L'origine de Bert

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Showing posts with label flames. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flames. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Food Review Flame

It's been a while since I posted one of these:

It's amazing what people get upset about. One restaurants review group I'm in has many people who get upset when less-than-flattering reviews of restaurants are posted. But this one takes the cake:


"This Gabriel dude is an expert on every cuisine known to man. He thinks he's a not dead version of Anthony Bourdain. Read his reviews. He hates everything. He's the type of guy who probably drinks warm urine rather than chilled."

Possible reasons I've come up with about why people (who do not have a vested interest by being affiliated with the restaurants) react so negatively to bad restaurant reviews:

They dont like their favourite places being criticised

They think negative reviews hurt "small businesses" (which are romanticised and fetishised)

They believe in "positivity"

Some people think (small) businesses are entitled to customers' business

An insight into the last point: My friend's ex was a chef. He said it was terrible and irresponsible to leave negative reviews because it hurt people's dreams. I asked how people would know which places were bad. He said you'd know if those places had no reviews.

Then again, I've also reviewed a fruit deal and gotten flamed for pointing out I didn't get the value I was supposed to get, so some people are just crazy and nasty.

Anyhow, what I've learnt from reading a lot of food reviews is that not just do many people have incredibly low standards for food (a lot of places people gush about turn out to be incredibly mediocre - sometimes even bad), but many have incredibly low standards for food reviews (not just do they leave incredibly vague reviews, sometimes it's even worse and there're no photos, or no photos from the start of the meal, and they claim it's because they were too hungry or it was too good so they didn't take photos).

Related:

On having any Criticisms at all of Restaurants

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

When is a war not a war?

B: "Report: Jewish CEO of ‘Russia’s Google’ leaves country for Israel over war
‘I cannot work in a country that is at war with its neighbors,’ Yandex’s Bunina is said to have written before moving"

"Someone make this make sense pls"

Hypocrite

A: Ah... she doesn't recognise Palestine as a neighbour... yah... that's the only way I can see to reconcile that statement.

Me: The ceasefire with g a z a has lasted almost a year so they're not at war

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis - Wikipedia

A: Israel-Palestine conflict: Israeli fighter jets attack Gaza I AJ #shorts - YouTube
So the Israelis are entertaining the Palestinians to fireworks, right?
Dated 21 Apr 2022.
Fireworks with a dash of shrapnel.

Perhaps you might say the ceasefire is being upheld because the Israelis haven't leveled the whole place with artillery and are being restrained and merciful.
I think that's what Putler said recently too!

Me: Ah I see the terrorists attacked Judah land again

Pity

Oh well, that's what happens when you have terrorists for neighbours

A:just keep your words and eat it Gabriel.
"The ceasefire with g a z a has lasted almost a year"
Eat it.

Me: I'm glad to you May to April isn't almost a year

Twisting words is so fun

A:I know... You really haven't been watching this conflict.
Israel hits Hamas positions in Gaza after rocket attacks | Gaza News | Al Jazeera

Me: See what you can do when you actually try to make proper points?

Anyway I believe the ceasefire is still in effect so it's still not war

A: no, you do not make proper points. You engage in sophistry and you are just a troll who is a sore loser: not at all interested in the truth, simply interested in propping up your mistaken statements for the sake of your ego.

I just realised that your talent in denialism is best put to use as a propaganda writer! Have you considered working for Putin? I think you'll find him quite agreeable!

Me: I see you are still butthurt about me debunking your covid hysteria

A: you don't understand Gabriel... I don't really bother with ego. I know you are wrong, and I leave it at that. You have the right to your own mistaken beliefs.
You cherry pick lines from papers Gabriel... You don‘t bother reading deep or understanding the science. That's why I just leave you to be. I can't do any proper debate or discussion with you.

over something so trivial as acknowledging the broken state of the "ceasefire", you admit that "Twisting words is so fun", and boast of making "proper points".

What are you other than a sore loser?

I don't expect you to acknowledge your mistakes, or give more regard to the truth rather than your ego. Humans can't change easily. I respect your right to be what you are, as long as you respect my right to call you out repeatedly. I leave it at that.

Me: Ironic coming from the person who claimed I was wrong about the ceasefire lasting almost a year because may to April wasn't almost a year

A: hey... you didn't see that 2nd link??

It was about the attack in Sept 2021!

*Screenshot*: "Israeli aircraft have hit several targets in the besieged Gaza Strip after rocket launches towards Israel, marking the third consecutive night of hostilities.

now can you just close this out and understand the ceasefire was utterly useless and broken????
So it's totally as I had said, you don't bother to read carefully, and you're a sore loser.

Israel hits Hamas targets in Gaza as hostilities escalate | Gaza News | Al Jazeera

Just in case, here it is again.

Me: Amazing double think.

Accusing me of being flexible with what a ceasefire means at the same time as claiming I didn't get that there had been violence in between, when the two claims are contradictory.

Feel free to make more stuff up to hate on me.

A:

Me: If anyone interested in facts is reading

ceasefire collocations with examples | Macmillan Dictionary

"an agreement to stop fighting temporarily"

So clearly this is very different from putin land's invasion of Kiev land

Clearly the poor folks at the BBC are all m e n t a l l y deficient according to A since they think a ceasefire is not negated by violence

Israel-Gaza ceasefire holds despite Jerusalem clash - BBC News

"Israel-Gaza ceasefire holds despite Jerusalem clash"

A: sigh... what does a ceasefire mean to you then Gabriel.... you tell me what your fantastical definition is.
I don't hate you. It is wrong to hate people who have a mental deficit and can't help themselves.

what...not replying? Let me lay it out to you again since you bring up nonsense like doublethinking and contradiction.

Gabriel claims:

Palestinian-Israeli ceasefire in effect since May 2021 for almost a year now.

[The ceasefire with g a z a has lasted almost a year so they're not at war]

Facts:
There have been attacks against Gaza in Sept 2021 and Apr 2022. May to Sept cannot, by any reasonable leap of logic, be considered to be "almost a year". 

Gabriel should reconsider his mistaken statement, although he has every right to engage in denial and embrace his mistaken beliefs. That's all. Can we close this out now?

Me: Ah, the usual demand for people to respond immediately and the declaration of victory when an immediate response is not forthcoming

The petty need their little triumphs

A: yes. To stop fighting temporarily.

They stopped fighting from May to Sept. That is not anywhere close to a year, hence your statement is mistaken.

I'm just calling you out repeatedly because you engage in sophistry and you are as slippery as an eel. Hell bent on wrangling a victory from defeat. Like the Black knight of Monty Python! Now what are you going to do? Bleed on me?

Me: Ah so much projection. Ignoring all the evidence then accusing me of sophistry and being as slippery as an eel

Apparently you have psychological issues that you deal with by accusing others of having them

Besides the bbc, here are other journalists who are m e n t a l l y deficient according to you

Feel free to continue to ignore contradictory evidence

Ceasefire continues in Syria despite isolated violence | World News,The Indian Express

"The Observatory reported other minor violations, including the firing of a single missile by regime forces in southern Daraa province, but said the truce was largely holding."

