F3nd0

-5

F3nd0 wrote

I feel like you misunderstood my comment. Nowhere did I say paedophilia was okay; I have simply asserted that it's not a black & white affair, but rather one with different possible shades. (And given that darker is worse, it could be black, several very dark shades of gray & white, for all I know. I make no assertions on that part.)

-8

F3nd0 wrote

Children are completely unable to consent to sex so how can it be 'voluntary' for them to be raped?

Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable. Suppose a case with two victims of paedophilia:

  • The first one may feel very uncomfortable about the whole thing, and be coerced into the act using threats and violence.
  • The second one may not be in distress and may even enjoy the act, possibly due to kind approach from the adult's side.

I firmly believe that the first victim would suffer and be left with deep mental (and possibly physical) scars, much more so than the second victim. That is not to say the second victim is mature enough to be sexually active (I leave that decision to people with appropriate knowledge), but it's pretty clear that more harm is done to the first one. In that regard, there is a form of consent, and it's an important factor.

-5

F3nd0 wrote

In case you list those as his negative points, I'd like to elaborate them in his defence.

He said he is "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children"

It seems reasonable to be sceptical of that until proven wrong. He continued¹ by writing that ‘the arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary’, and in his later comment on paedophilia² he writes:

‘There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.

‘Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.’

Some of his remarks on the matter are questionable, but altogether there is more reason in them than multiple people who have complained about them have cared to see.

He said of people with Down syndrome, "If you'd like to love and care for a pet that doesn't have normal human mental capacity, don't create a handicapped human being to be your pet. Get a dog or a parrot..."

This is preceded by another quote³, which says that ‘There are people who argue for carrying these fetuses to term by citing how moving it is to love and care for them afterwards. Maybe it is, but that amounts to treating a human being as a pet. The first step in loving a human being is to choose to make that being more capable, not less.’

As I see it, he did not call them pets, but drew the comparison to criticise some people for treating them as such. It appears that the quote is no longer online, and it was replaced with a different, clarified message⁴, that reads:

‘According to Wikipedia, Down's syndrome is a combination of many kinds of medical misfortune. Thus, when carrying a fetus that is likely to have Down's syndrome, I think the right course of action for the woman is to terminate the pregnancy.

‘That choice does right by the potential children that would otherwise likely be born with grave medical problems and disabilities. As humans, they are entitled to the capacity that is normal for human beings. I don't advocate making rules about the matter, but I think that doing right by your children includes not intentionally starting them out with less than that.

‘When children with Down's syndrome are born, that's a different situation. They are human beings and I think they deserve the best possible care.’


  1. https://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party)
  2. https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20161112132755/https://stallman.org/archives/2016-sep-dec.html#31_October_2016_(Down's_syndrome)
  4. https://stallman.org/notes/2016-jul-oct.html#31_October_2016_(Down's_syndrome)
-1

F3nd0 wrote

»Genro« estas gramatikaĵo, kaj male ne indas enkonduki novan signifon por ĝi, kiam tiun jam entenas »sekso«. Kvankam jes, ĝi ekzistas, mi devas ĝin malrekomendi. Simile ekzistas ankaŭ la esprimo »dank’ al«, kiun mi ankaŭ devas malrekomendi. Plie, laŭ tio, kion mi scias pri ĝi, mi ne povas agnoski »Egalecen« kiel fonton de bona Esperanto.

2

F3nd0 wrote

rpggeek has a list of RPGs released under a Creative Commons license that's probably not exhaustive but is still significant. Lady Blackbird, Lasers and Feelings, Eclipse Phase, Donjon, and The Shadow of Yesterday are all worth checking out, in my opinion.

‘Creative Commons’ is a set of various licences, some of which are libre, but others are not. Therefore, the brand of ‘Creative Commons’ by itself never indicates that something is free as in freedom. I didn't manage to get a good look at everything you listed, but ‘Lady Blackbird, Lasers and Feelings’, and ‘Eclipse Phase’ are all non-libre. ‘Donjon’ looks like it might be libre.

