 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Kutske |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| User | Post | ||
Kutske                  Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| For my own purposes, I'm creating a language of my own. I won't bore you with the why or the history. I'm creating this topic in Modern Art because I don't think it fits at General Chat, and certainly not WA/D or OC. Besides, "art" includes literature, yes?
Now, I have a few questions, but I must first list the ten vowels I've identified and give examples. ( ae ) pay ( ah ) sat ( ee ) glee ( eh ) bet ( aw ) saw ( ih ) pith ( uh ) sun ( oh ) flow ( oo ) book ( uu ) flute What I'm trying to do is list "independant" vowels -- those which consist of one and only one sound. The above list has a few problems. First, I'm not sure if ae is actually an independant vowel. In the word "pay," is it really a p-sound and an ae-sound? Or is it a p-sound, an eh-sound and an ee-sound? While the other nine cannot be divided further, ae seems like it could be comprised of eh and ee. This problem is further compounded by the fact that there might be an ai sound. The answer to that is the answer to the question, "Do the words say and pain have the different vowels in them?" I'm just not sure. Take this time to note that the English oh is almost always paired with a closing w-sound. Know, show, blow, even in words which lack a 'w' in the spelling such as so, go. The Spanish, Japanese and a few other languages pronounce oh shorter, with no paired w-sound. I can't explain how the "pure" oh sounds, you have to hear it spoken. In either case, I wonder if oh and oh+w are seperate vowels, or if the second does indeed merely have a consonant attached. I'll let us mull over that for awhile before proceeding with any more specific concerns. One last thing, though; I cannot make any sense of the explinations of the IPA on Wikipedia. I've tried repeatedly to understand the concepts of "height" and "backness" but it makes utterly no sense to me. Even navigating the list of vowels boggled my mind, especially since half of them sound identical to each other. In any case, if you happen to be a certified linguist or are simply able to make sense of the IPA, would you kindly give me examples of all the vowels identified on the afforementioned list? |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| Playing as Reinhardt through Castlevania 64, I happened into a room filled with vampires. Unfortunately, I had next to no health and only thirtysome gems to dish out the holy water. Regardeless of the odds being stacked against me, I thoroughly thrashed the lot of 'em and proceeded directly to a boss enemy, which I also vanquished - all the while still not healed from my already dismal levels of health. Long story short, I thought I was going to die about two dozen times but ended up making it to the last area of the game before Drak himself took me out. Most of my whoaments take place when I manage to pull off some feat under extreme circumstances.
The Megaman X series delivers an easy three or four whoa moments per hour, which is quite a high ratio indeed. |
|||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| I don't think that politeness automatically equates dishonesty. Not everyone is a bitter, hateful little prick who despises everyone around him -- it's quite possible that a person's honest opinion is a nice one. Also, as was said, political correctness is a completely different issue.
As for me, I believe you can be honest and polite at the same time. If you were served a home cooked meal and it tasted terrible to you, most people would lie and say they liked it. I think the proper thing to do is tell them that it didn't taste good to you, but reassure them that you appreciate the gesture, regardeless. Similarly, if a woman asks her boyfriend how she looks in a particular dress and he thinks she doesn't look so great in it, he shouldn't lie and say the dress looks great on her, he should tell her that that particular dress doesn't look good on her, while also reminding her that he thinks she looks beautiful all the time. But overly gushy politeness sometimes comes with the territory. Take the Japanese concept of honne and tatemae, for example; some things are best kept to oneself, but you don't necessarily have to outright lie to avoid social disaster. We can't all be Mugen all the time, there are occasions when we have to be like Jin. In the end, I think people who zealously tout being honest with people instead of being polite with them tend to be judgemental and insecure; they have to put down everyone else to feel good about themselves, which is sad. What's important in my mind is being honest with oneself -- that's a skill that few people master and fewer still apply. Sion: It is dishonesty, thats why I always tell the truth no matter how hard it may be. I just tells it like it is. Somehow, I strongly doubt there is absolute truth to those words. Picture this; you walk out of your bedroom looking disheveled and you bump into your mom in the hallway. She asks, "Were you just jacking off in there?" You were. What are you going to tell her? edit: ignore these edits, sorry =( (edited by Yoshi Dude on 02-08-06 12:43 AM) (edited by Yoshi Dude on 02-08-06 12:44 AM) (edited by Yoshi Dude on 02-08-06 12:44 AM) |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| Um, just a question about the topic title; how exactly does bitching about a speeding ticket make you a "nigga wit attitude?" I'm confused. Because I thought the whole NWA thing was about a cultural revolution in inner-city neighboorhoods where there were corrupt police officers abusing the local black residents out of racism, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, whining about a speeding ticket when you obviously were speeding just doesn't seem quite as noble as speaking up for the oppressed lower class. Again though, I could be wrong -- maybe Dre and Snoop were just bitching about speeding tickets, too. | |||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| Recently, I found out about a type of paint that bonds to plastic, as regular paint would just chip right off. Despite my misgivings about it in that other topic, I think I want to get a DS Lite. Problem is, I just bought my Graphite Black DS a few short weeks ago. I've decided that rather than try to sell the black DS, I'd give it as a gift to a friend who's a major fan of the GBA, but hasn't made his mind up about the worthiness of the DS yet. He's also a major Zelda fan, so I've decided to use that plastic-bonding paint to make a Triforce decal on the back of the system. It will be my first time modding any system I've ever owned, so I was wondering, has anyone else ever modded their systems, be it internally or cosmetically? How'd it go? Would you reccomend it to others? Got any pics? | |||
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| So I've been reading up on the whole concept of "color" and how creatures percieve it on Wikipedia, and as I was reading up on monochromacy, dichromacy up through pentachromacy, I wondered, what would it be like if we could see color as it truly occurs? Most humans are trichromats -- we sense all colors as various mixtures of red, green and blue, basically -- and that bothers me, because some creatures see in mixtures of four colors, which seems more "real" to me. So I've been wondering, and maybe some smart-type person can answer this for me -- would it be possible to have a different receptor for every distinct "type" of color (rather than just mixing from a small pallette) and thus see color as it truly occurs, unskewed by limited vision? And I mean theoretically as in could some creature see in such a way -- obviously humans could never attain such vision.
