Profile for Slarty


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
The War on Christmas in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #53
Nobody's saying that self-discipline isn't also a factor in obesity. Obviously it is. But there are external factors as well.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #302
Actually, if you take the time to read the link, the study was undertaken in concert by a gay rights group AND a group advocating for the homeless.

Regardless, if you do think the statistics are bogus, just saying so isn't going to convince anyone. Instead, why don't you cite some studies that present conflicting statistics? Or look up this study, read its methodology and offer a critique explaining your accusation that it was doctored.

That said, I'm not really sure why a gay rights group would be served well by claiming lots of gay people are homeless if that isn't the case. Homeless people are generally maligned and looked down on by many Americans (as your own comments exemplify).

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
How does respawning work? in The Exile Trilogy
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #8
There certainly could be special cases.

I thought the spawned monsters weren't erased when you left, though, or at least not in the first two Exile games, when I remember resting several thousand times in goblin and nephil forts, and coming and going.

They *definitely* weren't erased in the original Nethergate. shudder.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
The War on Christmas in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #50
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I have seen no discernible difference in the distribution of fast food places in one part of town compared with another part of town. If cooking was more prevalent in one part of town compared too another big business would know about... Being poor is no excuse for being fat.
Dude, there is a *definite* difference in the distribution of fast food joints, restaurants, bodegas, and most importantly, grocery stores, in different neighborhoods. There certainly was in Chicago, anyway. And big business does know about it.

Grocery stores are the most important because bodegas and convenience stores are way more expensive when you are trying to buy healthy foods. Grocery stores, in my experience, are less plentiful in poorer neighborhoods AND are more expensive. Seriously; the built up giant grocery stores that populate the rich Chicago suburbs have really cheap prices. The city-sized ones on the south side where I lived had more expensive prices.

This isn't a deliberate attempt to make poor people fat but it is an exploitation of the circumstances of those neighborhoods. Less competition for groceries mean they can be priced higher. And fast food is dramatically less healthy than food at most restaurants, but it's also dramatically cheaper. If you really are poor it's hard to afford to eat well.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #295
quote:
Originally written by Safey:

I always considered homosexuality to be something entertained by the rich.
Honestly, Safey, this is kind of ridiculous. A quick google search provides this claim:

"Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GBLT) people make up an estimated 20 to 40 percent of the national homeless population while composing between three and five percent of the general population, according to a report released Tuesday, Jan. 30 by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Coalition for the Homeless."
- http://cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=401

40 percent sounds like a lot to me, too. But queer people are definitely over-, not underrepresented in our lowest classes. Ask anyone who's worked with the homeless...

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Provide or Hide Character Details in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #6
Thuryl's right, you can certainly search for it here, or in a FAQ -- the same place you'd look for any other game. For example, Deadeye gives you a +1 bonus to Sharpshooter and another +1 bonus at level 6, 12, 18, etc. Sharpshooter is like having +1 in Bows and in Throwing Weapons, it just gives +1 damage die and +5% to hit.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Provide or Hide Character Details in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #2
There are very few CRPGs out there that (accurately) explain the impact of every potential character trait/skill/attribute anywhere, let alone in the game.

In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Another Old School Game in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #34
Eschaton is the Realmz of 2007.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #286
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Fernication, Do you think I’m arguing for or against recognition of same-sex marriage? I’m not.
You're not arguing against it, and I never said you were. You're saying you don't think there's a need to recognize it, and you're arguing that it's legitimate to recognize only opposite-sex marriage. The others here are arguing that there IS a need to recognize both kinds of marriage, and that it's NOT legitimate to recognize only opposite-sex marriage.

Now that we've gotten that cleared up, allow me to rephrase my question slightly for clarity (rephrase in bold). I'd appreciate your thoughts on this question:

According to that reasoning, Stillness, then any opposite sex-pairing incapable of doing those two things does not need to be included in government marriage benefits. Because then they would not be any more "naturally different" than a non-opposite sex-pairing. Right?

quote:
Now, I freely admit that this encyclopedia is not winning any awards for anything, but it seems you are a bit off about sex and children.
Translation: "I'm quoting a crappy source, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyway."

quote:
But even if a couple don’t have sex or children, the government still recognizes them as married for whatever reasons. If you are making an argument for a different type of union to be recognized, make it a logical one.
How exactly is "for whatever reasons" a logical argument? I'd like to know what exactly those reasons are and why they only apply to abstinent, childless couples who happen to be opposite-sex.

