Stack Exchange
log in

Beofett

 Discussion on answer by Pieter Geerke…

Imported from a comment discussion on history.stackexchange.co...
Beofett
Dec 19, 2019 05:17
Might be worth mentioning applejack? I'm not clear how distinct freeze-jacked cider is from apple brandy, but my understanding is that it was very popular.
 

 Discussion on answer by MakorDal: 5yr…

Imported from a comment discussion on parenting.stackexchange....
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:17
She bullies my son, but is not a bully.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:16
At the same time, I don't think it is valid to dismiss my son's feelings as "imaginary" or "only in his head" (last I checked, all emotions and perceptions are in the head). He feels bullied, and the girl's behavior is bullying, because my son feels harassed despite making his desires quite clear.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:14
But I don't think she's a "bully". I think it's a disservice to categorize her behavior with someone who intentionally seeks out weaker/smaller/vulnerable individuals to validate their own self worth by inflicting cruelty on others.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:13
When he gets frustrated because she won't leave him alone, he feels bullied. But she's not engaging with malice. She just doesn't have the social skills to recognize that his desire to not play with her has as much, if not more, weight than her desire to play with him.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:12
My son likes to play alone at times, and doesn't enjoy being around this particular girl. He tells her (politely, at first) to leave him alone, but she persists in following him, and attempting to get him to play with her.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:11
There's a younger girl (probably around 6 or 7) at my son's before/after school program. She gravitates towards the older boys, and follows them around. When my son is the only boy his age on the playground, she will follow him around.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:09
Someone can be the bullier without even being aware, and certainly without it being a habit. The fact that one child can cause another child to feel bullied, without intentional malice, does not imply that the bullied individual's feelings are imaginary.
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:08
because, if there is no bully, there is no bullying, it's all in the victim's head that's a false dichotomy, and an argument from the extreme
Beofett
Dec 18, 2019 13:07
@MakorDal The common definition of a bully is someone who habitually bullies. It's unrealistically black-and-white to declare that anyone who ever engages in a single instance of bullying is a habitual bully.
Beofett
Dec 17, 2019 17:08
@EpicKip when someone is referred to as "a bully", it usually suggests a pattern of behavior that implies intent. That's very different from saying someone engaged in bullying behavior. In this case, I think it is pretty clear from "A's" reaction that the OP's daughter is engaged in bullying behavior, but that doesn't make OP's daughter "a bully"; it just means that there are (probably unintended) consequences to her interactions with others that need to be fixed. Does that make sense?
 

 Discussion on answer by PixelMaster: …

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
Beofett
Nov 2, 2019 08:22
@CortAmmon I would expect two wish spells cast in coordination to majorly alter the outcome of any combatwhen targeted at a single BBEG.
 

 Discussion on answer by Catar4: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on rpg.stackexchange.com/qu...
Beofett
Jul 19, 2019 16:09
@T.J.L. The details of what a tressym can do are irrelevant, because what it can do and what it will do within the context of an adventuring party are to entirely different stories. The relevance of the panther being smarter, stronger and more skilled than that flying cat will ever be is that the tressym, for all its innate intelligence, is still an untrained animal with no particular bond with the bard. The panther, on the other hand, shares a mystical bond with the ranger, and therefore will be willing to take a much more active role.
 

 Discussion on question by ann private…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Beofett
Jul 12, 2019 17:27
The whole "thought crimes" discussion is off-topic. The person in the OP's question is not guilty of "thought crimes". The whole issue is that their racism has surfaced through and as part of work-contributions. The whole argument of "should a person who is racist, but doesn't in any way act on it" does not apply to this scenario.
2
 

 Discussion on answer by Jesse William…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Beofett
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
@reirab Okay, so apparently you need to look up definitions of "devoted", "hatred", "people", and "intolerance", too. Again, stating "x is more likely to occur in heavily conservative areas" is not "hatred" or "Intolerance", nor is making a passing comment to that effect "devotion" to "prejudices", nor is it even talking about people, but rather regions, which allows other factors than political belief. Again: an opinion was stated that you disagreed with. You are stretching definitions of words, and cherry picking, in order to attack that opinion. Reread the other definition of bigot.
Beofett
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
It would probably be a good idea to look at the definition of the word "bigot" before accusing people of bigotry. Saying "x is more likely to occur in heavily conservative areas" is not "being intolerant towards people with different opinions". Getting offended because someone makes a statement you don't agree with, however....
Beofett
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
@reirab your accusation of a strawman is a strawman fallacy. I didn't claim that you claimed there weren't people harassing people for being Indian. I said that you being aware of more (high profile) instances of swastika-related harassment is no better than the anecdotal data you complained about. You seem to be using a rather... unconventional definition of "bigoted", too (hint: its not the same as bias). Given your aggressive/offended tone, and the fact that you and I are apparently participating in two different conversations, I think we're done here.
Beofett
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
@reirab So your complaint about anecdotes not qualifying as evidence is backed by... your personal anecdotes? In case you haven't been paying attention, as others have mentioned, harassment for being Middle Eastern does happen regularly, regardless of whether you're personally aware of it. Perhaps the fact that common harassment is rarely as newsworthy as the attacks you referenced (and which you described as "high profile") has something to do with your information bias. Regardless, none of this particularly improves or clarifies this answer.
Beofett
Dec 13, 2018 23:14
@reirab Personal anecdotes are better evidence than saying "that's just wrong". Living in a conservative area, I can attest that anyone perceived as looking "Middle-Eastern" is at risk for harassment around here. I cannot attest to how likely one would be for harassment for openly wearing a swastika, due to lack of data.
 

 Discussion between Beofett and ESR

Imported from a comment discussion on parenting.stackexchange....
Beofett
Sep 22, 2018 15:10
@ESR This was the initial comment I was responding to, which I infer to mean you feel that people should intervene (at least some times) when they see something they deem immoral. Perhaps you could expand on what you meant by that comment, since it seems maybe I was misinterpreting it?
Beofett
Sep 22, 2018 15:08
If you could point to the specific statements that I made that you interpret to mean I am saying "there are objectively correct morals that everyone should follow", perhaps we can resolve this confusion.
Beofett
Sep 22, 2018 15:07
Nowhere do I say anything that remotely implies that "everyone shares a certain set of morals", nor does your insistence that my claim was "not sincere" hold any water, because I have never implied that I believe there is an objective set of morals everyone should follow.
Beofett
Sep 22, 2018 15:06
I've revised my original statement to "[people should be] extremely careful about intervening when they see something they deem to be immoral, because I deem imposing one's morality on others for issues short of personal harm or danger to be immoral"
Beofett
Sep 22, 2018 15:03
@ESR It sounds like you're missing the comment where I said you had raised a good point. I made an absolute statement about morality. You (correctly) called me on that. I acknowledged that, and walked back my original claim:
Beofett
Sep 21, 2018 13:10
@ESR I still do not understand your accusation of my 'clearly not being sincere', either. Perhaps you are reading things into my comments that are not intended?
Beofett
Sep 21, 2018 13:07
@ESR Where did I claim things are objectively moral? Did you miss the comment where I pointed out that you raised a good point about extreme examples, and qualified by original statement?
Beofett
Sep 21, 2018 00:02
e.g. legal slavery, sex traffic, physical abuse of a child that fell within the boundaries of law, etc.
Beofett
Sep 21, 2018 00:01
Nor would I categorize those actions as "imposing my morality on others", since every scenario I can imagine on short notice would involve me protecting someone else from having morality imposed on them by a third party
Beofett
Sep 21, 2018 00:00
@ESR My first instinct was to do exactly that, but I feel it is probably more complicated than that. There are plenty of things that have been legal, or which are legal now in various areas of the world, that I would intervene in, but my motivations to do so are more complicated than "I consider something immoral".
Beofett
Sep 20, 2018 23:58
However, we are now well off-topic, and we should move to chat if you wish to engage in further discussion.
Beofett
Sep 20, 2018 23:58
@ESR you raise a valid point about extreme examples, so I'll temper my previous comment with the phrases extremely careful instead of "against", and "for issues short of personal harm or danger" after "morality". I'm not following your logic about "sincerity" at all, however. You did engage in a strawman argument, by claiming that I was implying something that I was not (that I would not interfere if I witnessed an assault, based on the assumption that morality is the only motivation for intervention).
Beofett
Sep 20, 2018 23:58
@ESR Now you've gone straight to a strawman. There's a pretty strong difference between "I won't intervene if I witnessed something immoral [that does not directly involve me, because it isn't valid to ignore the context]" and "I would ignore any illegal activities". Morality is hardly the sole framework by which wrongdoing, and cause for intervention, can be judged.
Beofett
Sep 20, 2018 23:58
@ESR That's quite a slippery slope. Is it okay for people to "intervene" if they see people wearing mixed fabrics? Unmarried couples holding hands in public? Women showing their ankles? Same-sex couples? I'm against people "intervening" when they see something they deem to be immoral, because I deem imposing one's morality on others to be immoral.
 