Furthermore, I wonder what the world would look like if we could see beyond the visible spectrum -- if we could see more or perhaps all forms of light. Do colors exist that we can't possibly imagine? Would seeing outside the visible spectrum affect the way we view colors within that spectrum? If we could see x-ray and ultraviolet light, would we see right through most objects and thus be unable to function normally in life? Then is our limited capacity for viewing lightwaves beneficiary, and not detrimental? I wonder... |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| I think feet are really ugly, weird, and alien-looking, but for some reason, I like my feet. That's all I'll say about that, but as for everybody else; what the hell is wrong with you people saying you don't have any physical qualities that you like? That's some old bullshit. I mean, not to sound like a self-help booklet, but if you don't love yourself, nobody else is going to. If you're overweight or skinny, if you think your nose is too big or your butt is too flat, so what? The question was, what do you like about yourself, not "how far are you from perfect?" Learn to love your big honkin' schnoz and your non-existant fanny; it's what makes you you. Like I said, I dislike feet in general, I think they're hideous and off-putting, but I've learned to like my own feet, because they're mine, and I'm stuck with them for life. Think about it. | |||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| While browsing the Kinsey topic, I decided to make this one to see if there's anyone else out there with my same mindset. I see this whole "sexual orientation" thing - you know, the question of whether you like boys or girls - as totally bogus, a modern invention. For me personally, I'm not homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual, but I'm not at all asexual either. I am resigned to the fact that love is uncontrolable, "love knows no bounds," as they say, and as such, I accept that I could fall in love with a person of either sex. Thus, I've decided that whomever I fall in love with is the person I'll have sex with; male, female, or somewhere inbetween.
But that doesn't mean I'm pansexual, either. As far as what physically arouses me, what rouses my purely sexual interests - outside of the scope of love, affection and romance - is more of an attitude, a certain air about someone, as opposed to merely than what they have inbetween their legs. That is to say, show me a penis, show me a vagina, in either case I'm unaffected -- what makes it sexual for me is the surrounding circumstances; the act itself, rather than the thing being used in the act. (Boobs, however, I will openly admit to liking, but more for the aesthetic and maternal qualities than the sexual...plus, I firmly believe that everybody loves boobs -- men, women and children, regardeless of whether they identify as gay or straight -- everybody loves boobies. But that's another topic.) Does anybody here even remotely understand what I'm talking about, or am I just being difficult and finickey? I mean, I understand why people need labels like gay and straight -- for dating and courting purposes (someone who isn't attracted to men would want to advertise that point so a male doesn't try to initiate a romantic encounter with them, right?) -- but since I don't do the whole "dating" thing (like I said, love is either there or it isn't, and it'll be obvious when I see it, so no point in trying to "make due" or "find it"), I don't have this use or need for a "sexual orientation." What do you think? |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
NSNick: Au contraire! I saw the coolest mod at the crazy gamer store in the mall downtown. A GameCube taken apart and put inside of an AT-ST. It was fuckin' bad ass. I don't even like Star Wars, and that gets my geek-juices flowing. Hyper LOL: I FlashMe'd my DS, but softmods don't really count IMO. FlashMe is the one where you have to re-write the firmware of the DS and short the S1 thing, right? That's quite a significant mod, if you ask me. Plus Sign Abomination: I modded my friends X-Box with him. He works in Blockbuster, so what he does is brings his X-Box to work and rips the games to it. The boss is cool with it, too. If you don't blackmail them (the manager could get fired, and your friend could get worse), you will lose any and all respect that Black Mage might have had for you, if he were a real person, and had respect for you in the first place. ... Just do it. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
Tommathy: Considering that the wave nature of light is, insofar as we understand it, not quantized, you'd need an infinite number of receptors to see the infinite possibilities of light. Well, two possibilities come to mind when you say that. First, that each variant of hue (even if there's billions) has it's own cone, but not variants of intensity, which is what would make it infinite. Or secondarily, if an entirely new type of visual organ were discovered that didn't need to use rods and cones to interpret the visual spectrum. I'm more inclined to think of the latter as the more possible possibility, but I'm no expert. Skydude: What I've always wondered, however, is if the colors I'm seeing are the same as the ones you're seeing. If we see a yellow ball, we will both call it "yellow"...but perhaps the signals my brain gets perceive it as what you would class as another color, but that particular color we both have been taught it "yellow"...which could actually be some explanation not really for colorblindness, but "colorweakness" in which distinctions between colors are perceivable, but it's hard to identify