A question to women

[Ascarus]

guys look at breasts. big, small, medium, oblong ... guys look breasts.

most women know this and most don't mind provided you don't utterly stare. yeah, guys you should try to be discreet, but that will never change the fact that men will look at breasts. forever.

 

[KaWaiiTSuKI]

This is typically why I like wearing shirts that show no cleavage.... but even still, I get people looking at them

I've learned to not really mind too much and realise that all guys will do it at some point but... it still just creeps me out. Might be the reason why I don't go out much.

 

[JaceArveduin]

This is typically why I like wearing shirts that show no cleavage.... but even still, I get people looking at them

I've learned to not really mind too much and realise that all guys will do it at some point but... it still just creeps me out. Might be the reason why I don't go out much.

Don't worry, only a quarter of them are tempted to try something, half of them are wishing they could try something, and the last bit are those who'd like to try something, but can't be assed trying.

 

[KaWaiiTSuKI]

Don't worry, only a quarter of them are tempted to try something, half of them are wishing they could try something, and the last bit are those who'd like to try something, but can't be assed trying.

True, but you'd be surprised how many people hit on me. Or maybe not. I don't have many friends who are girls (or really any at all considering I'm pretty much a shut-in) but it makes me feel just... I don't know how to describe it, to tell you the truth. I just don't like being hit on or ogled at. Maybe a lot of girls like it but I don't.

Not that I'm paranoid of being raped or violated or anything, but I simply don't like being hit on by strangers looking for quick fucks which is all they seemingly want here. *shivers*

 

[JaceArveduin]

True, but you'd be surprised how many people hit on me. Or maybe not. I don't have many friends who are girls (or really any at all considering I'm pretty much a shut-in) but it makes me feel just... I don't know how to describe it, to tell you the truth. I just don't like being hit on or ogled at. Maybe a lot of girls like it but I don't.

Not that I'm paranoid of being raped or violated or anything, but I simply don't like being hit on by strangers looking for quick fucks which is all they seemingly want here. *shivers*

Well, no, I don't know how many people hit on you: I've no idea what you look like. Though I'm guessing you look pretty good. As for the shut in bit, I'm usually left alone for some unknown reason. Not wanting to be hit on is fine in my books, no everyone wants attention, I'm one of them.

 

[Sandernista]

1. I'm a AA.
2. I have never once noticed anyone staring.

Hah hah same.

Legs, though, that's another story.

My ASSets are elsewhere.

Though it does make it difficult to notice if people are staring...

Heh heh.

My girlfriend gets guys staring at her assets all the time.

I've noticed she honestly doesn't care, unless it's me. She just loves showing off to me.

 

[tobyornottoby]

That's your own personal interpretation. I personally see woman displaying cleavage as a negative as it's a distraction and does not serve to deeply enrich anyone emotionally or psychologically. Instead, woman do it in order to garner the sexual attention of men, drawing away from their personality and objectifying themselves. That being said, obviously looking at a woman's chest is a positive to the man staring, but I guess his feelings don't count in this scenario (according to your logic). No, if a woman decides to intentionally objectify herself that way, than she's merely being a hypocrite to get angry when a man is doing the same (imo). To say that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants, regardless of how blatantly provocative it is, with the obvious intention of getting a few glances, and a man is a pig to stare, despite the incredible temptation some men (especially teenagers) are going to face, is unfair at best and misandristic at worst.

Also, your assessment about biology is rather biased. To say that woman have a biological prerogative to display their sexual organs but men do not have the prerogative to look at the part of woman's body that their own biology is attracted to (basically both doing, according to you, what their biology dictates) is a ridiculous double standard.

I'm sure there are people who see puppies or flowers or whatever as a negative too, but we have to draw lines here. Cleavage might be a negative to you personally because of your beliefs but I see that as something different from creeping someone out. The last one is actively negative. (so you could say I see cleavage as 'neutral' and staring as negative).

What is your opinion on looks overall? From a holistic view I think they have their place, their importance as well. It's not just all about personality. If a women with a great personality has great distraction to boot, I'm not complaining.

What's your opinion on entertainment, life itself? There are a lot of things that do not 'enrich' us emotionally or psychologically, depending on the meaning of those words.

Oh sure men have that prerogative, you've said that before and I never disagreed. It was you who said the one but denied the other. And it's just the difference again between looking like a man and staring like a creep that makes all the difference here.

Men and women are not built equally (on avarage). Those biological prerogatives mean that women will be inclined more to 'draw away from their personality'. That you judge women on that, have less respect for them, I find unfair at best and misogynistic at worst =)

 

[axlryder]

That's your own personal interpretation. I personally see woman displaying cleavage as a negative as it's a distraction and does not serve to deeply enrich anyone emotionally or psychologically. Instead, woman do it in order to garner the sexual attention of men, drawing away from their personality and objectifying themselves. That being said, obviously looking at a woman's chest is a positive to the man staring, but I guess his feelings don't count in this scenario (according to your logic). No, if a woman decides to intentionally objectify herself that way, than she's merely being a hypocrite to get angry when a man is doing the same (imo). To say that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants, regardless of how blatantly provocative it is, with the obvious intention of getting a few glances, and a man is a pig to stare, despite the incredible temptation some men (especially teenagers) are going to face, is unfair at best and misandristic at worst.

Also, your assessment about biology is rather biased. To say that woman have a biological prerogative to display their sexual organs but men do not have the prerogative to look at the part of woman's body that their own biology is attracted to (basically both doing, according to you, what their biology dictates) is a ridiculous double standard.

I'm sure there are people who see puppies or flowers or whatever as a negative too, but we have to draw lines here. Cleavage might be a negative to you personally because of your beliefs but I see that as something different from creeping someone out. The last one is actively negative. (so you could say I see cleavage as 'neutral' and staring as negative).

What is your opinion on looks overall? From a holistic view I think they have their place, their importance as well. It's not just all about personality. If a women with a great personality has great distraction to boot, I'm not complaining.

What's your opinion on entertainment, life itself? There are a lot of things that do not 'enrich' us emotionally or psychologically, depending on the meaning of those words.

Oh sure men have that prerogative, you've said that before and I never disagreed. It was you who said the one but denied the other. And it's just the difference again between looking like a man and staring like a creep that makes all the difference here.

Men and women are not built equally (on avarage). Those biological prerogatives mean that women will be inclined more to 'draw away from their personality'. That you judge women on that, have less respect for them, I find unfair at best and misogynistic at worst =)

First of all, cleavage != puppies as the overt display of puppies doesn't have powerful social implications or generally affect how one gender views another.

but since you're so fond of using examples that support your point, I'll use one that supports mine. It would be like a brother who tells his other brother who absolutely LOVES videos games (but has none of his own) not to watch him playing video games in his room. All the while, the brother playing the video games has INTENTIONALLY left the door to his room open solely because he WANTS his brother to occasionally glance in the room because he wants to feel good about his video games. However, if the younger brother does glance longer than a moment or so, the brother turns around and calls him a pig. I'm sorry, but that brother with the video games, yeah he's a jerk and that's completely unfair. You can't have your cake and eat it too, bro.

