In recent weeks both Grumbler* and Yi have accused me of "Gotcha" posting. I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. Yi went on to say I didn't have the "moral authority" to judge his posts. Again, I don't quite understand what he means that. It is true that I do sometimes find inconsistencies in people's arguments but that seems fair. They aren't my arguments, the inconsistencies would exist even if I didn't point them out, and I've found that challenging assumptions and the like is an effective way of countering some of the more ludicrous arguments by some Languish posters. It's clear that I don't quite understand all this, after all, I am an uneducated maniac. Sometimes I need things explained to me in simple terms.
So help me fellow Languishnistas, help me find the error of my ways. So that I might aspire to the peerless debating style of people like Yi and Grumbler.
*I don't actually care what Grumbler thinks. He's now ignoring me and I'm remarkably fine with that.
I'm not going to get involved in discussing the comparative merits of grumbler's preferred posting style. He seems happy enough with it.
Yi has always struck me as being a pretty fair person to have a discussion with - willing to concede when pointed to contradictory evidence, willing to admit when he doesn't know something, and rarely presents a "ludicrous argument".
I don't understand why Raz is so hung up on this.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
I don't understand why Raz is so hung up on this.
Insane.
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2012, 03:30:25 PM
I'm not going to get involved in discussing the comparative merits of grumbler's preferred posting style. He seems happy enough with it.
Yi has always struck me as being a pretty fair person to have a discussion with - willing to concede when pointed to contradictory evidence, willing to admit when he doesn't know something, and rarely presents a "ludicrous argument".
It started the other day because of a statement that Yi made:
QuotePeaceniks want to shrink the military and retreat from overseas commitments because they think the US is the sole source of evil in the world and that all conflicts (those not started by the US) can be resolved by travelling puppet shows and aggressive tree planting.
I wanted some clarification on that. He refused and said it was just me trying to get him.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:50:03 PM
I wanted some clarification on that. He refused and said it was just me trying to get him.
Just hyperbole. Not intended literally.
Noting that I somehow doubt this is a genuine question... :P
It's pretty clearly how out-and-out antagonistic you are, like, all the time toward people who disagree with you on political, social, and economic issues.
It's not like Yi and I see eye-to-eye on, almost literally, anything of a political or economic nature, but we always seem to get along and we discuss various subjects of less import congenially. See also me and Neil, or me and Barrister Boy. I mean, on occasion we'll swipe at each other in an unprovoked fashion for fun or the entertainment of others (at least as much as we already do with those on our political "sides"--I mean, I give Mihali crap, CdM gives me crap, and so forth). But we know we're kidding, or at least mean no harm, whereas no one's sure if you're joking or if you've developed an unhealthy fixation on opposing a particular individual, and a lot of times it seems like the latter.
As for grumbler, I dunno. Dude's mean. I expect it's because of those times I beat him in WitP. Not my fault you don't know how to use airpower. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Just hyperbole. Not intended literally.
Maybe not 100%, but those puppet shows are pretty fucking effective.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 03, 2012, 03:53:24 PM
As for grumbler, I dunno. Dude's mean. I expect it's because of those times I beat him in WitP. Not my fault you don't know how to use airpower. :P
[Obligatory Languish Joke] Not his fault either - they didn't have airplanes back in his day. [/Obligatory Languish Joke]
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:50:03 PM
I wanted some clarification on that. He refused and said it was just me trying to get him.
Just hyperbole. Not intended literally.
Raz is somewhat literal minded. Yi's posting style has always confused me.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
I don't understand why Raz is so hung up on this.
Insane.
It just seems petty. You didn't get satisfaction from Grumber and Yi and are now running around trying to get the rest of us to be on your side.
I think what they're saying is that you focus on previous (often poorly phrased or not fully thought out) statements people have made and don't let them backtrack or wiggle out of those positions without explicitly recanting them. This is perfectly fine if the goal is scoring points or winning a debate, but a bit obnoxious in general. You're hardly the worst offender though.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 03, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:50:03 PM
I wanted some clarification on that. He refused and said it was just me trying to get him.
Just hyperbole. Not intended literally.
Raz is somewhat literal minded. Yi's posting style has always confused me.
Yeah, that could be a problem right there. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:59:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
I don't understand why Raz is so hung up on this.
Insane.
It just seems petty. You didn't get satisfaction from Grumber and Yi and are now running around trying to get the rest of us to be on your side.
It seems that way to you, I'm just doing the bidding of the Jellyfish commune that lives in my brain.
did Marti spread attention whoring on you or something? :huh:
btw
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
I think what they're saying is that you focus on previous (often poorly phrased or not fully thought out) statements people have made and don't let them backtrack or wiggle out of those positions without explicitly recanting them. This is perfectly fine if the goal is scoring points or winning a debate, but a bit obnoxious in general. You're hardly the worst offender though.
QFT
For what it's worth, I find grumbler's and Yi's debating styles to be most infuriating. grumbler is a classic "gotcha" debater, always willing to pick on details and misinterpreting the heck out of them, and Yi is an artful dodger, always refusing to state his position in a clear manner.
Sometimes you catch your opponents with a pretty bad argument, and they're taking a cheap way out in those moments, attacking you with well-known laundry list of complaints. Claiming gotcha arguments on your part is just one such cheap out that they're occasionally employing.
That said, sometimes you really do switch into a mode where you nitpick your opponent's posts as a general principle. You know he's going to say something wrong, it's just a matter of waiting for him to actually post something so that you'll have something to quote in your next nitpicking post. It's very obvious when that happens, and it's annoying to observe (and I imagine it's even more annoying to be the subject of such affection).
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
.....
That said, sometimes you really do switch into a mode where you nitpick your opponent's posts as a general principle. You know he's going to say something wrong, it's just a matter of waiting for him to actually post something so that you'll have something to quote in your next nitpicking post. It's very obvious when that happens, and it's annoying to observe (and I imagine it's even more annoying to be the subject of such affection).
Affectation might have been a better choice here. :P
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 05:11:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
.....
That said, sometimes you really do switch into a mode where you nitpick your opponent's posts as a general principle. You know he's going to say something wrong, it's just a matter of waiting for him to actually post something so that you'll have something to quote in your next nitpicking post. It's very obvious when that happens, and it's annoying to observe (and I imagine it's even more annoying to be the subject of such affection).
Affectation might have been a better choice here. :P
I see what you did there. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 03:24:19 PM
In recent weeks both Grumbler* and Yi have accused me of "Gotcha" posting. I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. Yi went on to say I didn't have the "moral authority" to judge his posts. Again, I don't quite understand what he means that. It is true that I do sometimes find inconsistencies in people's arguments but that seems fair. They aren't my arguments, the inconsistencies would exist even if I didn't point them out, and I've found that challenging assumptions and the like is an effective way of countering some of the more ludicrous arguments by some Languish posters. It's clear that I don't quite understand all this, after all, I am an uneducated maniac. Sometimes I need things explained to me in simple terms.
So help me fellow Languishnistas, help me find the error of my ways. So that I might aspire to the peerless debating style of people like Yi and Grumbler.
*I don't actually care what Grumbler thinks. He's now ignoring me and I'm remarkably fine with that.
Why did you post this (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
Why did you post this (non-rhetorical)?
He's building an Enemies List.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2012, 03:48:01 PM
I don't understand why Raz is so hung up on this.
I think that Yi has been quite unfair to Raz. Though he certainly approaches things from an odd perspective that I don't often agree with he does so with a consistent, though flawed, logic.
Quote from: Martinus on January 03, 2012, 04:36:04 PM
For what it's worth, I find grumbler's and Yi's debating styles to be most infuriating. grumbler is a classic "gotcha" debater, always willing to pick on details and misinterpreting the heck out of them, and Yi is an artful dodger, always refusing to state his position in a clear manner.
