NY Moves to Ban Sex Offenders From Gaming Platforms

[Yugl]

You're the one acting like a child, Yugl. "OOOH OOOH I GOT YOU NOW! YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT I CAN CLAIM MEANS SOMETHING EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DON'T MEAN, OH BOY!" Again, not a debate, not a court hearing, cut this legalistic nonsense out. To take him saying "child molestation is worse" and claim "he thinks some molestation is ok" approaches absurd.

Last I recall, there was no accusation of him saying molestation was ok. Only that he said some molestation is better than others. If you see otherwise, quote me. Otherwise, you're making up nonsense.

There was no legalistic court nonsense either. I asked for clarification on his position despite the "OMG COMMON SENSE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL" bullshit. That is how I came to understand his claim as different from other people's claim. If you want me to understand people in a manner that always makes then right, then anyone can say whatever the fuck they want and be right so long as one case supports the opinion. Observe:

"Dude, every apple on earth is red"

"What about the green apples?"

"NO SHIT MAN COMMON SENSE SAYS I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RED ONES!"

[Qalbert]

you enact a notion of "fair molestation." This is where we get to see how ridiculous your claim is. If a person is molested, it clearly did not matter whether they had better or worse means to defend themselves; in the end, they were molested regardless of that means. For you to sit there and spew this bullshit criteria is to treat molestation cases like some sort of wrestling fight where you're looking competitors of relatively equal status. You're essentially looking for a good "show" when it comes to molestation cases. It's utterly disgusting.

This is a complete and utter load of crap in which you blatantly take his post and claim he is saying molestation can be ok and a "good show" when anyone with basic reading comprehension can tell that has nothing to do with what he said. You're making straw man arguments, and claiming they're legitimate because "he said so" despite him meaning nothing of the sort.

[Yugl]

This is a complete and utter load of crap in which you blatantly take his post and claim he is saying molestation can be ok and a "good show" when anyone with basic reading comprehension can tell that has nothing to do with what he said. You're making straw man arguments, and claiming they're legitimate because "he said so" despite him meaning nothing of the sort.

Read properly, that post was about him using defense as a criteria for determining whether molestation is worse. There is nothing in there to accuse him of saying that molestation is ok. The fact that a person was molested means they did not have the defense needed to prevent the molestation. Thus, defense is a stupid criteria for saying that a molestation is worst than another. In other words, if a person was molested, did it really fucking matter how much of a defense they could put up? No.

[Day]

nerds will argue the dumbest shit ever

[Greatguardian]

You're the one acting like a child, Yugl. "OOOH OOOH I GOT YOU NOW! YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT I CAN CLAIM MEANS SOMETHING EVERYONE KNOWS YOU DON'T MEAN, OH BOY!" Again, not a debate, not a court hearing, cut this legalistic nonsense out. To take him saying "child molestation is worse" and claim "he thinks some molestation is ok" approaches absurd.

Don't pull the semantics card. It's just silly.

Who cares if this is the internet? Communication is communication. When someone doesn't communicate clearly, they shouldn't expect others to just assume their meaning and intent - nor would I want anyone to do that to one of my posts, personally. Is it possible to just jump ahead and make conclusions about what other people are saying? Sure. But you know that's what started this ridiculous conversation in the first place, right? Cream Soda jumped in and drew conclusions that were absolutely not communicated at all in my post. The same thing happened in that Ms Universe thread. People made massive assumptions and drew huge, leaping conclusions about what I was saying because they were unwilling to read my posts and assign my opinions to anything but one of the two sides/stances they have in their heads.

You can call it "legalistic", but it absolutely is not. Reading comprehension and coherent communication skills are absolutely vital components of any productive discussion. Running around jumping to conclusions about what other people are trying to say is the single biggest contributor to communication breakdowns, especially in this subforum. And if someone screws up? Who the fuck cares? No one's making fun of Day. The important thing is that his meaning is discerned. This isn't about "Gotcha!" traps, it's about not wanting to make undue assumptions about another person's opinions.

