This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Heightism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Talkin' about Napoleon Complex
Napoleon was actually a very normal-heighted man. He was called the "small general" because he liked to mingle with his troops-- it somehow got translated into it being his height.
I decree we should petition the scientific community to change the name from "Napoleonic Complex" to "Short People's Lack of Heigh Compensation Syndrome", or SPLHCS for short.
The British
caricatured
him as short, and they won the war, thus he is known as short.
Post by
Squishalot
That is the most nonsensical thing you've said yet, and that's saying a lot...
It's like saying murder is legitimate if you remove the dead guy from the scenario. ...what?
No, it's like saying murder is legitimate from a discrimination perspective if you're not specifically targeting X characteristic. It doesn't make it legitimate from a moral perspective.
If you no longer like your girlfriend, is it an illegitimate (discriminatory) action to no longer date her? According to you, no. Therefore, it would remain a legitimate action to date someone else. It's a rude action, certainly, and courtesy would indicate that you should break up with her first, but it's not discriminatory, which is the only context of legitimacy that we're talking about.
How can you we determine the legitimacy of something "irrelevant"? What are you talking about? If we're trying to find out if the criteria are legitimate, then we sure as hell need to know what those criteria are.
Just because you apply different criteria to your tiers of relationship doesn't mean that the legitimacy of those criteria aren't equal in both tiers. I couldn't care less if you had 10 criteria in your relationship box and 3 criteria in your friendship box. What I'm suggesting is that if a criteria is legitimate in one, it's legitimate in the other.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Haxzor
You seem angry because you're short
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That is the most nonsensical thing you've said yet, and that's saying a lot...
It's like saying murder is legitimate if you remove the dead guy from the scenario. ...what?
No, it's like saying murder is legitimate from a discrimination perspective if you're not specifically targeting X characteristic. It doesn't make it legitimate from a moral perspective.
What does discrimination even have to do with murder? Again, you're not making sense. I get the feeling you're just throwing words around without putting much thought into them.
Secondly, there is no "perspective" when it comes to legitimacy. A certain action, given its real context, is either legitimate or not. Cheating (being sexually
unfaithful
) is an illegitimate action in pretty much every circumstance. There is no perspective involved. You can disagree that it is in fact illegitimate, but that would be a separate discussion on morals (used loosely here to mean those rules upon which legitimacy is based -- what is "right").
If you no longer like your girlfriend, is it an
illegitimate (discriminatory)
action to no longer date her? According to you, no.
What does that bolded part even mean. Illegitimate and discriminatory don't mean the same thing. Is it illegitimate to no longer date her? No. Is it discriminatory? Obviously yes.
...discriminatory, which is the only context of legitimacy that we're talking about.
Again, you're talking about two completely different things.
Just because you apply different criteria to your tiers of relationship doesn't mean that the legitimacy of those criteria aren't equal in both tiers. I couldn't care less if you had 10 criteria in your relationship box and 3 criteria in your friendship box. What I'm suggesting is that if a criteria is legitimate in one, it's legitimate in the other.
And I'm saying that's utter nonsense. That my significant other be a girl is a very big criteria, because I'm not attracted to men. That is a legitimate criteria. But does that mean I should only have female friends? No. My attraction is not a legitimate criteria for friendship.
The complex does not exist.
You have yet to demonstrate that.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Cheating (being sexually unfaithful) is an illegitimate action in pretty much every circumstance. There is no perspective involved. You can disagree that it is in fact illegitimate, but that would be a separate discussion on morals (used loosely here to mean those rules upon which legitimacy is based -- what is "right").
Precisely my point. Your view that it is an illegitimate action is predicated on its moral legitimacy, not the question of whether it is discriminatory.
Is it illegitimate to no longer date her? No. Is it discriminatory? Obviously yes.
It's discriminatory to break up with someone because you don't like them? But earlier you said that it's not discriminatory *not* to go out with someone in the first place because you don't like them. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
And I'm saying that's utter nonsense. That my significant other be a girl is a very big criteria, because I'm not attracted to men. That is a legitimate criteria. But does that mean I should only have female friends? No. My attraction is not a legitimate criteria for friendship.
Your attraction is not a criteria for friendship, not that it's not a legitimate criteria. If attraction was somehow a criterion for your friendships, then we could consider the legitimacy of only wanting female friends. But, from everything that I understand about you, it's not a criteria, so there's no legitimacy issue at hand.
What it is:
Napoleon complex is an informal term describing an alleged type of inferiority complex which is said to affect some people, especially men, who are short in stature.
Showing its false:
In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) may be a myth. The study discovered that short men (below 5'5" ) were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height.
The theory tested doesn't match the definition of the complex. Inferiority complex and the need to compensate doesn't necessarily mean lower temper thresholds.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Precisely my point. Your view that it is an illegitimate action is predicated on its moral legitimacy, not the question of whether it is discriminatory.
Duh?
All legitimacy is based on morals (again used loosely). Discrimination is an act which can be immoral (
ibid.
) and thus can be an illegitimate action.
But earlier you said that it's not discriminatory *not* to go out with someone in the first place because you don't like them.
It's not illegitimate, but I never said it's not discrimination. The very act of ruling out a class of people (those I don't like) is discrimination. It's legitimate though. It's not "bad discrimination," i.e. illegitimately discriminating.
Your attraction is not a criteria for friendship, not that it's not a legitimate criteria. If attraction was somehow a criterion for your friendships, then we could consider the legitimacy of only wanting female friends. But, from everything that I understand about you, it's not a criteria, so there's no legitimacy issue at hand.