what is what in some cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorblindness#Misconceptions_and_compensations That was always what I figured, but no. Tatrion: Actually, interpretation of colors comes from what materials absorb what wavelengths of light, and which they reflect. Which has always fascinated me because that means that grass isn't really green and blood isn't really red; these things merely reflect light in such a way that we percieve them as green or red or what have you. That's also why we can't see in the dark, because light isn't being reflected by anything. Snow Tomato: I was thinking about this just before. What is the frame rate that our eyes perceive in real life? I've thought about this before, too. While discussing the possibility of total optical camoflauge, I wondered, "What is the frame rate our eyes record information at? If we could find out, perhaps we could find a way to make an object go out of synch with that rate, making it unable to be percieved visually." But that's another topic. Danielle: The sky is blue because it is the reflection of the ocean in the atmosphere. Heh heh heh, that's what I was told as a kid, too, but it's absolutely false. It's more like, blue is the shortest and therefore most easily percieved wavelength, or something, so that's what our brain registers when it sees a daytime sky filled with lightwaves. I'm sure it also has to do with what elements make up our atmosphere, and how they affect lightwaves. Tarale: Now, I was told the OCEAN is blue because it's reflecting the sky Yeah, that's it; water is mostly clear (aside from particulate matter clouding it), huge bodies of water just look blue because they're reflecting the sky. Jin Dogan: Let's not forget the sun's role in our perception of color. I think that in different solar systems, the spectrums are different and have colors we cannot understand or something. Nah. As far as the visible spectrum goes, there is a finite amount of percievable colors, the sun has nothing to do with it. The sky would appear differently colored on different planets, though, because of different gasses in the air. Venus' sky is supposedly chartreuse, Mars' is a pinkish orange. Here's another interesting fact; most of the languages in the world don't have words to distinguish between the colors blue and green -- they have one word that means both, and the actual color implied is usually understood through context. If clarification is needed, you could say "grue like water" or "grue like leaves." Also, think about the words we use for color in English... Maroon, Red, Pink Dark Blue, Blue, Light Blue Dark Green, Green, Light Green Dark Yellow, Yellow, Light Yellow Brown, Orange, Light Orange ...why is it that we recognize certain shades of certain colors as being totally different colors, but for others, they're merely different shades? In Itallian, there is blu and azzuro, which we just call blue and light blue. They see the two colors, however, as being as different from one another as our pink and red, or brown and orange. I think human language is the first major barrier that needs to be overcome if we are ever to accurately understand just what exactly color is. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
Tommathy: Also, what do you mean by "...that grass isn't really green and blood isn't really red..."? The *definition* of color is the wavelengths of light that are emitted/reflected from an object. Nothing has some sort of *intrinsic* color out on which we're missing. What I mean is, color only exists insofar as visual perception exists. Color is merely the interpretation by our eyes of different wavelengths of light. It's like, a light particle doesn't have some intrinsic trait to it which we can call "color;" what we know as color is just our perception of that light. If humans didn't have eyeballs and we were studying the concept of light, we would never attribute something called "color" to it because color only exists in our perception of light. It's like how we associate fire with heat, when in actuality, it's what's burning that's giving off the heat -- what we know as "fire" is merely visible gas produced by the object which is burning. I dunno, maybe I'm not making sense to you, but I'm making sense to me. Tommathy: Also, english does have a color for light blue: cerulean, cyan, teal, cornflower, aquamarine, or turquoise. Cerulean, cyan and such are all names for specific colors, and the color names themselves are up to interpretation (Crayola's teal is different from a paint manufacturer's teal is different from a cell phone skin's teal is different from teal as defined in html, etc.) What I mean is that we recognize maroon, red and pink as distinct colors while in reality, they're merely variations of red, while at the same time, we don't give unique variation names to shades of green -- apart from, of course, invented colors used by paint/crayon/etc. manufacturers. To English speakers, cyan is light blue but pink isn't light red, and brown isn't dark orange. *shrugs* Makes sense to me. Tommathy: Indeed, there is no star so *specific* in its radiation that it completely leaves out or adds certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Of course, you can't exactly prove that until a human stands on the surface of another planet in another solar system with his pack of Crayolas and draws a picture, noting discrepencies between what he sees when he draws, and the names of the crayons he's using. HyperMackerel: I can always tell when a TV is on, even if it's showing a black screen, because I can hear the high-pitched whine it makes; most TVs have a low refresh rate. This brings up an