Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Feel free to substitute objectionable or another adjective you feel appropriate to describe things that are wrong and bad that people ought not to do.

I'm making a point that it's a way to not look beyond something. If you label a person, thing, activity, etc. as evil you took away what else was going on and what brought them to that.

Also did you read any of my post? Why do people never consider any of the things I mentioned as evil? Is it because evil is only in play when it's people vs. people? Can only people be evil towards other creatures? It's been documented animals sometimes kill for fun. Is that evil? What if it doesn't know about your opinions on evil, care or even know enough to care?

Because good/evil are not absolutes, they're social constructs. Also, all words are "made up", that is how language happens.

Since animals aren't actually intelligent, that we kill and eat them for food is really beyond my ability to care. We're an omnivorous, predatory species. Get used to that. Again, with the pets... animals aren't intelligent life like human beings. We've domesticated several species that would otherwise not exist, because they can't compete with us. Horses would cease to exist if it wasn't for the Kentucky Derby, alright? The only reason they're still around is because people are breeding them for domestic usage. If they weren't, even what few wild horses remain would have been pushed to extinction by the spread of mankind.

So what we look at in good/evil, really, is how a person treats his/her fellow human beings. Frankly, I don't care if one is the most-racist piece of filth to walk around in the streets so long as your racist thoughts don't prevent you from treating people of color (or not, if you're a racist POC) like you would those of your preferred ethnic expression. The Golden Rule is basically "don't be a donkey-cave", and if people could master that simple task, we would all be a lot better off.

 Smacks wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I wondered if a guy had a son as well when he mentioned he found his warhammer figures and the characters from frozen fighting. It was just a question but I was considered both creepy and stereotyping by somebody that made a new account just to tell me I was.

I think that's a growing problem. A lot of people are scared to engage with children out of fear that showing any interest might be misinterpreted. I even saw an experiment where a child is left alone in a busy shopping centre, and no one actually dares to walk up and ask her if she is alone or needs help.

my sister made me play dream phone and once dressed up in my pajamas and shoved the crotch area with socks to pretend it was me. Undressing her dolls for the lulz at their lack of fully formed privates at an age that was too young to even start having sexual thoughts does not need to be skewed by others. Siblings fight and act weird. As long as it's not too crazy you should stop freaking out.

Personally I wish people cared less about stupid things like that and more about things like how at 3-5 years old I had to run under my bed to escape my dad beating me over telling him to 'be quiet'. I still have memories of cowering in a corner after saying similar and having him beat me at about 3-5 years old.

That's terrible, I'm sorry that stuff happened to you. I hope that through education and a lot of soul searching, you are able to break the cycle of abuse, and never inflict that kind of suffering on anyone else, no child should ever be forced to play dream phone,

I can laugh at the dream phone comment. I only fear for guys forced to watch twilight or those poor emasculated men that are forced to watch women's talk shows like doctor phil or 'the view'. My favorite comment is when they're like 'Guys are in the audience too." when you see them looking unhappy alongside their significant other or possibly the guy is gay.

While we're at it I've heard plenty of women like '300' even if it's considered a macho flick just because they like muscled half naked men with bare chests (even though they actually wore armor). I'm more surprised our society is ok with that but the one or two shown women's boobs in the whole movie equals 'not okay'. People are weird. I might be happy when the 'free women's boob' movement gets some proper momentum ;P. Long as it's mostly at the beach and some other areas.

@psienesis: Personally I don't care that we eat animals or plants. We have to and I'm ok with it. I just mean to say if somebody is going to throw out terms like good and evil they have to realize it's something people have different opinions over.

I find you saying animals not being intelligent so it's ok to eat them to be ridiculous. I don't see how being smarter should give you the right to treat something like crap. You don't beat up the mentally handicapped or babies because they're dumb. I'm also guessing you've never had a dog or known about the smarter animals in the animal kingdom.

Once again as I said I don't care too much about the whole good/evil nonsense but if you're going to worry so much about how people treat each other than you should at least care for your pets a little more.

Anyway the point was more for the mod I was talking to considering his/her views rather than anything else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Your insistence that I should respect any sort of belief equally contradicts your own stated principle, which demands that my beliefs should be equally respected.

At the same time, you demonstrate the principle I am arguing in favour of, that social pressure is used to try to modify people's thinking and behaviour.

I had a feeling you'd go on about this but no. My point was I was teasing you for one of the things you and your group supposedly stand for and your failing of doing it. You know like not offending anybody. I have no such qualms and it was not something I stand for specifically. There's also a general rule that if you infringe on somebody else's rights of the same kind that you don't get to keep them. For instance it's like saying you have the freedom to have slaves. You're preventing them from being free yet demand the freedom to enslave them so you are in the wrong.

Yes sometimes social pressure modifies people's thinking and behavior and both sides are to blame here. You can't tell me the PC group doesn't shame people into compliance but yes so do the offensive people that are harder to offend.

