Ah, right... the silent majority opposes all those crazy politicians, but still keep voting 'em right back into office.
Yes, people will oppose many issues if they are explicitly brought to the people's attention that they would otherwise ignore and have no motivation to seek out and discover.
Now it is, yes. Slowly, politicians are recognizing that, and will continue to do so.
You're admitting that the representatives of the people are out of sync with the people at least sometimes. That's a good step.
Nope. Often this is a good thing, because on the whole, people are stupid and short-sighted. When it comes to a personal issue, like "I don't want to pay for an archaeologist", they choose one way. When the issue is phrased differently, like "I want my children to know about the native culture in this area", they choose differently. It's the job of government to figure out what specific policies lead to the greater good. The people, by vote or by petition, simply set that long-term target.
Wrong - what's going on in your example is there is more than one way to effect learning about the native culture in your area, and phrased vaguely, people tend to treat that as "if there exists a method that would do X that I support, then I support X."
You are claiming that people who say they support X support any method of bringing about X, so no matter how the government implements X, it is the will of the people. But again that's just wrong. If you really believe that, perhaps that's why you have such a low opinion of people. You're taking a common rhetorical trick and treating it as some kind of truth.
People feel morally justified in everything they do, because people are very strongly biased, regardless of laws or any fixed morality.
I know you're just exaggerating since you know people do in fact have the emotion of guilt and it comes in play sometimes.
But I see what you're saying and you're largely right. It's really a separate issue from what I'm saying though.. certainly I didn't say the ONLY time people feel morally justified breaking the law is when a majority of society disagrees with the law. There is still a notable difference in that issues with broad public support mean more people think it's morally justified to break the law even if they themselves aren't doing it. Few people who don't rob banks think it's ok for others to rob banks. Plenty of people who don't smoke pot think it's ok for others to smoke pot. To me that feels like a different level of moral support from society.
Assume one pays for a genuine fashion item but is delivered a good counterfeit (only an expert could tell the difference): is the buyer to be held liable for that?
Society as a whole has determined that the cultural and scientific value of the bones is worth more than any "inconvenience" to you, so society's government has declared it illegal to knowingly (or negligently) "grind it to dust".
No we haven't. Some elected officials may have decided that in their role as representatives of those who value those bones. That doesn't mean EVERYBODY values those bones. It just means a small group made a big enough noise to be heard.
Your statement is as incorrect as saying that society as a whole has determined that marijuana should be illegal, but in fact that's wrong and many polls show a majority of people favoring its legalization. The will of the people isn't always reflected in our laws. When they are out of whack, people feel morally justified in breaking those laws.
Based on the responses here, aside from a few stick-in-the-mud types who sound like complete douchebags, I'd guess your average citizen would say "No that's stupid, this couple shouldn't have to pay."
I don't think you can do it if you're starting from scratch.. that build you linked to on Newegg doesn't have a good enough video card to actually more than match the new consoles. Sony said their GPU produces 1.8 TFLOPS, whereas the Radeon 6670 in that build produces 768 GFLOPS. That's just one measure of many, of course, but it's the only hard number I've heard about the PS4's GPU performance.
An $800 gaming PC will beat the consoles pretty easily in terms of power. Of course prices come down pretty quickly in the PC world, so perhaps next year's $529 budget gaming PC will do the trick.
That said, I agree with you about PCs being the way to go, and most people don't have to start from scratch and the cost of upgrading a few components is a lot lower. A $250 video card upgrade in an otherwise modest PC built in the last few years will probably beat both consoles.
I'm making the switch to PC gaming after being an xbox fan for years. Considering you can pick up a video card with similar capability to the new consoles for around $150 there isn't a huge barrier to at least trying it.
A child is physiologically incapable of understanding what sex means to an adult,
Understanding the meaning of something has to do with the mind and physiologically has to do with the body, they're pretty much opposites aren't they?
But anyway if anything, lack of understanding means exposure to porn shouldn't have any influence on children. If a child doesn't understand Greek, and you read him a very dirty pornographic story in Greek, that will have no impact at all.
That's wrong, they have legal standing as arbitration tribunals whose judgments are enforced by the real court system. It's just like the arbitration clause you find in so many terms of service in the US.
The issue with applying sharia to arbitration is that sharia is a discriminatory framework of laws based on Islam and has no business being legally recognized by any secular government.