interesting point. See, all my life I've noticed that I can tell whether a television is on, even if the screen is blank, the sound is muted, I can't see the light it's casting and I'm in another room. I've always wondered why that is. I can also tell whether a light is on without seeing it, even if I'm totally deprived of sight. Now, while we mostly interpret sound waves with our ears and lightwaves with our eyes, that doesn't mean that sound and lightwaves only affect our eyes and ears. My hypothesis is that the human epidermis can detect sound and lightwaves to some degree, even in the absence of sight or hearing. Of course, I have no scientific knowledge with which to base this hypothesis on, but it makes sense to me. I know, at least, that when I sense that a light is on even though I can't see it, it's because I can feel the light on my skin. Not the heat from the light, I can feel the light itself. But maybe I'm just crazy, because I also claim to be able to predict the weather in my general area for up to the next twelve hours simply by smelling the air outside. HyperMackerel: I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red. Really, the only way you could know is to tap into someone's brain and actually see what they see, or inject an image directly into their brain. Dagnabbit, ya varmint, read this. That's fully and utterly untrue, it's physically impossible. Bass Pipes: That machine is really stupid. I can't belive something like that is legal in the UK. Talk about a barbaric country. Damn. Yeah, those dang Brits are so barbaric, what with their corporal punishment and their glorification of nationalistic-driven war. Oh wait... |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
Jin Dogan: Good question. I have an answer. [The rest of the post has been snipped out in this quotation, for space-saving reasons.] Before I proceed with my reaction to what you've said, based on what I've read of the qur'an and other Islamic teachings, can I ask for some quotations from Islamic holy texts that correspond to your claims? Because, looking through Wikipedia and a few other online resources, I'm having trouble finding anything relating to things such as women being able to spend their money as they please, and men having to spend their money foremostly on their family, and other things you claimed are Islamic teachings. Don't wanna jump to any conclusions, though, and I do recognize the difference in certain beliefs between different sects of Islam such as Sunni and Shi'a. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free, Let us all be grateful for a land so fair, As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer: God Bless America. Land that I love Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies , To the oceans, white with foam God bless America My home sweet home. God Bless America, Land that I love Stand beside her, And guide her, Through the night With the light from above, From the mountains, To the prairies, To the ocean, White with foam, God bless America, My home sweet home. God bless America, My home sweet home. Cruel Justice: Kinda redundant "kidnapping" your own wife. By this do you mean it's not possible to kidnap one's own wife? Of course it is. Kidnapping is confining someone to a limited area and holding them there against their will. Their relationship to you doesn't change the fact. Rom Maniac: It's a legally binding contract if she signed it. So long as she doesn't he's not very guilty for making it. Surely you're not serious. First of all, just writing, "This is a contract that says you (John Doe) must do everything I (Joe Schmoe) tell you to." And then having someone sign it does not make it a legally binding contract. Secondly, under no circumstances can a contract, no matter how well-written or official, stipulate the committing of a crime on or by the author or signer of the contract. Thirdly, on the fourth page the author writes, "This is not a contract; it is a description of rules for you." Directly stating that it's not a contract. This four-page doccument was brought up by the prosecution to show what a whacko Mr. Frey is when his wife charged him with kidnapping. Rom Maniac: But maybe he has a fetish. Saying thats wrong is about as wrong as saying a man that likes lesbian porn more than straight porn is evil and should go to jail for it...Not to say trying to force that on his wife is right, since it is kinda illegal and is considered rape. It's just a psychological angle of it all. This isn't a case of "apples and oranges" in the least, and even if he has a fetish for dictating every aspect of his wife's life, that doesn't mean he has a right to try and enact those fantasies. He can fantasize about them, of course, just like someone can fantasize about rape or sex with a child, but the moment something like that is attempted to be realized, it becomes illegal. Really, you sound like you're defending this guy. Although the fact that he wrote the doccument in itself is no reason to arrest him, the fact remains that he kidnapped his wife, and the doccument suggests that he's a very distrurbed and controlling person, which could be grounds for getting their marraige annulled and granting full custody to the mother. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| If you read more carefully, you'll see that he was imprisoned for re-entering Austria after having been banned earlier for denying the holocaust. So what happened was that his public denial of the holocaust got him barred from Austria, they basically said, "You don't gotta go home but you can't stay here." He then re-entered the country illegally, and that's what netted him the jailtime.
