I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
If my more mainstream friends want to get together and play stupid party games like Apples to Apples, I'm probably going to go along with it even though my usual interest is more hardcore like BSG.
And I'm pretty sure some of my friends are Republicans. Or at least their families are, and they're like uninformed, unmotivated "independents". Losers. :P
But I still hang out with them.
I think you misunderstand my point.
What I'm saying is that who you socialize with is not an uncorrelated variable. You don't just hang out with people at random -- you choose whom you socialize with based on your personal preferences for certain behaviors, worldviews, and so on. Your friends probably have some things in common, and fall into one or at most a few discrete social categories. This is judging behaviorally. Even if you pat yourself on the back for being accepting and everything, you're still making judgments of value and acting on them. You're evaluating someone's behavior and saying "I want to hang out with them" or "I don't want to hang out with them." I'm sure there are people you respect more than others; some you show deference to, and others you do not; etc.
That's normal, and healthy, and a simple reality of life.
What I'm saying is that engaging in social behavior with people is a factor of knowing people, and having some interest in an activity in common with them.
Unlike mrt144 or Irond Will however I do not feel the need to talk about how all married people are sheeples.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm getting married next year and couldn't be happier.
I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
What baffles me are the nerds who think the pathos of a final fantasy game offers the most emotional fulfillment available to western civilization. There's no sense of history or of the many deeper artistic currents in our culture.
Yes, there is indeed a cultural backlash against weeaboos, and it's not entirely unjustified.
The difference between your pokemon cards and a Picasso is not 50 years. It's 50 years and artistic merit.
I always figure that if someone actually believes that your average game is a work on the equivalent of even moderately decent literature, it's because they've never actually been exposed to anything decent. Should have happened in school, obviously, but maybe it didn't. Or maybe they weren't paying attention.
If you're reading Faulkner and Nabokov in your spare time (or, for that matter, something that everybody should have read in school, like All Quiet on the Western Front, or even grade-school stuff of the Newbery variety) then you're going to have to realize that the action set pieces in a video game do not great literature make. I would imagine most people that read at all have realized better by the time they're out of high school.
But you can't not judge them. You judge them by deciding not to endorse or engage in their activities. You judge them by not hanging out with them, gossiping with them, or otherwise behaving with them in ways that imply social acceptance.
It is reasonably impossible to be socially neutral. People associate with certain categories of other people. I don't like to hang out with middle-American Republicans who would eschew foie gras and full-employment, and I'm sure they don't want to hang out with me. I don't even have to explicitly, openly or privately judge them for their ways -- but merely by not bestowing them with equal social consideration as every other group of people, I am enforcing judgment.
It's reasonably impossible to be perfect, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to at least be good.
People come to snap judgments about all sorts of things - skin color, religion, social status, dress. In a morally neutral sense, they're called heuristics, and they let us make decisions based on limited information. Taken past their immediate usefulness, they become prejudices, and interfere with constructive social interaction.
We need to recognize that heuristics are a convenience, and not let them define our thinking. If you come to a snap judgment about somebody's manner of dress (for instance), you can choose to react to that snap judgment in a number of ways. The morally inferior way is to act in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. The morally superior way is to think to yourself, "I shouldn't entertain any conclusions about this person's character without getting to know them."
Saying, effectively, "I'm only human, I'm not omniscient" is not sufficient justification to wallow in one's own ignorance.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm getting married next year and couldn't be happier.
I'm flipping around your position that anyone older than 22 living at home should be scorned and applying an equivalent stereotypical judgement of married people.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
But I also understand that people will look down on that particular form of play, and will respect me a lot more if I choose to spend that time at a bar with them knocking back a few Arrogant Bastards and gossiping.
Who is looking down on people for playing video games? It seems that it would be pretty rare today to find someone who looks down on video games as a diversion for adults. Maybe some senior citizens, but I can't really think of this occuring otherwise.
I think it's also pretty irrelevant how society at large views certain behaviours like playing with Gi joe as an adult. People don't form structure in their lives within a large societal framework, they do so on an interpersonal level. If they want to be who they are they'll make friends of similar people. There's plently of people in the world to make friends with who also like that kind of thing. The internet is a boon I'm sure to people who play with toys when they are older.
If these people are failing to make personal connections, it doesn't have a lot to do with their personal interests. It's their social skill level. Having an interest in what's considered unusual for society at large will only cut someone off from people they probably wouldn't have an interest in being with in the first place. Interests in unusual things aren't what creates unhealthy social lifestyles.
Where does this gauge for unhealthy behaviour come from anyways? It really comes across as an 'I think this is weird/unhealthy, therefore everyone else does, we are normal, they are not' kind of attitude which would be ridiculous.