Ceasefire holds as Olmert admits tactical deficiencies | World news | The Guardian

"Ceasefire holds... A few skirmishes broke out between Israeli troops and Hizbullah fighters left in close proximity when the truce began yesterday morning."

A: wait... what's Syria got to do with Gaza????

"The ceasefire with g a z a has lasted almost a year so they're not at war'
you said

Me: Lol

So a ceasefire in g a z a is invalidated by violence even if a ceasefire in assad land isn't

The cope gets ever more ridiculous

A: go find a proper article that DIRECTLY argues for the validitity of the Gaza ceasefire. You will likely only find very dubious opinion pieces.

even if you are an internet "expert" in Middle eastern affairs, you claims still don't hold. Find me some sane person who would say the ceasefire works.

UN pushes for lasting ceasefire, more humanitarian deliveries in Gaza | | UN News

even the UN bemoans the brokeness of these ceasefires! It's always been this demented cycle of ceasefire-attack-ceasefire-attack... it doesn't end

Me: A has just declared multiple media outlets to be fake news

Good job

Progress reported in Gaza ceasefire talks as senior Hamas, Egypt officials meet | The Times of Israel

"Hamas and Egypt have advanced agreements to strengthen the ceasefire between Israel and the Gaza-ruling terror group... Israel and Hamas have been holding indirect negotiations, moderated by Egypt, on stabilizing the fragile ceasefire since the 11-day battle between the two sides in May"

Egypt pushes for calm after flare-up in Gaza hostilities | AP News

"Egyptian officials Sunday pushed for Israel and Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip to rein in hostilities and adhere to a cease-fire in place since the war in May."

Israel hits Hamas positions in Gaza after rocket attacks | Gaza News | Al Jazeera

"a ceasefire ended an 11-day war between Israel and Hamas in May. The ceasefire, brokered by Egypt and other mediators, has been fragile."

A also has contempt for the United Nations

Occupied Palestinian Territory (oPt): Response to the escalation in the oPt - Situation Report No. 10 (September 2021) - occupied Palestinian territory | ReliefWeb

"The May 2021 ceasefire continues to largely hold"

Without Prospect of End to Occupation, Middle East Region Faces Irreversible, Dangerous Collapse, Special Coordinator Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

"Eight months after a fragile ceasefire ended full-scale fighting in the Gaza Strip"

Well done

Looking forward to the next cope

A: yes, agree. These political takes on the situation acknowledges that the ceasefire is holding and there is still plenty of violence in the meantime.
I don't consider this at all sane, but that's me. This is no ceasefire. If anything, it just means they haven't broken down the doors and launched another full scale invasion.

Me: Lol he blocked me when I proved him wrong yet again

Guess that saves me from having to read his bs anyway

So much for his pretending to care about my mental health

And I see he responded properly before blocking me, to pretend that he had the last word and I was "unable" to respond

Typical

 

Someone else: he sounds like a pain in the ass...

I think you both are irritating but he's much more invested in proving you wrong than vice versa
And more obnoxious about personally attacking you

Hmm I'm trying to figure out why he comes across as so much more unlikeable

I think it's because he's mean and uses emotionally charged language

Like calling people mentally deficient is mean and unnecessary and that defo started from him

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Vaxhole Meltdown

A: *photo of There's Nothing Left to Debate on COVID-19 Vaccines for Kids | Time*

Me: This is a very 1776 freedom land view

JCVI ‘largely opposed’ to Covid vaccination for children under 16 | Vaccines and immunisation | The Guardian

Sweden decides against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-11 | Reuters Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19? - ScienceDirect

Vaxhole:Can update your news a bit?

It's outdated to the extent that JCVI is literally no longer - I quote your quoted article here - 'largely opposed' to Covid vaccination for children under 16.
 
Also, a research paper that takes its data set from VAERS?! This must be some high level April's Fools joke cos you can't polish this kind of turd enough to make it shine.
 
Can also explain what is 1776 freedom land view? Cos it sounds like Star Wars but also Star Trek. Like a Wookiee appeared in the Starship Enterprise kind of view point. Thanks in advance.

Me: Ok, I wasn't aware that the JCVI had changed their advice in February

Just because I quote a paper does not mean I agree 100% with everything in it. That paper provides some information about covid risk for kids and makes points about possible long term harms
 
If you prefer, here is a paper that notes that covid is less severe for kids than the flu
Does Covid-19 in children have a milder course than Influenza? - PubMed
But it doesn't make some of the points that I mentioned above, so it was easier to just mention the earlier paper

I try not to mention country names (among other things) on fb. I've been zucced twice for saying that people from 1776 freedom land are lacking in knowledge and wisdom (once when I added spaces to evade the algorithms - it must have been a manual report to spite me)
 
I spent just over a third of 2021 zucced. Nowadays I'm very careful and I haven't been zucced since November so clearly my caution is paying off

Healthy Children Don’t Need Covid Vaccines - WSJ

"The Sunshine State is bucking the public-health consensus again. “The Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the Covid-19 vaccines for healthy children,” Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced...
 
He is merely acknowledging the abundant scientific evidence that Covid-19 poses a negligible risk to healthy children, which makes it impossible to know if the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk.
Start with the exceedingly low likelihood of severe illness or death. A recent study in the Lancet estimated the infection fatality rate for those under 18 at between 0.0023% and 0.0085%—meaning 2.3 to 8.5 of every 100,000 children who get infected will die. Rates are lowest among those 5 to 11...
 
Polio paralyzes 1 in 200 infected children, and the fatality rate for measles ranges between 0.1% to and 0.3%. That’s why childhood vaccinations are recommended for both. The risk of hospitalization from the flu for children 5 to 11 is 50% higher than from Covid and the related multisystem inflammatory syndrome combined. MIS in rare instances can cause gastrointestinal and cardiovascular symptoms after infection...
 
The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency-use authorization last October for Pfizer’s vaccine for children 5 to 11 after a small trial (about 1,500 kids received Covid shots) found it was 90% effective at preventing symptomatic illness. But the vaccine’s efficacy rapidly waned, even more so than in adults, especially as the Omicron variant spread...
 
Vaccine efficacy against infection, meanwhile, turned negative during the Omicron surge a month after kids were inoculated (minus 10%) and declined even more after six weeks (minus 41%). This means vaccinated children were significantly more likely to catch Covid than the unvaccinated. How can that be? One possible explanation is that the unvaccinated may have been more likely to have been previously infected, and natural immunity is more protective than vaccines.
 
But this makes vaccinating children even more senseless. The vast majority have already been infected. The CDC estimates that 58% of children under 18 had infection-induced antibodies as of January, based on commercial laboratory blood samples.
 
