Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Photolysis

  • Rank


  • MBTI


  • Biography
    If you're after very little information and ironic comments, this is the place to be.
  • Location
    Obviously somewhere on Earth.
  • Occupation
    'Stuff'. It's much easier to describe that way. And far more mysterious.
  • Interests
    I'm sure you can deduce that browsing online forums is one of them.
  • Gender
  1. Last I checked, avoiding overt displays of wealth and valuable goods is standard advice to reduce the risk of being robbed/mugged. In fact, I did recheck just now and my government recommends discretion. I also fail to see how it's contentious, and despite this sound advice, I haven't seen any signs of a victim-blaming culture. And if I were ridiculously wealthy, I could certainly imagine situations where I'd dress down, instead of driving an expensive sports car and wearing items that screamed "I have money". Edit: I've also seen firsthand that men are advised to avoid getting drunk to reduce the risks of being assaulted etc. And I've definitely also been given the advice as a man to watch drinks. It is not just women who receive recommendations on ways of reducing the risk, at least where I'm from. This even applied to the case of men being sexually assaulted. My school even gave an anecdote about a male student who got sexually assaulted after drinking.
  2. It's horrible on many fronts, though at least male-on-male rape is taken seriously as a crime by the authorities in more enlightened places, even if there are large social barriers in place that still need to be overcome. If a man is raped by a woman (and in several jurisdictions including my own, this is legally impossible), then you're told to quit bitching because you really enjoyed it, get the "what kind of man are you?" card thrown at you, or even get comments like "how can a woman rape a man anyway?". Pop culture also goes out the way to invite mockery of male rape and sexual abuse. Reverse the genders, and you'd have a lynch mob on your hands, or a "legitimate rape" controversy (and quite rightly so). I can't even begin to imagine how awful it is to have your rights and bodily integrity violated in such a profane manner. And to be a victim where you cannot turn to anyone for help and get laughed and mocked for it is truly dreadful stuff. On a sidenote, it's also why deliberate false accusations should be treated extremely harshly, because it damages the credibility of real victims. Alas, idiots in power seem to think that punishing those who abuse these laws damages real victims, and have little desire in stopping it.
  3. Then yet again you've missed the point, because no it's not hard to avoid having sex with someone who obviously cannot consent. Though I certainly would like to get an opinion on the "long term girlfriend scenario" I mention (and others have come up with similar examples), because that would seem to turn many couples out there into rapists. We have to deal with the realities of this world, and in this world people drink. A person will make different decisions after a glass of wine than if they had not drunk anything. Same with 2 glasses of wine instead of one, and so on. Legally and ethically, where is the cut-off point? Do you tell people that they can't have sex with someone who even so much as looked at a drop of alcohol? Certainly an option, though I think a large amount of people would have something to say about that... Alcohol also affects people differently. It's not about whether someone is blackout drunk or practically in a coma from drinking, but the many possible scenarios between complete sobriety and being off their heads. It's disingenuous to ignore them, because they happen and we have to deal with them. You can never be completely sure about anyone's behaviour. Our judgement is affected by a huge number of factors. What about someone who has broken up with their partner and is upset. That certainly affects judgement. Is that rape? What about if a couple have an argument and one of them is extremely upset but they have make up sex later? Is that rape? If someone only got 7 hours of sleep last night and is slightly sleep deprived (which affects judgement), is that rape? What about if a woman's boyfriend is extremely angry from some idiot tailgating him on the way home. Is she raping him because he's not in a normal frame of mind? Most would say no, and might even find the question ridiculous (and it would probably be a huge slippery slope), but it's an example of the world being far more complicated. And just because I might not do something, whether that's because I consider it highly unethical (deliberately trying to get women to drink to sleep with me), or because the risks are not at all worth it (I'll probably stay clear of any woman who's been drinking), by virtue of being a member of society, I also have a part to play in deciding what constitutes criminal behaviour.
  4. I like how the whole point about judgement being a variable thing that gets arbitrarily pigeonholed into two categories (able to consent, unable to consent) seems to have flown over your head, as well as other examples. There is no magic switch at which point someone goes from being sober to being unable to consent, even if this is legally the case in certain contexts. It would make life much easier if it were the case, but it is not. I never made that argument, and accusing me of doing so indicates either extreme dishonesty or an inability to read. Try again. (Hint: drunkenly raping someone is not the same as having mutual drunken sex with them.)
