Jump to content
NEurope

Diageo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,909

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Diageo

  5. Posted

    That's a very tiny facet of the whole conversation that you're focusing on. All I said was that an online relationship, good or not, is still a relationship. It may eventually turn into a physical relationship, it may not. This point was me just being pedantic about what you call a relationship.

     

    But let's say you a homosexual living in a country where they'll kill you for being physical with another homosexual. All they can do then is have an online relationship. It might not be the optimal but it's the best they've got and they still get support and affection, it's still a relationship.

     

    Do you think I'm saying that people should only have online relationships because if so, you're clearly not reading what I'm saying.

  6. Posted

    Well people, society and the media did (and still do) complain about families sitting around the television. In fact there have been studies that show that children from families who don't have a sit-down family meal, without the television, are less successful in life that those that all sit around the table conversing.

     

    As for the books/plays reference, that's just ridiculous. There's never been a case of families reading so much that they barely interact with each other.

     

    And as for the play comment. Do you think families used to have plays staged in their dining room? Or maybe they had their family meals in the theatre?

     

    Well that's correlational study, which doesn't show that television causes less success, just that families that tend not to watch television during meals also tend to be more successful. But you could say it's because the family was close in the first place, that they didn't feel the need to watch tv. The TV is a symptom and not the cause.

     

    Doesn't have to be at home, if they go to a theatre to watch a play, they're not expected to talk, both because of other people but also because they're watching a form of entertainment. TV watching is also a form of entertainment, doesn't mean they have to talk during it.

     

    And yes KAV I do believe what I'm saying. Thanks for adding so much to the discussion.

     

    Here's the main thing I have a problem with. People are saying that families aren't interacting because of technology, that people aren't interacting with their friends because of technology. But you can't say that. If you don't get on well with your parents and don't want to talk to them already, you might play a lot of video games. If your parents don't try to engage with their child's interests but instead talk about Mary down the road, then the child will want to watch TV instead of talk. It's not necessary that technology is causing people to be anti social, but people are using technology because it's more engaging than the social interaction they would have.

     

    The other problem I have is that people are saying that seeing couples on their phone, or friends on their phone, is a bad thing. But that's not necessarily true. While on this occasion those people aren't having enough of what you call meaningful interaction, it doesn't mean that they don't get enough meaningful interaction in their day to day life. People don't need to be having only meaningful interactions wit their friends, as long as they have an amount that satisfies them it's fine.

     

    Also relationships are just emotional associations between people. People can have emotional associations through video calls, and they might even meet once in a while. But even if they don't, who are you to say their connection isn't real, their relationship isn't real just because there's no physical contact. Relationships aren't just about physical contact. It might not be the best relationship but it's still a relationship.

  7. Posted · Edited by Diageo

    Meaningful interactions are ones with people you care about that involve talking, making eye contact, touching each other, reacting to real stimuli presented from genuine human interaction. These things tell you more about another person, more about what they are genuinely feeling, what they feel for you and allow you to immerse yourself in a real world interaction.

     

    I can tell far more about a person's actual feelings by observing their body language, eye movement and facial expressions than I ever could from a line of text on Facebook or in an IM.

     

    I think you can have interactions with other people that you can find meaningful without many or all of those things. It's all dependent on where a person finds meaning and importance. You can't say that is important for everyone. Just because you get more information doesn't mean it's more meaningful, it makes it richer in information and quicker in the exchange of information, doesn't make it more meaningful unless that is specifically where you find meaning.

     

    And are you saying if someone gives you a line of text very eloquently describing their thoughts and feelings, and then you saw a tape of them saying those things on mute, you would get more from the tape? Because while it can be the case sometimes, it won't be all the time.

     

     

     

    Physical relationships are meaningful, they complete you. Taking things a step further with someone you love or care for - holding their hand in the park, putting your arm around them when they are sad, cuddling them on a cold day or feeling their lips pressed against yours on a romantic evening.

     

    These are all good, healthy and natural things. Things that make you alive. Sat behind a computer you can't have this level of interaction.

     

    Sure those are great things, but you can still partake in healthy and engaging activities that make you feel alive through video calls and such. If they want to interact with just technology, that's their choice. Maybe they have a very good reason to, maybe they don't. Doesn't make them unhealthy. Also whether it's natural or not means nothing.