As for me personally, I don't know anything that I haven't seen with my own eyes or heard with my own ears, but I somehow doubt that there could possibly be a massive conspiracy by thousands of world leaders, tens of thousands of journalists and news reporters and millions of Jews to falsely implicate the Nazi party and/or Adolf Hitler of genocide. It seems more likely to me that he did do it, although numbers could very well have been blown out of proportion. You've got to wonder, though. I mean, we know for a fact that the Bush administration has an institutionalized policy of lies and deciet, and the only way we've been able to find this out is due to freedom of the press, investigative reporters, people higher up in the chain of command coming clean, etc. Back during World War II, the American public wasn't nearly as free as it is now to critisize government policy. I seem to recall an incident as recent as Vietnam where military police spritzed gunfire into a crowd of peaceful protestors in Washington. Who knows what the government could have been hiding from us? Just a thought. Technically speaking, the entirety of World History as we currently know it could have been fabricated. Can you prove that the Boston Tea Party ever took place? All you have are doccuments referencing it, there is no forensic or otherwise physical proof that it ever happened, just eyewitness accounts, so it's entirely feasable that the whole fiasco was fabricated. Who's to say that George Washington died of pneumonia on the night of December 14, 1799? Can we prove that fact beyond all reasonable doubt? All we have that attest to this fact are historical records, records that could have been altered, fabricated. Did a person named Jesus ever roam ancient Jerusalem? Did the prophet Mohammed ever actually exist? Before the age of film, photography, DNA and fingerprinting, we really can't be any more certain that anything occured than our trust in the words of historians of ages past. But whether the holocaust happened or not seems irrelevant at this point; we all know that Hitler was a bad, bad man, we all sympathize with the Jews for what they were put through, and nothing is going to change that. But making denial of the holocaust a crime does seem to border on thought-crime, it's a bit unnerving, but at the same time, it does seem like something that could erupt a crowd of people into violence. Then again, going into the middle of a KKK meeting and proclaiming Jesus Christ to be a black man is inciting violence as well, and those anti-Denialist laws were created in a much more unstable time, so they don't seem all that neccessary anymore. It's like those cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that have incited violence all around the world; is the cartoonist to blame, or are the violent protestors to blame? If I did walk into the middle of a KKK meeting and proclaim that Jesus was black and they murdered me on the spot, is it my fault for inciting them, or is it their fault for reacting to my message in such a violent manner? If a fourteen year old girl dresses in a sexually attractive manner and is raped because of it, is it her fault for flaunting her body, or the rapists fault for being unable to resist his urges? There has to be some point at which we stop shifting the blame, at which we hold a person to be responsible for their own actions, instead of blaming it on a cartoon or a suggestive style of dress or an incendiary remark. R-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y, find out what it means to me. Edit I should clear something up. He was originally barred from entering Austria back in the late eighties, for ties to neo-Nazis and for hate speech. He didn't merely say, "I don't think the holocaust happened." And then was thrown in jail for it, it's nothing that trigger-sensitive. Also, it should be noted that the Denialist remarks he made were made back in the eighties, when he was originally banned from entering Austria, and it should also be noted that he's since recanted those remarks. I can't say I like the guy, but I don't think he deserves to be in jail for his beliefs or remarks, regardeless of how unpopular they may be. (edited by Kutske on 02-21-06 06:24 AM) |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| It's because Irving is white and presumably Christian, and the rioters are not and not, respectively. I hate to be the one to say it, but you know it's true. Imagine if Carlos Mencia or Chris Rock were white, imagine how quickly they'd be compared to Nazis if not the H-Man himself. White people are expected to use politically correct speech and be overly, gushingly symapthetic towards all minority groups, regardeless of how violent and misogynistic they may be, while the minorities are left to bicker amongst themselves and are generally allowed to say and do as they please. It's patronizing more than it is helpful, really, and in our quest to save free speech, we've in fact severely limited our freedoms both legally and socially.
I keep a positive outlook though; I contend that someday in the future, due to interracial couples, we'll all be the same lightish-brown color, and then we can get to the real root of our problems -- culture. Then once we find a way to get people to stop bitching about cultural differences, all superficial labels will dissapear, and we can all finally start hating one another for who we truly are, instead of what we look like or where we come from. This universal and pure form of hatred will be what brings us together as a species. Yes, that's right (I'm lookin at you, Captain & Tennille) -- hate will bring us together. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| I'm sure it is, but he said, "The whole idea of misogyny is not supported by Islam." That's utterly contradictory to everything I've ever learned about a woman's role in the Islamic world, and I've seen excerpts from - among books - the Quran to confirm this. Now, I don't for a minute doubt that Jin must come from a community that supports women in the way he claims, but my original question wasn't, "Jin -- how are women treated in your specific Muslim community?" The question was why Islam in general places women so low (what with the thirty-howevermany virgins promised to a man in his afterlife, among other examples). It can't all be blamed on extremists and cultural setting, most of it has to trace back to the core belief system.
