Sexual novelty [jokes/insults split]

[Kuu]

(Split from here)

 

[Cavallier]

Re: Sexual novelty

Women invent a lot of BS.

Okay, how much more of that sexist bullshit do we have to put up with anyway? How is that statement not meant to incite a flame war? That is trolling.

Edit: And don't believe for a moment that my comment has anything to do with the thread as a whole. It has everything to do with the specific statement I quoted.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

It was a joke. Sorry I didn't make it obvious. I don't know who made up the difference between "hot" and "beautiful", but they bothean you're sexually attractive.

Loosen up, cakey-babe.

 

[Cavallier]

Re: Sexual novelty

We have to ask ourselves at what point does making off-color jokes become discrimination and the degradation of a demographic? The small slights and little dismissals add up to mass ignominy toward an entire group of people.

Also, when did the use of baby girl/boy become cool? Seriously, infantilizing our sexual partners is disturbing.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

We have to ask ourselves at what point does making off-color jokes become discrimination and the degradation of a demographic? The small slights and little dismissals add up to mass ignominy toward an entire group of people.

Also, when did the use of baby girl/boy become cool? Seriously, infantilizing our sexual partners is disturbing.

You didn't take my advice at all.

And what do you mean sexual partner? I don't even know what you look like!

And to answer your question; Never. It's discrimination and degradation if it's not a joke. If someone doesn't like a joke or feels offended by it, that's fine. You have every right to be offended and dislike a joke. However, that just means the problem is yours, not the joke teller's.

 

[AlisaD]

Re: Sexual novelty

Honestly, Mr. Yeti, I think that none of your posts/jokes are horribly offensive. Taken separately, some of them are even funny, in a sort of a stale, corny way. But put together, they kind of taste of pig. You might want to work on that.

Then again, I'm not sure if you're the kind of person that would ever think that a whole can be more then a sum of it's parts.

Oh well.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

Honestly, Mr. Yeti, I think that none of your posts/jokes are horribly offensive. Taken separately, some of them are even funny, in a sort of a stale, corny way. But put together, they kind of taste of pig. You might want to work on that.

Then again, I'm not sure if you're the kind of person that would ever think that a whole can be more then a sum of it's parts.

Oh well.

In this case, there's no such thing as the whole. I mean, "women" would be the whole, but that's not really a thing, it's necessarily a group of different things. I'd say I'm not the kind to presume all women are crazy just because a chunk of them are, but that chunk make the jokes funny.

 

[AlisaD]

Re: Sexual novelty

In this case, there's no such thing as the whole. I mean, "women" would be the whole, but that's not really a thing, it's necessarily a group of different things. I'd say I'm not the kind to presume all women are crazy just because a chunk of them are, but that chunk make the jokes funny.

It's not that I think that you presume women are crazy as whole because you make jokes about them, while thinking about just a specific chunk.

It's the fact that people are going to presume that you are a bit of a chauvinist pig as a whole based on the chunk of your jokes they can read.

If people thinking this doesn't bug you, please carry on.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

It's not that I think that you presume women are crazy as whole because you make jokes about them, while thinking about just a specific chunk.

It's the fact that people are going to presume that you are a bit of a chauvinist pig as a whole based on the chunk of your jokes they can read.

If people this doesn't bug you, please carry on.

It doesn't bug me, but I think I might be a bit chauvinistic. I think it's much more that I simply prefer the male tendencies to the female ones then that I actually think it's superior, though.

 

[Minuend]

Re: Sexual novelty

And to answer your question; Never. It's discrimination and degradation if it's not a joke. If someone doesn't like a joke or feels offended by it, that's fine. You have every right to be offended and dislike a joke. However, that just means the problem is yours, not the joke teller's.

What about bullies? They make a lot of jokes at the expense of the victim. What about rude remarks in general? Or being yelled at? Or being pushed?

Can't we just decide that it all means nothing to oneself, that it is not rude? Which means that it is our own fault when we suffer from such actions.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

What about bullies? They make a lot of jokes at the expense of the victim. What about rude remarks in general? Or being yelled at? Or being pushed?

Can't we just decide that it all means nothing to oneself, that it is not rude? Which means that it is our own fault when we suffer from such actions.

Sticks and stones.

 

[Cavallier]

Re: Sexual novelty

You didn't take my advice at all.

Nope. I didn't.

