Degeneration

[guest012511]

Originally Posted by WTF

You completely agree with a generalization about a generalization being an excuse to be judgmental?
WTF am I missing here? Irony? No, I see the irony. Maybe we need a puppy and an analogy!

Oh WTF, I think you are generalizing the general nature of my general agreement to Lauren's post.

Yes. To generalize is to make a blanket statement based on ones experience.
You can either choose to learn a new experience or "judge" from past dealings... -which essentially is generalizing.

To provide the most basic and simple of examples:
Not all tall people are basketball players nor are they runway models.

This is in essence what I took away from Lauren's post; which I subsequently agreed with.


Thanks.

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by Hanna Darling

Oh WTF, I think your are generalizing the general nature of my general agreement to Lauren's post.

Yes. To generalize is to make a blanket statement based on ones experience.
You can either choose to learn a new experience or "judge" from past dealings... -which essentially is generalizing.

To provide the most basic and simple of examples:
Not all all tall people are basketball players nor are they runway models.

Allow me to use another example (I'm snowed in and have nothing better to do) - To say Polish people eat perogies, is perfectly accurate. An individual Polish person may not eat them, but it's fair to say that it's a cultural norm, and thus a generalization of a people.

When you start making generalizations in relation to emotional elements or intellectual ones - Polish people are stubborn or Polish people have bellow average intelligence (or women can't handle truth) you are degrading individuals and doing humanity a great disservice. Human history books are ladled with examples of how seemingly harmless generalizations gain steam over time and lead to abuse and atrocities. It's a conscious attempt to create conflict by separating people into "Us" and "Them", usually translating at some fundamental level to "Good (us)" and "Bad (them)". It's an effort to devalue a human being that is different than you.

Such generalizations are nothing short of an excuse to mistreat entire groups and all the individuals they encounter from that group, to feed their own need for superiority without a sense of guilt, even when they encounter obvious exceptions to their imagined rules. It's a degeneration of moral and social fabric.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Hanna Darling

To provide the most basic and simple of examples:
Not all tall people are basketball players nor are they runway models.

This is in essence what I took away from Lauren's post; which I subsequently agreed with.

And that is about all I took away from it too. Nothing profound there though do ya think?
My point was to try and counter generalizations with nothing but another generalization does what?
My other point was we all do it. Lauren starts a thread with the premise being nothing more than a puppy generalization. Which then makes me scratch my head when she generalizes about why people generalize in another thread! LOL . Maybe it just proves that we all do exactly the same thing only we do not like it when it is done against us and have no problem doing it when we feel the need to generalize, generally speaking of course.

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

.

Such generalizations are nothing short of an excuse to mistreat entire groups and all the individuals they encounter from that group, to feed their own need for superiority without a sense of guilt, even when they encounter obvious exceptions to their imagined rules. It's a degeneration of moral and social fabric.

And what is your point? Everyone does it... is my point. EVERYONE. There are no exceptions. It is human nature, survival of the fittest. Argue all you want about how we shouldn't do so but without winning your point then your way of thinking gets wiped from the planet. Human nature forces you to defend your tribe from others by any and all means. We all do things to win , just because one tribe does things behind closed doors does not mean they are not countering exactly the things they profess to despise. To not understand this seems naive to me

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Amen brother Sisyphus!

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe it just proves that we all do exactly the same thing only we do not like it when it is done against us and have no problem doing it when we feel the need to generalize, generally speaking of course.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

[..]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

"With a good leg and a good foot, uncle, and money enough in his purse, such a man would win any woman in the world, if a' could get her good-will."

(Beatrice's statement; stolen from Shakespeare; violently forced into a new context.)

[..]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

+1

[Laurentius]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is human nature, survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest?

What evolution is about is rather: "Whose genes make it into the genepool for the next generation."

As providers are, for purposes of the hobby, effectively sterile; it would seem to me that using the criteria of evolution, hobbying is about as maladaptive as it gets; especially when the funds expended could take away from one's own offspring and subsidize the offspring of other men.

"Survival of the fittest" is an utterly ridiculous concept to apply to the hobby -- from the hobbyist's perspective.

HOWEVER -- from the perspective of the S.O. of a provider, it is a serious winner. You get to have other men subsidize your offspring. It is cuckoldry beyond all bounds.

So I'm not so sure the hobby is a good place to apply this idea. (*grin*)

Incidentally, evolution doesn't care how my genes get into the genepool so long as they are there. If they get there by me killing all my competitors and dragging their women back to my cave, that is no different in terms of evolution than if I had been a dashing seducer.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

Survival of the fittest?


"Survival of the fittest" is an utterly ridiculous concept to apply to the hobby -- from the hobbyist's perspective.

.

Read the context of my point Sir lance-a-lot. You seem to have missed it entirely.

Generally speaking, everyone generalizes, EVERYONE, so that trait has made it down through history...

I thought you taught this shit?

[Laurentius]

I was just poking fun at you WTF from an oblique direction.

Generalization, is in fact indispensable. Sans generalization and wide assumptions, we could truly never make it through the day.

We also do a great deal of categorization. Without it, we would never recognize a new model of car as being a car at all; or a pedestal tavle as being a table if we had first learned the concept based on a table with four legs.

In applying it to the hobby, I make a very general assumption that providers wish to be compensated. If a lady has not posted rates, I will outright ask her what they are!

Now, for a lady who is not involved in the hobby, this would be an unforgivable faux pas.

Nevertheless, even though I have only seen 9 providers in about five years which is a teeny tiny fraction of providers, from those nine providers (a category) I have drawn the gross generalization that providers want to be paid.

Now, I haven't looked at every provider. There may be individuals who are members of that category who do NOT want to be paid. But the fact that individual exceptions might exist in no way invalidates the usefulness of the generalization.

So I'm with ya. I was just funnin'.

:-)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Laurentius

So I'm with ya. I was just funnin'.

:-)

understood

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by WTF

understood

Well there's a first.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Ansley

Well there's a first.

Glad I'm not the only one to spot that! I've been standing outside...flashlight pointed to the heavens...waiting for the skies to be ripped asunder & the righteous called home.

LOL...not me, of course! But it outta make for one hell of a show!

Excuse me...gotta get back out there...don't wanna miss it!