     

     

    Some time ago family units were strong. They sat around the dinner table and held conversations. They talked about their day, what they had done, what they achieved. Strong family units are strengthened further by getting to know one another, by learning about what each other goes through and by conversing in a more meaningful form. To suggest that the increasingly 'broken' family unit where a family will all sit together in the same room barely uttering a word to one another is a good thing is nonsense.

     

    What is the point of being close to someone if you are actual miles apart - just sat there physically but mentally in your own world?

    What about when families sat around just watching TV and not talking to each other, or when they all sat around reading books without talking to each other, or when they watched a play without talking to each other. Family interaction is the problem, not the fact they have technology. Parents could use the technology to engage and interact with their children, but they don't. The problem is with the people not trying to interact with each other, which they could both online and offline.

     

    A family could be just as strong if they posted what happened to them in a forum, commented regularly and supported each other. It's an interaction problem not a technology problem.

     

    Technology has the power to enrich our lives. But instead for many it is doing the opposite. It is replacing the deep and meaningful interactions that make us feel human with the vain and pointless pursuits of 'social networking', 'selfies' and false personas people adopt on the internet.

     

    In turn this makes us less connected and for some less able to connect. It causes a type of withdrawal where people live in their own world or private fantasies that they project to hundreds of 'anonymous' followers.

    It's doing the opposite because of the way they interact with it. We need to teach people how to use technology appropriately and positively. Not say technology is the problem. The problem is not that we have too much technology, it's that people either don't know how to use it positively or get enjoyment out of using it negatively.

     

    Does posting selfies make us less connected. You really need to cite something to make a statement like this. I don't care if you think it's common sense. Humans have been vain all their lives, technology just makes it easier to see those people.

     

    I don't need to cite some great scientific text as a source for this. You see it everywhere. Couples who have to conduct their entire relationships through Facebook as if they are starring in their own subpar version of Hollyoaks. Friends sat in a bar all tapping on phones rather than talking to each other. People who believe they are 'in a relationship' with someone they've never even met but have chatted to online. It's all pathetic and deeply removed from healthy and natural relationships.

     

    You may not think so, but when you make these sweeping generalisations that people are worse off in so many ways because of their habits with technology then yes you do. What if a study said that people in online relationships have fewer disputes, and were happier as a whole? Would you just discount it because your anecdotal evidence says otherwise? If you're gonna say that something is detrimental to society as a whole, you'll need something to back that up.

     

    Sure some people overuse technology in a detrimental way, everything falls on a bell curve. Too much meaningful social interaction can be bad too. People sometimes say you shouldn't live with your friends because you'll get sick of them from seeing them too much.

     

    I agree that not interacting with other people is detrimental. I agree that overuse of technology is detrimental. What I don't agree with is for you to say that all people should interact more and that technology is used too much overall. Those statements need a lot of references to be said to be true.

     

    I also disagree with the opinion that seeing individuals interacting with technology instead of each other on one occasion is detrimental to the people involved. Just because they don't interact with their family at dinner because they are on their phone doesn't mean they don't interact with their family at all or don't get enough human interaction. Especially amongst teenagers, not wanting to hang out with parents has occurred well before the dawn of smartphones and computers.

  8. Posted

    People claim that technology makes us more 'connected'. But it actually stops us having meaningful interactions. You see couples out in restaurants texting. People taking pictures of their food for Facebook. Families sat in the same room with the TV on and everyone tapping away on different devices. Rather than meeting people for a coffee people interact over Facebook and Twitter. You even have these bizarre occurrences where people claim to be in relationships with individuals they have never met.

     

    What's a meaningful interaction, what makes it meaningful and should all interactions be meaningful?

     

    People can't be in a relationship without ever meeting? While uncommon, why do they have to have physical contact for a relationship. Can they not enjoy each other's personality and conversations through Skype calls and text conversations?

     

    So what if couples are texting in a restaurant? They're both assumedly enjoying themselves (as opposed to willfully ignoring each other) and still having company there. They're getting a nice meal. They've chosen to do this? Who are you to say this is wrong?

     

    If families want to tap on their devices while in the living room, is that wrong? Why do they have to talk to each other, what's so important about talking that everyone has to be doing it every moment of every day and where they can't enjoy being around each other without talking to each other.

     

    Too much technology actually harms positive and meaningful human interactions - cocooning those who immerse themselves in it. People become addicted to social networks - sharing every pointless aspect of their day with a horde of people they've never met, but can barely hold eye contact or have a conversation with another human being in person.

