American Women: Why some stray in marriage

[Woggle]

:bunny::bunny:

 

I feel like this whole thread is complete. Your attitude is the mirror image of a generation of women in the U.S. Thank you for confirming my belief that you and your ilk are to be avoided whenever possible.

 

Also, this may sound cliche, but if you do some therapy... it may help you to build your self esteem. Then you won't feel as though you have the right to lie and hurt people.

 

At least she is honest and comes right out and says it. I respect it when somebody just lays all the cards on the table like that.

[theBrokenMuse]

I was going to let this whole thread die down because I'm busy over the next couple of days until I saw this:

Almost every illegitimate argument technique on that link (or at least a whole bunch of em) has been repeated in this thread. I'm tempted to run through and do a thorough taxonomy, but the rational posters already see this and the irrational ones would just continue to revert to form in their posts.

 

The article in that link, while trying to deter people from using some logical fallacies in argumentation (when to it's advantage) flat out ignores the validation of other blatant logical fallacies which are used (such as the hasty generalization fallacy which is given the green light on the basis of "women do it too" which is absurd reasoning if your objective is to create a logically sound argument.)

 

Just to make you aware, you also have been displaying several logical fallacies throughout this thread as well... not just the people you have determined to be irrational (which IS an ad hominem attack against those you have been arguing with.). Most people, including myself as I am surprisingly fallible, will use them regardless of being rational human beings.

[GooseChaser]

I was going to let this whole thread die down because I'm busy over the next couple of days until I saw this:

 

 

The article in that link, while trying to deter people from using some logical fallacies in argumentation (when to it's advantage) flat out ignores the validation of other blatant logical fallacies which are used (such as the hasty generalization fallacy which is given the green light on the basis of "women do it too" which is absurd reasoning if your objective is to create a logically sound argument.)

 

Just to make you aware, you also have been displaying several logical fallacies throughout this thread as well... not just the people you have determined to be irrational (which IS an ad hominem attack against those you have been arguing with.). Most people, including myself as I am surprisingly fallible, will use them regardless of being rational human beings.

I believe that usually when people don't answer things with high consideration to logic, they are answering emotionally instead. With threads like this that stir up emotions, it's not much of a surprise that that would happen, on both sides of the argument.

[meerkat stew]

Just to make you aware, you also have been displaying several logical fallacies throughout this thread as well... not just the people you have determined to be irrational (which IS an ad hominem attack against those you have been arguing with.). Most people, including myself as I am surprisingly fallible, will use them regardless of being rational human beings.

 

No, not correct, despite your capitalizing the word "is." Claiming that someone is irrational or that an irrational person is prone to ignore sound argument is not the ad hominem fallacy, but rather mere expression of one's opinion. Claiming that a particular (or all) argument someone makes is invalid because of a characteristic attributed to them, irrationality for instance, as opposed to arguing against the position itself, would be ad hominem. There is a difference between merely expressing one's opinion and arguing a specific point, just as there is between a definitional statement and a syllogism.

 

Many posters in these types of threads offer nothing other than fallacies in support of their point, and this thread is brimming with fallacies, the entire gender feminist position is usually argued sans any reasoned language whatsoever, which was the whole point of the link that BS76 provided. That blog article, if it could be "de-genderized," would make an -excellent- road map of common discussion mistakes.

 

I have done you and others the courtesy of flagging the fallacious types of argument in this thread as they are dealt with, please do me the same courtesy as opposed to just announcing "you are doing it too." You are incorrect in the "irrational" example, where are others? I use lots of colorful language in expressing my opinions, and can be very sarcastic, those aren't fallacies.

 

Finally, I never said that I'm flawless in argument, especially not here on LS. But that admission means nothing unless you want to address specific points.

Edited September 15, 2010 by meerkat stew

[Mme. Chaucer]

Meerkat Stew;

 

It would take more spare time than I have on my hands today to flag all the examples of fallacious argument / reasoning in your posts here on this thread. We'll just leave it up to the readers and their own discernment. It doesn't take a lawyer or a professional writer to catch them.