If you really want this subforum to be filled with circle jerking "Yeah, bro. I mean, like, yeah" conversation where everyone assumes everyone else is saying either 1 thing or another and all discussions are polar and 1-dimensional, then sure it's fine to stop attempting to actually communicate with one another. If you want people to actually discuss things in a complex, multidimensional manner, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with expecting people to say what they mean and be able to communicate themselves coherently.

[Greatguardian]

Why is it so fucking flabbergasting for people to ask "Why"? This isn't about ego.

People are more complex than you're giving them credit for. Assuming you know what people's motivations and thoughts are without them having to communicate them is one of the most condescending and arrogant things you can do. Asking Day for clarification is not a sign of "Hurr hurr I GOTCHU IN A LOGIC TRAP", it's a sign of god damned respect.

[Day]

it's such a ridiculous minute thing to fucking argue for pages about is the point gg. especially when he essentially agrees with me.

ok i failed to mention traumatizing the child for life, are you guys happy now?

I also think molesting elderly, handicapped etc.. is worse than someone that can defend themselves. Don't agree? cool, don't think we need to argue about it for 4 pages, when child molestation is the whole point of the thread.

[Day]

Why is it so fucking flabbergasting for people to ask "Why"? This isn't about ego.

People are more complex than you're giving them credit for. Assuming you know what people's motivations and thoughts are without them having to communicate them is one of the most condescending and arrogant things you can do. Asking Day for clarification is not a sign of "Hurr hurr I GOTCHU IN A LOGIC TRAP", it's a sign of god damned respect.

um, no he's clearly trying to hur, hur, gotcha from the get go.

[Greatguardian]

um, no he's clearly trying to hur, hur, gotcha from the get go.

Not from where I'm sitting. I was going to ask the same question if he hadn't.

When you say Thing A is worse than Thing B, that means Thing B is better than Thing A by definition. That's not a logic trap, that's common sense. The problem with saying that heinous crime A is "worse" than heinous crime B is that it leaves people with an opening to say "Hey, at least when X person committed heinous crime B it wasn't heinous crime A".

By extrapolating your original assertion, you could look at a 25 year old rape victim and say "Well, at least she wasn't a kid". That's just wrong. That's not twisting words, that's just going off of what you said. Obviously, that's not what you meant, but it would be extremely disrespectful to put words in your mouth. That's why it's important to try and clarify what it is you are trying to say.

Similarly, basing the morality of a crime on the ability of the victim to defend themselves places a part of the blame for the crime on the victim. When a child gets molested, it's 100% the criminal's fault. When an adult gets molested, it's "less" the criminal's fault and whatever is left over becomes the victim's fault for not defending themselves. Victim blaming to any degree is a very dangerous path to tread, which is probably why he repeatedly checked to make sure you wanted to use one's defensive capabilities as a reference for how "wrong" a crime is.

If I didn't care about someone's opinion, I would have just ignored this or let it go after 1-2 posts. I don't let things go on for 4 pages unless I care enough about what someone is trying to say to communicate with them. That's just me, though.

[hey]

I also think molesting elderly, handicapped etc.. is worse than someone that can defend themselves. Don't agree? cool, don't think we need to argue about it for 4 pages, when child molestation is the whole point of the thread.

Well, in the same way coke is worse than pepsi, i guess i agree with that.

[Greatguardian]

Communication (or lack thereof) has been an especially noticeable problem in this subforum recently. It's just important to know exactly what it is people are saying. For example, soundbite inundation has made both of the abortion threads ridiculously confusing to read because people constantly use the word "Murder" interchangeably with "Killing" when they mean very different things.

Likewise, I didn't feel like anyone was doing me any favors when they "Just guessed/assumed what I meant" in the Ms Universe thread because it led to a dozen people throwing around the word bigot like it was the word of the week. Making assumptions about what other people are saying causes far more trouble than just reading what they write and letting people correct themselves if they need to.

[Kohan]

Likewise, I didn't feel like anyone was doing me any favors when they "Just guessed/assumed what I meant" in the Ms Universe thread because it led to a dozen people throwing around the word bigot like it was the word of the week.

