|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 4:37:23 GMT -5
Just to clarify this point; I don't recall any non child wanting people saying that parents are, lacking, selfish, unfullfilled or that they MUST find more in life.
WE have not bashed people FOR having kids, but we've certainly not been shown the same courtesy. Not all parents are doing that, but many have. Again, child free poeple are legally speaking their minds about a topic they are familiar with and giving their opinions, and not putting them forth as any kind of moral gauge or implying it is the "right" thing to do or that parents will 'change their minds when they grow out of being selfish'. Who on this thread has done that, besides what you are reading into CH's posts? Who is this "many" who have not shown you the same courtesy on this thread? How many times have the parents here specifically said they respected your decision not to have kids? Way to listen.
So we should stop trying to "figure out" what CH was saying but you imply right here that I am "reading into" it? LOL!
The rest of this is pointless. Is there anyone who has an intelligent, ON TOPIC question?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 4:34:46 GMT -5
If she is like me it is the insinuations and the out of context comments and the blanket statements that are annoying. Yes, they are annoying. Much like what's being done to CH's post, and how he must think that all other humanitarian contributions are not important because of child rearing. What he "must" think, heh? That kind of insinuation and out of context comments? Or only the ones that apply to the statements you like? Gosh, it's so nice of you to be a bitch. Flies and honey, sweetheart.
Blanket statements annoy me, too. Hence the reason I asked the question why it was being used against an entire demographic of people, i.e. children. I have told you, again and again, that children ARE DIFFERENT! Therefore the reasons EXIST.
How can you sit there and skyfire-ignore that over and over. You're not stupid. so why act like it?
You even brought up your "well, if adults did this, then you'd have to hate..."
YES goddamn it, I fucking answered that too. So stop acting like an airhead.
KIDS ARE DIFFERENT and it's because adults don't have to be babysat, can carry on adult conversations, are more rational, don't shit themselves and all the other fucking reasons I've listed time and fucking time again.
So stop acting like it hasn't been pointed out and stop fucking lying about it being like racism. Come on, Red. If it's annoying to you for those reasons, you can clearly see how it would be annoying to anyone else for the exact same reasons--unless you're too committed to not seeing that. The hypocrisy is getting pretty thick in this thread. Nice vague comment used to discredit me without an example.
Oh right, I've been mentioning that and you keep doing it anyway. Your choice.
Notice as usual, I was talking to you, dv, specifically. And you are fully aware of what I am referring to. Feel free to do the same. In fact, if you care to go back and actually read my posts, I did NOT imply that all CF people are on par with those who make racial stereotypes. Oh really? Not, "on par with" but, "no better than"...
How do you think that this 'no better than' "explanation" negates the former example? What I am saying, which has been explained to you over and over again, is that to make blanket generalizations justifying hate for an entire demographic of people is no better than making similar faulty analogies about other demographics of people--you can substitute "black" for anything else and the argument still works the same.
'No better than' is EXACTLY that same as 'on par with'.
Holy fucking shit... They both mean the "same" do they not? LOL! What the fucking hell...
And I've explained to you that you're wrong for saying that. And showed you why, the reasons which you conveniently ignored. Goody for you. Not all CF people, for fuckssake. Not CF people who choose not to have kids for personal reasons, however "selfish" they may seem to other people. Not CF people who just choose not to have kids because they don't want them. But those who seem to harbor an illogical and unjustifiable hatred for an entire group of people. But you're not qualifying what is or is not "ILLOGICAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE"! How fucking hard is this to get?
You are arguing against all the reasons so far and you seem to deem them all illogical. If that is the case as you are implying with your loaded terminology and limited analogies that don't get carried over wholesale, you paint us to be the same, illogical and unjustifiable, and since we are in that group that automatically makes us "No better than" idiot racists.
And I say you're an idiot for suggesting that we are racists based on YOUR qualifying statements as to what is illogical.
Why am I bothering though, this is the same fucking thing I keep telling you and you continue to be insane. Just think whatever the fuck you want... Like you have been.
