Jump to content

Today...


Leoo

Recommended Posts

I don't know. I just feel like having younger children who aren't accompanied by an adult in a segregated bathroom is superior to having a unisex bathroom. But then again, my opinions don't mean shit since it isn't a fact or anything.

  • Like 1

19509_s.gif

 

“I had a feeling we weren’t coming back from this fight when it began.”

“Do you have any regrets?”

“I don’t. It seems surprising, I know, but I wouldn’t change a thing. This is how it was meant to be.”

“Huh, you never really notice how lovely the day is until you realize you’ll never see it again.”

“Mmmhmm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

I'm more certain it's a social aversion, not biological.

 

Instinctively, countless animals, humans included, err away from stagnant water. That's a biological aversion. It's not nurtured; it's a genetic disposition.

 

However, plenty of cultures do not shame nudity, modern and historical. Hence, it's more probably to conclude aversion to nudity is nurtured. Unless you want to dismiss anthropology to cater to a conservative viewpoint.

 

The number of cultures that do shame nudity massively outnumber the ones that don't (and have been more successful, which is interesting).

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

I'm more certain it's a social aversion, not biological.

 

Instinctively, countless animals, humans included, err away from stagnant water. That's a biological aversion. It's not nurtured; it's a genetic disposition.

 

However, plenty of cultures do not shame nudity, modern and historical. Hence, it's more probably to conclude aversion to nudity is nurtured. Unless you want to dismiss anthropology to cater to a conservative viewpoint.

 

The 1) number of cultures that do shame nudity massively 2) outnumber the ones that don't (and have been 3) more successful, which is interesting).

 

 

1) Fallacy. Appeal to majority is not correct or worthwhile on its own. For example, an argument that 70% of Americans are Christian; therefore, Christianity is [some trait] is illogical, because there is no criteria for someone to be Christian. The only conclusion one can draw from that is... 70% of Americans are Christian. However, an argument along the lines of 90%+ of climate scientists agree humans are the primary cause of global warming based on [???] data is not illogical or shaky, because (in this context), the climate scientists have evidence, and therefore a consensus was formed.

 

2) Fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. It's like saying humans are intricately unique are special because we are the most successful animal on this planet. It's like saying Christianity has more truth because it's the most successful religion on the planet. It's like saying capitalism is the best economic model simply because it's used in the richest countries.

 

In all of these example cases, it's a simple case of circumstance. Homo sapiens are successful only because of some uncontrollable chain of events that favored our two superior traits (intelligence/learning and minute dexterity) over the immense competition (many of which have superior longevity, superior numbers, superior lifespans, superior strength, superior speed, superior maturation progression [i.e., babies aren't defenseless and hindrances; doesn't take 6+ years to be somewhat autonomous/independent; doesn't take 16+ years to reproduce viably]; superior senses [sight/vision/smell/hearing/feeling/etc], superior offensive abilities [horns, husks, teeth, claws, venom, etc], superior defensive abilities [camouflage, thick hides or shells, poison, spines, etc] and many times combinations of these). There's many crucial prehistoric instances, if absent (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) or slightly different (just about everything, but perhaps most identifiable would be the geological impact of the current ice age), would have caused us to be only an alternate future or ensured our extinction while we were vulnerable. Christianity popularity is similarly the result of a bloody, chaotic history, and soon enough Islam will be the predominant religion across the world. And capitalism is only successful now because of technological advances; before then, feudalism was essentially the most effective and successful model, and supposing we reach a post-scarcity society, communism will finally be ideal (not to mention, other potentially viable economic models were never implemented on any reasonable scale).

 

3) Dishonest and misleading. Success must first be defined solely on some shared values in both civilizations/cultures/societies or you might as well compare an the nutritional value of an apple to Shakespeare's favorite hobby. I can reasonably claim that hunter-gatherer societies provided people more time to live a fulfilling life since they needed to only hunt and gather for a few hours a week individually compared to modern societies, where individuals are compelled to work in some fulfilling position for 40 hours, or 60, or even 80, or even longer to gain some sense of purpose, and I'd technically be right. But it would be misleading--outright dishonest, in fact--to use that criteria to say hunter-gatherers economic model was superior and so we should return to such a life.

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

better yet post your views on the issue with proper logic, and if you use set notation you get bonus points although I'm completely fine with predicate notation. 

 

I'm not sure what views you are requesting in the first place. To be frank, I'm not going to humor you. Irrational or not, I feel you are very antagonistic of anything I post (e.g., just recently, your generic and unwarranted 'advice' regarding 'improving' my situation despite the immediate roadblock of my illness that I had [or so I thought] clearly explained, and the recent ordeal over efficiency of bathrooms [seriously, that's just outlandish]). I'd even go as far as to say you're ridiculing me (especially seeing your [pretentious?] edit about logic notation???). I don't know if you enjoy playing devil's advocate or what, but it's tiresome.

