Discussion Forums > Anime Discussions
Ore no Imouto ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai Dai 2-ki
Volusus:
--- Quote from: CappinHoff on July 05, 2013, 01:50:00 AM ---
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---^ (Garret02) / ^^^ (LoF)
This would be an example of a freak accident. There was most likely no reasonable expectation that LoF would have known you (Garret02) were posting. In such a scenario, I would not assign any blame. According to your own words, I would also assume you would not assign blame. /Realize most likely joking, but just an illustration.
(click to show/hide)I can't believe I'm seriously bored enough to respond again. Luckily for you if you wanted a response, the material I was supposed to be working on hadn't come in yet. 感謝しなさい！/Be grateful! /Last part is jest and tsundere parody.
Not even going to bother quoting specific passages at this point. Quick, dirty. If you get what I'm saying, you get it. If you don't: -shrug-
-- teenagers --
Get a license/licence because they're still developing, and said developments include all the hormonal stuff and the still ongoing development of the brain. As such, they don't think like "adults" do. Also, I'm not excluding Kyousuke from this category. It's simply not the case that I really feel like any of his actions or lack of action are "faulted" by anyone, thus it doesn't seem like there's any real expectation of explaining his behavior to excuse fault. But, if I felt I needed another one, that would be another reason to also not fault Kyousuke.
I feel like there should be plenty of neuroscientific evidence to support this, but at the moment I don't believe I still have access to my Uni's subscription to research, and I'm just too damned lazy to look it up on Wikipedia or what have you. Just another one of the many arguments against trying teenagers as adults in the majority of cases.
-- "improving relationships" --
I thought I clarified this previously, but that was a general observation, regarding the actions of participants or otherwise involved parties. Even supposing this were a real scenario, you would not fall under the category of "participants or otherwise involved parties". If I still need to clarify that further: The opinions of individuals who are in no position to influence the outcome of events, as relevant to the relationship, are themselves not considered relevant to this observation. If there is no point in blame casting within the relationship, what value does blame casting from outside the relationship add?
Supposing Jaeger and Wong were having a disagreement regarding whether they should take jam sandwiches or ham sandwiches to their picnic. Smith isn't invited to the picnic. Jaeger and Wong decide they'll take jam ham sandwiches. Smith comments that this is disgusting. Jaeger and Wong are the one's eating the sandwich, and they've agreed on the choice of jam ham sandwiches. Takeshi just doesn't give a fuck. Now: What's really the point of Smith's observation that the combination doesn't suit their palate? Neither Smith's disgust nor Takeshi's indifference make any difference to the involved parties—they've already reached a resolution, and I doubt it had any significant impact on Smith or Takeshi's lives, either.
You're still entitled to cast blame, and I'm not attempting to indicate otherwise. I don't think participants in similar situations would have benefited from it, and I personally don't feel any need to assign blame in this scenario.
Meanwhile, Reimu's donation box is still empty.
-- Kyousuke + blame --
Not really. Suppose you were playing a game of whatever and left it running in the background. It's an easy game, so you tell your kid brother/sister/Hideyoshi to watch it for you while you go do something else. Suddenly there's a fire in an empty room on your ship, but your kid sibling doesn't vent the oxygen out to space. You come back. You can (a) blame them for something they wouldn't even know how to do and thus couldn't really "choose" to do or (b) not, realizing that it's not really their fault.
Before you bring up the point that you might blame the person leaving them in charge despite knowing that they knew nothing about the game, let me point out that there is no such "precursor" individual for Kirino and Kyousuke. Unless you want to go back and blame their parents for how they brought them up, and then their parents, et cetera, et cetera, and while we're at it, don't forget society and genetics, either. You are still free to bring it up, but that observation does not seem relevant to the issue I was trying to illustrate.
Personally, I don't think Kyousuke even had the capacity to consciously choose to do what he would have needed to do to avoid the situation. Since "conscious choice" is your requirement for fault, even by your standards I wouldn't say I was faulting Kyousuke.
