|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ChaosVortex
Super Robot
Posts: 5638
|
 |
« Reply #18 on: 29 July 2008, 00:47:14 » |
|
And assumptions.
I think the whole "sexist" and "WoW" thing began because of some stupid Drawbridge exercise. You might've heard it. A Baron tells a Baroness not to leave the castle, and threatens her saying "I will punish you severely if you leave!" She gets lonely and commands the servants to pull down the drawbridge and to keep it down until she returns. She goes off into town and stays with her Lover. After some hot lovin', she goes back to the castle and sees a Madman there who says she would kill her if she crossed the bridge. She goes back to the Lover for help, but he refuses. She finds a Boatman for help and explains her situation but he refuses since she has no money. She goes to the Friend for help but he refuses also. Finally, she dares to go back to the drawbridge and crosses. There, she was slain by the Madman. And they lived happily ever after. The End. Well, we formed groups to list who was most responsible for the Baroness' death. I listed the Madman first, Baroness second, Lover third, Friend fourth, Boatman fifth, and the Baron last. Everyone put the Baron at the top of the list and the Madman the least. I went straight by the text and said that the Madman was the one to literally kill her and the Baron had little to no involvement. They said "Well we have to assume what happened because the text doesn't have enough detail. They assumed the Baron left off to gamble and that the Madman was mentally ill and didn't know what he was doing. The girl called me sexist for listing the Baroness high on the list and she attempted (but failed) to say my logic was dumb. She said that I'm apparently someone who would send a child to jail because he murdered someone. I was talking about who's responsible for the death, not punishment. Somehow, she tried to relate it to World of Warcraft to me and I just raised an eyebrow. I felt like I was the only one going by the text while everyone else in the group added details to the story. Speculation is okay, but I got shunned. EDIT: Oh yeah, I think I argued with their logic saying, "So we're just gonna assume crap? Fine. I'll assume the servants were all ducks." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edgecrusher
Super Robot
Posts: 1371
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 29 July 2008, 03:29:15 » |
|
To be diagnosed with OCD, your rituals would have to take up more than an hour of your day, as well as causing impairment to your social or occupational life.
According to the DSM-IV-TR, you'd be looking for these characteristics:
Obsessions:
- Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
- The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems.
- The person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.
- The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind, and are not based in reality.
Compulsions:
- Repetitive behaviours or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
- The behaviours or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviours or mental acts are not actually connected to the issue, or they are excessive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
No more pencils, No more books
I built a city out' one brick, it had a Mayor and a Crook
I made the Crook stab the Mayor, then slay himself in the guilt
I stole the brick back and migrated east, now let's build. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author