While I wouldn't quite say "always" in either case, in general I think Marti is right on this. OTOH, I think Raz's style is sometimes fairly similar to grumbler's, but with less clarity of thought.
I think I'm getting better with the clarity of thought. I've been taking a new med for the last year and it's slowed down my thought processes and made them a bit more orderly.
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
It's the only card I have. It's not like I got a bunch of aces up my sleeve.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
It's the only card I have. It's not like I got a bunch of aces up my sleeve.
You got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2012, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
It's the only card I have. It's not like I got a bunch of aces up my sleeve.
If it's all you have, you should use it sparingly for best effect. Mihali is right though, it seems to pop up in far too many of your posts. P.S., it is grumbler, not Grumbler. He's a stickler for getting his name right, as I've found out in the past.
Never was good at poker. The thing about insanity is that it's not just a gimmick, it's something I think about every day. I prefer to use the "occasionally clever and insightful" card on rare occasions. So perhaps I have two cards.
I have like a dozen cards. It's what makes me such an interesting, multifaceted guy. My persona is like a Goddamned Uno hand. Draw four, motherfucker!
My cards are all written in invisible ink.
Who gives a fuck. Get over yourself. ;)
Yeah, Teach.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
:yes: If Raz really is a nut, he's a nut in ways that doesn't come across on the Internet. Whatever his faults are, they can be chalked up to immaturity, and self-pity. Mentioning his mental health is just a cheap way out.
I think running a schtick into the ground is PERFECTLY OK.
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 11:28:12 PM
I think running a schtick into the ground is PERFECTLY OK.
I liked your new BDSM schtick.
you might want to reconsider your tactic of continuously insulting posters left and right, and then trying to play the victim card when other posters randomly insult you
Quote from: DGuller on January 03, 2012, 11:17:29 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
Raz, I think you may want to stop pulling the insanity card all the time. Sometimes it's funny, but sometimes it comes off, at least to me, as a little duplicitous: you want to be treated seriously, except when you don't.
:yes: If Raz really is a nut, he's a nut in ways that doesn't come across on the Internet. Whatever his faults are, they can be chalked up to immaturity, and self-pity. Mentioning his mental health is just a cheap way out.
It does, but it's somewhat subtle.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 03, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
My persona is like a Goddamned Uno hand. Draw four, motherfucker!
lol, like playing 2 player Uno. SKIP SKIP SKIP REVERSE DRAW 2 DRAW 4 IMMA WINNER!
Quote from: LaCroix on January 03, 2012, 11:40:54 PM
you might want to reconsider your tactic of continuously insulting posters left and right, and then trying to play the victim card when other posters randomly insult you
Looks like I'm getting more cards by the hour!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2012, 12:02:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 03, 2012, 10:09:19 PM
My persona is like a Goddamned Uno hand. Draw four, motherfucker!
lol, like playing 2 player Uno. SKIP SKIP SKIP REVERSE DRAW 2 DRAW 4 IMMA WINNER!
It's truly the game of kings.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 12:02:54 AMLooks like I'm getting more cards by the hour!
for your benefit, i'll be specific:
in threads that don't involve you engaging in an argument with, as an example, martinus, you will still throw out some insult directed his way.
you then throw a hissy fit when others, such as grumbler, post comments about you in a similar manner. it all rather reeks of hypocrisy, in my opinion at least
Eh, I don't think Raz is really whining about the insults, he just wants to know if others think there's merit to them.
This is the worst attention whoring thread ever.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
This is the worst attention whoring thread ever.
You've clearly missed all my attention whoring threads. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:33:15 AM
Eh, I don't think Raz is really whining about the insults, he just wants to know if others think there's merit to them.
nah, i don't mean this thread. i mean when he whined when grumbler insulted him
Ah, I've stopped paying attention to it when grumbler starts bullying somebody.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 12:49:08 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:33:15 AM
Eh, I don't think Raz is really whining about the insults, he just wants to know if others think there's merit to them.
nah, i don't mean this thread. i mean when he whined when grumbler insulted him
What did Grumbler call me? He's always name calling, I bring attention to it because he's always the first to accuse someone else of resorting to Ad Hominem. I actually like Grumbler. When he's not being an ass, he can provides some unique insights and does have a vast store of military and historical knowledge. Still, he can be tiring and his current fit of ignoring me suits me fine. The only person I can't really stand is Grallon someone I have a hard time finding positive things to say about. I mock pretty much everyone here, but usually there's no real malice in it. I mocked CdM once, then he banned me. So I stopped that. Marty banned me when he was a mod for mocking him, but he's no longer a mod so I'm free to do as I will. Besides, I have a hard time believing that the barbs or criticisms from some loser on the net will bother someone overmuch.
Eddie is right about the purpose of this thread. I genuinely didn't understand what Yi was going on about. I don't always "get" things. Berkut and I had a very heated discussion once because I misunderstood something he wrote. It wasn't until much later when I rethought it, did I understood what he meant. I did kinda feel embarrassed about that.
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
I think of Zoupa as the Frenchyiest person here. And Zoups is fine.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 01:05:47 AMWhat did Grumbler call me? He's always name calling, I bring attention to it because he's always the first to accuse someone else of resorting to Ad Hominem.
you seem to have a not horrible memory of when posters "attack you," so you ought to remember the post. if you don't, i'm too lazy to bring it up, so there we are. either way, in regard to this whole thread, i'll ask: since you yourself claim to be not so intelligent, why do you argue with posters who make very smart points? shouldn't your own humility allow you to concede every point made?
He didn't say he was a fucking moron who didn't understand that smart people are wrong sometimes too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 01:17:46 AM
He didn't say he was a fucking moron who didn't understand that smart people are wrong sometimes too.
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Too dumb to know better, I reckon. If I was smarter I suppose I would recognize the smartness of their posts. As it is I merely an Idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Grumbler has called me all sorts of things. So you would have to be more specific with "Grumbler insulted you once". That's like saying "Slargos said something racist once".
Even though grumbler is a proper noun, it is not to be capitalized, even at the beginning of a sentence.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 01:24:00 AMGrumbler has called me all sorts of things. So you would have to be more specific with "Grumbler insulted you once". That's like saying "Slargos said something racist once".
nope. i could be wrong, since i don't speak for grumbler, but i don't think he insults many posters too frequently. at least, not that i've seen. i do know that rather recently he posted a comment about you, and you responded that you preferred that he not randomly insult you. it struck me as rather hypocritical, since isn't that what you do with slargos, martinus?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 01:13:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
I think of Zoupa as the Frenchyiest person here. And Zoups is fine.
Yeah, right. Zoupa might have part-time metropolitanness in his favor, but where's the nihilism? The defeatism? The dead-end technocrat's job? The paradoxical hatred of Muslims
and the United States?
Oh, that was him ignoring me and not ignoring me. He goes through phases of that. I asked that if he was going to ignore me, please do so consistently, and not to simply belittle me and then when I respond say he's now ignoring me. That's a bit annoying. In particular he had been attacking every argument I made, and I was curious what his position on the subject was (I think it concerned Ron Paul). It was right about then he decided he was going to ignore me. That suited me fine, since he was starting to annoy me. I found it amusing but not really insulting. Yi was a bit different, since I didn't know what he was on about. Yi has a his own debating method which involves asking lots of questions but makes it difficult to discern what he's supporting or not. In fact, with Yi I often use his method to debate him. Constantly asking questions about underlying assumptions.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:58:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 01:13:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
I think of Zoupa as the Frenchyiest person here. And Zoups is fine.
Yeah, right. Zoupa might have part-time metropolitanness in his favor, but where's the nihilism? The defeatism? The dead-end technocrat's job? The paradoxical hatred of Muslims and the United States?
I dislike the Nihilism. Surely that isn't a major facet of French Culture?