-- strangers --
It doesn't matter whose actions initiated the transformation. What is relevant is that they essentially existed as strangers for that time. Does it really matter if A cuts off ties with B or B cuts off ties with A? The relationship is still severed either way.
--distance--
Yes and no. Kyousuke stopped dragging her around with him with the whole "I'm grown up now and can't hang out with you all the time" bit. Later Kirino stopped trying to hang around him for her whole "I'll become awesome and show him!" bit.
My observation regarding the distancing bit was to provide a reference point. It didn't matter to me which specific event I chose so long as the reference resolves to a point in time where they got along much better. If you prefer, I can rephrase it as "prior to the point at which Kyousuke and Kirino became distanced" in the passive voice and side-step the blame issue. The relevant issue was that they got along in the past, and based on that I think Kyousuke would have taken active and conscious steps to repair the relationship if he had realized what was going on.
If that view needs explaining, it's simply because it seems to me that even when relationships fall apart it's rare that there is no residual feeling.
--actions--
I realize I started it, but are we really going to keep getting all philosophical with definitions? Just to point it out, even if "not taking an action" is an action of sorts, "not believing in {x}" is not the same as "believing in not{x}". One is a failure to assert a belief in {x}. The other is an assertion that not{x}. It is possible to fail to assert {x} but to still accept the possibility that {x}, the latter of which is precluded by an explicit assertion of not{x}.
Also, I can still claim I don't believe, or fail to believe, in the invisible yet paradoxically opaque and possibly purple griffin (no caps — they're a humble deity), regardless of whether or not someone has asserted a belief in such an entity. Granted, that's not what you said. Unless we take the equivalence relation you provided for the "inaction is a type of action" branch, where {not asserting x} = {asserting not x}, in which case it is what you said, by my previous failure to assert belief in a deity for which no one has yet asserted existence—regardless of whether it was an action previously, the equivalence would make it an action. Further, if someone fails to assert that they don't not believe in their humble and possibly purple invisible opaqueness, do they therefore implicitly assert that not{not{x}}, ergo, by your equivalence, belief in said deity?
バカバカしい/Ridiculous. I've never explicitly rejected Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly assume there's a teapot floating somewhere out there. Similarly, I've never explicitly accepted Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly reject the possibility that there is a teapot. Whether I actually reject the teapot or not is irrelevant to my example.
I'm not even going to bother checking that for consistency. I'm not claiming all failures to act are actions, and you are asserting that you do not view inaction as an action. Our exact reasons and conclusions on the matter are different, but not substantially so that it's worth going further into why your proposed equivalence doesn't work very well, and is quite probably a straw man. If we accept your proposed equivalence for the alternative to your own stance, all statements not explicitly asserted would be both simultaneously true and false. This isn't necessarily impossible or even implausible, if you don't restrict yourself to more traditional models, but for these purposes any model which would accept such an equivalence as an axiom is irrelevant.
If you really want to further consider the action/inaction branch, I'll point out this: I don't consider all failures to act as actions. I do consider choosing not to take a course of action to be an action. Since I do not believe Kyousuke had the ability to choose the course of action required, I cannot fault him for that even if I wanted to do so.
And, -sigh-, I didn't expect to have to, but it looks like I really do need to provide my entire "fault" spiel that I wrote the other day. The most relevant bits are in bold.
(click to show/hide)Mind, I haven't provided formal definitions for anything, so it's entirely possible, even probable, that I've left an important gap somewhere.
(You can probably safely ignore the following 'amateur logic spiel' unless you care about how I'm assuming "fault" is defined in this case.)
Perhaps most importantly, I made the implicit assumption that "fault" implies "sole attribution" or a "predictive and required relationship" (in which "A is at fault for B" requires both "A=>B", if A then surely B (predictive), and "~A => ~B", if not A then surely not B (required) ... otherwise known as "A<=>B" -facepalms-). Rephrased in English, "fault", as implicitly defined, means that "if A happens, B must occur; and if B occurs, A must have happened". If you choose to go with "B could not have happened without A" (i.e., just "B=>A"), then you could make rather absurd accusations such as "Smith would not have been shot by Wesson if Smith had not been born, therefore Smith's birth is at fault for Smith being shot by Wesson." One might be able to make an argument for changing it to "A is partially at fault for B" if "B=>A", but... well. I don't know. It just seems awfully convoluted at that point.
