Vasectomies, a critical analysis from an immature argument

<Me> says (7:29 PM)

I'm considering getting a vasectomy

<Jeffrey> says (7:29 PM)

why?

<Me> says (7:30 PM)

idk

<Jeffrey> says (7:33 PM)

it's actually stupid to get vasectomy now

like really

Not only are you too young, your opinion will change later in life.

and you're closing off options

<Me> says (7:34 PM)

I'm talking about after my 18th

lol

<Jeffrey> says (7:34 PM)

still too young

<Me> says (7:34 PM)

I disagree;

<Jeffrey> says (7:34 PM)

under 30-40 is basically too young.

<Me> says (7:34 PM)

you can argue that my opinion might change.

But the fact of the matter is there are so many more benefits than consequences

<Jeffrey> says (7:34 PM)

such as

<Me> says (7:35 PM)

Typically, the only consequences of a vasectomy are

   Lowered sex drive (studies have shown around a 6% sex drive reduction post-vasectomy)

   Inability to have children

<Jeffrey> says (7:35 PM)

Inability to have children is a big one..

<Me> says (7:36 PM)

The first comment is questionable and is solely dependant on the variables used, such as the target demographic, the range of the sample, and the sample itself

The second one is redundant because there are several ways to have children post-vasectomy

Remember that a vasectomy is reversable

<Jeffrey> says (7:36 PM)

really?

I never knew that...

<Me> says (7:36 PM)

yes.

it's very expensive 

<Me> says (7:37 PM)

but it is reversable

You might be thinking of castration, the physical removal of the testes

<Jeffrey> says (7:37 PM)

No

I know what it is

<Jeffrey> says (7:38 PM)

always thought it was permanent

<Me> says (7:38 PM)

A vasectomy is simply the tieing of the vas deferens, cutting off the supply of semen to an ejaculation

<Me> says (7:39 PM)

It is considered "permanent" contraceptive only because of its difficulty to reverse, as opposed to more conventional methods such as the pill and barrier contraceptives

<Jeffrey> says (7:40 PM)

why do you even want to have a vasectomy anyway

<Me> says (7:40 PM)

<Jeffrey> says (7:29 PM)

why?

<Me> says (7:30 PM)

idk

<Me> says (7:41 PM)

Anyway,

<Me> says (7:42 PM)

the pros of vasectomies are 

-relatively non-intrusive and very little pain

-less than 0.1%  failure rate in first year, and after sperm count has dropped to zero has perfect failure rate (0.0% failure rate)

-Sex without condoms 

-you can't get framed for being a daddy later in life from a drunk one night stand with a stupid whore who got pregnant from someone else

<Jeffrey> says (7:43 PM)

lol, I guess

<Me> says (7:45 PM)

point in case: I personally can never see myself being a father. I believe that through my own intelligence and knowledge, if I ever were to become a father, I would be negligent and, by societical judgement, a "bad" parent. I'm very impatient and cannot stand having to explain things to people, let alone having to teach a kid a language from nothing. 

I think that the benefits, under these circumstances, outweigh the "negative" of not being able to have kids (which technically is a positive at this point in time anyway)

<Jeffrey> says (7:47 PM)

your mindset would most likley change when you actually get a kid

<Me> says (7:53 PM)

unfortunately that's not solid proof to your claims.

You might be right,

but this is about providing a supporting case as to why it's legitimate based on absolute ideas.

It's no secret that I hate kids, that I don't believe in love, and that I never want to be a father or get married or even be in a seriously long term relationship.

<Me> says (7:54 PM)

brb

<Jeffrey> says (7:54 PM)

k

<Me> says (8:13 PM)

k

your reply?

<Me> says (8:14 PM)

Leks

Dysleksic

<Jeffrey> says (8:15 PM)

i DON'T THINK i CAN REPLY TO THAT

invert the caps

<Me> says (8:15 PM)

fair enough

So I win?

<Jeffrey> says (8:16 PM)

It's not something you can win or lose...

<Me> says (8:16 PM)

I treat it as such

<Jeffrey> says (8:16 PM)

since it's not an argument of right and wrong

<Me> says (8:16 PM)

Jeffrey,

the interesting court cases are never an argument of right and wrong

it's an argument if "who is less wrong"

<Jeffrey> says (8:16 PM)

But it's not mutual agreement either.

<Me> says (8:16 PM)

wat.

oh

yeah, so?

<Me> says (8:17 PM)

mutual agreement is boring

<Jeffrey> says (8:17 PM)

Well, for one you're being neutral.

I might be right

<Me> says (8:17 PM)

either you just accept that my point of view is better than you,

yours*

or that I won

or present your rebuttal to my claim

<Jeffrey> says (8:17 PM)

How can I make a rebuttal to a neutral statement..

<Me> says (8:18 PM)

<Me> says (7:53 PM)

unfortunately that's not solid proof to your claims.

You might be right,

but this is about providing a supporting case as to why it's legitimate based on absolute ideas.

It's no secret that I hate kids, that I don't believe in love, and that I never want to be a father or get married or even be in a seriously long term relationship.

I replied to your claim of being "your viewpoint might change"

<Jeffrey> says (8:18 PM)

yes

<Me> says (8:18 PM)

which means that either my view is now all-encompasing and you can't argue against it (solid evidence, i.e. I won)

<Jeffrey> says (8:18 PM)

lolno

<Me> says (8:18 PM)

or  you can argue against it, and I do employ you to do so

<Jeffrey> says (8:19 PM)

if you think you won, you're retarded. I can't argue against an opinion

because no matter what

you can't change your opinion based on that

<Me> says (8:19 PM)

well the thing is that it's not about changing your opinion, it's about accepting the evidence.

I managed to argue, effectively, against your opinion

<Me> says (8:20 PM)

and my opinion was, although neutral in a sense that it revolved around pros AND cons,

still was an opinion and was never swayed towards the "I don' really know if it's better or worse" that is true neutrality

I still have an opinion, and that is that despite the negative connotations you believe surround a vasectomy, I still strongly believe it to be a sound idea and reasonable decision to make when I turn 18

<Jeffrey> says (8:22 PM)

The economic costs are not worth it as opposed to cheaper alternatives.

The fact you may change your mind should signal that you may want to have children later in life thus shouldn't get it. What if something happens and it turns out it's irreversible. 

You cannot acquire your spawn.

<Me> says (8:25 PM)

success rate of condoms: 95% (with around 97 to 98% if used perfectly)

success rate of the contraceptive pill: around 97 to 98% if taken perfectly

success rate of vasectomy: >99.9% in first year, 100% after approximately 16 ejaculations

<Me> says (8:26 PM)

There are sperm banks and methods of sperm preservation to make sure if you change your mind, there's no backing down.

there are also surrogate programs and artificial insemination methods thanks to advances in modern science so even if you don't have your own sperm and not enough money for the reversal, you can still have a child

<Me> says (8:27 PM)

99% of raising a child is watching them grow, and they are even considered by parents to be "pets that eventually learn to talk"

<Me> says (8:28 PM)

If both parents are fully accepting of the child, regardless of the biology of it, they will embrace it totally as their own.

<Jeffrey> says (8:28 PM)

true, but it won't be your genetics

<Me> says (8:28 PM)

what I just said bypass the "genetics" argument

<Jeffrey> says (8:29 PM)

you'd always have the thought that it's not your genetics, even if you do love the child.

<Me> says (8:29 PM)

but the idea behind the genetics isn't even a negative thing,

after only a few years of raising the child, it is as close to yours as it could possibly be, anyway

<Me> says (8:30 PM)

Very few parents actually reflect on their children as an extension of themselves,

and think,

"wow, there's a part of me in him/her"

As I explained, the majority of parenthood is watching the child grow

and the enjoyment from things like its first step, its first word, going to school, and even watching it grow up,

is purely from an emotional, not biological or genetic, standpoint

<Me> says (8:31 PM)

As long as you want the child, there will be no worry about it not being your own, legitimately.

YouTube ads, by request

This will probably be a short one because I really don't understand why faggots still complain about ads.

If ads on YouTube keep YouTube free, then so be it. YouTube is a company, just like almost every other website. It's ethical to make sure that the people who use the website are the ones contributing to the upkeep of it; and Hell, the ads could be a LOT worse than they are.
The way I see it, a 15 second ad is better than a 30 second ad you can't skip. And I'm talking about websites like NHL and NineMSN which, every time you watch a video, will bombard you with a 30 second ad.

Non-intrusive is a big part of the site. Yeah, it's there and very noticeable, and yeah, sometimes it IS intrusive. But fuck people, you've got two options. Either you fix it. And I mean stop using it; boycotting, getting public awareness on it. Hell, even paying for the costs of upkeeping the website and its millions of gigabytes of user-submitted content.
Or you just nut up and deal with it. It's as simple as that.


Edit:
About two years ago, when intrusive ads first started appearing on YouTube, I was violently in opposition of them. Why? Because I figured, I was paying money for broadband to do things I wanted to do online, not to watch ads.
Now while my old argument is slightly valid, it is only because at the time of writing I was heavily capped in my internet allowance per month.

Commenting on a YouTube video is like sniffing a fart!

Recently I viewed a video on YouTube in which I commented negatively on it, saying that "I clicked [the link] to the video, just so that I could thumbs it down.


Naturally, I got something like 39 likes on it (because I care so much and social media is just a popularity contest), so that means it's open season for some people to make their rebuttals.


I wouldn't say rebuttals so much as slander.


For example:

Get a fucking job bro...

A reply, made 3 days ago, to my comment made at least 2 weeks ago.


So I replied as so:

Still a student. But good advice, next time I'll think before writing a seemingly unimportant comment on a pseudo-anonymous social network/sharing site. Thanks!

I waited a few days before he replied as so. And I am not paraphrasing, this is exactly what he wrote.

No worries, fag fart smell.

He then went ahead and corrected his message, and wrote:

Fag* fart smeller...

So now, his entire insult is as follows.

No worries, Fag fart smell fart smeller. ...

 Good work on the English language department there, and also a very good method of having to correct your own message just to make sure I can understand it.


My reply questioned his insult; I mean it's already been established that he's an idiot by resorting to insulting rather than constructively arguing, so I felt it was the same to reply sarcastically instead of trying to play his game.

Don't you think that one of those insults is a bit redundant? I mean, the insult "fag" is fair enough, but to add another noun/verb title to the already devastating insult is a bit silly. For reference, are you calling me someone who sniffs farts made exclusively by homosexuals? Or are you calling me a fag, and then daringly continuing to say that I also sniff farts?

So there you go: because I had the audacity to comment negatively on a video saying "I was literally bored enough to thumb down the video I hated", means that  I sniff farts excreted by gay people.

Edit: 

I received a message just recently (within the last 5 minutes) from my friend. 

So I nitpicked with his comment. So what?

His reply was:

Get a life bro...study for your exams like I am...Wtat are you doing anyway? ''Introduction to Retardedness" or some shit you felching gay fuck stain! I'm a student as well, yet I work... God I love keyboard warriors who like their own comments...!

As I pointed out to this person, there are many things wrong with his comment.

First off. And this is really petty of me, but how can he tell me to get a life when he's doing the same thing as me? Is that hypocrisy at its finest, or is he God's gift to multitasking? If you ever tell me to get a life; I instantly assume you're getting blown by a really hot upper class female while sitting in a club in Downtown Manhattan. And if you aren't, then I assume you're a retard and that you don't deserve to breed.

The next thing I noticed was his rhetorical question. It was as if to imply intimacy, just to deny me the pleasure of replying by answering his question. "Introduction to Retardedness".

A cunning strategy for such an all-knowing master of language.

So I Google searched a definition of "Retardedness", and would you look at that, I couldn't find one! Is this man so intelligent that he invented a new word to express things he couldn't find in any other word, or is he just an idiot?

Next I noticed his insult. Again. "Felching gay fuck stain!" Is the exact quote. And I could tell he was being serious because it was a comment notable enough for an exclamation mark.

I did a definition search of "felching" and found this:
Felching is a sexual practice involving the act of sucking semen out of the vagina or anus of one's partner after sex. 

So he essentially just called me a "sexual practice involving sucking semen out of an anus or vagina gay fuck stain!" 

That's a great way to use a verb as a noun. Shit, this guy REALLY knows how to put it to people.

Then he goes on to explain that he's not only a student as well; but that he works too! 

No way. I would never have known; or cared. 

The statement implies that he's better than me because he has a job. Therefore he probably earns more money than me, right? 

Doesn't matter, because what he earns is directly contrasted with his intelligence.

Then he went to tell me that I'm a keyboard warrior. Funny thing is I didn’t see an entire unwarranted insult on my behalf, in the entire “argument”. So I really don’t know how he came to that assumption, considering I was only defending my own point of view (or more so myself, as he wasn’t trying at my point of view or arguing constructively, as anyone with half a brain will realize is actually the best method of seeming intelligent online).

Since this statement, I have received two more “arguments” from him:

No fag fart felching cum sucker out of another mans anus after you fucked him up there....Faggot alert! Gay-Dar alert!

