PMBD

Have you considered banning the underage from reading and posting in the forums?

I think most of the trouble earlier stemmed from a member being too young to realise how you should behave, what not to post and when to stop.

Also, having studied child psychology I am very uneasy with the thought of a 13 year old reading some of the threads here (for example the openhouse jack thread). Adults can put these things in the context, a child can not.

I'm not suggesting that we should start hunting down the underage members, but if we had a rule that those under 18 will be banned, it might prevent the spam from kids.

Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it, if you think it's a bad one.

I am under 18, I'm sure a few other decent contributors (I'm not saying I'm great at contributing, I am pretty new afterall) are too, trust me, we dont' all act pissy, act like idiots, nor post loads for attention.

Just justifying it, is all. :)

There is no excuse for twelveness.  We tick to say we can convincingly act over that age.

I don't have a problem with a mature 16+ year old reading and posting in these forums, but I think 13 is way too young for PMBD.

Like I said, if we had a no underage posters rule, it could prevent members from posting messages that oozed 12ness.

There's no "13" or "16". This is all still 12. They remain 12 until they are 18. Users are required to convincingly pretend to be older than 12. Otherwise they will be banned for failing to convincingly pretend to be older than 12.


Yes, well, here is your official warning for not convincingly pretending to be over 12, then. Try to be more convincing. Or we'll ban you.

Maybe this could be added to the forum rules sticky, then.
And with an explanation that older than 12 actually means 18+, for all those 13 years old, who'll start "You can't ban me! I'm 13!"

That's mentioned in the registration agreement.


Yes, but that would still be 12, and trying to argue like that is a clear and definitive sign of 12ness, and therefore violates the rules of convincingly pretending to be older than 12. Given that someone has likely already been warned once, they won't get another one.

Hahaha, oh darling!



Yeah, but anybody can just tick a box. I say ban the offenders.

We are. And you've already been warned.

You're a bit confused.

The trouble stemmed not from people being too young, but being too stupid.

I think quite a few of the previous spammers were 18+ - age doesn't necessitate maturity.

Also, most '12' year olds have heard of most of the stuff on the OpenLegsJack thread already.  At my school, we were talking about sex in the playground in year 4 (approx. 3rd grade - age 8).

I also agree with Quinctia

12ness is a state of mind. ;)

I'm quite sure for many it is also a state of being  :roll:

alia, I think that is up to Pescado so don't be bitchy about it.

Oh and Congrats PirateBooty!

Hyperkitty, I wasn't aware that asking something politely or making a suggestion to improve the board was considered "bitchy".

Got_Nerd, I am well aware that kids know about sex. I am merely concerned that they are reading a thread where (homo)sexuality is portrayed in graphic and somewhat disgusting light. Adults understand that Openhousejack talks about his own preferences and practices, not those of all gay men. Children do not understand that there is no "norm" for sexuality and will think that all gay men are into the same things Openhousejack is, and that it is normal for gay men to become prostitutes.

We're back to stupidity here.

Most adults don't understand that, that's why the US is so screwed up right now when it comes to issues like gay marriage, and if I had believed everything I read on the internet when I was under 18, I'd be in for some major trouble now.

You're really not giving anyone under 18 much credit, and that's a shame.  People aren't helpless little children til they hit that magic number, and they can handle a lot more than you think they can.

I may be wrong, but I think that the "rule of 12" on this forum is not for taking care of less-than-12-years-old, but more for preserving who's not 12 from someone else's twelviness(sp?) :D.

I have to agree with the objections of trying to make the site more exclusive or protecting young kids.  My kids are threatened and patrolled by me on the internet, and I don't see why we should take care to protect them in this forum when their parents aren't.  

If they don't get it here - they'll pick it up on the street  :shock:  :lol:

Ahem. I deal with several 9-13 year old kids every day.

Kids are smart. In fact, they are extremely smart, but teenagers are likely to stick with prejudices and opinions they have heard from their peers or from their parents, or something they've read on the internet.

Teenagers define themselves by what they are not, and can be extremely judgemental/discriminative towards minorities. Unfortunately, if they never start questioning those ideas, they might stick with them for the rest of their lives.

I have been talking with teens about gays and other minorities, but unfortunately most of the times I can hear the kid's parent's (cliched) opinions when they talk about gays.