You say that "if a criteria is legitimate in one, it's legitimate in the other." So we have a legitimate criteria for dating, therefore by your reasoning, it has to be legitimate for friendship. I'm saying that makes no sense.
Post by
Squishalot
All legitimacy is based on morals (again used loosely). Discrimination is an act which can be immoral (ibid.) and thus can be an illegitimate action.
It's not illegitimate, but I never said it's not discrimination. The very act of ruling out a class of people (those I don't like) is discrimination. It's legitimate though. It's not "bad discrimination," i.e.
illegitimately discriminating
.
So when I say:
If you no longer like your girlfriend, is it an
illegitimate (discriminatory)
action to no longer date her? According to you, no.
...and you reply:
What does that bolded part even mean. Illegitimate and discriminatory don't mean the same thing. Is it illegitimate to no longer date her? No. Is it discriminatory? Obviously yes.
... it should be clear that I am referring to illegitimately discriminating, as opposed to being illegitimate for reasons other than discrimination. How is that consistent with your reply?
I know you're complaining that people are misinterpreting what you're saying a lot recently. But to be honest, you're not doing much better.
But, moving on from that, taking your clarification as it stands:
On a side note, cheating on your girlfriend is a 'legitimate' action from a discrimination perspective.
With your statements in mind, I'll recall that phrase and replace it with:
"On a side note, cheating on your girlfriend is not a form of illegitimate discrimination," making the discussion about cheating irrelevant in the context of (il)legitimate discrimination.
You say that "if a criteria is legitimate in one, it's legitimate in the other." So we have a legitimate criteria for dating, therefore by your reasoning, it has to be legitimate for friendship. I'm saying that makes no sense.
On what basis would you propose that a criteria is legitimate or illegitimate for dating and not friendship, or vice versa?
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
The theory tested doesn't match the definition of the complex. Inferiority complex and the need to compensate doesn't necessarily mean lower temper thresholds. True but the burden of proof does not lie on me because none of you have proven that it actually does exist.
...Huh? So, because a random group of forum goer's can't do what doctors and scientists have been trying to do for several decades means your right and we're wrong?
Seriously though; it has nothing to do with your height Viking. You want to know the real reason why the girls don't go for you? If you act the way you do here on the forum around them, I wouldn't want anything to do with you either. Your height has nothing to do with it, it's all of that *gestures at the rest of vIkIngboy11* that's the problem.
Girls/women don't like males who just stare at them, drooling and making animal grunting sounds in an attempt to make them swoon with the desire to mate. Really, if you want a girl, want a good job, want to get somewhere in life....lose the attitude, and be a real person.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Are you trying to prove to me Heightism doesn't exist and the Napoleon Complex is real? (honest question) Obviously because I believe the opposite of the above statement and have yet to be proven why those beliefs are wrong I will continue to challenge the other beliefs.They exist...but not to the degree you see them. Look at the way you worded your response to Squish; it more or less screams 'I believe I'm right your wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it'.
The last few posts you have posted has been an attack on me and you question my attitude?/shrug; The entire thread seems to be about how, because your short, you will never get a girl or a good job...even though others have shown the opposite of that. Your attitude is more or less just one chip on your shoulder, and you seem to believe the entire world is looking down on you; you said that a girl who only likes tall guys is a hypocrite for not liking you, you link random studies trying to show your right, and if anyone has an alternate view then you, you bash it. You do have an attitude Viking; tone it down, and you'll find life goes easier on you.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The theory tested doesn't match the definition of the complex. Inferiority complex and the need to compensate doesn't necessarily mean lower temper thresholds. The center of the argument of the Napolean Complex is about short guy's tempers... anyway another article showing that...
The study
basically concluded that there is no more logic to concluding that a man of smaller stature, exhibiting aggressive behavior, is doing so because of his height, than there is to conclude that a man with blonde hair behaving the same way is doing so because he is a blonde.
The center of the Napoleon Complex is that short guys attempt to compensate for their height. It may simply be an attitude to work - they put in longer hours, take more risks, use attacking language over passive language. Or that they're obsessive-compulsive about body building, so they have a short but sculpted body. Or that they go for wacky achievements that nobody else has ever accomplished.
None of that requires aggressive behaviour, not in the way that either of the studies you've linked has attempted to demonstrate.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
None of that requires aggressive behaviour, not in the way that either of the studies you've linked has attempted to demonstrate. Yes, this mostly seems to have to do with lack of information on the topic, but if one aspect of the stereotype has been proven wrong what leads you to believe that the other aspects are correct?
Because it stands to logic and reason that people who are lacking in an appreciated characteristic will require a higher than average result in another characteristic to be at least average overall.
I mean, it's one thing to demonstrate that people some people who used a hybrid spec can be successful back in the days we could get hybrid specced characters - the Blood/Unholy spec solo DK, the Protribution PvP Paladin, etc. But you can't conclude from that that all the other hybrid specs out there aren't garbage.
Post by
jebby
I'm also discriminated for not being able to grow a beard.
My sympathies reach out to you, my poor beardless friend. I weep that you are afflicted with such a debilitating condition.
You're in my non-prayers, sir.
I consulted my physician and he says I may need a transplant. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a willful donor because few people are willing to give up their beards for the needy. Modern society is so morally bankrupt.You can have mine. I've been able to grow a beard (a real beard) since I was 14. I have enough to share.
Post by
Modibybob
I'd rather be small and inconspicuous than really tall and have people staring.
Post by
706709
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.