dispatch3d Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 You don't have to. However when people like the OP and Mme. Chaucer insist on resorting to constant ridicule and insult I am certainly entitled to take issue with that in as much detail as might be necessary. Is your strategy working though? I think your last post was a little over the top. Why bother proving her wrong? What the hells the point? She's obviously not going to enjoy you showing her how dumb she is. Maybe if you presented things in a way that were more neutral they wouldn't take such offense. Am I repeating myself or are you the one who said neutral is fine but I don't enjoy being attacked? Whose winning the hypocrisy war now? Or wait, I see, your justified in shooting down everything she says because she did it first?
Woggle Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 acid does make people hallucinate. That is funny since I don't drop acid. I am not saying that there are no bitter men on here because there most certainly are but things go both ways. If anybody shows me respect man or woman I will show them respect back but when I see my gender getting insulted I do want to have their back.
D-Jam Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I love women. I just don't like shallow immature girls with unrealistic expectations.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Please stop stalking me. Surely you have better things to do. Haha! STALKING you? You are omnipresent here! To avoid you I'd have to leave LS altogether. I'm not ready to do that simply on your account.
TheMENemy Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Is your strategy working though? You think I have a "strategy"? You'd be wrong about that. I read posts, and when I feel like it, I respond to them. I think your last post was a little over the top. You're entitled to your opinion. What you haven't done though is point out anything I've actually written that is unfair or incorrect. Why bother proving her wrong? It's up to you to decide which points you agree with or disagree with. What the hells the point? That's for each person to decide for themselves. That would be like me asking "what's the point" for your post to which I'm now responding. Obviously you think you had a reason for posting. I don't need to know what it is, you don't have to justify it to me, nor do I expect you to. If you feel what I post is completely meaningless and you get nothing out of it, that's fine. Just skip my posts and move on to the next without reading them. I'm O.K. with that. She's obviously not going to enjoy you showing her how dumb she is. OK this allows me to perhaps clarify my POV a little bit. You just implied that I called the OP "dumb" and am trying to prove that assertion. That's unfair to her, and it's unfair to me, since I never called her dumb or unintelligent or implied a lack of intelligence on her part. So what really irks me, if anything, and makes me want to post, is this kind of distortion and straw-man making. When you (or anyone) completely mischaracterize what I said, or when anyone does, in order to make some kind of a point, there's a value (to me, anyway) of establishing accuracy. So fine. If you want to criticize me for something I may have written here, do so. But please don't criticize me for something I didn't write at all. Maybe if you presented things in a way that were more neutral they wouldn't take such offense. Why should I present things in a "neutral" way when I have a specific POV I want to express? I'm not obligated to be "neutral." I am obligated to try to be fair and not to misstate another poster's opinions, not deliberately anyway. I am obligated not to engage in gratuitous name calling such as "troll" this or "troll" that. I am obligated not to gratuitously enter a thread solely for the purpose of casting insult and aspersion on another poster. So, I don't do those things. I'm not particularly concerned if other people claim they take "offense" because I'm very careful to try to direct my comments to the precise issues presented or an enlargement of the discussion. Claiming "offense" is the converse of ad hominem attacks--it's stuff not directed to the merits of the discussion because the person doing it lacks a valid argument. I'm not responsible for other people's irrationality or emotionalism. Nor do I particularly care about it. Now, on the other hand, if you sincerely believe that something I have posted is "offensive" to you, you are certainly entitled to that opinion; but basic fairness would demand that you actually tell me what I've posted, specficially, that is offensive to you. That gives me a chance to either explain what I meant, correct what I said, if in error; or if need be, apologize if I have unfairly "offended" you. (Such as by calling you "troll" repeatedly, which I obviously did not, but which others have done to me in this thread.) But you didn't do that, did you? Rather than actually posting something that you really believe is "offensive" to you, written by me, you simply toss it up into the air that others think I am offensive. You mean the same "others" who called me a "troll"? If you are so gosh darned worried about people offending other people here, then your comments should be directed at the poster who called me a "troll." At least three times. Your comments should also be directed at another poster who entered the thread only to insult and heckle me. But no--you didn't do that. Why not? You don't have to answer to me; you do have to answer for yourself. Am I repeating myself or are you the one who said neutral is fine but I don't enjoy being attacked? I have no idea what you're talking about now. Direct your comments to those posters who deliberately sought to insult me. Whose winning the hypocrisy war now? I will point out irrationality and emotionalism wherever I see it, and regardless of gender. I suggest that if you have a specific objection to something I have actually written, rather than waste your time with this kind of post in the future, you simply quote me and state why you object to the thing you have quoted. Or wait, I see, your justified in shooting down everything she says because she did it first? I did not shoot down everything she said. I basically agreed with her very first post in this thread. That apparently got the OP very upset because her first post was insincere. That's not my fault. After that, the OP chose to go into "personal attack" mode. If you don't like that type of thing, take it up with the person responsible: OP.