And just for the record, gay marriage is legal in my country, my sister is a lesbian so I have no problems with gays and I live in Europe. :)

Edit:


True. :lol:
My post was an answer to quintica. But yeah, I am all for banning the kids from the forum, mainly because I spend so much time with them every day I really don't want to read their spam also when I'm not at work. :)

It's illegal to have a member under the age of 13 on the forum without parental consent.  Since we are not about to go that route, we just ban them all.  And seeing as Pescado lives by the rule of 6, that gets rounded down to 12.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I've had plenty of intelligent discourse with the teenagers that I work with, and the annoying, ignorant teenagers are on even proportions with the annoying, ignorant adults.

I was going to type a long explanation about why I've come to the conclusion that teenagers who believe differently than I are easier to deal with than adults, and have more interesting discussions, but it comes down to this.  The older you are, the more set in your ways you are.  Teenagers can and will switch identities at the drop of the hat.  Finding where they belong is an important stage of development, and they can and will change their core beliefs and their social groups.

Licensed high school biology teacher, here.  I couldn't do middle school, (the age group you work with), they'd drive me nuts.  But we're talking about older than the COPPA limit, so teenagers.  Where I have my experience.  More like 13-18.

Also have three years under my belt in retail in a hardware store where I've got plenty of experience with blue collar adults.  The adults are parrots, too.

I've been in fandom for years, and the most annoying, stubborn drama whores are the middle aged women, in my experience.  It's kinda hard to ID them ahead of time, though, and we can't exactly ban all women over the age of 30, that would be ridiculous.

Heh... honestly, I like that the registration agreement notifies you that you must convincingly act more intelligent than a seventh-grade reading level. The Rule of 12 sounds much nicer than 'If you act like an utter moron, you will be fed to the sharks.'

...

Of course, if anyone managed to devise a system whereby people who cross a certain threshold of unintentional or intentional idiocy, they were immediately dropped into a tank of angry sharks, I'd gleefully recommend using that instead...

Or "Those who are not in aspirational failure are welcome"?

I have to say my experience has been the same as yours.  I have found that most of the people in forums and chat rooms that are annoying and act juvenile are women over the age of 30.  I don't know why this is, but I find them to be more of an irritant than the kiddies.  Of course this is not always the case.  I do realize that folks of all ages can be annoying and ignorant.

Actually, between personal experience and years of reading Fandom Wank, I'm pretty sure that 90% of all internet drama could be headed off by banning all women over the age of 30 for the Internet.  But that statistic isn't watertight, and you might get much of the same effect with less of the discrimination by just banning everyone between 35 and 50.  Teenagers, on the other hand, are young, and can be trained.

Online communities form with their own rituals, norms and defense mechanisms based on commonality. There the neuroses and prejudices of their members are embraced and nurtured. God help you if you interrupt the delicate balance of things. No one demographic holds the monopoly.

It's true in retail and service jobs as well. I hate belligerant 40-60 year old women as they are the absolute worst to deal with (Note I said belligerant, not all in general)

This is very joyful. I can't wait till I hit 30.

I, also, must agree with the 30 year old women rule.  In the Harry Potter fandom, there are a whole bunch of women who write editorials on a scarily regular basis.

And then, when someone disagrees with the theory, they're shot down on the basis of 'being disrespectful' to the author.

 :roll:

One extremely good reason why I don't participate there any more.

I don't see any reason whatsoever why a sane person should risk approaching Harry Potter fandom closer than by a parsec.

Someone to noted certain misogyny in some of the lastest posts?  I'm sorry, but those comments they seem me very unjust and discriminatory. :evil:

I don't want to start a sex war, but It is not correct to judge to all for which do a few.   :roll:

As a 30+ year old woman I would like to say that I don't fit with that demographic.

You'll probably find that a minority of ANY agegroup will act like complete asswipes.

(And the only place I approach Harry Potter fandom is from reading the fallout on Fandom Wank - I am awaiting the wanksplosion that will accompany Book 7 with bated breath.)

You are absolutely right about this. My point about openhousejack was that if you had heard from somewhere (your peers, parents, whatever) that gays do disgusting things, and you didn't know that much about the whole subject, wouldn't the OHJ thread confirm that idea? And if the gays=disgusting idea was never questioned, it could stay with them for the rest of their lives. That was my point in banning the younger kids. And I still think some of the discussions here are not suitable for kids.



