(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-07-06 03:29 AM, in WINTER MOSTS 06-07 - Vote here! (You have until 12AM EST) Link
Things that may be filled in are left blank; things that I don't intend to fill in are "---". (Most are negative, mainly because I don't know many people here well enough to feel comfortable making a negative remark about them, for fear of being taken the wrong way; also, I'm not all too involved in the social scene here, so I can't say much for many of these categories.)

1. Sweetest - Danielle
2. Cutest Guy - --- (not because I'm afraid of my sexuality being questioned, but because I find it utterly impossibly to discern those physical attributes that make a male attractive)
3. Cutest Girl - Snow Tomato
4. Cutest Couple -
5. Funniest -
6. Nicest - Tommathy
7. Most Innocent -
8. Evilest - Vyper
9. Most Fun to Talk to - Sin Dogan
10. Craziest/Most insane -
11. Smartest - Rydain
12. Kinkiest/Most perverted - ---
13. Most Mysterious - Cruel Justice
14. Most Witty - Squash Monster
15. Shadiest - ---
16. Suave - ---
17. Hopeless - ---
18. Most Unique - Tommathy
19. Most Serious - Ziff
20. Most Reclusive - Acmlm
21. Best Pacifist - Kasumi-Astra
22. Best at Advice - Anya
23. Most Creative -
24. Most Changed -
25. Most Understanding - Tarale
26. Best Admin - Rydain
27. Best Full Mod - Kirbynite
28. Best Local Mod - drjayphd
29. Best Male Regular Member - Sin Dogan
30. Best Female Regular Member -
31. Best Newbie -
32. Best Veteran - Ziff
33. Most Missed Member - Skydude (he very well might still be around, just not in the forums I frequent)
34. Most Likely to be Banned Member - ---
35. Most Likely to Succeed -
36. Best Post Layout -
37. Best Avatar -
38. Best Nickname - ---
39. Best Custom Title -
40. Best Role Player - Teddylot
41. Best Programmer - ---
42. Best Debater - Arwon
43. Best ROM Hacker - ---
44. Most Hardcore gamer - Sin Dogan
45. Most Helpful -
46. Best photo album thread picture - Kasdarack
47. Best Christmas Layout -
48. Largest waste of Bandwidth - ---
49. Most Likely to be driving the Desert Bus - ---
50. Most Likely to Demand a Recount - ---
51. Most Likely - ---
52. Best Overall (The Wootest) Male -
53. Best Overall (The Wootest) Female -

(edited by Silvershield on 12-11-06 02:31 AM)
(edited by Silvershield on 01-02-07 07:14 AM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 02:58 AM, in The Double Standard. Link
Originally posted by Snow Tomato
There are alot of people who think like this. If a woman has sex with multiple partners, she must be a slut... but when a guy has sex with multiple partners it's accepted as being completely normal... and they're "the man."
While I am personally of the opinion that any promiscuous person, whether male or female, is really kinda gross, I won't hesitate to acknowledge that society at large might have a double standard. Let me try and reason it out though, at least as far as I can perceive the situation:

Males typically have a more intense sex drive than females. I know I'll get all kinds of protests about this point, and all sorts of sources saying that the two are equal, but I will stand quite firm in this regard. Males are more sexually driven that females are, even if that means that the sexes have identical drives but that they manifest in different ways (as in, a male will want to satiate his sexual desire through actual sex, while a woman might appreciate any sort of physical contact at all). Even if you disagree with this point, understand that it is the greater popular consensus, and so the greater population subscribes to it and draws other beliefs from it.

Now, since a male always wants sex - and, realize that I'm intentionally going to an extreme here, saying "always" just to more easily illustrate my point - a female can effectively have sex whenever she wants to. She can count on always having a willing male available, and so she always has access to it. On the other hand, since a female does not always want sex, a male cannot always count on having access to it.