0

F3nd0 wrote

Mi ne ŝatas la proponon. Kompreneble mi opinias la parton kun »ri« tute fuŝa, sed mi volis min esprimi precipe pri la novaj vorteroj. Laŭ mi la devenigo estas stranga, kaj la rezulto iom neagrabla. La reguloj estas sufiĉe malsimplaj por ke oni devu ellerni la novajn vorterojn, kaj samtempe sufiĉe similaj por rememorigi pri la originaloj.

Vere mi pli ŝatus tion, ke ni entirus radikojn tute novajn el lingvoj ne sufiĉe reprezentataj en nia lingvo, kiam tio taŭgas (necesas). La rezulto estus simila, sed aldone Esperanto iĝus pli tutmonde internacia.

1

F3nd0 wrote

Se mi diras besto, oni povas pensi, ke mi ekskludas la homojn.

(Korekto: eksklud·as → ekskluziv·as)

»Besto« povas tute bone inkluzivi homojn, kaj oni povas tion facile subkompreni laŭ la kunteksto, kiel oni faras en pluraj aliaj lingvoj. Se ni postulos por ĉiu vorto tre precizan signifon, kaj kreos po nova vorto por ĉiu nuanco, nia lingvo rapide iĝos peza kaj malagrabla.

Estus pli bone uzi "ri" por animaloj kaj "ĝi" por âjoj. Tial ne ekzistus miskomprenon kaj la lingvo estus pli riĉa.

Certe; kial utiligi la simplan lingvon, kiam oni povas »riĉigi« ĝin per superfluaj komplikaĵoj?

1

F3nd0 wrote

(Rekomendo: animal·o → best·o)

Miksi bestojn (inkluzive homojn) kun aĵoj povas esti tute en ordo! Ĉio dependas de la vidpunkto, surbaze de kiu oni metas iojn en la saman kategorion.

Vi probable pensas, ke oni maldevas miksi bestojn kun aĵoj laŭ valoro. Tiu penso estas racia kaj mi konsentus kun ĝi. Sed se vi pensas, ke la pronomoj prezentas malsamajn nivelojn de valoro, vi miskomprenas ilian funkcion.

La sola funkcio de la pronoma malsameco estas distingi inter ĉio laŭ kelkaj trajtoj – tiuj inkluzivas sekson (li / ŝi / ĝi), nombron (ni / ili), kaj difinitecon (si / oni). Surbaze de tiaj trajtoj oni elektas la ĝustan pronomon, sed la trajtoj certe ne inkluzivas valoron! Aĵoj kun bestoj kaj homoj kunhavas pronomojn ofte kaj tute regule, kaj tio diras nenion pri iliaj valoroj.

Unue rigardu la pronomon »ĝi«. Per ĝi oni kutime pronomas bestojn kaj aĵojn. Kaj ankaŭ homojn! Vortoj kiel »infano« kaj »persono« ricevas la pronomon »ĝi« tute same, kaj tio tute ne signifas, ke oni taksas ilin samvaloraj al aĵoj!

Due rigardu la pronomon »ili«. Oni regule uzas ĝin por ĉio en triapersona multenombro – ĉu temas pri homoj, ĉu pri bestoj, ĉu pri aĵoj. Neniu probable ofendiĝos inkluzivite en tia pronomo, ĉar ĝi nenion diras pri ĝia valoro. Ĝi nur indikas triapersonon kaj multenombron (kaj, danke al »si«, ankaŭ ekstersubjektan rolon).

La problemo, kiun oni provas solvi per »ri«, esence ne ekzistas en Esperanto. Oni elpensadas solvojn nur al problemo, kiun oni faris al si mem. La tuta afero estas bone evitebla, se nur oni akceptas la valorigan neŭtralecon de pronomoj, kaj ĉesas sin konvinki pri ilia malĝentileco. Kaj, laŭ supre montritaj ekzemploj de tia neŭtraleco, mi kredas, ke tio estus decido saĝa kaj laŭregula.

1

F3nd0 wrote (edited )

Dankegon. Mi skribis "riajn" tamen, ĉar "ĝi" por mi estas speciisma.