Well, that explains the difference in our views. Here, kids get out of school when they turn 16, so I really haven't dealt with older teenagers. I know kids start developing their own ideas and beliefs around 14 (some earlier, some later). It must be a very exciting stage to observe. :D



Hmm. Well, I'm glad that you're not proposing that, because that would mean you'd also ban me. :)

I've also worked in customer service, and as a result I am always extremely nice to salespersons or customer service people, even when I'm complaining about something, because I know how shitty it is when somebody yells at you even though they themselves screwed up.

I like Harry Potter...

Anyway, I think anyone who is immature enough to believe that all gay people do disgusting things is immature enough to swiftly be banned anyway...

And raising the age limit will simply mean people are actually lying about their age when they join, rather than saying that they're mature.

Men are more straightforward by nature (there are exceptions to every rule, especially in psychology)- when they have an issue they tend to fight it out and get over it, and when they're being stupid they tend to do so blatantly.

Women are more complicated, they hold grudges sometimes eternally over little stupid things, and they tend to slyly and cattily exclude others they dislike rather than openly state their dislike of someone.

Thus, women cause more drama wheras men cause more blatant bullshit.

Pfff... Oh, yes! Damned and holy differences!  :lol:

But returning to the question of which the topic began.  My opinion is that alia was right, maybe it would be necessary to have some control in certain parts of the forum, but it is impossible to know the age of each forum member (minors only have to click a box to hide the age)therefore, I believe that this task should be left for the moderators.

LOL.

What Celimene said.

Well my statements are backed up by several hundred issues of Cosmo, so there ~_^

I'm as against "age-ism" as the next guy, but I wrote the thing about teenagers trying on different hats because it's a noted characteristic about that stage of development.  You'll have to take it up with adolescent and developmental psychologists if you don't like it.

That's like saying schools discriminate against first-graders because they wait til it's developmentally appropriate to teach algebra.  You can think they're wrong, I suppose, but I didn't start it! :P

Rather then place the responsibility of protecting children on the various non-familial people and/or institutions, usually indifferent ones at that, we should expect parents to stand up and take responsibility for protecting their kids from whatever crap the may read/see on the internet.  

How do you propose that Pescado and the mods keep teens off the site; are you going to personally do a member by member age verification?

Hey, way to be an ass, thanks.  

Could you please go back and read what I said again.  I do believe I used the words, "my experience" which means what I have personally experienced myself.  No where in there did I say if was a fact.  I do believe I ended it with, "this is not always the case".  This is my experience from the forums and chat rooms I frequent.

This is my experience and my opinion of it.  I don't need your approval or anyone else's for that matter.  

I am a woman over thirty, just for your own edification.

Thank you ISZ, I stand both corrected and edified by your words. You've shown me the truth. Women over 30 truly are more annoying and juvenile. And I too, find them irritating.

See, look how nicely we are bonding  :)

And this, alia, is why we can't ban everyone under the age of 18. How do we tell them apart from the forum posters who are just acting fifteen because it's fun?

Technically speaking, it's only illegal to collect information from them. COPPA only forbids the collecting of personal information from 12 year olds, but PMBD does not collect information from ANYONE. A related law, COPA, covering the online pornography everyone worries about, was struck down as unconstitutional and is presently injunctioned.

None of this has anything to do with policies here. The user agreement here stipulates that users must convincingly pretend to be older than 12, with 12 as defined by the Rule of 6. Not because there's necessarily inappropriate content, but simply because I hate kids. Note that this policy means people can be smitten regardless of whether or not they are 12. You are required to convincingly pretend to be older than 12, even if you actually are.

As a woman who will be over 30 in a year, I have one thing to say: bite me. Not straightforward my ass.

And considering all the crapola I put up with from middle-aged men at work, I find the idea that women are the bigger offenders to be highly amusing. Ever think that maybe you're noticing and being irritated by women more than by men because women are "supposed" to be nice and easy to get along with?

It is not a personal attack on anyone specific or all women over thirty.  I find it humorous that folks are taking it that way.

