zompist bboard

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ONLY - see Ephemera
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:30 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:33 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
I think he was already caught out with the questioning of the existence of a soulmate.

It refers to the bit above about "a greater functional balance between the right and left hemispheres of the brain that scientists say would be supported by anatomical differences that have been discovered in the brains of exclusively homosexual individuals". Though admittedly I don't know so much about that anyway. Like who those scientists are.

Anyway, Question Time:
Would you rather everyone was conformist or everyone was anti-conformist? (Genie gives these options of course)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:47 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 430
Jetboy wrote:
No, twenty year life spans would suck.

You either have to give up either making phonologies, and have to take them more or less as is from natural languages, adding or removing at most one or two phonemes, or you have to give up making orthographies, simply taking those of natural languages more or less whole-cloth to cover your inventories, patching any gaps with another natlang. Which do you choose?


Give up making orthographies. I can cover for my orthography with existing ones, but only using an existing phonology means I'll have to go back to my early days of conlanging, when I didn't know what a fricative was. :o

If you could choose whatever period and place in the world to live in, would you remain here or move? If you would move, where would you move to?

_________________
Přemysl wrote:
Kereb wrote:
they are nerdissimus inter nerdes


Oh god, we truly are nerdy. My first instinct was "why didn't he just use sunt and have it all in Latin?".


Languages I speak fluently
English, עברית

Languages I am studying
العربية, 日本語

Conlangs
Athonian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:19 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Tokyo
jmcd wrote:
I think he was already caught out with the questioning of the existence of a soulmate.

It refers to the bit above about "a greater functional balance between the right and left hemispheres of the brain that scientists say would be supported by anatomical differences that have been discovered in the brains of exclusively homosexual individuals". Though admittedly I don't know so much about that anyway. Like who those scientists are.)

To me it's clearly far more to do with the fact that the sampled individuals are shamans, and thus have used their mind in a certain way, than it is to do with them being gay. Let's assume for a minute that they're right in claiming that the shamans had "special powers" – it still smacks of stereotyping gay men as more artistic etc than straight men.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 702
Location: Hole of Aspiration
jmcd wrote:

this is speculative evopsych and not really backed by anthropological analyses of primitive cultures. liberal democracies are the best place to be if you have a tendency towards sexual perversion. mostly because liberal democracies are the best place to be, but especially for perverts.

one of the many reasons why liberal democracies are better for perverts is because we are trying to get away from fucking stupid ideas like "exclusively homosexual individuals ... [have] special mental abilities resulting from the greater functional balance in their brain structures" which is not even a step away from "exclusive homosexuals are witches", which *is* a step away from "we must burn exclusive homosexuals", a step more likely to be approved and taken anywhere that is illiberal.

Which brings us nicely back to the main thread.
Quote:
If you could choose whatever period and place in the world to live in, would you remain here or move? If you would move, where would you move to?
here, of course. i am a sexual pervert.

and just to tie up the two branches:
Quote:
Would you rather everyone was conformist or everyone was anti-conformist? (Genie gives these options of course)
Conformist, of course. A society in which nobody conforms and always defects is called "not even the state of nature because at least people there had the capacity to form communities".

So:
A genie offers you three wishes on condition you convert to Islam. Well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:13 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 430
Pthug wrote:
So:
A genie offers you three wishes on condition you convert to Islam. Well?


Why not? As long as I don't actually have to follow all the rules. I'll convert and then forget about it. Or I'll use one of my infinite number of wishes (that was my first wish) to de-convert.

If you were given an option to be born in your conworld instead, would you do so?

_________________
Přemysl wrote:
Kereb wrote:
they are nerdissimus inter nerdes


Oh god, we truly are nerdy. My first instinct was "why didn't he just use sunt and have it all in Latin?".


Languages I speak fluently
English, עברית

Languages I am studying
العربية, 日本語

Conlangs
Athonian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:18 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 702
Location: Hole of Aspiration
Mr. Z wrote:
As long as I don't actually have to follow all the rules

Yes of course you do, you fucking evil person, do you think the genie is stupid?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:26 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 430
Pthug wrote:
Mr. Z wrote:
As long as I don't actually have to follow all the rules

Yes of course you do, you fucking evil person, do you think the genie is stupid?

I was hoping he is. :D
Well, I'll convert anyway, and then I'll reverse the conversion.

_________________
Přemysl wrote:
Kereb wrote:
they are nerdissimus inter nerdes


Oh god, we truly are nerdy. My first instinct was "why didn't he just use sunt and have it all in Latin?".