From all my exposure to French culture (Houellebecq, Camus, Sartre's Huis Clos, Irreversible, Les Invasions Barbares), it sure is.
Could be I'm just drawn to nihilism and there's a bunch of pleasant French art too, about happy children and friendly robots.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 03, 2012, 11:32:19 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 03, 2012, 11:28:12 PM
I think running a schtick into the ground is PERFECTLY OK.
I liked your new BDSM schtick.
Which schtick was that?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:04:18 AM
Could be I'm just drawn to nihilism and there's a bunch of pleasant French art too, about happy children and friendly robots.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6e%2FBabar2.jpg%2F220px-Babar2.jpg&hash=7ab8cbae3898f18766953b4fd787473f59e3668c)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 02:01:28 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:58:07 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 01:13:20 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
I think of Zoupa as the Frenchyiest person here. And Zoups is fine.
Yeah, right. Zoupa might have part-time metropolitanness in his favor, but where's the nihilism? The defeatism? The dead-end technocrat's job? The paradoxical hatred of Muslims and the United States?
I dislike the Nihilism. Surely that isn't a major facet of French Culture?
Meh, he offsets it with his Hezbollapologism. The French have so many romantic notions of their old Levant.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
This is the worst attention whoring thread ever.
Actually, it's the biggest "Gotcha" thread yet.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Just found this thread, which is a hoot. I must admit I don't recall saying that anyone was the "least intelligent person on this board," and the search function has no capability to find a post with me saying this, either. Got some context?
I am a believer in the old Confucian idea:
"Tzu King asked: 'What would you say of the man who is liked by all his fellow townsmen?' 'That is not sufficient', was the reply. "What is better is that the good among his fellow townsmen like him, and the bad hate him.'"
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 12:43:46 AM
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2012, 12:35:46 AM
This is the worst attention whoring thread ever.
You've clearly missed all my attention whoring threads. :(
I'm still pretty new. :(
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
As a teacher you damn well should.
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2012, 08:46:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
As a teacher you damn well should.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2012, 08:46:44 AM
As a teacher you damn well should.
:lol: Fucking speling! Who neds it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 02:47:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:04:18 AM
Could be I'm just drawn to nihilism and there's a bunch of pleasant French art too, about happy children and friendly robots.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F6%2F6e%2FBabar2.jpg%2F220px-Babar2.jpg&hash=7ab8cbae3898f18766953b4fd787473f59e3668c)
The original Babar was an elephant gigolo. Seriously.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
The original Babar was an elephant gigolo. Seriously.
And he worked for peanuts.
:bleeding: Enough with the Jackie Mason lines.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 02:04:18 AM
From all my exposure to French culture (Houellebecq, Camus, Sartre's Huis Clos, Irreversible, Les Invasions Barbares), it sure is.
It's French-Canadian, not French.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Just found this thread, which is a hoot. I must admit I don't recall saying that anyone was the "least intelligent person on this board," and the search function has no capability to find a post with me saying this, either. Got some context?
I am a believer in the old Confucian idea:
"Tzu King asked: 'What would you say of the man who is liked by all his fellow townsmen?' 'That is not sufficient', was the reply. "What is better is that the good among his fellow townsmen like him, and the bad hate him.'"
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
You suck at ignoring.
Oh, and...
GOTCHA :D
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 09:43:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
The original Babar was an elephant gigolo. Seriously.
And he worked for peanuts.
Naw. He got a new sports car and fancy clothes out of the deal.
Seriously - if you read the original Babar (as I did the other year, to the kid), that's just what happens. Babar comes out of the jungle and meets an older lady. She kindly has him sleep over in her bed, then gives him a sports car and flashy clothes. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 04, 2012, 09:51:49 AM
GOTCHA :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_xU8n7R4ccbw%2FS0zR9vvV1zI%2FAAAAAAAAD3I%2FP5fZiDPUaZM%2Fs1600%2Fvictory.jpg&hash=2bc4c607235826f1362c547161e4ec8f178d252a)
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:12:14 AM
Seriously - if you read the original Babar (as I did the other year, to the kid), that's just what happens. Babar comes out of the jungle and meets an older lady. She kindly has him sleep over in her bed, then gives him a sports car and flashy clothes. :lol:
Huh I never thought of it like that. I just thought she was a nice lady.
But wasn't she a human lady? Pretty kinky.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:12:14 AM
Seriously - if you read the original Babar (as I did the other year, to the kid), that's just what happens. Babar comes out of the jungle and meets an older lady. She kindly has him sleep over in her bed, then gives him a sports car and flashy clothes. :lol:
Huh I never thought of it like that. I just thought she was a nice lady.
But wasn't she a human lady? Pretty kinky.
Catherine the great has nothing on this lady
Well he had an elephant's ........ trunk...
V
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:14:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:12:14 AM
Seriously - if you read the original Babar (as I did the other year, to the kid), that's just what happens. Babar comes out of the jungle and meets an older lady. She kindly has him sleep over in her bed, then gives him a sports car and flashy clothes. :lol:
Huh I never thought of it like that. I just thought she was a nice lady.
But wasn't she a human lady? Pretty kinky.
I immediately thought of it like that. :blush:
In fact, what happened was this: we got a bunch of old kids books from my parents, and my wife and I were reading the original Babar to the kid when we came across that incident: we both struggled to contain a laugh, because at least to our perverted minds it was obviously a quid pro quo. ;)
Quote from: Valdemar on January 04, 2012, 10:22:35 AM
Well he had an elephant's ........ trunk...
V
One could say he came to the relationship with a lot of luggage :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:23:24 AM
I immediately thought of it like that. :blush:
Well I haven't read or thought about those stories since I was a kid ;)
We got another laugh of an inappropriate kind over Curious George. In one book, Curious George was walking down the side of a road when two men in a truck pull over and invite him to go for a ride to see the circus.
He gets in and off they go ... we had to explain to the kid that this was most unwise in real life. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:23:24 AM
I immediately thought of it like that. :blush:
Well I haven't read or thought about those stories since I was a kid ;)
Neither had I - until our kid was old enough to read 'em.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:26:32 AM
We got another laugh of an inappropriate kind over Curious George. In one book, Curious George was walking down the side of a road when two men in a truck pull over and invite him to go for a ride to see the circus.
He gets in and off they go ... we had to explain to the kid that this was most unwise in real life. ;)
But they offered him bananas!
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:27:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:26:32 AM
We got another laugh of an inappropriate kind over Curious George. In one book, Curious George was walking down the side of a road when two men in a truck pull over and invite him to go for a ride to see the circus.
He gets in and off they go ... we had to explain to the kid that this was most unwise in real life. ;)
But they offered him bananas!
I half expected the next page to be a news article "Curious George found dead in ditch, sexual assault suspected".
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:23:24 AM
I immediately thought of it like that. :blush:
Well I haven't read or thought about those stories since I was a kid ;)
Neither had I - until our kid was old enough to read 'em.
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
That's good manly stuff BB, try him out on construction machinery books, he'll love them :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
My son loves trains to. What is up with kids and trains?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
That's good manly stuff BB, try him out on construction machinery books, he'll love them :cool:
No doubt.
Typical 'conversation' when reading these books:
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: no, that's a boat. Can you say boat?
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: no, that's an airplane. Plane!
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: that's a sheep *sigh*
baby Tim: "Car!"
Trains are fun. Think how much some men like their cars, but cars are pitiful weeny things compared to trains; it is the triumph of reality over hope when a kid gives up on trains and switches his affection to cars.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
My son loves trains to. What is up with kids and trains?
Thomas the tedius little tank engine. That's what.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:39:08 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
That's good manly stuff BB, try him out on construction machinery books, he'll love them :cool:
No doubt.
Typical 'conversation' when reading these books:
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: no, that's a boat. Can you say boat?
