One Hour One Life Forums

ruanna

Member

Registered: 2018-11-12

Posts: 47

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I read page one and gave up but I would just like to say that I expect that the rest of the thread continues as follows:

Spoonwood: says things
People: those things are terrible, pls don't say things like like, why would you say that, I am offended by those things
Spoonwood: doubles down and defends the things
People: *even more offended*
Spoonwood: I will continue to deny your feelings with logic, here is why your feelings are irrational and wrong

Edit: How healthy communication works
person 1: says things
person 2: those things are terrible, pls don't say things like like, why would you say that, I am offended by those things
person 1: I am sorry you feel that way about those things, I did not mean it in that way. I explain what I meant and look at the things I said to offend you and reconsider saying things that hurt people or are considered sexist, even if I personally do not find them problematic.

Last edited by ruanna (2021-12-31 23:10:42)

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Man, that is amazingly accurate.   It is almost like you have seen this same farce play out many many times before.

But by skipping to the end, you missed Spoonwood talk about "hypothetically exactly neutral breasts" and his theory regarding women and stuck pickle jars, so that's a shame.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Edit: How healthy communication works
person 1: says things
person 2: those things are terrible, pls don't say things like like, why would you say that, I am offended by those things
person 1: I am sorry you feel that way about those things, I did not mean it in that way. I explain what I meant and look at the things I said to offend you and reconsider saying things that hurt people or are considered sexist, even if I personally do not find them problematic.

I've talked to Spoonwood a lot and unfortunately, this version of events could never happen, because he does mean exactly what he says, even if it is dumb, offensive nonsense.   He is not going to apologies for hurting our feelings by speaking his truth.  Logic dictates that his conclusions must be correct. 

Instead, we should apologies for having feelings.   The mistake was ours.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

You don't need a uterus to hold a baby bottle, Spoon. Men can feed babies just fine.

???  Where does the fluid come from.  Breast feeding is healthier for children than using formula.  Also, which is better for the baby, having their lips on a tit, or having their lips on the bottle?  Because I'm pretty sure that a baby sucking on a tit is (at least usually) less likely to have health concerns than a baby sucking on a bottle.

And not all men are great at tasks that require big muscles.  Women can be strong too.

??? You're "not all" statement confuses the issue.  It's not about whether *some* women exist which can do such also.  It's about statistical patterns.  It's about entire groups.  That sort of statistical pattern is significantly more than "some".  Statistically speaking, women can't be as strong as men.

Just ask my younger brother.   He is tall, handsome, and designs space ships for a living, but I can chop wood a lot faster than him.  He works a desk job and lacks upper body strength.  I lift bales of hay on the regular to feed my goats.   Not everyone fits gender stereotypes.

So what?  You and your brother are two people in a world of over 7 billion people.

Gender doesn't determine your individual ability or potential for personal growth.

This is misleading.  There's plenty of evidence of sexual characteristics on a biological basis that impact muscle growth and other development.  If you were born male, but everything else was the same about you, you would not have the same ability or potential.  That doesn't mean you would have more or less ability, since that's multifaceted to begin with, just that your abilities would be different than they are now.  It's completely bogus to think that having different bodies doesn't affect what abilities people have.  So, it's completely bogus to think that gender doesn't have something significant to do with one's individual ability.

Not all men.  Not all women.   You are making gross generalizations.   Please try to be less gross, okay?

No, you're being gross by turning an issue about groups statistically into over-generalizations as if they were universal.  You're also being gross that "women" and "men" apply to classes of people, not individuals.  Statistically speaking, what I said still holds.  Women are better at feeding children.  Men are better at most forms of physical labor that involves muscles.

Nope, I am not agreeing with your conclusions because your reasoning is faulty and biased.

Oh please, talk about projection.  You take statements about classes of people statistically, and then try to imply it was about "all members" of those groups.  That was your "reasoning" above Destiny.

But I don't agree that "equality is bad for trading", because too much inequality between trading partners will also hinder trade.   If one side has all the power and the other side has no power, why would they trade with each other at all?