 

Speaking just for myself, if I am offended by a post that I perceive as ignorant, bigoted, false, or whatever, I will jump on it, and if I feel it warranted, I will scoff or worse. I don't care whether the poster is male, female or unknown. You can find me doing the exact same thing on another fairly current thread by a woman demonizing men. Racial issues, among others, get the same treatment from me. That's not "employing feminist shaming techniques," or "gender feminism."

 

You have conveniently decided to throw these terms repeatedly at anyone who doesn't agree with your stance, and it has really weakened your position and credibility on this thread.

[theBrokenMuse]

No, not correct, despite your capitalizing the word "is." Claiming that someone is irrational is not the ad hominem fallacy, but rather mere expression of one's opinion.

Quite right. You were not trying to make a point - just taking some personally shots which while tasteless to some, is not a fallacy. When I read it, I misconstrued it to be such because it sounds as if it is an attempt at character assassination in order to make one's arguments defunct, but I realize now that it was a stretch so I take that back and humbly admit I was really reaching. While I do not have the time to go through all the various logical fallacies on the thread, which there are many I noticed that this was one of your responses to an argument from someone who did happen to include an appeal to authority fallacy in her argument and your reply was an Argumentum ad Populum.

 

I give a single example of how normal, sane, unindoctrinated (LOL at your masters colleagues, masters in what praytell?) people naturally understand that generalities include implicit qualifiers.

 

That blog article, if it could be "de-genderized," would make an -excellent- road map of common discussion mistakes.

It would if they didn't give green lights to bad argumentation when it suits us. There are lots of totally unbiased sources on fallacies though.

 

So you are saying that a man who comes here bitter about women and tries to work things out by venting and subjecting his views to an open forum is somehow a "nutter" akin to alien kooks? GUESS WHAT? That's just another illegitiimate argument method cited in the blog article! O sweet irony! But I see, any male issue with women is tinfoil hat talk, yet the cultural bombard men have to put up with telling us we are all child molesters, physically abusive, deadbeat dads, cheaters, dogs, pigs and animals is "proper dialogue?" DO TELL.

 

The above is a Perverted Analogy Fallacy and to be honest this is one of the most common fallacies I see here on LS.

 

I have done you and others the courtesy of flagging the fallacious types of argument in this thread as they are dealt with, please do me the same courtesy as opposed to just announcing "you are doing it too."

Will post more when I have time. Edited September 15, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[meerkat stew]

Meerkat Stew;

 

It would take more spare time than I have on my hands today to flag all the examples of fallacious argument / reasoning in your posts here on this thread. We'll just leave it up to the readers and their own discernment. It doesn't take a lawyer or a professional writer to catch them.

 

Speaking just for myself, if I am offended by a post that I perceive as ignorant, bigoted, false, or whatever, I will jump on it, and if I feel it warranted, I will scoff or worse. I don't care whether the poster is male, female or unknown. You can find me doing the exact same thing on another fairly current thread by a woman demonizing men. Racial issues, among others, get the same treatment from me. That's not "employing feminist shaming techniques," or "gender feminism."

 

You have conveniently decided to throw these terms repeatedly at anyone who doesn't agree with your stance, and it has really weakened your position and credibility on this thread.

 

By all means, make a bunch of conclusory statements with no accompanying reasoning whatsoever, par for the course.

 

Either go through the thread and flag any supposed fallacious reasoning of mine or don't, I don't care which. Until you actually -do- that, though, your "a lawyer or professional writer" pseudo-argument is just more hot air.

 

Nice try at lumping a topic that purports to discuss a particular article on female cheating in with race issues. As they say on Sesame Street, though, "One of these things is not like the other."

 

Say all day that anything I've posted here is weakened due to rightfully calling out shaming and other illegitimate gender feminist argument techniques, shout it til the cows come home, doesn't make it true. Or rather, you could have spent the time you spent making the above post actually addressing something specific I have said, but I understand, that actually takes thought.

 

And generally, threads like this don't have to devolve so. If posters would start out just sticking to the point as opposed to attacking an OP directly, feelings don't get stirred up and all this "he said she said" stuff that doesn't even address the topic needn't ever come up. It's just that certain posters here on LS make the mistake over and over that personal attacks, troll calling, shaming are legitimate tools for discussion.

