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.

dogma wrote:
One can knowingly, and joyfully, engage i shameful behavior.

This is true, but then it brings up the debate-is it then still shameful?

Mistress of minis wrote:Yep- I stand by my statement that some people need to get over themselves. Orlanth tops the list in this thread

Seeing as many posters quoted what I wrote to agree with it, I am not short of company.
Perhaps you are the one overreacting. Please cut your aggressive tone.

Orlanth wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Most of the responses here remind me why I dont mix my personal life with my gaming life. Some gamers are more open minded than the norm, but some....just arent. Guess thats just how most of the world works, expectin the gamers to be better than that, is sort of silly.

Sorry you have an off key interpretation of events in this trajedy.

1. Its not a good way to die. We know this is most likely the case because the victim was 31, she was to young to die and nothing indicated it was a suicide bid. Not exploring that last bit any further.

2. If she died as a result of her 'pleasure' the dildo might have been fouind elsewhere other than beside her. Perhaps it happened afterwards, or more likely started to happen during and the girl began to panic.

3. Strokes etc are not instant or painless in most circumstances, there is time for panic, time for pain and in this young womans case time to think. 'This is how I will be found'. I guess this sort of panic is what might have been going through her mind while she tried to discard the sex device.


Still find it funny?

Put far more elequently than I'm capable of doing so QFT

I do have a dark sense of humour at times but even I don't find the reality of this funny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:

dogma wrote:
One can knowingly, and joyfully, engage i shameful behavior.

This is true, but then it brings up the debate-is it then still shameful?

Doesn't that stem from people who "get-off" at the risk of being caught, but would still feel shame if they were caught? And is why "most" people keep it private.

Dogma am too tired for this
Been up all night on my fave website www.ladieswithboobiesthesizeofjapan.com

Your wrong
I'm right
end of

Orlanth wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Yep- I stand by my statement that some people need to get over themselves. Orlanth tops the list in this thread

Seeing as many posters quoted what I wrote to agree with it, I am not short of company.
Perhaps you are the one overreacting. Please cut your aggressive tone.

Umm, what, 2 people quoted you? If my 'aggressive' tone offends, please get over yourself and feel free to stop viewing the thread if I scare you :p

Lets see who can use the phrase "get over yourself" the most. Ill start.

I was trying to get out of bed but i couldnt get over myself.

I cant think of anymore..

What the hell does that mean anyway?!

HellsGuardian316 wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Still find it funny?

Put far more elequently than I'm capable of doing so QFT

I do have a dark sense of humour at times but even I don't find the reality of this funny.

Yes, you and Orlanth keep quoting eachother and telling each how right you are. Im sure you can both go down to the pub and share a pint and pat one another on the back now.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:

dogma wrote:
One can knowingly, and joyfully, engage i shameful behavior.

This is true, but then it brings up the debate-is it then still shameful?

Doesn't that stem from people who "get-off" at the risk of being caught, but would still feel shame if they were caught? And is why "most" people keep it private.

The point is not whether the family of the poor woman should be upset, embarassed or ashamed of what happened, but that the mere possibilty that they MIGHT be should stop a responsible reporting agency from reporting that sort of information. It's about consideration and respect being considered before profit.
As to the manner of the woman's death, I don't see anything particularly amusing about it, myself. Possibly she had a prexisting heart complaint that made it more likely she would die when it was under stress. Could equally have happened on a threadmill.
MoM: You often disparage and make light of the people you are arguing against. Why is that?

Da Boss- I make light of just about everything. I suppose to people who choose to take things too seriously, that might seem disparaging.

And Im sensing a pattern here- that its the UK fellows who seem to find this topic the most offensive. Almost seeming to take it personally, as if posting the topic were accusing you chaps of not takin care of buisness and hence its your fault the poor lass had to take matters into her own hands. (see what I did there? )

You see, if I find a thread full of offensive statements- I just stay out of it. I dont think Im better than anyone else and pass judgments on them or preach my moral values at them. I let them have thier own fun or whatever fulfillment it is theyre getting out of it.

No offense was taken, not my area of expertise hence my asking rather than stating

I only tend to quote what I agree with, if that means I need to pat them on the back and offer them a drink down the pub then by damn it, its a small price to pay

People seem quick to take offense about not knowing things

Sharing good times with people you get along with is great and all- but you cant always learn alot form people that agree with you. Diversity can bring about a deeper perspective on things, especially topics that are moral/ethical/philosophical in nature.

You see, you guys are saying what happened was wrong, which feeds the cycle of shame since you believe her family should be ashamed of what happened. If youre that offended- find out which of the local media outlets put this story out and let them know your thoughts. Finding offense at those that see the dark humor in this, wont solve the problem.

Mr Universe summed it up best I think.