That's not much inequality.  It's only one-way inequality.  It's also one way equality, since even since even though A is better than B in some respect, A is equal in ability to B in every respect.  Thus, some form of equal ability exists in such a situation.  Two-way inequality, where A is better than B, and B is better than A, each in different respects, is more inequality overall.

Plenty of inequality, but zero trade potential.

A is equal (in ability) to B.  B is not equal to A.  That's one inequality.

A is not equal to B.  B is not equal to A.  That's two inequalities.

For best results, trading partners need to be have similar trading power.

If they had similar trading power, they would have the ability to trade the same things.  But, then they would have the same things.  They would be equal, and thus never trade for substantial reasons.

They should both have something that the other person wants, so that an equivalent exchange is possible.

It won't ever be an equal exchange.  One person will get something that the other person doesn't.  What gets exchanged is never equal.

A fair trade is an equal trade.

???  No trade is ever equal.  All trading involves one person getting something that the other doesn't get in the trade.  And conversely.  Both sides were unequal before the exchange.  After the exchange they have capitalized on different opportunities also.  So, they remain unequal after the trade also, especially since they have probably further enhanced different abilities by trading what they did.

Wanting an equal trade is like wanting to *never* have to trade.  To *never* have to say that one is better in some respect and not as good in some other respect.

  Both parties should feel like they got a good value by trading, otherwise, why bother doing it again?

Good value is not people becoming equal.  Good value involves people becoming comfortable with other people's differences and appreciating other people's differences.

   And it isn't really trade if you just give it away for free, right?

No, it's not.

Tool slots were a real bust.   Plenty of inequality, but in all the wrong ways.

???  Everyone started from the same point with tool slots.  Everyone was equal in terms of what they could choose with tool slots.  Also, and more importantly, selecting a slot got based on "what was optimal".  Well, there exists some solution to that, once we optimize for something.  But, then everyone with the same information would make the same choice.  Equality of choices of slots would not be inequality.  And there's no reason to trade chopping with someone else who also realized that it was the optimal choice at the time.

Also, it had the whole "can" or "can't do" nonsense to it, like race restrictions.  It does hold true that men can feed children.  And women can do muscular work.  In the real world, the differences lie in gradations of ability, and the differences are statistical for the clear majority of those groups, and that's probably an underestimate still.  The idea about male characters having less pips for hungry work seems along the lines of differences in gradations of ability.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I read page one and gave up but I would just like to say that I expect that the rest of the thread continues as follows:

Spoonwood: says things
People: those things are terrible, pls don't say things like like, why would you say that, I am offended by those things
Spoonwood: doubles down and defends the things
People: *even more offended*
Spoonwood: I will continue to deny your feelings with logic, here is why your feelings are irrational and wrong

Edit: How healthy communication works
person 1: says things
person 2: those things are terrible, pls don't say things like like, why would you say that, I am offended by those things
person 1: I am sorry you feel that way about those things, I did not mean it in that way. I explain what I meant and look at the things I said to offend you and reconsider saying things that hurt people or are considered sexist, even if I personally do not find them problematic.

It would be unhealthy to falsely apologize.  It is also unheatlhy to take responsibility for someone else's feelings.  I am not sorry about how other people feel.  Those feelings are their responsibility.  People wanting apologies here, likely aren't taking enough responsibility for their feelings and failure to take responsibility for oneself consists of a sign of psychological unhealthyness in adults.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I've talked to Spoonwood a lot and unfortunately, this version of events could never happen, because he does mean exactly what he says, even if it is dumb, offensive nonsense.   He is not going to apologies for hurting our feelings by speaking his truth.  Logic dictates that his conclusions must be correct.

I did not hurt your feelings.  I made the post to the general public, and did not direct it at you in a private conversation as if it were personally about you.  Your feelings, as well as everyone else's, largely derive from the way you are, how you perceive the world, and what you want.  Over time especially, they are your responsibility, not anyone else's.

The mistake you make likely lies not in you having feelings, but in believing that feelings derive too much from the external world, instead of from your own perceptions, views of things, and what you tell yourself.  Everyone gets best served by taking responsibility for their own feelings.  And that means for the most part, that no one else causes your feelings.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Sorry, Spoonwood, but I don't consider you to be an authority on human emotions.   Your opinions on this subject are highly suspect.

selalov734

Member

Registered: 2021-06-01

Posts: 77

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I did not hurt your feelings.

