+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Personal Member Bullshit (https://mockforums.net/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Some Honest Therapy (https://mockforums.net/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: DO YOU CARE? (/thread-5095.html)
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Duchess - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 02:43 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Godammit, Duchess is an elitist
I'm responsible & own my own bullshit. I try to tell people that but they always want to question it. Go figure.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Cynical Ninja - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 12:10 PM)thekid65 Wrote: Thank you very much for giving a prime example of the shit that the OP was talking about. I'm sure it was done on purpose.
You talk as if I am the only one who makes mistakes around here, or did my comments about you being a biological reject cut you deeper than I thought adoption boy?
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Cynical Ninja - 03-19-2011
The true elites are an exclusive club and none of us at Mock (along with 99.9% of the rest of the world) are members.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 03:05 PM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: The true elites are an exclusive club and none of us at Mock (along with 99.9% of the rest of the world) are members.
And how many of these "true" elites do you think could be said to be exceptional if one were to judge on the basis of Aristotelian ethics?
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Cracker - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 01:12 PM)rothschild Wrote: As for "good" elitism, such a notion is inconsistent with reality, which is that elitism breeds contempt for those deemed to be "lower", leading to all manner of abuses and exploitation.
I don't think that has to be true. There are many privileged persons who don't hold less-privileged in contempt. The Kennedys spring to mind.
If you are among the richest 2% of the world, do you have to hang in the slums to prove you are not discriminating?
I don't hate all poor people because they are poor. I know a few, I won't pretend it is many, people who are impoverished because of a stupid choice or two they made in life. I don't want to join them. Is that discrimination? I don't think so.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 07:06 PM)Cracker Wrote: I don't think that has to be true. There are many privileged persons who don't hold less-privileged in contempt. The Kennedys spring to mind.
If you are among the richest 2% of the world, do you have to hang in the slums to prove you are not discriminating?
I don't hate all poor people because they are poor. I know a few, I won't pretend it is many, people who are impoverished because of a stupid choice or two they made in life. I don't want to join them. Is that discrimination? I don't think so.
As I said earlier, there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. It's a human faculty that we utilize every time we make a decision; however, If one discriminates against other people on the basis of universal generalizations then there's a problem.
Please don't get me started on the Kennedy's. My mind is in a pleasant state and I prefer to keep it that way.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 07:20 PM)rothschild Wrote: If one discriminates against other people on the basis of universal generalizations then there's a problem.
"Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - username - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 11:16 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
It's like everyone in the world comes to some similar conclusions about stuff but they're all kind of guessing. Hope that helps.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-19-2011
(03-19-2011, 11:27 PM)username Wrote:(03-19-2011, 11:16 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
It's like everyone in the world comes to some similar conclusions about stuff but they're all kind of guessing. Hope that helps.
Wow! No wonder the post didn't make sense.
I only heard it used in my Calculus classes.
Maybe he was going for "Universal Instantiation".
I remember that term from too many Logic and Philosophy classes.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-20-2011
(03-19-2011, 11:16 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
A universal generalization is one which pertains to all members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization does not.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - aussiefriend - 03-20-2011
(03-18-2011, 09:05 PM)Duchess Wrote:(03-18-2011, 08:58 PM)IMaDick Wrote: I see that you have been given free reign by the powers that be, good luck with that.
Get over yourself, Dick. You resort to this same lame bullshit every time someone gets in that you don't want here, which is pretty much every time it's someone that's not here for the crime forum. Can you just shut the fuck up & stop crying like a little bitch? Please. Holy fuck, if Mock could divorce you she would, godfuckingdamn.
*smirking*
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-21-2011
(03-20-2011, 07:01 AM)rothschild Wrote:(03-19-2011, 11:16 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
A universal generalization is one which pertains to all members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization does not.
Dude . . .
I think what you're going for (if you are trying to emphasize the danger of stereotyping a group, set or sub-set) is: Inappropriate Generalization.
