Lurker > LinkPizza

TaylorHeinicke posted...

What board?

I believe its called The Real News or something like that

CyricZ posted...

Wow, I spent all yesterday arguing in the "abortions in Japan" topic and we had this going on right here the whole time.

Anyway, if we're seriously discussing this, I think it's important that such a thing absolutely requires the consent of both parents and probably an objective third party to ensure that there is no duress being applied.

There is no way simply leaving it as "the father can abandon the child at any time" would not be abused. It's not allowed now, and it happens anyway.

Technically, people can already do this legally with forms Like if a step-parent legally adopts the child. As for leaving (as an out for men without consent) there would/should be restrictions and limits in place Like they couldnt do it all the time And women could do not, as well

dolomedes posted...

you're the one defending this hypothetical dude, you tell me.

getting someone pregnant carries the risk of them having an abortion. every action has consequences.

I never said anything close to him not knowing he could get someone pregnant. Thats something you made up

DeadBankerDream posted...

So he took a calculated risk and is upset that it didn't pan out.

They had sex, and resulted in something neither planned for, even after precautions were taken

dolomedes posted...

he should have known that as well. there are inherent risks to sexual encounters.

this, man.

'sorry officer, i didn't know sperm fertilized eggs'

Who said he didnt know?

dolomedes posted...

aaww poor guy, he just wanted unprotected sex, he didn't want the consequences. just sign the paper and you're free to go, boss!

Its also possible he took precautions. Dont know if you know this, but none of the precautions are 100%

Felt like it had been so long that you wouldnt be able to catch up to the skill levels of the other players?

gunplagirl posted...

I didn't even finish because I accidentally scrolled to the last few words and just, wtf nope. I have better things to do with my time than read a post that looks like one of those blog stories that has a recipe 20000 words into it.

Doesnt look much longer than yours, but whatever

Maybe a stick or grabber could have worked Or the could have taken the bag out and set it down enough for them to escape

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Any place that says I have to wear heels is not the place for me. Never have worn those damn things, never will.

I did once For Halloween

gunplagirl posted...

Lmao no, it still affects the child. You probably don't read up on cases but there's plenty of stories like this:
Engaged lady gets pregnant and years later it turns out the child is from another man and her husband divorces her. The courts generally rule against the guy divorcing the wife and he's still on the hook for child support even though he isn't related by blood.

The ruling is almost unilaterally down to two points. One, he had already assumed the responsibilities of fatherhood and had thus far been addressing the financial obligations. Two, the ruling must be made with consideration for what is in the best interest of the child. Materially speaking, the father had no issue parting with money to this point and to suddenly remove that would put the child's care into a precarious situation more than simply having a parent leave.

There are plenty of things that affect a child that the child has no say in. This is just another thing. A child may not consent to their biological father not being around. So, should we force parents to also be there for the kid if they dont want to? Should will just take away their free will just because the child didnt consent to having a father whos not around?

As for those court cases, thats because no one cares for the guy. The guy shouldnt have to pay. Especially so if they know who the biological father is And for all we know, the reason he may not have had an issue parting with money was for a few things. Like its possible that had two incomes (from the not-father and from the mother). Another thing is that he will probably move somewhere else meaning not only is he only making his paycheck now, but more money is spent since he has his own place. Not only that, but parents will suffer to make sure theyll child is good to go. In this case, its not his child. So, he probably shouldnt have to suffer for them I think, if anything, maybe just give him custody of the child and make her pay child support

Gladius_ posted...

As I pointed out such a decision puts the woman at risk. Our options for how to proceed from there can literally kill us. You don't have that risk so arguing about fairness is hilarious.

Except both options can kill you. So, whether they can kill you or not doesnt even matter anymore, if were being honest

Gladius_ posted...

Exactly. It is null and void. Why? Because you don't deal with the consequences we do. So it's already unfair from the outset.

Its already unfair. Sure. But by talking about prevention, you are literally avoiding the question. You trying to talk about a different subject than what this topic is about Which TC has mentioned multiple times

As for why its null and void is because you keep trying to change the question

Gladius_ posted...

I never thought it did. I made it increasingly clear that abortion (our out.) is a serious health risk. By getting us pregnant and forcing us into a situation to choose to abort or carry with the potential consequences of either choice also pushes the onus on you to be responsible and do the bare minimum. Pay child support.

