I'm just dedicated to one person is all, unlike some of these hoes.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,720
you just did exactly what he hates in the video, basically quoted word for word what he said and missed out the part where he said they understand its sarcasm, its just just clickbaitRaspberriel wrote:
On a side note, the media coverage of PewDiePie's recent videos is absolutely absurd. It's like journalists have lost the ability to comprehend sarcasm or something. TIME Magazine called it a "temper tantrum" -- anyone who watched the videos knows that's patently false. But then again, they've been doing this crap for years now about anything on the Internet...
So they know perfectly well what's going on, but they make shit up anyway. Okay yeah, no wonder people don't trust news media anymore. There's a poll where only big business and Congress are less trusted than the media. Nice.lol wrote:
you just did exactly what he hates in the video, basically quoted word for word what he said and missed out the part where he said they understand its sarcasm, its just just clickbaitRaspberriel wrote:
On a side note, the media coverage of PewDiePie's recent videos is absolutely absurd. It's like journalists have lost the ability to comprehend sarcasm or something. TIME Magazine called it a "temper tantrum" -- anyone who watched the videos knows that's patently false. But then again, they've been doing this crap for years now about anything on the Internet...
Personally, I blame this for kicking it off.
another example for my claim that freedom isn't always good: Journalism that is solely after money instead of promoting honest argument to confront serious topics, quickly turns into something akin to buzzfeed, fox news, or this. There are easier ways to make money on the free market, after all. If there is nobody to hold journalists to a standard, the quality of overall media will plummet sooner or later.Raspberriel wrote:
So they know perfectly well what's going on, but they make shit up anyway. Okay yeah, no wonder people don't trust news media anymore. There's a poll where only big business and Congress are less trusted than the media. Nice.
Personally, I blame this for kicking it off.
Who could hold journalists to a standard? The government. For example by implementing laws that state that you aren't allowed to misrepresent political arguments on purpose to influence your readership in a certain way, etc.
Good luck on that. Whether or not you actually believe what you write, you are just as allowed to say to the public that you believe in what you write and they can't really do shit to you, as long as you are consistent with what you write. Especially in something so subjective, there is no golden rule for saying something is objectively misrepresenting political arguments. And if a law did manage to pass to allow the condemnation of "misrepresented data," then people can just be throwing that at anything that they didn't agree with.Railey2 wrote:
For example by implementing laws that state that you aren't allowed to misrepresent political arguments on purpose to influence your readership in a certain way, etc.
the point is, it should not up to the people. It should be up to a third party organization that hopefully consists of unbiased, qualified people, who can tell the difference between fair coverage and blatant dishonesty.winber1 wrote:
Good luck on that. Whether or not you actually believe what you write, you are just as allowed to say to the public that you believe in what you write and they can't really do shit to you, as long as you are consistent with what you write. Especially in something so subjective, there is no golden rule for saying something is objectively misrepresenting political arguments. And if a law did manage to pass to allow the condemnation of "misrepresented data," then people can just be throwing that at anything that they didn't agree with.Railey2 wrote:
For example by implementing laws that state that you aren't allowed to misrepresent political arguments on purpose to influence your readership in a certain way, etc.
There are many instances where news stations straight out lied about the facts. Take for example climate change, or creationism. As soon as you call yourself a news agency, or seek to fulfill the same function under a different name, you should under no circumstance be allowed to lie about clear facts.
Now this sounds pretty radical, so let's put it a different way:
There are two extremes.
1) People just say whatever they want. We have creationism being taught in public schools, news stations just report whatever they like, some of them still try being honest but most just pander to their audience and feed them with the information they want to hear. Nobody is being held to a standard, facts don't matter, it's just everyone living in his own echo chamber.
2) A government that has all the tools to censor opinions on national TV and elsewhere, if they deem them unfitting. Even though the tools were meant to enforce something that may look like this, it is easy to see how such power could be abused pretty quickly.
I believe that the the US is approaching the former in a frightening speed. People already talk about our days being a supposed "post-fact-era", and I believe there is a lot of truth in that, simply because nobody is holding the media to a standard.
Standards are important in journalism, they are immensely important, but currently there are no ramifications if you simply break every golden rule known to journalism. There needs to be an authority that can take the role of a governing instance, otherwise every country will slowly but surely approach the post-fact-era, just like the US is doing now.
