Jump to content

TikindiDragon

Members
  • Content Count

    7,805
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TikindiDragon


  1. Re: Farming - as a profession it has one of the highest rate of suicide going. Farmers can't exactly walk out of their jobs because it's not just a job, it's their *home* too. They're also not employed by someone else - it's *their* business. If it goes under, they lose everything.

     

    Supply and demand is also a little broken when it comes to farming, because by-and-large farmers don't get any say in the price of what they produce. It's the supermarkets - the big buyers - dictating the prices. And, in some cases, those prices are actually *below* the cost it's taken to produce something. How many other manufacturers do you know that are effectively forced to sell everything they make at a loss?


  2. @Buggzter - As it happens several of us on here would greatly like to be strelised but run into a problem where Doctors simply refuse to do so. If you're under 35 with no children it's almost impossible to get it done. You run into the age-old argument of "Well you might want children one day.". It *should* be a choice for those of us that know we never want children, but that option is just not available. So we have to rely on imperfect methods of contraception (or just not have sex - but many of us *are* adult and are in long-term relationships and I don't think that level of intimacy and bonding is something we should be denied with our partners either).


  3. So why do vegans remove /all/ animal products from their diets, even the ones where animals aren't harmed? I'm having a hard time understanding that.

    Not Vegan (or even vegetarian) but I can explain this one a little:

     

    While the basic theory of things like eggs are not inherantly harmful to the animal, many vegans take issue with modern intensive farming practises - such as battery hens. Intensive farming practices often *are* harmful to the animals, and the vegan chooses to remove all producs with the potential to have been produced that way from the diet.

     

    FYI milk is a bit of a borderline one. Cows only produce milk in large quantities if they've had a calf. Buuuut, if the calf is drinking the milk the people aren't. So the calves are often removed from the cows at very young ages (and depending on the particular farm may simply be culled, or reared seperately for beef). Vegans, again, find this cruel. Which is why dairy is excluded.

     

    Personally I think most of the ethical issues can be avoided by being careful about where you scource your animal products from - in my case it is often the local farm shop (which reminds me, I need to go get some stuff for dinner) where I *know* nothing is kept in a battery fashion, and also what happens to the calves when they're taken from their mothers.

     

    Unfortunately the reason peple do keep sticking their noses into what other people are doing is ethics. To people that feel strongly enough there is no difference between preventing animal cruelty and preventing child cruelty. So in very much the same way people have campaigned against smacking because they feel it's ethically wrong people campaign against killing animals for food. The people that *don't* have an ehtical problem with it are, of course, merely confused but the people that do.


  4. That is a good example. However, it isn't exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Person A did not have the information of person B about the street lights. This is another set of data that, had person A been exposed to, should have logically altered his time schedule to leave earlier to accomodate for it. Thus, this is not an example of two people with the same data and information coming to seperate, equally rational answers.

     

    It is also not an example of why emotions should be placed in logical arguments. Emotions are illogical so putting them in a logical argument would be illogical. The addition of the new point is not an illogical data set so, thus, it cannot be compared to emotions.

     

    Let's take childbirth. There is a mother who discovers that her fetus does not have a brain and will never develop one. Logic says that this fetus will not form into a functional member of society, will most likely die within the first few days and will be a waste of resources while it is alive. Logic says get rid of it.

    Emotions come in with the silly notion that perhaps a miracle will happen and the baby will turn out alright. It doesn't have a brain so it won't be able to see, hear, touch, taste or smell. But emotions say give birth to it. This is illogical but overpowers the system and many choose to keep the fetus and give birth to it in hopes it will turn out okay. This is a waste and we can see emotions corrupting the logical system and skewing it away from rationality.

    This is why emotions should not be counted as a variable. They ultimately interfere and overpower the other, logical variables in the dataset and usually lead to irrational decisions.

    Incorrect - emotions change the bahviour of the people around you. If you fail to take emotions into account as a variable then your predictions of what people *should* do will never match up to what they *actually* do.

