting sick the next day, and getting sick later?

That's funny, because that's exactly my point. Almost every kind of food out there is bad for you in some way - minute or drastic. Today it's a "noble" move to rid America's restaraunts of the latest fad in pop culture eating habits - the dreaded "trans fats". Yesterday it was carbs. Good thing we didn't have legislation in place or I might not be able to get any carbs in my diet on the streets.

I think there needs to be a list of ingredients available for every meal, including proportionality - in both metric and standard measurements. That's it. That's reasonable.

Is it illegal today to put soap in sweet potatoes? There doesn't seem to be a problem with rat excrement in hot dogs. Personally, I'd rather eat trans fat than rat fecies.

I agree, the government needs to enforce a limited set of guidelines for business to operate in - such as not allowing poisons in our food (which would be murder obviously). And when I say poisons, I mean actual poisons. Not fats and oils that basically act like poisons, that we gleefully ingest and demand from the free market and then act like we had no idea it was bad for us. Kind of like cigarettes.

Not a whole heck of a lot can be added to that really, I rest my case.

What case have you made?

You know, I disagree with IMM on alot of things, but at least she makes a post with substance and lays out an argument. I have yet to see you construct a single post that could stand next to any of her posts.

I dont actually think a lot of people have thought about the question, and so their responses to it are naive, they say "because it forces the will of a minority onto the majority" (<--- of course you never hear anyone explain why its wrong for minorities to do that).

It's the "forces" word that makes it wrong, but only in the context of the republic. Our particular republic, as most republics, rely on an imperfect (not even good) but better than any other known alternative called "majority rule" concept. So, in a democratic republic, such as the United States, is it wrong for a minority to force their will on the majority. However, they have every right to demonstrate, protest, speak freely, distribute literature - everything short of using "force" to get their ideas across.

There, now you've heard someone explain why it's wrong for minorities to do that.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that voter fraud is as big a problem today as it was in, say, the 1800's and early 1900's. No ID and they used paper ballots...

I agree, but it is still a big problem. I'm not sure if it differs from state to state or not, but we don't have to have ID to vote here. You just give them your name. You have to be on the list, no if's and's or but's. However, you could still use someone else's name on the list that hasn't voted yet, and isn't likely to vote.

Apparently they can get lists of people that didn't vote in previous elections and use the names on these lists to go from poll to poll voting as other people.

And, there is a shortsighted audit in the process whereby if it is found that the same person has voted twice - indicating someone likely commited voter fraud - they simply add it as one vote if they are the same, or no vote at all if they are different.

So either way, it's somewhat of a win-win for voter fraudsters. However, I still think this can be eliminated almost entirely with some investigation and arrests for a change.

Along these lines... some lower income person eats at fast food resturants a lot because of the obvious reduced cost. This person is on a government-sponsered health insurance plan, so when she/he gets sick from all those years of eating trans fats, it's my taxes that go to take care of that person. Therefore, my pocketbook suffers because of others people 'choice' to eat trans fat. - not that this person has much of a choice in the matter, if that's the only type of food available to them. Perhaps you could look at this as the governments way of easing the economic burden of it's health care system.

Then let the government regulate the individual requesting assistance rather than all of us. I have no problem with the government making demands on people that are receiving living assistance of some kind. It's these "well intentioned" ridiculous laws that target the masses "for their own good" that rattles my cage.

Kind of a damper on interesting debate, aren't I? Sorry about that.

Naw! We weren't getting anywhere with this one. I think we just like fighting with IMM on the animal versus human thing really. She does a great job debating with everybody, especially being so outnumbered.

I was responding to your caveat - "... unless of course it harms the person or property of another" - and in this case you are harming me. Saying it's the insurance company's fault is like arguing that it's OK for you to play loud music at 2AM because I don't *have* to sleep at that time, or that it's my boss's fault for insisting that I come to work on time instead of sleeping in because my you kept me up. Noise ordinances are there to make sure your rights don't infringe upon mine and that's the way I see this "no trans fat" ban.

I know you were trying to respond to my cavaet "... unless of course it harms the person or property of another" and I was trying to respond to it by stating how it's not really a good one, because there's a distinction between direct and indirect harm. I know you want to tie this together by saying my unhealthy lifestyle drives your insurance premiums up, so you can refute my logic but it's the fact that I don't control how the insurance company chooses to charge you that breaks that down - it's not an automatic cause and effect.

It's an attitude difference. I don't think noise ordinances are fair either. I do agree that you don't have to sleep at that time. You can sleep after work, from 5 to midnight, then stay up til 7 and go to work if you want. It's none of my business. Why should the majority dictate the behavior of the minority - as in sleep time, play time and etc? That's getting a bit bold don't you think?

