Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:41 am

I've heard stories about "superfoods" causing people to suffer when they become popular. For example, Quinoa was a cheap and nutritious for the South Americans that grew it, but now that Anglos have decided to start eating it the demand has caused price to spike and now the people who live in the area where it's grown can no longer afford to eat it...

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:28 am

Koumei wrote:That's really kind of them to invent a term to use which is shorthand for "I am a liar, ignore me".

I thought we already had one. Isn't that what advertisement means?

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:43 pm

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:00 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I've heard stories about "superfoods" causing people to suffer when they become popular. For example, Quinoa was a cheap and nutritious for the South Americans that grew it, but now that Anglos have decided to start eating it the demand has caused price to spike and now the people who live in the area where it's grown can no longer afford to eat it...

How about Açaí? ("acai berries", lol). Originally a staple food for the northern region poor, Açai popularity exploded with the rest of Brazil years ago, mainly because the taste is great. The way most brazilians outside the Amazon basin consume Açai is as delicious but very caloric smoothies, served on kiosks like this one:

The authentic Açaí experience!

In places like this you can order cups or bowls of the stuff, topped with such healthy favorites like M&Ms, rice krispies, ground nuts, fruit loops and several kinds of sugary syrups.

Other than the junk food use, you also see brazilian gym addicts ordering bowls of açaí, this time topped with guaraná, granola and banana, as part of their weight-gaining, muscle-building diets. Because caloric berry is caloric as fuck.

So it completely blew my mind to see gringo sites trying to pass açaí as some kind of miracle food for weight loss, because it completely misses the point of why a food item becomes a staple in the first place.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:03 pm

nockermensch wrote:
So it completely blew my mind to see gringo sites trying to pass açaí as some kind of miracle food for weight loss

Huh. I've never seen that. acaí is usually advertised as an anti-oxidant in the US.

And how do you make " í " happen?

Pixels · Post by **Pixels** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:15 pm

alt+161 = í, at least on Windows. There might be some OS setting to make inputting accented characters less onerous, but I don't really care enough to look it up.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:47 pm

Alt-e gives me the accent mark, typing any vowel completes it.

Speaking of warning signs in language, is the argument "But if you do that you'll be just as bad as them" a good indication of concern trolling? The last two times I've seen it used were arguing:
a. Cops can't shoot back at criminals who are shooting at them.
b. You can't say that you hate this fundamentalist homophobe, that's intolerant.

This gives me a low opinion of the argument.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:12 am

"But if you do that you'll be just as bad as them" is obviously the sort of argument that you could easily leverage to deflect criticisms, but it can also be used to point out genuine inconsistencies in a position. I am afraid you're probably better off identifying bullshit by content and not structure in this case. Though it's definitely a warning flag, especially phrased like that, because it sounds dumb as hell.

For example, tolerance is not an endorsement for "equal tolerance for all selections on all traits," it is an endorsement for "equal tolerance for all selections on all members of a group of traits that are not considered important in determining the value of a person (traits such as race, gender, and sexual orientation)."

No one calls for tolerance of murderers, because being a murderer is a bad thing and being a not-murderer is a good thing. But people do call for tolerance of homosexuals, because being heterosexual is just a thing that doesn't matter and being homosexual is just a thing that doesn't matter. Being a bigot is a bad thing, and being a not-bigot is a good thing; there is no inconsistency in refusing to tolerate a fundamentalist homophobe.

You probably already knew that, but it's just illustrative of where the error in the argument really is: they're knocking down a strawman.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:26 am

I guess it's just that it's often used to defend impossibly idealistic positions. It's a demand that people do not use tactics that their opposition uses.

Now, when the tactic in question is something like using child soldiers, that's great. But when it's saying mean things about someone who is hateful, then there are problems.

I think it's less a matter of straw-manning and more one of considering actions without context. Just because something is bad in vacuum, it does not follow that there is no situation when it becomes a good thing. E.g. taking your friend's car keys is a dick move in a vacuum, but if they are plastered, it might be a great idea.