Lucid on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
I'm happy to see that my mother's return to stay with my grandparents was deserving of your ire. Houses never burn to the ground in your area, I take it? :?
I think what actually bothers me in this discussion is the implied definition of value that is forced upon you.
Outside of mathematics and logic, the value we assign to actions is very much completely subjective and can only converge if we put equal value in the result of these actions. So if both sides agree on, say, making money and advancing your career as being of primary importance it puts any action that wastes time by not contributing to this end on equal grounds. Now is added another value that one side believes is ought to be universal and of greater importance than recreation - wishing for the appreciation of your mainstream peers and/or seeking a mate among them. The other side believes the opposite, and puts recreation/subgroups first.
Objectively, neither is correct, but as one side has wider support their set of values are seen as objectively correct rather than subjective opinions.
...The sad and frustrating thin for me is that people can completely abdicate any sense of civic engagement or responsibility and stop appreciating the arts.
What baffles me are the nerds who think the pathos of a final fantasy game offers the most emotional fulfillment available to western civilization. There's no sense of history or of the many deeper artistic currents in our culture. I think many women unfairly find VGs off-putting, but even nerd girls will reject guys who are not just emotionally but experientially stunted. Now to pax!
Art is completely subjective - it has no objective value. One piece of art can never be objectively greater or lesser than another. Dante's Divine Comedy is not objectively better than someone filling a book with Sonic X Lizard Obama slashfiction.
You may rate one piece of art as superior through its byproduct - namely, social acceptance and recognition for partaking in experiencing it, but that is once more only of subjective worth and depends on if said person holds any interest in achieving said recognition.
EDIT: You can, of course, discuss your opinions and try to convert the opposition to them through seeking common ground (that is the nature of debate, after all). I am merely a bit disturbed by the 'MY OPINION IS FACT'.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
It's more that I spend time with them,realize that I like them but then remember if I would be together with them I could not do the things I like and which are fun for me anymore and that that those things rank higher for me than a woman.
Just be forewarned that compromise is a part of any relationship, especially being part of a couple, and there's a good chance that you might not find the things you do as fulfilling ten years down the road as you do now. You probably won't find an identical girl-twin who fits you perfectly, either.
No? I really don't see a logical argument for having any life goals besides getting as much enjoyment out of it until you die.
Yes. And other people find that distressing, and are not obligated to sanction your world-view or approve of it.
You can't really have a coherent moral system that doesn't rely on the hedonic principle at some level. Basically, you're making somebody feel better, even if that person is a spouse or a child or your community at large. The only real questions are "who am I making feel better" and "how am I doing it?"
There are plenty of popular attempts at incoherent moral systems that try to sidestep the hedonic principle, but I don't feel that morally I should have to kowtow to disapproval that comes from incoherent ideologies, even if it's sometimes a necessary evil to do so.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What is the female equivalent to a man-child? A 20-something who dresses like a hoochie and goes to "the club" with her girlfriends?
My friend's bachelor party was hanging out at a friend's house doing some drinking, playing cards, playing with a remote control helicopter, eventually going to play laser tag, then finishing it up with some go-carts. We were all late 20's, early 30's guys, a lot of us married and have big-boy jobs.
If we had listened to popular culture, or more specifically fine liquor commercials, we should've dressed up in expensive suits, sat on expensive leather furniture, smoked cigars and laughed obnoxiously in slow-motion.
RocketSauce on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Natives, definitely. Economic climate or not though, I find it repugnant to put your parents, who are likely also facing tough financial questions themselves, in a position where they are again providing for you. One can say that a parent who wouldn't help their kid out is a bad parent but I come from the background of being forcibly pushed out of the nest at 19 and living in squalor, both employed and unemployed off and on for the next 3 years.
What if your parents aren't facing tough financial questions? What if staying at home is for helping your parents with their finances?
I don't think complete financial independence is that important so soon.
Julius on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
What is the female equivalent to a man-child? A 20-something who dresses like a hoochie and goes to "the club" with her girlfriends?
I would imagine that the female equivalent of a man-child would be a chick that refused to give up the drama and cattiness of the freshman-in-high-school maturity level, after most women had grown up and learned to deal with things like an adult. Man/Woman-children seem to stop maturing at about 14.
They're not entirely uncommon. Go to any workplace, academic department or what have you that's made up primarily of women and you'll usually find one. They're easy enough to spot, because they're the one all the other women hate. Usually because they spend their time causing problems and playing weird mental games instead of actually working.
What makes an action look more or less worthy for an adult?