And what do you mean sexual partner? I don't even know what you look like!

I wasn't referring to you or anything involving you so much as referring to the cultural use of the word "baby". I've always thought it was yet another way of dismissing people.

If someone doesn't like a joke or feels offended by it, that's fine. You have every right to be offended and dislike a joke. However, that just means the problem is yours, not the joke teller's.

True. Yes, you're correct in this. However...

It's discrimination and degradation if it's not a joke.

you're incorrect in this.The intent of jokes surrounding things like racism and sexism (as with all jokes) is humor. But this is humor at the expense of a person or group of persons. It's ridicule.

I retract that you are a troll. I'll accept that you are simply a chauvinist as you've pointed out. Like AlisaD said, most of the time I actually think you're funny in an "oho he's going for an ass joke again" sort of way. It just gets really old after a while.

As for the naked thing. I like being naked so long as it's not too cold.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

I wasn't referring to you or anything involving you so much as referring to the cultural use of the word "baby". I've always thought it was yet another way of dismissing people.

... Then you've thought wrong? How did you ever reach that conclusion? I mean, sure, when used for that end, calling someone a baby for putting up a fuss for something not worth putting up a fuss over, that's putting them down. Saying something like "baby-pumpkin", "sugar-baby", or just "baby", it's a simple term of endearment. The context a word is used in is as important, if not more important, than which word it is.

True. Yes, you're correct in this. However...

you're incorrect in this.The intent of jokes surrounding things like racism and sexism (as with all jokes) is humor. But this is humor at the expense of a person or group of persons. It's ridicule.

That's ludicrous. Humor innately means you're not taking the subject seriously. That's why it's funny instead of serious. What, exactly, do these people lose when someone laughs at something that's not true or isn't actually a problem? Ridicule is not innocent as normal humor is, as it requires malignancy.

I retract that you are a troll. I'll accept that you are simply a chauvinist as you've pointed out. Like AlisaD said, most of the time I actually think you're funny in an "oho he's going for an ass joke again" sort of way. It just gets really old after a while.

It's kinda like "your mama" jokes. They're funny because they're not funny. Metahumor.

As for the naked thing. I like being naked so long as it's not too cold.

Blanket.

 

[Kuu]

Re: Sexual novelty

I retract that you are a troll. I'll accept that you are simply a chauvinist as you've pointed out. Like AlisaD said, most of the time I actually think you're funny in an "oho he's going for an ass joke again" sort of way. It just gets really old after a while.

I agree with this. To be honest even when I occasionally find some of your jokes funny, SpaceYeti, I still think they are both distasteful and potentially—if not actually—insulting to a large segment of forum users. I think you are more than aware about how this kind of jokes can easily be inflammatory and I sincerely doubt they add anything at all to the quality of the discussions, in fact quite the contrary. I suggest you tone it down, keep them for the arena.

To be clear: I'm warning you.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

And there it is. The claws of oppression. They hurt when they injure my flesh and I bleed.


Ouch.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

Puts one in an odd position SpaceYeti. What would bring about this "oppression" and is one completely innocent or just harassed or somethin'? That could be a very difficult question to answer considering the separation.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

I make fun of women or make fart jokes or some other corny thing once in a while, and people get offended by it. Yay for political correctness.

You can never please everybody.

So what kind of jokes can I make, anyhow? Can I joke about masturbation? Can I make fun of men, since I am (debatably) one?

zing

 

[Melllvar]

Re: Sexual novelty

Fwiw, I find most of his jokes funny.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

Fwiw

Bwuh?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

I make fun of women or make fart jokes or some other corny thing once in a while, and people get offended by it. Yay for political correctness.

You can never please everybody.

So what kind of jokes can I make, anyhow? Can I joke about masturbation? Can I make fun of men, since I am (debatably) one?

zing

SpaceYeti. Something I respect about you is you ask the best questions. Something I ease off on respecting you is you sometimes don't have the answers and its hard to provide those answers because I'm not sure you will be receptive.

Let me give it a try anyway. I'm in favor of free speech. But free speech is not so simple. Speech become unfree if one speaker is either too offensive or is too restricted. In an odd way, the atmosphere becomes "polluted" which restricts free expression. It's a contradiction.

So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

FWIW = For what it's worth.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

SpaceYeti. Something I respect about you is you ask the best questions. Something I ease off on respecting you is you sometimes don't have the answers and its hard to provide those answers because I'm not sure you will be receptive.

