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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Antares

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Reserved Creator


  • Biography
    An unspecified number of years ago, I was born. That's about it.
  • Location
    The Known Universe
  • Occupation
    Master of the Universe
  • Interests
    Calligraphy, Fountain Pens, Violin, Mendelssohn, Mathematics, Literature, Physics, Astronomy, Arts
  • Gender
  1. In Germany tips are sort of expected (because everyone does it) but not mandatory and usually they don't get mad if you don't. The practice is just to round to the next euro. Or the next 5/10 euros, if you're feeling generous. I'm trying my best to be stingy though, even when I do feel generous. I want to keep this system on the other side of the pond, so if I feel like giving 30 for a 27.5 euro bill, I still try to only give 28.
  2. I think we as people can enforce our rights with the least amount of force. With a 7 month old fetus, it can absolutely survive, and can be removed without killing it. With much younger ones (like you, I don't know where the line is) that is clearly not possible. If you do something to me I don't like, say, wrap your hands around my throats, I can do what's necessary to remove you. If I know you're a reasonable person, I would say, stop doing that. Otherwise, I can punch you. Stab you in the throat and kill you, etc. the optimal solution is not to stab at throat in all cases. abortion is not about killing things OR people, and if it can be achieved without killing the fetus I'm all for it. I don't even like to kill bugs unless necessary. I just physically remove them. And like you I don't see a 8 week old fetus as a fully human. I can't argue for this ethically or scientifically. I don't believe anyone can without some sort of religious theory of souls. Some days I really wouldn't mind being religious. I might have to be pro life, but I wouldn't be tasked with trying to come up with my own system of ethics. as for the case you bring up, I would argue precisely that abortion isn't and shouldn't be about killing. She's not enforcing any bodily autonomy of hers. Even her obligation to be a parent, she can EASILY give up. This is why safe haven laws exist.
  3. But I assume society accepts people NOT doing things with their bodies. Even if I'm the only one suited to a very important job, nobody can MAKE me do it. If I can cure cancer but want to mow lawns instead, you can't make me cure cancer. And if a woman does not want to use her womb for gestating a baby, presumably you can't MAKE her do it. Even if I cause a car accident that means my victim lost a lot of blood, yes, society may hold my property hostage (as in, property rights are not equivalent to self ownership), and make me pay all sorts of fees to help my victim, they still wouldn't strap me to a table and force me to donate my blood, even if my blood is the only blood that will work (in some hypothetical world). Or I don't know. Maybe they would. I wouldn't want to live in such a society. I brought up organ donation because there definitely have been cases when people consented to donate, and then backed out and we allow them to back out and any time leading up to the procedure. Because this person consented to donate, the legal and medical proceedings have started and the intended recipient is now assuming he will get the donation, thus he stops looking for alternatives. And the recipient is sick enough that he can't afford to do this twice. Then the donor backs out at the eleventh hour. Time runs out for the recipient, he dies. We can argue about how culpable the donor was, or how that is or is not morally equivalent to a woman getting pregnant whether by force or otherwise, but we allow people to retain their right not to allow others to use their organs, even if a last minute refusal can have grievous consequences and the we caused the grievous consequences by making the recipient believe we are sincere. Do I love any of these choices? Not really. I hope if I ever get pregnant or consent to donate my kidney I would have the moral courage to follow through. But I think they should be available.
  4. Yeah. Of course. I only really bother to tip (and pretty well) in the US because you guys have this system that waiters get next to nothing if not for tipping. I wouldn't even skip a tip for bad service. Just because you provided bad service doesn't mean you deserve nothing for it. Probably just the minimum called for by decency and the minimum wage. It pisses me off that this practice seems to be spreading to Europe and Australia, but in Europe waiters do get a full wage, so I tip as little as possible (round up to the next Euro) or not at all, so as to not spread this dysfunctional system abroad. Because once enough people start doing it, you can bet people are going to try to institutionalize it. My American boyfriend has massive trouble with it. If he doesn't tip 25% he feels bad, even when he's not in the states. So he lets me handle all of the tipping here, because he too sees it as imperative that this system does not leave America.
  5. I mean you should worry about that if you don't plan on forming new social relationships ever again. Is that your plan?
  6. Thinking like an INTJ naturally requires that you be an INTJ. You're an ENTP so you can't be one of us. But you think like an ENTP, so that's something. If you want regular input of an INTJ, get an INTJ friend. We'll be all too happy to share. Also not all INTJs are chess masters. Most are not good at chess at all. I will say we seem to have an affinity to it but like all things, without practice we are nothing. And it doesn't look like most of us play chess. Also if you're studying game theory you're going to know WAY more than your average INTJ about optimal strategies about, well, anything. If you're interested in a layman's approach, read "Algorithms to Live By". It discusses game theory and other ways to apply computer science to daily life.
