Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

So, you've decided to Friend me...

snowgirl (978879) writes | more than 4 years ago

User Journal 63

So, I just noticed that I had a relationship change. I expected it to be that pudge asshat foing me... which I wouldn't blame him, I foed him myself. But instead, to my surprise, it was Bill Dog, friending me. Now, I don't mean to be ungrateful, or upset in any way... but as I remember, Bill Dog is a strong conservative, while I'm a rabid liberal... and not just this watered down liberalist crap that passes for liberal here in the USA, but a full on democratic socialist.

So, I just noticed that I had a relationship change. I expected it to be that pudge asshat foing me... which I wouldn't blame him, I foed him myself. But instead, to my surprise, it was Bill Dog, friending me. Now, I don't mean to be ungrateful, or upset in any way... but as I remember, Bill Dog is a strong conservative, while I'm a rabid liberal... and not just this watered down liberalist crap that passes for liberal here in the USA, but a full on democratic socialist.

So, I put an invitation to Bill Dog: if you wouldn't mind, would you be willing to explain why you made the choice to friend me?

Actually, let's do this as an open question. Anyone who is willing to explain why they friend/foed me, I invite your honest and open comments. I promise, I'll keep my mouth shut, and take my medicine as it is. After all, your justification is your honest opinion. :)

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

we meet again! (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32008780)

Well I know nothing about either of you, but a worthy opponent is something to be cherished ...

I suspect.... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009532)

While I don't think this applies to Bill Dog, I rather suspect that most people who friend you here are lonely basement dwellers that see "girl" in your user name.

That being said... I will not be friending you because (1) I am not a lonely basement dweller stalking nerdy girls on slashdot, and (2) I'm a libertarian and I just don't think that you and I would mesh very well as slashdot buddies.

HAND.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009650)

While I don't think this applies to Bill Dog, I rather suspect that most people who friend you here are lonely basement dwellers that see "girl" in your user name.

That being said... I will not be friending you because (1) I am not a lonely basement dweller stalking nerdy girls on slashdot, and (2) I'm a libertarian and I just don't think that you and I would mesh very well as slashdot buddies.

HAND.

I love people like you. You take the opportunity to generalize peeps into a category, then are sure to say how you aren't part of that category.

lol

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009964)

Ahh but generalizations are what got me here in the first place... the exact one being roughly "blacks are more poor than whites."

Not all generalizations are false. I suppose I'll repeat my offending behavior and mention I'm not black, either.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32010750)

Ahh but generalizations are what got me here in the first place... the exact one being roughly "blacks are more poor than whites."

Not all generalizations are false. I suppose I'll repeat my offending behavior and mention I'm not black, either.

It's not that blacks are more poor than whites, it's that blacks are statistically more likely to be poor than whites.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32027038)

Ahh but generalizations are what got me here in the first place... the exact one being roughly "blacks are more poor than whites."

Not all generalizations are false. I suppose I'll repeat my offending behavior and mention I'm not black, either.

I don't care why you are here, all I see is you trying to insult people to make yourself seem better.

Your not, in fact, your worse.

Re:I suspect.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32041270)

Your not, in fact, your worse.

You're spelling might be off.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009668)

That being said... I will not be friending you because (1) I am not a lonely basement dweller stalking nerdy girls on slashdot, and (2) I'm a libertarian and I just don't think that you and I would mesh very well as slashdot buddies.

1) There's apparently always a first?

2) I actually find that I'm able to discuss economic issues with people in a rational basis. It tends to be a lot less emotionally involved than social issues.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32012192)

He has got a point.

I actually find I'm -more- reluctant to friend female-sounding users than male ones. Just because there's always the risk that someone will suppose you've got the wrong intentions. (I'm not saying it's wrong to intend to learn to know women or anything, but you get the idea)

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32021076)

From my observation, the #1 reason that groups of men at (my) work who hang out outside of work do not include women is because they are afraid that an invite might be suspected of having an ulterior motive or that they might tell the wrong joke, or give the wrong look, etc.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32027054)

From my observation, the #1 reason that groups of men at (my) work who hang out outside of work do not include women is because they are afraid that an invite might be suspected of having an ulterior motive or that they might tell the wrong joke, or give the wrong look, etc.

