Topic: Are gamers ageist?

Ok, do you see what you just did? I said "everyone trying to ban contraception is catholic" and you read it as "all catholics want to ban contraception". Read both of those over again a few times. Do you not see that those are wildly different statements? I can draw the Venn diagrams if I must. (and yes I did word it carefully cos I know people have been trained to fall into that trap, it's like the most common defense mechanism you see used nowadays)

(btw, I wasn't trying to disparage catholics, my family is catholic/jewish (whatever that means) and they're the nicest people in the world. It was just a very definitive example.)

Thank you for trying to diswade my statement by saying a whole lot of nothing. Please, if you feel you must draw a f***ing venn diagram, draw away. Carve into a stone. And then take that stone and shove it faaar up your nether region.

Look, we're on a forum, where we use words to discuss things. If you think I'm wrong, we can discuss it. But in order to do that, you actually have to say something. So please, instead of vaguely saying "read that over again! They're completely different, trust me. I mean, I'm not gonna say how it was wrong, you're just gonna have to figure it out for yourself because I'm sure you're a genius like I am harrr harr," just explain you f***ing point

On second thought, lets not have this discussion. I don't wanna bother, and you don't wanna listen.

Well, this got nasty quick.

Yeah, I thought it over during work and I think that was way too harsh. I dunno why I said that. Sorry...

Religion and Race are entirely unrelated to this topic. I only said it to put the severity of the problem in perspective, but I'm sorry I brought it up.

Haha no problem, I'm sure my comment came across as cockier than I intended it to. But I do think the fact that you weren't even aware you'd changed the statement was worth point out! If you still didn't get my point, what I'm trying to say is that your response of "not all catholics do X" was the same as "but not all smokers get lung cancer" (and therefore you shouldn't criticise smoking). And the Venn diagram idea wasn't meant as a kind of hyperbolic condescension, Venn diagrams really are the quickest way to show the difference in the relations between sets.

^ To be fair, you're only reading/insisting on 1 quote Mr. Wolf made, so you're kind of missing his point entirely?
And now you're insulting his intelligence by treating him like a little pup while he is actually trying to show some modesty around here.
Not cool.

I think most people from every age group are stupid, so I don't think I'm ageist.

I do, however, hate kids. Kids hate me as well, they seem to naturally fear me and that's probably right because I can easily break them without meaning to. I also think they shouldn't be allowed on the internet until they learn to communicate properly. "hey how r u"? Nope, you're banned from the internet until you stop it. I actually think anyone who types like that should be banned from the internet though, not just kids, but mostly kids probably.
Honestly, lots of people online are whiny, entitled brats. Some are kids mad their sister bought them the wrong color 3DS XL and some of them are 34 and mad they didn't get the super secret invite for a demo that will be released to everyone a week later.

Man, I wish those people could be banned from the internet as well.

Yeah, age isn't the problem.

I'm just saying "Correlation =/= causation". FFS, I'm black and I'm one of the few non-vegetarian humans on earth who can't stand fowl, including chicken. I meant to say that before but I see I didn't.

I'm not a fan of the idea of "sample sizing" human beings considering how incredibly diverse we are on every level. There exceptions to everything, heck, more often than not, those statements are downright untrue since they're not based on any unbaised observations, but instead is based on a selective memory of a few people the ones saying such things happen to know. Again, Religion is self-prescribed label, and a loose one at that. It's like saying "all furries are into porn" when the only thing that defines a "furry" is that you like anthropomorphic characters enough that you feel you can call yourself a "furry", and many don't actually care for the porn. In fact, Fur-Affinity is hell because of how much the "safe" and "yiff" groups are always at eachothers throats, along with about 3 or 4 other subsects of the group. It's not an exclusive club, anyone can join, and as a result, you get tons of people who act differently. That's same with religion, especially in this modern age where many are finding religion not as important in their daily lives as it was back in the 1800's. You got plenty of people with completely different ideas and attitudes calling themselves the same thing. Some have the label because they grew up with it, and it holds little more than a nostalgic value for them.

I get that you were saying "one was something that could be controlled but the others can't" but the whole point was that it's silly to judge a person based on things that don't really have much if any meaning as to who they really are.

On topic, "Kids will be kids" but I've met kids who were well-behaved well beyond their years. Adults are supposed to be more mature, but how much can vary wildly between people. I don't think anyone should judge people so readily because of their age, yet so many people do, regardless of their hobbies. In fact, lumping gamers together like that is just as bad as lumping people of certain age groups together, if you ask me.

All furries are into BSDM is an absolute truth it is what the whole thing is about.

I'm reading through this thread and for some reason we are talking about religion what?

It was my fault. I shouldn't have even mentioned the word. In a brief moment of weakness, I forgot how the internet works.

At least noone mentioned Nazis... damn

He was responding to what I said. And in characterising what I said, he changed the wording (which hugely changed the meaning). A single flawed premise does invalidate everything else that follows I'm afraid. I shouldn't be cocky about it, sure. And I apologise for that. But I should certainly correct it when people mischaracterise what I've said (when I went out of my way not to generalise about all catholics)

Well I wasn't necessarily specifying what the causation was. But correlation IS evidence of causation. It just doesn't tell you what the causation is, and in what direction. Given that they specifically preach against contraception, that seems pretty clear evidence of causation to me. This is a very serious matter, it's estimated that hundreds of thousands have died because of this church doctrine.
I largely agree with your ending paragraph when it comes to things like race, gender, sexuality etc. The problem with religion is that it's usually causation rather than correlation (as you can see by the direct links between doctrine and actions, and that the actions are so bizarre that the chance of them happening otherwise are virtually zero e.g mohammed cartoons). So the dangerous outcome of this kind of typical liberal response of "you're generalising" is that you never actually get to address the causes of serious problems, because they're always kept hidden in this dilution of diverse opinions.
What we should actually do if you think about it, is just try and persuade people to define themselves by much more specific labels, that way we can directly deal with dangerous beliefs without accidentally villifying millions of innocent people. I think we instinctively know that 1billion+ people don't really all belong to the same label. There's not a single issue in the world that 1 billion people agree on.

Or we could just wipe out labels entirely. I'm all for that.

Contrary to what people claim, yes ageism exists. My job is centered around ageism in school systems.

It is worth noting that it's one thing to have youthful ignorance (a 13 year old boy claiming being gay is a choice) and it's another to be subject to ageism (when older people think that solely because they're older, they know the school system better despite the fact that it's kids who spend 7 hours a day in school)

BDSM is a completely different fetish group from furryism the hell are you talking about?

I entirely agree. I don't bother with any labels, even the ones that fit. Unfortunately, some people seem to like them. Perhaps a more feasible alternative is have lots of different labels and group allegiances so that you never tie your entire identity to a single one.

All I have to contribute to this is my knowledge that until 2005 (around then anyway), BDSM was considered by the DSM to be a form of mental illness. I thought that was hilarious. You know why that was maintained for so long? Imagine being the guy who was suggesting maybe it was a mistake......

Ageism is in any massive community. Just like elitism.

Elitism is one of those words that I've never understood in the implied pejorative sense it's used. Exclusive elitism is bad, but every other form of elitism I take to be a good thing.