It seems to me you'd have to resort to probabilities and assumptions about the relative frequency of unknown cause-and-effect relationships in order to assign a "fault index". E.g., "How 'at fault' is the universe's existence for the death of J. Doe? Well, 'the universe's existence' is a property that is required for all events occurring in the universe, and therefore minimally at fault, as it serves no meaningful predictive value of any particular event, beyond the existence of events in general."
If you accept "all things being determined" or "nothing being determined", you either have it that all events are equally at fault for all other events, as they are just constants, not variables, or that all events are random, and thus no such cause-and-effect relationships can be established, due to the results being independent of the variables. At least, I think that's how it would work.
I also didn't bother to major in philosophy, so I'm basing that just on assumptions made from basic definitions of sets and set membership.
Why is that relevant? Simple: While I didn't want to expect it, it was within the realm of possibility and expectation that you might go down the line of reasoning that "(if not{x} then not{y}) is equivalent to the assertion that (if {x} then {y})"—in this case, your assertion that my assertion may as well be equivalent to faulting someone for something that didn't take place, which could have prevented the situation. The assertion of equivalence is, by the way, again not valid. If you take a look at the tables for "~x => ~y" and "x => y", this should be immediately apparent. Simply because not taking a certain action would prevent an event, does not mean that taking that action will cause an event. Whether you reverse the roles of action and inaction makes absolutely no difference—if you want to be picky, my actual statement would be stressing that he didn't take an action that could have prevented the outcome, not that his failure to act caused the outcome.
And, again, this particular inaction is, from my perspective, a necessary/unavoidable inaction. In eroge terms, the action required at the time wasn't in the list of options. In "people" terms, the necessary course of action was not apparent to him—you can attribute that to personality, reality tunnel, or whatever you please.
There are any number of actions or "un-actions" that could have prevented the situation. That doesn't mean that their inverse can also be said to have caused the situation. Supposing a super volcano had erupted in the early 1900s, preventing both WW I and WW II, is it the super volcano's fault for not erupting and preventing the deaths of so many soldiers and civilians? If I have to provide the answer to that rhetorical question, I'm afraid I'd have to re-post your Seinfeld gif.
There certainly are positions that could be taken in support of that view, but I think most would dismiss them as straw man arguments or invoke Poe's Law.
--anime--
Not really sure what to say to this. I'm not saying your observation doesn't have merit, just that I didn't really consider such scenes at the time. If I considered them realistically, perhaps I would change my view somewhat, but most likely only with respect to the fact that I don't consider interpersonal violence acceptable in the majority of situations. It wouldn't change my view that I don't think anyone is at fault for the general situation.
-- questions --
It's a bit of a social expectation in certain cases that clarification will follow. Sometimes the expectation is on the part of the person asking ("what, and why?"), other times it's on the part of the respondent ("{immediate answer}, but you probably won't get it, so also {reason}"). The more literal minded might expect a presentation of "Do you {x}? And why?", assuming they don't just answer "Yes/No. Because {some hyper-literal explanation involving biology/philosophy/quantum mechanics/what-have-you}."
I can be hyper-literal, so far as my knowledge allows, but usually if I am it's because I'm too lazy to kick in my "human-speak" faculties or because I feel like making someone's life difficult or otherwise dodging, or occasionally I just feel like toying with them/having fun.
Social expectations like these generally seem to exist to "smooth over" interactions and, in some cases, improve efficiency. (At least, IMO.) Similarly to how you admit the expectation that people treat each other with some modicum of respect, even if they don't genuinely want to do so, many just assume and accept such expectations and behaviors as implicit in the transaction.
--rapey--
Right. Misogyny. It really is pointless debating this, then. /Oh, wait, that's an ad hominem argument. Myself, I'm an equal opportunity individual: I am what would generally be considered a "misanthropist". According to the two-party gender system, that makes me equal parts misandrist and misogynist.