Um, no, thats the excuse they use.

If they were real men, they wouldn't have to worry about any of that. But apparently they don't hang out with women, probably because they feel they have to modify their behavior, and no chick wants to hang out with a bunch of men who act like little kids.

Guess what? women aren't much different them men. you can talk to them, joke with them, hang out with them all okay. But if you don't know how to talk to them, i guess you'll still be hanging in the basement with your other but-, err, buddys.

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32041182)

You're kind of an asshole, huh?

Re:I suspect.... (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32041334)

I suppose I was not necessarily meaning the most recent experience... exclusion of women at informal social meets happens a lot less now than during the late '90s and early 2000s when they'd round us all up and tell us how we can get fired and sued for saying something that deviates remotely from the most politically correct of phrasing.

moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32009698)

I use my "friends" list as a method for receiving notification of new journals by people that I think I might want to read. So despite Slashdot's labeling, what I use it for is independent of the fondness I feel for any given one of you anonymous voices out there in cyberspace!

As regards to your particular utterings from the depths of the intertubes, it was a combination of:

  • The existence of what looks like what may have been interesting past journal entries.

  • In a recent prior exchange [slashdot.org] your comments included:

    Capitalism is good, but if it gets too far, the businesses start influencing the political system in order to entrench themselves, and provide them with unfair advantages."

    I reject a lot of "Leftist" agendas, but I am a Socialist, because I cannot see any good reason to actively interfere with the individual rights, and freedoms of others, because guess why?"

    I can show respect to anyone, of course, but I can only have respect for those who are in large agreement with my world-view. But I've come to a place where I've decided I should only allow myself to actually hate those who would impose their world-view on others, thru force or deceit or both (and independent of their degree of matching up with my political/religious views).

  • I've had a recent epiphany, or maybe more accurately described as a subconsciously growing notion that recently solidified and culminated in a newish way of dealing. I've finally come to conclude that Leftists are fundamentally and universally wrong. I've thought y'all have been for all of my thinking life, but I don't like to dismiss something completely unless I feel I have sufficient understanding of what surrounds it to pass my personal threshold for doing so. Paraphrasing G. K. Chesterton, the purpose of an open mind is to close it on something solid. I'm 43 years old, and it's taken ~20 years, but I'm finally sure about this.

    So basically, I've found peace with those very opposite of me, and have found that I can have some worthwhile discussion, albeit limited, with such people, by just ignoring the 98% or so that's all the crazy and evil and incorrect parts, and comment on the rest as it invokes ideas in me that might be interesting enough to share. Basically, not argue, but just simply trade nutso ideas (as I'm sure I appear about as crazy as y'all do to me). I think there can be insight to gain in this. (At least, for someone like me who is utterly astounded how different people can be, and is driven to try to find out more and more why and how this is so.)

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32010784)

It's amazing what you learn when you're willing to ask.

(as I'm sure I appear about as crazy as y'all do to me)

I wouldn't call you EVIL, but yeah, I think you're crazy.

It's a good point that it's "astound[ing] how different people can be"... I find it so odd that we can be so totally opposed in ideas, and be in total amazement how the other person can proclaim things that we hold are fundamentally "evil" as you would call it.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32012508)

FYI, for me it's not "evil", it's literally evil: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1613428&cid=31829822 [slashdot.org] .

And there's no reason I can think of that you wouldn't think of me as evil, to whatever extent my system of morality is an opposing one.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32013260)

I didn't mean the quote to indicate "so-called evil" but rather to set off a direct quote from you.

Don't let a fallacy of ignorance sway you from thinking that I must think your views evil. Misguided? Ignorant? Arrogant? Pushing your worldview on me? All those perhaps, but not evil.

Evil I reserve for pretty much strictly to psychopaths and those with "malignant narcissistic personality disorder".

You? You simply have different fundamental values.

Re:moof (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022644)

Evil I reserve for pretty much strictly to psychopaths and those with "malignant narcissistic personality disorder".