AKA - Logical Fallacy (also - Proof by Example).
If not, then you were clearly were asleep during class (Calculus) and might consider a refresher course.
Are you trying for predicate logic inference terminology?
It would be easier to state "Stereotyping, Bad - Respect Everyone, Good".
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 04:17 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:(03-20-2011, 07:01 AM)rothschild Wrote:(03-19-2011, 11:16 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Universal Generalizations"?
Please . . . enlighten me to this term.
A universal generalization is one which pertains to all members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization does not.
Dude . . .
I think what you're going for (if you are trying to emphasize the danger of stereotyping a group, set or sub-set) is: Inappropriate Generalization.
AKA - Logical Fallacy (also - Proof by Example).
If not, then you were clearly were asleep during class (Calculus) and might consider a refresher course.
Are you trying for predicate logic inference terminology?
It would be easier to state "Stereotyping, Bad - Respect Everyone, Good".
You might want to do a bit of research on this subject before going any further. Shouldn't take you more than a 1⁄2 hour to realize that my usage of the terms is appropriate.
And no, I'm not trying to show that stereotyping is wrong, but rather, that generalizations pertaining to ethnic groups are *not* necessarily wrong, which is a very common misperception among liberal moral fags.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-21-2011
(03-19-2011, 07:20 PM)rothschild Wrote: . . . however, If one discriminates against other people on the basis of universal generalizations then there's a problem.
(03-21-2011, 01:03 PM)rothschild Wrote: . . . that generalizations pertaining to ethnic groups are *not* necessarily wrong, which is a very common misperception among liberal moral fags.
Hahahahaha!
So, my dear Rothschild, which is it?
You are a programmer for Microsoft, aren’t you?
Thanks for the constant updates correcting the code's logic.
which is a very common misperception among liberal moral fags.
Is this an example of a "*not* necessarily wrong" "Universal Generalization"?
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 04:32 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Hahahahaha!
So, my dear Rothschild, which is it?
You are a programmer for Microsoft, aren’t you?
Thanks for the constant updates correcting the code's logic.
Is this an example of a "*not* necessarily wrong" "Universal Generalization"?
This isn't rocket science, dear boy. And no, that was an example of an existential generalization.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 05:33 PM)rothschild Wrote: This isn't rocket science, dear boy. And no, that was an example of an existential generalization.
Oh . . . thank goodness!
When you used "Fags", I thought there was more than one.
You meant a singular fag, not a group. Hence, existential v. universal.
Have you been able to determine the identity of this lone homosexual practicing "incorrect thinking"?
The "Liberal Moral" did throw me.
It's an oxymoron in US political speak.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 07:13 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(03-21-2011, 05:33 PM)rothschild Wrote: This isn't rocket science, dear boy. And no, that was an example of an existential generalization.
Oh . . . thank goodness!
When you used "Fags", I thought there was more than one.
You meant a singular fag, not a group. Hence, existential v. universal.
Have you been able to determine the identity of this lone homosexual practicing "incorrect thinking"?
The "Liberal Moral" did throw me.
It's an oxymoron in US political speak.
Lets try again.
A universal generalization involves *all* of the members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization involves *some* of the members or items of a group.
If you had some familiarity with chans you'd know what I meant by moral fag.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - BlueTiki - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 07:38 PM)rothschild Wrote: Lets try again.
A universal generalization involves *all* of the members or items of a group, whereas an existential generalization involves *some* of the members or items of a group.
If you had some familiarity with chans you'd know what I meant by moral fag.
Give it up.
You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - Cracker - 03-21-2011
I never fuck with Tiki. I think that is good advice for most people.
RE: DO YOU CARE? - rothschild - 03-21-2011
(03-21-2011, 07:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Give it up.
You're babbling, scrambling and rewording.
It's rather difficult to respond to an allegation that lacks even a modicum of specificity.
Mudslinging, Tiki, or just lazy?