http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread Gaming Outpost Discussions » Topic: The Racial Discrimination Thread en-US Thu, 24 May 2012 11:35:24 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/search.php http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20851 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:56:12 +0000 JohnA1nut 20851@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>You know what? You never did get it through your head that you weren't going to persuade me of this no matter what you said </p></blockquote> <p>And not all that long ado, I would have said the same thing about something else. People change my friend. Case in point, you used to compliment me on my ability to make you think. That's all. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20850 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:50:17 +0000 M. J. Young 20850@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Ya know what? You never really said anything more about becoming a molecular biologist....I have no doubt there's a you out there who is into biological medicine.</p></blockquote> <p>You know what? You never did get it through your head that you weren't going to persuade me of this no matter what you said, and all you were going to accomplish was making me more angry about the amount of time I'm wasting reading you saying the same things over and over and over and over and over again.</p> <p><em>No one</em> has posted as many posts to this board in the last twenty-four hours as you have, and most of those posts are a waste of my time keeping me from getting to the game threads and from there to finding time to do the writing that actually starts to pay the bills.</p> <p>And no, I'm not in a depressive funk. I get in a depressive funk when I don't let myself get angry at people who make my life more difficult.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20826 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:24:17 +0000 JohnA1nut 20826@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ya know what? You never really said anything more about becoming a molecular biologist. I was just thinking about it. My mother's father was in the military. My father's father was also in the military. God only know where they might have been stationed during their life. So, my father grows up in China, (actually in Africa, so it's not far off) and learns martial arts from a bunch of Buddhist monks living nearby. My mother's father was stationed in Korea (actually in Ohio) and my mother also learned martial arts. So, now I grow up learning 2 different martial arts styles. That would be radically, almost inconceivably different from my life, and that's only something I can think plausible to have happened. That would also be waaaay out of character for my mother, if you knew her. I have no doubt there's a you out there who is into biological medicine. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20568 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:26:16 +0000 JohnA1nut 20568@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Danny Kaye. He was hilarious. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20566 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:17:38 +0000 M. J. Young 20566@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I was actually thinking of the show <em>Mr. Terrific</em>, in which Stephen Strimpnell plays Stanley Beamish; but that's not the actor I had in mind. Walter Mitty is, I think, another "type", although I'm not certain of that.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20527 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:53:47 +0000 JohnA1nut 20527@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I kind of figured that was the wrong guy I found, but I liked the description. </p> <blockquote><p>there's another 1950's era actor who's an even better example but I can't remember his name. </p></blockquote> <p>Jerry Lewis? He was The Nutty Professor. Sounds like it would a good role for him. </p> <p>Speaking of The Greatest American Hero. In the opening, the guy runs headfirst into a cinder block wall, knocks about a half dozen or so blocks halfway out, then falls down knocked out. You laugh at it because it's funny. However, I'd like to see anyone who's laughing at it run headfirst into a cinder block wall, do that much damage to it, then shrug it off and get back up like it was nothing. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20526 Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:23:12 +0000 M. J. Young 20526@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I don't think that's the original Harvey Milktoast.</p> <p>He's the sort of character that Don Knotts might play, or there's another 1950's era actor who's an even better example but I can't remember his name. He starred in a sit-com something like <em>The Greatest American Hero</em> (which incidentally is showing in an 18-hour marathon on Sci-Fi today, and I'm sorry I'm missing it), in which the scrawny mealy-mouthed weakling is the only person known who can take the power pill that gives him super powers for one hour.</p> <p>Harvey Milktoast is the guy that any nerd can knock down. He's the nerd's nerd, the definition of weak and wishy-washy.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20481 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 21:06:36 +0000 JohnA1nut 20481@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>A middle aged balding man with a bad comb over. Still a bit pudgy but from the look of his crumpled suit he has lost a bit of weight. There are tears and rips in his clothes which also have some bloodstains that look like he tried to wipe away unsuccessfully. A large butcher knife is tucked into his belt and a 12 gauge shotgun is slung over one shoulder. His tie is now more practically used as the sling.