I don't believe you have a right to quiet. You have a right to pursue quietness. You can spend 500 bucks a window for soundproofing if it means that much to you. But no, I don't see why anyone should have to alter their behavior for the conveniences of the majority. Just because you work during the day and choose to sleep late night doesn't give you the right to tell me I can't mow my lawn at 3:00 AM. Or jam on my music after a long night's work, since not all of us have a cushy day job.

You are arguing for the right to keep a harmful, unnecessary chemical in our foods just because we used to be allowed to eat it. And not having insurance brings up the point that non-insured trans fat lovers raise my taxes - which is not an option. I don't get to tell the IRS I'm not paying for you if you're going to risk your health.

Whether you realize it or not, I'm arguing for your right to personal freedoms. Legislating behavior to this extent is very dangerous. What is logical and simple today, turns bureaucratic and complex tomorrow. Personal responsibility is a key ingredient for freedom and it's being left out. If you let this kind of legislation cloud your better judgement, you will be throwing your hands up in disgust inside of 20 years, I promise you. You don't want people legislating what is good and bad for us. It's a conceited mindset that society has fallen into and it's disgusting. The fact I have to convince anybody of it scares the hell out of me.

If everyone was as level headed as Pangloss, we wouldn't need a forum...

I like the idea of requiring a list of ingredients. I've always wondered why they don't require that. I agree with Phi for All, in that "ignorance" is not a fair choice.

So' date=' whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, [u']because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.[/u']

And what Al Quada operative doesn't agree with that? By that logic, all terrorism is ok since "bad principles" are subjective. Those southern racists didn't believe their principles were bad at all.

*** IMM re-reads her comment, notices that she didnt write anything at all even remotely implying that principles are subjective ***

 

What exactly are you replying to? I never said that bad principles are subjective anywhere in my post. If you actually think bad principles are subjective, then basically you should turn your criticism on yourself, and question how you could even object to acts of terrorism in principle.

I can't believe you don't get my point IMM. "...because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others..." is a subjective opinion. That is my point. I wasn't suggesting that you acknowedged principles as being subjective, I was pointing out that it is.

These people with "bad principles", don't believe their principles are bad. The southern racists didn't believe that. The christian anti-gay haters don't believe it either. Al Quada believes our principles are bad. Is it ok for them to terrorize us too? As long as one side believes the other side's principles are bad?

My subsequent point being that it doesn't matter that you "think" our principles are bad. It's terrorism and it's inherently wrong to engage in it.

Why am *I* paying higher medical insurance premiums because *you* want to ingest an artificial substance that has been proven to ruin your health?

You are paying higher medical insurance because the insurance company chooses to charge you that way. There is no law that says they have to do business by dividing the total costs up evenly amongst the subscribers. That's their business plan. There also is no law that says you have to have medical insurance.

So, whats the problem? There isnt anything intriniscally wrong with forcing your will on the majority, because there are plenty of times where a majority just has bad principles which are genuinely harmful to others.

And what Al Quada operative doesn't agree with that? By that logic, all terrorism is ok since "bad principles" are subjective. Those southern racists didn't believe their principles were bad at all.

Consdier that almost every civil rights fight in history has pitted a minority of people against a majority. For example, gay rights is a current topic where a minority of gay rights supporters are against the status quo that says "smear the queers".

No, that was a minority of people who "pursuaded" the majority. And I would challenge whether it was truly a minority. For instance, consider the gay rights issues we're facing today. There is NOT a majority of people who say "smear the queers" (although we did play that rudimentary football game from time to time...). There IS a status quo however. People have a tendency to resist change, especially change that they don't have any real interest in. That doesn't mean the majority thinks a certain way.

Most of the people I know, from liberals to conservatives, don't care about oppressing gay people and could care less if they marry and have children. I'm not using that as a fact indicator, rather I don't think it's always a majority, as much as a perceived majority.

At any rate, it still doesn't justify terrorizing and destroying property and livelihood. Otherwise, the only difference between Al Quada and ALF is the weaponry.

At the very least, it is better that the fish were released even if they died, not so much because the fish were better off released than killed, but because it means the fisheries cant profit from the fishes deaths.

So it's about profit afterall...

But in any case, terrorism itself is not inherently bad at face value, because at least in the case of ALF they are trying to use it accomplish good ends (sometimes they screw up though, like in the halibut incident above). The reason why people would even consider terrorism in the first place is because sometimes theres just nothing the governments or lawmakers will do. I'm pretty sure every congressman in the US gets 100s of letters every year, especially during hunting season, to stop passing laws that kill more animals... but letter writing doesnt always work, it doesnt accomplish anything.

