While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Terrance888]

Sounds like a Shakespearean Tragety. Ergo, Update 5: All Dead.

OOC: Ergo? Jehoshua, your reactionary and equality-hating ways are getting on me!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hmmm. 7000 posts here.

 

[Terrance888]

Now Seven Thousand Three. Soon Seven Thousand Four.

Then Seven Thousand Four Hundred.

Then Eight Thousand...

This thread is the true Never Ending Story.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Sounds like you have independently come across the Nessos concept Tycho!

 

[Arrow Gamer]

Tycho, that's a lot like an RP, which are run occasionally in CivIV Story and Tales.

 

[Tycho]

Tycho, that's a lot like an RP, which are run occasionally in CivIV Story and Tales.

Took part in more than a few myself, but those were based on the games. I was curious as to how it would work if the moderator made the setting and the government during the opening and evening the political parties, or if something similar had ever been attempted before.

 

[Grandkhan]

Has anyone thought of a political type NES where people run parties and join them, in a Byzantian government where political assassinations are common and there is a tenuous grasp on power even if you are elected? Seems like it would be fun as a story driven NES with the updates of the mod dealing with the elections and the revolts, and the way that NESers operate.

I ran basically that about 6 months ago. It was pretty well received, but it wasn't a storyNES and i burned out after three updates.

 

[Jehoshua]

OOC: Ergo? Jehoshua, your reactionary and equality-hating ways are getting on me!

In time I shall bring you to inscrutably devious theocracy peddling ways Terrance. The allegorical throne and altar template will grow on you yet

Although to be serious considering the likely reference, I just acknowledge that some people are inherently better at certain things than others of a different character. Equality genuinely understood means people are equal in dignity by virtue of their nature as human beings, not that they are functionally the same.

 

[North King]

In time I shall bring you to inscrutably devious theocracy peddling ways Terrance. The allegorical throne and altar template will grow on you yet

Although to be serious considering the likely reference, I just acknowledge that some people are inherently better at certain things than others of a different character. Equality genuinely understood means people are equal in dignity by virtue of their nature as human beings, not that they are functionally the same.

While that sounds quite reasonable when put that way, if I'm catching the right reference, that's not the contentious part of your position at all.

 

[Jehoshua]

The objectionable part is that I disagree with the feminist notion that men and women are functionally equivalent despite their objective biological and psychological differences. Ergo I think men are better at certain things, and women others as a general rule due to these differences and as a manifestation of them.

But really, if we boil this part of what I said right down, we arrive at the same essential point I made above which you quoted, and judged to sound "quite reasonable". Its only in this particular application of that point that it suddenly becomes politically incorrect, precisely because it goes against the orthodoxy. That said, it seems to me some people via mental association, attached positions I don't hold to the actual argument (I do not think men are better than women just to note for the observer) as a reflex reaction to my disdain for the political priesthoods rules, however I do not really see how my statements taken by themselves without erroneous associations, accusations and interpretative linkages are beyond the pale, or unreasonable if we accept that men and women are, in fact, different. and that being biologically male and female imparts an objective character on a person.

-

EDIT: The other objectionable part is that I'm simply not a liberal in any sense of the word (not libertarian, classical liberal, modern liberal, socialist, social democrat or any other variant of liberalism or any ideology with liberal ontological assumptions) which immediately makes me a non-conformist (in the eyes of the state religion of liberalism) in terms of the basic assumptions that underpin the totality of modern western political life. Needless to say my political heresy rubs some people the wrong way, occasionally to the point where rational discourse goes out the window.

 

[Terrance888]

Ergo, speaking with pretentious language makes people think you are pretentious?

EDIT: DAMNIT JEHO. >.>

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

Your trans erasure is incredibly objectionable.

 

[Symphony D.]

The objectionable part is that I disagree with the feminist notion that men and women are functionally equivalent despite their objective biological and psychological differences. Ergo I think men are better at certain things, and women others as a general rule due to these differences and as a manifestation of them.

Seems to really pigeonhole feminism into a generalized box despite it being broad political movement whose basis is usually economic, political, and legal equality in spite of any physical differences, rather than "men and women are equal in everything ever." E.g., US feminists do not, for example, tend to campaign that women should be subject to the Selective Service System or complain that their military physical fitness standards are different.

This is rather like dismissing "the feminist notion that all sex is rape," when only a very limited component of the movement (nuts like Dworkin) believes it in the first place.

