Aristes

My point isn't that women don't suffer from discrimination. ...And I respect your post in this regard, alan. Especially since it touches on points I was actually trying to make. The loom, for instance. Men are stronger than women. There are physical differences. To accuse me of sexism for pointing out an unavoidable fact doesn't change it. Pointing out that this specific woman over here is stronger than that specific man over there doesn't change the general rule either. So, discrimination exists, but it works in a variety of ways. Ways we don't even understand. Ways we will probably never understand. As for the "patriarchal" society message of your post: yes. That was my point. The same mores that have a hand in keeping women down are also the same ones that force men to act like idiots. My point wasn't that women didn't suffer from discrimination. It was that "manly" values are so pervasive that women in movies, television, and literature have become men with curves and boobs. They have to be hawt. They have to be strong. ...And they have to beat down folks who get in their way. As for your graph, Cyclone, it is certainly instructive. I don't concede that the sole cause for those discrepancies is discrimination, but it's certainly in there. Finally, as for you Tig, you're a great guy. I've enjoyed your views on games and politics. Your pictures of Korea bring back memories of my days there when I was younger. I'm sorry that I didn't take pleasure in the rolling off your chair, guffaw inducing original post, but I'm sure I've offended you more at this point than the cartoon offended me.

Well, I was out in the 6th round of the tourney, but my pupil made it to the 8th round and was taken out by someone two levels higher.

I suppose, instead of saying "fake," I should have used the word satire. It is exactly what I thought it was. The cartoonist did not genuinely carry the convictions depicted in the cartoon. He was trying to use his strip as a way to attack the sexist views he perceived in society. I stand by my original post: "Looks more like self-congratulatory auto-eroticism than real social commentary. Go pat yourself on the back." I also stand by my assertion that the strip is fake, since it depicts views that the cartoonist does not hold. That's actually what I meant all along. Folks who saw the cartoon and thought that it really was "from a 1970s children's book" might have taken it at face value, which makes the original post misleading as well. "Commenter Jennifer says Whitney Darrow was a humorist, and that this book was intended as a satire of gender roles: 'Whitney Darrow was a cartoonist. The images are not propaganda. They are not indoctrination.' She

I'm level 3. I managed to pick up a pupil and my pupil is the same level I am. ...And I washed out of the tourney at the 6th round, whereas my pupil is currently still in the tourney.

heh It was never humorous. The cartoon looked like a fake. If it's genuine, then that wouldn't be funny. It would be sad.

Don't be a doofus Hurlshot. Well, it's too late for that, but don't be a doofus about my post. What I'm saying is that we discriminate between all sorts of groups. In some cases, the vast majority of us seem to agree that the discrimination is perfectly valid. Children of five cannot choose to marry each other. They cannot enter the workforce and take on a job. *shrug* gays should be allowed to be married. I guess I was being a doofus because I completely left the homosexual marriage question behind to discuss something I find far more dismaying: our political process.

Well, I'm glad you didn't edit my post in order to depict me as racist. On the other hand, I recall threads in this forum where folks contend that all humans of different "races" are the same where others cited research that indicates physiological differences between "races" as well. I'm one of those folks who believes that there is really no such thing as "race," but there are others who suggest that there are clearly defined differences between races and then have evidence to back up their claims. While I don't accept the evidence as conclusive, I also don't accuse them of racism (sexism) because they broach the subject. This is clearly what I meant in regards to entering these ideas into the larger discussion. Perhaps there are no real physiological differences between men and women, although I submit there are more than between an african male and a european male. More by definition. Getting away from the racist/sexist/ageist/otherist discussion, I take your point well. It even makes sense. However, how much does that graph take into account different professional choices, different educational paths, and the cumulative effect of women who remove themselves from the workforce for long periods to raise a family, women who have been habituated to thinking of men as the primary breadwinners, the supposedly less agressive nature of women, and a host of other factors? What I'm saying is, I'm not sold that the graph you present paints a picture in which the only culprit is discrimination. I have no doubt it is part of it, but discrimination works in many ways on many levels. For example, what is the earnings difference between, say, white women in the United States and hispanic women? If they are the same, then maybe we can leave out race/ethnic discrimination. If there is a difference, how much of that difference is because of ethnic discrimination of whites against hispanics and how much might be, I dunno, hispanic mores regarding women and the workplace? There is no reason to suggest that discrimination might not be an issue in earnings. There is a lot of discrimination in the workplace, to be sure. There is discrimination everywhere. However, establishing a causative relationship between discrimination and salaries will require more evidence than your graph provides. I hope that we can avoid obvious roadblocks like calling each other (race)sex-ists. I appreciate that you avoided a cheap, easy, and ineffective argument.

