Recent posts by Retneug on Kongregate

Topic: Off-topic / i've known, and been friends with a girl for five years, but i still dont have the gut to ask her out. what do i do?

I have asked out girls who are my friends several times in my life, and have been rejected every time.

But you know what? I don’t regret it. Rejection stings at first, but when it’s over you’ll feel the spiritual wholeness that comes with knowing you had the courage to pursue what is important to you, even if it didn’t pan out.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

as per your typical logic. it is, therefor it’s right. i am questioning the common attitude towards internet anonymity and privacy. you are trying to counter my argument simply by stating the situation i am questioning.you tell me how that is a valid argument.

You’re saying Youtube is adding twenty second ads to videos and Jews run some English-language websites, so all of our information will be harvested and we’ll be made into corporate/government slaves or whatever crazy scenario you envision for the future of our current society and internet.

THAT isn’t a valid argument; not even close. And I’m not telling you your view is wrong; I’m telling you it will be rejected by the vast majority of internet users. You’re free to disagree with that, but you’ll never learn it yourself anyway because I highly doubt you’ll ever take any steps to see it through. You’re free, of course, to bitch and complain on forums about it, but by the same token I’ll try my best to help you accept reality and understand why your position won’t be widely accepted anytime soon.

yes i did. you just didn’t quote the questionmark at the end of the sentence.

My mistake, I thought I got the whole sentence. I will now answer the question.

Nobody gives a shit. It’s 20 seconds of their life. Revolutions require MUCH more of a basis than that, which is exactly what you’d need to sway public opinion and change the economic state of the US as you propose.

i can’t believe you still believe that shit.

That people will more often than not try to make money with their intellectual property in a capitalist society? I feel pretty good about that one, actually.

i recognise Youtube is based on video-streams, which perhaps is more server intensive, but non-the-less.

It’s probably the most central factor in why there aren’t more free, high-quality video streaming sites on the internet. The monthly fees required to keep such a site running are no joke.

and there really should be a community-run video-stream-sharing website.

I want that too. I want most of the excellent internet developments you’ve proposed… I just don’t think it’s feasible that they’ll manifest in reality, (at least, not on a large scale) given the general public’s current acceptance of a highly commercial internet. You can possibly change that, and I invite you to try.

secondly, Youtube has no viable competitor. which is because of it’s community/public-based origin, that they sold out on. no competition means no need to have a good product, which almost inevitably leads to crappy quality and shady business.

Other, less-obtrusive video-streaming sites exist, but I continue to use Youtube for several reasons. Google can afford to pay for lots of bandwidth, the site runs incredibly smoothly and is laid out better than anything I’ve found, and Youtube was one of the first; this means it has MUCH more content than its competitors, and probably always will, (unless, of course, Youtube disbands) since it`s always generating more and started with more to begin with.

Commercialism isn`t all bad. Sure, you get ads and siphoning of your information, but quality of service will generally be far beyond anything you`d find on a less commercial site. The continued popularity of Youtube suggests that most users consider this a suitable exchange.

just because they need to make money, doesn’t justify any way they seek to make money. they’re doing something quite bad and dangerous, that i really don’t like, and saying they “need it” to make money is a patent lie obviously they don’t “need” it, and justifying it by saying “that’s how they make money” is also ridiculous.

I would never justify how corporations make their money, unless it`s something indisputably good like Girl Guides making cash off their cookies.

They certainly don’t “need” to siphon information to make money either. But that IS how they currently make money. That’s just a fact. I don’t want to justify it, and I’m not trying to counter your arguments with it. I’m telling you that their business philosophy is a certain way right now, and SOMEONE is going to have to do an ass-load of work to change their minds. I would personally suggest forming some kind of coalition.

cigarettes were ones sold without any warning and people didn’t realise the hazards. any criticism of that could also be “countered” with the exact same non-arguments you are using: “they need to make money; they’re not saints; you try to run a business” blabla bullshit cop outs.

Different situation. Advances in medical science confirmed that smoking is bad for you, and the enhancement of technology allowed awareness on this subject to be spread more easily.

If you can show me proof that a commercial internet will necessarily lead to whatever doomsday scenario you’re thinking of, like how the inhalation of toxic smoke will necessarily destroy your lungs, I will sign on as a member of your glorious rebellion right now.

so? so therefor i shouldn’t complain about it? what’s your point? again you just keep justifying things by saying that’s how things are. where do people come up with arguments like that?

