CS Debate Thread

[vanilla kitten]

that's exactly what i was trying to say^

to explain, i meant that girls expect men to do that, when they themselves don't do it back. by giving up, i meant that they (we) would have to give up having men treat us like princesses without doing jack for them all the time. although, yes, there are plenty of girls who do pay for their own dates, open doors for their partner, etc., there is a majority that doesn't.

[The Great ME!]

Hmm, this is kind of a second-hand view for me I guess(since I'm a guy and take most of this from my mother talking about her side of things) but my mother expects certain things to be done by a guy she meets for a date(i.e. pay for the meal when they meet, take her to places of at least a certain class(no burger king or Denny's, it has to be at least the level of a classy steakhouse and such). She's not really a "femminist"(I think), but she expects certain things to be done. Part of that is she's had bad experiences with dates and guys being jerks, so we sort of joke "If she has to put up with a guy giving her crap she should at least get a nice meal out of it" or something to that effect. I guess part of that's my fault, I sort of encourage her into trying to get something worth her while out of it.

She's told me though that there's a certain logic to having a guy pay for things though, such as a guy who's already taken by a wife or girlfriend doesn't want to spend a lot of money on a date with some new girl that he's cheating on his wife/girlfriend for, because he's got someone else to spend the money on plus the suspicion of a lot of money going missing when he spent it on someone else. To a certain extent I think that's true(whereas some guys are just broke).

She's also talked about how the feminist movements for "equality" as far as jobs go actually has quite a few pitfalls. I know that this doesn't apply to every job but in some jobs which previously offered extra benefits(maturnity leave, provided child/day care by the employers, et cetera), it's a downfall for woman to have those taken away by "Being given all the same rights as men". And even with the movements for equality of woman, men are often paid more in wages than women.

On another side of things, men usually have to pay higher insurance rates on coverage than women do, and insurance is pretty expensive.

Really though, some people like to chalk up equality to mean, in reality, that they're "better than the other" or should be allowed to get away with more(for example, a black kid at my school got into a fight in the middle of an assembly, and then got arrested for attacking the on-site policeman when he tried to break up the fight, and cried that the police and school were racist for arresting him when assaulting a police officer is illegal and he would have been arrested for it no matter the color of his skin).

Sometimes cries for equality are justified(for example, to take one already used, when guys whine about women saying that they shouldn't be hit, guys turning it into "it's because you're a girl" instead of the fact that it's just wrong to hit someone in general, or parents who think that they have a right to hit their children because "I'm the parent and you're my child so I can do what I want to you, and I didn't leave bruises so it's perfectly acceptable").
Sometimes they aren't.
It depends on how it's used but whether equal or not, people are going to abuse the system somehow and make a bad name for those who use the system the right way.

My point being it has it's ups and its downs, just like anything.

[Zaphod Riker]

what are your opinions on the 'feminist movement' for equal rights for women?

personally, i think that feminists have the right idea, but are going way the wrong way with it. simply because there are so many feminists who want to be with men as equals who also expect them to pay for the first date, open her door, and go out of his way to be nice to her.. which, if you want to be truly equal, you have to give up some things to get what you want.

that's just my opinion on it. how about you guys?

Personally, I disagree with this type. You can't have gender equality "but with exceptions for girls". For dates, you can ask my first boyfriend, I got pretty bugged when he basically refused to let me pay for my part of the meal. I feel like I'm mooching if I don't pay my share. As for opening the door, I can open my own door. For holding the door open, I typically don't because I end up staying there for like half an hour. You shouldn't have to go out of your way to be nice. You should just be nice. If I like someones top from across the restaurant, I'm not going to go up and walk all the way over there just to say "Nice top".

I am pretty equal, I think. I don't really have high expectations for my dates, boy/girlfriends, or anyone in general.

What irks me is that there are still jobs where men are payed more than women. I can understand on some level because of the fact that men have higher insurance rates (at least in my state), but otherwise not really.

[*~.Imagination.~*]

that's exactly what i was trying to say^

to explain, i meant that girls expect men to do that, when they themselves don't do it back. by giving up, i meant that they (we) would have to give up having men treat us like princesses without doing jack for them all the time. although, yes, there are plenty of girls who do pay for their own dates, open doors for their partner, etc., there is a majority that doesn't.

Well the thing is, I don't know if that mindset is really girls' fault.
I mean, like I already said, most of that stuff is just common courtesy.
But paying for dates and things is often something society says we're expected to do. You look in the media, all year round (especially holidays) and everything you see is about 'guys: how to not screw up this date' and 'girls: how to catch a guy to date'. And in those pieces of media (movies, magazine,etc.) it's made to be something that's normal. Like, "If he doesn't pay, it isn't a date and/or he's cheap"
When really I don't think it's abnormal at all for a girl to pay for her own date. In fact, most I know do. (except for the one whose boyfriend did insist that, 'as long as you're with me, i'll pay for you.')
I think that society in the media tells us these things are the norm, and we sort of just accept it. But in real life, it doesn't often happen like that at all.
And so as a low blow to feminism, I have heard guys say,
"Yeah you want equality. But you aren't willing to have us stop paying for your dates."
When in actuality those guys (the ones I personally heard saying this, at least) were almost all single. And the one that wasn't didn't pay for his girl at dates anyway. (Which I know, because she's my friend)
So in actuality, I don't really think the majority has the mindset you're thinking of.
However, I agree that those who do would have a hard times considering themselves feminists, since saying one gender has an extra responsibility that the other does not, for no real reason other then "they should do it because they're supposed to", pretty much goes against all that feminism is.

[The Great ME!]

Late responses to old stuff, I know, but the current topic sort of died anyway ;P

This other person said they were in a forest and a wild wolf walked up to them. They stuck to this story no matter what, but I all crap on call of it.

I’ve had a wild wolf come up to me before, technically. Not “right up to me” as in within touching distance, but within six feet of me, and four feet away from my mother. I was about nine, I think?

But that was an unusual occurrence to even see one. We’d gone on a group hike in the deep mountains where lots of people go hiking every day(a well-known trail) and the people planning the hike set up the time too late in the day, so when we were only about halfway down the mountain it was pitch-black night(which is when predators come out to hunt anyway and most people are gone). To top that off, the group of idiots didn’t even stick together while hiking back down the mountain, a bunch of them charging ahead(one managing to break their ankle in the process, because it was SOOO smart to go charging down a mountain trail without even a flashlight. Herp-da-derp), and others practically snail-crawling down it, so when it came up to us it was only me and my mother somewhere in the middle but separated from the group. Thinking back on it, the wolf was probably wondering if it could pick me off and eat me(since I was a little kid) and decided otherwise.

That, or he was curious as to why we were still on the trail going “WHAT THE HELL YOU STILL DOING HERE? DIDN’T YOU SEE THE SIGN? WE’RE(the woods) CLOSED!”

I dunno, but in my opinion, German shepherd (skull, fur, ear structure), possibly husky (eye shape) , Akita (bone and body structure) and something else to give her that black color (maybe that was just the shepherd), are about the closest to wolf a dog gets. Except if they have wolf blood in them, of course.

Actually the Tamaskan is the closest dog to a wolf in physique, minus not having a scruff.
That and Huskies and Malamutes.

Actually, a stupid little fact - smaller dogs are closer related to the wolf than the GSD and husky.

Actually, no. Huskies and Malamutes have been cross-bred with wolves by Eskimos and Inuits for centuries. That’s why they have a wolf-like appearance, vocalizations, and sometimes a more “wild” disposition. Most huskies or malamutes, even “purebreds”(though some people are so caught up in the “pure blood” status symbol crap that they’ll never admit it who own such a dog), have at least a small percentage of wolf in them, it’s just that the percentage is sometimes so small or so recessive you might never notice it.

They just descended from them earlier, if that makes sense. In other words, smaller dogs are typically older breeds. But, I believe large dogs act more "wolf-like" because people have trained them so for centuries because it's a preferred quality.

I have to admit that I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.
Small dogs are....small. Wolves are not, a small dog like that would not have a high success rate. At least, not when it comes to hunting deer which are a wolves preferred prey. Perhaps they were descended from...African Bush dogs, or other small canids, but wolves? I don't think I can swallow that. Small dogs were selectively bred for years and years and years in order to attain that tiny size

The people of the time period when there were mainly just wolves watch them and find the noticeably smaller dog. They do not see it as a threat, so they take it in and tame it. It is understandable that they'd already have tame canines for sleds and transportation, but there are many instances where a weaker, smaller dog could be taken in and cared for rather than trying to thrive on it's own. From here they could breed it and keep the smaller genes. I cannot tell you for certain, but that is what I believe (but of course I could word it more complex).

Most breeds of “small dogs” were only bred to be small in the last 400 years(with the exception to breeds whose size was meant for a particular job, such as Ratters), most of them were actually medium or large sized breeds before that. And before being “dogs”(back when they were still wolves thousands of years back), most were raised with humans since they were pups and bred later generations until eventually wolves became dogs with certain desirable traits. The whole idea of a “purse dog” or a “20 pound apartment-friendly dog” is mostly a new thing, with the exception to certain breeds that were kept by royalty or as status symbols. It simply wasn’t practical to have a dog that was too small to pose a threat to potential attackers, invaders, or other threats. They were as much protection as they were companions, and let’s face it, back when people fought and killed to survive constantly, no one would be the least bit intimidated by a toy poodle or a Chihuahua, and a small dog wouldn’t be very useful as a sled dog either.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn’t actually take *that* many generations to breed dogs to have smaller and smaller babies, they simply select only animals with the dominant traits they want to keep in the next generation until they literally breed out what they DON’T want(with the exception to certain problems that certain breeds have overall, such as german shepherds and golden retreivers having hip problems later in life). Eventually, after a few generations, you can see clearly the changes from the first generation and the 5th, or the 10th, and so on. In Russia they’ve actually tried studying this process of generational evolution towards domestication with foxes as well(which I’m highly enthusiastic towards, if only I had the money and proper housing to own a domestic fox).

[puffins]

Hey guys! I'd like to bring up something. I'll put my opinion in a bit. What do you think about the government spying?

[nightbeat]

to be entirely truthful, i honestly don't give a crap about the government wants to do with spying on us.., i mean, after the events of 9/11 it scared the usa and tbh it's more of trying to keep citizens safe?? like if they wanted to know if we're like, illegally downloading music then half the american population would be arrested by now
so basically they're looking for TERRORISTS so they won't KILL you throwing around attacks
really, the average citizen has nothing to hide anyway??

[The Great ME!]

I'd have to disagree.

The government hardly gives two craps about teenagers illegally downloading a few music files because they're either too cheap or too broke to buy every song they like to listen to, that's true, but there are other things they spy for that isn't just looking for terrorists.

Like that whole thing of "You know too much about something we don't want you to know, we make you disappear" thing isn't just a conspiracy theory, it's just not over things like Bigfoot or Area 51 and aliens. It's about other things. Every major government is guilty of it over different subjects, but it's different from how the media portrays it.

That one movie, "2012" for example, wasn't terribly far-fetched. It's just that no one who knows the "too much" can just outwardly come out and say it because...well, I think the reason is obvious. There's a lot of propoganda out there that's basically a farce to distract from the real problems that they want to hide.

That's why certain propoganda and conspiracy theories exist, because some of them really are total crap to take attention away from the conspiracy theories that are true.

[Hyensa]

What do you guys like about population hunting control?
I was just curious of other people's views on it. <3

[Unitatoe]

i personaly thing people shouldn't hunt sharks. first of all they are practicly endagered, and they wouldnt need shark for anything? what, like thousands of sharks dead, and somebody will be like, "i feel like eating some shark today."