Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Borz

  • Rank
    The Spectator

Profile Information

  • Interests

Member Badge

  • Members


  • I fight for...
  1. I think Alfred said that you'll still be able to get the character, just that it'll be much harder.
  2. No. You can talk to him with Sae'rah and get a voice command that will supposedly help you recruit a character in the next patch, but you can't recruit the knight.
  3. I personally enjoy this one very much. It's not for everyone, however: http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=322110
  4. Just a heads up: The Devil's Eye description still says Mogall instead of Big Eye.
  5. Happy birthday!

    1. Borz


      Thanks! (I suppose)

  6. I actually still do have the thought of suicide and death in general in the back of my mind, and probably will for a very long time. My wording was misleading. Most of the replies directed at me were not simple disagreements, they were attacks on my character. When? I re-read what I wrote, and I don't see any assumptions about the people in the thread. The closest I get to that point would be in the segment about "Talk to your loved ones about it!" and those were rhethorical questions at the hypothetical person saying that. Lots of people attempted and succeeded in committing suicide in concentration camps during the Holocaust. Why is my comparison illegitimate? Why is it wrong to make educated guesses? Why is it wrong to use generalizations when you are speaking generally? And when did I generalize people with suicidal thoughts or intents? My argument was that people use generalized, pre-packaged responses when dealing with individuals with suicidal thoughts and intent, treat it like most people treat tech support, except we're dealing with something much more complex - people's lives. I did not say this, it was written in this subforum's...guidelines, apparently. This is not the place for this type of thing. While I understand Anacybele's judgment, it was incorrect. The negative feedback is something that I was aware I would receive, which is the reason behind my first semi-sarcastic statement in my original post. I was aware that people would throw vitriol at me, and that typically discourages me from posting. This time I decided to post anyway because I deemed this too important not to respond to. OP made a mistake in posting this topic here, and I was not disrespectful to her. I just did not acknowledge the tragedy in my post. I had no obligation to. You may think that makes me a bad person, and fine. Hate me. It saddens me that you feel this way, but feel free. It says "RULES" right there. Twice. I understand this. However, you answered my question very covertly and way too "open to interpretation"-y. What specifically are you talking about when you say "this"? And again, this was posted in the wrong place. It says rules right there. Even if you say they are only guidelines, how is my interpretation of them flawed? I have sympathy for her loss, but I am not under any obligation to show that sympathy. I have my reasons(if you really want to hear them, ask). She put herself in a public forum, knowing people will be able to voice their opinions and make arguments against her's. Her agency did not disappear when she was traumatized. She is still responsible for her actions, just like I am. More on that in a bit. I made my point just fine in the OP. Pre-packaged feel-good thought-terminating cliches are insulting to the intelligence of suicidal people. I suppose this is the generalization LordTaco was talking about, now that I've written it again. I won't rewrite that point for transparency's sake. Ah, fantastic. I've wanted to talk about this with someone for a while now, so thank you. Invoking Godwin's Law is not some sort of logical fallacy. For reference: This is Godwin's Law. I know that: ...but that's incredibly silly. Legitimate comparisons are legitimate comparisons. It does not matter to whom or what the comparison is made. The reason people make analogies involving Nazis so often is because: 1.The Nazis are universally seen as evil, so people make comparisons to the actions of the Nazis to make a moral appeal without establishing the objectivity of morality, and point out hypocrisy. 2. The Third Reich is universally seen as a horrible period in history, so people use the things that happened during it as an example of extreme suffering. I think these are the two main reasons, but of course there are other, potentially illegitimate ones. So yeah. My comparison is not illegitimate because it involves Nazis. In fact, in this situation the Nazis could be completely removed from the comparison. Let's replace the Nazi concentration camp with an Ustashen concentration camp. Nothing changes. I did not miss your point, I made a counter-point, and yes, there is a difference between actually doing something bad and being viewed as doing something bad. Unless you believe in subjective morality or something along those lines, in which case you have no ground to stand on. No, I think what I posted was a good thing to post because I've come to the conclusion that suicide is always an option, and sometimes the only answer. I don't care if people disagree that it was a good thing to post because in creating the topic Anacybele accepted that people may say things she does not like as long as they don't break the rules. How is this not an anti-suicide sentiment? Everything she wrote was not an anti-suicide sentiment, but I was not replying to everything she wrote. And again, she put this in Serious Discussion. See, most of the people who replied to me talk about how what I wrote seems and consequently, how I seem. This is something I call "Death Sentence of the Author"(coined by Youtuber "Harmful Opinions"). It's when you invoke Death of the