</p></blockquote> <p>Sounds like my kind of dude. </p> <p>From here. <a href="http://www.graham-russell.co.uk/ud/topic.php?id_top=299" rel="nofollow">http://www.graham-russell.co.uk/ud/topic.php?id_top=299</a></p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20479 Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:01:03 +0000 M. J. Young 20479@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Um--he's fictitious. Try the alternate spelling Harvey Milktoast and see if that gets more information.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-20431 Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:51:49 +0000 JohnA1nut 20431@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Who is Harvey Milquetoast? Looked him up on Google, looked him up on IMDB, couldn't find him. Believe it or not, your mention of him here was in the top 10 Google results. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19737 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:47:06 +0000 Brock 19737@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>wow. This thread isn't the racial discrimination thread-it's the discrimination in general thread.</p> <p>ROFLMAOWSMD </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19725 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:07:54 +0000 JohnA1nut 19725@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Of course I do--except when I agree with Graeme--just as you always recognize that because of my superior intellect I am always right....</p></blockquote> <p>Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons.... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19724 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:36:13 +0000 M. J. Young 19724@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>WHAT?!? You don't agree with my every golden word?</p></blockquote> <p>Of course I do--except when I agree with Graeme--just as you always recognize that because of my superior intellect I am always right....</p> <p>Sorry. I'm afraid I can't come clean up the beverage that just spewed from your mouth onto your keyboard; it's too far to walk.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19709 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:31:48 +0000 Tadeusz 19709@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>WHAT?!? You don't agree with my every golden word?</p> <p>As to Graeme, I've thought before that arguing with him was like wrestling with a boa. Very hard.</p> <p>When I first got interested in politics, my first theory was 'Invisible Gov't'. It was conspiracy tinfoil hat stuff. The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the United Nations....the idea of black helicopters was in the future for that type of conspiracy nut. I moved on to other ideas mostly with less of a garbage factor in them, I hope. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19697 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:39:22 +0000 M. J. Young 19697@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I don't know nor really care what started Vietnam. Whatever it was though, it must have been equivalent to a poke in the forehead. Why didn't we just stay out of it? </p></blockquote> <p>The answer is complicated. It is built on something called the "Domino Theory", which was a very compelling and critical part of the Cold War and influenced a lot of government policy. We surreptitiously helped overthrow governments in the hope that their replacements would be friendly to us, because we knew Russia and China were doing the same.</p> <p>The Domino Theory assumed that the more countries adopted communism/socialism, the more powerful the enemies of the United States and the Free World would become. There is a certain logic to it, particularly because ostensibly socialism wants to eliminate nations entirely and bring everyone into a unified world order; the fact that the Russians and the Chinese were bickering over which of them would head that unified world order did not eliminate the fact that we were very nervous about the moment they would join forces to bring down Democracy here.</p> <p>You have commented on the significance of Pearl Harbor, but it's true significance is less that it put us into World War Two and more that it was the first signal that isolationism had become an impossibility. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Americans by and large believed that everyone else was "on the other side of the world" in a sense that meant quite literally that they were too far away to impact us in any way. When the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, it screamed in a voice heard around the world that the planet was too small for anyone to think himself protected by distance. What happens in China and Russia and the Middle East is a threat to us, and not some distant threat to us, but an immediate one.</p> <p>North Vietnam, once a petty kingdom, had become a socialist "satellite"--a concept we developed to describe all the "Iron Curtain" countries of Eastern Europe, supposedly independent nations like Romania and Poland that were run by Russian puppet governments. If Russia attacked us, they would have the support and backing of all their "allies", which now theoretically included North Vietnam. North Vietnam was trying, by force, to bring South Vietnam into that alliance. We were certain that from there they would attack Cambodia, Thailand, then Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia--one by one the countries of the world would become socialist dictatorships allied with Russian and/or China against us, and then when The Entire Rest of the World decided it was time for these United States to join their socialist system, we would be unable to defend ourselves.</p> <p>The answer was to draw a line in the sand, to say that South Vietnam would not become a socialist satellite, that Rwanda would not become a Russian puppet state, that Cuba would not join the alliance of communists plotting against freedom.</p> <p>In one sense we lost. South Vietnam fell. Some say that the theory was wrong--Cambodia was not next, and the socialists never attacked New Zealand. On the other hand, it may be that we made them fight so hard for so insignificant a piece of real estate that they decided it was not worth the cost to go for the next stone.