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.

Major Chord

Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Major Chord

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Brain Dominance
  1. Using the analogy, well, realistically, the child will try the block several times on every hole, then realise it can't be solved, and start to cry. Mummy will take the whole toy back to Toys r Us, and ask them why is this toy like this? Toys r Us will say, "It must be a design defect, you can have a refund, or exchange it for another toy of the same value." There, problem solved. I mean, practically speaking. ...... added to this post 6 minutes later: So we could say that a problem is not yet solved, unless it is solved in every part of the world. On the other hand, if our concern is only with our own country, or our region, or our continent, and that part is plague-free, we could say that the problem is solved. We could say that smallpox is solved, because we have a vaccine for it. But hey, the effectiveness of vaccination programmes depend on things like its implementation. Maybe there's one guy in the world who still has it, and he could spread it to people around him who have not been vaccinated.... So the problem is not solved.
  2. The plague killed millions of people in the past. We don't really see that happening any more. However, in 2016, one American was diagnosed with the plague. (He didn't die and was successfully treated). I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We could say that the problem of plague has been solved, because deaths from this disease are very rare and almost unheard of nowadays. Or we could say that the problem of plague is not yet solved, because one person in the whole of the USA caught it in 2016. Maybe one day in the future, cancer treatment will improve to the point that cancer is no longer a major cause of death. Instead of being the No. 3 most common cause of death, it would havebecome the 35th or 78th or 105th most common cause of death. By Slade's definition, the problem of cancer will still not be solved. But most of the world, by then, will probably not regard cancer as a problem.
  3. Oh so you are not talking about actual facts, but just your own personally preferred view (that the unborn's right to life not trump the woman's right to not be pregnant). Sorry, I misunderstood you. Of course? You may have an opinion, so may everyone else.
  4. Okay. So if you would like to describe the problem like that, then we could say that the question is whether we can improve cancer treatment to the point where there are no more deaths from cancer, or where such deaths become rare.
  5. Really? Why not? My father felt extremely tired all the time, then had blood in his stools. He went for a checkup, the doctors found a cancerous tumour in his colon. The doctors then removed it by surgery. After that, he went back for regular check-ups and he was alright. Some years later, there were polyps in his intestine - non-cancerous, but to be on the safe side, the doctors again performed surgery and removed the polyps. He lived for a long time after the initial diagnosis of cancer, then died at age 80 of something else, nothing to do with cancer. Are you saying that the doctors had not solved his cancer problem? That the doctors probably had not helped him with cancer?
  6. Mmm? But your point is already proven to be wrong. You stated that the unborn's right to life does not trump the woman's right to not be pregnant. I already showed that this is factually untrue. Legally, there is no right to not be pregnant, once the foetus reaches a certain gestational age, except if there is a medical emergency etc. Now how can you say that I did not address your point, when I have directly explained how it is factually wrong?
  7. But the right IS given to everyone else. For example, I would get in trouble for murdering you. The unwilling mother has that right too. I can't murder her either.
  8. Nah. Why are we concerned about cancer? Because it makes us sick and unwell, then it makes us die. If cancer cells constantly grew and spread in our bodies, but we remained well and healthy and happy, and there are no ill effects, then who cares about cancer? Nobody. It's not a problem at all, therefore it needs no solution. I wouldnt mind having 20 different kinds of cancers. Maybe I do, according to your definition of cancer, but hey, no problem. Cancer is a problem because it makes us sick and unwell, then it makes us die. I dunno what's so difficult to understand about that. Maybe, Slade, you have so much scientific knowledge about cancer that it's causing you to miss the forest for the trees. And the tree trunk, and its bark, and the dead plant cells that make up the bark. But try not to miss the forest.
  9. Really? Why do you say so? Perhaps you meant to make a factual statement - abortion is legal, therefore the unborn's right to life does not trump the mother's right not to be pregnant. But then the factual reality is that there is a point when the abortion becomes illegal, unless it's a medical emergency. Around 15 weeks or 20 weeks or 24 weeks of gestational age, it varies from place to place. So your statement is already factually wrong.