I don't know, I think Echo and Sipex nailed this on the head, but you still seem to disagree with that, or at least want to stick other quantifiers on it that put us right back at the beginning of 'certain hobbies are for kids, certain hobbies are for big people", which I don't think is really helpful, accurate, or fair.
it's a cultural construct
some activities are designed for and participated in by kids
and not by adults
these probably change over time (like, i guess, video games to some degree and maybe comic books)
but it's just how the world we live in is built
you know that this is true also
i mean, these aren't rules that i just made up out of the aether
if they were, you probably wouldn't feel the need to argue with them
Some activities are designed for and participated in by women
Natives, definitely. Economic climate or not though, I find it repugnant to put your parents, who are likely also facing tough financial questions themselves, in a position where they are again providing for you. One can say that a parent who wouldn't help their kid out is a bad parent but I come from the background of being forcibly pushed out of the nest at 19 and living in squalor, both employed and unemployed off and on for the next 3 years.
What if your parents aren't facing tough financial questions? What if staying at home is for helping your parents with their finances?
I don't think complete financial independence is that important so soon.
What if, what if, what if...
Agree to disagree until your entire refutation is something other than exceptionalism.
Girls do it, too -they're the ones with half a college degree, $10k in credit card debt, and a 4 nights a week clubbing habit.
The essence of the man-child seems to be irresponsibility, selfishness, flightiness, self-absorption, and an indifference to the rest of the world. I figure that's the stereotypical way women manifest those qualities.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
I'm happy to see that my mother's return to stay with my grandparents was deserving of your ire. Houses never burn to the ground in your area, I take it? :?
I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
Not much for cultural acceptance are you?
Not much for cultural integration are you?
Yes clearly society at large has a legitimate interest in making sure no one stay at home after age 22.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
Not much for cultural acceptance are you?
Not much for cultural integration are you?
Yes clearly society at large has a legitimate interest in making sure no one stay at home after age 22.
What do you care for society at large? You reject the very premise it exists.
You'd be just as happy if everyone was isolated from one another for the sake of retaining their cultural self identity in the name of acceptance rather than possibly growing as a result of cultural interaction and integration.
No? I really don't see a logical argument for having any life goals besides getting as much enjoyment out of it until you die.
Yes. And other people find that distressing, and are not obligated to sanction your world-view or approve of it.
You can't really have a coherent moral system that doesn't rely on the hedonic principle at some level. Basically, you're making somebody feel better, even if that person is a spouse or a child or your community at large. The only real questions are "who am I making feel better" and "how am I doing it?"
There are plenty of popular attempts at incoherent moral systems that try to sidestep the hedonic principle, but I don't feel that morally I should have to kowtow to disapproval that comes from incoherent ideologies, even if it's sometimes a necessary evil to do so.
I completely agree with that, but I'm not bothering to nit-pick his language or assume a depth of philosophical definition that didn't seem present in the post. I can tell, contextually, that he's using a natural-language/intuitive definition of "enjoyment" that isn't nearly as broad as the sort of things I would include under the banner of subjective well-being.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Fartacus on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
The essence of the man-child seems to be irresponsibility, selfishness, flightiness, self-absorption, and an indifference to the rest of the world. I figure that's the stereotypical way women manifest those qualities.
Art is completely subjective - it has no objective value. One piece of art can never be objectively greater or lesser than another. Dante's Divine Comedy is not objectively better than someone filling a book with Sonic X Lizard Obama slashfiction.
You may rate one piece of art as superior through its byproduct - namely, social acceptance and recognition for partaking in experiencing it, but that is once more only of subjective worth and depends on if said person holds any interest in achieving said recognition.
EDIT: You can, of course, discuss your opinions and try to convert the opposition to them through seeking common ground (that is the nature of debate, after all). I am merely a bit disturbed by the 'MY OPINION IS FACT'.
Assessing art of all kinds involves context and history, both individual and global. Individual assessment of a work is limited by one's exposure to other art; the more education, both formal and informal, one has, the better one's taste becomes. Through this process, one's opinion becomes more valuable because it is informed by more data and more experience.
I recognize that this formulation of value disparages the opinion of the uneducated; however, that's pretty much the difference between maturity and immaturity. Maturity requires accumulated knowledge and wisdom garnered by the experience of living; immaturity is defined by the lack thereof. It is possible to live a long time and still be immature, either by a limited breadth of life experience (i.e. never leaving home, never meeting new people, never exploring new interests) or an inability to integrate one's experiences into a coherent whole. But it is impossible to be mature without having a sufficient amount of experience to begin with.
There are many reasons why certain pieces of art are elevated above others. Usually, it is because they have appealed to many minds over a huge span of years. The truths they tell resonate through the ages. These are mature works, even if they deal with ostensibly childish subjects or are geared to children.