Let me give it a try anyway. I'm in favor of free speech. But free speech is not so simple. Speech become unfree if one speaker is either too offensive or is too restricted. In an odd way, the atmosphere becomes "polluted" which restricts free expression. It's a contradiction.

So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere.

So you think someone no longer has the right to speak if what he would say would offend someone? If you think that, then you're wrong. The freedom of speech is there specifically to allow people to speak about things other people don't want you to speak about. That's the entire point. The free interchange of ideas, even ideas that offend people. Especially the ideas that offend people.

For example, when creationists spew forth their abhorrent lies, I get offended. The creationist and I are both within our rights. He can speak, and I can be offended. I also have the right, though, to speak back, to point out the flaws in his lies and propaganda. Censorship is not a valid argument. As much as I disagree with the creationist and consider him a liar and a worm of a man, I'm willing to go to war and risk my life in a life firefight to protect his right to say it.

If your idea has merit, it can withstand the critics who freely speak.

However, the difference here is that this forum is private property. Public laws do not apply.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

@ You SpaceYeti. I have the perfect example of this. Did you catch the post the other day where I said, "I like to tease SpaceYeti"? I hesitated to say that but went ahead anyway. I wondered to myself, will he get my jokes or will he be offended? I had made an earlier post (I forget about what) and it was clear to me you WERE offended. So we all have something to learn ... you AND me.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Re: Sexual novelty

You're creating a closed hostile atmosphere. It's true yeti, you can say whatever you like, however there are consequences. You're in the military, do you invoke 'freedom of speech' when addressing your superiors or a cop? Didn't think so. The phrase 'freedom of speech' is propaganda, not an actual right. Especially on a private forum whose owner resides in a different country.

Generally, when dealing with peers you have the ability to say what you like until it infringes on someone else. Demeaning and dismissing a group of people counts. You may use humor as an excuse, but that's exactly what it is; an excuse for derision. Your pouting about being unable to joke rings hollow. You clearly have specific issues with women. If you were merely a jokster you'd target other demographics, instead of women exclusively.

We all have prejudices of some sort, but that doesn't excuse dismissing wide demographics. I have a huge problem with military wo/men. The majority of them strike me as brainless, bloodthirsty idiots; with no sense of personal responsibility or morality. Destined to serve as the tools of their betters, empowering potentially unethical people with their subservience and committing socially sanctified atrocities. Soldiers make war possible. One can only see pictures like this so often without coming to the conclusion that the lot are scum.

Yet I was raised in the military and I have enlisted friends. I dislike what they are, but I do not dismiss or ridicule them for it. I understand that some of them didn't have a choice, and others consider it honorable.

You dismiss literally billions of people, because they have the wrong genitalia.
I'm truly sorry your mother never loved you, Yeti, it makes you a bitch to deal with.

 

[a detached retina]

Re: Sexual novelty

^I agree with most everything you're saying.

However I wonder if prejudices are such an unnatural thing. not arguing that they are healthy, but natural. For conditioning is how the human mind learns essentially. Dopamine reward pathways and all that, if something happens a few times you recognize a pattern. Or even if you perceive that something happens a few times when it really doesn't you perceive a pattern. What I mean here is that you might falsely perceive a woman acting crazy when it is really your own emotional immaturity that causes this perception and then make a faulty generalization that women tend to be crazy. You could even argue that intuitors are more likely to make unfair generalizations about situations or groups of people based on falsely perceived patterns. It is difficult for me to swallow when elders tell me not to be prejudiced at the same time that the public school system I was raised in told me to use this exact style of pattern recognition and generalization so characteristic of western and even human thinking patterns. Of course in most situations it is easy to discern which are irrational perceptions, for instance women obviously do not act crazy in higher proportions than men (perhaps the manifestation of common insecurities differ between men and women though.) However I find myself continuously questioning the generally agreed upon consensus because if this were 200 years ago the generally agreed upon consensus would have been faulty. Namely people would have agreed that women are hysterical and need to be given morphine. This is an atrocious byproduct of unchecked intuitive generalizing thinking patterns. (I imagine NTJ types are most susceptible to this trap though, since the Te is a con-formative function and doesn't check the intuition in the same way Ti does.)

