1315 réponses à ce sujet

[DaemionMoadrin]

All I see there is a complete misunderstanding of the video.

 

Edit: Finally got to completely read that link. As expected, it's written by a feminist woman who believes the patriarchy boogyman is real and "right-wing" and "sexist" are somehow synonymous to each other.

 

Sorry, but I can't that link you posted seriously. All she does is misrepresent the video, misunderstand it, misconstrue facts and use feminist-jutsu on the numbers to somehow twist and turn pretty obvious patterns to fit her feminist narrative.

 

 

I'd like to see you try again and show me a rebuttal from a real scientist.

 

"Real" scientist? That video was produced by the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. Are you kidding me? They are totally biased. The handful of people making up the institute (yeah, it's not an university or anything) have a bad reputation in scientific circles because their studies try to invalidate decades of actual scientific research in order to hand right-wing conservatives weaponized arguments. For example, they were involved in a study that declared same sex couples are bad parents and other hokey crap.

 

Anonymously funded think tanks like that release studies that fit into the narratives of their donors. They are not objective, they manipulate (or make up) data and they regularly publish studies that contradict existing ones. There is no transparency.

 

Science doesn't work that way. One study is not enough for anything, it is an indicator at best. Once you have a dozen studies of the subject, then you can compare them and develop a theory. This one failed the peer review process btw.

 

Btw... http://www.slate.com...ture_wants.html

 

Even without a quick check of the people behind the video I can tell that the "facts" presented in it are wrong. The only time economics apply to sex is when you pay for it. Sex is not a trade and marriage is not the price. I mean, come on. Do you seriously believe this to be true?

[KaiserShep]

The birth control to pesticide comparison is pretty funny, though (less so I suppose as some would take it seriously). The sh** people come up with. 

[Br3admax]

Even without a quick check of the people behind the video I can tell that the "facts" presented in it are wrong. The only time economics apply to sex is when you pay for it. Sex is not a trade and marriage is not the price. I mean, come on. Do you seriously believe this to be true?

You were doing okay until you got here. That's pretty much what marriage is for most people. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

You were doing okay until you got here. That's pretty much what marriage is for most people. 

 

Eh what now? Ok, then try to explain how marriage fits into the concept of microeconomics. Please, enlighten me.

[jak11164]

Just quick reply... No romance in ME:A --> I'm not even considering buying it

[Seraphim24]

I'm ok with "romances" along as they provide interesting character and conversation. It is highly unnecessary to have these conversations take place in an explicitly cordoned off "romance arc" that is separate from the game or plot in some capacity. It is also highly unncessary to have the almighty "sex scene" take place.

 

Many of these "romances" simply displaced places where the ordinary conversation would happen.

 

Preferably they would actually be interwoven, kind of like in reality people don't tend to form romantic relationships in total isolation from their careers or lives generally.

 

Finally, I'm a fan of having the romance play an integral role in the story in some way, rather than embrace the notion that the plot should be divorced from romance or vice versa. Fenthick and Aribeth come to mind as a strong example of this (and which was concluded in Hordes of the Underdark)

[aoibhealfae]

I think the romance is what keep the game working for me and make me feel invested in Shepard as a character rather than focusing myself to the general narrative which is pretty weak for a scifi.  

[jak11164]

 

Even without a quick check of the people behind the video I can tell that the "facts" presented in it are wrong. The only time economics apply to sex is when you pay for it. Sex is not a trade and marriage is not the price. I mean, come on. Do you seriously believe this to be true?

hmmm. I read once some really serious book abut behavioural concepts of family at there was a simple statement. That "hidden ovulation" and pleasure from sex is most primaeval commodity that women use to keep male doing what they want to...... This is about basic instinct to keep genetic line

[daveliam]

Did someone actually link to the work of the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture and then try to claim that it wasn't heavily and blatantly biased and unreliable?  The "Institute" that receives almost all of its funding from conservative and religious donors and organizations?  And, lo and behold, all of their 'studies' support the conservative and religious views from said donors?  They have virtually zero credibility in academia. 

 

Never change, BSN.  Never change.

[Il Divo]

Did someone actually link to the work of the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture and then try to claim that it wasn't heavily and blatantly biased and unreliable?  The "Institute" that receives almost all of its funding from conservative and religious donors and organizations?  And, lo and behold, all of their 'studies' support the conservative and religious views from said donors? 

 

Never change, BSN.  Never change.

 

But hey man, they're PhD's. Which means we can accept this study entirely at face value and ignore all other potential factors. 