</p> <p>The Domino theory said that the fall of each country would lead to the fall of the next in an inexorable flow, like knocking over lines of dominoes. I'm still not certain it would not have happened had we ignored South Vietnam.</p> <blockquote><p>Who appointed us the world's police force?</p></blockquote> <p>Franklin Roosevelt, I think. He made us the world's first superpower, and suggested that that gave us the responsibility to use our power wisely.</p> <p>Being the superpower is problematic no matter what you do. If you get involved (as we do) in protecting small countries attacked by mid-sized countries, you get labeled a bully. If you let mid-sized countries pound small countries in submission, you get labeled uncaring and cruel. Simply being the superpower makes you the villain, no matter how you use or do not use your power. If you help the weak, you're being a bully; if you don't help the weak, you're withholding aid, hording your wealth and letting the rest of the world suffer. We choose to support the weak, preferring to be called a bully by those who want us to let them be the bullies, rather than to let the starving starve while we feast.</p> <blockquote><p>We were selling Iraq weapons. Well, didn't it ever occur to anyone that if we hadn't been selling them weapons, their war would Iran would have ended much, much sooner?</p></blockquote> <p>Lots of problems there. One is, any country that has money can buy weapons somewhere, and if they buy them from us it improves both our economy and our political influence with them, while if they don't buy them from us it will improve the economy and political influence of whichever of our enemies they do. Another is that we believe in a free market economy, and while we try to restrict it in keeping the most critical equipment in our own control and preventing at least some equipment from reaching some enemies, our weapons and systems are produced by independent companies who are in business to make a profit, so we need a good reason to quash their overseas sales. But you're right--the fact that both sides could continue to find suppliers to sell them weapons meant the war lasted longer. On the other hand, if we assume that one side was clearly our enemy, did we want to stop supplying the side that was fighting against them?</p> <blockquote><p>I say, unless they are a legitimate threat to the US, let them do their own thing.</p></blockquote> <p>And who defines a "legitimate threat"?</p> <p>I've read a number of analyses that suggest that Israel is the stopgap against radical Islamic incursion. If the West allows Israel to fall, it will lead to a stronger Islamic power that will attempt to rebuild and expand its empire, sweeping around the world to put everyone under Sharia. What I've heard of Sharia does not encourage me.</p> <p>The balance of power in the world is a genuine threat to everyone in the world. If it shifts against us, we are at greater risk. The Domino Theory might have been flawed, but the essential point is still present, and very much apart of modern fears about Islam: if our enemy controls the Entire Rest of the World, we will fall. We cannot defeat them all.</p> <blockquote><p>That's what the second amendment was for. To empower the people to fight if their own country is invaded.</p></blockquote> <p>Actually, It's not entirely clear that that is the point of the second amendment. Rather, it seems that Jefferson and his Democrats believed that it was very important for citizens to have weapons equal to those of the government, so that if the government overstepped its authority the citizens would be able to bring it down. Credit the Confederate States of America for trying to exercise that right; credit General U. S. Grant for not stripping them of it when they lost (he allowed the southern soldiers to keep their weapons). The Confederacy's problem, as its own President Jefferson Davis recognized, was that without a strong central government the United States could not do anything as a union, and was little better than the United Nations is today, a treaty organization in which each member is free to ignore whatever the majority decides. The Civil War decided that wasn't how it was going to be, but the second amendment still exists to allow citizens to unite against their own government if necessary. (Although come to think of it, not even the Whiskey Rebellion had any success in that regard.)</p> <blockquote><p>Fact remains. Switzerland (most likely) did none of that to help anyone, and no one flew planes into their buildings.</p></blockquote> <p>Yes, but if you're planning to conquer the entire world, you don't start by making enemies of the ones who have a history of letting mad dictators go about conquering other countries, because they'll probably let you and be fairly easy to take later.</p> <blockquote><p>I've always been an isolationist. If there's no one else around, then there's no one who can hurt you. That's certainly an incorrect attitude to have, but I'm hardly in a position to change anything.</p></blockquote> <p>It's incorrect because it's not true--it's not true because the planet is now small enough that there's no such thing as "no one else around". You might be able to ignore whatever is happening on the Martian colonies, but since there aren't any Martian colonies, everyone else is close enough that they're a potential problem or a potential ally, and it's better to take steps to make them the latter than the former.</p> <blockquote><p>I'm allowed to have an opinion, right or wrong, based in fact or in speculation. Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one, and most of them are full of crap. So my opinions are full of crap. I accept that. I'm still allowed to have the opinion. </p></blockquote> <p>Yes, but if your opinion is full of crap and you express it, then you have to accept that people are going to tell you that it's full of crap; and if you then argue in its defense, you have to expect that they're going to show you just how full of crap your opinion is.