Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 72 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 69 guests
Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
and you used to be quite normal
damn colleges - you scary
and to answer your question - just once because it seems you enjoy writing 1.5 page long responses on tarded topics like feminism and stuff (god only know if you find it... uhmm... arousing or something - no don't answer I DON'T want to know).
The thing it that the massacres didn't happen only because there exist guns. Guns are merely tools, albeit effective. However, one does not decide to kill people because he has tools to do it. What you need is some sort of motive and a pattern to follow. Who and what shows that shooting someone in the face is a good way to take revenge??
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
PUI? Nothing in your post has any relevance to what I said about the video
I still don't see how it's hypocritical. Playing a character in a film who uses weapons that would be banned by gun regulation that the actor supports in real life is not hypocritical. I assume most actors are against murder too but that doesn't stop them from playing characters who kill.
By the way, I didn't even mention whether I support gun regulation or not I only questioned whether the video is highlighting a hypocritical stance.
N.B. What I've argued previously in this thread is not feminism. Actually go and look at a feminist website or forum or something and you'll see the difference. I doubt any feminist would read my posts and agree I'm also a feminist. As I've mentioned a bunch of times previously, I tend to disagree with most arguments by feminists that I've read on the internet (with most of these 'feminists' being people closely related to blogs on my RSS feed). I think I'm more in the middle ground whereas your views and feminism are at opposing ends of the spectrum.
Would you say that an actor appearing in an anti smoking ad yet who makes smoking look cool in a movie to be hypocritical?
What about a non-vegan appearing in a PETA ad?
The point here is that the actors are just as bad as politicians, more than happy to jump on the bandwagon as long as it keeps their faces on screen.
Your views on gender issues are not extreme, granted. If you've watched Sam Harris argue about religion though, I think he makes the good point that the moderates are the ones who allow the extremists to exist.
Those 'extremists' would include you and POLAND, however
Does that mean you only exist because I allow you to
edit: I think there's a difference with religion here because the question of religion actually has a null hypothesis (H0 - there is no god) and we can test that hypothesis. Because H0 has yet to be refuted with evidence against that notion, accepting H1, the alternative hypothesis, is a leap of faith that is not backed up by science. Thus, moderates are required to establish the acceptance of H1 without sufficient evidence as a normal thing to do and without these moderates the extremists would be huge outliers that look like nut jobs to everyone else. Furthermore, there isn't an opposite end of the spectrum as the acceptance of H0 can't really be 'moderate' or 'extreme' by definition (like agnostic atheism), you either accept H0 as the null or you reject it (i.e. binomial) but the degree of 'faith' can vary due to the lack of evidence.
With feminism, there really isn't a null hypothesis; the closest you can get would be the middle ground where you're not really prepared to fully accept the arguments from each ends of the spectrum. You could make the question binomial by rephrasing it but it would work both ways depending on which stance you took as the H0. So I think it is possible for either end of the spectrum to exist without the middle ground and I think it is also possible that the distribution could be bimodal like a form of disruptive selection.
I don't see any issue with the smoking one. I'd rather have actors portray characters accurately than worry if their personal beliefs conflict with that character. Some actors will decline roles because of the character conflicts with their beliefs but unless the point is specifically that they are against, say, 'smoking advertised through mass media' or 'extreme gun violence in film and TV' then I don't see any conflict. For me, it boils down to killing on screen. If you wont smoke because you're against smoking, you should forget about playing a role that kills on screen or commits any illegal activity (including speeding). Some atheists have played religious roles and vice versa and while I would cringe at having to do the same I don't think that actor has some sort of cognitive dissonance about their stance on the supernatural.
Surely we'd get to a point where actors end up having to play themselves but with different names
Are all PETA advocates vegan by the way? I'm not really familiar with the organisation but I think it would be possible to not be a vegan and still be an animal rights advocate. I can justify eating meat but probably not the way we go about it (slaughter houses, etc).
Here's a fairly well-rounded article by Sam Harris on gun control:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
I'm sure there are points here and there that either side of the debate will take exception to but on the whole it's not bad and presents a pretty rational case.
I don't think we are extremists actually, it would seem to me that we take the rational view It can't be wrong to recognise the factual fallacies and the hypocrisy of the female position.
