|
|
|
|
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 6/30/2009 9:54:53 PM | Silentman (that's a bit of a misnomer , no?..lol):
I suspect we could debate this back and forth ad infinitum, and in the end , neither of us will change our position (lol).and we could derail the main OP..
So, I agree to disagree..I don't hold back, I am as honest as I can be ( always some self deception in all of us), and I still do it without hurting anyone's feelings... at least not deliberately, the written word being open to interpretation always..works for me. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 6/30/2009 11:51:31 PM | Sure, we can peaceably agree to disagree on this. :)
I disagree there's always some self deception in all of us, however. It may be the statistical norm, but this should just be seen as impetus for more people to step up and be honest with themselves. We can't achieve perfection in this world, but we can at least be honest about our flaws, first with ourselves, then with others.
I never deliberately set out to hurt someone's feelings by being honest, as the desire to do harm to another would ultimately make me a hypocrite as I take the stance of celebrating life in its fullest measure. However, it isn't my responsibility if someone takes offense at my speaking the truth to them. As I said before, at that point the problem lies with them for taking offense at the truth rather than realizing the benefit it always is, and using it to better themselves. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:33:34 AM | | silentman73, Do I understand you correctly? You feel that it is fine for you to be "blunt", rude or painful in your posts but if someone doesn't respond to an email that they did not care for, they are extremely rude? You DO set out to hurt others feelings and take joy in it and when their feelings are hurt, your response is that "the problem lies with them for takeing offense at the truth ratherr than realizing the benefit it always is, and using it to better themselves." I find this a very stupid remark and very simular to barnyard fertilizer. | |
|
vosche
|
Joined: 11/28/2008
Msg: 79 | |
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 5:50:16 AM | believe it or not, there are tons that dont even know the forums exsist.
for some of us the OP's methodolgy behind participating in the forums has no bearing on who does or doesnt contact us. just like that dreaded profile we so carefully conjured up that goes unread and becomes apparent it went unread when the person contacting asks questions already answered in the contrived profile. some people "get" it ..others dont get it, or just dont care for any multitude of reasons. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:12:37 PM | seedtick said:
silentman73, Do I understand you correctly? You feel that it is fine for you to be "blunt", rude or painful in your posts but if someone doesn't respond to an email that they did not care for, they are extremely rude? You DO set out to hurt others feelings and take joy in it
Hmm, you "sound" awfully familiar... But nah, it couldn't be...
I've never been rude or painful in my posts, but I have almost always been "blunt", but what you're calling "bluntness" is what I call "honesty". Honesty doesn't need to be filtered; it's a disservice to its concept, and removes the objective authority carried in the very appellation of "honesty".
We'll have to do a simple analysis here. You say I "do seet out to hurt others' feelings and take joy in it", I say I do not. Who's more qualified to say what I do or don't do in terms of my motives? I would hazard a guess that'd be me. If you have objective, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary (which would seem difficult, as I'm not so sure telepaths exist), you're, of course, welcome to present it here. 
seedtick said:
and when their feelings are hurt, your response is that "the problem lies with them for takeing offense at the truth ratherr than realizing the benefit it always is, and using it to better themselves."
If someone's feelings are hurt because the truth is stated, where does the error lie? If we can agree that the truth is always beneficial, then someone reacting negatively to it must, by the nature of truth, be unable to recognize it as beneficial, and would thus be practicing self deception. However, if you would posit that there are instances where the truth is not beneficial, then we're unable to continue this discussion, as we'd be unable to agree on basic premises that would make an exchange of opposite viewpoints predicated on those premises feasible.
This said, if you would say that the truth isn't beneficial in a unilateral sense, this might bring up a whole slew of other issues that might need to be dealt with first. 
seedtick said:
I find this a very stupid remark and very simular to barnyard fertilizer.
Why? Why do you find the statement that someone taking offense at the truth is in a position where they need to change their perspective? If we agree that the truth is objectively beneficial (and I can't really think of any reasoning person who would say the truth is not beneficial), then someone taking offense at an inherently, axiomatically beneficial notion is in error. Since there can only be truth or lie, with no middle ground (since by its very nature truth must remain absolute, or it ceases being "truth"), then someone who takes offense at truth must then feel one of two things: that a lie would be more preferable (which is a problematic position, as I can't see reason allowing a lie to be in any way objectively beneficial), or that the truth presented is, in fact, a lie, in which case the burden of proof to support their position lies with them. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:33:17 PM | | Yes, I hold back. I want to give the impression of being a shallow empty headed guy with no other intension that getting inside the nickers of very attractive, yet very shallow women with tons of drama. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:42:23 PM | I actually think a lot of people and by that, I mean mostly guys post things with a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda...
I've seen so many of the "I'm not like other men" posts to believe differently...
Some guys will post agreement with whatever far out implausible thing a woman writes, just in the hopes that he may one day meet her, or someone with the same views and she will look favourably on him for his post...