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

In the digital era, privacy is pretty much becoming an illusion. Especially when ya live on an island with more cameras per square mile than anywhere else on the planet

Mistress of minis wrote:

In the digital era, privacy is pretty much becoming an illusion.

Do you think that is good or bad, or perhaps neutral?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

In the digital era, privacy is pretty much becoming an illusion.

Do you think that is good or bad, or perhaps neutral?

I think it is what it is. For example I think its good I can do an online background check on a guy before I hire him to work on my house.

I dont think its good a stalker can do the same thing to the pretty girl in the grocery store.

I think its good all the cameras can help catch criminals.

Not so good when all the cameras out there catch stuff to put on youtube that you cannot unsee....


So, I guess i have to go with neutral- as its a side effect of the information age and technology leaps. To stop it- would require intense regulation, or removal of the tech that makes it possible. And personally- Id rather be able to risk death watching porn on my laptop with a gizmo I bought online, and risk death, than go back t the dark ages of no internet

Mistress of minis wrote:
This is true, but then it brings up the debate-is it then still shameful?

Sure, as joy is not necessarily related to shame.

For example, one might feel bad about drinking a certain amount of alcohol, or eating a certain amount of cheesecake, but they might still enjoy the act and repeatedly engage in it.

I mean, I love the creature, but I also acknowledge that it isn't good for me; making its consumption enjoyable, but shameful.

This all dovetails into the debate about whether inhibitions can be regarded as facets of the individual, or as qualities injected by society. To save time, I'll say now that I'm in the former camp; with some allowance for the role of society indicated by the latter.

Da Boss wrote:The point is not whether the family of the poor woman should be upset, embarassed or ashamed of what happened, but that the mere possibilty that they MIGHT be should stop a responsible reporting agency from reporting that sort of information. It's about consideration and respect being considered before profit.

Exactly.

DJ Diddles went out with a smile on her face, sure beats fighting a losing war on cancer for years only to die so doped up because of the crippiling pain that you cant remember your family, alzheimers, burning to death, bleeding to death, crapping yourself to death or any other number of other methods to shuffle off this mortal coil. She had a healthy libido, good for her. If I was her family, i would be much more ashamed if she wrapped her car around a tree while driving under the influence or ODing on drugs. Absolutely this is a tragedy, and I do feel for her family and wish them the best. However, in a society that values a free media, this is part of the bargain.
Hell, even in sexual death department this isnt as bad as it gets. Remember David Carradine? How about this guy: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html ?

Mistress of minis wrote:Da Boss- I make light of just about everything. I suppose to people who choose to take things too seriously, that might seem disparaging.

I think that the language in your posts is slightly beyond what is polite, myself. Could just be a misunderstanding, of course. Happens easily on the interwebs.

And Im sensing a pattern here- that its the UK fellows who seem to find this topic the most offensive. Almost seeming to take it personally, as if posting the topic were accusing you chaps of not takin care of buisness and hence its your fault the poor lass had to take matters into her own hands. (see what I did there? )

I'm not from the UK, though I do live there at the moment.

You see, if I find a thread full of offensive statements- I just stay out of it. I dont think Im better than anyone else and pass judgments on them or preach my moral values at them. I let them have thier own fun or whatever fulfillment it is theyre getting out of it.

I feel like we're misunderstanding each other. None of the people who you've claimed take things too seriously have said what the woman was doing WAS shameful, or that she should be embarassed, or that society should judge her. We're simply saying that it COULD be the case that her loved ones would feel shame, embarassment, or that their grief could be made less bearable by this report. And we are saying we find that to be unacceptable, and ethically bankrupt on the part of the reporter. Not passing judgement on the woman herself, but on a culture of journalism that puts sales above ethics. I hope I've been clear enough here.

I think the point here is- people are more upset that she was masturbating- than that she died doing so.

Poking fun at society- and how it reacts to such things can give us some perspective.

Example- if it wasnt considered a 'shameful' act, would it have even been worth mentioning anything more than that she died of an apparent heart condition? Not really. Throw in some porn and a toy- and it turns into scandal.

Scandal is based on public opinions. 15 year ago saying 'ass' on network TV was unheard of- if it didnt get beepd out that was considered a huge sort of scandal. Now its rather common. 'Nipplegate' is another example of scnadal that really didnt need to be.

I guess another spin off of this- and the overall tech society thats forming- is that many computers working together(cloud computing) can work together to solve bigger problems. Many people on many computers however tend to work against eachother and create problems that dont need to exist in the first place.

It's amazing that the strawman you are constructing can stand under it's own weight.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Poking fun at society- and how it reacts to such things can give us some perspective.

Fun fact: rebels often create monolithic oppressors in order to rebel against them. They're like conspiracy theorists in that regard.