Not that I'm here to vilify Islam or anything -- Christian and Jewish texts are equally terrible to women, it's just that since I live in a country with many Christians and Jews, I can see from firsthand experience that by and large, their misogyny has been abandoned and is attributed to customs and cultures of days gone past, with a focus being on the more positive things the Christian and Jewish texts promote, what with the charity and caring for the sick and needy, etc. I haven't been able to observe this sort of thing first-hand with regards to Islam - most of my knowledge comes from my own admitedly-loose understanding of the Quran and Islamic tradition - so I figured I'd take the opportunity to ask an actual Muslim straight up, "What's with the misogyny?" I'm more inclined to believe an individual's testimony (that is, Jin's) over the scholarly disambiguation of Islamic texts made by outside observers which, unfortunately, is all I've had access to up until this point, I just need him to elaborate and give examples. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
+ Sine Abom.: Occem's Razor, kiddo. Upbupbupbupbup, don't you quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the colour of the book that regulation's in. We kept it grey. Seriously, though, if anyone paid any heed to this Ockham and his sharp little blade, most of what we accept as normal scientific fact today would be unrealized. I mean, what sounds simpler, that some astrological forces and some invisible magic called "gravity" spin our spherical-shaped world around massive distances in a circumference around the sun, or that the sun simply appears in the daytime, and dissapears in the nighttime above our flat world? Exactly. Now, somebody requisition me a beat. candrodor: Some people honestly don't see gender when it comes to love. You're one of them, Kutske. I know I'm gay though, and the fact that your sexuality is different doesn't change that. Who said it did? Just because the dichotomy of "hetero or homo" is a social construct of modern times doesn't mean that there aren't people who are only attracted romantically/sexually to one sex. It just means that black-and-white terms like "gay" and "straight" don't apply to all persons. Besides, as I always say, reality is different for each person. The one who takes a given destiny, and then proceeds to smash it: Well, regarding the first post, you seem to be saying that you 'don't do dating' because...you think it'll be love at first sight, or something? Sorry, I don't believe in love at first sight--not truly, anyway. Sometimes, people are attracted to each other and start dating right away (actually, a lot more than sometimes), but they never REALLY love each other until they KNOW each other, and how can you know someone you haven't built a relationship with? Or maybe you simply mean you want to build a friendship first, and romance will come naturally if it works out that way. In said case, I must've misinterpreted. Well, first let me define "dating." I don't define dating as when two people with romantic interest in each other go out and about. I define a date as when two people go out together with the exp As for why I personally don't do the dating thing...well, I don't believe in "love-at-first-sight" in so many words, because the term has been abused by crappy films starring pretty people who walk past each other on a crowded New York street, take ten paces past one another and then turn, look each other in the eyes, rush into each other's arms and engage in a deep, long kiss as the screen fades to black and the credits roll. That's way too phoney. I would certainly never expect (or even really want, for that matter) that to happen anyway. I do, however, think that true love cannot be forged, it can't be made -- love is something that's either there or it's not, whether it's plutonic or otherwise. I like to think of it as a connection, something you notice the first time you meet someone that gives you the feeling that you're both the same on a very base level. Not neccessarily that you have the same interests or even opinions, but that something at the very core of your being and your soul is built in the same way, that you both start from the same point, even if you've arrived at different destinations. It's a kinship foremost, a finding of a "kindred spirit," if you will. It doesn't happen at first sight, I mean, if you saw this person on the far side of a crowded room, you wouldn't notice, but the first time you two really sit down and talk to each other, even if it isn't for long, there's just some way you can tell from their presence, from that certain air about them, that you want to be around this person, even if you don't know why or to what extent. I mean, you can certainly love someone, and that love can come as the result of knowing each other for an extended period of time, but for me, you can't fall in love with someone over time. And that's what I mean when I say love cannot be forged -- you're either compatable or incompatable, which is one thing that I believe is either black or white, without an inbetween. Well, you could "fall in love" in that you feel the connection, but you just don't realize what it is at first, and it slowly dawns on you as you spend more time together, but the fact remains that the connection was there from the start, you didn't create it and it didn't gradually happen. I think all serious relationships form from that intangible connection, and for me, I found all my closest friends this way. I dunno, maybe it's just me or us, as we all come from unhappy pasts, but we feel like family, like we're a different species from other people and we're the only ones that understand each other, that we have to stick together in this hostile world, and it's been that way since the begining. I say that if I "ever find" romantic love, it'll be in this same way but...to tell the truth, I think I may have already found it, I'm just reluctant to admit it to myself. There's...a person I knew, long, long ago, who dissapeared one day, and I've never seen them since. In all honesty, we were never very close, it's just that I felt that sort of connection I described, like we both came from the same place, like we could truly understand each other without having to utter a single word, and when we do speak, it's in a language inherent to the both of us, that we both understand, even if no one else does. When this person first vanished, I was quite dismayed, but I hid this fact from my "friends" of the time because they really weren't such good friends after all, and they disliked the person that I so longed to meet again. I buried this so deeply that it wasn't until recently that...one of my dear friends, as I exp All my life I've scoffed at the notion of love-at-first-sight, and