Others post encouraging women to be more sexual. I'd bet most of them are hoping again, that they will meet women who have read the post and think they should:
1... Have sex on the first or by the third date...
2... Invite another woman for sex
3... participate in threesomes
4... have casual sex with them...
5... think a guy they just met is enough of a friend to have Friends with Benefits sex with...
6... (insert whatever here) - Hmmm, No pun intended.... | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 12:49:33 PM |
1... Have sex on the first or by the third date...
2... Invite another woman for sex
3... participate in threesomes
4... have casual sex with them...
5... think a guy they just met is enough of a friend to have Friends with Benefits sex with...
6... (insert whatever here) - Hmmm, No pun intended....
You are a sick puppy. What makes (sex) you think (sex) all that (sex) men want (sex) is sex? Hmmm.
 | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:14:59 PM | | Silentman73. I have never discussed any topic with you before but will admit that I have been reading yours for a while. Is that not what you post them for, so others will read them? Let us take a topic that you have discussed before when you berated a very nice lady for her response to a topic "Would you date a man that was missing his front teeth". She said that she took care of herself, tended to her own (and that of her family) dental hygiene, and it really grossed her out to see a man, or anyone else for that matter, with poor dental health or missing their teeth, and would NEVER imagine kissing a person with such a problem. There are enough ways to take care of your teeth that a person should never have to go through that problem. It is just that it isn't that important to them as it is to her. But you called her shallow and demeaned her. She was asked her opinion and she gave it. She did not ask for yours. But you were very blunt and hurtful all the same. Did it show her the error of her ways? No, she does not need a snotnose to tell that she needs to change her way of thinking. THEN... in another forum you state that you are disgusted by women that wear lipgloss. DISGUSTED!! Those were your words. What if that woman has a problem with dry and cracking lips and she would like to add a bit of color to her lips. She is welllll within her rights to do so and YOU are within your rights to not date her. But would it be shallow of you to not date her because she wears lip gloss??? No, nor is it wrong or shallow to not want to date a man missing his front teeth. There have been many other instances that I can point out but you are so self involved that you would not pick up on it. You are so sure that you are RIGHT and you just cram it down others throats. If someone asks a question in a forum, it doesn't necessarily open it for a debate. It is just asking a question and wanting others opinion on it. Sometimes it is better to just disagree quietly and be respectful of others feelings and just say nothing at all to that person. If you continue with your way of thinking and acting, you will continue to be a single 36, 46, or 56 year old virgin man that no one responds to your emails ( you said yourself that you rarely get a response and who would wander why) and you will still be behaving in such a manner on this site. When you are pointing your finger at others, you might look and see three pointing back at you. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:18:03 PM | Silentman: I just couldn't resist this one...(lol)
The truth is not always beneficial..sometimes it is just mean...or unneccesary...
Like telling someone who is unattractive through no fault but the chance of genetics, that they are ugly...what's the benefit of telling them something they can not fix or change then? Except to hurt their feelings?
Or...pointing out to a barren woman that she can't have children..and this then makes her less "dateable"..I can think of lots of cases where the truth has no benefit at all..except to hurt or exert superiority.
The other thing is..if you truly wish to effect change in people..most respond better to positive reinforcement..at least in my experience..you alienate people with brutal honesty..they become defensive and stop hearing what you are saying?
As to feelings...feelings just are..not right or wrong..not controllable ( only how you react to them is controllable)...hurt feelings just happen for some people..and I find the idea that it's their fault for feeling that way kind of odd..you can hold them responsible for their reaction..but, not the existence of the feelings in the first place.
Helping people is good...i like to help people. I just believe it is possible without making them feel worse than they already do. I tend to also believe that most people have good intentions and want to be a better person, but, haven't found the way.
On the other hand, no one is perfect, nor will they ever be...you can not possibly fix everything that is less than perfect about yourself...personally, if I was around someone on a regular basis who went out of their way to bombard me constantly with their " brutal honesty' about how flawed I am..not only would it not help..it would be very unpleasant..and I wouldn't want to be around them very much..and I think most people would feel that way...plus, I think we all are looking for being liked or loved as we are to some extent..imperfect as that is. I tend to figure out what's wrong about me, and what I can fix, or want to fix all on my own..without help. Though I may occasionally ask for an opinion..I still wouldn't react well to meanness.
Then there is always the : get the mote out of your own eye, before you worry about the one in another persons...
Sheesh...way long again...one of these days I'll learn succinct and brief... | |
|
| |
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:25:13 PM | I don't think anyone who has ever read one of my forum posts could ever claim that I have ever held back anything.
I am who I am, and make no bones about it, and if someone looks at my profile and finds that my forum posts bother them, then I guess I dodged a bullet there, because to be perfectly honest, anyone that can't handle what I say in these forums CERTAINLY couldn't handle me in real life! | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:29:56 PM | | Truthfulness and being forthcoming is one thing but do you purposefully try to hurt others just because you can? And they may not want to handle you in real life anyway. Then do you need to chase the down with it and hit them over the head with it? Just let them go their own way and think their own thoughts. | |
|
| |
| |
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 6:59:52 PM | seedtick said:
Silentman73. I have never discussed any topic with you before but will admit that I have been reading yours for a while.
