It's not just college... as it's impacting elementary/high schools too.

I think social media plays a huge part in that it keeps the outrage-fires going.

 whembly wrote:
It's not just college... as it's impacting elementary/high schools too.

I think social media plays a huge part in that it keeps the outrage-fires going.

You are correct here. Having easy access to social media amplifies someone's message, declaration, etc. beyond what it might rightfully should be.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nope. You don't get to do that.

You don't get to pretend like these events are somehow not something we're seeing every God-damned day in America (and occasionally in the UK) and that this kind of amazingly silly behaviour, further increased by social media (and places like Tumblr and Reddit), is just a blip on the radar. Made into a bigger deal than they really are, sure, I'm willing to accept that, but the fact that we keep seeing these things happens means that they are having an impact.

So answer the question: Why is this happening? Saying "No it's not!" isn't good enough.

It's happening because this is how society evolves.

Someone identifies an issue. Said issue gets blown up all out of proportion. Much discussion, outrage and derision occurs. Eventually, people either decide that it was a non-issue to begin with and get on with their lives, or they realise that there actually is an issue there underneath all of the hyperbole and over-zealous campaigning and some sort middle-ground is found to reduce the impact of said issue as required.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And an example in Australia where it was ruled that unfriending someone on Facebook constituted workplace bullying. Of course there's a bit more to it than that, but it's not something you can really laugh at now, as much as you want to..

This right here is actually a perfect example of how things get all blown out of proportion. Because it wasn't ruled that unfriending someone on Facebook constituted workplace bullying. That's just the conclusion that an awful lot of people made after reading the news articles about the case, helped along by some really sloppy 'journalism'. There was, as you said, more to it than that... but people just fixated on the one part of the story and saw it as a ridiculous over-reaction.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When did the US get so soft?

It started in the 60s when the war in Viet Nam heated up and baby boomers found meaning in the anti-war movement. Civil rights, environmentalism, and politics mixed and a new generation found meaning in their miserable lives. Caring became more important than doing.

At least that's my theory.

Every country has its problems. America has soft college kids. Canada created Justin Bieber. Australia "gave" us the unfortunate case of Iggy Azaelia. And Australians, you should all be ashamed for loosing her upon the world.

Also, isn't this thread a straight up attack on America? Kinda surprised rule #1 isn't being called into question on a thread that basically says "America, you're all wusses". Can we get the lock-happy mod up in here?

I find it a little silly to be considered soft as an American, when I was unaware any of this stuff happened.

Good job getting me to open a clickbait link though.....

I don't see a real attack on the USA here. Extrapolating SJWs movements to call an entire society "soft" isn't really relevant, and I guess it's just one of those hyperbolic behaviors Dakkanauts are so fond of.

Oh look, another "SJW TUMBLR FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING" whine thread that starts off with blatant exaggerations, out of context clickbait, and general lack of honesty. All I can really conclude here is that the real people who are soft are the writers at the National Review, since they seem to be taking offense at some pretty trivial things and blowing them far out of proportion. But let's go through the list and see just how bad it is:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
1. Hating pumpkin-spice lattes was declared sexist.

Which is only telling a small part of the story. The actual issue here is a perception that things stereotyped as "for women" are singled out for extra contempt and mocking, with a not-always-subtle implication that women deserve contempt because they like those things. Whether or not you agree that this stereotyping and singling-out exists or not it's indisputably a much broader argument than the straw man of "you can't dislike pumpkin-spice lattes".

2. A university language guide stated that the word “American” was “problematic.

And made a very good point in doing so. "America" refers to two entire continents, and the guide is entirely accurate in pointing out that US culture is often considered the default in mixed settings (for example, gaming forums like this one). The fact that there's no other elegant way to refer to people from the US doesn't change the fact that it's not an ideal term.

3. A university study declared that we have to accept people who “identify as real vampires.”

And here we conveniently leave out important context: this is a study about how professional therapists work. If you go back to the original source it's a pretty non-controversial argument that is essentially "don't be a to people". It correctly points out the fact that "real vampires" are perfectly capable of having that identity without it causing problems elsewhere in their life, so if a person is seeking help for an unrelated issue then the best thing to do is just accept that it's what they believe and move on. It's really no different than saying "{minority religion} should be accepted and people with those beliefs should be treated with respect".

4. The word “skinny” was deemed “violent.”

Ok, so it's a bit of an exaggeration to call it "violent", but this is just another boring case of people saying "think about what you say because you might hurt someone even if you don't intend to" and the right-wing anti-SJW crowd acting like it's the end of the world.

5. A university declared the phrase “politically correct” to be politically incorrect.

Well yes, "politically correct" does deserve criticism. The overwhelming majority of the time what it really means is "I want to be a to people and they aren't allowed to complain about it". And the university is entirely accurate in pointing out that when people whine about "politically correct" they're often trying to deflect attention away from their bad behavior and blame everyone else for criticizing them too much.

6. A room full of white people was determined to be a “microaggression”

This is only a problem if you assume that once something is labeled a "microaggression" everyone involved is a Bad Person and needs to be shamed into changing everything they're doing. Take away that assumption and you have a very valid point: that if you're part of a minority group and constantly seeing reminders that you're not part of the majority it probably does make you feel like an outsider.

7. A Harvard study declared that microaggressions can make people die sooner

And if you look at the actual study it says no such thing. The study is a pretty uncontroversial summary of interviews with college students about their experiences with racism and/or sexism, and seems to do little more than report what they said. It strongest conclusion seems to be "even if there aren't KKK rallies on campus women and/or non-white students feel discriminated against, and we should do something about this".

8. Some students were ‘triggered’ by an anti-microaggressions exhibit.

Yeah, because surprising people with posters full of racist quotes they may have heard used against them is such a tiny thing, and we should laugh at anyone who feels bad about it or thinks that it's a pretty tasteless "exhibit"...

9. A student newspaper felt the need to clarify that it was not being transphobic by associating menstruation and tampons with “women.”

Sorry if the truth hurts. Sex and gender are not the same thing, no matter how much right-wing zealots want them to be.

10. The War on Pronouns

Sorry, but I just have to laugh at this. Why exactly is it such a horrible thing to use gender-neutral pronouns instead of using male pronouns by default to refer to mixed-gender groups? The only "soft" people here seem to be the ones complaining about this supposed war on pronouns...

11. A yoga class was cancelled on the grounds that yoga is “cultural appropriation.”

Not enough information available to make any conclusion. It could be an overreaction, but there are problems with tasteless cultural appropriation and this class could have been crossing that line. But the OP seems to be just fine with jumping to the conclusion that it was an overreaction.

12. The War on Charity Events

Oh look, some more wild exaggeration, who could have seen this one coming? Turns out the "war" consists of temporarily delaying an event to change a poster with an (arguably) tasteless joke, and a couple of random students complaining about a scheduling conflict with no administrative action taken against either "side". FFS, if this is the best they can come up with after searching through an entire country full of universities I think it's a pretty convincing statement that the supposed "war" does not exist.

13. A university blamed a student’s clear act of terrorism on the patriarchy.

Yep, another straw man. The actual suggestion was that the situation is more complicated than simply screaming "TERRORISM!!!!!!" over and over again, as if Islam magically turns people into murderers and questioning a person's motivations for an act of terrorism begins and ends with verifying their religious beliefs. More reasonable people, however, can understand that the situation is potentially more complicated than that and ask questions like "why are most terrorists men, and could masculine stereotypes contribute to pushing extremists over the line into actual violence?" or "why do people find extremist ideology appealing?", which is all the event is attempting to discuss.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, another "SJW TUMBLR FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING" whine thread that starts off with blatant exaggerations, out of context clickbait, and general lack of honesty.[ ...]

Have an Exalt!

 treslibras wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh look, another "SJW TUMBLR FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING" whine thread that starts off with blatant exaggerations, out of context clickbait, and general lack of honesty.[ ...]

Have an Exalt!

Have two.

 Peregrine wrote:
But let's go through the list and see just how bad it is: ...

I commend you for taking the effort to dismantle this whole thing. I know I couldn't have been bothered.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I bring this up because of this article. You can read the article if you wish, but the 13 boil down to the following:

1. Hating pumpkin-spice lattes was declared sexist.
2. A university language guide stated that the word “American” was “problematic.
3. A university study declared that we have to accept people who “identify as real vampires.”
4. The word “skinny” was deemed “violent.”
5. A university declared the phrase “politically correct” to be politically incorrect.
6. A room full of white people was determined to be a “microaggression”
7. A Harvard study declared that microaggressions can make people die sooner
8. Some students were ‘triggered’ by an anti-microaggressions exhibit.
9. A student newspaper felt the need to clarify that it was not being transphobic by associating menstruation and tampons with “women.”
10. The War on Pronouns
11. A yoga class was cancelled on the grounds that yoga is “cultural appropriation.”
12. The War on Charity Events

Now regardless of your own opinion of this website's obvious biases, the above items did occur last year and they really have me wondering: When did the US get so soft? Why do events like this continue to happen? Are we really approaching a point where this generation of college students will just be so completely incapable of operating outside of their campus safe-spaces that they cease to function?

And, perhaps a better question, what comes after this? Does this expand to the point where, well, this happens*, or will the next generation (or even the generations above this current student body) finally wise up and reject all this nonesene?



*Obvious exageration, but you get the pont.

This is what happens when a Vocal minority is in a position that questioning them is labeled as attacking, discrimination, racist, sexist ect. News outlets then play to that narrative with little to no information and voices of reason are drummed out by those with louder more insane views. Those making these claims will go so far as to say they are victims of attack if their views are questioned. Most of those that make these outrages claims have never truly been in any real form of oppression and seek to manifest their own dragons to slay.