</p> <p>I don't agree with all of Eric's opinions, but I recognize that they are <em>educated</em> opinions. That significantly reduces the "crap factor" in them, and earns them, and him, a great deal of respect from me, and probably from most posters on the board, even those who most strongly but intelligently disagree with him (I think probably Graeme, who also has educated opinions, can be included in that). But if you try to defend opinions you yourself know are unsupportable crap, you make yourself look like a fool.</p> <p>That's not to say you shouldn't express your opinions. What you shouldn't do is argue that they're valid simply because you believe them. If someone shows you why your opinion is crap, you should either check the facts and find an intelligent response, or you should say, "I didn't know that; obviously I was mistaken."</p> <p>I mean, you can be of the opinion that there never was a Nazi Holocaust (there are people in the Middle East who hold that opinion, that it is just Jewish propaganda to prop up support for Israel), but that opinion is crap because the evidence is quite substantial. If when shown the evidence you admit that you were mistaken and revise your opinion, you demonstrate that you were merely ignorant and can become educated. If in the face of the evidence you repeat that you don't care about the facts, it is still your opinion that it never happened, you're displaying not mere ignorance but obstinance and willful stupidity, and you deserve to be treated as a jerk.</p> <p>So if your opinions are crap, admit that they are and replace them with sound ones.</p> <blockquote><p>Mike, I've been trying for years to write a story about a guy who wakes up one morning, and he is the only person on the entire planet. No rhyme, no reason, just POOF everyone is gone. That would be my utopia. Everything else is still there, of course. The stores still have the food sitting, the cars are still there, just all the people are gone. That's my utopia.</p></blockquote> <p>I suppose so, until the utilities run out and the food goes bad and you wind up trying to survive with your primitive survival skills. You're pretty good at that, so you might last even a few years, but (trust me on this on my birthday) as you get older it will become harder, and you won't live nearly as long, nor as healthily, nor as happily as you would have if there were other people providing that network of support that brings you modern conveniences such as fresh food deliveries at grocery stores.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19686 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:18:12 +0000 JohnA1nut 19686@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Mike, I've been trying for years to write a story about a guy who wakes up one morning, and he is the only person on the entire planet. No rhyme, no reason, just POOF everyone is gone. That would be my utopia. Everything else is still there, of course. The stores still have the food sitting, the cars are still there, just all the people are gone. That's my utopia. That extends into a lot of things, such as what I think the US should do. It's just my opinion. Means nothing at all. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19682 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:28:54 +0000 Tadeusz 19682@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Ah, well then I need to show how isolationism can hurt you. I'll see about writing up a world on that later. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19681 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:25:31 +0000 JohnA1nut 19681@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Honestly, I don't really care. I've always been an isolationist. If there's no one else around, then there's no one who can hurt you. That's certainly an incorrect attitude to have, but I'm hardly in a position to change anything. I'm allowed to have an opinion, right or wrong, based in fact or in speculation. Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one, and most of them are full of crap. So my opinions are full of crap. I accept that. I'm still allowed to have the opinion. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19679 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:08:32 +0000 Glantri 19679@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>John, this is going to sound insulting because Tad's diplomatic approach to it didn't work. You sound incredibly ignorant. You haven't mentioned any facts supporting the idea of why our actions caused 9/11 happened. Furthermore you continue to refer to it in a crass manner that trivializes the events. Do you even know the philosophy behind the people that attacked us? Point is you're commenting on something you seem to admit to not knowing any facts about, and making assessments which are invalid. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19678 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:23:48 +0000 JohnA1nut 19678@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Fact remains. Switzerland (most likely) did none of that to help anyone, and no one flew planes into their buildings. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19677 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:17:40 +0000 Tadeusz 19677@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Um yeah, we rescue Muslims in Bosnia from the ethnic cleansing. We help Muslims resist a Soviet occupying force that probably used chemical weapons and did use dolls with boobytraps inside in Afghanistan. We rescue the Kuwaits from rape, murder, and arson in the First Gulf War and shield the Saudis from the same horror at that time. We rescue Muslims in Bangladesh from the tsunami which granted happened after the Twin Towers.</p> <p>Yeah, I can see how that would lead someone to decide to do 9/11. If only we had let the Croatians slaughter the Muslims things would no doubt be fine. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19676 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:42:18 +0000 JohnA1nut 19676@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Well, it's just that we stick our nose into everyone's business, then we WONDER why people fly planes into our buildings, ya know? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19675 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:01:53 +0000 Tadeusz 19675@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>The first answer and strongest in my view is compassion. Without the US most of the six billion would be treated extremely terribly to the point that we'd see perhaps a drop to five billion people. Lives snuffed out by bombs, by suicide bombers, by ethnic cleansing with AK-47 and machete, starvation as deliberate governmental policy as in Ethiopia and starvation as the side effect of war, refugees dying by the road sides in their millions, and finally millions struck dead in an instant by nuclear fireballs as India and Pakistan 'resolve their differences'.</p> <p>Much of those people are not warmongering idiots. The Middle East is run by thugs, but a friendof mine who has been over there said that half of the people liked the US. Do not those peaceful souls deserve a chance to die in their bed of old age? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19670 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:45:24 +0000 JohnA1nut 19670@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>When I graduated high school, armed forces recruiters were calling me left and right. The ASVAB was required for graduation, and I got on their radar screen. One of the recruiters said that the US was the world's police force. Who appointed us the world's police force? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was the bully complex. Everyone stepped in. When Iraq was at war with Iran, we let it happen. No, wait. We were selling Iraq weapons. Well, didn't it ever occur to anyone that if we <em>hadn't</em> been selling them weapons, their war would Iran would have ended much, much sooner? Then they use the weapons we sold them to kill us. </p> <p>I say, unless they are a legitimate threat to the US, let them do their own thing. That's what the second amendment was for. To empower the people to fight if their own country is invaded. That's the way national defense should work. The military is on guard if they get too close, once they're here, civilians fight alongside. Let the rest of the world tear itself apart. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19669 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:33:45 +0000 Tadeusz 19669@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>We bailed out the French who were in trouble is how we got into it.</p> <p>The West was fighting the Communists, but it was low-level. Imagine a couple guys standing in a locked room with a foot of gasoline on the floor and both have lighters. Both also have knives. They want to win, but they don't want to die themselves. Hours go by, they shove each other, play mind games on the other guy, wait for the other guy to slip up and fall asleep...</p> <p>Vietnam was a pushing contest with some slapping between the two guys in that gasoline filled room. And in the end, Uncle Sam nearly got one of his arteries nicked by the New Soviet Man which would have led to Uncle Sam bleeding out.</p> <p>Global Thermonuclear War, dude. Its a game you only get to play once. Or another metaphor. Imagine the world's biggest poker game lasting decades with trillions of dollars on the table... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19666 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:22:25 +0000 JohnA1nut 19666@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two</p> <blockquote><p>When I was a kid, we were fighting in Viet Nam, and we were fighting an inherently losing battle because of what was called the Tyranny of the Weak. The United States had the weapons and manpower to remove North Vietnam from the map, but to do so would be perceived as being a bully. </p></blockquote> <p>I don't know nor really care what started Vietnam. Whatever it was though, it must have been equivalent to a poke in the forehead. Why didn't we just stay out of it? Then, no one can accuse us of being a bully. </p> <p>I read that the US spends more on national defense than the entire rest of the world combined. Believe it or not, I'm opposed to that. There's a reason why it's called National <em>Defense</em>. No matter what Vietnam did, it couldn't possibly have been perceived as an aggressive attack on the US. What need was there for us to defend ourselves??</p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19659 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:43:20 +0000 JohnA1nut 19659@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>And the funny thing is that all of this got started by women wanting to be equal to men. However, she doesn't want to be seen as your equal if she hits you. She wants to be superior. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19657 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:32:47 +0000 Tadeusz 19657@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>There are situations in which double standards are good; when you are measuring two different things. One of the key, probably the key, problems in the relationship of man vs. woman is that fair standards for each side have to be different. Which means, for a man to make a fair judgment about a woman's behavior, he has to use empathy to put himself in the woman's shoes, and vice versa.</p> <p>This is highly difficult. One problem is naive theorists who claim there are no differences. This is often driven by a desire to simplify the situation to make it solvable, but it only makes things worse by adding another layer of deception to the game.</p> <p>One problem people have is that they don't understand levels. At the level of Man (aka Human) before God the Saviour, we are all equal. But at the higher or less basic level of How Do We Treat Each Other, we are not equal in all ways.</p> <p>Another problem is the old saying 'any job is easy for the man who does not have to do it'. Its easy for the gal to say to the guy 'welcome home from your fifty hour workweek, now let me babble without end for an hour about my problems after you get home, and you need to romance me, and to fix the roof because I spent the roof fixing money on a diamond, and you need to discipline Johnny because I don't like to have to do it, and why aren't you doing fifty percent of the inside chores as well as all of the outside chores...oh boo hoo, I'm so oprressed!'</p> <p>The gal in the above situation thinks her requests are extremely reasonable. She doesn't realize that she's given her husband about eighty-five percent of the labor around the house, and its a load that would break both of them so she needs to cut back o the workload for both.</p> <p>It happens the other way too, but nowadays, I'd say woman tend to have less empathy for their men than usual. This is partly so because empathy is something taught. You learn from watching TV about unfeeling men and hard down for women about the proper expectations to put on each other.</p> <p>Its also partially so because the legal system is probably unjustly slanted in the favor of women.</p> <p>The old system was called chivalry, but contrary to what most think, I don't think it was merely a mess of standards for a guy. I think for any such system to work, you have to have separate and reasonable lists for each gender. And I suspect what happened was the list for women got mostly tossed out the window, and the list for men got partially tossed out and partially added too. Thus an unbalanced system.</p> <p>We are in the process of shifting from a High or Learned Culture of Chivalry to a Lower or More Direct Culture of Barbarianism between the two sexes. In the meantime there is some injustice to being a man. Its the way it is, John. Might as well swallow the lump of gristle and get it over with John. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19650 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:15:38 +0000 JohnA1nut 19650@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>if Drew attacks Chuck he is not allowed to respond in kind (because really, what harm could she do him?).</p></blockquote> <p>You've obviously never seen the Charlie's Angels movies if you think that. </p> <p>If my sister were a man of exactly the same size and strength, things would be different though, right? People feel sorry for Daniel LaRusso, after he gets beaten senseless by the fence. Why is that? He just sprayed Johnny (who had already proven he could and would beat Daniel senseless) with a garden hose in the bathroom stall. I wrote an alternate ending to that, where Mr. Miyagi takes Daniel back to the fence for his stupidity. Daniel is a man of roughly the same size, if not strength as my sister. I'm not exactly certain what I'm trying to say, so I hope the metaphor speaks for itself. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19649 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:04:20 +0000 M. J. Young 19649@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>Why is she allowed to hit me, but I'm not allowed to hit her? Why do I have to show self-control when she pokes me, but if I poke her, she is released from the responsibility of showing self-control and gets your sympathy?</p></blockquote> <p>Harvey Milquetoast pokes Superman in the arm. Superman slugs him as hard as he can. End of Harvey Milquetoast.</p> <p>Superman pokes Harvey Milquetoast in the arm. Harvey Milquetoast's arm is now broken and bleeding, but he wails on Superman with all his might and fury while awaiting the ambulance, which has no impact on Superman at all.</p> <p>In social expectations, being a man puts you in the position of Superman, and being a woman puts your sister in the position of Harvey Milquetoast. It is assumed, barring evidence to the contrary (such as, your sister is a champion woman's body builder and you are a quadriplegic) that you could easily hurt her unintentionally because of your superior strength and her inherent frailty, but that even at her full strength she could not seriously injure you.</p> <p>It is thus assumed that when she responded to your vicious poke attack with her full strength, her force was not as great as yours, but if she poked you there is no level of physical response you could offer that would not be greater than that she used.</p> <p>Thus if you poke her and she slugs you, that is a balanced level of force in response; but if she slugs you and you poke her, you over-responded because your poke is potentially more violent and more forceful than her full punch.</p> <p>*****</p> <p>When I was a kid, we were fighting in Viet Nam, and we were fighting an inherently losing battle because of what was called the Tyranny of the Weak. The United States had the weapons and manpower to remove North Vietnam from the map, but to do so would be perceived as being a bully. Thus we were not allowed to use greater force than our North Vietnamese enemies, and in attempting to ensure that we did not overstep the "rules" we restricted ourselves to using less force than they. In essence, it was a bit like a fight between Chuck Norris and Drew Barrymore, but because that's so unfair Chuck has to be hog-tied and blindfolded, and Drew is aloud to use automatic weapons. But then, if Drew was not allowed to use weapons and Chuck was not so impeded, he would destroy her in seconds. So the fight is unfair no matter how you handle it, and the only fair answer is that Chuck is not allowed to attack Drew, and if Drew attacks Chuck he is not allowed to respond in kind (because really, what harm could she do him?).</p> <p>And that's where you stand. You are viewed as inherently stronger and more resilient than your sister, and if you touch her it is too much force, but if she pounds on you it is inconsequential. You are Superman; you are Chuck Norris; she is Harvey Milquetoast, Drew Barrymore. You do not have the ability to pull your punches sufficiently that you would be considered gentle; she does not have the ability to hit you in a way that is dangerous or threatening.