I want to live in a world were sexy woman are good, and violence is actually bad.
I want to live in a world were sexy woman are good, and violence is actually bad.
Conan says, why not both? Good violence and good women?
|
I'd really rather not get into questioning motives behind posting complaints, because it is important to hear those voices, especially when folks at Paizo themselves have asked us to keep reminding them of where some things may need work.(like the lack of dark-skinned elves, representation of dark-skinned characters in general, equality in fanservice, etc. etc.) Sure, sometimes some do go overboard and are too eager to rake people over the coals over subjective matters of art and taste, but it doesn't pay to be too quick to dismiss people as doing such. (and this is coming from someone that totally does not want to see that fanservice excised, but rather made equally appealing to a wider range of folks)
Regarding shocking violence, I'd actually place Imrijka's undeadsplosion pic beneath two Seelah pics...
the monster revisited line has some awesome art of iconic death:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the posts on violent art:
I'm starting to wonder whether we're falling into a moral equivalence fallacy. I grant that whether or not the images in Paizo products are too violent or gory is a perfectly viable discussion topic. But maybe for a different thread.
Seeing the topics of violence and sex side by side, I've seen some tempted to start making this argument: 'A' is okay because it's not as bad as 'B'. But that's fallacious.
Rather, 'A' could be bad and 'B' could be worse, but that doesn't mean that 'A' is not bad.
i have no problems with art (violent or sexually suggestive) art rules!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to let you know that I was not at any point attempting to belittle you - for example, the "world is round" example was only used because it was the first thing that sprang to my head as "we would both obviously agree on what's true here". There was no attempt made to insinuate that your ideas were ludicrous, only that I was not going to accept something that someone I don't know said in the internet over my own experience.
I accept and apologize for taking it in a manner it was not intended.
Now you've mentioned being irritated at me and not wanting to continue the conversation. For the sake of getting my thought documented I'm going to replay to some of the things you said (not all of them, only those about which I have something interesting to say). I will not be insulted in any way if you chose to ignore the spoilered part and stop the discussion.
That works.
some points:
1)About what evidence exactly each of us wields - what I was trying to say there is that I have seen many people in my life, and none of them were just naturally standing like that for comfort. Which leads me to the very reasonable conclusion that most people don't. Speaking of which,
It is reasonable... until you were provided with countered evidence.
The bone of contention is not with your experience. It's with your insistence upon your experience being the one that generates the correct conclusions.2)""I haven't seen noticed it so it must not exist or be exceedingly rare." is probably the worst thing a scientist can say." - Obviously saying something like that opens you to being wrong sometimes, but then again, there is a huge difference between, say, biology, and social studies. Social studies are less scientific, and relay on observing humans. If a serious, respected social researcher would have written a paper based on studies of all the people I have seen during my entire life, and found that not one of them stood in a certain pose just for comfort, and therefore reached the conclusion that it's safe to say most of society don't - his words would have been accepted.
I don't know if you are familiar with the mathematics involved in statistics, but they do say something very strong about large sample sizes behaving consistently - namely, that it means there's a reason. For example, if you want to do a survey about people's favorite ice cream flavor, you'll have to ask about 500 people out of every million to be reasonably certain (if, that is, you make sure to choose people in a completely randomized fashion) that you have the right answer. So, potentially, me seeing thousands of people accounts for much more than that. I'm not saying I can't possibly be wrong about this, only that it will be foolish of me to believe I'm wrong, given the evidence I have.
Statistics is often useful, but it's equally often misleading. What's worse is the idea that you would take a very broad thing that is worthless at getting accurate data to individuals (statistics) and a very broad thing fraught with failure for all sorts of reasons (personal observation) and generate a conclusion ("this position is uncomfortable unless you're a sex toy... or weird" ) that personal experience of others indicates is incorrect, then holding to it in the face of that evidence.
Listen: I get you don't know me. You may continue to be unconvinced. Think of me as a liar (I am not), my wife as unique (which is unfathomable in a world of billions), or whatever. But I will let you know that you are incorrect, and your insistence in the face of evidence has made you incorrect.
This does not make your reaction wrong - it makes it based of ignorance (not a moral failing, not a flaw on your part: a lack of knowledge due to inexperience or failure of observation that we all have; this is not meant as an insult). The problem I have with this conversation is when you indicate that your ignorance generates a rule or tendency within people. This... is the opposite of the scientific principle.
What you have not observed: people in all states of their lives. In fact, your sample size is dramatically smaller than you're indicating.
1) my wife doesn't stand that way most of the time
2) my wife does stand that way at home
3) I have seen my wife (rarely) walk that way
4) I have seen few people at complete normal comfort or ease
Conclusion: my sample-size is dramatically limited, as is yours.
Thus, if someone from outside my sample size produces a posture with which I'm familiar (which I am), then my conclusion is that they are familiar with the same posture. Added to the testimony of captain yesterday, the one bikini girl picture, the images that I linked (see below), and more, there is a general trend towards this posture existing in real life. Since at least two people (my own and captain yesterday's spouses) are known to be "at rest" in that posture, it exists as something people do.
Either that or the sheer odds of our wives both having that posture, which was then imitated by an artist... "just because"... in a world of billions... is fabulously ludicrous.
Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it's as rare as you might think it is - it simply means you're not familiar with it.
If you happen to find a paper doing a study on human body postures, I'd be interested in a link, though.
3) About all the images you link - not one of them is of a human in a natural position. There's a cheerleader in a pose she probably practiced for hours. There's an athlete, a pretty lady who's basically modelling, and what appears to be a computer simulation (the one with the numerous poses). Then there's the girl standing on the dirt path - let me tell you this. Had her pose been the one of the woman on the cover, I wouldn't have any trouble with that AT ALL. That's a completely natural pose that many people I know, both male and female, stand in. Notice how her hip is NOT thrust to the side and her back is not twisted to the side opposite of her hip. She also appears to be standing squarely on one of her feet, while the woman on the cover is standing on her toes, as if wearing heels on both feet. In short, I find all the linked pictures to be irrelevant to the case - which is: people don't NATURALLY stand like the woman on the cover. Some are capable of it if they are posing, but they wouldn't just stand like that alone in a room. Some may stand like the woman on the dirt path, but that is just a different case.
You continue to insist that they don't. I will continue to insist that you are being stubborn and arrogant in your presumption and dismissal of counterpoints. My point in linking those wasn't to show that "here is evidence of sameness" but rather "here are similar postures - the basics are there, and here may be a trend toward where it comes from" which you've ignored to make your point.
Also, I like how you assert that she's standing on the flat of her feet, despite the fact that her feet are cut off from view. That's... fascinating. If, on the other hand, you mean to indicate the angle of her ankle (which we can't actually see) seems to indicate that she is standing flat-footed... that wouldn't surprise me, considering we can see what appears to be the tongues of tennis shoes... not always the most toe-bendy variety of shoes (depending on brand, newness, cut, style, and so on).
The other links weren't for the purpose - and it was expressly mentioned they were not for the purpose - of showing people in natural poses, but rather to a) link to my previous idea of where the pose might have originated (high acrobatics training akin to cheerleading) and b) allow you to have a sample size of people standing in similar (notice how it's addressed) posture.
That said, since you have dismissed every criticism against you (most notably Alzrius' which... wow, sir, that's an impressive rejection), you're obviously not going to change your mind. I do hope that you eventually realize that your error, but... it's up to you to change, not me to change you.
I will note again that your visceral reaction does not make you a bad person, nor does sharing that visceral reaction - it's based in error, but that is not at all the source of contention I have.
It is instead entirely in your persistence in the error and rejecting all evidence due to your own certitude of your correctness... and then claiming "science".
:/
Anyway!
Cheers!
You to! :)
A good day, blessings upon you, and with that I will leave the conversation.