Universities seem to be the place this stuff has been coming up recently. Some Students who have been babied their whole life step into what is the last level before you enter what some would call "real life". Instead of focusing on their studies or even getting a degree with some prospect of return after college they seek to make "safe" spaces to hide themselves away from the harshness of the real world and get lackluster degrees. Free speech is an ok idea to them until it hurts their feelings or begins to strip the whitewash veneer of the world they grew up believing existed. They learn that this real world is harsh and somewhat unkind. People make jokes that make them feel uncomfortable or confront them with ideas or history that is just too dark or complex for them to really handle. Instead of allowing these experiences to shape them into a more resilient and matured individual they make walls and safe spaces. protest and whine. In the end this will make no lasting change. They will still have to face the world outside of their safe spaces and being so unprepared will mostly fail to adjust. They will soon find out that a liberal arts, or gender studies degree does not work to well in the job market and with the high rate of these degrees any positions are already filled and anything open will be lackluster at best. Some will make their own way and do fine, Most will not.

This silliness will soon fade away and not even be a footnote in history books. if anything it will be a part of some future youtube like site titled as "10 odd things that happened in colleges in 2015." People will laugh at it and use it as odd trivia for game nights.

----------------Added-------

I would like to note that these events and all of those like them are fairly isolated in the grand scheme of things. Most are unaware and these events in of themselves are so odd no one wants to hear it. These things mostly spread on Social sites and these sites make these events feel much bigger than they really are. They are like memes. Yes new memes will pop up but after it has been run into the ground it will die and some new meme will take its place. Any change made by these kind of movements are about as lasting as the weather, Yes it's snowing today but tomorrow it will be about luke warm and muddy outside. After that a tornado and then clear skies.

Best thing to do is ignore it and paint some models or something, if you encounter it in real life point and laugh. then go back to enjoying your life. America has not gone soft my Friend Just the soft ones have a place to be really loud.

Besides this is Dakka Dakka should we not be complaining about how bad GW is while still buying their things and painting their models? That's the best part of the hobby!

I long for the day when Dakka stops thinking that the point of education is to get an employment. Seriously, that's missing the point.

white_wolf wrote:
Instead of allowing these experiences to shape them into a more resilient and matured individual they make walls and safe spaces. protest and whine.

Sweet, sweet irony.

white_wolf wrote:

They will soon find out that a liberal arts, or gender studies degree does not work to well in the job market and with the high rate of these degrees any positions are already filled and anything open will be lackluster at best. Some will make their own way and do fine, Most will not.

I can make the same argument regarding business degrees, accounting degrees, finance degrees, communications degrees, math degrees, physics degrees, chemistry degrees, biology degrees, etc. This notion that liberal arts degrees are not employable is one that needs to die. It is only perpetuated by those who want the stigma to exist.

"PC" people are like vegans or religious people to me : I'm fine with your ideas as long as you don't try to forcefully make me change mine.

(Peregrine, have my exalt)

I've been hearing some form of these complaints for decades. It seems every generation thinks the following ones are problematic.

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
Instead of allowing these experiences to shape them into a more resilient and matured individual they make walls and safe spaces. protest and whine.

Sweet, sweet irony.

white_wolf wrote:

They will soon find out that a liberal arts, or gender studies degree does not work to well in the job market and with the high rate of these degrees any positions are already filled and anything open will be lackluster at best. Some will make their own way and do fine, Most will not.

I can make the same argument regarding business degrees, accounting degrees, finance degrees, communications degrees, math degrees, physics degrees, chemistry degrees, biology degrees, etc. This notion that liberal arts degrees are not employable is one that needs to die. It is only perpetuated by those who want the stigma to exist.

I fail to see what you are pointing out as "irony". And if you are trying to invalidate what I am saying then you will need something more than "Sweet, sweet irony."

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things. Most of the degrees you listed are what is needed to advance a economy and civilisation as a whole. Yah art is nice but a artist did not make The PC or mobile device you are on nor did they Run the lines to both power and connect your Device to this site and the internet in general and Liberal arts never got a spacecraft into the air. It did however make pretty pictures and stories.

If you have a Liberal arts degree then I would like to know what you are employed doing. While those will liberal arts are "employable" they hardly ever do anything with that degree. There's a reason that notion is around.

Liberal arts isn't just music and art, it's also language, philosophy and anthropology. If you don't understand why the study of languages or social sciences are important or how one could make money off of it (which isn't the point of an education!) then there really is nothing we can do for you.

EDIT: And the irony was that you're whining about how people whine about inconsequential things.

white_wolf wrote:
I fail to see what you are pointing out as "irony". And if you are trying to invalidate what I am saying then you will need something more than "Sweet, sweet irony."

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things. Most of the degrees you listed are what is needed to advance a economy and civilisation as a whole. Yah art is nice but a artist did not make The PC or mobile device you are on nor did they Run the lines to both power and connect your Device to this site and the internet in general and Liberal arts never got a spacecraft into the air. It did however make pretty pictures and stories.

If you have a Liberal arts degree then I would like to know what you are employed doing. While those will liberal arts are "employable" they hardly ever do anything with that degree. There's a reason that notion is around.

First off, congratulations on ticking all of the boxes, I'm legitimately unsure as to whether your post could be more condescending. (Yes, I am well aware of the irony, given the contents of this post)

Secondly, the irony is that you're sat in your safe space thread bitching and whining and moaning about people whining and moaning. That I have to explain that says to me that you should probably have spent more time listening to someone with a liberal arts degree. (In this case your English teacher when they explained the concept of irony).

No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Liberal arts isn't just music and art, it's also language, philosophy and anthropology. If you don't understand why the study of languages or social sciences are important or how one could make money off of it (which isn't the point of an education!) then there really is nothing we can do for you.

EDIT: And the irony was that you're whining about how people whine about inconsequential things.

While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato. Science and Mathematics do much more for advancement than pondering the questions of why we are here. Money should be alest a factor when your Education can put you in the Tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Unless of course being a starving artist of some form is your goal. Money may be evil but if that's the case evil makes the world go round.

Also I am not whining about whiners. OP asked a question I answered with something other than justifying these whiners.

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Personally I am glad that engineers designed phones and computers to let us communicate with each other.

It's just a pity that Liberal Arts wastes time we could spend using our phones and computers to discuss phone and computer design.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Commercials rely more on Scientific and engineering advances than art. Sure That 1 billion dollar ad looks nice but they needed Computer networks, power stations, and editors who understand how to use computer software, I'm sure liberal arts did not make the software and the editor could varywell have went to trade school. A big office building is also needed, while an architect might make it look good shiny a Civil engineer was the one that had to make sure it would not fall apart. Whatever the Commercial is made for will probably need to be manufactured so again you need Engineers and technicians. Don't forget you need a TV to watch it on so more Science.

Have you studied liberal arts? If not than are you also if not more ignorant to its effects than me?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I am glad that engineers designed phones and computers to let us communicate with each other.

It's just a pity that Liberal Arts wastes time we could spend using our phones and computers to discuss phone and computer design.

Indeed it is a Pity, Liberal Arts is nice to have. Art, Music, stories and pondering of our existence has it place but such things are experiences and do not require a degree. I am currently studying Mechanical Engineering at the moment and it gives me a greater appreciation for what is sometimes the thankless job that is designing such systems as phones, computers, cars,planes and even the letters on my keyboard and the software used to make each keystroke in to a letter that allows me to communicate with you from hundreds of miles away. When one looks around you can truly see how S.T.E.M. has touched almost everything we take for granted.

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I have one of the more punchline ready Bachelors degrees: philosophy.

I don't believe that it was a waste of time, or that it limited my employment opportunities. It did do a terrific job of preparing me for law school. I don't exactly use my knowledge of Aristotle or Kant in my day to day life, but in my current job being able to see things from multiple perspectives, to think analytically, and to get a sense of perspective is enormously valuable.

The question isn't if a liberal arts degree is worth it generally, but if it is a sound investment for specific people. I knew I was going to law school, so it made sense for me. For a borderline college student, it might not have as much value. But that's true of any major. The problem isn't what people study, it's having college students that probably shouldn't be there learning very little.

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

True to an extent. But when you look at Liberal Art job opportunities, they for the most part truly are jobs that having this degree really won't give you a leg up on someone who doesn't.

http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/high-paying-jobs-for-generalists/article.aspx

Edit: That's what Monster.com brings up for Liberal Arts.

Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

white_wolf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


No, an artist might not have done the coding for your phone; instead they'll be the ones that did all the design and aesthetics of it so that it looks better than Windows 95. To say that the liberal arts contribute nothing is unfathomably stupid.

While we're on the subject, guess who does commercials, in all their multi-billion dollar glory?

white_wolf wrote:


While some forms or Liberal arts are some what needed they dont have the same effect or standing as the days or Aristotle of Plato.

How would you know? Studying that would require liberal arts, after all.

Commercials rely more on Scientific and engineering advances than art. Sure That 1 billion dollar ad looks nice but they needed Computer networks, power stations, and editors who understand how to use computer software, I'm sure liberal arts did not make the software and the editor could varywell have went to trade school. A big office building is also needed, while an architect might make it look good shiny a Civil engineer was the one that had to make sure it would not fall apart. Whatever the Commercial is made for will probably need to be manufactured so again you need Engineers and technicians. Don't forget you need a TV to watch it on so more Science.

Have you studied liberal arts? If not than are you also if not more ignorant to its effects than me?

None of those engineers would have jobs without the marketing campaigns, HR departments, understanding of how people interact and so on.

I'm studying political science ATM, dunno if you'd count that as liberal arts or not.

white_wolf wrote:
When one looks around you can truly see how S.T.E.M. has touched almost everything we take for granted.

Oh look, another STEM graduate who thinks that non-STEM subjects don't count. What a shocker.

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

white_wolf wrote:

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

No I don't think you can, Liberal arts is the study of Subjective things like Art and what most would classify as a Hobby, which is fine if you can write or paint well and make money that's fine but you don't need some piece of paper to do those things.

You don't need a piece of paper to do anything, but it tends to be useful if you want to get paid for your activity.

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

While you do not need a piece of paper, having one shows that you are educated in the subject. If I am going to hire an artist, hiring one with a degree ensures they have taken classes in design, history, and theory in order to learn more about something they wish to do with their lives. This shows that they have passion for the field as well as enough discipline to make it through getting a bachelors degree.

It is kinda silly to think that Art should not be studied just because you do not find it to be useful.....

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

white_wolf wrote:

I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art.