The usual defense of sharia courts isn't that they have no legal standing in the UK (which is wrong) but that there are other religiously based tribunals as well, such as Jewish ones, so it's discriminatory to single out sharia courts as bad.
Well believe it or not that isn't much of a defense and any rational person who doesn't want the government enforcing religious edicts made by racists and sexists would say to ban those too.
I think it would be very interesting for a Muslim business owner to include sharia court arbitration as a term of use of his service, and then see that tested, since all the non-Muslim customers who have to go through arbitration would obviously be at a legal disadvantage. I haven't heard of such a case one way or the other though.
You're confusing criticism of sharia and the parallel sharia court system with some statement about the pervasiveness of domestic violence. That's on you.
Some people are predisposed to hoarding cats. Some people end up with 37 cats in their apartment. But who would say cats can (not always, or possibly even often) cause people to become cat hoarders. I mean technically it's true, in that it's a trigger for a certain type of person, but it's quite clear the person was already crazy.
No there's a difference between actively seeking out people of a certain type versus letting people's private lives stay private even if some zealous member of the public brings the employee's private life to your attention. Then there's allowing employees to have some degree of personal freedom even at work, which I think is a good thing. Certainly I think trans gender people want the right to live their trans lives even at work, even if it makes others uncomfortable or whatever. Why shouldn't that respect be afforded to others who make you uncomfortable?
And bigots don't suck for everybody to deal with, that's an exaggeration. And you know, lots of people don't like dealing with some group.. some people don't want to associate with women. Some don't like minorities. Some don't like young people (this seems common in doctor selection for instance). I think you've got an unrealistic view of society as 98% virtuous and upright and 2% racist asshole bigots, but it's A) not that black and white and B) not so one sided.
If women were physically stronger than men, I wouldn't be angry that women were physically stronger than men. That would be "the way it is." It's odd that you list that as a grievance. Are you mad at God and Mother Nature?
Why are men getting passed over for promotion? Because they aren't as good at the job? Because they lack confidence and are more easily taken advantage of? Because they prefer stability and fitting in to taking risks?
What industries are men being locked out of? The undesirable ones like garbage collection? The physically demanding and dangerous ones like logging?
I don't see why one being less likely to need time off shouldn't be considered a merit. Can you explain that? It may be okay for a big corporation to turn a blind eye to the productivity of its individual workers, because it has enough workers that only the average matters. But to a small company that could make a huge difference.
One approach that could address that is to recognize that society needs children but society doesn't pay for it right now.. employers pay for it. A more fair approach would be that the government pays for the costs associated with maternity leave (including hiring and training a temporary replacement who knows he/she will be fired when the mother returns) since really at that point the mother is doing a service for society, not the employer.
I don't know about you in particular but often feminists like to point out cases where women need some special accommodation, but not so much where men need it. What do you think? When do men deserve some economic and legal advantage over women due to their biology?
If I'm at a show that provides information on new and upcoming somethings, I can't see how it helps my mission there for something else that distracts me and has nothing to do with the show to be right there distracting me.
That's an easy one -- because the purpose of this thing isn't to gather information on new and upcoming somethings. If that were the purpose, you'd just go to e3.com and read a no-nonsense spec sheet about the upcoming somethings.
I'm pretty sure it's an excuse for people in the industry to get together and have a good time, while also accomplishing a little bit of useful work to justify their travel budget.
ask yourself how you'd feel if every both was manned by shirtless male bimbos in really right pants. Oh, suddenly you're seeing why women might see it as a kinda hostile environment?
That is a great point about why women could see it as hostile, though I'm not sure I agree that that's relevant to e3. 1. Maybe the target audience isn't women.. and there's nothing wrong with that, just like the audience for male strip clubs isn't straight guys, and there's nothing wrong with that. 2. I think women as objects of art are more appealing to both sexes than men as objects of art.. I can't count the number of times I've heard women calling other women beautiful, but very rarely do you hear guys just randomly talking about how handsome some actor du jour is. (An interesting consequence of this is the objectification of young women. If you go to the imdb discussion page of a beautiful young actress, young meaning less than like 15, you'll see a bunch of women talking openly about how beautiful she is... and a few men, who are called creepy. So in some ways it's actually more acceptable for women to objectify other women than it is for men, which reduces the strength of your argument that e3 is hostile to women.)