This is almost certainly an underestimate. Antibodies have probably faded in those who were infected earlier in the pandemic, and a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found 63% of children under 18 who tested positive for the virus on PCR tests didn’t generate antibodies in their blood. Unlike the current crop of vaccines, prior infection stimulates mucosal immunity—including antibodies in the saliva and nasal passages—that can provide a strong barrier to infection.
 
As for risks, there’s no evidence that Pfizer’s vaccine causes long-term harm to children. But its trial enrolled too few children to discern very rare adverse events, which could exceed the risks from the virus. Some 40% of children 5 to 11 reported systemic reactions after their second shot (e.g., fatigue, headache, fever). About 10% missed school, and 1% needed medical care.
 
Such literal headaches may be worth enduring for adults, but it’s far from clear they are for children. One nontrivial risk that should concern public-health officials is that side effects from Covid shots could make children and parents wary of other vaccines...
 
Germany, Norway and Sweden don’t recommend vaccines for healthy children under 12, and the Danish Pediatric Society has urged its government to follow suit. The public-health consensus has been wrong time and again during the pandemic"

Vaxhole: Can we have some standards?

------z
The WSJ's opinion piece by Allysia Finley... Who is she? What is this gish gallop.
 
"Allysia Finley is a member of the Journal's Editorial Board.
 
Ms. Finley joined The Wall Street Journal in 2009 after graduating from Stanford University with a bachelor’s degree in American Studies. During college, she edited the opinions section for The Stanford Review and wrote columns for The Orange County Register."
 
A quick look shows her articles on Covid all go against the grain of medical advice from actual medical experts. I don't take serious medical advice from my newpaper editor or lawyer or banker or barber. You shouldn't too.
 
And yes. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo. He easily does a good job of discrediting himself.
 
Standards pls.
------
Also, you don't agree 100% with everything in that garbage research paper that uses VAERS as their primary data set. But you say that paper provides some information about Covid risk for kids and makes points about possible long term harms. Where is this risk data coming from? VAERS?!
Which parts of the paper do you not agree with? The non-VAERS parts?!
------
Lastly, okie understood the 1776 freedom land whatever thing to mean America. I don't see what that has to do with anything though.
------
There are also many reasons why we should vaccinate as much of a population as possible. One of which is to prevent transmissions from child to parents which can start a whole chain. Herd immunity.
 
Can we just skip to the part where you just come out and say you are an anti-vaxxer?
It'll save everyone quite a bit of time. Thanks

Me: Can you address the claims in the WSJ article rather than poisoning the well?

Poisoning the Well

To look at some of the claims in the article:
 
"A recent study in the Lancet estimated the infection fatality rate for those under 18 at between 0.0023% and 0.0085%—meaning 2.3 to 8.5 of every 100,000 children who get infected will die. Rates are lowest among those 5 to 11."
 
This is literally quoting a peer reviewed study published in the Lancet
 
If you're going to groundlessly claim that she was misquoting the paper, don't. I have compared her numbers with the point estimates in Table 1 COVID-19 IFR estimates by age and they match up
 
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports there were 66 Covid-19 deaths among children 5 to 11 between Oct. 3, 2020, and Oct. 2, 2021—exactly the same number as died from suicide, which is exceedingly rare among this age group—in 2019. By comparison, there were 969 deaths in this age group from unintentional injury and 207 from homicide in 2019."
 
Again, this is exactly what the CDC reports
 
"the fatality rate for measles ranges between 0.1% to and 0.3%."
 
This is about the same as what the Infectious Diseases Society of America tells us
 
Evidently the Lancet, the CDC and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (all 3 sources of which are linked in the article) are not good enough for your "standards"
 
Since you once again refuse to do your homework and just slime articles you disagree with, here is where the Toxicology Reports article gets its data on covid risk to kids from:
 
"Fig. 1. COVID-19 Deaths per capita by age in the United States (as of Jun 5, 2021). Population-based on U.S. CDC WONDER Bridge-Race Population Estimate 2019. Data obtained from https://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.html on 6/15/2021. Provisional COVID-19 deaths based on CDC data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics for the period 1/1/2020 – 6/5/2021. Data obtained from https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku on 6/10/2021."
 
For the avoidance of doubt - no, this is not VAERS
 
Ironic that you misunderstand the article and then dismiss it based on your misunderstanding. I wonder who the one lacking in knowledge and ignorance is here
 
Again ironically, you are unaware of the science about covid vaccines not reducing transmission

Effect of Covid-19 Vaccination on Transmission of Alpha and Delta Variants | NEJM

"Vaccine-associated reductions in transmission of the delta variant were smaller than those with the alpha variant... The reductions in transmission of the delta variant declined over time after the second vaccination, reaching levels that were similar to those in unvaccinated persons by 12 weeks in index patients who had received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and attenuating substantially in those who had received BNT162b2"

So after 12 weeks, Astra-Zeneca had no effect on transmission of delta and Pfizer reduced transmission by only 24%. Doubtless with even more time, efficacy in reduction of transmission would be even greater
Annelies Wilder-Smith, a member of The Lancet Commission on COVID-19, and a consultant to WHO writing in The Lancet. Infectious Diseases, notes that "the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation"
 
As an article in the British Medical Journal notes,

What do we know about covid vaccines and preventing transmission? | The BMJ

"Vaccine effectiveness against infection, hospital admission, and mortality have all taken a hit when pitted against the omicron variant, and it seems only logical that the impact against transmission would likewise drop.
 
And even if it were true that vaccination did reduce transmission, it is not clear that vaccinating children to protect adults is justified
 
Anti-vaxxers Rachel Gur-Arie from the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University,
Steven R. Kraaijeveld from Wageningen University & Research and Euzebiusz Jamrozik from the Oxford-Johns Hopkins Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities note that:

An ethical analysis of vaccinating children against COVID-19: benefits, risks, and issues of global health equity [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] | Wellcome Open Research

"it is currently unclear whether routine COVID-19 vaccination of healthy children is ethically justified in most contexts, given the minimal direct benefit that COVID-19 vaccination provides to children, the potential for rare risks to outweigh these benefits and undermine vaccine confidence, and substantial evidence that COVID-19 vaccination confers adequate protection to risk groups, such as older adults, without the need to vaccinate healthy children"
 
Yes, I am an "anti-vaxxer" because I am against mandatory vaccination of children. You better let the health authorities in Germany, Norway and Sweden know that they are "anti-vaxxers" too.
 
It's weird how vaxholes don't believe the vaccines work

Vaxhole: Okay. You're right. I'm wrong. Our government is wrong. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You've built an argument so well research and water tight that it's a crime you haven't been recognized as an expert in this field. Why the heck aren't world leaders lining up to seek your sagely advice is really a question on everybody's minds now. 