Tell that to a graphic designer.

white_wolf wrote:

However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

So you're saying that the philosopher does not practice his craft when seeking a degree in philosophy? The political scientist? The economist? The linguist?

white_wolf wrote:
I would rather Hire an Artist who truly is an artist not one who happens to have a piece of paper. Art has no standard and thus needs no standard set of classes to be taught.No one died because of bad art. However if an engineer fails to correctly design a car people could and have died so, a standard is needed and that piece of paper is generally a good indicator. I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

It's less about standards, implying a correct and incorrect, and more about a skill set.

And people die because of art all the time. Propaganda and rhetoric have done more to cause violence than any invention.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

white_wolf wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

Tolkien is spinning in his grave.....

 djones520 wrote:

True to an extent. But when you look at Liberal Art job opportunities, they for the most part truly are jobs that having this degree really won't give you a leg up on someone who doesn't.

http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/high-paying-jobs-for-generalists/article.aspx

Edit: That's what Monster.com brings up for Liberal Arts.

Apparently economics is not a liberal art anymore.

white_wolf wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Right, people should not go to school for "arts". Who needs to learn how to read music, learn how to develop a proper functioning draft for a book, or discover a new medium for drawing/painting. None of these things need a mentor or teacher. Just figure it out on your own, things will be fine!

I would agree if Art was less subjective. There is not one right way to do it yes you can get a liberal arts degree but would your time and money have not been better spent working on that art or book? Could you not simply read many of the hundreds of books about writing books developed your own style and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics? you could then write a book on mathematics and make it less dull. Also i have heard some writes hate creative writing or dismiss it. Its also hard to pass or do well in such classes if you have and instructor who does not approve of your ideas on the simple basis that they don't like it.

I think getting a personal tutor would be more beneficial than college in general.

Why do you need college to become an engineer? Can't you just teach yourself everything you need to know from books, and then spend the money trying to come up with new and exotic materials to build stuff out of?

The problem with STEM degrees (and careers, for that matter) is that only a small percentage of people are suited for them. For people that don't enjoy, or are cannot handle, or are otherwise unsuited for STEM, there are probably jobs for them.

I have a ton of friends that work in STEM at all levels, and I could not do their jobs. Maybe if I went back to school, I could force myself to finish an engineering degree, but I'd hate it. I'm a pretty decent lawyer, and I enjoy management, so STEM probably isn't for me. What I do know is that the STEM guys couldn't do what I do, at least not as well. As a rule STEM people have poorer communication, idiosyncratic teamwork styles, and a limited set of soft skills. In many ways, the things that lead to great engineers (ability to hyperfocus, drive to solve a problem through their own ingenuity, rigid world view) also limit them.

white_wolf wrote:
...and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics?

A general math degree is not especially useful.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

You can but unlike liberal arts Stem has standards. I can lay equations in front of anyone with a STEM degree and they will be able to tell me if they are right or wrong. I could lay a book in front of anyone with a liberal arts degree and they will each have different interpretations of what its meaning is. This also means that STEM fits into the college degree system. While you could learn it on your own most of those first jobs want to see your papers. After your first job like most things in life what you did in college becomes less relevant. I think college degree programs in general are silly only because they have a need to make student study a bit of everything. While I did enjoy those classes I also see that unless it deals with science and mathematics it's all subjective.

Also math can tell you if you should go to war, Do you have a high statistical chance of victory? Yes? Then you can go to war. As for the morality of it well that falls into your conundrum of Philosophy. Now if you do go those engineers and scientist will make sure you win the war.

You seem to definitely have some strong disagreements with what you imagine a liberal arts degree to consist of.

I see we went from calling college kids 'soft' to calling liberal arts worthless. Classic dakka

 dogma wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
...and invest in a more useful piece of paper like mathematics?

A general math degree is not especially useful.

Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

white_wolf wrote:


Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

Challenger exploded due to a mechanical failure caused by a faulty part used in weather conditions it was not tested for, and was not remotely related to 'math' in the sense of any machine having to calculate something.

You're thinking of the Mars Rover where some genius at Lockheed Martin programmed software to calculate in imperial units while the rest of the rover was using metric. Google can do that, and why attribute to a lack of math majors what is easily attributable to bad project management (the kind of job lots of liberal arts majors in up end, might want to work on that ).

 Polonius wrote:
The problem with STEM degrees (and careers, for that matter) is that only a small percentage of people are suited for them. For people that don't enjoy, or are cannot handle, or are otherwise unsuited for STEM, there are probably jobs for them.

I have a ton of friends that work in STEM at all levels, and I could not do their jobs. Maybe if I went back to school, I could force myself to finish an engineering degree, but I'd hate it. I'm a pretty decent lawyer, and I enjoy management, so STEM probably isn't for me. What I do know is that the STEM guys couldn't do what I do, at least not as well. As a rule STEM people have poorer communication, idiosyncratic teamwork styles, and a limited set of soft skills. In many ways, the things that lead to great engineers (ability to hyperfocus, drive to solve a problem through their own ingenuity, rigid world view) also limit them.

I would agree and Say that in general introverted people are drawn to engineering, working with a small team or own your own giving a clear task or at least a task that would have a clear outcome. I.E "This thing keeps exploding. Find out why and make it stop that. " or "we need to put this guy in this space suit into space. it would also be good if he came back not dead. make those things happen." Most of the time followed by "we also want to be as cheap as possible"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

white_wolf wrote:


Nasa thought so to. Then Challenger Exploded and it was discovered that their was a mathematical error that calculated how some of the parts would react. they got some mathematicians after that.

Challenger exploded due to a mechanical failure caused by a faulty part used in weather conditions it was not tested for, and was not remotely related to 'math' in the sense of any machine having to calculate something.

You're thinking of the Mars Rover where some genius at Lockheed Martin programmed software to calculate in imperial units while the rest of the rover was using metric. Google can do that, and why attribute to a lack of math majors what is easily attributable to bad project management (the kind of job lots of liberal arts majors in up end, might want to work on that ).

If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded. Whenever the words Untested and Nasa Launch are in the same sentence it should all stop there Giving the numbers one could have calculated the launch. I feel for the guy who gave the go ahead on that launch. Also if they would have checked the Math that rover would be roving. Failing to do the math does not invalidate the math.

Math is one of the liberal arts, are we pro liberal arts now?

 d-usa wrote:
Math is one of the liberal arts, are we pro liberal arts now?

Only once NASA got some people with math degrees, which didn't happen until 1989 or so.

This thread started off in a bad place but man oh man, it's slid.

white_wolf wrote:

If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded. Also if they would have checked the Math that rover would be roving. Failing to do the math does not invalidate the math.

So your core argument is that NASA lacked mathematically talented employees prior to the Challenger explosion?

white_wolf wrote:
If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded.

I know it's hard to understand, but reality doesn't change just because it suits your argument. Might as well rename this thread to "Reality is a Cheap Shot against my argument" at this point

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Math is one of the liberal arts, are we pro liberal arts now?

Only once NASA got some people with math degrees, which didn't happen until 1989 or so.

This thread started off in a bad place but man oh man, it's slid.

I should clarify that this is to do with the launch itself. No mathematicians made the call to launch at hustin until after the Challenger It was mostly Engineers and technical advices. My Math Teacher who holds a masters in math told me this story and mostly I have left some details out. I will have as about it this semester.

white_wolf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

You can but unlike liberal arts Stem has standards. I can lay equations in front of anyone with a STEM degree and they will be able to tell me if they are right or wrong. I could lay a book in front of anyone with a liberal arts degree and they will each have different interpretations of what its meaning is.

That's on you for making a sloppy question then. If you didn't word the question to specify the model used then yes, you'll get a bunch of different answers.

white_wolf wrote:


Also math can tell you if you should go to war, Do you have a high statistical chance of victory? Yes? Then you can go to war. As for the morality of it well that falls into your conundrum of Philosophy. Now if you do go those engineers and scientist will make sure you win the war.

And what are the variables you put into the analysis of whether you have a high chance of winning? Lots and lots of anthropology and sociology.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

True to an extent. But when you look at Liberal Art job opportunities, they for the most part truly are jobs that having this degree really won't give you a leg up on someone who doesn't.

http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/high-paying-jobs-for-generalists/article.aspx

Edit: That's what Monster.com brings up for Liberal Arts.

Apparently economics is not a liberal art anymore.

*shrugs*

I think your "arts degree" may tend varies school to school. Looking at University of Michigan for example, Cell and Molecular Biology and Biomedical Engineering is considered an Arts degree. I don't think you get a more classic example of a STEM degree then that though.

My school didn't even have a 'Liberal Arts' department. Humanities, Communications, Math/Computer Science, Law, Education, and Political Science were their own departments and offered their own "Bachelors of the Arts in _______."

 LordofHats wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
If they would have checked the math the challenger would not have exploded.

I know it's hard to understand, but reality doesn't change just because it suits your argument. Might as well rename this thread to "Reality is a Cheap Shot against my argument" at this point

"Boisjoly correctly predicted, based on earlier flight data, that the O-rings on the rocket boosters would fail if the shuttle launched in cold weather."

So yes the math Works. It only becomes a case of If they would have heeded the Math it would not have exploded. They done goofed

Most schools I've examined don't have a Liberal Arts department. They have an Arts school and a Sciences school. Today though it seems many sciences fall under arts, especially those dealing with Mathematics.

At any rate, you can't just point at an Arts degree and say its worthless because its an Arts degree. Now, you take some of the more pictured examples of "Liberal Arts" such as Afroamerican and African Studies, Womens Studies, Philosphy, etc... you end to start getting towards those degrees where you're finding those dead end career paths where you are most likely going to end up settling for a job that you could have gotten right out of high school.

For the record, I'm currently 2/3rds of the way through an Arts degree of my own.

white_wolf wrote:


So yes the math Works. It only becomes a case of If they would have heeded the Math it would not have exploded. They done goofed

No one argues that math doesn't work. People are pointing out the inanity of thinking that NASA and its contractors didn't have any employees capable of math ( You do realize that Engineers and Technicians are basically just jobs in applied mathematics right?), and that the Challenger disaster was not caused by bad math but by unethical practices and group think (I wonder what field studies ethics and social theory...). Likewise, the failure of the Mars Rover, while mathmatical in nature, would not have been fixed by having a mathematics professor on site. They needed better project management, because someone should have laid out "all parts are to use metric units" or "hey, we programmed this to use yards instead of meters."