All I said was based on what I have observed in forums and chat rooms that I frequent.  It's been my personal experience and I will not apologize for saying what I did.  I never said that is was fact or that it was every woman over thirty.  Again, it has been my own personal experience.

Some people are taking it as a personal attack and it is not.  

Neriana, I don't think women should act this way or that.  I notice them because their words and actions stand out in general.  Yes, men are also big offenders, but in the places that I hang out it appears to be more women that act in a way that I find unsavory.  

Again, this is only my experience from the the chat rooms and forums that I frequent.  I don't claim this to be the case in every forum and every chat room on the net.  I don't have that much time on my hands to do that.  

I really wish you'd get that this has been my personal experience and my opinion based on said experience.  It is not a personal attack on all women over thirty.

Célimène, As a woman waaaayyyy over 30, I salute you.

The ISZ, give it up! The more you talk, the more ridicuous you sound. Sweeping generalizations always sound ignorant and so do you. No ammount of "in my experience" nonsense will dig you out of this hole.  :roll:

I can see that opinions here are only ok as long as you agree with the majority.  I completely understand.  Got it, I'm right there with ya.

What you or anyone thinks of me is irrelevant.  I don't know you from squat.  

I don't just agree with the majority.  I tend to think for myself and have my own opinions.  The fact that you can't deal with that is your problem, not mine.

You sound ridiculous to me by taking what I said as a personal attack.  Maybe you see a little truth in what I say and it bothers you.

I'm not bitchy just me. :lol:

As a woman way over 30 myself, I don't feel anything wrong on chatting about differences, being them real or not.
What may be sexist (or racist, etc.) is the context in which those statements are used, not the statements itself.

Denying the alleged existance of facts maybe is not sexist, but for sure is not very useful for anything.

What I do not get is why my opinion based on what I've seen is being labeled as a gross generalization.  I need someone to explain that to me.  Seriously.

Obviously my repeating that it's based on what I've seen is totally lost on some folks.  You can call me whatever you like if it makes you feel better.  I'm ok with it.  If that's all you've got then so be it.

Ehrrrrr...seriously? But Women over 30 I know are so filled with drama like Paris Hilton's brain is filled with working cells.
Yea.

Highschool is where the drama is regarding female population. Geez there is SO much drama, I couldn't stand it. Awful bitching over there most of the time.

But 20+ is all the men's territory. Seriously, they're sometimes SO immature, I'm starting to believe that their midlife crisis starts already then.
Just kidding. I guess we all like some drama!bitches from time2time. ;)

So I dunno with WHAT kind of weird whacko women you work/live with but we're definately not from the same country. Or planet, that is. :roll:

This is your gross generalization, quoting:

"I have found that most of the people in forums and chat rooms that are annoying and act juvenile are women over the age of 30." Methinks that your encounters, even if they're precise, are not enough a statistical sample...but really, just stop nitpicking and pointing out "I said IMHO, I said IMHO!" like it matters. Generalizations  and people who get pissed at them is a normal part of online forums' daily life. What a big deal, a bunch of strangers on the Internet don't like you. 8)

that's interesting. I'd have thought only kids with no lives could afford to spend this much time and energy on a video game ^_^ now I stand corrected. Only kids with no lives and women over 30 with no lives bother XD

Hey, I'm a 31 female, and to be honest, I've seen more 'masked' hostility type behavior from women over 30. And I've also met a lot of over 30 women in some form of power who don't like it when you won't go along with what they say or want you to do without question. Also, it seems to me, they are the group that give advice even when they know nothing about something(I've been guilty of this one, even before I was 30 lol) But I must say, that for the most part, the nicest women I've ever met are the ones over 50. Well, until you do something extremely stupid. LOL

As to the banning of those 13-18, one of our family friends at 16 was more grown up and responsible then his like 38-40 yr mother. She was almost never home, and he was more a parent to his younger siblings then she was. What's really scary in my opinion is that my 11 yr son can act older then a lot of the so called adults here, and can tell when something is being generalized and is a personal opinion.
I police my children's internet use to the point where I must have access to their email accounts. And yes kids are smart, my son once tired to hide his tracks because he was going to a site he knew I felt was inappropriate for him. Key word there is tried. Its a parents job to be smarter then their children. In my city neighborhood I see way too many under 7 out with younger siblings by themselves for hours on end. I worry more about what might happen to them, then what they might be accessing on the internet. Most kids learn the worse stuff from their peers then they do from the net. Hell, I heard the 1st racist remark out my son's mouth this week, and where did he learn, from one of his peers.