And I was speaking nice to you last week, it's your own cunty attitude that is bringing venom out of me. You mods should try acting like the supposed steady hands you all claim to be and drop the attitude, personal attacks and name-calling that you all seem to resort to when you are pissed off. That's how NOT to make a blanket statement about what I'm saying. I'm certainly not saying all CF people fall in this category, and for you to say I am, as you did above, is to grossly misread my post. You haven't answered my question where you have identified any reasons as legitimate reasons for not liking kids. So long as you don't identify what IS legitimate, we assume that you find NONE legitimate and by your own made-up rules, that which you don't find legitimate is "no better than" racism based on myth reasons.
You seem too emotional to effectively deal with this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 2:57:53 GMT -5
So why did God change His mind on interracial marriages and blacks entering the priesthood? As noted earlier, Young's words on interracial mixing are actually open to some interpretation. For the priesthood, this has also been discussed. My personal theory is that the Missouri War and the persecution in Illinois showed that the world at large - and mainline Christianity in particular - wasn't ready for a mixed clergy and that the social and political landscape wouldn't be capable of handling matters until the late 1970s when the last of the colonial powers retreated from Africa. Translation: I decided it wasn't a bad thing.
Fuck you racist apologist, you haven't countered a goddamned thing. Your religion IS racist because you still don't see a fucking problem with what happened BEFORE.
And you're STILL sexist.
And YOU personally decided that accused pedophiles should be alllowed to hang around the kids they might have molested until there is a good enough case to go to court.
And you've been shown to be a liar and hypocrite who doesn't follow his churches doctrines.
And you've shown nothing about the mountain top massacre to show that it was anything but the slaughter of innocent men women and children and by defending it you are a sick fuck.
You've had this all thrown at you again and again and I for one will continue to throw it at you till everyone you interact with on this subject knows that you are not to be trusted and that you're a liar who can't remember what he said from a week earlier.
You are a lying fundie.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 2:51:26 GMT -5
Theology would be of most interest to me. Perhaps you could touch on personal conduct, though judging from what I've read from you over the years I wouldn't say that your personal conduct is likely to veer off beyond what is considered moral in your church. However, you might surprise me. Off the top of my head - splatTheology: [1]I've bucked a lot of what the church has said in regards to the net over the years. I was actually using the net as a research tool and discussing the church over it back when the church's stance was "the internet, barring the church website, is nothing but porn." You introduced me to the concept of transformers porn. Way to buck! [2]I've bucked the prevailing mentality wherein missions were regarded as mandatory; the church later came out and explicitly stated that missions should be voluntary. So you 'went against' the doctrine of missionary work and that's not 'anti mormon' how exactly? We just call your lies when we see them, and you call us anti mormon. At least we aren't changing the words and desires of the prophets! LOL!
And on top of it you imply that you had something to do with the change from what god asked to what it is now. Or is that an example of your prophecy? Lifestyle: *points to Quiet Riot CD in the player* *I'm pointing at you because that's what I do when I spy liars* I'm virtually the polar opposite of the mental image people have of white shirt, tie, and upright to the point of being stuffy. I play violent video games, I listen to hard rock (among other forms of music), watch R-rated films, defy the system as I see fit, do RPGs, curse, and do other things that people don't think anyone who is Mormon even can do. I'd actually scare the hell out of the usual Utah Mormon if they found out how I go about my life, and even manage to periodically scare the hell out of people around here (such as when I demonstrated to my mom that I can get my '91 Buick to handle like a sports car around turns and down-grades, rain be damned). So you're just like everyone else but you are which, stupid or insane?
You're not a fucking mormon if you're not fucking doing the mormon shit and you're a fucking hypocrite to boot. You're a fraud and a liar and a hypocrite, yet you find fault in those who bring facts to you that you don't find palatable. What a load of shit. Methodology:The biggest thing is that I've actually looked at works with both sides of the issues in order to compare notes. This is, in large part, how it is that I've come to find so many non-LDS sources wanting in regards to properly explaining the history and theology of the church. What the fuck does any history have to do with anything when you dont' follow any of the fucking rules anyway?
Hell, I'm as big of a mormon as you! I can find more shit online than you and I was born a dick! I don't make lying a habit though but you've given plenty of fine examples for years now so I'm sure I can pick it up!