Even putting that aside, I can see that you really don't seem capable of understanding the point to the original quoted statement. That isn't meant as an insult. It's not really your fault if your perspective and filters prevent you from recognizing the more general applicability of such an approach to confrontations with hostile entities. It is entirely possible that you've had the incredibly good fortune to never find yourself in a situation where you had to earn someone's trust or acceptance the hard way. Or, if you have, it is quite possible that you've never had to earn their trust using that particular method.
And, why—and this is especially ironic coming from me, one of the more hopeless of the perverts on the board—is it that everything always seems to devolve into being about sex?
(click to show/hide)I honestly am unsure whether your intent is to convince me that your view is correct, to influence me to drop the exchange, presumably implicitly declaring you "the winner" or indicating that I've abandoned my position as indefensible, or simply to make me look like a fool.
In any case, I had already indicated that we are unlikely to compromise our individual stances, I had already given you the option of interpreting my withdrawal as your own victory, and while my own walls mark me as unmistakeably verbose and not particularly adept at communication, your own statements indicate life philosophies and views that modern, non-misogynist individuals would most likely dismiss as being... well, not exactly worthy of admiration. I gave outs at several points* by indicating that I didn't expect a reconciliation of our views, after any of which you could have easily chosen to declare your own victory in a similar way to your response to Vuzedome. To a non-trivial portion and perhaps the majority of posters, my withdrawal and your acceptance of it would have been taken as your victory.
*Okay, so strictly speaking, only two, though I do think the one in the middle could have been worked into an easy out.
If I had to choose between looking like a bumbling idiot who can't string a sentence together (me) or an eloquent lad who looks down on women and, jokingly or not, endorses violence as a resolution to relationship issues (you), well... It would be another thing entirely if you were a troll, but your post history, at least your recent post history, does not seem to imply that you go looking for fights for the sake of stirring up trouble. I could very well be wrong, and you could just be a deep-cover troll, in which case "bravo", but meh.
(click to show/hide)Not specifically a rebuttal to Garret02's comment, but if we're going there I may as well clarify my own position.
In my view forums are meant to aid communication. They provide an environment in which individuals can cluster in order to discuss topics of common interest. Whether that "common interest" involves heated discourse in which multiple parties vie to defend their position and gain support, or just denounce the positions of others, is really dependent on the forum, its members, and the topics. Sometimes maybe it's just to cluster and figure out what other people think about a topic that interests you, without actually caring if you agree or not. To me it's mostly about facilitating communication and expansion of horizons. But, like all tools, it can be... /ahem. Anyway.
Yeah, forums can be used for arguing. It's just one of their many uses as a tool for communication.
And /sub-thread. This is me reaching a peak of a debate and dropping it all with a heavens shattering *clang*
I am hereby explicitly stating in no uncertain terms that you can consider yourself as having won, and not merely implying it as I may have made the mistake of doing previously. This is the point where you brush me off with "Ha! Running away? Well whatevs." and we both move on to new threads or at least new topics of conversation within this thread.
This is also where we start talking about how moe-yandere Ayase is and how everyone seems to hate Jimiko/Ms. Plain/Manami. And, seriously, I don't remember Kirino standing outside the door during the "protect the imoutos!" scene from the LN, but I think it was a nice touch for the flashbacks in the anime.
I do agree that the episode makes Manami look pretty bad, though. She had fairly good reasons, but the episode didn't really go into them. Who knows if the first of the OVAs will look at it or just skip straight into the last stretch.
With that, if you'll excuse me, I believe I was being shown to a place in the city where wishes come true.
--- End quote ---
Both of you actually lost. You were both arguing about something that is actually pretty common in younger preteen sister and older teen brother relationships. Before the preteen girl becomes a teen she's close to her bro. Then as she get's older and things change her attitude and outlook on things change. To the older bro comes confusion as we have no clue wtf just happened. With this comes misunderstandings, emotions and various other things. So basically what happened is normal. No need to spam a thread with walls of text that end in arguments not pertaining to the thread.