Germany, Norway and Sweden are right like they have always been. Maybe they had consulted you in secret, you Germano-Norwegian-Swede deep state world savior you. All other countries mandating vaccines for kids based on their own panels of experts are wrong, overstepping freedoms (wait was this why you brought up freedom land? Am confused) and evil. The Covid risk for kids are so low that vaccine mandates for kids will doom mankind cos of the possible long term effects and ethical concerns.

Me: So much projection...

Vaxhole: No no no not as much as you! 

No one can be greater than you. Not our local experts or government. Our locals pale in comparison to Germany, Norway and Sweden who are better and never have been wrong before because they understand and accepted your position not to mandate vaccinations for kids. Also possible long term effects! This one's really a big one that will doom us all. It's only 2 years in after all.


I don't personally know him but pre-covid I saw his comments around and he didn't seem cuckoo. I wonder how many people's brains have been fried by covid.

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Why the US will be worst hit by the Coronavirus: A toxic mix of stupidity, aggression and overconfidence

For the avoidance of doubt, A is American

To be clear, A is just one idiot, but I've encountered many of his ilk. A brings it to a new level, though


B: People are being encouraged to rat on their neighbour and are hearing veiled threats from the 2nd in charge at WHO that infected family members will be removed from homes ...FFS 😳..if that doesn’t raise red flags nothing will 🚩

Me: And if your neighbour infects 1,000 people?

C: exactly! There will come a time when it becomes necessary to use force to remove contagious people who refuse to comply with mitigation protocols.

B: you’re sounding very much like a tyrant
I think you’ve never understood why people like Orwell wrote his books..

Me: Orwell wrote about authoritarian states using their powers to oppress people with the pretext of imagined threats

Not democracies protecting people from real ones

B: what makes you think Bill Gates is a democratically elected leader?

Me: When did I say he was one?

What policies has he enacted?

B: my point was that Orwell wrote about totalitarian regimes and you’re assuming his warning only pertains to people concerned about governmental totalitarian regimes. There are other types of regimes and other power structures that exert considerable influence over people’s lives that we should be concerned about. The tech giants being a case in point. They are unelected power brokers who are making a great many decisions that include the limiting of some people’s freedom.

Gates has enacted a great many policies that have influenced the world scene profoundly. He has plans for more as well.

Me: you can choose not to use Google, Facebook etc. It's harder to choose your government.

Governments can kill you. Big tech can make your life difficult, at most.

I am not a libertarian who thinks companies should be able to do anything. But I can see that companies are limited in their power

You're being vague in your gates conspiracy theories again. If you allude to some sinister conspiracy theory don't get upset when others think you're talking about some other conspiracy theory

B: Let me clear if I haven’t been already:
I think a man who is a self-elected leader, who has bought his way into power and prominence and is now advocating for a technocratic innovation that will tie people’s freedoms to their vaccination status on a world wide level, is treading on very dangerous ground.

Legitimate concerns for any citizen of the world imo.

I think anyone underestimating the danger posed by autocratic technocrats is sadly naive. These technocrats have the power to carve public opinion into the shape they want by their promotion and omission of certain voices and points of view. For you to believe that only governments can pose a risk to the freedoms people have is staggeringly blind.

Me: what technocratic innovation are you referring to? Did he call himself a leader?

Are you calling big tech technocrats? Technocrats are government officials

I never said big tech didn't pose a risk to freedoms. I said governments posed real risks and big tech less

A: nobody can infect 1,000 people. That’s a false assumption to begin with. You’re argument (if that’s what you call that) is based on a false assumption.

Me: 1,000 is just a number thrown out for the sake of argument. It's not an assumption. The term is hypothetical

Presumably you agree that if someone can infect 1,000 people, that person should be quarantined

But if someone can infect 200 people, should he be quarantined?

A: nobody can infect 1,000 people ever. You can’t use something completely unrealistic like that and then expect a realistic reply. Make your argument realistic and then I’ll entertain the idea of a reply.

Me: I guess you've never done philosophy before. Thought experiments are standard in philosophy

But I'll humour you

As I mentioned before

"if someone can infect 200 people, should he be quarantined?"

A: philosophy? This is not a philosophical debate it’s a real one with a real disease. Quarantine should be voluntary period. If you think government forcefully isolating people is ok then you’ve just exposed yourself as a communist. You’re either for government force against the citizen or you’re against it, there is no “but” in there.

alright laughing at my comment just makes you a giant douche bag. You’re not worth my time at this point. So you’re a douche bag and a commie. Even more not worth my time.

You’re basically siding with communist China that forced people into quarantine and locked them in their homes. That makes you a gigantic piece of shit as well.

Me: I see you equate philosophical to useless

Not realising that the tradeoff between different rights is an integral part of political philosophy

And I see you use the term "communist" to mean "bad person"

Ah well

Ironically, I'm pretty sure you think the government is justified in forcefully preventing a woman from getting an abortion...

A: uhmmm you don’t “see” anything. I didn’t equate anything. You said that not me.

And yes if you’re a communist you are by default a bad person. Anyone who believes government has a right to force people to do anything and take away their freedom is a bad person by default. That’s common sense. So you’re not all that bright either on top of everything else.

Me: This is why the US is going to be the worst hit country by the coronavirus

*GIF: freedom intensifies*

A: and it’s also exactly why we’ll always be a country with more freedoms.

Posting a gif like that because I’m against government using force against its citizens just exposes you as nothing more than a clown. You think you have a high intellectual capacity and are witty when in fact you’re quite the opposite, and you just proved it.

Me: Too bad.

Your country is illegitimate because taxation is theft and the government has a right to force people to do things. Paying taxes for one.

What's worse - most of your countrymen believe the government has this right. So most of your countrymen are bad people.

58% of Americans have a favourable view of the IRS, which forces people to pay their taxes.

Only 33% of Americans have an unfavourable view of the IRS.

58%-67% of Americans are bad people.

Majorities Express Favorable Opinions of Several Federal Agencies, Including the FBI | Pew Research Center

A: so now you’re resorting to insulting the people of my country? That’s just pathetic.

Me: "Anyone who believes government has a right to force people to do anything and take away their freedom is a bad personal by default. That’s common sense."

You said it, not me!

A: [To someone else:] people can just voluntarily stay on their homes if they are scared nobody is going to force them to leave. No force is required to deal with this. A study done by the journal Science, funded by the National Institute of Health found that 6 out of 7 people either show no symptoms and have only very mild symptoms. The mortality rate is much much lower than people are being told and the media is reporting. So the collateral wouldn’t be as high as you think. Millions die every year from many diseases. 60,000 died from H1N1 and government did not do any of this. The media is also to blame for this. It could all be done voluntarily and should be done voluntarily.

Government screwed this up from the very beginning. I’ve had to explain this so many times that I actually just saved in my note pad so that I can just copy and paste it when needed. The very same government that is overreaching is the same government that screwed it all up from the beginning.

