Exactly - gstoddart may very well choose not to eat any meat but the idea that because one considers a part of an animal "icky" implies that they are in any way fundamentally "bad" for human health is nothing more than bad reasoning - the same sort of bad reasoning that says slapping "organic" on a label makes the food fundamentally "good" for human health.

The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men. Logically the entire female gender consists of either people who believe themselves morally inferior to men, or are feminists.

I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.

Meanwhile the fundamental principle of sexism (and racism, ageism, etc.) is that you are taking some empirical data (generally gathered informally) and extrapolating it to the entire gender (/race/age) group.

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.

An example of this would be mischaracterizing feminism per se, a basic principle agreed on by - for the sake of argument - all women, as an extreme viewpoint held by a small but vocal minority.

In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.

OP expected to be called a sexist for making a fundamentally sexist remark, and I did so.

It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.

The real question here is why are you arguing with me, for calling him on his sexism, and not him, for being blatantly and admittedly and unapologetically sexist?

Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.

But that's a question only you can answer ...

And with ease.

Read more carefully.

a feminist vision of "equality"

Important qualifier there.

Or, because they don't think the working classes should be forced to eat the bits of meat swept off the floor of a factory because it's all they can afford.

Not really. It's just a part and parcel of how "mission doc"'s work.

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

that's pretty nasty stuff.

Why exactly other than a feeling that you don't like offal?

it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality"

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?

Feminist = entire gender group?

Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.

Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.

Anyway, the UK used to have some artificial food stuff called Turkey Twizzlers that were kinda sorta artificial.

I don't think they were artificial in any way - not any more than any other food - they were just made from all the bits of meat swept off the floor at Bernard Matthew's factory and that offended the sensibilities of the do-gooder middle class who are always shocked and appalled at what the working classes eat.

And no big screen for sports events because the nitwit in charge doesn't like sports?

I do not know what makes you think this is "not a real pub" when landlords will happily make such a decision if they so choose and they have the choice.

I for one am more than happy to drink in pubs that don't have Sky Sports. You do not sound like someone who has much experience of proper pubs.

- Duke Nukem 3D
- Quake

You know there are modern ports for these such that you don't need to use DOSbox right? I'd recommend the JonoF port of Duke Nukem 3D along with the various hi-res texture pack downloads and models that have been made. If you're a purist this may not be what you're looking for but the extras are optional.

I can't remember which Quake engine port I'm using (not at home and there's an absolute tonne) but there's also a hi-res texture pack that was done for it and it really looks good without changing the style at all and I'd definitely recommend seeking that out to get the same classic experience with a face-lift.

Other game I've played recently a lot on PC is StarCraft II - again catching up a bit - and if you like StarCraft you'll probably like this. Best of all you can just go ahead and get the "Starter Edition" and decide for yourself. I particularly like the StarBattle Arcade game which you can play on that version I believe - it's basically capital ship battles with a bunch of smaller fighters like something out of Babylon 5.

I recently got a PS3 (it's cheap!) and have been playing through the "older" games I missed out on having not been playing games recently. If you're looking for something different I'd highly recommend The Last Of Us as this is basically what I'd think of if you asked me how an "interactive movie" should be done in that it tells a great story whilst also being a proper game in its own right.

This is Galactica Actual. Spool up.

Well now I'm a little sad I didn't know about that because that sounds like the best feature I never had a chance to use.

Then there was some outsourcing to the Middle East but there's been a real backlash against them recently.

And then he tries to get his son in to fix everything...

And how do you feel about the plastic surgery you're undergoing?

Bigger jugs, less brains?

Why are you so inflexible on the idea of keeping classic slashdot *forever*.

Because whilst it's obviously technically possible - and I think as many have said here trying to argue otherwise is *not* going to pass water with a single user of this website - doing so is an admission that the change wasn't really needed and that doesn't seem to be something that is going to be accepted.

Quentin Tarantino is interested in watching somebody's ear getting cut off; David Lynch is interested in the ear.

Of course you never actually see the infamous ear being cut off - the camera pans away at the crucial moment. But people's imaginations take over from what they are actually seeing then I guess.

What?