Lurker > adjl

I tried out DRG when it had a free weekend, but it didn't really hook me. Interesting concept, and I'm sure it could be fun with friends, but I just didn't see anything that I really wanted to sink my teeth into.

He finally got to see it.

EchoBaz posted...

hey, this very much feels like a spiritual successor to Xenosaga

It's an entirely different genre of gameplay, an entirely different art style (aside from being very broadly "anime-like"), nothing indicates that they have similar stories... "This one character kind of reminds me of Kos-Mos" really isn't equivalent to "This feels like a spiritual successor to Xenosaga."

EchoBaz posted...

Indeed, it's 2.5d

More than that, it's pretty much exactly the same art style. There are lots of 2.5D games that don't look exactly like Bloodstained. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since Bloodstained was great and looked fantastic, but there are definitely some major similarities there.

That is indeed a very nostalgia-inducing set.

You're not worthless because you aren't living up to society's metrics for success. You're worthless because everybody's worthless. Just roll with it and enjoy your life.

If I'm actually trying to keep on top of it and look presentable, I need to shave around the edges every 2 days or so and trim my beard weekly. In practice, I'm not exactly going anywhere meaningful these days, so I tend to be lazy and just shave and trim every 2-3 weeks. Any longer than that and I start getting into mountain man territory, and the nearest mountains are much too far away for me to heed their call, so that's just annoying.

agesboy posted...

check trans suicide statistics and tell me nothing's wrong

I mean, the sort of person who doesn't see a problem with espousing rhetoric like this is often the sort of person who doesn't see a problem with trans people killing themselves, so that isn't necessarily the best approach to convince them of anything.

I'm getting big Bloodstained vibes. The art style's very similar.

AWinterJ posted...

She did nothing wrong.

Except use a very public platform to attack the legitimacy of a group that is already one of the most marginalized out there, including offering support to some truly horrific laws (such as this one). That's quite bad.

PK_Spam posted...

every single girl is going to have to worry about people accusing her of being a man because shes too good at a sport.

Heck, they're going to have to worry about that just because somebody decided they didn't like her that day, whether she's "too good" or not. This can and will be abused by bullies.

I was, but then he died.

It's almost like real sports organizations already had their own guidelines in place and also rarely have to deal with trans athletes anyway, meaning this is only really going to affect school-level sports that don't matter in the slightest but also happen during the age range at which it's likely to cause the greatest amount of harm to trans people's mental health and also at which it's most easily going to turn into a form of sexual abuse. Who knew?

It's basically the "eat all your food because there are starving kids in Africa" line, which is pretty much devoid of logical merit. Your problems don't stop being problems just because somebody else has worse ones. In particular, the current high gas prices are entirely a product of unjustifiable corporate greed. Accepting them as inevitable instead of holding those corporations accountable is exactly what they're banking on.

MrMelodramatic posted...

Sometimes I think Imtoo far gone to believe it when she says she loves me and I doubt a therapist could fix that. Therapy is for suckers and nice folk

People who think this are exactly who therapy is for.

Johnny Eagle posted...

Depends on the game, mostly

Pretty much, provided it's not too intrusive. If I'm fighting a boss in Dark Souls and there's a Coca-Cola billboard in the background, we've got a problem. In a more modern, realistic setting? That's fine.

Though, that being said, the sort of publishers that consider moves like this tend not to be the sort of publishers that I sympathize with at all when they claim that they need to resort to product placement as a revenue stream. I'd rather they do something like this than the more manipulative, predatory monetization options that are around, but given how the AAA industry tends to go, they'd rather just cram both in there because they want to milk every possible cent out of their games and pass none of that success on to the people that are actually creating the products they're getting rich off of.

faramir77 posted...

The purple and white Pikmin from 2 don't return

That's a pretty arbitrary criticism. It's a strategy/puzzle game; you don't need to give players exactly the same tools to work with in creating new puzzles for them to solve.

Far-Queue posted...

See, we shouldn't approach *everything* with common sense or logical consistency. Sometimes there are factors to be considered which tip the scales a bit.

Considering those other factors is approaching the matter with common sense and logical consistency. I understand bringing that up, because a whole lot of people who love humping straw Vulcans will try to completely remove personal identity or emotions from their assessment of a situation, but that approach isn't flawed because they need to consider something other than logical reasoning to have a valid point, it's flawed because their logical reasoning is incomplete without considering those.