[Chardonney]

Just quick reply... No romance in ME:A --> I'm not even considering buying it

 

Hear hear. No romance, no (my) money for BW.

[daveliam]

But hey man, they're PhD's. Which means we can accept this study entirely at face value and ignore all other potential factors. 

 

As someone who is very rapidly approaching ( ) his own PhD, I can assure you that most people who hold those pieces of paper know just enough 'lingo' to fool others into thinking that they actually know what they are talking about.  Sad but true. 

[Il Divo]

As someone who is very rapidly approaching ( ) his own PhD, I can assure you that most people who hold those pieces of paper know just enough 'lingo' to fool others into thinking that they actually know what they are talking about.  Sad but true. 

 

That's awesome! I'm starting mine in August (22 days and counting!). 

 

But anyway, agreed. It's essentially faux-science and seems to sneak under the radar as a result. 

[daveliam]

That's awesome! I'm starting mine in August (22 days and counting!). 

 

But anyway, agreed. It's essentially faux-science and seems to sneak under the radar as a result. 

 

Congrats!  I'm 4 years into a 5 1/2 year process.  Scary when I got to the point that the only thing that stood between me and the degree was my own dissertation study!

[Il Divo]

Likewise to you, should be interesting times ahead all around. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Keep the romances.  

[jak11164]

As someone who is very rapidly approaching ( ) his own PhD, I can assure you that most people who hold those pieces of paper know just enough 'lingo' to fool others into thinking that they actually know what they are talking about.  Sad but true. 

and especially that "paper is patient it can hold everything"

"holly worlds" first check the sponsor. Science today can proof barely everything and scientists are forced to "produce"  papers not to study, to search. They need points, publications, sponsors.

[Br3admax]

Eh what now? Ok, then try to explain how marriage fits into the concept of microeconomics. Please, enlighten me.

You agreeing to provide for life doesn't fit into microeconomics? Nor does joining credit and etc? M'kay. You give up money, and in return you get heirs/sex/companionship for what in theory should be life. That's all marriage is. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

You agreeing to provide for life doesn't fit into microeconomics? Nor does joining credit and etc? M'kay. You give up money, and in return you get heirs/sex/companionship for what in theory should be life. That's all marriage is. 

 

Nope.

[Br3admax]

Quite the rebuttal. Do you have anything to counter with? And I don't mean, "It's about love." I mean something tangible like the bills you and your spouse will be sharing once you go through nuptials. 

[KaiserShep]

You agreeing to provide for life doesn't fit into microeconomics? Nor does joining credit and etc? M'kay. You give up money, and in return you get heirs/sex/companionship for what in theory should be life. That's all marriage is.

Seems a bit simplified, no? It if was a contractual agreement insofar that these were strict terms in which denying any of these things was an automatic violation of the contract, then maybe, but that's not really how that works. After all, heirs, companionship and sex are largely independent of marriage. Whether or not marriage is really required for those things is a matter of personal preference.

[Br3admax]

Seems a bit simplified, no? It if was a contractual agreement insofar that these were strict terms with which denying any of these things were an automatic violation of the contract, then sure, but that's not really how that works. After all, heirs, companionship and sex are largely independent of marriage. Whether or not marriage is really required for those things is a matter of personal preference.

This isn't even the argument being presented. This is about what marriage is about, not that marriage is the only way to get those things. People marry for very specific reasons, and money and ass are pretty big ones. People aren't the most complicated of creatures, you know. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

Quite the rebuttal. Do you have anything to counter with? And I don't mean, "It's about love." I mean something tangible like the bills you and your spouse will be sharing once you go through nuptials. 

 

Well, I don't feel like teaching microeconomics in a gaming forum, so if you don't even understand the basics, how am I supposed to explain it to you?

 

Have you read this article? http://www.businessi...debunked-2014-2

It explains the real economy of sex in simple terms.

 

I tried to explain the complexity of the situation but ... meh... I've got better things to do than writing a long post no one is going to read anyway.

[Angry_Elcor]

I won't lie: I knew that this thread was going to generate the kind of gravity that resulted in some crazy orbiting around it. I figured I'd get a little obsessed-with-romance-and-rages-at-anyone-who-even-dares-joke-about-it type of crazy (and, let's be fair, I did.) A little light mocking of their over-reaction to the idea and perhaps a bit if legit conversation about the nature of romances with others.

 

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd get this delightful mix of "all marriage is prostitution" and "women's sexuality is inherently a commodity that I can buy and sell and own like property."

 

Like, wow... out of nowhere there is a level of crazy happening that I thought was reserved for Rupert Murdoch depositions.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Yeah, funny how this happened.