Thank you.
seedtick said:
Let us take a topic that you have discussed before when you berated a very nice lady for her response to a topic "Would you date a man that was missing his front teeth". She said that she took care of herself, tended to her own (and that of her family) dental hygiene, and it really grossed her out to see a man, or anyone else for that matter, with poor dental health or missing their teeth, and would NEVER imagine kissing a person with such a problem. There are enough ways to take care of your teeth that a person should never have to go through that problem. It is just that it isn't that important to them as it is to her. But you called her shallow and demeaned her. She was asked her opinion and she gave it. She did not ask for yours. But you were very blunt and hurtful all the same. Did it show her the error of her ways? No, she does not need a snotnose to tell that she needs to change her way of thinking.
Ahhhh.... there we go. Thought you sounded familiar. New username? Or perhaps you're just another of the line of folks one particular poster in a thread subsequent to that one mentioned was waiting in the wings to "deal with me"? Not an accusation, just a guess... At any rate, you're doing a good job of two things: a) bringing up a thread that's nearly a year old (or more) and no longer on the site, and extracontextualizing things. I certainly don't mind someone bringing up anything I've said, as I stand by every word of it. But doing so without context just to shore up a cause they've decided to champion, just so they can attempt to paint themselves in one way and me in another... that's just bad form. Note, when I address someone, I quote all their post. It helps in keeping things in context.
For what it's worth, and so we're clear, I did indicate that someone who would refuse to date a person because of bad teeth was shallow. But I also noted there was a distinct difference between someone who had bad teeth beyond their means to repair/adjust, and someone who let those teeth go out of sheer laziness and lack of hygienic concern. But you didn't mention that part, did you?
You indicate she was asked her opinion, and she gave it. You then indicate that she didn't ask for mine. I'll just assume you aren't tremendously familiar with the atmosphere of online discussions: if you post publicly, you are by default inviting the participation of others. The instant someone posts something publicly, they lose the right to get indignant about someone not only disagreeing, but doing so in a likewise public fashion.
You indicate I was "blunt" and "hurtful". I'll happily claim the blunt part, though again I note that what you call "blunt" I call "honest". Hurtful? I didn't say anything that was in any way in error, and if it isn't in error, then it must by its nature be correct, i.e., truth. Truth is axiomatic: it is or it isn't. Nice thing about it, and what enables it to dovetail and synergize so well with logic, which is based upon it.
"Snotnose"? You're making it difficult for me to take you seriously when you have to degenerate to name-calling and personal attacks. It's been my experience that those who do so in online discussions often react in such a fashion because they're either unable to articular, or even more basically unable to form, a logical rebuttal to what they disagree with. Sometimes it's because they don't know how. Other times it's because there is no logical rebuttal to be formed. You cannot make truth out of that which is not true. Existence is truth. You cannot formulate truth out of that which does not exist.
Which is it with this post of yours, I wonder?
seedtick said:
THEN... in another forum you state that you are disgusted by women that wear lipgloss. DISGUSTED!! Those were your words. What if that woman has a problem with dry and cracking lips and she would like to add a bit of color to her lips. She is welllll within her rights to do so and YOU are within your rights to not date her. But would it be shallow of you to not date her because she wears lip gloss??? No, nor is it wrong or shallow to not want to date a man missing his front teeth.
You're right. I said I was disgusted by lip gloss. I fully claim those words. You ask me what if a given woman has a problem with dry and cracking lips and would like to add some color to them? I say "Let her." It has no effect on my personal appellation that I, me, the individual, Silentman73, finds it disgusting. Would I tell her so, out of the blue? Nope. Would I tell her so, if it came up in conversation (such as it did in that thread you're referencing)? Yep. If she has a problem with dry lips, there's chapstick for that. If she wants color, let her have color. It doesn't make her a bad person. It simply makes her a person doing something I personally find disgusting. There's no moral nature to putting on lip gloss. It isn't right or wrong. It simply is. Any further lenses of it merely become a matter of personal perspective. With this being understood, what, exactly, was the point you were trying to make in noting this?
However, the shallowness aspect doesn't quite come into play with it, while it does with the teeth issue. If I were to date a woman wearing lip gloss, and if we were to kiss, that's a physical sensation that suddenly affects me, and a sensation I find distinctly unpleasant (nee disgusting). The teeth issue, however? It's a purely cosmetic issue. You also brought up what was the real issue of that thread, which was teeth that were missing, not teeth that were damaged due to poor hygiene. And for someone to refuse to date someone because of missing teeth is shallow, as those missing teeth reflect nothing on who the person is, what their values are, how emotionally healthy and ready for a mature relationship they are, etc. As such, to automatically render someone as "undateable", even on an individual level, solely (or even just primarily) due to their lack of front teeth, is the height of shallowness. If you're unsure of the definition of the word, Merriam-Webster has a website with which you can seek its meaning.
seedtick said:
There have been many other instances that I can point out but you are so self involved that you would not pick up on it. You are so sure that you are RIGHT and you just cram it down others throats.
The first statement you make us unsupportable, as you have no objective means with which to determine what I will or won't "pick up on". You're offering an opinion, which you're of course welcome to, but only I'm in a position to authenticate it or point out its erroneous nature.
Yep, I'm sure I'm right. I'm also open to being proven wrong. The problem is, on any issue here where there's been a difference of opinion, no one has yet been able to authoritatively prove me objectively wrong. They usually degenerate into frustrated personal attacks and name-calling long before they reach that point (much like the use of the word "snotnose", I believe?). I again note that such conditions usually arise due to either an inability to rationally state their position, or an inability to formulate a solid position due to a lack of foundational logic for said position. You're quite welcome to attempt to prove my perspective wrong, but so far you aren't doing a very good job of it.
seedtick said:
If someone asks a question in a forum, it doesn't necessarily open it for a debate. It is just asking a question and wanting others opinion on it.
Per Merriam-Webster's definition of "debate": " the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body"
Such a deliberative body would be the participants in any of these, or any other, discussion forums. It becomes deliberative according to the provided mandate of these forums by the site's owner, which is the enabling of participation in discussion by willing parties who have created a profile on this site. As such, if someone posts something in these forums, they are opening the question up for debate in its broadest term. If they ask a question, they are inviting both a response to the question and, as a cause of the freely participatory nature of these forums, any dissension which might arise from the position with which they formulated their question. So in this instance, the quoted statement of yours is objectively in error, i.e., wrong.
seedtick said:
Sometimes it is better to just disagree quietly and be respectful of others feelings and just say nothing at all to that person.
In a situation of someone stating something in the presence of the general public, this is on occasion true dependent on circumstances. In a situation of stating something in a discussion forum, whose defined mandate is to invite the positions of others, both conciliatory and objectionary, then such a person needs to be ready for both types of responses to arrive. If they only want to be agreed with, they have the option of seeking out a forum where they have a greater statistical chance of agreement (as an example, discussing the rightness of providing a restaurant gratuity by going to a website which has forums dedicated to restaurant servers). If they are not ready to be disagreed with (and it may or may not happen in any given instance), they're making a questionable choice by posting in a public forum where disagreement is as likely as agreement. They don't get to pick and choose who responds and how.
seedtick said:
If you continue with your way of thinking and acting, you will continue to be a single 36, 46, or 56 year old virgin man that no one responds to your emails ( you said yourself that you rarely get a response and who would wander why) and you will still be behaving in such a manner on this site. When you are pointing your finger at others, you might look and see three pointing back at you.
Your initial statement is pure conjecture, and would have no place in a discussion of objective truth vs. objective falsehood. I can only again say "That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it", but I would also then point out, as I did above, that only I would be authoritatively qualified to facilitate the objective reality, or lack thereof, of the statement.
Set, match?
zangie said:
The truth is not always beneficial..sometimes it is just mean...or unneccesary...
This is objectively wrong. The truth is always beneficial. That's why it's "truth". Truth stands above individual perceptions of it, and remains axiomatic due to its inherent nature. It either is, or isn't. Likewise, there is never a point where the truth is unnecessary. There is either truth or lie. In a situation where one or the other is (or must be) present, to say that truth is unnecessary is to then state likewise that a lie is necessary. There is no point where falsehood is ever necessary.
zangie said:
Like telling someone who is unattractive through no fault but the chance of genetics, that they are ugly...what's the benefit of telling them something they can not fix or change then? Except to hurt their feelings?
Or...pointing out to a barren woman that she can't have children..and this then makes her less "dateable"..I can think of lots of cases where the truth has no benefit at all..except to hurt or exert superiority.
Pointing out such things extracontextually would serve no purpose. If such things are brought up in discussion, however, pointing them out is not harmful if the discussion has already brought them up. In such a case, with them having been brought up, would you then choose to not discuss them further because you're concerned someone's feelings might be hurt? Someone else's hurt feelings are not a legitimate limiter on a discussion. If they feel they'd be hurt by the reality of a situation in a discussion, they have the option of not bringing such things up, or of leaving the discussion. Should a barren woman not discuss her barrenness with other women, all of whom are acknowledging that they can never have children, and acknowledging likewise that they are going to have difficulties in dating due to their condition? If they discuss it amongst themselves, is it hurtful? No, it is merely true. If someone in that group chooses to be hurt by the truth, it is not then the responsibility of the others to no longer hold forth on the truth.
zangie said:
The other thing is..if you truly wish to effect change in people..most respond better to positive reinforcement..at least in my experience..you alienate people with brutal honesty..they become defensive and stop hearing what you are saying?