 

[Moocow]

Re: Sexual novelty

While she may have expressed some honest opinion somewhere in there, I'm pretty sure the main point of that post was just to troll Yeti into a response that might get him banned, or take advantage of his being unable to respond due the previous warning, knowing that he's perturbed and being defensive about the whole thing.

I think he can determine that himself.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

@ You SpaceYeti. I have the perfect example of this. Did you catch the post the other day where I said, "I like to tease SpaceYeti"? I hesitated to say that but went ahead anyway. I wondered to myself, will he get my jokes or will he be offended? I had made an earlier post (I forget about what) and it was clear to me you WERE offended. So we all have something to learn ... you AND me.

1. Where was that?
2. That's okay. I can be offended without whining to someone else to force that which offends me to stop.

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Sexual novelty

When I get my own island it will have one law - freedom of speech. However, there is one tiny detail that needs clarification; everyone that says something I disagree with will be shot on sight.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

So you think someone no longer has the right to speak if what he would say would offend someone? If you think that, then you're wrong. The freedom of speech is there specifically to allow people to speak about things other people don't want you to speak about. That's the entire point. The free interchange of ideas, even ideas that offend people. Especially the ideas that offend people.

I didn't say people should be disallowed to not offend anyone. I used the word, "pollution." Not the best word. Let say it can stir up trouble and one had best be prepared to take the consequences if one ventures forth.

For example, when creationists spew forth their abhorrent lies, I get offended. The creationist and I are both within our rights. He can speak, and I can be offended. I also have the right, though, to speak back, to point out the flaws in his lies and propaganda. Censorship is not a valid argument. As much as I disagree with the creationist and consider him a liar and a worm of a man, I'm willing to go to war and risk my life in a life firefight to protect his right to say it.

This is saying more than one thing.
1. I respect your desire to defend the creationists right to speak. I feel much the same way. Actually I have gone to war to defend this right. It was not pleasant. I can PM you about it.
2. You called them "abhorrent" and "liar" and "worm." Would you say that to their face in your rational discussions with them? It's one thing to argue creationism and another to use ad hominem arguments.

If your idea has merit, it can withstand the critics who freely speak.

Yes, but what about ad hominem?

However, the difference here is that this forum is private property. Public laws do not apply.

Yes the owners or people in charge are different from a vast state government. Nevertheless we like it here because of freedom of speech. Two things:
1. The owners have personal opinions and can act on them.
2. There are "trolls" or others who seeing a fight may wish to join in and "blow up" the fight. That could be what I meant by "atmosphere pollution." Having a war and fighting a war destroys something so seemingly innocent as speech. War has collateral damage.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

Hi Adaire. INTPs are reputed to keep their heads in a situation like this. It's when more than two or three posters get involved, and even too many ideas at once, the situation can bring in emotions and things can get out of control. I would like to see things kept in control for discussion. The owners of this board will have an opinion.

I'd be in favor of, if the idea grabs you, to start a new thread so ideas can be modularized.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

When I get my own island it will have one law - freedom of speech. However, there is one tiny detail that needs clarification; everyone that says something I disagree with will be shot on sight.

Good move kantor. Only one equally teeny problem. What if one of those "everyone's" catches on, rushes you, and turns your firearm on you?

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Sexual novelty

As you said, "teeny problem". As a matter of fact it isn't really a problem at all. Sigh, why do you have to be so slow BigApple? Obviously idiots like that wouldn't be allowed access to my island in the first place. Duhh!

 

[Kuu]

Re: Sexual novelty

Let me give it a try anyway. I'm in favor of free speech. But free speech is not so simple. Speech become unfree if one speaker is either too offensive or is too restricted. In an odd way, the atmosphere becomes "polluted" which restricts free expression. It's a contradiction.

So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere.

^^^

2. That's okay. I can be offended without whining to someone else to force that which offends me to stop.

Firstly, nobody came whining to no one. More than once have I thought in the past about calling you out on these comments.

So you think someone no longer has the right to speak if what he would say would offend someone? If you think that, then you're wrong. The freedom of speech is there specifically to allow people to speak about things other people don't want you to speak about. That's the entire point. The free interchange of ideas, even ideas that offend people. Especially the ideas that offend people.

For example, when creationists spew forth their abhorrent lies, I get offended. The creationist and I are both within our rights. He can speak, and I can be offended. I also have the right, though, to speak back, to point out the flaws in his lies and propaganda. Censorship is not a valid argument. As much as I disagree with the creationist and consider him a liar and a worm of a man, I'm willing to go to war and risk my life in a life firefight to protect his right to say it.