  5. Going to toss out random thoughts. Are people seriously arguing that it's not a woman's fault for accepting drinks? Unless you force alcohol down someone's throat or threaten them into drinking it, you are not getting anyone drunk. They are getting themselves drunk. Attempting to blame someone else for that is pathetic. ---- The problem is that defining what counts as informed consent is not as easy as it sounds. Sure, you can give a nice little description on paper (and certainly cheat by making it self-referential to avoid needing to define it), but the real world is not quite so black and white, and the lines in the sand are somewhat arbitrary. Not the "consent" part (it certainly seems clear to me what isn't or cannot be considered consent), but rather the "informed" part and the ability to exercise sound judgement. Alcohol impairs judgement. I wouldn't be surprised if certain effects required a very specific volume of alcohol to achieve, but the impairment is essentially continuous, rather than requiring discreet values for BAC. In any case, despite judgement being steadily impaired by drinking more, the law (and general ethics) has to draw a line in the sand, and we get the false dichotomy. Even though the difference in judgement between 0.799% and 0.800% is negligible, driving a vehicle is legal in the first instance, and illegal in the second. There does not seem to be any good way to quantify this. Unlike driving a vehicle where you can say that reflexes are x times slower, or you are y times more likely to have an accident with BAC Z and adjust the laws in light of that, you cannot say something like "with a BAC of 0.03 your judgement is 10% less". And even if you could, unless the situation itself is quantifiable (for example, say you lose more money betting), then this is useless. It can also be very difficult for an outside party to determine the precise state of mind of another. ---- Suppose a man has been going out with his girlfriend for several years as part of a loving relationship, and both have consented to many bouts of wildly enthusiastic sex. One evening after a night out, his girlfriend comes back drunk and wants to have sex. In the absence of any reason to think she would not consent if sober (such as expressing a desire earlier on that morning not to have sex for a few days because she's feeling sore), it seems absurd and laughably unfair to call him a rapist if he agrees. Within this highly specific context, despite his girlfriend not consenting in advance to the act, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that he could assume his girlfriend would say the same thing if her BAC was a little less. And no, this does not mean that he could not rape his girlfriend. ---- I also note that in almost all jurisdictions, one is held accountable for their actions while drunk, assuming they got drunk of their own volition. The exception seems to be "unless you're a female who has sex", at which point a whole bunch of double standards come into play. The way the narrative seems to be going at the moment is that it's always a male's fault. If he gets drunk and has sex with a sober woman he would normally find repulsive, she is not considered a rapist and he is considered to be at fault. Reverse the genders and he's a rapist. If both are drunk, well he's a rapist too. This is not only contradictory, but a blatantly unjust double standard. TLDR: For the most part, the "informed" part of informed consent when dealing with a substance that impairs judgement is not black and white, and makes this issue far more complicated than many would like to have you believe.
  6. "White knighting" in this context is a man blindly defending a woman simply because she has a vagina. It doesn't matter if this is done with underhanded intent (such as trying to get laid), or if he sincerely believes what he's saying. He might not even be consciously aware of his bias, but that doesn't change reality. If in a debate between Alice and Bob, Alice is getting shredded and Carl steps in to defend her, but don't do the same thing in an otherwise identical debate between Adam and Beth, Carl is being a "white knight".
  7. Short answer: no. Long answer: not from the IP address alone. You'd need to break into a network, or make use of some sort of logging software that had been installed on the target. With an IP address, you can start scanning for vulnerabilities, which may provide a means of snooping on someone, but by itself you can't view what others are doing just from that. Most people have dynamic IP addresses anyway, so simply turning your modem off and on will likely grant you a different one.
  8. I think it's funny that you apparently can't read and have to strawman comments. It's always delightful to see this in a discussion. Because why look at what was said when you can make shit up? See, I also expect most people to have the intelligence to realise you can generalise a group's behaviour, without making explicit claims about every single member of the group.
  9. I assume catzmeow has the intelligence to realise most of my statement does not apply to her, though the condom argument was still made. I also assumed -- perhaps incorrectly -- that those reading it would have the intelligence take my statement as being aimed at the seeming majority of those feminists professing such views. I also like how you make no attempt to refute any arguments made, but instead focus on a single example which mostly does not apply.
  10. I like how in these topics the feminists always bleat out the same advice to men, which basically amounts to "never have sex". The system doesn't give a shit if contraception fails, or if a man does everything 'right' by using contraception, and only having sex with a partner he has very good reasons to trust. If it was men telling you that your only choices were to accept that you'd have to carry a pregnancy to term and deal with raising it yourself, or never have sex, you would be going berserk. And you definitely would if you were given condescending advice like "don't have sex with men who might run off". You'd be right to do so, in my opinion, but the fact remains that you would be immediately claiming how unfair this is, and we all know it. So why can't you empathise with men, particularly when other options have been suggested like allowing men to choose to absolve themselves of responsibility early on in the pregnancy, allowing you to make an informed decision? See, I can empathise with the plight of women, despite being a man myself. It's why I support a woman's right to have an abortion, for example. Because I can put myself in someone else's shoes and show some fucking empathy like a fucking human being, as well as realising how unjust it is to let someone's life be completely dictated by another. If you truly care about equality (and if you actually give a damn about the welfare of men), then you'd speak out in favour of improving the system, rather than attacking those that criticise it. The actions of many of you are very revealing in this regard.
  11. 26, male, no intention of ever getting married. Seems like a complete waste of time and money which could be put to far better use, as well as only being able to harm me legally and financially, especially since pre-nups mean nothing in my jurisdiction. I don't buy into any of the romanticism surrounding it, or believe in needing marriage to make a commitment. Should a relationship fail and become impossible to salvage, it makes it much easier to sever it as well. I believe I can gain all the alleged 'benefits' of marriage, with none of the risk and downsides marriage entails.
  12. There's a lot of bugs, and as eagleseven mentions, it does lack basic functionality, though the roadmap is to include the critical stuff soon. Unlike a lot of the early releases you see these days, this is an alpha, no doubt about it. For me, there's fun to be had even at this very unfinished and unpolished stage. If you enjoyed the mod, you'll probably enjoy this, even if it's only a fraction of the game will be like at a later point in development. If you can't handle the bugs and frustration, then holding off for the moment might be a better decision.
  13. Water will hold about 3.35g of CO2 per litre at 0C, and 1.69g at 20C under 1atm according to my data book, so around the same kind of ballpark that Latro mentions. Though if your main concern is the growth of the plants, keeping the water cooler to increase the amount of dissolved CO2 would probably be counterproductive. Practically there's not going to be much you can do to increase the rate of solvation since with CO2 in water it's quite a slow process, and your only real means to speed it up is to increase the surface area such as by using smaller bubbles. If bubbles not completely dissolving is such an issue, adding a salt and letting it naturally dissociate would probably be easiest, though you then have to be wary of pH and the concentration of other ions in the water.
  14. As Grayman says, it's entirely to with acceleration, not velocity. When you're not accelerating, there's no net force, regardless of how high your velocity is. Blood is going to tend to accumulate in the direction of the force being applied. Lateral acceleration isn't really an issue, but vertical acceleration causing blood to pool towards the feet is a major problem if it's enough to rob the brain of oxygenated blood and lead to a loss of consciousness. A car isn't going to provide that much in the way of acceleration, with the biggest acceleration arising during cornering, and even then there are limits to that which are easily within the average human tolerance. Pressure in an airplane is irrelevant; that's simply to provide a high enough partial pressure of O2 to avoid hypoxia, and to keep the environment reasonably comfortable for passengers. Connective tissue, skin, muscle and suchlike are quite strong materials, and I don't think it would be possible for that found within the circulatory system to fail due to g-forces, unless there was a significant existing weakness. By the time it becomes an issue, you'll probably have much bigger problems such as bones breaking, or internal damage, or other delightful things. We don't notice it because the acceleration involved is tiny. The tissues behave exactly the same as with any other rotational force (many of which we certainly do feel), just that it's all negligible.
  15. I don't read newspapers for scientific information for the same reason I don't ask my plumber for medical advice instead of my doctor. Provide proper scientific sources, or get out.