Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Discuss EC/MC/DC here!

Moderators: Dave Zero1, Don Alexander, Giz, midgetshrimp, Cassandra

Locked
User avatar
Bloody Vikings
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:36 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Bloody Vikings »

Thank you, dex. And your own struggles help explain why you are giving such heavy weighting to an impulse theory of human behaviour.
Proud owner of one "Gotcha" point, courtesy of TBeholder and 1.35 Internets (after taxes) from Don Alexander.
Also one IOU for an internets from FragileMara.

User avatar
Absinthe Green
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:33 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Absinthe Green »

The Nick wrote:Come on, dude. There's no need for the blatant disrespect or the hate.
But The Nick, being disingenuous, disrespectful, petty, stupid and hateful is all that Tbeholder is good at. They're like the Pixie Trix Forums' own Sarah Palin, minus the sex appeal. It's all they have going for them, and to take that away would be cruel.
The Nick wrote:
You realize that you're implying that Absinthe Green hates sex-positive fictional characters when I'm pretty sure AG's opening paragraph is a strong denunciation against the people who arbitrarily declare 'liking sex = evil'.
You're quite right re: what I was focusing on, but S-FM was referring to the 2nd part of the 1st paragraph. The lesser lights feel threatened when anything they're reading moves beyond a 4th grade reading level. They lose the thread of the exchange, and dat mwakes theiwr widdle heawd hoit. Since stupidity and vanity are hand in glove, they get really pissy when their demands that everyone speak in primary school grammar are disregarded. It must be painful going through life ignorant of one's limitations.
Oh well.

You obviously believe you are better than a lot of other people, yet you behave exactly like them... Warning issued.
"I will remember the kisses / our lips raw with love / and how you gave me everything you had / and how I / offered you everything that was left / of me." - CB.

User avatar
Storm-forge mystique
Posts: 2258
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Storm-forge mystique »

Yes, your endless string of ad homs, appeals to solidarity, and juvenile Youtube sight gags in defense of the indefensible is just so gosh-darn confusing when you dress them all up so nicely in garbled academic jargon.

User avatar
vampire hunter D
Posts: 4095
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:19 pm
Location: Jasoom

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by vampire hunter D »

I'm gonna leave this here for no reason

http://www.politicsforum.org/images/fla ... ame_15.php
Pointless arguing is one of the three pillars upon which the Internet is built. The other two are of course cat pictures and porn.

User avatar
Absinthe Green
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:33 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Absinthe Green »

Storm-forge mystique wrote:Yes, your endless string ....
yadda-yadda-yadda whine-whine-whine repeat ad nauseam.
I give what I get, bimbo. If you're dumb enough to carry a cat by the tail, knock yourself out.

See above. The DAMNed
"I will remember the kisses / our lips raw with love / and how you gave me everything you had / and how I / offered you everything that was left / of me." - CB.

jaimehlers
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:07 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by jaimehlers »

dex drako wrote:Before I get started let me follow Varanus advice and make my definition of inhibition clear and that can best be summed up by definition B1 from Merriam webster dictionary

so yes jaimehlers by this definition inhibitions and morals are more or less interchangeable words tho personally I feel inhibitions goes farther.
I already gave my definition, but here it is again:

inhibition:
"a nervous feeling that prevents you from expressing your thoughts, emotions, or desires"
"the act of preventing or slowing the activity or occurrence of something"
"1 -
a : the act of inhibiting : the state of being inhibited
b : something that forbids, debars, or restricts"
"2 - an inner impediment to free activity, expression, or functioning: as
a : a mental process imposing restraint upon behavior or another mental process (as a desire)
b : a restraining of the function of a bodily organ or an agent (as an enzyme)"

So I do not consider morality to be quite the same thing as an inhibition, as you seem to. Morals are rules that we live by in order to get along; inhibitions are things that impede us unnecessarily. If you define them as interchangeable, as you did, then you're simply confusing the issue - acting like an apple is really the same thing as an orange. And to make matters even more confusing, you then backtracked and said that an inhibition wasn't really the same because it went further than a moral.
dex drako wrote:lucky for you I’m a lifelong atheist so there will be to take about hypothetical sky daddies. No morals are a function of empathy towards others and not a fear of punishment from some all-knowing god. But I will tell you Mankind is still an instinct driven animals. We like to think of ourselves as better but we’re not.

