ChaosEngine NZ

Member Profile

Birthdate: August 17th, 1977 (38 years old)

Member Since: November 9, 2009
Last Power Points used: June 15, 2016
Available: now
Power Points at Recharge: 1   Get More Power Points Now!

Comments to ChaosEngine

ChaosEngine says...

Totally agree that women can do serious damage, and also that female on male violence shouldn't be ignored (and certainly people shouldn't victim blame a male abuse victim with accusations of weakness, etc).

I don't have the figures to hand, but I have read before that female violence tends to be things like slapping whereas male violence tends to involve more serious injury.

"Common sense" would tend to bear that out, but "common sense" is very frequently wrong, so it's a good idea to try to find data to back it up. I will see if I can find the studies I read on it.

newtboy said:

Are you sure? I couldn't find stats on injuries by gender, only attacks. Women can do some serious damage too, not that I'm disagreeing with you about average/normal outcomes.
If you're right (and I think it's likely that you are), that is a good reason to focus MORE on men, but not ONLY on men. In those 'mutual combat' situations, it's quite likely that women bear the brunt of most injuries, which is even more reason they should be taught to not hit first, if not simply because it's the right thing to do, then because they may get seriously hurt by someone defending themselves.

Had to reply on your profile, the video turned out to be a dupe so I couldn't just quote you.

newtboy says...

Are you sure? I couldn't find stats on injuries by gender, only attacks. Women can do some serious damage too, not that I'm disagreeing with you about average/normal outcomes.
If you're right (and I think it's likely that you are), that is a good reason to focus MORE on men, but not ONLY on men. In those 'mutual combat' situations, it's quite likely that women bear the brunt of most injuries, which is even more reason they should be taught to not hit first, if not simply because it's the right thing to do, then because they may get seriously hurt by someone defending themselves.

Had to reply on your profile, the video turned out to be a dupe so I couldn't just quote you.

ChaosEngine said:

The problem is outcome.

Yes, domestic violence is often perpetrated by women. The difference is that it doesn't usually result in serious injury to the man.

Obviously, anyone assaulting anyone is wrong. But given that males abusing women results in much more serious injury, it's clearly the greater problem.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Deconstructing Gorillaz - How They Blurred The Genre Lines has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your comment on Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns? has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 18 Badge!

gorillaman says...

Well, somehow the lesson you've taken from no true scotsman is that it's impossible to define groups, and that no statement can be made that applies to more than one person.

Now the irony for me is that I don't find that hilarious at all, because I don't think you're a waste of my time. What I believe is that there's a thinking person trapped inside you somewhere that might one day break free.

ChaosEngine said:

Ok, this is a waste of my time. The irony of you accusing me of not understanding no true scotsman or english is beyond hilarious.

ChaosEngine says...

Ok, this is a waste of my time. The irony of you accusing me of not understanding no true scotsman or english is beyond hilarious.

gorillaman said:

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

gorillaman says...

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

ChaosEngine said:

The statements are trivially disprovable. I know several peaceful muslims. There, done. Your statement is false.

You couldn't find a better example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy if you tried.


"Followers of violent ideologies are not peaceful".

Here's a thought exercise for you, since you seem to pride yourself on not being afraid to think.

Humans are not perfectly rational or consistent. They are, in fact, capable of holding two opposing positions at once. This is called cognitive dissonance (you're a good example of this yourself, in that you are engaging in a logical fallacy while upholding the virtue of rationality).

Saying "there are no peaceful muslims" is like saying there are no divorced Catholics, when such things self-evidently exist.

So, to sum up:
You are not right - your "factual statement" is incorrect.
You are not just - you are making a sweeping generalisation about 1 billion people.
You are not rational - you are engaged in a logical fallacy.

gorillaman says...

There are statements that are true by definition. Followers of violent ideologies are not peaceful.

You choose not to believe necessarily factual statements because you're afraid they would hurt your view of yourself as the beneficent, tolerant progressive. That's cowardice. It's more important to be right, to be just, to be rational.

ChaosEngine said:

Says the guy who makes comments like "There's no such thing as a peaceful muslim."

Yeah, I'm the one who's afraid of thinking. Nuance? Context? Who the fuck needs those!?

gorillaman says...

You're afraid of thinking. Much better to just keep congratulating yourself on holding all the right opinions.

ChaosEngine said:

I would need a cogent argument to refute in the first place.

Yours is just completely nonsensical.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Member's Highest Rated Videos