Zenarchist-

Nov 13, 2012

What are your thoughts on the term "sapiosexual"?

(n.) A behavior of becoming attracted to or aroused by intelligence and its use.

I must say I am very fond of it as I am very much attracted to intelligence and is a very important (if not, mandatory) quality I look for in a partner. Regardless of physical attractiveness, I find it difficult to sustain attraction for someone if they lack intelligence or in some area of a certain level of insightfulness. I suppose there is ambiguity in the term (such as defining what intelligence really is and how to measure it and the distinction between attraction and arousal) but I'm curious to here what you guys thing and if you would consider yourselves "sapiosexual" as well.

Hope to hear.

Kair

Nov 13, 2012

My thoughts on it are that I am sapiosexual. That's pretty much it.

DrGeniusWiener

Nov 13, 2012

Women love bullshit...

calandale1

Nov 14, 2012

I'm more saporlingsexual.

La-Ritournelle

Nov 14, 2012

when I see people playing those awful fantasy wargames like warhammer and the other sci fi weirdo stuff I just feel all sad for them

I dont want to tell them how foolish those games are

I dont like to offend people for their choice of wargames

but I just wish they knew about real wargames, based on solid reality and science

I'm trying to convice people around here to leave their foolish fantasy games and come try some good solid armored tactical games

but to no avail

shit

toddanarchy

Nov 15, 2012

I see it as an alternative to the term "pansexual" and pretty much against zoophilia.  HTH.

calandale1

Nov 15, 2012

I'm trying to convice people around here to leave their foolish fantasy games and come try some good solid armored tactical games

Alas, I'm more into other eras. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SokLorMEqk

La-Ritournelle

Nov 16, 2012

interesting channel

I intend to watch a few of your 'games' and learn what the attraction is for these non-reality based wargames

thanks for the link

calandale1

Nov 16, 2012

Funny. I always thought Rome, Napoleonics, ACW, and WWI were real.

La-Ritournelle

Nov 16, 2012

WW1 yes certainly

I dont know about ACW, what is that?

in terms of the roman and napoleonic, your charts are based on purely speculative data

right now I am watching you play an egyptian era game

there is no terrain at all

how do you know that runners could launch an attack against chariots so easily?

who said so?

do you trust this chart, column nine of some man's speculation?

as far as I know there is no hard data at all about the effectiveness of ancient weapon systems

it is not until the later napoleonic/british naval campaigns do we see any scientific charts of effectiveness of cannon fire at different ranges

all else is pure speculation

no offense intended

and maybe some of your other game systems are not as fantastic, we'll see

Ill try to keep an open mind

calandale1

Nov 16, 2012

No, you're right. Anything prior to Roman is really iffy. As is dark ages.

Roman stuff is a little more solid. But, even WWII game systems have to extrapolate -

no simulation worth its salt can use straight weapons data - as there are plenty of

soft factors in play (morale for example). Neglecting these creates something far less

realistic than most of the games from well studied eras. As soon as you move from 1:1

scale, these factors become even more important.

 

But...if you must, I've done some WWII stuff too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FoAhBlQ1NE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNj8RI1cS7w 

MsOtis

Nov 17, 2012

Sapiosexual?

Isn't that, like, when you read a thread filled with all kinds of smart, tech wizards, bantering in a very advanced language, and your panties get all...

oh, wait.

You mean, like, this thread? With all the video game talk? And the womenz send you IM's for some further *ahem* discussion?

or, ....

oh,

I don't know.

Maybe women just love words. And good grammar.

    *flips hair*

La-Ritournelle

Nov 17, 2012

I think you do a fine job of describing thesecomplex wargames for us

and dont beat yourself up if you cant supply those Burma units very well

it was a difficult campaign even for the generals who led the real charge

1,700 videos?  wow!  I wish I could do that.  unfortunately I have to work too

otherwise I would probably be playing as many campaigns as you

La-Ritournelle

Nov 18, 2012

I guess someone who really digs medieval castle siege warfare games would be a sappersexual

dgbdc

Nov 18, 2012

i'm more of a sapiovore.

alas i'm starving, as there are so few for me to feed upon.

fineinthefire

Nov 18, 2012

Well we have a DrGeniusWiener, but he's straight.

Divis1onbyzer0

Nov 25, 2012

when I see people playing those awful fantasy wargames like warhammer and the other sci fi weirdo stuff I just feel all sad for them

I dont want to tell them how foolish those games are

I dont like to offend people for their choice of wargames

but I just wish they knew about real wargames, based on solid reality and science

I'm trying to convice people around here to leave their foolish fantasy games and come try some good solid armored tactical games

but to no avail

shit

 

DE GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM

 

Enacting a fantasy war game is no more or less real than enacting a war game that uses history as the source domain of the representation.

calandale1

Nov 26, 2012

Enacting a fantasy war game is no more or less real than enacting a war game that uses history as the source domain of the representation.

Hmm...can't really agree. Playing a solid historical game can give insight into real events -
something a fantasy situation really cannot. Yes, you're looking at the designer's interpretation
of the events - but that's essentially all you get when you read history as well. Playing fantasy
games is the gaming analog to reading fantasy - it can be challenging; it can provide an interesting
story; it can even provide a compelling thought-model of the effects of certain hypothetical 
technologies or systems of warfare - but in the end it has little real basis (and with things like
warhammer, it fails to even be believable fantasy, IMO).

La-Ritournelle

Nov 26, 2012

division by 0 why do you feel that way?

I agree with calen on this one

he has spent over ten thousand dollars on his collection of wargames, and made about 400 youtube videos showing all about the skills and stategies which have worked over the ages

I feel that I have learned a great deal with my modern wargames, and I dont feel Ive learned anything at all when Ive tried those fantasy games

speaking for myself, and I am unanimous in this, I say that fantasy wargames are not worth spending any money or time on

theres enough out there to learn from games based on reality

Divis1onbyzer0

Nov 26, 2012

You guys may be responding to something I did not say.

The playing of any game is equally as real as any other game.  That's all that I said.

Playing a LARP is as real as playing Civil War Reenactment.  Playing poker or blackjack is as real as playing Yu-gi-oh or magic the gathering.  Playing Age of Empires III is as real as playing Starcraft II.  Playing historic war games is as real as playing fantasy war games.  The differences are whether the game is representational or not, and if it is, what it's source domain is.  That is, what does the game represent.  Ultimately the representation is just an agreement of the players.   It is, if you like in the mind of the player. 

You could have an identical game to the historical war game and it could be completely non representational.  The only difference would be what you think of when you play the game, and the names by which you refer to the rules and game pieces.  You seem to think that having mental contents which relate more to history as you go through the motions of playing the game makes the game more real than the game whose players mental contents are not filled with things relating to history.  On this I do not agree. 

 

Post a comment