In this respect we cannot help but be biased, I am a member of one gender and not the other and proudly so. I think we can boil down our world views to two positions on the forum. Most members would appear to be in favour of equality, provided it is applied across the board. What I get from you though is the appeal for equality plus, where female privilege is retained while male privilege is eaten away.
There are plenty of these checklists online:
http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/fem ... checklist/
Pretty much why I find your position difficult to comprehend as a man.
Current position of course, let's give it a few years
Of course acting is acting, you don't have to have killed a person to be able to play a murderer without hypocrisy.
On the other hand, it's about glamourising violence. Hollywood makes killing someone look cool. That is out of tune with claiming an anti-gun stance in the real world.
PETA have some very extreme views: http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/default.aspx
I doubt the celebrities who appear in their ads (or any level headed human being for that matter) actually subscribe to their manifesto.
See, fact based rationale, wonderful! And yet you wish to stand up for those who make emotional arguments
False dichotomy, hence the edited reply below. I've stressed far too many times that I clearly do not belong to the group that falls in the second example you listed above. Obviously, my position must not come across clearly enough so there's not much point continuing this particular debate. For the gun video, however, you're still yet to show it's hypocritical
Okay, I had a much longer reply but I realised when I posted it I keep going back to reiterate it as you and POLAND don't always seem to understand what it is I support, what I don't, and what I'm not sure about. I keep being lumped in to these discrete groups that are obviously based on the generalizations of the groups at the opposing end of the spectrum to yours. The generalisations aren't the bad thing, lumping me in with these discrete groups is. I say I'm in the middle because I take arguments from both sides, perhaps from one side more than the other, because both groups at opposing ends often have at least some sensible arguments that outweigh the arguments of the other group.
I say this because the false dichotomy you offered puts me in a position that I can't defend as I'm forced to defend strawman arguments, i.e. all the arguments representing a particular group, when I don't agree with all those arguments and agree with arguments from the opposite end of the spectrum as well. There's no cognitive dissonance, it's simply weighing up the best arguments that aren't contradictory and holding them as the most reasonable belief. My position on gun regulation is quite similar to that on gender equality, you wont find my position with the pro-gunners nor those who support more gun regulation.
ERMAHGERD The crowley changed his avatar!!!
ramicaza <- My Youtube Channel
Must've had the last one for about two years! Points to anyone who knows the movie my new avatar is from.
I only just started downloading Das Boot, and you change your avatar? C'mon man
I will concede that we are a little "If you're not with us, then you're against us!" when this topic comes up (*cough* when it is brought up hehe). I suppose I forget that towards your age I would have found more common ground with your position.
You've brought this up several times but I don't think I've really touched on it before even though it is an increasingly annoying statement as I take the implication to mean that I only hold this position due to a lack of experience
I'm not sure if you have intended it as a valid argument because, if so, it sort of falls under the psychologist's fallacy (see: third sentence on that page) as you assume that your own perspective is universal and dependent on age to some degree. It may be that my views will align closer to yours with age, but until then deductive reasoning is preferable to inductive reasoning as you can't possibly know with certainty that my, or anyone else's, views will change with age.
If you merely intend it as a suggestion as to why my views differ from some of those on the forum, it reminds me of naïve realism as you assume the second tenet to be true in relation to me due to a variation of the third tenet. The provision that "they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views" would extend from the argument about age as I'm sure we both agree that age is only a factor because it is a proxy for experience. Thus follows, experience may relate to access to information if that information is mainly transferred through experience which is related to age.
It leaves me in an indefensible position until I'm in my 30s and even if I came back to follow through with my argument then you could still resort to the second tenet again claiming that because of the career/life path I took, I wasn't subject to the experiences necessary for me to acquire the rationality to hold your views.
ohh my someone has been reading on fallacies and stuff
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
Well the second one isn't a fallacy and inductive/deductive reasoning isn't limited to philosophy
I did a first level philosophy course as a 'gen-ed', didn't pay attention, got a C+, and can't remember sh|t from it. I've got too many science books I want to read to bother picking up one of those best-selling modern-philosophy paperbacks. Whatever fallacies I know I've picked up in science books when they evaluate research or the critique of a person.
L'Armée des ombres. What do I get now?
"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
I'm sort of surprised someone got it right, you seen the film?
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]