Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About yoginimama

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign


  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    "Man, am I ever happy the overt oppression has morphed into subtle, insidious little performative, linguistic modes of oppression." -- zibber
  1. I disagree. The GR is binding on everyone, therefore it implicitly mandates action against those who violate it towards others. Also, the person who doesn't care if they might get hit by a car is an outlier and his private opinion doesn't give him the right to take undue risk of running other people over. See above. In both of those articles, people are arguing that increased speed limits either increase (the first one) or do not affect (the second one) road safety. Road safety is still taken to be the highest goal. No one is arguing "Hey, I don't care if I get run over, so I should be allowed to go 80!" They are arguing by contrast that such a speed limit is either safer or just as safe as a lower speed limit. So people are not actually making the argument you claim they're making.
  2. You need to see my other post? As I said before: people who speed are not taking ALL the relevant parties into question, like pedestrians and other drivers, AND it is vanishingly unlikely that they are, in fact, as happy for you to take risks with their lives as they are to take risks with your life.
  3. We have an HOA where we live. Some people in the HOA strongly complained to the board about how people speed up and down our street. It was awful, they said; totally unacceptable. So the board got the police to set up some speed traps, and lots of speeders got caught. Guess who they were? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAD COMPLAINED about all the speeding. In other words, it is exceedingly rare to find someone who wants to do something inconsiderate to others, who won't complain bitterly about that exact same thing being done to himself. I don't know exactly how these people justified their own speeding when they were so upset about others speeding, but they managed it. So I would argue that it's very unlikely that the guy who wants to speed in the school zone would be happy about anyone else doing it. Therefore he is breaking the GR.
  4. Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, the GR AND ONLY THE GR justifies them, because in each case you're talking about people who are themselves violating the GR by wanting to speed, drive drunk, etc. Because they are violating the GR, it does not violate the GR to make rules and consequences to stop/deter/punish them.
  5. @ischulte, I think when you consider speed limits in light of the Golden Rule you're failing to consider all the parties involved. You say you can't see how it's right under the GR to tell people they can't drive as fast as they want to, but you're not considering pedestrians, construction workers, school crossings as @scorpiomover mentioned, other drivers. The rule is "Do unto OTHERS as you would have THEM do unto you." You need to consider all parties involved. The person who wants to drive 40 through a school zone is himself not following the GR, he's failing to think of the kids and other parents, and therefore the GR permits the rest of us to ticket him for his speeding.
  6. But what happens if they break up? We don't have legal precedents for multiple romantic commitments in western society. This could cause huge problems, as former threesomes and foursomes argue about who gets what.
  7. I did not go to either junior or senior prom because I didn't have a date and you kind of needed a date in that time (late 80s) and that place (Catholic school). I didn't mind, especially not when I heard people's drunken after-prom stories the next day ("See what you missed?" one of them said to me ironically). But although I didn't care about wearing a fancy dress and dancing, I did kind of always feel like I'd missed out on the sociology of it--a chance to understand and analyze the event firsthand. Would people act different, for example? But that was laid to rest by my daughter. She went to both of her proms and assured me that there is no there there.
  8. Tonight we order in pizza.
  9. Another Big Picture Person.
  10. After much reading and several tests, I tentatively think I'm a 1w9, but I'm an INFJ.
  11. Congratulations!
  12. No. Sure, but you're going to have to explain like I'm five and tell me how that is in any way equivalent to attempting to breed or genetically engineer my offspring. There's a difference between saying "He's kind, or strong, or dutiful, I want that in a husband and potential father" and "I want an egg or sperm donor with a 135 IQ and blue eyes, oh and I'll pay $10,000 to get it."
  13. For someone to LIVE WITH, yes. I definitely selected for the traits I wanted in a companion and against the ones I didn't. Once I had my desired companion, then he would be the one I would have a baby with if that's what we both decided we wanted. But the initial decisions were not about baby-making. And in the absence of such specific reasoning on record, you'll conclude that even if a surrogate is paid, it's somehow not baby-trafficking?
  14. I don't think choosing your own mate rises to the level of selective breeding, of saying "We want a baby with X traits so show us egg donors with X traits." ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: For example, if I were thinking eugenetically, I'd never have had a child with my husband. He was obese at the time, and sandbagged by major hereditary depression. But I had other concerns and motives.
  15. What else would it be? An infant and a child are both immature humans. The UN Declaration makes no distinction between children and infants. Your wording suggests you feel surrogacy is a positive good. Can you explain your reasoning?