But those are physiological diseases. With real physical causes. Well ok, don't know about the second one. You don't hate people dying from cancer, do you? Look at how any disease manifests itself, and look at the cause. You may be a bit more forgiving. Yes, we do need to protect ourselves from psychopaths, but we don't have to hate them. They are not evil. When a mentally healthy individual commits egregious acts, the you might find real malice. There's a reason for everything. Decypher that before looking for your pitchfork. There is deep logic behind "judge not...". Hell, I even have to cut pudge some slack.. Who knows what's in the water he drinks? The effects of lead and petroleum products have been thoroughly documented. Indeed he does show some of the symptoms.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022706)

While I understand that they are physiological diseases that does not alter their fundamental nature. Psychopaths and Malignant Narcissists cannot be rehabilitated. In fact, there's evidence to show that Psychopaths because WORSE offenders when they receive corrective therapy.

I call them evil not because I hate them, but because they lack conscience (or close enough in case of narcissism). Evil to me is an insolvable problem, and psychopathy and narcissism is the closest thing one can get to this without resorting to supernatural beings.

Re:moof (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32023272)

Yes their disease is incurable, that's why we need to reopen the sanitariums. We need a place to contain them for our safety, and we must assure they are treated as humanely as anybody. And we certainly must never elect one to high office ever again :-)

We( or maybe just me) use the word "evil" to describe something we fear or hate. I can't say whether it really exists. Outside type A personalities anyway...

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32024732)

We( or maybe just me) use the word "evil" to describe something we fear or hate. I can't say whether it really exists. Outside type A personalities anyway...

This is why I attempted to acknowledge that I was using Bill Dog's definition of "evil" as I was able to understand it, rather than my own definition.

We all have different definitions, and I didn't want him to mistake my presumption of his position as my own.

Re:moof (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32026690)

I've finally come to conclude that Leftists are fundamentally and universally wrong.

Perhaps that is because you, like they, believe that there is a "Way That Things Are Supposed To Be" (insert little trademark and copyright symbols here).

This is an extremely widespread, nearly universal belief. Although it is held by almost everyone who is religious, it is not limited to them. The Marxist-Leninist were sure that history was supposed to progress in some pre-determined way that was built into the very fabric of the universe and they didn't even believe in a creator of that universe.

This belief is a cause of much, if not most, of the trouble in the world because, although almost everyone believes it, it is rare to find more than partial agreement as to exactly what that "way" is, and usually there is extreme disagreement.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32027182)

This belief is a cause of much, if not most, of the trouble in the world,...

Maybe the cause is not really the belief, but rather the acting on it.

Of course, this would be ruled out by the Left-leaning atheist, as:
1) The Leftist part in them considers certain mere thoughts to be crimes, and
2) The atheist part in them desperately wants to convict religious belief.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32028378)

This belief is a cause of much, if not most, of the trouble in the world,...

Maybe the cause is not really the belief, but rather the acting on it.

Of course, this would be ruled out by the Left-leaning atheist, as:
1) The Leftist part in them considers certain mere thoughts to be crimes, and
2) The atheist part in them desperately wants to convict religious belief.

1) My left-winger part doesn't consider that some thoughts are crimes, and I doubt that any but the most radical left-wingers would hold this idea... I do however feel that some opinions are morally wrong to hold. (Such as: "slavery is ok") I would hold that right-wingers generally feel the same way, and have the same exception for their most reactionary.

2) I, and most atheists, do not feel that religious belief itself should be outlawed. It does do some good things. The problem is that we mostly only hear about the bad parts of religion, just like the religious mostly just hear about the bad parts of atheism, as well as the bad parts of other religions not their own.

While I hear Christians (and other religious people) push the idea of "moral absolutism", I'm strongly surprised at how their morals have changed just as well. Abortion was legal, and considered morally acceptable until about the late 19th century.

Even in Biblical times, moral absolutism is directly refuted as Moses gave the law such that divorce was acceptable, yet Jesus rebuked this notion. St. Paul also stated that men wearing long hair was morally wrong, and women speaking in Church was morally wrong. The dietary laws from Judaism were also rebuked not by Jesus, but by St. Paul.

