No. It's not. You're literally the only person I've ever heard say something as batshit insane as this. If my kid said something like this, I'd slap the stupid out of him.
Heh. It's quite a popular turn of phrase where I live, and has been in other areas. I've heard it in Georgia, North and South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico, California... admittedly not in cities so much. (Damn, I'm glad I no longer have to go wherever Uncle Sammy sends me.)

I've noticed that people who speak proper English are annoyed by it, and those who speak Received English practically look as if they're in physical pain when they overhear it. Germans who spoke English tended to look puzzled by it, while French who spoke English looked amused. Austrians simply asked me to explain it.

And the nuns of Mount St. Vincents in Denver tended to whip out the ruler and start cracking knuckles whenever they heard someone use it. Or at least they did back in my day.
 
What you don't see is the additional trucks for the same company turning into delivery bays and company car parks as SS comes along with one tailing her.
When that one has to turn off for their delivery/pickup, another one going SS's way will take up the position.
 
I know. But what can you do? Tradition wills it. To say something's "100% smaller" is generally understood by the public as "1/2 it's previous size". "200% smaller" means the same thing, oddly enough. "300% smaller" is understood to mean 1/3 previous size and as noted, 400% smaller means 1/4 original size.

Wouldn't 100%, 200%, 300% ect. ect. Be dependant on how many dimensions you are wprking with? As a 3D object being 100% smaller is actually closer to 1/8th the size. While 200% smaller being closef to 1/16th and 300% smaller being 1/27th?
 
Wouldn't 100%, 200%, 300% ect. ect. Be dependant on how many dimensions you are wprking with? As a 3D object being 100% smaller is actually closer to 1/8th the size. While 200% smaller being closef to 1/16th and 300% smaller being 1/27th?
IIRC, it usually is used in reference to linear dimensions.

And it's NOT more than 100% "smaller"!!! More than 100% is BIGGER ONLY!:mad:
 
Stop: Greetings
greetings
The cross-strategies are heating up to a fiery hell-storm fueled by burning shit.

Voting rights for women beefed up the gyno-centric nature of the state, the Welfare State gives single women the support of Daddy State, and no-fault divorce lets married women strip their former husbands down to the bones, and not even a pre-nuptial agreement will save the men.

Women use their voting prowness to vote for Daddy State to steal men's resources instead of trading for them like they used to.

Women now routinely invade and ruin male-only spaces. (Can't have the men plotting out of their sight!) Most recently: The Boy Scouts fscked themselves. Men need spaces where they can behave like MEN, and don't have to rein it in for women.

The numbers of Pick-Up Artists, and Men Going Their Own Way are rising. Once sex-bots learn to cook and clean , and artificial wombs are perfected, women are DOOMED. Marriage is a sucker's game now, only for those who don't like sex dolls. Or want to have offspring.

It's depressing.

Misogynist rhetoric that reduces women to the role of sex dolls is a violation of Sufficient Velocity's Rule 2. Take 25 points and 3 days out from the thread.

As an aside, if you're going to be a proponent of evolutionary psychology, be very, very careful where you tread, as it is frequently used as an excuse for misogyny, despite large parts of the field being debunked.
 
Rule 5 - Do not make it harder for us to do our jobs.
Damn. Looks like this is not a safe place to discuss crossinfluence between transhumanism, evolutionary approach to psychology(or anything at all), emergent qualities and self-sustaining processes.
 
Warning: That is correct
Damn. Looks like this is not a safe place to discuss crossinfluence between transhumanism, evolutionary approach to psychology(or anything at all), emergent qualities and self-sustaining processes.
that is correct As according to Rule 5 of Sufficient Velocity, it is neither on topic to discuss moderator decisions without making use of either Appeals or Ask a Private Question, nor is Taylor Varga (a fanfic thread) an appropriate place to discuss this in the first place. With all due respect to the thread, please return to the original topic and preferably make a new thread for this subject if you want to discuss it further. You have been given a Staff Notice for archival purposes.

Have a good day and enjoy your reading.
 
Damn. I wanted to comment that if I am a Neanderthal trying to be a Cromagnon when it comes to women, then Mr. Troy Guffey is an unrepentant Australopithecus, but now I cannot.

