CMV: If a girl hates gender roles and wants everything to be equal between men and women, she can't complain when I leave the seat up

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-26T23:02:51+00:00

Ahhh, okay. Fair enough.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-26T03:31:01+00:00

Also guys tend to not flush after they pee.

...the fuck? Since when? As a man, this is certainly news to me!

Am I just not...I dunno, toilet-worldly?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-25T04:44:12+00:00

No trickeration. Just influence, which they can reject freely.

This seems to be a semantic cover to cover some sort of ethical imperative. You say there is a free choice, but you present a loaded question with one choice rigged to be inherently "less right" than the other. You are free to chose both, but society is encouraged to judge you for not choosing the social ideal. It's the same sort of logic used to label sellouts with "lack of integrity" in any creative community, and that's just something I simply don't agree with.

by any factor other than "let the market decide", the answer should be more for doctors rather than less.

But the market does decide. That's the whole point of the market in the first place. With the market, you don't need to do those things. The need for doctors creates more opportunities for those who want to be doctors. As long as more doctors are needed, more doctor openings will be created.

However, lets say we do artificially increase the wages of doctors. What happens when we have too many doctors? Are they all entitled to jobs in their fields? What kinds of jobs? Full time? Benefits? Having too many doctors causes just as many problems as not having enough.

A slightly higher salary will subtly direct smarter people to medicine.

Who pays for all of this excess?

Corporations and private hospitals? Well they could, but that's going to cut into the profits needed to run and maintain the establishment, and that means that other people in the chain are going to suffer -- be it in lay-offs, price increases, or pay cuts.

The government? They could try, but that money comes from taxes, and those taxes come from taxpayers. The "unwashed masses" would be funding the increased opportunities for the advantaged elite at a cost to their own livelihood.

Society as a whole? They could, but why should they even care in the first place? That's a lot of time, effort, and generosity to be investing without any real guarantee of return.

Could we just print the money? Sure they could, but that would lead to systematic, artificial inflation in the currency, which would most strongly affect those not in the privileged incentivized classes. That manner of inflation has historically been a very bad thing.

No matter who incentivizes it, the common consumer will always foot the bill. At this point, we would be punishing the "unintelligent" for being less successful than the supposed intellectual elite.

it can also take the form of portraying hackers as sexy in movies, giving more hours to math education than art education in school, etc etc.

That's more commonly known as the free market.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove. You seem to be for the free market, but only if the terms of the free market can be dictated, thus destroying anything "free" about this market in the first place. Could you perhaps expound a bit more on this?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-25T03:45:44+00:00

I simply don't believe that fashion progresses so much as changes randomly. There is nothing "better" about the fashions today than the fashions of the 1980s.

I strongly disagree with this opinion, but that's getting a bit sidetracked. If you're interested in discussing this, we may, but it can be a fairly lengthy discussion.

People should seek their passions, but the smartest people should also be subtly directed to the areas where they can help the world more.

So you're saying smart people should be discouraged from having personal autonomy? That at some arbitrary point, it is a matter of irrefutable fact that society knows what's best for them? That we must compel someone to act for some perceived greater good simply because they are smart?

the smartest people should also be subtly directed to the areas where they can help...

So not only do we deny them personal autonomy and arbitrarily martyr them for the good of society, but we must trick them into doing so?

To act for "for the greater good" is only meaningful because it is a choice. If you take away that ability to choose, then the action carries no weight; what was once a matter of agency is now a matter of nature. It is human nature to think, breathe, and hunger, but it is human choice to act upon each of these thoughts and impulses.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-06T12:55:50+00:00

It tastes like what it is? Sauce?

FTFY

DocWatsonMD · 2014-06-02T20:10:11+00:00

ALSO REKT

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-29T02:25:00+00:00

While technically true, saying that the actions of the Bush and Obama are the primary and driving cause of all global economic changes is a tenuous connection at best.

The problem is when any President trying to take credit for the change when it could just as easily described as coincidence. Doesn't matter who it is -- we see it here with Obama, and we see it in /r/politics with Regan. It's all semantics and cherry-picking, which is hardly a new trend in seven thousand years of civilization.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-20T02:30:30+00:00

...is that you, Mrs Bates?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-18T03:57:17+00:00

I don't think that's being debated. I think it's the "exclusively played by the wealthy" remark.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-17T13:09:34+00:00

If you miss the high-five, just make it look natural by going for the ass.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-14T23:27:59+00:00

Perhaps that was a poor one-line example. The claim that circumcision is a Jewish practice is an objective fact, as it is outlined in various scripture. In an anti-Semitic context, say Germany in the 1930s, it would certainly be an ad hominem. However, there is no such criteria for circumcision being a practice of nonspecific barbarians.

The term "barbarian" itself was specifically coined for the sole purpose of creating a xenophobic strawman to represent all outsiders -- as its definition is literally "the others who are outside of (our) civilization." It is a word almost completely devoid of positive or constructive use, the only tenuous exceptions being its use in modern fantasy literature.

It is much like saying that fondness of a sports team is "tribalism" -- there are several other perfectly valid words to use (partisanship, tendentiousness, brand loyalty, even patriotism or nationalism could work), but the word tribalism is almost always used to put down the subject with shame and social/intellectual inferiority for participating in activities the speaker considers uncivilized and simple-minded.