You just kept bringing up abortion, though And abortion isnt youre only out And if you want to say that the pregnancy carries a risk either way, the woman should also be responsible. Its not only the mans fault shes pregnant. She also played a big role. And if youre going to have consequences either way, then whether the guy wants an out or not shouldnt be an issue. And the onus shouldnt be pushed onto only men to responsible. Women should be responsible, too The men werent alone in making the baby. But the point is woman have multiple outs, while men have none. They could abort, and thats an out. Or carry it full term and give it up for adoption. Either way, they have an out. And even if the father wanted it, they should be awarded the same chance to cuts all ties just like what I think men should have. Its not a one-way street. I think both parents should have the right to cut all ties from the kid if the child is born, but only one parents wants them So, I disagree when someone says they should do the bare minimum and pay child support

Gladius_ posted...

Yes you do have an easier time preventing it. You can get a vasectomy. You have better BC options. You don't lose your body shape, you aren't forced to deal with health complications, you don't have to worry about abortion options going wrong. We already go through more whether we keep the baby or not. It's already unfair in favor of you.

No. Men dont have an easier time preventing it. They both can prevent it as easily as each other And technically, woman have more choices when it comes to contraceptives, as well Men have only two Also, not every women loses their body shape or has health complications. Some actually keep most of their shape, or get their shape back. Sometimes it takes work. But it takes work for men to keep theirs, as well It takes work for most people to keep their shape. And some people dont have any health complications. Some has pregnancies that are totally fine So while every pregnancy or abortion has the chance to have risk involved, it doesnt mean they all will have risk involved Or risk to the mother, at least So, no. We arent in a more fair position. Women still have the upper hand in this one Just because risk can occur doesnt mean it will So, women could an easy (to an extent) pregnancy Meaning that its still way more unfair to the guy

Gladius_ posted...

You don't deserve an out because you don't have the risk factors we do. You want to ignore this but you don't get to. You want to discuss unfairness? You already have it better. So you lose this discussion.

Absolutely not. Just because you have risk involved doesnt mean males shouldnt get an out. Thats an asinine opinion, tbh Men should get an out just like women. Women already have multiple outs. And if the men got this one out, it would also apply to women who decided to have the baby, but give it up for adoption. And the male decided to keep it instead It actually helps both men and women who dont want the baby, while the other parent does

Gladius_ posted...

So fight the system and keep fighting instead of trying to make a miserable situation even more miserable for us. Giving men an out just screws us over. So now we have to worry about an accidental pregnancy and the health complications from that while also financially being responsible to pay for our medical bills and the baby? While you have no worries? No thanks.

Fighting has done nothing, nor will it. The only people that can make a difference are the ones in power for this. We can fight it till were blue in the face, and nothing will change. And with the laws they are making, were going backwards in terms of rights and what not People have been fighting all these laws, and nothing has come of it At this point, we have to hope the ones in charge make changes for the good But chances are, they might not And while Im not trying to make it miserable for you, Im also not trying to make it miserable for men, either. Or for them to be financially ruined for 18+ years And no. Giving men an out only screws you over if you decide to have and keep the kid, but cant afford it. But you have multiple options out Including the same one were talking about men having, if you wanted to go that route I dont think anyone should be forced to have a babu, forced to abort a fetus, or forced to pay child support. It can help to breed resentment and anger and shit Also, even if the father was paying child support, depending on the state, they probably wouldnt have to pay YOUR medical bills I read something that said they generally do, but not always. And only a reasonable amount And thats if they could afford it in the first place Some may not Like the ones who arent financially ready for a kid And again, you may not even face an health complications at all And of course you have to pay for the baby. You wanted to keep it, after all. So why shouldnt you have to pay for it?

Gladius_ posted...

You. Lack. Our. Risk factors. You have it easy.

And I dont care about risk factors (that may not even apply). You act like that means anything to me. Many women dont have to deal with high risk during their pregnancy. Some are pretty normal and healthy. So that has nothing to do with anything. Men should get an out either way

MarthGoomba posted...

I don't listen to any male artists at all

Really?

Probably makes Though its probably close Unless I count band member by individual members. Most of the bands I listen to have more males in them

Robot2600 posted...

subway doesn't protect it's franchises against other franchises, so you have multiple subways in an area that cannot support that many subways.

Chances are, some of the subways are owned by the same person. Most subway owners I knew owned at least 2 They are cheap to buy And they also have the most in the world, I believe

I worked at Subway once. I liked the job, tbh But not when I worked with this one guy. He made me wash dishes all day. I dont mind washing some. But I like making subs. If he wasnt there, the job would have been much better

Foppe posted...

He was back?