 

If someone makes a post you don't like, saying things like, "you must have been hurt," "you're just bitter," "you aren't a real man," "you are a troll," blablabla MAKES YOU WORSE THAN THEY ARE. Specific insults directed at a poster are ALWAYS worse than mere generalizations. Specific insults directed at a poster are in fact prohibited by the EULA. Generalizations not rising to the level of hate speech ARE NOT. Fact is, most of the knowledge we learn in life is learned inductively, through generalizations. If you "jump on" positions you don't like by tossing out express personal insults directed at a specific poster or posters personally as opposed to the position they post, you aren't just part of the problem, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. If no one takes anything else away from my posts to this thread, at least take this.

[welikeincrowds]

Here is the difference between us. When I feel that I've been proven wrong regarding my position on something, I change opinion... and apologize if necessary.

 

Is it really required to use derogatory language to describe someone you disagree with? I think that says more about you and the validity of your beliefs than it does about his.

 

I think you'll find that you actually have no idea what my position is, at least within the bounds of this men vs. women argument -- because I never gave one. Instead, I addressed both sides of the argument as ultimately weak and pointless. My very firstsentence is a denouncement of the entire thread -- or have you already forgotten?

 

I don't insult people I disagree with; in fact I hardly insult anyone at all. That's because I don't discuss people -- I discuss arguments. Some positions are so preposterous, so completely inane, that it's only reasonable to treat them that way. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

But interestingly enough, the above is a direct, personal insult directed at me, including a groundless assumption that my opinions stem from some "butthurt." You can find this type of argument on the linked blog, it actually qualifies as several of the different fallacious types of "non-argument."

 

Meerkat, I think you are an intelligent man. You certainly know your way around an argument. I've had the pleasure of reading other posts of yours, in other threads, that I've found to contain wise, sound advice.

 

That is why I find it hard to believe that you would interpret my post as a personal attack. If someone asked me to make an attack on your person, I wouldn't even know where to begin. I don't know where you live, or who you are, or anything about you. In fact, I have nothing to go on but what you say on these boards.

 

So when you call an argument that addresses yours "an attack" -- especially when that argument states that you are not willing to listen to reason, and that you are especially sensitive about the issue such that it causes you to behave irrationally -- how do you suppose you've disproved the notion?

 

On the contrary, you only serve to prove this point, again and again, with your own words.

 

Listen to what? The typical shaming of the male POV by gender feminists? No thanks, I've heard it all before.... for 30 years.

 

I am sorry to hear, meerkat, that you have a 30 year history of feeling shame from the words of a few others (whom you've decided to group under "gender feminists"). Compounding the issue is that you also feel that you represent another group and label of your own doing (the "male POV"). A heavy burden, I am sure. I can't guess what it must feel like to desire to cast off 30 years of shame. It feel similar to a pained butt, I would imagine.

 

And welikeincrowds, I understand why you choose to insult me as opposed to engaging any of the points I've made in this thread. You are at least smart enough to know not to swing a knife at a man holding an AK47. Good on you.

 

Meerkat, I am concerned that you are willing to equate a handful of words on a messageboard with violence. I had no idea that you imagined that your posts were 7.62x39mm rounds, slicing through the heads of these strangers, men and women who are here because they are trying to find love. Maybe you should take it easy, meerkat. Maybe you should walk away from this thread and stick to other ones where you are not so personally invested, and allow your butt to cool. Perhaps afterward, when you no longer possess a hot and flaming rear, you will be able to see it as discussion, rather than a fight.

 

But I suppose you were not the first one to use war-related imagery:

 

Thing is, about that "war," you've had the power of the media and the power of unsavory elements of the government behind you for a long, long time.

 

Behind me? What causes you to say that? On the contrary, you have no idea where I stand, and therefore you misunderstood the meaning of that word. You and I, apparently, have different wars in mind.