     

    People would be better off if they spent more time talking to people, having genuine interactions and getting out. Spending all your time in front of a screen and hiding away from the real world doesn't do you any good.

     

    Source? While some people become addicted, people become addicted to many things and we don't blame the thing. There's a lack of self control within the person not within the technology.

     

    Why are people better off? All people should talk more? Why is being behind a screen hiding? What if they're learning about social issues or new academic concepts, why is that hiding? Sure spending 24 hours a day behind a screen is detrimental but that's obvious, just as spending 24 hours a day talking to people is also detrimental.

  9. Posted

    I've recently had a friend who was texting this guy over and over while we were at dinner. I got annoyed at him because he was spending long periods of time not talking (to text) and not listening to what I was saying. It wasn't technology's fault though, it was him being a dick. He gave some reason about South Koreans needing instant replies or they feel offended or something, I dunno.

  10. Posted

    I'm getting a bit tired of this tendency of animosity towards technology in the context of socialising; it's almost like technology is considered the enemy of socialising, whether it's the use of technology in a social context or for the purpose of socialising itself.

     

    I agree. I love when there is new technology and new avenues of communication. This aversion to change that people seem to have towards technology-based communication is both baffling and annoying to me.

  13. Posted

    They have the right to do whatever they want. I will question them and probably no longer be friends with them, wouldn't hire them etc. But they have the right to be as racist as they want. I'd like them to be educated into changing their ways and if they harmed anyone else it would be grounds for arrest. I also would try to keep them from positions of power and would generally not trust their judgement.

  15. Posted

    But that's not the issue that Eevil is arguing. He's not saying he feels distanced because it's not a macho character, he's saying he feels distanced because the character has too much of a personality (and it's unlikely that the personality will be similar to his).

     

    You're right, I misread that.

     

    I don't like my characters blank. With Tales of Symphonia I liked that Lloyd had a personality and didn't feel distanced because of that. Whereas in things like Elder Scrolls were you're just whatever you make yourself I'm not a big fan of. There's different rpgs for everyone. I get how some people want to believe that the character is them though.

  16. Posted

    I guess it's the whole 'taking a photo but never actually looking/appreciating' idea.

    That post made it look like you thought photos were taking away from appreciation.

     

    I'm not saying there's a right answer. I'm saying that people shouldn't be moaning about seeing kids talk to other kids over text when standing next to each other or complaining about families talking from different rooms using technology. It's their lives and it's how they want to communicate. There's nothing wrong with not having face to face interaction and there's nothing inherently better about face to face interaction.

     

    But I agree with most your points. There is no right answer. It's all up to the individual. It was what I was trying to say in the first place and I guess we got tangled somehow.

  17. Posted

    I don't think that holding a kickstaster would count as forcing it upon you. Also representation in the media is very important for minorities and just as you said you feel a little distanced from some characters, minorities feel distanced from most characters because of little representation. I think it's cool she's making a transgender character in an RPG.

  18. Posted

    The phone number example was just an example I used to demonstrate what relying on technology can do to memory. I have no problem abdicating that memory to my phone since that information is completely abstract. A phone number requires no interpretation, it is a means to an end. Photography isn't though, it's subjective.

     

    Photography is open to myriad different factors; interpretation, notions of the gaze, embodiment, identity and memory formation (and much more). However memory is not precise; it requires thought and effort; your brain decides what is memorable, your camera does not. Your memories survive the rigours of time whereas your photos, once taken, are for all intents and purposes, permanent. This tends to mean memories are generally more precious and more personal since they are more fallible than something material such as a photograph.

     

    It's not a matter of 'if you don't like it, don't do it'; these technologies are only comparable to how we process the world, they are NOT the same thing.

    Well you may think that makes memories more precious, others might say that if memory is so fallible, logging it digitally is the best way to keep memories precious, and more true to reality.

     

    What if people are going around disney land or whatever but don't necessarily want to remember everything they see there. What if they prefer the conversations and emotions connected to showing the picture to other people and socialising over that? It's not for you to say that because they are taking pictures, they are losing something important. They are choosing what they find important and focusing on that.

  19. Posted

    Does it, though? In fact evidence points to the contrary.

     

    Source

    You're right. I trusted a person without researching it.

