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.

Storm

Moderators
  • Content count

    20,878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Storm

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Astrology Sign
    Dragon

Converted

  • Homepage
    http://www.herethestorybegins.wordpress.com
  • Biography
    I was born and then began to age.
  • Location
    Pacific Time Zone
  • Occupation
    Apple Picker
  • Interests
    This.
  • Gender
    Female
  • Personal Text
    American Romantic

Recent Profile Visitors

10,059 profile views
  1. Bingo. Macro lenses are awesome. Your pictures look great. Ah, you are correct. I will admit I was wrong that it was a professionally staged photo. It's still not the recipe though. Here's what the user said he did: I mean - if your point here is that someone can use a sucky recipe as inspiration who knows what they're doing and make some similar but delicious- sure, I'd agree. But I still don't think it's fair to compare the two. The guy didn't even poach the fish - he grilled it. There's nothing to compare.
  2. Is it though? I mean, I can't even really see the fish in the second photo, it's blurry and covered in various stuff. It might be mushy, it might not be. I don't know about you, but even in person I have to poke meat with a fork or even cut it open to tell if it's done. The first picture might not even contain real food, or the food could be undercooked and painted. Food stylists are not unknown to do things like use cardboard to prop up food, brown meat with a blowtorch, and lipstick to achieve that perfect look. http://www.rd.com/food/fun/food-stylist-secrets/ My guess is that the second picture contains fish was fried just long enough to turn it white then char marks individually added to get that "grilled" effect. The shrimp was likely cooked by itself just enough to turn pink. The tomatoes look to be fresh from the can, not cooked in anyway. Onions (not in recipe) were sneaked in, too. Then everything was spritzed with oil and fresh herbs added. Then a high-quality lamp was brought in along with a high-quality camera and photographer who took hundreds of pictures to get the right one. The second dish probably taste better than the first because at least it's hot instead of sitting under lights for hours.
  3. Well, the first picture is a lie. It is not a picture of the recipe. The recipe says to cook the shrimp and cod together whereas in the picture the cod has grill marks and was clearly grilled (or they faked the grill marks, in which case it's still a lie). The shrimp also looks like it was cooked separately given how the spices are sticking to it. The first picture also uses fresh spices and randomly adds pasta (as someone else pointed out) whereas the recipe does not call for such. Finally, the first picture has separated the tomato from the liquid and placed it on the side. And finally, I'm going to disagree the presentation has little to do with this. The first picture used a MUCH higher quality camera and excellent lighting, allowing you to see the glistening of oil and the sprinkles of spices, which looks tasty. It also took time to arrange the ingredients in such a way that separated the components of the dish - similar to how when photographing hamburgers, the photographer will pull the cheese over the side so you can see it melting down and give the illusion there is more cheese. The second photograph is in bad lighting with a lower-quality camera. The colors don't "pop" and there's no fine detail. The ingredients are also all together in a bowl so it looks like a huge mash. If the excess broth were drained and the ingredients arranged on a plate, it might look similar to the first photo. (Although it does look like the cook used undrained canned tomatoes, I don't know how else s/he could have gotten so much excess broth). This isn't evidence of how good the cook is of the first picture, it's evidence the recipe is poorly written.
  4. Depending on your definition of "care" you may be correct that Safe haven laws mean there's an * next to the sentence "If a woman gives birth to a baby, she must care for it." So what? Here I'll amend my sentence "If a woman gives birth to a baby, she must either care for it or make legal arrangements for a third-party to do so, which may include taking advantage of Safe Haven laws if she lives a jurisdiction that offers them. However, again, depending on the jurisdiction, if the father decides to assert his parental rights (how he does so varies), his express consent may be required in order to give the child up for adoption or he may be able to block the adoption or recover the child from the state and then force the mother to pay child support. Also, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, it may be possible for a father to take advantage of local laws which allow children to be surrendered to the state no-questions-asked." Happy now? Deprecator's point that men are "100% fiscally responsible" for any children they father remains untrue. Although even Deprecator's seems to admit that fathers will never actually be forced to parent any children they father.