I’ve told you in this post and the one before it that you’re free to spout as much of your opinion as you wish. And again, the fact that lots of people clearly disagree with it and you have no actual proof to back your conclusion doesn’t make it inherently wrong; it just gives it a very slim chance of actually having an impact in reality.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

stop with what?

Implying the the Jews have some sort of elite monopoly on corporatizing various websites. There’s no GOOD way to do that; it just makes you look fringe and damages your credibility.

not nobody else. this is also circular logic.

Intentional hyperbole. Also, my conclusion with this paragraph is that your view is unpopular, and my evidence is that the majority of internet users clearly do not share your perspective, judging by the relative absence of wingnut threads like this one. How is that circular logic?

hence the problem. why do you insist on justifying things being the way they are by saying that’s the way they are?

I’m not justifying anything. I’m telling you the way things are because you don’t seem to know.

case in point.

…Of people creating some great intellectual property and selling it for lots of money, as such people usually do. I wish people made great things for free and kept them free and devoid of ads for every user everywhere, but that’s just not the way things go. Is your platform that people should be nicer and more charitable when creating content on the internet? Great; just remove our innate tendency toward greed and providing for ourselves and you’ll have one hell of a concept.

that doesn’t answer the question, does it?

You didn’t ask a question.

and yet, Youtube did not start out with a fat wallet, for a long time did not or hardly sell adspace, until they chose for the quick money and sold it to corps. the reason Youtube can’t survive on donations is because it sucks. again, you are justifying the suckiness of something by saying it sucks.

It didn’t suck before, and it couldn’t survive on handouts then either; hence why it sold out to Google.

I can’t believe I actually have to tell you that most people don’t have the time, interest, or moral fibre to offer great things for free on the internet. If you want a better internet, you’re going to need better people, and corporations who are less ambitious in the ways they get customer information… And it would help if they didn’t give independent website owners so much fucking money for their intellectual property, too.

for now…

The internet has had time to grow and develop, and we have seen it become progressively more commercial over the years. Everything points to this trend continuing. I can’t prove you wrong; you’re entitled to your opinion of what you think the internet should be. I’m simply telling you that what you want is extremely unrealistic given the circumstances.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why Do We Feed Trolls?

I’d say that anyone can engage in trolling, but not everyone who trolls is a troll.

The act of trolling, if we limit it to its internet manifestation, is interacting in a way that 1. is intended to derive a negative emotional response from readers and/or undermine the rules or philosophy of the site/service on which the trolling is displayed and 2. takes advantage of internet anonymity by portraying one’s self or one’s beliefs in a way that is not consistent with one’s actual identity or views.

A troll is someone who engages in trolling most of the time when interacting with others on the internet. The degree of “trolling” behaviour required to earn this label is highly subjective, and the more the person in question interacts sincerely and uses the site/service as intended, the less of a basis there is for labelling them a troll.

I believe that it’s important to make a distinction between trolling and just being butthurt.

People who are butthurt will occasionally fulfil condition 1. of trolling behaviour by becoming frustrated when their legitimate online identities or views are challenged, and react in a way that derives negative responses and/or violates the rules/philosophy of the site/service. However, since they have a legitimate attachment to their views and online identity, they’re really just being an ass, and are not trolling.

Condition 2. of trolling by itself is most often engaged in by roleplayers. Roleplayers portray themselves differently online intentionally, but for the purposes of indulging in cooperative fiction-based entertainment. Other internet users portray themselves differently online for positive responses or maintaining an e-social life.

Some users, like myself, freely alternate between regular online behaviours and trolling, varying these behaviours based on the demeanour of the individual they’re interacting with. Simply put, I’m mean and disingenuous when speaking with idiots online.

Topic: Serious Discussion / History of Socialism

Originally posted by WolfgangAzureus:

I actually got every reference in Flabby’s post. =)

Me too. I’m a huge fan of the Marxcartney-Leninist school of thought.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

i didn’t. other people keep mentioning it, and i respond to them.

Here’s a tip; stop if you want to be taken more seriously.

hence the problem.

Or maybe public opinion is shifting and you want to be left behind?

right. that’s how we used to think about it. we don’t anymore. within 10 years we changed all the way. for what reason?