It's not just about personal belief, as I have given you a perfectly objective reasons as to why displaying cleavage is has negative ramifications. To deny that a woman dressing provocatively results in her objectification and men getting distracted from her personality and who she is, is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand. That is actively negative, you just seem content on ignoring the negative social repercussions of overtly sexual clothing.

Also, I personally believe that provocative clothing has no real positive impact on society, BUT that's a whole different can of worms and not what we're talking about. Please don't try to draw the argument away from the main point, which is to say that a woman is being totally hypocritical and unfair if she tries to chastise a man for staring if she herself is helping to facilitate the opportunity for him to do so and clearly wants him to take occasional glances for her own benefit.

I don't really care if you think a woman has great breasts or not.

Again, my views on life are not relevant to what we're talking about, please don't try to draw the conversation away from the topic at hand.

Now, to say men and woman are not built equally is a vague and unnecessary comment. If you're speaking biologically, of course there are difference in their biological make-up. If you're trying to imply that woman somehow of more social freedom than men do based on their biology, than you're being completely sexist. Either way, that comment makes you look bad.

As to your comment about me being misogynistic, there's a key difference between me and you. I would also think less of a man if he stared at a woman's chest. I would also think less of a man if he went around showing off his butt cheeks. I would think less of a woman if she went around showing off her cleavage and if she want around staring at a man's butt. You see, I'm actually viewing both genders equally and holding them to the same standards. So yes, you can think I'm being misogynistic, but you're also wrong. Next time I would think harder about your own argument and less about trying to cleverly mirror my previous statement.

 

[tobyornottoby]

but since you're so fond of using examples that support your point, I'll use one that supports mine. It would be like a brother who tells his other brother who absolutely LOVES videos games (but has none of his own) not to watch him playing video games in his room. All the while, the brother playing the video games has INTENTIONALLY left the door to his room open solely because he WANTS his brother to occasionally glance in the room because he wants to feel good about his video games. However, if the younger brother does glance longer than a moment or so, the brother turns around and calls him a pig. I'm sorry, but that brother with the video games, yeah he's a jerk and that's completely unfair. You can't have your cake and eat it too, bro.

So what you're saying is that cleavage is unfair to those who can't get their hands on any boob whatsoever in their life. Yeah, sucks to be them =D

According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair. Temptations are an awesome part of life. If you had everything you wanted what would there be left to live for?

It's not just about personal belief, as I have given you a perfectly objective reasons as to why displaying cleavage is has negative ramifications. To deny that a woman dressing provocatively results in her objectification and men getting distracted from her personality and who she is, is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand. That is actively negative, you just seem content on ignoring the negative social repercussions of overtly sexual clothing.

I don't deny that part, but it's just your personal opinion that everything that distracts from personality is negative. If we look at idols or sportspeople or whatever we're also distracted from their personality.

It certainly has negative social repercussions. But to deny there are no positive social thingies is equally in the sand.

Besides, how people dress can express how they are too. Anything that is customisable can become an extension of your personality.

Please don't try to draw the argument away from the main point, which is to say that a woman is being totally hypocritical and unfair if she tries to chastise a man for staring if she herself is helping to facilitate the opportunity for him to do so and clearly wants him to take occasional glances for her own benefit.

Again, wouldn't that make any form of advertisement unfair?

Also, I personally believe that provocative clothing has no real positive impact on society, BUT that's a whole different can of worms and not what we're talking about.

[...]

Again, my views on life are not relevant to what we're talking about, please don't try to draw the conversation away from the topic at hand.

Yes they are, because specific views and opinions always come from larger ideas. Our disagreement has most likely its roots in a disagreement on a higher level.

This isn't just some "I'm right, you're not" argument.

Now, to say men and woman are not built equally is a vague and unnecessary comment. If you're speaking biologically, of course there are difference in their biological make-up. If you're trying to imply that woman somehow of more social freedom than men do based on their biology, than you're being completely sexist. Either way, that comment makes you look bad.

I mean built in how they work. Men and women are not attracted to each other in the exact same ways. What matters in this case is that the female body has evolved as a sexual signaling divice moreso than the male body, and men have evolved to be more visually oriented because of that.

As to your comment about me being misogynistic, there's a key difference between me and you. I would also think less of a man if he stared at a woman's chest. I would also think less of a man if he went around showing off his butt cheeks. I would think less of a woman if she went around showing off her cleavage and if she want around staring at a man's butt. You see, I'm actually viewing both genders equally and holding them to the same standards.

So you might be both a misogynist and a misandrist then =D

 

[axlryder]

but since you're so fond of using examples that support your point, I'll use one that supports mine. It would be like a brother who tells his other brother who absolutely LOVES videos games (but has none of his own) not to watch him playing video games in his room. All the while, the brother playing the video games has INTENTIONALLY left the door to his room open solely because he WANTS his brother to occasionally glance in the room because he wants to feel good about his video games. However, if the younger brother does glance longer than a moment or so, the brother turns around and calls him a pig. I'm sorry, but that brother with the video games, yeah he's a jerk and that's completely unfair. You can't have your cake and eat it too, bro.

So what you're saying is that cleavage is unfair to those who can't get their hands on any boob whatsoever in their life. Yeah, sucks to be them =D

According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair. Temptations are an awesome part of life. If you had everything you wanted what would there be left to live for?

Wow, now you just sound kind of mean and are missing the point. The fact that the boy has no video games is merely framing the real world situation of having a woman's breasts in your face an no breasts to fondle at that moment. Such a blatantly evasive tactic only serves to reinforce the fact that you don't seem to have a strong rebuttal. Try again please.

Also, that point about wares is not true at all, stop trying to draw fallacious comparisons. My comparison is fair because it has to do ONLY with looking at something. It is equivalent. Also, AGAIN you're going back to that same terribly wrong shopkeeper analogy, just phrased differently. Giving away his wares would be the same as the girl giving herself up and letting the guy have his way with her breasts (or the guy stealing from the shop). It's completely different! That's pretty bad to fall into the same pitfall twice, bro. Now try to actually come up with a decent rebuttal.

I don't deny that part, but it's just your personal opinion that everything that distracts from personality is negative. If we look at idols or sportspeople or whatever we're also distracted from their personality.

It certainly has negative social repercussions. But to deny there are no positive social thingies is equally in the sand.

Well, as I said, I don't want to distract from the main topic so I'll go on a tangent here, but it's not really part of our argument:

no, I actually see no positives in cleavage at all. This isn't to say that parents shouldn't be frank about sex with their kids, or act like sex is evil. Or that people should feel bad about having sexual feelings or desires or maturely explore sex through art and all that jazz. I figured you'd probably try to go that route, and I'm telling you now that's not how I view the world. But I'm saying that our culture does a lot to sully the sanctity of sex. Sex and the human body are both beautiful things, and the exploitation of these things makes me sick (not the display, mind you, but the clear exploitation). All the sex in advertisement. Sex on TV. Provocative clothing. Porn. This stuff messes with your brain. It manipulates people. It desensitizes them. It warps them. I see no positives in that at all. Not just nudity, mind you, but the display of sexual images or themes for the specific intent to arouse. I'm not saying we got to get all puritanical up in here, but there's no real good reason to display cleavage either. It's possible I'm wrong, but I have yet to see a convincing argument stating otherwise

As to your point about idols and sports heroes, it's not so black and white in my mind, as there are great positives that can be gained AND great negatives. Our infatuation with a fabrication, an IDEAL of a person is a VERY unhealthy thing (Edward from Twilight for example). Not only does it provide unrealistic expectations and destroy self esteem, but it also CAN serves as an unhealthy distraction from the real world and real issues if it's too heavily invested in. It's something else that has done enormous damage to our society. Of course it's not so black and white as that (not at all), but like I said it's a complex issue and that's just one side of the coin. Now, on the opposite side of the coin, great figures like Martin Luther King and even great sports heroes and movie stars have provided inspiration to others. Their skill and the words they say are also a testament to who they are. What's more, we're often interested in that person because of the apparent hard work they've put in and will usually read about them and who they were. That's not even including the direct benefits that may come from the work they do, speeches they make, art they create, money they donate, etc. Cleavage has done nothing like that. Even if it inspires you to get to know the person better, it's almost certainly because of selfish reasons (you saw her cleavage and decided to try and get into her pants). It's purely a physical, visceral thing. There is no long term benefits.

/tangent

Besides, how people dress can express how they are too. Anything that is customisable can become an extension of your personality.

yes, that doesn't mean you have to dress like a tramp. I've seen goth chicks, emo chicks, hipster chicks, preppy chicks, nerdy chicks, visual kei chicks, normal chicks and all manner of other chicks who have not needed to show of cleavage to express themselves. At all. I'm sure that dressing provocatively DOES say something about a person, but I can't really see it saying something positive

Again, wouldn't that make any form of advertisement unfair?

nope.avi (see above for why the advertisement example is a bad one)

Yes they are, because specific views and opinions always come from larger ideas. Our disagreement has most likely its roots in a disagreement on a higher level.

This isn't just some "I'm right, you're not" argument.

actually, I'd say it really is an "I'm right you're wrong" argument. I suspect you're trying to complicate it in an attempt to gain leverage for your argument; however, I'd say that my above example paints a pretty clear picture as to why it's unfair for a woman to dress seductively and then yell at a man for staring. Of course if the dude is like one inch away from her, yeah personal space, but I'd think that's a given. Anyone behaving in a way that could warrant a restraining order is pretty much breaking the law, so I'd hope that's not the image you have in your head. Staring from a reasonable distance (and not following the girl) is more what I'm talking about.

I mean built in how they work. Men and women are not attracted to each other in the exact same ways. What matters in this case is that the female body has evolved as a sexual signaling divice moreso than the male body, and men have evolved to be more visually oriented because of that.

The term you were looking for is sexually dimorphic. Anyway, people are more than their biology and both men and woman have learned to exercise restraint for the sake of society and bettering themselves. Of course not everyone is on the same page and it's this very important freedom that we enjoy that allows for that. So sure, you can go to strip clubs and ogle woman for purely hollow an visceral thrills. You can walk down the street and stare at the chests of all the woman you see, not once considering who they are. You can also dress like a tramp just to get attention and artificially boost your self esteem only to come crashing down when you realize it's all a farce and no one actually appreciates who you really are. That's your prerogative. I want no part of it and see it as a negative, and that's my prerogative. The point though, is to say that a woman should be able to dress like a tramp, yet a man should be chastised for ogling is unfair and hypocritical. See my above example that you have yet to properly rebut for a clear picture as to why.

So you might be both a misogynist and a misandrist then =D

wrong again, but that seems to be a trend with you. I see their BEHAVIOR that they CHOSE as socially and psychologically destructive (with a fair amount of solid evidence supporting my views). I'm not thinking less of a person because of their gender or biological inclinations. I'm thinking less of them because I view them acting so unabashedly on those inclinations as destructive and erosive to those around them as well as their own psyche. That would be like calling me both a misogynist and a misandrist for thinking less of two people who have never met for walking into a house and screwing because they were biologically inclined to do so. Also, gender has nothing to do with it really, if the gender roles were reversed I would feel the same way. Also, I like how your point about me being a misogynist actually contradicts your own position. You see, by calling me a misandrist, you're also calling yourself one for saying a woman should have the right to chastise men for ogling her even though he's biologically inclined to do so. Seriously consider thinking harder about your arguments.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Also, that point about wares is not true at all, stop trying to draw fallacious comparisons. My comparison is fair because it has to do ONLY with looking at something. It is equivalent. Also, AGAIN you're going back to that same terribly wrong shopkeeper analogy, just phrased differently.

No the first time it was about the shoppers, but this time it's about the shopkeeper. The question is whether encouraging temptation is wrong.

As women in this thread have pointed out, men will look whether you dress with cleavage or not. So the boy will yearn for games whether his brother has the door open or not. Opening that door does not add anything new to the equation. It just encourages the already present temptation.

no, I actually see no positives in cleavage at all. This isn't to say that parents shouldn't be frank about sex with their kids, or act like sex is evil. Or that people should feel bad about having sexual feelings or desires or maturely explore sex through art and all that jazz. I figured you'd probably try to go that route, and I'm telling you now that's not how I view the world. But I'm saying that our culture does a lot to sully the sanctity of sex. Sex and the human body are both beautiful things, and the exploitation of these things makes me sick (not the display, mind you, but the clear exploitation). All the sex in advertisement. Sex on TV. Provocative clothing. Porn. This stuff messes with your brain. It manipulates people. It desensitizes them. It warps them. I see no positives in that at all.

And that's why I wanted to know more about you. Because this shows our differences might be more about sex in general.

It only messes with our brain because our brain is built to be messed by it. Nature have given us 2 primal instincts, survival of the individual (not dying) and survival of the species (procreation). To push us in the right direction pain is very unpleasant and sex is very pleasant, meaning it will indeed warp our lives. Sex is very centric to our lives. Beautiful, yeah. Sanctity, nah.

Which goes all the way up to the question of the meaning of life. Is it just to have a good time or is there something higher? (Again, I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm saying I bet our difference originates at a higher level)

As to your points about sports people and idols, that's a much more complex issue and irrelevant to the topic at hand (again).

Alright lets keep it closer at hand: games. When I play games with people, it's not about their personality. Games actually distract from it. A lot of things in life do.

actually, I'd say it really is an "I'm right you're wrong" argument. I suspect you're trying to complicate it in an attempt to gain leverage for your argument; however, I'd say that my above example paints a pretty clear picture as to why it's unfair for a woman to dress seductively and then yell at a man for staring. Of course if the dude is like one inch away from her, yeah personal space, but I'd think that's a given. Anyone behaving in a way that could warrant a restraining order is pretty much breaking the law, so I'd hope that's not the image you have in your head. Staring from a reasonable distance (and not following the girl) is more what I'm talking about.

It's not that I'm having some outlandish view here. Reading through the thread, it's evident a lot of people might not agree with you. Are you right and they all wrong?

The point though, is to say that a woman should be able to dress like a tramp, yet a man should be chastised for ogling is unfair and hypocritical. See my above example that you have yet to properly rebut for a clear picture as to why.

Alright, another thing is that the boy isn't creeping his brother out, so him disallowing to look seems indeed more silly.

You can also dress like a tramp just to get attention and artificially boost your self esteem only to come crashing down when you realize it's all a farce and no one actually appreciates who you really are.

It's a whole that's bigger than the parts. It's not just only about personality or only about looks. People can find the middle way they're comfortable with. If you 'dress like a tramp' you're not automatically excluding any personality.

You see, by calling me a misandrist, you're also calling yourself one for saying a woman should have the right to chastise men for ogling her because he's biologically inclined to do so. Seriously consider thinking harder about your arguments.

Again, it's not binary. It's a scale where lines are to be drawn. Some biological inclinations are acceptable, others aren't. Where we draw that line depends on our personal view on what's destructive or constructive.

 

[axlryder]

First of all, don't partially quote my paragraphs (tangent aside) it's rude and evasive.

No the first time it was about the shoppers, but this time it's about the shopkeeper. The question is whether encouraging temptation is wrong.

As women in this thread have pointed out, men will look whether you dress with cleavage or not. So the boy will yearn for games whether his brother has the door open or not. Opening that door does not add anything new to the equation. It just encourages the already present temptation.

no, you're wrong YET again. To say a shopkeeper giving away his wares is a completely fallacious comparison because of the exact reason I said it was. It would be the same as a woman willingly giving herself up. This isn't even about whether or not temptation is right or wrong, this is about whether or not it's fair for a woman to yell at a man for staring at her cleavage when she herself is dressing in such a way that would tempt him to do so and intentionally wants him to look.

Also to say the brother leaving his door open makes no difference is completely ridiculous. Of course it does. If you don't want somebody watching you play video games, DON'T LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN. It's especially bad if you actually want them to look but not for a long period, which is the only reason a woman would wear a shirt with cleavage. It's hypocritical and unfair. Try again, please.

Also, again, just because some men will look whether you dress provocatively or not is not a good reason to dress like a tramp. Sure the brother might try to look through the crack under the door, but at least the other brother isn't openly providing him with the opportunity to so. At least he doesn't have the express purpose of wanting his brother to look (just not for very long). That's like saying I might as well stare at her breasts because some woman are going to dress provocatively either way. That's terrible reasoning. Yes, SOME men are going to stare regardless, and SOME men have serious problems. That doesn't mean a woman should dress like a slut and bring herself down to that man's level, thus helping to proliferate this objectification of woman(and vice-versa for men looking at the breasts).

And that's why I wanted to know more about you. Because this shows our differences might be more about sex in general.

It only messes with our brain because our brain is built to be messed by it. Nature have given us 2 primal instincts, survival of the individual (not dying) and survival of the species (procreation). To push us in the right direction pain is very unpleasant and sex is very pleasant, meaning it will indeed warp our lives. Sex is very centric to our lives. Beautiful, yeah. Sanctity, nah.

Which goes all the way up to the question of the meaning of life. Is it just to have a good time or is there something higher? (Again, I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm saying I bet our difference originates at a higher level)

yes, well if I went by what nature told me, I would forcefully copulate with a woman because I found her attractive and be fighting other dudes to the death for the opportunity to do so. At our core that's what men really want to do, same as any other animal, it's just societal conditioning that as ingrained into our psyche the idea that taking a woman by force is wrong (and fighting other dudes to the death like animals). we are more than instinct. To view the world in such a way seems ignorant of thousands of years of progress. To live in such a hedonistic way is counterproductive to progress. Argue about the meaning of life all you want, but the debate is not about whether or not cleavage is right or wrong, it's about whether or not it is fair for a woman to intentionally expose herself for clear purpose of making a man look, and then yelling at him for looking longer than SHE wanted him to. Or, according to you, taking advantage of her own very base biological inclinations while denying him of his. You're trying to complicate a simple matter of hypocritical reasoning.

Alright lets keep it closer at hand: games. When I play games with people, it's not about their personality. Games actually distract from it. A lot of things in life do.

this was kind of covered in that tangent and is still irrelevant. Games can be very, very unhealthy but can also be beneficial. It's also a complex issue. Look at people who are addicted to WOW or the dudes who's anger issues are exacerbated by 12 year olds on COD. There are games that can get you too caught up in fantasy and warp your perceptions of reality (not to some extreme extent, usually, but a lesser degree). Those things are very bad. On the other hand, people need to unplug and relieve stress. Some games a genuinely beneficial and great art. etc. As to the social aspect, MP does help bring people together because you share a COMMON interest. You're interested in what they're interested in. Not interested in what's on their chest. You're also mutually understanding that you're speaking to one another for the sake of playing a game at that moment. To apply your cleavage logic, though, it would mean I should only look at the screen for a moment at a time when we're playing video games for fear of violating some vague social taboo and my friend has the right to yell at me if I start staring at the screen. The two don't correlate very well. Which is why I don't like the argument to go off on a tangent.

It's not that I'm having some outlandish view here. Reading through the thread, it's evident a lot of people might not agree with you. Are you right and they all wrong?

yep. A lot of people thought homosexuality was wrong not long ago, the majority of our country in fact. Those people who were crying out for equal rights were barely a voice to be heard. Obviously, the majority was wrong. Numbers don't translate to something being right or wrong (unless we're talking about math). It's called a popular sentiment fallacy.

Alright, another thing is that the boy isn't creeping his brother out, so him disallowing to look seems indeed more silly.

you're right, it seems really stupid for him not wanting his brother to look if he left his door open specifically for his brother to steal occasional glances. It seems really really stupid and hypocritical and unfair :/ It's the same for a woman showing off her breasts. Her being creeped out really does seem silly if she clearly wanted the guy to look in the first place. However, it's her body and she can dictate how she fels, not me. So in this scenario, the brother IS bothered by it, he feels his personal space is being violated by his brother's eyes or some reason. That doesn't change how unfair and hypocritical it is for a person to show of something that another person wants to view on a core, biological level, for the clear intent to make them look so they can feel good about themselves in some hollow, superficial way, but then yelling at them for looking longer than the person showing off the object feels comfortable with (however long that is).

It's a whole that's bigger than the parts. It's not just only about personality or only about looks. People can find the middle way they're comfortable with. If you 'dress like a tramp' you're not automatically excluding any personality.

Yes, obviously a woman who dresses like a harlot isn't automatically a harlot, which really would be zero personality. The point is, there's absolutely NO good reason for her to do outside of the exact thing I said (which isn't really a good reason) and she's creating social pitfalls and making it much easier for men(whether she realizes it or not) to look at her like a piece of meat. Thus making them more inclined to completely disregard her personality. This is also still irrelevant

Again, it's not binary. It's a scale where lines are to be drawn. Some biological inclinations are acceptable, others aren't. Where we draw that line depends on our personal view on what's destructive or constructive.

HAHA, oh man that's hilarious. so we're right back to you being a misandrist then. So if woman is very intentionally showing off her goods for the intent purpose of making a man look at them because she's biologically inclined to do so and well within her legal rights it's okay. but if the dude looks for longer than a glance HE should feel bad about himself for making her uncomfortable even though he's well within his legal rights to do so and is biologically inclined. Of course SHE shouldn't feel bad about possibly making him uncomfortable by providing that temptation, or be chastised for her hypocrisy, NO WAY! Yeah, misandrist.

Also, again, my own personal views on the matter are that neither of them should be behaving that way, but I don't think either of them should be openly chastised either, since it's their legal right to behave how they did(as I said). Just covering myself so you don't try and turn this BACK around on me and we start going in circles.

 

[tobyornottoby]

First of all, don't partially quote my paragraphs (tangent aside) it's rude and evasive.

I find it practical and clean but if you mind it no problem.

no, you're wrong YET again. To say a shopkeeper giving away his wares is a completely fallacious comparison because of the exact reason I said it was. It would be the same as a woman willingly giving herself up. This isn't even about whether or not temptation is right or wrong, this is about whether or not it's fair for a woman to yell at a man for staring at her cleavage when she herself is dressing in such a way that would tempt him to do so and intentionally wants him to look.

Who's talking about giving away wares? You do, again. For me it's just about the temptation part.

Also to say the brother leaving his door open makes no difference is completely ridiculous. Of course it does. If you don't want somebody watching you play video games, DON'T LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN. It's especially bad if you actually want them to look but not for a long period, which is the only reason a woman would wear a shirt with cleavage. It's hypocritical and unfair. Try again, please.

But he does want the boy to watch. Try again, please.

I can playfully push someone under water, or I could drown them. No tangent intended, but length matters.

Also, again, just because some men will look whether you dress provocatively or not is not a good reason to dress like a tramp. Sure the brother might try to look through the crack under the door, but at least the other brother isn't openly providing him with the opportunity to so. At least he doesn't have the express purpose of wanting his brother to look (just not for very long). That's like saying I might as well stare at her breasts because some woman are going to dress provocatively either way. That's terrible reasoning. Yes, SOME men are going to stare regardless, and SOME men have serious problems. That doesn't mean a woman should dress like a slut and bring herself down to that man's level, thus helping to proliferate this objectification of woman(and vice-versa for men looking at the breasts).

It's indeed not a good reason to do it, but it's also not a good reason NOT to do it, and that's the point here.

Again the 'look' and 'stare'.

Many boys will be content just glancing at the game while walking by, and the brother is opendly providing them the opportunity to do so.

yes, well if I went by what nature told me, I would forcefully copulate with a woman because I found her attractive and be fighting other dudes to the death for the opportunity to do so. At our core that's what men really want to do, same as any other animal, it's just societal conditioning that as ingrained into our psyche the idea that taking a woman by force is wrong (and fighting other dudes to the death like animals). we are more than instinct. To view the world in such a way seems ignorant of thousands of years of progress. To live in such a hedonistic way is counterproductive to progress. Argue about the meaning of life all you want, but the debate is not about whether or not cleavage is right or wrong, it's about whether or not it is fair for a woman to intentionally expose herself for clear purpose of making a man look, and then yelling at him for looking longer than SHE wanted him to. Or, according to you, taking advantage of her own very base biological inclinations while denying him of his. You're trying to complicate a simple matter of hypocritical reasoning.

Oh yes, we should be more than our instinct. But we should also not deny that part of us, that instinctual part. We should try to live with both our higher and instinctual parts in harmony. For some that will be more towards one end, for others the other.

Is being counterproductive to progress a bad thing? As a society, we should make progress, but for that is it necessary each individual works towards that goal?

this was kind of covered in that tangent and is still irrelevant. Games can be very, very unhealthy but can also be beneficial. It's also a complex issue. Look at people who are addicted to WOW or the dudes who's anger issues are exacerbated by 12 year olds on COD. There are games that can get you too caught up in fantasy and warp your perceptions of reality (not to some extreme extent, usually, but a lesser degree). Those things are very bad. On the other hand, people need to unplug and relieve stress. Some games a genuinely beneficial and great art. etc. As to the social aspect, MP does help bring people together because you share a COMMON interest. You're interested in what they're interested in. Not interested in what's on their chest. You're also mutually understanding that you're speaking to one another for the sake of playing a game at that moment. To apply your cleavage logic, though, it would mean I should only look at the screen for a moment at a time when we're playing video games for fear of violating some vague social taboo and my friend has the right to yell at me if I start staring at the screen. The two don't correlate very well. Which is why I don't like the argument to go off on a tangent.

Unplug and relieve stress? Sex! And it's certainly a COMMON interest. Or else it would be a crime...

There are actually 'vague' social taboos in certain games and you can break them, but that just makes you the ass. Explicit rules and implicit rules they are called in game design.

Sometimes it gets real fuzzy. Casual Magic the Gathering has many ways to make others feel you're violating something and has many people yelling at each other for reasons the other doesn't get.

But the actual point I was getting at is that games and many other things are 'bad' following your reasons why sexuality is bad.

yep. A lot of people thought homosexuality was wrong not long ago, the majority of our country in fact. Those people who were crying out for equal rights were barely a voice to be heard. Obviously, the majority was wrong. Numbers don't translate to something being right or wrong (unless we're talking about math). It's called a popular sentiment fallacy.

Indeed, it's certainly not an argument. But again, I'm not trying to win one. I'm merely using it to point out likely neither of us can.

you're right, it seems really stupid for him not wanting his brother to look if he left his door open specifically for his brother to steal occasional glances. It seems really really stupid and hypocritical and unfair :/ It's the same for a woman showing off her breasts. Her being creeped out really does seem silly if she clearly wanted the guy to look in the first place. However, it's her body and she can dictate how she fels, not me. So in this scenario, the brother IS bothered by it, he feels his personal space is being violated by his brother's eyes or some reason. That doesn't change how unfair and hypocritical it is for a person to show of something that another person wants to view on a core, biological level, for the clear intent to make them look so they can feel good about themselves in some hollow, superficial way, but then yelling at them for looking longer than the person showing off the object feels comfortable with (however long that is).

Well yeah if the brother chooses to be bothered, that seems unfair and hypocritical, but that doesn't make it an apt analogy.

Yes, obviously a woman who dresses like a harlot isn't automatically a harlot, which really would be zero personality. The point is, there's absolutely NO good reason for her to do outside of the exact thing I said (which isn't really a good reason) and she's creating social pitfalls and making it much easier for men(whether she realizes it or not) to look at her like a piece of meat. Thus making them more inclined to completely disregard her personality. This is also still irrelevant

It is a good reason. Not everything has to be about progress. Yes there can be negative side effects. But that's life.

The reason I think it's relevant is because we both agree men staring is negative. What we're disagreeing on, is whether women wearing cleavage and men looking is negative or not.

HAHA, oh man that's hilarious. so we're right back to you being a misandrist then. So if woman is very intentionally showing off her goods for the intent purpose of making a man look at them because she's biologically inclined to do so and well within her legal rights it's okay. but if the dude looks for longer than a glance HE should feel bad about himself for making her uncomfortable even though he's well within his legal rights to do so and is biologically inclined. Of course SHE shouldn't feel bad about possibly making him uncomfortable by providing that temptation, or be chastised for her hypocrisy, NO WAY! Yeah, misandrist.

Also, again, my own personal views on the matter are that neither of them should be behaving that way, but I don't think either of them should be openly chastised either, since it's their legal right to behave how they did(as I said). Just covering myself so you don't try and turn this BACK around on me and we start going in circles.

From Lord of War: "I don't care if it's legal! It's wrong"


(Btw, I genuinly enjoy arguing with you, but I'll be out of town for some days so I won't be on =)

 

[axlryder]

Who's talking about giving away wares? You do, again. For me it's just about the temptation part.

you were, when you said "According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair." Of course that's ridiculous because of what I said (not equivalent). Also, I already addressed the temptation part.

Also to say the brother leaving his door open makes no difference is completely ridiculous. Of course it does. If you don't want somebody watching you play video games, DON'T LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN. It's especially bad if you actually want them to look but not for a long period, which is the only reason a woman would wear a shirt with cleavage. It's hypocritical and unfair. Try again, please.

But he does want the boy to watch. Try again, please.

okay, seriously bro? We already outlined that he wants him to briefly glance, but not "watch". I already said this. When I watch TV I don't sneak a peek at it once every ten seconds or so. Watch = stare. I'd have thought you would drawn the parallels by now.

I can playfully push someone under water, or I could drown them. No tangent intended, but length matters.

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

Also, again, just because some men will look whether you dress provocatively or not is not a good reason to dress like a tramp. Sure the brother might try to look through the crack under the door, but at least the other brother isn't openly providing him with the opportunity to so. At least he doesn't have the express purpose of wanting his brother to look (just not for very long). That's like saying I might as well stare at her breasts because some woman are going to dress provocatively either way. That's terrible reasoning. Yes, SOME men are going to stare regardless, and SOME men have serious problems. That doesn't mean a woman should dress like a slut and bring herself down to that man's level, thus helping to proliferate this objectification of woman(and vice-versa for men looking at the breasts).

It's indeed not a good reason to do it, but it's also not a good reason NOT to do it, and that's the point here.

No, the point you were actually making was that if a man is tempted by breasts either way, adding temptation doesn't add anything new to the table and thus is negligible on a woman's part (somehow?). Well you're wrong, as these shirts, unlike shirts that fully cover you, are actually an invitation to look at a woman's chest. There are, like anything else, exceptions (beaches, extremely large breasts that are bound to show some cleavage even with a more modest neckline, 110 degree weather, etc.) but in general, these shirts serve no other real purpose. The point is, if you're going to feel uncomfortable if a man's staring at you, don't wear a shirt that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attract the attention of a man's gaze, especially if you're wearing it with the FULL knowledge that he's definitely going to be glancing down there and you actually want him to. If you do wear it in spite of all that, than realize you're being a hypocrite and totally unfair in attempting to chastise a man for staring and he'd then be totally justified in chastising you right back if you did.

Again the 'look' and 'stare'.

Many boys will be content just glancing at the game while walking by, and the brother is opendly providing them the opportunity to do so.

That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Look at it this way, if the brother started watching, and the brother playing turned around and said "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!"

and the the brother responds saying "THEN WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN!?"

and the brother playing says "BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO GLANCE SO I COULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING COOL GAMES!"

and the brother responds saying "HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO USE ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT THEN YELL AT ME FOR WATCHING EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LIKE VIDEO GAMES AND WANTED ME TO GLANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU HYPOCRITE!"

Oh yes, we should be more than our instinct. But we should also not deny that part of us, that instinctual part. We should try to live with both our higher and instinctual parts in harmony. For some that will be more towards one end, for others the other.

Is being counterproductive to progress a bad thing? As a society, we should make progress, but for that is it necessary each individual works towards that goal?

Of course we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves, but we should also try and limit it to the appropriate time and setting. We should also approach it with the appropriate mind set. What our society has done to sex is disgusting and intentionally showing off cleavage contributes to that empty, hollow view of sex. That manufactured, selfish, commercialized, manipulative, impersonal, hedonistic view of sex that messes with people's heads and warps them NEGATIVELY.

Also, how is being counterproductive not a bad thing? Did you read that before you typed it? have you seen the state of our world? We can't progress fast enough, broskie. Either way, of course that's all idealism talking and that's not going to happen. It's also not relevant to what we're debating.

this was kind of covered in that tangent and is still irrelevant. Games can be very, very unhealthy but can also be beneficial. It's also a complex issue. Look at people who are addicted to WOW or the dudes who's anger issues are exacerbated by 12 year olds on COD. There are games that can get you too caught up in fantasy and warp your perceptions of reality (not to some extreme extent, usually, but a lesser degree). Those things are very bad. On the other hand, people need to unplug and relieve stress. Some games a genuinely beneficial and great art. etc. As to the social aspect, MP does help bring people together because you share a COMMON interest. You're interested in what they're interested in. Not interested in what's on their chest. You're also mutually understanding that you're speaking to one another for the sake of playing a game at that moment. To apply your cleavage logic, though, it would mean I should only look at the screen for a moment at a time when we're playing video games for fear of violating some vague social taboo and my friend has the right to yell at me if I start staring at the screen. The two don't correlate very well. Which is why I don't like the argument to go off on a tangent.

Unplug and relieve stress? Sex! And it's certainly a COMMON interest. Or else it would be a crime...

yes, sex is great between two people who care more about one another than they care about their own personal pleasure or hang ups. Cleavage has nothing to do with the actual act of copulation, though. And sex is not directly related to what we were debating about. Though cleavage might help lead to some empty, hollow sex, I suppose.

