To cheat or not to cheat?

[--Pete]

Hi,

There is a broad range of beliefs in the Lounge and all are welcome. It is this diversity that makes the lounge interesting. But what makes the discussions valuable is that most of the people doing the discussing know the difference between a rational argument and a simple statement of beliefs. Most also know at least some of the facts behind what they espouse.

The problem with your posts is that they are either flame bait or displays of ignorance. Ignorance of the facts, or of presentation, or both. As to the facts, I do not know how you can improve your knowledge other than exposing yourself to sources (such as the NY Times) which may not be in agreement with your opinions. As to expression, I suggest you look at some of the discussions where there is disagreement. There are many posters in the lounge that are excellent debaters. Look at the discussions, see if you can spot the flaws and the good points. Perhaps a visit to http://datanation.com/fallacies/ to get an idea of what to look for would help.

I remember you from way back, the old Diablo Suggestion Forum. We locked horns then over much the same issue. I remember giving you the same advice then that I give you now. The atmosphere here is a bit more rarefied than it was there. Perhaps this time the need to figure out rational discourse will be pressing enough that you'll give it a try.

--Pete

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

And I'll tell you what, if any Admin tells me to buzz off, I'm more than happy to oblidge. I'm not a rude person. Let them email me, not PM.

You say that as if you'd have a choice in the matter at that point. I find that laughable.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women, and no offense to Griselda, you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories. Not bashing, I'm just saying.

It's definitely WHAT he says, and it's completely indefensible.

I'd post that other little chauvinistic slur he wrote against women, but Griselda mercifully nuked it.

[--Pete]

--Pete

[Archon_Wing]

I've noticed tho that since I expressed my political views, I've been flamed more.  Maybe that was a mistake.  I've eliminated my avatar to make a broken link.  Will that make the peace?

*Cough*

Um, Conner, it's not the opinions that ticks people off. All opinions are valid, but one has to strengthen their opinions with FACTS, not rhteoric. You cannot back up opinions with other opinions. Other people have merely labeled your sayings as "ignorant" not as a direct insult, but the fact that you have failed to give a decent explanation and failed to use concrete facts.

Secondly, a lot of people are jumping on you for your generalizations. Twice, you have been caught posting rather sexist comments. Serious or not, you should know better. If you don't know why that generates flames in the 21st century, well, I have nothing to say.

Just a helpful hint.

[Bob]

Hmm, to try and quell the anger that's going around here...

Conner:
Firstly I'll agree with what you said earlier, but not the way you said it, below is an example of a better method of saying it:

Disclaimer: This is not directed towards the women who are an exception to the 'norm' or what would seem to be the norm (a bit like the thinking that everyone drops litter because it's all over the place and you don't see the litter that isn't dropped, because it's in the bin.) It's a bit of a difficult point to asses as to whether it's now the norm or the exception without taking a census and taking into consideration regular performing of an action of occasional. I stress that most of this probably doesn't apply to most if not all of the women at the lounge. If it doesn't apply to you - don't take offense at it.

If you haven't been living on mars or some other remote, mostly harmless planets somewhere in the vicinity of the sun (or a planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse for that matter) you probably have read the rest of this thread, but, for those of you who have been living in any of the above mentioned places, a quick re-cap. Basically, someone brought up a quote of conner from a seperate post:

"I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women, and no offense to Griselda, you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories. Not bashing, I'm just saying."

first; to break this down:

I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women,

I don't know about this, also, it's not really relevant to why people got up in arms.


and no offense to Griselda,

You should probably have put a more generaly disclaimer, like the one above


you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories.

This seems to be the thing that everyone seems to have got a bee in their bonnets about. So I shall take this back to the beginning:
Genereally speaking, everyone likes to get to the top of whatever society or situation they find themselves in, this is just human nature.
This is where men and women 'split up', just onservation of people, and no doubt some studies have shown that in general men try to get to the top by surpassing everyone else, and women generally get to the top by bringing everyone else down, and a good way to do this is to gossip and tell tales. Now, like I've said before there are plenty of women who don't but it still seems to be the majority.
Some examples:

For Him Magazine (UK)
basically, the front cover of this months FHM (a mens magazine) has absolutely NO gossip, and from the list of contents, about 2 of 20 features could be classed as gossip, most of it is cars, women, oh, and 27 pairs of trainers (sneakers) on test.