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:01 pm

nockermensch wrote:So it completely blew my mind to see gringo sites trying to pass açaí as some kind of miracle food for weight loss, because it completely misses the point of why a food item becomes a staple in the first place.

I googled "ягода асаи". First link: wikipedia, second link: cure-all with a dash of muscle building, third link and like half of the first page: weight loss.

Personally, I like chickpeas; hummus is amazingly delicious.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:53 am

TiaC wrote:I think it's less a matter of straw-manning and more one of considering actions without context. Just because something is bad in vacuum, it does not follow that there is no situation when it becomes a good thing. E.g. taking your friend's car keys is a dick move in a vacuum, but if they are plastered, it might be a great idea.

It's more a matter of calling out hypocrisy, whether real or perceived.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:10 am

fectin wrote:
TiaC wrote:I think it's less a matter of straw-manning and more one of considering actions without context. Just because something is bad in vacuum, it does not follow that there is no situation when it becomes a good thing. E.g. taking your friend's car keys is a dick move in a vacuum, but if they are plastered, it might be a great idea.
It's more a matter of calling out hypocrisy, whether real or perceived.

That's what it should be, but it's often used when the actions in question are not morally equivalent.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:18 pm

What is up with other forums and their active disdain of thread necromancy?

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:20 pm

Drives new conversations off the front page.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:24 pm

No more than making an entire new conversation that picks up where the relevant one left off.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:21 am

Imagine a forum that doesn't like conflict and arguments (ie "Not the Den"). Now consider how many arguments happen in your average thread, regardless of whether they like it or not.

Okay, so things are said, and people don't so much bury their hatchets as just forget them entirely. Then someone comes along a year later and revives a thread. Suddenly, people are reading back over it and feel the need to start arguing again.

That makes the baby Jesus sad or something.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:35 am

Some people are arbitrarily opposed to thread necros pretty much just because. Others dislike it when a thread is necroed by something that doesn't significantly contribute to the conversation, just posting "I agree" or "this" in response to an argument that has long since expired. That's forum-sliding, basically the same as posting a content-free thread that clutters up the first page. And if a forum moves quickly, necroing a small handful of threads (common when a new member goes archive binging) can deny threads that haven't run their course attention they might have benefited from, whereas on a forum as slow as this one you can regularly find weeks-old threads at the bottom of the front page and it is easily possible to read every single new thread to see if you're interested in it. This makes thread necroing altogether less of a hassle.

GreatGreyShrike · Post by **GreatGreyShrike** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:28 am

I find thread necros very irritating in some contexts and fine in others. One subforum I frequent has people posting their writing and others discussing it comprise the entire purpose of each thread - so when you see a thread necro, you know that either a) the thread's original poster has posted more writing after a long intermission (awesome!) or b) some clueless person has just posted and driven the thread to the front page of the forum and made it look like an update, making however many people load the thread looking for a new update for no reason. The latter, when it happens, is very irritating because it essentially wastes everyone's time.

On forums like the Gaming Den, of course, where open discussion tends to be the purpose of each thread, thread necromancy is almost never irritating.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:47 pm

So, the Ebony Kingdom OSSR has had an irritating old question of mine bugging me again. See, I've been doing this thing where I try to plug in all the gaps in my historical knowledge, so that I have at least a basic awareness of every civilization known to man. Now, I've only gotten up to about 500 AD or so, but nevertheless I'm struck by a bizarre lack of anything in Africa. Even if Africa was completely uncivilized (which strikes me as unlikely, because the Olmecs managed a civilization just fine without being connected to the Silk Road) they'd still have culture and folklore. So where can I learn about this stuff? And why is it so much more poorly documented than even relatively obscure civilizations like Mauryan India or the Visigoths or whatever?

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:01 pm

This is a fun and light-hearted book that covers a bit of pre-Colonial Africa: Link.

As to why, keep in mind that European contact with sub-Saharan Africa was very limited prior to the colonial period - to the point where Victorian explorers in the 1800 could go and discover new tribes and look for the source of the Nile and shit.