Hurl, I hope you'll forgive me, but this is a particularly stupid statement. Who decides what amounts to discrimination? Sawyer says we can avoid practical issues by discussing political theory? How about this, we can't form policy without politics. Since that's the case, we better discuss politics. We can call it political theory. We can call it the creation of, interpreting, and review of laws. We can call it deciding what to do. ...But it is absolutely necessary to go through this process. In fact, the discrimination you cite was created by the political process, so it is a fundamental part of this conversation. By the way, broadly speaking, society discriminates regularly. The question isn't whether or not we should create discriminatory policy. We will create discriminatory policy. We have no choice. Is marriage between persons under 18 allowed or not? Is marriage between persons under 15 allowed or not? Is it discrimination to limit the rights and prerogatives of minors? I'm sure it is. Allow 8 year old children to drive? How about allowing children to drive at 16? How about 18? Someone, somewhere, will get the short end of the stick in policy debates. Fair enough. The best thing to do is to make sure the political debate is structured as best we can. Get off your high horse. This is a policy decision. We've had worse in this country over the last 200 years without nearly as much handwringing and lamenting. Yes, this particular policy is not good, but the process that allowed it to so quickly and easily enter the books is far more damaging but you're too busy over there "thinking of the children." News flash, we got a raw deal when the braniacs put Referenda and Ballot Propositions into the state constitution. Without the ballot initiative process, we probably wouldn't be forced to discuss this most grave affront to humanity in all of its entire existence -- the denial of same sex marriages. From a practical standpoint, I don't think we can do anything to rid ourselves of the ballot initiative any time soon. However, it's not impossible to amend the constitution to make it more difficult for future amendments to pass. Notice that the differing policy in Iowa does not permit the same thing happening over there? They can't, say, go put a consitutional amendment on the ballot for the next cycle and pass it with a simple majority. Still think it's stupid to discuss the politics of the issue? And, frankly, because the ballot initiative is a direct expression of the explicit will of the people, I believe the supreme court should be far more cautious in overturning propositions. This is as a direct opposite of the normal legislative process where the supreme court should have leeway.

I disagree with what seems to be your underlying premise, Cycloneman. Maybe there is absolutely no hard-wired difference between men and women. If that's so, then all we have are stereotypes and prejudices. Fair enough. But can we entertain the question that maybe men and women are naturally different. If the hard-wire idea has cache in terms of sexual orientation, then why is it taboo in the larger discussion of gender? Maybe there are professions to which women are more naturally drawn. ...And you can't answer the question in the negative with any authority until you've entertained the idea in the positive. There is a discrepency in that graph in every nation. The smallest percentage is Malta, and I would submit that there are a number of factors involved on which gender has either a fleeting impact or none at all. Look, I'm not saying that woman haven't had a raw deal. What I'm saying is that we don't know all of the factors and in some cases the underlying causes might just be physiological. Women should be paid the same for the same work, but who says that women want the same jobs? ...And, even having the same jobs, it's fairly clear to me that women tend towards less overt aggression than men. Hell, that doesn't even say something good about men. Mostly it just says something about nature where men have, for thousands of years, been the ones who went and fought against the environment or each other for enough resources to keep their families alive. And women have generally been the caregivers to the family. Generalities are just that -- general statements. Some women are willing to go up to the boss and demand a pay raise. Some women are happy to fight along-side men in uniform. ...But it doesn't seem that most women do and, a pointed question, are they naturally inclined not to? I ask these questions as genuine queries. I've observed differences, but I think it can be difficult to discern your own prejudices from within the problem. Our biggest roadblock is that we are all within the problem. So, how do we get an unbiased answer?