     

    You are trying to keep your logical judgements in the purely theoretical sphere - I am pointing out to you that in the actual, practical world life doesn't function that way. Not only that, but by trying to make life function that way you would actually be creating the kind of chaos in the herd that you have said is the ultimate in undesireable.

     

    Take your example of the mother. Let us say that the medical profession has acted purely logically and terminated the fetus for her. They also logically reason that the woman is perfectly healthy, and capable of bearing further children, and discharge her home with no further support.

     

    However the woman, being unable to properly mourn a child she was never able to hold, commits sucide on what should have been the anniversary of the child's birthday.

     

    If you applied logic, and did not take the woman's emotions into account as a variable, you would have said that, being healthy and capable of bearing more children, she should have been fine after the termination of the malformed child. If her emotions *had* been taken into account as a variable one would have realised that she required counselling to help her through the emotional process. It can, further, be argued that if the woman had been allowed to hold her child she would have had an easier time coping with it's loss.

     

    As you, yourself, have said humans are not rational creatures. Attempting to impose pure logic and rationality on the other humans around you only serves to alienate them.

     

    Incidentally I am not sure wether or not you realise it, but you are coming across with an extremely holier-than-thou attitude. You have stated that you consider logic to be the only moral choice, you have stated that you consider humans in general illogical, and you follow this by stating that any emotions lead to irrational decisions. Wether you mean to or not, the conclusion that most people *will* drawn from that information is that you look down upon the rest of the human race for being illogical and emotional and that you hold yourself as being more worthy because you eschew that.

     

    It is not a nice attitude.


  5. Of course logical deductions need an axiom but they do not need emotions. Emotions are actually notorious for distorting reason and should be minimized in any logical deduction. You keep referencing different, logical conclusions but I have yet to see a single one where one logical conclusion was more logical than another. I invite you to provide me with such a case where the logic is not distorted too much by emotions (which are considered illogical and, thus, should not be included in a logical argument) and the answers are both logically sound, where one is not more rational than the other.

     

     

    And Shievien, I agree. Inaction is an action and choosing not to stop something when you can (if you can, reasonably) should be a crime. Depending on the circumstances, naturally.

    The emotion does not have to come from the person making the logical deductions. If there is any other human involved *their* emotions have to be taken into account as a variable, otherwise the conclusion drawn will differ from the actual progression of events.

     

    Also, as you yourself have admitted, it is impossible for any human to be entirely emotionless. If A (humans) cannot be B (emotionless), and C (logic) cannot be achieved without B (lack of emotional input), then A (humans) cannot attain C (pure logic).

     

    That said you are failing to notice the problem I was attempting to point out in your arguments - namely that you assert that humans are creatures of emotion, and then go on to say that the only correct way of looking at the world is to ignore emotion entirely. Doing so is actively ignoring a variable in any argument, which can only ever lead to drawing an incorrect conclusion.

     

    To demonstrate a point on how conclusions can differ depending on which variables are accounted for:

     

    Person X knows that point A is 10 miles away from point B. The speed limit on the road is 30 miles per hour. Person X logically concludes that it would take 20 minutes to get from point A to point B. This is simple mathematics. For an appointment at point B at 11:00 person X therefore leaves point A at 10:40.

     

    Person Y knows in addition that the 10 miles between point A and point B contains 6 intersections. Understanding this, person Y concludes that probability suggests they are likely to stop at at least 3 of them. Person Y would therefore depart point A at 10:30 in order to arrive at point B for an 11:00 appointment.

     

    Person X made a completely logical deduction, and came to a completely logical conclusion based on the information they had available. Person Y, understanding a greater number of variables, came to a different, likewise logical, conclusion. Whether person X arrives at their appointment on time now comes down to their luck in arriving at every intersection on a green light. Person Y, on the other hand, is unlikely to be late because they understood all of the variables involved. Person X was not illogical, nor did they come to an illogical conclusion, but because they failed to take into account all the variables the end result is not the one they expected.

     

    You can see the difference, yes? Variables effect outcome. By failing to take emotions into account you become person X in this example - the conclusions you draw may be logical, but the emotions of other people mean that the outcome of your dealings with them will not be the one you expect.

