Omar
-
Posts
6662 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Omar
-
-
Oh, he unfriended me. Problem solved!
-
4
-
-
Right, I'm not going to baby him, but that's basically what I want him to realize; it doesn't have anything to do with feminism/how casual he wants his relationships to be. I've told him a few times already that he's got the causation backwards (happiness causes girlfriends, not the other way around) to no avail, so I'm looking for something I can just link to below his latest status.
-
Best reading material for needy, insecure, entitled, "nice" guy? Someone I know keeps whining about how he can't be happy without romance on Facebook. Bonus points if not misogynistic because he's probably a feminist and he'll probably latch onto any excuse to avoid being exposed to the notion that you have to make your life happen rather than wait for it to happen to you. But anything will do.
[Edit] Lol @ people who drink beer
-
Maybe I just can't put myself in your situation, Skull, but I have to agree with Squab; you don't have any such obligations towards her as a friend, and the fact that she thinks she has the right to tell you what to do behind closed doors in exchange for forgiveness is a red flag to me; you shouldn't have to depend on her for approval. I don't think Squab meant you should dominate her as much as he meant that she shouldn't dominate you.
-
Laying 15 hens doesn't equal mature. Oh dear god, I am so not looking forward to University and all the baboons who are going to be there.
It's his dick; let him live. For all your indignation, you're not any more grown up because you don't want to get laid.
-
Saq, you are what you do. "The normal you" is a convenient excuse for not facing the reality that you've done something wrong, but you don't want to acknowledge it because she's in the wrong and you're the victim--or so you would like to think.
-
Why the hell did I even think it was ok for me to say that back to her..
You did something in the spur of the moment and you regretted it. It happens; if you analyzed the consequences of your actions exhaustively you'd probably be incapable of doing anything. What's done is done though, so work with what you've got. C'est la vie.
In passing, I'm going to remind you that you really don't like hurting girls. Remember that time one told you she had been raped and you stopped seeing her because you were somehow repulsed? That felt good for neither of you. As I said at the time, her happiness wasn't your responsibility (it was ultimately the rapist's fault), but you're certainly capable of empathy, so don't leave this problem to future Low_levelled because he's not going to like what he has to do.
-
1
-
-
OK, you're clearly not in love with her, but do you love her? You may not actually have been lying if you play semantics.
Might as well argue he was just making a noise and that he didn't mean for her to interpret it as a sentence.
It's going to bite you back in the ass and you know what to do. Get it together.
@Ring_World: Thanks for that video.
-
1
-
-
hey check it out! we were constructive and productive and useful for like an entire page! bravo ladies and gents!
I deliberately refrained from posting. Coincidence?
-
2
-
-
Totes innapropes.
-
1
-
-
What's unhealthy? >_>
For women, assuming when you get married you plan on eventually having kids, the older they are the more taxing it is on their physical being, thus the later you get married (for women specifically) the more unhealthy it is.
You don't need to get married to have kids.
No, you don't; but usually those who get married tend to have a higher likelihood of having kids (them societal instincts). Logically then it would make sense to say that getting married later is more likely to be unhealthy for women.
Or maybe those who want to have kids are more likely to get married.
-
I secretly hate One Direction.
-
OK muggi, I am emphatically not talking about you. Happy? :lol:
-
I don't think the same can be said of everyone participating muggi. But keep going if you (plural) like, just saying he doesn't have several girlfriends, the more you hate it, the stronger it gets, etc.
-
You're arguing with a troll.
-
I'm not saying it can't happen. It's pretty cruel to preemptively label the person in question an attention [bleep], though, especially considering that if they were lying, not much was lost, but it's one of the shittiest things you could think of them if they were telling the truth (Pascal's wager style).
-
@muggi: Well, in any case, I don't think you need my advice on the issue. I hope everything works out fine for each of you.
-
Was on a date with a girl tonight and asked her the usual, "have you been dating much recently?" She talked about how she was recently ganged up on by three guys and started crying. Made me really sad.
Is it bad my first reaction was "attention [bleep]"?
Yes.
-
constrictor: Lol, I was going to say "sorry to hear that" when you first posted you got back together. I guess I should've.
@Muggi: that's awful. Are you still in touch with her? Like with the guy who posted here a while ago saying his FB confided that she had been raped, I realize it's not your duty to help her (if there's anything you can do), but you know, she could really use the support.
-
Yep, legally it's most likely nothing will happen, as in most rape cases, alcohol or not. In spite (or maybe because) of this, even a false accusation can have lasting effects on the accused.
-
" Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."
From that article. I find the modern English clearer (and funnier) than the old, although both are rather convoluted. Good English would be: "You will see that success or failure does not depend on skill only - there is always a randomness."
Orwell goes on to say that the first sentence is "precise and detailed" when it really is being long-winded and using pars pro toto (the race/battle/bread/riches/favour for all good things, the swift/strong/wise/men of understanding/men of skill for all people) where it serves no use - it should just be generalized as far as possible if the author wanted to make a clear point (I believe this is a Bible verse, so clarity probably wasn't the first priority).