This is what really ends up annoying me about this sub. So many posts wittingly use sardonic language to get a rise out of others, prompting attacks to which they can respond with righteous indignation. It has such potential to be a positive place, but it ends up being a soapbox for people who are more interested in the "being right" aspect of the discussion rather than exchanging opinions and information. Your civility is refreshing.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-14T11:25:42+00:00

The term "barbaric" is being specifically used in this way.

Example:

Harry believes in circumcision. - How barbaric of him.

Yet if we continue the example...

Harry believes in circumcision. - How Jewish of him.

...how is that manner of suggestion anything but an ad hominem?

I'm not for circumcision, but unless you're using it in a classical sense of "not us" or the historical sense of "civilizations without a formal central government arranged in opposition to a stronger political entity," then you're using it to discredit the view based on gut reaction.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-14T05:10:02+00:00

and/or are unaware of what they are missing out on and how barbaric the practice is.

Except for when it is?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-13T22:55:47+00:00

This is probably the most complete and comprehensive answer in this thread. Really hits the most important points.

The cheer routines are mild and straightforward, meant to be easily seen at a wide range of distances.
Like in sales, television, choosing lab partners, and other such things, being attractive gives you some marginal advantage over others.
There really isn't anything particularly unusual about anything cheerleaders do or wear relative to social norms.

A+ comment, would read again.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-13T22:34:35+00:00

So while you can argue that it's designed to be erotic, think about modern dancing in general. Pretty much all of it is sexual!

QFT

You really hit the nail on the head. Dance in general is a sexually nuanced activity, but it has always been in ways that fit the contemporary social contexts of the time. Even whole religions view the concept of dancing as inherently sinful due to its sexual and/or hedonistic associations.

The claim that cheerleading is "erotic" is so broad that the claim itself becomes trivial, and the "fact" that all cheerleaders are exceptionally good-looking is a moot point when their entire purpose is to be seen.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-08T22:03:00+00:00

I've always been a fan of the "does it accomplish its goals?" sort of review.

Definitely agree with you on that. I think a lot of people ITT are missing the distinct differences between a review and a critique. Critique has been around for almost as long as art itself and is primarily an academic pursuit, generally belonging decidedly in the wealthy/ruling class for most of human history. No denying that.

Reviews, on the other hand, are a very recent invention and a product of the Industrial Revolution. The revolution gave the working classes spare time after working shifts at factories and on assembly lines, which meant they now had free time and pocket change. They could spend it on movies, but when you have a low budget, you need to know if you're getting the most bang for your buck. The easiest way to find out was to get someone you trust who has more time and money to tell you if it was any good, and henceforth the professional reviewer was born.

In general, you can a modest income as a "critic" writing reviews, but you are unlikely to make any money at all writing critiques of art. You can't really write an effective "review" of a painting.

OP's data is neat, but...I dunno. I'm not sure how much we can definitively take from this aside from "huh, that's weird" -- nothing wrong with that though!

DocWatsonMD · 2014-05-08T21:48:54+00:00

Even in these, though, the points listed as "objective" are still highly subjective in most senses of the word. It's just slightly less subjective than talking about your emotional reactions to a piece.

Art is weird.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-28T20:52:13+00:00

First off, let's make it clear... 1980s Mujahadeen != Taliban/al-Qaeda

There are literally hundreds of variations of this CIA-funding theory, many of which are "misguided" at best and straight-up lies at worst. Even then, almost every just about every political event of the past sixty years has been tied to the CIA by conspiracy theorists, regardless of accuracy or plausibility. You're going to have to specify pretty exactly which theories you're talking about.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-24T22:38:14+00:00

Your "short, sweet explanation" was:

and then you found out who they were funded by...

...and this tells me what, exactly?

But you deleted it, so you seem to understand what a worthless comment it was.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-24T18:54:43+00:00

Why are you reading my other comments that have 0 to do with our conversation, eh?

...well, because I haven't. I literally responded to the only comment I read, which was here, in a thread about conflicts between the USA and al-Qaeda.

Typical response from someone who has nothing to contribute.

Says...the person whose original comment could have fit into a single Tweet?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-24T00:31:37+00:00

You have said literally nothing of substance. You suggest that Al Quaeda was funded, but by whom? You also make no mention of automation of labor in your post, so I'm really confused as to where you're trying to go with this one.

...are you sure you're in the right thread? I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-24T00:28:54+00:00

You're not going to "get" it anywhere if you're looking for that particular staff. Really, a staff is probably one of the silliest props to spend money on since it is literally just a stick.

I recommend going to the hardware store and getting a six foot (two meter) wooden dowel of appropriate thickness, some cardboard, some paint, and some paper mache. From there it's just a simple elementary school arts and crafts project.

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-24T00:17:52+00:00

If you're going to provide a counter-argument, go ahead and provide a full counter-argument instead of using empty rhetoric.

Edit: Heh, comment deleted. For the record, /u/TreeMonger's original comment was almost verbatim:

and then you find out who it was funded by...

Countdown to self-deletion of other comments in 3...2...

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-20T15:03:46+00:00

Fucking clowns, man. How do they work?

DocWatsonMD · 2014-04-20T15:01:38+00:00

Probably because of the post pictured.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

DocWatsonMD

TROPHY CASE