I'm not a fan of conflict. Yeah, I know that sounds shocking, but I'm serious. I don't really like the yelling and screaming, it's not pleasant. I try to preface any discussion with "I'm not attacking you, I just want to share ideas." And yeah, sometimes sharing ideas involves calling them dumb. I'm not saying you are dumb, I'm saying that your assertion is. Which, in some cases, it may be. If you assert that there's no such thing as France, that it's all a Canadian conspiracy, I'm gonna call that shit out. I don't really need to respect your view there, because it's stupid and demonstrably wrong.
You are more than entitled to your opinion. If you want to think that France is a Canadian conspiracy, there's nothing I (or anyone) can (or should) do to stop you. Think it all you like, it's your brain. Just be aware, when you put things out in the public forum, people may not be as big fans of your idea as you are. Which, I think, is pretty reasonable. I am more than entitled to like the music of DragonForce, just as all my friends are entitled to reject that opinion. And, as an addendum, no I do not get my knickers in a twist when they say "DragonForce is gay" rather than "it is my opinion that DragonForce is gay" because the fact that it is their opinion is both obvious and implied. Similarly, when I say "that's stupid" to someone, the implied meaning is "my opinion of what was just said/done is that it is stupid." Calling someone out for not implicitly saying it is a rhetorical attack on a strawman and makes you sound like a whiny bitch.
To labour the metaphor, my opinion on DragonForce doesn't affect anyone. Well, it may in the sense that I might play them when people are around, and groans may be expressed. But the position I hold on the quality of their music doesn't threaten anyone else's position, nor does it render anyone's opinion valid or invalid by its own merits. Your opinion on said band is (I hope) unchanged because of mine.
The keen eyed among you will have spotted where I'm going from a mile away, here. I'm pro-choice. That's not my stance on abortions, either. That's my stance on EVERYTHING. Want to get an abortion? That's really your choice (well, to a point, that's a complicated issue, but essentially it's your choice). Want to have sex with a consenting adult member of the same sex? Your choice. Want to marry them? Yep, you guessed it. The reason for this stance is pretty selfish, I'll admit; I don't give a shit what you do as long as you extend me the same courtesy. By not giving a shit about what you do, provided it doesn't adversely affect anyone else, I promote the meme that you shouldn't give a shit about what I do provided I'm not adversely affecting anyone else, affording me the freedom to do whatever the hell I like, within reason. It's not a particularly nice way of looking at things, but it's realistic as all hell.
This is, of course, nothing new. Live and let live is so old hat, it's gone in a circle and become retro cool, worn by guys who go to dingy pubs to watch indie bands while sipping expensive beer. And as a stance to compete with other stances, it fails miserably. If your position is live and let live, then "why not let us just get on with our persecutin'?" wail the homophobes/fundies/whatever. Of course, then you have to add provisos to your stance, which makes you look weak willed and leads to the dismissal of your position. The nice thing about seeing the world in black and white is that you don't have to re-evaluate your position, because it's black and white and you're in the right even if those heathen liberal atheist godless faggots try to trick you with word games. So, fuck that, I'm over live and let live.
My new mantra is "why do you care?" Say it with me. The 90s had it with the slacker mentality, it's just so right on.
"Gay people shouldn't get married!"
"But why do you care?"
"Because it devalues wholesome Christian marriage!"
"Again, why do you care?"
"Because Christian marriage is the only way a man and woman can procreate without sinning..."
"And, why do you care about that?"
"Because if you sin, you go to hell..."
"So don't have sex outside marriage. Why do you care if other people do it?"
And so on it goes. Just keep descending down the "why do you care" spiral until we all collectively realise that the reason you care is a fault of your own. I'm the first to admit, the only reason I care about stuff is because it may, in the long or short term, affect me if I don't care about it, so it's in my interest to care. Does it mean I don't love and care about my girlfriend, my family, or my friends? Of course not. It'd make me very sad if anything happened to them, and so I only want good things to happen to them. That sounds generous and altruistic, but realistically, it's just my brain doing what it's evolutionarily programmed to do. Doesn't make my feelings or devotion any less real. Hell, it makes them more real, because they don't come from magical God-blor, they come from my real brain that is real and demonstrable.