A girl who is not promiscuous is not to be commended, because it's what she "should" be doing. Since her gender does not desire sex so intensely, it is essentially the norm, and she doesn't get any extra credit for adhering to the norm. A girl who is promiscuous, on the other hand, is going against her gender stereotype and, as such, is breaking a sort of taboo barrier. Girls don't want sex, so a girl who is chasing it with any sort of gusto is surely not right in the head. That perception manifests as scorn toward the girl.

A guy who is not promiscuous is to be commended, because he is using his will power to defy the urges innate to his gender. On the other hand, a promiscuous male is essentially just adhering to his undeniable male urges, and so he cannot truly be faulted.

I kinda just reasoned that all out as I wrote it, so I'm not sure the logic follows completely, but I think that's a possible explanation for the double standard. Note that I don't personally approve of it; as I said before, I have equal disdain for promiscuous people of either sex. But that's another story.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
To go with a less conventional example. Guys aren't allowed to cry. If guys cry, they're pussies or what have you. Why can't guys cry?
Gender roles may be an artificial societal construct (and then again, they might not be), but they do serve some purpose. You essentially need a masculine role and a feminine role in a relationship, even if those roles aren't filled by a man and a woman respectively. You'll note that many (most? all?) gay relationships, even, have a partner that is more masculine and one that is more feminine.

But, the point is, an archetypical masculine trait is the repression of emotion. And so, a man who is filling the masculine role will adhere to archetypically masculine traits.

Originally posted by Snow Tomato
And how come when Guys fight it's considered heroic and justified to an extent... like the person who loses "must have done something wrong"... but when girls fight it's considered a spectator sport? It's hysterical even though these girls could have the exact same grievances against one another that the guys may have had.
Again, violence is a masculine trait, passivity a feminine trait.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 03:10 AM, in Skinny women in the media and guys real opinions?? Link
How do you account for the fact that eating disorders are so much more common among women than among men? You can bet that I see guys with rock-hard bodies and six packs every day of the week in every imaginable medium, but most guys won't develop an eating disorder. For that matter, most guys won't develop a psychological disorder that will cause them to go to the gym three times a day to try and bulk up, even though that's what the ideal physique represents.

You say that ultra-skinny women are only in magazines, while more healthy ones are in movies. Well, Adonis-esque guys are in magazines and movies and billboards and everywhere else, and as such are more common than the paper-thin female model is, and yet men don't seem to take it to heart as often. Is there an explanation?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 03:28 AM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Originally posted by Alastor
Much of what people have against Christianity is attributable solely to the Roman Catholic church.
Like what? Being militantly opposed to homosexuals, declaring that all non-Christians are invariably hell-bound, taking the Bible as literal fact, refusing to accept evolution...? Because those are all Catholic precepts. Right?

In any case, I don't like to cop-out by referring to pop culture, but the South Park episode about Scientology more or less sums it up. The entire religion is a money-making scheme, quite blatantly at times.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 03:42 AM, in The Double Standard. Link
Originally posted by emcee
Although society obviously plays a large role, it most likely also instinctual. What causes a species to prosper, instead of fail is its ability to produce offspring. The male of the of the species can go on producing offspring (or at least getting the process started) everyday of the week, while the female on the other hand will be out of the game for a while. So it doesn't come as to much of a surprise that its more accepted in most societies for men to be promiscuous.
Of course, but does that mean that the mores of modern Western society are governed directly and solely by ancient evolutionary instincts?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 03:45 AM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
If, in your estimation, the Roman Catholic Church only accounts for "much of" and not "most of" society's negative perceptions of Christianity, why use Catholicism as your example at all? The remark wasn't relevant, didn't add to the rest of your point, and is frankly nonsensical in its context.

Why not opt for Protestantism or Evangelical Christianity? Catholicism had not been mentioned earlier in this thread, and you bring it up of your own accord. So...?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 04:05 AM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Originally posted by Alastor
Much of what people have against Christianity is attributable solely to the Roman Catholic church.
First, you need to define the problems most people have with Christianity. If you were to ask me, I would say that most non-Christians criticize Christians for:

1. hating homosexuals.
2. insisting that you need to be Christian to be saved.
3. taking the Bible as literal fact.
4. denying evolution.

There are other problems, sure, but those are the most common as far as I've seen. Note that the list does not include

5. belief in transubstantiation.
6. having a strong hierarchy.
7. belief in the virginity of the Holy Mother.

Numbers 5-7 are, of course, traditionally Catholic, and while they are not beliefs that are held by the Christian community at large, most critics will not use precepts of that sort as a reason to dislike Christianity. One the other hand, 1-4 are major reasons that people dislike Christians, and none of those four statements are Catholic, either doctrinally or in practice. You stated that people dislike Christians because of Catholic beliefs or practices, and I disagree with that statement.

Originally posted by Alastor
And disregarding sarcasm even, yes, hate against homosexuality came from the old testament, which in my opinion doesn't count as it's basically just jewish mythology[...]
The Old Testament is secondary to the New Testament, and no Catholic will take most of the OT's anachronistic precepts with any seriousness.

Originally posted by Alastor
[...]and from the statements of the pope and therefore the Roman Catholic church.
The modern Church does not antagonize homosexuals. Surely there is tension, and surely the Church does not exactly "embrace" the gay community, but Catholics are far more liberal in that regard that most other Christian sects.

Originally posted by Alastor
The same is true about non-christians being hellbound.
Catholics dropped the idea of non-Christians being hell-bound during missionary work in Asia, South America, and elsewhere, and the idea has been absent ever since.

Originally posted by Alastor
Taking the bible as fact is just ignorance, and evolution being non-accepted stems mainly from that.
Again, a non-Catholic ideal.

Originally posted by Alastor
I was talking about the core, though, so all of those are non issues... Which just proves further that you didn't bother to fully read my post before responding, or at least that you didn't take the time to actually think it through.
The rest of your post doesn't reference Catholicism specifically. You reference Christianity as a whole, but the various denominations are so different from one another that you essentially have to reference one by name if you're trying to make that sort of point. I read your post, and understood it, but I don't see how it would explain your claim that Catholicism is the impetus for a lot of anti-Christian feeling.

Originally posted by Alastor
Don't be purposefully antagonistic. It's a pretty lame doctrine.
I act antagonistic when I see people make remarks against my faith without substantiating them. If you want to talk about Catholicism, feel free. But provide support for your claims. I'll be the first to admit that my religion is flawed in certain respects, but I won't stand for a broad insult that offers no evidence or explanation whatsoever.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 04:15 AM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Is it true that Scientology is based around a doctrine that reads, word for word, like a trashy science fiction story? Ya know, aliens and space ships and whatnot? That's how South Park portrayed it at least and, while that show is hardly the most reliable source, I've heard that in that case it was more or less accurate in its portrayal.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 12:12 PM, in The Double Standard. Link
Originally posted by Arwon
I disagree with SS that it's got anything to do with sex-drive intensity. Plenty of girls get plenty horny, and I think SS is very exactly putting the horse before the cart. Girls are seen as wanting less sex because that's what they're conditioned to act like (note the word "act" as opposed to "actually feel"). It's a feedback loop as much as anything.
I didn't say I naturally believe all of that rhetoric word for word, just that it's the common perception in society. But I will still contend that the male sex drive takes a different character than the female sex drive, just by virtue of evolutionary factors that would inherently design each gender to desire sex for a different purpose.

Originally posted by Kasumi-Astra
Not really, that's a stereotype. It's common, but not mandatory.
I was quick to note my general lack of knowledge on the issue (by not using an exact descriptor, and instead leaving it open), mainly because my experience really does come from popular stereotypes. The only real first-hand knowledge I have comes from the one close gay relative I have - in that case, there is definitely a masculine and a feminine role in her relationship.

The stereotype is, of course, that one partner will be "butch" while the other is more feminine and submissive, but I really don't think that perception is too far from the truth, just considering the nature of relationships. I mean, any specific details aside, the very nature of most human romantic bonds more or less requires a sort of give-and-take action - that is, frequent compromise on various issues - and the partner who traditionally "gives" or is more submissive is called feminine while the one who traditionally "takes" or is more dominant is masculine. Sure it doesn't apply in every case, and sure it may be more evident in some cases than in others, but I would contend that the basic theme is present in almost every relationship to some degree or another.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 12:23 PM, in Losing most of my friends. Link
Originally posted by Snow Tomato
And after prom I wanted to stay over for a weekend in Wildwood with all my friends.
Heh, that's where I went for prom weekend .

I can't really say too much, except to emphasize what Ziff and Arwon have pointed out. High school and college are totally different from one another. I know neither of them are American, so the system might be different in some way in Canada or Australia, but their points are essentially dead-on. When you go off to school, you'll have to make new friends, just by virtue of the logistics of the place. And things will be better then, especially if you can make friends with folks who live near your hometown, because then you'll have buddies to be with over breaks from school.

But I know your problem is more that you feel like you'll be missing all the great senior year memories that a person is "supposed to" have with his or her friends. And that's kind of a rough spot. But, really, I found all those events to be overrated. The prom was fun, sure, but some people take it the totally wrong way and use it as a forum to display the public drunkenness, or just perceive it as a sort break in between bouts of binging. It was fun to be with friends at the prom, but at the time I was really concentrating on my girlfriend above all else, so that made it alright for me even when my buddies were off doing their own thing.

In the end, you just have to understand that you truly are better off with a boyfriend who cares about you than you are with a boyfriend who cares about you plus ten rowdy, inconsiderate, criminal (to be frank) friends. It's easy for me to say, sure, but you really are blessed that you at least have a guy who will be loyal to you.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-11-06 01:46 PM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
Providing proof that scientology is wrong, it was founded in New Jersey, and Camden of all places. (Sorry all you jersey people, but come on, it's always fun, and my dad grew up in camden and even he trashes it).
Well, Camden puts the "Dirty" in Dirty Jerz. So, I'll be the first to admit that much of this fine state is hardly...pristine. But semi-urban North Jersey is nice .
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-12-06 12:37 AM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Just to provide a bit of anecdotal evidence, I've never seen or heard of anyone, at least within Roman Catholicism, being criticized or antagonized for not donating money to the Church. When I go to Sunday Mass alone, for example - because my parents go at an ungodly hour of the morning, while I decide to go to the noon Mass - I rarely have any cash to put into the donation basket, but I've hardly gotten an evil eye or an unkind word for it.

I can't speak for other denominations, but I know that donating to the Catholic Church is optional, both in theory and practice.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-12-06 02:14 AM, in The Double Standard. Link
Originally posted by Danielle
And I'd just like to add, in regards to SS's comments about needing a masculine and feminine role in a relationship, that I completely disagree. That really has very little to do with relationships, outside of stereotypes. If two people like each other, who cares if they're both "masculine" or "butch," or if they're both "feminine." I can say about myself that I fall directly in the middle, and could easily lean in either direction, depending on how I feel. Guys could do the same, I'm sure, they just don't always want to.
I think you're misinterpreting me. It's not about one partner wearing flannel and the other wearing lace, one liking dogs and the other cats, or one having short hair and the other long. It's about one person in a relationship generally displaying traits that are traditionally called masculine - assertiveness, outspokenness, general dominance - and the other leaning more toward feminine qualities - submission (to some extent), introversion, acquiescence. A woman could very easily be the "masculine" one in a relationship, while her male partner is the "feminine" one. It's not about gender stereotypes, but about the dynamics of a relationship.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-12-06 03:59 PM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
Many (I'm not sure on what percentage) Christians will tell you that the Jews killed Jesus. While strictly speaking, this is true, everyone in Jerusalem at that time was either a Jew or a Pagan.
Well, Christians who say that are just plain silly. The Romans killed Jesus, and they were pagan, not Jewish. Perhaps Jewish leaders had some role in it, but that role would be indirect at best and would not necessarily reflect the feelings of the greater Jewish populace.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-12-06 05:42 PM, in Christianity vs. Scientology Link
Originally posted by Young Guru
Yes, it is crazy to blame jewish people for the death of jesus which is why I used that as an example. But to be historically correct, there were a good amount of jewish people responsible for his death, but that is simply due to the fact that the area that he was in was highly populated by jewish people.
Guess it depends how you define "responsible." If we're talking the people who literally lashed him to the cross, stabbed him with a spear, flogged him, etc...it was the Romans. If we're talking about the people who came together as an angry mob and coerced Pilate into releasing Barabas and executing Jesus...it might've been the Jews.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-13-06 01:09 AM, in Find the Half-Truths! Link
I don't know this girl, but I do know my own experiences, and I know that what a person writes on MySpace or Livejournal or any other public forum is generally more honest than what they will tell you face to face. I can't tell you how many times I've caught a certain someone in a lie just based on casual, unsuspicious browsing of the places she frequents online. And, let me tell you, it hurts to read sometimes. (Then, of course, she becomes terribly indignant because I "act suspicious" and "spy on her." Silly girl, if you're innocent, why should you be afraid of what I might find? [Because you're not innocent, that's why...])

Dunno if that helps at all, but your post struck a nerve with me.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-20-06 04:30 AM, in Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran Link
I am continually confused by the notion that Holocaust denial is a jailable offense in many countries that are otherwise advanced and "liberated" - that is, countries that endorse the equivalent of American First Amendment rights will take severe action against a person who is essentially just speaking out. The only crime in such an action should be the crime of unabashed stupidity, not any punishable civil offense.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-20-06 05:56 AM, in Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran Link
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination
I'm usually extremely "GO FREE SPEECH" but Holocaust denial is a slippery slope. Once the Holocaust is openly debated to the point of being seen legitmately as doubtable (not like real facts and evidence matter to most people) then you've let the extreme-right and other anti-semetic groups win. Different peoples have to put up having their genocides glossed over and snowed to being debates. Trust me, it hurts when millions of your fellow blood are targetted for death and then that travesty is chalked up to being a god damned debate.
Normally I would agree, but I feel like the Holocaust is such a hot-button issue, such a taboo that is virtually unequaled in the modern world, that formal laws are not necessary to preserve it as historical fact. Sure you'll have the nutjobs who will deny it, but I don't see that minute faction gaining any sort of foothold when the great majority of the population recognizes how off-limits that sort of discussion is.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-22-06 02:38 AM, in Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran Link
The question is, why does the Holocaust merit special treatment, but no other event or phenomena does? Anti-semitic rhetoric is outlawed, but denying that Americans ever held slaves (anti-black) or that the Armenian genocide ever happened (anti-Eastern European) or that any of the countless other historically legitimate travesties actually happened is alright?

I'm hardly arguing that Holocaust denial is "ok," but where is the line drawn between what sort of speech is outlawed and what is allowed? I don't intend for that to be a "slippery slope" sort of thing - I don't think that laws against Holocaust denial will eventually lead to the destruction of free speech in general, or anything like that - but why is the Holocaust an exception?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 12-22-06 02:56 AM, in Holocaust Deniers Convention in Iran Link
Other genocides aren't really that bad, though.

Edit to elaborate: All I'm saying is, while the means and methods of the Nazis may have been more efficient and inhuman than other such instances, the fact remains that genocide is genocide. Killing thousands or millions of people is a Bad Thing; why should only the most extreme example merit special treatment, while every other instance may not?

(edited by Silvershield on 12-22-06 02:05 AM)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.793 seconds; used 475.76 kB (max 616.13 kB)