TheMENemy Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Haha! STALKING you? You are omnipresent here! To avoid you I'd have to leave LS altogether. I'm not ready to do that simply on your account. Chaucer, when the sole purpose of your posting in a thread is to make ad hominem attacks on another poster--which you clearly did to me earlier in this thread--and as far as I can recall, you did not even participate earlier in the thread--and have repeatedly done this in other threads--then it does mean you have carried things to an unfortunate extreme.
hydorclops Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I think about the women I've worked with, dozens of women with great ability and character, pleasant and fun to be around. I think about the women I see when I go out, dozens of ridiculously attractive and appealing women everywhere. But over the years I've learned that I have to protect myself when I'm around women. I don't have the right to behave the way some men do. I don't have the "stuff", whatever it is, that makes it OK to flirt. If I'm around women that like me, I have to be careful not to spoil their fantasy that I'm asexual. There's something wrong with me. I don't like it. There are other men just like me. You tell me. Do I really like women?
TheMENemy Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 No, I like people who aren't bigoted. Me, too. I happen to be progessive but I have no problem with conservatives. Your general political views are of course completely irrelevant to this thread, but what you just said is a highly unlikely statement. I happen to not be religious but I have no problem with those who are religious. I have friends who are in both these groups. Unfortunately it is impossible to judge how you really behave "in real life" just because you may have chosen to make these claims about your real life behavior, here. All anyone on the internet can judge you by, is how you behave on the internet. Everyone can read and will decide for themselves, and that's the way it should be. What I have a problem with is bigotry. Good for you. Actually, I'm fine with any given human being disliking me. Lots of people just don't connect. Again, good for you. Not really pertinent to the subject of this thread, though. In fact all you've been doing is making unprovable claims about what a great person you are. You may in fact be great in real life, but there's no way to tell, and whether you are or are not a great person in real life has no bearing on the force or validity of the arguments you choose to make in an internet discussion forum. What I'm not okay with is men bashing women, women bashing men, Whites bashing Blacks, christians bashing Jews, etc. Again: your generalized political views aren't especially pertinent to the subject of this thread, which alternately according to you is "do most men here at LS seem to dislike women?" in the general case, which has been thoroughly disproved by the responses you've gotten. Another version that you've put forth of why you posted in the first place was "I wanted to see what the woman-haters would say," which is not the same thing as what your thread title is. The thread title and first post makes an assertion but is open minded to the possibility that your perception might not be an accurate one. However, your "real" reason for posting was simply to promulgate your bias that most of the men at LS are "women haters." A clue to this "real" motivation for starting this thread is the last sentence of your first post, which is just a variation on the "you're not a real man" trope that is sometimes tossed around, directed at men who post at LS. It is not a high bar to expect people to contain their dislike to individuals without generalizing to everyone with the same sexual equipment or skin color. The problem with saying this now is that your first post, itself, is a huge generalization. You made the generalization that a majority of men at LS are essentially bitter women haters. However you were clever enough not to come straight out and say that directly in your first post, but now you have admitted that your objective was to draw out the "women haters." What you did was to conceal a pre-existing bias, reflecting itself in a completely unjustified generalization that you made about the men at Love Shack. You generalized based on their "equipment." When this was pointed out to you earlier in the thread, you basically decided to start attacking me personally, and you haven't stopped since. Calling you a troll isn't irrational at all. I rationally look at what you most, your willful twisting of people's words, your repeated attempts to undermine women, and I see someone who is sad and just trying to stir up trouble. Calling me a "troll" is certainly insulting, deliberately intended to insult me, and I suspect intended to provoke. No it's not "irrational" in the sense that you have a deliberate reason for insulting me and repeatedly insulting me. But it is "irrational" in the sense that your characterization of me is completely reflective of a gender bias and prejudice which you claim to perceive in men. The "irrationality" is that you don't even seem to recognize that every time you call me a "troll," you undercut your own supposed argument. In the same way that Mme. Chaucer undercut it, when she entered this thread solely to make personal attacks upon me. Here are a few example: I said trying to "errod[e] whatever little self-esteem she has left" was emotional abuse and that "there isn't anything wrong with 'a guy flooding a woman with false compliments in the hope of getting into her pants.' It might not be the best strategy for every woman, but it isn't designed to be hurtful." Your response was That is trolling. It is ignoring my point and trying to make it something completely different. It's interesting that you're now so bereft of justification for what you're doing, that you are pulling material from completely separate discussions to continue your irrelevant personal attacks. However it's also quite illuminating that what you would pick to quote from another thread is a perfect example of an irrational and/or hypocritical approach to relations between the sexes, on your part. You believe that a