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

white_wolf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

white_wolf wrote:
I am not saying Liberal has no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in liberal arts is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend truly practicing one's craft.

I am not saying STEM subjects have no place in the world I am only saying that getting a degree in STEM subjects is almost unnecessary and that time and money could be better spend [sic] truly practicing one's craft.

Seriously, why couldn't one just stay at home and REALLY practice equations?

And if you think there's no life and death involved in the liberal arts, you try deciding whether to go to war against someone or not when you've got a translator who stayed at home to focus on his hobby of programming.

You can but unlike liberal arts Stem has standards. I can lay equations in front of anyone with a STEM degree and they will be able to tell me if they are right or wrong. I could lay a book in front of anyone with a liberal arts degree and they will each have different interpretations of what its meaning is.

That's on you for making a sloppy question then. If you didn't word the question to specify the model used then yes, you'll get a bunch of different answers.

white_wolf wrote:


Also math can tell you if you should go to war, Do you have a high statistical chance of victory? Yes? Then you can go to war. As for the morality of it well that falls into your conundrum of Philosophy. Now if you do go those engineers and scientist will make sure you win the war.

And what are the variables you put into the analysis of whether you have a high chance of winning? Lots and lots of anthropology and sociology.

Variables for war?
Military Strength
-Standing Numbers
-Training
-Gear
-Logistics
Time to build and switch over to a war time Economy
Threat of nuclear retaliation
Office of defence Warfare
Troop and equipment replacement.
Air superiority

Are they a threat?
-Have the made aggressive moods or attacked allies?
-could they possibly surpass us if we did nothing.
should we begin to invest in better military technology (could turn into a Cold war)

If you are the Imperium of man
Is it Xeno or Chaos? Yes? Clearly war.

Lots of people seem to be confusing Sciences with Vocational subjects.

Also, confusing Liberal Arts with "Non Science".

The subjects pointed to as being "more useful" are the vocational subjects. In sciences,maths or particle physics, whilst important, are in and of themselves, at undergraduate level, no more useful than, say, English or Fine Art.

Vocational humanities subjects like Law or Design are just as useful as engineering.

If we have to accept and respect "real" Vampires...can I identify as a "real" Vampire Hunter? I demand the right to hunt and stake Vampires, dammit.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If we have to accept and respect "real" Vampires...can I identify as a "real" Vampire Hunter? I demand the right to hunt and stake Vampires, dammit.

You can, but I think you need a permit;

white_wolf wrote:


Variables for war?
Military Strength

Depends on whether the war would be percieved as just or not, whether people would dodge drafts due to internal conflicts etc. That's liberal arts.

white_wolf wrote:

-Training

Depends on tradition and history, the study of which are liberal arts.

white_wolf wrote:

-Gear

See above.

white_wolf wrote:

-Logistics

Again, dependant on conditions such as internal dissent, makeup of ethnic groups, history of the area etc. Liberal arts.

white_wolf wrote:

Time to build and switch over to a war time Economy

Depends on the willingness of the populace to switch to a war-time economy and on the effective management of the workforce, which is liberal arts.

white_wolf wrote:

Threat of nuclear retaliation

Psychology, which is a liberal art.

white_wolf wrote:

Office of defence Warfare

Not even sure what you mean here, but then again communication and linguistics is a liberal art.

white_wolf wrote:

Troop and equipment replacement.

Social anthropology. Liberal art.

white_wolf wrote:

Air superiority

Social anthropology and psychology will help your pilots keep fighting for longer. That's a liberal art.

white_wolf wrote:

Are they a threat?
-Have the made aggressive moods or attacked allies?
-could they possibly surpass us if we did nothing.
should we begin to invest in better military technology (could turn into a Cold war)

Psychology, history, social anthropology. Liberal arts.

In summary, you're so wrong that it's hard to measure accurately. Perhaps we ought to get some more STEM-field students so we can accurately map how wrong you are?

The Challenger explosion is interesting, because while the O-ring was, indeed, defective, that didn't cause the explosion. What caused the explosion was poor communication, a lack of ethics among the management team, and lack of accountability. In other words, all stuff that a good liberal arts education should provide.

 Polonius wrote:
The Challenger explosion is interesting, because while the O-ring was, indeed, defective, that didn't cause the explosion. What caused the explosion was poor communication, a lack of ethics among the management team, and lack of accountability. In other words, all stuff that a good liberal arts education should provide.

Yeah...The Challenger explosion was used several times as an example in my business classes as what happens with bad management. Had nothing to do with bad math.

On a technical note, the Challenger didn't explode, it broke apart mid-flight.

But yeah, NASA management was aware that the O-rings were a potential issue as far back as 1977 but it was deemed an "acceptable flight risk." They also disregarded warnings from engineers about launching that morning because of the unusually low temperatures at the launch pad. Even the contractor that made the O-rings brought up their concerns at a pre-flight meeting the night before the launch, but they were largely ignored (mainly because no safety officials were present at the meeting). The failure of the O-rings and the structural failure of the external fuel tank were solely the responsibility of the culture of NASA and the management structure at the time.

 Polonius wrote:
The Challenger explosion is interesting, because while the O-ring was, indeed, defective, that didn't cause the explosion. What caused the explosion was poor communication, a lack of ethics among the management team, and lack of accountability. In other words, all stuff that a good liberal arts education should provide.

I watched a documentary featuring an engineer who kept telling his superiors not to launch, but was ignored. He said the day of the launch, he couldn't watch it, figuring the Shuttle was just going to explode on the launch pad, so he was sitting in the cafeteria where he wouldn't see it. He went on to say he heard cheers as the Shuttle launched and thought he had been wrong, so he walked into the main area just in time to see the explosion.
After he went public with his story, he was subject to persecution from co workers and management and was run off the road twice by people he knew.

Wow...the people involved should have been jailed.

I'll tell you when it happened, when they took lawn darts off the market and put child proof caps on bleach.
We needed to weed out the gen-y gene pool a little more I can tell ya.

I dunno there will always be extreme idiots on any side. I hate what the over-sensitive generation will bring. I realize my dad is offensive and stuff but I can't help but wonder if this is the exact same crap that was pulled on him. People slowly considering words and things he did offensive until it became accepted that it was making younger generations see people like him as offensive.

I feel like people are getting to the point where if they don't think everybody is 100% equal at everything then they freak out (job pay being equal regardless of job, genders being 50/50 represented at all jobs regardless of skill or desire to do those jobs and in a sense only worrying about problems from minorities and women whereas white men or just white people are just ignored even though they make up a large portion of our population). I mean seriously whatever happened to having a job due to merit?

I mean whether people want to believe it or not people aren't 100% equal at everything. In matters of science and math I can't have my opinion in those fields considered equal to that of Einstein. That would be insulting to Einstein. He worked too hard to be good at what he does and was just normally good at it for some person like me with nowhere near the experience, effort or anything like that to take away from him.

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

No laws against it in Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (pending bill to outlaw), New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

Just saying what my Danish friend told me. He said as long as the animal 'consented' then it was legal.

I don't really think it's an age problem. I'm the same age as most of these students, and even though I strongly believe in equality for all, I'm not offended by anything. It's quite the opposite in fact, I got a pretty offensive sense of humor.

I don't know, maybe some get more emotional than others about the same issues.


EDIT :

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

Just saying what my Danish friend told me. He said as long as the animal 'consented' then it was legal.

Wait what ?!

His friend is full of gak, mis-remembering as the law changed last year, or he himself is lying to cover his mistake. It happens.

http://satwcomic.com/brightest-sheep-in-the-field

Well maybe he just didn't know about the law change. I wouldn't know.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country.

Because the Left Wing in the average 'Western' country dominates the media and educational systems. Every new generation is going to be more left wing than the last.

Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

That was tried once, but it didn't succeed. There was a organisation a few decades ago in Britain called the Pedophile Information Exchange or something, that sought legalization. Some prominent British politicians like Harriet Harman actually had dealings with them in the context of civil rights etc.

Its more likely that it'll simply be redefined until the definition is so narrow that it becomes meaningless.

So, considering America has a load of states where it's fine and dandy, and the two countries you used as an example don't, does this change anything?

I doubt it, but I ask anyway.

Also, Finland apparently has no laws against bestiality.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

Just saying what my Danish friend told me. He said as long as the animal 'consented' then it was legal.

All I can picture is that episode of Lilyhammer where the sheep was raped. That being said, I don't imagine many people anywhere lining up to have a go at the livestock.

I personally don't see it as a matter that should change regardless of how many want it.

As we currently think it, animals can't consent. Therefore just by that it is wrong. Let alone all the other things people will put forward against it.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
So, considering America has a load of states where it's fine and dandy, and the two countries you used as an example don't, does this change anything?

I doubt it, but I ask anyway.

For what bestiality? Na to my knowledge it's straight up legal. Then again it would be totally American of me for a foreigner to tell me what's going on in my country and be right about it . I tend not to watch the news enough I admit. Then again I'd personally rather experience it or at least ask those who were there (if even possible).

 LethalShade wrote:
I don't really think it's an age problem. I'm the same age as most of these students, and even though I strongly believe in equality for all, I'm not offended by anything. It's quite the opposite in fact, I got a pretty offensive sense of humor.

I don't know, maybe some get more emotional than others about the same issues.

Thankfully you do have an offensive sense of humor. Personally I think people that talk of being offended are really just standing up for their own beliefs rather than caring about others. You ever notice how somebody that is selfish will never offer something but always demands something when they may have been wronged (without even knowing). Yeah I think it's the same here. They basically don't care when they wrong but if they are even slightly possibly wronged they call foul. That said it's always worth it to take note of the person's personality. See how they react to somebody using their stuff and similar. It's probably a good way to find out. Often note how frequently they seem selfish and you'll probably find out the truth there.

No, does it change that you accused some traditionally leftist countries of having legal bestiality while the right wing america didn't.