Author to make up an interpretation of what I said, then getting pissed at me for your interpretation, claiming what I wrote is wrong, typically "harmful". I've stated my intent already, and it was not to disrespect or "stomp" on OP's tragedies. Nowhere in my posts have I done so. Yet you still get angry at me, claiming I'm responsible for your interpretation of what I said and that your interpretation reflects on me somehow. You acknowledged this to some degree in your edit, but others have not. Severian, I'm sorry for the extremely late reply. I had a lot to write. Yeah, I should have used the word selfish instead. I agree-people should put their needs first. This is a pretty complex thing, so I'll leave it at that. What I don't agree with is that people have automatic positive obligations to their parents. It robs them of their liberty, because the choice to be born is not theirs. Parents, however, have a positive obligation to their children to fulfill their needs until they're self-sufficient, because they brought them into the world. They made a choice and have to take responsibility for that choice. Bringing a child into the world while not being ready and certain you will be able to fulfill their needs is immoral...I'm getting sidetracked. If you haven't read the final part of my reply towards Raven, do so. You are using Death Sentence of the Author. My intention was not to demolish arguments against suicide when I wrote that, my intention was to demolish the feel-good thought-terminating cliche "Suicide is never the answer!". This is pretty obvious because of this: I acknowledged there is further debate to be had. That's a valid anecdote I suppose, but my personal experiences are far different, and I've had a considerable number of psychotherapists for a long enough time to come to my conclusion. The objective way to prove my point would be to talk about the DSM, but that would take a while and I've been writing this post for hours. If you want me to do so, ask and I'll try. Finally done. Took me 3 hours to write this. Edit: I have already stated my intent in writing my original post and the posts after it. I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I think that is pretty obvious considering how much time I've spent on writing my posts. Using the word contrarian as a buzzword will get you nowhere.
  7. Where is that quote from? Because it's not in the forum sticky. In the forum sticky, he says: "This subforum exists for reasoned and logical discourse over some of the heavy, more "serious" topics of our times. That said, extended and mature discussion on almost any subject can conceivably fit in, provided it's well-presented and well-maintained." According to this, Serious Discussion is only for discussions, so all your nonsense about this being the wrong place is not true. The person who is in the wrong place is the OP. Even if it were not only for discussions, the rules still apply. Including: - This subforum is no substitute for trained medical professionals. For any serious personal medical or psychological issues there are better places to get advice than from strangers on the internet. Get in touch with your primary care provider if you have one, or a relevant hotline (Suicide Prevention, Domestic Abuse, Substance Abuse, etc.) if you do not. Where did I say her "way of mourning" was flawed? I took issue with the things she and others in this thread have said about suicide. By taking issue with what she said about suicide? Someone's trauma does not validate their statements. No. I don't care if I am perceived as the bad guy. There's a difference. Nobody here is a "bad guy" as far as I'm concerned. It's absolutely ridiculous how you can call me heartless based on a post where I talk about people's experience with suicidal thoughts. I have never experienced someone close to me, physically or emotionally, committing suicide. I didn't talk about that, though, did I? I talked about suicidal thoughts, which I have experienced. It's just disheartening that you can see yourself as being in the right when you're presuming all these things about me simply because I made a post that didn't acknowledge the tragedy. I did not stomp on it.
  8. If you haven't noticed, this is in Serious Discussion. - Serious Discussion is not your personal soap-box to come to for validation, do not hope nor expect to "preach to the choir". You will be interacting with others, many of whom may not share your viewpoint. If you cannot handle disagreement in a respectful and mature fashion, this is not the place for your post. - If you want to contribute to an ongoing discussion, please make sure you can provide some logic to back up your case. This isn't the place for groundless claims, no matter how impassioned you can make you pleas appear to be. The only thing you could argue I did wrong was not striking the middle ground between sugar-coating and hostility. Emotionally detached? The reason I replied was because this means so much to me. Don't assume my intentions and character.