Exactly, it was her choice to get hurt.
Spoonwood sigma grindset!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37V4ZjR2niw

Laggy

Member

Registered: 2021-01-26

Posts: 246

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

So this sexist thread doesn't break the rules?

In Spoonwoods world it's fine to be a sexist bigot.

But also reports people for calling him a troll?

BTW anyone can open a pickle jar.

Just hit it on a flat surface, lid side down to release the pressure which pops the button on the lid.

Last edited by Laggy (2022-01-01 19:55:08)

fug

Moderator

Registered: 2019-08-21

Posts: 1,130

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

If I could close threads I would. I really really would. I cannot delete posts or lock threads else I would have locked these dumb posts long ago.

Even if I ban spoon he would write up Jason (again) and then Jason would just have me reverse the ban or undo it himself.

---

Worlds oldest SID baby.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I did not hurt your feelings.

Exactly, it was her choice to get hurt.
Spoonwood sigma grindset!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37V4ZjR2niw

I didn't say it was her choice to get hurt.

There does exist choice involved in how people perceive or view or interpret situations.  And that plays a causative role in how feelings work, especially over time.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

So this sexist thread doesn't break the rules?

This thread doesn't discriminate *against* any one in particular on the basis of sex.

That said, no, there is nothing in the rules which says that advocating for discriminating *against* people on the basis of sex would be against the rules on the forum.

In Spoonwoods world it's fine to be a sexist bigot.

You throw around such a term "sexist bigot" so lazily while simultaneously ignoring real world persistent statistical differences between the sexes apparently.

Also, you apparently come as so lazy to confuse a statement such as: "The woman has superior ability in feeding children.  The man has superior ability in physical areas." with saying such things as if they were *against* people.

But also reports people for calling him a troll?

Calling someone a troll is not being nice.  "Be nice" is in the rules.

BTW anyone can open a pickle jar.

I think I agree with the meaning of that.  If you had read before, it was DestinyCall who brought up the pickle jar thing, not me.  She used the term 'pickle' first, saying:

  Obviously men will not be shoveling snow off driveways or opening stuck pickle jars in OHOL.

As if women needed men as some sort of rule to open the pickle jar.

I responded in an unedited comment by saying:

I'm not so sure that pickle jars is a good example.

She responded:

I don't follow.   Why not?

I responded by saying:

I'm doubtful about women not being able to open the pickle jar as well as men.  Things like grippers exist.  It's more about technique than strength.  I'm inclined to think that's something they more say to flatter their male partners.

Maybe though women, as a rule of thumb, aren't as interested in figuring out the mechanics of how to open a pickle jar than men are.  That sounds more plausible as a sexual difference, since there exist more male students in the physical sciences than female students, even though women make up the very clear majority of college graduates.  So, maybe there's a difference of knowledge in technique with respect to the pickle jar.

She then said:

Again, I am trying to decide if it makes more sense that you are intentionally trolling or that you are actually this detached from common sense and gender awareness.  It is baffling.

I would tell you what is wrong with this theory, but I'm amused by the idea of you explaining your thoughts regarding why women can't open pickle jars to a potential girlfriend someday.   I don't want to deny her a funny story to tell her friends later.

And I also denied that women are so different than men in their ability to open pickle jars in a later comment.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Laggy

Member

Registered: 2021-01-26

Posts: 246

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Well you are being sexist by saying "  The woman has superior ability in feeding children " yet never realize that your excluding any women who has problems breastfeeding, or are too old to have kids!!

So any women who can't breastfeed isn't a women. Which is bigotry.

Once again you fail to realize your making vast generalizations.

Yes men are generally stronger then women, but not all women, and you still fail to comprehend that your lumping everyone in the  same term, and saying look that this is a fact.

You say,  There's no reason to trade intersexually, since male and female characters are equal.

This is wrong, fertile females can give birth, Males can't.

So what your brilliant solution to equalize males and females?

You write pages and pages and never anything with real substance.