Letter writing isn't working because the majority of people don't agree with you. When lawmakers and the government won't do anything it's because the majority of the country, their constituents, don't agree with your principles. So, terrorism is the minorty party trying to force their will onto the majority and you're justifying it just because you happen to agree with that minority party's views.

It's also important to remember that restaurants, unlike food you might buy at the market, have no listed ingredients or nutritional information. So the "just don't buy it then" argument is not really valid.

I actually meant to make that argument. I would expect that to be the "law" being pushed. Not banning trans fats from restaraunts, but rather forcing restaraunts, and any other kind of food vendor, to display their ingredients either upon demand or posted in some way.

That would not infringe on anyone's rights. Then John Q public can pursuade restaraunts to serve what we like using our superior consumer power that none of us seem to be aware that we possess.

And I'm sorry Sisyphus, you know me by now, there is no argument "it's bad for you so we won't let you have it" that I would ever accept. It doesn't matter how bad something is for anybody, you don't have any right to stop someone from doing it - unless of course it harms the person or property of another - in my humble opinion.

Your idea of "bad for you" and my idea of "bad for you" are never going to line up, so how about we quit regulating everyone else and just worry about ourselves?

But, without Identification, how do you protect against fraud? It's the fact that people are willing to fraud the system that such things become necesary.

 

I would say that people voting mulitple times in an election is a violation of MY voting rights. And, it's only since the inception of government-issued identification that this practice has been able to be stopped.

Actually is has not been stopped at all. That's what's driving the voter ID card initiative. Rather than fixing the problem we have folks that would rather impact the masses and create yet another road block to voting and another bureaucracy we can fund.

The problem has more to do with voting poll administration. It is laughable, if not outright depressing, at how much incompetence is empowered at voting polls. Most of this fraud is not investigated. It's time to roast people for voter fraud.

Keep in mind that the ban doesn't apply to supermarket goods, but to resturants. You can still eat trans fats in the home, but don't expect to find them in resturants (if this goes through).

I realize that. But, my point was, how could you possibly justify doing this to restaraunts and NOT extending it to all food outlets of any kind?

I mean, if we're going to toss personal freedom out of the window because something "isn't good for you", then why stop at restaraunts? Why not just be honest about how far we really want to regulate everyone's lifestyle?

There are such things as government-issued ID cards. I think you can get them at the DMV, although it's not actually a drivers liscence.

But then you have augmented the wall between you and the voting booth - a government controlled wall. It may sound silly in the midst of a modern day civilized society, but these defensive ideas originated for good reason. Incrementally, society (particularly a socially invasive society such as the US) can exploit this wall to the point that only an "elite" group of people can vote and control the country.

It's not right that manufacturers get to save money on distribution at the cost of our health.

So don't buy it. It's not right that you get to force manufacturers not to save money on distribution at the cost of my money. I don't care about trans fat. I like trans fats. I didn't buy a bag of Oreo Cookies concerned about my health. I don't want them to turn into oil and flour slop in my cabinet.

Why do you get to eliminate something from the market just because you don't like it? What about the rest of us?

Priceless. I love it when they display their ignorance so gloriously.

So the blatant trampling of personal freedom doesn't have any weight in this argument?

If we're going to disregard personal freedom to this extent, then I see no reason NOT to outlaw trans fat, sugar, grease, all cooking oils and etc. All meat should be regulated to 100% lean and over-cooking should be outlawed as this creates carcinogens. Frying apparatus can go straight to the museum since it's absolutely horrible for you. The only thing to be sold at grocery stores should be healthy food only. Fruits, vegetables, sugar-free and fat-free only products. White processed flour should also be outlawed. Only whole-wheat flour allowed for all products containing flour.

And I haven't even started on sodium yet.

How can you justify outlawing trans fat in restaraunts and not justify going all the way with it like this?

This is America. Once upon a time we chose freedom. Once upon a time we understood that part of the price of freedom was allowing people to do stupid things with their freedom. That kept them from infringing on your freedom claiming you were doing stupid things with it.

The march of the elitist pigs continues....

I posted this in the pseudoscience area and then noticed the last post in there was 2 or 3 weeks ago. I'm guessing it doesn't get looked at much. So, I thought I'd try it in here. I apologize if it's out of place, although I don't think it is.

I'm having a hard time understanding the multiverse theory. I thought I read some time ago, that the universe as we know it is like two plates moving away from each other, or expanding, set in motion by the big bang...and that they eventually come back together, singularity, and then big bang again..and so on.

Now when I look up information on it, I see no mention of that part. Just dimensions.

I'm wondering if this "expansion" and eventual "collapse" happen at different momentums, creating differences in physics and time. I would think the speed at which the plates move apart and come back together would have an impact on the vacuum within it. Is that true?

Does any of that even make sense? Or did I just dream all this...?