Heat magazine (UK)
This is one of the the major magazine advertisers on UK TV, and what's in the adverts, (which is obviously going to be their main features) is gossip, gossip, gossip, gossip and some more gossip, flicking through one of these (my sister should learn to be more careful where she puts things), a large part of the contents was gossip about this or gossip about that, and a questionnaire where you could gossip about yourself.

The point is that these two magazines, one directed at men and another at women ar entirely different in their gossip content - the mens magazine has very little, whereas it's the main selling point of the women's, if women didn't want to read it they wouldn't put it in the magazine.

This is one example that backs up the case for showing that women to tend to gossip more than men - and to that extent that conner's point was right, and that it was simply badly phrased and would have been treated a bit better if it had been backed up with an example.


[b}Not bashing, I'm just saying. [/b]

I'm glad to see that you're not bashing, but if you want to state an opinion I'm not going to stop you...


Pete,
calling someone a Jackass is moving into the realms of personal insults and flaming, note:

Take flame wars to email.
Flame wars are not welcome here. Address the topic, not the person. What that means is when you're debating a topic, debate the topic. Adding personal insults into your posts nullifies your argument and may result in your post getting wiped by a moderator. There's an old Internet adage which simply states that the first person to resort to personal attacks in an online argument is the loser. Don't be one. When flaming gets out of control, you will be asked to take your tiff to email or private messages. There's no reason to air your fight in public, and we don't want to see it.

&

Keep it clean.
It's PG-13 here. Computer games, even those rated "mature" by the ESRB, will have young kids playing them. There's no need to have swear words in your posts - they aren't condusive to intelligent debate or strategy discussion anyhow. We run a clean site and we hope that the posters will respect that.

Your morality and up-bringing may say that it's alright to call someone a jackass, mine would say that such an insult isn't. (I'm not saying that yours is bad, just that it's different)

Also, you might want to put a small wanrning in future for links that one has to sign up to something to use, it's aggrivating if one is using a low bandwidth connection or has limited time to wait for the page to load and then to have to fill in all the details to actually read it.


nicodemus:

"QUOTE
And I'll tell you what, if any Admin tells me to buzz off, I'm more than happy to oblidge. I'm not a rude person. Let them email me, not PM.


You say that as if you'd have a choice in the matter at that point. I find that laughable. "

Agreed, that if they wanted him out then he'd have little choice, but I wouldn't find his being polite laughable. I also believe that bolty and the other mods would have the courtesy to ask someone to leave before forcing them to.

Archon:

If he had to fill it with facts then it would be that, facts, not an opinion, the entire difference is that one is a fact and the other an opinion, an opinion is stronger when stated with facts, and to some extent a fact with an opinion can be stronger - however, if someone doesn't have any facts to back up an opinion, it's no reason not to take the opinion for what it is, his opinion. It is a fact that he thinks what he thinks.

And what Conner said wasn't sexist, it was making a generalisation, which may have been wrong, unless what he was saying that women do is a derogatory thing, he's not insulting women by saying it, is saying 'all Americans are fat' racist? it depends on whether you want to call American fat as an insult, or if you simply wish to state your opinion that all Americans are obese.

No doubt my post has been seen as highly controvertial, and will most probably draw flames. I do not like flames, nor to I like drawing flames, but if something needs to be said, I'll brave flames to say it.

-Bob

[--Pete]

Pete, you know the rules. Why do you have to cross them so often? Just because I may agree with your opinions most of the time does not give you a free ticket to go bashing people.

-Bolty

[ShadowHM]

What an incredible example of muddy thinking!

Brave or not, you certainly don't know much.

Anyone can hold any useless opinion they wish. But if you want to voice it, you had better expect to have to defend it - with facts. Conner made a sweeping generalization and was rightly called on it.


The 'facts' you pulled out to support Conner's contention were utter hogwash. A sample size of two is not anything to draw conclusions from.