Nedankeginde! Se mi bone komprenis, »speciismo« estas diskriminacio kontraŭ aliaj vivspecoj, do mi supozas, ke vi zorgas pri bestoj… sed mi kredas, ke vi tiuokaze zorgas tute mise!

La pronomon oni decidas surbaze de sekso. Se la sekso estas iĉa, oni diras »li«. Se estas ina, oni diras »ŝi«. Se ne estas aŭ ne gravas (aŭ alias), oni diras »ĝi«. Vi elektu unu pronomon el tiuj ĉiam. Se vi volas paroli pri ajna pingveno, de ajna sekso, la ĝusta elekto estas »ĝi«.

Via uzo de »ri« por ĉi tiu celo neniel diferencas de uzo de »ĝi«! Vi tute same diras, ke la pingveno havas nekonatan sekson. En tio kuŝas esence nenio malaltiga. Nur anstataŭ uzi pronomon fundamentan, vi enkondukas pronomon novan, dubatan, kaj ĥaosigan. Aŭ ĉu mi miskomprenis la problemon, kiun vi vidas ĉe »ĝi«?

"Kelka" estas subjekto kaj "trovi" estas rekta I-verba priskribo de a-vorto (konsultu 27.4. I-verboj kiel rekta priskribo). Se mi eraras, bonvolu klarigi miajn dubojn.

Mi ne spertas pri ĉiuj ebloj de tia priskribo, sed vian mi sentas iom stranga. Rimarku, ke en ĉiuj ekzemploj donitaj de PMEG temas pri farebla aŭ farota ago. Oni povus anstataŭigi la a·vorton per verbo, ĉi tiel:

  • Mi kapablas instrui nur la francan lingvon.
  • Li venigu knabojn, kiuj kapablas servi en la palaco de la reĝo.
  • Ili pretas fari anoncon kontraŭ mia vivo.

La prezentata ago estas ĉiam farota de la subjekto mem. Sed en via frazo, la ago estas farota de iu alia, kaj via subjekto estus fakte objekto de tiu ago.

  • »Kelkaj tre malfacilas trovi«, tion mi ne dirus.

Mi ne certas nun, ĉu eblas aŭ ne. Se ankaŭ vi havas dubojn, prefere skribu ion klare kaj tute ĝustan, per kio vi certe ne eraros. Ekzemple:

  • Kelkaj estas tre malfacile troveblaj.
    • kelkaj → estas ← troveblaj ← malfacile ← tre
  • Kelkajn estas tre malfacile trovi.
    • kelkajn → trovi → estas ← malfacile ← tre
2

F3nd0 wrote

Bone kaj interesige skribita, dankon pro ĝi! Mi devos prove tion ludi. Cetere, jen kelkaj korektoj:

Neniu pingveno ŝatas, ke oni forprenu ĝiajn¹ fiŝojn.

  1. »Si« ĉiam nomas subjekton de la frazo. La frazo estas »ke oni forprenu x·ajn fiŝojn«, kie »si« nomas »onin«, kaj »ĝi« nomas »pingvenon« (de la alia frazo).

ReTux estas videludo pri plataĵoj de libera programare¹ kaj de libera kulture¹ por komputilo. Oni povas elŝuti ĝin senpage el ĝia² oficiala retejo.

  1. Ĉi tio estas nur rekomendo: En via originala teksto ne estas klare, ĉu vi priskribas »videludon« aŭ »plataĵojn«. Ĉi tiel estas klare, ke vi priskribas »videludon« (se vi tion volis).
  2. Vidu korekton unuan.

ankaŭ kelkajn sonojn¹, bildojn kaj muzikon.

  1. »Sono« estas ĝenerale aŭdaĵo, dum »bruo« estas distra kaj fokus·rompa sono.

Mi advertas¹, ke kelkajn² estas tre malfacile² trovi.

  1. Mi ne komprenis la vorton; kion ĝi signifas?
  2. »Kelkaj« estu objekto de »trovi«, kaj tiun verbon devas priskribi adverbo. (Alternative, »kelkaj estas tre malfacile trovebl·aj.«)
5

F3nd0 wrote (edited )

Thank you for taking the time to read them!

