Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Leatra on December 01, 2012, 08:48:24 pm

So, what do you say about rape and beating? That can make men's problems small as a dust compared to women's problems. If you want to make genders equal you gotta defend the weak (no offense) gender.

That men have those problems too, except men are pressured into not reporting rape/domestic abuse because of society's expectation of them to be strong, and the perception that reporting these happening to them would make them weak.

Look, the point isn't that men don't have problems, it's that their problems aren't really approaching anywhere near the level of women everywhere. Wading into a fight about equality and arguing about men's rights is akin to walking into someone's funeral and complaining that your favourite animes was cancelled why isn't anyone sympathising with me??? You have problems, but none approaching anything anywhere near the systematic, cultural, and financial problems that women have. Take into consideration that most of the so-called inequalities that MRAs like to spout off are nothing more than anecdotal nonsense about things that have probably never happened on any appreciably noticable scale, and it just comes across as nothing more than petty WELL AS A MAN WHY AREN'T MY PROBLEMS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT OF FEMALES? whining.

I'm not normally one for manga, but Google "Oyasumi Punpun" and prepare yourself for quite possibly one the single most depressing things I have ever read in my entire life.

Also stars a penguin! Ha ha, poor guy.

Quote from: Forums User Meat Wizard on October 28, 2012, 04:17:56 pm

Quote from: Darvi on October 28, 2012, 04:07:33 pm

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

I'd say this is very much wrong. You can totally objectively judge people when the judging criteria are set. Sure you probably can't judge things along the lines of 'this painting makes me feel sad' but you can, for instance, judge it along the lines of 'this is not an impressionist painting' because the criteria for that are set and defined. Perhaps you could argue that setting those criteria are subjective, but once they're set, then they become a scale of definites you can rank by.

People are not paintings. You can't objectively judge people because you're trying to judge an unobservable, subjective thing with your own subjective thought processes. The human mind (for our purpose, what constitutes a human being) is inherently subjective, and no one individual can wholly understand the mind of another. We can make guesses based on observed behavioral trends and expressions of the other's opinions, but limited and somewhat untrustworthy data combined with guesses do not an objective, accurate conclusion make.

Even with perfect, unlimited telepathy we still wouldn't be able to do so, as the mechanism by which we would observe the mind of another would still be our own, equally opinionated mind. Let me spell it out for you.

Quote

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
Adjective:   
(of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This is all true. An IQ or SAT test does not, however, judge or rank people on personality or social aptitude. They're tests of problem solving, pattern recognition, and the capacity to retain information, which you can certainly test objectively for given the fact that they're tests with right-or-wrong answers, and at least attempt to be consistent.

Quote from: Forums User Meat Wizard on October 28, 2012, 04:33:41 pm

Quote from: The Darkling Wolf on October 28, 2012, 04:02:35 pm

Have you ever tried blinking one eye at a time?

This is called winking.

Really? we never would have known that if you hadn't told us![/sarcasm]

Excellent post, Forum Goodposter Vorthon.

Well IQ tests are more about pattern recognition and problem solving than anything else, so it's just one scale of potential intelligence. It doesn't necessarily exclude you from being not-that-clever in other aspects of your life. That's what that in combination with a high SAT score - which is an objective scale of knowledge for that particular graduating year - implies that she's smarter than your average bear.

Well as I said, judging by other people is not objectively possible.

I'd say this is very much wrong. You can totally objectively judge people when the judging criteria are set. Sure you probably can't judge things along the lines of 'this painting makes me feel sad' but you can, for instance, judge it along the lines of 'this is not an impressionist painting' because the criteria for that are set and defined. Perhaps you could argue that setting those criteria are subjective, but once they're set, then they become a scale of definites you can rank by.

Internet bullies, trolls, etc need an audience. If this is a private affair between just you and her, there's absolutely no reason along those lines to try and humiliate you.

I'd just like to point out how this is wrong. Attention is attention, whether it's from one person or a thousand. Some need an audience sure but others are happy to just get it in private (heyoooo) or do things like pass logs along to people to laugh with.

Oh, and don't meet people from the internet in real life if you even remotely feel uncomfortable or uncertain with them. Meeting them at all when you basically have no proof they're a real person is dangerous as hell.

I'd say hating Eclipse is a pretty reasonable sign that you're an intelligent person in the first place and are certainly smart enough to not need it. I'm not one of those CLI FOR EVERYTHING ARGH guys but I find more and more what I look for in an IDE is less and less.

But then I'm a dirty Python guy so it's hard not to swoon when compiling is something that you largely ignore.

You've halfway convinced me that you're deliberately misinterpreting things.

I say that I don't have a moral issue with incest (generally construed to mean sibling-incest). You claim that I said that I don't have a problem with sexual abuse. That's a pretty blatant strawman. If I said that I didn't have a moral issue with sex, would you claim that I was saying that I was okay with rape? Don't put words in my mouth, not about something like this. Especially not when you're being so damned obvious about it, between the strawman and generalizations. I don't have a whole lot of buttons, but misrepresenting my moral stance is one of them. If I was a little bit more convinced that you were doing it deliberately, I would be a hell of a lot less polite about this.

Thusfar from what I've seen of you, you've made several days of nondescript posts and then suddenly went for stuff that reeks of either stupidity or blatant trolling (Poe's Law, so I'm not certain).

I'm not trying to point words in your mouth, I'm just saying that by making light of it you're normalising and trivialising what is an otherwise serious topic. If you don't like me making assumptions, then don't make open-ended assertions like "I am ok with incest" when a topic like that is not just something you can casually slip into a conversation without someone hopefully going 'wait, what?'. If you want to defend or revile incest, that's your thing, but you can't flip out because I dared to press the point further on a point you failed to introduce any of your actual beliefs on.

For guys who seem to have been going out of their way to tell me this place is one where you can challenge and call each other out on things, everyone sure does seem to gang up on me and call me stupid, trolling, or just devolve into nonsensical posting like misko27 there, whose response to this all is to try and wacky away a discussion and make veiled threats behind calling things 'bees' instead.