WOO-HOO! I don't follow it but I'll bitch if you don't! And if you point out the hypocrisy of that, I'll just scream persecution and lie like any mormon would do!
You really are a lot of failure wrapped up in a dirty diaper.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 2:38:49 GMT -5
Uh, Sky, if you're so unorthodox, that means you disagree with the church on a number of issues. In other words, you think the church is WRONG on a number of issues, (That's what it means to be unorthodox) which means that you are a critic of the church and subject to all of the judgements you make against critics of the church (such as ignorance and dishonesty). There's actually a finite line, one that non-members are often unaware of. Said line is a person's methods. Inside many a congregation you'll find unorthodox members, such as myself, whose unorthodoxy ranges across a spectrum. From liar to insane. While we quite obviously stand out from the norm, we don't try to force our POV on others; we simply reason with people and, as needs be, use our lives as examples of what a person can do. Which is why you push yourself into each and ever mormon thread and do the same nothing. Our main purpose is to get people to expand their horizons a little and nudge them into being a little more open-minded. Hilarity. We understand that there is such a thing as give-and-take in conversation, and so tend to be patient. I think you are a mental patient if you think we're gonna believe that. OTOH, a lot of your external critics feel no compulsion to be gentle or even reasonable. PERCY Q-SHAWN! They approach matters with the intent of forcing their POV on others, and won't take "no" for an answer; they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Racism is wrong, and the mormon church is and was racist. Yep, they're right on that one. mormon church is STILL sexist... yep, right on that one too. At best you simply have a fairly insufferable person who needs a reality check; Uhh... You are not allowed to speak of reality. If you could see it, you'd see what you look like. Not pretty... at worst, you have people who make jerks out of themselves or even break the odd law in their quest. PERCY Q. SHAWN! While you do have members that are dickish and external critics that are honorable, the sad truth is that they're few and far between. Translation: Everyone is mean to me. Even sadder is that while dickish members are eventually taken to task, honorable critics are generally marginalized as being "traitors." Again, along with 'truthfully' and 'honestly' and 'reality'; 'honourable' is a word that you are not allowed to touch.
You are a known and proven liar, so... shut up about 'honour'.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 2:28:28 GMT -5
Skyfire, do you hold the higher priesthood? Are you an Elder? How long have you been an Elder? I've been an Elder for several years now. Hilarious. Jon gave the exact number of years and what capacity and you give vagueness. What a non-surprise you can't even truthfully answer the simplest of questions. LOL! I'm currently a ward missionary, and for a time was both Gospel Principles instructor and a member of the Elder's Quorum presidency. And lying is part of that title I presume. Or perhaps it's that things have changed greatly since you left the church and you have, for whatever reason, failed to grasp this fact. And here you show that you are indeed someone who deserves to be listened to with thinly veiled bitterness. Not to mention that if your church has changed so dramatically in such a relatively short time than your church was wrong for a long, long time or your leaders now are shittcanning what they don't agree with which means they don't agree with god.
Nice choices. Your church is apostate or a fraud. Considering the places where you've goofed when it came to basic church history, that statement of yours has left you wide open for zinger. Considering you defend racism and then insist your super racist orginazation was actually working FOR equal rights makes you a sexist, hypocritical liar and unworthy of anything but pity and contempt. My bishop knows full well what I do, is well aware of how completely unorthodox I am (both in my personal conduct and in elements of my theology), and doesn't care. IIRC, I actually had a member of the bishopric in there the day I crossed out a paragraph in the GP manual owing to how poorly written and open to misinterpretation it was. Charles manson was aware of all taht Leslie Van Houten was doing too. And he didn't care either.
Oh, I thought there was some kind of point to that statement, it is obvious now that there was none. In fact, it's pretty much an open secret that I'm one of the least orthodox Mormons in the ward, if not the entire stake (maybe even state). Delusions of grandeur. You couldn't argue your way out of supersizing your bic mac combo. Shortly after the priesthood was given to blacks (as in, within 6 months), none other than Bruce McConkie gave a public sermon in which he told everyone to jettison any and all prior notions about race in regards to the church. I've referred to this incident before on this board, and so everyone who's been here a while should be familiar with it. Of course we are familiar with your back peddling church pretending it was a leader in civil rights by ditching its racist history after 150 years because they were the only ones still banning people based solely on the colour of their skin.