Dump live and let live, adopt "why do you care?" It's basically Socratic method in a flannel jacket, and the great thing about it is, eventually, opinions get dredged out of that untouchable realm of "whatever the hell I feel like" and enter the realm of facts. And facts, my friends, is where "dicks" always win.
Interesting sidenote 1) While writing this I was reading a whole mess of peer reviewed journals on the topic of homosexuality, specifically its genetic nature, the benefits (and detriments, there are some, like any genetic trait) it has for society and an interesting one that demonstrated that the whole world could never turn gay, so calm down, fundies. What was really interesting is that every overtly anti-gay paper that professed to be "published in journals" (they rarely, if ever, said "peer-reviewed" hint hint) was actually published in a right wing, conservative or Christian website/journal. Even the ones that didn't profess to be published anywhere were found on, or cited by, such websites. Stranger still, there were no pro-gay papers. There were papers that said from the outset that they were anti-gay and papers that expressed no judgement or assessment of homosexuality until the very end, and even then the discussion was analytic rather than moral. Funny that.
Interesting sidenote 2) Conservapedia's take on homosexuality is very strange. I mean, obviously it's anti-gay, but it's also very... I'm not quite sure the word for it, but naive springs to mind. Read their articles, they are quite funny. One concern is that homosexual men are a bridge to giving HIV to their wives and girlfriends. I don't mean to strawman here, but I don't think many gay guys have lady friends to share their naked fun times with, sorry. Now, I'll concede that closeted gay men who are desperately trying to hide their orientation from their wives/girlfriends are probably at a risk for doing this, but (at the risk of tarring them all with the same brush) they are probably in the Ted Haggard mold; all-for-show family men and holier than thou wankers trying to hide the way they are naturally because of some oppressive indoctrination, religious or not, while at the same time being too selfish to come clean and stop cheating on their partners. If they were cheating with a woman, they'd be bastards, but no, they're just repressed now. Ugh, rant over. Anyway, read it, it's by turns funny, upsetting, infuriating and confusing.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
First Missed Update!
Except I'm posting now. So it wasn't missed, it was delayed. So I still have a perfect record, under my definition of perfect. MOVING ON.
Man, reality is a hard sell. When people are tossing up between downright silliness or the real world, I can understand why the real world doesn't even get a look in. I mean, look at reality's answers to those tough questions:
Where do we go when we die? Into the ground, or an oven, wherein everything that was ever you is slowly (or quickly) degraded away.
Will I ever get to talk to (insert dead relative or friend) again? Nope.
Why do bad things happen to good people, and vice versa? Because "good" and "bad" are ultimately constructs of our brain chemistry and environment and some people get lucky/unlucky.
Why did he/she leave me? Because you did something wrong, or they stopped wanting to be with you.
Will I ever find love? Fuck knows, but you'll be dead soon.
What makes me different or special? Virtually nothing.
And so on. Basically, those things people want; love, companionship, safety, a sense of understanding... yeah, reality gives you none of that. In fact, reality often takes it away. And the worst bit? Reality isn't a thing with a will or plan, it's just a random system that follows certain physical laws. So really, the laws of physics are the reason your wife left you. Enjoy that.
Now, it's at this point, you're probably saying to yourself, "gee, Last Whiny Man, you've really made an excellent case against reality. I totally understand why people may reject it in favour of all manner of silly things. In fact, I may just take a leaf out of their book and become a Baptist," or something along those lines. What this means is that you've completely missed the point. This whole "war of the worldviews" thing is a complete and utter crock of shit. You can view the world however the fuck you like, but some things are facts. Some things are unchanging and you can't bury your head in the sand.
With all that said, I realise this is either preaching to the choir or driving people further away from my side. And I don't care. I'm not going to try and sell the unsellable, but reality and a realistic worldview is not a fucking shamwow, or whatever useless shit they sell on that impulse buying channel. It's not something that needs to entice and excite. Reality the house you fill with all your unnecessary crap. To quote good old Randall Munroe, "Science. It works, bitches." If ever you feel that there is an easier answer out there, just remember, not all answers are right, or valid, or even on topic. And would you even want to live in a universe that had easy answers? Fuck that shit, I like my universe insane and complicated. Oh, and another thing, I hate it when people capitalise "universe". It's not The Universe or any ridiculous pseudo-religious nonsense. It's the plain old workaday universe we happen to live in. Stop anthropomorphising stuff.
Man, reality is a hard sell. When people are tossing up between downright silliness or the real world, I can understand why the real world doesn't even get a look in. I mean, look at reality's answers to those tough questions:
Where do we go when we die? Into the ground, or an oven, wherein everything that was ever you is slowly (or quickly) degraded away.
Will I ever get to talk to (insert dead relative or friend) again? Nope.
Why do bad things happen to good people, and vice versa? Because "good" and "bad" are ultimately constructs of our brain chemistry and environment and some people get lucky/unlucky.
Why did he/she leave me? Because you did something wrong, or they stopped wanting to be with you.
Will I ever find love? Fuck knows, but you'll be dead soon.
What makes me different or special? Virtually nothing.
And so on. Basically, those things people want; love, companionship, safety, a sense of understanding... yeah, reality gives you none of that. In fact, reality often takes it away. And the worst bit? Reality isn't a thing with a will or plan, it's just a random system that follows certain physical laws. So really, the laws of physics are the reason your wife left you. Enjoy that.
Now, it's at this point, you're probably saying to yourself, "gee, Last Whiny Man, you've really made an excellent case against reality. I totally understand why people may reject it in favour of all manner of silly things. In fact, I may just take a leaf out of their book and become a Baptist," or something along those lines. What this means is that you've completely missed the point. This whole "war of the worldviews" thing is a complete and utter crock of shit. You can view the world however the fuck you like, but some things are facts. Some things are unchanging and you can't bury your head in the sand.
With all that said, I realise this is either preaching to the choir or driving people further away from my side. And I don't care. I'm not going to try and sell the unsellable, but reality and a realistic worldview is not a fucking shamwow, or whatever useless shit they sell on that impulse buying channel. It's not something that needs to entice and excite. Reality the house you fill with all your unnecessary crap. To quote good old Randall Munroe, "Science. It works, bitches." If ever you feel that there is an easier answer out there, just remember, not all answers are right, or valid, or even on topic. And would you even want to live in a universe that had easy answers? Fuck that shit, I like my universe insane and complicated. Oh, and another thing, I hate it when people capitalise "universe". It's not The Universe or any ridiculous pseudo-religious nonsense. It's the plain old workaday universe we happen to live in. Stop anthropomorphising stuff.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Watermelon Is Tasty And I Have A Motherfucker Of A Headache.
The post has nothing to do with the title, I'm just establishing a connection with my readers by giving them an insight into my life. I just had a slice of watermelon, it was good, not great. I also have a splitting headache and I don't know why. The paracetamol hasn't done anything yet.
So, people are uptight. It's a little annoying, and as such I would like to address this topic. I've noticed two distinct kinds of uptightness as well, and one pisses me off more than the other. The one I'm indifferent to is where people kinda laugh and blush when something off colour is said. It's not a character judgement or anything so harsh, it's just an acknowledgment that what was said may have been bad taste and that appeals to the primal 6-year-old in our heads. The kind of people who laugh when people laugh at words like "balls" and "tit". I have no issue laughing at pseudo-dirty words, the world has enough serious people as it is.
The kind of uptight people that piss me off are the people who don't laugh, or even just let it go. I'm talking about the people who are offended by poop jokes. To you all, I say: GET THE FUCK OVER IT. People defecate, people masturbate and some talented people defecate while they masturbate. It's at this point I leave myself open to a frank and comprehensive straw-manning, but I'm going to head you off at the pass here and say I don't think people should have loud, detailed conversations about a delightful shit they've taken while on the train any more than I think it's appropriate to take said shit on said train. Some well timed blue humour dotted within conversation is great, a blow by blow of your night with righty is less appropriate.
Obviously a lot of this is, in some way, subjective. It's very hard to suddenly not be offended by something that used to offend you just because someone told you to suck it up. Unfortunately, that's my advice. SUCK IT UP. If someone makes a reference to one of those oh-so-taboo yet natural things people do every day (you know, except whacking it. Although some people may whack it every day. I suppose it's pretty habit forming), please try your best not to be mortified. There are much worse things to talk about. And, for the record, I'd rather be offensive than boring. As such, here's a paragraph of swears and generally offensive phrases.
Fuck shit shit fuck cunt bastard. Bastard cunt whore slut fuck shit shit fuck fuck. Shit fuck anal sex cunt shit bastard masturbation. Fuck fuck fuck Hitler was right fuck kike chink fuckin' nigger cunt. (And yeah, I realise that this is both boring AND offensive. I'm doing double duty.)
So, people are uptight. It's a little annoying, and as such I would like to address this topic. I've noticed two distinct kinds of uptightness as well, and one pisses me off more than the other. The one I'm indifferent to is where people kinda laugh and blush when something off colour is said. It's not a character judgement or anything so harsh, it's just an acknowledgment that what was said may have been bad taste and that appeals to the primal 6-year-old in our heads. The kind of people who laugh when people laugh at words like "balls" and "tit". I have no issue laughing at pseudo-dirty words, the world has enough serious people as it is.
The kind of uptight people that piss me off are the people who don't laugh, or even just let it go. I'm talking about the people who are offended by poop jokes. To you all, I say: GET THE FUCK OVER IT. People defecate, people masturbate and some talented people defecate while they masturbate. It's at this point I leave myself open to a frank and comprehensive straw-manning, but I'm going to head you off at the pass here and say I don't think people should have loud, detailed conversations about a delightful shit they've taken while on the train any more than I think it's appropriate to take said shit on said train. Some well timed blue humour dotted within conversation is great, a blow by blow of your night with righty is less appropriate.
Obviously a lot of this is, in some way, subjective. It's very hard to suddenly not be offended by something that used to offend you just because someone told you to suck it up. Unfortunately, that's my advice. SUCK IT UP. If someone makes a reference to one of those oh-so-taboo yet natural things people do every day (you know, except whacking it. Although some people may whack it every day. I suppose it's pretty habit forming), please try your best not to be mortified. There are much worse things to talk about. And, for the record, I'd rather be offensive than boring. As such, here's a paragraph of swears and generally offensive phrases.
Fuck shit shit fuck cunt bastard. Bastard cunt whore slut fuck shit shit fuck fuck. Shit fuck anal sex cunt shit bastard masturbation. Fuck fuck fuck Hitler was right fuck kike chink fuckin' nigger cunt. (And yeah, I realise that this is both boring AND offensive. I'm doing double duty.)
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Horrendously Late To Yet Another Party
So, apparently Ireland still has anti-blasphemy laws. That's dumb as all hell. So, everyone, fly to Ireland and read this post. And frankly, a bunch of my other posts probably count too.
Fundamental Christianity is the last resort of uneducated morons.
Modern, moderate Christianity is really weird, I don't know how you can accept a deity but not the doctrine that describes it, but frankly these guys seem pretty mellow so other than the whole "I think your view on the nature of reality is flawed" thing we've got no quarrel.
Islam is the retarded brother of Judaism.
Judaism is stupid.
Hinduism is stupid.
Buddhism is basically atheism with magic, get the fuck over it.
Any form of belief or spirituality where magical forces manifest and affect the real world are demonstrably wrong.
Deism seems OK.
To all my religious friends... wait, I don't have any. OK, I lie, I've got a couple moderate Christians, a few deists and some agnostics, as well as some people in the "who gives a shit" camp (which is basically atheism in my book), and they're pretty much the only ones worth hanging around with. Stop believing in stupid shit, y'all.
Fundamental Christianity is the last resort of uneducated morons.
Modern, moderate Christianity is really weird, I don't know how you can accept a deity but not the doctrine that describes it, but frankly these guys seem pretty mellow so other than the whole "I think your view on the nature of reality is flawed" thing we've got no quarrel.
Islam is the retarded brother of Judaism.
Judaism is stupid.
Hinduism is stupid.
Buddhism is basically atheism with magic, get the fuck over it.
Any form of belief or spirituality where magical forces manifest and affect the real world are demonstrably wrong.
Deism seems OK.
To all my religious friends... wait, I don't have any. OK, I lie, I've got a couple moderate Christians, a few deists and some agnostics, as well as some people in the "who gives a shit" camp (which is basically atheism in my book), and they're pretty much the only ones worth hanging around with. Stop believing in stupid shit, y'all.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Somewhere Between Intellectual Snobbery And White Guilt
Contrary to what you might think, I kinda do care what you believe. To some extent, anyway. If you believe watermelons are of good nutritional value, hey, I don't care. If you believe I deserve to be put to death because I have a habit of not marrying the people I hook up with, then I kinda do care. It's really all about context.
So many people seem to carry these benign, psuedo religious/spritual beliefs now, it's really, really hard for me to care about those. If you believe that there's this guy, way up there, and he kinda indiscriminantly cares about everyone and doesn't really do anything other than watch this very large ant farm we call the universe (I don't see the value in believing that, but some people I know do believe it. Apparently it's a safety blanket thing), you'll have to forgive me for not caring. Similarly, a lot of really moderate Christians have told me I'm probably going to heaven, because I've led a good life (for a given value of good. Haven't murdered anyone in weeks!), but I should probably praise Jesus anyway. To anyone thinking that, I have to say, you've really given me no incentive to change what I'm doing. Similarly, the whole "there's no hell, you just get obliterated from existence" thing doesn't bother me in the slightest, because that's what I think is going to happen anyway. And I won't feel jealous of you on your theoretical cloud because, you know, I'll be gone.
So yeah, if you believe mildly religious, generally nice things that don't affect anyone or govern your life, sweet. Got no quarrel with you. I don't think you're being exactly rational or skeptical, but you've never professed to be so who gives a shit. I do have a bit of a problem when people call themselves open minded for accepting that kind of thing though. It seems to be white-people's beliefs du jour to try and amalgamate a bunch of vaguely eastern philosophies into their ways of thinking. Shit like Karma, or meditiation. Granted, causality and human social conditioning can kinda look a little like Karma, and there is a lot of value in just spending time calming down and focussing on breathing every now and then, it has positive effects on your mind and body. However, it can go a bunch of different ways, some of which piss me off.
If you think along the lines of: "yeah, Karma is just a term, interchangeable with causality or socialising, but I refer to it as Karma out of comfort or convenience" then you're OK with me. Your definition is sound and you aren't positing anything particularly weird.
If you think "Karma is a natural phenomenon, distinctly different from causality, empathy or the nature of social creatures, but I can't tell you how" you're just that first guy in denial. If you can't say WHY it's different, you don't really have a basis for thinking it is different. It becomes a case of "my hippie dick is bigger than your hippie dick." At that point, you either need to think long and hard until you become guy 3, or accept that you're probably just guy 1.
If you think "Karma is a natural phenomenon, distinct from any other natural phenomena that yield similar results and here's what it is..." you are pretty much alone in the word. I have not come across a definition that isn't circular or "stuff happened! Check it! It must be Karma!" If you have such a definition, please post it. Also, note: describing the effects of Karma IS NOT a definition of Karma. You're giving me an effect when a cause was what I asked for.
If you think Karma is a supernatural phenomena that affects the natural world, I shouldn't have to explain why you're wrong.
I suppose where I'm going with this is that all terms carry significant baggage, so saying something vaguely religious/spiritual in place of a natural or scientific explanation does give away your bias a little. Or, in a much ruder way, please shut up about your hippie shit, I don't care. Unless it affects me. Then go die.
So many people seem to carry these benign, psuedo religious/spritual beliefs now, it's really, really hard for me to care about those. If you believe that there's this guy, way up there, and he kinda indiscriminantly cares about everyone and doesn't really do anything other than watch this very large ant farm we call the universe (I don't see the value in believing that, but some people I know do believe it. Apparently it's a safety blanket thing), you'll have to forgive me for not caring. Similarly, a lot of really moderate Christians have told me I'm probably going to heaven, because I've led a good life (for a given value of good. Haven't murdered anyone in weeks!), but I should probably praise Jesus anyway. To anyone thinking that, I have to say, you've really given me no incentive to change what I'm doing. Similarly, the whole "there's no hell, you just get obliterated from existence" thing doesn't bother me in the slightest, because that's what I think is going to happen anyway. And I won't feel jealous of you on your theoretical cloud because, you know, I'll be gone.
So yeah, if you believe mildly religious, generally nice things that don't affect anyone or govern your life, sweet. Got no quarrel with you. I don't think you're being exactly rational or skeptical, but you've never professed to be so who gives a shit. I do have a bit of a problem when people call themselves open minded for accepting that kind of thing though. It seems to be white-people's beliefs du jour to try and amalgamate a bunch of vaguely eastern philosophies into their ways of thinking. Shit like Karma, or meditiation. Granted, causality and human social conditioning can kinda look a little like Karma, and there is a lot of value in just spending time calming down and focussing on breathing every now and then, it has positive effects on your mind and body. However, it can go a bunch of different ways, some of which piss me off.
If you think along the lines of: "yeah, Karma is just a term, interchangeable with causality or socialising, but I refer to it as Karma out of comfort or convenience" then you're OK with me. Your definition is sound and you aren't positing anything particularly weird.
If you think "Karma is a natural phenomenon, distinctly different from causality, empathy or the nature of social creatures, but I can't tell you how" you're just that first guy in denial. If you can't say WHY it's different, you don't really have a basis for thinking it is different. It becomes a case of "my hippie dick is bigger than your hippie dick." At that point, you either need to think long and hard until you become guy 3, or accept that you're probably just guy 1.
If you think "Karma is a natural phenomenon, distinct from any other natural phenomena that yield similar results and here's what it is..." you are pretty much alone in the word. I have not come across a definition that isn't circular or "stuff happened! Check it! It must be Karma!" If you have such a definition, please post it. Also, note: describing the effects of Karma IS NOT a definition of Karma. You're giving me an effect when a cause was what I asked for.
If you think Karma is a supernatural phenomena that affects the natural world, I shouldn't have to explain why you're wrong.
I suppose where I'm going with this is that all terms carry significant baggage, so saying something vaguely religious/spiritual in place of a natural or scientific explanation does give away your bias a little. Or, in a much ruder way, please shut up about your hippie shit, I don't care. Unless it affects me. Then go die.
This Is Not A Cop-Out!
I'm gonna be posting from uni tomorrow, due to new found employment (aaawww yiss!), so if it doesn't go up it's because the uni network is shit. And it is pretty shit. So hopefully there'll be a post on tuesday. It'll be a whiny bitch about beliefs that I don't share, aren't you lucky?
Monday, April 4, 2011
Circling The Drain, I Tell You!
Ok, so, I was always aware the average person was dumb. That's kind of a given. There were some flavours of dumb I didn't know that existed, but it's all a rich buffet of stupidity. Flavours like, as a friend regaled to me, some kids getting fired from Red Rooster for sexual harassment. What did they do, you ask? Slipped napkins with their names and phone numbers into meals for attractive female customers. Good going, dipshit. I'm sure that pretty lady would love to hook up with the grease monkey behind the counter of her local chicken shack. I suppose points for confidence, but still, tremendously retarded. So, that's the bottom of the barrel, then you move slowly up the ladder, and people are still kinda stupid, no news there, but what gets me? Elected officials should not be stupid. It should be a prerequisite for the job. At least, you'd think. I suppose it's more "convince people you're not stupid" but you'd have to be a little intelligent to pull that off, right? Ugh, disillusioning.
Anyway, why ragging on elected officials this time? Well, to anyone who is a gamer or is friends with gamers, the R18+ issue is probably old hat. To the uninitiated, Australia has no R18+ rating for video games, resulting in two options for games that should wear these labels: They are bumped down to MA15+ or refused classification and banned. The thing is, the vast majority are bumped down, very few are banned. The problem here is that games that should really, really not be played by kids are far more readily available than they should be. However, key players in the political landscape, namely Michael Atkinson (the SA Attorney General) refuse to implement such a rating, fearing it will INCREASE the exposure to violent games kids have, rather than decrease.
Now, I'm not going to get into my views on this (it's pro R18+, duh) because it's pointless. What I am going to get into is the ground rules. The ground rules of a fucking discussion, because it seems like none of you retards know them. You see, there are veritable tonnes of public outcry (and I mean literal tonnes of paper, the biggest petition ever put before parliament motherfuckers!) and a wealth of research on the issue supporting the implementation of an R18+ rating. You'd think it'd be a non-issue, but apparently certain Christian coalitions and Attorney-Generals have the debating skills of a drunken bedwetting mental patient who's not very good at debating. So, the rules:
1) Saying you have "academic research" supporting your position does not mean said research exists. You have to present the research.
2) Making a claim is insufficient; you have to back up the claim in some way.
3) If evidence is presented that refutes your claim, you need an equal or greater amount of evidence that supports it to put it back on level footing; saying you don't believe it is insufficient.
4) Saying you "believe" something holds no weight in a debate. None. Shhh, no argument. It holds no weight.
5) A rational debate is contingent on one party (or both) learning new things, putting their positions up to the burning light of scrutiny and conceding defeat if they do not stand up. You need to be willing to concede defeat if your stance is built on flimsy foundations.
6) You're wrong, Michael Atkinson. Yeah, that's a rule now.
So, that's that. This shit comes up all over the goddamn place, but when it comes up in political discourse that's a new level of insane. I really hope this shit goes the way I want, but I'm not holding my breathe. Feel free to, though.
Anyway, why ragging on elected officials this time? Well, to anyone who is a gamer or is friends with gamers, the R18+ issue is probably old hat. To the uninitiated, Australia has no R18+ rating for video games, resulting in two options for games that should wear these labels: They are bumped down to MA15+ or refused classification and banned. The thing is, the vast majority are bumped down, very few are banned. The problem here is that games that should really, really not be played by kids are far more readily available than they should be. However, key players in the political landscape, namely Michael Atkinson (the SA Attorney General) refuse to implement such a rating, fearing it will INCREASE the exposure to violent games kids have, rather than decrease.
Now, I'm not going to get into my views on this (it's pro R18+, duh) because it's pointless. What I am going to get into is the ground rules. The ground rules of a fucking discussion, because it seems like none of you retards know them. You see, there are veritable tonnes of public outcry (and I mean literal tonnes of paper, the biggest petition ever put before parliament motherfuckers!) and a wealth of research on the issue supporting the implementation of an R18+ rating. You'd think it'd be a non-issue, but apparently certain Christian coalitions and Attorney-Generals have the debating skills of a drunken bedwetting mental patient who's not very good at debating. So, the rules:
1) Saying you have "academic research" supporting your position does not mean said research exists. You have to present the research.
2) Making a claim is insufficient; you have to back up the claim in some way.
3) If evidence is presented that refutes your claim, you need an equal or greater amount of evidence that supports it to put it back on level footing; saying you don't believe it is insufficient.
4) Saying you "believe" something holds no weight in a debate. None. Shhh, no argument. It holds no weight.
5) A rational debate is contingent on one party (or both) learning new things, putting their positions up to the burning light of scrutiny and conceding defeat if they do not stand up. You need to be willing to concede defeat if your stance is built on flimsy foundations.
6) You're wrong, Michael Atkinson. Yeah, that's a rule now.
So, that's that. This shit comes up all over the goddamn place, but when it comes up in political discourse that's a new level of insane. I really hope this shit goes the way I want, but I'm not holding my breathe. Feel free to, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)