Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Andir

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 210
286
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 29, 2011, 04:40:15 pm »
Was it this thread where there was talk of how the Bill of Rights applies (or doesn't) to groups/business/people?

I have mixed feelings on the whole thing.  I mean, it could boil down to stopping someone from making a team (are they?) that only accepts gays.  It's like the whole Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts accepting girls/boys respectively.  Seems silly that someone couldn't just create an organization simply called Scouts and accept both to compete with the other two.  On the other hand, abuses have occurred in the past with restaurants that didn't accept blacks.  On one hand, my personal freedom side dislikes that you cannot create a group that specifically focuses on a particular subsection of society and on the other hand I see how it can be abused.  It raises discrimination issues like how the sports leagues can get away with separate organizations for different sexes... why not different sexual orientations?  (I mean, is one of the reasons we don't have co-ed sports leagues because of "co-mingling" of players?  How would that impact a team of gay men?)

Idealistically, there would only be one softball league and women and men (straight and gay) would be able to play on any team they like against other teams that would accept any sex/orientation... but I'm sure someone would have a problem with that because the biological makeup of one sex may predispose them to be favored for certain spots on the team or all spots.  (ie: imagine any WNBA team playing any NBA team... would women even be recruited for NBA teams?)

287
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 08:36:11 pm »
Quote from: Neonivek on November 28, 2011, 08:26:47 pm
If this wasn't the Irritation and annoyance thread I would have switched the topic to "Unintentional Parodies"

For example the first time I heard "Friday" I thought it was an amazing song! Not because it was good, not because it was soo bad it was good, but because I thought it was a well crafted Parody of the current trend in popsongs.

Even now I pretend it is a parody.
The first time I heard it, I thought: "Cool song for a young kid to write... it may be juvenile rhyming and lyrics, but at least she did it."  Then I read it was written by the guy in the car partway through the video and I felt sad.  How could a grown man come up with such a terrible set of lyrics?  I guess he knew how to make a viral song, but wow.

Quote from: Nadaka on November 28, 2011, 08:30:15 pm
http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-dutch-researcher-created-a-super-influenza-virus-with-the-potential-to-kill-millions.html

does this count as a progressive issue?, so we have something else to talk about?
I really don't have a problem with him creating the strain (I wouldn't want to get it) but if it helps scientists understand influenza better and people are working on combating it... all the better?

288
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 08:12:38 pm »
Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 08:05:31 pm
there would not be such a thing as a company in a matriarchy.
Oh, well then.  In a Matriarchy, items and goods just appear and do not have to be made.  Makes total sense.  There's no need to have a company to manage and deal with the logistics of manufacturing, shipping, and support of products?

In this imaginary place, how do I get my TV delivered?

289
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 07:52:43 pm »
Quote from: Neonivek on November 28, 2011, 07:34:20 pm
Quote
Are you suggesting that a company would be run differently if a woman had "done it her way?"  If you do, I have some seriously bad news for you.  Women and men both look at numbers the same

No Vertex is saying that in order to even run a company a woman has to essentially become a man.
That's still an asinine statement.  Companies may have been "forged by man" in that all the rules and groundwork was mostly male conceived, but it doesn't matter who gets to the top.  They'll still run the company to compete with other companies... they all play by the same rules.  Men and Women.  I'm not even sure how someone would think that a company would be somehow different if women made them.  They'd still have to confront the competition of other companies trying to sell products to the same customers.  They'd still try to market their products.  They'd still raise capital the same.  It just boggles my mind how someone can think that a woman that made it to the top was somehow modifying the fabric of her being to get there.  If anything, it smacks of saying that women are ill prepared to take on the workplace (not my words!) and have to relearn the ropes.

Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 07:40:31 pm
Quote from: Leafsnail on November 28, 2011, 07:34:24 pm
Virex, I don't want to think you're doing this intentionally but you manage to get everyone arguing against you about the same topic again and again with startling consistency.
That may be because my viewpoint is so alien compared to the comfortable, male-dominant world we live in that it tends to scare people senseless.
I may grow to regret doing this, but how exactly do you see a company being different in a Matriarchal society?