  10. One thing you're doing is mixing up the nature of the rights. If i have a right and you have an identical right, then it becomes easier to say that your right cannot trump mine and mine cannot trump yours. But if the rights are of an inherently different nature, then it becomes a much more difficult argument. The law does impose obligations on parents to maintain and look after their children. So yes, parents can be forced to keep their children alive.
  11. Pawns are the dictators of chess strategy. Google "Andrew Soltis pawn structures" and see what I mean.
  12. Did not read the whole thread. However, if you initiate by conveying too strongly that you want kids, this may scare off women, including those women who DO actually want kids. That is because they don't know you yet. And the thought of a stranger whose stated goal is to impregnate you and use you as his offspring incubator is somewhat intimidating. You may have to be a bit more subtle about the kids thing. First you have to be someone that the woman even wants to have dinner with. Next you have to be someone that she might consider for a semi-serious relationship. Then you have to be someone that she might consider for a long-term relationship. Then only will you be considered as candidate for the father of her offspring. If you try to jump to Step 4 straightaway, well, you'll scare off a lot of women.
  13. Just adding a perspective here. In my small country, there is this very big annual gay pride event. There is no doubt that it receives a lot of publicity, helps to generate a lot of awareness about gay people, and has a very large number of participants etc etc. (Each speck of light below is one participant holding a light) However, the event isn't overtly sexual. You won't see people walking around nude or almost-nude, or dressed as penises, or in BDSM gear, or walking around in swimming trunks even though there is no swimming pool to swim in. Instead of sights like this: .... you'll see sights like this: Mostly, quite regular-looking people, and you wouldn't feel embarrassed about bringing a seven-year-old child to such an event. Now, personally, I think that an occasional parade with crazy costumes & floats adds an interesting dash of colour, excitement and vibrancy to city life. That's regardless of the reason for the parade. However, as we all know, many people would not really like to have in-your-face type of sex-themed behaviour (whether heterosexual or homosexual) paraded flamboyantly in public. One advantage of a gay pride event where not everyone is dressed up as a penis or wears dildos as accessories is that you can more effectively drive home the message/idea that gay people are basically also normal people, just like everybody else, and should be accepted as such. As far as the awareness angle goes, this should be an important message to drive. However, it also becomes a harder message to sell, when a person's most vivid memories, after leaving a gay pride event, is something like this: Let's say for example, that you personally wish to teach your children that there is no reason to bully, ostractise or discriminate against gay people, as they are just normal people just like everybody else. Then your young child sees such a sight and asks you, "[Mummy]/[Daddy], why is that man naked and tied to the fence, and why is that other man holding his cock?" {Explanatory note: a moderator has deleted my picture of a gay pride event where a naked man is tied to a fence and another man is holding his cock} It really just becomes more difficult and challenging, to convey the message that you want to convey. ********** The deletion of the posted picture also shows something. Forum won't let me post a picture of a man holding a naked man's cock at a public place during a gay pride event. And that's just a picture. Why then would we think that it is completely acceptable, to actually behave like that in public, during a gay pride event ....?
  14. It wouldn't be a loss in my 60s. I shall be preparing to relax at the beach, play some guitar, maybe tickle a grandchild or two, FINALLY start my exotic orchids garden, and take the dog on very long walks ..... Not much knowledge needed for that ... woof woof
  15. I'm guessing that you are relatively young. Because these types of comparisons are easy to make, only for younger people. Eg it is extremely easy to compare a bunch of 1st graders, it is very easy to compare a bunch of high schoolers, it is easy to compare a bunch of fresh grads, it is somewhat easy to compare a bunch of new hires in a given work environment; it is less easy to compare a bunch of people who already have X years of working experience. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to compare oneself with one's "cohort". That is because over time, paths diverge more and more, and the people in your "cohort" will go their own ways in life. They will change jobs; switch industries; develop different specialities; move to different cities or countries; have different career goals & strategies; experience different random ups and downs in life; have different priorities in life; evolve different personal philosophies on career, work and life. Eventually you can't really compare anymore, because they are all different apples and oranges. (Watermelons, strawberries, durians, pears and bananas too). At that point, you will understand that all you have to do is do the best you can, for yourself, and that comparing yourself to others is a futile exercise.