     

    This can then be taken further. You have, again, said yourself that chaos and instability in a group or society is bad. If a person fails to take into account the emotions of those around them then there is a high probability of their actions *causing* said chaos and instability - because the outcome of their actions will not necesarily be the outcome they predicted.

     

    One cannot, therefore, completely ignore emotion when dealing with humans - because the emotions of other humans *will* effect their behaviour.

     

    I would also like to point out a logical conclusion that can be drawn from some of the statements you have made.

     

    Morality aligns with rationality. If something is irrational, it is amoral.

    Humans are not rational creatures. Nothing in our history points to us being rational.

     

    I can therefore conclude from these two statements that you believe nothing humans do can be considered moral.

     

    I would also like to quote something else you have said during this discussion

    God (Or the concept of him) always struck me as a major ass.

    I find it interesting that, while you are now falling back onto defending yourself with 'logical' reasoning and arguments, you have posted things that are pure emotional reaction.

     

    Edit to add: You hvae also said this

    Athiesm is technically a religion. Not an organized one, mind you, but a religion.

    And I therefore find it quite odd that you were recently denying that you deified logic.


  6. Pudding - you are, unfortunately, missing something quite major in your view and application of logic. Logical progression has to come from a defined starting point. There can be no [x] therefore logically [y] if you do not define [x] to begin with. It is impossible for a human (*any* human, including yourself) not to drawn on life experience when understanding something. That is the reference points with which we frame our understanding of the universe. But differing experiences will lead people to percieve [x] differently, which can lead to very different logical progressions from the same point. You have even noted of yourself that your experiences have changed the way you perceive things - and your perception of anything will colour your logical progression, because your perceptions form the basis of your understanding.

     

    It is possible for two entirely different, but both utterly logical, conclusions to be drawn from the same set of data. This does not mean that one conclusion is false and the other true - especially in circumstances where 'false' and 'true' are not quantifiable. A large number of human experiences cannot be reduced to numbers, and it is also impossible for every person to be aware of every possible variable.

     

    It is also impossible for decisions based purely and soley on logic that takes no account of emotion to be broadly beneficial to society. For the simple reason that, as you have pointed out, humans are creatures of emotion. Emotion therefore becomes a variable - and if you deliberately discount variables from your calculations then the end result of an action will not be the one you expect it to be.

     

    One cannot possibly hope to understand the world around them if one discounts a major variable in the behaviour of ones fellows. They will constantly do things that one is not expecting. And it will appear illogical. If, however, one was to factor emotions in as a variable in the logical reasoning then ones predictions become that much more accurate.


  7. Self preservation and group preservation are rational and those were exactly what I was describing. Don't pin you not understanding on me not describing it properly. It's about survival and that is exactly what I outlined here.

     

    Rationality is simply logic and reasoning. It's looking at the possible outcomes of an action to see how it affects others. If you aren't able to determine weither an action is rational or not, it further proves the point that humans are irrational.

     

    Let's take the example of killing someone in self defense. Well, if you do not kill them, what happens? You'll die. Others will die. There will probably be a man hunt of police trying to track down this individual. It'll be a waste or resources and life.

    If you kill them, what will happen? In exchange for one death, others wont have died. You'll live. The investigation by the police will be limited. That is a rational killing. The course of action has the least amount of resources wasted.

     

    See? Rational thinking. No emotions required, just logic and reasoning.

    Lets take another example then, shall we? A train is running loose down a track towards an interchange. If you take no action, then multiple adults on a level crossing will be killed. You have the option to change the points at the interchange, but doing so will cause the train to run over a single mother with her child in a pram.

     

    The logical, rational thing to do would be to change the points, would it not? Sparing the lives of multiple productive adults in place of a single adult and an unproductive child. But would you do it? And would taking that action be moral?


  8. You know I find myself being really quite saddened and disappointed by this thread recently. We've had some great debates and discussion in the past, but recently it's turned into the 'rip apart and bash Christianity' thread. I can honestly say I've never seen any other religion treated on here the way some of you are now treating Christianity - including Islam & Judaism, both of which descend from the same root.