 

Do you think it is an accident that such a discussion about cheating would end up on a board about (heterosexual) relationships? But what might any of this have to do with "Dating"? Nothing, meerkat, because it describes the ailing death of the relationship, not the beginning. It's here in this forum because it represents an insecurity many have, one that that treats all people belonging to a gender as a single entity; that assumes that the opposite gender is a conniving one; and thus to interact with "it," through dating, is to gamble with a card shark. It is the fear that you will bet it all and lose, perhaps because you have in the past. Within the context of this messageboard, that fear permeates every part of your position, from its head to its warm and tender butt. Perhaps you could avoid this by keeping such discussions to your local Elks club. I hear they have comfortable seats there, which may temper the pain that rages through your soft and supple cheeks.

[Mme. Chaucer]

welikeincrowds, you fill me with delight!

[meerkat stew]

I noticed that this was one of your responses to an argument from someone who did happen to include an appeal to authority fallacy in her argument and your reply was an Argumentum ad Populum.

 

I give a single example of how normal, sane, unindoctrinated (LOL at your masters colleagues, masters in what praytell?) people naturally understand that generalities include implicit qualifiers.

 

Sorry, but no. I gave a specific example (everyone in my town drives pickup trucks), which you omit above , as analogously supportive of my contention, and could have given many more specific analagous examples, of how implicit qualifiers are understood by an intelligent audience in everyday speech, especially in the types of informal, concatenated speech found on internet forums. Moreover, there are premises implicit in describing forum posting as informal. You may disagree with the analogy stated, or with the "informal" adjective as descriptive or dispositive or anything, but the fact that I offered analogous examples removes my statement from the realm of fallacy.

 

Informal discussion is full of fallacies, the odious instances I decry in this thread are those where there is nothing offered in support of a position or implicit position other than the fallacy itself.

 

And as far as ad populum goes, the statement "we all know the sun rises in the East and sets in the West" is technically an example of it, as is "We all know that Bill is a liar." One instance is benign in that a statement of indisputable fact follows. One instance is not, so as far as that particular fallacy goes, there is a scale of whether it even is truly fallacious reasoning or not, and I submit that the following statement "generalities are usually understood, by an intelligent audience, to contain implicit experiential qualifiers" is much closer to the "sun" side than the "Bill" side.

 

But I see, any male issue with women is tinfoil hat talk, yet the cultural bombard men have to put up with telling us we are all child molesters, physically abusive, deadbeat dads, cheaters, dogs, pigs and animals is "proper dialogue?" DO TELL.

 

The above is a Perverted Analogy Fallacy and to be honest this is one of the most common fallacies I see here on LS.

 

No, this is merely a segue to an admittedly inflammatory statement I want to make that begins with the word "yet," not an argument that the previous analogy is inapt merely because of what men have been bombarded with. I had no need to make an argument, as the prior statement analogizing men's posts here to "nutcase" posts elsewhere is not itself even an argument, just raw, fallacious shaming.

 

Will post more when I have time.

 

Do as you like, but if you can't do a better job than the above, I won't reply further.

[Chicago_Guy]

I saw this debate kind of developing in another thread and rather than do a complete threadjack I thought I would just open up a new place for this discussion. Here is a news article discussing the lack of overall fidelity found in American Women.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2004/07/11/the-secret-lives-of-wives.html

 

It tries to be a bit salacious and upbeat, but it pretty much fits the overall experience of living in the U.S. I don't really see as there being a debate here. I love my country... and I've met a lot of great women here. However as sad as it is, for the most part they are all amoral cheats compared to women in other countries.

 

Now... I can already hear the cries of "men cheat too", and that's a valid point, but men in the U.S. already cheat at lower rates than men in other countries... while the women there commit adultery at a MUCH lower rate. (I'm excluding Western Europe)

 

Also... I don't think women in the U.S. are good mothers. I think that one might be worth debating.

 

I think that there are lots of good women in the U.S. However, there are also lots of self-centered ones who only care about themselves. Articles like the one you linked remind men why they should avoid promiscuous women as I would bet those are the ones most likely to cheat.

[meerkat stew]

I hear they have comfortable seats there, which may temper the pain that rages through your soft and supple cheeks.