I don't recall looking to change anyone, nor stating that I have such a desire. When truth is presented, people may do with it what they will, to either their benefit (by accepting it) or their destruction (by refusing it). My concern for their acceptance of truth, or lack thereof, extends only as far as my interactions with them. If people are alienated by "brutal honesty" (meaning, unfiltered honesty), who's the one in the wrong: the one who's honest (and thus speaking truth), or the one who receives the truth badly (and is thus hurt, or reacts negatively enough, to be alienated)? I would say it's the person who receives the truth badly, because it's commonly accepted that truth is beneficial. I don't typically resort to reductio ad populum in a debate, but in this case it's apropos. Every legal system in the civilized world is predicated on one fundamental concept: the truth is the right which should be sought. Would someone be wrong to seek the truth in, say, the Amanda Knox case currently happening in Italy? The truth is either that she didn't participate in Meredith Kercher's murder, or that she did. If she did, and it was concluded that she didn't, would this be a popular decision? No, as evidenced by the OJ Simpson trial in the 90s, where it was common held that he did in fact murder Nicole, but was able to win in court via lies and deception, lowering others' opinions of him due to his unapologetic falsehoods. I think you see where I'm going here...
zangie said:
As to feelings...feelings just are..not right or wrong..not controllable ( only how you react to them is controllable)...hurt feelings just happen for some people..and I find the idea that it's their fault for feeling that way kind of odd..you can hold them responsible for their reaction..but, not the existence of the feelings in the first place.
Your first statement is not objectively true, but only subjectively true, and thus not true at all, as truth is by its nature objective. If I feel murderous hate towards a person, I would be wrong. Yet by your logic, such feelings are neither right nor wrong, they simply are. This is an evasion.
Yes, hurt feelings happen for some people. There is a reason in every instance for why their feelings were hurt; it is not wrong to have hurt feelings because a loved one died, or because a romantic partner wantonly insulted you or physically assaulted you. It is wrong to have hurt feelings because someone stated, in the course of discussion, something both parties knew to be objectively true. We control how we feel. How we feel is our responsibility, and no one else's. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me", as the childhood rhyme goes. The logic behind this? "I am the one in control of how I react to something." The same goes for feelings. Cause and effect. Someone doesn't have feelings that have no cause in objective reality. If they do, they are what is referred to by professionals as "clinically insane". | |
|
| |
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:27:27 PM | Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
hell no, i slather it on real thick with a freakin' spatula, just like tammye faye cut loose in the mary kay factory. what the heck is "holding back" anyway? does anyone mean to say they really like to fake it? i mean, do you fake entire relationships or just orgasms? and why would anyone fake certain key aspects of their personality with the covert intent of ensnaring, under false pretenses, some genital contact and/or romantic action? and how does that make you any different, "philosophically speaking", from a pedophile... aside from the inappropriate object of your sleazebag intentions, i mean? this is a damn serious question. lol.
disclaimer: "you" is entirely rhetorical and shall not be construed to mean "you personally", "yo mama", or "y'all'. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 8:05:11 PM | My goodness, did the label "snotnose" get a rise out of you. Why would that be? Because it is disgusting, perhaps? That is how I find you and you pride yourself on bluntness and brutal honesty. Can you not take what you dish out? Is there really a need to be that blunt and brutal. You did say that you felt that she should admit that she is wrong and "change" what is wrong about her. Touche`. You pride yourself on thinking that you are a very intelligent person and post in a manner that you feel will impress others and will perhaps leave them a little baffled. That doesn't carry much weight with me. I assure you that I am not an uneducated person and probably have more degrees than you do. I also have more skills in public relations than you. Those are a MUST if we wish to live among fellow humans. I do not have only a computer screen with unknown persons to communicate with. When I have been unfair or hurtful to some one that does not deserve it, I am capable of admitting that I am wrong and do so to that person. That is not the case here. I have not been unnecessarily blunt or brutal. Maybe YOU need to see where you have wronged someone and admit it.
Oh, I might add that I am 5'7" and have never felt less of a man for it I have never experienced discrimination for it. But I am proud that my son is taller because a lot of women do find that attractive. You know where this all came from. That was another matter that you were insulting about. You are a real piece of work. And this is NOT a new username. But we are making you aware that you are despicable.
Rob | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/1/2009 11:57:00 PM | seedtick said:
My goodness, did the label "snotnose" get a rise out of you.
Don't lose sight of the goal here, Rob. The only "rise" it got out of me was to point out how your almost immediate degeneration into name-calling is a revelation on your actual ability to logically discuss things. You're attempting to debate me, but you're doing so through a combination of failed premises and attempted cyber-bullying. It doesn't work very well when I don't ascribe any emotional meaning to your presence. We're dealing with pure logic here. Those who degenerate into name-calling do so because of an inability to refute the position they take issue with. You're proving my point for me quite handily, and with minimal effort on my part. Thanks.
seedtick said:
Why would that be? Because it is disgusting, perhaps? That is how I find you and you pride yourself on bluntness and brutal honesty. Can you not take what you dish out? Is there really a need to be that blunt and brutal.