 

edit: some words and phrasing and other stuff

Edited by Veiva

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Fallacy. Appeal to majority is not correct or worthwhile on its own. For example, an argument that 70% of Americans are Christian; therefore, Christianity is [some trait] is illogical, because there is no criteria for someone to be Christian. The only conclusion one can draw from that is... 70% of Americans are Christian. However, an argument along the lines of 90%+ of climate scientists agree humans are the primary cause of global warming based on [???] data is not illogical or shaky, because (in this context), the climate scientists have evidence, and therefore a consensus was formed.

I never said it was correct because it was a majority. You referenced the fact that some societies have favoured nudity as evidence that humans in general do not have a biological reaction to nudity (I wouldn't say it's an aversion, but that's irrelevant). If you want to point to that as evidence it's strange that you would assume the minority to be correct and the majority to be incorrect with all other things being equal.

 

2) Fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation. It's like saying humans are intricately unique are special because we are the most successful animal on this planet. It's like saying Christianity has more truth because it's the most successful religion on the planet. It's like saying capitalism is the best economic model simply because it's used in the richest countries.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

In all of these example cases, it's a simple case of circumstance. Homo sapiens are successful only because of some uncontrollable chain of events that favored our two superior traits (intelligence/learning and minute dexterity) over the immense competition (many of which have superior longevity, superior numbers, superior lifespans, superior strength, superior speed, superior maturation progression [i.e., babies aren't defenseless and hindrances; doesn't take 6+ years to be somewhat autonomous/independent; doesn't take 16+ years to reproduce viably]; superior senses [sight/vision/smell/hearing/feeling/etc], superior offensive abilities [horns, husks, teeth, claws, venom, etc], superior defensive abilities [camouflage, thick hides or shells, poison, spines, etc] and many times combinations of these). There's many crucial prehistoric instances, if absent (Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event) or slightly different (just about everything, but perhaps most identifiable would be the geological impact of the current ice age), would have caused us to be only an alternate future or ensured our extinction while we were vulnerable. Christianity popularity is similarly the result of a bloody, chaotic history, and soon enough Islam will be the predominant religion across the world. And capitalism is only successful now because of technological advances; before then, feudalism was essentially the most effective and successful model, and supposing we reach a post-scarcity society, communism will finally be ideal (not to mention, other potentially viable economic models were never implemented on any reasonable scale).

Not sure how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

3) Dishonest and misleading. Success must first be defined solely on some shared values in both civilizations/cultures/societies or you might as well compare an the nutritional value of an apple to Shakespeare's favorite hobby. I can reasonably claim that hunter-gatherer societies provided people more time to live a fulfilling life since they needed to only hunt and gather for a few hours a week individually compared to modern societies, where individuals are compelled to work in some fulfilling position for 40 hours, or 60, or even 80, or even longer to gain some sense of purpose, and I'd technically be right. But it would be misleading--outright dishonest, in fact--to use that criteria to say hunter-gatherers economic model was superior and so we should return to such a life.

Actually, it's neither dishonest or misleading. Generally speaking we can define the success of a species as its degree of proliferation (and in the case of humanity, technological advancement). It's clear that by both these standards, humanity has been astoundingly successful. It's also difficult to get away with calling a primitive society that favoured nudity successful when they've ceased to exist.

 

 

 

Not sure where the unsolicited anti-Christianity rants came from either.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not just you I just hate when people turn to "logic" for an argument. Logic is only as true as any premises we feed into it and frankly most arguments with people are matters of belief rather than truth. And we can argue why our beliefs are most likely true based on reasons but its just that, reasons, and even a well sourced and well gathered statistic doesn't see all ends.

Very true, well said.

 

 

and yes I do enjoy playing devils advocate because I enjoy arguing - I think thats a trait similar to most forum users, and I'm sorry about my unwanted advice for your situation but I will give it to anyone because I believe that sometimes my advice can offer unique insite that can help someone. Clearly in this case it didn't and I'm sorry about that.

Devil's advocate is a useful position to hold during a debate.

 

Frankly I don't think you have anything to apologize for. When someone posts in a public forum about a problem or dilemma they have it's perfectly natural to see this as an invitation to provide advice or sympathy. I think it's quite strange to be complaining in public and expecting everyone else to either ignore it or only tell you exactly what you want to hear.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I pointed out that views about nudity are not biological (such views are nurtured, not instinct), while you claimed the opposite. As well, you did, in your own words, say "biological [driven] aversion:"

 

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

 

2) You said cultures that shame nudity outnumber those that don't (and then finish by stating the majority [that shame nudity] tend to be more successful), as if shaming nudity is some criteria for a "successful" culture. I provide some examples off the top of my head indicating that's naive. I do suppose I provided unnecessary detail; they were simply examples, there was no need of me to provide evidence for this particular arguments.