Languages I speak fluently
English, עברית

Languages I am studying
العربية, 日本語

Conlangs
Athonian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:33 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 702
Location: Hole of Aspiration
obv. then you are in breach of contract and your wishes get undone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:55 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 430
Pthug wrote:
obv. then you are in breach of contract and your wishes get undone

Then I wish for that not to happen.

_________________
Přemysl wrote:
Kereb wrote:
they are nerdissimus inter nerdes


Oh god, we truly are nerdy. My first instinct was "why didn't he just use sunt and have it all in Latin?".


Languages I speak fluently
English, עברית

Languages I am studying
العربية, 日本語

Conlangs
Athonian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:15 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Posts: 2974
Location: Israel
Mr. Z wrote:
Or I'll use one of my infinite number of wishes (that was my first wish) to de-convert.
Come on, everybody knows that wish can't be granted. Give a proper answer! (EDIT: To clarify: everybody knows you can't wish for more wishes.)


Mr. Z wrote:
If you were given an option to be born in your conworld instead, would you do so?
Yes. The Visuhi have more advanced technology, better weather, and space travel - I couldn't say no.


If you had to kill either a baby or its mother to save the planet from instant destruction, which would you kill?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:40 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 1228
Location: Scattered disc
Baby. For the same reason people who are against abortion "except if the mother's life is in danger" are. Though for obvious reasons it isnt one of the most popular abortion arguments, the arguing's been done so I'll let it be at that. Besides, even if I choose wrong I've still saved 6,743,768,238 lives, including the mother who would have died anyway, so who's gonna complain except maybe the baby?

next:

A contractor offers you a job digging up oil in Antarctica and it pays 10X higher than the best job youve ever had in the past. But you have to commit to a minimum 5 year term, only get two weeks home each year, and have been warned that most people who take this job commit suicide before they finish the 5 year term. Do you do it?

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:15 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
Posts: 1652
Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
Mr. Z wrote:
Or I'll use one of my infinite number of wishes (that was my first wish) to de-convert.


OH COME ON THAT WAS COVERED IN THE FIRST 2 MINUTES WITH THE GENIE IN ALLADIN

DO NOT TRY OUR PATIENCE

_________________
Image Image
Common Zein Scratchpad & other Stuffs! OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:47 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Soap wrote:
A contractor offers you a job digging up oil in Antarctica and it pays 10X higher than the best job youve ever had in the past. But you have to commit to a minimum 5 year term, only get two weeks home each year, and have been warned that most people who take this job commit suicide before they finish the 5 year term. Do you do it?


No because it defeats part of the purpose of getting a job: being able to do decent things with the money you earn. Being in Antarctica almost is not a decent thing.

Next:
Genie lets you be ruler of Saudi Arabia on condition that you rule in the same way as your predecessors. Do you do it?

---

Pthug wrote:
jmcd wrote:

this is speculative evopsych and not really backed by anthropological analyses of primitive cultures.
Maybe some other stuff the book is talking about but the point was the sentence I put in separate to the link.

Pthug wrote:
liberal democracies are the best place to be if you have a tendency towards sexual perversion. mostly because liberal democracies are the best place to be, but especially for perverts.
Sure that's probably true (and generally homosexuality is generally more common in societies with more population pressure) ; all I was trying to prove was that homosexuals were not shunned in hunter-gatherer societies, not that they were the best place to be.

Pthug wrote:
one of the many reasons why liberal democracies are better for perverts is because we are trying to get away from fucking stupid ideas like "exclusively homosexual individuals ... [have] special mental abilities resulting from the greater functional balance in their brain structures" which is not even a step away from "exclusive homosexuals are witches", which *is* a step away from "we must burn exclusive homosexuals", a step more likely to be approved and taken anywhere that is illiberal.
Speculative much? If it's really a step and a bit to take, how did it take thousands of years to get there? And it wasn't hunter-gatherers who made the step?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:05 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 702
Location: Hole of Aspiration
jmcd wrote:
all I was trying to prove was that homosexuals were not shunned in hunter-gatherer societies, not that they were the best place to be.

well you failed to do this. you presented some awful patronising sentiment that homosexuals, specifically "exclusive homosexuals" are basically just shamans, who have amazing mind powers, and that is why we do not deserve death. if this is the belief of any society in particular, it is that of middle class coastal Americans in the 60s and 70s, or of Europe in the early 20th century. GUESS WHERE AND WHEN ALL THE RESEARCH BEHIND THAT SENTENCE HAPPENED?? GUESS WHO DID IT???

jmcd wrote:
Speculative much?
Deeply! Je suis plein de fumeuse spéculation, moi. But I do not see what I am saying that is so speculative. In contrast with...

jmcd wrote:
If it's really a step and a bit to take, how did it take thousands of years to get there? And it wasn't hunter-gatherers who made the step?