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: no, that's an airplane. Plane!
baby Tim: "Car!"
BB: that's a sheep *sigh*
baby Tim: "Car!"
Hmmm..............he'll have to work on his conversational skills if he wants success with the girls :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:23:24 AM
I immediately thought of it like that. :blush:
Well I haven't read or thought about those stories since I was a kid ;)
Neither had I - until our kid was old enough to read 'em.
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
Carl went through a train phase too. I think all boys do.
I actually got him a book of historical trains.
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
My son loves trains to. What is up with kids and trains?
Thomas the tedius little tank engine. That's what.
You may remember my pent-up frustration at ALL THOMAS ALL THE TIME that made me lash out by writing a Thomas episode set during the Nazi holocaust ... ;)
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Thomas the tedius little tank engine. That's what.
Curse the British cultural hegemony! At least for toddler culture.
Spare a thought for me guys, my autistic son still likes Thomas the Tank engine, I've had 10 years of him now, two with the older lad and eight with the youngster :cry:
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
My son loves trains to. What is up with kids and trains?
the make sounds and smoke. that's all i can think of.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:53:37 AM
Spare a thought for me guys, my autistic son still likes Thomas the Tank engine, I've had 10 years of him now, two with the older lad and eight with the youngster :cry:
Holy shit, that's harsh. :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Hmmm..............he'll have to work on his conversational skills if he wants success with the girls :hmm:
i don't know. i know several guys with pretty good track records who seem to only repeat the same phrases over and over again at clubs :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2012, 10:54:28 AM
the make sounds and smoke. that's all i can think of.
I think it is the fact that trains make a good toy. The move, they connect, and you can make roads and tracks for them to run on.
They are a movement-toy, a collection-toy and a construction-toy, all at the same time.
Adding anthropomorphic characteristics makes them even more appealing.
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2012, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Hmmm..............he'll have to work on his conversational skills if he wants success with the girls :hmm:
i don't know. i know several guys with pretty good track records who seem to only repeat the same phrases over and over again at clubs :lol:
I dunno, "running train" in that context might not do so well. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:59:31 AM
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2012, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 04, 2012, 10:44:27 AM
Hmmm..............he'll have to work on his conversational skills if he wants success with the girls :hmm:
i don't know. i know several guys with pretty good track records who seem to only repeat the same phrases over and over again at clubs :lol:
I dunno, "running train" in that context might not do so well. ;)
as long as you're the engine and not the cabose it's all good :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Thomas the tedius little tank engine. That's what.
Curse the British cultural hegemony! At least for toddler culture.
Centuries of talking down to folk have given us an unassailable competitive advantage in the toddler market.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2012, 08:27:29 AM
I'm still pretty new. :(
Oh, most everyone else missed them too, that's how bad they were. ;)
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Thomas the tedius little tank engine. That's what.
Curse the British cultural hegemony! At least for toddler culture.
Centuries of talking down to folk have given us an unassailable competitive advantage in the toddler market.
Seriously - I'd be surprised if some academic somewhere hasn't published a thesis about what the industrial relations on the Island of Sodor (as epitomized by the Fat Controller, aka Sir Topham Hatt) have to say about British management. :D
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6772592/Thomas-the-Tank-Engine-attacked-for-conservative-political-ideology.html
Here you go. Sort of.
I for one am glad this show encourages toddlers to obey authority figures...since that figure is me in this case :P
From the article Gups linked to :
"She also highlighted the class divide which sees the downtrodden workers in the form of Thomas and his friends at the bottom of the social ladder and the wealthy Fat Controller, Sir Topham Hatt, at the top. "
Utter nonsense, the steam engines are ranked way above the diesel engines and vehicles such as buses, not to mention the silly trucks. They really are the bourgeoisie.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 11:10:05 AM
Seriously - I'd be surprised if some academic somewhere hasn't published a thesis about what the industrial relations on the Island of Sodor (as epitomized by the Fat Controller, aka Sir Topham Hatt) have to say about British management. :D
I had a lecturer who wanted to do a Marxist analysis of Harry Potter. It's stated in the books that things can't just be magically produced and yet there's no mention of the means of production anywhere else. When you add that to the fact that we know the wizards are a slave society (the house elves) it leads to a pretty nasty conclusion of mass elf slavery maintaining the wizards' way of life :(
Well do not forget the Goblin financiers providing those wizards with the magical capital necessary.
Quote from: Gups on January 04, 2012, 11:16:27 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6772592/Thomas-the-Tank-Engine-attacked-for-conservative-political-ideology.html
Here you go. Sort of.
Heh, I knew it. :D
As for this:
Quote"It also represents a conservative political ideology that punishes individual initiative, opposes critique and change, and relegates females to supportive roles," she said. "Any change is seen as disrupting the natural order of things."
That's sort of like the dynamics inside many families re very young children, particularly in the 1940s. The mistake she's making is assuming the show is supposed to represent the world at large rather than the world of the kiddies watching it. For young children, striking out on their own in defiance of established authorities (that is, parents) often
does end in (hopefully minor) disaster.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
That's sort of like the dynamics inside many families re very young children, particularly in the 1940s. The mistake she's making is assuming the show is supposed to represent the world at large rather than the world of the kiddies watching it. For young children, striking out on their own in defiance of established authorities (that is, parents) often does end in (hopefully minor) disaster.
Yeah there are two parts of her audience she is missing.
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
How did the discussion about Raz turn into a discussion about children? Only on Languish. :rolleyes:
Breeders. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 12:27:07 PM
How did the discussion about Raz turn into a discussion about children? Only on Languish. :rolleyes:
Because Raz won his big victory thus ending the original point of the thread. So then we moved on to another topic.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 12:27:07 PM
How did the discussion about Raz turn into a discussion about children?
Yes...complete incongruity...
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 12:27:07 PM
How did the discussion about Raz turn into a discussion about children? Only on Languish. :rolleyes:
As long as he does not have children of his own, we are ok.
Up until last month or so, I would not have been able to follow all this Thomas nonsense at all. Sadly, I've spent a great deal of time hanging out with my nephews in various medical establishments recently, and it's the only thing that keeps them quiet.
Oh, and Alec Baldwin is in it, so it can't be that conservative. :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 02:07:38 PM
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
Of course there were a few. But some were more geared towards one or the other.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
I honestly do not know if girls like Thomas or not. Every boy I know does. For some reason, boys seem to like things like trains and cars more and girls things like stuffed toys and dolls more. A show composed of trains is likely to have an audience of boys whether its creator intended that or not.
I used to think this was all socialization and kids themselves would like both equally if they weren't prodded one way or the other by their parents or peers. I no longer believe this to be the case. In my experience it simply seems too ingrained and shows up too early and too strongly to be socialization.
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
I was always in the nature camp. That is not to say that all boys have some or all of the traits we associate with boys or girls with girls. Of course they do not, but they generally do. And think about it, if this was all socialization and not traits you are born with why would there be transgendered people? Did socialization fail for them? No that was just how they are. Likewise being boyish is just how most boys are. Being a parent and seeing it in action just reinforces it for me. There was something very noticeably male about my son very early on.
I don't understand why such a small island needs so many trains. Or why all these steam engines are roving the place when they clearly have the technology for diesels and helicopters.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
wtf <_<
Well I'm done trying to find you asian pussy. Et tu, Hunter?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2012, 02:30:57 PM
I don't understand why such a small island needs so many trains. Or why all these steam engines are roving the place when they clearly have the technology for diesels and helicopters.
Our Head of State's Defender of the Faith. We're not great at modernisation :Embarrass:
Quote from: Zoupa on January 04, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
wtf <_<
Well I'm done trying to find you asian pussy. Et tu, Hunter?
What we need is a head-to-head battle for French supremacy.
The winner is he who does not care with sufficient style. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
There was something very noticeably male about my son very early on.