Now I’ll admit my post way a very simplified way to put it but I thought it got the point through but since it clearly didn’t let me try to make it clearer. Inhibitions arise from rational thought as a way to control our base impulses. So without to act without inhibitions mean you have to be acting without rational thought.
Just goes to show that an atheist can still have bad ideas. You're conflating rationality and morality here, which is incorrect. Psychopathy is a disorder which essentially inhibits morality, yet someone afflicted with it can still think and act rationally - they certainly aren't a mindless beast. Not only that, but inhibitions (as differing from morals) can easily be irrational. You don't need inhibitions in order to be moral.

Also, you're doing exactly the same thing that many religious people do, insisting that "without X, there's nothing to prevent us from doing whatever we want, no matter how bad it is". For them, it's a deity; for you, it's inhibitions. And while you at least have a slightly better basis for justifying it, that doesn't make it even remotely a good justification.
dex drako wrote:yes I believe a 100% a person would eat a pet animal without inhibitions a dog’s just meat when you get right down to it. It’s only our rational thought (higher brain functions in other words) that stops us from doing so. But without Inhibitions rational thought has nothing to stop our base instincts from taking over.
Seems that you're stuck on black and white thinking here, compounding that by conflation. First off, people can and do eat dog meat (more specifically, dogs raised as meat animals) while still having a code of morality, such as in Korea. Since I highly doubt that you're suggesting that Koreans are immoral, your example fails. And to use your second example, rape, plenty of people - tens of thousands just in the USA - commit rape without abandoning rational thought or morality. For that matter, plenty of people kill other people while still retaining their rationality and morality. So you don't need inhibitions in order to remain rational, either.

User avatar
mikbuster
Posts: 2619
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:04 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by mikbuster »

Can you give an example of the difference between an activity restrained by morals and one restrained by inhibitions? The official definition you list isn't as specific about being a bad thing as you are, so it would help to clarify.

Edit: preferably the same action
You don't need a reason to help people. ~Zidane Tribal
Geez. Why are adults so pigheaded? ~Palom
How do you prove that we exist? Maybe we don't exist... ~Vivi Orunitia
The only dependable thing about the future is uncertainty. ~Amarant Coral
ADD is a double edged sword. Also the handle is a blade.

That one's easy: it's because it sounds disgusting. Society's got nothing to do with that. ~Gotoh

jaimehlers
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:07 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by jaimehlers »

The difference is that morals aren't restrictions, they're guidelines. I don't have an inhibition against drinking (I will drink on occasion), for example, but I consider it immoral to drink so much that it inhibits my ability to act rationally, or to attempt to drive after drinking too much. I also don't have an inhibition against killing someone, but I consider it extremely immoral to do so unless my own life (or someone else's) is in danger. Do you see the difference?

User avatar
mikbuster
Posts: 2619
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:04 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by mikbuster »

Actually it sounds like you're saying that you consider inhibitions something that totally restrains a behavior, preventing it, while morals are there to keep you from doing things but still allow you to do them. So my take on what you're saying is that my not wanting to finish an entire thing of ice cream in one sitting and stretching between a few days is morality related while my inability to lie is an inhibition.

Incidentally, morals would probably be better thought of as things you should do, like you should help others, rather than as things you shouldn't, like you shouldn't drink. If you think about things as positives you're more likely to follow them. Instead of not killing, think about it as all life having value, then you extend it naturally to all living things rather than allowing yourself to make exceptions for skin color or something.
You don't need a reason to help people. ~Zidane Tribal
Geez. Why are adults so pigheaded? ~Palom
How do you prove that we exist? Maybe we don't exist... ~Vivi Orunitia
The only dependable thing about the future is uncertainty. ~Amarant Coral
ADD is a double edged sword. Also the handle is a blade.