It has nothing to do with any connotations of the term, and everything to do with the fact that you felt you had to use it to begin with. Again, I note that if you have to use name-calling to get your point across, it's because you can't actually refute the points that have been presented to you, so you're hoping some (pointless) aggression will silence the one(s) you take issue with. It's bad debating form, and only harms your own case for any thinking person who's reading what you write. I can take what I "dish out" (which is unfiltered honesty) quite well. Problem is, I deal with logic and issues, not emotions and attempted manipulation to steer the conversation in a direction you're proving your actual conversational ability isn't up to the task of.
There is never a need for brutality, which I haven't ever practiced. I don't recognize the term "blunt" in the connotation you're using it; as I've already indicated, what you call "blunt", I call "honest". If we can't agree on term definitions, then there's nothing beneficial to be gained from that line of reasoning (or, in your case, attempted reasoning).
seedtick said:
You pride yourself on thinking that you are a very intelligent person and post in a manner that you feel will impress others and will perhaps leave them a little baffled. That doesn't carry much weight with me.
You seem to have this strange habit of thinking you can authoritatively determine others' motives, as though you had some kind of supernatural or merely superhuman insight into the inner workings of an individual's motives. But I'll indulge you for a moment, just to say this: I pride myself on the fact that I am a very intelligent person. I don't have to think it, I know it. My posting manner, however, isn't intended to impress anyone, nor is it intended to baffle anyone (which would only be a pursuit of confusion, which at its core is predicated on falsehood). My highest goal is truth, unfiltered, and axiomatic. With that as a goal, any conscious attempts at "baffling" someone would not only be counterproductive to that goal, but would render me the utmost of a philosophical hypocrite, which I know I'm not. So in this case, you can accuse all you like. I'm flat-out telling you that your accusations, as quoted here, are in error. As I'm the most qualified of anyone to determine my motives, you can't come up with any objectively true assertions to the contrary as it relates to my motives.
seedtick said:
I assure you that I am not an uneducated person and probably have more degrees than you do.
I wasn't aware we were comparing formal education. That doesn't seem particularly germane to the conversation at hand. Are you hoping to intimidate me into quieting down because I'd somehow be "threatened" by your bragging over degrees? Let our presented facts speak for themselves. Qualifications only matter as they relate to an authoritarian stance on the issue at hand, and so far, I'm certainly not seeing you holding forth with a Ph.D. in "truth".
seedtick said:
I also have more skills in public relations than you.
This is relevant how, exactly? Why are you stating things which have no bearing on the topic at hand? Sounds like evasion to me. If you want to play baseball, you gotta stay on the field. You don't get to ask the pitcher to throw to you out in the parking lot.
seedtick said:
I do not have only a computer screen with unknown persons to communicate with.
Nor do I. Though I again ask, why are you bringing this up? How does it relate to the issue at hand?
seedtick said:
When I have been unfair or hurtful to some one that does not deserve it, I am capable of admitting that I am wrong and do so to that person. That is not the case here. I have not been unnecessarily blunt or brutal. Maybe YOU need to see where you have wronged someone and admit it.
When I have been unfair or hurtful to someone that doesn't deserve it, I'm quite capable of admitting my wrongdoing. I've done it in the past, and given my imperfection, I have every confidence I'll likely have to do it again in the time between now and whenever I die. But your unstated accusation is that I have been somehow "unnecessarily blunt and brutal". My refutation is simply this: I have not been unnecessarily blunt, and I haven't been brutal at all. I have simply stated the truth. If it's perceived as unnecessary, one wonders what you would consider necessary in lieu of the truth. Since you can only have either truth or lie, if the truth is unnecessary, this by elimination means that you consider lies to be necessary. That's an unfortunate position to take, but ultimately does more harm to your attempts to "put me in my place" than anything else. Like I said above: you're doing my job quite handily for me, and I get to sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labors on my behalf. Thank you.
seedtick said:
Oh, I might add that I am 5'7" and have never felt less of a man for it I have never experienced discrimination for it. But I am proud that my son is taller because a lot of women do find that attractive. You know where this all came from. That was another matter that you were insulting about. You are a real piece of work. And this is NOT a new username. But we are making you aware that you are despicable.
What does your height have to do with this discussion? I'll be forward here and say it has nothing to do with this discussion, so you're either just filling space, or you're lacking in your ability to maintain coherent, linear thought.
You're right, I'm a piece of work, as are all human beings. The difference is, I maintain that piece of work to build something better. Not everyone does. Let them suffer for their lack of vision. I won't.