There are actually 'vague' social taboos in certain games and you can break them, but that just makes you the ass. Explicit rules and implicit rules they are called in game design.

Sometimes it gets real fuzzy. Casual Magic the Gathering has many ways to make others feel you're violating something and has many people yelling at each other for reasons the other doesn't get.

I've played magic a bit, it's pretty fun. Either way, it's still not relevant, and if you're trying to get around to saying that a man is breaking a social taboo by staring at a woman's cleavage, I'm telling you it's an unfair taboo if the woman herself isn't breaking a taboo by intentionally showing off her cleavage to get a man to look. So of course, her having the right to yell at him because she's not breaking a taboo and he is is also stupid.

But the actual point I was getting at is that games and many other things are 'bad' following your reasons why sexuality is bad.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

Indeed, it's certainly not an argument. But again, I'm not trying to win one. I'm merely using it to point out likely neither of us can.

really, because I'm pretty sure Black slaves got their rights and they won that argument. Pretty sure homosexuals are winning their argument too. How the majority thinks has nothing to do with something being right or wrong, so I don't think it's even a very good point in trying to say that neither of us can win this argument.

Well yeah if the brother chooses to be bothered, that seems unfair and hypocritical, but that doesn't make it an apt analogy.

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

It is a good reason. Not everything has to be about progress. Yes there can be negative side effects. But that's life.

artificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

The reason I think it's relevant is because we both agree men staring is negative. What we're disagreeing on, is whether women wearing cleavage and men looking is negative or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

HAHA, oh man that's hilarious. so we're right back to you being a misandrist then. So if woman is very intentionally showing off her goods for the intent purpose of making a man look at them because she's biologically inclined to do so and well within her legal rights it's okay. but if the dude looks for longer than a glance HE should feel bad about himself for making her uncomfortable even though he's well within his legal rights to do so and is biologically inclined. Of course SHE shouldn't feel bad about possibly making him uncomfortable by providing that temptation, or be chastised for her hypocrisy, NO WAY! Yeah, misandrist.

Also, again, my own personal views on the matter are that neither of them should be behaving that way, but I don't think either of them should be openly chastised either, since it's their legal right to behave how they did(as I said). Just covering myself so you don't try and turn this BACK around on me and we start going in circles.

From Lord of War: "I don't care if it's legal! It's wrong"

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please.

(Btw, I genuinly enjoy arguing with you, but I'll be out of town for some days so I won't be on =)

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

 

[tobyornottoby]

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

He That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

 

[axlryder]

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

He That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I had already asked that you not partially quote me, yet you did it again despite acknowledging you wouldn't. I must now ask that you go back and reply again to my previous post, this time quoting my arguments fully and in the proper order, rebutting each point in a satisfactory way. Feel free to erase any text you had written that I quoted, or previous quotes of my own that I left in. If you choose not to do that, I will consider the comment which I am replying to to be a breach of the terms we agreed to, thus making you an dishonest debater and not worth my time. For the record, partial quoting is (in my experience) a rather frowned upon practice in written debates, as it neglects potentially crucial points in the opponents argument, thus making your own rebuttal incomplete and potentially invalid as a proper response. Even if you feel a later point is contingent on a previous point which you already rebutted or is simply redundant, you should point that out instead of ignoring it. Be careful, however, as fallaciously making such a claim can further hurt your argument. Also, I'm glad you liked this vid, lol.

 

[tobyornottoby]

I'm not entirely sure if I got that right, is this it:

you were, when you said "According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair." Of course that's ridiculous because of what I said (not equivalent). Also, I already addressed the temptation part.

okay, seriously bro? We already outlined that he wants him to briefly glance, but not "watch". I already said this. When I watch TV I don't sneak a peek at it once every ten seconds or so. Watch = stare. I'd have thought you would drawn the parallels by now.

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

No, the point you were actually making was that if a man is tempted by breasts either way, adding temptation doesn't add anything new to the table and thus is negligible on a woman's part (somehow?). Well you're wrong, as these shirts, unlike shirts that fully cover you, are actually an invitation to look at a woman's chest. There are, like anything else, exceptions (beaches, extremely large breasts that are bound to show some cleavage even with a more modest neckline, 110 degree weather, etc.) but in general, these shirts serve no other real purpose. The point is, if you're going to feel uncomfortable if a man's staring at you, don't wear a shirt that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attract the attention of a man's gaze, especially if you're wearing it with the FULL knowledge that he's definitely going to be glancing down there and you actually want him to. If you do wear it in spite of all that, than realize you're being a hypocrite and totally unfair in attempting to chastise a man for staring and he'd then be totally justified in chastising you right back if you did.

That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Look at it this way, if the brother started watching, and the brother playing turned around and said "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!"

and the the brother responds saying "THEN WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN!?"

and the brother playing says "BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO GLANCE SO I COULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING COOL GAMES!"

and the brother responds saying "HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO USE ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT THEN YELL AT ME FOR WATCHING EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LIKE VIDEO GAMES AND WANTED ME TO GLANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU HYPOCRITE!"

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

Of course we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves, but we should also try and limit it to the appropriate time and setting. We should also approach it with the appropriate mind set. What our society has done to sex is disgusting and intentionally showing off cleavage contributes to that empty, hollow view of sex. That manufactured, selfish, commercialized, manipulative, impersonal, hedonistic view of sex that messes with people's heads and warps them NEGATIVELY.

Also, how is being counterproductive not a bad thing? Did you read that before you typed it? have you seen the state of our world? We can't progress fast enough, broskie. Either way, of course that's all idealism talking and that's not going to happen. It's also not relevant to what we're debating.

yes, sex is great between two people who care more about one another than they care about their own personal pleasure or hang ups. Cleavage has nothing to do with the actual act of copulation, though. And sex is not directly related to what we were debating about. Though cleavage might help lead to some empty, hollow sex, I suppose.

I've played magic a bit, it's pretty fun. Either way, it's still not relevant, and if you're trying to get around to saying that a man is breaking a social taboo by staring at a woman's cleavage, I'm telling you it's an unfair taboo if the woman herself isn't breaking a taboo by intentionally showing off her cleavage to get a man to look. So of course, her having the right to yell at him because she's not breaking a taboo and he is is also stupid.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

really, because I'm pretty sure Black slaves got their rights and they won that argument. Pretty sure homosexuals are winning their argument too. How the majority thinks has nothing to do with something being right or wrong, so I don't think it's even a very good point in trying to say that neither of us can win this argument.

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

ificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

 

[axlryder]

I'm not entirely sure if I got that right, is this it:

you were, when you said "According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair." Of course that's ridiculous because of what I said (not equivalent). Also, I already addressed the temptation part.

okay, seriously bro? We already outlined that he wants him to briefly glance, but not "watch". I already said this. When I watch TV I don't sneak a peek at it once every ten seconds or so. Watch = stare. I'd have thought you would drawn the parallels by now.