  5. No, it's not "you're either with us or against it" - it's that the topic of this thread is if Men's rights people would rather be women. Deprecator brought up that family law is biased in favor of men. I disagreed. You disagreed with me, not the point that family law isn't biased in favor of women, but on some technical definition of what "care for your child" means. Again, I discussed adoption in my first post, so clearly "care" included adoption. So what I can't figure out is why you are narrowing in on this technical issue that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic. It's like people are arguing over whether or not all swans are white and I say "Some swans are black" and you say "Technically, they aren't black, but a deep purple." As for one - that was addressed in my first post. Men who are identified as a father do have to care for their children*, unless they lawfully surrender the child to the state or go through an adoption program. The difference is that men are not always identified as the father, unlike women - again because of a fact of biology not family law. As for two, safe haven laws vary but generally either parent can take advantage of them. And then there is more complicated issues such as what happens if a non-surrending parent finds out about the child being surrended and decides to assert their parental rights. The father does have the two options if he asserts his parental rights. and actually (again addressed in my first post) a married man is the presumed father of all children born to his wife and thus, has parental rights. *Although often men are only forced to financially support their children, not actually parent them.
  6. I'm responding to the argument that family laws favor women. Making some technical argument about safe haven laws misses the point. And I continue to stand by the argument that women who have babies must take care of them. Taking advantage of safe haven laws is taking care of a child. Again, that a person can legally give up their paternal rights through adoption was addressed in my first point.
  7. That's the only point here. ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: What's weird though is the complaint doesn't seem to be that a woman could secretly give up a child and therefore interfere with the father's relationship with his child, but that it's "unfair" women could "give up" the financial responsibility of a child where a father could not. The problem with that argument is that by giving up a child to a state, both parents will not be held financially responsible. It seems to be a punitive complaint. Safe haven laws get tricky and hard to make "fair" to everyone - namely because of how biology works, but I think a father who wishes to be a part of his child's life has many options available to him. The first being to make sure that if he has possibly impregnated a woman, to stay in contact with her, get a paternity test and assert his paternal rights.
  8. Safe haven laws vary a lot, but usually they involve dropping infants off at fire houses or hospitals, often completely anonymously. Either parent can take advantage of such laws. And if a child is surrendered to the state via safe haven laws, neither parent has responsibility. So, again, unless we're talking about specific laws here, I'm not seeing how it's proof that there is a bias in favor of women. And yes - like I said before, parents are responsible for their children. Safe haven laws are exceptions which allow both parents to give up responsibility. And no, I did not make out like childcare is "forever women's responsibility" as I extensively discussed adoption in my post. Let's remember the topic of this thread is if Men's right people would rather be women. Deprector brought up that family law is grossly biased in favor of women. I've countered that it's not.
  9. You have to leave the child in the care of people in order for safe haven laws to apply. You can't just get up and walk away randomly. Safe haven laws also do not apply to just mothers. There was a famous case of a man leaving his non-infant children at a fire station because the law applied up to children aged 10 or 12 or something. I get that because a woman incubates a baby, she will always know when she's pregnant while a man may not know he's caused a pregnancy. Although this is a fact of biology - not laws. However, if a man has no idea that a woman he's had sexual relations with is pregnant - well, he kind of did just walk away didn't he? If he knows a woman he was with got pregnant, he can assert his paternal rights and prevent her from giving the child up for adoption or otherwise without his consent. Edit: There may be some claim that *specific* safe-haven laws are biased against the fathers or against the non-surrendering parent. But we're really not talking about specific laws here. Deprecator's argument is that family law, as a whole, is totally biased against men in general, which obviously has no basis in reality.
  10. Whining that you can't control someone else's body really doesn't mean your rights are being hurt. Women who have babies must take care of them. Child neglect is a crime. Child support payments do not pay for the 100% child's care in the vast majority of cases. The case of male rape victims and sperm donors is tricky. My understanding is that sperm donors do not have to pay child support in most places and circumstances (I'm sure you have at-the-ready some obscure exception). If a female rape victim brings the child to term, she must care for the child, including financially. Child support is the right of the child, not the adult. Family courts usually follow "best interest of the child" doctrines. So in the controversial case of male rape victims the courts have asked whether the child should be denied child support because of the circumstances of his/her birth. I agree that it's not necessarily the right decision, but I don't think it's proof that courts are biased against men or for women, but that they favor children's interests. You stated that fathers have no rights. This is wrong. You stated that women do not have to financially support their children. This is wrong.
  11. You mean.....like the people who deny climate change are backed by fossil fuel corporations? In the 1950s, London relied heavily on coal and had a number of coal plants within the Greater city area.. One day in 1952, an unusual weather formation caused the smog to become trapped in the city. The smog was so thick people could see. For three days the population of London was sucking on poisonous smog. At least 4,000 people died and modern estimates are that 12,000 people died. 100,000 people became ill. It still took 4 years to pass the Clean Air Act. You can read more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London Also in the mid-20th century, Clair Patterson while trying to figure out the age of the Earth, realized that there was way too much lead in the environment and bad for public health. He met strong resistance and was laughed at by scientists like Robert Kehoe (backed by GM). Kehoe argued that the lead from car pollution was fine and that lead was always in the background. Patterson has to dig up ice from the Artic and collect samples from Peruvian mummies before he was believed that lead pollution was killing us. It took him years. You can read more about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson When we burn stuff, those material stay in the atmosphere for a long time. Smog is not good for us to breath. I don't see a lot of money or profit in pure shot-term monetary gains to lie about climate change. I see a lot of money on continuing to burn fossil fuels. I agree that all scientific claims should be questioned and require evidence. I also think that large numbers of scientists can be wrong. For instance, that peanut allergies are caused by pregnant women eating peanuts or feeding children peanuts too soon has turned out to be false. But this isn't just a one off. This is multiple fields of science looking at all kinds of data and seeing that pollution is not healthy. Oh, here are some charts: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/ Here is a video of temperature rising. As you can see, although there was a very slight temperature fluctuations in the early 1900s, it is nothing compared to the significant rise seen since:
  12. Yes, I am constantly observing non-wealthy short men having relationships with women. Just like I constantly observe non-wealthy fat women having relationships with men. I think you need to look around more. The point here is that the meme's "Women are a bunch of hypocrites" is overblown. That you would post it in response to the question of "Would you rather be a woman" as though it's an answer is...well....it seems a rather insignificant thing relative to a lot of issues to focus upon. I don't think it's "way way way" worse to be a woman. And I do think there are some legitimate complaints about prejudice against male rape victims, but you are against hypobolizing and a misunderstanding of (most) family law. If you get a woman pregnant, you don't have to grow the baby inside your body. Laws differ by jurisdiction, but, generally, if a woman gives birth to your baby and you are married, she cannot place the baby up for adoption alone - you have to agree. If she abandons you and the baby, you can seek child support from her. If you are aren't married, there's a chance you will never be identified as the father unless either you or the mother asks for a paternity test and/or you sign papers agreeing to be the father (or in some areas, if you raise the child as your own for so many years, although I think that's becoming more rare). If you are not identified and you don't assert your paternal rights, then yes she could give the child up for adoption without your consent (but then, why didn't you assert your paternal rights?). If you do assert your paternal rights and she abandons the baby to you, you can seek child support from her. The reason you don't hear about this happening? Because usually, the mother doesn't abandon the baby while, at the same time, the father asserts paternal rights . But it does happen. There are plenty of great single fathers out there right now collecting or trying to collect child support from absentee mothers. And not to mention that the right to child support is a right of the child, not the parent.
  13. I said my first post that being a short male has a stigma attached to it. My response was to this idea that being a short male is just THE WORST, much much worse than being a fat woman and the further implication that this supposed "double-standard" is proof that women have it better and a bunch of hypocritical harpies. Being a short male certainly has a stigma, but not a big one and certainly not one that will destroy your dating prospects. ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: This is said in response to the idea that there is one magic formula that all women use to ascertain attractiveness. That Bob is equally attractive to Susie as he is to Sally. This is, obviously, bullshit. Maybe Bob is a Mormon and Susie will only date Mormons while Sally never would. Maybe Bob is into poetry and loves attending flower shows, which Susie finds sweet and fun and Sally finds effeminate and boring. And look around, fat people get married all the time.
  14. Women are attracted to different things.