And…

Thank you....What a kind compliment from a cunt like yourself...Go study kid!

His "thank you" was in reply to my compliment, stating that his last statement (as noted above) was very intelligent, and that he is the pinnacle of the modern human.
I really do feel that he stopped trying to argue after my original breakdown of his points; after all, he  can then claim that he was trolling if he gets his ass handed too badly to him. The problem that I have with these people is that they try to make themselves out to be on some sort of Holy Crusade against people with different opinions to them. What they don't understand is that to be able to start an argument you really should develop a thesis which you want to argue, and then make sure you actually HAVE arguments to support your claims.
Not only did this person not have a thesis (and hence, any argument in support), but he didn't have any common sense.
He told me to study, but he forgot to mention that out of him taking the time to reply to my comments (the average 2 line comment took around 8 minutes for him to think up; probably because of his incessant need for a thesaurus), he hasn't been studying at all himself. 


So after "studying" I found these comments this person has also made on YouTube, either to another user, or towards the video or content of the video:

Go fuck a duck you unemployed/non-student arse licker...Yeah you heard me, fuck some men in their arseholes, felch him, burp, and go back for a second helping you faggot.

Right off the bat is something stupid. "Go fuck a duck"... "yeah you heard me, fuck some men in their arseholes". I can't make this shit up, really. This tool just told someone to "fuck a duck", then confirmed what he said (on a text-based medium) by contracting his original statement and changing "duck" to "men".

Eminem was clearly fucked up offa methadone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, MDMA, marijuana, psylocibin mushrooms, diazepam, zoplicone, from about 1992 (20) to about late 2008 (36). 16 year addiction is pretty hard to break. Michael Jackson sucked it in the end. 

 He sucks dick. He wrote that shit down. New York hates Justin Gayber. He can suck a dick!

This as incredibly lame. For a starters, the nigga said some shit about 'Fuck Suge Knight" and Kurupt was like who the fuck is this nigwit? He's a wannabe street thug....Fuck this nigwit who mad eh=this video. I want my 3:58 seconds back for watching this shit and typing this response...

This particular comment irked me. If you want your time back, how about you be more intelligent with writing, and instead of taking your time (averaging 4 minutes per line) to write something non-constructive or intelligent, just don't write anything at all? Not everyone needs to see your writing, dipshit.

Eminem is still a member of D-12 you douchebag! What the fuck do you know?

Fuck, I'd hate to live in the South of the U.S.A., wherever inbred motherfuckers like this racist lowest form of human shit reside!

Oh, the irony of that statement. It really is something else. Holy shit this guy is an idiot.

you suck cock, don't you smartarse?

 So not only is he intolerant; he's an idiot. He has shown he has a rudimentary ability to pull facts from his ass from Wikipedia, even when they're not necessary or even that relevant (see: his expert list on drugs Eminem used from 1992 to 2008).
Way to go dipshit! By encouraging me to study, you have, yourself, lost out on precious study time while you had to read, interpret, translate, and then reply to my comments.
And from the comments I made, and the comments he made, I think he's the one that needed the study the most. 

Why video games are dying, and why no-one should do a thing about it

Six games, from six different producers, and six very distinct genres.

But yet these games are all the same. 

Has anyone seen the thing that links them yet?

They're all fucking sequels.

SEQUELS PISS ME OFF.

Now sometimes sequels are necessary. Sometimes sequels work.

But a sequel for the sake of a sequel (Every Call of Duty increment ever, for example) is just a money hungry attempt at being safe.

And I mean safe as a literal term.
And yes; for Super Mario Bros. Wii, the term "sequel" isn't an all inclusive term; what I AM talking about, however, is franchise sequels. Rather than making a game and then getting the writers to make a new universe (franchise), they would rather just rehash the same story or revolving theme for several games. Hell, now they're even re-making old  games (Halo: Anniversary, that Tomb Raider one, etc.) just to make the graphics more pretty, and then slapping a full price tag on it.
It's not a storyboard "sequel" as per se, but it's still a continuation of the franchise. 

The average person who plays video games is phobic of change; if a new game comes out, they're not going to pay good money for it unless it's got a name behind it.

And sequels are the easiest way of doing this; it's essentially extortion.

Worse than sequels, are the new thing that video games are doing. 

Originally, a game would be packaged and the shipped product would be a two or three years worth of creative content and hard work bundled into a game.

These days, games are about being conservative; they're about making a yearly installation (Call of Duty and Need for Speed, especially) to appease to a hole in the producer's calendar. 

And now, instead of making a game which is entertaining and fun, they're bundling it being

1. A sequel

2. incomplete (i.e. Mass Effect; Diablo 3)

3. yearly, or close to yearly (every sports "simulator", Need For Speed, Call of Duty)

4. released within a very specific time period (generally, around August to mid December is the most common time for a game to be released)

5. Comes with complimentary DLC which isn't an expansion as much as it is either a hint at a sequel (Fable 2) or just a continuation of the half-assed plot. 

It's as if game companies really just don't give a shit anymore.

Actually they probably don't. 

It's so rare to see a game that is actually innovative and creative, it really isn't funny. Game companies, and the video game industry, is like a giant money laundering service. They'll happy give you a "game" if it means that they get to mind your wallet for a short time, until they've finished the DLC (or released it within 24 hours, as some games are doing now).

My last argument I'm not even going to explain. 

Three different games, from three different game developers. 

Trends on Australian TV that make me want to attack inanimate objects

COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING.


Now, normally I don't watch TV; apart from a select few shows I actually enjoy, Australian television broadcasting (including Foxtel, a commercially funded pay-to-view television company, and one of the highest on my list of things to boycott effectively) is beyond  a joke.
And it's beyond a joke because there are set rules which stations love to play at. Their idea of "seasonal programming" is "decade-long", so you can be guaranteed that every new TV show they make themselves (when they're not airing reruns of "great" shows like The Bold and the Beautiful, Charmed, Medium, and Cooking with the Stars) has to have a shelf life of at least 8 years.
This has opened way for a new breed of television show; shows so pointless they actually make the Australian junior high school curriculum look like an effective method of education.

And these shows are TV competition.
Shows like Masterchef, Junior Masterchef Dancing with the Stars, Dancing on Ice, Australian Idol, The Biggest Loser, The X Factor, Australia's Got Talent, Beauty and the Geek, and It's Academic.

What really irks me are the dancing/"talent" TV shows, and the fucking cooking ones.

Now I'm not just talking about Masterchef, where people compete against each other to see who has the most orgasm-inducing food to rub over their genitals as they participate in an off-the-camera circlejerk after the show. I'm talking about cooking shows in general; they're everywhere.
Now some of them can be good; you've got ones that open the Average Australian's idea of food from "steak and chips is a full meal that is suitable for a family of 4, at least 5 times a week" to "steak and chips should only be served once or twice a week, and never more than that."
And then you've got other interesting cooking shows like... uh...

With the exception of the culturally based cooking shows, everything else is tripe. It's a copy of a copy, and it is pretty much a non-interactive iteration of what video gaming has become. A TV show now hasn't the intention of showing a selected target audience something new, to entertain, challenge, or enthrall them. It's now about copying the last show, "because it worked, why shouldn't ours?"


And that is what brings me back to my statement; I hate the competition shows. They are the definition of conservative; they are filmed in front of a live audience, using people who don't cost the company a cent to appear on. They are bent and warped to the company's will and pleasure, and their reward is nothing more than a mutual pat on the back and maybe a free wristy no dramas. 

This is almost universal with television shows; it also means that "actors" (contestants; gladiators; mules; test subjects, etc.) are disposable in the television show. These shows don't challenge the viewer in any way; they don't require any higher order thought processes to watch; they don't need character development or intelligent plot.
I am quite literal, this is the formula for an entire episode:


"A disclosed number of contestants are faced with a weekly or daily challenge, obstacle, event, or item. They must present their piece which must adhere to this challenge/obstacle/item/event. The person with the weakest presentation will be evicted."


The only exception I can see to this is the singing ones (like Australia's Got Talent, Australian Idol, and The X Factor). But these are hardly valid because the judging there is already established to be so arbitrary and full of double-standard it isn't funny.

And the worst thing is that these also adhere to my original statement of "seasonal" being "decade". These shows are aired because they're a "safe bet". People will watch them because people love pretending like they personally know someone who appears on TV each week; hence the personal interviews during these shows, and incessant use of close-ups.
They air them because they know that the gap they have called "prime time" can be filled for this particular decade with this show, and they know that people will watch it regardless of what tripe it is.

And the worst thing is that the companies don't deny that these shows are retarded, and essentially demean quality television.
Hey look; an oxymoron.