If your idea has merit, it can withstand the critics who freely speak.

However, the difference here is that this forum is private property. Public laws do not apply.

I don't think I really need to spell out the baselessness of these freedom of speech accusations. You can make civilized and reasonable arguments about whatever controversial subject you want without needing to pepper them with comments that you most certainly know to be misinterpreted as insults.


Are these jokes fundamental to the ideas you present? Are they indispensable to the logical progression of your arguments?

I don't think so.

Do these supposed jokes detract from the discussion, insult members and hamper the atmosphere of the forum?

I do think so, and it seems others think so as well.


The forum as a whole is more important than the rights of any one member to make jokes that offend others. Does this limitation diminish your enjoyment of the forum? Maybe. But allowing it also diminishes the enjoyment to more people. If you don't like that or understand that, then the internet is big...

I'm truly sorry your mother never loved you, Yeti, it makes you a bitch to deal with.

I agree with all you said in that post, and I get what you are doing here, but this is also not helping at all.

 

[BigApplePi]

(Split from here)

Needs work?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

As you said, "teeny problem". As a matter of fact it isn't really a problem at all. Sigh, why do you have to be so slow BigApple? Obviously idiots like that wouldn't be allowed access to my island in the first place. Duhh!

I am slow because I am busy interviewing those whom you will allow on your island should the wrong one get by.

 

[aaaw]

Sexual novelty [jokes/insults split]

I'm disappointed. I clicked on this thread hoping to read some good rude jokes.

 

[kantor1003]

I'm disappointed. I clicked on this thread hoping to read some good rude jokes.

Make one yourself then. Remember, rude jokes will get you banned
This thread is for nice jokes

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

I didn't say people should be disallowed to not offend anyone. I used the word, "pollution." Not the best word. Let say it can stir up trouble and one had best be prepared to take the consequences if one ventures forth.
This is saying more than one thing.
1. I respect your desire to defend the creationists right to speak. I feel much the same way. Actually I have gone to war to defend this right. It was not pleasant. I can PM you about it.

Thank you for your service.

2. You called them "abhorrent" and "liar" and "worm." Would you say that to their face in your rational discussions with them? It's one thing to argue creationism and another to use ad hominem arguments.

Of course I'd be honest with my opinion of what they're doing.

Yes, but what about ad hominem?

An ad holomen is when you attack or insult someone instead of arguing against their actual argument. If you insult someone and argue against their points, you have not committed the fallacy.

Yes the owners or people in charge are different from a vast state government. Nevertheless we like it here because of freedom of speech. Two things:
1. The owners have personal opinions and can act on them.
2. There are "trolls" or others who seeing a fight may wish to join in and "blow up" the fight. That could be what I meant by "atmosphere pollution." Having a war and fighting a war destroys something so seemingly innocent as speech. War has collateral damage.

1. Yes, and I may disagree with them. I'm not making a fuss because I presume one of my rights are being broken, I'm putting up a fuss because they think censorship is the proper way to deal with something they dislike. I've encountered a vague warning that they'd do the same with a discussion they deemed low quality, regardless other people were taking part. Disliking something is not a reason to prevent others from doing it. Just because you own a forum, or house, or whatever, and you have the right to enforce whimsical rules, it does not mean it's a good idea.
2. Agreed, and those trolls can be dealt with when they troll.

 

[Reluctantly]

This begs the question "Do jokes rely on the perceived stupidity of a person or group to be a joke?". Anyone want to make a new thread about this? I'm too lazy...

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

Firstly, nobody came whining to no one. More than once have I thought in the past about calling you out on these comments.

there's no need for you to whine to anybody.

I don't think I really need to spell out the baselessness of these freedom of speech accusations. You can make civilized and reasonable arguments about whatever controversial subject you want without needing to pepper them with comments that you most certainly know to be misinterpreted as insults.

I never claimed you were ignoring any of my rights. I agree I do not have freedom of speech on privately owned forums. However, that does not make it wise to ignore the spirit of the law. H'll, I appreciate that I got was a warning, but I really don't think my (bad) jokes should be taken as anything more than a grain of salt. And if they are, it's okay to be offended. Being offended does not mean what you take offense at is either wrong or worth taking action on. Further, how could I possibly know who has thin skin such that they'll take offense at my stupid jokes, and why should I not make a stupid joke just to avoid offending someone who's easy to offend?