:shutup:
Quote from: Zoupa on January 04, 2012, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 01:08:15 AM
Grallon's fun because he's the Frenchest person on the forum.
wtf <_<
Well I'm done trying to find you asian pussy. Et tu, Hunter?
See, that kind of pettiness? Willingness to take affront for vague reasons? You're on your way. :P
Besides, you can't be truly French until you're well into middle-age and everything bores you, even your own outrage. You're too young to be fully French.
Oh et P.S., quand avez-vous m'aider avec ca? Tous je me souviens, c'est vous vanter sur la quantite la chatte asiatique il a ete au Canada. Regardez ce modele! Regardez ce modele! JE NE VIS PAS LA.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
I honestly do not know if girls like Thomas or not. Every boy I know does. For some reason, boys seem to like things like trains and cars more and girls things like stuffed toys and dolls more. A show composed of trains is likely to have an audience of boys whether its creator intended that or not.
I used to think this was all socialization and kids themselves would like both equally if they weren't prodded one way or the other by their parents or peers. I no longer believe this to be the case. In my experience it simply seems too ingrained and shows up too early and too strongly to be socialization.
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
My experience as well.
If there is one thing about young kids, they are not shy about expressing their preferences. Give them a lavishly expensive toy they do not like, they will toss it aside without a thought. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
There was something very noticeably male about my son very early on.
:shutup:
:lol:
I meant in his personality traits fucker :P
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 03:34:55 PM
My experience as well.
If there is one thing about young kids, they are not shy about expressing their preferences. Give them a lavishly expensive toy they do not like, they will toss it aside without a thought. :lol:
My nieces' favourite toy over Christmas was a puppet theatre I made them. I cut a hole into a large Amazon box and they were set for hours :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
My experience as well.
If there is one thing about young kids, they are not shy about expressing their preferences. Give them a lavishly expensive toy they do not like, they will toss it aside without a thought. :lol:
I think I mentioned this, but just in case I didn't:
my kid received a whole bunch of very nice toys over Christmas (and yes, Thomas the Tank Engine figured prominently). But on Christmas day what was the think that held is attention for hours and hours? A balloon tied to a piece of ribbon. He carried that thing around everywhere.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
Sounds like he's going to be a city boy who gripes at you when you take him on hunting and fishing trips. :P
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 02:51:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
There was something very noticeably male about my son very early on.
:shutup:
They don't call him "Hawkeye Valmy" for nothing you know :D
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
My experience as well.
If there is one thing about young kids, they are not shy about expressing their preferences. Give them a lavishly expensive toy they do not like, they will toss it aside without a thought. :lol:
I think I mentioned this, but just in case I didn't:
my kid received a whole bunch of very nice toys over Christmas (and yes, Thomas the Tank Engine figured prominently). But on Christmas day what was the think that held is attention for hours and hours? A balloon tied to a piece of ribbon. He carried that thing around everywhere.
I think I must have seen that with just about every child I've known well. There is a Christmas or a birthday where THE toy is a balloon. Which is wonderful really :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 04, 2012, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
Sounds like he's going to be a city boy who gripes at you when you take him on hunting and fishing trips. :P
We'll see. He usually loves going outside - we'd go to the park as often as I could.
We're just having crappy weather where it's cold outside, but there's not really enough snow to play in.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
I honestly do not know if girls like Thomas or not. Every boy I know does. For some reason, boys seem to like things like trains and cars more and girls things like stuffed toys and dolls more. A show composed of trains is likely to have an audience of boys whether its creator intended that or not.
I used to think this was all socialization and kids themselves would like both equally if they weren't prodded one way or the other by their parents or peers. I no longer believe this to be the case. In my experience it simply seems too ingrained and shows up too early and too strongly to be socialization.
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
I don't know what I thought it would be like, but it has been incredibly obvious that there's something deeply ingrained when Tim is playing with his toy cars. My wife bought him a couple stuffed animals, tried to get him to play with them, but no dice. It's got to have wheels.
I don't think it is ingrained, rather it's in practical consequence of their early experiences of the world; cars are everywhere, big, fast, loud, colourful, they take them places, are present in the many millions compare to the number of encounters they have with non-pet animals, they just become ubiquitous. To me it's no surprise that many boys are fascinated by them.
As for girls, I'm at a loss, perhaps they like car interior decore rather than the vehicles themselves ?? :P
Quote from: mongers on January 04, 2012, 04:02:11 PM
I don't think it is ingrained, rather it's in practical consequence of their early experiences of the world; cars are everywhere, big, fast, loud, colourful, they take them places, are present in the many millions compare to the number of encounters they have with non-pet
Ok but how do you explain the train thing? Anyway obviously liking cars is not ingrained it is having traits we generally associate with male traits.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Just found this thread, which is a hoot. I must admit I don't recall saying that anyone was the "least intelligent person on this board," and the search function has no capability to find a post with me saying this, either. Got some context?
I am a believer in the old Confucian idea:
"Tzu King asked: 'What would you say of the man who is liked by all his fellow townsmen?' 'That is not sufficient', was the reply. "What is better is that the good among his fellow townsmen like him, and the bad hate him.'"
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
How can you tell? There would have to be some good among us for you to check to see if they liked you.
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 04:29:48 PM
How can you tell? There would have to be some good among us for you to check to see if they liked you.
:face:
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 04:29:48 PM
How can you tell? There would have to be some good among us for you to check to see if they liked you.
:D
A wonderfully Languish response.
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
Vaguely Dr. Seuss-ian:
Go, Dog. Go!http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1) I have fond memories of reading it as a small child and having it read to me. Also, nice catch by dps on the lack of good people to judge. I was going to throw out a wretched hive of scum and villainy quip about Languish, but he beat me to it. Well played, sir. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 04, 2012, 04:57:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
Vaguely Dr. Seuss-ian: Go, Dog. Go!http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1) I have fond memories of reading it as a small child and having it read to me. Also, nice catch by dps on the lack of good people to judge. I was going to throw out a wretched hive of scum and villainy quip about Languish, but he beat me to it. Well played, sir. :thumbsup:
I have in fact read him Go Dog! Go! :cool:
Further proof you're doing the father thing right then, sir. :hug:
I'm going to read Gor to my sons.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 05:07:06 PM
I'm going to read Gor to my sons.
Gor, leader of Internet Clan?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 04, 2012, 05:09:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 04, 2012, 05:07:06 PM
I'm going to read Gor to my sons.
Gor, leader of Internet Clan?
When they break through to another world, who'll be laughing then? They will, as they crush their enemies bones.
Cabot?
I'm going to mine Houellebecq: "Youth was the time for happiness, its only season; young people, leading a lazy, carefree life, partially occupied by scarcely absorbing studies, were able to devote themselves unlimitedly to the liberated exultation of their bodies. They could play, dance, love, and multiply their pleasures. They could leave a party, in the early hours of the morning, in the company of sexual partners they had chosen, and contemplate the dreary line of employees going to work. They were the salt of the earth, and everything was given to them, everything was permitted for them, everything was possible. Later on, having started a family, having entered the adult world, they would be introduced to worry, work, responsibility, and the difficulties of existence; they would have to pay taxes, submit themselves to administrative formalities while ceaselessly bearing witness--powerless and shame-filled--to the irreversible degradation of their own bodies, which would be slow at first, then increasingly rapid; above all, they would have to look after children, mortal enemies, in their own homes, they would have to pamper them, feed them, worry about their illnesses, provide the means for their education and their pleasure, and unlike in the world of animals, this would last not just for a season, they would remain slaves of their offspring always, the time of joy was well and truly over for them, they would have to continue to suffer until the end, in pain and with increasing health problems, until they were no longer good for anything and were definitively thrown into the rubbish heap, cumbersome and useless."