man's lying to a woman to induce her to have sex with her is ethically acceptable and has zero negative impact on her self esteem, and that's just....irrational. There's simply no other word for it and it's just a very sad thing that you can't see that, given that you've postured yourself here as an "alpha defender of women." No one who really cared about women, no one who really cared about relations between men and women, no one who really cared about honesty and integrity, would openly endorse the practice of men deliberately and repeatedly lying to women simply in order to deceive the woman into having sex with the man. As I said: I am fully content to let our respective words speak for our arguments. I don't need to post my supposed "real life resume", as you have done. The words and attitudes we present will stand or fall on their own. It doesn't really matter if you claim to be a supporter of the rights of women in real life, when you're openly advocating that it's OK for men to deceive women to induce them to have a sexual relationship. That attitude, those words, speak for themselves. Irrational would be if I called you a warlock. I haven't seen you do any magic after all but I have seen you troll. When you are done with all your name calling, leaving that legacy of yourself, you will also have left your legacy as a person who actually is on record as stating that deliberate deception in relationships is appropriate. I really don't and you don't have any evidence that I do. Shocking as this might be, I don't run into people like you much. Again, I think most men are decent. I don't know who you do and who you don't "run into." I imagine you filter things out that you disagree with in real life just as much if not moreso than you do on the internet. Many people behave that way, and they're welcome to it. I am logical and I do not think that most men dislike women. I think in real life, most men like women. I think of these board, a lot of men dislike women. Most of the men on Love Shack clearly do not "dislike [all, or even most] women." There is absolutely no real objective basis for you to have made that assertion in the first place. Again, you are free to dislike me but saying I'm irrational just reflects poorly on you. I never said I disliked you. I don't know you. I hold no emotional feelings one way or the other towards you. What I said is that if it seems to you that certain men dislike certain women, it is because of the behaviors of those women towards those men, and also stated that IMO opinion, you were exhibiting, both in this thread and in others, behaviors characteristic of many women which many men dislike in women. And plenty of men like me, this was never about me being sad that men don't like me. This was about me being sick of woman hating drivel on this site. Then why didn't you honestly post that as the thread title, or at least somewhere in the original post? Why the need for any subterfuge? Most men, in real life, AND on Love Shack, do NOT post generalized "woman hating drivel." Some do. The VAST majority do not. The problem is that you're perceiving disagreements on complicated relationship issues as personal attacks. On you. Or, on women in general, which you interpret as personal attacks on you. Other posters have made the observation that this is true of many women who post at Love Shack, so it's not something that's limited to you personally. Nope. For the thousandth time, I don't dislike men. Yes, I know you keep saying that. But what others have to judge by is not just your insistence that something is true, but whether it actually appears to be them to be true. I started this thread to see what the woman haters would say and because I think the decent guys generally avoid the woman hating threads, making the whole place seem out of wack. That may be your "real" reason for having started the thread, but it's certainly not what your first post purports to be about. If you start a thread whose literal purpose is to attempt to "draw out" a whole category of persons--most of the men at Love Shack, according to you, who are the supposed "women haters"--just so you can castigate them, but mask your true intentions in more even handed, ambiguous language--as you clearly did--how is that not literally a "troll", according to the accepted internet definition? It is like you don't even read my posts. Really?
dispatch3d Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Menemy, I do not doubt your ability to construct an arguement that is more congruent, underlined by more fundamental assumptions, and is less full of holes than mine. I further do not doubt your ability to shoot holes in any arguement that I put forth. However, your problem is you see everything as a two sided street where you have to "prove yourself right". I'm sure law works like that, and cool good for law. However, if you want to influence people then all you really give a **** about is the outcome of what you do or say. Are these people being pursuaded by your view or not? Most certainly they are not. They continue to argue, make more threads working against you, and further defend their points. When you succeed in winning your "argument" they resent you for it. Instead of figuring out why your side is right with my first message, you would do much better to figure out why I am saying the things I am saying, and why I am directing my "harshness" or criticisms at you. The other offenders in this thread have already been MORE THAN brought to justice by you. Good job. I just wish instead of you bringing people to justice, that you presented arguments that were MORE PERSUASIVE and LESS ARUGMENTATIVE. Sure, a third party (judge) would pick your method over mine. But if you are trying to sway people to your way of thinking, or make them rethink their strategies in life, then you aren't making as much progress as you could be. That really is the goal of self-help sites. If you went to a psychologist do you think they would argue how your stupid/wrong/have poor thought processes? No, they wouldn't operate from that framework at all. I realize I'm not answering any of your questions, but that's mostly because they are seeded or framed in an argument frame/perspective. I apologize for that.