And I bet you that this authority will not be the public. The public cares more about its own biases and indoctrinated beliefs than about facts and honest journalism, unless you make them care.
However, we can't have the second extreme either. Free speech is important, but so is the truth. There needs to be some sort of balance. I wouldn't know how exactly that balance can be achieved, I just know that it is very important to not arrive at either extreme.
Funny how before you were talking about how the left doesn't want the government controlling things, and now you're already talking about censoring the media. And also claiming that your opinions on climate change and creationism/evolution are facts so opposing viewpoints should be censored.
as i said, balance is key. The left is definitely in favour of more governmental control, but nobody wants a dystopian future where everything is censored and controlled.
And no, my views on creationism and climate change denial aren't opinions. It's a fact that climate change is real and that the world is older than 6k years. Those are facts. It's important to get this distinction right. Teachers that teach their students wrong things about the world shouldn't be teachers. News anchors that blatantly lie shouldn't report on the news.
And no, my views on creationism and climate change denial aren't opinions. It's a fact that climate change is real and that the world is older than 6k years. Those are facts. It's important to get this distinction right. Teachers that teach their students wrong things about the world shouldn't be teachers. News anchors that blatantly lie shouldn't report on the news.
There are differences in journalism.B1rd wrote:
Funny how before you were talking about how the left doesn't want the government controlling things, and now you're already talking about censoring the media. And also claiming that your opinions on climate change and creationism/evolution are facts so opposing viewpoints should be censored.
You can publish so called "comments" which are clearly marked as the opinion of one person.
Then you can publish a "report" which would strictly stick to information and potentially include some discussion of personal opinions which is clearly transmitted as such.
Calling a comment a report is bad journalism and should be avoided by any means. Many parts of media don't tell you anymore what kind of article you're reading so you might very well get only opinions from one side of the spectrum and no informational articles at all.
Just because you think someone is true doesn't make it a fact. And just because a bunch of scientists think something is true doesn't make it true either. They have been wrong before and will be wrong again. There is no 'balance' on this issue. You have free speech or you don't. You dictate what other people are allowed to say or teach, or you don't.Railey2 wrote:
as i said, balance is key. The left is definitely in favour of more governmental control, but nobody wants a dystopian future where everything is censored and controlled.
And no, my views on creationism and climate change denial aren't opinions. It's a fact that climate change is real and that the world is older than 6k years. Those are facts. It's important to get this distinction right. Teachers that teach their students wrong things about the world shouldn't be teachers. News anchors that blatantly lie shouldn't report on the news.
Raspberry send me your results from playing this by itself:
Luckily the world isn't so black and white as you make it out to be b1rd.
b1rd needs to justify his hate speech somehowsilmarilen wrote:
Luckily the world isn't so black and white as you make it out to be b1rd.
869k, 96.47%Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Raspberry send me your results from playing this by itself:
yet I have 911k on Sayonara Planet Wars >_>
My best on that is 95.8 and I got 94.8 today. Still suck ass at eyes off of you so no 9th dan for me.Raspberriel wrote:
869k, 96.47%Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Raspberry send me your results from playing this by itself:
yet I have 911k on Sayonara Planet Wars >_>
well d'uh free speech is already restricted in many places and nobody would even think of suggesting something else. He's acting as if only the liberal party has an interest in respecting free speech, but actually.. every single party known to me does.Jellyblob56 wrote:
But it is one of right or wrong. Do or don't. True and false.silmarilen wrote:
Luckily the world isn't so black and white as you make it out to be b1rd.
Then there are theories
If you have cancer and you go to the hospital, the leading surgeon can't just go: "Hey man guess what you don't have cancer after all now go home to your kids and don't worry about it anymore!"
That's illegal. He is not allowed to lie to you because that would have horrible consequences. It's a restriction of free speech.
Freedom of speech isn't always something positive, but people get indoctrinated to a point where they just go against everyone who claims otherwise, without second thought. I bet B1rd internalized the equation freedom = good so much, he will just discard my comment without reading it a second time.
(on a side note, a "theory" is often an immensely well supported fact, in scientific lingo. Like the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution)
You don't have a 100% guarantee for anything in life. If your standards for what constitutes a fact are so high that you think it is valid to ignore decades of well-founded research, then facts might as well not exist in your world.B1rd wrote:
Just because you think someone is true doesn't make it a fact. And just because a bunch of scientists think something is true doesn't make it true either. They have been wrong before and will be wrong again. There is no 'balance' on this issue. You have free speech or you don't. You dictate what other people are allowed to say or teach, or you don't.
That's what people mean by "post-fact-era". When you say "hey, only because scientists talk about it doesn't mean it's true", as if that's a valid excuse for believing something that is completely unsupported instead of acting as if the vastly more likely option is true, then every rational discussion becomes completely useless.
News anchors have an obligation to the public, just like doctors or teachers do. It is their duty to inform the public. News HAVE to be factual, otherwise they aren't news.
If someone is casting a talkshow, that's a different issue, but news channels? Just look at fox news, or even CNN recently. The public forgot what makes facts facts, and more importantly, they forgot to care about facts. I accredit this partially to the criminal neglect of the media outlets. This is what we get when we don't have an authority putting its foot down to hold people to a set standard. You'll get a country with lots of dishonest, biased and simply stupid people. I can't stress this enough: Holding the media to a standard is immensely important. Restricting free speech is important.
Much like sentient, theory is one of those words that are commonly used in the wrong way. You're getting the meaning of theory mixed up with hypothesis jellybean; all theories have experimental results to back them up. Conspiracy theories aren't theories, they're hypotheses that people think up out of their ass.
Lots of conspiracy theories have more truth to them than you'd like to believe.
DeletedUser_6709840
That doesn't mean anything unless you have cold, hard evidence for the claims. That's why conspiracy theories often stay are just that, a theory. It may be possible and may some convincing arguments but that doesn't make it fact.B1rd wrote:
Lots of conspiracy theories have more truth to them than you'd like to believe.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb31 ... ories.htmlRoseusJaeger wrote:
That doesn't mean anything unless you have cold, hard evidence for the claims. That's why conspiracy theories often stay are just that, a theory. It may be possible and may some convincing arguments but that doesn't make it fact.B1rd wrote:
Lots of conspiracy theories have more truth to them than you'd like to believe.
What "theory" means in ordinary speech:
The term "theory" means a very different thing when used in everyday conversation and in science. In our day to day speech, we often use "theory" to mean a guess or unsubstantiated idea about how something works (as in "I have a theory that gremlins are hiding my car keys").
In science, we would call such a guess a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. In this case, I am proposing that the explanation for why I can't find my car keys is that gremlins are hiding them.*
The distinction between the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" is very important because in science "Theory" does not mean "guess". I repeat, "Theory" does not mean "guess".
So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?
According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".
I think its very often the case that someone indeed just pulled a conspiracy theory out of his ass.Jellyblob56 wrote:
Of course but I think what he's trying to say is that conspiracy theories aren't just pulled out of someone ass. They stem from something.
nyeh
porn is bad if you watch it everyday
i bet you only have sex in the missionary position : DMadvillain wrote:
porn is bad if you watch it every day
don't forget to wear your sinner-robe or else god won't know that you repent for your lewd actions.
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Madvillain laying down the obvious. Moderation is key.
Also Malena Morgan is pretty hot. C:
Also Malena Morgan is pretty hot. C:
what if there is porn deprivation?
my prostate will explode
too much osu turns you into a degenerate too, but playing once a day for half an hour isn't exactly a level of addiction that prevents you from making meaningful contributions to society and having a generally productive lifeMadvillain wrote:
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Railey2 wrote:
i play osu for 30mins perday and i am big rank and i am not degenerate do what i do or u are degenerate
Good: Size is just right to fit into the last remaining spaces my cupboard
Bad: I must stop buying figurines
FUCK.
well, obviously osu isn't comparable to porn.
i don't play much osu anyway so i can't really relate.
i don't play much osu anyway so i can't really relate.
doing something for half an hour every day that has no effect on your productivity in any other area does not make you a degenerate, that's the point I was making.Madvillain wrote:
well, obviously osu isn't comparable to porn.
i don't play much osu anyway so i can't really relate.
I really, really want that nowFaust wrote:
Good: Size is just right to fit into the last remaining spaces my cupboard
Bad: I must stop buying figurines
FUCK.
Too much porn can make you beta as fuck and contributes greatly to social and psychological problems, that's the point I was trying to make. I doubt the time span per day matters, and that osu can have the same effects.
hey rurree was better!!111 xddDMadvillain wrote:
Too much porn can make you beta as fuck and contributes greatly to social and psychological problems, that's the point I was trying to make. I doubt the time span per day matters, and that osu can have the same effects.
I think you're delusional and hold a view that is completely unsupported by anything science and social studies brought forward, but to each his own. It's also a harmful view because it perpetuates a social stigma that makes people feel guilty for no reason.Madvillain wrote:
Too much porn can make you beta as fuck, that's the point I was trying to make. I doubt the time span per day matters.
Addiction is a different matter and there definitely are lots of negative effects to addictions, but as long as there is no interference with important stuff or crippling compulsion, watching porn is simply a matter of how people want to spend their leisure time. You're making it seem worse than it is.
Why does Rreee keep making obvious as fuck / dumb points.
?????
?????
Because apparently they're not obvious enough around here lolFaust wrote:
Why does Rreee keep making obvious as fuck / dumb points.
?????
Half the regulars here just want to shove the other with semantics it's weird no one gets tired.
In other news: My salary in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
EDIT: Good Smile is releasing Pop Team Epic nendos, go and see !!
In other news: My salary in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
EDIT: Good Smile is releasing Pop Team Epic nendos, go and see !!
I'm not delusional because it happens in real life. Try reading Terry Crews' Manhood: How to Be a Better Man or Just Live with One (where he talked about pornographic addiction, stating that it had a negative impact on his marriage and personal life) I also don't think there are any studies that disprove this fact at all?
Besides, I'm not talking about casual watching, because obviously there's no problem with that. I don't think I'm making it seem worse than it is because it is that bad. How is pornographic addiction a good thing? It rewires a person's brain negatively and separates the addict from reality. It can interfere with important stuff if you're ADDICTED to the point of no return. Since when did I say that porn as a whole is bad anyway when I watch it myself?
@Faust - Probably because I was being half-assed when saying it, of course it's obvious.
Besides, I'm not talking about casual watching, because obviously there's no problem with that. I don't think I'm making it seem worse than it is because it is that bad. How is pornographic addiction a good thing? It rewires a person's brain negatively and separates the addict from reality. It can interfere with important stuff if you're ADDICTED to the point of no return. Since when did I say that porn as a whole is bad anyway when I watch it myself?
@Faust - Probably because I was being half-assed when saying it, of course it's obvious.
Faust wrote:
Why does Rreee keep making obvious as fuck / dumb points.
?????
addiction is bad, nobody is disputing that
but watching once a day doesn't make you an addict. Addiction in medical pathology means that you're going after it even though it's clearly to your own detriment, there needs to be some sort of impairment. It's dysfunctional behavior.
If you are simply doing something regularly, that doesn't mean that you're addicted. If you watch porn daily, that doesn't mean you're addicted to watching porn. Far from it.
but watching once a day doesn't make you an addict. Addiction in medical pathology means that you're going after it even though it's clearly to your own detriment, there needs to be some sort of impairment. It's dysfunctional behavior.
If you are simply doing something regularly, that doesn't mean that you're addicted. If you watch porn daily, that doesn't mean you're addicted to watching porn. Far from it.
That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Read What I Have Written
vs.
Haha No That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Reflect On What I Have To Write
vs.
Haha No That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Reflect On What I Have To Write
but since when did i talk about watching it once a day. i said everyday, but not once a day?
railey, seriously, wtf.
railey, seriously, wtf.
Faust marry meFaust wrote:
That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Read What I Have Written
vs.
Haha No That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Reflect On What I Have To Write
He's not even saying you did ?
Dude you're letting the entire thing go over your head.
@Kisses: Maybe.
Dude you're letting the entire thing go over your head.
@Kisses: Maybe.
He's giving "arguments" (idk what term to use) that had no correlation with what I was talking about. How'd that make sense? I know his point, but I'm really confused as to why he's talking about it.
I've said it over and over that watching porn during leisure time is most definitely ok. It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
I've said it over and over that watching porn during leisure time is most definitely ok. It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
Is it because you're a degenerate yourself or..
I hear taking things too seriously causes problems too.
But we're not into that right ?
Also Railey just loves to carpet-bomb words because he's smart and can English his way through.
But we're not into that right ?
Also Railey just loves to carpet-bomb words because he's smart and can English his way through.
I'm not the kind of person to have misunderstandings remain as misunderstandings. Whether I take it seriously or not doesn't even matter.
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
See that's why Railey and you keep playing this silly ping pong.
Also why'd you change your username ?
Also why'd you change your username ?
o shitFoxtrot wrote:
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
also, I love how right now, every time I step away from the forums to do something, there's at least one new post in this thread
most arguements get turned into a dick measuring contests on this thread its rely nice
Sick of people pm'ing me and thinking I'm a girl. Most weeb Filipinos in the channel think this game is a dating site.
A dating site that they think they have a chance of picking up girls from.
Clearly no one in their lives has told them to fuck off yet, it's up to you dude.
Not trying to come across as salty or w/e but why is it you always get involved in other people's exchanges? This is like the 50th time nowFoxtrot wrote:
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
Look who's talking. Besides, I can post whenever I want; this is a public forum for a reason, after all. And yeah, you're coming off as really salty so I can't help but laugh at you for it
every day includes people who do it once a day though. I agree that if the time exceeds an hour per day, you're stepping into dangerous territory, but most people don't really go thereMadvillain wrote:
but since when did i talk about watching it once a day. i said everyday, but not once a day?
railey, seriously, wtf.
anyway misunderstandings suck, addictions suck too, I think we're on the same page in this anyway. I just don't like people using the word "degenerate" prematurely.
Wrong.Madvillain wrote:
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Too much porn doesn't make you a degenerate. Being a degenerate makes you watch too much porn. There is a difference.
In my opinion, both are true.
Too good.
T-That's another curious claimEneT wrote:
Wrong.Madvillain wrote:
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Too much porn doesn't make you a degenerate. Being a degenerate makes you watch too much porn. There is a difference.
Can't be. Watching too much porn suggests there was already something wrong in your life in the first place. Maybe you ain't gettin' any good pussy, you're ugly, un-social asf or w/e. No one with a decently functioning life would watch porn and become addicted to it when the real thing is so much better and easy to attain.
But it happened to Terry Crews who was already a successful actor and footballer. It happens. Just not that often though compared to the point you made.
There was already something wrong with him to begin with, just because he's successful doesn't mean there can't be something wrong in his head. Unlike drugs or alcohol, Porn isn't the kind of thing you watch then suddenly become addicted to but much like drugs and alcohol it's a form of escape. There is a reason why you're watching Porn, there always is.
You shouldn't be questioning the act of doing things, rather, questioning the reasoning behind those actions.
You shouldn't be questioning the act of doing things, rather, questioning the reasoning behind those actions.
Fair point.
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
It's wrong to say that having a lot of money makes you rich. If you have a lot of money, you're already rich in the first place!
the distinction you're making here is completely nonsensical, EneT.
Plus, addiction doesn't always happen for rational or predictable reasons. It can just happen without anything pointing towards it. Maybe people had a rich life before they started playing osu, but then just dropped their other activities one after another while increasing their playtime until it turned into something bad and compulsive.
the distinction you're making here is completely nonsensical, EneT.
Plus, addiction doesn't always happen for rational or predictable reasons. It can just happen without anything pointing towards it. Maybe people had a rich life before they started playing osu, but then just dropped their other activities one after another while increasing their playtime until it turned into something bad and compulsive.
Now you're the one being nonsensical. The example you give has nothing to do with psychology. There is a root to all addictions and it can stem from something as simple as having an addictive personality, which is a problem in of itself. If you're going as far enough to drop other activities to the point it becomes bad and compulsive, there's something wrong going on inside your head, be it consciously or subconsciously.
so having an addictive personality makes you a degenerate cause there's something wrong with your head?
You do realize that many people with addictive personalities live completely functional lives? it just means that they have a greater potential to become addicted. Sure, addictions have roots, but these roots themselves can hardly be enough to call someone a degenerate. Many people who have them end up living perfectly normal lives.