So while The Divine Comedy may not be, in one particular person's opinion, better than Twilight, it has captured minds and imaginations for about 700 years. For some reason, I doubt Twilight will last 100. There are reasons for this beyond social acceptance and recognition for partaking in it.
Part of the stereotypical scorn of toy-collecting and comic book collecting is that they tend to attract people taking refuge from "real life" and who are already socially inept or mentally ill. There are people who collect because "that is cool" or "that is cute", then there are ones who collect (or become an authority on Star Wars / Star Trek / Batman / whatever) to fill a void.
An example. I collect My Little Ponies. Within the MLP-collecting community there are a lot of responsible, socially adjusted girls (and a small amount of guys). And then there are the OTHER ones . . . like the girl who posted she was going to get evicted for nonpayment of rent, then turned around and bought forty dollars worth of ponies from me. And there are some girls who live with their parents beyond the age you'd expect, don't have a job (for no good reason), and go on about how haaard life is. And, yeah, I know a couple man-child guys who fit the stereotype to a T--the hygiene, the sloth, all of it. Fortunately they aren't frittering away their rent money, but if their Guitar Hero drumset breaks, they HAVE to have a new one RIGHT NOW, THIS DAY. Even if it means scraping by instead of having extra money in savings and waiting till next payday.
A difference I've noticed between female collectors and man-child collectors is that almost all female collectors--even the crazy / immature ones--understand that most other people are NOT interested in Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, or what have you. They will collect them, display them, maybe even draw fanart or write fanfics, but they aren't going to try to engross non-collecting friends in discussions of the relative strength of Wish Bear versus Tenderheart Bear. A percentage of male collectors seems incapable of discussing anything except for the toy / video game / comic books that's captured their interest. Not a majority, but enough that they're noticeable, which fuels the "Comic Book Guy" stereotype. Hey, I'm a collector, I understand what it's like to argue with other collectors over something that ultimately is not of the least importance. (There is NO Twice-as-Fancy Scoops with factory blue sodas, she is FADED damn it.) But if those are the only issues you ever think about or care about, if collecting / fandom is the only real activity or interest you have, don't start whining when non-collectors find you boring and don't come crying when you're deemed undesirable as potential dating material.
After being exposed to the man-children (or woman-children) collectors or fans, some people mentally associate ALL Star Wars fans or Transformers fans or what have you with the unwashed mouth-breathers they've previously encountered. Which is unfair and unfortunate, but that's life.
The essence of the man-child seems to be irresponsibility, selfishness, flightiness, self-absorption, and an indifference to the rest of the world. I figure that's the stereotypical way women manifest those qualities.
Fuck,I am the definition of a man-child
Not if you choose not to be.
Not trying to be glib, but everyone has a predisposition toward childish behaviors, they just have to make a conscious choice not to do so. Growing up is when you make an effort not to be that way anymore, whereas children impose no restraint on their own impulses.
After being exposed to the man-children (or woman-children) collectors or fans, some people mentally associate ALL Star Wars fans or Transformers fans or what have you with the unwashed mouth-breathers they've previously encountered. Which is unfair and unfortunate, but that's life.
No, that's being a dick.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Okay, that's fair.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think the best determination currently is drawing a line between those who do nothing but obsess over their hobby and are unable to take care of themselves to those who do take care of their responsibilities, even if they live at home with their parents, but have hobbies that the current society thinks are foolish. If we can make this distiction from what true determines a "Man-Child" we can, I think safely assume that those of us here do not fall into this category even if our SO dislike some of the things we do.
Anyone who lives at their parent's home past the age of 22, with the exception of those taking care of an ill parent, will always get my scorn and derision for not leaving the safety and comfort of the nest.
Are we talking about natives here or immigrants? If they are immigrants to the west, the I would assume that their culture would have one living with their parents as a unit. I have a Indian friend who's elder brother, wife and children live with him and his sister alongside the parents because thats how they were back home.
If its native and not immigrants, I would say that the recent economic climate would prove otherwise as another friend lost his job in my company the same time I did and had to return back to his hometown because he couldn't afford living there. He lives with his parents and is trying to get back up, though with the IT industry down here, its not looking all that good in the first place.
Natives, definitely.
Ok, if we are talking about natives, where do you draw the line? Lets say Moochers will be where you start from, in which case you'll rightfully scorn them. What about those who became economically challenged and had to start from scratch. Where does your scorn end?
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
Not much for cultural acceptance are you?
Not much for cultural integration are you?
Yes clearly society at large has a legitimate interest in making sure no one stay at home after age 22.
What do you care for society at large? You reject the very premise it exists.
You'd be just as happy if everyone was isolated from one another for the sake of retaining their cultural self identity in the name of acceptance rather than possibly growing as a result of cultural interaction and integration.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Okay, that's fair.
I mean that's what people are concerned about when they disapprove of man-child behavior anyway.
Like, yes, you are enjoying that Starcraft, but you're neglecting other forms of human well-being, such as feelings of accomplishment, social worth, ambition (and, taken to the extreme, sacrificing long-term forms of happiness such as a robust social network, health, financial well-being, and so on).
Fartacus on
0
Options
Gennenalyse RuebenThe Prettiest Boy is Ridiculously PrettyRegistered Userregular
Uhm, okay? Are you always this hyper? You took an uncompromising position, I provided something that made the uncompromising position untenable for anyone with a heart. I'm sorry that life tends to provide a ton of exceptional anecdotes that make absolute positions something of a liability?
What do you care for society at large? You reject the very premise it exists.
You'd be just as happy if everyone was isolated from one another for the sake of retaining their cultural self identity in the name of acceptance rather than possibly growing as a result of cultural interaction and integration.
I...wait, what? o_O I know you were addressing someone else, but how does this even relate to what anyone has been saying? You're completely making up arguments. Nobody's said this, nobody's come close to implying this. Unless you think people defying norms is rejecting the premise of society at large, which is just mind-bogglingly illogical.
After being exposed to the man-children (or woman-children) collectors or fans, some people mentally associate ALL Star Wars fans or Transformers fans or what have you with the unwashed mouth-breathers they've previously encountered. Which is unfair and unfortunate, but that's life.
No, that's being a dick.
Life is full of dicks.
I'm not saying it's an appropriate response, merely that it's a common one.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Okay, that's fair.
I mean that's what people are concerned about when they disapprove of man-child behavior anyway.
Like, yes, you are enjoying that Starcraft, but you're neglecting other forms of human well-being, such as feelings of accomplishment, social worth, ambition (and, taken to the extreme, sacrificing long-term forms of happiness such as a robust social network, health, financial well-being, and so on).
You're assuming everyone has the same motivations.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
A difference I've noticed between female collectors and man-child collectors is that almost all female collectors--even the crazy / immature ones--understand that most other people are NOT interested in Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, or what have you. They will collect them, display them, maybe even draw fanart or write fanfics, but they aren't going to try to engross non-collecting friends in discussions of the relative strength of Wish Bear versus Tenderheart Bear. A percentage of male collectors seems incapable of discussing anything except for the toy / video game / comic books that's captured their interest. Not a majority, but enough that they're noticeable, which fuels the "Comic Book Guy" stereotype.
I wonder if a lot of these individuals would fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum of disorders, such as Asperger's Disorder. The specialization and intense interest in a specific area, with poor social skills, and often poor hygiene. Also interesting because Asperger's is much more prevalent with males.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Okay, that's fair.
I mean that's what people are concerned about when they disapprove of man-child behavior anyway.
Like, yes, you are enjoying that Starcraft, but you're neglecting other forms of human well-being, such as feelings of accomplishment, social worth, ambition (and, taken to the extreme, sacrificing long-term forms of happiness such as a robust social network, health, financial well-being, and so on).
Unless you're playing Starcraft professionally, making money, and forming friendships in the community. There are lots of ostensibly "childish" behaviors (like playing baseball professionally) that, when done for money, suddenly become adult.
But yeah, I pretty much agree with you guys. I just find it strange that monetary rewards tend to color our perception of adult vs childish so much.
sanstodo on
0
Options
KlykaDO you have anySPARE BATTERIES?Registered Userregular
The essence of the man-child seems to be irresponsibility, selfishness, flightiness, self-absorption, and an indifference to the rest of the world. I figure that's the stereotypical way women manifest those qualities.
Fuck,I am the definition of a man-child
Not if you choose not to be.
Not trying to be glib, but everyone has a predisposition toward childish behaviors, they just have to make a conscious choice not to do so. Growing up is when you make an effort not to be that way anymore, whereas children impose no restraint on their own impulses.
Hah,I'm ok though man, I don't really care about any titles given to me by people.
I enjoy my life,that's all that matters.
Klyka on
SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
After being exposed to the man-children (or woman-children) collectors or fans, some people mentally associate ALL Star Wars fans or Transformers fans or what have you with the unwashed mouth-breathers they've previously encountered. Which is unfair and unfortunate, but that's life.
No, that's being a dick.
I am learning that those seem to coincide. Incidentally, being a dick seems to coincide with being "adult," whatever that means.
I would find the irony of a group of people sitting around complaining about what others do in their spare time while lauding themselves for being the mature ones quite hilarious, if it weren't so frustrating.
A difference I've noticed between female collectors and man-child collectors is that almost all female collectors--even the crazy / immature ones--understand that most other people are NOT interested in Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, or what have you. They will collect them, display them, maybe even draw fanart or write fanfics, but they aren't going to try to engross non-collecting friends in discussions of the relative strength of Wish Bear versus Tenderheart Bear. A percentage of male collectors seems incapable of discussing anything except for the toy / video game / comic books that's captured their interest. Not a majority, but enough that they're noticeable, which fuels the "Comic Book Guy" stereotype.
I wonder if a lot of these individuals would fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum of disorders, such as Asperger's Disorder. The specialization and intense interest in a specific area, with poor social skills, and often poor hygiene. Also interesting because Asperger's is much more prevalent with males.
I've wondered the same thing. I do think that's part of it.
LadyM on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Natives, definitely. Economic climate or not though, I find it repugnant to put your parents, who are likely also facing tough financial questions themselves, in a position where they are again providing for you. One can say that a parent who wouldn't help their kid out is a bad parent but I come from the background of being forcibly pushed out of the nest at 19 and living in squalor, both employed and unemployed off and on for the next 3 years.
What if your parents aren't facing tough financial questions? What if staying at home is for helping your parents with their finances?
I don't think complete financial independence is that important so soon.
What if, what if, what if...
Agree to disagree until your entire refutation is something other than exceptionalism.
If there are a lot of situations where living at home is the better choice, or neutral, your position just sounds dumb. I moved out at 19, a few of my friends still live at home because they simply can't afford college and a room in Amsterdam without working a lot which would mean their study takes the punch.
It's not about safety and comfort of the nest, it's about making a good choice. Living at home, especially when you're just 22, doesn't mean you can't be independent in all other ways besides "lol I own a home".
Posts
I'd say when there is a firm timeline for moving out which is immutable no matter the circumstance.
I also fundamentally don't believe in starting from scratch because the experiences you have will shape future actions.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm getting married next year and couldn't be happier.
I always figure that if someone actually believes that your average game is a work on the equivalent of even moderately decent literature, it's because they've never actually been exposed to anything decent. Should have happened in school, obviously, but maybe it didn't. Or maybe they weren't paying attention.
If you're reading Faulkner and Nabokov in your spare time (or, for that matter, something that everybody should have read in school, like All Quiet on the Western Front, or even grade-school stuff of the Newbery variety) then you're going to have to realize that the action set pieces in a video game do not great literature make. I would imagine most people that read at all have realized better by the time they're out of high school.
It's reasonably impossible to be perfect, yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to at least be good.
People come to snap judgments about all sorts of things - skin color, religion, social status, dress. In a morally neutral sense, they're called heuristics, and they let us make decisions based on limited information. Taken past their immediate usefulness, they become prejudices, and interfere with constructive social interaction.
We need to recognize that heuristics are a convenience, and not let them define our thinking. If you come to a snap judgment about somebody's manner of dress (for instance), you can choose to react to that snap judgment in a number of ways. The morally inferior way is to act in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. The morally superior way is to think to yourself, "I shouldn't entertain any conclusions about this person's character without getting to know them."
Saying, effectively, "I'm only human, I'm not omniscient" is not sufficient justification to wallow in one's own ignorance.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm flipping around your position that anyone older than 22 living at home should be scorned and applying an equivalent stereotypical judgement of married people.
I think it's also pretty irrelevant how society at large views certain behaviours like playing with Gi joe as an adult. People don't form structure in their lives within a large societal framework, they do so on an interpersonal level. If they want to be who they are they'll make friends of similar people. There's plently of people in the world to make friends with who also like that kind of thing. The internet is a boon I'm sure to people who play with toys when they are older.
If these people are failing to make personal connections, it doesn't have a lot to do with their personal interests. It's their social skill level. Having an interest in what's considered unusual for society at large will only cut someone off from people they probably wouldn't have an interest in being with in the first place. Interests in unusual things aren't what creates unhealthy social lifestyles.
Where does this gauge for unhealthy behaviour come from anyways? It really comes across as an 'I think this is weird/unhealthy, therefore everyone else does, we are normal, they are not' kind of attitude which would be ridiculous.
I'm happy to see that my mother's return to stay with my grandparents was deserving of your ire. Houses never burn to the ground in your area, I take it? :?
Outside of mathematics and logic, the value we assign to actions is very much completely subjective and can only converge if we put equal value in the result of these actions. So if both sides agree on, say, making money and advancing your career as being of primary importance it puts any action that wastes time by not contributing to this end on equal grounds. Now is added another value that one side believes is ought to be universal and of greater importance than recreation - wishing for the appreciation of your mainstream peers and/or seeking a mate among them. The other side believes the opposite, and puts recreation/subgroups first.