Pyro Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 That is funny since I don't drop acid. I am not saying that there are no bitter men on here because there most certainly are but things go both ways. If anybody shows me respect man or woman I will show them respect back but when I see my gender getting insulted I do want to have their back. I suggest you read posts that you respond to at least twice. No one is denying that there are both men and women on here who are irrational and bitter with their views towards the opposite sex. My point was that the men outnumber the women on here. The ridiculous number of threads made in the last couple of days is more than enough proof. So you are saying that regardless if the views are irrational, out of line, absured, or degrading that you will take the persons side just because they are male? Glad to see you are working on improving yourself. Should be anyday now before you see things from a balanced, rational, and unbiased point of view.
Mme. Chaucer Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 In defense of the OP, I would like to point out, from her original post (and context does not alter the meaning of the quotes, as any reader can see for her/himself: reading these posts I see so many men who seem to dislike most women. I don't think the guys here are representative because I don't think most men dislike women. And an example of TheMENenemy's "deconstruction," where he tries to dismantle her point by completely ignoring and misconstruing what she said in her original post. If anyone actually reads his, um, whatever, they will also see that what he loves to term "ad hominem attacks" are rampant. "You are completely illogical" is just one tiny example: You are completely illogical. Your contention is that most men dislike women. How anyone can admire his ability of crafting am argument in his typical posts is far beyond me. As OP said, it's like he does not even read the original post before he delves in with his contentions. Nevertheless, he ends up dominating a huge quantity of threads. If I were to guess, the guy had a little bit of law school in his distant past and is trying to trot out and shine up his ... skills. On the other hand, The MENenemy under all his dozens of monikers occasionally says something hilarious. I just wish the mean spirited, clunky and boring diatribes would go away.
reservoirdog1 Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Vincent: You do like women? Julius: Very much so. They're strange and sensitive. They have compassion. I have the highest respect for women! Vincent: You're a virgin! -- "Twins" :lmao:
TheMENemy Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Menemy, I do not doubt your ability to construct an arguement that is more congruent, underlined by more fundamental assumptions, and is less full of holes than mine. I further do not doubt your ability to shoot holes in any arguement that I put forth. That depends upon the quality of the argument you put forth. If it makes sense to me, I won't shoot holes in it, I'll agree with it. Try it sometimes--you might just like it! However, your problem is you see everything as a two sided street where you have to "prove yourself right". Again, that depends upon whatever the issue is, and how it's been presented. I'm sure law works like that, and cool good for law. However, if you want to influence people then all you really give a **** about is the outcome of what you do or say. I have no illusions about my ability to "influence" some people who, IMO, are not receptive to different opinions. However unlike many other people, I don't view public discussions on a public forum as a private discussion. Because it's not. I assume that many many more people read the discussions on a forum like this then ever choose to participate. In this case, we had the initial poster who made the absolutely defamatory assertion, completely unsupported by any facts, that the majority of male posters at Love Shack were bitter "women haters." From my POV, and as I believe is reflected in the entire thread, her perception is more a function of her own gender bias (which she refuses to acknowledge) than of any objective reality. The original poster also claimed that LS men were "not like" ordinary men. This is just another way of stating "LS men are not 'real men.'" No, I don't really think there's much chance of persuading the OP of even the possibility that she may be wrong in this. It doesn't matter what I say; it doesn't matter what you say; it doesn't matter what anyone else says. But I'm not posting to persuade her, that would be a complete waste of time. Are these people being pursuaded by your view or not? Most certainly they are not. They continue to argue, make more threads working against you, and further defend their points. When you succeed in winning your "argument" they resent you for it. I have no idea who is and is not being persuaded and don't really care. All I can do is present my viewpoint, as everyone else does, then it's up to each individual to take what works and discard the rest. But sometimes a seed has to be planted for a long long time before it takes root. That doesn't mean we stop planting seeds, does it? Instead of figuring out why your side is right with my first message, you would do much better to figure out why I am saying the things I am saying, and why I am directing my "harshness" or criticisms at you. If you are asking me to figure it out, then my opinion is that you perceive yourself as part of "the social group," and it is more important to you to have and maintain whatever degree of social validation you get by remaining a member of the social group then it is to actually resolve an issue in dispute via logical and rational discussion. Just my opinion. But you asked. The