U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,008
Trophies
2
XP
18,016
Country
United States
Wait a minute. What you’re describing is called a waiver. If you acknowledge the risks involved in a specific activity and sign a waiver, that contract nullifies rights you would’ve otherwise had - you’ve waived them in favour of participating in the risky activity in question.
This is one of the silliest things you've ever posted. There's a difference between acknowledging a risk and signing a waiver. When I get in my car, I don't sign a waiver beforehand saying that I can't sue another motorist if they hit me. What are you smoking?

you’ve had an accident, your consent is irrelevant. Now, you may seek legal remedy if the accident wasn’t your fault, or you may face some penalties if it was in fact your fault, but at no point is your “consent” relevant - the accident just happened.
My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol. If I said someone could, for example, trash my car with a sledgehammer, and they had my consent, then that person is legally able to do so.

Foxi4, respectfully, I wish you'd put more thought into the posts in this thread that you've put into your posts in other threads. They've been pretty bad lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dark_Ansem

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,314
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,018
Country
Poland
This is one of the silliest things you've ever posted. There's a difference between acknowledging a risk and signing a waiver. When I get in my car, I don't sign a waiver beforehand saying that I can't sue another motorist if they hit me. What are you smoking?

My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol. If I said someone could, for example, trash my car with a sledgehammer, and they had my consent, then that person is legally able to do so.

Foxi4, respectfully, I wish you'd put more thought into the posts in this thread that you've put into your posts in other threads.
Sometimes I wonder if you read what you’re responding to or just respond with the first thing that comes to your head. I’ll walk you through this, slowly.

Read what you’ve just said - you “consent to the risk”, but you “don’t consent to the accident”, meaning exactly what the risk entails? That’s asinine. Imagine that exchange in court.

“Sir, were you aware that performing this risky maneuver could cause an accident on the road?”
“Yes, judge.”
“Well then, it seems pretty clean cut - you were aware of the risk, but did it anyway, which makes you liable.”
“Ah, see, that’s not quite right - I didn’t consent to the collision.”
“Well Lacius, I didn’t expect that - you got me beat. You’re free to go, you rascal.”

Stupid. Obviously that’s not how it would’ve gone down, and you know that. Either you’ve accepted risk or you didn’t - accepting risk entails accepting consequences. When you turned the key in the ignition, you accepted the possibility that you *might* get into an accident, which entails both legal and health-related ramifications. *Obviously* there isn’t a physical, paper waiver you sign before entering a vehicle, we’re talking about the concept of accepting risk.

Nobody’s asking for your consent - the possibility of getting into an accident is a known quantity that you accept as a motorist. Nobody intends to get into accidents, it just happens. I never said that you can’t sue the other motorist, what I said was that the accident cannot be undone - it’s physically impossible. You can’t “abort the accident” - the legal rigamarole associated with it must play out. You absolutely can abort a pregnancy and avoid the remainder of the process.

Speaking of suing, in the event of a collision with another motorist, you have a quarrel with that other motorist, not the state. In the event of a collision of a penis with a vagina, the mother has a quarrel with the father, not the state, if we’re to remain logically consistent. Since the accident can’t be “aborted”, the remedy comes in the form of finding the guilty party after the fact and, ideally, receiving some sort of monetary restitution for damages. That sure sounds like child support.

EDIT: Blasted autocorrect, should be okay now. Thanks, Apple.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,490
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,675
Country
Japan
Not wearing my seatbelt is not consent to get thrown out of my car, even if my decision to not wear my seatbelt was stupid.

Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent, even if it is not explicit. The more steps you take to ensure a particular outcome, the greater the case for consent. If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car. You've done everything you could to give permission for something to happen and vocalizing your disagreement with reality doesn't change that.

Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it. "Actions speak louder than words" The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.
 

silien3

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
272
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
493
Country
France
here's what to do so that everyone has what they want

1) law when 2 people are consenting and the baby has little or no risk of having any problem of health
it may be the woman who gets pregnant but her 2 people who make the children not one so let women abort without the consent of the spouse is a categorical no her 2 parent who gives their genome not one the man has as many rights that the woman to decide whether there is an abortion or not if the mother is incapable of her does not mean that the father is incapable of moreover if there is a consenting spouse the mother and the father had the case to protect themselves or use the pill
so here there is an intention to have children whoever tries to abort will go to prison for attempted murder or murder if one of the 2 does not consent because it is they who wanted to play with fire with a person consenting therefore obligation to have the agreement of the 2 parents the 2 could make sure that the woman does not become pregnant during and after the act and if it is not enough they can sign things and say consent to the abortion therefore there is intention to a crime if don't respect anything

if the 2 parents want to abort her until more or less 2 months maximum to be sure that there is not yet life therefore her 7/8 weeks (if you are against I specify that there are cells at this stage so masturbating rules ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raising by parent

2) law when at least 1 person is not consenting for women
people drugged and raped and therefore not consenting can abort up to 2 and a half months maximum so that there is no life yet so its 9/10 weeks (if you are against I specify that there are cells at this stage so masturbating rules ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raising by parent

3) law when at least 1 person is not consenting for man
people drugged and raped and therefore not consenting can request the abortion of the rapist up to 1 month and a half maximum so that there is no life yet so it is 5/6 weeks (if you are against I specifies that there are cells at this stage therefore rules of masturbation ect and eating meat and vegetables, using antibacterials ect would be a crime deserving hell and torture in this hypocritical and perverse logic) beyond automatic adoption or raised by parent

4) law if the baby has a risk of health problems
if the Health problem is minimal, it is the same as for point 1
for major problems, it must be on a case-by-case basis, for example a baby who will suffer all his life and die very young without a chance to live fully at least letting him go is the most humane solution that exists
when to those who have a minimal chance of living fully I presume to let the 2 parents decide


here it is law would allow everyone to live with decency and not to be deprived of their rights obviously I am not perfect we know maybe improve what I provide but in general its that it is necessary to do

sorry for my english i use google translate
 
Last edited by silien3,
  • Like
Reactions: SexiestManAlive

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,314
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,018
Country
Poland
Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent, even if it is not explicit. The more steps you take to ensure a particular outcome, the greater the case for consent. If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car. You've done everything you could to give permission for something to happen and vocalizing your disagreement with reality doesn't change that.

Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it. "Actions speak louder than words" The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.
”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
“That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
“No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
“That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
“Gee whiz, ya got me. Good luck to ya.”
“Luck? I don’t need luck with logic on my side!”

Fade to black, cue Seinfeld drop and a camera pan to the eulogy, some time after the body’s recovered from the smouldering ruins.
 

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,490
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,675
Country
Japan
”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
“That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
“No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
“That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
“Gee whiz, ya got me. Good luck to ya.”
“Luck? I don’t need luck with logic on my side!”

Fade to black, cue Seinfeld drop and a camera pan to the eulogy, some time after the body’s recovered from the smouldering ruins.

I imagined funny scenarios ending with Lacius shouting, "I do not consent!" Does sound like something George or maybe even Jerry would do.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,008
Trophies
2
XP
18,016
Country
United States
Read what you’ve just said - you “consent to the risk”, but you “don’t consent to the accident”, meaning exactly what the risk entails? That’s asinine. Imagine that exchange in court.
Acknowledging the risk isn't the same as consenting to the accident.

“Sir, were you aware that performing this risky maneuver could cause an accident on the road?”
“Yes, judge.”
“Well then, it seems pretty clean cut - you were aware of the risk, but did it anyway, which makes you liable.”
“Ah, see, that’s not quite right - I didn’t consent to the collision.”
“Well Lacius, I didn’t expect that - you got me beat. You’re free to go, you rascal.”
Nobody is arguing that everybody gets what they consent to and nobody gets what they don't consent to. This is why you're disingenuous.

Yeah, but I'd argue the one who brought it up as a silly strawman is the one behaving stupidly.

Obviously that’s not how it would’ve gone down, and you know that. Either you’ve accepted risk or you didn’t - accepting risk entails accepting consequences. When you turned the key in the ignition, you accepted the possibility that you *might* get into an accident, which entails both legal and health-related ramifications.
Accepting risk isn't the same as consenting to what happens. For the umpteenth time, I accept the risks each time I get into the car, but that doesn't mean I consent to any accidents, whether or not they're my fault. It really sincerely sounds like you need to Google what the word means.

*Obviously* there isn’t a physical, paper waiver you sign before entering a vehicle, we’re talking about the concept of accepting risk.
Then maybe you shouldn't have stupidly and irrelevantly brought up signing physical waivers? Just a thought.

I never said that you can’t sue the other motorist
You didn't, but that wasn't my criticism of your post. Please reread my post. Suggesting my problem with your post was you said you couldn't sue other motorists is disingenuous. Based on your recent statements though, it might just be you being stupid some more.

what I said was that the accident cannot be undone - it’s physically impossible.
Cool. Getting pregnant in the first place can't be undone either. That would require backwards time travel, and I've already had to ignore conversations about backwards time travel enough in this thread.

What can be done in the case of a car accident? Legal battles. Restitution. Repairs. Making someone whole. Just like how things can be done after a car accident, things can be done after a pregnancy. A person has a legal right to bodily autonomy, similar to how a person has a legal right to not get hit by a speeding motorist.

Getting on the highway is not consent to getting hit by a speeding motorist, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not you acknowledged those risks. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not the woman acknowledged those risks. Learn what consent is, and stop being so goddamn stupid.

the legal rigamarole associated with it must play out. You absolutely can abort a pregnancy and avoid the remainder of the process.
Your analogy is so flawed. I'll be as condescending as you and "walk you through this slowly."
  • Driver = pregnant woman
  • Car accident = Getting pregnant
  • Risks of being on the highway = risks of having sex
  • No consent to get hit by speeding motorist = no consent to get pregnant
  • Legal rigamarole = process of getting an abortion
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so simple, I'm actually bored. My avatar has never been so apt.

Speaking of suing, in the event of a collision with another motorist, you have a quarrel with that other motorist, not the state. In the event of a collision of a penis with a vagina, the mother has a quarrel with the father, not the state, if we’re to remain logically consistent. Since the accident can’t be “aborted”, the remedy comes in the form of finding the guilty party after the fact and, ideally, receiving some sort of monetary restitution for damages. That sure sounds like child support.
You're muddying the analogy, since I don't think we were talking about the state or even a quarrel in the pregnancy part of the analogy. You seem to have run into the analogy and tripped over yourself a few times. I suggest you reread the part where I slowed it down for you.

If you feel like I was extra abrasive or name-calling in this post, it's because a.) I know you can handle it, and b.) Your responses here have been that next-level stupid.

Creating the conditions for something to happen is form of consent
That's not what consent is. Wearing skimpy clothing increases one's odds of getting raped, and one might argue that "created the conditions for something to happen," but that isn't consent to being raped. That's victim-blaming. Oof.

If you plow into a wall, without a seatbelt on, there's nothing you can really do to disagree with the fact that you being thrown out of your car.
I am having trouble imaging a situation in which someone did what you described without self-harm being the explicit purpose of one's actions. The only thing I can think of is maybe the driver was forced to plow into a wall, in which case it wouldn't be consensual.

Regardless, if the driver didn't want to get hurt or die, then the driver didn't consent to being hurt or dying. Acknowledging the risks is irrelevant to that. That may be irrelevant to whether or not they get hurt or die, but it still doesn't make it consensual.

Pregnancy is not a conscious act, though conscious decision making often preclude it.
Getting into a car accident by being hit by another motorist isn't a conscious act, though conscious decision making (like being on the highway at 1am on New Years) often precludes it. That doesn't mean the accident was consensual.

Learn what consent is.

"Actions speak louder than words"
A person could drive 30 mph over the speed limit, without a license, without a seatbelt, and although this behavior is stupid and reckless, it isn't necessarily consent to die.

The more actions you take that enable a pregnancy to occur, the clearer the consent.
If the woman didn't want to get pregnant, and she doesn't want to stay pregnant, it's never consent to be pregnant.

A couple of idiots in this thread don't seem to understand that consent is permission for something to happen. Without that permission, regardless of anything else, there isn't consent. Consent can also be revoked at any time.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,008
Trophies
2
XP
18,016
Country
United States
”Hey, can you hear the alarm? This is not a drill, the building’s on fire! We have to evacuate!”
“That sure sounds like work. I think I’ll stay for now, this spot seems safe.”
“No, you’ll burn! Please, listen to me, we have to leave!”
“That’s ridiculous. So what if fire safety regulations dictate that I should listen to you and immediately head to the assembly point outside? While I acknowledge the risks associated with fire and accept the fire safety code, I did not consent to being fried to a crisp. I should be alright.”
“Gee whiz, ya got me. Good luck to ya.”
“Luck? I don’t need luck with logic on my side!”

Fade to black, cue Seinfeld drop and a camera pan to the eulogy, some time after the body’s recovered from the smouldering ruins.
You're a disingenuous idiot with a hardon for strawmen if you think I'm arguing consent is at all relevant to physical acts. A woman not consenting to getting pregnant can still get pregnant. A person who doesn't consent to being hit by a car can be hit by a car. I've said numerous times already that nobody is arguing that everyone gets everything they consent and never get what they don't consent to. You mentioned earlier that you don't think I read your posts, but I clear do, and you clearly don't read mine.

That was never the point, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're behaving this shamelessly stupid. It isn't even a matter of whether or not we agree; you don't even understand the point or what I am or am not arguing.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,314
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,018
Country
Poland
Acknowledging the risk isn't the same as consenting to the accident.
Nobody consents to accidents - accidents simply happen, it’s a fact of life. We have law to determine what to do when they occur. There’s no such thing as “consent to an accident” - you don’t consent to it on the road, you don’t consent to it when you trip on the stairs, you don’t consent to it when you burn your finger on a hot baking tray. You weren’t cautious enough, or you were simply unlucky, and something bad happened - consent never enters the picture.
Nobody is arguing that everybody gets what they consent to and nobody gets what they don't consent to. This is why you're disingenuous.
The core of your argument is that abortion is justified if the woman doesn’t consent to being pregnant. You’re arguing that because she got something she didn’t consent to, that problem must be rectified. That’s your entire point, unless I missed something.
Yeah, but I'd argue the one who brought it up as a silly strawman is the one behaving stupidly.
The notion that you can accept risk but reject consequence is silly, the person promoting that notion is acting stupidly.
Accepting risk isn't the same as consenting to what happens. For the umpteenth time, I accept the risks each time I get into the car, but that doesn't mean I consent to any accidents, whether or not they're my fault. It really sincerely sounds like you need to Google what the word means.
I think you’re having trouble understanding that nobody cares if you consent or not - you’ve accepted the risk. Should you find yourself in an accident, you may be found liable for it, regardless of whether you consent or not.
Then maybe you shouldn't have stupidly and irrelevantly brought up signing physical waivers? Just a thought.
I was explaining the concept of a waiver as an agreement that, as the name implies, waived specific rights or claims when agreed upon. Once that was out of the way, I explained how that applies to what you said.
You didn't, but that wasn't my criticism of your post. Please reread my post. Suggesting my problem with your post was you said you couldn't sue other motorists is disingenuous. Based on your recent statements though, it might just be you being stupid some more.
”My consent is completely relevant. I'm able to seek legal remedy because someone hit my car without my consent. I have legal recourse because the collision was against my consent, lol” - your words, not mine. Not that they matter, since they don’t relate to what’s being argued - I never said that you can’t seek legal remedy, I said that your consent doesn’t matter. You’re a party to the accident whether you consent to it or not, it’s not up to you.
Cool. Getting pregnant in the first place can't be undone either. That would require backwards time travel, and I've already had to ignore conversations about backwards time travel enough in this thread.

What can be done in the case of a car accident? Legal battles. Restitution. Repairs. Making someone whole. Just like how things can be done after a car accident, things can be done after a pregnancy. A person has a legal right to bodily autonomy, similar to how a person has a legal right to not get hit by a speeding motorist.
The point is consistently flying over your dome. You as a motorist shouldn’t be subject to a collision, and a woman shouldn’t be subject to an unwanted pregnancy, that much is correct. With that being said, both of those are very real possibilities, and law exists to govern what happens in such instances. Driving recklessly can lead to an accident, and that accident can be linked to legal liability for any and all damages caused. How does that extend to abortion? Can one have sex recklessly, and does that entail a degree of liability for the resulting damages? If we want to be consistent with this analogy then the answer must necessarily be yes.
Getting on the highway is not consent to getting hit by a speeding motorist, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not you acknowledged those risks. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy, regardless of the risks and regardless of whether or not the woman acknowledged those risks. Learn what consent is, and stop being so goddamn stupid.
Nobody’s particularly concerned about consent if you’ve accepted pregnancy as one of the possible outcomes of risky sexual activity. The state is not obligated to help you. Whether it should help you is a matter of public debate that’s happening right now.
Your analogy is so flawed. I'll be as condescending as you and "walk you through this slowly."
  • Driver = pregnant woman
  • Car accident = Getting pregnant
  • Risks of being on the highway = risks of having sex
  • No consent to get hit by speeding motorist = no consent to get pregnant
  • Legal rigamarole = process of getting an abortion
I’ll do you one better. Check it out, my list is shorter!
  • Motorist = Some dude
  • Car accident = getting pregnant
  • Running across the highway with your arms flailing = Risky sexual behaviour
  • No consent to being hit by a motorist = no consent to pregnancy

If you run across the highway with your arms flailing and end up in an accident due to your risky behaviour, not only do I not care about whether you consented to it or not, I also find you liable for the accident. You knew what you were doing, you knew that the odds of getting hit by a car are high when you’re acting like an idiot on the highway, and with that knowledge in mind you did it anyway. It’s your fault, buster.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is so simple, I'm actually bored. My avatar has never been so apt.
One of those days I’ll have to find my shoop of it, the one with the single teardrop rolling down the cheek, a’la Iron Eyes Cody. Ahh, those were the days - when we argued about the Wii U being crap, not all this nonsense.
You're muddying the analogy, since I don't think we were talking about the state or even a quarrel in the pregnancy part of the analogy. You seem to have run into the analogy and tripped over yourself a few times. I suggest you reread the part where I slowed it down for you.
You mentioned that as a victim of the accident you deserve restitution. I’m helping you figure out who’s liable in this scenario.
If you feel like I was extra abrasive or name-calling in this post, it's because a.) I know you can handle it, and b.) Your responses here have been that next-level stupid.
Nah, I like it spicy.

You're a disingenuous idiot with a hardon for strawmen if you think I'm arguing consent is at all relevant to physical acts. A woman not consenting to getting pregnant can still get pregnant. A person who doesn't consent to being hit by a car can be hit by a car. I've said numerous times already that nobody is arguing that everyone gets everything they consent and never get what they don't consent to. You mentioned earlier that you don't think I read your posts, but I clear do, and you clearly don't read mine.

That was never the point, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're behaving this shamelessly stupid. It isn't even a matter of whether or not we agree; you don't even understand the point or what I am or am not arguing.
The scenario above is a logical consequence of your train of thought. If consent mattered at all in the case of an unfortunate accident, it would make sense. It doesn’t, and you have trouble coming to terms with that, so you’re getting flustered. I understand your point, and I’m actively making fun of it because it’s a bad argument. Consent is only relevant as far as deliberate action is concerned - you can’t expect consent in matters that are not deliberate because people generally can’t look into the future.

Consent doesn’t work backwards, either - you can’t give consent at the time and retract it later (unless you’re concocting one of those ridiculous modern college scenarios where the guy doesn’t pick up his phone the next day, so consensual sex turn into rape all of a sudden). Once consent is given, it is given. It can’t be retracted after the fact, or after the act, whichever you find amusing, unless it was given under a false pretense.

A woman who is a victim of rape does not consent, obviously. The rapist is using force to overcome her. She doesn’t “expect” to get raped, and her agency, her ability to consent or not, is removed. When a woman has consensual sex, she should *expect* that the possibility of becoming pregnant is very real, and take necessary precautions to prevent that from happening. Failing to do so logically carries some degree of liability since pregnancy isn’t a surprise, it’s an expected consequence of intercourse. She had full agency throughout the process, only the pregnancy itself is up to chance - chance she was aware of. We’ve been over this already.
 
Last edited by Foxi4,
  • Like
Reactions: MicroNut99

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,490
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,675
Country
Japan
That's not what consent is. Wearing skimpy clothing increases one's odds of getting raped, and one might argue that "created the conditions for something to happen," but that isn't consent to being raped. That's victim-blaming. Oof.

Are you arguing that getting raped is an expected or reasonable outcome? If not, then the "creating the conditions for something to happen" is a moot endeavor. How would one verbally consent to being raped, or consent at all?

"Learn what consent is"?

I am having trouble imaging a situation in which someone did what you described without self-harm being the explicit purpose of one's actions.

If you consent to the risk of automobile injury it means accepting the possibility of an automobile injury. How you do it, if you do it, be it willful or accidental, is not without consent. If you play chicken with another driver without a seatbelt. Well, the permission for what could happen becomes less ambiguous.

Consent can also be revoked at any time.

Sure, but it doesn't change the facts of something that already have happened by your consent. It doesn't magically pass through time and undo actions. Pregnancy doesn't reverse. Lovemaking doesn't retroactively become rape.
 

silien3

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
272
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
493
Country
France
Lovemaking doesn't retroactively become rape.
of course if we imagine we have 2 people they want to do it both agree to do the preliminary ect then before going further one of the 2 changes his mind and says stop it becomes a rape if the other does not stop
 
  • Like
Reactions: tabzer

silien3

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
272
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
493
Country
France
Of course.
there is also manipulation, brainwashing and other things that are rape with false consent see sects as main example

and in the future there will surely be something close to brainwashing but with memory manipulation or something like that if we leave technology in the hands of scientists / the current government who no longer have any qualms about taking themselves for god
 

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
744
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
643
Country
United Kingdom
I thought he was, you’re right. The disappearing business was more a matter of preventing his parents from falling in love, which in turn would’ve prevented his birth later down the line. He nearly aborted himself from the timeline by interfering in their initial meeting.
He didn't abort himself ffs. He almost caused his non-existence, which is completely different.
 

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
744
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
643
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, aborting oneself from time would have that effect.
His mother wasn't pregnant with him in the movie, dumbass. So he couldn't have aborted himself because he only existed as an extra-temporal anomaly.

And you can't abort yourself from time, as that would imply that a moment exists when the incipit of your existence comes. Had Marty failed he would have never existed at all in the time stream.

Also, time isn't a chick, you pervert.
 

tabzer

etymological and/or pedantic
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
3,490
Trophies
1
Age
38
XP
2,675
Country
Japan
And you can't abort yourself from time, as that would imply that a moment exists when the incipit of your existence comes. Had Marty failed he would have never existed at all in the time stream.

Also, time isn't a chick, you pervert.

The two forces in Marty's manifestation were causality and time. Causality would be like the father and time would be like the mother. The series of events of causality working through time would be like his gestation. Removing his causality is the method one needs to do in order to abort themselves from time, which is what Marty almost did. Have you seen the movie?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Foxi4

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
744
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
643
Country
United Kingdom
The two forces in Marty's manifestation were causality and time. Causality would be like the father and time would be like the mother. The series of events of causality working through time would be like his gestation. Removing his causality is the method one needs to do in order to abort themselves from time, which is what Marty almost did. Have you seen the movie?
I have, i just don't have see it in a disgustingly perverted sexual metaphor just for the purpose of pathetically trying to justify my ideals. The fact that somehow you do is yet further evidence of your perversion.

Not to mention, you're wrong because time travel doesn't work like that in the series since there's only one timestream and they all act inside it. Unless you're suggesting that time can make itself pregnant, which it can't.

You're gross.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo: https://imgur.com/gallery/Gsp4OFN