Because alarmism is the earliest and most natural human response to new technology, and the closer we get to that technology being reality, the less sense the alarmist POV tends to make. Makes for a ripping good read, though.

hence the problem

That’s just it; I’m telling you that nobody else considers it a problem. Are they all stupid, and you’re the only one who knows that our information being siphoned by corporations will lead to the downfall of society as we know it?

hence the problem. also, Wikipedia didn’t.

Wikipedia makes a point of avoiding corporate interests; unlike most other sites out there, Wikipedia’s creators have a goal of enshrining all human knowledge so that anyone can access it. This is an incredibly rare choice, by far the exception to the rule, and the ONLY reason it’s occurring at all is because it’s primarily a knowledge resource rather than an entertainment resource.

There’s also the fact that its goal is so noble that the site can be sustained, at least in part, by user donations. Few other sites would command that sort of good will from its users.

it was built up by the community, now they exploit that. it’s clearly not necessary because it did fine without

Youtube was built up by the original owners and the community, and was eventually sold to Google who began using it as the cash cow that it was always destined to be.

it’s clearly detrimental to society that we now have to wait 20 seconds every little video we open

Well, shit. Time to march on Washington.

i don’t know how to do any of that. but it should be possible, Youtube 5 years ago and Wikipedia today proves it.

Wikipedia is a unique animal, and the good cause it serves attracts all sorts of donations. I guarantee a site like Youtube will not be able to sustain itself on donations alone; starting with a fat wallet, selling adspace, and selling out to corporations entirely are virtually the only ways of an entertainment site’s survival being assured on the internet.

that is completely defeatist. it’s the way it is and therefor it’s the way it should be, and we shouldn’t try to change anything about it, because it will never change, because we won’t try to change it. imagine everyone in history said that…

What I’m telling you is that nobody wants to change it. You’re vastly outnumbered by people who understand that their personal information is an insignificant price to pay for the excellent resources that the internet has to offer. Historically, revolutions happen when many band together under a single cause; I don’t see your cause attracting anywhere near that sort of publicity or acceptance.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

If you didn’t care about Jewish involvement in these “evil” info-harvesting websites, you wouldn’t be mentioning Jews every second post.

I really don’t understand why you’re getting so riled up about this. If the police, firemen, and employees of my local grocery store came over to my house and wanted my information I’d throw it all at their feet. Why?

I don’t care. Few people do nowadays. If I DID care, I’d put in like an hour of research and figure out how to protect my information.

The gradual loss of personal information or “identity” is a by-product of technological change that has been in the mind’s eye of the general public for some time. Usually it’s presented as an extreme dystopian development – the Borg of Star Trek, for example, or Orwell’s 1984.

The fact is that it’s a necessary change. We, as North Americans, are simply adapting ourselves to our newest and most communication-friendly medium to date; the internet. For every person who keeps to themselves and likes their anonymity, there are ten that post every fucking thing about their lives on the internet, including the food they eat and the places they go every day.

Youtube becoming more corporate all the time is another one of those unavoidable facts of internet usage. Every medium starts a little less organized, and a little less corporate, until corporations realize the optimal way of making money from the service. In TV’s case you got ad placements every few minutes; on the internet you get pop-ups that can be done away with in a second, but bits of your information are siphoned if you haven’t taken measures to protect it.

If you disagree with the internet functioning this way, go ahead and start up a Youtube equivalent without selling adspace or accepting a multi-million dollar buyout when big business comes calling to gain control of your site. I’m guessing you wouldn’t stick to either practise for long.

At the end of the day, the internet doesn’t survive on good will and the user’s comfort alone. The flow of dollars and personal information is what keeps it alive; begrudging it that fact is nothing but an exercise in futility. You could be using that effort to plug the leak on your personal information instead of basing conspiracies around corporate practises that no one can change.

Topic: Serious Discussion / i fucking hate youtube

The social revolutionaries of tomorrow will know their shit well enough not to browse unprotected.

Topic: Off-topic / a quote for life?

Err… No one’s getting out alive?

Topic: Serious Discussion / OH MY GOD. IS THIS REAL.

Sorry TC, he was supposed to be attending the tea party myself, Herobrine, and G-man are throwing, but I guess he got lost on the way.

He loves to dawdle, that one!

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why not suicide?

Might as well live. There’s nothing better to do… As far as you know.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quote Discussion, Current quote: “The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat, but they are no less difficult.”

What if the deer’s injury is four broken legs?

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Imp of the Perverse, or, On the Motives of the Soul

I don’t personally believe in the concept of a soul, but I can certainly relate as far as holding a religious opinion that gives little comfort.

I’m a possibilian, in case anyone cares to know.

Anyway, the subject of this thread reminds me very much of Freud’s “death instinct”. Many regard him as a quack, but he managed some very astute observations of the human condition before the field of psychology had developed enough to demand scientific rigor.

The death instinct is one of the things I think he got right. I would agree that the mind wandering to destructive thoughts is based in our desire for power; more specifically, the “knowledge” brand of power. Mortality is one of the greatest limitations human beings face, and it is natural that we would find even the mere prospect of testing this boundary an exciting thought.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Oversensitivity

Galdos, if you’re going to resurrect years-old threads, can you at least make them good?

Topic: Serious Discussion / AXE and Dove ads

Men want sex, women want to be reassured that they’re still genuine while prettifying themselves.

Unilever is doing nothing but pandering to these generally-occurring facets of both genders. Being a huge company that handles over 400 brands, you can’t blame them for certain products of certain brands going against the message of their other brands and products. They run a business and they will do what sells by giving people what they want.

You want ethics in business? Start with blood diamonds; not allaying the insecurities of men and women for profit.

There’s a reason why Unilever doesn’t make any great social statements itself; to avoid hypocrisy. If they back women’s rights and have a product whose ads defy it, that’s a problem. If two of their products have ads with conflicting social messages, that’s only to be expected, since these products are being sold to two radically different demographics.

I agree that it’s interesting that Unliever controls both AXE and Dove, but it’s hardly a cause for expounding on the horrors of the business world.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Legendary creatures

Trolls are real :D

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Unpleasant side of Prosthetics and Cybersecurity

I’m sure this and technology like it will be the basis for some very intriguing murder trials somewhere along the line, and I’d say it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“Hackable people” is just a fact that we’ll have to deal with the more integrated we become with our technology. I mean sure, right now people are usually only physically integrated with technology to restore some lost quality of life, or to enable continued living… But I believe that customizable implants of all kinds, suited to many purposes, will be gradually adopted by human beings on a large scale during the next half-century.

My answer, therefore, is a non-answer; drawing lines in the sand when it comes to technology is only ever a highly personal endeavour. Whether I like it or not, this type of exploitable in-body technology will become the norm. The most horrific development I see arising from this will come if human beings adopt significant brain augmentation as a regular lifestyle choice; in that case, an accomplished hacker could theoretically alter one or more mental faculties associated with an implant… An augmented reality implant being tinkered with to display frightening hallucinations, for example.

Of course, it’s quite possible that I read/watch/play too much cyberpunk.

Topic: Serious Discussion / is killing yourself cowardly

@karma: Part of the reason I included any exceptions in my argument at all is because I believe that there ARE things that can throw someone for a loop, to the point where they can’t deal or comprehend life after experiencing what they have.

You’re right, in that it will vary heavily based on situation; I could only include some rather ambiguous examples as far as exceptions are concerned, or I’d be rambling even more than I already am. :P I used “Trauma” loosely as a sort of catch-all term for any sort of event which would cause intense, lasting pain of any kind, as I feel anything that could be called trauma will unbalance a person just as you said, and thus they are incapable of cowardice by following through with their actions.

You’re also right about psychological evaluation being paramount to learning the mental state of a suicidal individual, but remember that this is a discussion about suicide. Even accepting psychological help in and of itself is an alternative to killing one’s self; you’re showing bravery and a willingness to overcome just through that small action, and all but the most messed-up individual is capable of, at the very least, conceiving of requesting psychological aid, though not necessarily requesting it in some cases, I will admit.

I would never judge a real-life case of suicide as cowardly without having all the facts of a person’s life, and even then it would be but a rough estimate. I have so far been judging theoretical suicides; for example, the cynical athlete who commits suicide due to his condition. In such examples I am assuming that this is the only major adversity in their life; mr. cynical athlete had a happy childhood, lots of friends, and is generally well-liked. In short, I am judging suicide on a motivation-to-motivation basis; not a person-to-person basis. People often have many more than one trauma in their lives, and it would be unfair to judge them cowards for committing suicide without taking as many of their experiences as possible into consideration.