Some people try to argue that this stuff never actually changed, and it was just our understanding that changed, but this is so clearly a post-hoc explanation that it it really isn't worth acknowledging as a valid argument.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32041190)

I should've resisted adding the "Of course, ..." part, since it would just be disputed (of course! :). That's what I'm trying to stay away from -- making observations about reality when half the difficulty is that reality is disputed, and inviting responses that while relevant, don't logically bear, which is the other half of the difficulty in communication between very different people/with very different world-views.

I don't know which passages you're referring to, but that's prolly just as well as I'm sure I would dispute your assigned meanings to them, but on changing morals (and for example I don't include Jewish dietary laws as anything like "morals"), from my POV we are imperfect beings with imperfect understanding*, and in any event God makes the rules so He can change them at any time.

*And by this I don't mean prone to having the wrong understanding, but sometimes not enough knowledge about something, or the foresight/luck to notice that something is eligible for much deeper thinking about, or the will to avoid acting counter to our understanding (which can be confused for misunderstanding).

Inasmuch as this seems like a slippery definition of "moral absolutism", that is certainly not the intent nor even an intended side effect. And to me its caveats do not preclude it from being labeled and thought of as an "absolute".

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32041728)

I understand your disagreement about dietary laws being "moral", however for those religions that do have dietary laws there is no question that they are a matter of morality. This is why Muslims are offended by individuals doing things such as offering them pork. To them, it's morally equivalent to offering a homophobic Baptist homosexual sex.

If God could change the morals at any time, then to me that indicates that they cannot really be seen as "absolute".

As for our understanding of God's intended morals being imperfect, as I stated, this is a post-hoc argument to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between: "I believe morals are absolute" and "it can be shown empirically that humans have changed their cultural morals."

As for my assertions:

* Moses gave the law such that divorce was acceptable (Deuteronomy 24:1)
* yet Jesus rebuked this notion. (Matthew 19:8)
* St. Paul also stated that men wearing long hair was morally wrong (1st Corinthians 11:14)
* and women speaking in Church was morally wrong. (1st Corinthians 14:34)
* The dietary laws from Judaism were also rebuked not by Jesus, but by St. Paul. (Acts 10, I stand corrected, not St. Paul, but St. Peter.)

And then a wonderful verse which pushes a moral relativism even amongst Christians: Romans 14:3

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32042672)

If God could change the morals at any time, then to me that indicates that they cannot really be seen as "absolute".

That statement of mine turned out to be misleading, given the context. Yes, if I thought God changed morality, I would also consider that then to be not "absolute". But I don't consider it to be that He ever has. Part of what I take on faith is that He remains constant. In His goodness. I only included the (regrettable in that context) statement because I believe that He made the rules in the first place, and deferring to Him is an absolute compared to the relativism of man's morality du jour. Atheists would typically consider me to be a moral absolutist. And I'm comfortable with the validity of that, in the sense that it's meant.

as I stated

Yes, you did. When conversing with those who are of similar world-view to me, the absence of addressing a particular point generally means I agree. With those largely opposite of me, take it to mean that I disagree. (It's a matter of which approach is the most efficient when, at revealing the agree/disagree delineation.) In general I'll explicitly affirm when I agree with you.

On the two passages on divorce, I recommend getting a study Bible (altho they're not cheap), or two (I have a conservative one and a middle-of-the-road one), if you're really that interested (and if you don't already), as they can provide context such as history and pointing you to related passages. It appears that this had to do with defilement. If a wife cheated on her husband, she was unclean, and then divorce was permissable. I would say somewhat similar to the admonition against becoming "unequally yoked" -- the righteous should only be with the righteous in holy matrimony. But the sacred act of marriage was never designed or meant to be dissolved:

Genesis 2 [biblegateway.com] :
"22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

  23 The man said,
              "This is now bone of my bones
              and flesh of my flesh;
              she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
              for she was taken out of man."

  24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Malachi 2 [biblegateway.com] :
"15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [...]"

On men wearing long hair, this appears to be culturally and physiologically based. The testosterone in men contributes to thinning hair, whereas women rarely go bald, so longer hair is more associated with woman than man. And it's culturally disgraceful for a man to look like a woman.