Technically, he never left. Hes just posts on his own board most of the time

Gladius_ posted...

I keep mentioning abortion because it is equitable. Ignoring abortion in this topic is ignoring the elephant in the room and creating a disingenuous argument because the reason why a man doesn't have an out post pregnancy is because they have easier means of avoiding said pregnancy in the first place.

Not my fault that my argument has you scrambling to ignore the elephant in the room because it makes your argument less sound. Adoption is a poor argument because of how much pregnancy changes a woman's body, the cost of going through said pregnancy, and the dangers associated with it. Men don't have an equal risk factor here.

I agree the current system is unfair but in that it puts too much control and financial burden on people who may not be able to meet said burden. The government should provide better coverage and support for children.

As a man you do not need equal out once the girl in question is pregnant because as I pointed out.. you had superior means of avoiding the pregnancy in the first place. She now has serious risk factors by being pregnant with how she wants to proceed from there. Given all options are pretty risky in regards to health for the woman? Yeah, it's out of your hands now because she has to deal with the physical fallout. You don't.

You missed my argument entirely.

Why do you get an out when the woman's outs revolve around "This could kill me. This could also kill me."?

So if she went through the risk and life changing properties of pregnancy and dealt with risk factors that could put her life in jeapordy? The least you can do is provide financial support for the child you helped create.

Further what outs does a woman have outside of abortion? If she wants to put a child up for adoption the father can choose to take custody. If the father chooses to do so he can sue the mother for financial/child support. As is his right. If he cannot do so the system is broken and he should have the right to do so.

Except abortion isnt equitable. Nor is anyone suggesting making women to get or not get them. The question isnt about physical abortion. Its about financial abortion. Basically, the male version of aborting the child. In that case, to answer this question, the women would have to be planning on having and keeping the baby. Bringing up abortion means ignoring TCs question as abortion means the question is null and void The argument was never should women be forced to get abortion. The question was men having an out is women wanted to have and jeep the baby. Bringing abortion up is what actual makes the argument disingenuous since its nullifies TCs question And you make it sound like preventing the pregnancy is all on the man when men and women share equal parts in preventing it And men dont have an easier time preventing it. You need a sperm and egg to make the baby. So, they both have a chance in sex resulting in a baby

Im not trying to ignore it. Youre the one ignoring the original question. The original question was about men having an out after pregnancy is the female wanted to birth and keep the baby. Abortion isnt part of the question. Youre the one scrambling to make the question something it isnt

The government should help. But they arent going to. They dont care about the children at all They want more children to be born in poverty so they have more workers who will work for pennies Theyll never help. Theyre already trying to get rid of some of the support that we already give to people who need it

Im not saying people should equal out only once the girl is pregnant. Some people have a one night stand, though. And accidents happen, even when every precaution is taken on the guys side But like the TC mention, once the female is pregnant, we have no power. And Im not talking about making them get an abortion. Im saying we have no power to do anything. Not even cut ties. At that point, the female basically owns our lives. How we love depends on what they do or dont do Thats the part that guys dont like And I think thats fair on their part to not like someone else to have control of their lives like that

So, no. I didnt miss your argument. For most of it, I dont agree. And also, most of it was arguing something completely different. Like I said, you were arguing about prevention. We were talking about pregnancy after the deed was already done

The women actually gets out if they want it. Sure, they could kill her. But either way, she has to chose one. Have the baby or dont. Either could kill her. Men having an out doesnt change that, nor does it affect them unless you make it affect them Even then, it only affects them due to the future baby involved Not only that, but it was also their responsibility to try to prevent the child. Its not only the mans responsibility, nor should it be Both men and women have preventative measures. Why use one when you can use more. Why make only one partner use contraceptives when you can use more?

And no. I dont think we should have to provide financial support just because she went through the life changing properties of pregnancy In the end, we probably wont have to give them money until the child in born For a plethora of reasons

And the father could receive custody. That depends on if he knows, though. And if its a one-night stand where he doesnt even see you again, he probably wouldnt know. Or lives somewhere far away. Or you have the baby someone not close Or even adopt them out to a relative The father would have to know you had the baby. And you can easily lie and not tell him. Ot even say you go an abortion. Or tell him its someone elses. Either way, you can keep the baby (or knowledge of the baby) away from him In the end, women control who has outs or not

bigblu89 posted...

Add in spermicidal lubricants, "the pill", VCFs, IUDs, Diaphragm, etc, that are MUCH more non-surgical female "pre sex" options than they're are for men.