--- End quote ---
So you didn't bone her either? Shame city.
vuzedome:
It was an elaborate plan to induce others to spam tl;dr, it worked. 8)
Garret02:
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---It would be another thing entirely if you were a troll, but your post history, at least your recent post history, does not seem to imply that you go looking for fights for the sake of stirring up trouble. I could very well be wrong, and you could just be a deep-cover troll, in which case "bravo", but meh.
--- End quote ---
I like that phrase "deep-cover troll", I like that. Am I a troll? Who knows ;)
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---In any case, I had already indicated that we are unlikely to compromise our individual stances, I had already given you the option of interpreting my withdrawal as your own victory, and while my own walls mark me as unmistakeably verbose and not particularly adept at communication, your own statements indicate life philosophies and views that modern, non-misogynist individuals would most likely dismiss as being... well, not exactly worthy of admiration. I gave outs at several points* by indicating that I didn't expect a reconciliation of our views, after any of which you could have easily chosen to declare your own victory in a similar way to your response to Vuzedome. To a non-trivial portion and perhaps the majority of posters, my withdrawal and your acceptance of it would have been taken as your victory.
--- End quote ---
"Winning" or "losing" arguments is not what being a troll is about. It'a about working up your "opponent" and making them care, preferably even angry over completely unimportant things.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---I honestly am unsure whether your intent is to convince me that your view is correct, to influence me to drop the exchange, presumably implicitly declaring you "the winner" or indicating that I've abandoned my position as indefensible, or simply to make me look like a fool.
--- End quote ---
My intent is for you to understand my point which I don't believe (and your last post reinforced that belief) you do. But I would not be unhappy abut making you look like a fool :P I also use arguments to train my english because while I am able to understand pretty much everything, using it is entirely different story.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---If I had to choose between looking like a bumbling idiot who can't string a sentence together (me) or an eloquent lad who looks down on women and, jokingly or not, endorses violence as a resolution to relationship issues (you),(...)
--- End quote ---
I like how you give me the benefit of a doubt when it comes to violence but claim that I'm for sure misygonist. But more on that later...
As you can see I don't care about your "I give up, don't write more" attitude. There are few points I feel the urge to respond to. So if you're the type that can't help but to respond to argument pointed at you, don't read the spoiler.
(click to show/hide)-- teenagers --
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---Get a license/licence because they're still developing, and said developments include all the hormonal stuff and the still ongoing development of the brain. As such, they don't think like "adults" do. Also, I'm not excluding Kyousuke from this category. It's simply not the case that I really feel like any of his actions or lack of action are "faulted" by anyone, thus it doesn't seem like there's any real expectation of explaining his behavior to excuse fault. But, if I felt I needed another one, that would be another reason to also not fault Kyousuke.
--- End quote ---
You know what an "adult" is? An "adult" is just a kid that's tired of life and have enough life experience. Age is not a factor here. Sure, hormonal stuff do have some effect but it's not major factor and it's certainly not something that would absolve you from your actions. If you take full grown "adult", wipe clean his memories and rise him like a normal child he will act like a normall child. Really, I find this blame shifting ridiculous. "It's not my fault, it's the tv/narcotics/alcohol/my grandma/school/his friends/everything but me". We are progresively coming to the point when we will be able to do anything because doing it won't be our fault... It's especially revolting in the face of the fact throughout the human evolution "teenagers" never had problems with taking responsibility for their actions and now in 21 century they are somehow absolved from thier sins.
-- "improving relationships" --
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---I thought I clarified this previously, but that was a general observation, regarding the actions of participants or otherwise involved parties. Even supposing this were a real scenario, you would not fall under the category of "participants or otherwise involved parties". If I still need to clarify that further: The opinions of individuals who are in no position to influence the outcome of events, as relevant to the relationship, are themselves not considered relevant to this observation. If there is no point in blame casting within the relationship, what value does blame casting from outside the relationship add?