It has nothing to do with how "smart" an animal is. It's the fact that they're animals, not people. They don't have civilization, art, poetry.... the vast majority of animals cannot even recognize themselves, as an individual being, in a mirror. They exist to be eaten, they're prey animals, and we are a predatory species. That's the long and the short of it.

 Psienesis wrote:
It has nothing to do with how "smart" an animal is. It's the fact that they're animals, not people. They don't have civilization, art, poetry.... the vast majority of animals cannot even recognize themselves, as an individual being, in a mirror. They exist to be eaten, they're prey animals, and we are a predatory species. That's the long and the short of it.

Oh boy oh boy you will be surprised to hear some apes have society and some animals actually use simple tools. Your thinking here that they exist to be eaten is kind of funny. What is the point of humanity then? Somehow we don't exist to be eaten? That's an arrogant comment to make on a pulpit. Hopefully you at least imagine there is intelligent life out there other than humans. What if to them we're simple creatures? If you think that then I apologize a little for some comments but still I think some animals have crude forms of intelligence and for apes civilization.

We don't eat apes. We eat cows. Chickens. We domesticate dogs, cats and other small mammals.

 Psienesis wrote:
We don't eat apes. We eat cows. Chickens. We domesticate dogs, cats and other small mammals.

Yes and so do I but if we're getting into good and evil and philosophy then the whole taking pets away from their parents thing and farms seems to have more weight. Once again I'm more talking to Kilkrazy and not you about the whole good/evil concept. Often times it can be an iffy concept that is heavy on human perspective.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
We don't eat apes. We eat cows. Chickens. We domesticate dogs, cats and other small mammals.

Yes and so do I but if we're getting into good and evil and philosophy then the whole taking pets away from their parents thing and farms seems to have more weight. Once again I'm more talking to Kilkrazy and not you about the whole good/evil concept. Often times it can be an iffy concept that is heavy on human perspective.

Believe me, with many animals once a baby needs no further care from its mother she will dump it in a heart beat. The vast majority of domesticated animals are like this, the exceptions are usually reserved to being pets.

But even when thats the case, they're still only animals. Some animals share various traits that humans have, but none of them are human and even approach our level of intelligence or social complexity.

Really, the only animal that comes close to a human level of social structure and long term social relationships with other members of its species are Elephants. And they're still a long way away from our level.

Actually, a few birds do, as do some marine mammals, but I'd still eat them because they are delicious and I can.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Actually, a few birds do, as do some marine mammals, but I'd still eat them because they are delicious and I can.

Exactly. We eat meat because its an advantageous source of nutrients.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Actually, a few birds do, as do some marine mammals, but I'd still eat them because they are delicious and I can.

Exactly. We eat meat because its an advantageous source of nutrients.

Delicious. Don't forget delicious. I don't eat McDonalds because it is a good source of nutrients. Cheap, delicious calories.

Well duh. And bacon man, bacon. All those vegimitarians are gonna die from lacking essential bacon nutrients.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
You are extremely rude.

My words are often very direct, but I read what people say and try to address it with substance.

Do you want to compare that to the rudeness of starting a thread with no interest in hearing any other POV or respond to the pages of opinions already given, and instead just repeat what you thought before the thread started?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think that the defining point in politeness and ethics lies in how you treat others. People are free to hold whatever ridiculous thoughts they want, as long as they treat others decently and within the law....or at least that is how its supposed to work.

And I think you're completely wrong. People should use whatever language they think best carries their thoughts, because they are, afterall, just words. What matters is they've shown the respect to really think about their ideas, both before and during the discussion.

As Keynes said, "Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking."

There's also the most brilliant irony that the guy who hates PC is fixated on people being polite.

For me part of the problem of PC is worrying about what all people think and trying to offend nobody which is ridiculous because somebody will always be offended. I tend not to worry too much about my speech. That said if I care about some people and realize some issues are sensitive to them I might try to go easy on them because I care about those people. My issue with PC is that it tries to offend nobody and acts like it understands everybody when the thoughts of everybody are impossible to know (or at least easily).

Also some of the people that claim being offended often don't see things deeper. They make something offensive out of something vague. For instance the little rhyme in 'pillars of eternity' that was changed for supposedly being offensive to transgender for a guy being embarrassed he had sex with a guy. Now we don't even know if he was drunk and thought it was a girl but it was really a man. It could've been a feminine male that was gay or bisexual. Maybe they were both drunk. Also if this game is based in a fantasy setting maybe the poem is based in it as well and people trying to have a sex change can't. I mean it's fantasy so maybe it's possible but you don't know for sure. Not only that but very few people are transgendered and I'd be surprised if most of the offended parties were that way.

My biggest issue with the PC crowd is every single stupid complaint I've heard has forced a change no matter how small it was or the event being taken out of context.