Archon made a very polite post with some valuable advice in it. Pete offered up a website that gives guidance in logical thinking. Since you chose not to avail yourself of either, I have no qualms about offering my opinion that your opinions are not worth reading. I think the facts that support my opinion are already on this board.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Hmm, to try and quell the anger that's going around here...
...
No doubt my post has been seen as highly controvertial, and will most probably draw flames.

Oxymoronic thinking. Classic.

Also, you might want to put a small wanrning in future for links that one has to sign up to something to use, it's aggrivating if one is using a low bandwidth connection or has limited time to wait for the page to load and then to have to fill in all the details to actually read it.

I'm on a 56k modem... and it took me 30 seconds to fill in the fields and start reading the article. I suggest you upgrade from your 9600 baud, pal.

basically, the front cover of this months FHM (a mens magazine) has absolutely NO gossip, and from the list of contents, about 2 of 20 features could be classed as gossip, most of it is cars, women, oh, and 27 pairs of trainers (sneakers) on test.

It also, without exception, has rampant articles on sex, sexual positions, how to get laid, and a plethora of T'n'A photo spreads. I find it completely apt that you chose this particular piece of published shyte to give as an example... because most of us (and I DO mean men) wouldn't be caught dead reading it, much less wasting cash on it. In the future, if you seek to give an example of a periodical, I would suggest something a tad more respected. As in... say... THE NEW YORK TIMES. Rumour has it you can get it online FOR FREE! Gah. I think I'm allergic to this much stupidity. :blink:

however, if someone doesn't have any facts to back up an opinion, it's no reason not to take the opinion for what it is, his opinion. It is a fact that he thinks what he thinks.

So if I make a judgement call without having a single idea of what I'm talking about, that's fine... because it's my opinion? You couldn't POSSIBLY be more wrong. An opinion is ONLY valid when it can be attributed to facts. Having an opinion without information sits you among the great Ignoramuses of history. Defending the right to have an opinion, without the education or information to actually form an opinion, suggests a level of stupidity that borders on scary.

And what Conner said wasn't sexist, it was making a generalisation

Yes, it was completely sexist. Generalizations tend to accomplish this. Lumping anything together with a commentary will always classify itself as derogatory.

Rethink your position, Bob... or you're sitting in the same place as the loser you're defending.

[Wapptor]

Well said Nicodemus,

It is true, an opionion is nothing more than an opinion, and people will only listen to it or even give it a chance if you can back it up and argue in its favor.

Conner's generalization is more of a stereotype, yes it may be true that some females gossip and interest themself with trivial things, however to say that all or most of do so is completely ridiculous. If you can make a sweeping statement like that, you might as well say that all guys are chauvanist pigs who have no other interests besides getting laid and looking at porn, which as you being a man yourself probably know is not true, the same goes for women.

In general, a stereotype is a nasty thing that should be avoided at all costs. They are generally based on preconceptions either based on media images or a lack of knowledge about the topic. If you hold to such a stereotype and truly believe it is true, then your views are probably very radical, or rather just uninformed, stupid and close minded.

By the way, where is Conner in all of this, was he banned? or did he just dissapear?

-Wapptor

[Occhidiangela]

"All opinions are valid, but one has to strengthen their opinions with FACTS, not rhetoric."

I would not put it that way. Some opinions are worthless because, like a bad theory, they are based on a flawed premise or complete ignorance of the subject matter. Such flaws make for an invalid opinion, or one hard to support and defend.

It is anyone's right to hold an opinion, for sure, but the strength and thus validity of an opinion should be based on fact or some other valid basis, where it can, rather than on more opinion or sheer guesswork. I agree with you that each of us should examine our own opinions when we learn new facts. That process should be ongoing as we live our lives. :)

Edit: written badly the first time. Preview is your friend, Occhi . . .

[Occhidiangela]

What is wrong with FHM magazine? I don't consider it a good reference manual, but it has its place. :)

As do Maxim, or Stuff, Cosmopolitain, or any number of other fine uses of newsprint.