AND they had to retroactively "jettison" reams of anti-black and anti-Native American Indian material that called for the death of them for various mormon invented "crimes". These were comments and such issued from nearly every single prophet in the entire history of the mormon church going all the way back to founder joseph smith who got the racism right from the lips of the mormon god.
So your church caved in to societal pressures and went against god by reversing what he commanded.
And this is part of why we know your church sucks. This goes back to the church teaching that members are to prove for themselves whether or not something being taught is legit. LOL! Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the prophet goes to say something, the 12 gather together to study the matter out. If they, in unison, agree that the matter is doctrinal then it is put forth to the church; the membership, in turn, is asked to study the matter out. Yes. That is what he said, you guys don't get shit rright from god, your "prophet" puts what god supposedly said, up to a vote. You just agreed with him while pretending you set him straight. He understands exactly what the problem with this scenario is, and so do the rest of us. If anything, this is actually fairly healthy in that it encourages the membership to do its own legwork. Funny statement coming from a guy who can't find or can't afford to do the same here.
your god sounds pretty impotent.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 2:05:28 GMT -5
Skyfire, this is a site specifically set up for the purpose of laughing at and mocking fundie beliefs. If you're complaining about Jonathan then you must be complaining about everyone who posts here. ( Including yourself because I've seen you mocking and laughing with the best of them.) Correction: while I've gone after individuals, I've not once gone after an entire belief system save for raising hypotheticals or pointing out flaws within arguments. OTOH, Jon's laughing at an entire belief system, something that I've only seen the cruder posters here do. Try reading the name of the thread and do some research into what exactly FSTDT is and what it stands for you stupid fucking fundie apologist. If you don't have that much down, it's no wonder you see everyone here as 'anti' mormon.
You're here making excuses for racism and you think that it's odd of us to find that offensive.
You defend child molesters and women as chattel, and you find it strange that we hold you and your religion responsible for behaviour you are defending. Can you not see that makes you a fundie racist idiot for not understanding our dislike of mormonism?
It's because of you, moron, you've been told that repeatedly. You've been given arguments nad counter arguments and you have ignored and dismissed most of it in order to hold to the delusion that referring to blacks as "darkies" was something the REST OF THE WORLD made you leader do. It was EVERYONE ELSE who made your leaders demand the unbending rule of death applied to the coupling of black and white people.
If your being a total cracker fuckstick is our fault, you feel free to show us exactly why that would be. Until then, you've slit your own throat here, bubba. All racists turn to self-pity and accusations when someone flips the rock they live under and the truth burns their skin.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 1:57:46 GMT -5
I don't think Jonathan was referring to "anyone" who is mormon. His use of the term "my young apprentice" seems to indicate he's only referring to one particular person, rather than a group of people. Sadly, Jon's attitude is actually the default position of many critics of the church regardless of who they happen to be speaking to.Weren't you JUST told that dismissing a person for what OTHER people have done is dishonest?
Are you fucking stupid? He JUST fucking explained this... What other fucking people have done before is fucking irrelevant because you're not fucking dealing with other fucking people now, you're dealing with fucking JonE. You know which side your fighting on... right? Cause you're sinking your own case faster than anybody. If there was another Mormon on the board, Jon'd be assuming that that person was ignorant as well simply for being Mormon. *sigh*
Blah, blah, fucking blah...
IF you could answer questions you wouldn't still be squirming. IF Captain Crunch were a real person he'd be two and half feet tall, and IF I sprinkled your bullshit with seeds I could feed the hungry.
You are the last person to tell me about what you think will happen in the future when you can't even answer truthfully about the past, TODAY!
IF this you broke-assed prophet.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 1:42:56 GMT -5
Tsk, std jokes are nothing to clap about... *snort*
Didn't you guys see that DC won with his joke?