I've done so very audibly, going so far as to openly ridicule those who believed in it. My reasoning was simple; you can't possibly be in love with someone if you don't know them. I mean, what if you think you're in love with someone and you find out they're a druggie or a chain smoker, or that they vehemently adhere to the opposite political party that you vehemently adhere to, or that they have some disgusting habit that repulses you, or that you like utterly different types of music, or that they have some major character flaw that makes them a hassle to interact with, or that there's some aspect of your personality that they disdain? After all that logical dethroning of love-at-first-sight I did, after all that reasoning I went through to prove that you can't really be in love with someone that you don't know well, after all that, to admit now that I might be in love with this person, even though we were never all that close when we knew each other...would not only to be admitting a major fault on my part, it would also mean that the person I want to spend my life with is gone, and we may never meet again. It would mean that my own cowardice and reluctance has let something slip by me that I may never get back again in all my days, no matter how much I want it, no matter how hard I try...and I just don't know if I can face up to that. I just don't know if I could deal with such a notion. My closest friend used to laugh at my immature notions of love, especially when I'd disavow love-at-first-sight. He always said, "Love doesn't work like that; you're going to find out a lot about the person you fall in love with that you don't like, but what makes it love is that you don't mind, that you have such a strong connection to and bond with this person, that nothing so petty could break it. Love is the willingness to overcome all those obstacles together because at the end of the day, with all the good and all the bad, all you want in the whole world is to simply be together." These are very wise words indeed, from someone who's in the most remarkable, amazing relationship I've ever seen. He's the only person I've ever known to be truly, honestly in love with someone. My own arrogance wouldn't allow me to say, "Well, you've got more experience with the subject, so you're probably right and I'm wrong." But in recent months and years...I've come to see just how right he was. Aww...I made myself sad. I was gonna reply to other things in this topic but...I guess I'll do that later. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
PSA: Ummm...Occem's Razor, when used by Copernicus, Kepler and others gave us the current solar-system model. The simpler of the two theories (one being that everything is arranged by an unseen force into perfect Ptolemic circles and spheres or that an unseen force has allowed for chaotic, but controlled system of gravitational movement) was the latter, in this case And you've just illustrated my point perfectly; that Occem's Razor is non-applicable in any case (and therefore useless to cite) because complexity is relative -- any two theories could be presented such that A is simple and B is complex, or such that A is complex and B is simple, depending on the presenter and audience. But let's not detract the topic further off...topic. I'll be happy to debate the credibility of eponymous adages in General Chat if you wish. |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
| Wow. In one post's time I went from the bystanding and inquisitive host to the enemigo más grande. Intepreting "tone of voice" is difficult with just text, but regardeless, Bass seems like he's about to bust several gaskets, then go on a shooting rampage in his school/workplace/postaloffice. *makes soothing hand gestures* Easy. Easy...
Tommathy: Well, obviously color, defined as "the interpretation of wavelengths by the eye" can only exist if there are, well, eyes. I'm still not quite so sure why that's profound. It's sort of like saying that speech, defined as "the interpretation of sound by the brain" only exists if we have brains... Except that light is naturally occuring and a fundamental part of what we know as "the yooneeverse," while speech is not naturally occuring or integral to the universe itself. My point was that "color" is arbitrary, it's only extant in our specific viewpoint, as humans. Long wavelengths of light aren't somehow intrinsically "bluer" than short ones, that's just the way we percieve them, the even greater point being that I realize the nonsensical nature of "true color" just like the idea of a "third gender" (by means of a z-chromosome or something). Which, in an even grander scale is a gripe of mine about sciencenazis, the "factinistaz" bringing topics like this down to an abysmal and depressing level. To the average browser of the forum, someone sees a topic like this and thinks, "Hmm, yeah, what would that be like?" Such as Catfish's first post and Skydude's first post. To certain...other groups and individuals, the thought is, "Sorry, no, factually impossible." The problem I have with this second viewpoint is twofold... 1) "Gee, ya think?" Uh yeah, I realize that it's ridiculous and scientifically unfounded, but unlike most people in the world, I haven't violently raped on the filthy concrete of the seedy back alley of a low-class porno shop, sadistically tortured for months and years on end at so-called "Black Sites" and then finally brutally murdered and chopped into tiny little pieces that are furthermore burnt, strapped to bombs and scattered into the farthest reaches of the universe my sense of wonder and curiosity in some desperate attempt to seem adult, mature, smart or something similar. I don't listen to Steven Hawking so I can memorize everything he said, and then regurgitate it at a later place and time to impress those around me (lest of all people, anoynmous passersby on the internet), I listen to him and people like him to absorb knowledge, discover a new viewpoint and subsequently speculate, because I enjoy doing so, not because I want to be right and not even necessarily because I'm interested in finding the absolute truth of the matter. 