Women Bar-B-Q'ing? NEVER! hahaha I laughed out loud. Although I have to admit my sister grills really well. None of us REALLY BBQ. Mmmm, wish we did.

Wow, Hell Kitty. That whip is merciless. It was pretty even till psycho bitch pulled out the whip!

Looks more like self-congratulatory auto-eroticism than real social commentary. Go pat yourself on the back. Yeah, women in western society are beaten and downtrodden. If only I could force myself to use the roll-eyes smiley. Women have the freedom to pursue their own agendas and, as Kaftan says, whether in complete irony or not, they tend to pursue different interests than men. Does that mean their cerebral hard-wiring is different? I don't know. What I do know is that the fastest way to be tarred and feathered is to suggest the possibility to most feminists. In fact, I've heard feminists who insist that women do anything as well as men, except for those things they do better, such as nurturing and caring. Heh. "We can fight as well as any man, but we're nurturing too!" It's the new and improved female population. Kind of like they're a different species almost. Yes, I think that men can be sexist. Fair enough. But I also think that many women prefer feminine things. Should we despise a woman who decides that her family is more important than her career? Hell, maybe we should wonder why more men don't put their families before their career instead of wondering why more women don't. Should we make fun of a girl who likes a frilly pink dress more than blue jeans? Frankly, having been a teacher, I can say that I've known schoolgirls with a house full of brothers and a tomboy mom who prefer dresses to pants. The societal pressures on girls to dress like "girls" is FAR less than the societal pressures on boys to act like "boys." A girl wearing jeans and a masculine shirt is not going to suffer playground torture. A boy coming to school with a dollie (that is a doll without a weapon of some sort in its hand) is almost certainly going to draw comment from other boys. Not the nice comments, either. Yeah, more men beat their wives than wives beat husbands. No doubt. ...But strong and aggressive men are more likely to use violence, either in threat or deed, against weaker and more docile men. And men are naturally stronger and more aggressive than women. Don't blame me for that. Take it up with God... or Darwin... or crappy fate. I don't care, just don't kill the messenger. Speaking of which, maybe the idea that we should all be the same is why tv shows have increasingly depicted female lead characters are physically violent. How is that better? Hey, women are just as good as men. They can beat the crap out of men and each other just as much as any guy! Haha See how far we've come as a society? So, yeah, great use of irony, Tig. Let me add sarcasm to the mix. We'll proceed with bitter recriminations and end up exactly where we were when we started.

Sounds expensive to have military on ships. Just arm the crew. Rations of rum also. EDIT: I'm not entirely joking. In unsafe areas, having trained crews with access to firearms is a possibility. Oh, I can hear the cries already, but merchant marines are not drooling imbecils. If the arms are unlocked only in hostile waters, then the chances of mistake or misuse will likely be less than the chance of being boarded. Short of waging actual war along the coast, which would likely waver between cost prohibitive and ineffective, significantly driving up the risk for pirates has some chance for impact. And, in most places, criminal syndicates go out of their way to have as little impact on everyday citizens as possible. They're not good guys. I think of them as essentially scum, but organized crime is too concerned with profit to risk any real public outrage. These pirates are flaunting their criminal activities, which means the methods that the international community uses against them will probably be more direct and less hindered by proceedure than national law enforcement activities in individual nations.

The thing is, the people are free and do control the government. We don't disagree with democracy. We disagree that ballot initiatives are necessary to complete a democratic government. I contend that the people may easily assert control. The only difference is that it takes a cycle for changes to take effect. That's how the republic has run as a whole since the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, California has not had Referendums, Ballot Propositions, and Recalls until... ealy 20th century? These measures were introduced to usher progressive principles into the Californian political climate. Great idea, huh? Some folks probably think I'm a bastard because of my seeming lack of care about the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry. It's not that I don't care at all. It's that I care far more about the process. ...And I do agree that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds. We don't disagree on that issue, Wrath. Where we fail to agree is the idea that the way to deal with the problem is to have a constitution that is susceptible to change by a simple majority vote. Balance of power has been the hallmark and savior of American politics from the very beginning. When we have strayed from it, and we have strayed from time to time from the start, we have almost always suffered for it.