 

3) It is dishonest if you don't define "success." Especially because you are framing distinct, independent cultures on your own ideals.

 

And any examples involving religion has nothing to do with Christianity in particular. They are examples of flawed conclusions/thinking/whatever. I simply write use Christianity because it's most familiar to those of us in the Americas (i.e., you and me). Replace Christianity with Islam or Hindu or the Greek pantheon, doesn't matter in the end. Also, I don't know why you'd call them rants? I never insulted Christianity or Christians in any of these examples.

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Frankly I don't think you have anything to apologize for. When someone posts in a public forum about a problem or dilemma they have it's perfectly natural to see this as an invitation to provide advice or sympathy. I think it's quite strange to be complaining in public and expecting everyone else to either ignore it or only tell you exactly what you want to hear.

 

 

I have no objection to advice. But this is the advice I get from most everyone regarding my illness if I even dare to mention any aspect of it:

 

1) Get more sleep! Followed by generic sleeping advice.

2) Why not go outside more? Followed by advice to talk and socialize.

3) Why not go to school / get a job? Followed by feel-good bullshit about how it'll help keep your mind off your problems or find a purpose in life.

4) Why not try and do something (cleaning/hobby/something new)? Followed by "you were doing good when you did these things" or some such.

 

And this ignores an equally common "Well, that sucks, but I have it worse!" style response.

 

It's understandable, to some degree, when I haven't explained a rough outline of my situation. The generic advice typically works for normal individuals, after all.

 

But in this instance, I did provide an outline of my situation prior to the unwarranted advice, which immediately shines light on why pursuing a higher education or getting a job isn't wise or possible. And then there's acquaintances I have no choice but to interact with (mostly family) that, despite them knowing even more, repeat the same old bullshit.

 

In any case, I'm just going to ignore certain users using the forum features and resume my previous behavior of keeping to myself. Though it probably would happen anyway, if previous experience is any guide. The last time I started posting more frequently on social media (forums or whatever) resulted in a severe break that lasted months. A side effect was a sharp decline in posting.

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, due to some extenuating circumstances I'm afraid low levelled is gone forever. Missed you guys. Saq still a drunk? Rpg sill overworked? Hedge and ring still writing code and shit? Bonez still Canadian? Randox still here once a month? Muggi still poly? God bless tif

HOW WAS YOUR HOMECOMING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey guys, due to some extenuating circumstances I'm afraid low levelled is gone forever. Missed you guys. Saq still a drunk? Rpg sill overworked? Hedge and ring still writing code and shit? Bonez still Canadian? Randox still here once a month? Muggi still poly? God bless tif

HOW WAS YOUR HOMECOMING
Tailgate was good, game less so.. mizzou is down this year sadly
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey guys, due to some extenuating circumstances I'm afraid low levelled is gone forever. Missed you guys. Saq still a drunk? Rpg sill overworked? Hedge and ring still writing code and shit? Bonez still Canadian? Randox still here once a month? Muggi still poly? God bless tif

HOW WAS YOUR HOMECOMING
Tailgate was good, game less so.. mizzou is down this year sadly

 

:D :D :D :D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone posts in a public forum about a problem or dilemma they have it's perfectly natural to see this as an invitation to provide advice or sympathy. I think it's quite strange to be complaining in public and expecting everyone else to either ignore it or only tell you exactly what you want to hear.

In spite of that, it's still fairly disheartening to bring up something about how basic civil rights got voted out thanks to irrelevant fearmongering about bathrooms, and get... irrelevant fearmingering about bathrooms. Playing devil's advocate is all well and good (it's very dear to my heart, but that's beside the point), but if I can borrow from some cheesy thing I read recently, there's a difference between being opinionated and being informed.

 

It's less about ignoring dissenting viewpoints and more about how those dissenting viewpoints are often completely unsubstantiated, and writing that off as people not wanting to hear it is at least a little bit hypocritical. It's a valid learning opportunity, just like everything else. :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, due to some extenuating circumstances I'm afraid low levelled is gone forever. Missed you guys. Saq still a drunk? Rpg sill overworked? Hedge and ring still writing code and shit? Bonez still Canadian? Randox still here once a month? Muggi still poly? God bless tif

Didn't even remember me, jerk. </3

 

OT: Just looking at the poster for the new HP movie, god damn Newt Scamander can explore my bedroom any day.