No, really. I do a lot of soul searching when I agree with something he posted, or worse, he agrees with something I said.
Damn. Looks like this is not a safe place to discuss crossinfluence between transhumanism, evolutionary approach to psychology(or anything at all), emergent qualities and self-sustaining processes.
No, this thread is quite mellow when it comes to discussions, regardless of postures and positions in any argument. People here are civil even when discussing topics that in other threads would devolve into flame-fests, personal attacks and lots of name calling.

Even Mr. Troy Guffey is polite when exposing his extreme right-wing opinions on basically everything. The problem is that he stepped on an ideological mine and got threadbanned as a result.
 
As an aside I wonder if Kevin or Randall will ask for an Arachne body?

On another note I wonder if that is what it looks like when Void Cowboy posts some of his heavily censored posts in PHO.
 
As an aside I wonder if Kevin or Randall will ask for an Arachne body?
Doesn't even have to be that. I can't recall the title, but one of those independent comics that sprang up in the 90's had a hyper-muscular hero who made Kal-El look like a stick figure, and surprise! He was merely a pre-teen wearing a sort of fluid body suit that turned into a puddle of goo after too much use. But while it was working, he was one seriously dangerous opponent.

Taylor's pretty much focused - for obvious reasons - on reptilian-based bodies as a theme. But there's nothing to prevent Taylor, The Amy, and the Twin Terrors of Videogaming from coming up with a few bodies that look like the stereotypical flying brick.

In fact, if it weren't for copyright problems, both in-story and IRL, there's little to prevent The Amy from inventing a psuedo-Kryptonian, adding a stuff-space pocket so it could be worn, and there you go. Brocktonians would have to get used to a new chant in the streets...

"Look! Up in the sky!"

"It's a bird!"

"No, it's a plane!"

"No, it's..."

Heheheheh

On another note I wonder if that is what it looks like when Void Cowboy posts some of his heavily censored posts in PHO.
That wouldn't terribly surprise me.

EDIT: Does anyone else remember that comic I mentioned? If I could only remember the publisher - there were so many indies during the 90's..
 
Last edited:
Even Mr. Troy Guffey is polite when exposing his extreme right-wing opinions on basically everything. The problem is that he stepped on an ideological mine and got threadbanned as a result.
Uh-huh. I'm not US native to be sure what is ideological mine and what is not. I strongly suspect that my 100% atheist ideology will be jarring to many. But for subjects beyoubd obvious?

To make it worse minefield happened exactly in area of discussion about new life forms, breeding instincts and their development, transhumanism (or is it translizardism?) and such. So on one hand I strongly want to continue discussion and on the other hand I don't want to be punished for walking into one more of ideological mines. It looks like I have to re-read rules. Maybe more than once.

And back to our translizards ('cause I don't see any reason to call them transhumans). Having Sculptors of Life above the borad must influence both morality and instincts almost in unpredictable way. I'm little surprised that PRT did little to stimulate the Family in expressing their ideology in verbal form. Also the whole concepl of 100% self-sufficient intellinent living creatures must put any good economist into very strong confusion. For example, the whole bunch of ideas are inaplicable to them: malthusian ideology, marxism, etc. At the same time categorical imperative can be a thing. An instinct.
 
On another note I wonder if that is what it looks like when Void Cowboy posts some of his heavily censored posts in PHO.
One of the issues that seems to crop up every time someone does a PHO chapter is this sort of stupidity. It's like most authors can't imagine a forum where the mods aren't dragging their hammer into literally every page of the forum to ban, warn, censor, or otherwise involve themselves.

Which tends to leave things feeling like authors who do this just wanted to pad the PHO post without actually having to put any effort into things. Two free post entire: one blank and one vague warning. Plus a random number of reactions to it.
 
Having Sculptors of Life above the board must influence both morality and instincts almost in unpredictable way.
Well, for one thing, I expect that some of Armsmaster's snark may be leaking across the networks to Amy, in a strictly limited form. Naturally evolved life forms are horridly inefficient in some areas and have really STUPID errors crop up from time to time (like the mammal eye versus squid eye thing1), and Amy's snark/shard/whatever seems to have a serious irritation with the idea of sloppy design there.