Anyway, I thought it was funny...
|
|
|
Talent
Apr 20, 2009 1:37:43 GMT -5
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 1:37:43 GMT -5
I can piss people off so readily I can now do it by complimenting them or siding with them in a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 20, 2009 1:29:53 GMT -5
This thread has turned into a nice little therapy session for some of us!
Any of you girls feel vulnerable and/or alone right now, come see me!
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 8:00:06 GMT -5
If she is like me it is the insinuations and the out of context comments and the blanket statements that are annoying. Yes, they are annoying. Much like what's being done to CH's post, and how he must think that all other humanitarian contributions are not important because of child rearing. Who said that but YOU? LOL!
I don't have to have CH explain that because I don't recall him saying that toher humanitarian efforts are "not important"...
You keep doing this. No one brought this up but you as far as I can see. That kind of insinuation and out of context comments? Or only the ones that apply to the statements you like? And you complained about someone else being invective? Blanket statements annoy me, too. Hence the reason I asked the question why it was being used against an entire demographic of people, i.e. children. And the FACTUAL reasons are ignored by you and others, again and again. Come on, Red. If it's annoying to you for those reasons, you can clearly see how it would be annoying to anyone else for the exact same reasons--unless you're too committed to not seeing that. The hypocrisy is getting pretty thick in this thread. Show me where and how, EXACTLY, that I'm being hypocritical, and I'll address it. Is that too much for me to ask? Because frankly it looks like you haven't been reading anything I've said or you've only seen hwat you want.
I'm trying to speak to you as a rational adult and I'm trying to convey my precise and exact words to you in order to be clear. Why don't you give me the same courtesy. If you guys are going to act like I'm a fucking idiot, go ahead and provide this fucking idiot with the bare-bones examples and proof of what you are eternally implying but never seem to reference directly. Could you do that for me? In fact, if you care to go back and actually read my posts, I did NOT imply that all CF people are on par with those who make racial stereotypes. What I am saying, which has been explained to you over and over again, is that to make blanket generalizations justifying hate for an entire demographic of people is no better than making similar faulty analogies about other demographics of people--you can substitute "black" for anything else and the argument still works the same. And if you'd listen, the reasons were told to you. Repeatedly. Those REAL reasons are not the same as the FAKE reason for the terrible justification of racism, which is hatred based on looks. I don't "dislike" (again, you are talking to me, red, right? and in your statement right here in this very post, you have done what you and blue and others have been doing for a while; you;re taking the worst case, in this case, "hatred" and applying it to ME when i have specifically (there's that word again) told you it doesn't apply to me. SO right off the bat you are comparing my "DISLIKE" of children and my very real reasons why and comparing it to a FALSE stereotype with a history of hanging people and brutalizing and enslaving them. If you can't see that there is anything wrong with that, I don't know what to tell you.
I have addressed this for the umpteenth time now, and if you please, I'd like to see you quote and address this directly and stop making insinuations that paint those who dislike children as racist or full of "hate". I am stating this as something that I'm seeing and as something that is bothering me. Please give me the common courtesy of not dismissing me or implying I'm doing or saying that which I am CLEARLY not. Not all CF people, for fuckssake. Not CF people who choose not to have kids for personal reasons, however "selfish" they may seem to other people. Not CF people who just choose not to have kids because they don't want them. But those who seem to harbor an illogical and unjustifiable hatred for an entire group of people. That's how NOT to make a blanket statement about what I'm saying. I'm certainly not saying all CF people fall in this category, and for you to say I am, as you did above, is to grossly misread my post. They way it was worded looked like a generalization to me. I dont' recall seeing anyone's speciifc names next to the comments that I'm referring to, or else I wouldn't be saying it. I'm not such a jackass that I don't admit when I'm wrong, but I haven't see it yet or any good reasons to change my mind.
Glad to know that I'm being thought the worst of though.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 7:38:01 GMT -5
Yeah. Pretty much. Nice of you to fight with me about something that we agree on.
Except I didn't say I hated children and you are using that word with me.
If you and blue could uncork your rage for a moment and focus on specific people and the things that THEY are saying instead of YOUR generalizations, this might be clearer to both of you.
I don't hate kids.