You said "But we (emphasis mine) are making you aware that you are despicable." So you're confessing that you're part of what's apparently a multi-fronted effort to somehow "confront" me and discredit me? Wow, now you're just puffing up my ego a bit. I wasn't aware I was worth such a multiperson effort. I'm just a guy on an Internet forum, after all. You think I'm despicable? That's fine. You are, as always, welcome to your opinion. Given that it doesn't appeal to objective truth, and given that I know for a fact I'm not "despicable" (save, perhaps, to those who would champion lies over truth), all I can really say is "More power to ya buddy." Enjoy your state of being.  | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/2/2009 9:54:02 AM | Silentman, (what a name for such a wordy person), just because YOU say somethng doesn't make it the truth. Have you ever examined yourself and the motives behind why you do and say the things that you do? I think that perhaps you should do so. No, I do not deny that I am part of a group of persons that seek an admission from you that you are a bully to older women and young and immature women. You attack when you have no reason to, and feel that you have done something grand. You state such nonsense as "I haven't been unnecessarily blunt and I haven't been brutal at all. I have simply stated the truth." For what purpose? Did it need to be said? Who's life did it change for you to say it? "If it is percieved as unnecessary, one wonders what you would consider necessary in lieu of the truth." Keeping your mouth shut. "Since you can only have truth or a lie, this by elimination consider lies to be necessary." There you go with more barnyard fertilizer. Why was it necessary to say anything at all? Who benefited at all by your hurtful comments? Who did it change?
As for the last part of my most recent post to you, regarding height, you know very well what that was about. Another one of your hurtful remarks about the fact that she was glad that her sons were taller than the rest of the men in her family. So am I glad that my son is taller than his forebearers. There are advantages to being tall. If that were not so, why are you and the rest of the small man brigade pizzing and moaning about being so looked over. You are looked over but I think that it is for other reasons than short stature (unless you want to be drafted by a basketball team). I have lived in the body of a small man, With a childhood nickname of SEEDTICK, you would not expect a big and tall man. But I have never felt overlooked in anyway because of it.I am just throwing this in to you because this will most likely be my last post. But I think that I have gotten my point across. | |
|
| |
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/2/2009 11:08:42 AM | I certainly do not write in the forums to 'improve' my profile, if I did then I'd be writing a bunch of B.S. just to look good and that is soooo not me.
I write in them because I enjoy answering ppl's questions or just stating my own opinion as food for thought for those who need words of wisdom...ha ha ha JK!!
I am aware ppl who show interest in me have the ability of reading what I write and in all honesty i'd love it if they did. It would show me that they are genuinely interested if they actually took the time to seep into my mind...and that way they can see more of who I am, after all I'd prefer to be liked for who I am and not for what I am pretending to be....
When I come across a profile of someone I am interested in and I see they write in the forums (doesn't happen as often as I'd like), I do read what they post to get a better idea of who they are, how they think etc. and I love that!!
Some I have read and they were really impolite and arrogant to others which #1 gave me the info I wanted to know and #2 contradicted the trait of being a caring guy with a big heart...LOL
So I think the forums are a great way to dig deeper into the mind of the person that sparked your interest and helps with seeing more of the 'real person' as opposed to this pimped up cyber bait of a profile just to lure in someone on possible imitation bait ~ | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/2/2009 12:43:41 PM | seedtick said:
Silentman, (what a name for such a wordy person), just because YOU say somethng doesn't make it the truth.
You're right. The thing is, I don't think something is the truth merely because I've said it. I say it because it is truth, not the other way around.
seedtick said:
Have you ever examined yourself and the motives behind why you do and say the things that you do? I think that perhaps you should do so.
Yes. I do, daily, moment by moment, with every word I speak. I don't speak meaninglessly, despite your veiled accusation that I do.
seedtick said:
No, I do not deny that I am part of a group of persons that seek an admission from you that you are a bully to older women and young and immature women.
I would perhaps suggest that you find a more productive use for your valuable time, but it is, at the end of all things, your time, and you're free to do with it as you desire. However, your statement has no basis in objective fact, but only individual perception/opinion, and as such, has no place in a discussion of objective truth and reality. Since you haven't provided any objective evidence for your position here, it has no bearing on these proceedings.
seedtick said:
You attack when you have no reason to, and feel that you have done something grand.
I find it interesting that you find the speaking of truth to be an attack. I don't deny that in the past, there are those who have gone to war over truth, either to defend it or to oppose it. You aren't defending it, and its nature demands an either/or position, meaning that if you are not defending/allying with truth, then you are assaulting/denying it, and thus championing falsehood. If someone perceives the speaking of truth to be an attack, and finds such an attack undesirable, this means they must want the alternative to an attack, which is peace. If the speaking of truth is an attack, its opposite, falsehood, must then be the representative of peace. If that's the sort of peace you want, you're welcome to it. I will not countenance in my life a position which would champion a peace predicated on falsehood. I will not champion anything predicated on falsehood period in my life.
seedtick said:
You state such nonsense as "I haven't been unnecessarily blunt and I haven't been brutal at all. I have simply stated the truth." For what purpose? Did it need to be said? Who's life did it change for you to say it?