Sex helps sell stuff. So does being friendly. Why should the friendliness of your sales person matter since it has nothing to do with the product? Does that mean friendly people are being objectified? They are certainly being "used" to sell products. Is that bad? If not, how is it different than sex?
Yeah, but I wouldn't consider it to be a serious consequence if people stop associating with you. I was talking about stuff like getting fired.
After all it's not illegal to stop being someone's friend because they're black, but it is illegal to, say, reject someone's mortgage application because they're black. So why should unpopular speech be different? Remember the guy who wanted to burn the Koran in Florida, but the town refused to give him a permit? That's unfair and should be illegal in my opinion. It would certainly be illegal if the city stopped issuing burn permits to people based on their race.
Self identification. You think of yourself as a man (I assume). The GP identifies herself as a woman.
I know.. I'm wondering what the distinction is between a guy who identifies with women vs. a guy who identifies as a woman. What does it mean to feel that you are a woman? Does it require a belief in a soul, and a gendered soul specifically?
I'm assuming you don't believe that gender is a social construct, since that means our gender is defined by society's view of us, not some inherent feeling. What do you think decides which way that feeling points?
The classic straw man/woman technique. Someone complains in a moderate, reasonable and rational way about a gender bias issue.
It's only your opinion that the complaint was moderate and reasonable. Others see it as pretty extreme.
To me, a moderate feminist view is that women should be treated equally, they should have access to employment, etc. All things I support. Calling events like E3 sexist is a radical feminist view to me, because it shows an elevation of ideology over harmless aspects of human nature. These people are the kind of people who hate men and the things men do, even harmless (literally not causing harm to anyone) things like planning/attending events with attractive girls.
This makes you an extreme misogynist. You won't even entertain the idea that there is a problem and consider any women arguing about it to be some kind of raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic with extreme fringe views and some kind of megalomania.
Even if you have some special knowledge about the OP... what on earth are you talking about? Is Trepidity (597) some kind of clue that the author is a woman and their argument is being dismissed because of that fact?
Well yeah that's what I'm explaining. The reason people leave those kinds of comments anonymously is that some people freak out when they hear an opinion they find objectionable, and there's nothing our society does to constrain those reactions from having serious consequences.
I was just correcting someone who thought it was because they are ashamed. There's a difference between shame and fear right?
Heh what did I say that was bigoted? I have plenty of un-pc opinions but I don't think I've shared any today, at least not on purpose. Basically you're an idiot.
whether you'll have compatible interests, even if we restrict solely to sexual compatibility. Maybe if your turn-ons are solely breast size or something, that's all you need to judge, but that's not the case for all of us.
Compatible interests are a turn on for you? That means that finding out someone has a compatible interest makes you sexually aroused? I find that non-credible, but remotely possible -- and if true, very odd. Can you give some examples? The things I'm imagining like "Oh... you're a Michael Moore fan? That's so hot!" just don't make any sense.
It is not a turn-on to see women desperately flirting with me when I know all they want is for me to buy their product.
I agree with that, but I don't think that's the function of "booth babes." Do they actually try to sell stuff to you, or is that left to the guys in the booth?
I mean I've never been to a big convention like E3, but I'm thinking of something like cute waitresses at a restaurant. You don't order more from a cute waitress because she somehow sold more to you, and I've never noticed restaurants with cute waitresses charging more than others. They just make the environment more pleasant.
It's not even just their looks, it's that pretty people look happier and more energetic. It's like how people at retirement homes like to have kids around, it makes them feel younger and happier. In a sense that's objectifying kids, but so what. Environment is very important, and the people in the environment affect it a lot.
Empathy is important but so is the ability to talk about things honestly. Making people afraid to say what they feel about this issue doesn't change how they feel and it doesn't change how they act whenever they get a chance. It only makes it worse... the guy who can't say what he feels balances that by being even more extreme when he CAN get away with it.
I've never considered it before, but was this always a backdoor into same sex marriage? Sex change, update database, marry, update database, sex change, update database? Or did the government stop people from getting that 2nd sex change, or automatically cancel the marriage?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, right... the silent majority opposes all those crazy politicians, but still keep voting 'em right back into office.