Just my opinions on this matter, now I'll shut up
Wolf

1. Women over the age of 30 are drama whores/stupid.
2. Women under the age of 30 are drama whores/stupid.
3. Men under or over the age of 30 are drama whores/stupid.
4. Anyone with a vowel in their name are drama whores/stupid.
5. Anyone with light hair are drama whores/stupid.
6. Anyone with dark hair are drama whores/stupid.
7. Anyone who thinks they are drama whores/stupid are drama whores/stupid.
8. Anyone who thinks they are not drama whores/stupid are drama whores/stupid.
9. Anyone with a vaguely dark pigment to their skin, if only a freckle, are drama whores/stupid.
10. Anyone who thinks the above was racist are drama whores/stupid.
11. Anyone who thinks the one above the above was not racist are drama whores/stupid.
12. Anyone who jumps into the middle of the ocean and complains about sharks being in it are drama whores/stupid.
13. Anyone who did not get that I was comparing the ocean to the Internet and the sharks to the drama whores/stupid are drama whores/stupid.
14. Anyone who breathes are, at SOME POINT IN TIME, drama whores/stupid--period.
15. Anyone getting their panties in a twist because The ISZ made a comment about his or her experience with dramawhores/stupidity are drama whores/stupid.

Seriously, what the hell? Your way of proving that women over thirty aren't juvenile would be to admit you're over thirty and act juvenile*? People are stupid, every last one of them, regardless of age and gender. Pull your head out of your ass if you think otherwise then consult the list above.
*Excludes Neriana, Marhis, tIIsuggas and JMZ. Possibly others, but I'm too lazy to check.

Can we argue about something a little less retarded now?

You forgot me. :shock:

I wish your presentation used less specious logic.

So dead redheads, who are exactly thirty and haven't read the racist/unracist statement are NOT drama whores/stupid!

Pity I'm not a 30 year old dead redhead....well maybe not.

That list was probably the most asinine thing I've read all day.

Head, ass. Need I explain another of the ways those two things relate to you?

The fact that you're so free about your claims that women over thirty are blah blah will   make you a minority anywhere.  Except of course on countries that still treat women like shit.

And the lucky recipient of your retort is?

:::::drumroll:::::

Wow, in only five pages this thread went from "Protect the Children" to "Women over 30 are insane" including a parade of said children and women.  Never have I been more glad that I am ineligible to be included in either group. :p

I don't want you to like me so you stating that everyone hates me means nothing.  But thanks for trying.  It's the effort that counts.

I just keep laughing at the fact that certain people cannot stand the opinions of others that differ from their own.  

I still stand by what I said regardless of what anyone thinks.  

I'm not the one that has their head up their ass.  At least I can deal with other peoples opinions without attacking them because I don't agree with it.  But hey, to each their own.  You have at it and enjoy yourself.

I will not be told to keep quiet by anyone in this joint or any forum for that matter.  I'm not a follower, thanks.

I honestly don't know where you read any of that crap. For someone who keeps trying to defend herself about making sweeping generalizations, you might want to be sure people actually say the things you allude to before you post.

That said.

Your quoted statements regarding YOUR personal experiences and over 30 year women in internet forums IS a sweeping generalization.

I'll explain.

You are generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population's variability. With a completely homogeneous population, a sample of one is sufficiently large, so it is impossible to put an absolute lower limit on sample size. Rather, sample size depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required.

Suppose that you are cooking a pot of spaghetti, and you fish out a single strand to test for doneness. If it is done, then you conclude that all of the spaghetti in the pot is done. Here, your sample is one strand of spaghetti, and the population is the entire potful of pasta. Have you committed the sweeping generalization? No.

People - Heterogeneous (consisting of many different variables).

Spaghetti - Homogeneous (meaning the same throughout).

A broad generalization occurs anytime the sample is not big enough to represent the population.

The reason I keep talking about it is because you still keep saying that I am making a gross generalization when I am not.