Well, there are more of us for one thing. ...But Florida has a large population but it has a much harder amendment process. Nevada has a two prongged approach and it's actually quite difficult to amend the consitution.

Yes, but as a term, the idea that the majority may become a tyrant is rather old and has some cache among educated folks. Take the all powerful wikipedia as a source, since that will probably take the place of real research for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority As far as the term "tyrant," it did not carry the same bad connotations back in the day. You know, when the folks first started using the word. Once again, the ever popular wikipedia removes our obligation to think, read, or research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant The point is, the majority can be as oppresive towards any group as a small group or an individual. Since the idea that the majority can form a tyranny is really a common concept, using semantics to argue against it is particularly hollow. And any tool that a group uses to oppress a group is tyrannical. We're not really talking strict definitions of tyranny are we? I mean, we're talking about the process of ballot initiatives. That is just plain flawed.

Won 5 out of my first 6 fights. Feel da powah of da bone! Looks like I'll hit level 3 tomorrow.

Krezak has a better excuse. taks didn't create the notion that the random rule of the mob is a tyranny in and of itself. The simple fact is, the unchecked rule of the majority is a great evil. The crafters of the Constitution worked hardest to combat the evil of the unchecked majority simply because the evils of aristocracy and monarchy were well established and experienced most recently by the people. ...And the majority can enact its will in a representative democracy, only it takes a little longer. The US Constitution should be neither an excuse to create a flawed state contitution nor an apology for one once created. Ballot initiatives allow the exact same sort of unbridled emotional outpouring of popular caprice that the crafters of the Constitution fought hard to prevent. That each happens at a state level in no way diminishes the problem for each state.

The Ballot initiative, once thought to be the true vehicle of progressive politics, is fundamentally flawed. We have a legislature. We have a governor. We have a judiciary. If those three branches perform their duties, then we don't need to place initiatives on the ballots. The only thing that a ballot initiative does is allow for the speedy enactment of the people's will. However, there is a good reason to delay, through the normal legislative, executive, and judicial process, the will of the people. First of all, the people might have a change in heart once they've learned more information. There is also the fact that ballot intiatives are misleading and voters often don't read all of the pertinent facts in order to discern the truth or evaluate the impact. Finally, although this list is in no way exhaustive, the people, at any particular moment are fickle. As flawed as our republic was, it was made worse by the ballot initiative. And it has not always been used to further progressive goals. The irony. As Abigail Adams might say, the serpent warmed at the bossom of progressives has poisoned them. The people will generally gavitate towards the good over time, but they vacilate along the way. There is little doubt that the ban on gay marriage in California is wrong minded, but I seriously doubt there would have been a ban in the first place if it were left to the three branches of government. There simply wasn't enough depth of feeling among the voters to pressure the legislature and governor. Even if the legislature and governor had enacted it, the SC could have thrown out the law, which is far more appropriate than overturning the will of the people. That's the irony on my side. I have no care about Gay marriage and think it should be allowed. however, once the people have directly voted on the issue, which is to say we know their will, then we're forced to adhere to it. We're also forced to turn the judiciary against the explicit will of the people. In California, that led to a constitutional amendment. If the will of the people, in a snapshot of time, can change the constitution in a single election by a simple majority, there's something wrong with your constitution, not the people. The people have had ample opportunity to express and demand their will in the US republic without a ballot initiative. Sure, we can argue that the desires of the people have been wrongminded from time to time, but the republic has been responsive to their will. The very constitution has been amended. Why should we take a strong representative democracy and exacerbate the gravest danger of all democratic governments -- caprice and short lived extremist sentiments? In fact, I think the movements to ban gay would would have been altogether brief indeed but for the ballot intiative in most states. California has a lot of conservative undercurrents and only folks who have never lived here think the state is "liberal." It's got quite a mix. However, while I think krezak is often misguided in terms of American politics, I know most Americans are misguided about American politics and people in general are misguided about politics in general and so I'm rarely irritated or angry at his posts. Confused or surprised from time to time, to be sure, but rarely actually irritated or angry.