Objectively, neither is correct, but as one side has wider support their set of values are seen as objectively correct rather than subjective opinions.
Art is completely subjective - it has no objective value. One piece of art can never be objectively greater or lesser than another. Dante's Divine Comedy is not objectively better than someone filling a book with Sonic X Lizard Obama slashfiction.
You may rate one piece of art as superior through its byproduct - namely, social acceptance and recognition for partaking in experiencing it, but that is once more only of subjective worth and depends on if said person holds any interest in achieving said recognition.
EDIT: You can, of course, discuss your opinions and try to convert the opposition to them through seeking common ground (that is the nature of debate, after all). I am merely a bit disturbed by the 'MY OPINION IS FACT'.
You can't really have a coherent moral system that doesn't rely on the hedonic principle at some level. Basically, you're making somebody feel better, even if that person is a spouse or a child or your community at large. The only real questions are "who am I making feel better" and "how am I doing it?"
There are plenty of popular attempts at incoherent moral systems that try to sidestep the hedonic principle, but I don't feel that morally I should have to kowtow to disapproval that comes from incoherent ideologies, even if it's sometimes a necessary evil to do so.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
My friend's bachelor party was hanging out at a friend's house doing some drinking, playing cards, playing with a remote control helicopter, eventually going to play laser tag, then finishing it up with some go-carts. We were all late 20's, early 30's guys, a lot of us married and have big-boy jobs.
If we had listened to popular culture, or more specifically fine liquor commercials, we should've dressed up in expensive suits, sat on expensive leather furniture, smoked cigars and laughed obnoxiously in slow-motion.
What if your parents aren't facing tough financial questions? What if staying at home is for helping your parents with their finances?
I don't think complete financial independence is that important so soon.
Not much for cultural integration are you?
I would imagine that the female equivalent of a man-child would be a chick that refused to give up the drama and cattiness of the freshman-in-high-school maturity level, after most women had grown up and learned to deal with things like an adult. Man/Woman-children seem to stop maturing at about 14.
They're not entirely uncommon. Go to any workplace, academic department or what have you that's made up primarily of women and you'll usually find one. They're easy enough to spot, because they're the one all the other women hate. Usually because they spend their time causing problems and playing weird mental games instead of actually working.
Some activities are designed for and participated in by women
and not by men
:?:
What if, what if, what if...
Agree to disagree until your entire refutation is something other than exceptionalism.
I think The Cat pretty much nailed it.
The essence of the man-child seems to be irresponsibility, selfishness, flightiness, self-absorption, and an indifference to the rest of the world. I figure that's the stereotypical way women manifest those qualities.
OOOOH, EXCEPTIONAL ANECDOTE!
Yes clearly society at large has a legitimate interest in making sure no one stay at home after age 22.
What do you care for society at large? You reject the very premise it exists.
You'd be just as happy if everyone was isolated from one another for the sake of retaining their cultural self identity in the name of acceptance rather than possibly growing as a result of cultural interaction and integration.
What?
I completely agree with that, but I'm not bothering to nit-pick his language or assume a depth of philosophical definition that didn't seem present in the post. I can tell, contextually, that he's using a natural-language/intuitive definition of "enjoyment" that isn't nearly as broad as the sort of things I would include under the banner of subjective well-being.
A hedonic principle that only takes into account emotional happiness and entertainment is an under-developed one. There are many states of experience that are preferable/desirable, but they are not all "enjoyment."
Fuck,I am the definition of a man-child
Assessing art of all kinds involves context and history, both individual and global. Individual assessment of a work is limited by one's exposure to other art; the more education, both formal and informal, one has, the better one's taste becomes. Through this process, one's opinion becomes more valuable because it is informed by more data and more experience.
I recognize that this formulation of value disparages the opinion of the uneducated; however, that's pretty much the difference between maturity and immaturity. Maturity requires accumulated knowledge and wisdom garnered by the experience of living; immaturity is defined by the lack thereof. It is possible to live a long time and still be immature, either by a limited breadth of life experience (i.e. never leaving home, never meeting new people, never exploring new interests) or an inability to integrate one's experiences into a coherent whole. But it is impossible to be mature without having a sufficient amount of experience to begin with.
There are many reasons why certain pieces of art are elevated above others. Usually, it is because they have appealed to many minds over a huge span of years. The truths they tell resonate through the ages. These are mature works, even if they deal with ostensibly childish subjects or are geared to children.
So while The Divine Comedy may not be, in one particular person's opinion, better than Twilight, it has captured minds and imaginations for about 700 years. For some reason, I doubt Twilight will last 100. There are reasons for this beyond social acceptance and recognition for partaking in it.
An example. I collect My Little Ponies. Within the MLP-collecting community there are a lot of responsible, socially adjusted girls (and a small amount of guys). And then there are the OTHER ones . . . like the girl who posted she was going to get evicted for nonpayment of rent, then turned around and bought forty dollars worth of ponies from me. And there are some girls who live with their parents beyond the age you'd expect, don't have a job (for no good reason), and go on about how haaard life is. And, yeah, I know a couple man-child guys who fit the stereotype to a T--the hygiene, the sloth, all of it. Fortunately they aren't frittering away their rent money, but if their Guitar Hero drumset breaks, they HAVE to have a new one RIGHT NOW, THIS DAY. Even if it means scraping by instead of having extra money in savings and waiting till next payday.
A difference I've noticed between female collectors and man-child collectors is that almost all female collectors--even the crazy / immature ones--understand that most other people are NOT interested in Care Bears, Rainbow Brite, or what have you. They will collect them, display them, maybe even draw fanart or write fanfics, but they aren't going to try to engross non-collecting friends in discussions of the relative strength of Wish Bear versus Tenderheart Bear. A percentage of male collectors seems incapable of discussing anything except for the toy / video game / comic books that's captured their interest. Not a majority, but enough that they're noticeable, which fuels the "Comic Book Guy" stereotype. Hey, I'm a collector, I understand what it's like to argue with other collectors over something that ultimately is not of the least importance. (There is NO Twice-as-Fancy Scoops with factory blue sodas, she is FADED damn it.) But if those are the only issues you ever think about or care about, if collecting / fandom is the only real activity or interest you have, don't start whining when non-collectors find you boring and don't come crying when you're deemed undesirable as potential dating material.
After being exposed to the man-children (or woman-children) collectors or fans, some people mentally associate ALL Star Wars fans or Transformers fans or what have you with the unwashed mouth-breathers they've previously encountered. Which is unfair and unfortunate, but that's life.
Not if you choose not to be.
Not trying to be glib, but everyone has a predisposition toward childish behaviors, they just have to make a conscious choice not to do so. Growing up is when you make an effort not to be that way anymore, whereas children impose no restraint on their own impulses.
No, that's being a dick.
Okay, that's fair.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Holy fucking straw man batman!
I mean that's what people are concerned about when they disapprove of man-child behavior anyway.
Like, yes, you are enjoying that Starcraft, but you're neglecting other forms of human well-being, such as feelings of accomplishment, social worth, ambition (and, taken to the extreme, sacrificing long-term forms of happiness such as a robust social network, health, financial well-being, and so on).
Uhm, okay? Are you always this hyper? You took an uncompromising position, I provided something that made the uncompromising position untenable for anyone with a heart. I'm sorry that life tends to provide a ton of exceptional anecdotes that make absolute positions something of a liability?
I...wait, what? o_O I know you were addressing someone else, but how does this even relate to what anyone has been saying? You're completely making up arguments. Nobody's said this, nobody's come close to implying this. Unless you think people defying norms is rejecting the premise of society at large, which is just mind-bogglingly illogical.
Life is full of dicks.
I'm not saying it's an appropriate response, merely that it's a common one.
You're assuming everyone has the same motivations.
I wonder if a lot of these individuals would fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum of disorders, such as Asperger's Disorder. The specialization and intense interest in a specific area, with poor social skills, and often poor hygiene. Also interesting because Asperger's is much more prevalent with males.
Unless you're playing Starcraft professionally, making money, and forming friendships in the community. There are lots of ostensibly "childish" behaviors (like playing baseball professionally) that, when done for money, suddenly become adult.
But yeah, I pretty much agree with you guys. I just find it strange that monetary rewards tend to color our perception of adult vs childish so much.
Hah,I'm ok though man, I don't really care about any titles given to me by people.
I enjoy my life,that's all that matters.
I am learning that those seem to coincide. Incidentally, being a dick seems to coincide with being "adult," whatever that means.
I would find the irony of a group of people sitting around complaining about what others do in their spare time while lauding themselves for being the mature ones quite hilarious, if it weren't so frustrating.
I've wondered the same thing. I do think that's part of it.
If there are a lot of situations where living at home is the better choice, or neutral, your position just sounds dumb. I moved out at 19, a few of my friends still live at home because they simply can't afford college and a room in Amsterdam without working a lot which would mean their study takes the punch.
It's not about safety and comfort of the nest, it's about making a good choice. Living at home, especially when you're just 22, doesn't mean you can't be independent in all other ways besides "lol I own a home".