I think you'll find that few people are actually aghast at the fact that people masturbate, even if they don't particularly relish discussion of that fact.

You're conflating many different actions into a single one in order to accomplish the objective set out in the initial line.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Example- if it wasnt considered a 'shameful' act, would it have even been worth mentioning anything more than that she died of an apparent heart condition? Not really. Throw in some porn and a toy- and it turns into scandal.

Throw in details and the story becomes interesting to a larger number of people; including yourself apparently.

What amuses me the most is that you're only working to reinforce the supposed 'shamefulness' that you seem to believe is imposed by society.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Scandal is based on public opinions. 15 year ago saying 'ass' on network TV was unheard of- if it didnt get beepd out that was considered a huge sort of scandal. Now its rather common. 'Nipplegate' is another example of scnadal that really didnt need to be.

Yes, scandal is based on the opinions of people. There is no grand, overarching force which makes people see scandal. They either do, or they don't.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Many people on many computers however tend to work against eachother and create problems that dont need to exist in the first place.

Yes, people engaging in social activity create, intentionally or otherwise, codes of behavior which introduce problems into the system. For example, your insistence on regarding this incident as indicative of society's taboo creation metric is itself creating a taboo against any other metric which might insist otherwise.

Humans make seemingly arbitrary rules; accepting that will make your life much easier.

Da Boss wrote:It's amazing that the strawman you are constructing can stand under it's own weight.

Its amazing you make such a statement without some validating statements Or rather, amazing you expect it to have any merit by making it in what seems an offhand manner :p


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@dogma- How often do you get accused of over thinking things like this?

At this stage, I've been as clear as possible, and you're still making the same, irrelevant point. The only thing I can assume is:
1. You're not actually talking to the people in the thread anymore, but to society in general. I considered that before posting, but decided that since you've referenced the people in the thread specifically a few times that probably wasn't the case.
2. You don't understand what I'm talking about. I felt that was uncharitable to assume.
3. You don't care about what I'm saying and are deliberately misunderstanding me so that you can "win" the argument.

Im here for conversation, if you cant or wont validate what you say, thats your choice. But if you choose to make a vague statement- without substance- dont assume people dont understand you. And understand that disagreeing isnt a sign of misunderstanding. A cornerstone of communicating successfully is realizing something crystal clear to you, may not be so to others.

And 'winning' chats on a topic like this, on dakka, is sort of a special olympics sorta deal. Theres a few brains on this site that, whie I dont agree with them, they provide good insight and differing perspectives. Mr Dogma is sort of notorious for that

What points of my posts are confusing you? From my perspective, it looks like you've misunderstood people from the beginning of the thread, or you are making assumptions about the motives they have for posting what they are posting. I've tried to be as clear as I can.

I agree that nipplegate was blown out of proportion. We'd all be happier if we saw more nipples.

So, you equate disagreeing with confusion?

No, I don't. What do you disagree with? The impression I'm getting from your posts is that you disagree with a point I'm not actually making. Am I confused?
Do you actually disagree with the notion that journalists should take some care where grieving families are involved? Or do you disagree with some other point? Because the ONLY point I'm making is that journalists should take care where grieving families are involved.

Mistress of minis wrote:
@dogma- How often do you get accused of over thinking things like this?

I try to make a point of not interacting with people who follow their initial impressions, not only are they nominally foolish, but unfailingly boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:Im here for conversation, if you cant or wont validate what you say, thats your choice.

He already did.

Da Boss wrote:
I feel like we're misunderstanding each other. None of the people who you've claimed take things too seriously have said what the woman was doing WAS shameful, or that she should be embarassed, or that society should judge her. We're simply saying that it COULD be the case that her loved ones would feel shame, embarassment, or that their grief could be made less bearable by this report. And we are saying we find that to be unacceptable, and ethically bankrupt on the part of the reporter. Not passing judgement on the woman herself, but on a culture of journalism that puts sales above ethics. I hope I've been clear enough here.

It seems as though you ignored him.

Mistress of minis wrote:
But if you choose to make a vague statement- without substance- dont assume people dont understand you.

He didn't. In fact specifically spoke to the contrary.

Da Boss wrote:
2. You don't understand what I'm talking about. I felt that was uncharitable to assume.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Mr Dogma is sort of notorious for that

I do what I can.

FITZZ wrote: ...And soon the "Safety Police" will begin "Masturbation Monitoring"...for our own good of course.

Will we get ticketed if we'te caught not using helmets & seatbelts while using one?
I want to know where they're putting the air bags!

Side curtain FTW!

Eric

Sorry, the best part of the story is that she was a Social Worker which is to police up and fix people with problems is killed by her own D sized powered issues. She rolled the scatter die and scored a big hit in life!

I'm glad none of you were chosen to edit the Darwin Awards.