That should send just about the right message.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 05:14:00 PM
Cabot?
I'm going to mine Houllebecq: "Youth was the time for happiness, its only season; young people, leading a lazy, carefree life, partially occupied by scarcely absorbing studies, were able to devote themselves unlimitedly to the liberated exultation of their bodies. They could play, dance, love, and multiply their pleasures. They could leave a party, in the early hours of the morning, in the company of sexual partners they had chosen, and contemplate the dreary line of employees going to work. They were the salt of the earth, and everything was given to them, everything was permitted for them, everything was possible. Later on, having started a family, having entered the adult world, they would be introduced to worry, work, responsibility, and the difficulties of existence; they would have to pay taxes, submit themselves to administrative formalities while ceaselessly bearing witness--powerless and shame-filled--to the irreversible degradation of their own bodies, which would be slow at first, then increasingly rapid; above all, they would have to look after children, mortal enemies, in their own homes, they would have to pamper them, feed them, worry about their illnesses, provide the means for their education and their pleasure, and unlike in the world of animals, this would last not just for a season, they would remain slaves of their offspring always, the time of joy was well and truly over for them, they would have to continue to suffer until the end, in pain and with increasing health problems, until they were no longer good for anything and were definitively thrown into the rubbish heap, cumbersome and useless."
That should send just about the right message.
Just you wait - kids are pretty insistent about what they like, and what they don't. You try reading a book to a kid that they aren't interested in and it won't be pretty.
OMG OMG Gavin Bowd's translation of La carte et le territoire is already out OMG my pants are a depression factory!
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on January 04, 2012, 04:57:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 10:32:12 AM
Now that my kid is old enough to express some degree of preference in his books, all he wants us to read are books with nothing but pictures of autos and trains, with no story to speak of. :bleeding: Oh how I long for the days I could at least read his Dr. Seuss.
Vaguely Dr. Seuss-ian: Go, Dog. Go!http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Read-Myself-Beginner-Books/dp/0394900200/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325714051&sr=8-1) I have fond memories of reading it as a small child and having it read to me. Also, nice catch by dps on the lack of good people to judge. I was going to throw out a wretched hive of scum and villainy quip about Languish, but he beat me to it. Well played, sir. :thumbsup:
Apparently my first sentence, prompted by viewing a rotisserie, was "many chickens go round and round".
It was a literary reference to
Go Dogs Go. :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
I was always in the nature camp. That is not to say that all boys have some or all of the traits we associate with boys or girls with girls. Of course they do not, but they generally do. And think about it, if this was all socialization and not traits you are born with why would there be transgendered people? Did socialization fail for them? No that was just how they are. Likewise being boyish is just how most boys are. Being a parent and seeing it in action just reinforces it for me. There was something very noticeably male about my son very early on.
Perhaps I come from a family of strange genes then. My siblings and I always had a hodge-podge across the spectrum. As far as I know, my sisters watched Thomas the Tank Engine just as much as myself.
"Go Dog Go" was one of my early favourites as well.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2012, 04:37:02 PM
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 04:29:48 PM
How can you tell? There would have to be some good among us for you to check to see if they liked you.
:face:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileyvault.com%2Falbums%2Fuserpics%2F10172%2Faug08_031.gif&hash=a5248032d532f0e417bff033cbafdcc70693a61f)
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2012, 05:16:03 PM
Just you wait - kids are pretty insistent about what they like, and what they don't. You try reading a book to a kid that they aren't interested in and it won't be pretty.
When we have kids, I've been thinking about using Gibbon's
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as bedtime reading.
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
First what you said and the second one is the show is meant for boys. In shows meant for girls every character is a girl except for a few token boys and the opposite for shows for boys. So her harping on the gender imbalance was pretty funny. I was thinking 'did this woman never watch TV as a child?'
:huh:
Maybe I'm just confused but I thought there were shows marketed to both genders.
I honestly do not know if girls like Thomas or not. Every boy I know does. For some reason, boys seem to like things like trains and cars more and girls things like stuffed toys and dolls more. A show composed of trains is likely to have an audience of boys whether its creator intended that or not.
I used to think this was all socialization and kids themselves would like both equally if they weren't prodded one way or the other by their parents or peers. I no longer believe this to be the case. In my experience it simply seems too ingrained and shows up too early and too strongly to be socialization.
What do you parents think? Agree/disagree?
Studies have shown that young male monkeys play with toy cars and young female monkeys plays with rag dolls. It's completely nature based.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 08:23:40 PM
Studies have shown that young male monkeys play with toy cars and young female monkeys plays with rag dolls. It's completely nature based.
link?
Here you go. There's a video after the link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys.html
QuoteIt's thought of as a sexual stereotype: boys tend to play with toy cars and diggers, while girls like dolls. But male monkeys, suggests research, are no different.
This could mean that males, whether human or monkey, have a biological predisposition to certain toys, says Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
Wallen's team looked at 11 male and 23 female rhesus monkeys. In general the males preferred to play with wheeled toys, such as dumper trucks, over plush dolls, while female monkeys played with both kinds of toys.
This conclusion may upset those psychologists who insist that sex differences - for example the tendency of boys to favour toy soldiers and girls to prefer dolls - depend on social factors, not innate differences.
Guys and dolls
"A five-year-old boy whose compatriots discover has a collection of Barbies is likely to take a lot of flak," Wallen says.
Social factors undoubtedly influence children's preferences, he says, but in general boys tend to be pickier with toys than girls.
To try and tease out the effects of nature over those of nurture, Wallen and his colleagues studied a group of captive rhesus monkeys. His team reasoned that the choices of the monkeys wouldn't be determined by social pressures. Most of the study animals were juvenile (age one to four years), but some sub-adult and adult monkeys were included.
"They are not subject to advertising. They are not subject to parental encouragement, they are not subject to peer chastisement," Wallen says.
Monkey fun
Wallen's team offered the monkeys two categories of toys: "wheeled" and "plush". The wheeled toys, intended to be masculine, included wagons and vehicles. The more feminine plush toys included Winnie the Pooh and Raggedy-Ann dolls.
Two toys, one wheeled and one plush, were placed 10 metres apart. At first the monkeys formed a circle around a toy, but eventually one would snatch the toy and run off. Other monkeys soon joined in the fun, Wallen says.
The researchers captured play sessions on video and measured how long each monkey spent with plush versus wheeled toys. The team found that the males spent more time playing with wheeled toys, while the females played with both plush and wheeled toys equally.
'Compelling results'
Wallen cautions against over-interpreting the results. The plush and wheeled categories served as proxies for feminine and masculine, but other toy characteristics, such as size or colour, might explain the male's behaviour, he says. Or the male monkeys might seek out more physically active toys, he says.
But the study ties in with a previous experiment with green vervet monkeys showing that males favour masculine toys.
"Together the results are compelling," says Gerianne Alexander, a psychologist at Texas A&M University in College Station, who led the vervet monkey study.
She thinks that biological differences between sexes start the ball rolling toward learned preferences for play toys.
"There is likely to be a biological tendency that is amplified by society," she says.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 08:31:01 PM
Wallen cautions against over-interpreting the results. The plush and wheeled categories served as proxies for feminine and masculine, but other toy characteristics, such as size or colour, might explain the male's behaviour, he says. Or the male monkeys might seek out more physically active toys, he says.
Hmmm, maybe they could test wooden blocks shaped like a gun or a car(without movable wheels) vs. talking dolls or ones with movable parts. :hmm:
I like how Tim's article doesn't support his assertion that it is "completely nature based".
They should see which the monkeys would choose if presented loaded handguns and live babies.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 05:23:59 PM
OMG OMG Gavin Bowd's translation of La carte et le territoire is already out OMG my pants are a depression factory!