Supposing Jaeger and Wong were having a disagreement regarding whether they should take jam sandwiches or ham sandwiches to their picnic. Smith isn't invited to the picnic. Jaeger and Wong decide they'll take jam ham sandwiches. Smith comments that this is disgusting. Jaeger and Wong are the one's eating the sandwich, and they've agreed on the choice of jam ham sandwiches. Takeshi just doesn't give a fuck. Now: What's really the point of Smith's observation that the combination doesn't suit their palate? Neither Smith's disgust nor Takeshi's indifference make any difference to the involved parties—they've already reached a resolution, and I doubt it had any significant impact on Smith or Takeshi's lives, either.
--- End quote ---
What value? Well, if anything it shows what kind of people we are and who we like. It also helps other people know how to act around us. Me judging Kirino is showing me and you (and everyone who is reading this) that I would not get along with her and acting like her in my vicinity might lead you to a hospital visit. That's rather useful information, don't you say? Same in your example. Eating ham might've just been the last straw and mr Smith would stop being friends with mr Jaeger and mr Wong. And if they wanted to get back this friendship (because mr Smith is so awesome that everyone wants to friends with him) they would know that throwing away ham from their life is a good start.
-- Kyousuke + blame --
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---Not really. Suppose you were playing a game of whatever and left it running in the background. It's an easy game, so you tell your kid brother/sister/Hideyoshi to watch it for you while you go do something else. Suddenly there's a fire in an empty room on your ship, but your kid sibling doesn't vent the oxygen out to space. You come back. You can (a) blame them for something they wouldn't even know how to do and thus couldn't really "choose" to do or (b) not, realizing that it's not really their fault.
Before you bring up the point that you might blame the person leaving them in charge despite knowing that they knew nothing about the game, let me point out that there is no such "precursor" individual for Kirino and Kyousuke. Unless you want to go back and blame their parents for how they brought them up, and then their parents, et cetera, et cetera, and while we're at it, don't forget society and genetics, either. You are still free to bring it up, but that observation does not seem relevant to the issue I was trying to illustrate.
--- End quote ---
Where is the option (c) "It's my fault for leaving the game under my kid brother/sister/Hideyoshi who doesn't know anything"? The fault is always within the parties involved. Btw. FTL much?
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---Personally, I don't think Kyousuke even had the capacity to consciously choose to do what he would have needed to do to avoid the situation. Since "conscious choice" is your requirement for fault, even by your standards I wouldn't say I was faulting Kyousuke.
--- End quote ---
I just said it appears like you are blaiming Kyouske and provided you whith example of wording which causes such appearance.
-- strangers --
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---It doesn't matter whose actions initiated the transformation. What is relevant is that they essentially existed as strangers for that time. Does it really matter if A cuts off ties with B or B cuts off ties with A? The relationship is still severed either way.
--- End quote ---
It kind of does. While result is the same, depending on who and why did so and so the way to fix things will be different. It also again, tells you what kind of people they are and helps you estabilish your likely attitude towrds them.
--actions--
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM --- (click to show/hide)I realize I started it, but are we really going to keep getting all philosophical with definitions? Just to point it out, even if "not taking an action" is an action of sorts, "not believing in {x}" is not the same as "believing in not{x}". One is a failure to assert a belief in {x}. The other is an assertion that not{x}. It is possible to fail to assert {x} but to still accept the possibility that {x}, the latter of which is precluded by an explicit assertion of not{x}.
Also, I can still claim I don't believe, or fail to believe, in the invisible yet paradoxically opaque and possibly purple griffin (no caps — they're a humble deity), regardless of whether or not someone has asserted a belief in such an entity. Granted, that's not what you said. Unless we take the equivalence relation you provided for the "inaction is a type of action" branch, where {not asserting x} = {asserting not x}, in which case it is what you said, by my previous failure to assert belief in a deity for which no one has yet asserted existence—regardless of whether it was an action previously, the equivalence would make it an action. Further, if someone fails to assert that they don't not believe in their humble and possibly purple invisible opaqueness, do they therefore implicitly assert that not{not{x}}, ergo, by your equivalence, belief in said deity?