Huh, wait. Are you saying you believe exclusive homosexuals are witches? Because the whole power of the 'argument' given is "Homosexuals are witches, and this is why unnamed, vaguely specified Primitive Peoples agree with us that homosexuals are a magical folk, filled with creativity and a certain pregnancy of spirit, which is why the people who say they should be killed are wrong wrong wrong!" which works iff homosexuals are magical. If they are not, then you are positing that certain non-western societies believed this also, and that this is *typical* of such societies.
Otherwise I do not see how what you said makes sense. As far as I can see, we only really started to stop believing in witches during the Enlightenment, which makes us a very peculiar and WEIRD civilisation indeed, since no others appear to have taken it as seriously as we have. It took thousands of years to happen because, apparently, Enlightenment only happens when the student is ready.

NE: not that I even need to speculate much about this. "special mental abilities resulting from the greater functional balance in their brain structures" is prime Jungian mythos/bullshit except biologised so that instead of "psychic archetypes" it talks about "brain structures".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:19 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Pthug wrote:
jmcd wrote:
all I was trying to prove was that homosexuals were not shunned in hunter-gatherer societies, not that they were the best place to be.

well you failed to do this. you presented some awful patronising sentiment that homosexuals
As I said before, that part of the page was not what I was caring about. You can criticise "special mental abilities" or whatever all you want because I don't care about that part and never did.

If that source isn't good enough for showing that "hunter-gatherers are shunned from society" is wrong, how about this then?

Pthug wrote:
jmcd wrote:
If it's really a step and a bit to take, how did it take thousands of years to get there? And it wasn't hunter-gatherers who made the step?

Huh, wait. Are you saying you believe exclusive homosexuals are witches?
No of course not. I was saying that the first people who came up with the idea of punishing homosexuality were not hunter-gatherers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:31 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 702
Location: Hole of Aspiration
jmcd wrote:
If that source isn't good enough for showing that "hunter-gatherers are shunned from society" is wrong, how about this then?

Not sure what you are claiming with this. Of course breeders get, will get and have got help from non-breeders -- that is the point of having a society that is something more than family bands, though since these groups will be kin anyway, and "extra-pair males" includes relatives, that is beside the point. Doesn't say shit about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies do or do not have a tendency to stigmatise exclusive homosexuals, see them as being magical freaks, etc. etc.

jmcd wrote:
No of course not. I was saying that the first people who came up with the idea of punishing homosexuality were not hunter-gatherers.

That is quite a claim, especially since practically zero is known about prehistorical ancestral populations' sociology!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:42 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 1035
Location: Réunion
Pthug wrote:
jmcd wrote:
If that source isn't good enough for showing that "hunter-gatherers are shunned from society" is wrong, how about this then?

Not sure what you are claiming with this. Of course breeders get, will get and have got help from non-breeders -- that is the point of having a society that is something more than family bands, though since these groups will be kin anyway, and "extra-pair males" includes relatives, that is beside the point. Doesn't say shit about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies do or do not have a tendency to stigmatise exclusive homosexuals, see them as being magical freaks, etc. etc.
I don't know how you interpret the word "shun" but I interpreted it as the idea that they would be exiled from society. If they would be exiled from society, they wouldn't be exiled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:53 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 1228
Location: Scattered disc
There are lots of ways to deliberately misread that, such as "I will rule Saudi Arabia for a day then voluntarily step down and appoint a second government that governs the way I *really* want them to", but aside from that, no, I wouldnt do it, because I wouldnt be doing anyone any good, not even myself. I would rather just do nothing and hope someone overthrows the gov't rather than help keep it in place.

next:
You've won a 50-acre plot of land on a tropical island, but you have to live there all year round, can't just sell/rent to someone else. Life is nice, but there's not much opportunity to get money. That's all the details you know. Would you give up your current life and job to move there, or no?

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:29 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Posts: 2974
Location: Israel
Soap wrote:
You've won a 50-acre plot of land on a tropical island, but you have to live there all year round, can't just sell/rent to someone else. Life is nice, but there's not much opportunity to get money. That's all the details you know. Would you give up your current life and job to move there, or no?
If it's 50 acres, it's certainly big enough to sustain me by myself if I didn't have enough money to buy food etc., but no, I wouldn't - I'd want to keep it as a private holiday destination, which is not allowed.