     

    Newsflash - it does not make you seem like the bigger people. You are not debating the finer points of behaviour in the religion, you are attacking the concept of it in it's entirety. I see people rampantly ignoring anything good that may be contained in scripture in favour of portraying the Christian God in the worst possible light. Worse, in most cases this is not being presented as a simple reason for you leaving, but it is being repeated over and over to anyone who dares to say that they are Christian.

     

    You know what? I *am* Christian, and I'm mighty tired of reading this. I don't now, nor ever have, agreed with some of the things done in the name of my religion. But I am deeply, deeply saddened and disappointed to see the repeated attacks at the very root, the very existence, of the God I believe in. I had come to expect a lot better of the people on this forum, many of whome I have shared respectful debates with in the past. I am sure you would not subject Noble to such an attack on her beliefs, it is beyond me why you think it is in any way not hurtful (which, bear in mind, is something I have seen several of you repeat should be a guiding principle) to do the same to mine.


  9. We've got this. Utterly addictive little game. I've had to drag myself away from it for the TESO Beta this weekend, but guess what I'll be back to next week?

     

    It's very much like Settlers used to be. And I played that game for almost 18 hours straight at one point. I think Banished really needs an in-game clock, because *damn* it's easy to lose track of time while playing it!


  10. Well... I am not entirely certain whether empathy is the correct word for what I was thinking, more so just the first one that came to mind.

     

    Therefore, emphasis on this part: The basal instincts of a social animal.

     

     

    (There are people who are true antisocial sociopaths ... but no amount of religion is going to change their natures. That's just how they are hardwire-structured.)

    The thing is - a lot of people that are lacking those 'basal social instincts' will abide by rules because of the fear of punishment. It's one of the reasons we have jails - they're a deterrant. If everyone had, and reacted to, these 'basal social instincts' there would be no need for them. The simple fact is that a lot of people really *don't* have those instincts. It doesn't make them bad people, it just means they need to be taught. If they're taught well, they become useful functioning members of society - people you'd never know that they didn't naturally posses such empathetic instincts. Taught badly... well, see the jail population.

     

    I'm not saying here that religion is nescesary to teach people those rules. It's a useful tool for doing so, but it isn't by any means the only one. But morality of the kind you are thinking simply isn't hardwired for a relatively sizeable segment of humanity. And if no one tries to teach them in any way - if there's just an expectation that they'll have an innate understanding of 'right' and 'wrong' - that's when you get problems.

     

    Many of you will have had this sense of 'right and wrong' instilled in you by your parents at a very, very young age. "It's not nice to hurt people." is one of the earliest phrases most of us hear. But we do have to be taught what 'hurt' is, and that we need to avoid doing it. Or have you never watched kids in the playground? There's an awful lot of very casual nastiness in young children.

     

    Bluntly put - I think it's erroneous to claim that most people have an innate sense of right and wrong. Most people were *taught* right from wrong by their parents, who learnt it from theirs - going back centuries. People can and do break away from the lessons their parents taught them, but that doesn't change that the lessons were tuaght in the first place.


  11. Empathy. Generally the basal instincts of a social animal.

    Non funtioning in a surprisingly large portion of the population, fyi. People on the autism spectrum all struggle with empathy, as do people with any one of a large number of 'behaviour disorders'. There are also plenty of poeple in this world who are *not* diagnosed with any kind of mental illness that take great delight in the anguish and suffering of others (we most commonly see them in the form of internet trolls).

     

    So.... saying that empathy is the sole basis for determining right and wrong actually leaves a large number of people utterly out of the equation.


  12. Seriously? I think that any god that puts 'No working on the Sabbath' but not 'Don't rape people' into the ten most important rules has some problems. Shall we make working on Sundays (or Saturdays, whatever) illegal? How about for emergency workers?

    Technically 'Thou Shalt not committ Adultery' would cover 'don't rape people' fyi.

     

    *takes no real part in the conversation because he's simply deeply saddened at the vitriol on display towards Christianity*


  13. *shrugs* Personally I do use the term "Biologically female" to describe myself. I do begin to suspect there's a bit of a division here between 'older' gender non-conforming people, and the somewhat younger ones that are more active in internet social justice circles though.