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Just found this thread, which is a hoot. I must admit I don't recall saying that anyone was the "least intelligent person on this board," and the search function has no capability to find a post with me saying this, either. Got some context?
I am a believer in the old Confucian idea:
"Tzu King asked: 'What would you say of the man who is liked by all his fellow townsmen?' 'That is not sufficient', was the reply. "What is better is that the good among his fellow townsmen like him, and the bad hate him.'"
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
it was some time ago. "least intelligent person on this board" might be a exaggeration. the reference is when raz said he
knew that he was more intelligent than martinus, and that he claimed to be one of the more dimwitted members of this board. i always thought it odd, since martinus at least shows himself capable of achieving success in his country (in before: lol poland!11), and thus pays taxes and helps contribute. raz likes to make comments that suggest he's worth more than marty, yet... he also admits he's a shut-in who accepts government funding.
which is it? is he someone who adds to society with high paying employment that is taxed for the betterment of society, or does he take government money due to his mental disability and lack of employment? it's one of those inconsistencies that i find odd no one has referenced. maybe it's just me. ideologue is absolutely correct with his post. there are times where it seems to this lurker that raz holds personal grudges against certain members, and makes comments that are inconsistent with reality
edit: maybe this is harsh, but people rip on posters all the time here :shrug:
LaCroix's "logic" continues to impress.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 05:23:59 PM
OMG OMG Gavin Bowd's translation of La carte et le territoire is already out OMG my pants are a depression factory!
:lol:
I just traded cash for Amazon credit to order it. :ph34r:
YES.
This one doesn't seem to have any sci-fi elements. But neither did Platform (though I've argued it met the criteria for speculative fiction, in a broad sense, asking "What if travel companies just straight up organized Bangkok fuckfests?", the answer being "Muslims will blow it up, but you will die alone"). The best parts of Houellebecq novels are the ones where he just ramblingly talks a bunch of shit only tangentially related to the plot about women getting fat and sexless and capitalism being bad, anyway. And no doubt there will be that.
I'm extra-excited to get it because Gavin Bowd translated Possibility of an Island. A lot of stupid snobby jerks said it was too blunt and mean sapped the original French of its beauty and/or poetry. Seriously, these dorks just don't get it.
You should read Céline, Ide. Houellebecq (like Bukowski, Henry Miller, and many others) owes a huge debt to his work. His first two novels "Voyage au bout de la nuit" and "Mort au credit" are completely hateful and hilarious, revolutionary at the time (early 30s), and cheap paperbacks by now. The post-liberation Céline is an acquired taste, but I'm a fan.
And they are finally translating his rabidly anti-Semitic tracts (complete with dance choreography) from the mid-late 30s into English.
QuoteDue to copyright restrictions, the Kindle title you're trying to purchase is not available in your country: United States.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT.
Oh, I understand. I have to update my address.
1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W.
Montreal
Quebec, Canada
H3G 1M8
I'm proud of my university. Concordia salus!
...Ok, maybe I ought not. -_-
:D
I might just buy the dumb dead tree book and get the free shipping with the Gamera Hisei series now on Blu-Ray. They're two great tastes that go great together!
Quote from: MihaliYou should read Céline, Ide. Houellebecq (like Bukowski, Henry Miller, and many others) owes a huge debt to his work. His first two novels "Voyage au bout de la nuit" and "Mort au credit" are completely hateful and hilarious, revolutionary at the time (early 30s), and cheap paperbacks by now. The post-liberation Céline is an acquired taste, but I'm a fan.
I do like things that are hateful. :hmm:
Quote from: LaCroix on January 05, 2012, 12:36:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2012, 08:23:39 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2012, 01:19:55 AM
he did say he was the least intelligent person on this board, bar martinus (which i have doubts of, but that's another argument). that is quite a strong statement, and when we've quality posters such as yis around, it makes one wonder
Just found this thread, which is a hoot. I must admit I don't recall saying that anyone was the "least intelligent person on this board," and the search function has no capability to find a post with me saying this, either. Got some context?
I am a believer in the old Confucian idea:
"Tzu King asked: 'What would you say of the man who is liked by all his fellow townsmen?' 'That is not sufficient', was the reply. "What is better is that the good among his fellow townsmen like him, and the bad hate him.'"
The responses in this thread assure me that I am following that principal. :D
it was some time ago. "least intelligent person on this board" might be a exaggeration. the reference is when raz said he knew that he was more intelligent than martinus, and that he claimed to be one of the more dimwitted members of this board. i always thought it odd, since martinus at least shows himself capable of achieving success in his country (in before: lol poland!11), and thus pays taxes and helps contribute. raz likes to make comments that suggest he's worth more than marty, yet... he also admits he's a shut-in who accepts government funding.
which is it? is he someone who adds to society with high paying employment that is taxed for the betterment of society, or does he take government money due to his mental disability and lack of employment? it's one of those inconsistencies that i find odd no one has referenced. maybe it's just me. ideologue is absolutely correct with his post. there are times where it seems to this lurker that raz holds personal grudges against certain members, and makes comments that are inconsistent with reality
edit: maybe this is harsh, but people rip on posters all the time here :shrug:
It's a bit late and I'm kinda sleepy, but I should point out that me being smarter then Marty does not make me "worth more". I have no idea how much Marty is worth, or myself for that matter. I don't even know how to go about figuring that. I always assume that if I knows something everyone else knows it, and why shouldn't they? I do assume that most people are smarter then me, I barely graduated from highschool after all. The only person here who consistently impresses me with their stupidity is Marty. He claims to be a lawyer but demonstrates a dismal understanding of law. I'm by no means the only one who questions the reality of his occupation. In truth, I know he's probably telling the truth, but it's fun to make fun of him. And Marty is very easy target and I am very lazy. I do not hold a grudge against him, but he does sometimes annoy me his shallowness, superficiality and stupidity.
If you are looking for someone that I hold a grudge against look no further then the vile bigot Grallon.
Making money is not in itself a sign of high intelligence.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 04, 2012, 08:31:01 PM
Here you go. There's a video after the link.
Meh. I do think there is a biological tendency, but I do not think that studies with monkeys are going to prove it. Monkeys and humans are simply too different for comparisons to make much sense.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 05:45:35 PM
Perhaps I come from a family of strange genes then. My siblings and I always had a hodge-podge across the spectrum. As far as I know, my sisters watched Thomas the Tank Engine just as much as myself.
How is that strange? Individuals tend to do that: be hodge-podge across the spectrum. That is exactly what I was saying. I was only commenting on how people are really comes out early. Tons of girls have enjoyed stuff intended for boys and vice versa. I think I specifically mentioned as that being one of the key pieces that makes me confident my opinion on this subject is correct. After all if people did have their traits put on them by society both you and your sisters should have conformed no?
I think toys and games are much more gender specific than they used to be look at the inexorable rise of pink. Certainly boys generally prefer some games and toys and boys others but the marketing firms accentuate those differences hugely.
http://www.pinkstinks.org.uk/
Accentuating those differences is a lazy (but very effective it seems) way of appealing to the lowest common demoninator I presume. I mean you do research to see which colors and things are most popular you are going to end up that way. Individual preferences and traits get drowned by generalities. Advertising has that quality for adult products as well naturally.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 08:43:17 PM
I like how Tim's article doesn't support his assertion that it is "completely nature based".
Monkeys aren't affected by socialization yet the trend is there. I don't think humans are any different.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2012, 10:27:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 08:43:17 PM
I like how Tim's article doesn't support his assertion that it is "completely nature based".
Monkeys aren't affected by socialization yet the trend is there. I don't think humans are any different.
Of course monkeys are affected by socialization. For certain in a different way than more complex social animals, but unless you are arguing they do not have social interaction than your statement is bullshit.