So far you haven't addressed this direction. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be implying, based on your statements about positive discrimination and such, an argument that "it doesn't matter whether or not the abstinent, childless opposite-sex couples get those benefits too. It's okay if they do and it would be okay if they don't." Am I hearing your argument correctly? If not, can you please correct me? Thank you.

quote:
Individuals have genders. Marriages do not, so you can’t discriminate between marriages based on the gender of the marriage.
Let me draw an analogy using this justification.

Individuals have races. School districts do not, so you can't discriminate between school districts based on the race of the school district. Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law giving millions of dollars in educational spending only to school districts that are predominantly white.

Do you agree with that statement as well?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
The War on Christmas in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #46
What's wrong with ten $10 hotplates?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #280
Yes. Many have, in fact.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Another Old School Game in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #31
I just downloaded Eschalon and gave it a whirl. It looks nice, but it does play very slowly.

The walking speed would be tolerable if I wasn't forced use the mouse once per every square I move. Having to position the mouse properly, given the 8 directions you can move and the size of the grid squares, requires a little bit of guesswork -- and quickly becomes annoying.

Having to hold down the mouse button constantly is ridiculous. It's a basic tenet of user control design that having a cursor controlled by a mouse allows a lot of flexibility, but only when the user is in control of when they use the mouse. The cursor is more versatile than the keyboard, but it's slower to adapt, and users tend to develop unique ways of using the mouse for certain tasks and the keyboard for others to make their work flow smoothly.

The "press a button to walk in a straight line until you press another button" feature doesn't help at all. Even when you walk in one direction there are enough random trees, walls, etc. that you typically have to change direction a couple of times to keep going.

The thing I find mind-boggling is that there's no keyboard movement option at all. The arrow keys aren't used for anything else. The keypad isn't used for anything else. And it wouldn't take away from the mouse movement option in any way. Why oh why is there no keyboard movement option?

The game looks beautiful, and some of the UI elements are very nice. But I'm afraid this one is a deal-breaker for me. It makes moving around, something so basic that I shouldn't have to put thought and effort into it, into an irritating burden.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #270
According to that reasoning, Stillness, then any opposite sex-pairing incapable of doing those two things should not get government marriage benefits. Because then they would not be any more "naturally different" than a non-opposite sex-pairing. Right?

[ Friday, December 14, 2007 08:20: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Fort Remote in Tech Support
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #5
A long time ago, I wrote an Articles & Examples article for BoE that went on for some time about misspellings of Rentar-Ihrno.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #262
I know a guy who offers lessons at reasonable rates.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #231
I was hoping Alec would join in on this discussion.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #210
Another thought exercise.

Let's say I'm running two giant games on the internet. In each game, all players start out with 50 points.

In the first game, I change the rules so that male players start out with a bonus 5 points. They now read "All players start with 50 points. Male players get a bonus of 5 points."

In the second game, I change the rules so that female players start out with 5 points less. They now read "All players start with 50 points. Female players get a penalty of 5 points."

Which one of these is discrimination-for and which one is discrimination-against?

Now suppose I change how the rules are worded without changing the effects. The first game becomes "All players start with 55 points. Female players get a penalty of 5 points."

The second game becomes "All players start with 45 points. Male players get a bonus of 5 points."

Now which one is discrimination-for and which one is discrimination-against?

..

This for-against dichotomy seems to me to be a linguistic, deictic distinction regarding how we phrase a particular type of discrimination. It doesn't have anything to do with the content. This is because discrimination does not depend on being treated well or poorly. It depends on being treated differently.

The best logical explanation I can come up with for your dichotomy, Stillness, is that it's based on motivation: discrimination-for is how you describe discrimination that is intended to help people (the parking spaces). Discrimination-against is how you describe discrimination that isn't (the water fountains). But that's subjective. No doubt the white purists who made the water fountain rules think that it keeps "unclean" people away from whites, and therefore helps whites.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #186
I think part of the confusion stems from different uses of "discrimination" -- it can be used just to indicate making a rational distinction between two different things, or it can be used to indicate making an irrational, prejudiced decision based on a personal quality. Choosing the dessert you prefer falls under the first definition, but not the second. Denying women or blacks the ability to vote falls under the second definition.

It sounds like everyone is in general agreement about the following statements, though we are wording it very differently:

- The first type of discrimination is typically good
- The second type of discrimination is typically bad
- In practice, either type of discrimination could have net good or net bad effects

The disagreement is whether discrimination in availability of marriage-related government benefits is a bad thing (argued by myself and others), or whether it is neither good nor bad and doesn't matter (argued by Stillness).

Does this summary sound accurate to others?