Come to think of it, again I forget the title, but there's a novel from the 90's that I have somewhere that plays with this idea. A human base has to be established on a looooooong term orbit iceball, and the people responsible play with certain bits and pieces to make the humans on location less likely to, y'know, die a lot. Like re-purposing the sugars that tardigrades use as biological antifreeze, teaching a human-lung-friendly bacteria new tricks so the accidental inhaling of a little cyanide isn't immediately fatal, better ways of dealing with sulfur in the digestive system, and so on.

Footnote 1 (from Wikipedia):
In vertebrate eyes, the nerve fibers route before the retina, blocking some light and creating a blind spot where the fibers pass through the retina. In cephalopod eyes, the nerve fibers route behind the retina, and do not block light or disrupt the retina. 1 is the retina and 2 the nerve fibers. 3 is the optic nerve. 4 is the vertebrate blind spot.
This is actually something I'm playing with in Fragmentation - human eyes are stupidly designed. There's a LOT of room for improvement.
 
Gonna have to agree there. Especially with the penchant for herbivores to have horizontally elongated pupils while carnivores tend towards vertically elongation and omnivores go for round pupils on land.
 
Gonna have to agree there. Especially with the penchant for herbivores to have horizontally elongated pupils while carnivores tend towards vertically elongation and omnivores go for round pupils on land.
Isn't that so that Herbivores have a wider field of vision (and thus more chance to spot incoming predators) while Predators get more accurate 3D placement of their soon-to-be-prey, thus giving them a better chance of pouncing them accurately?
 
Come to think of it, again I forget the title, but there's a novel from the 90's that I have somewhere that plays with this idea. A human base has to be established on a looooooong term orbit iceball, and the people responsible play with certain bits and pieces to make the humans on location less likely to, y'know, die a lot. Like re-purposing the sugars that tardigrades use as biological antifreeze, teaching a human-lung-friendly bacteria new tricks so the accidental inhaling of a little cyanide isn't immediately fatal, better ways of dealing with sulfur in the digestive system, and so on.

I think you are referring to a novel by David Brin?... :confused:

The Heart of the Comet? or something very similar to that? o_O

Runs off and googles for a bit... ;)

Ah yes. :)
From Wikipedia...
Heart of the Comet is a novel by David Brin and Gregory Benford about human space travel to Halley's Comet published in 1986. Its publication coincided with the comet's 1986 approach to the Earth.

Written in the third person, the perspective alternates between the three main characters, the "spacer" Carl Osborn, the computer programmer Virginia Herbert and the doctor and geneticist Saul Lintz.
 
Uh-huh. I'm not US native to be sure what is ideological mine and what is not. I strongly suspect that my 100% atheist ideology will be jarring to many. But for subjects beyond obvious?

To make it worse minefield happened exactly in area of discussion about new life forms, breeding instincts and their development, transhumanism (or is it translizardism?) and such. So on one hand I strongly want to continue discussion and on the other hand I don't want to be punished for walking into one more of ideological mines. It looks like I have to re-read rules. Maybe more than once.
I'm not US either, but the mine he stepped on is quite clear: he was sprouting garbage that basically translated as "women belong to the kitchen and having babies, not working or voting". And then he made the issue worse by stating that technology will eventually replace females so we can get rid of them.

That's a massive no-no nowadays. In the US or in Europe.

So if you want to continue the discussion about evolution, creation of new lifeforms, and the inherent responsibility of the people that go that way, feel free to. There were lots of unexplored aspects that could be interesting.

The only good thing Mr. Troy Guffey did was to remind me of an old anime called Van Dread, which starts with two neighboring planets, one with a male-only population and an all-female society in the other. Both used technological means to reproduce, so they basically forgot they were the same species and were at war. It's a harem type comedy, with space exploration bits and a nicely engaging story where the real bad guys are the ones from Earth.
 
I'm not US either, but the mine he stepped on is quite clear: he was sprouting garbage that basically translated as "women belong to the kitchen and having babies, not working or voting". And then he made the issue worse by stating that technology will eventually replace females so we can get rid of them.

That's a massive no-no nowadays. In the US or in Europe.

.