IF an adult exhibited all the same traits that children exhibit, then yes, the feeling would be the same. I never said otherwise, I nver said I hate kids and you are wrong to make that assumption and to cast those illogical aspersions on me. No Red. Just no. I am most certainly not raging at all about this, and this is nothing but reading into at least ME, for I can say at least that much about myself. Being annoyed =/= rage. Fair enough. I used generalisations with YOU, because I had dealt with the specifics with the people I originally addressed. Like with Aqualung. However, with YOU, as I was trying to convey concepts as to show my reasoning, so of course I was going to resort to summarising things. Fucking hell.... And yet you unleashed post after post where you GENERALIZED by stating that GENERALIZED.
You can't see the irony there? It was the push of quite a number of your posts, and you were doing it too. Sometimes to the extent that I wasn't sure WHO you were addressing or what EXACTLY you were referring to. Okay, you are an idiot with this, and here's why: That's lovely. I just can't wait to see what you have to say now.
Yeah, I'm really sorry about suspecting you are raging... I guess you use that word whenever you are "annoyed", eh? LOL! It isn't 'lumping in with racists or haters' because we never said "you are no better than racists". We used an example, an analogy, to highlight the consequence of such logic that has been used by several folks here. We never said that you are 'haters' by default, just that the logic used by some folks is questionable and some conclusions even flying against known facts. *facepalm*
We gave valid reasons that you don't particularily agree with.
THAT is not the same as racism based on a false stereotype.
IF you have a real analogy, please use it, but you haven't shown me that legitimate reasons, aka, real reasons (not just ones you seem to disagree with) are the same as the non-existent "reasons" why someone would try to justify racial hatred. Or maybe I have to do like what I did with Lithp and start breaking the arguments down to such basic and brainless levels just to get across what we have been trying to say for SO DAMNED LONG. Please Red, just try to understand at least that much. >.< hey, I've asked you to be specific and to explain the racism thing, and you decided to call me an idiot.
You're being the little bitch here, not me. I'm not personally insulting you, though you are being evasive and hypcritical with your 'generalizations' comments while doing the same thing and then admitting you were as justification.
oh, and you're not raging. Got it. I seem to have to keep reminding myself of that. Silly, huh? Red, since when did we make the statement that because one person had a wrong view on one thing that we applied it across the board?
LOL!
you and DV ought to get together... When did I say that you guys made that statement? it was shown by the lack of specifics and applying things like, 'YOU GUYS HATE KIDS BECAUSE' when only a few people were using the word hate, and by things like bringing up AL comment on kids torturing animals as if someone besides her had said it.
What do you think is going on here? Do you think I'm trying to piss you off or what? I'm really trying to relay my thoughts on this to you and you resort to name calling and flaring your nostrils.
We are not bashing ANYONE as being haters, and this is just disingenuous on your part to say so. At most, the only things being disputed are some of the reasons presented, but not one fucking word has been said to say that disliking children is wrong and those who do are haters. Your words and tone indicate that you are frustrated and you seem to think that our disagreement here is a personal attack or purposeful attempt on my part.
I asked you to find specifics but you continue to ignore that. I asked you to explain the racism thing and I've addressed that numerous time and HOW and WHY I think it is a bullshit analogy. You've decided to continue to put it forth as accurate while ignoring my points on why I disagree.
Then you call me an idiot and say you're not angry. If this is annoyed, you don't wear it well. This is a strawman on your part, Red. So please, don't. We addressed the issue with her directly, and it is you who is fixated upon that as us somehow applying it to you and others. We mention it as an example, because you keep bringing it up. Now THAT is fucking idiotic!
When you guys brought it up, repeatedly, it was mentioned in general as if it was a common idea. I addressed taht fact and neither of you addressed MY point till DV mentioned it to AL today and I specifically thanked DV for bringing it up to the author of it and not implying that it was a common idea. I didn't comment on a lot of what other people have said? Care to think on why I've done that? The fuck would I care? You haven't addressed DIRECT statements or verified WHO you were talking about when bringing up comments by specific posters. This is a bit of psychological projection on your part, Red. We are being forced to say it because of your reactions to some of our points, to which other posters have been able to better counter and even agree with, etc. So yeah, it is a non-issue, but you are the one intent on making it one. ... Seriously Red. Weak: In order to highlight concepts, one must generalise in order to explain a concept in its purest form. When we present you the concepts behind why we think in such a manner or reason, you then turn around by saying we are lumping you all into group and judging you as a consequence of that. (Notice what I'm doing here? Presenting another concept! SHOCK! HORROR!) Fuck that noise. Jesus... you're all worked up, aren't you? Stow the condescending bullshit and come back to me when you can act like an adult.
