[Nuke]

obscure reference is obscure

[Mr. Vega]

If you don't get that one, you suck. No exceptions.

[NGTM-1R]

I trusted that you were capable of remembering the post that immediately preceded mine and understanding what I was responding to. Obviously I was mistaken in doing so.

Assumption is what separates the merely annoying from the MP-Ryans of the world.

Besides, I'm honestly curious about the philosophical question, it was just a good excuse. Which is, I suppose, actually pretty appropriate to the topic.

[Mr. Vega]

Are you talking about actor's vs observer's interpretation? I just go for the pragmatist approach.

[Nuke]

If you don't get that one, you suck. No exceptions.

enlighten me, then i will tell you who sucks

[Mr. Vega]

Planescape: Torment motha

[Nuke]

not in my sphere!

you really shouldnt assume everyone has played every game that youve ever played, hince obscurity

[FireSpawn]

Firespawn, I'm again going to trust that you actually understood what I was getting at before you responded with a joke. Hopefully I'm right this time.

Your trust was well placed.

Yes understand how the war on drugs is going. Yes I understand that it's not, and most likely never will, reach an ultimate conclusion. But I think if nothing was done, it'd be a lot worse.

I'm not saying that my idea is the best one, or stop it completely, but after a few cases the numbers would drop dramatically and make  alternatives disregarded today preferable.

But that is my opinion, fueled by bias and prejudice and the naive hope that every person convicted would be truly guilty. But I admit that I'm an idealist.

[SypheDMar]

Assumption is what separates the merely annoying from the MP-Ryans of the world.

Besides, I'm honestly curious about the philosophical question, it was just a good excuse. Which is, I suppose, actually pretty appropriate to the topic.

Just got something to add that's somewhat related. If a woman wants to go to a club, there's apparently a "dress code" that they are supposed to wear. Makeup, dressing, and the like. In this scenario, they're pressured into wearing clothes that they wouldn't otherwise wear anywhere else.

[MP-Ryan]

Assumption is what separates the merely annoying from the MP-Ryans of the world.

I'm... not sure how to take that?

[Mikes]

Now can we all get back to being friendly with each other? This isn't worth it.

Isn't this the whole point of the thread? Getting along requires some basic courtesy.

Basic courtesy does not involve inconsiderate use of words like: Rape, Faggot, Gay, Jewish, et cetera.


Using a word like rape casually brands a person as a casual mysogonist, if not worse.
That's a fact. It's part of our culture's and society's norms and conventions which can be measured.

At best, someone throwing around such words is simply inconsiderate/ignorant or too young to know better.
If they do know better and use those words anyways then that implies approval, a lack of empathy, and in the specific case of "rape" a latent dislike towards women.

I will not be friendly with that kind of person. Period.

[MP-Ryan]

You can debate the intent of the women's choice of clothing, but it is irrelevant. Other people don't get to decide what a short skirt means to her.

I don't actually disagree with this statement, but it now strikes me that perhaps I should. It seems to be fundamentally at odds with MP-Ryan's previous post about the observer's rather than the actor's interpretation being paramount.

Convince me why it's different for visual presentation over verbal.

Then convince me why I can't put up swastikas everywhere and claim they're the Native American good luck symbol and nobody else's opinion matters.

It's not as interesting a philosophical question as you might think.

It is still up to the observer to decide what meaning they interpret visually as well - while she clearly has her own interpretation of what her appearance means, she should also be aware that the observer will form their own judgement and act accordingly, the same as with speech.

Here's the part where this gets uninteresting:  the observer is still bound by moral, ethical, and legal codes in their behaviour that results from the interpretation.  They can judge all they like, same as with speech, but that does not give them the right to judge or act in a way that breaks moral/ethical/legal codes, something that often gets forgotten by people who do engage in victim-blaming (not saying you're one of them).  It's that troublesome classical liberalism harm principle ruining everyone's fun again.

[FireSpawn]

"Jewish" is inconsiderate? Bloody anti-semite! I should take my belt off and give you a thrashing.