Far-Queue posted...

That Dr Spock logic doesn't fly when people's rights are being stripped away.

Again, assessing the opinions in question finds that stripping away rights without personal experience is logically flawed (the decision is made based on incomplete information), but protecting those rights without personal experience is logically sound (because the information needed to justify that belief doesn't depend on personal experience). Ultimately, the only reason any man needs to be pro-choice is that the women in his life want that freedom. That's sufficient justification, and that does not in any way rely on personal experience. He can go beyond that to form a more substantial opinion by talking more broadly about bodily autonomy or bringing in stats about the potential harms of pregnancy and childbirth, but "women want this and nobody else has a right to take it from them" is all that's really needed. The burden of proof for "women should keep this right" is much, much easier to meet than the burden of proof for "this right should be taken from women."

darkknight109 posted...

But I still think this is a worthwhile exercise, if only for people who might be reading this and who are unconvinced one way or another. Those are minds that can actually be changed.

If nothing else, it makes for more robust (and therefore more valid) opinions by prompting us to think about how to justify the beliefs we already hold. I'm not a fan of people treating abortion debates as simple academic exercises, since that's a flippant dismissal of how profoundly the issue affects people that don't have the privilege of not caring about it, but this isn't an abortion debate (we all already agree that pro-lifers should use a fleshlight made out of cactus as their primary form of birth control), so I'm fine with exercising a little.

Jen0125 posted...

But your opinion shouldn't have any affect on what women do whether it's good or bad.

Sure it should. Or at least, it should have the same effect on what women do as it has on what anyone else do, which is to say it should be assessed on its merits and responded to accordingly. Sometimes, that means ignoring or dismissing the opinion because I don't understand the situation enough to contribute meaningfully. Sometimes, that means accepting new insights and incorporating them into one's own opinion. But that's an assessment that needs to be done for each opinion I state, not on the basis of what genitals I have.

Saying this, I recognize that men very often do not offer women that same courtesy. That's wrong. When I say that women shouldn't dismiss my opinions wholesale because I'm a man, I have every intent of applying that both ways: Dismissing women's opinions because they're women is no less misogynist than this is misandrist.

Jen0125 posted...

If a woman and a man both have pro-choice opinions with the same background and you have a speaking event about abortion rights are you going to hire the man or woman? Why would you hire a man over a woman to talk about that?

Because they're a better public speaker? Because they've done research or otherwise had experiences that allow them to provide insights the other person can't provide? There are plenty of cases where a male speaker might provide more value than a female one. Perhaps most notably, having pro-choice men speaking at the event can increase the chance that any pro-life men in the audience change their minds (and, let's be real, swaying pro-lifers is most of the potential value abortion rights events have, since it's not like you can or need to convince pro-choice people to become more pro-choice), especially coming from the perspective of saying "it's not our place to tell women what to do with their bodies" or bringing in analogies like forced circumcision or vasectomies.

There are also reasons to prefer a female speaker, of course (such as avoiding female pro-life audience members falling back on "this man shouldn't tell me what to do" to reinforce their belief that they have the right to tell other women what to do, because pro-life logic), and if all other factors are equal, many events will preferentially choose the female one for the comfort of female attendees, but it's a mistake to think of that in terms of the validity of their respective opinions. The validity of their opinions is not necessarily tied to their genitals.

Jen0125 posted...

Everyone can have a valid opinion on boobs because everyone has breast tissue

Depends on the opinion. Men wanting to make breast reduction illegal, for example, is made less valid by the fact that it's exceedingly unlikely they'll ever be in a situation where breast reduction surgery is anything more than an aesthetic thing, whereas it's a significant medical issue for many women.

I fully expect that uncomfirmed cases are twice that, if not higher, especially with omicron generally being a milder illness and most workplaces abandoning any sort of testing requirements or paid leave for symptomatic people (plus rapid test results generally not being counted).

Possibly not, actually. Depending on how quickly those last 100 posts go, she might not have a chance to come back, and I don't see much point in giving this topic a sequel.

I think the last 400 posts have made it pretty obvious that I would like you to fix that opinion so it better aligns with common sense and logical consistency, but you've made it pretty clear you don't want to do that.

pvegeta posted...

People who need attention. Same ones who go into a streamer chat and derail it to talk about their bad day or tragedy.

Pretty much. Sometimes, you just need to talk about whatever's on your mind, so you bring it up to whatever audience you can find. Sometimes, people lack the social competency to recognize that they're not in an appropriate setting for that. Put 'em together, and you get somebody fishing for birthday wishes in somebody else's stream.

Jen0125 posted...

My opinion that your opinion is less valid has no practical implications lmao.

Jen0125 posted...

Unless you want to be nice and shut the f*** up.

Considering me to not be a nice person because I stated an opinion sounds like a practical implication to me. Unless, of course, you don't do anything with that opinion, in which case... you're just passive-aggressively sulking whenever I speak? I guess that's your prerogative, but that seems like a weird thing to announce, especially with such fervour.

Adam_Savage posted...

nope, and nope. it's a perfectly apt analogy, so go ahead and answer it.

if covid only affected men, and a woman epidemiologist said that it's fine because it didn't affect her

what do you value her opinion at.

I would give it roughly the same value that I would give to a man that said pregnancies aren't dangerous or unpleasant because they don't affect him, which is to say none at all because it's flagrantly at odds with obvious empirical reality and the only way anyone could have such an opinion is by wilfully sheltering themselves from actually trying to understand the situation.

You've successfully crafted an analogy to something nobody's saying. What was that meant to accomplish?

Adam_Savage posted...

i'd trust the woman more, specifically because she is a woman.

if the roles were reversed and it was a woman saying, idk, my dick n balls were at risk for infection because of something, and the dude said it was fine, i would weigh the mans more specifically because he has a dick n balls and could experience whatever is going on in that situation

now, i would obviously have weighed them wrong in this instance, but that's okay. i would at least own up to it

But not own up to using deeply fallacious logic to assess the opinions, apparently. That's a really, really stupid way to appraise opinions. Personal experience can be a factor in an opinion's credibility, but that's not always the case, nor is it automatically a more significant factor than anything else you can consider.

Adam_Savage posted...

abortion being one of them. if you're pro choice, f***ing great man fight those conservative f***s. but your opinion, while high in this case, is still lower than a womans opinion, even if she is pro life.

specifically because they are the only ones able to have an abortion

Tell me: Why does one woman's ability to have an abortion herself somehow make her an authority on other women having abortions? Yes, she can have an abortion, but she can only have *her* abortion. I am exactly as capable of having your wife's abortion as Amy Coney Barret is, so why grant ACB more authority over your wife's abortion than you grant me?

Now, of course, I should have exactly zero authority over your wife's abortion. That's obvious. Nobody here is suggesting otherwise (except possibly Arv, who knows what Arv's doing). Similarly, ACB should have exactly zero authority over your wife's abortion. The issue here is not that I want authority over your wife's abortion, it's that you're suggesting that ACB somehow should have some, just because she automatically has more authority than I do.

Jen0125 posted...

Validity isn't about respect.

Then what is it about? Because you all seem very keen on insisting that men's opinions are less valid, but any time anyone takes issue with any of the practical implications of being considered less valid, you insist that those practical implications aren't what you're talking about and we therefore shouldn't be taking issue. As far as I can tell, "less valid" doesn't actually carry any practical implications and it's just something you're saying because you think it sounds good.

Adam_Savage posted...

or

you could realize that the state of games pretty much mandating always online connectivity means they are all mmos

or, alternatively, because pretty much every genre has been done as an mmo at this point

take your pick, here's your sign.

None of which is what he's saying. The battle system is a single-player version of the one popularized by WoW (autoattacking while cycling between various special abilities as they come off cooldown, with aggro management and the typical MMO Tank/Healer/DPS trinity being a major factor in party composition), which has been a staple of MMO's pretty much ever since. Yes, every genre can technically be an MMO because "MMO" is a format and not a genre, but that's generally not what people colloquially saying "this plays like an MMO" mean.

PK_Spam posted...

XB1 has higher highs, but significantly lower lows. Alcamoth is a boooorrrreeee

Eryth Sea's a little too big and kind of annoying to navigate (especially with the map not filling in the gaps when you take transporters, so the whole map ends up just being a bunch of unconnected islands), as is Alcamoth itself, but the actual main story around Alcamoth is perfectly solid. Melia's got the best character arc in the game by far (granted, the only other discrete "character arc" is Sharla's, and that's not much competition), there's a ton of important foreshadowing and plot events littered throughout the arc, Melia herself is the most obvious chance the player is given to experiment with a different party lead (Shulk's AI being pretty bad and any compositions that don't include him being unconventional and less intuitive)...

Makna and Eryth combine to make a very long story arc, but that's about the worst thing I can say about it, and that's not exactly bad. If anything, Makna's just filler that delays getting to the important Eryth stuff.

Sounds like a good time to work on my tan.

Also in Xenoblade 1. If memory serves, its cutscenes total about 10 hours, which is less than 2's 14, but still quite substantial.

It's also a better game.

darkknight109 posted...

In your hypothetical, I'm not going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they can catch this new strain of COVID; I'm going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they are defensible opinions.

And really, that's the central thrust of all of this: When you're evaluating opinions, evaluate the opinions themselves, not the people saying them. Sometimes, evaluating the opinions involves examining the people to determine whether or not the opinion is likely to be adequately supported by their knowledge or experience, but the focus is still on the opinion itself and what that knowledge/experience means for its credibility, not the person. This idea that the opinion itself doesn't matter and all you need to look at is the person is fundamentally backwards.

Adam_Savage posted...

it worked for metroid prime 4

Too soon

Adam_Savage posted...

now imagine that only men could get covid, and the woman who cannot get covid says covid isn't dangerous.

you know what, we can even up the ante

the woman is an epidemiologist.

Please find even a single instance of a man saying pregnancy isn't dangerous or unpleasant in this topic. That's a mandatory prerequisite for even beginning to consider that to be a valid analogy.

Adam_Savage posted...

lets say you were outside and did something to break your arm. on the street nearby a random guy in an arm cast comes over and goes "oh man it looks like you might've broken your arm" but then some random other person walking on the street, who has absolutely no medical knowledge and nothing at all wrong or broken on them, and they say "nah, looks fine to me bruv"

whose opinion do you think is worth more to you

Neither opinion is worth much of anything, if they're both laypersons. Neither has any medical training, neither has access to any sort of imaging, neither has any way of knowing what I'm feeling and probably didn't even get a good look at the incident... About the only way either of them is going to be able to make anything resembling a credible assessment is if my arm is actually bent in the middle of the bone, in which case I already know it's broken and don't really need the input from cast guy to figure that out (and non-cast guy is just an idiot). Unless one of them identifies himself as a doctor or similarly qualified individual (even just somebody with first aid training), I'm going to treat both opinions as equally worthless and assess for myself whether an ER visit is in order (where I would get an opinion with actual value).

Personally experiencing one example of a broad range of experiences does not make you an expert on that full range. Similarly, if somebody who's had three kids says that abortions aren't a health care issue because she didn't have any complications, I can safely dismiss that opinion as ignorant nonsense because I have the necessary knowledge to know that her experience cannot be generalized to all pregnancies and is in fact completely useless for analyzing the risks involved with any other one. That's the rough equivalent of "I didn't die when I had it, so Covid can't actually kill anyone," which I doubt I have to explain the folly of. I don't need to be a woman to know that, and her attempts to generalize n=3 into something meaningful on a population scale don't magically become more valid than the reams of data I can reference just because I have too many penises.

Far-Queue posted...

Pro-life women should have more say in what goes on in their bodies than pro-choice or even pro-life men do.

Pro-choice men don't have a say in what goes on in a woman's body, nor do they want one. That's what being pro-choice means. The entire position is "just let women do what they want," so this insistence on characterizing it as "trying to control women's bodies" is completely baffling.

Adam_Savage posted...

your opinion on abortion, regardless of what it is, matters less than a womans.

that's it.

that's the whole argument.

Repeating the same sentence over and over again doesn't make it any more logically sound.

Jen0125 posted...

Yes because at least she has or has had a true stake in the matter.

No one is defending her actual opinion because it's dangerous and s***ty. But it is more valid.

You very much are defending her opinion. When you say her opinion is more valid, what that means is that it is more logically sound and therefore the one that anyone trying to make a decision on the matter should be listening to and following. You are quite literally saying that if somebody is voting on whether or not abortion should be legal, and they're listening to ACB spew her pro-life nonsense while a man is representing the pro-choice position, they should vote to make abortion illegal, and that's an absolutely absurd thing for somebody who wants abortion rights protected to be suggesting.

If that's not what you're trying to say, then you should stop talking about this in terms of "validity." The only purpose of comparing the validity of opinions is to determine which one you should listen to and treat as being the most right in acting on the information and reasoning you've been provided. If you're not going to change your mind just because a man stated the opinion you previously agreed with and a woman stated the opposing one, you don't actually consider her opinion more valid than his.

Also,
Jen0125 posted...

she has or has had a true stake in the matter.

I wouldn't even say that this is a valid premise. She has a stake in that she can potentially end up needing an abortion (putting aside for the moment that her position and SES mean she's going to be able to get one regardless of what the law says, if she so chooses), but this is not an individual matter. Having a stake in her own pregnancy/abortion does not grant her a stake in the pregnancies and abortions of every other woman in the country, which is what the matter actually is. But then that's getting into the reasons why a pro-life opinion is invalid regardless of who holds it, which is perhaps a bit of a tangent that we all agree on already anyway.

Far-Queue posted...

It's sad that some men are rattled by the notion that their opinion holds less value than a woman's when it pertains to legislating the female body.

It's exactly the same opinion, though. We're not talking about pro-life men, who do indeed lack the personal experience that's necessary to properly form that opinion (since they can't appreciate the consequences of removing those rights). We're talking about men who are pro-choice because they value bodily autonomy and women who are pro-choice because they value bodily autonomy. It's an identical opinion, with identical reasoning behind it, being treated as "lesser" (a concept which you still haven't elaborated on) because of who's saying it. Nothing about that makes sense.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

How would I know, Blizzard pretends the game is illegal here and does not allow us to play.

It's really quite telling that they'd rather not release it at all than release it with a PEGI-18 rating that clearly indicates the gambling mechanics.

Zareth posted...

Hmmm

How much has he played of it? My understanding is that it's generally quite good for the first few hours before it starts driving in the wedge of monetization and getting progressively worse unless you start dropping a couple dollars here and there.

Alternatively, how much has he spent?

darkknight109 posted...

Fair, but I wouldn't say that's incompatible with what I said. You can still give someone's opinion significant weight and decide you ultimately don't agree with them.

Arguably, disagreeing with them axiomatically means you're giving their opinion less weight than alternatives, but I get what you're going for. The basic "I understand where you're coming from and I don't think you're wrong, but I think this other option is going to be better for me specifically" sort of response.

VampireCoyote posted...

lowkey tell us that youre mad that you arent in a discord group though

Unrelated to anything, I'm not a huge fan of the growing trend of games having Discord servers that serve as the primary source of information and theorycrafting, with their wikis and subreddits being afterthoughts. It's generally not a problem to get into those servers for anyone that's interested, but I much prefer the format and more passive approach of just reading a subreddit or wiki instead of having to proactively join something.

darkknight109 posted...

That analysis is typically undertaken by academics or observed by people actually performing the procedure, which is why I tend to rate their viewpoints more heavily. Or, to put it another way, a woman might have experience with one abortion; her doctor probably has experience with hundreds, if not thousands.

Even then, though, I don't necessarily side with the more experienced academic, since sometimes personal experience is going to be more meaningful. If an Ob-Gyn has hypothetically found that 99% of women find abortions to be a traumatic experience and believes that they're more likely to do harm than good (and that finding is consistent with similar doctors'), that's still not a valid justification to make abortions illegal, because the choice of whether or not to endure that emotional trauma should still be up to the woman. She should be informed of that finding so she can make a proper decision about whether or not she wants to face that risk, and I expect that information would cause abortion rates to decrease, but it's still a matter of choosing or not choosing that experience for themselves instead of having it forced upon them.

Now, if we got into the territory of significant medical risk (i.e. a maternal mortality rate of 20% for every abortion), that could be reason to ban the practice and ignore how women feel about the pregnancies they'd have to keep. That's debatable, specifically the question of where the threshold should be between letting patients make informed decisions about their own safety and taking the option away from them, but much like we don't let doctors prescribe Thalidomide anymore, there is room to place limits on patient choice. Presumably, in such a case, there'd be a push to develop safer abortions to replace the dangerous, banned procedure, but that's a bit beyond the scope of what I'm commenting on here.

Muscles posted...

More like this has helped me so I think other people that are struggling with that should give it a try. I have a ton of sympathy for suicidal and bullied people, I've been there. Will that mindset work for everyone? Probably not but I'm sure it could help a lot of people and prevent a lot kids from killing themselves.

Generally speaking, "just shrug it off" is thoroughly useless - if not outright harmful - advice for people struggling with definite mental illness. It can sometimes help some people, but overwhelmingly your default should be to sympathize with the person instead of trying to make them feel like a failure for caring.

Far-Queue posted...

Having a less valid opinion is not a wholesale dismissal of said opinion.

Then what does it mean? That I should listen to and incorporate what women say in forming my opinion, because the stakes are higher for them and they therefore may have some insights that I haven't considered? Because I've done exactly that many times over and continue to be open to having my opinion developed further by new insights, most of which come from women (directly or indirectly). That doesn't mean my opinion is "less valid" for me being a man, that just means it's an opinion like every single other one on the planet: There's virtually always room to improve it by incorporating new information.

Far-Queue posted...

No amount of education or study can subvert the lived experience.

Let's say you have a choice of voting between two politicians:

• "I caught Covid and just had some sniffles, so there's no point in doing anything to control or treat the disease"
• "I've consulted with a wide range of doctors and epidemiologists who have presented data indicating the Covid will kill millions of Americans unless we try to contain it and develop facilities to be able to treat victims"

Do you vote for #1 because "no amount of education or study can subvert the lived experience"? Or do you vote for #2 because n=1 is pretty useless for making population-scale decisions? Or if you personally think Covid's response was overblown and #1's approach would have been better, swap them (#1 almost died and wants stricter controls, #2 has data showing there's no significant risk on a population scale).

Sometimes, personal experience does trump objective data and professional expertise. Sometimes, letting personal experience trump objective data and professional expertise is a really bad idea. You really can't make a blanket statement like you did. The relevance of personal experience to any given opinion's validity needs to be assessed for that opinion, by looking at the context and the basis supporting it.

AltOmega2 posted...

Major Red flag, oof

Eh, it happens, especially for sex workers who aren't always in full control of their birth control situation. Turning around and pushing a pro-life agenda after having two secret abortions is pretty deplorable, but I'm not going to judge her simply for having the abortions without more specific, damning information.

"I got better therefore mental illness isn't real."

Jen0125 posted...

I don't care if men respect me or my positions on anything. I'm not sure why you even said that lmao.

And yet you've spent 280 posts trying to convince everyone here that you're saying something valid. I'm just offering you a time-saving measure.

Jen0125 posted...

I'm not explaining anything to you or delving further because I don't care to babysit and handhold men who want to be the most important because penis

I don't want to be the most important. I want to have a complete understanding of the world around me and the significant issues facing it. What you're saying is at odds with my understanding, so I'm inviting you to explain yourself better so I can correct that understanding if needed. You're unwilling to do so, so the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that you don't actually have a point and I can safely ignore your objections.

Jen0125 posted...

lmao as though attacking other women's rights doesn't affect them.

This is a valid point (see: TERFs siding with fascists to attack trans people, then having that bite them in the ass when it turns out that fascists don't actually like feminists), but it's much broader than you seem to realize. Eroding the rights of childbearing women also stands to erode the rights of other women, but why stop there? When do they start punishing men for being "too effeminate" because they don't work in the right fields or like sportsball enough? What happens to the men that tried to speak out in favour of women whose rights were being stripped away, or who try to help them after it's illegal to do so?

This is a human rights issue. I care about human rights, so I care about abortion rights, just as I care about trans rights and gay rights and all those other fun things that I'm privileged enough to ignore but am choosing not to. I don't want to be left in the position of saying "they came for abortions, but I didn't care because I couldn't get pregnant," and you have no right to insist that I should be.

It really is quite bothersome how so many have latched onto this case just because it's seen as vindicating the belief that men are just as routinely victimized by domestic violence as women. Yes, Heard was abusive, possibly even more abusive than Depp, but this was very much a mutually abusive relationship and they both just need to act like adults and walk away.

Again, I ask you: How does being able to get pregnant affect your ability to say "women should be able to decide whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term"? Specifically, how does that make it more valid than somebody who can't get pregnant saying exactly the same thing?

If you want your position respected, try actually providing a basis for it instead of repeating it with increasing anger in the hope that your passion will convince people you don't need logic.

Jen0125 posted...

I don't agree with you regarding it having to do with morals or logic. It simply has to do with the fact that men will never experience what they are trying to support or suppress so maybe take a back f***ing seat and let the women handle it??? That's point blank period and I'll keep repeating it until you die.

Everything has to do with logic. Yours is faulty, which is only giving me more reason to keep expressing pro-choice support to pick up your slack.