Illustrations are missing from your correction. Of course, if you assume the author cannot have been concerned with style, then almost any figure of speech seems useless.
1) Why not? References to other works can summon a feeling much, much better than a new figure of speech can. Some figures of speech we use are thought to be thousands of years old - are you going to top that with your new combination? Even if you are Orwell...
Orwell covers that when he mentions "iron resolution" is one of those metaphors that is so old and has been used for so long that it has essentially lost all metaphorical content. I understand that rule to be applicable to metaphors which are neither of that category, nor original. Orwell's worry is that you're going to fit your thoughts to the metaphor when you should be doing the opposite.
2) Why not? There is such a thing as rythm in speech and writing, and I will gladly use a longer word to make my sentence sound better.
"I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that" being used instead of "I think" (or "I don't think", since that example was especially unclear) is what Orwell is referring to. OK, those are not words, but you get the gist of it. It's kind of difficult to take that claim on without examples (to be fair, that's a lot of work for the Internet).
3) See above.4) See above. Also, just... stupid. If you want to use passive, use passive >.>. Not to mention ergative languages, but ok.
In case that was not clear, this article is about the English language... "It is often thought by Progressives" can easily be replaced with the shorter, less convoluted "Progressives think". Why would you want to write former instead of the latter? It just distracts from what you actually have to say using needless contortions.
5) See 1. Also, so many fun metaphors you can make with obscure words... also see 2.
What's the point of using Wertfreiheit instead of ethical neutrality? Congrats, you know a German word! It's understandable if you use a word which is associated with something more particular than its original meaning (chansonl being used as a genre in English when it just means "song " in French, for instance), you're just being pretentious.
6) Well yeah... so basically ignore those rules when it suits your writing?
I'm sorry to report that people may have to actually think about what they're doing instead of using seven rules and declaring themselves masters of style.
Plus that the rules are too many, and can be condensed quite simply into: "Write short, write unique, write common/simple, write well" (all of these rules can be at odds with eachother as well). Properly writing short would probably involve lots of / and other non-letter symbols which would make it harder to actually pronounce the text.
Not that I don't agree with Orwell when he says his examples aren't very good at some things, but that doesn't mean they are not useful at all. Orwell is just another one of those people who do not properly appreciate convoluted language.
Succinctly, concisely? Or maybe "Your writing should be as short, as simple and as original as possible". Besides, as I said earlier, I don't think his point is that your language has to be original. By definition, language isn't--someone else has to be using it as well, so a truly original language wouldn't be a language at all. I think writers who employ useless acrobatics in their speech are trying to be original; they're just going about it the wrong way.
-
Related and quite distinct from the point I was making:
-
1
-
-
I'm not particularly interested in semantics, or definitions about certain words. It's pretty obvious what we're both saying; let's just stick to the matter at hand.
You can solve a lot of problems by clearing up what you mean. Muggi and obfuscator have been using the word "responsible" in one sense, and you and I have used it in another. They were more concerned about what an individual can do to protect themselves; you and AML take a more collective approach in preventing attempts at rape from occurring to begin with. You're saying you shouldn't rape people; we're saying that's true, but you also shouldn't get wasted. At first blush, that seems like blaming the victim, but it isn't, and the reason is that "should" does not mean the same thing in both case--one is a matter of rights, and the other is a matter of self-interest. And while you're right that people do blame the victim in many cases--just look at the Steubenville rape--this is an entirely different issue. There, people claim that the victim is in the wrong for losing consciousness; here, we're claiming she made an unwise decision and everything would work out better if we let people know that this is frequent and avoidable. I think if you replace the word "responsible" with "instrumental" in sees' post, (or muggi's, or obfuscator's), you can pretty much end this discussion with people actually agreeing without changing the substance of anyone's position.
@Racheya: Do you feel offended that I say you shouldn't go out in the street holding wads of cash because it implies that mankind is a bunch of thieves? No, you don't, and that's because some people are thieves and some people aren't. Similarly, I don't think I'm a rapist, I just think some men are.
-
Randy. I am the liquor.
"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice
in Off-Topic
Posted
Feminism is an umbrella term, and some of the ideas it covers have little to no prescriptive overlap. I don't call myself a feminist because that wouldn't actually tell you anything about what I believe, even though I agree with many people who call themselves feminists.
The reason I brought it up was that I initially found a fair amount of PUA material that was way too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater on the grounds that he wouldn't take his advice from someone who calls women sluts. You don't want to give people reasons to feel admirable for believing falsehoods.
@Muggi: No, I wasn't. I've been pretty understanding up until now (he does have mental and physical disabilities, but then so do I) and I didn't reply to his latest. I think he just didn't want me on his news feed, which is understandable given we're not friends and we disagree about politics.