     

    I'll be honest, I actually don't like being defined by an acronym. I'd rather be referred to as biologically female than as dfab. I find the acronym to be far more dehumanising to me than a term which is technically accurate. (Which, I guess socky, means you now know at least one trans person that prefers 'biologically' over 'd_ab'.).

     

    I'm not exactly going to sit here and argue the point, because broadly I don't care, I just thought I'd toss the opinion of this one trans guy in for you all to mull over. Partly because, reading through some of it, I've had more of a feeling that there are people here speaking for me, when I'm perfectly capable of speaking up for myself if something bothers me. It always slightly baffles me to see people getting offended on my behalf when I haven't actually been offended in the first place.


  14. I know that every Sunday, the Holy Mass for the Roman Catholic Church is the same through all the churches. It was said that the archbishop decides on this Gospels/readings. How exactly is it chosen. tongue.gif Sorry I'm Protestant and we don't have those stuff.

    I think there are a couple of variations on the Mass depending on the 'Rite' being used. The Roman Catholic Church (like several others, including the Anglican Communion) issues a Lectionary which cycles through the Bible in it's reading over the course of 3 years. Daily Lectionaries cycle through faster. The Eastern Churches use a Lectionary with a 1 year cycle.

     

    Incidently there *are* Lectionaries in use by some Protestant denominations - it's not a practise restricted to the Roman Catholic Church.


  15. tongue.gif So many questions swarming in my head!

     

    So what are the different branches of Christianity? I know Catholic (Roman Catholic), Protestant (which is further divided to Baptist, Evangelist, etc.), Born Again, and Iglesia ni Cristo. I know there's more to that.

    Well Protestant is pretty much any denomination not considered Catholic. So, basically, everyone but the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc (pretty much anything with 'Orthodox' in it's name). There are also the 'bridge' groups that are not in full communion with Rome, but which maintain full Apostolic sucession - including Anglicanism and the Old Catholic churches, as well as certain Lutheran branches. And then you get into Protestant churches... and there are many, meany denominations of those.


  16. These educational links proves that women can be just as strong as men:

    http://www.stumptuous.com/ebben.html

    http://www.themarysue.com/gender-dichotomy-study/

    Uh, did you actually read those through? The first one actually states:

    Women possess about 40% to 60% of the upper-body strength and 70% to 75% of the lower-body strength of men.

    It further notes that in terms of absolute strength that, yes, men would be stronger than the women using the same work out. Broadly due to physiological differences such as greater height, but also due to hormone levels which are known to influence muscles development.

     

    Which is kind of the opposite of the point you were attempting to make.

     

    The second study is actually looking at psychology, not physiology. It, also, makes no bones about the fact that there are physical differences between the sex. Beyond that it only looks at the mental and societal aspects, and not the physical ones.

     

    In short - neither of those studies 'prove' that women can be just as strong as men.

     

    Look, guys, it's not sexist to point out basic biological differences. It *is* sexist to pre-judge individual people based on stereotypes (for example, there are weak men, and women body builders. We know this.), but it is not sexist to point out that men have an easier time building muscle mass due to their biology. Nor is it particularly helpful to the discussion to try and erase that biology. Work past it, don't deny that it exists rolleyes.gif

     

    As to the effect of hormones - I know several of you are of the opinion that the evidence is anecdotal, but if you care to look for yourselves you will find that almost every single trans discussion forum contains at least one thread talking about the girls being physically weaker after they had been on HRT for a while (or, form the other point of view, the guys observing how great it is that they're much stronger now). And, really, if anyone is in a position to offer anecdotes observing what happens on both sides of the 'hormone' divide it's the people that have been there.


  17. Actually, there are a lot of studies now pointing out that so-called biological differences between the sexes are a bunch of hokey. Due to sexist practices, we discourage girls from the time they're babies not to push it and not to try. We see them as physically weaker and in doing so we actually make them physically weaker and pretty much stunt their growth.