Considering that a vehement bigot was shitting all over the thread, it was appropriate.

Speaking of, did you buy your "I'M WITH BIGOT" T-shirt yet?

[Xno Kappa]

This has got to be the dumbest thread on BG in recent memory. People are picking apart the most minuscule detail and arguing the dumbest shit just for the sake of arguing.

[Niiro]

This has got to be the dumbest thread on BG in recent memory.

So you're saying the Prenatal Holocaust thread is smart?

[hey]

Wow, holy shit hirokei. I can't believe you would say that the prenatal holocaust thread was smart.

[Xno Kappa]

I'll check it right out!

[Eurell]

Wow, holy shit hirokei. I can't believe you would say that the prenatal holocaust thread was smart.

GDI this made me lol.


Seriously though, it was quite obvious that day thought all molestation was bad, but child molestation was worse. Does it really matter what all of his reasoning was? Whether he stuck with his original opinion of it being worse because they are defenseless, switched to the thought that its worse because its more damaging to a child, or whether he believed and argued both stances, does it really make a difference at all either way? Regardless of what he was saying, his answer was still Child molestation is worse, and almost every single person agreed with that anyway.

I know Yugl and GG are smart guys, so I don't understand why it's harder for them to see what people are trying to say if we don't use big words and very exact and precise wording. It reminds me of when my wife was working at MIT. She would always mention how the more brilliant a scientists was, the more socially retarded he was.

In conclusion,



Dont be this guy.

[hey]

Whether he stuck with his original opinion of it being worse because they are defenseless, switched to the thought that its worse because its more damaging to a child, or whether he believed and argued both stances, does it really make a difference at all either way

The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong.

Or something.

[Greatguardian]

The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong.

Or something.

^This.

Regardless of what he was saying, his answer was still Child molestation is worse, and almost every single person agreed with that anyway.

Not everyone. That's what Cream Soda came into the thread to argue about in the first place. I am interested in seeing why people think it is "worse" and how they define "worse" because this is a very important distinction. If we just left Day's initial statement intact, it would read that "Molesting adults isn't as bad because it's partially the adult's fault for letting themselves get molested despite being more capable of defending themselves". I absolutely do not agree with that.

I know Yugl and GG are smart guys, so I don't understand why it's harder for them to see what people are trying to say if we don't use big words and very exact and precise wording. It reminds me of when my wife was working at MIT. She would always mention how the more brilliant a scientists was, the more socially retarded he was.

You may not have understood my clarification on the issue, then. It's not about "Not being able to guess", it's about the fact that guessing and assuming you are right without even asking for clarification or discussing the point where it can be rejected or corrected by the author is about the most arrogant and condescending thing you can do and absolutely reeks of disrespect for the person who is speaking.

There are more than "two sides" to every issue, and more than one motivation/reasoning per stance. Guessing people's meanings is just a way for people to throw others into their pre-rendered internal "groups". I don't believe that people are so simple as to be summed up so easily.

As for socially retarded scientists, I know plenty of those, but that's a very long discussion that's probably best suited to its own thread.

[Eurell]

I did say almost, because I knew CS was the only one to disagree. And while I think he's wrong, I do still respect his opinion.

As far as everything else you're saying, I'll have to disagree with that as well. It's much to general a statement. Using this example, who do you think Day(the person who is speaking) believes to be the most disrespectful, arrogant, and condescending person reacting to his comments? Yugl, who is asking questions about it, or the rest of us, who just assumed we knew what he meant (and were correct).

Sometimes there really are just two sides to an argument. Yes you can divide each group on and on into very ridiculously specific lines of thought, but its not necessary nor is it relevant to the actual question/conversation many times.

I honestly do get what you're saying, but you guys have to understand that this is a video game forum, and not everyone is going to speak in a super formal way. People are going to speak casually, say wtf they are thinking (in a very general way) and expect people to follow along with their general thoughts (as you would with any friends you speak with casually offline).

Edit: I think Hey was taking a jab at you when he said that too lol. I could be wrong though.