And no, Africa was not "completely uncivilized" - it is almost undoubtedly the continent with the longest history of continuous human inhabitation, and has seen many societies, like Great Zimbabwe, which rose and fell. Cities and trade routes rose and fell, nations warred and mixed together, yadda yadda. What didn't happen was technological development on par with Europe, or sociological development in line with European states.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:36 pm

And of course Africa being the way it is right now makes research into this a bit harder than in th european areas, where it's mostly peacefull and quiet and living and working conditions are good as well as the food and the climate is not quite as uncomfortable as there.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 16, 2014 7:17 am

If an atheist or other non-Christian wears mixed fabrics, have they committed a sin? Or are sins only applicable to believers, with other people just being disgusting heathens who perform all sorts of bad habits?

Would, for instance, a priest of Pelor and a priest of Nerull, be correct in asserting each other as sinners? Or does the fact that they play by entirely different rulebooks mean the term doesn't apply?

I mean, beyond the fact that "sin" is arguably a term specific to Abrahamic faiths and so automatically wouldn't apply to D&D deities if a proper theologian were at the table, demanding accuracy.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:37 am

Sins are to gods as crimes are to governments. Just as it isn't a crime for a non-citizen to not pay taxes, but it is a crime for a non-citizen to commit murders, there are sins that are not sins for non-believers and sins that are still sins for non-believers. The question you should be asking if what Nerullite prohibition the Pelorite is breaking and whether Nerull cares about a Pelorite doing that. And vis versa.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:53 pm

Koumei wrote:If an atheist or other non-Christian wears mixed fabrics, have they committed a sin? Or are sins only applicable to believers, with other people just being disgusting heathens who perform all sorts of bad habits?

Depends. The mixed fabrics thing is essentially where Jews signed a contract with God, and in exchange for a tonne of arbitrary rules, they get his favor. Anyone who isn't party to that contract doesn't have to aide by it. Amusingly, Judaism isn't evangelical, and there's no requirement to try and make anyone else live by the arbitrary rules. So, even if you believe that pushing elevator buttons on shabat is a sin, it's totally okay to hire someone who isn't Jewish to push them for you.

Islam has better test cases: murder is bad for everyone, period (caveat that not all killing is murder). Apostasy is a sin that only Muslims have the opportunity to commit. Failing to meet their obligation to pray daily is a sin for Muslims, but no-one else has that obligation (so, not a sin for non-believers). Eating pork is similar, but with positive action (again, not a sin). Paying Jizya is an obligation that does not fall on Muslims, but does on certain other people. I'm not clear that failing to pay it is a sin, but then Muslims do have an obligation to put you to the sword (under more extreme interpretations; it's fairly uncommon today).

Catholicism has a very well thought out position on sin, which is worth investigating/co-opting if you need a theology. Wiki is good (search "mortal sin" and "venial sin"), and the catechism is also a good resource: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s1c1a8.htm
Trivially: we're all buddies with god. Anything that causes you to stop being buddies with god is a problem (mortal sin), and you need to fix it, or he won't invite you to his afterparty. God's a pretty understanding guy though, so it takes a lot to make him actually cut ties with you. Anything that offends god is still bad (venial sin), even though you're still buddies, and you really oughta apologize and be nicer to him from now on.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:54 pm

I've been thinking about a case in game theory:

Let's say you're playing rock-paper-scissors, except the results of each winning play are asymmetrical. If you shoot rock and win, you get three points. If you shoot scissors and win, you get two points. If you shoot paper and win, you get one point.

Clearly shooting rock has the best metric if you're just playing an RNG; you'll get the most if you win and concede the least if you lose. But another intelligent opponent knows that, too, and won't want to play scissors as a result; he'll want to play rock, also, and occasionally shoot paper to snipe a single-point win or two instead of just earning ties. But he can't switch to an all-paper strategy either because scissors show up again.

Does a game like this, with two rational players, end up stabilizing with each player shooting a certain option a certain percentage of the time?