     

    Either way, that was a pretty gross answer to give to someone who's clearly proven they aren't struggling at the job and came here because they were hurt from the baseless, sexist accusation.

    Uh, saying that Sock hormones *do* make a difference. I know several trans women that say they actively cannot lift as much now as they were able to before they started taking Estrogen.

     

    That's not to say that girls/women shouldn't be encouraged to push it and try their best. They should. It's just that, well, there *are* physical differences.


  18. I'm pretty discouraged. I just started a job a couple weeks ago working in a warehouse. I'm the only female in the warehouse. I have not had ANY trouble whatsoever lifting anything.

     

    Yet, today, one of the men who has been there for a long time and has been extremely helpful with helping me find things(because the organization of the warehouse is a complete mess) today said:

     

    "Can I be honest with you? I don't want to say it's because you're a woman, but I don't think this is the kind of job for you because of all the heavy lifting. I don't want to see you get hurt."

     

    It really hurt me because he's probably my favorite person there, and I'm completely confused because I don't know what he's talking about. I haven't had trouble lifting anything. My arms are never even sore.

     

    I can't help but think this is just complete sexism and has nothing to do with my strength. Some of the older men complain that I make my boxes too heavy and it hurts their backs. It clearly can't be because I legitimately have trouble lifting anything.

    I think it's one of those cases of 'good intentions'. Especially if he's an older guy, it's possible he is genuinely concerned. Now the concern might well be misplaced, but I doubt any of it is malicious. Best way to deal with it is just to keep showing them there's nothing to be worried about. Once they've had a few months to get used to the idea that you really *don't* have any trouble they'll stop worrying so much.


  19. Before playing The Elder Scrolls Online beta, I was about 20% going to buy it. Now that I played it for a bit, I was pretty impressed. Maybe 80% now.

    Ditto. Been pretty pleased with what I've seen. I wouldn't say it's better than the single-player ones, but if you've had a yen to play Elder Scrolls with a friend (and I have!) then it's looking well worth it. Even considering pre-ordering (as that would allow you to play any race in any alliance).


  20. I agree with babybluefire--the GMOs and environmental contamination are most likely to blame for this ever increasing problem. Sadly, many of the foods we eat have been genetically modified. I cringe just thinking about it.

    Perhaps in the US, not so much over here in Europe. Yes there *are* GMO foods over here - but they have to be clearly labeled as such, and many people avoid them. Celiac is still as much of an issue here as it is in the States.

     

    Speaking of, my partner's niece was diagnosed celiac at a young age, and it's strongly suspect that my partner's brother (her father) is too.


  21. You'll need to use another computer to burn Win 7 onto a boot disc (unless you are confident enough with the BIOS to change the setting for the primary boot location, I'm guessing not as you are needing to ask). Once you've burnt a boot disc it's a simple as putting it into the drive and following the prompts on screen.


  22. blink.gif

     

    Have you ever seen an angry Italian in full flow ??? xd.png

    Well, yes, okay. Your point is taken. Maybe I've just spent too much time around stiff upper lip types. xd.png

     

    @Kage - Yeah, that's probably where the disconnect was coming in. I don't think any of us are suggesting that people shouldn't speak out, just that showing open anger is counter productive.


  23. So...  I should quietly talk with like-minded people who already agree with me?  I shouldn't raise my voice when those who want to prevent change attempt to drown me out?

     

    I should wait until I have the perfect time and place, rather than seeking it out, or making it the right moment?

     

     

    Is that what you're basically saying?

    No, but talking reasonably without anger gets your point across a lot better.

     

    Although I will note that this does, generally, seem to be down to cultural differences. It's considered far more appropriate in the States to be loudly emotional and/or angry than it is in Europe. Many of us over here were taught that raising your voice (being angry and shouting) automatically puts you in the wrong, regardless of what you are angry about.

     

    Edit to add: I, also, feel that anger hurts a cause. Most people I know do not respond well to agression, and having someone snap at me is more likely to make me simply avoid them and/or that subject totally than it is to make me do some research and/or support their position. I believe I have mentioned this before. Anger is more likely to push people that are on the fence *away* from you than it is to draw them closer.