I never said all women and I never said anything about statistics.  Please show me where I said all women over the age of thirty are like this.  I didn't.  I made a statement based on what I have come across.  That is not a generalization.  That is my opinion based what only I have seen.

I don't agree with you now and never will.  I did not make a gross generalization.  But it is ok.  We don't have to agree on it.

Sorry, I should have quoted, dorquemada, about the comment, "What a big deal, a bunch of strangers on the Internet don't like you. Cool".

Oh noes!!111eleventy, strange people on the "internets" don't like me!

 :lol:

My real life occupation deals with pensioners in their homes.  IMO they are all stuck in their ways and won't change a thing, to the detriment of their health.

This is my generalisation,  it is my opinion.  It is not a fact.

This is what The Isz was doing about women over 30 she has come across in the communities she visits.

She is not saying every woman over 30 is neurotic. But, in the Sims community, we do see a lot of it in women over 30, or who appear to be over 30.

I am an exception to this rule.

I think a few people need to pull out the dictionary and look up a few words...

Opinions are a statement of beliefs NOT a statement of facts...

Get a grip Célimène

What I've found in my experience is that many people between the ages of 11 and 95 tend to take themselves and their own opinions much too seriously.


My own opinion, which I take absolutely seriously, btw, is that any given person tends to get along well with certain groups, and not so well with certain other groups.  When they don't get along well with a certain group they tend to blame the problem on the group, rather than themselves (or rather than taking an "oh well, to each his own" sort of attitude, which might be the better thing.)

Myself, for instance, I get along all right with teenagers and with guys over 30, but not so well with guys in their 20's--and it's just hit and miss where women of any age are concerned.  I find that most of 'em are dram---errr--more difficult for me to relate to.  Yeah, that's it.

Oh and I'm a woman and I'm 42, and I've been laughing my ass off at this thread because I can just picture all the indignant muttering and grumbling as the posts are being typed.

Those are your words ISZ. I haven't misquoted anything. You stand behind your words. Fair enough. Let's change a couple of words. It'll be fine though cause...



Rightyo then!

"I have found that most of the people in my neighbourhood and at my job that are lazy and promiscuous are blacks. I don't know why this is, but I find them to be less intelligent than the whites. Of course this is not always the case. I do realize that other races can be annoying and ignorant."

I'm NOT making a sweeping generalization of entire racial ethnic group. Why no, I merely expressing...



Grip on that ass monkeys.

I have come to the conclusion that you are completely and utterly incapable of comprehending common human speech. If it doesn't have some fancy ripped-from-a-dictionary term used every other word then you're clueless as to what is really being said. Allow me to hold your hand and walk you through this, okay?


This comment was likely brought on by comments such as this:
Generally, when one tells another to 'give it up', it means that they are expressing their desire for the offender to cease whatever actions have offended them. Another way of saying 'give it up', in this situation, would be to say 'shut up'. Telling someone to 'shut up' is what one does when they wish the other would cease talking. This commonly occurs when one either doesn't know what they're talking about, they do know what they speak of but it is a topic that offends conflicting opinions, or when two people are hiding in a dark alleyway and hoping to jump the nearest passerby.

Indeed, telling someone to 'shut up' (or 'give it up') is a method of trying to silence them (or 'keep them quiet'). Therefore, The ISZ was not delusional in believing that he or she was being told to 'keep quiet' (or 'silenced').


This comment was likely brought on by comments such as this:
The hostile hint in this comment may not be readily obvious, and certainly not definite. However, considering context, the word 'minority' is likely being used as a derogatory term. It is seemingly used to say "your opinion is lesser", and upon comparing The ISZ to chauvinistic men in other countries (who are looked upon with severe dislike, or 'hate', by some) is seemingly used to say "you are lesser".

Since the majority of responses to The ISZ's comments have been negative, and very nearly all of them (if not all) have been tainted with malice, these comments could lead the poster of the minority comment to believe that The ISZ is the opposite of popular, which is unpopular. So it is possible that by saying "you are in the minority", the poster of said comment could have meant that The ISZ was on the unpopular side, and the unpopular side in this situation is treated with mild or severe dislike and mockery. Thus, 'hate'. So it is not delusional for The ISZ to believe that he or she was being told they were disliked (or 'hated') from a comment that, with the proper context and a little 'reading into things' (which is where one collects data from and not from the offender and uses it to examine the situation in which something questionable and otherwise innocent is being said), could lead to such a deduction.