 

[das]

The funny part is that all you need to do to make it sound "reasonable" is add the disclaimer that it is so as a general rule, while individual exceptions here and there occur (which suddenly reminds me of all those stories of how Soviet academicians would sometimes just stick a token reference to Marx or Lenin in the beginning of a lecture or a manuscript and then go on to never mention any point of Marxist doctrine again, re: orthodoxy). Obviously there are objective biological differences between males and females among humans as among all other species; obviously there are also enough differences between individual males and females to make it a rather moot argument for most cases in our everyday life, at least in my view. But then I live in a country where feminism (EDIT: gender feminism as opposed to equity feminism, which I suppose you would have no problem with) has failed to make any serious headway outside of academia, so I may be underestimating the importance of this debate abroad.

 

[Jehoshua]

Ergo, speaking with pretentious language makes people think you are pretentious?

Typing with pretentious language rather and its a consequence of habit, and an ingrained belief that its improper to be informal with people who are not actual, face to face, associates.

Your trans erasure is incredibly objectionable.

Too bad for you.

Seems to really pigeonhole feminism into a generalized box despite it being broad political movement whose basis is generally economic, political, and legal equality in spite of any physical differences, rather than "men and women are equal in everything ever." E.g., US feminists do not, for example, tend to campaign that women should be subject to the Selective Service System or complain that their military physical fitness standards are different.

This is rather like dismissing "the feminist notion that all sex is rape," when only a very limited component of the movement (nuts like Dworkin) believes it in the first place.

I am of course being reductionist for convenience when I say "the feminist notion that men and women are functionally equivalent" since its an ideal within feminism which all the various schools of feminism hold with a lesser or greater degree of devotion as a norm. However your statement brings up another good point which I think would be good to discuss, that is that the idea we are talking about proceeds from the liberal notion of equality (that all persons are equal).

Now if we take this to be true as an absolute principle, and if the feminist ontology takes this to be true, than really those feminists who campaign that women should not be subject to the SSS or that women should not have equal standards to men are making an unprincipled exception to their ideological principles regarding the idea that men and women are functionally equal (as a concession to the objective reality). This doesn't change the underlying principle, but it does show that equality as an absolute functional principle (as compared to equal dignity) is absurd, which is why as an aside, no one actually upholds it in practice (the unprincipled exceptions rule the day).

 

[NinjaCow64]

The WWW thread is a friendly place to discuss topics that concern NESing. This thread is NOT a place to attack others, flame, spam, or discuss things that would be better suited for the OT forum.

*cough*

 

[Jehoshua]

Obviously there are objective biological differences between males and females among humans as among all other species; obviously there are also enough differences between individual males and females to make it a rather moot argument for most cases in our everyday life, at least in my view. But then I live in a country where feminism (EDIT: gender feminism as opposed to equity feminism, which I suppose you would have no problem with) has failed to make any serious headway outside of academia, so I may be underestimating the importance of this debate abroad.

Personal differences do not negate the objective character of male and female though. A woman still is a woman with the defining differences that come with being a female, other personal idiosyncrasies don't suddenly negate that. To use an example women are objectively as a normative reality weaker physically than men (as Symph. D noted) despite the plurality of differences between individual women. Now of course there are the rare exceptions to the rule (formidable truck pulling women come to mind) but the exceptions do not negate the rule no?

Oh and of course you are correct in saying that just because one states something is "reasonable" does not mean it is. In this case I was appealing to North Kings opinion that the underlying rationale behind my position sounds reasonable to question why certain people suddenly discount that rationale when the topic of men and women comes up. A appeal to recourse to reasoned, civil discussion over sentimentality if you will.

*cough*

Although it did proceed from a discussion on Papal ideals in CI, you make a good point that this discussion should preferably wrap up.

 

[Terrance888]

Well, when I said "Damnit Jeho" I was in once sense, actually angry. In another, I was poking fun at him using ergo alot. However, reactionary and equality-hating, even if true, would violate those forum rules. Ergo, I must apologize.

EDIT: DAMNIT.

 

[Jehoshua]

My "reactionary" influence appears to be seeping into your typing Terrance

 

[Terrance888]

Thusly, I have been advised to replace "ergo" with Thus. As you can see thus, I am now immune! Ergo, it works!

EDIT: GAHHHHHH! *facedesk*