Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdavis" data-source="post: 980603" data-attributes="member: 8704">Yes I got that already, of course you posted it as a response to Kahuna Burger's defense against Artimoff's post. So why would I not assume you agreed with Artimoff's post which was a generalization; you were obviously attacking Kahuna Burger's defense against that generalization. What Kahuna Burger said in response to a post that women who rescued men would find the man less desirable. (a generalized statement by Artimoff) What you said: I see no corralary to her saying that any side is incompetent, only that she has never seen a example of this line of thought in the women she knows. I can't say what she actually meant but I saw no insult directed at women with different opinions. Furthermore if her stating that all the women she knows would not be bothered causes you to think it as a insult then how would you stating the same exact thing but with a yes instead of a no not be the same thing? It's offensive for her to say all the women she knows wouldn't be bothered by this but it's not offensive for you to say that all the women you know would be bothered by this? You made the exact same statement but changed no to yes. Her's is a "apparent corrolary" but yours is being misrepresented? If you truly believe her "apparent corrolary" then how can you sit there and say yours is any different? You said the exact same thing just with a different answer to the question. So you didn't actually mean this: So this isn't a statement of incompetence of a 15 year old? If I could go back to the whole "apparent corrolary" bit, so are you implying that this is the type of decision a inexperienced 15 year old would make? If that's not the point then why make this statement to start with? It most definatly is a accusation of incompetence based on a person's choice and it does imply that the choice is one only a 15 year old would make, thus the choice is a incompetent one. This is the same logic you used to start the whole thing off, a "apparent corrolary" if you will.Yes you never made any directly worded statements but you based your statement on a "apparent corrolary" so why are you so very very defensive (and a little bit of a smart ass) when somebody points out the same exact thing? Your post is worded as a statement on the subject with a couple of offhanded remarks that can be viewed very negatively, your replies have been to make little snide comments and to skirt around it with "prove it" remarks. I posted at length on how the way you phrased the question would change the answer (as did others) but I was answered with: You turned "somewhat ineffectual" into an "ineffectual man who required her to basically mother me" which just one of many interpretations, it's a leading type of interpretation, of course nobody wants a worthless person, it's sort of like asking "would you fall in love with inept doofus". It's a very easy "apparent corrolary" that anybody who said this would not bother them prefers men who are inept, which is sort of insulting there. Yes my statements were not the best either and I did jump to a conclusion based on what you were replying to, not on exact statements but what I interpeted out of what I read and the post you quoted. An arguement on what women believe and your comment that the other choice was the choice of a inexperienced 15 year old. If you were not attacking her post then why quote her post, and if you were not implying the other choice was the choice of a 15 year old then why say that was the choice a 15 year old would make? If you did not agree with Artimoff's general reaction of women post then why attach your post to a arguement over that post? You jumped into two peoples post about generalizing reactions and then got mad when I attached your post to that argument. Hey if I did that I'd get misrepresented too (and have before, I had to learn that one the hard way). So maybe there was no intentional guilt by association but you're the one who associated your post with their arguement. As for the rest of it yes you are right I confused you with a post by David Argall so for that I will apologise for my mistake. On the whole subject of fat people I admit I was misquoting (and David Argall responded to that already). Of course instead of saying hey that wasn't my post that was David Argall's you decided to insult me. I didn't realize my mistake till I saw David Argall's post on down the page in response.   So your only worried about the "I didn't directly say that" things, that's fine but if you are not trying to make a statement on generalizing things then why belittle my statement on people shouldn't generalize things? My opinion that people should not make these generalizations does not merit your comment? Isn't that what you are saying you are not doing? If you are not doing that and don't believe in that then why insult a statement to that effect? You skim over, belittle or ignore my opinions but seem to be saying you agree with my opinion that people shouldn't generalize these things. Why insult a opinion you claim to agree with and then get mad at me when I question your beliefs in that opinion?  and that is different from my statement: or this one: My opinion on this matter is that there is no either/or answer to this question, there is just no actual way to judge how most people will react. You stated it "isn't Either-Or but is Both-And." So why are my opinions of no merit then? I was asking you to clarify your position on this because 1. your first post contained wording that was definatly biased and 2. I looked at the wrong post yesterday. You chose to belittle and insult, so how was I to come to the conclusion that you actually agreed there was no generalizations to be made here? Yes I admit my comments were biased by the post you quoted (and the post that was a response to) but there is a definate bias in your post that led me to the conclusion you were making a statement of support for what was said by Artimoff, heck you quoted a response to his comments and attacked the response by showing a example of how Artimoff could be right, then you belittled the other choice as choosing a incompetent that needed mothering as a romantic interest and the choice of a silly 15 year old girl.</blockquote>

Verification