Cats are affected by socialization. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 05, 2012, 11:09:43 AM
Cats are affected by socialization. :)
Then why is herding cats so difficult? :(
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2012, 10:27:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 08:43:17 PM
I like how Tim's article doesn't support his assertion that it is "completely nature based".
Monkeys aren't affected by socialization yet the trend is there. I don't think humans are any different.
QuoteShe thinks that biological differences between sexes start the ball rolling toward learned preferences for play toys.
"There is likely to be a biological tendency that is amplified by society," she says.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 09:30:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2012, 05:45:35 PM
Perhaps I come from a family of strange genes then. My siblings and I always had a hodge-podge across the spectrum. As far as I know, my sisters watched Thomas the Tank Engine just as much as myself.
How is that strange? Individuals tend to do that: be hodge-podge across the spectrum. That is exactly what I was saying. I was only commenting on how people are really comes out early. Tons of girls have enjoyed stuff intended for boys and vice versa. I think I specifically mentioned as that being one of the key pieces that makes me confident my opinion on this subject is correct. After all if people did have their traits put on them by society both you and your sisters should have conformed no?
I thought you were suggesting there is an overwhelming biological tendency towards certain interests/toys for each gender...so my comment was that my sisters and I seemed to have preferences that ignored all traditional gendered toy distinctions.
Also, I think socialization did play a role. I was the eldest child who like to play with toys of all types and was close to my siblings (which reinforced the acceptability of any type of toy to my siblings). I also had parents who were okay with letting the 3 of us play with whatever type of toy we wanted, regardless of the gender associated with a particular type. I'm pretty sure that if my parents had restricted me to male only toys and them to girl only toys that we probably would have been okay sticking to those things.
The school bit is a bit complicated as from what I've been told - I blatantly didn't care and brought my barbie for show and tell. I wonder though if that has to do with the familial unit having the greatest socialization influence on early childhood as certainly by my teens I was at least more outwardly conformist, if not inwardly.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2012, 12:31:22 PM
I thought you were suggesting there is an overwhelming biological tendency towards certain interests/toys for each gender...so my comment was that my sisters and I seemed to have preferences that ignored all traditional gendered toy distinctions.
What I am suggesting is actually a bit more complicated than that. That there are certain traits that people of certain gender generally have, but most people do not have all of them and some people may have none of them, and those traits predispose to certain interests which then marketing peeps and toymakers and so forth cater to.
QuoteAlso, I think socialization did play a role. I was the eldest child who like to play with toys of all types and was close to my siblings (which reinforced the acceptability of any type of toy to my siblings). I also had parents who were okay with letting the 3 of us play with whatever type of toy we wanted, regardless of the gender associated with a particular type. I'm pretty sure that if my parents had restricted me to male only toys and them to girl only toys that we probably would have been okay sticking to those things.
Well it is complicated obviously. If it were simple there would be consensus on the nature versus nurture debate. My belief is that most of your traits are hardcoded and dictate how you will react to socialization. Socialization has a role but I think its ability to mold people is over-stated.
As you said even though you were conforming on the outside it still did not feel right.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 03:02:27 PM
Well it is complicated obviously. If it were simple there would be consensus on the nature versus nurture debate. My belief is that most of your traits are hardcoded and dictate how you will react to socialization. Socialization has a role but I think its ability to mold people is over-stated.
Except that in this case we are talking toy preference. I don't see why that would be something so immutable.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 03:02:27 PM
As you said even though you were conforming on the outside it still did not feel right.
Well the reason I added that distinction is I don't really remember it as the same sort of issue as I got older. At that point it was about my sexuality and not about toy preference. I'm not sure I entirely understand the distinction by gender at the early teen stage.
Also, I'm not really sure I would say that playing with whatever I wanted felt right, it just was. Just like it didn't necessarily feel wrong when my mother forbid me to use a skateboard I received as a gift because we lived on a hill.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Except that in this case we are talking toy preference. I don't see why that would be something so immutable.
Indeed we are. Where is the immutability coming in? I don't see it.
QuoteAlso, I'm not really sure I would say that playing with whatever I wanted felt right, it just was. Just like it didn't necessarily feel wrong when my mother forbid me to use a skateboard I received as a gift because we lived on a hill.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I was talking about how you conformed when you became aware of society's expectations and how weird it felt. Are we exclusively talking about toy selection still? I thought you were talking about other issues that came up as you got older so I assumed you had moved on to your sexuality and other issues. I presume you played with whatever you were provided with in whatever manner you found most fun.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 03:35:36 PM
Indeed we are. Where is the immutability coming in? I don't see it.
Well you stated that you think the influence of socialization is overstated. I think socialization plays a large role in expression of perhaps biologically pre-disposed preferences as far as toy selection. :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2012, 03:35:36 PM
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I was talking about how you conformed when you became aware of society's expectations and how weird it felt. Are we exclusively talking about toy selection still? I thought you were talking about other issues that came up as you got older so I assumed you had moved on to your sexuality and other issues. I presume you played with whatever you were provided with in whatever manner you found most fun.
Yeah it was muddled. I guess my thoughts were that parents/family are most important as far as observing socialization in young children. Which is why even if society thought my sisters shouldn't be interested in race cars, it didn't really matter because my parents were fine with that. I'm not sure that they were biologically pre-disposed to playing with race cars but perhaps were strongly influenced by myself and parents supporting race cars as something that anyone could play with. That's in direct contradiction to your suggestion that my sisters and I should have conformed because "people" were socializing us in a different direction (with those people being school teacher, fellow pupils - I presume). I think by the time that the opinions of those other people became more important, I'd already developed my preferences so the impact that their thoughts could play had less influence.
I'm not sure that is comparable to someone who feels transgendered as I think there might be a bigger biological basis there than there is to toy selection - although I would say that from my "socialized" view, it's hard for me to understand the statement that someone could feel like they were born in the wrong body, given that I think you can assume all sorts of gender roles no matter your sex.
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
Quote from: Gups on January 05, 2012, 10:09:45 AM
I think toys and games are much more gender specific than they used to be look at the inexorable rise of pink. Certainly boys generally prefer some games and toys and boys others but the marketing firms accentuate those differences hugely.
http://www.pinkstinks.org.uk/
There is no way in hell I am going to click something called Pinkstinks.org.uk
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
I would, but I lack a glass jar of sufficient size.
I used to have a human brain. But I traded it for something. I forgot what.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
I don't know what that means.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
I don't know what that means.
He should have been born a rabbit maybe.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2012, 05:14:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
I don't know what that means.
He means that, if brains were dynamite, he couldn't blow his nose.
Quote from: Malthus on January 05, 2012, 05:11:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 05, 2012, 04:51:42 PM
I was totally born in the wrong body. I mean, take the brain just for starters.
I would, but I lack a glass jar of sufficient size.
"Abby? Abby
Normal??"
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:50:37 AM
You may remember my pent-up frustration at ALL THOMAS ALL THE TIME that made me lash out by writing a Thomas episode set during the Nazi holocaust ... ;)
Sorry for digging out this old reference, but ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOTBU5QJJWM
Quote from: Syt on April 24, 2020, 02:13:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 04, 2012, 10:50:37 AM
You may remember my pent-up frustration at ALL THOMAS ALL THE TIME that made me lash out by writing a Thomas episode set during the Nazi holocaust ... ;)
Sorry for digging out this old reference, but ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOTBU5QJJWM
:lol: A note from 2012!
You must have a memory like an elephant.
But an awesome reference.
It was the only reference I could find to the memorable story. I would have much preferred to dig up the original post. :D Did you ever tell your son of the story?
Quote from: Syt on April 24, 2020, 11:21:43 PM
It was the only reference I could find to the memorable story. I would have much preferred to dig up the original post. :D Did you ever tell your son of the story?
I did, when he was older. :D
Only to have him use it, unknown to me, in an English assignment this year ... which he has had no mark on. Yet.
:lol: