Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

How about the short jump event? They get a micrometer out and the person who manages to jump the least distance wins? It would be a test of skill and precision.

[itisnotlogical]

Jackson Pollock was a hack. I don't dislike all abstract or "out there" art, I just specifically hate Pollock and his style and the heaps of praise he gets for obscure methods of splashing paint.

[Reelya]

IDK there was some interesting work with fractal analysis on Pollock's paintings in the 1990s. Pollocks paintings have a measurable fractal dimension, and computers can tell a real Pollock from a fake based on fractal dimension 93% of the time.

Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock’s fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals and Nature's fractals.

While I'm not a fan myself, they have shown that there is some measurable subjective quality in Pollock's paintings not found in knock offs or derivatives.

And, as soon as he became famous for the "drip method", he abruptly stopped doing that and started experimenting on completely different styles, which negatively affected his popularity because collectors were hoping for "more of the same". So he wasn't a "hack" in that sense.

[feelotraveller]

How about those age of consent laws? Huh? 8 year olds are totally up for it, don't believe what the government and media would have you believe.

The idea behind the laws is that children lack a comprehensive understanding of the world sufficient to compose an informed and reasoned decision, thus making any consent that they might grant invalid. In short, children don't know what's best for them, so grown-ups make the decisions for them. Of course it's typically their legal guardians who make those decisions, not the government. An exception was made in the case of sexual liaisons due to a determined propensity for progressive mental damage that can be incurred from sexual contact during formative years.

At least, that is the explanation commonly given. In reality, it's clear that children mature at vastly differing rates. Some are prepared to deal with life at ages much younger than the legal limit, and some are not prepared until much later. It would make more sense to have some sort of test for determining maturity, rather than a simple age limit. And indeed the current age limit has caused a lot of harm due to guys at parties having a quick fling with some jailbait and ending up being imprisoned for years and then being labeled a sexual predator for the rest of their lives.

Nah, the laws are an authoritarian power play designed to produce greedy nutcases rabid consumers.  Sexual deprivation and isolation from birth does massive mental and social damage.

The informed/reasoned consent line imports culturally dominant values (masculine, devoid of emotion, calculated, etc.) and denies the freedom/expression of individuals not actively displaying such traits.  (In the example the 'guys at parties' are deemed to have these qualities whilst being unable to demonstrate them, yet the 'jailbaits' are thought not to be capable of having them.)

The existing laws are imperfect, but the social bias against pedophilia is so strong that the likelihood of anything being done about it in our lifetimes is basically nil. c'est la vie.

Agree with this sentiment, but the pedophilia (=demented authoritarian power play ) phobia does nothing to explain why 2 or more eight year olds are prevented from getting it on together.

Prohibition and the black market has caused a massive drug problem, same goes for sex.

[tonnot98]

Jackson Pollock was a hack. I don't dislike all abstract or "out there" art, I just specifically hate Pollock and his style and the heaps of praise he gets for obscure methods of splashing paint.

It's all in how you explain your bullshit that gets it sold.

[Ardent Debater]

I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't

[Criptfeind]

Living humans don't have the right to life at the cost of the body autonomy of others. Therefor abortion is just execution of criminals.

[Reelya]

An unborn fetus might have the same rights as e.g. a comatose patient on life support.

If you can't survive without life support you don't have an automatic right to it. Hospitals already have the right to deny you treatment that would save your life.

So fetuses having their life support revoked is the same rights as anyone else.

It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.

[MaximumZero]

I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing  or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?

for what it's worth, i've always enjoyed watching actual, proper swordsmanship. there's a lot more depth that goes into real fencing than any kind of sport fencing. even with something like kendo, which imo is leagues ahead of olympic fencing, it's still drastically oversimplified compared to actual sword techniques. at least with kendo, most techniques do carry over to actual fencing, it's just that you're restricted to a very limited number of targets and techniques. olympic fencing is about as detached from real fencing as you can get and still have your weapon somewhat resemble a sword

i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watch

Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.

while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours

Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.

[ChairmanPoo]

It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.

... I don't think  it is, at least in Europe. Then again we have public healthcare.

[Sheb]

PTW

[Criptfeind]

Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.

Yeah, I've have watched one (which is why I brought it up) and they look cool, but a bit unsatisfying, first because I don't speak Russian so I can't follow much more then just the fight, secondly because the one I watched at least seemed to be more like "MMA fighters with swords fighting" rather then "swordsmen fighting." Not that I'm an expert enough to know I guess. But even so watching some dudes play with swords for a bit before taking down to the mat wasn't as cool as I was hoping for when I heard medieval knight fights.

[Reelya]

It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.

... I don't think  it is, at least in Europe. Then again we have public healthcare.

Yeah, but I was thinking of this in terms of the anti-abortioner who is 50%+ likely to be American, and be conservative, so not be in favor of unliimited free medical treatment at need.

[Silverthrone]

I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.

I do agree, in part. It is a baby, and an abortion means that it is being killed. However, I still think that abortion is necessary, albeit terribly unpleasant. I do not like that the baby concerned is dehumanised to make the procedure less confrontative. A baby is being killed, but I maintain that sometimes it is best to do so.
But then again, I suppose my main point is that I do not like the idea of abortion being taken as a light procedure, just "removing a foetus", when it involves a baby and its death. None of the people I have met who have gone through an abortion has taken it lightly. It is, I realise, very anecdotal, but I do not believe that a thoughtless detachment over the fate of the child is as common as it may seem.
Of course, it is all under the caveat that I do not truly know, and the best I can do is idle speculation.