And it was actually the other way around.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

No laws against it in Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (pending bill to outlaw), New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Usually, there's other laws on the books that prohibits that... but, yeah, it's a weird artifacts of our laws.

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

Well... I haven't checked, but I'm sure the Feds have/could convict them.

I'm just pointing out that there are weird idiosyncrasies between the 50 states laws to our one Federal laws.

Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

I had to look up why the District of Columbia was special... hah.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

Well... I haven't checked, but I'm sure the Feds have/could convict them.

I'm just pointing out that there are weird idiosyncrasies between the 50 states laws to our one Federal laws.

Hehe this reminds me of the super weird out of date laws that were never really put into practice. I think there was one where if you stole somebody's horse or sheep you would get death by hanging.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

I know we're getting offtrack here... but I think this is a salient point.

It shouldn't matter where the law arises... Federalism isn't necessarily a top-down mechanism to push laws on all 50 states. Our U.S. constitution expressly states what is the Federal government's domain and what should be left to the states (ie, 10th Amendment).

Doesn't always work like that though as many see the Federal Government a means to control the rest of the 50 states.

*shrugs*

Anyhoo... back on topic? I don't necessarily buy that we're "soft"... it's just that we *allow* these types of expression, and in some circle encourage it.

Push to shove, I'd say we're the sleeping giant. Don't wake that giant up... as Japan and Taliban discovered...

I wont even begin to discuss about that with you as I know feth all about federal and state law and all that.

I was merely saying that there's no overarching Federal law against it, and that quite a few states allow it.

And enough of that tangent.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

Anyhoo... back on topic? I don't necessarily buy that we're "soft"... it's just that we *allow* these types of expression, and in some circle encourage it.

Push to shove, I'd say we're the sleeping giant. Don't wake that giant up... as Japan and Taliban discovered...

It really just depends how extreme somebody is with some of this. I don't think people should withhold a job due to gender, race or religion or similar. However some people that get super offended over jokes esp. ones that have nothing to do with offending them tend to bother me. It doesn't really hurt anybody. I mean my mom was jewish and I find the whole 'get everything on discount' joke to be funny. Seriously even Drawn Together had a very funny joke about that. Can you believe I'm withholding saying the joke for fear I'd get in trouble about it even though my mom was jewish and i should have more right than most to be offended by it? I even laugh at Jewish people not being tough teasing that some do.

"You call these bagels."

'Woah I'm glad he's on our side.'

That said as far as humor is concerned you gotta draw the line with death and rape and similar. Also the intention behind the joke is ok as long as it is to joke and not to hurt (even teasing is ok as long as it's understood by those involved). There's a lot of specifics some tend to forget or don't know about. Then again different people and different views.

I actually find the idea that some words should never be spoken, to be a disagreeable one.

Given the right context, pretty much any word should be allowed to be said.

For example, the n-word as it is (I understand it's not allowed on here and I'm fine with that).

Some people found it offensive when discussed in the context of a historical lesson, or in a book written from past times. I understand they may find it offensive, but I also disagree with them then saying it shouldn't be allowed, given the context it was said.

I also understand these were isolated incidents I may be mis-remembering.

Also, with free speech, a lot of people use it to be rude whilst claiming they're not being rude. I'm ok with people being rude, that's life. Just be fething honest and accept you're being rude.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Every country has its problems. America has soft college kids. Canada created Justin Bieber. Australia "gave" us the unfortunate case of Iggy Azaelia. And Australians, you should all be ashamed for loosing her upon the world.

Also, isn't this thread a straight up attack on America? Kinda surprised rule #1 isn't being called into question on a thread that basically says "America, you're all wusses". Can we get the lock-happy mod up in here?

But Australia also gave us Galantis, America did give us Halsey, and Canada did give us maple syrup ;.;

I mean Halsey....


But yes I am not surprised soft college students in this generation isn't new, they are hyper sensentive and ultra liberal, its a social change so yeah. I am not really surprised I go to college so I do see it quite often especially identity politics etc.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I actually find the idea that some words should never be spoken, to be a disagreeable one.

Given the right context, pretty much any word should be allowed to be said.

For example, the n-word as it is (I understand it's not allowed on here and I'm fine with that).

Some people found it offensive when discussed in the context of a historical lesson, or in a book written from past times. I understand they may find it offensive, but I also disagree with them then saying it shouldn't be allowed, given the context it was said.

I also understand these were isolated incidents I may be mis-remembering.

Also, with free speech, a lot of people use it to be rude whilst claiming they're not being rude. I'm ok with people being rude, that's life. Just be fething honest and accept you're being rude.

I suppose my issue with people getting offended is less about them getting offended or taking action so much as trying to take official and political action so that it never happens again. If somebody is offensive and you don't like it then just consider them an offensive jerk that will reap the seeds they're sowing for themselves. I mean I don't even mind if somebody punched me in my face so long as it wasn't politically and universally condemned.

Oh also people that feel the need to see offended material where it might not exist. Instead of jumping on the 'you're an offensive jerk!' bandwagon think about who is saying what and what the case may be. A child saying a curse word is bad sure but they don't realize it's bad and mean nothing by it. Treating them like crap for the kids having no ill intentions is just messed up.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because it's trying to equate the acceptance homosexuality with a theoretical acceptance of pedophilia and zoophilia, ignoring entirely this little thing called consent, it's insane because you're trying to link "the left" to championing the causes of pedophilia and zoophilia and it's insane because it's a blatant slippery slope argument (you know, like I said last post).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because it's trying to equate the acceptance homosexuality with a theoretical acceptance of pedophilia and zoophilia, ignoring entirely this little thing called consent, it's insane because you're trying to link "the left" to championing the causes of pedophilia and zoophilia and it's insane because it's a blatant slippery slope argument (you know, like I said last post).

In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

Well homosexuality was about as accepted 100 years ago as pedophilia is now so umm yeah I can in some cases compare. To my knowledge pedophilia wasn't always looked upon the way it is today. I don't even think this is a case of dudes marrying fairly young girls either. Time and place matter a lot in these cases. Different cultures can definitely feel weird to each other.

To be fair, you can compare heterosexuality and bestiality too.

I didn't say it'd be a good comparison though.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Well homosexuality was about as accepted 100 years ago as pedophilia is now so umm yeah I can in some cases compare.

I think you'll need to be a lot more specific to actually make a point here. I'm not going to bother trying to refute your argument, as it's so vague I'm not sure what you mean.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, you can compare heterosexuality and bestiality too.

I didn't say it'd be a good comparison though.

Not disagreeing they're still sex. I'm just saying there were some small similarities.

Besides there are pedophiles that don't act on their impulses. Saying somebody is bad for being born a certain way is messed up. I find it rather odd people are disgusted to compare the good gay people with the horrible pedophilic people. They were both born a way they didn't choose. That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way. But hey making an entire group out to be evil without giving them alternatives to their problems is totally fine. I mean it's not like we can give them a choice to choose childish women or maybe take something to stop their urges from making them do something that'd result in prison time. Keep in mind even this is comparable to some gay people taking something that sterilized them or similar way back when. So yeah it's yet another comparison.

------

Ok so gay people were discriminated against and if they acted on desires would get prison time. Pedophiles do now as well. They weren't given many options either (no marriage, jobs may be being taken away, etc.). Nobody would knowingly want to be around a pedophile for the most part even if they haven't committed an actual crime yet. They were both born liking what they do.

I'm not saying pedophilia is right and I think it's wrong but I think they need better options for their lives so they can live normal lives without fearing they'd do some such evil.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure that if you looked for 13 wild crazy things that happened in any given year, you'd find them and it still wouldn't mean anything close to what you're trying to suggest

And as I said, all of those things did happen, so drop the cheap shots and maybe respond. It's difficult, I know, but give it a try.

Hmm. That list sounds like an average week at my University. I went looooooooong before the new media could pick up these silly stories and blow them all out of proportion. My point being the same as Mr. Cheap Shot's above: last year wasn't unusual in that these irritating things happened, but it was unusual in that these irritating things were picked up by new media and made into a story. This is just an (extreme) example of media bias. Was American "soft" back when I was in Uni (Reagan and Bush were in office)? I think many would dispute that assertion. But things really haven't changed much since then.

One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

On one hand I want to watch a single 24 hour block of FoxNews and write down every single "headline" to post as example of over-sensitive outrage culture. But then I would be watching FoxNews...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Look back at my previous post that I edited.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Not disagreeing they're still sex. I'm just saying there were some small similarities.

Besides there are pedophiles that don't act on their impulses. Saying somebody is bad for being born a certain way is messed up. I find it rather odd people are disgusted to compare the good gay people with the horrible pedophilic people. They were both born a way they didn't choose. That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way. But hey making an entire group out to be evil without giving them alternatives to their problems is totally fine. I mean it's not like we can give them a choice to choose childish women or maybe take something to stop their urges from making them do something that'd result in prison time. Keep in mind even this is comparable to some gay people taking something that sterilized them or similar way back when. So yeah it's yet another comparison.

There are superficial similarities.

As has been stated multiple time, Gay rights arose out two main trends in the 1960: Identity politics, and the sexual revolution. Prior to the 60's, recreational (meaning non-procreative) sex was seen as immoral and wrong. As the decade progressed, the idea that sex between consenting people was healthy, normal, and a good thing took root. Much of the earlier disgust at homosexuality was based on the idea that it was immoral and unhealthy. As time based, it became clear that there seems to be no social harm to homosexuality, nor any personal harm.

Pedophilia (and I'm using the term to mean attraction to prepubescent children) has enormous social harm. It's a bad thing for an adult to have sex with a child, at least the bulk of the time. Children at that age cannot possibly consent to sex.

The grey area in this is age of consent laws. Many of them are set unreasonably high, such that they end up criminalizing perfectly healthy teenage sexual behaviors. Maybe not ideal sexual behaviors, but a 16 year old can handle the issue of consent, at least roughly as well as many adults.

Many things that were considered perfectly normal centuries and in some cases mere decades ago are regarded with horror and disgust today. Decades and centuries into the future, many of the things we regard as normal today will in turn be regarded with disgust.

