Frank your Majesty

You forgot to add “in the opinion of the vast majority of people”.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

It is stupid to label something simply “unhealthy”. It is not stupid to label something “unhealthy for vast majority”. That is the big difference and that was my argument all along.

Oh my god, that’s your entire argument. Congratulations on wasting everyone’s time.

Yeah, it’s like demanding to end every post with “in my opinion” because otherwise people might think you’re stating an absolute truth.

imperialscum said:

Frank your Majesty said:

If you show me a person that is immune to cigarette smoke and scientifically prove how this immunity works on a biomolecular level, I will withdraw my statement.

As much as I would love to produce a circumstantial proof of evolution of our lungs, I do not do research in that field. But there is plenty of research on virus immunity and cancer that supports what I said.

People simply are not that different. One big difference between groups of people is lactose intolerance. Some people have it, others don’t. Therefore, drinking milk is neither considered a healthy nor an unhealthy lifestyle, it highly depends on the individual. Smoking does not. It affects everyone, some more than others, sure, but noone is immune.

If you show me a person that is immune to cigarette smoke and scientifically prove how this immunity works on a biomolecular level, I will withdraw my statement.

An unhealthy lifestyle is a lifestyle that increases your chances of becoming ill. If you smoke, you have a higher risk of getting cancer. Regardless of you getting cancer or not, your risk is increased. It has been proven that cigarette smoke contains substances that can cause cancer and the biochemical mechanism how these substances interact with your DNA and can turn a cell cancerous has also been proven. There is a certain propability by which such a reaction happens and another propability that this reaction happens in a place in your DNA that makes the cell grow abnormally. It should be obvious that having more of these substances in your body will increase the chances that these reactions occur and the chances that they occur in a crucial place in your DNA. It should also be obvious that smoking more cigarettes means consuming more of these substances. Therefore, if you smoke, you have these substances in your body and your risk is increased even if you never get cancer.

Another example. I have three balls, one is red, one is blue, one is green. I put them in a bag and you pick one without looking. If you pick the red one, you win, if you pick one of the others, you lose. This way, you have a 33% chance to win. Because I’m nice, I remove the green ball before you pick one. You now have a 50% chance to pick the red ball and win or pick the blue ball and lose. You have bad luck and pick the blue one. Does that mean removing the green ball was not a nice thing to do, since it didn’t make you win the game?

imperialscum said:

For majority yes, but not universally for everyone. Some never gets it, despite smoking. So for some it is never unhealthy lifestyle. End of story.

Empirically unhealthy lifestyle™

*hits crtl+f*
*types universal*
*hits enter*
no results

The lifestyle is still unhealthy for the majority of people. If you smoke and you don’t have lung cancer, you’re healthy, but it doens’t mean that you won’t get lung cancer in a few months. You can have an unhealthy lifestyle and simply be not unhealthy, yet.

This happens when noone uses the New Thread Thread.

imperialscum said:

Frank your Majesty said:

imperialscum said:

What exactly is “unhealthy lifestyle”? For an unfavourable variation/specimen it can simply be being born and living as even the mild environmental conditions will cause unsustainable damage. On the other hand, a strong specimen can withstand extreme environmental conditions without any long-term damage. As I said, statistics is completely useless here.

A lifestyle that has a high correlation to a disease in otherwise healthy individuals. For example smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, shooting heroin, being anorexic, being morbidly obese.
If you tell people it’s ok to smoke since you know that one guy who lived 100 years while being a heavy smoker, people following that advice will statistically more often die of lung cancer than people who don’t smoke.

I never disputed that something may be unhealthy lifestyle for some or even majority of specimen. I merely disputed that you cannot claim something is universally unhealthy lifestyle.

Where did I say “universally”?

imperialscum said:

What exactly is “unhealthy lifestyle”? For an unfavourable variation/specimen it can simply be being born and living as even the mild environmental conditions will cause unsustainable damage. On the other hand, a strong specimen can withstand extreme environmental conditions without any long-term damage. As I said, statistics is completely useless here.

A lifestyle that has a high correlation to a disease in otherwise healthy individuals. For example smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, shooting heroin, being anorexic, being morbidly obese.
If you tell people it’s ok to smoke since you know that one guy who lived 100 years while being a heavy smoker, people following that advice will statistically more often die of lung cancer than people who don’t smoke.

imperialscum said:

They can increase a chance to become unhealthy, but it doesn’t make you automatically unhealthy as idiots tried to claim.