290
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 07:32:14 pm »
Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 07:26:15 pm
Each of those women has been malformed by the men around her to dance to their beats. There's no other way she could've gained a position of power.
No other way?  Obviously, since women couldn't get to those positions without acting like a man, right?  I'm sorry, but that's an absurd statement.  I know many women who are more competant than their male counterparts that received promotions because of their skill at management... not because they kowtowed to some male "dance of power".  Are you suggesting that a company would be run differently if a woman had "done it her way?"  If you do, I have some seriously bad news for you.  Women and men both look at numbers the same.

291
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 07:25:51 pm »
Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 07:21:24 pm
Quote from: Neonivek on November 28, 2011, 07:16:15 pm
"How would that work?"

Simple. Men perpetuate that there is a certain method to being male and all men who do not act this way are outcasts, weird, or losers. Those who do act that way may not want to but must anyway.
That... still doesn't make any sense. They're men, why should they be bound by what others tell them?

Quote
" I never intended to say they can't influence society. But the fact is that men still hold all the power"

You may want to rephrase this.
Yeah I'm having some trouble getting that right. What I mean is that women would most definitely be able to make decisive changes, if they weren't constantly being held back from doing so. Their theoretical power exceeds that of us, but they can't access it.
YeeHaW!  We are safe in our male run society with no Women CEOs, Women Senators, Women Mayors, Women in Management, Women owned companies... doh!

292
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:24:34 pm »
Quote from: GlyphGryph on November 28, 2011, 05:11:06 pm
And my point was that if you assume thats true for pictures, why wouldn't you also extend it to the rest of it? Science doesn't often work the way reporters (and others) think it does.

Example:
A study finds that:
a chemical that has a certain effect on population 1
the chemical does not have the effect on population 2
there is no difference between the effects on population 1 and 2

In science, results like that are not uncommon. But they don't make any sense to the layman, because the layman doesn't understand how science works. And the scientists doing the studies often manage to get it wrong, because some 2 of the 3 is more personally profitable than all three together, so they cherry pick.

See http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n9/full/nn.2886.html if you want more details.

What's the point? Science is hard, and science is complicated, and by the time it gets to you it probably doesn't mean what the data actually said any more. It's a game of telephone, where every party along the line has an incentive to hear something they want to hear.
Heck, there's a huge one that I see used a lot: The "Fabric of Space-Time."  Teaching people that the Earth is like a huge bowling ball on a sheet of cloth with a smaller ball called The Moon.

293
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 05:02:36 pm »
Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 04:59:33 pm
Quote from: Nadaka on November 28, 2011, 04:57:40 pm
False color astronomy isn't to make the pictures "prettier" it is to allow them to display data outside the visible spectrum or make less perceptible difference more apparent.
Anything in the press has been photoshoped. I have no reason to assume this isn't true for astronomic pictures.
http://www.universetoday.com/11863/true-or-false-color-the-art-of-extraterrestrial-photography/
They don't "photoshop" (negative connotation) the images, but I don't doubt they use Photoshop to join and/or clean up some.

294
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:56:16 pm »
Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 04:43:25 pm
Now that we've established what you're still trying to drag out as an analogy...
Face it, you used a poor analogy and now you're arguing yourself blue in the face rather than simply say, "Yeah, I could have picked a better analogy."
There's really only one person that's dragging it out.  I simply stated it.  I put it in the dirt, you tied a rope to it and started dragging it around trying to prove some point.

Quote from: Leafsnail on November 28, 2011, 04:45:29 pm
Quote from: Andir on November 28, 2011, 04:32:34 pm
(See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)
In, uh... what study?  Certainly most I've seen are "If the person was shot or threatened with a gun it was gun crime".
I've seen several studies that put a tick mark in the gun column even though one wasn't used.  Some even included the defender's gun.  I don't have the time (or TBH, desire) to look up the studies I've read on it right now.  If you really want to look it up, feel free.