The Bible is filled with the reinforcing reminders of God's natural order for things. And that they not be confused or perverted. This seems like one of them.

Similarly with women speaking in church. It's His order that men lead the worship.

And finally, Romans 14:3 has to do with those of faith not despising others of faith who are less or more secure in their faith. For example, if someone feels they're currently not enough in a right place with God to participate in communion one Sunday, it's not right to look down on that person for passing on it.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32048750)

Atheists would typically consider me to be a moral absolutist.

Actually, the way you describe your morality makes you a moral relativist. If two cultural can have differing morality then there is moral relativism there.

"Moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" are terms coined not by the atheists, but by the religious.

When conversing with those who are of similar world-view to me, the absence of addressing a particular point generally means I agree.

I follow this pattern myself as well. Onwards...

Matthew 19:3-9 "3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? 4 Haven't you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. 7 Why then, they asked, did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? 8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The idea here is the same post-hoc argument I rejected for us. Moses was (and remains) the best source of law from the Jewish god. Jesus came and tells the Jews that, actually our god never wanted that in the first place, Moses just kind of put it in there. ... So, Moses was talking directly with his god... and decided he would argue with his god, "oh hey, yeah. um, so you said we couldn't divorce at all every, but you know... I know what these people are like... they're just not going to follow this..." and then his god replies, "oh yeah, sure. ok, I see that. but still, no idols at all." Moses, "of course no idols... geesh, my people aren't THAT stupid." Then Moses comes down, and they're all worshiping an idol.

Or, their god replies "yeah, I know they are hard of heart, but still. No divorce." Then Moses writes down "yeah... divorce is ok." God would have to have known about him doing that... he is presumed to be omniscient right? Wouldn't he be all, "Hey, Moses... come on. No. I told you no." I mean, to suggest that Moses inserted his own will upon the law?

On men wearing long hair, this appears to be culturally and physiologically based.

It's definitely culturally based. Even men with thinning hair can grow their remaining hair long. I've had an empirical proof of this from one of my High School teachers.

But this is the point. There are certain culturally-based morals that change, even among those who declare themselves "moral absolutists".

That is why "moral relativism" and "moral absolutism" are generally not used by atheists at all. It's so patently apparent to us that morals are always relative, even when one insists that they are not.

When someone claims that they are morally absolute because they get their authority from an absolute higher authority, well, a question: Would you claim the US to have legally absolutist policies? Considering that the legal authority of the US has never changed from the Supreme Court.

As for they are morally absolute because their morality is defined by a higher authority and not themselves: if you were to find out with all certainty right now that there were no gods at all ever, and never were. Would you go out and start killing people? Would you begin stealing from others?

Do you really believe that we require a god and afterlife incentives to keep us from enforcing morality? The Jews seem to disagree about the afterlife. And atheists can point out a moral rationality without a god.

In fact, atheists are in prisons at a smaller proportion than they are in the population.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32051542)

if you were to find out with all certainty right now that there were no gods at all ever, and never were. Would you go out and start killing people? Would you begin stealing from others?

Yes, and yes. If man decides what is moral and what isn't, then being a man, I would decide that anyone who annoys me must die, die, die! ;)

You'd respond with something along the lines of "but a desire for an orderly society would keep people from doing that".

But I don't give a fsck about society, it can kiss my a$$, life is about personal fulfillment if this is the only one. The fear of getting caught becomes the only deterrent.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052212)

If I were Christian, I would fear for your soul.

Especially since you believe that man ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

We do have an inbuilt morality, and I feel that you are being disingenuous with your answers.

Abraham, when he was told to sacrifice his son, first replied, "wait, let me make sure I heard you right, God." I believe that to be the first response anyone would have.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32052964)

The winky was only to acknowledge the over-the-topness of using the "die, die, die" meme. But as for the essential meaning of what I was saying there, and for everything else in a literal way, I was and am completely serious. So please don't think of me as ever being disingenuous, unless your intention is to hurt my feelings. Which is highly uncivil.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32053680)

I simply cannot believe that the only thing keeping you from killing or stealing is your belief in your god.