    Now I'm not saying photography is bad per se (In fact, check out Moments, Magic and Memories:

    Photographing Tourists, Tourist Photographs and Making Worlds for a lot of reasoning behind the act, specifically the section on Materiality and Memory.), however with photos being so easy to take and so easy to share I think a problem comes about. So while I have no problem with the technology (I love taking photos), I do think problems can arise from just how much it has worked its way into our daily lives.

     

    As a kind of parallel, I use to remember all my friend's phone numbers and then I got a mobile phone and I didn't need to remember them. I can't recall a single number now.

    So what if you don't remember their names? If anything, that's a good thing? Imagine all the times you forgot one number and couldn't call them or the time you had to spend learning it or even checking it over and over again until you remembered it. This way is much easier.

     

    This pattern has been ongoing for years. Writing things down will ruin our memory. Googling things will ruin our memory. Phones are ruining our memory.

     

    You could still learn your friend's numbers, you could still live your life without writing things down. But you don't, because it's easier. Technology is developing to augment our capacity to remember. We are outsourcing our memory which allows us to spend our time doing something else. And if you don't want to outsource it, then don't do it.

  20. Posted

    True enough, in today's world, it's hard to pull off a bribe like that. The potential scandal outweighs any benefits (and it does happen still).

     

    But by giving more weight to one chunk of the population, then you can get elected simply by saying you're going to give more benefits to that chunk. Doesn't really solve the problem, I think, and only encourages class division.

    Well one chunk of the population already has more voting power, they just have to have majority. At least in this way, the majority vote goes to educated people who know what they are voting on and the effects of their decisions. An example is how equal marriage is not legal in some countries because the majority population don't like it, and so you can get elected by giving more benefits to heterosexuals than homosexuals. I would imagine that educated people who don't get voted based on popularity contests would be able to rationally choose benefits to the country and all population types.

    Not to mention, in practice, it's always the current government who defines how the weighted system works. You can see how that can go wrong.

     

    You're right about this one, it would be difficult to accomplish, especially with the government we have now.

     

    In theory, that is what's supposed to happen already, with Economy experts becoming Finance Ministers, and so on (This definitely should be a thing that should be contested more often, the decision of putting someone who never taught in a high school as the Minister of Education, for example).

     

    And honestly, I would never want my lawmakers to be Engineers or Computer Experts, but rather people versed in law who actually research the new thing they're restricting, or bother to consult experts to tell them. If they don't bother to do so, this speaks more about their intelligence than their qualifications.

    I would prefer a committee of experts in several areas to make the decisions, which would allow for consultation as they are in the committee themselves. Not just Computer Engineers, but all other relevant disciplines for a law involving the internet.

     

    Transgender - Today India's Supreme Court recognises the third sex and stated:

     

    "It is the right of every human being to choose their gender,"

     

    As soon I read that I thought.... No it isnt... But what do I know?

     

    As for transsexuals - I have nothing against them, I find a few can being exceptionally beautiful and passable. But whether its a human right to change gender... Im not so sure.

     

    Gender is different to sex. Sex is biologically determined by genetics, gender is a social constructs of how certain sexes should act. Therefore, if a man wants to wear a dress and make up, high heels and work in fashion. He's allowed to do so. If he wants to be called a she, he can do that. Why couldn't he have the right to that?

     

    Going on from @King_V's post.....

    I have issues with transgender, not the actually transgender part, but the whole gender identity issues going along with it, having followed some debates on other sites i really do not understand how people get offended by being referred to as one gender, or having to have certain words used Sis this and sis that....

     

    I just cannot get my head round it, its to make them feel acknowledged but yet being so militantly angry at innocent misuse of words etc segregates them.

     

    why can't it be as simple as you are male, female or pre op/Post op?

    Because not everyone wants to have an operation. Also, there are a number of operations, and not everyone wants to have all of them. A woman may want to get her chest changes but still wants to have a vagina and is perfectly happy with it.

     

    Cisgender and cissexual are just individuals that aren't trans. It's not that hard. Militant anger against innocent misuse is not OK of course, but that's a different issue.

     

    that made me think of one thing in writing the above

    feminism

    At what point did this militant element come about and devise the premise of rape culture and that all men are rapists until they prove otherwise? why is this view allowed when its so inherently wrong

    Well there are plenty of people that disagree with them and argue with them, so I wouldn't say they are spouting this stuff unchallenged.

×