I define bravery a little differently. I don’t think you need a complete understanding of the situation to be brave; so few brave people do. You just need to, as you say, follow through with the option that has the greatest positive impact for everyone involved despite any inconvenience to yourself. Being cowardly is choosing the option that conveniences you the most, and its severity ranges based on context and how many others you inconvenience with that decision, though it is only known as cowardice when you are preventing some harm to yourself, and as other human weaknesses when you gain from that convenience instead.

In the case of suicide, I see it largely as people accepting swift, fleeting harm in exchange for bypassing what they feel is the more dire harm of remaining alive. This outlook varies in its viability based on all kinds of factors, some of which I outlined previously.

Finally, I would say that if you’re able to pre-meditate the act of killing yourself, you are capable of acknowledging at least one alternative that involves you remaining alive. Psychological help, comfort food, confiding in your friends – whatever. Unless your reason(s) for wanting to die is truly harrowing, it’s cowardly to reject those options in favour of death, which is really the ultimate rejection.

People who suffer advanced mental illness that interferes with their cognition would also fall under the “exception” category.

EDIT:
@karma’s second post – Equating death and heroin is not debatable. Saying there are similarities between them, sure; but they are not the same. Even the most accomplished junkie in the world has at least a slim chance of recovery, but dead is dead. A drug user makes a choice, (granted, a very chemically-warped choice) to continue their behaviours every day, and can change those behaviours with sometimes inhuman levels of willpower or therapy. A suicide never gets that chance; they kill themselves and reject every choice they might’ve made had they remained alive.

Topic: Serious Discussion / is killing yourself cowardly

Sure, Vika, and finding the silver lining in such situations is imperative to continuing a life touched by extreme adversity. Paraplegia is one of those gray areas to me as far as suicide is concerned, in that I would expect a human being to overcome such a setback, but I would still understand and feel sympathy toward those who kill themselves as a result. To some, mobility is the core of their lifestyle; they can handle slowly losing their physical faculties, but to lose a great portion all at once is almost like dying in and of itself. I’m sure you’ve had those patients who just can’t settle for getting 80% of their quality of life back, and utterly succumb to depression or self-harm as a result. Again, I always hope that such people will recover and find another reason to live, but I cannot blame them for making a different choice.

To me, there is a very important distinction that makes me view most suicides as cowardly rather than desperate. To be cowardly suggests a certain knowledge of the options available to you, and still opting toward the most escapist alternative available to you, (in this case, killing yourself as opposed to accepting rehabilitation, or attempting to adapt to your new life yourself). Desperation suggests panic resulting from a lack of available options.

In the case of paraplegia, I believe your patients who feel they “can’t go on” are imposing this perceived lack of options upon themselves. A more positive person with a sedentary lifestyle, for example, is likely to be much less bothered by the whole scenario, and will be far more proactive in envisioning their life post-incident. A cynical athlete will find himself in the opposite position, closing the shutters on metaphorical rays of light that would be quite obvious to others, and are likely obvious even to himself deep down.

This is why I agree with the term “cowardice” in most circumstances; there are ALWAYS alternatives to killing yourself, and I would consider not recognizing them more of a personal delusion than a lack of imagination or guidance. They may be disoriented and afraid, but that doesn’t excuse condemning themselves to death unnecessarily; adverse situations like this are the very reasons why terms like “courage” and “cowardice” are coined, for a truly courageous person will press on no matter how hopeless things seem, and a coward will be found wanting.

Again, the exceptions I listed above portray suicide devoid of cowardice. There is no shame in dying to avoid living with constant pain; the emotional pain of not having all of your limbs be functional falls just below my baseline for suicide-worthy events, and quadriplegia falls just above it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / is killing yourself cowardly

I had a little trouble following your post, Karma, but here are my thoughts on the matter:

No amount of drug use equates to suicide. At most you could argue that they enable a sort of “mental” suicide, in that the user might become so addicted and apathetic toward all else that they could be described as “dead to the world”.

But I don’t criticize such people. I know the pleasures of retreating insise one’s own mental landscape, with and without drugs, and to many kinds of people such behaviours could be considered more worthwhile than the “life” that is exposed to us through NA media.