Yes, people will oppose many issues if they are explicitly brought to the people's attention that they would otherwise ignore and have no motivation to seek out and discover.
Now it is, yes. Slowly, politicians are recognizing that, and will continue to do so.
You're admitting that the representatives of the people are out of sync with the people at least sometimes. That's a good step.
Nope. Often this is a good thing, because on the whole, people are stupid and short-sighted. When it comes to a personal issue, like "I don't want to pay for an archaeologist", they choose one way. When the issue is phrased differently, like "I want my children to know about the native culture in this area", they choose differently. It's the job of government to figure out what specific policies lead to the greater good. The people, by vote or by petition, simply set that long-term target.
Wrong - what's going on in your example is there is more than one way to effect learning about the native culture in your area, and phrased vaguely, people tend to treat that as "if there exists a method that would do X that I support, then I support X."
You are claiming that people who say they support X support any method of bringing about X, so no matter how the government implements X, it is the will of the people. But again that's just wrong. If you really believe that, perhaps that's why you have such a low opinion of people. You're taking a common rhetorical trick and treating it as some kind of truth.
People feel morally justified in everything they do, because people are very strongly biased, regardless of laws or any fixed morality.
I know you're just exaggerating since you know people do in fact have the emotion of guilt and it comes in play sometimes.
But I see what you're saying and you're largely right. It's really a separate issue from what I'm saying though.. certainly I didn't say the ONLY time people feel morally justified breaking the law is when a majority of society disagrees with the law. There is still a notable difference in that issues with broad public support mean more people think it's morally justified to break the law even if they themselves aren't doing it. Few people who don't rob banks think it's ok for others to rob banks. Plenty of people who don't smoke pot think it's ok for others to smoke pot. To me that feels like a different level of moral support from society.
Assume one pays for a genuine fashion item but is delivered a good counterfeit (only an expert could tell the difference): is the buyer to be held liable for that?
Believe it or not I read about a similar law being proposed in New York City.
Society as a whole has determined that the cultural and scientific value of the bones is worth more than any "inconvenience" to you, so society's government has declared it illegal to knowingly (or negligently) "grind it to dust".
No we haven't. Some elected officials may have decided that in their role as representatives of those who value those bones. That doesn't mean EVERYBODY values those bones. It just means a small group made a big enough noise to be heard.
Your statement is as incorrect as saying that society as a whole has determined that marijuana should be illegal, but in fact that's wrong and many polls show a majority of people favoring its legalization. The will of the people isn't always reflected in our laws. When they are out of whack, people feel morally justified in breaking those laws.
Based on the responses here, aside from a few stick-in-the-mud types who sound like complete douchebags, I'd guess your average citizen would say "No that's stupid, this couple shouldn't have to pay."
I don't think you can do it if you're starting from scratch.. that build you linked to on Newegg doesn't have a good enough video card to actually more than match the new consoles. Sony said their GPU produces 1.8 TFLOPS, whereas the Radeon 6670 in that build produces 768 GFLOPS. That's just one measure of many, of course, but it's the only hard number I've heard about the PS4's GPU performance.
An $800 gaming PC will beat the consoles pretty easily in terms of power. Of course prices come down pretty quickly in the PC world, so perhaps next year's $529 budget gaming PC will do the trick.
That said, I agree with you about PCs being the way to go, and most people don't have to start from scratch and the cost of upgrading a few components is a lot lower. A $250 video card upgrade in an otherwise modest PC built in the last few years will probably beat both consoles.
I'm making the switch to PC gaming after being an xbox fan for years. Considering you can pick up a video card with similar capability to the new consoles for around $150 there isn't a huge barrier to at least trying it.
A child is physiologically incapable of understanding what sex means to an adult,
Understanding the meaning of something has to do with the mind and physiologically has to do with the body, they're pretty much opposites aren't they?
But anyway if anything, lack of understanding means exposure to porn shouldn't have any influence on children. If a child doesn't understand Greek, and you read him a very dirty pornographic story in Greek, that will have no impact at all.
That's wrong, they have legal standing as arbitration tribunals whose judgments are enforced by the real court system. It's just like the arbitration clause you find in so many terms of service in the US.
The issue with applying sharia to arbitration is that sharia is a discriminatory framework of laws based on Islam and has no business being legally recognized by any secular government.