 

Do you always center your attempts at discussions on men's asses with all the evocative "butthurt" type talk? You seem fixated on my "soft and supple cheeks" for some reason. Why is that? You aren't subtly asking me to participate in a homosexual act, are you? If so I apologize for not getting it, as am middle aged and not in touch with gay slang. I do appreciate the compliment, but don't go that way, sorry. I'm sure you will find someone, keep looking, he's out there. Maybe go tap your foot at a reststop or something.

 

Or is it some WoW type gaming term, "butthurt?" Are you inviting me to duel with your level 45 orcish wizard or somesuch? Should I say "crymoar," or "umadbro," or "stfunoob" in response? Sorry again, I don't play Xbox or video games, so don't know exactly how to respond. Do you know any other languages perhaps, "adult" for example? or "people who make sense?" Can you communicate in either of those dialects? Or wait, I remember, ahhh...

 

kthxbye.

[JL Hancock]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Where I am from, divorce until very recently, was not allowed. This did not mean it could not be had. It only meant that it could not be had for poor people. The rich could go get it in another country. For the poor people, they would announce that they did not accept their wife and had found another to be considered by the community to be the new wife. This was acceptable for a man but not a woman. Women knew this and would continue to try to turn their husband back to them or be silent and alone. Husbands could cheat. They would sometimes have babies with other women, or move away with no word. There was no legal action for the wife of a man like this. There was no legal action for a poor husband of a woman like this, but it was acceptable to beat her or kill her to get his pride back. This is not only the past I speak of but how it is even today. Men have killed their wife over cheating or the appearance of cheating and found legal protection for their passionate retaliation.[/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]My family is not poor but also not rich. Where I lived is called rural, but it is not very far from a city. My father is a kind man and has been my teacher from boyhood to manhood. I am blessed to have him for he is very different to most men of my country. I have a happy mother and I love her very much. I also love my two sisters. I’ve watched them grow to be of an age to marry soon. I have worried for them because it would be difficult for them to find a man like our father at home. I hoped they would go to a better country like the US to find kinder husbands.[/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I came to the US for schooling and to learn English. I am the eldest and missed out on parts of my education to help with my family. I was not exposed to English as much for this reason. I am a smart man and I am learning quickly. As I learn, I see things are much different here from what I had hoped.[/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I know now that the US has not always been “The land of the free” for everyone. What I have learned is the US use to be very much like my own country with women and poor families, but also with new people and new citizens. I see men treat other men with no respect when one is poor or does not speak English well. I understand English better than I seem to but often I am treated as a child by other men. This makes me not like a man who can act this way. Sometimes I see and hear men treat women this way even if the woman speaks English and was born here. I am use to this from men of my country but I did not expect it to be the way here where women get more education and are considered equal. [/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Here, women were once without equality and men were like men from my country. I learned that women were given equality over time and in small changes, but never fully given equality by law until this country had a war where you needed women to become equal. You had commonly kept them as children are kept and then rested the full weight of being an equal adult on them only because it served your country. Some women were not treated this way but it was not as common. After many generations of being like men of my own country you did this and you did not expect retaliation? You did this and continued to behave like men from my country and still you did not expect retaliation? I see what you have done and now that my country has divorce, you will see it happen there too. It is the way of things. A child is seen as a child by its parents. The child grows to adulthood and sometimes parents do not see that they still treat them as a child. The child has to grow bold and angry to make the parents see that to treat them as a child is not right. They have to treat the parents sometimes as a child so that they may feel the anger it makes. And they have to do this while still learning what it is to be an adult. This is not smart. I watched my brother try to break a horse for saddle. He grew angry from the horse bucking and thought to put nails in the saddle to pierce when it bucked. It only made the horse refuse the saddle and buck before he sat. A horse is not a man but it is not dumb. My brother thought because it is a horse and he is a man, he would trick it. My father told him he only proved to the horse how dumb a man can be. It took my father a year to get the horse to trust again. He had to make the horse like to take a saddle. [/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]So now I worry again for my sisters. I come on here to practice my English and find a group of men speaking about women of their own country with anger. You don’t like women showing the men how the way men act makes anger within them grow. You’ve shown women that being with means you cheat and are not punished. You are as my brother and think of women as he thought of the horse. Now women are with equality and many only recognize it this way. They think respect must be forced and taken. They are equal to men now so that means they are to cheat and lie and nothing should be done about it because nothing was done to men when they cheat and lie. Men here say they don’t like that and women only do it this way because they are of the US. This is not to be true. You want to bring women like my sisters here because you think they will allow you to treat them like children and not grow angry. Now that divorce is allowed in my country, watch how angry they can grow! You don’t like the way things are with men and women in your country and you helped make the problem but you don’t want to help fix it. You would put nails in a saddle. Or with your money would go to my country and find new women. Soon, the women found there will be as women in the US. They will do as the women did in the US and fight for equality. They will be equal to what men have always been. You should not have taught them with actions you don’t like. You should have been like my father before giving equality. [/FONT][/sIZE]

[sIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I tried to share this with you in my words, but my words were not clear and you did not hear. We have been making what is called an essay in class. It is about what we found here that is different from what we expected. This is my essay and it was inspired by your words. We are working with third year US students who are learning our native language for this assignment. I am graded on expression and so my teacher can know how well I am learning English and he will be graded on what is called translation. I hope it is better for understanding my words. I wanted to share it before I turn it to my teacher tomorrow.[/FONT][/sIZE]

[theBrokenMuse]

Sorry, but no. I gave a specific example (everyone in my town drives pickup trucks), which you omit above

Her post was a rebuttal as to why your example was a inept comparison and offering the paraphrased equivalent of "anyone with intelligence would accept this argument as sound" in order to dismiss the rebuttal to her questioning the comparison you used is a fallacy.

 

Moreover, there are premises implicit in describing forum posting as informal.

Informal discussion is full of fallacies, the odious instances I decry in this thread are those where there is nothing offered in support of a position or implicit position other than the fallacy itself.

And if it's an informal conversation which means we should be okay with fallacies then you shouldn't feel the need to decry any that come from your opposition yet you use this tactic to try and belittle your opposition with claims of irrationality as backed up by a dubious article.

 

I had no need to make an argument, as the prior statement analogizing men's posts here to "nutcase" posts elsewhere is not itself even an argument, just raw, fallacious shaming.

No. You conflated and twisted the analogy out of the REAL context of which was saying that if even the biggest crazies out there have a home on the web then surely there should be no problem for anti-feminists, anti-male or whatever crowd it is a person belongs to to find a suitable place to post such things instead of having a massive circle jerk here into the strawman which was presented AND on top of that you are going to state that it wasn't even an actual argument you were responding to, just raw, fallacious shaming so therefore it doesn't count as a fallacy?

 

Do as you like, but if you can't do a better job than the above, I won't reply further.

Don't reply further. It's obvious to me at least, that talking to you further is as utterly pointless as chatting up an inanimate object. Edited September 15, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[meerkat stew]

Her post was a rebuttal

 

No it wasn't, just a bald negation, which as I recall, hamhandedly equated generalizing about women based on one's actual experience with racial slurs. She gave no reason why my pickup truck analogy was inapt, just made a conclusory statement. That isn't a rebuttal.

 

And if it's an informal conversation which means we should be okay with fallacies then you shouldn't feel the need to decry any that come from your opposition yet you use this tactic to try and belittle your opposition with claims of irrationality as backed up by a dubious article.

 

There's a difference between a fallacious component in an argument that contains other substance and a bald fallacy with nothing else. The latter is what I tend to call people out on.

 

And if you wanted to argue the dubiousness of the article, why haven't you spent your time doing so as opposed to making ridiculous claims that threads like this one should be censored on their face merely because you don't like them?

 

No. You conflated and twisted the analogy out of the REAL context of which was saying that if even the biggest crazies out there have a home on the web then surely there should be no problem for anti-feminists, anti-male or whatever crowd it is a person belongs to to find a suitable place to post such things instead of having a massive circle jerk here into the strawman which was presented AND on top of that you are going to state that it wasn't even an actual argument you were responding to, just raw, fallacious shaming so therefore it doesn't count as a fallacy?