But killing one’s self is a rejection of the known, and an unwillingness to accept the unknown. Viable reasons for killing yourself usually have to do with your “known” being too difficult to bear, sometimes to the point where it will continue to undermine the rest of your life.

But if you’re simply depressed for no particular reason, or you feel you have no friends, or your mom skipped your allowance this week, I’d say buck up. There are other options, and your situation could still improve even if it sometimes feels like it never will.

I see the suicide/cowardice relationship as being somewhat similar to battle tactics. Sometimes the only thing that makes sense
is retreat, because the opposing force (neck-down paralysis,
for example) will utterly dominate the battlefield of your life.

But, just like soldiers who commit heroic acts, those who
resist suicide even when others would have given up are
some of the most worthwhile people you would care to meet.

Topic: Serious Discussion / is killing yourself cowardly

Killing yourself can sometimes be extremely brave depending on the context.

For example, on a recent good show called “Arrow”, the main character’s father kills himself and another man on a lifeboat because there isn’t enough food left for all three of them. Thus he gives his son, the only other passenger and the one most likely to survive, the best chance at life that he possibly can.

And there’s always throwing yourself on a grenade to protect your buddies.

But yeah, if you just kill yourself for personal reasons I’d say you’re cowardly in most cases. Notable exceptions are victims of severe trauma of all kinds, such as extreme violence or sexual abuse, and people who are looking forward to a slow/excruciating death otherwise.

Topic: Serious Discussion / What is happiness?

Happiness results from masturbation, of one kind or another.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Moral philosophy?

Originally posted by Sharangir:

You are misled into believing that “no property” means no concept of usage of possession. So when someone opposes property, you think he opposes usage or possession. Quit it.

Just because a society has homes does not mean they have landlords. Think about it.

Property isn’t always defended by force either; have you been misled into believing that? Nor does it necessarily belong to one person forever; the property owner may give it freely, or allow its use, at his own discretion.

By opening up the usage of one’s possessions to others at their discretion, you risk every sort of unpleasant human interaction imaginable. Not all who need will use relative to their need; they will sometimes use much more. If it’s your house, it could become full to the point where you’re edged out… Or it’s burned down due to negligence… Or your new boarder has psychotic urges.

I can see where you’re coming from in most respects, but there is one point I can’t remotely accept:

Stealing doesn’t exist because of our society encouraging competition; it exists because humans want for things. We always have. A utopian society isn’t sustainable without utopian citizens, and to my knowledge there are none.

I suppose you’re saying that in your imagining of the perfect society, having my stuff taken without my consent wouldn’t be defined as stealing. I suppose the perfect human being would simply give it back when he was done with it, right? Pure idealism. People don’t function that way; they function every way imaginable, and in several of those imaginings I never see my stuff again.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Moral philosophy?

People are not prepared to do without the concept of property, with or without government.

Property is simply an extension of security, which humans inherently desire. We want to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our precious things (which, in fact, may be an extension of our loved ones in the instance of objects that hold sentimental value for their owner).

Sharangir, I can only think that the utopian societies you say existed were either very small-scale, didn’t possess much of anything worth stealing or protecting with force, or simply had less apparent symptoms of the same issues.

Maybe one day we will transcend the need to hold objects dear to us, but I don’t see this happening anytime soon.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why is it always the guy's fault?

Sure, I wasn’t saying any sort of battering issue should be ignored by any means; I was simply trying to show that even officers of the law are subject to the trends and erroneous beliefs of our time. Female accusations of battering will simply attract more notice and a keener investigation due to it being a fairly hot-button issue, and there being much at stake if the matter isn’t resolved properly. I agree that both types of battering should be investigated to an equal degree, but the previously-mentioned human tendency toward power dynamics imbalances the whole issue.

The bond women share with their offspring is considered stronger in NA society due to their ability to bear children; that is a fact. Individual women may void that advantage through extreme behaviour, but the fact is that women are more likely to win custody battles independent of considerations other than their gender. The law dictates that both genders be treated equally in this circumstance, but the law is carried out by people… And people have preconceptions that will colour their judgement no matter what.

I believe in justice, just like you… But I acknowledge it as an ideal that is constantly obstructed by human error and emotional considerations. I hope that, one day, human legal systems will function without bias… But I don’t see that day coming anytime soon.