2014: Year of the fainting couch

[lilpixieofterror]

With that in mind, it is the bad company to whom we should be witnessing, and we can't do that without being among them.



Especially if you're going to be witnessing to bad company.

Oh yeah, it is a balancing act. You need to learn your own limits and your own ability to deal with those sort of people. Some of us have a very strong ability to resist the temptations of others while some of us do not. Nothing wrong with that, just be careful of your own limits and try to keep decent company too.

[Jesse]

I just wanted to see exactly what you consider to be a "knee-jerk reaction."

No need to explain something to you that is so apparent. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

I can try to do that, but could you please also show me specifically what you have in mind that you've interpreted in such ways?

Sure. Since you ignore your own posts, I guess I'll do it for you again:

Or you could take the time to understand why people feel certain ways, even if you ultimately still disagree with them. No reason going to college if you don't at least learn how to do that.

But it seems that concepts like "having compassion for others" and "trying to earnestly understand where others are coming from" is completely foreign to you.

As long as people make sure they're accurately representing and understanding the reasons and can actually offer a valid critique, I consider that perfectly fine.

You didn't seem to express any desire to help them and educate them, and generally, care is demonstrated by helping and educating people.

Those are just the ones I decided to pay attention to. I am sure you will give a tortured reason why none of those things are condescending. LilPixieofTerror, Sparko, and others have been quite honest and correct with you on how you come across. So I am not going to rehash it. It's not like anything will be learned anyway.

[Jesse]

Oh yeah, it's the height of stupidity and arrogance. I keep an eye on things going on around me, I lock my doors, my brothers and husband will tell you that I can defend myself, and I take other measures and try to avoid situations that cause problems to start with (which is fine, I've always hated the party scene anyway). Now, does this mean I'll never be a victim of any crime? Of course not, but my safety and the same of my kid is important. Sure, it would be nice not to have to worry about rape, murder, assault, etc but I can't live in 'that would be nice' sort of fantasy land. I need to live in the reality that evil people want to do horrible things to others and I need to take steps to ensure that my likelihood of being their target is reduced.

Definitely! It's the reason why I believe all women should be armed. Though I know a lot of women don't like the idea of carrying a gun or knife. Those that put their head in the sand about such things are usually the ones that get victimized the most sadly. It's great that you know how to defend yourself if the need ever arises. I wish more people did.

[Cow Poke]

Definitely! It's the reason why I believe all women should be armed.

A woman should not be armed unless she is...
A) adequately trained in the use of the weapon
2) fully prepared to utilize the weapon if needed

I can't stress that enough - the last thing a woman needs to do is bring a weapon for her attacker to use against her.

(And, lest somebody fault me for being sexist -- it is almost always the case that a stronger more capable male is attacking a smaller weaker woman)

[Darth Executor]

(And, lest somebody fault me for being sexist -- it is almost always the case that a stronger more capable male is attacking a smaller weaker woman)

That IS sexist. Probably more sexist than the rest of the post.

[rogue06]

A woman should not be armed unless she is...
A) adequately trained in the use of the weapon
2) fully prepared to utilize the weapon if needed

I can't stress that enough - the last thing a woman needs to do is bring a weapon for her attacker to use against her.

These things are equally true for men as well.

[Cow Poke]

These things are equally true for men as well.

Sure, but I think the disparity between a man attacking woman and a man attacking another man is greater, hence even more important.

When a man attacks a woman, it's generally because he wants to overpower her, and chooses an easy target. Men, on the other hand, might just be fighting about the woman.

[Cow Poke]

That IS sexist. Probably more sexist than the rest of the post.

Sometimes the truth is like that.

[Jesse]

A woman should not be armed unless she is...
A) adequately trained in the use of the weapon
2) fully prepared to utilize the weapon if needed

I can't stress that enough - the last thing a woman needs to do is bring a weapon for her attacker to use against her.

(And, lest somebody fault me for being sexist -- it is almost always the case that a stronger more capable male is attacking a smaller weaker woman)

You're right. I should've made that caveat. I wouldn't want anyone hurting themselves because they don't know how to properly use a weapon.

[rogue06]

Sure, but I think the disparity between a man attacking woman and a man attacking another man is greater, hence even more important.

When a man attacks a woman, it's generally because he wants to overpower her, and chooses an easy target. Men, on the other hand, might just be fighting about the woman.

I was addressing the statement that a woman shouldn't carry a firearm unless she is adequately trained in its use and is fully prepared to use it (if the need arise). That is true regardless of the sex of the person.

[Cow Poke]

I was addressing the statement that a woman shouldn't carry a firearm unless she is adequately trained in its use and is fully prepared to use it (if the need arise). That is true regardless of the sex of the person.

Well, yeah, but I can't agree because it's YOU! (to anybody else who reads this, however, I'm in full agreement -- if you're going to carry, what Rogue said. But don't tell him I said that)

[fm93]

Of course I do because I dare to disagree with you and dare to point out mistakes you make. I also find it funny that you accuse me of 'mischaracterization' while you do the same thing to others and see no problems with your double standards.

So you accuse me of making bald assertions and say that I've made mistakes, but when I ask you to please show me where I've done that, you don't actually provide examples. That technically means that you're guilty of making bald assertions yourself.

I insult you because nothing else seems to get though your thick skull because it seems you don't see your own actions as being the very thing you condemn. IE you see others in the worst light possible, you treat those who dare disagree with you poorly, you seem incapable of getting along with thsoe who disagree with you, etc. You might want to remove the plank from your own eye before you try to tell others about the speck in theirs.

But I don't treat people who disagree with me poorly. To the contrary, I've been civil in the vast majority of my posts, whereas you frequently throw insults like "thick skulled" and accuse me of hypocrisy while never actually showing where this hypocrisy exists. If anything, it seems that it is you who treat people who disagree with you poorly, and who seems incapable of getting along with those who disagree with you. Is it not? You can certainly try to argue that my arguments are wrong, but there's no case to be made that I've often been hateful and and thrown insults, because it's empirically clear that I haven't been.

Of course and everybody seems to 'misread' your post.

Well, see, I haven't accused "everybody" of misreading my posts. It's usually just you and Sparko. Cow Poke, KingsGambit, whag, and a host of other people generally seem to comprehend my posts just fine. So when you implicitly say that I accuse "everybody" of misreading my posts, that's exaggerated to the point of complete inaccuracy.

I think the reality is that you can't see your poor logic exposed for the nonsense it is.

Not really. I can point out examples in which it's indisputably clear that it's another poster who misread my post, rather than me failing to make something clear and valid. For instance, that time I said "I'm not defending affirmative action, because I don't think it's perfect, but if we don't have it at all, some people of color believe they'll be unable to escape conditions of dire poverty" and Sparko launched into a tirade accusing me of having said "ALL black people are poor and unable to do anything for themselves." Or that time I said "I don't believe voter ID laws are racist..." and you said I believe voter ID laws are racist.

You frequently do this, you accuse others of not reading your post when it is clear you don't read other people's post yourself. No where did I say one word about you specifically starting threads, you made that up

I didn't make it up. You said "Soon, he'll start whining on threads in the psychotherapy room how he should be able to ignore you two as well for daring to disagree with him." I guess you meant "will begin to whine on threads that already exist," but it's somewhat ambiguous--you could've also meant "he'll start threads in the psychotherapy room to express whining."

and than you have the gall to attack others for being incapable of reading when you can't even understand basic English?

As shown above, I certainly can, but your line contained a bit of ambiguity.

Your excuse making (IE it's hard to interpretation vague insults', when of course, that is an insult, but you're above the standards you hold others to; it appears) is as thin as your ability to explain yourself. How many more mistakes will you make excuses for, while condemning others for the same behavior you engage in yourself? If you want others to 'understand you', try to understand others first before you decide to make a post

I wasn't aware that saying "it's hard to interpret vague insults" is itself an insult. And I can certainly aim to better understand people first before I post, but I find myself inclined to point out that whereas I will generally ask "Could you please explain what you mean by that" (see my discussions in other threads with Zymologist, for instance) if I feel that I don't understand something, I can't recall ever seeing you do that--instead, I only remember you responding by firing off insults.