Would you spend £300 on a distance-learning course that teaches North Sámi via Norwegian, which will be fully refunded after you complete the course, or £150 on a set of books and CDs that teach Modern Standard Tibetan? (Assume that you are not fluent in any of those languages, and bear in mind that the £300 course allows you to learn two languages at once.) Yes, I'm having trouble deciding which to go for IRL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:07 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: Miracle, Inc. Headquarters
Norwegian and North Sámi, because they seem a little more useful than Modern Standard Tibetan. (although MST is a pretty awesome language)

If you had a chance to destroy an insignificant country to save the world, or destroy a very large and populated country to save the world, which would you do? No specific countries needed, or meta-discussion on what constitutes "important" or "insignificant".

_________________
[bɹ̠ˤʷɪs.təɫ]
Nōn quālibet inīquā cupiditāte illectus hoc agō
Yo te pongo en tu lugar...
Taisc mach Daró


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:23 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Posts: 2974
Location: Israel
Bristel wrote:
Norwegian and North Sámi, because they seem a little more useful than Modern Standard Tibetan. (although MST is a pretty awesome language)
True. I was stuck about the money thing - it'll take longer to save £300 than it will £150 (though the refund makes it worthwhile I guess). But you're right, two languages in one (actually it's four in one, because I have a German grammar of Sámi and the Gulahan* Sámi course is in Swedish, and my German sucks and my attempt at learning Swedish died) is definitely better and more useful. Thanks! :D


*EDIT: I can never remember how many <la>s and <ha>s it has. ><


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:55 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:31 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Midwestern USA
Bristel wrote:
Norwegian and North Sámi, because they seem a little more useful than Modern Standard Tibetan. (although MST is a pretty awesome language)

If you had a chance to destroy an insignificant country to save the world, or destroy a very large and populated country to save the world, which would you do? No specific countries needed, or meta-discussion on what constitutes "important" or "insignificant".


I guess the smaller, less significant one as there would be less bloodshed.

Soap wrote:
There are lots of ways to deliberately misread that, such as "I will rule Saudi Arabia for a day then voluntarily step down and appoint a second government that governs the way I *really* want them to", but aside from that, no, I wouldnt do it, because I wouldnt be doing anyone any good, not even myself. I would rather just do nothing and hope someone overthrows the gov't rather than help keep it in place.

next:
You've won a 50-acre plot of land on a tropical island, but you have to live there all year round, can't just sell/rent to someone else. Life is nice, but there's not much opportunity to get money. That's all the details you know. Would you give up your current life and job to move there, or no?


Well, if the island is fifty acres in area, and is in international waters... I'd turn it into a micronation.

Since I brought up the idea, say you had the opportunity to found your own nation and it was accepted as a sovereign nation by the country in which you currently live. However, the catch is that it would never be any larger than 120 acres with three hundred people and you are not allowed to return your nation to your homeland and no other country is willing to enter into a business agreement with your nation. Would you do it? Why or why not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:56 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:59 pm
Posts: 463
Location: Flavor Country™
Latinist13 wrote:
Since I brought up the idea, say you had the opportunity to found your own nation and it was accepted as a sovereign nation by the country in which you currently live. However, the catch is that it would never be any larger than 120 acres with three hundred people and you are not allowed to return your nation to your homeland and no other country is willing to enter into a business agreement with your nation. Would you do it? Why or why not?


So your new home has no economy. Unless the idea of running some kind of closed plantation appeals to you, why is this supposed to be a hard decision?

_________________
<Anaxandridas> How many artists do you know get paid?
<Anaxandridas> Seriously, name five.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:08 pm 
Sanci
Sanci

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:31 pm
Posts: 54
Location: Midwestern USA
Kereb wrote:
Latinist13 wrote:
Since I brought up the idea, say you had the opportunity to found your own nation and it was accepted as a sovereign nation by the country in which you currently live. However, the catch is that it would never be any larger than 120 acres with three hundred people and you are not allowed to return your nation to your homeland and no other country is willing to enter into a business agreement with your nation. Would you do it? Why or why not?


So your new home has no economy. Unless the idea of running some kind of closed plantation appeals to you, why is this supposed to be a hard decision?


Good point. I'll amend it...

Say you had the opportunity to found your own nation based upon your philosophical and cultural ideals and values, your own personal utopia, and it was accepted as a sovereign nation by the world at large. It is large and prosperous, with a population of seventeen million, with a clean environment and a content populace. There is, however, a catch... your friends and family live on the other side of the border and refuse to join you, and you cannot return to your homeland under any circumstances without getting arrested, as they view the claims of independence as illegitimate. Would you do it? Why or why not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:48 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 12:59 pm
Posts: 463
Location: Flavor Country™
Then no. There are a lot of cultural / legal restrictions I'd like to be free from, but I have no interest in ruling anything.

_________________
<Anaxandridas> How many artists do you know get paid?
<Anaxandridas> Seriously, name five.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group