Gfted is my master, and I just leveled, so he got a point. I don't understand the game. I have a lot of "survived to [insert gibberish here]" which I assume means folks challenged me. I also have a couple of defeat by or some such. Well, I did until I fought my three battle. Won two and lost one. Aw, I'll go after more folks later. Probably like leveled people for my challenges. I don't know if we get experience if we don't initiate the challenge and I don't want to waste my opportunities fighting folks a lot higher level than me.

Apparently, she thinks otherwise. Go say hi, see what happens. And right now I'm still reeling about tonights episode of "House." Wow. I don't want to spoil it in case anyone DVR'd it and hasn't watched it yet, but that caught me totally by surprise. slug: Man up, approach, and say hi. ...And smile. ...But not some creepy smile. LC: I'm so glad you mentioned the House episode without spoiling. I DID DVR it and now I'm really interested in seeing what's what. For myself, I'm heading out to be a pall bearer at a funeral. Planting another friend today. Hell of a thing.

Strictly speaking, since all games have loading times of one sort or another, I don't care about them either. That assumes the loading times are not particularly onerous. For example, Wow has very few loading times outside of dungeons and major zones, but you can see the world get populated from time to time. No biggie as it's quick.

That was part of the problem, yes, but it seemed fairly explicit about the chunnel also. I still enjoyed it, mostly because I was forewarned. 28 Days was simply better in terms of vision and orginality. ...And I'm not enticed by originality for its own sake. 28 Weeks was okay, just a bit of a stretch in certain places. I was actually hoping I could sign on and disagree with folks about the film, since that would have meant it was a great film. haha

Hey, after you've found all your wolves, could you tell me what the hell the epilogue is for? The wife and I finshed, and the game had good points and bad points, but the epilogue made no sense. I understand that it's meant to be symbolic, but I just don't get it. Maybe there's something I've missed. Anyhow, we might wait a bit and then replay the game for a perfect score. It's weird that the game has a score in the first place. Oh, and we picked all 144 flowers and, huzzah!, nothing! Woot. Glad we took the time to do that. Oh, and don't forget to hit esc and look at your trail. Might actually be helpful. Been playing a lot of WotLK. Meh. Getting a little wearisome. I Have leveled three characters to level 80. ho hum. We're almost done with Rhiannon. We would have been finished a long time ago, but some of the puzzles are so counterintuitive, we get tired of the crap and decide not to play for a while. We need a good Adventure game we can play together.

The wife and I are getting virtually nothing back this year. We try to cut it as close as possible so that we break even every April. I don't see the need to provide the government with the same "interest free loan" that Enoch sites. On the other hand, we owed money last year and it's always a bummer when you have to pay the government, even if the money has been working for you in the meantime. That, and we're gone so much it just sucks to return home from a trip and scramble to do taxes only to find out we have to rush out and send money back to the feds. We aren't rich, damn it. We don't want to write a check to the feds at the beginning of the year. As far as what we did today (or in the past week or so, I guess)... We went to the Navy Lodge in Coronado for a few days last week. It was fun in that I love the ocean. I swam every day. March isn't the hottest month, but the water is plenty warm enough. I got up at 5:30 to walk the beach and find shells for my niece. On the way home from San Diego, we stopped at the Wild Animal park in Escondito. I'd like to go some time when I've had more than 20 minutes of sleep the night before. That, and I told my wife I want a Caracel for Christmas. She told me no. I've seen a bunch of movies recently, including 28 Weeks Later. I should post something in the movies thread. I liked it, but I can definitely see what Monte and taks and Musopticon? were saying about the stupidity of the characters. If NOTHING else, it strains belief past the breaking point that the entirety of the English Isles were under quarantine but they didn't Absolutely idiotic that they had such an impressive setup that went to hell in a handbasket in the way that it did. I don't doubt something could have gone wrong, but the exact nature of what went wrong and how just boggles the mind. Finally, the wife and I finished The Path. Spooky, weird, and obscure video game. I might revisit it just to see if there's something I missed. The different girls were interesting, but the epilogue was a real head scratcher. I never figured out what the hell I was supposed to do.