Funny how everybody seems to 'interpret you', but you keep blaming others for your inability to communicate. How many more people need to keep 'misreading' you before you start to understand the problem sits upon your failure to clearly communicate your own ideas in a clear fashion?

It's certainly possible that I might not be communicating clearly enough, but again:

1) Most of the time here, most people do not misunderstand what I mean. It's usually just you and Sparko. I find it hard to conclude that it's me who's doing a poor job of communicating when so many other people do understand my posts.

2) If there are instances in which I legitimately did a poor job of clearly conveying my point, could you please just ask me to clarify what I mean, instead of responding with such hostility?

What's the problem; are you the only one allowed to see the worst in others? Hey, you see the worst in me, so I just return the favor. What's the problem, do you not like it when you get your just attitude returned to you?

Technically, there's nothing wrong with seeing the worst in others. You sometimes have to see the worst in others if you want an accurate picture of the world. I believe you might be referring to only seeing the worst in others, or seeing something and always assuming the worst possible scenario or motive. But...I generally do NOT assume the worst or only see the worst in others. And so I have to ask: what specifically did I say that makes you think I have this attitude? When I said Sparko lacked compassion and empathy? I made that statement on the basis of clear evidence of him obviously not exhibiting compassion and empathy. I didn't just arbitrarily decide to say that he lacked those qualities based on something ambiguous.

Because I found talking to you, in a straight matter, is a waste of time since you love to accuse others of your own failure to communicate. You accuse others of not being able to read, while it is clear that you don't read what they say yourself. You make excuses for it, of course, but hey... turn about is fair play, don't you agree?

I've already addressed part of this above. As for the last part, no, I don't agree. First of all, I generally don't personally insult you, but instead am often civil, so when you respond to me with such hostility, that isn't turnabout, but rather gratuitous meanness. Second of all, even if I did always insult you, and even if I was always the one at fault for communication gaps, how are you a better person for doing the same things in the same ways?

[fm93]

I'm part American Indian myself along with my husband's family too and we both see the whole 'redskins' thing as nonsense. Guess we all just 'hate ourselves'?

No, I don't believe you're self-loathing, and I can't comment further on this regarding you, but as for Sparko, I've seen his Facebook pictures from this forum's Facebook page, and I know that he looks 100% white. He may have had Native American ancestry somewhere along the line, but he's far enough removed from it that he wouldn't qualify under the researchers' target audience. Plenty of people will claim things like "I'm 1/16th Cherokee on my mother's side," but they didn't grow up in Native American culture at all, and besides, 1/16th means that they had one great-great grandparent who was Cherokee. Unless their ancestors all had children as teenagers, they probably weren't even alive at the same time as that Cherokee ancestor.

I would like to also know though why this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3320[/ATTACH]

is ok, using the same logic against the whole 'redskin' name. I guess saying that Irish people like to fight is ok because they are a white group and it is fine to parody and make fun of white groups of people.

Then you can ask the Irish why they haven't historically objected to the name.

[fm93]

Not saying that at all. I am just pointing out to Jesse how you see yourself.

But that's not how I see myself.

exactly. It's called hyperbole, by the way.

Hyperbole is supposed to be an exaggerated expression of a truth. Yours isn't a truth.

Regarding the "redskins" - did you know that was a term of identification by Indians themselves? They called themselves "redskins" and Caucasians "whiteskins" and Negroes "blackskins" - it wasn't a racist slur. It does refer to race but it is not a slur. Just like today we call Negroes "black" and Caucasians "white" - it is just a description not meant as a slur.

I don't intend to argue about the name debate here. But earlier you insisted that you know more about the issue than I do. How can that be, when you were apparently ignorant of the fact that Native Americans have objected to the name for over 40 years?

[Jesse]

No, I don't believe you're self-loathing, and I can't comment further on this regarding you, but as for Sparko, I've seen his Facebook pictures from this forum's Facebook page, and I know that he looks 100% white. He may have had Native American ancestry somewhere along the line, but he's far enough removed from it that he wouldn't qualify under the researchers' target audience.

I know I haven't been here long, but I have to ask. Sparko, how many people have accused you of being too white?