Last edited by Laggy (2022-01-04 17:26:10)

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

And just to clarify, before you can "misunderstand" what Laggy is trying to say above, there is a difference between saying "Men are stronger than women" and  "On average, men have more upper body strength compared to women".   One of those statements is a over-generalization that reduces all men and all women down to two uniform opposing groups, while the other is much more specific and acknowledges that variation in ability exists within each group.   The second statement can be proven or disproven by a population study.  The first statement is simply not accurate or scientific.   And also offensively sexist.

Women can be stronger than men.   Men can be stronger than women.  Women can be weaker than men.  Men can be weaker than women.     People can be stronger or weaker than each other, regardless of gender.

Earlier in the thread you said:

And not all men are great at tasks that require big muscles.  Women can be strong too.

??? You're "not all" statement confuses the issue.  It's not about whether *some* women exist which can do such also.  It's about statistical patterns.  It's about entire groups.  That sort of statistical pattern is significantly more than "some".  Statistically speaking, women can't be as strong as men.

Not all men.  Not all women.   You are making gross generalizations.   Please try to be less gross, okay?

No, you're being gross by turning an issue about groups statistically into over-generalizations as if they were universal.  You're also being gross that "women" and "men" apply to classes of people, not individuals.  Statistically speaking, what I said still holds.  Women are better at feeding children.  Men are better at most forms of physical labor that involves muscles.

This is the core of the issue which I've been trying to point out to you from the start and why people are describing your posts as bigoted and sexist.   

Don't be lazy.      If you want to talk about population statistics, then you should talk about statistics.   I would be happy to discuss real world differences between people, including differences related to biological sex.    But if you want to make general statements that reduce half the human population down to "strong" or "not strong", you are over-generalizing and I will call you out on your bullshit.    There are almost 4 BILLION women on this planet.  To say that women are a diverse group is a gross understatement.  They are not all strong.   They are not all weak.  They are not ALL anything.  They are both and they are neither.    They are human and they are all different. They come in all shapes and sizes and they have as much potential and ability as any other person.  As much as we are different from each other, our differences are small compared to our similarities.  When we reduce people down to a set of pre-baked expectations based on the groups they belong to, it makes them less than what they are and less than what they could be as an individual.   We aren't doing ourselves any favors by supporting that kind of thinking in ourselves or allowing that kind of intellectual laziness in others. 

You are usually a lot more precise in your word-use, Spoonwood.    If you mean that some men are stronger than some women, you should say that.  I can agree with that statement.   If you mean that MOST men are stronger than MOST women, you should say that.   I don't agree as strongly, but at least we have something to debate.    If you mean that, on average, men are better than women in some physical activities, you can go ahead and say that too.   And we can look at some studies to see if they were designed well and exactly how big of a difference we're actually looking at.   I like looking at statistical data as much as the next woman.  It's fun and we might both learn some stuff about the world and other people. 

But when you make a broad statement like "men are strong" or "men are stronger than women", it implies that the characteristic of "strong" is descriptive of the category of "men".   Whether this was your intention or not, you are implying that men are defined by their strength and to be be male means to be strong.   That also suggests the opposite - that if you are not strong, you are not a man.   Or that if you are not a man, you are not strong.     These implications may not have been intended by you when you said it, but they are implied by your word choice.   And they are at the heart of why stereotypes can be dangerous and lead to unconscious bias toward entire groups of people.    Even when a stereotype is based on a statistical truth, there is a human tendency to over-generalize and apply what is true about the group as a whole to each member within that group.    This cognitive bias is what creates prejudicial behaviors - choosing to hire a male applicant for a job that requires high physical strength over an equally qualified female applicant.   Asking a woman to care for a child, rather than asking a man to do the same task, based on their gender, rather than their individual skills at child care and nurturing.    Reducing people down to man or woman, rather than considering them as whole people.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2022-01-05 21:58:25)

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Well you are being sexist by saying "  The woman has superior ability in feeding children " yet never realize that your excluding any women who has problems breastfeeding, or are too old to have kids!!

What you say is preposterous as being sexist against women, since such points out an advantage that women have.  The double exclamation points also suggest you were being sarcastic.

Also, no, it wasn't a generalization as you claim.  There existed a sentence preceding sentence which said that such happens, not that such happens in all cases:

The same can get said to happen in real world families.  The woman has superior ability in feeding children.  The man has superior ability in physical areas.

So any women who can't breastfeed isn't a women. Which is bigotry.

No, the above doesn't imply any such thing.  You haven't deduced that from what I wrote, nor does it follow.

Once again you fail to realize your making vast generalizations.

Everyone generalizes when talking about groups.  There is no problem with doing so and it is necessary to talk about groups.  I did not make claims about all members of groups in the spot where you said I did.

Yes men are generally stronger then women, but not all women, and you still fail to comprehend that your lumping everyone in the  same term, and saying look that this is a fact.

No, I never said all.  When someone says something like "X are such" where X consists of a group, it's not clear what the quantifier consists for X.  It's not clear whether it means "some X are such" or "all X are such" or "many X are such".

You say,  There's no reason to trade intersexually, since male and female characters are equal.

This is wrong, fertile females can give birth, Males can't.

Yes, I said that such was wrong in a later comment.

So what your brilliant solution to equalize males and females?

You don't equalize them.  There exists an inequality which favors women.  So, you create another inequality which favors men.  Since people trade, because of someone else having something they don't or having superior ability, another such inequality would be necessary for intersexual trade.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

And just to clarify, before you can "misunderstand" what Laggy is trying to say above, there is a difference between saying "Men are stronger than women" and  "On average, men have more upper body strength compared to women".

The first is vague and the second is specific.  The first has no quantification made, while the second does have quantification made.  "Men are stronger than women" could mean "all men are stronger than some women" or it could mean "many men are stronger than many women" or "most men are stronger than a few women".

One of those statements is a over-generalization that reduces all men and all women down to two uniform opposing groups ...

None of those statements say "all".  You've read into things by claiming that one is an over-generalization, since neither one refers to a universal.

The second statement can be proven or disproven by a population study.  The first statement is simply not accurate or scientific.

Odd.  You aren't suggesting the same way of considering both statements, even if they were as you claimed.  The second statement can't be proven or disproven, because the term "average" has more than one meaning in statistics.  Also, population studies never prove or disprove anything rigorously, since they come as subject to the problems of statistical sampling.  A statement such as "all women are stronger than all men" can get falsified by a single observation.  It can get disproved rigorously, since a single example refutes a universal.

And also offensively sexist.

No.  You have first read what into what I wrote.  Then when I told you that it wasn't a universal statement, you have insisted that a universal must be there.  You aren't taking responsibility for inserting the universal into your interpretation.  And you aren't taking responsibility that such an interpretation isn't consistent with the phrase "to happen" as used in "The same can get said to happen in real world families."

This is the core of the issue which I've been trying to point out to you from the start and why people are describing your posts as bigoted and sexist.

No.  Taking statements such as "men are better than women at sports" and "women are better than men at feeding children" as non-universal or vague does not cause people to view such statements as bigoted and sexist.  People have to read universals into those statements which don't exist in them for that to even begin.  You and some others would do better to take responsibility for reading universals into those statements.

But if you want to make general statements that reduce half the human population down to "strong" or "not strong", you are over-generalizing and I will call you out on your bullshit.

All statistical statements are general.

And I never said "strong" or "not strong" in some absolute sense.  I used comparatives such as "better" or "superior".  So your hypothetical seems rather idle.

When we reduce people down to a set of pre-baked expectations based on the groups they belong to, it makes them less than what they are and less than what they could be as an individual.

Well it wasn't happening here, so it seems you were worried about something which doesn't exist in the course of this discussion.

You are usually a lot more precise in your word-use, Spoonwood.

It wouldn't work here.  The problem lies in that any precise statement would be too narrow.  There exist differences at both the averages and the extremes.  Also, how different the sexes are doesn't come as clear.  But, all differences can matter with respect to trading.  Also, I want to value the differences.  I don't want to miss those differences and end up distort people and end up viewing them as "equals".

Also it seems rather odd and telling that I've said that both sexes are superior in different ways.  But, you DestinyCall only discuss the superiority of one sex.  That suggests to me that you read into what I wrote initially.

But when you make a broad statement like "men are strong" or "men are stronger than women", it implies that the characteristic of "strong" is descriptive of the category of "men".