 

Translated as "I don't like it, let's censor it! keep those crazies (the ones I don't agree with anyway) out of the dating board on a forum called "Loveshack." You don't want to hear anything that isn't affirming of women, your own POV, or that calls women's attitudes into question, and as opposed to just admitting that, you typify any male position that doesn't agree with you as "crazy talk."

 

If -you- want to peddle that kind of sentiment, there are PLENTY of highly moderated, deathly boring forums out there where women sit around and back pat each other. Ironic that you mention the term "circle-jerk" as that is EXACTLY what goes on on the average highly moderated women's forums out there. Thank GOD LS is different.

 

The existence of perpetual shaming and generalizing of men in the media for the last 30 years is a well-documented fact, not an argument or an assertion. Said before, it was a segue, not an attempt at a dispositive argument.

[welikeincrowds]

Do you always center your attempts at discussions on men's asses with all the evocative "butthurt" type talk? You seem fixated on my "soft and supple cheeks" for some reason. Why is that? You aren't subtly asking me to participate in a homosexual act, are you? If so I apologize for not getting it, as am middle aged and not in touch with gay slang. I do appreciate the compliment, but don't go that way, sorry. I'm sure you will find someone, keep looking, he's out there. Maybe go tap your foot at a reststop or something.

 

Or is it some WoW type gaming term, "butthurt?" Are you inviting me to duel with your level 45 orcish wizard or somesuch? Should I say "crymoar," or "umadbro," or "stfunoob" in response? Sorry again, I don't play Xbox or video games, so don't know exactly how to respond. Do you know any other languages perhaps, "adult" for example? or "people who make sense?" Can you communicate in either of those dialects? Or wait, I remember, ahhh...

 

kthxbye.

 

Meerkat, I don't know why you decided to go the personal insult route. Isn't that what you accused me of doing? I must admit I am disappointed. Not just because your response was replete with homophobia, but because I was hoping for your proof that I had read you incorrectly, and that you weren't at all butthurt, and that your arguments were instead founded in reason. Sadly, all you can seem to confirm is that you are merely, indeed, injured in the rear with regards to this topic.

 

It has been wonderful speaking with you, and I look forward to doing it again in another, more reasonable thread in the future.

[meerkat stew]

Meerkat, I don't know why you decided to go the personal insult route.

 

Man, you go on and on about my butt, "butthurt this," "supple cheeks that," oh wait, sorry, it was "soft and supple cheeks." It's a real theme with you, 10+ times in this thread. Not intended as an insult at all, unless you think there's something insulting about sexual preference, but maybe you just need to do some introspection about why you are so preoccupied with my butt?

 

No idea where you get that somehow -your- constant butt references make -me- homophobic?!?. Seriously, it's why I gave you the videogame out, in case you were actually gay and just didn't realize the gayness was spilling over into your posts subconsciously. I know nothing about you other than what you post here after all.

 

you weren't at all butthurt, and that your arguments were instead founded in reason. Sadly, all you can seem to confirm is that you are merely, indeed, injured in the rear

 

Two more times? You can't help yourself even after having it called to your attention? You haven't even seen my butt, yet can't stop with the "butt" talk? I would tell you to think "long and hard" about this, but I guess you would take that the wrong way somehow, might even incite you? I swear I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. Oops, my bad!

 

Brokenmuse, was it the barren void of substance in his posts that was "filling you with delight?" Or rather all the talk about my butt? Because when you go back and look, his entire contribution to this thread is just a continuous meditation on and homage to my butt. What's up with that? Are you hooked on my butt too?

[A O]

Meerkat, I don't know why you decided to go the personal insult route. Isn't that what you accused me of doing?

Given that not only have you gotten personal with him, but shamed him to high heaven then his response is understandable. And your behavior contradictory to say the least!