It's a more fantastic claim than your god itself.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32054590)

Of course you can't. But you can give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'm totally sincere, and just greatly wrong about how I would be in that hypothetical situation. Please tell me if you're willing to do that.

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32058574)

Of course you can't. But you can give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'm totally sincere, and just greatly wrong about how I would be in that hypothetical situation. Please tell me if you're willing to do that.

What worth is "sincere" if you're that willfully wrong?

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32059794)

Nothing, to you, but it means everything to me. It's the difference between "you know better than that" and "you should know better than that". The former I can't abide, as it's an affront to the very core of who I am. I.e. it's deeply offensive. You can call me any name in the book except *intentionally* deceptive. I can live with unintentionally deceptive. You can also think of me as reckless with what beliefs I allow myself to adopt. But not that I'm misrepresenting my genuine beliefs and thoughts. Do you feel gracious enough to change your mind and extend me the courtesy of what I'm asking here? Or am I pretty shocking to you and should I just go?

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32061694)

I have no idea what your motives are, and I have no idea what your intent was.

However, you must be willfully ignorant to believe that if you suddenly stopped believing in your god, that you would start killing and stealing.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32061932)

I'll accept the transition from the accusation of basically "your intent is deception" to "I have no idea what your intent was". And I can live with being accused of being willfully ignorant (I guess that means having purposely taken steps to ensure that I remain having insufficient to no knowledge about something(s)). Thank you.

I may journal about your hypothetical situation, in more depth, and if I do I'll alert you in case you're interested. But if my few remarks on it were so hard to swallow, ...

Re:moof (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32066382)

I may journal about your hypothetical situation, in more depth, and if I do I'll alert you in case you're interested. But if my few remarks on it were so hard to swallow, ...

I would be interested in your thinking on this matter.

Re:moof (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32104628)

St. Paul also stated that men wearing long hair was morally wrong

Paul was talking about cross-dressing.

Re:moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32027258)

Consider that as much as you're tired of hearing people opine with religious conviction and certainty about things, that maybe they're tired of hearing that religion is the biggest cause of evil in the world. The moral absolutist and the moral relativist are just going to differ on this. What can be done?

Okay (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32010402)

Fair request. I friended you a long time ago. A -long- time ago, certainly several years, though I don't remember it exactly.

There was several reasons, and just one reason, depending on how you want to see it. The one reason was; I found your comments and sometimes journal-posts readworthy.

Partly for your political leanings. It's rare on Slashdot to hear voices that aren't "anything that reeks of socialism is evil reincarnated". I'm from Norway myself, which is actually overall a pleasant enough place, despite (or indeed because of!) having had democratic socialism more often than not in the last 60 years.

And no, not cos you've got a female-sounding username. I'm married as it is, and have enough girls in my life as it is. But, yeah, partly because gender-issues in open source interest me. Seems a terrible waste to me, for humanity to only use half the talent, so to speak. Maybe it's cultural, Norway is one of the countries where women have the best opportunities (THE best if you believe the UN, but I don't nessecarily recommend believing that)

But most of all, because you care. You speak up, when you find it required. I like passionate people, even more so when they're arguing rationally for their point of view.

Re:Okay (2, Funny)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32010794)

Norway is one of the countries where women have the best opportunities (THE best if you believe the UN, but I don't nessecarily recommend believing that)

Wow, that's good news! Hm, I already have some understanding of Swedish... could you recommend a good green card... err, attractive, and intelligent guy?

Re:Okay (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32012104)

http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20Press%20Releases/PR_GGG08 [weforum.org]

The report covers differences in economy, education, health and governance, with around a dozen indicators from each of these areas. (average-income, average-education, board-participation, percentage females in parliament etc etc etc) note that it's a report on Gender Gap, not on feminism, thus inequality in either direction will lead to a poorer score. The thing is done so that a country where men and women scored identical on every indicator, would score 100%, and one where there was a infinite difference in every indicator would score 0%.

Norway, Finland and Sweden tops with slightly over 80%. USA is fairly average at 70% whereas Yemen is the bottom end of the scale at 47%. Interesting is also the score-differences for each area. In health, the world overall scores a decent 93%, education is also mostly reasonable at 85%, once you look at economy though, 60% doesn't impress anyone, and don't even -mention- governance/politics where overall the world score 20%.