The age of consent has been subjected to a continuous downward trend over the last 50 years and will I think continue to fall, as kids grow ever more sexualised. I don't necessarily with it, but I think it will happen. Young teenage sexualisation is becoming normalized.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because is has nothing to do with reality. The path that we're on right now is increasing acknowledgement that a person's choice of sex acts/partners/etc is their business as long as it's between consenting adults, and society should take a "hands off" approach to dealing with it. A reasonable prediction might be that, if we continue down the same path that led to gay marriage, we'll start to see increasing support for recognizing and accepting non-monogamous relationships. But it is NOT a reasonable prediction to suggest that the trend might lead to legalizing sex with animals and children because they are not capable of giving consent. There's a reason we laugh at this slippery-slope idiocy when it's used by right-wing religious fanatics as an argument against gay marriage.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I mean my mom was jewish and I find the whole 'get everything on discount' joke to be funny.

The point you're missing is that you (usually) can't know if you're going to offend or upset someone until after it's too late. They might laugh, or they might be seriously hurt by it. Or they might do both, and pretend to think it's funny because they don't want to fight about it. So the right thing to do is to avoid that kind of "humor", and not declare to everyone that your need to let everyone know how funny you are is more important than the chance that you might hurt someone.

Also the intention behind the joke is ok as long as it is to joke and not to hurt (even teasing is ok as long as it's understood by those involved).

Intent is not magic. If I shoot you in the I don't think you're going to find it much consolation that I just thought it would be funny.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country.

Because the Left Wing in the average 'Western' country dominates the media and educational systems. Every new generation is going to be more left wing than the last.

...

It's all the fault of those notorious socialist media barons such as Rupert Murdoch.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Many things that were considered perfectly normal centuries and in some cases mere decades ago are regarded with horror and disgust today. Decades and centuries into the future, many of the things we regard as normal today will in turn be regarded with disgust.

Even more so, the rationale for some of the things we prohibit change.

Look at rape. For millennia, rape has been prohibited, but until somewhat recently it was basically treated the same way as cattle rustling. Raping a married woman was trespass against her husband, while raping a non-married woman lowered her market value for her father. This is one reason older rape laws didn't even consider rape of men, and until quite recently marital rape was completely legal.

Only in the last few decades has the idea of bodily autonomy, and the rights of a woman to control her own sexual life, emerged.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way.

Well yes, that's what happens when your "preferred way of having sex" is rape. FFS, why is this so complicated for you?

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because is has nothing to do with reality. The path that we're on right now is increasing acknowledgement that a person's choice of sex acts/partners/etc is their business as long as it's between consenting adults, and society should take a "hands off" approach to dealing with it. A reasonable prediction might be that, if we continue down the same path that led to gay marriage, we'll start to see increasing support for recognizing and accepting non-monogamous relationships. But it is NOT a reasonable prediction to suggest that the trend might lead to legalizing sex with animals and children because they are not capable of giving consent. There's a reason we laugh at this slippery-slope idiocy when it's used by right-wing religious fanatics as an argument against gay marriage.

Isn't it offensive to say other people's ideals are stupid?

(I mean this is full humour Peregrine, don't throw yourself out of wack)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

Please, tell us your brilliant insights into this new definition of consent that will allow animals and children to qualify. Does it depend on some technobabble mind-reading machine that will allow humans to understand animal "speech" while simultaneously giving the animal the required mental capacity to understand the question they are being asked?

It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

Please read people. At least Polonius did.

Also no I didn't say what they're doing is right I just think there needs to be a way to handle people that have these pedophilic urges. I find it horrible people often find the answer to be killing them. Perhaps if we could find a way to take away their sexual urges or adjust them somehow we could help them before they do something illegal and get in trouble. Seriously they probably feel evil all their lives (just as gay people did in the early 20th century). If they don't do the act they should at least be treated ok. I mean they make their lives unlike how they want (just as gay people did marrying the opposite sex) and just feel wrong somehow. To me there are quite a few parallels.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

No, and one reason we know this is because Sodomy was a common law crime, and like all common law crimes, it required the intent to commit it.

The idea that people actually wanted to engage in sodomy was what made it a crime.

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

Were the people in the Dark Ages SJW's who thought homosexuality was alright?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It's rape by current legal terms and I'm not saying it's right.

If you took gay sex and pedophilic sex in the early 20th century and all involved wanted to have sex they'd both probably be considered not consenting.

Oh FFS, why is this complicated for you?

Sex with your own gender has been considered wrong because of ridiculous "eww, gross" arguments and/or "because Jesus said so". The arguments against it had nothing to do with the ability to consent, and in fact the acts were considered to be inherently wrong even if everyone involved consented to them. Consenting to gay sex would simply be an acknowledgement that you're truly an abomination before god and fully deserving of execution and eternal damnation.

Sex with children has been considered wrong for those same reasons, but also because a child can not give consent to sex. It doesn't matter if the acts are right or wrong in some inherent sense because at least one person involved is an unwilling participant. Laws against it exist to protect one party from abuse by the other, and that's an issue that can't be overcome by taking an open-minded approach to sex.

So no, the path that leads to legalizing one does not lead to legalizing the other. Your slippery slope argument is incoherent nonsense.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

Clearly I read the intial post wrong.

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

-------

Anyway we are so far off the original topic it may as well be its own thread. Make it if you guys want but I don't think I'm in the mood for it right now. I have better things to do than argue with people for an hour only for a thread lock.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

I would assume it makes them not want sex until they change their mind

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

that is incorrect. Consent is defined differently in different contexts, but as a legal concept consent always includes a few basic elements, such as the ability understand to what they are agreeing, and the competency to make that decision.

It's possible that our laws will change dramatically in the next 100 years to eliminate the need for consent in sexual relationships, but since that basically allows for free ranging rape, I doubt it will.

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

I would assume it makes them not want sex until they change their mind

Asexual people have no desire to ever have sex (not even once). They are rare but exist. The entire attraction doesn't exist for them (at least not sexually but supposedly they can find love). They probably might as well be castrated for all intents and purposes. My point being they are incapable of desire so the thought of sex might happen but might be awkward for them. They are of age but have no sexual desire and never will. In fact it seems to confuse them.

------

Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Yes, there are gray areas with defining adulthood and consent as a fixed point. But this is a fundamental part of our legal system, a person isn't considered an adult for legal purposes until they're 18. For example, they can't sign the paperwork for a loan without their parents being involved and taking responsibility for the loan, even if a 17.9 year old is probably just as capable of understanding their student loans as an 18.01 year old. Changing this would mean making major changes in how our legal system works, with consequences that extend far beyond legalizing specific sex acts.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

No, an asexual adult has the ability to consent to sex. They simply choose not to, much like I have the legal ability to consent to playing AoS but have absolutely no desire to ever do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

Ah. Lose the argument and get embarrassed, run away and pretend that you're just trying to keep it from getting derailed. I did not see that coming at all...

The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?



I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

You realise how utterly ridiculous that statement is, right? I mean, we're in a thread that was created specifically to bitch about SJWs, a group known for going over the top with regards to affirmative consent, and you're somehow arguing that they're going to champion a movement about ignoring consent?

I suppose in a hundred years or so the KKK could be championing the Black Lives Matter movement, but it's still a patently ridiculous claim to make.

Lets travel back to the Dark Ages and say homosexul relationships will be legal in the future. They will call you crazy and kill you, but it happened did it not?

So, the people in the dark ages are the ones currently championing homosexual relationships, right?

The ancient Greeks were very keen on homosexual relationships long before the Dark Ages. That said, I think a lot of their relationships would have failed the modern test of one partner being in a position of power over the other. (Meaning for instance that teachers should not have se with their pupils even if they are over 16 and 'street legal'.)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

As I pointed out, that's a really good question. it's a societal prerogative to make arbitrary rules, and say that at a certain age people can handle certain decisions. We allow people to drive at 16, vote or join the military at 18, but not drink until 21.

At some point, we as a society are going to realize that teenagers are sexual beings, and that's going to ugly.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

Based on my limited understanding of asexuality, both theoretical and applied, being asexual wouldn't prohibit consent, because people can want to do things for reasons other than a primal desire. An asexual person may want to please a romantic partner, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The ancient Greeks were very keen on homosexual relationships long before the Dark Ages. That said, I think a lot of their relationships would have failed the modern test of one partner being in a position of power over the other. (Meaning for instance that teachers should not have se with their pupils even if they are over 16 and 'street legal'.)

Only because I don't care about further derailing this dumpster fire of a thread....

If you really want to look at how cultural views of sex can shift, look at sexual relationships between adults in the same hierarchy. Professors and grad students, bosses and employees, etc. the views on this can shift wildly over time, and place to place. For example, a lot of academics don't see any real problem with a sexual relationship between a PhD student and his Professor, while a lot of workplaces strictly forbid it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I said mentally capable and that includes what you said. Also if what you say is true what makes it different from a teenager to be consenting or not consenting. They have the parts (working genitalia) and they know what they want. At that point what makes a teenager (say 14) incapable of making this decision.

Yes, there are gray areas with defining adulthood and consent as a fixed point. But this is a fundamental part of our legal system, a person isn't considered an adult for legal purposes until they're 18. For example, they can't sign the paperwork for a loan without their parents being involved and taking responsibility for the loan, even if a 17.9 year old is probably just as capable of understanding their student loans as an 18.01 year old. Changing this would mean making major changes in how our legal system works, with consequences that extend far beyond legalizing specific sex acts.

Also keep in mind there are some people that have no sexual desires whatsoever (asexual people). Does this make them incapable of wanting or having sex?

No, an asexual adult has the ability to consent to sex. They simply choose not to, much like I have the legal ability to consent to playing AoS but have absolutely no desire to ever do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Anyway I think I've created Frankenstein's monster and derailed this thread. I think I'm gonna sit the rest of this out for a while. I don't expect the thread to last much longer.

Ah. Lose the argument and get embarrassed, run away and pretend that you're just trying to keep it from getting derailed. I did not see that coming at all...

Consent in this case meaning the legal term of being of age. As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something. To many consent means needing to be of a proper age to make these choices. A lot of these are current legal definitions that go by our current rules. To say it doesn't follow our current rules of consent is saying it doesn't follow our current definition. Consent could mean different things through different times. Obviously somebody disagreed with this or we'd have stayed the same. Understand this!

Yeah my point being asexual people are allowed in a sense to consent even though the idea of sex is confusing to them and they have no desire. Might seem an awful lot like a child with no understanding of sex and no desire but hey they're of age so screw it let people have sex with em as long as they say ok but I won't get enjoyment out of this. It's mostly the same thing with the only difference being age.

Yeah insult all others that disagree with you as you always do. Just makes more people dislike you. Gotta love how you stalk me into a lot of threads I enter btw just to find me and attack my posts outright. I mean what do you have some absolute need to prove me wrong every time I enter off-topic?

-----

Thank you AlmightyWalrus I was just comparing some details. I'm not saying it's ok and yeah maybe pedophilia won't be a thing in the future but maybe people will tap alien peoples (which is sorta close to bestiality) but I suppose it'd be ok because they're of age and have mental capacity.

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?

I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

I'm not sure how we got here myself, and I've been active for most of the thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

What the feth?

I know where this thread began but I've no idea how the hell it wound up here and I'm pretty sure nothing you said has anything to do with America getting soft.

.

I'm not sure how we got here myself, and I've been active for most of the thread.

Honestly as I said I will admit it must've been me that derailed it. I apologize.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


Consent in this case meaning the legal term of being of age. As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something. To many consent means needing to be of a proper age to make these choices. A lot of these are current legal definitions that go by our current rules. To say it doesn't follow our current rules of consent is saying it doesn't follow our current definition. Consent could mean different things through different times. Obviously somebody disagreed with this or we'd have stayed the same. Understand this!

You are quite the legal scholar sir. I will endeavor to under this!

Currently, the law presumes that individuals under a certain age lack the competency to grant consent for sex. It's not that consent means being a certain age, it means that below a certain age consent cannot be given, in much the same way that intoxication or illness can remove an adults ability to consent.

Consent means the same thing, but right now the law sees certain groups, correctly or not, as incapable of giving consent. By the way, this is why sex with a minor is called "statutory rape," because the law was introduced in a statute, not by the common law. Under common law, menarche was usually seen as when a woman could consent.

Yeah my point being asexual people are allowed in a sense to consent even though the idea of sex is confusing to them and they have no desire. Might seem an awful lot like a child with no understanding of sex and no desire but hey they're of age so screw it let people have sex with em as long as they say ok but I won't get enjoyment out of this. It's mostly the same thing with the only difference being age.

It's not close to the same thing. An asexual can give consent or not as he chooses, in the same way I can consent, or not, as I choose. Do I want to have sex every time my wife does? Probably not. But I want to make her happy, so I do so.

The law does not ask "do you really, really want this?" It asks "did you say okay? Were you capable and competent to make that decision?"

Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Its like getting banned from a reddit because you said "Pedophilia isn't a disease. Its a defect."

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

@polonius: I will admit I'm very happy you and AlmightyWalrus can at least discuss a topic without need to yell it out at somebody and insult the poster for the most part. That must be a rare thing in off-topic.

@Asherian Command: Not really I'm more defending their right to not be hated as long as they don't commit a crime. I just can't imagine what it'd be like to feel evil for existing and I feel that to an extent that's what they feel. There's something so messed up about that. To feel even if you live as best you can and obey the law that your desire might consume you and if people knew about it they'd consider you evil and in a sense you yourself feel evil for having this desire. I just pity them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

Good place to start...
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

I dunno, me calling your line of reasoning insane might've been a bit rude.









I still totally think it's insane though.

 whembly wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Defending pedophilia activity. Fantastic.

Where?

Good place to start...
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

Wut? The way I read it Asherian Command was accusing people in the thread of "defending pedophilia activity", and I was asking him to clarify what and where he meant.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@polonius: I will admit I'm very happy you and AlmightyWalrus can at least discuss a topic without need to yell it out at somebody and insult the poster for the most part. That must be a rare thing in off-topic.

To be fair to some of the more aggressive response, you are speaking very broadly and confidently about the topic, yet your posts show a very tenuous connection to facts. I happen to find the history of sexual laws and mores to be fascinating, so I'm indulging that hobby.

I don't think anyone has defended adults having sex with children here.

Having an understanding of people who broke no laws and did nothing wrong? Maybe.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

 Polonius wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@polonius: I will admit I'm very happy you and AlmightyWalrus can at least discuss a topic without need to yell it out at somebody and insult the poster for the most part. That must be a rare thing in off-topic.

To be fair to some of the more aggressive response, you are speaking very broadly and confidently about the topic, yet your posts show a very tenuous connection to facts. I happen to find the history of sexual laws and mores to be fascinating, so I'm indulging that hobby.

I suppose that's true. I am willing to admit my failings to people that are being reasonable. I wouldn't say I'm confident. I felt that to an extent there were connections between being gay in the 20th century and a pedophile in today's standards. I will say it wouldn't be a left idea but yeah 200 years could see a lot of things we would find apprehensible as a cultural norm. I still say the political left eventually wins out in the end or at least has in the west for a couple hundred years at least. I mean I suppose people could go insane and do a 180 turn and be like the extremists in the middle east (supposedly they were more peaceful quite a ways back).

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

There's a lot of interesting stuff on adult, consenting incest out there, mostly from siblings separated very early. There are two different aspects to mate selection at work with incest: we are generally attracted to people that share our DNA, because mating with somebody that shares more DNA increases the odds of our own DNA being passed down; while we are generally unattached to people we were raised with in a family unit. That's true in nearly all cultures, by the way.

Incest isn't technically illegal, and right now, many states allow marriage even between first cousins. That more less leaves nuclear families, and most notably siblings. It's possible that over time it sibling marriage could be allowed, but I think it will remain such a small community that it will never really get enough momentum to overcome the taboo.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

Again, power differences cause a situation that could in theory work but carries with it so many risks of trauma that it's simply not acceptable, just like drunk driving. Even between siblings where the power difference is small to non-existant, the major risk of permanent emotional trauma just rules it out completely.

And with that, I'm reporting myself for going madly off-topic, I think we all ought to just give up and consent to let this thread move on.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The sad part is, I completely agree that it's unfair to attack pedophiles for something that is out of their control (thus, obviously, not including pedophile rapists, because feth rapists), and that, much like homosexuals in the past, pedophiles are attacked for being born a certain way, but that doesn't change the fact that children do not, in general, have the mental faculties required to give consent. As Peregrine said, homosexuality was not banned because it was demonstrably harmful to people involved in the acts. Is it possible that a minor is mentally developed enough to understand what he or she is giving consent to? Yes, in the same way that a drunk driver could potentially not feth up and get home from the pub just fine. The risks for harm involved are too great, though.

And yes, it's entirely possible that these attitudes could change over 200 years, but then again the attitudes could change to one where murder-raping people to death in the street is seen as great sport, and it'd somehow STILL be the fault of "the left".

Yeah well in this case what about incest? I mean the only reason people don't do it is it seems weird and the possible mental retardation complaint which I dunno if it's been disproven. I think people said the chances of a child being mentally slowed is quite a bit lower than people thought.

Again, power differences cause a situation that could in theory work but carries with it so many risks of trauma that it's simply not acceptable, just like drunk driving. Even between siblings where the power difference is small to non-existant, the major risk of permanent emotional trauma just rules it out completely.

And with that, I'm reporting myself for going madly off-topic, I think we all ought to just give up and consent to let this thread move on.

Yeah I'm all for that honestly. Hopefully I didn't go off the deep end there.

Some people just really touch a nerve though. Somebody get this thread on topic.

-------

Ugh sorry I'm trying to find the scene in demolition man where Sylvester stallone of all people tells the two factions in L.A. that they should make a society in between what they have. In between ultra free and unrestricted and ultra-censored/politically correct.

I think the drift began because there was an assertion that every generation is more liberal than the one prior, which is certainly an interesting argument.

Western civilization has had a general upward trend in recognized, protected, rights granted by sheer dint of being human. There are, of course, set backs, but if you look at the last couple of centuries in particular, you see more and more people included in the political, economic, and social fabric of our societies.

Much of what is sought by the PC crowd is an awareness that there are barriers to integration aside from laws and rules. That people of color or women or the disabled or the poor may be excluded, consciously or not, by language, behavior, and attitude. It's a solid position, and one that I generally agree with. That it can lead to some goofiness doesn't make the idea foolish, it makes small groups of college students playing politics foolish. And if you need to laugh at college politicians to feel better about yourself, go ahead, but maybe aim a little higher in the future?

I get as tired as the next guy hearing about "privilege" and "microaggressions," but active inclusion is a good way to combat passive exclusion.

Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

Ya know I once applied for a job at a Coney Island and you know what the lady at the front desk said, "I'm sorry we're not offering any male positions right now." To an extent it really bugged me and going back there I only did see waitresses and no waiters. I guess some breakfast places don't let men serve food. I mean they did let men work there sure but I find it a little strange she would just say that.

Normally as I've seen with things you can also try to get people to do something but after a point (generally not even needing to try too hard) they tend to decide if they want to do it or not. I've noticed this with many games including warhammer. The people that wanted to do it didn't need much incentive and they went to seek it out themselves.

Anyway my point about that is sometimes men and women prefer certain things (overall anyway) and trying to make them take a job and forcing them to like something is in a sense wrong.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

Part of the idea is that we as a society are becoming soft overall. How many people know how to cook food (beyond the simplest kind) or do physical chores that used to be more common? Can we accept the fact that maybe we're not all special and maybe that's fine too? I mean the idea that everybody's special means nobody's special and if everybody thinks they're special they might get an inflated sense of self-worth that falls flat when it comes time to prove themselves. I mean often times skill through practice and hard work should be appreciated above some things. There's also the concept of "it's the thought that counts" and while that's a nice thought it's not true mostly. If you continue to do nothing about it the thought mostly means jack all. Watching a man freeze to death and doing nothing but thinking "Oh I hope he gets help!" is the equivalent of doing nothing but feeling like you're somehow moral by wishing them well.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

The problem was looking at a dozen instances, and extrapolating from what a few college kids were doing to the entire nation. Because a small, albeit loud, minority of college students are clearly a good representation of an entire culture.