What you do is akin to calling someone with a great business sense rich before he actually earned something, because after all that may the condition that allows him to make a lot of money later on...
You're a degenerate if you exhibit degenerate behavior. The definition of degenerate (in a social sense, which is how rurree used the word) is tied to how people perform as a part of society, nothing else. it also has nothing to do with psychology.
You do realize that many people with addictive personalities live completely functional lives? it just means that they have a greater potential to become addicted. Sure, addictions have roots, but these roots themselves can hardly be enough to call someone a degenerate. Many people who have them end up living perfectly normal lives.
What you do is akin to calling someone with a great business sense rich before he actually earned something, because after all that may the condition that allows him to make a lot of money later on...
You're a degenerate if you exhibit degenerate behavior. The definition of degenerate (in a social sense, which is how rurree used the word) is tied to how people perform as a part of society, nothing else. it also has nothing to do with psychology.
I also don't like how degenerate was used in this conversation; this is why I referred to it as 'degenerate' in this post.
The way degenerate was used here, for me points to the psychological effects prior to and during addiction, so he didn't fully imply it in the social sense. It has everything to do with psychology. He may be using it in the wrong way but the word degenerate itself fully implies the decline of your psyche.EneT wrote:
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
Madvillain wrote:
It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
if you let it control your mind, aka if you give into it any addictive potential you might have and start exhibiting degenerate behaviour, which means prioritising porn over more important things.
note that the point here is, that you are only degenerate when you actually let it take control, not when you are in a group where the risk of it taking control is increased. You turn degenerate once you start being addicted, just like you turn rich once you make all the money. You aren't degenerate just because you have an addictive personality, and you aren't rich because just because you have a good business sense.
note that the point here is, that you are only degenerate when you actually let it take control, not when you are in a group where the risk of it taking control is increased. You turn degenerate once you start being addicted, just like you turn rich once you make all the money. You aren't degenerate just because you have an addictive personality, and you aren't rich because just because you have a good business sense.
Your 'being rich' analogy is completely different; you're looking at a completely different perspective to what I'm saying.
When it comes to getting addicted to things non-drug related, there has to be a certain level of decline in your head. That doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with you, but it can. Maybe you're experiencing a stressful situation or just not thinking right. In the case of this conversation, you need to already have a certain level of degeneracy (mental decline) to become addicted to something. People don't just become addicted to something out of the blue like that. Addiction doesn't cause degeneracy, it just increases it. You don't have to exhibit degenerate behaviour to be a degenerate. You guys are just using the word degenerate in the wrong way as it's commonly used as an insult for people that exhibit that behaviour.
When it comes to getting addicted to things non-drug related, there has to be a certain level of decline in your head. That doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with you, but it can. Maybe you're experiencing a stressful situation or just not thinking right. In the case of this conversation, you need to already have a certain level of degeneracy (mental decline) to become addicted to something. People don't just become addicted to something out of the blue like that. Addiction doesn't cause degeneracy, it just increases it. You don't have to exhibit degenerate behaviour to be a degenerate. You guys are just using the word degenerate in the wrong way as it's commonly used as an insult for people that exhibit that behaviour.
you define degeneracy as a psychological state that can even be there in the absence of degenerate behaviour, i define degeneracy as degenerate behaviour.
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
Yes, and the way you and most other people use it is the wrong way to use it; that's why it's clearly separated as 'degeneracy' and 'degenerate behaviour'. The only reason it has a strong connotation for you is because of the way it is commonly used as an insult for fucked up assholes. It simply means a decline of psyche but since people nowadays use it as a word to insult people who have outlandish morals or shitty social skills it gives off the wrong impression. It's brainwashing hammered onto you due to society.
You can keep using the word however you please since that is how it's commonly accepted as but since Rurree used it wrongly in a psychological sense, then fo sure imma go psychological on you hoes and use it in it's true, psychological meaning.
You can keep using the word however you please since that is how it's commonly accepted as but since Rurree used it wrongly in a psychological sense, then fo sure imma go psychological on you hoes and use it in it's true, psychological meaning.
heyhey now. Let's not call it an opinion that i hold because of brainwashing, when it's clear that degeneracy is a word with a dozen meanings, and none of them are even used in clinical psychology. You don't get to decide that your definition is right and mine is brainwashed. As it stands, the word isnt something that has been defined in psychological terms, so different definitions are to be expected. That doesn't mean that only one is more right than the other, they can just be more or less useful.