South Korea has the lowest numbers of infected and deaths out of any country. They had their numbers drop steeply in a matter of 6 weeks and in fact have the lowest number of infected and deaths. They also didn’t have to close a single business. How is this possible? Because the got the help of the private sector to create and pump out thousands of test kits a day. They aggressively tested EVERYONE, and then quarantined those that tested positive. South Korea never had to shut down a single business or restaurant. A study done by the journal science and funded by the National Institute for Health concludes that 6 out of 7 people have the virus and are either asymptotic (show no symptoms) or only have very mild ones. These people spread the virus exponentially. South Korea weeded them out as well by testing everyone.

The first case of covid-19 was found in Washington state in January 20th the exact same day that South Korea found theirs. A private Institute was testing using their own test kits and found this person. They began testing others and found more so they could quarantine themselves. The CDC and FDA ordered them to stop. They refused and continued testing. The CDC then threatened them so they had to stop. Other companies also came out with their own test kits. The CDC ordered them all destroyed. Then the CDC came out with their test kits (which took forever because they are incapable of mass production unlike the private sector) and they all failed.

If the CDC hadn’t stopped the private sector from making test kits and continue testing they could have kept it all contained in one area, quarantining everyone that tested positive, and the level that it has now reached in the US would have never happened because we would have reacted soon enough to prevent it.

The CDC and the FDA are solely responsible for the mass infection we are experiencing in the US because they prevented the private sector from getting a jump on things early enough to stop it from spreading, like South Korea did, we are now at epic levels in the US.

When this is all over there need to be hearings about the way the CDC and FDA completely screwed this entire thing up from the very beginning when it was needed the most and allowed it to become what it is right now. The CDC and the FDA have both failed miserably. The public deserves to know and those failures need to be pointed out so they don’t screw up something this badly again in the future costing thousands of lives.

[To me:] calling them bad people is your opinion. Keep it to yourself jack ass. We’re also the most heavily armed country in the world. Making up 40% of the entire worlds gun ownership. So if we need to we can actually fight against our government if it gets to that point. Can you smart ass? Oh wait you can’t. You’re government basically took that right away. The only thing you can do is use colorful language. Huh...

Me: "People in South Korea who don't stay home are going to be tracked.

Responding to a new surge in coronavirus cases, South Korean officials said Saturday that electronic wristbands will be strapped on citizens who disobey self-quarantine rules."

South Koreans breaking quarantine rules to be strapped with electronic tracking wristbands | Fox News

A: If your reaction to my explanation of how government agencies screwed up the handling of covid-19 from the beginning was to laugh at it, then not only have you exposed yourself as a gigantic piece of shit, but you’ve also exposed yourself as a person of very low intelligence as well.

Gabriel was just as bad [as another person who made snide remarks] if not much much worse. I guess since he can hide behind a computer screen he’ll be as obnoxious as possible. No way he would do this shit to my face in person.

B: yeah I know what you mean. Today he’s called me a hypocrite who indulges in rants and tirades. That’s all very well on a public page but this is my own timeline. I wonder if he’d say that to me if he was in my home? I’ve known forever that he thinks like a leftist in some ways but today he’s hit a new low. It’s prob lockdown having this effect on him. Too much stewing in his own juice 🤣

A: yeah most people like him would never have the balls to actually say this to anyone’s face. They hide behind a computer screen like a complete fucking coward and do it.

Who in their right mind actually has to ask if communists are bad people? Communism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last century and strips people of their freedoms and private property. I personally think he is a sick asshole who thinks way too highly of himself.

B: yeah he totally gave himself away tonight. His talking down to you about philosophy was laughable 🤣...especially in light of his being a communist apologist.

A: oh the whole “I’m a philosopher” bit was a joke. Again he thinks way too highly of himself. Not to toot my own horn (but I’m going to in this case because it’s justified) but my IQ puts me in the top 6% of the worlds intelligence. So he can go eat a dick. When his IQ is higher than mine than I might actually consider anything he has to say and take it seriously. Everyone is a philosopher.

B: yeah, everyone is a philosopher...true! And for sure you’re intelligent. But character can’t be bottled. That’s what I think. Nothing else matters as much as character. Not even intelligence because plenty of nefarious people have been outstandingly intelligent.

A: [To someone else:] no government enforcement would be necessary for the testing. People were and still are scared shitless. Plenty of people want to get tested but they are making it ridiculously hard to even get tested for it. You basically have to walk in on deaths door. Unless you are massively sick they will absolutely not test you. Which is absolutely ridiculous because if the study I mentioned where they concluded that 6 out of 7 people have it and are either asymptotic and only show mild symptoms. Those are people you want to test. So yeah getting people to get tested would not be hard at all. People here would happily volunteer to get tested and tested often to be honest because they are all scared of getting infected.

As far as China goes their market economy is pure capitalism, and of course stealing everyone’s intellectual property, and then turning around and selling cheap knock offs. But yeah they are absolutely purely capitalist economy not necessarily free market however because a lot of their companies are very heavily government subsidized which is why it makes it so hard to compete with them and their companies there.

How aren’t communists bad people? Simply reading through a standard history book will tell communists are horrible people. Marxist communism is harmful because it rejects private property and ownership. That in itself completely contradicts freedom. Man is born to be free. Marxism does not allow that. It absolutely requires a dictatorship to work. Again by default it’s evil. That’s we can attribute 100 million deaths to it.

The Iraq war is comparing apples to oranges. The Iraq war isn’t an economic or socio economic theory put into practice. Was it a huge mistake? Of course it was. But again that’s what government does. Governments and communism has killed more people then any free market capitalist system ever could a million times over...

Government systems like The VA, a specific health care and hospitals that are government run for military veterans is absolutely horrible. The horror stories you read it about would blow your mind. Veterans dying because of long wait times. The hospitals are filthy and the treatment is horrible. That’s as good as it gets just for the tens of thousands of veterans. Imagine how horrible it would be if government tried to run and provide health care for 320 million people?! It would be a complete and total disaster.

Me: And yet us healthcare is expensive and yet doesn't perform well

Oh well, the price of "Freedom"

A: it’s not expensive at all. I have the best health care you can get and I pay $40 a month for it.

My step father used to be a head of engineering for the military he is now retired but still has top level security clearance. He helped design the SR-71, worked in the Star Wars project, when someone tried to shoot down Bill Clinton’s chopper with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher he designed the special flares that where deployed that saved Clinton’s life. He also worked on upgrades for the Saturn V rocket, designed the Nuclear Tomahawk missiles and so many other projects it’s not even funny. Half of them he can’t even tell me about.

He looked at my health care and told me I have better health care then he did while being an engineer, and all I pay for it is $40 a month. I get covered for everything.

Every comment you make is so wildly misinformed, it’s mind boggling to me.

The reason health care is expensive if you don’t get it through your job is government laws. Government made it illegal to be able to purchase health from any other company in any other state in the country. You’re limited by the 5-7 companies in your state. They have neutered competition which would drive the prices down. Once again the government that you praise has fucked the citizens again with their laws and the unintended consequences of those laws.