It is a magazine designed for the entertainment of a particular part of the reading public. Every so often, like Playboy, it doubtless has an article worth reading. The jokes are a good way to blow off steam, or to get a chuckle. The other 'photo art' . . . whatever.

The rest of course is pandering to the "I wanna get laid!" mindset, which is sort of where Playboy sat in its little niche, unmolested, for years. I still like Playboy a bit better, dollar for dollar, since Mr Hefner's stance on First Ammendment, and the War on Drugs, and on personal privacy, resonate with me. Playboy also occasionally gets a good short story in, which is a nice bonus.

Flip side, Playboy's photo art should now be called "Silicone Enhanced Girl Next Door Journal." :P

[ShadowHM]

Flip side, Playboy's photo art should now be called "Silicone Enhanced Girl Next Door Journal." :P

No kidding! And exactly how many platinum blondes are there in America, anyway? The enhancements are not all silicone.

But I do like to read that magazine. :rolleyes:

The policy issues covered are interesting. The interviews are often good. And I do need my occasional dose of Gahan Wilson and other cartoonists there. :D

[Occhidiangela]

Hmm, to try and quell the anger that's going around here...

Eh, the Mods are better at it than either you or I. :) Pouring olive oil into a fire won't usually put it out.

Conner: Firstly I'll agree with what you said earlier, but not the way you said it, below is an example of a better method of saying it:

Disclaimer: *snip: ==you know what it said==.

Hmm, obfuscation and volume don't always soothe the savage beast, or the righteous indignation. All they do is take up space. Having waxed verbose now and again, I have fallen into that trap as well.

first; to break this down:

I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women

Gaile Grey is female. OK, her own style, and Elly's, would, I suppose, show a certain 'woman's touch' in that she generally kills with kindness and tries to be nice first, and generally enjoins those near the edge to also be nice. Any good mod does that, though, like Griselda, or Bolty . . .

and no offense to Griselda,

You should probably have put a more generaly disclaimer, like the one above

No, he was attempting to put a small fig leaf over a large behind, and it did not cover up very well. More words do not insincerity mask.

you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories.

This seems to be the thing that everyone seems to have got a bee in their bonnets about. So I shall take this back to the beginning:
Genereally speaking, everyone likes to get to the top of whatever society or situation they find themselves in, this is just human nature.
This is where men and women 'split up', just onservation of people, and no doubt some studies have shown that in general men try to get to the top by surpassing everyone else, and women generally get to the top by bringing everyone else down, and a good way to do this is to gossip and tell tales. Now, like I've said before there are plenty of women who don't but it still seems to be the majority.

Well, let's see. This was a pretty blatant use of a stereotype, that may or may not have a grain of truth in it, as a reason for . . . whatever. That is bad packaging of the message, or it was a bad message to start with. Zero value added in a forum where people use their heads and hold one another to high standards.

Some examples:

For Him Magazine (UK)

Heat magazine (UK)
*Snip details* You know what you wrote.

This is one example that backs up the case for showing that women to tend to gossip more than men - and to that extent that conner's point was right, and that it was simply badly phrased and would have been treated a bit better if it had been backed up with an example.

I would suggest you look a little deeper, and possibly you will find that the mags in question are based on the views of the editors in chief, and their staff, and their advertisers. They too may be perpetuating a stereotype. And, their audiences are a particular target . . .

Not bashing, I'm just saying.

I'm glad to see that you're not bashing, but if you want to state an opinion I'm not going to stop you...

Try this: 'I am not bashing, I am just saying that Necromancers are all gay necrophiliacs. 'Self protestation of 'not' is sometimes belied by the actual words/evidence, eh? :)

Pete *snip*

You and Pete can resolve that one together.

nicodemus:

*snip*

nothing to add.

Archon:

If he had to fill it with facts then it would be that, facts, not an opinion, the entire difference is that one is a fact and the other an opinion, an opinion is stronger when stated with facts, and to some extent a fact with an opinion can be stronger - however, if someone doesn't have any facts to back up an opinion, it's no reason not to take the opinion for what it is, his opinion. It is a fact that he thinks what he thinks. And what Conner said wasn't sexist, it was making a generalisation, which may have been wrong, unless what he was saying that women do is a derogatory thing, he's not insulting women by saying it, is saying 'all Americans are fat' racist? it depends on whether you want to call American fat as an insult, or if you simply wish to state your opinion that all Americans are obese.

