Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Is Oblivion's request for a male gaming partner unfair?
Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 11:47 Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 03:37 Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 10 November 2009 22:41 Females are just hard to get along with No they're not. I suggest you work on the way you relate to females instead of trying to find a replacement game buddy. Seriously? Have you ever played an online game with a girl? 15 out of the 16 people magically know their mic is working and proceed to small talk constantly. Then when the girl leaves the game so does about 12 of those guys because they have lost the one thing keeping their interest. Pictured: Every online game with a female attendee And so long as you (And your fellow gamers) continue to see females like this, nothing will change. I still don't see enough of a problem for you to automatically exclude 51% of the population, and the attitude you're taking in this application is contributing to the problem you're describing. It's like someone spamming up RenForums with posts complaining about why this place sucks, when their posts would be the ones contributing to the suck. Just something that jumped out at me, that's all.
Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 16:36 And so long as you (And your fellow gamers) continue to see females like this, nothing will change. I still don't see enough of a problem for you to automatically exclude 51% of the population, and the attitude you're taking in this application is contributing to the problem you're describing. It's like someone spamming up RenForums with posts complaining about why this place sucks, when their posts would be the ones contributing to the suck. Just something that jumped out at me, that's all. Pretty sure he's referring to gamers of the female variety, not females of the human variety.
Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 16:36 Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 11:47 Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 03:37 Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 10 November 2009 22:41 Females are just hard to get along with No they're not. I suggest you work on the way you relate to females instead of trying to find a replacement game buddy. Seriously? Have you ever played an online game with a girl? 15 out of the 16 people magically know their mic is working and proceed to small talk constantly. Then when the girl leaves the game so does about 12 of those guys because they have lost the one thing keeping their interest. Pictured: Every online game with a female attendee And so long as you (And your fellow gamers) continue to see females like this, nothing will change. I still don't see enough of a problem for you to automatically exclude 51% of the population, and the attitude you're taking in this application is contributing to the problem you're describing. It's like someone spamming up RenForums with posts complaining about why this place sucks, when their posts would be the ones contributing to the suck. Just something that jumped out at me, that's all. Always fighting for women's rights - in video games.
Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 20:16 I do nothing to treat female gamers different than anyone else (except excluding them from this like you mentioned). And that isn't significant?
Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:44 Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 20:16 I do nothing to treat female gamers different than anyone else (except excluding them from this like you mentioned). And that isn't significant? 0_o as if it were?
Oblivion165 wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 00:54 Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:44 Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 20:16 I do nothing to treat female gamers different than anyone else (except excluding them from this like you mentioned). And that isn't significant? 0_o as if it were? Well, yeah. You're basically saying "I don't discriminate against females! Except they're ineligible to play video games with me."
right, so people should be friends with people they do not like. perfect logic.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:53 right, so people should be friends with people they do not like. perfect logic. But if he doesn't like females, then he's proving my point. This is what I'm getting at.
Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 16:33 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:53 right, so people should be friends with people they do not like. perfect logic. But if he doesn't like females, then he's proving my point. This is what I'm getting at. Where did he say every single female? I'm pretty sure he just means the majority. Of female gamers. Which kinda makes your point moot.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 14:40 Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 16:33 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:53 right, so people should be friends with people they do not like. perfect logic. But if he doesn't like females, then he's proving my point. This is what I'm getting at. Where did he say every single female? I'm pretty sure he just means the majority. Of female gamers. Which kinda makes your point moot. He basically said "females need not apply". It's important enough to him to be in the red-texted "Must have/be" section".
Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 16:44 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 14:40 Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 16:33 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 02:53 right, so people should be friends with people they do not like. perfect logic. But if he doesn't like females, then he's proving my point. This is what I'm getting at. Where did he say every single female? I'm pretty sure he just means the majority. Of female gamers. Which kinda makes your point moot. He basically said "females need not apply". It's important enough to him to be in the red-texted "Must have/be" section". Because the majority of females who would be interested in this sort of thing (thus, female gamers) are rather difficult to actually do that kinda thing without having to disrupt the flow of gaming. Let's think about it this way: if I were to own a fairly large company, and on my job applications I put "mentally handicapped people need not apply", would that be wrong? I'd say no, because I wouldn't want someone mentally handicapped in charge of something in my company. Just because something exists does not mean every goddamn person has to accept them into everything they do.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 14:49 Because the majority of females who would be interested in this sort of thing (thus, female gamers) are rather difficult to actually do that kinda thing without having to disrupt the flow of gaming. Arguable. That's like me saying black people steal, or Russians love bloom. It could be true, but not necessarily all the time (Or even most of the time). What you're doing is known as "Inductive reasoning". You're taking your experience with some specific cases and applying that to the general as a rule (As opposed to deductive reasoning when you apply a general rule to a specific case). This is faulty logic. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 14:49 Let's think about it this way: if I were to own a fairly large company, and on my job applications I put "mentally handicapped people need not apply", would that be wrong? I'd say no, because I wouldn't want someone mentally handicapped in charge of something in my company. Not because of their mental handicap, but because chances are they wouldn't be the most qualified person for the job. I can think of several cases where you WOULD want someone mentally handicap in charge of something in your company. For example, I would want that retard from the movie Rain Man to help me run a poker team. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 14:49 Just because something exists does not mean every goddamn person has to accept them into everything they do. Sure, because there would be some kind of valid reason to do otherwise, and there isn't in this case.
Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Arguable. That's like me saying black people steal, or Russians love bloom. It could be true, but not necessarily all the time (Or even most of the time). What you're doing is known as "Inductive reasoning". You're taking your experience with some specific cases and applying that to the general as a rule (As opposed to deductive reasoning when you apply a general rule to a specific case). This is faulty logic. No society takes on the characteristics of its exceptions; the same is true for groups of people, specifically girl gamers in this case. Yes, I am sure there are exceptions, but if you're going to spout that off to me, read my first sentence. It's very easy for people to judge a group based on a few specific occurances , sure. But this isn't just one person here, MANY people would agree with me. Quite the opposite of what you're implying, I'm taking a general rule (that girl gamers tend to be attention whores, and seem to make getting along with them an overcomplicated and unnecessarily long journey) and applying it to this situation. Yes, I do have my experiences, but I'm not basing my opinions SOLELY on that, believe it or not. I'm basing it off of my experiences and other people's experiences as well. Yeah, sure, I should be basing it off of a fully scientific study rather than that, but really, I highly doubt a study of "women who play games are attention seeking whores" would be acceptable, lol. In this day and age, trying to point anyone in a negative light unless it's Republicans, white men, and/or Americans in general is generally frowned upon. Besides, Oblivion clearly games a good lot- I highly doubt him not wanting to have to deal with female gamers is unwarranted. Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Not because of their mental handicap, but because chances are they wouldn't be the most qualified person for the job. I can think of several cases where you WOULD want someone mentally handicap in charge of something in your company. For example, I would want that retard from the movie Rain Man to help me run a poker team. Exactly, and in this case, a female gamer is not what he wants. Because the majority of female gamers are annoying attention whores. And I don't think someone who purposely makes it difficult to try and casually play games with is what Oblivion wants. And my point was, you make the qualifications, it's your company/whatever, why do you have to change your qualifications because of others? Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Sure, because there would be some kind of valid reason to do otherwise, and there isn't in this case. I heavily beg to differ. There are many reasons to not want to have to go through the hassle of having to play with a female gamer. Once again, I'm speaking GENERALLY. Just because there are exceptions to this rule does not mean the rule should be changed to match that exception; that's just as bad as using inductive reasoning
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 15:37 Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Arguable. That's like me saying black people steal, or Russians love bloom. It could be true, but not necessarily all the time (Or even most of the time). What you're doing is known as "Inductive reasoning". You're taking your experience with some specific cases and applying that to the general as a rule (As opposed to deductive reasoning when you apply a general rule to a specific case). This is faulty logic. No society takes on the characteristics of its exceptions; the same is true for groups of people, specifically girl gamers in this case. Yes, I am sure there are exceptions, but if you're going to spout that off to me, read my first sentence. It's very easy for people to judge a group based on a few specific occurances , sure. But this isn't just one person here, MANY people would agree with me. Quite the opposite of what you're implying, I'm taking a general rule (that girl gamers tend to be attention whores, and seem to make getting along with them an overcomplicated and unnecessarily long journey) and applying it to this situation. Yes, I do have my experiences, but I'm not basing my opinions SOLELY on that, believe it or not. I'm basing it off of my experiences and other people's experiences as well. Yeah, sure, I should be basing it off of a fully scientific study rather than that, but really, I highly doubt a study of "women who play games are attention seeking whores" would be acceptable, lol. In this day and age, trying to point anyone in a negative light unless it's Republicans, white men, and/or Americans in general is generally frowned upon. Besides, Oblivion clearly games a good lot- I highly doubt him not wanting to have to deal with female gamers is unwarranted. Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Not because of their mental handicap, but because chances are they wouldn't be the most qualified person for the job. I can think of several cases where you WOULD want someone mentally handicap in charge of something in your company. For example, I would want that retard from the movie Rain Man to help me run a poker team. Exactly, and in this case, a female gamer is not what he wants. Because the majority of female gamers are annoying attention whores. And I don't think someone who purposely makes it difficult to try and casually play games with is what Oblivion wants. And my point was, you make the qualifications, it's your company/whatever, why do you have to change your qualifications because of others? Dover wrote on Thu, 12 November 2009 17:01 Sure, because there would be some kind of valid reason to do otherwise, and there isn't in this case. I heavily beg to differ. There are many reasons to not want to have to go through the hassle of having to play with a female gamer. Once again, I'm speaking GENERALLY. Just because there are exceptions to this rule does not mean the rule should be changed to match that exception; that's just as bad as using inductive reasoning What you seem to be implying across this entire post is that female gamer = attention whore (With. We probably disagree as to the truth of in this, and who is the exception and who isn't, but can't we agree that instead of saying "No females" it would be better (Both morally and from an efficiency standpoint) to say "No attention whores"? In this way, female non-attention whores aren't excluded, male attention whores (Who can be just as bad if not worse) are, and it gives a clear direction as to what kind of personality he's looking for. Like if I'm hiring for my gambling I could say "No retards", or I could say "Must be skilled at counting cards". Which is better, and which is actually done in the "real world"?
I suppose you're right in that it would be better to say "no attention whores", but most male gamers who would fit most of the criteria (most female gamers probably wouldn't, though, either, actually...) generally aren't. They're usually pretty straightforward (although also sometimes boring). Speaking majority-wise here of course.
