One Hour One Life Forums

You don't need a uterus to hold a baby bottle, Spoon. Men can feed babies just fine. And not all men are great at tasks that require big muscles.  Women can be strong too.

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.  People are complicated and diverse.   Gender doesn't determine your individual ability or potential for personal growth.  Many other factors can be just as important or more important.  Rather than focusing on one aspect, try to see the whole person.

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

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

I agree that inequality between trading partners can help to incentivize trade.  If everyone has equal access to all potential trade goods, then there is little need to exchange goods with someone else.   Lots of supply, but no demand. 

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?  The losing side has everything to gain yet nothing to offer, so they are a poor trading partner.  The more powerful partner would not trade at all or seek a different partner.    Plenty of inequality, but zero trade potential.   

For best results, trading partners need to be have similar trading power.    Their needs and abilities can be different, but their trading potential should be pretty close to even so they benefit equally from establishing the partnership.   Most importantly, both sides need to have complimentary needs and abilities.  They should both have something that the other person wants, so that an equivalent exchange is possible.    A fair trade is an equal trade.   Both parties should feel like they got a good value by trading, otherwise, why bother doing it again?  Nobody likes to get cheated.   And it isn't really trade if you just give it away for free, right?

Ironically, I think you actually agree with this, since you keep complaining about how women have all the power in OHOL, but you are so deeply invested in arguing for more inequality, you probably can't admit it. 

Yup, I'd call it "lack of diversity" or "lack of specialization", rather than no inequality, but tomay-to, tomah-to.  Same thing, really, if you ignore the negative connotations of your word choice.

That's one of the reasons why I'd be excited to see Jason add skills or job titles with perks to encourage job specialization.   Tool slots were a real bust.   Plenty of inequality, but in all the wrong ways.

Yeah, that is correct.    Lying assumes intent to deceive.   A statement might be factually inaccurate, but if you believe that you are speaking truthfully, then you are not lying.   You are incorrect, not insincere.   

It is a small difference, but it is an important one.    You can be honest and also wrong.   I prefer to give people thebenefit of the doubt, unless I have reason to believe they are being intentionally deceitful.  Nobody likes false accusations of wrong-doing.

The economy in OHOL is based on shared benefit.   Each village is one family with a common goal.   We want to survive and grow and raise our kids.   To reach that goal, we must rely on the work of past generations to build a solid foundation and the work of future generations to continue our legacy.   There is no real need to compete with each other because your sisters and brothers want the same thing as you - to build a better village.   Most conflict within the village arises from misunderstandings and lack of information or malicious intent rather than conflicting needs.   And the same is true for different villages.  We do not benefit from conflict - war is a lose-lose situation, because all villages are effectively part of the same family.  When we fight, we are fighting ourselves.  All players cycle through all villages, so our neighbors in this life will be our family in the next.    When we kill each other, we are killing our past or future sisters and brothers.   If we harm another village, we could be damaging our future home.   Everyone is connected by the core rebirth mechanics in OHOL.   Everyone is tied together by race restrictions.    One village cannot survive alone - it must work together with other villages to continue existing.   

One Hour One Life has a robust economy.   But it isn't based on capitalism.  Individual wealth is meaningless in this game.   To be truly wealthy, you must share your resources with the village. 

....

Incidentally, OHOL does not run on true communism.   It is more closely in line with some form of democratic socialism, rather than capitalism, but since most OHOL villages lack a central governing body, neither label really fits completely. 

If anyone has heard these terms before, but doesn't really know what they mean or how the raw theory compares to modern economic realities, here are some definitions:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.histor … ifferences

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer … talism.asp

So basically, we don't own private property in this game, but we also don't have any government oversight.  We share production more or less evenly, without any central authority rigidly enforcing the rules.   OHOL isn't pure socialism or pure capitalism.  Instead, it operates under a mixed economy that is mixed in a different way from modern society.  It has a heavier dose of sharing and much less emphasis on personal property or accumulation of wealth.

No, Spoonwood.    That's a flotation device.

I'm not talking about the cost to the player cutting the trees, but rather the cost to the hypothetical woman character in your example.   

If all men can do hungry work with less food cost than the women in the village, it stands to reason that women will generally avoid doing hungry work, leaving those jobs to male characters since they will be able to do it at a lower food cost to the village as a whole.   A woman might still chop wood or go mining herself, if the need is urgent and there are no men around, of course.   But it would be the less efficient option.   If a guy is close enough to help, then it would be in the best interest of the village for the woman to ask him to do the hungry work instead.   Some players might decline, but in my experience, people are usually happy to help out where they can, especially if you ask them politely.  The village runs on mutual generosity and shared work.   

And of course, seasoned players will know that there is a gender bias toward men performing hungry work inherent in the game, so they will probably automatically do those kind of jobs when they are born male.   Just like when they are born female, experienced players know that they should probably make some babies for the next generation and feed those babies to conserve the food supply.

In other words, it is very likely that most men in the village will be offering their services free of charge.   Which means the man in your example is going to have a hard time getting the girl to agree to his marriage proposal as it stands. 

This is an example of that age-old dilemma ... Why buy the cow, if you are getting the milk for free?

No, he has only signaled that he knows and recognizes a value that is "unique" to every man in the village.    That is hardly a selling point regarding his individual value as a mate.   

Perhaps he should bring up his amazing genetic score instead?

Indeed, I think some men could do a lot better.    But I was referring to how all men in the village would be endowed with the same male abilities.    The players controlling the in-game characters might have different attributes that make them more or less appealing, but all men in the village would have the same gender-based abilities granted by the game itself.  Just like all women in the game get the same gender-based abilities for being female characters.

In terms of intersexual trade with the game, if all men have the same gender-based abilities, they are equal to each other.   The same with all women being equal to other women.    As a female character, if you want to trade with a man for something only a man can do, it doesn't really matter which one you pick.    All men are equal.   All women are equal.   

Unless there were individual differences between the characters that give them unique intrasexual abilities, of course.   

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.

I was speaking from the perspective of the hypothetical female character in your example, not speaking for all women or speaking for all players - in other words, if I was playing a female character and a male character approached me and wanted to father my babies, I would not find that answer sufficient to entice me into accepting his offer.   

Trade declined.

Now if he brought me a bear pelt or a wolf hat ... that might do the trick.   Gotta appreciate a guy who is willing to kill wildlife in the name of love, you know?

Pigeons be trolling.

Out of curiosity, how do you envision intersexual trade would work between men and women in OHOL?    Would women trade their sky babies to men in exchange for feats of manly strength?   I am having a hard time picturing it.

Okay, you want to talk about trade, so let's talk about trade.   

First, I have a question - If the purpose of this idea is to increase trade in OHOL why are you so focused on trade between sexes?   If men are superior in some areas to women and women are superior in some areas to men, they might be motivated to trade with the opposite sex, but there is still nothing motivating women to trade with other women or men to trade with men.    They will be too equal!   Equality means no trade so we obviously need more inequalities to fix this problem.

Why not broaden the idea to include all individuals, regardless of gender?  Give everyone unique strengths and weaknesses so there are advantages to trading with everyone in the village.   Everyone gets to be unequal together, with each person superior in some respects and inferior in others, just like in real life.

It seems to me that interpersonal trade would be significantly  superior to intersexual trade.

The other functions don't matter, because it is clear from context which function of breasts I was referring to when I described them as non-functional.   Other functions can still be present.  They are still not functioning with respect to the actual function under discussion.

For example,  if we were talking about flight and I mentioned that ostriches and penguins have non-functional wings, it is clear that I am referring to their wings' ability to facilitate flight.   In other respects, these birds have fully functioning wings.  They can flap or paddle just fine and their wings are used in a variety of ways during normal activities. But since they are flightless birds, their wings cannot provide sufficient lift to achieve sustained flight.  Their wings are non-functional.

Context is very important.  It provides a ton of useful information for correctly interpreting meaning during a discussion.  If you take someone's words out of context, you might be missing critical information.

I disagree with your disagreement.

You are trying to use an unnecessarily narrow definition of "non-functional" that assumes complete lack of ANY function whatsoever.  I am using the common definition, which is more broad and usually implies a loss of primary function, or whatever function is most relevant to the current conversation.  Other functions may still be intact.

For example, if my computer is non-functional, that implies it no longer functions as a computer.   But I could still use it as a paper-weight or prop open a door with my non-functional device, so it does still has "functions" despite being a non-functional computer.  I could even use it as a weapon to bludgeon an intruder, but unfortunately, it is won't let me post funny cat pictures on the internet.  It is completely useless in an important way, like non-functional breasts.

Likewise, if Steve goes blind, his eyes are no longer functioning as intended.   They are non-functional.   Sure, they still might be pretty to look AT and they help keep Steve's eye sockets from drying out, but they are not functional eyes, because don't detect visible light or whatever.

Gosh, Spoonwood, sometimes it feels like you are really reaching for reasons to argue over nothing at all.   Do you even remember why we are talking about boobs?

I sure don't.

Who doesn't enjoy a little spooning?

.

Yup, you do not fit the standard definition of troll. Congratulations. 

I don't think anyone has come up with a proper term for your behavior, because it is so rare to encounter someone who is so consistently disruptive and annoying to others without it being deliberate.   I think I'll call it "spooning".

So I am confused.   Are you arguing that women and men are too equal or that they are not equal enough ... or both?   Your argument is still hard to follow.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are basically saying that women have "superior abilities" between 14 and 40 years old, so trade should occur at that time.   But men have nothing to offer in exchange, since fatherhood is a myth.  Therefore, women have all the babies and all the breast milk and all the power, while men only have erotic nipples and a strong work ethic.

It sounds like you want equity for men, because women in OHOL have one-way superiority for part of their lifespan.   

"Women can give birth and breastfeed babies.  Men cannot.   It isn't fair."

See?   That's not very hard.

You wasted a lot of time justifying your opinion with a convoluted argument based on comparative advantage and intersexual trading, instead of just saying what you mean.   

...

Personally, I think your entire argument is faulty because it is founded on two false premises - first, that trade between men and women does not occur in OHOL and second, that men have nothing to offer because of their gender.

In my experience, even though the genders in OHOL are equal in many ways, the differences between them are enough to encourage players to assume different roles within the village.   Women tend to stick close to home and hearth, cook and farm more than men, and provide for their offspring.   Men tend to more often take on tasks that involve more risks or prolonged focus, like traveling long distances, working the forge, or big construction projects.  Either gender CAN do these things, if necessary, but each gender has a comparative advantage at certain tasks, because of their strengths and weaknesses, so they tend to specialize.   

Women have the "power" to produce babies and feed babies, but this power comes paired with a burden of social obligation and responsibility of care.  As a woman in OHOL, you have less freedom of movement and choice, compared with the men in the village, because you are expected to fulfill the role of "mother" during your fertile period.   In contrast, men lack family ties, so they are able to choose how they want to live their life, without worrying about sky babies.  If you want to work on a big project or do something dangerous,  like bear-hunting, it makes more sense to wait until you are born as a male, rather than trying to achieve a healthy work-life balance as a career woman.

Long story short, men already have a one-way superiority to women and intersexual trading does occur in OHOL with the current system.  Therefore, greater inequality is not necessary to achieve trade between men and women.

Yes it was.

What did you expect?