Wow, sweeping generalizations everywhere!

OT, I'd not go so far as to call America soft, given the amount of violence that happens here in a given year. If that's "soft", then I'd hate to see a "tough" america.

In regards to OP's post, A) it's easy to take things that happened in a year and run to make accusations about a country, B) some of those crazy things happened with the best of intentions (sure, the PC thing is getting out of hand, but I'd like to think most of it is done with the best of intentions as far as not hurting others), and C) just because 10% of the population votes for something, does not accurately represent the other 90%.

 Polonius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

Yeah I think that's the entire point right there. Sometimes life is hard and you gotta brace yourself and deal with it. I mean if you can't handle the small things then the big ones are really gonna kick you in the balls.

 Polonius wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Anyhow, I think it's an interesting discussion to have that OP is assuming that "soft" is synonymous with "bad". Why does "soft" have to be bad? An antonym to soft is "harsh", after all.

I think it's in the context of college students asking for "safe places" and avoiding "triggers." This suggests that at least some college students do not have the emotional resilience to get through college, which does align somewhat to the idea of being "soft" as being unable to cope with the demands of life.

The problem was looking at a dozen instances, and extrapolating from what a few college kids were doing to the entire nation. Because a small, albeit loud, minority of college students are clearly a good representation of an entire culture.

Especially when a majority of the college kids are actively laughing at/mocking this kind of culture.

@polonius: Not only that but some of our problems in the West falls directly into the First World Problems section. Ya know some countries actively splash acid in women's faces for so much as daring to show them openly. It's just problems like the ones we have often seem infinitely small in comparison to that.

Yeah, and a lot of generational differences garbage is written from a really bad perspective. It generally focuses on college students, or post college adults, who live very different lifestyles from people even a few years older. It also is focused on people a full generation older, that have no real understanding of how things have changed.

I'm a Gen X-er, and I supervise mostly millennials. Maybe it's because I was the very tail end of X, but I don't see any problems with millenials as workers compared to Xers or Boomers. "Oh no, they want more feedback!" Every management expert on earth would say that giving feedback on performance is a good thing! As for expecting special treatment, it's been my experience that young people are often shocked at how liberal our work policies are.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
As I said consent by itself would just mean if somebody wants to do something.

And, included in that "wanting" is an implied requirement that the person be capable of wanting the thing. They have to have the mental capacity and understanding to really mean that yes, otherwise making "yes" sounds is an empty statement and not valid consent. This is a fundamental principle of both our ethical and legal systems, even if the precise method of determining consent is sometimes debatable. There could be valid arguments that 18 is not the correct age, or that a single discrete point of becoming an adult capable of giving consent is not a good approach, but I don't think we're going to see any kind of "there should be no age limit on consent" argument in the foreseeable future.

Yeah my point being asexual people are allowed in a sense to consent even though the idea of sex is confusing to them and they have no desire. Might seem an awful lot like a child with no understanding of sex and no desire but hey they're of age so screw it let people have sex with em as long as they say ok but I won't get enjoyment out of this. It's mostly the same thing with the only difference being age.

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, and a lot of generational differences garbage is written from a really bad perspective. It generally focuses on college students, or post college adults, who live very different lifestyles from people even a few years older. It also is focused on people a full generation older, that have no real understanding of how things have changed.

I'm a Gen X-er, and I supervise mostly millennials. Maybe it's because I was the very tail end of X, but I don't see any problems with millenials as workers compared to Xers or Boomers. "Oh no, they want more feedback!" Every management expert on earth would say that giving feedback on performance is a good thing! As for expecting special treatment, it's been my experience that young people are often shocked at how liberal our work policies are.

You know the funny thing is when I went to my work I was surprised about the 'no fighting' rules. Seriously if you hit somebody and they don't hit you back you are instantly terminated from the job. A guy merely pushed another worker after working there for 14 years or so and was fired after I had been there less than a year. I mean you're allowed one fight per person if the other person fights back but if it happens again you will be fired. Generally it's a 'no hit' rule though and this is in a factory where guys are cursing up a storm. I've been there almost 4 years now and so far that's the only physical confrontation I've heard and it was one shove. I'm honestly surprised at the lack of fighting (at least physically).

In general when school is involved I think the older crowd (what few there are) tend to work harder but that's probably because they most likely paid for it and are taking time out of their busy schedule to see something through. I think it's more a responsibility thing which I think the younger generation could use more of honestly. I almost wish kids would be able to do fairly simple and fairly safe jobs. I mean we already let them mow lawns and babysit our kids for us.

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Its extremely wierd that everyone uses idenitifers according to one of my philisopher teachers it is more of the finding yourself thing which what teenagers try to do. They are trying to figure out themselves with labels and identifiers because its easier to conform than to simply be.

I mean it is not people being soft, its more people not understanding themselves and others. And that we can't get other people because most haven't been taught alot about other peoples cultures or lives.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

I am considered one by people's definitions. With me I have no freaking idea. Because I live the busiest damn life in the world.

The definition is though:
"without sexual feelings or associations or desire."

Sometimes this could mean no attraction at all, but I think I got them confused between demisexual and asexual. >.< What the hell.

But I don't think that doesn't mean asexuals can't find attraction, As there are three different types of love.


Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Commitment – Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans made with that other.


So maybe I could be, not sure as this goes more into the psychology of love.

From what I have read, the passion = sexual, while intimacy = desire, Commitment = emotional. So they want emotional love and not too interested in desire and passion as has been stated.

So they want commitment love. And are looking for that more than a sexual relationship. So by that definition yes. I am a asexual.

If we just start taking everything apart to the basis of sexualities which is sexual preference and what type of love a sexual identity prefers.

One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Uh, no, this is just laughably wrong. Asexual people are not stuck in some perpetual "why are mommy and daddy hugging without their clothes on" state of understanding of sex. They understand sex just fine, they've simply decided that they have no interest in it. As I said earlier, it's like how I feel about AoS: I understand the game just fine, I am capable of giving consent to playing it, but I choose not to.

We just don't find sex as something that is all we want. Yeah we like to be romantic but we are more interested in romance than the actual sex of someone, or having sex with someone in general.
(asexual here)

Well according to everyone I talk to I am considered one O.o

But I don't really use identifiers as much as I doesn't say anything about me.

Like if I said I was a kantian egilitarian asexual socialist liberal. That says literally nothing about me.

Woah really? I had no idea. I was pretty sure asexual meant you just don't desire it. I really need to keep track of you guys in the anime thread more btw.

Oh and are you sure you're asexual or is this just what some have considered you. One or two people have considered me things but the known definition stated i was not that term.

I am considered one by people's definitions. With me I have no freaking idea. Because I live the busiest damn life in the world.

The definition is though:
"without sexual feelings or associations or desire."

Sometimes this could mean no attraction at all, but I think I got them confused between demisexual and asexual. >.< What the hell.

But I don't think that doesn't mean asexuals can't find attraction, As there are three different types of love.


Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Commitment – Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, plans made with that other.


So maybe I could be, not sure as this goes more into the psychology of love.

From what I have read, the passion = sexual, while intimacy = desire, Commitment = emotional. So they want emotional love and not too interested in desire and passion as has been stated.

So they want commitment love. And are looking for that more than a sexual relationship. So by that definition yes. I am a asexual.

If we just start taking everything apart to the basis of sexualities which is sexual preference and what type of love a sexual identity prefers.

Well reason I ask is for a time there was another guy that we thought was asexual and he wasn't. He just wasn't interested all the time or even much of the time. As long as you can be sexually interested at any point then you're not asexual. Of course I dunno all the specifics and I could be wrong even though I'm pretty sure I read it and heard cases of asexuals. One of the asexuals mentioned actually did seem confused by certain things and were confused by things like a hickie and wondered if a woman's boyfriend was abusing her. They did mention they could love but they just didn't understand sexual desire. The whole "I'm hot! You're hot! Let's do it!" seemed confusing more to them and unrealistic. I do wonder though if being asexual can get in the way of a relationship. I mean they probably love a lot about you but some performance is desired. It isn't the only qualification sure but wanting to be satisfied a bit might be rough for some couples with an asexual member.

@skyth: Difference is those schools are openly condemned whereas this stuff seems to be spreading. Same thing true for the most part. I dislike both. It is my opinion the truth is still the truth whether you wish to believe it or not. Both sides could learn a little on that.

People like that will wither and isolate themselves because the real world is cruel.
Not everyone goes to your university and subscribes to your level of "tolerance" and people who can't face any opposition to their ideas have a very rude awakening when they get into places like the workforce and can't do a simple min wage part time job because someone called them the wrong pronouns or they were offended by a sandwich.
The world doesn't care if a bunch of moronic 20 somethings in collage/university with tumblr's and first world problems are upset.
Eventually if it does continue it will get a backlash, tolerance can only be pushed so far until it becomes oppression.
It's already beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

I always find it funny these people who claim to be so strong and independent are so weak they need safe spaces and trigger words and all that.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
People like that will wither and isolate themselves because the real world is cruel.
Not everyone goes to your university and subscribes to your level of "tolerance" and people who can't face any opposition to their ideas have a very rude awakening when they get into places like the workforce and can't do a simple min wage part time job because someone called them the wrong pronouns or they were offended by a sandwich.
The world doesn't care if a bunch of moronic 20 somethings in collage/university with tumblr's and first world problems are upset.
Eventually if it does continue it will get a backlash, tolerance can only be pushed so far until it becomes oppression.
It's already beginning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
One thing I just thought of...all this talk of needing 'safe spaces' being a liberal only thing isn't true.

How many conservative Christian schools were formed with the intention of keeping out other ideas?

I always find it funny these people who claim to be so strong and independent are so weak they need safe spaces and trigger words and all that.

As much as I agree with you I find it funny that somebody has such an ominous message with such a cutesy little avatar and the name rainbow dash. Seriously what next barney the dinosaur bringing us news of the coming apocalypse.

I'm somewhat amazed that a thread that started out as a face palm somehow managed to turn into even worse of a thread...

I don't know what the hell has happened here, but it's done