George, I lost all the respect I had for you here. Mr equal opportunity is spouting nonsense in several ways. 1. You need both inductive and deductive methods to obtain knowledge. I don't see there being any empirical research about the effects that female gamers have on their environment...stop acting educated, you're not. 2. Who cares? Here's someone looking for a friend (albeit in a very strange way). He doesn't owe anyone an explanation...jeez
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 George, I lost all the respect I had for you here. Bawwww. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 1. You need both inductive and deductive methods to obtain knowledge. I don't see there being any empirical research about the effects that female gamers have on their environment...stop acting educated, you're not. You're wrong, I bet I could fill several books with things you don't see. Deductive reasoning always leads to a correct conclusion (Assuming correct premises). The most famous example is: Premise 1: All men are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. So long as premise 1 and premise 2 (And any subsequent premises, if necessary) are correct, the conclusion always will be correct. This is why deductive reasoning is great. ------------- On the other hand, inductive reasoning MAY lead to a correct conclusion, even when building on a correct premise, but often times doesn't. Two examples our beloved Wikipedia gives are: Wikipedia I always hang pictures on nails. Therefore: All pictures hang from nails. and Wikipedia Many speeding tickets are given to teenagers. Therefore: All teenagers drive fast. These are obviously false, but using nothing but inductive reasoning there is no problem with these conclusions. This is why inductive reasoning sucks. Inductive reasoning can be helpful, at times, but it doesn't ensure truth. Logic is deductive, not inductive. I shouldn't have to tell you any of this. I thought you were a student? JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 2. Who cares? Here's someone looking for a friend (albeit in a very strange way). He doesn't owe anyone an explanation...jeez And I don't expect an explanation. In fact, he hasn't responded in quite a while. I'm not asking for a explanation so much as trying to get him to think outside his preconceptions.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 04:10 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 George, I lost all the respect I had for you here. Bawwww. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 1. You need both inductive and deductive methods to obtain knowledge. I don't see there being any empirical research about the effects that female gamers have on their environment...stop acting educated, you're not. You're wrong, I bet I could fill several books with things you don't see. Deductive reasoning always leads to a correct conclusion (Assuming correct premises). The most famous example is: Premise 1: All men are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. So long as premise 1 and premise 2 (And any subsequent premises, if necessary) are correct, the conclusion always will be correct. This is why deductive reasoning is great. ------------- On the other hand, inductive reasoning MAY lead to a correct conclusion, even when building on a correct premise, but often times doesn't. Two examples our beloved Wikipedia gives are: Wikipedia I always hang pictures on nails. Therefore: All pictures hang from nails. and Wikipedia Many speeding tickets are given to teenagers. Therefore: All teenagers drive fast. These are obviously false, but using nothing but inductive reasoning there is no problem with these conclusions. This is why inductive reasoning sucks. Inductive reasoning can be helpful, at times, but it doesn't ensure truth. Logic is deductive, not inductive. I shouldn't have to tell you any of this. I thought you were a student? JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 00:19 2. Who cares? Here's someone looking for a friend (albeit in a very strange way). He doesn't owe anyone an explanation...jeez And I don't expect an explanation. In fact, he hasn't responded in quite a while. I'm not asking for a explanation so much as trying to get him to think outside his preconceptions. I hereby summon the Wikipedia knowledge multi-quote attack! Listen dummy, you're not going to get very far by relying solely on deduction...there just isn't enough empirical data available. Do you possess some kind of extensive research on male-female behavior in a gaming environment that trumps his observations? Thought so...now stfu and crawl back to wikipedia. Looking like a dweeb doesn't make you educated..
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 You kept the picture of me! How cool! No, not cool. The other thing. Gay. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 I hereby summon the Wikipedia knowledge multi-quote attack! Philosophy 1A knowledge multi-quote attack. The only time I need to refer to Wikipedia is for well-known and widely accepted examples. You've claimed to be a student several times now. If you were, you'd already know all of this. Either you're a bad student or you're a lying sack of shit. Which is it? JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 Listen dummy, you're not going to get very far by relying solely on deduction...there just isn't enough empirical data available. Do you possess some kind of extensive research on male-female behavior in a gaming environment that trumps his observations? Do I need to? All I need to do is show that inductive reasoning is a bullshit way to draw conclusions. I don't need to present an alternative, that burden goes on you or ZIMMER or Oblivion or anyone else who wants to draw some kind of conclusion linking female gamers and attention whoring, or female gamers and male gamer reactions. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 Thought so...now stfu and crawl back to wikipedia. Looking like a dweeb doesn't make you educated.. Faggot.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 14:59 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 You kept the picture of me! How cool! No, not cool. The other thing. Gay. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 I hereby summon the Wikipedia knowledge multi-quote attack! Philosophy 1A knowledge multi-quote attack. The only time I need to refer to Wikipedia is for well-known and widely accepted examples. You've claimed to be a student several times now. If you were, you'd already know all of this. Either you're a bad student or you're a lying sack of shit. Which is it? JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 Listen dummy, you're not going to get very far by relying solely on deduction...there just isn't enough empirical data available. Do you possess some kind of extensive research on male-female behavior in a gaming environment that trumps his observations? Do I need to? All I need to do is show that inductive reasoning is a bullshit way to draw conclusions. I don't need to present an alternative, that burden goes on you or ZIMMER or Oblivion or anyone else who wants to draw some kind of conclusion linking female gamers and attention whoring, or female gamers and male gamer reactions. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:51 Thought so...now stfu and crawl back to wikipedia. Looking like a dweeb doesn't make you educated.. Faggot. Hahaha...calm down, dweeb. You know what happens when you get stressed out...you start eating - excessively. Keep that shit up and you'll develop that 3rd chin! Induction is only bullshit if there's an alternative. In this case, there isn't...stfu, wii-fit is calling.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 Hahaha...calm down, dweeb. You know what happens when you get stressed out...you start eating - excessively. Keep that shit up and you'll develop that 3rd chin! Who's stressed? I'm presenting my case calmly and logically. You're the one getting all emotional and trying to make this shit personal. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 Induction is only bullshit if there's an alternative. In this case, there isn't... There is an alternative. It's called deductive reasoning. Inb4 not enough evidence--That's not my problem. If you want it, you can go look for it. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 stfu, wii-fit is calling. Faggot.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:19 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 Hahaha...calm down, dweeb. You know what happens when you get stressed out...you start eating - excessively. Keep that shit up and you'll develop that 3rd chin! Who's stressed? I'm presenting my case calmly and logically. You're the one getting all emotional and trying to make this shit personal. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 Induction is only bullshit if there's an alternative. In this case, there isn't... There is an alternative. It's called deductive reasoning. Inb4 not enough evidence--That's not my problem. If you want it, you can go look for it. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:11 stfu, wii-fit is calling. Faggot. I took a philosophy class and now I declare the whole field of induction as superfluous! I'm so hardcore, I'd rather learn nothing than learn something potentially faulty! Watch me flex my 2nd chin!
For once I actually agree with JohnDoe- there really isn't a large scale, accurate, deductive study of female gamers and their likelihood of being attention whores, and really, the chance of that ever happening is about as likely as scrin not being a massive faggot. Therefore, the next best thing is to rely on your own personal experience, aswell as the experience of others. Really, what more is a massive study of the behavior of someone than a small group of people experiencing- through a proverbial glass window- whatever it is they're studying? Someone had to take a look and see how much an elephant shits enough times to conclude that elephants shit a certain amount of times on average. That person experienced seeing an elephant shitting multiple times, therefore he's more credible as a source, no? And in order to back up his claims, surely different people also studied and experienced an elephant shitting numerous times, and their data more or less matched. That's basically all a study is really- a person intentionally experiencing something a good lot of times in order to make an average. The "intentionally" does not make or break that study, though. It just makes it go by quicker. So if someone were to live around elephants enough times- maybe at a zoo or an elephant farm, I don't know- surely he would come up with his own average that would more or less be pretty accurate because of how long he's been around elephants. If anything, I'd go so far as to say studying something to a great degree can often lead to shit happening that wasn't intended- maybe if the same guy watches the same herd of elephants shit a ton of times and the elephants see him a good lot of times, the elephants would feel uncomfortable, and wouldn't shit as often, and when they DO shit, they shit alot more or alot less, thus interfering with the data. Yes, I know, you can study something to a greater degree and ensure that there's not really any interference, thus getting accurate data... but to truly do that in our specific situation of girl gamers being annoying attention whores, would be nigh impossible. Therefore, if there ARE any "studies" of girl gamers and their likelihood of being annoying as hell attention whores, they're either inaccurate, biased, and/or retarded. Really, applying a scientific method to studying humans almost never fucking works. Science in whole is pretty much the wikipedia of studies- unlike math or more solid subjects, it changes every damn day because of new discoveries. Sure, history and such changes a little, but it's pretty solid that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The only thing more you could attempt to find out is how long he lived after getting shot (I'm sure there's some morons willing to spend their life finding this out), what exact type of gun his assassin used, what he was sitting on, etc etc. But the basic principle remains- he died. The same is not true for science- it RELIES on all those tiny little details to make up its core. And the fact is, it's almost impossible to come up with some 100% accurate knowledge of humans. If we had that, evolution would have been proven or disproven the second it happened, we'd be able to cure any disease, etc etc. Thus, your whole argument of "well inductive reasoning is bad because it's not deductive!" is pretty retarded because there is no fucking way to fully research whether or not the majority of women are attention whores. And truly deductive reasoning practically relies on that, otherwise it's inductive reasoning with a mustache ("THIS GUY SAID THIS AND THAT HAPPENED SO THIS MUST BE TRUE" as compared to "I SAW THIS AND THAT SO THIS MUST BE TRUE"). Plus, I don't see why it's such a bad thing to rely a little on your own personal experience. Just because some jackass with a degree from who the fuck cares college said "oh yeah this is totally true/false" does not mean it's more credible than a large majority of people who, through their own personal experience, have drawn a conclusion (possibly with facts thrown in, which I'm pretty sure there are for this case). Unless there is a largely deductive alternative to this that numerous people of the same (and possibly different) fields of studies have come to the same conclusion of, it's pretty likely that the largely accepted through personal experience thing is pretty accurate (maybe not 100% accurate, but hey). Religion really being the only thing excluded from this argument, of course. Basically, what you're saying here is "but there's no deductive reasoning behind this therefore your personal experiences and personal wants are rendered moot because there is no deductive process behind it", which is a bit retarded. Let's say for the sake of this discussion science could not figure out why fire hurts people (again, for the sake of this discussion). However, numerous testimonies from numerous people say fire will hurt you if you touch it, through their own personal experience. Therefore, is a largely deductive process really necessary to conclude that fire will fucking burn you and hurt you? No, because numerous people already agree. Really, the deductive process is only useful for disproving something, not for proving something. So if anything, you're the one that has to come up with a huge study to disprove my opinion that the majority of female gamers are usually attention whores. TL;DR: shut the fuck up, Dover.