Certainly, there are many languages in the world, beyond what was mentioned; I assure you the author is aware of them, as becomes apparent throughout his work collection. But a couple which had similarities with Esperanto were selected to make a point, at which they should have succeeded.

If you're looking for an international language with a vocabulary not based in European languages, then you might want to look into Kotava—I heard it's nice and has considerable following (at least compared to others). Other languages include Lojban (mentioned here), Solresol, or Pandunia (mentioned here). I think Toki Pona draws from European languages, but the words are so few that it shouldn't matter much.

Myself, I'm going to stick to Esperanto, but hopefully you can find something that you like, too!

3

F3nd0 wrote

That's not really true, unless you focus on a few select aspects of the language and ignore all the others. There are Eurocentric aspects to Esperanto, but that doesn't mean there's ‘nothing neutral’ about it as a whole.

Firstly, beyond the technical (vocabulary) aspect, there's the political (couldn't think of a better word) aspect of the language, which I consider more important. English, for example, is not neutral in this aspect. It has historically belonged to a certain nation, which has spread it into many other parts of the world, often by colonising them (which, I presume, was often forceful). Even today, English is not neutral; it is a language native to several nations. If people speak English, they are accustoming themselves to the culture of those nations.

Everything originating from English-speaking countries then also has the unfair advantage of automatically being accessible to all the people being forced to learn English across the world. This may include cultural works (books, music, movies), but also news and politics. The same works of other countries don't get this accessibility. And this is partly the reason why you can find an abundance of US citizens in various places on the web, and why they may feel like the web is centred on their country—after all, it is centred on their language.

Now, with Esperanto, you get none of that. Esperanto belongs to no nation, and serves as a national language to no countries. Therefore, focusing on Esperanto can't imply focusing on certain countries. People from all places in the world get a (principally) equal opportunity creating content in Esperanto. None of them gets a (principal) advantage by default. The language itself was made to connect people of different nations, races, and cultures together. It was built on noble ideals, and has been spreading peacefully, and not forcefully. So politically and philosophically, Esperanto is very much a neutral language, and that alone sets it kilometres ahead of any national language.

Now, you called Esperanto ‘Eurocentric’, which must be a reference to its vocabulary (which I consider to be a part of the language's ‘technical’ aspect). In fact, most of Esperanto's vocabulary stems from romance languages, so you may find it looking very similar to French, for example. For an international language, that's a pretty bad trait to have. Ideally, the international language should be neutral for all people of all nations. Frankly, I don't think it's possible, but one could get at least somewhat close to it, and Esperanto is way off.

That's a flaw, but it's not a great one in my eyes. The consequence is that some students (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish…) will find many words familiar, and will probably have an easier time remembering them. Same goes for speakers of other European languages, to a lesser extent. This gives some people an advantage, but I don't think the advantage is big enough to hamper Esperanto's good points. Those include great regularity and simple grammar, which make the language simple enough to learn for anyone, so the gap in effort is not going to be that dramatic. (It might be fairly easy versus very easy, which, for an international language, is not bad in the greater picture. For English it's native versus considerably difficult.)

Beyond vocabulary, Esperanto is not entirely Eurocentric, even technically. In fact, you may find a number of similarities with languages outside of Europe. I would recommend taking a look at this article by Claude Piron, which examines Esperanto's supposed ‘Westernness’. So, you have a point, and a good one at that, but it's not nearly as bad as your phrasing would have one think, and discussable from there.

3

F3nd0 wrote

Some have really been created thorough the history! By far the most successful one is Esperanto, which, after going through numerous hardships in over one hundred years, is still brimming with life and spoken by a few millions of people across the world. I would recommend learning that if you would like to pursue and push forward this noble idea! There's a forum here at /f/esperanto, that might interest you.

-4

F3nd0 wrote

I already told you we don't need you to translate for us.

And again, I didn't provide the alternatives because someone needed them and asked me. I put them out there for the case that anyone would find interest or benefit in them. You're free to find them useless for yourself, as is everyone else, for whom you're speaking.

The fact that you continue to argue even though the people in this thread, some of which are trans, have told you to knock it off is disrespectful.