In short, women are about as healthy as men, and almost as well-educated, but they earn significantly less, and have a LOT less political influence, in the world overall. This also doesn't surprise anyone, I guess.

It's the latter, women in positions of power, where we kick american butt, by the way, the score for economic possibilities is also better, but only slightly so. Political clout though, scores 18% in north-america, compared to 30% in Western Europe generally, and 43% in Norway (which still isn't impressive, even if it's world-best)

As for intelligeng guys, I could recommend a few, but I reckon you're being fairly tongue-in-cheek. In the unlikely even that you're not, try my email. (the one listed publicly here works)

Re:Okay (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32026720)

could you recommend a good green card... err, attractive, and intelligent guy?

It's all Bill Dog's fault that I can't give you a "funny" mod for that.

As for why I friended you in the first place, it was, no doubt, something you said.

For me at least (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32013848)

I made you a friend ages ago for a feisty and factually accurate response to some repugnant and delusional hater (could have very well been Pudge, I don't remember). I don't particularly view the Slashdot relationship naming system as meaningful... it's just a way to sort the competent & interesting people from the clueless, the highly propagandized, or the unpleasantly extreme.

Clearly it isn't a lack of comments that slashdot suffers from.. it's separating the wheat from the chafe and the mod system is frequently not effective for this purpose. Truth be known, the relationship system is not a whole lot better.

I'd friend ya (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32013934)

And quite a few others, but I'm well over the cap. Need to look into another sub to get that sorted...

Anyway, keep posting JEs. They're one of the few things here that keep this place tolerable.

Re:I'd friend ya (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022602)

ZOMG love the log song in your bio.

Re:I'd friend ya (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32068474)

Are you old enough to drink yet? That song is ancient. Ren and Stimpy from what the "Ren and Stimpy Drinking Game" I played in college lets me remember.

Can't remember for sure... (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32015730)

I blieve johndiii pointed to one of your JEs. Eitehr that or i saw a comment of yours in one of his. I have a deep respect for him, so anyone he takes the time to point to is worthy of friending to me. At least that's my hazy memory of it :-)

Please do keep posting though, Captain Splendid is right, the JEs, quality JEs, are the best thing about this place!

Re:Can't remember for sure... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022492)

I blieve johndiii pointed to one of your JEs. Eitehr that or i saw a comment of yours in one of his. I have a deep respect for him, so anyone he takes the time to point to is worthy of friending to me. At least that's my hazy memory of it :-)

Please do keep posting though, Captain Splendid is right, the JEs, quality JEs, are the best thing about this place!

Captain Splendid is right. There is a great amount of use that "friend" and "friend of friend" can afford in building a trust metric.

I think it was due to (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#32017644)

Your response to one of my comments where I was being a right-winger.

I think it's the same conversation that pudge came in and blew us both out of the water.

Bill Dog only thinks he's a conservative- in reality he's a status-quo conservationist stuck in a time when most conservatives are activists.

Re:I think it was due to (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022472)

Your response to one of my comments where I was being a right-winger.

I think it's the same conversation that pudge came in and blew us both out of the water.

Bill Dog only thinks he's a conservative- in reality he's a status-quo conservationist stuck in a time when most conservatives are activists.

I remember explicitly friending you first. :P

Re:I think it was due to (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32022940)

Yeah, but you guys cuold've kept talking to each other and ignored pudge. Easy to do in a text forum. You had a good talk going. I was disappointed you didn't keep it up. Don't let that happen again :-)

Bill Dog seems much closer to a real conservative than any of the neo-con/lib trolls that meddle in your discussions. I've never seen him throw personal insults at anybody here. I may disagree strongly with some of his opinions, but I like him. Ditto Smitty. In fact, all of you.. There.. a sappier response will be very difficult to find.

Re:I think it was due to (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32024748)

I have to agree... Bill Dog has been unexpectedly reasonably civil. I wish it were less unexpected than it usually seems to be. :(

Re:I think it was due to (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32025584)

Mass media has everybody in a frenzy. Time to kick back and just hang out for a while, and tune out the crap. Or better yet, enjoy it, take it all in, but keep it on the other side of the glass. Until the bullet hits your head, it's all beer...? er, good.. Christ! I'm typing what I'm hearing on the damn radio!