 

I think you'll find that you actually have no idea what my position is, at least within the bounds of this men vs. women argument -- because I never gave one. Instead, I addressed both sides of the argument as ultimately weak and pointless

Your position is to comment on the behavior of others. The subject matter, the gist of this thread is as you say - weak and pointless, henceforth, that leaves only one reason for you being here – to comment on the behavior (or position) of others. By definition that means you have to get personal, which again, is contrary to your statement that you discuss arguments rather than people.

 

No one in the right mind would discuss arguments that they’ve already declared to be weak and pointless after all!

 

I don't insult people I disagree with; in fact I hardly insult anyone at all. That's because I don't discuss people -- I discuss arguments. Some positions are so preposterous, so completely inane, that it's only reasonable to treat them that way. Wouldn't you agree?

You’ve found at least one stance here to be so inane that without doubt, you’ve decided to treat it as such but you failed to separate that stance from the person involved in the process. Instead, you took that stance and made a condescending conclusion on how that poster must feel or has felt over a period of time.

 

It is the fear that you will bet it all and lose, perhaps because you have in the past. Within the context of this messageboard, that fear permeates every part of your position, from its head to its warm and tender butt. Perhaps you could avoid this by keeping such discussions to your local Elks club. I hear they have comfortable seats there, which may temper the pain that rages through your soft and supple cheeks.

More shaming (indirect insults) and condescension from a poster who purports to not go there

 

Sadly, all you can seem to confirm is that you are merely, indeed, injured in the rear with regards to this topic.

And one more snippet from the poster who purports to discuss arguments rather than people!

 

For the record - this thread doesn't do a lot for me but a will highlight behavior, especially inconsistent behavior, when I come across it.

 

 

.

[rlindzie]

 

Women here don't like their children... they complain all day about how terrible the kids are... want time for themselves instead. I don't think you know many... they are very very selfish. It gets worse with each new generation. Not sure where it will lead... but I think it may look much like what the African American community faces today.

 

Please, please do tell me what you know about what African Americans are facing today? Are you saying that African Amercans dont like thier children? Are you saying African Americans are bad parents? Please bc no one had questioned you about this enlighten me who happens to be African American [as well as Latino] what you mean by this? Are you not only anit-women but also a biggot???

[meerkat stew]

Are you not only anit-women but also a biggot???

 

Ooo, shame via "race card" tie-in. Interesting, that one isn't even on the list yet.

[GooseChaser]

Why all the fighting and attacks, guys? I'm sure we can have a nice, civilized chat about this.

 

Why can't we be friends

Why can't weee be friends

Why can't we be friiiiiends

 

Hakuna Matata

What a wonderful phrase

Hakuna Matata

Ain't no past craze

It means no worries

For the rest of your days

It's our problem-freeeeee

Philosophyyyy

Hakuna Matata

[GooseChaser]

That is such BS that women lie more about cheating then men. That can't even be counted as an argument and it can't be proven....because it absolutely isn't true.

Agreed! It's all just speculation here.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Please, please do tell me what you know about what African Americans are facing today? Are you saying that African Amercans dont like thier children? Are you saying African Americans are bad parents? Please bc no one had questioned you about this enlighten me who happens to be African American [as well as Latino] what you mean by this? Are you not only anit-women but also a biggot???

 

Not to mention that he is speaking about American women to begin with. Are African American women not part of the general population of American women? Or, in the world of the OP, does the "African American community" exist completely outside of the general community of Americans?

 

That really struck me, too.

 

And quit with the "race card" crap. Whenever someone does or says anything, no matter how blatantly racist, there is this outcry of "they're pulling the race card" now. Who's responsible for this? Glenn Beck? Racism exists. The OP made a racist comment. Racism gets called out by people who don't like it.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Ooo, shame via "race card" tie-in. Interesting, that one isn't even on the list yet.

 

Haha. Well, now I feel much better, since I've figured out you're joking! Shame via race card tie in? Haha. Sheesh, folks, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!

[OliveOyl]

Women here don't like their children... they complain all day about how terrible the kids are... want time for themselves instead. I don't think you know many... they are very very selfish. It gets worse with each new generation. Not sure where it will lead... but I think it may look much like what the African American community faces today.

 

Don't go there.