As a matter of fact, I don't remember anyone asking me to stop arguing. People have presented me with criticism of my comment, to which I have replied, either defending/clarifying my comment, or asking for clarification of theirs. If any of them had asked me to end the discussion, I would have ended it. (And if you ask me now, I will respect your wish as well.)

For that matter, I won't take one's will for another. If someone asks me to stop talking to them, I won't talk to them, but it will be no reason to stop talking to others who have not expressed the same wish, until they do (or end the talk themselves, as some may already have). All I had so far is one request to choke, and while I have not granted it, you may see I did not pester that person with any replies.

I haven't even mentioned the implied assertion that we should just take cis people in good faith but I think I will now.

My comment implies that you can, not that you should. Whether one will or won't is entirely up to them, and I presume each trans person would also be the most authorised to make the right decision for themselves.

-4

F3nd0 wrote

Trans people don't have "mismatched" bodies. While a lot of trans people do want changes to their bodies, saying their bodies are or were "mismatched" sounds like they aren't or weren't really their gender.

The term indeed points at people who would have preferred to be born in a body with different characteristics, whereas their current one doesn't match their feelings about themselves. It doesn't attempt to invalidate anyone's gender, but it somewhat supports the idea of certain predefined sexes, so I hope I see where the criticism is coming from.

I admit the term, when applied to all trans people, would mischaracterise those who don't feel their bodies to be mismatched, so that may have been a poor way to express my idea, in which case I apologise to those affected. (I have also lived in belief that the very idea of ‘transgender’ involves a mismatch, hence the name based on ‘trans’—over, across to somewhere else from where I was. Is that conviction fundamentally wrong, or did the name just gain broader meaning in certain circles over the time?)

However, that boils down to ignorance or lack of knowledge. The interpretations are still based in good faith, and the original messages do not inherently contain malice or transphobia. (And neither should my interpretation contain transphobia, based on the latter's definition in the local reference ‘101’.)

I really would rather not be considered "cool and admirable" for being trans.

Point taken. However, there's no malice or ignorance in finding someone (even a group of people sharing a common trait) ‘cool and admirable’. That only depends on everyone's personal feelings. Even if you don't like being viewed in that light, the people viewing you that way aren't being transphobic purely by doing so.

Including physical requirements for womanhood or manhood or whatever gender a person is is transphobic.

For gender, yes, seems obvious. I'm not entirely sure which translation this touches on; most likely seems the fourth one, where it boils down to one's understanding and usage of certain words and concepts.

-6

F3nd0 wrote

The title says "what we hear", do you really need to try to tell people they are wrong when they tell you how things you say affect them?

Nowhere did I write that people do not interpret the sayings in the presented way, nor did I write that their interpretations are wrong. I have simply presented alternative interpretations, which could be just as valid as the original ones. It should be very well possible to interpret each of the translations in a non-transphobic way (perhaps save for the fourth one, which just has very poor wording).

Should you find that this is not the case, you are welcome to point out why. I have faith in my translations, but I am interested in why you find them irreconcilable.

-2

F3nd0 wrote

There's a trans101 in the sidebar of this forum it might be worthwhile for the both of you to grapple with some, but it should not take a lot of thinking to understand why their response was transphobic, and getting the basic capacity to do so is a worthwhile effort.

Following your suggestion, I have read the article. It presented me with little to no new information, and did not convince me that my response was transphobic. Going by the 101's definition of transphobia…

Transphobia is irrational fear and hatred of trans people. […] Transphobia is believing that we are out to rob you of your hetero-or-homosexuality. Transphobia is trans people being stared at, insulted, harassed, attacked, beaten, raped, and murdered for simply existing.

I believe the alternatives I have presented do not go to such lengths. None of them should paint trans people as someone less worthy or despicable. At the moment I only found two issues:

  • The first translation has questionable language on my part, seeing as some people (not including me) may reject the idea of ‘sex’.
  • The fourth translation is still easy to interpret as transphobic, but was mean to present poor word choice rather than malicious intent.

The translations are possible interpretations that show what people could mean by what they say. These interpretations are supposed to not be transphobic at large, and if you can (spare the time to) point out how some of them are doubtlessly transphobic, then, at your leisure, please do.