Popoto.~<3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alg you didn't like my suggestion on how to accommodate trans/intersex people?

It's an alright suggestion, I just don't really like how the bathroom thing always has to dominate the discussion, even when things like housing/job discrimination are just a tiny bit more important.  also because public restrooms are literally the worst and the less time anyone has to spend in them the better, I mean have you SEEN those things 0/10 would not molest anyone in them

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just spent like an hour talking with one of my exs about Pokemon.... And I'm pretty sure that we still hate each other. I'm slightly confused.

19509_s.gif

 

“I had a feeling we weren’t coming back from this fight when it began.”

“Do you have any regrets?”

“I don’t. It seems surprising, I know, but I wouldn’t change a thing. This is how it was meant to be.”

“Huh, you never really notice how lovely the day is until you realize you’ll never see it again.”

“Mmmhmm.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, hey, hey, I am not a drunk anymore!

Since coming home from Iceland I've only been drunk... Thrice?

 

And also, I would disagree that all successful cultures have very sharp views on nudity. Ever seen Scandinavians or Germans?

And I am not even starting about Finnish and Estonian sauna culture.

I wouldn't say that they are unsuccessful.

 

Also, I find your fears of public restrooms hilarious.

Urinals are much faster. And in some places in Scandinavia there are different rooms, where in one room is a urinal and in other room regular toilets. IMO it is the best option.

t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I pointed out that views about nudity are not biological (such views are nurtured, not instinct), while you claimed the opposite. As well, you did, in your own words, say "biological [driven] aversion:"

I didn't say a biologically driven aversion to being naked, I said a biologically driven aversion to being in a compromising position including nakedness around the opposite sex. In fact, this is more due to having a sexual reaction than disgust.

 

2) You said cultures that shame nudity outnumber those that don't (and then finish by stating the majority [that shame nudity] tend to be more successful), as if shaming nudity is some criteria for a "successful" culture. I provide some examples off the top of my head indicating that's naive. I do suppose I provided unnecessary detail; they were simply examples, there was no need of me to provide evidence for this particular arguments.

I didn't say that was directly the reason, but is it interesting that it's the case.

 

3) It is dishonest if you don't define "success." Especially because you are framing distinct, independent cultures on your own ideals.

Once again, I'm pretty sure no culture would define ceasing to exist as success.

 

 

I have no objection to advice. But this is the advice I get from most everyone regarding my illness if I even dare to mention any aspect of it:

 

1) Get more sleep! Followed by generic sleeping advice.

2) Why not go outside more? Followed by advice to talk and socialize.

3) Why not go to school / get a job? Followed by feel-good bullshit about how it'll help keep your mind off your problems or find a purpose in life.

4) Why not try and do something (cleaning/hobby/something new)? Followed by "you were doing good when you did these things" or some such.

 

And this ignores an equally common "Well, that sucks, but I have it worse!" style response.

So, you're frustrated to receive the same advice from people all the time. Perhaps this signifies that it's reasonable to expect this advice when you post in a public place about your condition.

 

It's understandable, to some degree, when I haven't explained a rough outline of my situation. The generic advice typically works for normal individuals, after all.

 

But in this instance, I did provide an outline of my situation prior to the unwarranted advice, which immediately shines light on why pursuing a higher education or getting a job isn't wise or possible. And then there's acquaintances I have no choice but to interact with (mostly family) that, despite them knowing even more, repeat the same old bullshit.

 

In any case, I'm just going to ignore certain users using the forum features and resume my previous behavior of keeping to myself. Though it probably would happen anyway, if previous experience is any guide. The last time I started posting more frequently on social media (forums or whatever) resulted in a severe break that lasted months. A side effect was a sharp decline in posting.

The generic advice is what you're going to get. You're not surrounded by doctors here. If receiving this advice is really so upsetting for you, I'm sure that resuming you're previous behavior would be happier and more fulfilling for you.

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

Implying transgender individuals are members of the opposite sex when they go in the bathroom that correspond to their gender?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or, perhaps, people have a biologically driven aversion to putting themselves in compromising positions of partial nakedness around members of the opposite sex.

Implying transgender individuals are members of the opposite sex when they go in the bathroom that correspond to their gender?

 

Implying that it's reasonable to have a biological reaction based on an initial viewing of someone who appears to be a member of a certain sex.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile they have no problem with a homosexual using the same bathroom as they do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're acting like this is always a conscious decision. If it was, I'd agree that it would be silly to complain about a straight trans-gendered person but not a homosexual.

 

However, it's often simply an emotional reaction driven by biology. At first glance this is based on appearance, and many people who are transgender are still going to appear to look like their original gender whereas most homosexuals won't.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.