Eh? Stereotyping is not exclusively a racist activity. I will leave it at that.

No doubt my post has been seen as highly controvertial, and will most probably draw flames. I do not like flames, nor to I like drawing flames, but if something needs to be said, I'll brave flames to say it.

Actually, 'incoherent' is closer to the mark than is 'controversial.' I, too, post in a hurry now and again, so I understand that your ideas may have run all over each other. It happens.

-Occhi-

[--Pete]

Hi,

I still like Playboy a bit better, dollar for dollar, since Mr Hefner's stance on First Ammendment, and the War on Drugs, and on personal privacy, resonate with me.

Well, I started reading Playboy about 43 years ago (European liberal parents -- if that's not an oxymoron ;) ) and quit reading it about 31 years ago -- about the time Hugh the Hef started his third restatement of the "Playboy Philosophy". While he did (does? Is he even alive any more? Did his daughter completely expel him from his magazine?) have a number of good points, the justification for them sounded more and more hollow each time he re-hashed them. But, I will freely admit that those arguments did have an influence on my outlook. At least they taught me that there could be viable alternative viewpoints, to look for those and to examine them for their strengths and weaknesses. Would I have reached that point without Playboy? I don't know. When I started reading it, I was still a devote catholic, an alter boy, etc. Within four years I was an agnostic, an iconoclast. While Playboy had some influence on that, so did many other things, not the least a good Jesuit (he later quit the priesthood and the church) who forced me to think, to argue logically, refuted my arguments decisively, and then gave me references to further *my* viewpoint.

Given that it was the '60s and that I was an avid SF reader (another source for mind expansion that is often overlooked or maligned), the odds are good that I would have turned out much the same without the Playboy influence.

But of one thing I am glad. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was first published as a serial in Playboy way back when. That was my introduction to Fleming and the last three digits of his agent's phone number ;) If for nothing else, that alone made reading 12 years of Playboy worthwhile :)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Plenty of Canadians. Kimberly MacArthur, IIRC Pamela Anderson, Dorothy Stratton, Shannon Tweed. IIRC, they came from the Great White North. And a few others from other countries.

As to how many? Well, plastic surgeons stay in business somehow, it aint all reconstructive post breast cancer surgery, and the chemicals for hair color change have been around for . . . ages.

Aye: Gahan Wilson is soooo good. :)

[Occhidiangela]

He said adios, he knew where he was not welcome.

I would rather he have stayed and raised his level up to the Lounge Standard.

That would have been a win win. :)

[Griselda]

Actually, I used a Playboy interview in my thesis (my college required a thesis for the BA). I wanted to get a perspective on Jean Genet that wasn't written by Sartre. :P

It was kind of amusing to request that one on the interlibrary loan system, though!

-Griselda

[Archon_Wing]

Hi, I'm in a stressful mood today, and the only one who doen't have you on ignore. Some of the other posters have already discredited you, but let's take that out of the way today. Perhaps you can take this as crticism to make a better argument in the future.

Disclaimer: This is not directed towards the women who are an exception to the 'norm' or what would seem to be the norm

Ouch, tripped in the beginning. Who are you to decide what is the "norm?" I suppose you could go outside and see, but that would only be a single sample. I don't suppose you can distinguish the norm for groups of women in all cities in the world? Popular culture? That hardly goes beyond your own country. It's more like "Not directed towards women who I think are not normal."

Furthermore, using a disclaimer is not that great of a shield.

More on this later.

first; to break this down:

I'd remember that Dii.net is run mostly by women,

I don't know about this, also, it's not really relevant to why people got up in arms.

Perhaps, he was making a factual statement. Of course, if you break it down like this it seems harmless. But what was the intention of said statement.

Logically, to lead to this.

and no offense to Griselda,

You should probably have put a more generaly disclaimer, like the one above

Um, yea.... Sorry, a disclaimer does not protect you from stupidity.

you gals tend to like gossip, conflict, and the "who's cheating on who" stories. 