The usual defense of sharia courts isn't that they have no legal standing in the UK (which is wrong) but that there are other religiously based tribunals as well, such as Jewish ones, so it's discriminatory to single out sharia courts as bad.
Well believe it or not that isn't much of a defense and any rational person who doesn't want the government enforcing religious edicts made by racists and sexists would say to ban those too.
I think it would be very interesting for a Muslim business owner to include sharia court arbitration as a term of use of his service, and then see that tested, since all the non-Muslim customers who have to go through arbitration would obviously be at a legal disadvantage. I haven't heard of such a case one way or the other though.
You're confusing criticism of sharia and the parallel sharia court system with some statement about the pervasiveness of domestic violence. That's on you.
Some people are predisposed to hoarding cats. Some people end up with 37 cats in their apartment. But who would say cats can (not always, or possibly even often) cause people to become cat hoarders. I mean technically it's true, in that it's a trigger for a certain type of person, but it's quite clear the person was already crazy.
No there's a difference between actively seeking out people of a certain type versus letting people's private lives stay private even if some zealous member of the public brings the employee's private life to your attention. Then there's allowing employees to have some degree of personal freedom even at work, which I think is a good thing. Certainly I think trans gender people want the right to live their trans lives even at work, even if it makes others uncomfortable or whatever. Why shouldn't that respect be afforded to others who make you uncomfortable?
And bigots don't suck for everybody to deal with, that's an exaggeration. And you know, lots of people don't like dealing with some group.. some people don't want to associate with women. Some don't like minorities. Some don't like young people (this seems common in doctor selection for instance). I think you've got an unrealistic view of society as 98% virtuous and upright and 2% racist asshole bigots, but it's A) not that black and white and B) not so one sided.
But what are the reasons for those things?
If women were physically stronger than men, I wouldn't be angry that women were physically stronger than men. That would be "the way it is." It's odd that you list that as a grievance. Are you mad at God and Mother Nature?
Why are men getting passed over for promotion? Because they aren't as good at the job? Because they lack confidence and are more easily taken advantage of? Because they prefer stability and fitting in to taking risks?
What industries are men being locked out of? The undesirable ones like garbage collection? The physically demanding and dangerous ones like logging?
I don't see why one being less likely to need time off shouldn't be considered a merit. Can you explain that? It may be okay for a big corporation to turn a blind eye to the productivity of its individual workers, because it has enough workers that only the average matters. But to a small company that could make a huge difference.
One approach that could address that is to recognize that society needs children but society doesn't pay for it right now.. employers pay for it. A more fair approach would be that the government pays for the costs associated with maternity leave (including hiring and training a temporary replacement who knows he/she will be fired when the mother returns) since really at that point the mother is doing a service for society, not the employer.
I don't know about you in particular but often feminists like to point out cases where women need some special accommodation, but not so much where men need it. What do you think? When do men deserve some economic and legal advantage over women due to their biology?
If I'm at a show that provides information on new and upcoming somethings, I can't see how it helps my mission there for something else that distracts me and has nothing to do with the show to be right there distracting me.
That's an easy one -- because the purpose of this thing isn't to gather information on new and upcoming somethings. If that were the purpose, you'd just go to e3.com and read a no-nonsense spec sheet about the upcoming somethings.
I'm pretty sure it's an excuse for people in the industry to get together and have a good time, while also accomplishing a little bit of useful work to justify their travel budget.
ask yourself how you'd feel if every both was manned by shirtless male bimbos in really right pants. Oh, suddenly you're seeing why women might see it as a kinda hostile environment?
That is a great point about why women could see it as hostile, though I'm not sure I agree that that's relevant to e3.
1. Maybe the target audience isn't women.. and there's nothing wrong with that, just like the audience for male strip clubs isn't straight guys, and there's nothing wrong with that.
2. I think women as objects of art are more appealing to both sexes than men as objects of art.. I can't count the number of times I've heard women calling other women beautiful, but very rarely do you hear guys just randomly talking about how handsome some actor du jour is. (An interesting consequence of this is the objectification of young women. If you go to the imdb discussion page of a beautiful young actress, young meaning less than like 15, you'll see a bunch of women talking openly about how beautiful she is... and a few men, who are called creepy. So in some ways it's actually more acceptable for women to objectify other women than it is for men, which reduces the strength of your argument that e3 is hostile to women.)
Sex helps sell stuff. So does being friendly. Why should the friendliness of your sales person matter since it has nothing to do with the product? Does that mean friendly people are being objectified? They are certainly being "used" to sell products. Is that bad? If not, how is it different than sex?
Yeah, but I wouldn't consider it to be a serious consequence if people stop associating with you. I was talking about stuff like getting fired.
After all it's not illegal to stop being someone's friend because they're black, but it is illegal to, say, reject someone's mortgage application because they're black. So why should unpopular speech be different? Remember the guy who wanted to burn the Koran in Florida, but the town refused to give him a permit? That's unfair and should be illegal in my opinion. It would certainly be illegal if the city stopped issuing burn permits to people based on their race.
Self identification. You think of yourself as a man (I assume). The GP identifies herself as a woman.
I know.. I'm wondering what the distinction is between a guy who identifies with women vs. a guy who identifies as a woman. What does it mean to feel that you are a woman? Does it require a belief in a soul, and a gendered soul specifically?
I'm assuming you don't believe that gender is a social construct, since that means our gender is defined by society's view of us, not some inherent feeling. What do you think decides which way that feeling points?
The classic straw man/woman technique. Someone complains in a moderate, reasonable and rational way about a gender bias issue.
It's only your opinion that the complaint was moderate and reasonable. Others see it as pretty extreme.
To me, a moderate feminist view is that women should be treated equally, they should have access to employment, etc. All things I support. Calling events like E3 sexist is a radical feminist view to me, because it shows an elevation of ideology over harmless aspects of human nature. These people are the kind of people who hate men and the things men do, even harmless (literally not causing harm to anyone) things like planning/attending events with attractive girls.
This makes you an extreme misogynist. You won't even entertain the idea that there is a problem and consider any women arguing about it to be some kind of raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic with extreme fringe views and some kind of megalomania.
Even if you have some special knowledge about the OP... what on earth are you talking about? Is Trepidity (597) some kind of clue that the author is a woman and their argument is being dismissed because of that fact?
It's probably related to the same phenomenon with airline stewardesses.
Well yeah that's what I'm explaining. The reason people leave those kinds of comments anonymously is that some people freak out when they hear an opinion they find objectionable, and there's nothing our society does to constrain those reactions from having serious consequences.
I was just correcting someone who thought it was because they are ashamed. There's a difference between shame and fear right?
Heh what did I say that was bigoted? I have plenty of un-pc opinions but I don't think I've shared any today, at least not on purpose. Basically you're an idiot.
whether you'll have compatible interests, even if we restrict solely to sexual compatibility. Maybe if your turn-ons are solely breast size or something, that's all you need to judge, but that's not the case for all of us.
Compatible interests are a turn on for you? That means that finding out someone has a compatible interest makes you sexually aroused? I find that non-credible, but remotely possible -- and if true, very odd. Can you give some examples? The things I'm imagining like "Oh... you're a Michael Moore fan? That's so hot!" just don't make any sense.
It is not a turn-on to see women desperately flirting with me when I know all they want is for me to buy their product.
I agree with that, but I don't think that's the function of "booth babes." Do they actually try to sell stuff to you, or is that left to the guys in the booth?
I mean I've never been to a big convention like E3, but I'm thinking of something like cute waitresses at a restaurant. You don't order more from a cute waitress because she somehow sold more to you, and I've never noticed restaurants with cute waitresses charging more than others. They just make the environment more pleasant.
It's not even just their looks, it's that pretty people look happier and more energetic. It's like how people at retirement homes like to have kids around, it makes them feel younger and happier. In a sense that's objectifying kids, but so what. Environment is very important, and the people in the environment affect it a lot.
Empathy is important but so is the ability to talk about things honestly. Making people afraid to say what they feel about this issue doesn't change how they feel and it doesn't change how they act whenever they get a chance. It only makes it worse... the guy who can't say what he feels balances that by being even more extreme when he CAN get away with it.
I've never considered it before, but was this always a backdoor into same sex marriage? Sex change, update database, marry, update database, sex change, update database? Or did the government stop people from getting that 2nd sex change, or automatically cancel the marriage?
I see them as mentally ill, certainly, but I don't see that as a bad thing
If it's not a bad thing to be mentally ill, why use the word ill?