other offenders in this thread have already been MORE THAN brought to justice by you. Good job. I just wish instead of you bringing people to justice, that you presented arguments that were MORE PERSUASIVE and LESS ARUGMENTATIVE. You post your way, I'll post mine, thanks. Sure, a third party (judge) would pick your method over mine. Missing the point entirely I'm afraid. I pick my way. You pick yours. Someone else gets to pick whatever way suits them. If it's not my way, I can certainly live with that. But if you are trying to sway people to your way of thinking, or make them rethink their strategies in life, then you aren't making as much progress as you could be. That really is the goal of self-help sites. If you went to a psychologist do you think they would argue how your stupid/wrong/have poor thought processes? No, they wouldn't operate from that framework at all. I'm not a psychologist. I don't claim to give "psychological advice." This is an internet discussion forum, that's all, and while I haven't read all the fine print I am quite sure that Love Shack doesn't claim to be giving anyone any kind of "psychological" advice. I am here to participate in discussions as I see fit. So is everyone else, including you. If what I say seems agreeable to lots of other people, great, what an ego boost. If it does not seem agreeable to a single other person, I will say it anyway if I believe it to be the right thing to say. I believe that my viewpoint, and my way of expressing it, which is obviously pretty much completely different from a lot of other people, has validity. You don't have to. That doesn't bother me one bit. When I stop thinking that I have anything worth while to say, then I will stop saying it. Because I think so. Not because you think so. I realize I'm not answering any of your questions, but that's mostly because they are seeded or framed in an argument frame/perspective. I apologize for that. Please don't argue with me and then chastise me for being argumentative.
Green Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I like looking at women. And my gf is really great. But many women are anoying to work with. Getting in an argument with a woman is always interesting because of their tendancy to cry infront of you. As a man I only believe in makeing true one on one friends with other men as I also think its inapropriate to go out to alone dinners or movies or just plain hang out with another woman alone if you are in a comitted relationship. I often feel that the OP hates men as she argues about so much and makes threads like these.
hydorclops Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 As far as the menemy goes, I kind of get where he's coming from, but I've never gone through one of his page long posts. Why do so many women engage so thoroughly and intensely with him? They not only read his stuff, they deconstruct it and reply in depth. I can rarely tell if anyone even reads my short posts.
donnamaybe Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 some kind of hopeless kaboose to my penis. Now THAT'S funny!
TouchedByViolet Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 As far as the menemy goes, I kind of get where he's coming from, but I've never gone through one of his page long posts. Why do so many women engage so thoroughly and intensely with him? They not only read his stuff, they deconstruct it and reply in depth. I can rarely tell if anyone even reads my short posts. Did someone say something?
dispatch3d Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 they engage him because he offends the hell out of them haha. That's also his payoff to such posts - he gets a reaction. That's what I'm harping him on. I'll stop harping. And hey now, accusing me of an arguement is a good way of getting me to stop expressing my opinion .
TheMENemy Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 they engage him because he offends the hell out of them haha So, what you're saying is that women will engage a man whom they find to be offensive? Are you a PUA or something LOL
paleblue Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I like women. there’s just something about them that calms me down. not sure how to explain it. only another guy knows what I mean.
sumdude Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I love women... like is another matter altogether. Old Henry Higgins summed it up pretty well back in the day.
Woggle Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I suggest you read posts that you respond to at least twice. No one is denying that there are both men and women on here who are irrational and bitter with their views towards the opposite sex. My point was that the men outnumber the women on here. The ridiculous number of threads made in the last couple of days is more than enough proof. So you are saying that regardless if the views are irrational, out of line, absured, or degrading that you will take the persons side just because they are male? Glad to see you are working on improving yourself. Should be anyday now before you see things from a balanced, rational, and unbiased point of view. I admit that I cheerlead for my gender because women do. Men need to stick together. You can't tell me that many women are unbiased and fair either
Surrealist Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I think they engage him because deep down they love him.
brainygirl Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I think they engage him because deep down they love him. NO! They just can't back down from arguing with him. Me, after a day at work, its too exhausting to argue with nuts online. I save it for days off . . . . And I agree with both people who said that online forums are not reflective of actual reality. But they are darn addicting and amusing.
Recommended Posts