Even if an individual person is healthy under these circumstances, it’s still an unhealthy lifestyle and idolizing such a person also promotes this lifestyle, which will lead to other people becoming unhealthy due to the statistically proven correlation of this lifestyle and various diseases.

HansiG said:

If I invest 600 dollars into a gaming rig, I want to pirate as many games as I can.

“Your” is objectively the wrong word to use here.

I wonder why there aren’t more women on this site …

I think you already know the answer.

joefavs said:

Developing a personal canon isn’t really compatible with how I like to enjoy this sort of fiction with big, sprawling universes. A big part of the appeal of Star Wars, and LOTR, and A Song of Ice ad Fire, etc. is the fact that I’m given access to this world I had nothing to do with creating in which I can poke around and look under rocks, so to speak. I find that picking and choosing what I want to “count” for myself makes me too much of a participant to be able to immerse myself as an observer the way I like to do. So, I guess I just accept the official canon (with Legends as an alternate timeline), and I focus on the stuff I like, and I don’t dwell on the stuff I don’t.

I think this worls well for LOTR becasue there’s only one author and the story was carefully planned out before writing it down. I haven’t read Song of Ice and Fire, so I can’t judge that, but again, there’s only one author and even if he doesn’t plan everything out, it’s relatively easy for him to abandon characters that he lost interest in by simply killing them off.
Star Wars, however is highly incongruent, the EU has countless authors and the difference between 70’s and 80’s Lucas and 90’s and 00’s Lucas is huge. I just can’t think of Star Wars as one big saga anymore.

yhwx said:

Frank your Majesty said:

But didn’t you say that everyone fullscreens their windows anyways? So docked to the application is exactly the same as docked to top in 90% of the cases.
And even if you have multiple windows on the screen at the same time, it makes much more sense to me to look at the top of the application, since when all menubars are at the top, you first need to check which one is active before you use the menubar.

The application name is in the menubar.

Yeah, but let’s assume you have two windows, one on the right half, one on the left. You’re working in the left window, now you want to use the menu from the right one.
In Windows, you simply move your mouse to the right window and click on the menubar, when using a mac, you first need to move to the right, activate that window, then move back to the top left where the menubar is. Seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

But didn’t you say that everyone fullscreens their windows anyways? So docked to the application is exactly the same as docked to top in 90% of the cases.
And even if you have multiple windows on the screen at the same time, it makes much more sense to me to look at the top of the application, since when all menubars are at the top, you first need to check which one is active before you use the menubar.

Tyrphanax said:

I just want to know if Toy Story 2 is Objectively Bad or Objectively Good or Subjectively either or “Empirically Bad™”.

I know Frink said Objectively Good, but I want another opinion before I put my eggs in a basket.

Thanks
-Tyr

I vote “Lawful Good”.

Possessed said:

I realize I’m missing a joke, but I want to know what it is damnit!

Spambot said:

I recommend using essaywritingservice for all your essay writing needs.

Tobar said:

I recommend using imgur for all your photo hosting needs.

Ha, reported that shameless spambot. We got enough of your kind already.

Same here. “Establishing continuity between Empire and Jedi” sounds nice in theory, but the execution is so half-assed that the result is just as flawed as the original version. The new hologram has just as much resemblance to the ROTJ emperor as the old hologram. If you change it, at least make sure you do it right. The old hologram is authentical and a product of the limitations of the time it was made, while for the new hologram they had all the elements at their disposal to do it right, but still messed it up. For me, that’s much worse.

Sorry, no.

imperialscum said:

Frank your Majesty said:

imperialscum said:

Frank your Majesty said:

So there’s a technical aspect to architecture, just like there’s a technical aspect to acting, just not as big.

So what aspect of acting is technical and most importantly what is the objective measure for that aspect?

You should ask an acting teacher for this.

You have misjudged my question. I wasn’t asking because I wouldn’t know about it. I was just trying to make you back up your claims since you argued so confidently.

I never visited acting school, as I have no ambitions at acting, so I don’t know what they teach. But it’s possible to objectively rate how closely a portrait resembles the person or how often a guitar player hits a wrong note. You can’t make art without any sort of technique, so there must be similar criteria for acting, how about “how well the actor can control their facial expressions” or “how convincing they display emotions”. You can empirically test that, so the subjective opinions of many people will give an objective statistical view on the actors quality. That’s exactly how science works, take many experimental results and personal interpretations of these results and combine them to see what they have in common. So a multimillion dollar movie, that obviously was meant to appeal to as many people as possible, which is then seen as subpar by the vast majority of people objectively has flaws. But if it makes you feel better, I will from now on refer to ROTS as “empirically bad”.

STARSWAR