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

No, the point you were actually making was that if a man is tempted by breasts either way, adding temptation doesn't add anything new to the table and thus is negligible on a woman's part (somehow?). Well you're wrong, as these shirts, unlike shirts that fully cover you, are actually an invitation to look at a woman's chest. There are, like anything else, exceptions (beaches, extremely large breasts that are bound to show some cleavage even with a more modest neckline, 110 degree weather, etc.) but in general, these shirts serve no other real purpose. The point is, if you're going to feel uncomfortable if a man's staring at you, don't wear a shirt that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attract the attention of a man's gaze, especially if you're wearing it with the FULL knowledge that he's definitely going to be glancing down there and you actually want him to. If you do wear it in spite of all that, than realize you're being a hypocrite and totally unfair in attempting to chastise a man for staring and he'd then be totally justified in chastising you right back if you did.

That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Look at it this way, if the brother started watching, and the brother playing turned around and said "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!"

and the the brother responds saying "THEN WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN!?"

and the brother playing says "BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO GLANCE SO I COULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING COOL GAMES!"

and the brother responds saying "HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO USE ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT THEN YELL AT ME FOR WATCHING EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LIKE VIDEO GAMES AND WANTED ME TO GLANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU HYPOCRITE!"

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

Of course we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves, but we should also try and limit it to the appropriate time and setting. We should also approach it with the appropriate mind set. What our society has done to sex is disgusting and intentionally showing off cleavage contributes to that empty, hollow view of sex. That manufactured, selfish, commercialized, manipulative, impersonal, hedonistic view of sex that messes with people's heads and warps them NEGATIVELY.

Also, how is being counterproductive not a bad thing? Did you read that before you typed it? have you seen the state of our world? We can't progress fast enough, broskie. Either way, of course that's all idealism talking and that's not going to happen. It's also not relevant to what we're debating.

yes, sex is great between two people who care more about one another than they care about their own personal pleasure or hang ups. Cleavage has nothing to do with the actual act of copulation, though. And sex is not directly related to what we were debating about. Though cleavage might help lead to some empty, hollow sex, I suppose.

I've played magic a bit, it's pretty fun. Either way, it's still not relevant, and if you're trying to get around to saying that a man is breaking a social taboo by staring at a woman's cleavage, I'm telling you it's an unfair taboo if the woman herself isn't breaking a taboo by intentionally showing off her cleavage to get a man to look. So of course, her having the right to yell at him because she's not breaking a taboo and he is is also stupid.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

really, because I'm pretty sure Black slaves got their rights and they won that argument. Pretty sure homosexuals are winning their argument too. How the majority thinks has nothing to do with something being right or wrong, so I don't think it's even a very good point in trying to say that neither of us can win this argument.

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

ificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

nope, still got it wrong, this time you just quoted everything but didn't change your response. I'm telling you that you need to go through and address EVERY single point I made, not just an aspect of that point or pick out whatever you deem little flaws. I know you didn't do this because the amount of text and sentences you wrote could in no way properly rebut the number of points and all the aspects of the points I know I made. Please try again. Also, I can see right now that some of your points are pretty bad, so this is your last chance to rework them.


to give an example, trying to rebut all of this


"artificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please."

by saying "well that was kind of my point from the beginning" not only makes no sense, but isn't nearly sufficient enough to actually be called a rebuttal to all the points made in that paragraph, especially when you clearly misinterpreted them. I'm really starting to suspect your willful ignorance (or misinterpretation) of important points combined with your own fallacious metaphors and several evasive tactics, e.g., partial quoting/responding, diverting the main point, pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable, done intentionally or otherwise, are indications that you're wasting my time here due to being incapable of holding a proper debate.

 

[tobyornottoby]

nope, still got it wrong, this time you just quoted everything but didn't change your response. I'm telling you that you need to go through and address EVERY single point I made, not just an aspect of that point or pick out whatever you deem little flaws. I know you didn't do this because the amount of text and sentences you wrote could in no way properly rebut the number of points and all the aspects of the points I know I made. Please try again. Also, I can see right now that some of your points are pretty bad, so this is your last chance to rework them.


to give an example, trying to rebut all of this


"artificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please."

by saying "well that was kind of my point from the beginning" not only makes no sense, but isn't nearly sufficient enough to actually be called a rebuttal to all the points made in that paragraph, especially when you clearly misinterpreted them. I'm really starting to suspect your willful ignorance (or misinterpretation) of important points combined with your own fallacious metaphors and several evasive tactics, e.g., partial quoting/responding, diverting the main point, pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable, done intentionally or otherwise, are indications that you're wasting my time here due to being incapable of holding a proper debate.

Ah well, then I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not going to do that.

You have made a lot of points in your last post, and I do not see it as fruitful to discuss every single one of them. Mainly because I still believe we are disconnected on a higher level, meaning discussing the actual subject matter is less useful, as we'll continue to not fully understand one another's points. We'll continue to talk at cross purposes (which is the closest English idiom I could find, http://www.english-at-home.com/idioms/talking-idioms/).

Whether this is simply because of my debating style (which is indeed, how I would describe it, more poetic and impulsive, or in game terms, more 'Paida' than 'Ludus') or because of differences in our judgmental systems or something else, I've been wondering. I'm not sure.

Either way, I've certainly been enjoying myself, and I hope you don't feel this as a waste of time in the end, and I wish you a good day/night =)

 

[axlryder]

Ah well, then I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not going to do that.

You have made a lot of points in your last post, and I do not see it as fruitful to discuss every single one of them. Mainly because I still believe we are disconnected on a higher level, meaning discussing the actual subject matter is less useful, as we'll continue to not fully understand one another's points. We'll continue to talk at cross purposes (which is the closest English idiom I could find, http://www.english-at-home.com/idioms/talking-idioms/).

Whether this is simply because of my debating style (which is indeed, how I would describe it, more poetic and impulsive, or in game terms, more 'Paida' than 'Ludus') or because of differences in our judgmental systems or something else, I've been wondering. I'm not sure.

Either way, I've certainly been enjoying myself, and I hope you don't feel this as a waste of time in the end, and I wish you a good day/night =)

We are not misunderstanding one another (or at least, I'm certainly not misunderstanding you). I have made the purpose of our discussion abundantly clear several times. If you still don't understand, than that falls on you and your own comprehension. Your debating 'style' is exactly what I said it was. You willfully ignore (or misinterpret) important points, use fallacious metaphors, use excessive partial quoting, attempt divert the main point, and employ pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable. If that is a style, I'd call it a poor one. I feel this attempt at a graceful bow out is merely you trying to save face (it would appear as such), but you can view it however you wish, as that is your prerogative. I consider it a forfeiture. This was kind of fun, however, and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.