This seems to be the thing that everyone seems to have got a bee in their bonnets about. So I shall take this back to the beginning:
Genereally speaking, everyone likes to get to the top of whatever society or situation they find themselves in, this is just human nature.
This is where men and women 'split up', just onservation of people, and no doubt some studies have shown that in general men try to get to the top by surpassing everyone else, and women generally get to the top by bringing everyone else down, and a good way to do this is to gossip and tell tales. Now, like I've said before there are plenty of women who don't but it still seems to be the majority.

Why of course. But show me a valid scientific or socilogical survey that shows most women gossip, or even a lot. Sorry, ancedontal evidence doesn't cut it.

I'm afraid popular culture magazines are not valid. God help you if you rely on those to back up other arguments.

Plus, the whole sentence was about their inability to run a site, as can be assumed from him complaining about the site and admins. He had to add in the fact that they were women. Problems yet?

Archon:

If he had to fill it with facts then it would be that, facts, not an opinion, the entire difference is that one is a fact and the other an opinion, an opinion is stronger when stated with facts, and to some extent a fact with an opinion can be stronger - however, if someone doesn't have any facts to back up an opinion, it's no reason not to take the opinion for what it is, his opinion. It is a fact that he thinks what he thinks.

You did not read my part accurately at all. You are entitled to your own opinion, but if you can't back it up, don't expect any one to take you seriously. Refer to this thread: http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index.p...2&t=357&hl=iraq

If you don't mind looking like an idiot and refuse to debate anything, you are free to give your uninformed opinions. Don't expect anyone to take it seriously though.

Unless, you overly lean over to subjective reasoning. Which, in that case, means you are always right. But that doesn't extend beyond yourself.

You see, the whole point of expressing your opinion is not only to say what you think, but to also consider the fact that you might be wrong. Not doing that defeats the purpose of expressing it in the first place.

And what Conner said wasn't sexist, it was making a generalisation, which may have been wrong, unless what he was saying that women do is a derogatory thing, he's not insulting women by saying it, is saying 'all Americans are fat' racist? it depends on whether you want to call American fat as an insult, or if you simply wish to state your opinion that all Americans are obese.

Generalizations are what they are. A generaliztion about women is about women. Therefore a negative generlization is directed against women. That is sexist. And yes, that particular statement had negative connotations. Most people can easily see why.

Amercians are obese? Well statstics show a signifigant amound are. But you see, that has a basis in reality.

No doubt my post has been seen as highly controvertial, and will most probably draw flames. I do not like flames, nor to I like drawing flames, but if something needs to be said, I'll brave flames to say it.

It's too bad, you failed to justify your opinions well enough. And the fact is trying to be diffrent isn't that cool anymore.

Hiding behind disclaimers only show that you have a weak argument. Better luck next time.

[Xiuhcoatl]

Human beings are curious creatures...

...for the most part; they tend to gather information wherever they can get it, whenever they can get it (albeit at inappropriate times, frequency of occurance dependent upon "tact-factor" =P). It is what they do with it afterwards that might be of concern to others. Sadly, many human beings have an uncanny talent for disseminating (distorted) bits of information in a(n intentionally) hurtful manner (gossip), as such acts make them feel "better". Gender has little to do with this compulsion. I've observed a much greater number (and percentage) of males than females gossiping in the workplace, but more than 90% of my co-workers were male. I've also observed that the greater the ego, the greater the distortion of "facts" occured. To best avoid falling into this category of people, ponder your thoughts and opinions in silence.


"Try this: 'I am not bashing, I am just saying that Necromancers are all gay necrophiliacs." -Occhi

If this were true, then would you have a problem with this? I just love the joyful aroma of corpse explosion in the morning! -)

Xi
[edit: *wonders what happened to my subject line* *inserts into text body*]

[edit:] I found a poem that is related in an extreme manner:

The Discovery Of Man
Reaching beyond barriers,
Misery projected mental images
Of mind-dimmed hatred,
anger-spawned courage,
and blood-filled spite,
into empty spaces.