</p> <p>To put it in another metaphor that you might grasp, she has a toy pistol that shoots foam rubber darts; you have a Pancor Jackhammer. She can shoot you with every "bullet" she has without doing you any harm, but you pull that trigger and the police are coming.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19647 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:37:42 +0000 JohnA1nut 19647@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>But yet, if <em>she</em> poked <em>me</em> and <em>I</em> hit <em>her</em> <em>I</em> would be expected to show self-control and not hit her. Why is she not expected to show self-control, exactly like I would be expected to? No one has yet touched that. Strength, who would win the fight, whatever, is irrelevant. I DID NOT hit my sister back after she hit me. Some would say I was well within my rights to do so. <em>I</em> showed self-control against a clear attack, not just a misunderstood joke. My sister is not expected to because she's a woman. Instead, she gets understanding and support for beating me up. <em>I</em> would be thrown in jail for the same reaction to her doing the same thing. No one has said a word about this yet. This is about self-control. Nothing more, nothing less. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19643 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:16:56 +0000 Brock 19643@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>...it isn't about self-control; it was a misunderstanding. Just because she knows you behave oddly, it does not immediately follow that she should let you suddenly poke her in the middle of an argument. It is seen as an attack. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19639 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:35:40 +0000 JohnA1nut 19639@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>I'm not talking about strength, I'm talking about self-control, and responsibility. Is my sister less responsible for her own actions because she's a woman? If she's allowed to hit me for poking her, but I'm not allowed to hit her for poking me, then the implication is that I should show more self-control because of my gender.</p> <p>The only thing that makes sense is if the woman realizes she can't win the fight, and thus does not antagonize the man to start with. </p></blockquote> <p>You never did answer me on this. I poke her, I get hit, and you have sympathy for her. If she poked me, and I hit her, you would STILL have sympathy for her. Why is my sister not responsible for her own actions just because she's a woman? Why is she allowed to hit me, but I'm not allowed to hit her? Why do I have to show self-control when she pokes me, but if I poke her, she is released from the responsibility of showing self-control and gets your sympathy? What does having a penis have to do with showing self-control? This has nothing to do with strength, this has to do with showing self-control. Why is she released from the responsibility of showing self-control and taking responsibility, just because she's a woman? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19592 Sun, 06 Jun 2010 02:58:05 +0000 JohnA1nut 19592@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Mistake </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19470 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:21:08 +0000 M. J. Young 19470@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Perhaps not, but apparently you don't either, since you did not anticipate her response.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19459 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:57:07 +0000 JohnA1nut 19459@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>You didn't mean it as an attack, but she did, and she felt threatened by it, and she responded in kind. </p></blockquote> <p>You don't know my sister. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19453 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 03:22:51 +0000 Brock 19453@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>What's IRL?</p> <p>IRL= In Real Life. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19450 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 02:39:43 +0000 JohnA1nut 19450@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>I'm not talking about strength, I'm talking about self-control, and responsibility. Is my sister less responsible for her own actions because she's a woman? If she's allowed to hit me for poking her, but I'm not allowed to hit her for poking me, then the implication is that I should show more self-control because of my gender. </p> <p>The only thing that makes sense is if the woman realizes she can't win the fight, and thus does not antagonize the man to start with. </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19447 Tue, 01 Jun 2010 02:21:21 +0000 M. J. Young 19447@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>But yet, if we got into the same argument, I said "point" she poked me, and I hit her, that would be wrong.</p></blockquote> <p>It's an equal force argument, actually. There is a general truth that a man has greater upper body strength than a woman. This is true in broad terms: the average man is stronger than the average woman, but the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman and the weakest man is probably stronger than the weakest woman. (This is only upper body strength.) Part of it is musculoskeletal structure, that because of the specific necessary organs a woman has she can't build her muscles to the same intensity. For similar reasons, they are also more vulnerable in the upper body.</p> <p>If the average woman beats on the average man, she probably won't do much damage to him. She might leave a few bruises, but he'll be fine. If the average man beats on the average woman, he is likely to break bones and damage internal organs.</p> <p>It's difficult to measure how hard someone hits someone else, but as far as the amount of injury you suffered, it doesn't sound like it was greater than the amount of injury she suffered, and thus that she apparently responded with comparable force to your attack. You didn't mean it as an attack, but she did, and she felt threatened by it, and she responded in kind.