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 09:02: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #182
Four legs good -- two legs better!

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 07:49: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #179
quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

quote:
But that's besides the point. Marriage is not about children.
If not, then let me ask a very seemingly naive question, one which I don't think we've covered enough: What IS marriage?

I agree that we are missing something relevant with this question. I'd like to suggest that we further divide it into three open questions:

1) What have the functions of marriage been, in the past?

2) To what degree can marriage continue to fulfill that role?

3) Should any remaining functions be filled in other ways, or should they be ignored? If they should be filled, how do we fill them?

One of the main reasons this topic has become such a political issue, I think, is that religious conservatives, naturally concerned with the social and psychological significance of marriage, are keenly aware of the divide between question 1 and question 2. They assume that the only answer is to restore marriage to its past significance, which is probably impossible to do in the tides of moving history. Social progressives are more aware of this but are more interested in debuffing marriage -- in question 2 -- than they are in solving the problem.

I think the reality is that we have to look at the ways marriage has played a positive role in human civilization and, where marriage is no longer adequate, find other ways to fill those needs. Until we do that, some people will always decry a shift in importance from marriage to civil union: not because they really want to discriminate -- that's a red herring -- but because they see something legitimately lacking in the marriage alternative.

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 06:52: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #178
The "bald assertion" has been asserted with hair (explanation) previously in this thread. Locmaar was just arguing with your recap of it.

But let me ask two simple questions:

1. Do you think that discrimination is bad?

2. Do you agree with Student of Trinity's explanation of how limiting benefits to heterosexual pairings is an inequality?


--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #132
Most bisexual people, like most gay and straight people, are monogamous. You could just as easily have a grouping of a straight man and two straight women, or of three lesbians, as you could have three bisexual people. (And my impression is that the first has been by far the most common in history, though that's just an impression and I have nothing to back it up.)

I think your point about "where do we draw the line" is legitimate, and is yet another reason I don't see why the government should legislate marriage. Excluding same sex couples is just as arbitrary as excluding poly triples (etc.).

However, the government does have a line drawn in two places, by default: CONSENT and LEGAL STATURE. If somebody wants to marry a plant, that's completely irrelevant to our conversation as the plant is incapable of receiving any of the legal benefits on Salmon's long list. Same thing for animals, which are considered a special type of property under U.S. law (whether that's justified could be a separate conversation, I suppose).

Laws regarding consent make it illegal for minors of any age to be involved with anyone who is significantly older or in most caretaking capacities. I would sooner die than marry one of my parents, but if some other 25-year-old wants to, who am I to stop him?

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #128
Where is this bisexuality -> groupings thing coming from? Bisexuality implies pairings just as much (or as little) as heterosexuality and homosexuality do. Polygamy (or polysexual, or poly-whatever) imply groupings.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #126
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Unfortunately it's been done in the past, and could happen again (Nazi Germany).
Yes, and we all know how the USA loves to sterilize homosexuals.

This isn't such an asburd comparison. India, a country that tends to be fairly progressive politically, briefly had programs to sterilize lower class men in the 80's.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Omaha Mall Shooting in General
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #121
Take a deep breath -- I find myself agreeing with Stillness on several points:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be. Again, a marriage is a private contract between the individuals involved in it, and it's not anybody else's business why they choose to make that contract.
I can't agree with this. While the relationship enshrined in marriage is certainly a private thing, marriage itself is one form (the traditional form) for a public representation of that relationship. Historically marriage ceremonies have tended to involve not just relatives and local officials but, often, entire communities. It seems to me its significance was always social more than anything else. In cases where marriage has explicitly involved a contract, the contract often involved persons other than the beloved, or even was negotiated or signed by them, especially in the case of women, ever held low.

Is marriage different today, in a society organized around individual selection of spouses based on love -- a very different criterion than has been in use in most of human history?

It is different for many people, but not for everyone. That is why I think the fairest route is to leave marriage as a community decision (obviously, this would include religious communities) and attach all the government benefits to something more equitable.

quote:
I believe the simple truth is that some people feel homosexuality should be accepted by society the same as heterosexuality and they think marriage will get them closer to that goal.
I think this is actually quite true. The people you describe probably also genuinely want same sex marriage to exist -- it isn't just a stepping stone -- but you're right.

It was probably also true that some of the people arguing against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education felt that blacks should be accepted the same as whites and thought that was one step closer. That hardly makes their position any weaker.

quote:
Those of my faith are generally apolitical. I think my comments are being misread.
What faith are you? Because Christianity in general is certainly the most politically active religion in this country.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00

Pages