The truth is its own purpose, its own cause, its own reward. It needs no other impetus to be presented. You cannot rationalize a "reason" to speak truth; truth, when spoken, is its own reason. As such, a "need", entirely subjective and open to individual perception (and thus having nothing to do with actual truth, which is objective, since individual perspective is by its nature subjective), has no requirement to be established. Likewise, one does not speak truth in order to change others' lives. That's putting the cart before the horse. When truth is spoken, lives are changed. They cannot help but be changed. Those in the hearing of truth either rise up to champion it and ally with it, or they rise up to attempt to squelch and make war on it, preferring their falsehoods instead. This is the unequivocal nature of truth: you cannot help but be changed by it. As such, if one sought to change others' lives by speaking truth, they're missing the reality of truth altogether, elevating themselves above it as its final arbiter, when in reality it is our final arbiter, standing above any man or woman as our ultimate judge and jury.
seedtick said:
"If it is percieved as unnecessary, one wonders what you would consider necessary in lieu of the truth." Keeping your mouth shut.
So you consider necessary, in lieu of truth, not speaking it? This would then indicate that you want truth to be silent? If truth is silent, falsehood is then spoken and heard. Is this the cause you champion?
seedtick said:
"Since you can only have truth or a lie, this by elimination consider lies to be necessary." There you go with more barnyard fertilizer. Why was it necessary to say anything at all? Who benefited at all by your hurtful comments? Who did it change?
So you consider the statement of truth's axiomatic nature to be "barnyard fertilizer"? I could approach it from a lateral position and say that fertilizer has a benefit of assisting things to grow, but I feel relatively safe in concluding this isn't the premise from which you're speaking. If you regard the speaking of truth, or on its nature, something as filthy as cow dung (or horse dung, or pig dung, or any other sort), one can only conclude that you find the alternative to truth (i.e., falsehood) as praiseworthy. How unfortunate.
As to your questions of why it was necessary to say anything at all, or who benefitted by the comments, or who it changed, see my answers above, as those questions were answered. Your accusation of the comments being hurtful only causes me to say this: if someone is hurt by truth, is it truth's fault? If it is truth, then one must accept it: if they choose to be hurt by it (and it is a choice), one must then analyze why they find truth so injurious, as by its very nature truth can be nothing but beneficial save to a skewed perspective which would consider its alternative to be desirable.
seedtick said:
As for the last part of my most recent post to you, regarding height, you know very well what that was about. Another one of your hurtful remarks about the fact that she was glad that her sons were taller than the rest of the men in her family. So am I glad that my son is taller than his forebearers. There are advantages to being tall. If that were not so, why are you and the rest of the small man brigade pizzing and moaning about being so looked over.
You're going to have to provide some evidence that my remarks to this woman were "hurtful", and contextual, full quotes will be your friend there. There's nothing wrong with being proud of one's children, though I perhaps question the sort of household children are raised in where their physicality is a point of pride for the parents. Such conditions only typically arise when the outward appearance of things is elevated as a prime virtue. Is that the case in your home?
As for your claims that I and the rest of what you call the "small man brigade" are complaining about being overlooked due to height, I've never once said I was overlooked because of height (though I'm sure that for some women, they've done exactly that). I appeal to a broader concept when the issue of height comes up. But you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that every time I get involved in such discussions, I always bring up the reality that, at 5'9", I'm certainly not short, and in fact an inch above the national average for an American male (or in the case of some studies, exactly at the national average). As such, your accusation here has no objectively true foundation, and must then be in the realm of "opinion". However, since I just disproved your accusation, it moves past "opinion" into the realm of "outright falsehood". Are you again championing falsehood in an attempt to have it be the foundation of your issues with me and what I've said in the past?
seedtick said:
I have lived in the body of a small man, With a childhood nickname of SEEDTICK, you would not expect a big and tall man. But I have never felt overlooked in anyway because of it.
Good on you, mate. I'm glad you can rise above what you perceive to be an apparent deficiency, and take personal pride in being the best you that you can be.
seedtick said:
I am just throwing this in to you because this will most likely be my last post. But I think that I have gotten my point across.
So you're saying you threw in something that wasn't remotely germane to the actual topic being discussed solely because it's your last post? It isn't invalid on its own, but remains invalid as a legitimate point in the actual discussion here. It sounds like it would be an issue for a separate discussion. In other words, you just wantonly admitted to a non-sequitur, something that, unless used slyly and intentionally, is ultimately a disqualifier for taking seriously one's stated position, as it's evidence they can't think logically, linearly, and stay on topic.
Yep, you've certainly gotten your "point" across. However, I don't think it's the point you likely intended. This is your last post? Thanks for participating. | |
|
| Do you hold back in forums to improve your profile?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:42:18 PM | GOOD MAN! Be REAL,regardless.
For the record,I don't hold back in ANY area of life...
The reason I've got the time to reply to some of these posts actually.Nursing a dislocated Shoulder due to a inferior Front tire...
Blew out while HAMMERING a downhill turn with away slant 25-30mph on one
of my Roadbikes.
Now I know to NEVER buy Schwalbe Tires,or Kenda Tubes!  | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