On another topic, concerning the issue of 'sweeping generalizations':



If one did not partake in the exact same activity as the one who offers some information, or if one is unable to present evidence that would contradict the information, then the information is indisputable. In this case you are disputing that which is possibly indisputable. If you wish to prove guilty the one who, to this point, is innocent, then you must collect the data that would negate the defenses of the innocent. Since you likely cannot, or will not, then the 'experience' (or 'event one has personally witnessed') of The ISZ cannot be claimed false since you do not share the exact same 'experience' nor do you have any proof to show the 'experience' to be false.

As for your example:

This is a statement that, while highly insulting, cannot be proved false and thus must be assumed to be true for your area. Since you do not make the assumption that all blacks are lazy and promiscuous, then your comments cannot be classified as a 'sweeping generalization', but rather a 'statement of opinion based on personal experience'. It is an acceptable, while limited, truth, even if it is inappropriate and insensitive to declare. In your examples you did not call the appropriateness of The ISZ's statements into question, but rather whether or not they were generalizations. They were not, and neither was your example.

Dolt.

Edit for clarity on this last bit. ;)

Why are you resorting to name calling?

And, out of curiosity, how old are you?

Silvercoin: Well, I think you just tried too hard and overthought things a bit. A few misspelled words and a condemnation to Hell would have given this a more "real" feel. It sounds forced. Your opening and closing were nice, but the part in the middle just meandered into circular logic which well, made no sense. Could have done with a bit of editing too. Too wordy. M'kay? I can't properly argue with you if you don't present your opinions clearly. You get mad props for running it through spell check first though.

You sound like someone who thinks far too highly of herself and her place in the internet universe. All's not lost though always remember intelligence isn't finite. There's more than enough to go around, if one cares enough to grab a piece of it.


I was shrill, whiny and boring when you were still in diapers, tIIsuggas.

I suppose now, Célimène, is going to ask us to take a spelling and math quiz over the "internets".  Should we go into chat and have a spelling bee?  :lol:

This is where arguments or disagreements usually end up when someone has run out pertinent things to say.  It starts with someone checking the spelling and grammar of someone who dares to post an intelligent well thought out response.  They then attempt to tell the person they are stupid, insult them and call them names.

It's ok, Célimène, I understand.

By the way, assuming someone is generalizing, because according to your opinion, is... is another generalization as well.

If it seemed too forced, egotistical and wordy then I suppose I have mastered the ability to mimic. ;) And I'm flattered by your suggestion that my writing is flawless!

Besides, I am well aware of my place in the Internet. It's mine.

CALL ME QUEEEEN! *whip*
Dance, my puppet, dance!

Well, I live in a western country, and I've met some men and boys here that still believe a woman's place is in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. Also, I've personally have experienced men/boys who believe that a woman needs to be told what to think, when to think, how to act, dress etc and if she doesn't she deserves to be punished, that this is there god given right (yes, some abusive men do quote the bible to justify their actions) Just because some of a country treats its women like shit, doesn't mean everyone in that country does nor does a country that is suppose to be treating women 'properly' have all citizens (born there or otherwise) that do. If that was the case then the westernized parts of the world wouldn't have courts dedicated to domestic violence and shelters for women fleeing an abusive spouse.

Ok, I'll shut up again.
Wolf

Umm no it isn't, but thanks for trying to add to thread you retarded cocksocket. Yarr!



WooHoo! You're the queen of all the premenopausal bitchy AOLers. And your high school guidance counselor said that you'd get nowhere with your attitude.

Seriously though, Silvercoin you seem to care. That makes me feel good. You view me as a kindred spirit, don't you? And the Web brought our tortured souls together, right?

You're cute. Can I keep you?

My heart grew three sizes today.

Yes, yes I know I took a low shot.  Even well-advanced nations still have abusive men but I tend to think this is not the norm.  They are deviants.  If the abused woman seeks justice then it is a fact she will be given one because there is an avenue for her to do so.  Contrast that to countries who still have non-existent laws protecting women.

yippee, I wish I could think that way, but the stats from my area its a little hard to sometimes.
One in four women in Canada will fall victim to abuse by an intimate partner.