Yeah... no. It's psychological meaning is already defined and the way people commonly use it nowadays to insult others stems from this definition. Yes, it can have many meanings when used in different fields as it's most basic definition is the deterioration into a lower level but since in this case it's used as an insult derived from it's psychological meaning, then the definition you hold is still due to brainwashing.
In the past, you could have held up that argument as it was used to insult people of lower social status such as minorities and poorer people but the way people use it nowadays to insult people of low social skills and questionable morals directly stems from it's psychological definition.
In the past, you could have held up that argument as it was used to insult people of lower social status such as minorities and poorer people but the way people use it nowadays to insult people of low social skills and questionable morals directly stems from it's psychological definition.
you can go ahead and call everyone brainwashed who doesn't want to call people that function perfectly fine degenerates, but i have to tell you that's quite an outlandish thing to say.
You say a degenerate could even be someone who behaves normally, while i claim the opposite.
small correction on my part, i meant to talk about the word 'degenerate', as a description of a person, not of the word 'degeneracy', or the word 'degenerate (adjective)'.Railey2 wrote:
you define degeneracy as a psychological state that can even be there in the absence of degenerate behaviour, i define degeneracy as degenerate behaviour.
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
You say a degenerate could even be someone who behaves normally, while i claim the opposite.
I can see where you're coming from but it's still wrong. I myself don't use it in it's true, psychological meaning normally either. I don't call normal, functioning people degenerates; I use it in it's commonly used definition as an insult. That doesn't take away the fact though that this negative connotation is wrong and due to brainwashing from past and present popular culture.
Girls in England call each other slags as an insult, but does that mean the original definition has an negative connotation? No, no it doesn't.
Girls in England call each other slags as an insult, but does that mean the original definition has an negative connotation? No, no it doesn't.
language changes all the time, that's the nature of it.
The word 'nice' used to be an insult, while the word silly used to be a compliment!
Original meaning matters little. Language is constantly evolving.
The word 'nice' used to be an insult, while the word silly used to be a compliment!
Original meaning matters little. Language is constantly evolving.
Original meanings still matters. Words need to retain some kind of semblance of their original meaning for people to understand how words nowadays derive from so that the language doesn't derail like it has done so in the past.
the two examples i made show words that derailed in the most extreme way (the meaning reverted completely), but i doubt that anyone would see that as something bad. There is no semblance of the original meaning there, but i bet you didn't even know of it. They are just regular words that became different regular words. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah I didn't know. That's a pretty cool fact of the day.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception. There has to be order, even if it is in something minuscule such as language.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception. There has to be order, even if it is in something minuscule such as language.
that's what evolution is. A change caused by error in translation, something that was misconceived and turned into something else because of it.EneT wrote:
Yeah I didn't know. That's a pretty cool fact of the day.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception.
Language doesn't follow the dictionary, the dictionary follows language. There is still order, even though the order from today might not be the order from 100 years ago. What matters is that people at the time can understand each other.
Whatever you say man. Evolving suggests an advancement and I don't consider using words in a completely different way an advancement, I consider it a degradation. Just look at the use of slang words. You really call that an evolution of language?
I don't, that isn't advancing forward, that's going backwards.
That's a rhetorical question btw for others to reflect, not to reply to. You can give your opinion but it won't necessarily mean that I will care for it or that I will reply. I'm tired of this conversation.
I don't, that isn't advancing forward, that's going backwards.
That's a rhetorical question btw for others to reflect, not to reply to. You can give your opinion but it won't necessarily mean that I will care for it or that I will reply. I'm tired of this conversation.
i'm sure people from the 1400s would have really looked down on Shakespeare for using such a degenerated (tehee) language in his works.
You consider simply doing things differently a degradation? Most conservative statement i've ever heard.
Either way, singular words changing their meaning (which happens all the time), isn't really what causes language to degenerate. What really sets things off is changes to grammar...
You consider simply doing things differently a degradation? Most conservative statement i've ever heard.
Either way, singular words changing their meaning (which happens all the time), isn't really what causes language to degenerate. What really sets things off is changes to grammar...