That one's easy: it's because it sounds disgusting. Society's got nothing to do with that. ~Gotoh

jaimehlers
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:07 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by jaimehlers »

Well, I considered putting it that way, but I wanted to keep the explanation simple. Nonetheless, it does make sense, and that is the way I generally think about things like (say) smoking, drinking, and other such things. I want to have healthy lungs, so I don't smoke. I want to retain my ability to think rationally, so i don't drink or use drugs. I value honesty, so I don't lie. I want to set an example, so I obey rules and laws. I value life, so I don't kill other people. And so on and so forth. It's positive and uplifting, rather than a negative, forbidding inhibition.

It's kind of like why people will not always obey laws (which are usually attempts to forbid something), but will generally follow customs (which are ways in which things are traditionally done).

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Fluffy »

Absinthe Green wrote:
Storm-forge mystique wrote:Yes, your endless string ....
yadda-yadda-yadda whine-whine-whine repeat ad nauseam.
I give what I get, bimbo. If you're dumb enough to carry a cat by the tail, knock yourself out.
And calling people names when they point out your own flaws simply reeks of maturity, not to mention totally makes you appear intellectually superior to them. /:)

Ah, grade school mentality - how I have missed you.
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

User avatar
The Nick
<3 <3 Most Loved <3 <3
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 9:04 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by The Nick »

Fluffy wrote:
The Nick wrote:
mikbuster wrote:Nick, that scenario eliminates all negative connotations, making it highly inaccurate. It is strongly implied by the part about a stray memory not being able to do that that she was stuck there. Melissa has repeatedly said she's not interested in Faith, so being naked in a pool with her probably wasn't high on her list of things she wanted. During combat not everything goes. If you gas a city of innocent people just to kill a handful of rebels, that's a war crime.


We're not talking about combat. We're talking about a sparring match.
Actually, what was going on was specifically described as being combat quiz against espers; as it was combat day, after all.

So really, the battle should have ended after Faith knocked Melissa unconscious. Instead, Faith took advantage of the situation and attempted to seduce Melissa in a dream; where her inhibitions were down (if a person was drinking heavily, their inhibitions are down. If someone takes advantage of someone in that state, it's wrong. So, why would what Faith was trying to do in this case be any different from that?)
The Nick wrote:What Faith is doing are mind-games at best. Furthermore, you can't prove that the 'stray memory implication' is actually saying she's stuck there. After all, nothing is forced.
Then why would Faith be bothered by the fact that a rogue memory severed her connection to Melissa's mind? It pretty much hints that if Fade Out Girl had never appeared, Melissa would have been stuck there until she admitted her envy/love for Faith (and given the place they were at and how Faith was caressing her? Probably more). Given Faith's earlier behavior towards Melissa in the waking world, it would be ridiculous to think that's not one of the things she was aiming for with this dream setting of hers.
The Nick wrote:Theoretically, Faith could have done the same thing if the fight was in private where nobody was about (like the private hot springs she apparently has access to). If Melissa had stuttered and not answered immediately there while still having the ability to leave or run away or even just say no, people would STILL say it was a Faith rape-attempt despite the fact that she just asked a question and Melissa (who was only given a fraction of a moment to answer it and not nearly enough time to give a complex answer yet alone a complete sentence) didn't even answer.
Big difference being that they would be awake - not to mention Melissa wouldn't be caught dead being alone with Faith in the hotsprings, let alone naked with her and in such close proximity of one another, and would most certainly be able to speak her mind far easier than she had in the dreamscape, where she was clearly mesmerized by the scenery Faith presented her.

Faith says as such herself - dreams work differently than the real world. Doesn't help that a psychic esper with the nasty habit of tweaking the surroundings into her own image created the surroundings, which an unconscious mind would have far less of a chance resisting the influences it presents than a conscious mind would in the waking world (it explains how Melissa could shoot Faith's advances down repeated in the real world, but be a stuttering moron in an unconscious state).
The Nick wrote:It seems heavily implied to me that the accusations made by Faith are true - Melissa wants power and likes people who have it. This is what her character has always been about and Faith (whether she admits it or not) represents the apex of her desires, to be the real queen of the school
In the beginning, maybe - she has since abandoned this desire to be better than Faith, as she finds there are more important things in life than popularity (even though she doesn't like to admit it; as it took Tandy's truth massage to get that out of her).
The Nick wrote:
David Johnston wrote:I only say partial because groping your opponent in the middle of combat under the assumption that she'll just forget about the fight and start making out with you is not at all Marquis of Queensbery approved.
Heh, true, true, but neither is INFINITE PUPPIES, summoning a BEAR to maul living breathing people, or breaking arms because you got caught.
At least there were witnesses to these events, and someone there to put a stop to it if things got out of hand. In Faith's dream seduction, it took a rogue memory to put a stop to things, which Faith clearly wasn't expecting.
It was combat day. In a sparring match. Against Espers.

It's like going to Fight Club and having a 'fight' with people. You're still essentially just sparring. It's Fight Club, not Premeditated Murder Club.

Secondly, Melissa wasn't knocked out during the whole 'in your dreams' activity. They were still standing and, assumably, fighting. I'm guessing the tactic of, "Hey, now we're in a dream. Surrender to me? No, well, I guess we'll just wait here for a few minutes until you let this dream-spell wear off or beat me up in YOUR dream, then you can cast spells on me until I lose." That's a terrible fight strategy.

Furthermore, you're presuming that what Faith said to HER ENEMY during A SPAR (or, as you seem to imply, a real actual live fight-to-the-maybe-not-death-but-something-serious) was totally true and she wasn't using deception, feints, tricky moves, jabs followed by uppercuts, fancy footwork, etc., to win the say.


And so what if they stayed there until Melissa gave in? I guess if you're rooting for Melissa, you want her out, but if I'm in a boxing match and I'm the underdog, I'm STILL going to try and win the fight. And if Melissa is so easily mesmerized by 'the scenery' that she goes from hating and despising Faith to possibly loving her and sexing her... well, she's going to be very popular in high school.


Finally, yeah, she may have abandoned the desire, but AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION, the desire was strong, obvious, and apparent. If you accuse me of being a murderer because I killed somebody last week, you sort of have a point even if I've given up my life of murdering and turned over a new life.


Also, you can't really 'put a stop to a bear mauling' or infinite puppies. Those things only turned out ok because... well, just luck, I guess. You can say the same thing about the Faith-fight; it was overseen, Faith is a good leader even if people don't like her, and in the end, she forfeited (whether she saved Melissa's life or not) when she probably could have gotten away with much more. She's at least got some warrior honor or whatever.
Fluffy wrote:
Absinthe Green wrote:
Storm-forge mystique wrote:Yes, your endless string ....
yadda-yadda-yadda whine-whine-whine repeat ad nauseam.
I give what I get, bimbo. If you're dumb enough to carry a cat by the tail, knock yourself out.
And calling people names when they point out your own flaws simply reeks of maturity, not to mention totally makes you appear intellectually superior to them. /:)

Ah, grade school mentality - how I have missed you.
To be fair, this was after the person in question suggested Absinthe Green was some sort of old-fashioned women-beating control-freak more at home in the pre-Womens' Suffrage era as opposed to the modern era where a woman who dares to enjoy kissing outside of marriage isn't considered a deflowered sinner before God. This was followed immediately after by some truly hateful insults.

In light of that, 'bimbo' really doesn't seem like it's grade school mentality in the context it was given. It's definitely not bordering on a slur, a territory I feel some posters in this thread have definitely breached or are at least tentatively and intentionally hovering around to provoke a reaction followed by swift edits or apologies and earnestly-worded insistence that it "wasn't what they really meant lol but why u being so mean?"


Double post merged. The DAMNed
"Sometimes [Layla] is a bit discourteous."-David Johnston
"The usual incentive for peace is to not be at war."-Thor
"that's actually one of thor's lines you've got in your signature there, not one of mine." -J (usually more invisible)
"Somebody just stake me now" -TJgalon
"I can masturbate without guilt now." -Panchocheesecake
"More Nick-sarcasm is always appreciated. Hail Beret Cat!" -Don Alexander
"...get that girl's panties off of her as soon as possible, and then see what effect that has on her personality." -kitsune9tails (out of context)
"special flowers" -Thor
"Doggy style." -Milnoc
"Wanted: ...berets on cats..." -The Nick

User avatar
Fluffy
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:14 pm

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by Fluffy »

Really? Exactly where did Storm Forge Mystique say anything of the sort?
Please, don't come to me expecting me to fix your problems.