バカバカしい/Ridiculous. I've never explicitly rejected Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly assume there's a teapot floating somewhere out there. Similarly, I've never explicitly accepted Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly reject the possibility that there is a teapot. Whether I actually reject the teapot or not is irrelevant to my example.
--- End quote ---
You know, you kind of look like someone who tries to use logic just for the sake of using it, without really understanding it. I will admit I didn't really look into it much so it is entirely possible those statements are correct but quite frankly, I don't care, especially in the light of the next bit...
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---I'm not even going to bother checking that for consistency. I'm not claiming all failures to act are actions, and you are asserting that you do not view inaction as an action.
--- End quote ---
So your previous bit is explaining situation when inaction equals action, which here you state you understand that's not my stadpoint (though what still confuses me are your "by your equivalence" and such statements in previous bit, like the previous bit described my standpoint, so it looks like you contradicted yourself). So that basically makes your previous bit...
-- questions --
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---It's a bit of a social expectation in certain cases that clarification will follow. Sometimes the expectation is on the part of the person asking ("what, and why?"), other times it's on the part of the respondent ("{immediate answer}, but you probably won't get it, so also {reason}"). The more literal minded might expect a presentation of "Do you {x}? And why?", assuming they don't just answer "Yes/No. Because {some hyper-literal explanation involving biology/philosophy/quantum mechanics/what-have-you}."
(...)
Social expectations like these generally seem to exist to "smooth over" interactions and, in some cases, improve efficiency. (At least, IMO.) Similarly to how you admit the expectation that people treat each other with some modicum of respect, even if they don't genuinely want to do so, many just assume and accept such expectations and behaviors as implicit in the transaction.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I guess expecting some respect for other is in the same type as expecting to follow up with explanation to yes/no question and it does make me a bit hypocritical. But I don't really care and I'm also a certified massive dick and I do this:
--- Quote ---because I feel like making someone's life difficult or otherwise dodging, or occasionally I just feel like toying with them/having fun.
--- End quote ---
pretty much all the time.
--rapey--
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---Right. Misogyny. It really is pointless debating this, then. /Oh, wait, that's an ad hominem argument. Myself, I'm an equal opportunity individual: I am what would generally be considered a "misanthropist". According to the two-party gender system, that makes me equal parts misandrist and misogynist.
--- End quote ---
Here's the first problem. I'm also misanthropic. I'm as much misygonic as misandric. I like how you assumed I'm misygonic after my "women brains are somewhat dysfunctional" comment (that is the reason, right? i can't think of anything else I wrote which can be considered misygonic) but completely neglected the fact that I stated that men will rape women they want yet they can't have consenus with.
But on the other side it really is easier to talk shit about women. It's not because they are worse, it's just that they are different in a kind of way which makes it easier to do this. Come one, even women hate women...
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---Even putting that aside, I can see that you really don't seem capable of understanding the point to the original quoted statement. That isn't meant as an insult. It's not really your fault if your perspective and filters prevent you from recognizing the more general applicability of such an approach to confrontations with hostile entities. It is entirely possible that you've had the incredibly good fortune to never find yourself in a situation where you had to earn someone's trust or acceptance the hard way. Or, if you have, it is quite possible that you've never had to earn their trust using that particular method.
--- End quote ---
That's another problem. I completely understand your example and how often trust is gained. I even wrote that my hyperbole was half-joke but only half-joke because those situation like in my example do happen (they really do). While I admit, written text is not an easy place to show your joking attitude, I at least expected you would understand that seeing how you defend the notion of partial mind-reading...
And true, I never had to gain trust the hard way, but that's only because I don't care if other people trust me. I don't like people and don't need their trust. Inb4 "But someday you may find yourself in situation when you will need someones trust". Well that would be unfortunate but shit happens, life is brutal. I would deal with it somehow.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---And, why—and this is especially ironic coming from me, one of the more hopeless of the perverts on the board—is it that everything always seems to devolve into being about sex?
--- End quote ---
Because men think with their penises.
vuzedome:
You two should get a room.
Mistgun_Zero:
I think we have a Krinio and Kyousuke in real life and they are here on this thread :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version