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:26 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:59 You kept the picture of me! How cool! No, not cool. The other thing. Gay. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:26 I took a philosophy class You've claimed to be a student several times, and that philosophy class is pretty basic and required for most degrees. If you're not a lying faggot, which I suspect you are with every post you make, chances are you've taken the same class. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:26 and now I declare the whole field of induction as superfluous! I'm so hardcore, I'd rather learn nothing than learn something potentially faulty! If you learn something faulty, you haven't learned anything at all. Worse, you're under the impression that you HAVE learned something, and tend to spread your misinformation around. Not to mention when you learn something faulty, you're less likely to correct your ignorance, since you're unaware you are ignorant. So yeah, basically, learning nothing > "learning" something that isn't true. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:26 Watch me flex my 2nd chin! Faggot.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 07:48 For once I actually agree with JohnDoe- there really isn't a large scale, accurate, deductive study of female gamers and their likelihood of being attention whores, and really, the chance of that ever happening is about as likely as scrin not being a massive faggot. Therefore, the next best thing is to rely on your own personal experience, aswell as the experience of others. Really, what more is a massive study of the behavior of someone than a small group of people experiencing- through a proverbial glass window- whatever it is they're studying? Someone had to take a look and see how much an elephant shits enough times to conclude that elephants shit a certain amount of times on average. That person experienced seeing an elephant shitting multiple times, therefore he's more credible as a source, no? And in order to back up his claims, surely different people also studied and experienced an elephant shitting numerous times, and their data more or less matched. That's basically all a study is really- a person intentionally experiencing something a good lot of times in order to make an average. The "intentionally" does not make or break that study, though. It just makes it go by quicker. So if someone were to live around elephants enough times- maybe at a zoo or an elephant farm, I don't know- surely he would come up with his own average that would more or less be pretty accurate because of how long he's been around elephants. If anything, I'd go so far as to say studying something to a great degree can often lead to shit happening that wasn't intended- maybe if the same guy watches the same herd of elephants shit a ton of times and the elephants see him a good lot of times, the elephants would feel uncomfortable, and wouldn't shit as often, and when they DO shit, they shit alot more or alot less, thus interfering with the data. Yes, I know, you can study something to a greater degree and ensure that there's not really any interference, thus getting accurate data... but to truly do that in our specific situation of girl gamers being annoying attention whores, would be nigh impossible. Therefore, if there ARE any "studies" of girl gamers and their likelihood of being annoying as hell attention whores, they're either inaccurate, biased, and/or retarded. Really, applying a scientific method to studying humans almost never fucking works. Science in whole is pretty much the wikipedia of studies- unlike math or more solid subjects, it changes every damn day because of new discoveries. Sure, history and such changes a little, but it's pretty solid that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The only thing more you could attempt to find out is how long he lived after getting shot (I'm sure there's some morons willing to spend their life finding this out), what exact type of gun his assassin used, what he was sitting on, etc etc. But the basic principle remains- he died. The same is not true for science- it RELIES on all those tiny little details to make up its core. And the fact is, it's almost impossible to come up with some 100% accurate knowledge of humans. If we had that, evolution would have been proven or disproven the second it happened, we'd be able to cure any disease, etc etc. Thus, your whole argument of "well inductive reasoning is bad because it's not deductive!" is pretty retarded because there is no fucking way to fully research whether or not the majority of women are attention whores. And truly deductive reasoning practically relies on that, otherwise it's inductive reasoning with a mustache ("THIS GUY SAID THIS AND THAT HAPPENED SO THIS MUST BE TRUE" as compared to "I SAW THIS AND THAT SO THIS MUST BE TRUE"). Plus, I don't see why it's such a bad thing to rely a little on your own personal experience. Just because some jackass with a degree from who the fuck cares college said "oh yeah this is totally true/false" does not mean it's more credible than a large majority of people who, through their own personal experience, have drawn a conclusion (possibly with facts thrown in, which I'm pretty sure there are for this case). Unless there is a largely deductive alternative to this that numerous people of the same (and possibly different) fields of studies have come to the same conclusion of, it's pretty likely that the largely accepted through personal experience thing is pretty accurate (maybe not 100% accurate, but hey). Religion really being the only thing excluded from this argument, of course. Basically, what you're saying here is "but there's no deductive reasoning behind this therefore your personal experiences and personal wants are rendered moot because there is no deductive process behind it", which is a bit retarded. Let's say for the sake of this discussion science could not figure out why fire hurts people (again, for the sake of this discussion). However, numerous testimonies from numerous people say fire will hurt you if you touch it, through their own personal experience. Therefore, is a largely deductive process really necessary to conclude that fire will fucking burn you and hurt you? No, because numerous people already agree. Really, the deductive process is only useful for disproving something, not for proving something. So if anything, you're the one that has to come up with a huge study to disprove my opinion that the majority of female gamers are usually attention whores. TL;DR: shut the fuck up, Dover. You're mixing up your analogies, ZIMMER. You're comparing strong observations like "Every fire ever observed hurts people" to weak ones like "I saw this girl this one time on Counter-Strike and she was a real attention whore". If the threshold for truth was so low, then all I would have to do is say "JohnDoe is a real faggot. He's also German, according to the little flag next to his name. All Germans must be faggots". In fact, I'd have extra support for my claim since I could also point to Madrackz. Regardless, that wouldn't make my claim any more true. I'm sure there is a German out there who isn't a huge throbbing faggot.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:49 If you learn something faulty, you haven't learned anything at all. Worse, you're under the impression that you HAVE learned something, and tend to spread your misinformation around. Not to mention when you learn something faulty, you're less likely to correct your ignorance, since you're unaware you are ignorant. So yeah, basically, learning nothing > "learning" something that isn't true. lol, idiot. You can not know wether information is correct or incorrect before you learn the actual information. Therefore, learning anything > learning nothing. Following your theory, you advise to never learn anything, now that isn't ignorant at all... Oh and, theory is correct when deduction and induction are used correctly untill someone proves it is not. That's how it works.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:56 You're mixing up your analogies, ZIMMER. You're comparing strong observations like "Every fire ever observed hurts people" to weak ones like "I saw this girl this one time on Counter-Strike and she was a real attention whore". If the threshold for truth was so low, then all I would have to do is say "JohnDoe is a real faggot. He's also German, according to the little flag next to his name. All Germans must be faggots". In fact, I'd have extra support for my claim since I could also point to Madrackz. Regardless, that wouldn't make my claim any more true. I'm sure there is a German out there who isn't a huge throbbing faggot. And you've got it in your head that I'm basing my claims upon one example. I am not. I'm basing them upon NUMEROUS examples, personal experience, the experience of others, various facts (women tend to want the attention more than men, on average... atleast in most first world countries), and etc. Not upon one specific example. Also, if you had a good lot of personal experience with Germans, a good lot of people you've talked to agree with you and have their own personal experience, and you're claiming a specific group of Germans (the ones you have the most experience with; I'll just say gamers here), yes, you very well could say that the majority of German gamers are asshats. I wouldn't necessarily believe you, sure, but if you and multiple people agreed, I'd believe that you have good reason to not want to game with Germans. This all of course being an example following yours, not actually saying anything here (so no offense to our German friends here at renforums).
SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 lol, idiot. You can not know wether information is correct or incorrect before you learn the actual information. Therefore, learning anything > learning nothing. Following your theory, you advise to never learn anything, now that isn't ignorant at all... Someone hasn't been following the thread... SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 Oh and, theory is correct when deduction and induction are used correctly untill someone proves it is not. That's how it works. No, that isn't how it works, because induction can never prove anything. Ever.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 16:56 If the threshold for truth was so low, then all I would have to do is say "JohnDoe is a real faggot. He's also German, according to the little flag next to his name. All Germans must be faggots". In fact, I'd have extra support for my claim since I could also point to Madrackz. Regardless, that wouldn't make my claim any more true. I'm sure there is a German out there who isn't a huge throbbing faggot. That theory would be academically correct. Premises are correct, so the outcome is too. You are sure there are Germans that are not faggots, but you do not KNOW. Well, not entirely true because the example is retarded. Weither or not someone is a faggot is not a fact. Therefore can never be a premise.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:04 SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 lol, idiot. You can not know wether information is correct or incorrect before you learn the actual information. Therefore, learning anything > learning nothing. Following your theory, you advise to never learn anything, now that isn't ignorant at all... Someone hasn't been following the thread... SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 Oh and, theory is correct when deduction and induction are used correctly untill someone proves it is not. That's how it works. No, that isn't how it works, because induction can never prove anything. Ever. Combined with deduction it can, notice the "and". And no, I didn't read all the thread. But what you wrote was wrong, so I corrected you.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:04 And you've got it in your head that I'm basing my claims upon one example. I am not. I'm basing them upon NUMEROUS examples, personal experience, the experience of others, various facts (women tend to want the attention more than men, on average... atleast in most first world countries), and etc. Not upon one specific example. And you think that is enough to prove that all women are attention whores, or that at the very least enough of them are as to be grounds for automatic disqualification in something so simple as an online friendship? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:04 Also, if you had a good lot of personal experience with Germans, a good lot of people you've talked to agree with you and have their own personal experience, and you're claiming a specific group of Germans (the ones you have the most experience with; I'll just say gamers here), yes, you very well could say that the majority of German gamers are asshats. I wouldn't necessarily believe you, sure, but if you and multiple people agreed, I'd believe that you have good reason to not want to game with Germans. This all of course being an example following yours, not actually saying anything here (so no offense to our German friends here at renforums). I meant that as an example of why inductive reasoning doesn't work. Of course not all Germans (On renforums or otherwise) are asshats, but that doesn't mean that the asshats aren't here, and that just proves my point that induction is shit. If I tried to make such a point, all you would have to do is point to a German Renforum member who isn't a faggot. If you tried to say all female gamers are attention whores, all I have to do is find one who isn't (For example, Crimson, who is both female and a gamer but pretty lax on the attention whoring. If anything, she's quite the opposite and keeps a pretty low profile considering her high standing in the community). Understand?
SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:07 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 16:56 If the threshold for truth was so low, then all I would have to do is say "JohnDoe is a real faggot. He's also German, according to the little flag next to his name. All Germans must be faggots". In fact, I'd have extra support for my claim since I could also point to Madrackz. Regardless, that wouldn't make my claim any more true. I'm sure there is a German out there who isn't a huge throbbing faggot. That theory would be academically correct. Premises are correct, so the outcome is too. You are sure there are Germans that are not faggots, but you do not KNOW. Well, not entirely true because the example is retarded. Weither or not someone is a faggot is not a fact. Therefore can never be a premise. No. It isn't academically correct. The premise goes from the specific to the general, and ignores the possibility of any kind exception (In fact, it ignores the possibility that the observation may be the exception, and the greater majority wouldn't follow the "rule"). SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:08 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:04 SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 lol, idiot. You can not know wether information is correct or incorrect before you learn the actual information. Therefore, learning anything > learning nothing. Following your theory, you advise to never learn anything, now that isn't ignorant at all... Someone hasn't been following the thread... SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:02 Oh and, theory is correct when deduction and induction are used correctly untill someone proves it is not. That's how it works. No, that isn't how it works, because induction can never prove anything. Ever. Combined with deduction it can, notice the "and". And no, I didn't read all the thread. But what you wrote was wrong, so I corrected you. You're wrong. It's not "and". It's just deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning alone can't prove anything. Deductive reasoning alone can. By adding induction, you haven't added anything to your evidence. Deduction is still doing all the logical heavy lifting.
Btw, lol @ this guy trying to explain why a theory, in which all highly educated people operate and believe, is wrong.
SSADMVR wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:11 Btw, lol @ this guy trying to explain why a theory, in which all highly educated people operate and believe, is wrong. Lol. "All highly educated people". Who are these people you're talking about, exactly?
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:08 And you think that is enough to prove that all women are attention whores, or that at the very least enough of them are as to be grounds for automatic disqualification in something so simple as an online friendship? Sigh, how many times do I have to say it- I did not say "all", nor do I think Oblivion is implying all of them are not worth it. But the MAJORITY (51% or more when it comes to two options, majority does not mean 99% lol) of female gamers, through my personal experience and the experience of others aswell as numerous facts, are most likely attention whores. I cannot say the exact number because I haven't met every single person- instead, I'm using logic (and a couple facts) to make a generalization. And yes, if the majority follow a pattern that a person dislikes, it is grounds for disqualification. If you dealt drugs in your life, then most companies won't accept you. That's just how it works. I could go into a further debate as to why it works how it works and that it's not as bad as people make it out to be, but I'd be re-using a good lot of my arguments that I've already laid out. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:08 I meant that as an example of why inductive reasoning doesn't work. Of course not all Germans (On renforums or otherwise) are asshats, but that doesn't mean that the asshats aren't here, and that just proves my point that induction is shit. If I tried to make such a point, all you would have to do is point to a German Renforum member who isn't a faggot. If you tried to say all female gamers are attention whores, all I have to do is find one who isn't (For example, Crimson, who is both female and a gamer but pretty lax on the attention whoring. If anything, she's quite the opposite and keeps a pretty low profile considering her high standing in the community). Understand? I know you meant it as an example, and I used that example to still say if you were to apply it correctly, it could stand as a fairly strong reasoning to not want to game with Germans. I wouldn't bother with having to prove you wrong (assuming you WERE wrong) if you have personal experience, the claims of others, and a couple facts to strengthen your reason. It'd only be if you were trying to get Germans banned that I'd then bother with proving you wrong. But if you simply did not want to game with them, that's a different ball park. Also no, that's not how it works, dumbass. That's like saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong because one Christian said it was wrong. Infact, that's one of the most fucking retarded things I've ever read on here. I don't get why you're incapable of understanding that some people just don't want to fucking play with female gamers sometimes. People have preferences, and people have things they specifically do not want. I don't like boring games, therefore I won't play them. I don't like playing in social games with people who can't speak English, therefore I won't bother playing with them (usually, anyways). I think you've been so goddamn hypnotized by America's recent mentality of "YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT EVERYONE AND LOVE EVERYONE LOL" that you honestly believe people shouldn't have the right to have their own goddamn opinions based on their personal experiences to justify not wanting to do certain things with people.
johndoe successfully trolls renforums, part XXXV this thread is supposed to be about how much of a spergy weirdo oblivion is
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:20 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:08 And you think that is enough to prove that all women are attention whores, or that at the very least enough of them are as to be grounds for automatic disqualification in something so simple as an online friendship? Sigh, how many times do I have to say it- I did not say "all", nor do I think Oblivion is implying all of them are not worth it. But the MAJORITY (51% or more when it comes to two options, majority does not mean 99% lol) of female gamers, through my personal experience and the experience of others aswell as numerous facts, are most likely attention whores. I cannot say the exact number because I haven't met every single person- instead, I'm using logic (and a couple facts) to make a generalization. Derp. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:20 I know you meant it as an example, and I used that example to still say if you were to apply it correctly, it could stand as a fairly strong reasoning to not want to game with Germans. I wouldn't bother with having to prove you wrong (assuming you WERE wrong) if you have personal experience, the claims of others, and a couple facts to strengthen your reason. It'd only be if you were trying to get Germans banned that I'd then bother with proving you wrong. But if you simply did not want to game with them, that's a different ball park. You're missing the point. If I believed that, I WOULD be wrong, and my right to hold those beliefs and be wrong wouldn't make me any less wrong. That example isn't strong reasoning, it's very weak reasoning, first and foremost because the conclusion it reaches is wrong, and it would take very little effort to prove that it's wrong. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:20 Also no, that's not how it works, dumbass. That's like saying the whole theory of evolution is wrong because one Christian said it was wrong. Infact, that's one of the most fucking retarded things I've ever read on here. No. It's more like saying creationism is wrong because the theory of evolution lays out a logical and well-thought alternative that better explains how life came to be. One side has logic and reasoning on it's side, and the other doesn't. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:20 I don't get why you're incapable of understanding that some people just don't want to fucking play with female gamers sometimes. People have preferences, and people have things they specifically do not want. I do't like boring games, therefore I won't play them. I don't like playing in social games with people who can't speak English, therefore I won't bother playing with them. I think you've been so goddamn hypnotized by America's recent mentality of "YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT EVERYONE AND LOVE EVERYONE LOL" that you honestly believe people shouldn't have the right to have their own goddamn opinions based on their personal experiences to justify not wanting to do certain things with people. Oh, people can have their own opinions, and I'm not passing judgment on you or Oblivion or that faggot JohnDoe for thinking females are attention whores. All I'm saying is that (if you actually hold those beliefs) you're wrong. America's recent mentality and your opinions about it don't change that.
I abhor knowledge that isn't truth. I absolutely love twinkies, but I don't know for certain that the next twinky will taste good or bad. Therefore, I only drink unflavored protein shakes with oil. I'm not very active, so I don't need carbs anyway.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:33 I abhor knowledge that isn't truth. I absolutely love twinkies, but I don't know for certain that the next twinky will taste good or bad. Therefore, I only drink unflavored protein shakes with oil. I'm not very active, so I don't need carbs anyway. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 06:59 You kept the picture of me! How cool! No, not cool. The other thing. Gay.
For anyone still arguing seriously with Pasty McDoublechin: Females don't even have to be attention whores...she can do everything right, but as soon as one nerd starts some pathetic flirt attempt, Oblivion would've been better off choosing a guy. Thank me later!
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:40 For anyone still arguing seriously with Pasty McDoublechin: Females don't even have to be attention whores...she can do everything right, but as soon as one nerd starts some pathetic flirt attempt, Oblivion would've been better off choosing a guy. Thank me later! Which makes a ton of sense, because if Oblivion writes "Males only!" in this application on this forum, that's a foolproof way to ensure he'll never run into male and female gamers in the same place at the same time, and he'll never have to put up with the ensueing drama.
Pasty McDoublechin, you missed the point.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:45 Pasty McDoublechin, you missed the point. Normally when you make a claim like that, you follow it by explaining how I've missed the point. Care to explain?
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:28 Derp. Edited the post because I forgot to address that (before you replied actually lol) Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:28 You're missing the point. If I believed that, I WOULD be wrong, and my right to hold those beliefs and be wrong wouldn't make me any less wrong. That example isn't strong reasoning, it's very weak reasoning, first and foremost because the conclusion it reaches is wrong, and it would take very little effort to prove that it's wrong. If you have a good amount of personal experiences, other people do, and a couple facts to back it up, and there is no alternative study, how is it wrong? Assuming you're saying "most Germans" rather than "All Germans" (still following the example). Once again, no society or group takes on the characteristics of its exceptions. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:28 No. It's more like saying creationism is wrong because the theory of evolution lays out a logical and well-thought alternative that better explains how life came to be. One side has logic and reasoning on it's side, and the other doesn't. Except you explicitly said "If you pointed to an exception, it would be disproven". That would only be true if I said "all of ___ are ___". Which I'm not. Yes, a well-thought out alternative that better explains something is good. Except there isn't one for this, so yeah. Feel free to make one, still waiting for it, lol. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:28 Oh, people can have their own opinions, and I'm not passing judgment on you or Oblivion or that faggot JohnDoe for thinking females are attention whores. All I'm saying is that (if you actually hold those beliefs) you're wrong. America's recent mentality and your opinions about it don't change that. Because one guy on renforums says I'm wrong, I must be wrong, right?
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:50 If you have a good amount of personal experiences, other people do, and a couple facts to back it up, and there is no alternative study, how is it wrong? Assuming you're saying "most Germans" rather than "All Germans" (still following the example). Once again, no society or group takes on the characteristics of its exceptions. Then we agree. I can say "Some Germans (Although it would be best to say WHICH Germans) are idiots", but I can't say "All Germans are idiots". If you apply this to the female gamer debate, if it isn't all female gamers that are attention whores, why are all female gamers being autobant from being Oblivion's gaming buddy? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:50 Except you explicitly said "If you pointed to an exception, it would be disproven". That would only be true if I said "all of ___ are ___". Which I'm not. Yes, a well-thought out alternative that better explains something is good. Except there isn't one for this, so yeah. Feel free to make one, still waiting for it, lol. Either we're talking about "All ____ are ___", and my example holds up, or we're talking about Some ____ are ____", to which my response would be "So what?" Just to clarify, which of the two are you talking about? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:50 Because one guy on renforums says I'm wrong, I must be wrong, right? The one guy on renforums nothing more than an acting vessel of logic. You must be wrong if logic says you're wrong.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:01 Then we agree. I can say "Some Germans (Although it would be best to say WHICH Germans) are idiots", but I can't say "All Germans are idiots". If you apply this to the female gamer debate, if it isn't all female gamers that are attention whores, why are all female gamers being autobant from being Oblivion's gaming buddy? Because for one, I said "most", not "some". "Some" implies 1%-99%. Most implies 51%-99%. That being said, since it's MOST, he most likely does not want to put up with wading through which ones are actually cool and fun, and the ones that are still attention whores. Honestly, have you ever even tried to have a social life? Not trying to insult, but fuck, surely you've come across a good lot of annoying people that have been more effort to keep as friends rather than being any real fun. Really, when it comes to the thought process of "well you should accept everyone" in terms of friendship, you're setting yourself up for disaster and extreme annoyance. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:01 Either we're talking about "All ____ are ___", and my example holds up, or we're talking about Some ____ are ____", to which my response would be "So what?" Just to clarify, which of the two are you talking about? I'm talking about "Most ____ are ___". Not some, not all, but most. Again, most implies 51%-99%, generally speaking (depends how many opposing factors but yeah). Most being a MAJORITY. And when it comes to the majority of a group being something you do not want, it's understandable to not want to have to put up with it to find one that ISN'T as bad compared to the alternative (which is to say, a male gaming buddy which are much less of attention whores). That's just how shit works, sorry. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:01 The one guy on renforums nothing more than an acting vessel of logic. You must be wrong if logic says you're wrong. Logic is essentially a pattern, no? Therefore, it's your logic vs my logic. Going just by those two is not enough. I, however, have my own personal experience, and etc etc going for me. What the fuck do you have going for you other than just saying I'm wrong?
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:13 Because for one, I said "most", not "some". "Some" implies 1%-99%. Most implies 51%-99%. That being said, since it's MOST, he most likely does not want to put up with wading through which ones are actually cool and fun, and the ones that are still attention whores. Honestly, have you ever even tried to have a social life? Not trying to insult, but fuck, surely you've come across a good lot of annoying people that have been more effort to keep as friends rather than being any real fun. Really, when it comes to the thought process of "well you should accept everyone" in terms of friendship, you're setting yourself up for disaster and extreme annoyance. I'm not saying "You should accept everyone." What I'm saying is "Everyone deserves a chance." Yeah, I have known some annoying-as-fuck people whom I regretted having as a friend, but in order to reach that conclusion I had to actually know the person on some kind of level. Then it becomes less a matter of "Germans are assholes" or "Female gamers are attention whores", and more a matter of "This guy is a asshole" or "This chick is an attention whore", which are both perfectly reasonable conclusions to reach, once you know the person, not before. I think that answers your question, George. I do have a social life, and part of that social life is, at times, something akin to trial and error. I don't know if a person is going to be a dicktree or not before I get to know them, so what excuse do I have not to get to know them? Similarly, I don't know if a given female gamer is going to be an attention whore or not, so why not find out? As for the some vs most, see below. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:13 I'm talking about "Most ____ are ___". Not some, not all, but most. Again, most implies 51%-99%, generally speaking (depends how many opposing factors but yeah). Most being a MAJORITY. And when it comes to the majority of a group being something you do not want, it's understandable to not want to have to put up with it to find one that ISN'T as bad compared to the alternative (which is to say, a male gaming buddy which are much less of attention whores). That's just how shit works, sorry. I'll choose to ignore where you'll pulling the 51+% number from, because that won't get us anywhere. So you're acknowledging that, in absence of any hard number that either of us can (Or at least, are willing to) produce, up to 49.99999etc% of female gamers could be perfectly reasonable people? Why would that be a bar to the group as a whole? You know as well as I do that gamers as a whole (Male or female) are far more than 50% assholes, and if there's any doubting that, play at least one game of DotA or HoN. In any case, Oblivion isn't excluding some female gamers or most female gamers, but all female gamers. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:13 Logic is essentially a pattern, no? Oversimplification of the century. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:13 Therefore, it's your logic vs my logic. Going just by those two is not enough. Assuming both of our logics is of equal validity, which they aren't. You're using inductive reasoning, which gives you a weaker claim.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:46 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 08:45 Pasty McDoublechin, you missed the point. Normally when you make a claim like that, you follow it by explaining how I've missed the point. Care to explain? It shows that there are in fact negative effects (in his view) when you pit female and male gamers together. By having a female as his partner, the likelihood of this is far greater as males outnumber females by a huge margin. I thought you were all about logic...I therefore assumed you might be capable of figuring this out of yourself. You probably opted to get snacks instead...the overweight kid that redefined the field of theory has to get his immense energy from somewhere.
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 It shows that there are in fact negative effects (in his view) when you pit female and male gamers together. By having a female as his partner, the likelihood of this is far greater as males outnumber females by a huge margin. It seems you missed my point. This is going to happen no matter what, and nothing Oblivion does short of not playing online games is going to change that. The volume of how much he experiences it isn't that relevant, especially if it happens enough to the point where it stops bother him. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 I thought you were all about logic...I therefore assumed you might be capable of figuring this out of yourself. You probably opted to get snacks instead...the overweight kid that redefined the field of theory has to get his immense energy from somewhere. Faggot.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:40 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 It shows that there are in fact negative effects (in his view) when you pit female and male gamers together. By having a female as his partner, the likelihood of this is far greater as males outnumber females by a huge margin. It seems you missed my point. This is going to happen no matter what, and nothing Oblivion does short of not playing online games is going to change that. The volume of how much he experiences it isn't that relevant, especially if it happens enough to the point where it stops bother him. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 I thought you were all about logic...I therefore assumed you might be capable of figuring this out of yourself. You probably opted to get snacks instead...the overweight kid that redefined the field of theory has to get his immense energy from somewhere. Faggot. It didn't seem to bother him when he had a male gaming buddy, so that was a thought-through comeback, fatty!!!11
JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:43 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:40 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 It shows that there are in fact negative effects (in his view) when you pit female and male gamers together. By having a female as his partner, the likelihood of this is far greater as males outnumber females by a huge margin. It seems you missed my point. This is going to happen no matter what, and nothing Oblivion does short of not playing online games is going to change that. The volume of how much he experiences it isn't that relevant, especially if it happens enough to the point where it stops bother him. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 I thought you were all about logic...I therefore assumed you might be capable of figuring this out of yourself. You probably opted to get snacks instead...the overweight kid that redefined the field of theory has to get his immense energy from somewhere. Faggot. It didn't seem to bother him when he had a male gaming buddy, so that was a thought-through comeback, fatty!!!11 It bothered him enough to develop some kind of adversity to female gamers, which is what began this entire discussion. 2/10 troll. Try harder. surthagain wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:44 commencing thread spam in 3...2...1... MODERATOR EDIT - USE THESE, DAMNIT Please, by all means. Call in the PLECOS.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:44 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:43 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:40 JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 It shows that there are in fact negative effects (in his view) when you pit female and male gamers together. By having a female as his partner, the likelihood of this is far greater as males outnumber females by a huge margin. It seems you missed my point. This is going to happen no matter what, and nothing Oblivion does short of not playing online games is going to change that. The volume of how much he experiences it isn't that relevant, especially if it happens enough to the point where it stops bother him. JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:36 I thought you were all about logic...I therefore assumed you might be capable of figuring this out of yourself. You probably opted to get snacks instead...the overweight kid that redefined the field of theory has to get his immense energy from somewhere. Faggot. It didn't seem to bother him when he had a male gaming buddy, so that was a thought-through comeback, fatty!!!11 It bothered him enough to develop some kind of adversity to female gamers, which is what began this entire discussion. 2/10 troll. Try harder. No more arguing on Renforums without wearing glasses for you...either that, or you're just THAT dumb.
MODERATOR EDIT - USE THESE, DAMNIT [/spoiler cats > PLECOS
surthagain wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 09:50 MODERATOR EDIT - USE THESE, DAMNIT cats > PLECOS Blasphemy, but beggars can't be choosers. Continue.
Re: Is Oblivion's request for a male gaming partner unfair?
Right: Carry on arguing in here. I CBA to split all the ad hominem from the actual debate, but I am going to spoilerise those spam images. PS: That lamb sheep is cute!
Couldn't you have let the thread take it's natural course and let it mercykill itself with spam images, Carrier?
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 18:08 Couldn't you have let the thread take it's natural course and let it mercykill itself with spam images, Carrier? No, and I'm getting sick of this... psuedo-moderation. Just use the damn report function and save the 56Kers!
I don't see anything wrong with Oblivion's request... it's a well known fact that games are filled with cloistered dicktrees, and that if a chick enters the game, they'll go ape shit in the game, and on the mic.
The problem, Nikki, is that dicktrees will be dicktrees with or without a female around to inspire them, and that just because Oblivion doesn't hold female gamers as close friends doesn't mean they won't appear in games with him by coincidence anyway.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 I'm not saying "You should accept everyone." What I'm saying is "Everyone deserves a chance." Yeah, I have known some annoying-as-fuck people whom I regretted having as a friend, but in order to reach that conclusion I had to actually know the person on some kind of level. Then it becomes less a matter of "Germans are assholes" or "Female gamers are attention whores", and more a matter of "This guy is a asshole" or "This chick is an attention whore", which are both perfectly reasonable conclusions to reach, once you know the person, not before. I think that answers your question, George. I do have a social life, and part of that social life is, at times, something akin to trial and error. I don't know if a person is going to be a dicktree or not before I get to know them, so what excuse do I have not to get to know them? Similarly, I don't know if a given female gamer is going to be an attention whore or not, so why not find out? Yes, everyone deserves a chance, but generally speaking, what that chance is, is pretty damn important. Going through every single person to find a few good people can be an arduous process, and often times unnecessary if you establish a connection of certain aspects to general personality traits. For example, if someone smokes pot, more than likely they're pretty chill but also not very responsible. I'm sure you're going to go into another ragefit saying I shouldn't generalize like that, but again, this is based on personal experience, the experience of others, and general facts to draw my own conclusions rather than a full on study. Going by that, I may or may not still be friends with them, depending on the chance I'm giving them. If that chance is "well I'll see if they stab me in the back", well shit, that's inviting the opportunity of them stabbing me in the back. I could go into that whole philosophy, but I'm sure you're aware of how it works so I won't bother. But instead, if I give them the chance of "well, I'll see if they're pretty chill and calm", then learning that they do pot early on (and then going by the reasoning that most potheads are calm/chill), I can say hey, they're probably pretty chill, so I'll try and be friends with them. However, if you don't generalize atall to make that connection between pot and being chill (example of course), then you have to basically give them the chance to fuck you over big time to see whether they do or not. In doing so, you'll more than likely find negative aspects of this person aswell that you hadn't thought possible before being friends with them. Now, to how heavy a degree you make this generalization also matters- if I were to make the generalization that blacks steal and therefore don't befriend any black people, I could potentially pass up some decent friends. But to make a smaller generalization, such as that if a girl wears a lot of make up they probably (probably being a key word there) care a good lot about their appearance (although that depends how they apply it lol, but you get what I mean). It's then something to consider into whether or not I'll be friends with them. That being said, I don't think "female gamers" (on the general scale of things) are really as important as considering females altogether to be friends with, or a race or etc. Especially with Oblivion's other criteria, which generally are asking for a heavier gamer. Even "heavy" female gamers still have that annoying aspect that general female gamers do, so yeah. And if he's wrong, so what- then he's passing up a potentially good friend and it's his problem. Personally though, I think it's a smarter idea to say "Women need not apply" since that stops pretty much any of the annoying types (which I guarantee there are plenty of). If a female gamer really wanted to have a gaming buddy in the same sense as Oblivion and saw that, I'm sure she'd fill out the rest of the criteria, apply, and ask if it's still ok aslong as she practically is genderless in terms of how she acts, despite him asking for no females. If she's true to her word and is convincing, I'm sure Oblivion would still consider it just as much as any other applicant. If he still refuses soley on the basis that she's female, then yeah, that's definitely a problem. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 I'll choose to ignore where you'll pulling the 51+% number from, because that won't get us anywhere. 51%=more than half. I COULD say "Above 50% and below 100%", but "51%-99%" is the same thing. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 So you're acknowledging that, in absence of any hard number that either of us can (Or at least, are willing to) produce, up to 49.99999etc% of female gamers could be perfectly reasonable people? Why would that be a bar to the group as a whole? You know as well as I do that gamers as a whole (Male or female) are far more than 50% assholes, and if there's any doubting that, play at least one game of DotA or HoN. If the numbers were that close, I'm sure Oblivion wouldn't care nearly as much. Personally, I'd estimate roughly 75% of female gamers are attention whores. Again, just an estimate, and I'm sure you're going to go on some retarded nerdrage about it, but yeah. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 In any case, Oblivion isn't excluding some female gamers or most female gamers, but all female gamers. That's true, but when a fairly large majority of a group of people are something you pretty much hate, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the probability that the very thing I dislike to a great degree/hate would force me to deal with it. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 Oversimplification of the century. Perhaps so, but it's pretty much true. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:31 Assuming both of our logics is of equal validity, which they aren't. You're using inductive reasoning, which gives you a weaker claim. And you're using no reasoning. You've yet to make deductive reasoning on the same subject as mine (that most female gamers are attention whores). Instead, it's just LOL UR WRONG.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 Yes, everyone deserves a chance, but generally speaking, what that chance is, is pretty damn important. Going through every single person to find a few good people can be an arduous process, That's life. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 and often times unnecessary if you establish a connection of certain aspects to general personality traits. For example, if someone smokes pot, more than likely they're pretty chill but also not very responsible. I'm sure you're going to go into another ragefit saying I shouldn't generalize like that, but again, this is based on personal experience, the experience of others, and general facts to draw my own conclusions rather than a full on study. Firstly, who's ragefitting? And secondly, I don't think you can compare gender to a personality trait. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 Going by that, I may or may not still be friends with them, depending on the chance I'm giving them. If that chance is "well I'll see if they stab me in the back", well shit, that's inviting the opportunity of them stabbing me in the back. I could go into that whole philosophy, but I'm sure you're aware of how it works so I won't bother. But instead, if I give them the chance of "well, I'll see if they're pretty chill and calm", then learning that they do pot early on (and then going by the reasoning that most potheads are calm/chill), I can say hey, they're probably pretty chill, so I'll try and be friends with them. However, if you don't generalize atall to make that connection between pot and being chill (example of course), then you have to basically give them the chance to fuck you over big time to see whether they do or not. In doing so, you'll more than likely find negative aspects of this person aswell that you hadn't thought possible before being friends with them. Yeah. Again, that's life. Sometimes people stab you in the back. You live and you learn GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 Now, to how heavy a degree you make this generalization also matters- if I were to make the generalization that blacks steal and therefore don't befriend any black people, I could potentially pass up some decent friends. But to make a smaller generalization, such as that if a girl wears a lot of make up they probably (probably being a key word there) care a good lot about their appearance (although that depends how they apply it lol, but you get what I mean). It's then something to consider into whether or not I'll be friends with them. That being said, I don't think "female gamers" (on the general scale of things) are really as important as considering females altogether to be friends with, or a race or etc. Especially with Oblivion's other criteria, which generally are asking for a heavier gamer. Even "heavy" female gamers still have that annoying aspect that general female gamers do, so yeah. And if he's wrong, so what- then he's passing up a potentially good friend and it's his problem. Personally though, I think it's a smarter idea to say "Women need not apply" since that stops pretty much any of the annoying types (which I guarantee there are plenty of). If a female gamer really wanted to have a gaming buddy in the same sense as Oblivion and saw that, I'm sure she'd fill out the rest of the criteria, apply, and ask if it's still ok aslong as she practically is genderless in terms of how she acts, despite him asking for no females. If she's true to her word and is convincing, I'm sure Oblivion would still consider it just as much as any other applicant. If he still refuses soley on the basis that she's female, then yeah, that's definitely a problem. Well then, I'm glad we agree. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 51%=more than half. I COULD say "Above 50% and below 100%", but "51%-99%" is the same thing. No, I get that. What I mean was I'll choose not to nitpick as to if the percentage of female gamers who are attention whores is actually above or below 50% (since neither of us know). GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 If the numbers were that close, I'm sure Oblivion wouldn't care nearly as much. Personally, I'd estimate roughly 75% of female gamers are attention whores. Again, just an estimate, and I'm sure you're going to go on some retarded nerdrage about it, but yeah. Who's nerdraging? I like how in this thread there are two people, one of which makes lengthy posts organized with the quote function and another just posts the same picture over and over again and calls the first guy fat, and yet for some reason the first guy is perceived as nerdraging. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 That's true, but when a fairly large majority of a group of people are something you pretty much hate, I wouldn't want to have to deal with the probability that the very thing I dislike to a great degree/hate would force me to deal with it. But this begs the question of wouldn't it be more efficient and more morally correct to directly target the thing you hate/dislike strongly, rather than target groups which may or may not exhibit those qualities and hope for the best? We've already gone through this, and we've already agreed. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 Perhaps so, but it's pretty much true. "pretty much" being the qualifier that gives you a leg to stand on here. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:13 And you're using no reasoning. You've yet to make deductive reasoning on the same subject as mine (that most female gamers are attention whores). Instead, it's just LOL UR WRONG. I'm not the one who's making a claim. I'm merely tearing down someone elses. Of course I haven't given any deductive reasoning--what would I give it on?
I CBA to read the whole debate, but I'd like to throw this in: Is it unfair for Oblivion to specify males only? Not really, he's looking for a person with whom to spend a lot of time, if being female, in his view, as it's his relationship he's trying to form, is going to cause problems, then he's got every right to say that and make that requirement. (NOTE: The double negative is highly INTENTIONAL, and needs to be noticed for the correct interpretation of the preceeding paragraph) The reasons, as laid down by Oblivion, being that others tend to be highly... different when a female gamer is on *Insert VOIP program of choice here* however lead to the conclusion, in my view, that it isn't fair on the women insofar as it's the men who cause the stupid distraction that Oblivion is trying to avoid. Opinions?
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:24 I CBA to read the whole debate, but I'd like to throw this in: Is it unfair for Oblivion to specify males only? Not really, he's looking for a person with whom to spend a lot of time, if being female, in his view, as it's his relationship he's trying to form, is going to cause problems, then he's got every right to say that and make that requirement. There's a leap in reasoning here that I've been trying to attack throughout the thread. The claim is being made that female gamer = attention whore (Or some other undefined negative personality trait), while that might not be the case. Instead, what is known is that attention whore = attention whore, regardless of gender. CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:24 The reasons, as laid down by Oblivion, being that others tend to be highly... different when a female gamer is on *Insert VOIP program of choice here* however lead to the conclusion, in my view, that it isn't fair on the women insofar as it's the men who cause the stupid distraction that Oblivion is trying to avoid. Agreed.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 18:27 CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:24 I CBA to read the whole debate, but I'd like to throw this in: Is it unfair for Oblivion to specify males only? Not really, he's looking for a person with whom to spend a lot of time, if being female, in his view, as it's his relationship he's trying to form, is going to cause problems, then he's got every right to say that and make that requirement. There's a leap in reasoning here that I've been trying to attack throughout the thread. The claim is being made that female gamer = attention whore (Or some other undefined negative personality trait), while that might not be the case. Instead, what is known is that attention whore = attention whore, regardless of gender. CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:24 The reasons, as laid down by Oblivion, being that others tend to be highly... different when a female gamer is on *Insert VOIP program of choice here* however lead to the conclusion, in my view, that it isn't fair on the women insofar as it's the men who cause the stupid distraction that Oblivion is trying to avoid. Agreed. Where's the leap in reasoning? My first point is pretty much that Oblivion can make any requirement of his friends that he desires (They don't have to comply, obviously)... I agree that it's not necessarily that female gamers are attention whores, I think, independantly of the veracity of that fact, we can probably agree that a lot of people tend to perk up interest (and feel free to make a joke here) at the presence of a female gamer in *insert VOIP program of choice here*, which causes a distraction not conducive to tight gameplay, and that this distraction is what Oblivion is trying to avoid...
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:31 Where's the leap in reasoning? In that female gamers inheirantly and consistantly carry some kind of negative personality trait (The one I saw most often in the thread was "Attention whore") that would make the unsuitible gaming partners. Clearly, this isn't the line of reasoning you're taking, but others in the thread have. CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:31 My first point is pretty much that Oblivion can make any requirement of his friends that he desires (They don't have to comply, obviously)... Oh, of course. He could make it a requirement that nobody who's handle contains the letter "W" should apply, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop him. That isn't so much the direction of the debate. CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:31 I agree that it's not necessarily that female gamers are attention whores, I think, independantly of the veracity of that fact, we can probably agree that a lot of people tend to perk up interest (and feel free to make a joke here) at the presence of a female gamer in *insert VOIP program of choice here*, which causes a distraction not conducive to tight gameplay, and that this distraction is what Oblivion is trying to avoid... Is it all female gamers, though, or just the relatively new/unknown ones? I've never seen this happen when in a game with Crimson, but I have seen it happen in games with...say...Venompawz. You could speculate as to why that is, but I would think once you see the same female in-game for the fourth time and your previously three flirting attempts have failed, you need to be thick as Rocko to keep trying. Familiarity breeds acceptance. There, an inadvertent hypothesis supporting the opposite conclusion, although I'm not sure how true it is.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 That's life. So let's not try and improve it, good logic. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 And secondly, I don't think you can compare gender to a personality trait. Perhaps not, but a group of people (gamers) combined with a gender (female) can often produce similar personality traits (attention whore). Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 Yeah. Again, that's life. Sometimes people stab you in the back. You live and you learn Right, and learn what? If you only learn one person is an asshole, but never apply that to anything other than that specific person, what's to stop someone almost entirely similar from doing the same thing if not worse? This is why we have the ability to generalize. It might not be fair sometimes, but in your words, that's life. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 No, I get that. What I mean was I'll choose not to nitpick as to if the percentage of female gamers who are attention whores is actually above or below 50% (since neither of us know). Oh lol, I guess that makes sense. Still, though, can you honestly say that the majority of female gamers AREN'T attention whores...? And that they're not noticeably moreso than male gamers? Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 But this begs the question of wouldn't it be more efficient and more morally correct to directly target the thing you hate/dislike strongly, rather than target groups which may or may not exhibit those qualities and hope for the best? We've already gone through this, and we've already agreed. Perhaps so, but it's his right to still say "I don't want to bother with female gamers, sorry". Again, I'm sure he has good reasoning behind it, and I don't blame him. That's what I'm mainly trying to say here- regardless of whether or not it's right to do so, it's his right to say it. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 "pretty much" being the qualifier that gives you a leg to stand on here. I usually say "pretty much" since I'd rather not say "absolutely true, no exceptions". Unlike you, I don't state everything I say as fact. I will, however, back it up when need be. Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 13:24 I'm not the one who's making a claim. I'm merely tearing down someone elses. Of course I haven't given any deductive reasoning--what would I give it on? You have to tear down the other person's claim then state your own generally in order to consider what you're saying to be correct. Otherwise, you're just being an asshole. Quote: The reasons, as laid down by Oblivion, being that others tend to be highly... different when a female gamer is on *Insert VOIP program of choice here* however lead to the conclusion, in my view, that it isn't fair on the women insofar as it's the men who cause the stupid distraction that Oblivion is trying to avoid. Good point, but if you don't have a girl gamer as a partner, you're less likely to encounter the problem if they're a male. Yes, it's still possible, but then there's not much you can do. However, if they're a female gamer, it's a damn high chance you'll get alot of people causing an annoying distraction soley because she's female... and the female gamer will most likely go along with it.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 12:13 The problem, Nikki, is that dicktrees will be dicktrees with or without a female around to inspire them, and that just because Oblivion doesn't hold female gamers as close friends doesn't mean they won't appear in games with him by coincidence anyway. You heard that, Oblivion? It doesn't matter that you observed how male gamers will act worse when a female is around...
This thread could use the input of a female gamer, in the absence of one at this very moment, I shall attempt to empathise: (This entire section assumes that the channel in which the various hypothetical individuals are in is strictly for the purpose of game related chat) What choice would a female gamer have though? You can't just ignore all the stupid idiots flooding the channel because: Action: Ignore them all and only speak when the game requires (I shall call this the "Hardcore" action (Oh dear God, more jokes...) as it's the option a serious female gamer would probably take) Probable consequence: They get louder until either they're kicked or the channel is unusable. (Also note that the channel is unusable in the proper sense until they're kicked) Action: Talk to them until they shut up. Note that the responses by the female gamer can be anything except those which would be likely to continue the irrelevant conversation much longer. (A fairly common response, in my personal experience - I shall refer to this as the "Typical" action) Probable consequence: Eventually, after a period of irrelevant chatting, the talk (mostly) dies down to the essential game-related chat. A fairly good outcome, and probably not too hard to achieve, and not requiring the presence of a moderator - just give sarcastic responses until the idiots shut up. Action: Be an "attention whore". (That is, to deliberately continue the conversation in a way that makes it focus on them, the female gamer, cluttering the channel with irrelevant conversation). Well, I don't need to finish this, the female gamer is clearly abusing the channel's purpose. Probable consequence: People get banned/kicked. See how the response, I at least, find, is the most common is the only one that doesn't require moderator intervention, something that is fairly rare? I think we have a partial answer... As an aside to the particular circumstance that started this: Oblivion mentions Skype, unless I'm very out of touch, that is not a typical VOIP choice for gamers, who would probably use Vent/TS to chat with teammates, so surely the whole "male/female" debate is moot, as any conversation between Oblivion and his hypothetically female partner would be in a private channel?
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 14:16 This thread could use the input of a female gamer, in the absence of one at this very moment, I shall attempt to empathise: I can do a better job, right here: 'Hi, I've come here to blow shit up, but I can't move because all these dicktrees are busy e-grinding their characters against me while asking me how old I am, and if I've ever run a train with eight black guys.'
Our posts have a lot in common, bar merely phrasing, Nikki.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 So let's not try and improve it, good logic. Is this improving it? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 Perhaps not, but a group of people (gamers) combined with a gender (female) can often produce similar personality traits (attention whore) Arguable. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 Right, and learn what? If you only learn one person is an asshole, but never apply that to anything other than that specific person, what's to stop someone almost entirely similar from doing the same thing if not worse? This is why we have the ability to generalize. It might not be fair sometimes, but in your words, that's life. That line of reasoning is a real slippery slope, George. I was once close with this girl who happened to be Brazillian, until she stabbed me in the back. What generalization should I draw from that? That I shouldn't associate with Brazilians? That I shouldn't associate with females? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 Oh lol, I guess that makes sense. Still, though, can you honestly say that the majority of female gamers AREN'T attention whores...? And that they're not noticeably moreso than male gamers? I don't know. I really don't know. And, be honest, you don't know either, which is why I'm not nitpicking. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 Perhaps so, but it's his right to still say "I don't want to bother with female gamers, sorry". Again, I'm sure he has good reasoning behind it, and I don't blame him. That's what I'm mainly trying to say here- regardless of whether or not it's right to do so, it's his right to say it. Nobody is trying to stop him from saying it. He has every right to say it. In fact, he could probably write "No black people, please", and he would still have every legal right to choose who he does and doesn't associate with. Whether or not it's right to do so is the only thing we can debate. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 You have to tear down the other person's claim then state your own generally in order to consider what you're saying to be correct. Otherwise, you're just being an asshole. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:49 Good point, but if you don't have a girl gamer as a partner, you're less likely to encounter the problem if they're a male. Yes, it's still possible, but then there's not much you can do. However, if they're a female gamer, it's a damn high chance you'll get alot of people causing an annoying distraction soley because she's female... and the female gamer will most likely go along with it. The more I hear this, the more I'm guessing you've never actually had any gaming friends who are female. CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 11:16 As an aside to the particular circumstance that started this: Oblivion mentions Skype, unless I'm very out of touch, that is not a typical VOIP choice for gamers, who would probably use Vent/TS to chat with teammates, so surely the whole "male/female" debate is moot, as any conversation between Oblivion and his hypothetically female partner would be in a private channel? I could be mistaken, but doesn't Skype work similarly? I mean, you're right. Vent/TS ensures a certain degree of privacy, and the only places I really see scenarios like the one you're describing is in games in which the VoIP element is built into the game itself and thus open to anyone in the same server (Like in Counter-Strike).
CarrierII wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 17:12 Our posts have a lot in common, bar merely phrasing, Nikki. Of course! I'm just piling on the North American 'good ol' boy' spin that I always like to do.
On the "mass survey of female gamers" not working, true. All the non-attention-whoring female gamers do not answer to these, or try to hide the fact they are female, as if in shame. I've actually played with a few on various games and I have many different experiences especially with those of the attention whoring nature, ignoring them is really annoying when they fucking scream over the mike, though when they start, the mute button always helps. and blocking communication... Anyways, most of the attention whoring female gamers left me alone after they realized that I am on the outer circle of attention (and I prefer to keep it that way, in most cases.) Most of what was just mentioned is what most millionaires do today, I mean look at Bill Gates. He only shows the world what he wants the world to see.
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 12:13 The problem, Nikki, is that dicktrees will be dicktrees with or without a female around to inspire them, and that just because Oblivion doesn't hold female gamers as close friends doesn't mean they won't appear in games with him by coincidence anyway. i think he made it clear that he was fine with female gamers but knows that that doesn't hold true for other male gamers, seeing as how they have a tendency to act like dicktrees the second a girl is around he would rather avoid having that happen all the time by e-traveling with a female gamer; what does that have to do with the possibility of him running into female gamers somewhere else down the line? i think you've proven that you're one of these so-called dicktrees p.s. lay off eating all the dicktrees your chins are growing
Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:31 So you're acknowledging that, in absence of any hard number that either of us can (Or at least, are willing to) produce, up to 49.99999etc% of female gamers could be perfectly reasonable people? Why would that be a bar to the group as a whole? You know as well as I do that gamers as a whole (Male or female) are far more than 50% assholes, and if there's any doubting that, play at least one game of DotA or HoN. Amen to that. I think DotA/HoN attracts the biggest knuckle-dragging douchetards on the fucking planet. Female gamers ARE generally attention whores. And I'll tell you why. They KNOW that there are a lot of horny lonely guys there and they've ventured to a place few women dare to tread. This means NO/LESS competition for male attention. This sort of overwhelming male dynamic attracts those who would have trouble getting male attention in "traditional" environments such as clubs, bars, school, etc... where such factors as physical appearance and/or conversation skills are a factor. (Meaning, a girl with a lisp, or some other problem that precludes her from carrying on a normal conversation in person) Take from that what you want. As a female gamer who isn't looking for male attention (anymore, I got it now haha)... I play because I want to play, and I get annoyed when horny 17 year old retards are like "omg boobs" and I'm like "dude I'm 30 and taken so stfu". But I'm not the majority.