Are these jokes fundamental to the ideas you present? Are they indispensable to the logical progression of your arguments?

I fail to see why having fun should be avoided in a debate. Of course they're not integral to the argument. If they were, they wouldn't be jokes.

I do think so, and it seems others think so as well.

I don't see why everyone has to have the same tastes.

The forum as a whole is more important than the rights of any one member to make jokes that offend others. Does this limitation diminish your enjoyment of the forum? Maybe. But allowing it also diminishes the enjoyment to more people. If you don't like that or understand that, then the internet is big...

How many people are offended proportional to the number amused? At what point am I too concerned with what other people think, and at what point am I not concerned enough? As I said before, you can't please everyone. How do I determine who I'm going to offend, and how do I determine if offending them matters?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

Thank you for your service.

I was misleading. When I said, "war" I didn't mean military service. I meant I went to war a few years ago with trolls on a bulletin board. Long story.

BAP: You called them "abhorrent" and "liar" and "worm." Would you say that to their face in your rational discussions with them? It's one thing to argue creationism and another to use ad hominem arguments.

Of course I'd be honest with my opinion of what they're doing.

Let's apply the INTP's Ti, Ne and Fe thing here. Abhorrent, liar and worm are all subjective. One would have to go about processing an awful lot of data to try and prove subjective things. You wouldn't succeed because those opinions are about feelings. I say opinion isn't good enough here for Ti. My Ne says therefore to keep opinions close to oneself, not make them public. Some posters here & you have noted the issue of bad or offensive jokes. I say it's not about jokes. It's larger. It's about offending via the expression of subjective feelings. INTPs have to learn better Fe.

An ad hominem is when you attack or insult someone instead of arguing against their actual argument. If you insult someone and argue against their points, you have not committed the fallacy.

What fallacy? Couldn't disagree with you more. No insult's period. Ad hominem's are about feeling. As I was saying feelings are subjective and have no place in argument if you are a thinking type.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

I was misleading. When I said, "war" I didn't mean military service. I meant I went to war a few years ago with trolls on a bulletin board. Long story.

Then not thank you for your service.

Let's apply the INTP's Ti, Ne and Fe thing here. Abhorrent, liar and worm are all subjective. One would have to go about processing an awful lot of data to try and prove subjective things.

It's abhorrent to reason, so that's not subjective. When someone says untrue things, they're a liar, so that's also not subjective. The only subjective thing I said was "worm".

You wouldn't succeed because those opinions are about feelings. I say opinion isn't good enough here for Ti. My Ne says therefore to keep opinions close to oneself, not make them public. Some posters here & you have noted the issue of bad or offensive jokes. I say it's not about jokes. It's larger. It's about offending via the expression of subjective feelings. INTPs have to learn better Fe.

I used to think the same thing, but then I stopped caring if I offended people, because I was gonna do it anyhow, and at least this way I get to vent frustration.

What fallacy? Couldn't disagree with you more. No insult's period. Ad hominem's are about feeling. As I was saying feelings are subjective and have no place in argument if you are a thinking type.

Ad hominem attack. That fallacy. It's a fallacy. A logical fallacy, which you do not commit if you attack the person and deal with their argument.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Sexual novelty

Then not thank you for your service.

Pick one: your welcome; not your welcome.

It's abhorrent to reason, so that's not subjective. When someone says untrue things, they're a liar, so that's also not subjective. The only subjective thing I said was "worm".

I'll call you on two of those three.

1. Abhorrent to you is subjective because Creationists believe they're using reason.
2. Liar is subjective if a liar is unpremeditated untruth. My experience with Creationists is they believe their sloppy science. They gloss over professional science because they're blinded by feelings or whatever it is. It's not deliberate lies. (I'm not talking about charlatans, mind you.)
3. Worm. Okay. We agree. But one needs only 1 out of 3 to be guilty of offense. An INTP may laugh off being identified with a worm, but a person of feeling will take it personally. That's enough.

I used to think the same thing, but then I stopped caring if I offended people, because I was gonna do it anyhow, and at least this way I get to vent frustration.

I hear ya. But couldn't we say frustration itself needs examining. In a sense you are offended. So giving offense when offended is a form of war. It''s not using reason. By reason, I mean ... I'm not sure how to explain it ... maybe some else can do better ... one is not looking carefully at the source of their emotions. I think there is more going on here than meets the rational debating eye. If I could think of how to name another thread I'd go there.

