|
Who What Now posted:So, have you just never heard of the Naturalism Fallacy, or...? No, I generally don't set much stock in arguments based on repeating the names of fallacies so I don't have all the really good ones bookmarked (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where they often let the smaller, weaker siblings win and don't intentionally try to maim one another or draw blood? Yeah, what about it? Anyone trying to intentionally maim another person with their towel whip should probably be seen as a bad person. No one is talking about that but you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:As near as I can tell, Owlfancier is literally claiming that only a masochist can enjoy roughhousing or any level of pain sensation. Then you need to take some remedial reading classes, because your comprehension skills are some of the absolute worst I've ever seen. Or is it that you just don't care what Owl is saying because you view him as a woman and therefore lesser in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:No, I generally don't set much stock in arguments based on repeating the names of fallacies so I don't have all the really good ones bookmarked That's an awfully wordy "no u." Did you have anything of substance to say or are you still busy thinking about bird loving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Appealing to nature as a moral compass is not a good idea. So puppies playing with eachother is... immoral? Or certainly not something that can be looked at as a positive, at least?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:So puppies playing with eachother is... immoral? Or certainly not something that can be looked at as a positive, at least? Jesus christ you're loving dense as a dying star. STOP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Neither is anybody else. Whipping the poo poo out of one another isn't normal childhood behavior. Actually, roughhousing is extremely normal childhood behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That's an awfully wordy "no u." Did you have anything of substance to say or are you still busy thinking about bird loving. You're kind of loving up this thread right now :\
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Actually, roughhousing extremely normal childhood behavior. Are those things the same, dude I totally trust to be the custodian of normalcy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:You're kind of loving up this thread right now :\ Oh I am? Me? You sure about that? Glyph how does it feel that the only one backing you up is bestiality guy. Does that give you pause at all. Edit: Oh wait sorry the Grand Wizard's got your back too. In fact he's probably got some literature for both of you to read. His friends are really into "the natural order" of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Oh I am? Me? You sure about that? I didn't even bring up the duckfucking, man...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:So puppies playing with eachother is... immoral? Or certainly not something that can be looked at as a positive, at least? Animals are not sapient, moral arguments don't apply to them, and you can point to nature and find just about any example of how a society works, that doesn't justify it. For example, I propose we model our society on the naked mole rat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Some deep breaths and some listening to what people are saying instead of dwelling on how attacked they make you feel would do you a lot of good. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You've made it clear you don't want to learn anything today. We get it. Nobody's going to unpop your collar, relax.  quote:Oh boy, a reverse tone argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Animals are not sapient, moral arguments don't apply to them, and you can point to nature and find just about any example of how a society works, that doesn't justify it. What are some positive attributes of the naked mole rat that you feel we should emulate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:So puppies playing with eachother is... immoral? Or certainly not something that can be looked at as a positive, at least? Morality doesn't apply to animals and the habits of animals aren't a basis for morality. If you have any other questions about the most basic tenets of philosophy that even small children can grasp, please feel free to ask me further.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Naahh bro. You gotta actually learn what terms mean before you try to throw them around. Otherwise you just end up looking dumb. Nerses IV posted:What are some positive attributes of the naked mole rat that you feel we should emulate? Another extremely on-topic post from our resident animal sex expert. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Morality doesn't apply to animals and the habits of animals aren't a basis for morality. If you have any other questions about the most basic tenets of philosophy that even small children can grasp, please feel free to ask me further. So this post: Who What Now posted:Where they often let the smaller, weaker siblings win and don't intentionally try to maim one another or draw blood? Yeah, what about it? was just you being a small child, or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
You know I was joking before about you not being able to read, but now... yikes. I don't know how it's possible to miss someone's point so badly. And TB's already a woman so you can accuse her of being one like you did to OF, so now all you have left is pretending you know what a tone argument is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:So this post: I had assumed you weren't being serious and already knew your argument was fallacious so I was pointing out how your bad argument didn't even apply. Now I see that you really are that uneducated and ignorant and were being deathly serious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
TB and WWN are really making GBS threads up this thread. Please do not encourage them in their attempts to lock out discussion they disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I had assumed you weren't being serious and already knew your argument was fallacious so I was pointing out how your bad argument didn't even apply. Now I see that you really are that uneducated and ignorant and were being deathly serious. No, it seemed like you got my point pretty much exactly, and then suddenly decided it was wrong because I'm just too stupid. Way to look like a really smart guy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Holy poo poo dude, the loving irony hurts and I do not consent to the pain you are causing me here. That, sort of tautologically, is what the word means. Not everybody enjoys pain, and even fewer enjoy it in the same context. For something quite so niche and personal it is better not to socialize it as being a totally normal thing that everyone does together, you want to be normal, right? So you'll join in. It is something you should work out for yourself with the people you want to work it out with. I ended up having this argument in the alt right thread but the only alternative to "normal" is not "abnormal", it is possible to reject the concept of normativity entirely and acknowledge that some things are quite personal and will differ greatly from person to person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Plenty of people are suggesting that pranking is inherently problematic but nobody is even trying to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Naahh bro. You gotta actually learn what terms mean before you try to throw them around. Otherwise you just end up looking dumb. It's a type of ad hominem, and you appear to be building quite a collection of them over your last several posts. Do you honestly expect people to try and engage with you when that's all you have to offer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That, sort of tautologically, is what the word means. I agree with this. If you don't want to roughhouse or whatever, it shouldn't reflect poorly on you. But it shouldn't be a problem if you DO, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Plenty of people are suggesting that pranking is inherently problematic but nobody is even trying to defend it. You've been defending pranking this whole time, dude. Can you not even follow your own posts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:I agree with this. If you don't want to roughhouse or whatever, it shouldn't reflect poorly on you. But it shouldn't be a problem if you DO, either. It becomes a problem if you do and other people don't want to, however. For actions that require others to participate the right of the unwilling to not participate does trump the right of the willing to perform the action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You've been defending pranking this whole time, dude. Can you not even follow your own posts? Nobody is defending the idea that pranking is bad. Like, with arguments. Except Owlfancier who is claiming that pain is a bad thing by default. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It becomes a problem if you do and other people don't want to, however. Of course. But from what you were saying, I had the distinct impression you felt ALL roughhousing was inappropriate, that consensual pain could only be enjoyed if you were a masochist or something ie, sexually "abnormal."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Nerses IV posted:Of course. But from what you were saying, I had the distinct impression you felt ALL roughhousing was inappropriate, that consensual pain could only be enjoyed if you were a masochist or something ie, sexually "abnormal." Sexual normality/abnormality is another silly idea that could stand to be let go of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Isn't this the point of the whole topic about Patriarchy affecting men? Well there's an example right there, someone who opposes hazing rituals and other immature locker room behaviour being a guy makes things "awkward."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sexual normality/abnormality is another silly idea that could stand to be let go of. Also agreed. As always, it appears people arguing on the internet are actually much more similar than they are different, and yet...
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nobody is defending the idea that pranking is bad. Like, with arguments. Except Owlfancier who is claiming that pain is a bad thing by default. That's not true, TB tried to tie pranking to racist arson attacks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's not true, TB tried to tie pranking to racist arson attacks. Naw, she 's just been trying to start a meme that I'm klan member. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Naw, she 's just been trying to start a meme that I'm klan member. It's okay, apparently I'm in to bestiality. Tiny Brontosaurus definitely seems like a person with thoughtful and well-reasoned opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Isn't this the point of the whole topic about Patriarchy affecting men? Well there's an example right there, someone who opposes hazing rituals and other immature locker room behaviour being a guy makes things "awkward." Yeah, pretty much. OF was accused of not even being a man because he opposed hazing rituals. The idea of a man not being 100% down with getting shoved in lockers and kicked in the balls was so alien it made people's brains stop working. The Kingfish posted:Naw, she 's just been trying to start a meme that I'm klan member. If the hood fits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
GlyphGryph, I think there's a couple of problems here: I don't think you're correct that anyone is socialised to think pain is inherently bad, because pain is inherently bad - it feels bad, it hurts, that's the point of pain. If anything it's the other way around - people are socialised to think pain is good or acceptable, because it's the cost of something worthwhile, or the physical emanation of spiritual wrongs, or proves that you are alive or whatever. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these ideas but they're not as rare as you seem to think. Also, I don't think girls are taught to especially avoid or dislike pain more than boys. There are lots of kinds of pain only women go through on a regular basis (e.g. body hair removal) and they seem to put up with it pretty okay! I think it's more likely girls engage in less rough play than boys because girls are taught not to be physical creatures, which probably has its roots in a whole mess of grown-up misogyny that's not relevant to how children play. When you suggest that people should be more accepting of rough play and the pain involved in that, I think this gets people's hackles up because you are prescribing pain for others in order to improve them (which as mentioned sounds very similar to "bullying is actually good" nonsense). I'm sure it's all very well and good for two close friends to physically hurt one another in a bit of horseplay and thereby become more sensitive to other people's pain tolerances, but you must know that's not going to describe all or even most incidents of rough play between children. Children are already bad at understanding and judging consent, so I personally was alarmed to see you say that we should encourage less communication and less explicit consent between children playing because it might "ruin the game" (jesus christ). This doesn't seem like a good way to teach children to understand boundaries! More importantly, it doesn't sound like a good way to protect vulnerable or otherwise marginalised children from harm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Its easy to see here how some men might feel unwelcome in feminist discussion. Roughhousing as described in this thread is big part of male culture, it sad to see it disregarded so thoughtlessly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Its easy to see here how some men might feel unwelcome in feminist discussion. Roughhousing as described in this thread is big part of male culture, it sad to see it disregarded so thoughtlessly. Strange that you would care about feeling welcome. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That, sort of tautologically, is what the word means. First off, I really want to thank you for having this conversation with me. Even if I feel like you've drawn some wrong conclusions or we've miscommunicated, you have actually been engaging and you haven't resorted to personal and I do genuinely appreciate it. We still very clearly disagree about things, but that's okay. But no, that's not actually what masochism means. Masochism is usually used to refer to specifically seeking pain, esp. in a sexual way as a fetish, because it is experienced as pleasurable, not merely being open to it. Like many psychological terms it is not used to describe the common human experience but the extremes thereof. Someone who enjoys a spot of roughhousing is no more a masochist than someone who enjoys a clean floor is OCD. Different people have different levels of pain aversion. OwlFancier posted:Not everybody enjoys pain, and even fewer enjoy it in the same context. quote:For something quite so niche and personal it is better not to socialize it as being a totally normal thing that everyone does together, you want to be normal, right? So you'll join in. I agree that people should not socialize it as "normal", but should certainly socialize it as "acceptable". quote:I ended up having this argument in the alt right thread but the only alternative to "normal" is not "abnormal", it is possible to reject the concept of normativity entirely and acknowledge that some things are quite personal and will differ greatly from person to person. Okay, if you're saying it's not normal because you reject the concept of normality... why would you bring up normality to begin with? You're the one who did that. My complaint was not about normality, it was about the fact that many children are socialized to have their existing inclinations suppressed. We can disagree about that, but the problem comes with the fact that you seem to see your own viewpoint as something worth forcing on other people. I don't think either of our viewpoints need to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 19:49
|
|