But humour aside, this thread is quite an eye opener and a good exercise for our debating muscles.

I was going to make a 'Master Debater' joke, but realised that this thread isn't exactly the right place for it.

[Mr. Vega]

Firespawn, I'm again going to trust that you actually understood what I was getting at before you responded with a joke. Hopefully I'm right this time.

Your trust was well placed.

Yes understand how the war on drugs is going. Yes I understand that it's not, and most likely never will, reach an ultimate conclusion. But I think if nothing was done, it'd be a lot worse.

I'm not saying that my idea is the best one, or stop it completely, but after a few cases the numbers would drop dramatically and make  alternatives disregarded today preferable.

But that is my opinion, fueled by bias and prejudice and the naive hope that every person convicted would be truly guilty. But I admit that I'm an idealist.

Other peoples' definition of idealism is very strange to me. I always believed it meant "do everything you can to make life as close to the ideal as possible". As opposed to "rigidly adhere to an abstract doctrine regardless of what might work in the real world".

When Nixon began the drug war, 80% of the funding that was spent initially went to drug treatment programs. This worked - both numbers of addicts and the crime rate in affected areas fell substantially. As the seventies became the eighties more and more money was shifted to incarceration and arresting every last low level dealer and addict, you know, for idealism, zero tolerance. The inner city became a battleground as jobs fled. If you want to observe the consequences of the modern drug war, just walk through any ghetto in Detroit or Baltimore.

Not that that's very analogous to our current subject of debate, but it's a perfect example of what happens when you start valuing abstract ideals over what's actually best for everyone.

[General Battuta]

Mr. Vega I hope you have seen The Wire, you would love it

[Mr. Vega]

Oh I have, I have. But I didn't want to give the impression that I just formed my opinion on the matter from watching it and all of David Simon's interviews. Hell, even Milton Friedman condemned the drug war on the same grounds.

[Mikes]

"Jewish" is inconsiderate? Bloody anti-semite! I should take my belt off and give you a thrashing.

Unless you like losing your pants it might be advisable to read posts more carefully before taking your belt off

Inconsiderate use of a word != use of a word is inconsiderate.

[Mr. Vega]

Mikes shut up. He was joking. You broke our momentum!

[Mr. Vega]

You can debate the intent of the women's choice of clothing, but it is irrelevant. Other people don't get to decide what a short skirt means to her.

I don't actually disagree with this statement, but it now strikes me that perhaps I should. It seems to be fundamentally at odds with MP-Ryan's previous post about the observer's rather than the actor's interpretation being paramount.

Convince me why it's different for visual presentation over verbal.

Then convince me why I can't put up swastikas everywhere and claim they're the Native American good luck symbol and nobody else's opinion matters.

It's not as interesting a philosophical question as you might think.

It is still up to the observer to decide what meaning they interpret visually as well - while she clearly has her own interpretation of what her appearance means, she should also be aware that the observer will form their own judgement and act accordingly, the same as with speech.

Here's the part where this gets uninteresting:  the observer is still bound by moral, ethical, and legal codes in their behaviour that results from the interpretation.  They can judge all they like, same as with speech, but that does not give them the right to judge or act in a way that breaks moral/ethical/legal codes, something that often gets forgotten by people who do engage in victim-blaming (not saying you're one of them).  It's that troublesome classical liberalism harm principle ruining everyone's fun again.

Exactly. We don't give a damn what they think, what matters is the break between their opinion and action.

[deathfun]

Using a word like rape casually brands a person as a casual mysogonist, if not worse.
That's a fact. It's part of our culture's and society's norms and conventions which can be measured.

At best, someone throwing around such words is simply inconsiderate/ignorant or too young to know better.
If they do know better and use those words anyways then that implies approval, a lack of empathy, and in the specific case of "rape" a latent dislike towards women.

I disagree. I don't approve the act of raping, but I have used it to describe a severe loss before.
What does that make me then? An exception?

GOD DAMMIT I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POST STOP WARNING ME ABOUT NEW POSTS