Ad hominem attack. That fallacy. It's a fallacy. A logical fallacy, which you do not commit if you attack the person and deal with their argument.

Not sure what is being said there. What I'm after is never to call someone a "worm" out of frustration. It's okay to feel worm, but saying it causes trouble and can blow up in one's face. Better to examine what the frustration is all about. Even in the non-forum world outside with its free speech, the law can get you for slander. Call someone a worm here or elsewhere and you have to be prepared for consequences more dire than mere frustration. Do you agree because I'm not trying to pass moral judgment here.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Re: Sexual novelty

not your welcome.

1. Abhorrent to you is subjective because Creationists believe they're using reason.

They're wrong. That can happen. I know all you kids these days are into "everyone's subjective experience results in totally separate realities for each individual such that nobody can be wrong about anything", but it's bullshit.

2. Liar is subjective if a liar is unpremeditated untruth. My experience with Creationists is they believe their sloppy science. They gloss over professional science because they're blinded by feelings or whatever it is. It's not deliberate lies. (I'm not talking about charlatans, mind you.)

No, a liar is someone who says something untrue, which can technically be done on accident (hence my avoidance of the word). They may not be dishonest, but they are liars. Many of them are even dishonest, though. When you make someone aware of how they're wrong, and they continue going on as though they are not wrong because they're simply too stubborn to quit on their belief, they're dishonest, perhaps with themselves as well as others.

3. Worm. Okay. We agree. But one needs only 1 out of 3 to be guilty of offense. An INTP may laugh off being identified with a worm, but a person of feeling will take it personally. That's enough.

Good for them.

I hear ya. But couldn't we say frustration itself needs examining. In a sense you are offended. So giving offense when offended is a form of war. It''s not using reason. By reason, I mean ... I'm not sure how to explain it ... maybe some else can do better ... one is not looking carefully at the source of their emotions. I think there is more going on here than meets the rational debating eye. If I could think of how to name another thread I'd go there.

I freely admit that I get offended. There's nothing wrong with being offended. There's nothing wrong with being mad, or sad, or happy, or any emotion. They're all acceptable. I really don't think there's much going on that doesn't meet the eye. I find things funny that offend people, and when I get frustrated I offend people. I'm an offensive person. It's pretty simple.

Not sure what is being said there. What I'm after is never to call someone a "worm" out of frustration. It's okay to feel worm, but saying it causes trouble and can blow up in one's face. Better to examine what the frustration is all about. Even in the non-forum world outside with its free speech, the law can get you for slander. Call someone a worm here or elsewhere and you have to be prepared for consequences more dire than mere frustration. Do you agree because I'm not trying to pass moral judgment here.

Slander requires lying. I never lie (on purpose). And what's being said is stuff about our discussion about ad hominem, which is a kind of logical fallacy wherein you attack a person instead of their actual argument.

 

[a detached retina]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

"So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere."

I think that would be a single edged sword no?

 

[The Gopher]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

"So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere."

I think that would be a single edged sword no?

Bahahahahahahah sorry it's not on topic but I found it amusing. And I guess an épée would be an insult?

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Sexual novelty

No, a liar is someone who says something untrue, which can technically be done on accident (hence my avoidance of the word). They may not be dishonest, but they are liars.

According to your definition you would be a liar then as
in the dictionary I am using a liar is defined as an "intentionally false statement".
If it just referred to a false statement the word would be pretty useless.

 

[SpaceYeti]

dictionary.com;
That is a definition, but there is also the definition "an inaccurate or false statement.", hence my use of the word "technically". I understand what it normally does mean, I simply avoid that word in preference of "dishonest" or a variant thereof because there's less room for confusion. I was simply being nit-picky.

 

[^_\\]

"If your idea has merit, it can withstand the critics who freely speak.

Do you think the best idea wins out by virtue of being the best idea? If not what do you mean by this?

The most convincingly presented idea wins out. Convincingness is by far more a function of rhetorical skill and the prejudices of the audience than of merit.

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

"So you can joke about anything. But jokes can have a double edge. If you don't get cut, they're funny. If you get cut, they're not ... and we're on to a polluted atmosphere."

I think that would be a single edged sword no?

Uh ... I dunno what I was thinking.