 Discussion on answer by MichaelK: Do …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
Beofett
Sep 19, 2018 14:46
@MikeScott Its arguable whether 12% is "tiny", and while that's still small in terms of overall ocean waste, the quoted sentence In highly populated areas, marine debris comes primarily from the land. does not support that restricting use of plastic in highly populated areas will not measurably reduce the amount of plastic polluting the ocean near to those lands.
 

 Discussion on answer by Razgriz: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
Beofett
Sep 14, 2018 16:51
@Razgriz In the interest of potentially improving your answer, rather than attempting to debate: you say that what is important is that some conservatives have the opinion that how he is protesting is disrespectful. Your answer, however, states that what he is doing is objectively disrespectful. Furthermore, you equate his actions with physically assaulting military personnel, spitting on the flag, or burning it. If you edited to remove your personal subjective opinions that seem to be stated as objective truths, and instead focus on how this is a perception issue, your answer would be better
 

 The Playground

General discussion for parenting.stackexchange.com
Beofett
Aug 28, 2018 16:55
@anongoodnurse Thanks :)
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 20:09
@RoryAlsop Thanks! It's good to be back. And sorry again (to everyone) about how I left. Not my best moment.
Beofett
Aug 22, 2018 18:17
@Joe Thanks :) I don't expect to be able to spend a lot of time here (work is keeping me pretty busy), but hopefully I can contribute here and there. Glad to see you're still here... and I think perhaps you didn't have the diamond last time I saw you? Congrats!
Beofett
Aug 22, 2018 17:52
@AnneDaunted I was only marginally active on the site for quite a bit more time before I actually left.
Beofett
Aug 22, 2018 14:21
@AnneDaunted In a way, its extra valid for me. I have to be careful not to assume that community consensus is the same as when I was active before.
 

 Discussion on question by YElm: How t…

Imported from a comment discussion on interpersonal.stackexcha...
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 18:13
alternately: "what do I do/avoid doing in order to avoid making a bad situation worse" :)
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 18:12
@Tinkeringbell That's a part of it, but the "big" questions seem to be mostly "how do I interact with my child to encourage/teach/fix this behavior/skill/problem"
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 17:08
Sounds like I shouldn't delete my answer, though, which is largely what I was wondering. Thanks :)
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 17:07
I think part of my confusion is that I consider parenting to be largely a process of using interpersonal skills. I.e. I think of parenting as a specialized subset of IPS, with some cleaning and healthcare type topics thrown in
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 17:06
@Tinkeringbell Thanks, that helps me understand the context.
Beofett
Aug 27, 2018 16:45
@Tinkeringbell I'm pretty confused by the distinction you're drawing between "encouraging" and "tools or activities" that can be used to encourage. Are the things I listed in my answer (compromising and use of natural consequences) "IPS", or "parenting"? Is there a meta discussion that explores this division?
 

 Discussion on answer by Lawrence: Ban…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
Beofett
Aug 23, 2018 07:55
About 10 years ago, I had a corporate credit card that I never used outside of online transactions. I received notification from the issuing bank that the card was used for a physical swipe in another country, while I still had the card in my possession, and more than a year since my prior use. The card was never swiped at a physical location, so could not have been skimmed. I believe it is possible to create a physical copy without skimming.
 

 Discussion on answer by grldsndrs: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Beofett
Aug 12, 2018 04:18
Saying "don't blame people in emails" is not a solution that "only works some of the time". Being able to communicate with people on the spectrum (such as myself) has nothing to do with a "cure" (and many people find the idea that we need to be "cured" to be offensive). As for your last sentence... by that logic, sharing proprietary trade secrets with a competitor should earn praise, because it's just "telling the truth".
Beofett
Aug 12, 2018 04:18
Forcing someone to do something that they are incapable of doing is only going to cause conflict. And why in God's name would you want to force somebody to lie to make your own self comfortable People on the spectrum (at least some) are capable of omitting blame or other commentary from communications, if they understand the rules of how to determine what is or is not appropriate. Not including "this is Todd's fault" is not lying. And yes, sometimes it is appropriate to blame someone for telling the truth. Something being true does not eliminate the need for tact or discretion.
 

 Discussion on answer by Arwen Undómie…

Imported from a comment discussion on interpersonal.meta.stack...
Beofett
Jul 12, 2018 21:43
You're arguing that SE's ownership of your voluntary contributions is overruled by GDPR's "Right to be forgotten" clause, even though it specifically states that that clause only applies to personal data. It should also be noted that this right requires controllers to compare the subjects' rights to "the public interest in the availability of the data" when considering such requests. But go on with accusing everyone of "not knowing the basics of law" when you clearly haven't read it yourself.