</p> <p>Had she been a body builder, it would have been a problem; but female body builders are an exception to the general rule. So are trained female martial artists. Your sister not being those, she gets counted as having low upper body strength and a need to defend herself against your attacks. You might not have meant anything by it, but a jury is going to side with her.</p> <p>Had the positions been reversed and her poke to you generated a violent beating, she probably would have been hospitalized and you would have been arrested--not because you're a man, but because the amount of force you used against her was inappropriate to the amount of force she used against you.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19435 Mon, 31 May 2010 06:39:55 +0000 JohnA1nut 19435@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Three</p> <blockquote><p>Or that Amanda's sense of humor allows that poking people in the middle of an argument can be funny and your sister's views it as offensive and insulting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe my intention was to diffuse it with humor? I'm not exactly sure, but still. You can do the wrong thing for the right reason, you can do the right thing for the wrong reason. You very rarely do the right thing for the right reason, generally preferring to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Or at least so I've noticed with most people. </p> <p>I was talking recently about how the Indians didn't need money, and just worked for the good of the people. The wrong thing for the wrong reason generally involves money in some fashion. I read recently about a fire in a coal mine. They could have stopped it decades ago, except for (wait for it) MONEY!!!!! Now, that fire is burning out of control, the residents have had to evacuate for the most part, the coal mine has been destroyed, and there's been immeasurable ecological damage. Man, <em>I'm sure glad</em> someone saved a few bucks on that, aren't you? </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19432 Mon, 31 May 2010 04:27:51 +0000 JohnA1nut 19432@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Two</p> <p>But yet, if we got into the same argument, I said "point" she poked me, and I hit her, that would be wrong. So, just because I have a penis, I'm supposed to show more self-control? Does a woman lose the responsibility of showing self-control because she doesn't have a penis? What does having a penis have to do with showing self-control? Oh that's right, once a month women become <em>even more</em> irrational.... </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19421 Sun, 30 May 2010 19:43:54 +0000 JohnA1nut 19421@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>Or perhaps established that my sister is insane and immature? </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19416 Sun, 30 May 2010 19:18:02 +0000 M. J. Young 19416@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>So we have established that Amanda who has known you for a few years has more patience remaining for you than your sister who has known you for a few decades.</p> <p>Or that Amanda's sense of humor allows that poking people in the middle of an argument can be funny and your sister's views it as offensive and insulting.</p> <p>Or that you have completely misread Amanda, and that in fact if you were in the middle of an argument with her and you poked her to make a joke when she demanded, "Point?" that she would also lose her temper as your sister did, and not laugh as you expect.</p> <p>In other words, you have proved nothing. You have only imagined.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/9#post-19408 Sun, 30 May 2010 01:24:48 +0000 JohnA1nut 19408@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <p>MJ, here's the thing. Yeah, I poked my sister. Yes, maybe I even deserved it. The thing is, Amanda, my best friend <em>wouldn't</em> hit me for poking her in the forehead. I am one of three people in the world who could conceivably give my sister a bone marrow transplant* (a sibling being by far the most likely candidate) and she doesn't even pretend to understand me. Amanda would recognize it for the joke that it was, and would probably laugh. All I gotta say is my sister better pray she never needs a bone marrow transplant. </p> <p>*That's how close God intended for siblings to be. </p> <p>(Doing Therapy) </p> http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/topic/the-racial-discrimination-thread/page/8#post-19382 Fri, 28 May 2010 22:10:02 +0000 M. J. Young 19382@http://gamingoutpost.com/discussions/ <blockquote><p>If you're driving your car down the street, a child runs out into the middle of the road, and you hit him and kill him, that was done with no intent to cause harm.</blockquote> Actually, you're likely to get involuntary vehicular manslaughter and face a wrongful death civil suit. It might be unrealistic, but it is generally assumed that if a vehicle hits a pedestrian, the driver is at fault and responsible, and thus negligent. If the pedestrian dies, it might have to be demonstrated that the pedestrian had acted in a manner which caused the incident (throwing himself in front of the vehicle intentionally, attempting to cross a major highway on which pedestrians are prohibited) or that there was a third party involvement (the victim was pushed into traffic by another pedestrian or thrown from another vehicle).</p> <p>So it's a bad example.</p> <p>Also, under the law, "Battery" is defined as "impermissible touching". If you rested your hand on her shoulder without her permission, that's a battery offense. Your intent to do harm is irrelevant; the only point at which it is relevant is in actual damages in a civil suit, which has no relevance to criminal culpability. In other words, don't touch anyone without their consent, and don't think that you are legally allowed to touch them simply because you don't intend to hurt them. It is not true; you are not legally permitted to touch anyone without consent.</p> <p>--M. J. Young </p>