User avatar
mikbuster
Posts: 2619
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:04 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by mikbuster »

Nick, Melissa wasn't standing, per Faith saying she hadn't even hit the ground yet. Also per the visual immediately afterward where Faith is slumped against a tree or something and Mel is getting up. In a sparring match especially, not everything goes. If we were sparring, without protective gear, and I kicked you hard in the crotch I'm pretty sure you'd complain that it was unfair even if it wasn't a permanent injury like it could be. Were there lines crossed with Faith stroking a naked Mel in that dreamscape? I guess that depends on how Mel feels about it. She seems to not want that kind of attention from Faith, and I would think unwanted sexual touching in my head is worse than physical unwanted sexual touching.
You don't need a reason to help people. ~Zidane Tribal
Geez. Why are adults so pigheaded? ~Palom
How do you prove that we exist? Maybe we don't exist... ~Vivi Orunitia
The only dependable thing about the future is uncertainty. ~Amarant Coral
ADD is a double edged sword. Also the handle is a blade.

That one's easy: it's because it sounds disgusting. Society's got nothing to do with that. ~Gotoh

dex drako
Posts: 165
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:18 am

Re: Magick Chicks 20-09-13 Even her enemies

Post by dex drako »

jaimehlers wrote: So I do not consider morality to be quite the same thing as an inhibition, as you seem to. Morals are rules that we live by in order to get along; inhibitions are things that impede us unnecessarily. If you define them as interchangeable, as you did, then you're simply confusing the issue - acting like an apple is really the same thing as an orange. And to make matters even more confusing, you then backtracked and said that an inhibition wasn't really the same because it went further than a moral.
everything I’ve posted are expectable definitions of these words they just don’t agree with your view on them which is different. All words have more than one meaning regardless if you don’t like the other means.

Take the words restrictions and guidelines that you’re using to differentiate meaning when in fact these two words are all synonyms and so can replace each other and the sentence will retain its context. Now morals and inhibitions are expectable synonyms but inhibition has a farther reach of means then morals do. Like a person not liking the idea of eating bugs, that isn’t a moral issue but it’s still an inhibition. So all morals are inhibitions but not all inhibitions are morals.
jaimehlers wrote:Just goes to show that an atheist can still have bad ideas. You're conflating rationality and morality here, which is incorrect. Psychopathy is a disorder which essentially inhibits morality, yet someone afflicted with it can still think and act rationally - they certainly aren't a mindless beast. Not only that, but inhibitions (as differing from morals) can easily be irrational. You don't need inhibitions in order to be moral.

Also, you're doing exactly the same thing that many religious people do, insisting that "without X, there's nothing to prevent us from doing whatever we want, no matter how bad it is". For them, it's a deity; for you, it's inhibitions. And while you at least have a slightly better basis for justifying it, that doesn't make it even remotely a good justification.
but when I say “inhibitions” I have years scientific research and study into the human mind and how it works to back it up.

Now something you may not know Morality and empathy comes from rational thought, they are our brain trying to understand the inner emotional state of others. The reasons Psychopathy can’t understand morality and empathy is because the part of the mind responsible for this understanding of others inner emotional states doesn’t work right. (This has been shown through MRI studies of Psychopathic subject compared to average people.) This leaves a Psychopath unable to understand what their actions will do to other but they still have inhibitions(like not eating bugs) because the rest of the mind functions more or less the right way.

you show look up a book called the warrior gene it’s goes into detail on things like this.

My I ask if you don’t believe Morals come from rational thought then where do they come from?
jaimehlers wrote:Seems that you're stuck on black and white thinking here, compounding that by conflation. First off, people can and do eat dog meat (more specifically, dogs raised as meat animals) while still having a code of morality, such as in Korea. Since I highly doubt that you're suggesting that Koreans are immoral, your example fails. And to use your second example, rape, plenty of people - tens of thousands just in the USA - commit rape without abandoning rational thought or morality. For that matter, plenty of people kill other people while still retaining their rationality and morality. So you don't need inhibitions in order to remain rational, either.
[/quote]

my whole point has been since the start is without inhibitions humans would be like other animals with less higher thought proses who react solely on instinct . inhibition are any prosses then puts limits on base instincts which I’ve made very clear.

Locked