295
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:32:34 pm »
Quote from: Sheb on November 28, 2011, 04:28:40 pm
Quote from: Virex on November 28, 2011, 04:21:26 pm

Did you just try to trivialize rape?


I really feel like Virex got his own version of Reductio Ad Hitlerium in the form of Reduction Ad Rapist.
Neonivek may not have done it, but the study may have inadvertently done it while trying to bring up awareness.  IE: "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"  Neonivek was simply stating (if I interpreted correctly) that the parameters of the study may have been tweaked to try to "up sell" a problem.  It happens in all statistics (See: Gun crime.  If the person had a weapon on them [I believe it also includes a gun being in the car outside], even if concealed, never used, and never seen by the victim... it's a gun related crime.)

296
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 04:25:48 pm »
Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 04:06:06 pm
Quote from: Andir on November 28, 2011, 02:56:36 pm
Obviously we don't get paid to post the most entertaining things to keep visitors coming back.  (I hope you weren't trying to imply that I was saying that?)  There are forums that encourage such things to keep hits high and ad revenue coming in.  I don't believe I need to point out these.  I'm sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.
Perhaps you should define "such things". Because yeah...otherwise it looks like that's what you're saying.
Again, you focused on the money to the "player" which was not my point.  The sites could encourage people to post absurd things, jokes, or other information in order to generate hits.  The users don't have to get paid for the site to make money.

Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 04:06:06 pm
[W]hy on Earth would YouTube ever block anything those people put up, if they're generating massive hits?
They wouldn't.  And I never said they would.  I simply said they could.

297
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 03:49:36 pm »
Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 03:39:20 pm
I'd love to see a forum that pays people to post, cause I can always use a few extra bucks. If there were any place where I'd expect the "post whatever crazy-ass shit you want, we're trying to attract viewers", it'd be YouTube or 4chan. And last I checked, neither paid people for their posts.
Did I say they paid people to post?

298
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 02:56:36 pm »
Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 01:56:45 pm
You can't just say "Oh, three Oakland players all tested positive for banned susbstances, so the entire Raiders franchise is banned from the NFL this season."
Technically, you can.  (it would be like Toady closing this thread for a week.)  It would definitely put pressure on the owners to do proper testing.  Monetary pressures aside, the similarities are there.

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the monetary aspect of it.  I'm simply referring to the comparison symbolically.  Obviously we don't get paid to post the most entertaining things to keep visitors coming back.  (I hope you weren't trying to imply that I was saying that?)  There are forums that encourage such things to keep hits high and ad revenue coming in.  I don't believe I need to point out these.  I'm sure you can come up with a few examples yourself.  My post simply stated that if the leagues and owners wanted to limit the use of steroids, there's a simple solution.

(Oh, and "regulators", being the league commissioners, etc.  The ones making the rules.)

299
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 01:40:04 pm »
I'm increasingly amazed at the arguments that spring from this thread in regards to someone "taking back" something they said.  It's as if the world is going to end if the person does not comply with some argumentative standard instead of just moving on.

The thread gets hung up on one statement and people can't let it go...

Quote from: RedKing on November 28, 2011, 01:35:16 pm
Quote from: Andir on November 28, 2011, 01:13:00 pm
RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

Except that sports are absolutely nothing like this forum. We're not in competition (most of the time) for who can make the best post. Toady doesn't stand to make money based on how many people come to read our dick-waving in the forums. He also doesn't pay us large sums of money to post. Really, there is almost no way in which your analogy makes sense.
Eh, it's not about the competition and more in line with the "property" aspect.  If the owners don't want it, they can always ban the players... it's that simple.  If the owners are allowing it and you don't approve, don't buy the merchandise and fight to remove all funding from taxes.

300
General Discussion / Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« on: November 28, 2011, 01:13:00 pm »
RE: Steroids in Sports.

IMO, Sports are like this Forum.  If the owners do not want them using steroids, they can ban them from the sport.  If the regulators do not want teams that allow steroids, they simply remove the team from the lineup.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 210