This is true There are a ton of them We have condom and surgery. Females have many more items to use, as well

emblem-man posted...

If the guy has so little money that he can't provide any financial support, then he won't. Like, I don't think any of us are saying we should garnish someone's wage by 90% and force him to have no discretionary income or something.

If the guy has money to provide, should he have a way out? I say no.

The problem is even if you dont think someone who cant provide financial support shouldnt have to pay, that doesnt mean theyre off the hook. Theyll just take his money still. It could cause them to lose what little they have. And theyll be stuck in that hole for 18 years

That said, I still think the same for a guy with money. But thats because Im not really basing my choice solely on how much money they have I mean, it could still mess them up, too I know enough people that make not much over their monthly expenses. Meaning that even if they make a good amount of money, having to give money up could cause then to also get in a bad spot

MedeaLysistrata posted...

They shouldn't have an out because it punishes the woman and the baby. Already from a utilitarian perspective the appeal falls flat... Why should one person benefit and two people get screwed?

But without an out, its punishes the man, and still may not even help the women and child much, if at all So, in that case, three people suffer instead of two

Gladius_ posted...

Men have better odds (see vasectomy) at dealing with prevention. We have better odds (see abortion) dealing with rejection.

The odds of getting a woman pregnant post vasectomy is 1/1000. The odds of having a potentially deadly reaction to abortion is 1/1000.

To be honest I think it's imbalanced to the favor of men. Your way of avoiding having children has the same odds as failing as abortion but your failure results in a child. Our failure results in our potential death.

Believe me. We wish it were that simple. We could get our tubes tied I guess. Oh but wait. That almost never can be reversed (whereas most vasectomies can) and has serious potential complications.

Biology, as has been stated, is unfair. Men have their own options of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. We have ours. I would argue men's ways are superior to our ways.

But I won't lie that I find it strange some men want us to jump through hoops for ours without having to worry about theirs.

But youre still having a different conversation. The conversation still isnt (and never was) about prevention. Its about after the pregnancy happened. Like lets say the man had a vasectomy and wore a condom. And the pregnancy still happened. The conversation is about having a way out AFTER. The pregnancy has happened. Not about prevention And again, YOU are the one who keeps bringing up abortion. I havent said anything about the female getting an abortion You are having a completely different conversation. Im taking about an out after the pregnancy. Youre talking about prevention. Thats a different conversation. That said, I still disagree with most of your points there, too But thats for another topic I think it should still be 50-50 there (or close to it)

Gladius_ posted...

My argument is in relation to that. You had superior ways to avoid a pregnancy that you didn't care to take/utilize. You either didn't think of it or felt the risks associated with it are too great.

Now that pregnancy happened it's time for us to weigh those same risks and make a final decision.

Imagine this as my argument.

Imaginary Man: I didn't want a vasectomy because there's still a chance I could get you pregnant even if it's less than 1%. I also may want children later and sometimes it can't be reversed.

Imaginary Woman: Now that I am pregnant I decided to keep the baby. I decided the risk of abortion complications outweigh the risk of me deciding to just go through with the pregnancy. Though this has it's own risks.

Imaginary man: But that's not fair! I don't want to have to pay for a child!

You keep mentioning abortion. But thats not what the conversation is about. Because she also could birth the baby and give it up for adoption. The point of this question isnt about actual abortion. Its only about the guy having an out in case a pregnancy does happen. Abortion isnt the only out. It could just be the mother saying you dont have to pay child support, for example

emblem-man posted...

Not everything in life has a 100 equivalent. I understand what you're trying to say, it feels unfair in a very real way. But I just fundamentally disagree with the idea behind that line of thinking and think it's incorrect to view it through those lens.

I know not everything has a 100% equivalent. But this is women get the whole choice, while men dont have any. Like I said, I think they should have an out. I think it should come with limits and heavy consequences. But they could then get/have an out And I definitely dont think its an incorrect way to view things. Lots of people will see things differently

Gladius_ posted...

He does get a say as a woman can't tell him he can't get a vasectomy or use protection. Condoms have a 98% success rate. As you mentioned, Vasectomies can often be reversed but there's always a chance it can't.

A woman having an abortion can have complications such as..

Heavy bleeding, sepsis, damage to the womb, and infertility. A man can't tell a woman she can't have an abortion but a woman can't tell a man he can't get a vasectomy. Both are the biological options. Both have risks. Both aren't full proof.

A vasectomy can lead to a male who wants children later to be unable to have them. An abortion can render us infertile. Same result.

No. He doesnt. All he gets in a say in whether to have sex or not. Thats all. And I dont think a guy should have to risk having a family just to have sex. And Im not saying women have to get an abortion or go through the pregnancy. They can choose that themselves. Im saying men should have an out in case a pregnancy happens. And they dont have that chance. They get a chance to reduce the chances. Thats all But thats not what this conversation is about. Its about men having an out in case of a pregnancy. Like how women have

emblem-man posted...

Child support is just to limit the potential negatives due to lack of financial support.

If the father doesn't make much money, yes it will be unfair to him..same way it's unfair to the mother if she doesn't make any money. Like, sometimes shit just isn't "fair", however you define it. Having a child in the picture changes things.

Again, it's not about punishment to the mother or the father. It's about what's better for the kid

While its not suppose to be a punishment, for some people, it really is And the problem I have with it is that the women is the one who decides how their financial lives will play out. But the man doesnt get a say

Gladius_ posted...

The father does have a say. He could use protection, get a vasectomy, etc. It can potentially be reversed if he changes his mind later. That may not work. It could not take. We can have complications having an abortion. That's true too. Both aspects aren't void of risks.

So both sides do have an out as is. Not to mention.. pregnancy is risky too.

No. He doesnt get a say. He could use protection. But I still havent heard of protection thats 100% Vasectomies arent 100%. And depending on the type or reversal they get, the chances range from 65%-95% So, the only one that really has an out is the female They choose whether the men get an out or not

Gladius_ posted...

Sometimes abortions can go wrong. They aren't 100% risk free.

Personally what I would like to see is more support from the government and less child support being relied on the people involved. Especially since the parents can be/go broke.

Thats also true. Im not saying men should get to choose whether a woman has an abortion or not. Im saying that men should also have an out since women can get one. I think theres should be heavy consequences that go along with it. But I still think they should have an out

Gladius_ posted...

I don't post in topics like this because I don't have an ideal solution and my thoughts are torn on it. However, I do find it weird that people seem to think the only one ruined financially is the man in this situation.

Pregnancy is expensive, so is soley raising a child, and if you have your own place paying your own bills etc that just makes the situation harder. Both parties are in that boat. Children aren't cheap.

I never said the father is the only one who could be financially ruined, though. The mother could also be ruined financially. But the mother is the one who decides whether or not to ruin the fathers life financially. If she wants to keep the baby and it ruins her financially, she chose that option herself. But the father never got to pick whether or not he was ruined financially, which is the problem

emblem-man posted...

Seems bad that the kid should financially suffer due to the father not feeling ready.

I guess I don't see child support as punishment for the father, but instead I see it as support for the child.

Obviously, there can be bad and unfair child support arrangements. But at its most basic, it's meant to support the child

Sure, it seems bad. But just because the father pays child support doesnt mean the child still wont suffer financially. For example, if the father doesnt make enough, not the child and father both suffer financially

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I don't think you should look at this from a domination or revenge perspective. And all of this can be prevented with a vasectomy anyway.

Sure. Or tubal ligation could work, if you want to go that route. Just because a guy doesnt want a kid doesnt mean he wont want one later in life. Just not right then. And while vasectomies can be reversed, theres always a chance it will fail depending on which surgery you get Not to mention, sometimes, vasectomies dont take

emblem-man posted...

I mean, they aren't the same thing at all. There's now a child involved in the situation. A child that we should want to take care of.

That would make sense if they wanted the kid. If they didnt want a kid (or didnt feel ready), then I could understand then not wanting to use their money to take care of them

DeadBankerDream posted...

Like I mentioned I don't agree with that framing. Men can apply birth control.

They can. But they arent 100%. And can easily be tampered with. And if a woman lies to them and tampers with the condom, they could easily get tricked into having a kid. Or if the condom breaks normally Either way, someone could be responsible and take precautions and still end up with a kid they dont want

Interstella5555 posted...

If you decide to stick your dick in something and ejaculate then yes, you're responsible for the consequences that come from it.

Sure. But it kind of sucks that a lot of shit gets dumped on the guy. Even if he was responsible and used birth control Basically, the mother gets to decide whether to ruin him financially or not

I think its fine if both parties are fine with it. But I think pretty much all rights to the child should be stripped Like all the things you mentioned, but also stuff like no visitation and other stuff Like ever But like another poster said, theres potential for abuse They would have to make everything super clear on what you could and couldnt do

Efficient in some cases

Ricemills posted...

because the shield is not to prevent the enemy from coming in, it prevents you to coming out.