If you have a decent job that isn’t pumping gas though you’re most likely to have cheap health insurance. Our medical by the way is number one in the world. It’s our health insurance that some people are unable to get because, we’ll again, government won’t just let the free market work likes it’s supposed to.

so you’re just literally going to every single one of my comments and making sure you laugh at them just to be a douche bag keyboard warrior. You wouldn’t dare laugh in my face if we where having a debate in person, you’re too much of a pussy little coward, so you do it sitting behind a computer screen. Probably in mommy and daddies basement.

Me: Tons of organisations have done studies on US healthcare and found that it sucks. For example the OECD (The US Healthcare system from an international stance - OECD), Harvard University and the London School of Economics (U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes – Harvard Gazette) and Johns Hopkins (U.S. Health Care Spending Highest Among Developed Countries - 2018 - News Releases - News - Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

But I'm sure all of them are ignorant and you, a random person on Facebook, are the one who's right

If inter-state restrictions for healthcare were really what made healthcare expensive, you'd expect that at least one state would have affordable healthcare, and that insurance companies from states with cheap healthcare would set up subsidiaries to penetrate the market in other states and steal some of that fat profit.

To say nothing of how the US Health Insurance Industry's profit margins are consistently in the low single digits, so these profits you imagine are illusory (National Association of Insurance Commissioners: U.S. Health Insurance Industry | 2018 Annual Results)

Strangely, though you claim your healthcare is great, New Jersey health care affordability is ranked 35 and health insurance enrollment is ranked 26 (Best States for Access to Health Care | US News Best States). So clearly it's not due to your state offering fantastic plans that are not available out of state.

Also I'm sure that inter-state healthcare restrictions have nothing to do with state rights. Though I've a hunch that if the restrictions were lifted, you'd be complaining about state rights being infringed

I see that for someone who accuses me of being a keyboard warrior you're incredibly hypocritical - it's fine for you to insult me but when I laugh off your puerile jibes I'm the one who's in the wrong

Presumably you are not a "pussy" and would happily insult me to my face

For someone who claims to welcome debate, you're incredibly thin skinned. Not to mention the joke of calling it a "debate" when you ignore points that you don't like or are unable to address

A: lol!!! Is that why when every world leader gets so much as a sniffle they come here for their medical care? Lol!!! Man you are such a dumb ass. Go search google some more for articles that back up your own biases. What you did is called “confirmation bias”. Google that phrase if you don’t know what it means as I have a feeling you probably don’t.

you keep laughing at my comments yet I continue to thrash you about like an intellectual chew toy making you look silly every time to everyone reading through the comments. Let me know when you’re finally ready to yield and admit that you’re just intellectually inferior in every way compared to me.

oh and I’m also far better looking to boot.

Me: For all my merits, I don't consider looks to be among them

Other points of error I noticed:

1) "South Korea never had to shut down a single business or restaurant."

Well, actually...

"company offices that are at risk to be closed and public venues and events be canceled. All schools that should have started a new semester on March 2 are now postponed until March 22. " South Korea’s drastic measures against the coronavirus offers a glimpse of what the US may need to do - ABC News

"He... said he would shut down several thousand welfare centers." South Korea Adopts Tough Measures To Stop The Coronavirus As Cases Break Out In Church And Hospital

2) "People here would happily volunteer to get tested and tested often to be honest because they are all scared of getting infected."

Coronavirus and carers: ‘I am so scared right now’

"I am at the stage I don’t want to know"

[Archived] Bogleheads community discussion - Coronavirus - Page 32 - Bogleheads.org

"Personally I don't want to be tested because I don't want to take 2 unpaid weeks off of work."

Dani Richard's answer to If it costs $3,000 to get tested for the corona virus, how many Americans are going to vote for universal healthcare? - Quora

"If I have symptoms of the corona then, I don’t want to get tested"

3) "Government systems like The VA, a specific health care and hospitals that are government run for military veterans is absolutely horrible"

"The VA health care system performs similar to or better than non-VA systems on most measures of inpatient and outpatient care quality" VA Health System Generally Delivers Higher-Quality Care Than Other Health Providers | RAND

A: that’s from March 4th. They began everything on January 20th. There was a peak in infected and then a very very sharp drop within 6 weeks. All this article does is talk about how they are still fighting it. Of course they are still fighting it. Duh, but they have under better control then every other country in the world because of the measures I already explain in a very long previous comment. You’re article doesn’t disprove anything I explained. You’re grasping at straws now and scraping the bottom of the barrel because you are so desperate to prove me wrong for some reason. It’s pathetic at this point. Why are you so desperate to prove me wrong about my valid and well researched explanation of how South Korea handled covid-19 from the beginning? It serves no purpose. At this point it’s just an ego battle for you that you’re desperate to try and “win”. That’s truly sad and pathetic. Seriously man, just look at yourself. You think people have any respect for you after reading through your comments and seeing how you act? No they don’t, it at all. You really are making yourself look pathetic and stupid. I can actually smell the desperation through my phone. 🙄🤦🏻‍♂️

Me: The lady doth protest too much, methinks

A: I protest to much? You’re kidding right? That is so rich in irony That’s literally what you’ve been doing the entire time with every comment I make. You should go look in the mirror. You’re ego is completely out of control. You’re unwilling to accept facts because your ego is so large and you think so highly of yourself that you think there isn’t anything you could possibly be wrong about. It really is just pathetic to watch at this point. And to laugh at every single one of my comments, you make sure you do that, you’re so childish on top of everything else as well. It’s truly just pathetic to watch. You don’t see it? It’s like you have narcissistic personality disorder, I’m not even joking, or maybe (but highly unlikely) you’re a sociopath. They are also extremely narcissistic. Either way man you really need to check yourself.

actually you may just be a sociopath. You do seem to be fond of communism which involves controlling other people’s lives, property etc. So there may actually be some truth to that.

keep pathetically laughing at everything I say, I’m the one that gets the last laugh anyways. Enjoy it while you can. It truly does expose you as an egomaniac to everyone reading this thread. It amazes me that you continue to do so. It’s as if you have zero self awareness.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Flame of the Day

"You really are one of the worst people I’ve met and you continue to reinforce that with every comment you make."

Friday, April 27, 2018

Moral Skepticism

莫丽蜜: "First, be humane to Inuka.
Next, be humane to humans.

Ed Nolan: On instagram some retarded Sinkies are insisting that polar bears and dogs should be treated the same as cows and rats because "they are all animals".

Me: Yup I agree. I treat animals the same way.

That's why I've eaten dog and want to eat cat.

There is no morally relevant distinction between cute and ugly animals.

BTW I find pigs cute. And they're smart. So you shouldn't eat them

Ed Nolan: Silly to say all animals are the same when a polar bear is not the same animal as a rat. Also silly to say there's no "morally relevant distinction" as if it's the universal truth, when the fact is that "morals" are subjective and determined by humans and society. And most people and societies will consider those who say "there is no morally relevant distinction between cute and ugly animals" as "immoral" people.