Our health care system will spend $1.5 billion treating abused women.

Three to six women are murdered each month by their current or former partners in Ontario.

FSA Toronto alone sees 1,000 women each year who have been abused by a partner.

And then the children of the ones that are not reported tend to repeat the cycle, sometimes without realizing that they are doing so. And as to justice, there isn't much justice in the justice system in my opinion, especially if it involves those under 18 at least not here. I speak this as the mother of a victim and as the so-called court ordered guardian of a juvenile offender. Here domestic violence gets you maybe 2 years less a day (not very often though, 1st offense usually only gets you probation and sent to a mens batterers group.)and most offenders are out on bail within 24hrs.

Wolf

1 in 4?!   :evil:
Wolf, you're way off mark with what I'm trying to say.  Domestic abuse esp. with women is a frowned upon fact (I would like to think in Canada it is).  The
penalty for the offenders in your place are discouraging though but at least women can still seek some sort of reprieve.  Although I honestly feel sorry for your daughter (I have three sisters), so I'm not good with saying this things, but I mean well I hope she recovers soon from her situation.

There's no 13-18. There is 12 and there is 18. Users are specifically required to convincingly pretend to be older than 12, that is, 18+. Period. If I am not convinced you are convincingly pretending to be older than 12, you will be warned and then banned. Period.


He's not very smart, then. He should have learned to be more paranoid. If he can't hide from YOU, he's not hiding from Big Brother, either. Remember, Big Brother is watching you. It's not just in Soviet Russia that websites view YOU!

O/T: Paganwolf: As a Canadian myself, I can see where you're coming from. Although I have never been a victim of abuse, I've heard too many stories about our so-called justice system failing our women. Some people believe feminism is a thing of the past, and while I don't know if you classify yourself as a feminist, I have to say that (in my opinion, and given the circumstances) we still need it. Not just for women, but as an action for all of humanity.
I offer you and your daughter my support.

Back on topic... As a 17-year-old, I have to shake my head at the sparring going on in this thread. Hey, I can't say I've never participated in an immature brawl, but isn't it ironic that such child-like behaviour is going on in a thread with members trying to convince others that [insert gender] of [insert age] aren't always "drama-whores"?

Some people really do live up to certain peoples' generalizations ,though. Which is a shame ;)



Man I just quoted a quoted quote! I feel good about myself.

As mentioned before, here is your warning for failing to convincingly pretend to be older than 12. Admitting you are 12 is hardly a convincing way to pretend to be older than 12.

Sorry, I won't let it happen again.  *blushes*

Back on topic. Yes, we should read and follow the rules. And not make asses of ourselves when trying not to. I also think the forum works well the way it is, no offense meant, Alia.

I am of Electricstatic's opinion.

And Célimène - an important part of being an adult is knowing when you're beaten.

The shame of that eats at me. It truly does. But Jesus loves me. That's all that matters.

(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1992/jesusdumbasspm9.jpg)

Yarr! Let's all thank Yaardarm Monkey, the jackskulled crock of cat vomit for taking time away from searching the Internet for shaved young Indonesian transvestites to spread Jesus' good word. Amen!

Did you know that Yaardarm Monkey's booty is the size of a goddamn tropical island? Only with more living creatures infesting it. HA HA!

*yawn* Could we stop?  :roll:


A question/suggestion to the moderators: Ban/Warn those idiots. Geez. Not-behaving-like-12-year-olds.

 :?  I second this motion

 :roll:   -yawn-   how 'grade school' can ya get?

Moderators here can't ban or warn. There isn't a warning system, and only the admin (ye olde bastard) can ban.

Not that it matters anymore, but this thread shows how much this forum has fallen apart. Célimène was funny at first, biting and sarcastic. Now the whole thing is really pathetic.

When you take out all the spammy tension breakers (pictures of cats, husbands and other silliness) you're only left with juvenille nastiness. When clever people who know how to spam properly are kicked out you're only left with people too dense to know when enough is enough.

It's a shame that this board got blown-up, still not sure of the motives of all involved, but it's not the place it used to be.

All the good things fall apart when people forget that stupid and sarcasm sometimes are like oil and water.