Flip the genders on that and he would be praised as an avant-garde thinker. Change his gender and (s)he would be hailed as one of the great literary minds of the 21st century.
 
To be fair @eonmoon we are a cross section of society that was most likely to be bullied in school. We are the geeks, the nerds, and the outcasts. The preppies looked down on us for not being social climbers, the jocks looked down on us for not being obsessed with sports, and the 'in' crowd looked down on us for not being "cool".
Let's not aggrandize ourselves.

Let me begin by stating that I include myself in this observation: The reality is that those regarded as "nerds" and "losers" in a typical public school are those who are not adept, for various reasons, at social interactions. Everything from poor speaking skills to poor hygiene to physical, mental or emotional.... eccentricities. The painful reality is that for the most part nerds are not stigmatized because of their hobbies; their hobbies are stigmatized because of THEM.

But let's be comprehensive here. Among those reasons for ostracism, many of us were bad at mastering the social-fu of high school because we simply weren't interested in playing the game. We weren't interested in being the kings and queens of high school, we were interested in GETTING OUT and pursuing outside interests (hobbies, etc.) and we devoted our passion, our intelligence and our devotion to those things.

Again, it's a lot like being prison. Keep to yourself all you want, the general population does not like it when you refuse to learn the rules. If you don't learn who the boss of the cell block is, you end up shanked with a sharpened toothbrush handle in the middle of the night.
 
Flip the genders on that and he would be praised as an avant-garde thinker. Change his gender and (s)he would be hailed as one of the great literary minds of the 21st century.
Your point being?

Social behaviour is fundementally contextual, as is social acceptability. Unless you've got some sort of blinding philisophical revalation that will show us all the ontological foundation of all human society, you're either arguing in bad faith or indulging in magical thinking about the nature of society.
 
Do note that public bathing was frowned upon due to promoting loose morals and so on and so forth. In addition the intellectual community was still on the vapors and fumes vogue of disease spread. What with how bad the stench that's swamping Coil's base, one can't be faulted for thinking of such.

Actually several clergymen made commentary to the effect that so long as the bathing was done either with proper bathing apparel (smocks, back then) or was "unmixed," there was no problem with it. In fact one entire monastery is on record having put in a written request for permission to fix up and use the baths in their monastery (an old castle they'd recently inhabited that had a built in bath house. They were told to go right on ahead, no problem.)
 
EDIT: Does anyone else remember that comic I mentioned? If I could only remember the publisher - there were so many indies during the 90's..
The publisher? I don't, but I remember a cartoon called Wildcats that had a kid with that goo shell power you mentioned.

Edit: If I got it right, then you are looking for Wildstorm.
 
Last edited:

I do not know enough of this individual's actual beliefs and statements to make a judgment call on him, though if what has been said about him thus far is accurate I would disapprove.

My point is to note in passing that his "utterly unacceptable" and allegedly bigoted, irrational and sexist beliefs and statements would almost certainly be lauded by our current batch of social elites and their softly mooing mainstream as signs of genius if they came from a woman and were directed at men.

The phrase we're fishing for here is "double standard." That's crap, no matter what era you live in or how "changing" the times are.

And in further note, what little you've said of his attitudes-- particularly that women might be replaced by machines (at least as far as men are concerned)-- is an interesting echo of stuff said lately even by more sober minds. Supposedly an increasing number of young men these days are giving up not just on marrying and family-making but on the dating scene entirely... retreating from the field of battle, as it were (we could go on all day enumerating the social and cultural reasons WHY--- but calling it "a battlefield" and these men the Walking Wounded sums it up best) and filling in the resulting open space in their lives with things like hobbies, video games, porn :p.... and in increasing numbers, things like RealDoll.

Life-size, ultra realistic sex dolls should NOT be a growth industry. But it's a large enough phenomenon now that people are getting weirded out. They've reached a point where some of the new models have minicomputers inside them, can move a bit and talk.... the usual suspects (including a lot of feminists who are in a tizzy about it) are speculating about these proto-sex-bots, and how an entire generation of men might someday just chuck women entirely... Get those things to the point that they can fetch a beer and microwave a burrito, and they just might.

The difference between the radical fringe and the middle ground is shrinking at an alarming rate, ain't it.
 
Back
Top