Me: So what would you say are the morally relevant differences between polar bears and rats?

Social acceptance is different from morality. Is an incoherent moral system really a system?

Ed Nolan: Morality is personal/societal and not universal. And trying to talk about logic and coherence when it comes to morality is illogical and futile.

Me: Ethicists and moral philosophers would disagree on the latter even if they might on the former

Ed Nolan: Doesn't mean they or their adherents are logical or smart. Purist thinking such as viewing all animals as the same is often reductive and illogical, as illogical as conflating morals with universal truths.

Me: First you claim logic and coherence for morality is illogical and futile so we shouldn't care about it, but now you use illogical as a derogatory term

Maybe you haven't made up your mind about whether logic is a good thing

Ed Nolan: You don't get it. I'm saying it is illogical to try to justify morals with logic. Trying to justify treating all animals the same by invoking the logical fallacy that "all animals are the same" is illogical.

Found another data point for the pool of stupid Sinkies who try to justify killing and eating dogs by invoking false logic and trying to make it sound logical. Not only stupid but also dishonest and cowardly to hide behind false logic.

Me: Lol. You just said logic is a bad thing when applied to morality

Guess you changed your mind (again?)

Ed Nolan: Yes I said logic cannot be applied to morality and that's exactly why I disagree with your attempt to apply logic to your moral value of how you treat dogs. You still can't comprehend this?

Me: If "logic cannot be applied to morality", then there's nothing wrong with "false logic"

For someone who keeps bashing logic you seem to implicitly value it a lot

(not to mention that if you claim you cannot apply logic to morality and then start arguing about the situation you are engaging in self confessed futility)

Ed Nolan: Using logic to debunk your attempt to apply logic to morality doesn't mean I'm applying logic to morality myself. Is that too difficult for you to understand or are you just unwilling to admit it?

Don't use strawman. I never bashed logic. I'm bashing stupid Sinkies who try to apply logic to their immoral values.

Using false logic to justify one's moral value is stupid, dishonest and cowardly.

Not justifying one's morality with logic is entirely consistent with pointing out why some Sinkies are stupid in trying to justify their morality with false logic. But of course it is not surprising that stupid Sinkies can't or refuse to comprehend this.

Me: The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

My Second Favourite Insult

"I've dealt with unsolicited dickpics that grossed me out less than Gabriel fucking Seah"

However, my favourite is still:

"Grow up Gab, and take your penis out from being kiaped between your legs as you sit down cross-legged, blinking seductively while shaking your lime green feather boa at random strangers."

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

On Rey being Overpowered, Female Characters' Lines in Movies and Another Instance I Wasted Time Arguing with Liberals

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau (attr - it's actually from Fénélon and Pierre-Claude-Victor Boiste)

***

A: Researchers have found a major problem with ‘The Little Mermaid’ and other Disney movies (on men talking more than women in Disney movies)

I was disappointed by how Frozen fared in this. I wonder how non-princess Disney films hold up (like Big Hero 6 or Inside Out, which had fairly diverse casts).

Me: If you need to tick too many boxes you can't make a film properly

A: a.) I don't follow the link between that statement and what I have shared above. b.) I dispute your statement, as many very successful films are in great part box-checking exercises.

Me: If they want to ensure women speak as much as men it is yet another consideration they need to take into account

It depends how you do it. One reason I didn't like tfa was the need to make rey strong made her unbelievable

B: The Force Awakens has laser swords, planet destroying superweapons and faster than light travel, but you thought a strong female lead was somehow 'unbelievable'?

A: You don't have to ensure that women speak as much as men in every film. However, casting and scripting choices often use men as default where gender would have little impact on a film, but in aggregate can have large impacts on how society views gender. The discrepancies are especially atrocious in a line of fantasy films specifically targeted at young children.

I agree with B. Having delved into the entire EU universe and obsessed over Star Wars as much as I have, I find Rey to be more realistic than original trilogy Luke at the least.

Me: Yup. There's something called in-universe logic.

"The female Rey, who it is heavily implied is Luke’s daughter, is the most underdeveloped character yet in over 14 hours of Star Wars films. Her story arc is practically-speaking non-existent... other major Force-wielders in the series their abilities have previously developed or are developed over years, Rey seemingly does it in less than 12 seconds, rather than parsecs. Her whole trajectory in the film reeks of “god mode”...

In the case of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels, by contrast, we learn that he is the only human pilot to engage in pod racing. His mechanical know-how has been honed over some years, culminating in his construction of both his own pad racer and the droid C-3PO. And when he destroys the droid control ship above Naboo, it is largely as a result of his good fortune, not just long-acquired skill. A decade later and with continuous training, he additionally fails to best Count Dooku on Geonosis...

That’s a plot fueled by meth. To boot, Rey’s piloting and mechanical skills, to the point of knowing everything, is mind-boggingly “get more women in STEM” in its motivations. When she starts teaching Han Solo about the Falcon, things become breathtakingly contrived. It’s as if Abrams was paid by a female science scholarship foundation to drum up some public service announcements via film"

Riley from Alien is a better model if you want "strong female lead". Though the unthinking adherence to this trope hobbles female characters' development.

OT Luke had training from Obi Wan and Yoda and still got his hand cut off in Bespin

Is there evidence that these have "large impacts on how society views gender"? This is a claim that is always bandied around but I've never seen evidence for it

Also should the media reflect society as it is or society as it should be? Why must the media be a social engineering tool?

If in the real world women do not flock to join the military, is it reasonable for them to do so in a fictional world?

40 Unforgivable Plot Holes in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'

20 More Plot Holes in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens'

The many plot holes in TFA arise from the box ticking exercise to:

- Give fans something like the Original Trilogy
- Have more black people/women characters
- Make black people/women look strong/good
- Have a climatic final battle scene
- Use the old characters and introduce new ones
- Have a reasonable running time
- Make people consume all the tie-in novels and other media to find out what was going on
- Have a dangerous villain (Ren)
- Leave lots of characters alive for the rest of the trilogy
- Sell more toys
- Give cheap thrills/gags

A: LOLZ. I will agree that TFA was a box-ticking exercise, but I reallllly don't see how gender or race of the two main protagonists led to plotholes. The Deus Ex Machina used constantly to move the plot forward (Deus Ex Machina that is alive and well in both previous trilogies) is another beast altogether.

A lot of what is supposedly so unrealistic about Rey's character is explained through the visual representation of her character and small glimpses of her backstory given in her dialogue/relationships with other characters. I preferred it greatly to the exposition-heavy prequels and Luke's "I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home."

Is there any particular reason you would find value in gendering most supporting characters in Disney films as male?

Me: It's not really the gender/race being plotholes, but the need to have a "super strong female character" that made Rey super overpowered

There are Dei Ex Machina. And there are Dei Ex Machina. We do get glimpses of her backstory, but it doesn't explain why she can master the force and lightsaber combat in 7 seconds

B: Maybe women are just better. In-universe, of course.