2) "You Win the Topic!" Really, it seems like that's all a person is after when they pull a sciencenazi routine; being right so they can somehow feel satisfied that they've "won" the topic and made fools of all other posters. It seems egomaniacal and somehow really, profoundly sad. I equate this to people who post one-liners in every topic on the front page in an effort to increase Postcount, as if such a ridiculous thing had any real value. I mean, just because one person is "right," does that mean the topic should be closed? It seems like that's what those types of people want -- to close all topics that don't meet their...ahem, prestigious and high standards, which I equate with a sadistic Dungeon Master who wants to control all aspects of his players PC's or someone who creates a play-by-email RPG just to make a superpowerful character and pwn everybody else. In short, there's a thick and obvious line between enlightening other people as to the factual nature of a subject, and being a raging sciencenazi. And yes, I am going to use that term over and over again until it's drilled far enough into people's skulls and they're so sick of it that I can simply call sciencenaziing and the guilty parties will leave the vicinity simply to avoid hearing it. Erm, reading it. Tommathy: That's true of even red, blue, and green. Not everyone thinks of blue as 0000FF, they recognize a range of light in that spectrum as blue. True, but "red" is a generic term that could apply to all shades in it's hue, while teal is not a generic term that could apply to all shades in it's hue. My point was just that Itallian recognizes cyan as a generic color term in the way we recognize green and yellow as generic "overcolors," if you will, but we don't. Just making conversation. Tommathy: Also, at some point in the development of language and the history of the English, it must've been important to distinguish between something that is red and something that is pink as opposed to the difference between something that is vertegris and something that is olive. That seems plausible, so then I wonder why the Itallians would have needed to distinguish between blue and cyan and not most other languages, or why English has always had a very clear distinction between green and blue, while most other languages group the two colors into one category (see wikipedia articles on ao and grue). Tommathy: Under what possible conditions would *added* color exist, and why in all Creation would we have the ability to perceive this added content? You, too, seem as though at some point within the near future, you shall most likely incur upon your person and/or quite possibly your gasket a quandary and/or problem, wherein the undesirable effect that results is that the afforementioned gasket ceases it's normal and proper functionality. I was poking fun, yeesh. You know, "You can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist." ||bass: NO! No no no no no. In proving that, you would disprove 100+ years of accepted science. Optics doesn't work that way. A red giant might make things look more reddish, etc, but that's as far as physics says it can go. Hey pal, I listened to a (literally) fourteen year old boy go on for roughly two hundred posts on another board about his "theory" on how all matter is simply condensed forms of light, rather than unique and seperate forms of matter, discounting probably 1000+ years of accepted science in the process, and nobody bitched one bit because he was having fun with himself and several other topics were brought up in the process, topics ranging from politics to ethics, philosophy to art. Top that, then I'll green-light sciencenaziing for the entire rest of this topic. The ENTIRE rest, not just the partial rest. Until then, a-shush. \\bass: In other news, that wiki article says the military uses color blind people as snipers. That RULES. Why does it not surprise me that you're the military-enthusiast type? .bass//SIGN: PS: Kutske, nice going TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING what Hyperhacker was trying to say about concious perception. That link has absoloutly NOTHING in it to address what he asked. Pwa? Quoth Hyper Hacker, "I've also thought about people percieving different colours, like that what one person sees as red may not be what someone else sees, but they both call it red." Quoth the link I...liked to, "Color blindness is not the swapping of colors in the observer's eyes. Grass is never red, stop signs never green. Distinguishing a Granny Smith from a Braeburn is not a problem. The color impaired do not learn to call red "green" and vice versa." That pertains quite exactly to what he said. And this comes after Skydude (err, "Flying Fish" -- why does everyone change their username on every third day, anyway?) said, quoth, "What I've always wondered, however, is if the colors I'm seeing are the same as the ones you're seeing. If we see a yellow ball, we will both call it "yellow"...but perhaps the signals my brain gets perceive it as what you would class as another color, but that particular color we both have been taught it "yellow"..." And Snow Trout quoth'd, "Another thing my friend told me. It's definatly like proven wrong... but it's weird to think about. Say the way I saw red, was the way you see blue. Like, everyones colors were different colors. Everything would look normal and natural to that person. Like a purple sky. And there'd be no way to tell with words... because the color that is truely blue.. would be called purple by that person. Like, what if everyone saw different colors." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's probably my fault though; somehow, I think that few people read any of my posts in their entirety, because of their sheer size. Regardeless, the link had utmost relevance to what Hyper Macker and numerous others said. *sassy z-snap* NSNick: On the topic of color, I read an article a while back noting that women can see more shades of color than men, perhaps a remnant of our hunter-gatherer days, when they would usually pick berries, where seeing different shades would tell the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous berries. The way I read it was that women carry in their genes the (generally-recessive) trait of tetrachromacy, which would allow them to see colors with greater distinction. Although I also read that men and women see color differently inherently, however I suspect this theory may be largely based on social, rather than scientific factors. You know, the whole macho addage, "Champagne, bubblegum and tuna are foods, not colors." Which is generally made in an effort to point out some inferior feminine tendancy or quality, which in itself is a social construct as well. Tarale: Well, us girls certainly seem to use more names for colors *dies standing* |
|||
|
Kutske Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6670 days Last view: 6670 days |
| ||
geotracks: Jesus revered women. Treated them with respect (equally between men and women). Well in case you didn't notice this, Christianity these days has absolutely nothing to do with following the titular Christ's example; the religion has become something of a special interest group desperate to reclaim power through lobbying in an effort to control the course of governments throughout the world, to empower themselves, and weaken their opponents. Kind of like the hantavirus. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Kutske |