The first does, yes.  But, the second does not, no.  Consider the statement "A rat is stronger than a flea."  Or "A flea is stronger than a single paramecium."  Neither implies that a rat is strong or that a flea is strong.  I mean "is strong" could easily mean having strength above a certain threshold.  That threshold may rely on ordinary human notions of strength.  In which neither is strong, since most people would put that threshold well above the strength of rats and fleas.

Also, both the first and second statement refer to "men" and "women".  Again, they are vague, and do not necessarily mean "all men" and "all women" nor necessarily mean "some men" and "some women".  If you wish to use them as having inherent quantifiers alright, but when you speak to other people if you read quantifiers into what they wrote, that's on you, not them.

That also suggests the opposite - that if you are not strong, you are not a man.

No, because again, such statements are vague and any inference about universal quantification as being implicit in such statements is not valid.

These implications may not have been intended by you when you said it, but they are implied by your word choice.

If they were implied by my word choice, then you could deduce them from my word choice.  But, as I have already shown how those words could mean something else, such a deduction is not rigorously possible.  So, no they are not implied by my word choice.  Again, take responsibility for your interpretation.

Even when a stereotype is based on a statistical truth, there is a human tendency to over-generalize and apply what is true about the group as a whole to each member within that group.

That consists of your generalization of humans Destiny.  I for one don't agree that such a tendency for humans to act bigoted as you have implied exists.

This cognitive bias is what creates prejudicial behaviors - choosing to hire a male applicant for a job that requires high physical strength over an equally qualified female applicant.

???  If both candidates *were* equally qualified, which I don't believe happens regardless of the two candidates and their sex, there exists an equal amount of reason to hire the man as there exists to hire the woman also.  Thus, no cognitive bias would get expressed by hiring either the man or the woman, since there was no reason to prefer one in the first place.  Why?  Because both choices would be equally rational.  For a behavior to signify a cognitive bias by definition that behavior has to deviate from rational behavior, but in this case hiring the man is rational and so would hiring the woman.  Therefore, no cognitive bias could exist in such a scenario.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Spoonwood

Member

Registered: 2019-02-06

Posts: 4,369

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Also, there exist plenty of examples where "women do X" or "men do Y" type of statements refer to men in women in general, but they are not implied as universally applicable.  In the first few minutes of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RscNj0KfxME Candace Owens says things like: "Women have different interests. Women aspire to get married and aspire to have children."  No, she's not saying all women have such aspirations, interests, etc.  She does use universals, but only when talking about *her* girlfriends.  Towards the ends she quotes someone as saying "women just know what to do when they have children".  No, she's not talking in all cases, because she's said things like "pray for the unborn" before, and almost surely is aware of the existence of female child molesters.

And again, in the original post I said:

The same can get said to happen in real world families.  The woman has superior ability in feeding children.  The man has superior ability in physical areas.  Or both parties have other abilities which the other party does not.

Both the first and the fourth sentence show that the second and third sentence were not universally applicable statements, but were stated with generality, because they need generality in order to come as accurate.

---

Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.

Laggy

Member

Registered: 2021-01-26

Posts: 246

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I think I figured out Spoonwoods real identity.

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Think about it.

Coconut Fruit

Member

Registered: 2019-08-16

Posts: 831

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I only read first few posts but I wanted to say stop asking for trading in this game.

Change the title to: Trade Lacking Because It Doesn't Fit Here And It Wouldn't Make Anyone Happier. Add Trading To Other Games Pls

---

Making own private server (Very easy! You can play on it even if you haven't bought the game)
Zoom mod
Mini guide for beginners
website with all recipies

DestinyCall

Member

Registered: 2018-12-08

Posts: 4,563

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

I agree.   More trade wouldn't make OHOL more enjoyable.   It doesn't really fit with the current meta.   I would rather see changes that add more enjoyment and reduce annoyances.

WumboJumbo

Member

From: Massachusetts

Registered: 2018-08-09

Posts: 166

Re: Trade Lacking Because Characters Too Equal, Including Men and Women

Nope, they haven't.

They've already done so. The issue is that you're not very good at picking up on subtlety.

Again, no, they have not cited any rules broken.