Me: A: "Is there any particular reason you would find value in gendering most supporting characters in Disney films as male?"

The male is the default gender.

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

I would interpret this differently from the conventional de Beauvoir interpretation.

It's the same way he was the gender neutral pronoun for the longest time.

So in most cases, making characters male makes sense. Because men are neutral, whereas women are special/gendered (it's the same way with gender roles in modern societies in developed countries - e.g. women can wear jeans but men can't wear skirts)

Also people identify more easily with male than female characters. So you can get a wider audience with male than female characters. There's some research on this (excerpted in Balderdash: On Diversity in Casting in Movies and other Media) (I also suspect that people identify more easily with white characters but I haven't found anything on this).

Also Disney worlds tend to be ones where men are more prominent in public life. Look at the historical settings. Women tended to stay in the private realm. It was men who were prominent in the public realm. So unless your story is about cleaning the floor (e.g. Cinderella) you're not going to see so many women in them.

Actually what is interesting is why the majority of Disney protagonists are female. Maybe parents (or fathers at least) are more easily suckered by girls than boys to buy toys and merchandise.

C: Ok, I gotta hop in. I'm geeking out and can't contain myself. It makes perfect sense Rey can do Jedi mind tricks and master light saber fighting after a TELEPATHIC LINK WITH SOMEONE WHO COULD ALREADY DO THOSE THINGS. I mean, she's already super strong with the Force - all it took was absorbing the knowledge/skills from the interrogation scene. How do so many ppl miss this???

A: C: I know! She only uses powers after having Kylo Ren use those same powers on her!

B: Guys guys guys, clearly women can't do that shit! Vaginas interfere with the force!

Me: I'm assuming Rey isn't an ancestor/descendant of X-men's Rogue

And if a "telepathic link" made one a Jedi Master how come all those Jedi padawans and Sith apprentices didn't do the same? Wow, that'd save lots of time training

B: In-universe logic, baby.

Me: In universe logic says that we bring in a new and totally unknown method of "training". Right.

I guess force users need to be careful whose minds they prey into since they may end up teaching them everything they know

B: Especially strong female leads. They're better with the force, after all.

A: There is very well-established precedent that being strong in the force gives you inherent use in some instances (such as piloting). In this case, Rey is able to resist Ren's mind-sap the second time he tries it, probably because she knows what to expect this time. It's not a leap that in feeling his intrusion and resisting it she intuitively twists the mind-sap around, and is then able to use it against the stormtrooper after multiple attempts.

Kind of like how Luke magically learns how to manipulate high-speed proton torpedoes using the force.

C: I think we can agree that Rey is meant to be very exceptional. Therefore it's no stretch of logic to say that she can do some exceptional things. No need to over-think it, I mean this IS the franchise that brought us Jar Jar Binks, after all.

A: "I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home, and they're not much bigger than two meters!"

There's a much closer parallel between the port on the Death Star and womp rats than learning mind tricks and lightsaber combat from a mind sap.

Being strong in the Force helps you do things like pod-racing, sure. But learning how to use the Force is why people go to school and have Masters.

Anakin had more midichlorians than Master Yoda and still got his arm cut off by Dooku. Maybe Rey has mutated midichlorians?

C: The only response I can give, if you don't believe me is that "I find your lack of faith disturbing".

A: I'm not sure piloting a T-16 in atmosphere and firing LOS with lasers corresponds very well to piloting a highly advanced space fighter and firing projectiles at a similar target without computational aid, and then bending the trajectory of said projectiles 90 degrees.

As for lightsaber fighting, Count Dooku was how much older/more experienced than Anakin (while Ren and Rey are roughly the same age and Rey has some combat training, just not lightsaber)? And had Count Dooku just been hit with a fracking bowcaster shot, which was established in the movie to blast stormtroopers through the air? I actually liked how the movie creators had Rey use a short staff fighting style during the lightsaber batle to explain her competence.

Me: Ok

D: I was going to post here that the article was an excellent read, but wow this truly takes the cake.

Don't mind the troll. Actually, each and every point he has made further solidifies the exact issue to which this article is pointing- an inherent societal and cultural mysoginistic disposition that is ingrained in young brains through media. To which some are apparently too feeble minded, or more likely in this specific case drowned in his own narcissistic ideology of "REAL STAR WARS LOGIC," to recognize that the sexist undertones so neatly displayed in the article are spewing out of him.

Me: Right.

Disagreement = trolling, stupidity, narcissism. Nothing new here.

Have fun masturbating each other in your echo chamber.

E: *shlick shlick shlick shlick shlick*
shlick

yeah, no, Gabriel, I think you're earnestly complacent with gender inequity in our society. My comments were mocking in nature.

C: This does raise an interesting question: how do those concerned with gender equity go about demonstrating the reality and persuading those who are willfully (trollfully?) ignorant of such things? If hard empirical linguistic evidence can't do it, as in the article, then what can? (I interpret mocking as a sign of the end of persuasive efforts in most cases).

B: Guy wastes an hour moaning that his beliefs are logical and relevant, despite multiple people refuting him over and over, then accuses us of being in an echo chamber. Yup.

E: You interpreted correctly. I have spent way too many kilojoules on people like that guy. At some point, you need to turn your attentions to actually DOING something about it on a grand scale.

A: If I'm reading Gabriel correctly, he doesn't deny the inequity, he just doesn't see a problem with it.

Me: C: Unfortunately, not everyone responds well to evidence

When I show feminists evidence that the gender pay gap is negligible once you correct for factors like hours worked, time taken off work, industry etc the response is usually one or more of the following:

- accusing me of trolling
- insulting me
- blocking me
- ignoring me and then continuing to spread misleading statistics about the gap
- claiming that anecdata is more important than rigorous statistics

Ho hum.

A: I would say that it is a very minor problem at most

E: Hmmm, that's interesting Gabriel, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. UNLESS you're saying all feminists (aka people who want to work to correct gender inequality) are exactly the same. Is that what you're saying?

Me: I was giving an example of how evidence doesn't work on everyone

E: uh huh. Man, I LOVE how MRA think that's a kill-all point. Like GENDER PAY GAP GUYS! DROP THE MIC!

Me: To quote C:

"I interpret mocking as a sign of the end of persuasive efforts in most cases"

C: Glad you all agree on something finally! :P

F: Wow. Wowowowowowowow. "Male is the default gender." Lololololololololololol. Ol.

Must be terribly narrow in that worldview you have there. I'd go into the various cultures and languages worldwide that don't use gendered pronouns, but nah. Don't wanna make you too uncomfortable.

Oh. Let me just leave this riiiiiiiight here. Consider it a little extracurricular exercise if you like:

Appeal to Tradition

G: I liked the article but loved the comments here even more!

H: Can subalterns speak ... Haha

I: yeah. Houston, we have a problem.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes