Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

[Simonorged]

New topic:

what is you take on this add and why.

Am I the only one confused on why she would pick a pet over a mate?
Think of it this way, this is like knowing someone who is afraid of water and water boarding him.
This is like finding someone who is afraid of spiders and throwing a tarantula at him.
This is like forcing someone who is afraid of clowns to watch IT.

Sounds funny but it isn't to the person, It sounds dumb but it is very serious.
Then to fall in love with someone and then threaten the marriage over a cat?
You seriously didn't know about his fear of cats before hand?

[Nichi]

I find it funny, to be honest. Nothing to really get worked up about :\

Besides, some people will choose something over a mate that would seem illogical to everyone else, but if it makes them happier, they have every right to.

[Chocofreak13]

agreed. and simon, get off the sopabox for a sec, you're being really dramatic about this. >>;

honestly, the clipping was likely a gag or a ploy by the wife to get the husband to drop it. it doesn't say he's allergic, just that he doesn't like them. marrage is a partnership and he should let his wife keep the cat. he can't expect to always get his way.

[Bella]

That's obviously a fictional / humorous image, but I'll humor you for a moment and pretend it's real. If my hypothetical husband told me to pick either him or the cat, honestly, I'd keep the cat.

That sounds harsh, but here's my reasoning. He is NOT allergic to cats. He is not cat-phobic. Having a cat in the house will not put him in a state of physical pain or irritation, nor will it put him in a state of psychological distress. The only reason he doesn't want a cat is because he doesn't like them. Let me tell you something, any man who would say "I go or the cat does" doesn't enjoy being with his wife to begin with - or he does and is completely and utterly lacking any sort of perspective on life, or is severely psychologically damaged in some other way. In any case, an overreaction of such hilarious magnitude is grounds for kicking his melodramatic ass to the curb.

In short - if you allow a partner's pet to destroy your relationship, your relationship isn't worth keeping in the first place. Move onto somebody who isn't an asshole.

[Nichi]

Indeed. Anybody that lets something trivial get in the way of a relationship isn't somebody you'd want to be with

[Chocofreak13]

and i mean, unless you're allergic, i can't think of much reason to HATE cats to the degree that it would drive a wedge between the pair. the chances of childhood psychological trauma due to a cat is a hell of a lot slimmer than one involving a dog. xD

[Simonorged]

Makes sense.

@Bella: Exactly, though I was focusing on the other side, that is pretty much my point.
If an animal is going to be the deciding factor in your relationship, than maybe you shouldn't have one. Although in my mind I was focusing on the part where she was considering the pet over him.
@Choco: Considering the things people are afraid of, any animal carries the possibility of being feared, fear isn't rational.
In any relationship, your partner is to know your secrets. Your likes and dislikes, your fears and wishes regarding them, I find it unlikely that this wasn't addressed with each other in the past.
I will constantly take the unpopular view, just for the fun of it.

[Chocofreak13]

taking the unpopular view just for the hell of it is, no offense, stupid. as fuck. i mean seriously, that's like the guy who picks a fight or does something crazy just to get attention. though you crave mental stimulation in the form of debate, doing anything to spark it--including siding with the arguement you don't agree with--isn't a good way, or a smart way, to go about it. quit it man, seriously.

you'd be better off looking for intellectual stimulation elsewhere. maybe you should read war and peace or something. :\

[Bella]

There isn't anything wrong with humoring the unpopular POV, both for the purposes of this thread AND intellectual stimulation / discussion. (If there was, debate teams across the world would go belly-up.) ^^;

I mean, hell, I do it all the time - god knows I hate radical environmentalism, radical veganism, radfemism, anti-religion and human extinction movements, (conservative) libertarianism, moral-objectivism, etc. but I'm still willing to read about those causes / philosophies and hear what their proponents have to say. I mean, plenty of it is garbage, some of it is downright loathesome, but there are also nuggets of food-for-thought mixed in. Sometimes it makes me uncomfortable, sometimes it makes me upset or angry or really want to punch the author(s) in the face, but every so often I'll come across ideas that make me really think or make sense to me.

As well, there are some concepts that I'm genuinely of two minds about so I like hearing arguments from both sides, even when one OR both sides have a tendency to ruffle my feathers. (For instance: can bigotry exist against a majority group? Are binary gender identities generally socially derived? What is the line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation? Are belief systems [particularly, religion] bad for society? Do young [non-reasoning] children the same rights of bodily autonomy that adults have? Etc.)

[Simonorged]

I understand the reason on both sides.
Guess that's what happens when you think in terms of anime logic.
It is a lot like acting and it is fun. I can see what you mean by picking fights, and in a way I am.
That's the point.

@Bella: Have we done appre(vs.)appro? or could we try BiGen Identity?
Pretty sure we have done Religion:Bad for society? and Bigotry to Majority.

[Chocofreak13]

@bella: i disagree. sparking debate just to spark debate is a waste of time in my eyes. by contrast, if we find an article worth talking about, and we talk about it, that's worthwhile. but simon has told me once that he would root around for rage-inducing articles to post just to get this topic going again, and that irks me.

@simon: sorry i'm talking about you like you're not here. and 'anime logic'? wtf do you mean by that? (don't bring anime into this, man. >>; ) debate isn't acting, either you feel that way or you don't. if you don't, but say you do, it's lying. but then, acting is the greatest lie.
it's still lies, though, and i hate liars.


just for the record, i didn't go seeking this out. i was checking my email and noticed a bunch of articles, so have at you. no doubt the first one is going to enrage bella.
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/tsa-officer-shames-teen-for-wearing-leggings--dad-s-got-this--192409505.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-u-s--companies-you-might-not-know-are-religious-175228053.html?page=2
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/second-grader-in-wheelchair-set-apart-from-classmates-in-school-photo-153816157.html

[Simonorged]

Zimmerman.

[Bella]

George Zimmerman is an racist dumbass who took the law into his own hands, killed an innocent person based on his own inflated sense of self-worth and racial prejudices, and got off scot-free (so far). He should have at least been convicted of manslaughter, imo.

[Nichi]

Agreed. I really feel he should have faced some form of punishment, but he's off without so much as a slap on the wrist

[Simonorged]

So hold on.

Your saying that a guy, who was in fact defending himself.
Forensic and autopsy proved this.
Should be treated as less than human because he was getting his head beat into the pavement before shooting?

It was a clean shoot.

Martin wasn't a saint either.

He was a coke dealer who was walking through a neiborhood at 2 in the morning.
When confronted he attacked Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground.
But the media wont tell you this, they want to make you think that Zimer is a racist fuck.

The gun was licensed and had all the paperwork.
It was a clean shoot.
And this is why you look for all the facts.