  7. I think you should talk to her about how you feel. Seriously. In a place where she can't easily brush it off. Like in a cafe sitting face to face so she can't turn to some mutual friend and joke about it. I think cutting her off is probably too drastic as you have a very long standing friendship but people treat us how we allow them and that's true for any relationship. If you don't like it you need to nip it in the bud, or else you're going to be the unreasonable one when you get mad about it later, because if she gets away with it without a quip from you, she will likely do it again. But I think you should maintain the friendship if you can. What you have is rare and precious. ...... added to this post 11 minutes later: It can't be though. None of us knows who she is. Presumably she mocked him in a public space where he is a known figure.
  8. There may be some truth to it but nothing is guaranteed. You keep getting people telling you "don't worry, you're great. Someone perfect would come along eventually!" Well, that's true for most people. Not for some. I know some people who heard that, never tried to actively date, and now has next to no dating prospects left at 55.
  9. which women say this?
  10. That may be it. Confidence is attractive and people with psychopathic traits have it in spades. They catch a lot of gullible people.
  11. In my house. But please don't find me there. That would freak me out.
  12. You should read Date-onomics or whatever it's called. Yes, true, there are more eligible men than women in your age bracket (mid to late 20s?) but that may not be true across the country. There is a surplus of unpaired blue collar men too, and nothing says women can't choose them instead. Dating "down" is becoming a nonissue nowadays. It goes into that statistic, and more. Long story short consider living in New York City. Avoid Silicon Valley. As for feminism, I don't know about that. Unless you only want women who are activists or care a lot about gender issues, it doesn't do much either way. I know a lot of girls and their choice in men almost never had to do with his feminist attitudes or lack thereof. As long as you're not too extreme either way you're ok, so I question the value of putting that in. But yeah, in short, you seem to be doing all the right things and depending on where you are the dating scene is definitely in your favor. without knowing more about you or your profile I really can't say either way. Also just from this I can't tell if you also actively date in meat space. If you don't, well, do. Profiles are abstractions and people get ridiculously judgmental on dating profiles. Even if you think you're an 8/10, to a girl looking at your profile you're like a 3/10. According to OKCupid 80% of men (in profile photos) are considered below average by women. So even if you're are ridiculously handsome, don't expect that to come across that well on the screen.
  13. Sure, the fetus has self ownership. If I'm neglecting that at some point in the argument please do point it out. My main argument has to do with the mother not being required to let anyone use her organ if she decides to withdraw consent. My cited precedent is that organ donors are allowed to back out at any point, even if it may case massive inconvenience or even death of the intended recipient. So I guess I'm not sure where that came into play. I chose not to address a lot of "real" issues associated with this debate because I wanted to keep the argument tight and its scope narrow, so in it, I already assumed that the fetus is a person, and to kill a life form, per se, is not wrong, but killing a person IS. I'm not closed to changing my stance. I just want my principles and arguments/conclusions that stem from them to be a watertight, and in the case that my principles conflict and straightening them out would produce a radically different conclusion, I'm open to it. In light of how intense these arguments can get, I'd just like to say that.
  14. I would say, take on some responsibility. Get a pet. Volunteer. Get a partner. Take care of your friends, siblings and parents. People cannot live for themselves. They dont' care about themselves nearly as much as they care about being useful to others. This is why, my boyfriend said, without me he would live like a zoo animal. He would never clean his room, and only eat the most basic of meals, but now that there is another person in his life, he feels motivated to be the best person he can be. Truthfully, if no one is counting on me, I would have no motivation at all. Humans have not evolved to live for themselves; we always evolved in small groups where it's all for one and one for all. Modern cities are a weird and isolating places to be for fancy chimps like us. Sometimes, the fact that the only thing you have holding you to this world is that other people would be hurt without you there is enough. I imagine if I ever became immortal and 500 and everyone I loved is dead, I wouldn't give a shit at all. I'm still young and selfish, but this is how I basically decide I wanted children. No, I'm not keen on them now. But 5 years into my career I imagine living for myself and my career and my money would get pretty dull and pointless and doing this day-in-day-out nonsense and having to see my ugly, humorless boss everyday. Much better to toil for someone you love.
  15. To people who are pro life, that's the crux of the argument though. If we're going to debate "personhood", if we don't draw that line somewhere pretty soon we can start aborting 5 year olds. Because if a fetus is not a person, and the baby one day before birth is not a person, then why should a baby one day after birth be a person? One year after birth? Will the baby have to pass a mirror test? (Most "nonhuman persons" animal rights activists refer to sentient animals as nonhuman persons; all of those species pass mirror tests). What if a 5 year old is intellectually challenged and would fail a mirror test? And I would say the ability to survive independently (or outside the womb) is not a proper qualification for personhood, unless you'are going further to argue that anybody on life support should not be considered a person. Now, legally speaking I know we as a society have a line we draw on that, and you CAN decide to pull the plug on a comatose person with no hope of recovery after a certain point, but that line, IMO, is as arbitrary as the one we're trying to draw with fetuses. I'm not saying I disagree with the personhood argument. But to me, it invites a slippery slope I can't really stand on. I would say without a doubt that a 3 month old fetus is not a person. It does not express itself in speech, it doesn't seem to have any complex ideas, and it would most certainly fail a mirror test. A newborn, I'm not so sure. It might be that if we follow this personhood argument to the end, logically speaking, then we would have to lump a whole class of human beings into non persons.