Coming out can be scary. And hard. But having someone close that you trust there with you can make it easier

As for the shields, gotta have someway to get around it. Not to mention having a way to destroy the shields in case of an emergency

BigOlePappy posted...

Has anyone said Wesley Snipes yet? Wesley Snipes.

A couple times

Metalsonic66 posted...

6 because it's my last day of work until next Tuesday and I'm like "SOOOON."

I have to work tomorrow, but then Im off till Tuesday, as well

I like Hufflepuff

For a fighting game, yeah. Its a lot. If it were a different type of game, than maybe not

Pasta or chicken fried steak Mashed potatoes in the side

Unless its a breakfast place. Then its scrambled eggs with cheese, bacon, sausage, and maybe other things like other breakfast meats or other breakfast sides

Yeah. I pretty much knew everybody from previous years of school. And I was very social. Had friends from lots of social groups. Being short made me noticeable, as well I took a few classes with older students, and also wrestled. And since like half the wrestling team was also a chunk of the football team, I knew popular people. Also, when I came out as gay, I also got more popular. And I was in yearbook with other popular students, and became friends with them So, yes I was

COVxy posted...

The point is that when you taste beer or coffee, you think it tastes disgusting because it tastes ultra bitter to you, right?

When you never taste any bitter, because everything you eat and drink has at least 20g of sugar, you are super sensitive to it.

I don't taste any bitter in coffee, but do i taste nothing? No, because behind the bitter, there's a world of taste there. It's just being masked by the extreme bitter you taste, because you are super sensitive to bitter.

They dont taste bitter to me. I just dont like the taste Not to mention, I like beer, but hate coffee So, I dont think that makes sense I dont think eating less sugar will make coffee taste better. And probably wouldnt change how much I like beer Plus, there are a few bitter things I like

SHRlKE posted...

what silly reductive reasoning. Animals kill animals.. yay lets make murder lawful!

If you want. But they made that a specifically law for humans. Other animals dont fall under it. And can easily get away with killing us. Sure, we try to kill those animals. But it doesnt always work. Doesnt change the fact that animals kill other animals and eat them. I dont see anything wrong with eating other animals. Why are we held to a different standard? It just makes it seem like we must think humans are superior

One of my friends had them before. And if I knew, I would have tried them with them. But I didnt know at the time

Umbreon posted...

But why take the poison that taste like piss water when you can take the poison that tastes good(or at least burns good)?

What poison are you talking about?

COVxy posted...

Eat less sugar!

I dont think that would just make them taste better, though

Nasty_Nitro posted...

alcohol tastes like shit IDC what you mix it with id rather smke

This is just not true at all Saying beer taste like shit is wrong, but would be more right than this There are plenty of Alcoholic drinks that are a delight

coolguyjimmy posted...

Humans are just another animal. If you can tell me why it's okay in your belief to dismiss thousands of other animals eating meat, you'll understand why I dismiss your belief.

This is true. And I think people forget that. We are just another animal like the rest. It seems weird that it fine for animals to eat other animals, and for animals to eat is. But its not ok for us to eat other animals

Ivynn posted...

I'm not sure you know how this works.

No. I have no idea how it works. I wont let the hate of the author affect my enjoyment of the book they wrote I just enjoy what I enjoy. I still enjoy a book, even if I dont like the author of said book

Antifar posted...

She keeps inserting herself into the books.

Then hate her character in the books, as well Just because she sucks doesnt mean you have to hate the books you like or whatever

Coffee taste pretty bad to me unless its like half sugar and creamer, half coffee But some smell good Certain beers are good, though But not all

I thought they were talking about the main character

RenescoStCewl posted...

Are they the hero of the book?

I think they are the victim

Collat posted...

Well they were written for kids and teens. Anything more advanced would probably turn them right off.

I had Goosebump books instead as a kid. That's probably quite a few steps down.

I had a Goosebumps collection as a kid I use to read those all the time

You dont have to hate the books. Just hate her, but not the books

WingsOfGood posted...

That your alt?

No. My alt is basically the same name as my main. And is pretty old, as well I accidentally made it because this name was taken. Little did I know it was taken by me

DuranOfForcena posted...

he was feigning ignorance in order to trivialize a case of actual transphobia

Really? I didnt see that. I still have no idea whats going on with this book. I just posted the part that mentioned transphobia, tbh They just seemed like they were asking a question to me

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Because 9 times out of 10, when a new account comes out immediately posting hot takes, it ends up being a troll on an alt

This one seemed to just ask a question, though