OMG BOOBS! You saw this coming, didn't you?
OMG SEXY BELGIANS you didnt see that one coming goztow, did you?
Crimson wrote on Sat, 14 November 2009 12:35 Dover wrote on Fri, 13 November 2009 10:31 So you're acknowledging that, in absence of any hard number that either of us can (Or at least, are willing to) produce, up to 49.99999etc% of female gamers could be perfectly reasonable people? Why would that be a bar to the group as a whole? You know as well as I do that gamers as a whole (Male or female) are far more than 50% assholes, and if there's any doubting that, play at least one game of DotA or HoN. Amen to that. I think DotA/HoN attracts the biggest knuckle-dragging douchetards on the fucking planet. Female gamers ARE generally attention whores. And I'll tell you why. They KNOW that there are a lot of horny lonely guys there and they've ventured to a place few women dare to tread. This means NO/LESS competition for male attention. This sort of overwhelming male dynamic attracts those who would have trouble getting male attention in "traditional" environments such as clubs, bars, school, etc... where such factors as physical appearance and/or conversation skills are a factor. (Meaning, a girl with a lisp, or some other problem that precludes her from carrying on a normal conversation in person) Take from that what you want. As a female gamer who isn't looking for male attention (anymore, I got it now haha)... I play because I want to play, and I get annoyed when horny 17 year old retards are like "omg boobs" and I'm like "dude I'm 30 and taken so stfu". But I'm not the majority. Your attempts at inductive reasoning are futile!
sometimes your trollpostings just make me chuckle
Crimson wrote on Sat, 14 November 2009 04:35 Amen to that. I think DotA/HoN attracts the biggest knuckle-dragging douchetards on the fucking planet. Female gamers ARE generally attention whores. And I'll tell you why. They KNOW that there are a lot of horny lonely guys there and they've ventured to a place few women dare to tread. This means NO/LESS competition for male attention. This sort of overwhelming male dynamic attracts those who would have trouble getting male attention in "traditional" environments such as clubs, bars, school, etc... where such factors as physical appearance and/or conversation skills are a factor. (Meaning, a girl with a lisp, or some other problem that precludes her from carrying on a normal conversation in person) Take from that what you want. As a female gamer who isn't looking for male attention (anymore, I got it now haha)... I play because I want to play, and I get annoyed when horny 17 year old retards are like "omg boobs" and I'm like "dude I'm 30 and taken so stfu". But I'm not the majority. Thanks for posting Crimson, it actually helps that you posted. Yeah, I do agree, a good lot of guys are just as much to blame for the whole issue of completely disregarding the game you're playing then focusing on socializing as if it's some retarded social game. My point was though, regardless of whether who's at fault (female or male gamers when the whole LOL OMG BEWBS! shit comes up in a game), if you have a female that games with you alot and you play alot of random online matches with them, chances are much higher of that annoying situation to occur with you in the middle than if you have a male partner.
ITT: Internet scholars. As well as neckbeards.
Canadacdn wrote on Mon, 16 November 2009 18:28 ITT: Internet scholars. As well as neckbeards. Fuck yeah.
Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 23:36 Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 11:47 Dover wrote on Wed, 11 November 2009 03:37 Oblivion165 wrote on Tue, 10 November 2009 22:41 Females are just hard to get along with No they're not. I suggest you work on the way you relate to females instead of trying to find a replacement game buddy. Seriously? Have you ever played an online game with a girl? 15 out of the 16 people magically know their mic is working and proceed to small talk constantly. Then when the girl leaves the game so does about 12 of those guys because they have lost the one thing keeping their interest. Pictured: Every online game with a female attendee And so long as you (And your fellow gamers) continue to see females like this, nothing will change. I still don't see enough of a problem for you to automatically exclude 51% of the population, and the attitude you're taking in this application is contributing to the problem you're describing. It's like someone spamming up RenForums with posts complaining about why this place sucks, when their posts would be the ones contributing to the suck. Just something that jumped out at me, that's all. TIMMY
i vote moving this topic into the Hall of Flame
liquidv2 wrote on Tue, 17 November 2009 22:04 i vote moving this topic into the Hall of Flame Agreed. Btw, it's funny that Oblivion hasn't responded to this topic at all, yet Dover and george zimmer are posting page long replies. Also, SS is god. And Crimson, you are definitely representative of the typical female gamer, babe.
SoQRadio wrote on Tue, 17 November 2009 20:08 Btw, it's funny that Oblivion hasn't responded to this topic at all, yet Dover and george zimmer are posting page long replies. What's funny about it? Oblivion doesn't need to reply. To use a metaphor, he's put his wanted ad up, now he just has to wait for repliers to come to him, not check the paper for what people are saying about it. Also, this topic is in no way HoF material. Shitsux.
I still don't really get why people think it's weird that he's asking. When me and a couple buds needed a fourth for our golf crew, we put up an ad on Craigslist, because the rest of our friends are retards. It worked, and we got a cool dude. So why won't it work for gaming? =/
I saw the ad, but golf just isn't exclusive enough anymore. Polo is such a marvelous sport! For HoF, this thread - should have never been split - needs the hairy 2nd chin in the earlier posts, which isn't necessary since the owner seems to have learned his lesson.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 00:30 I saw the ad, but golf just isn't exclusive enough anymore. Polo is such a marvelous sport! For HoF, this thread - should have never been split - needs the hairy 2nd chin in the earlier posts, which isn't necessary since the owner seems to have learned his lesson.
This misfit is as resilient as he is repulsive. What went through your mind when you grew hair on your double chin? Is it your way of guessing where your jawline might be? Questions, questions...
I have thought up a concept for a TV-show involving SS, Dover, and lots of axes.
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 01:46 This misfit is as resilient as he is repulsive. What went through your mind when you grew hair on your double chin? Is it your way of guessing where your jawline might be? Questions, questions... The real question I asked and insinuated several times in this thread already is what the hell is up with your morbid fascination with my looks and weight? You haven't been able to talk about anything else yet, and chances are you'll reply to this with some verbose way of saying "LOL FATTY" (And I know that because you're a predictible faggot). Answer that, and I may consider answering about my beard. surth? / surth! wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 01:57 I have thought up a concept for a TV-show involving SS, Dover, and lots of axes. I'd like to hear this idea.
Honestly, I could care less about your beard. It's just blatantly obvious that you don't feel comfortable in your own skin. As for your prediction, there is no fun in pointing out the obvious, so I'll let you do it yourself. Dover wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 16:31 I look like a bit of a fatty here, but he's me at Big Sur. Really? A bit? You can keep up the phony bravado, but nobody here is ever going to take you seriously because they know full well where it came from - mr. stereotype:
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 01:56 Honestly, I could care less about your beard. It's just blatantly obvious that you don't feel comfortable in your own skin. As for your prediction, there is no fun in pointing out the obvious, so I'll let you do it yourself. Dover wrote on Wed, 24 June 2009 16:31 I look like a bit of a fatty here, but he's me at Big Sur. Really? A bit? You can keep up the phony bravado, but nobody here is ever going to take you seriously because they know full well where it came from - mr. stereotype: Good dodge. Troop would be proud. I'll ask again; "What is up with your morbid fascination with my looks and weight?" Haha, yeah. I'm the one with the bravado. It's real easy to hide behind someone elses picture type up a mighty shitstorm. I'm plenty comfortable in my skin, that's why I posted the in the first place. It's another matter entirely that in the multitude of picture threads (Including the one bumped right now), I'm yet to see your picture anyway. You clearly see them--you post in them, yet all you do is talk shit about how ugly everyone else is without posting your ugly mug for others to ridicule you about. What are you afraid of? Edit: , faggot.
Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 04:20 [Updated on: Thu, 19 November 2009 04:22] Nice. We get it, you're comfortable living without a jawline. I mean, that's probably why you felt the need to point out how the picture makes you 'look' like "a bit for a fatty", right? How dare that picture deceive us like that! The only thing that fascinates me is how your chin extends all the way up to your hairline. I'm just joking around at your expense...if you weren't so ghastly-looking, I'd have less ammo. You should talk to Goztow about my picture. I made him a very reasonable offer along the lines of 'my picture for less moderation'.
JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 04:11 Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 04:20 [Updated on: Thu, 19 November 2009 04:22] Nice. We get it, you're comfortable living without a jawline. I mean, that's probably why you felt the need to point out how the picture makes you 'look' like "a bit for a fatty", right? How dare that picture deceive us like that! The only thing that fascinates me is how your chin extends all the way up to your hairline. I'm just joking around at your expense...if you weren't so ghastly-looking, I'd have less ammo. You should talk to Goztow about my picture. I made him a very reasonable offer along the lines of 'my picture for less moderation'. To be honest, I could care less about your picture, and it's not my place to tell Goztow how to do his job. I'm just pointing out the irony in that you talk up a shitstorm but are too insecure to show yourself. Also, keep up the dodging; Dover wrote on Thu, 19 November 2009 02:20 I'll ask again; "What is up with your morbid fascination with my looks and weight?" I'm waiting.
I'm not insecure, I've posted several pictures of myself throughout the years. I just don't see the point unless I'm getting something out of it. I've answered your 'question' countless times, are you going to tell me that I'm the first guy to make fun of your appearance? Yeah, right...I doubt even your relatives ever called you handsome.
SoQRadio wrote on Tue, 17 November 2009 21:08 And Crimson, you are definitely representative of the typical female gamer, babe. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that (and the "babe" at the end is nice and sexist if you're meaning this in a negative way).
SoQRadio wrote on Wed, 18 November 2009 04:08 And Crimson, you are definitely representative of the typical female gamer, babe. lolwut Crimson's probably the least typical female gamer...
OMG Dover has a twin brother