The PC crowd forced a scientist wearing a shirt to apologize and cry when really he was wearing the shirt to make some special lady in his life happy. He did this on tv for this woman (possibly his wife) to make her even more happy which was very sweet. Sure it was a bad choice but people overreacted. I'm surprised I wish back to the days parents or at least moms would find the shirt a little loud for children. Now you can't show it to anybody for fear of being offensive.

Basically PC has ruined everything. The sadder part is these days if you happen to be more of the majority heterosexual white people and esp. male (which is a large crowd) you have to be careful about anything you do whereas if you're gay, female or non-white you can get away with doing various things. For instance if a white comedian esp. male said half the offensive things male black comedians said they'd never hear the end of it.

--------

I mean personally I am not into any type of religion. I believe there's a god or gods but not the bible type. I realize the nation is mostly Christian and looking at phrases like 'under god' barely matter to me as I haven't had to say the pledge in forever and it's a big who cares by now. I don't care if people like Christmas and like what it is because I consider it free presents day so I don't give a crap if others find it offensive (though I do rib Christian sometimes that it was a pagan holiday that they covered up with their own). The only issue I have these days with Christmas is having to do all the shopping and spending ridiculous amounts of money for it but this is more of an age problem. The only real issue I have with Christianity is the groups that get in the way of gay people marrying and the people that try to force Christianity on others. Also a weird issue I know about is where they tell you to swear the truth on a bible in court. I mean what if you don't believe in anything in the bible. What relevance would that hold then? It's just kind of an outdated practice is all.

So to sum it up I'm a non-Christian but I don't wish people to change everything for or against Christianity. I mean you realize the 'under god' part of the pledge has almost no importance in comparison to preventing gay marriage. Even then marriage is just a silly little celebration/professional show that you are 'super together' now. I also don't see how Christians could prevent gay marriage if the court system allowed a marriage in court. Sure religions don't have to marry two people but a court system could and should. Also a funny poem is no big deal in comparison to women having acid splashed on their faces in the middle east. I find it crazy all the non-issues people complain about these days. I guess nobody can be offended anymore.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
The PC crowd forced a scientist wearing a shirt to apologize and cry when really he was wearing the shirt to make some special lady in his life happy.

As per the previous page warning, probaby best to let that sleeping dog lie

(no offense Sebster)

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
For me part of the problem of PC is worrying about what all people think and trying to offend nobody which is ridiculous because somebody will always be offended. I tend not to worry too much about my speech. That said if I care about some people and realize some issues are sensitive to them I might try to go easy on them because I care about those people. My issue with PC is that it tries to offend nobody and acts like it understands everybody when the thoughts of everybody are impossible to know (or at least easily).

I'd recommend reading the article on the previous page. It explained the weird ideas around PC very well. First it points out that PC is so vague as to be almost meaningless, but more or less amounts to any time someone mentions they are more sensitive about an issue than the speaker... but only if is a typically left aligned issue. So a request not to use a racial slur is PC, but a request not to say the Lord's name in vain isn't PC. Because reasons.

And from there you see what PC basically is - a very vague concept used by one side of politics to shut down debate on what sensitivities should and shouldn't be respected.

Now, I'm not saying that all sensitivities should be respected, but each should actually be discussed on its merits, instead of having a bunch of people just shout PC lots of times.

My biggest issue with the PC crowd is every single stupid complaint I've heard has forced a change no matter how small it was or the event being taken out of context.

Most PC complaints that bounce around the internet and real world media are either fictional, taken wildly out of context, or shut down very quickly. Very few actually ever amount to anything, and those that do are rarely anything more than trivial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
As per the previous page warning, probaby best to let that sleeping dog lie

(no offense Sebster)

Cheers. I was tempted to respond, but your post encouraged me not to. And I quite liked the sleeping dog pun

 sebster wrote:
Cheers. I was tempted to respond, but your post encouraged me not to. And I quite liked the sleeping dog pun

Well, that is an adorable beagle

Technically it is a cavalier king Charles spaniel.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Cheers. I was tempted to respond, but your post encouraged me not to. And I quite liked the sleeping dog pun

Well, that is an adorable beagle

As a previous fan of beagles when I was young I don't think it looks much like a beagle. I remember the snout being much longer on a beagle and possibly with less floppy, fluffy ears.

These days I prefer furry dogs and small if possible. Dogs that shed or have dander are also a nightmare (though usually shorter haired dogs seem to shed).

This is horribly off-topic though but I do love dogs esp. if it's a dog in my particular interests.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Technically it is a cavalier king Charles spaniel.

Yes! I'd recognise a 'Cav' anywhere.

My family had one while I was growing up. She had the sweetest disposition of any dog you'd meet.

Well, I thought it looked like a beagle a friend's family used to have. My mistake

If it weren't for Frazzled I'd have trouble pointing out a wiener dog.