  9. I am going to be the horrible, evil person who commits forum social suicide by strongly, strongly disagreeing with something someone has said while they were going through a traumatic experience without coating it in heaps of sugar. This post is directed at everyone who posted so far, however. "Suicide is never the answer." and other such disgusting, feel-good, thought-terminating cliches are incredibly insulting to the intelligence of actual suicidal people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrzuKgm1VUg "Having been there, I've since talked to people who have either been suicidal or in one person who was actively considering suicide and I found that the most...how should I say...the most productive conversations I've ever had with them were the ones where I wasn't the next presumptuous prick trying to impose an interpretation of their feelings. I think that's what made the conversation productive because that's what I was looking for when I was in my moments. I just wanted to meet one person, one other person that could express a level of compassion and understanding that...I guess could only be described as hitting the right frequency. It's communicating in a way that conveyed a genuine desire to understand as opposed to...I guess...just trying to be the next stock concern-face that comes off the factory line. Not trying to be the individual that tries to play the hero without actually listening to you, I guess you could say." "What makes, I think, suicide such a foreign concept to so many people is that people don't really see it as a rational decision reached by rational people. But that's the scary part-it is, in many ways, rational. It's a horrible decision, but it's a horrible decision reached by a rational train of thought. That's what makes it terrifying. The decision to not exist anymore has to be by nature one you think through very carefully. And the decision to not exist anymore is also something foreign to other people because a lot of people do have lives they enjoy..." "It's very much a cost-benefit analysis where you look at the world around you and you say: "I could continue living in an enviroment that I'm not compatible with and deal with the drudgery of life for god knows how many years or I could take this one extra step off the building and none of it has to be my problem anymore." "Suicide is never the answer!" "Somewhere, someone cares!" "It gets better!" "Talk to your loved ones!" "Seek help from a professional!" These are all naive, ignorant, thoughtless canned responses. It is better to say nothing than spout this tripe in the presence of a suicidal person. "Suicide is never the answer!":Would you say that to a person trapped in a Nazi concentration camp? If not, then you draw the line somewhere and the only debate you can have is where to draw it. Ergo, suicide can be the answer. If you would, you're an immoral person who would prefer that they suffer instead of ending their misery. Next. "Somewhere, someone cares!": Let's assume for a bit that that's true. What then? If they're on the other side of the world, it doesn't matter. They can't do shit unless they care enough to put their life on hold for one person, and even then they might not be able to help you. If this caring person is physically close, then why don't they help this suicidal person who they care so much about? Because they don't know? If they aren't at least aware of the emotional state of the person they care so much about to some degree, then they haven't formed a connection with them and probably can't, otherwise they would have by now. Because they can't? Then their presence is almost irrelevant when it comes to the decision to commit suicide. Now let's remove the false assumption. It is naive to believe that every person is cared about. It is very, very likely, almost certain that there is a person in the world who could care about them, but if they'll never meet them and form a connection with them then it doesn't matter. I could probably say more and express myself better, but I don't think I need to. Next. "It gets better!": Let's assume this is true. So? If it doesn't get good, then it doesn't matter. Discarding the assumption, it could very well get worse. You're telling them to gamble with their suffering. Next. "Talk to your loved ones!": Have you absolutely no sense of perspective? Are you just that ignorant? Has it ever crossed your mind that they might be suicidal because they have no loved ones? Maybe you're under the misguided assumption that being related by blood automatically makes someone a loved one? Their family could very well be the problem, but that doesn't cross your mind because you just reached for a canned response. You assume something is wrong with the suicidal person. The world around them is just fine! Something is wrong with them, and that's why they should... "Seek help from a professional!": "Professionals" often make things horribly worse. They will always assume that something is wrong with you and not the world around you, and even if you explain to them the problem is not with you, they will insist you change yourself. Bothered that you're forced to cover your entire body except your eyes when you go outside? Learn to like it like the other women. I'm not saying mental health professionals are bad people. I'm just saying they can't do shit when the problem is not with you, as it more often than not isn't when it comes to suicide. When they thoughtlessly try to fix something by attacking the symptoms instead of the cause, they cause harm, sometimes to a great extent. And finally, the OP's two statements are just horrible. " Suicide only causes others pain. DON'T FUCKING DO IT." Suicide relieves them of their pain. That's the point. You're telling them they should suffer further just so others don't have to suffer for a while. It's self-centered.
  10. They can break up the relationship and extort money from the man via child support, basically enslaving him for 18 years for a passive source of income. In fact, they don't even have to trick the man, they can also just steal the sperm from a used condom or something and impregnate themselves with it and the man can't do anything about it.
  11. What about using male biology to justify rape? Maybe that would get the point across.
  12. I see. Thank you. I was confused on whether you were being sarcastic.
  13. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.
  14. Just about what I wanted to say. Her views are sexist towards both men and women, and more importanly, women who act on these views can completely ruin men's lives.
  • Create New...