Regarding Pudge (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031508)

Out of curiosity, where was the discussion where you expected him to foe you? Are you sure it went on long enough? It looks like on average he will tolerate around 6 replies from someone of a differing opinion before foe'ing them (especially in his journal).

Sometimes I add his foes to my friends list, as he often foes some of the most interesting people here.

Re:Regarding Pudge (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32031652)

Out of curiosity, where was the discussion where you expected him to foe you? Are you sure it went on long enough? It looks like on average he will tolerate around 6 replies from someone of a differing opinion before foe'ing them (especially in his journal).

Some other JE from someone else (sorry I forgot your name), it was about using the term "racist".

Sometimes I add his foes to my friends list, as he often foes some of the most interesting people here.

I could see that...

Re:Regarding Pudge (1)

johndiii (229824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037524)

From what I remember, Pudge generally foes people because they persistently violate his rules of discussion in his journal entries. All that means is that such people cannot continue to participate in those discussions. I tend to avoid the political discussions, so I do not know if he foes people for their comments in discussions outside his JEs.

Whatever his political views, I've generally found him to be far and away the most responsive of the Slashdot editors. I don't understand why he has the reputation that he does; he's consistent in his behavior and not (as far as I know) uncivil. The level of anger that exists seems to me unjustified. He has never, to my knowledge, engaged in the sort of behavior that Michael did.

Of course, I also did not understand the hate for JonKatz, so maybe I'm just not in touch with the Slashdot emotional zeitgeist.

Re:Regarding Pudge (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32068482)

I only got one or two before I got foed by Pudge.

It was the palindromic Slashdot ID... (1)

johndiii (229824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037260)

Seriously, though, you write interesting stuff. Whether or not I agree, it is always thought-provoking. You've changed my views on a couple of occasions, and I value that.

The notions of friending women above made me think. My friends list is female-heavy, though I don't consciously friend women over men. The circle was disproportionately female (though women were not a majority), so that may account for it. I also find the dominance games in which young males tend to indulge tiresome, so that is likely also a factor. The maturity level here is not high, and the women tend to exhibit it in higher proportion than the men.

Why did I friend you? (1)

Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045458)

My recollection is that I friended you because you made an interesting comment in a thread that I read.

Who knows? (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 4 years ago | (#32068622)

Who can say? Not I. Like others, I decided I liked your thoughts and wished to subscribe to your newsletter. The fact that you might (everyone online is a male) be able to respond to "Tits or GTFO" in a way that is pleasing to me is just a bonus.

Hello, (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32150938)

You know why I foed you. You're obviously very intelligent, no bullshit, and I like that. Before I continue, know that I don't know you personally or even read your comments(except today, read on...). You're the only person who is my foe and freak, but I don't consider you my arch-enemy here. That honor goes to DaZed1. Because I'm bored and you're my only foe/freak, I decided to check out your journal.

Underneath it all, in my eyes, you're a bad stereotype. A chick who was taken advantage of by some smooth-talking douchebag, blowing the whole thing out of proportion, milking the victimhood to the max, and foaming at the mouth whenever the subject comes up. You've taken a liking to studying the law, probably to specialize in prosecution or human rights -- to protect all of the people who are helpless just as you were. Fighting for truth and justice. The birth of a superhero, straight out of a comic book. Perhaps your superpower, Snowgirl, could be shooting cold icicles through mens' hearts.

Please do laugh at my crude pop-psychoanalysis, and don't feel bad. On Slashdot, I have a mile-long enemies list and a few i.p. bans under my belt. You're so serious, so stoic. Perhaps you'd lighten up if you posted a few anonymous trolls. I for one would be delighted to see a troll, posted from a woman's perspective, about how men are horny cro-magnon losers and how easy it is to get them to throw themselves at your feet. Tell us how our girlfriends kiss us with traces of other mens' semen in their mouths. A "snowball" from Snowgirl.

Have a wonderful day, and try not to step on too many testicles with those stiletto heels.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>