Contrary to what you "think", I'm not tryhing to butt heads with you, but you are not listening to me. You are doing what you are decrying and you are acting childish and are namecalling.
If you wanna do that, go for it. But it's sad. Oh wait? What's this? Lumping DV with a generalised group so to diminish her point? Since when did she herself say that? Doing the very thing you are tirading against? Fucking Hypocrisy on your part, Red. Well Red, I think I really have to do the same thing I did with Lithp, except now with you. Fucking hell, I really didn't want it to come to this: Person A brings up a series of issues that led to conclusion X Person B address an issue specifically with Person A. Person C come along and challenges Person B's interjections with Person A's issues. Person B lists a series of reasons based on concepts Y & Z as to why he made such counters. Person C misinterprets the point of the reasons and concepts presented so to think Person B is lumping Person C directly with Person A and is making statements against a group as opposed to just what Person A had said. At this point, if you can't get how you are going way off on a tangent here, then there is no hope for this conversation to have any productive meaning. Are you fucking blind? I did a number of posts addressing only HER and HER reasons and how SHE specifically was WRONG on the points I had issue with. The only reason we keep bringing it up is because you are asking for specifics about what we are talking about. A self-fulling prophecy right here. The point was to illustrate the logic, not make a direct equivalent. Any other example could have been used, and the point would have been the same. - ,- Since when did I say you have to greet them or be likeable towards them? And also, with some of those reasons, they apply equally to adults, as me and DV have explained. You've said so many times, to which I have said that a fair few of those reasons are fine, BUT, ultimately disputed the conclusion that this is what all kids do, to which I made a counter-argument that a lot of these things are dependent on the situation. And you've agreed that should these similar situations arise with people other than kids, you'd be just as annoyed! So what is the big fucking deal? Well done, you just defeated the point of your own tirade right here, and by doing a hasty generalisation. Sorry, I was still speaking of you and DV.
In quoting your response I can't see the comment that I made that you are commenting on so I don't know what you are raging about without going back. I have addressed why I'm not going to finish talking to you today.
I do hope you feel better in the future and I hope you and I can come to some kind of OP to talk about.
I listed my reasons for not wanting kids or for being around them.
IF you addressed my points specifically, please show where this was.
IF you stated that some of the points that were brought up were valid ones, please show where that was.
IF you think that our reasons are not valid ones, please specify and give reasons why you think that way.
IF you disagree with my comments on why I think you and DV are wrong to compare those who dislike children to racists, then please show why.
IF you are going to continue to act as if I'm intentionally trying to piss you off, if you are going to continue to act arrogant and short tempered, then you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I'm not being antagonistic and if I am, I'm not trying to be. I've made a few short statements in the course of this thread, but if I've said things here that are above and beyond how I have been in the past, I'm not seeing it. I think I've handled myself pretty well and if you as a mod are reaching the point where you have be belittling and continually ignore my points, then you are frankly not going to be worth talking to anymore. I've tried to be fair and you have seen most of my comments as otherwise. This is up to you, but dealing with you is up to me.
Have a great weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 7:04:47 GMT -5
Wow, this thread got very long while I ignored it. Anyway, I like kids when they're over a certain age. Generally, that age is something like 7 or 8. You can actually have a conversation with an 8-year-old. 5-year-olds, not so much. Being a "difficult kid" myself, I'm not so sure I'd want to pass on my own genes, simply for the reason that I probably couldn't handle a miniature version of me. Well, the consensus seems to be that you are uniformed, rebellious, selfish, dumb and you'll change your mind and do what is right someday when you mature.
Oh, and you haven't really put any thought into it at all so your opinion is mildly entertaining but not much else. ;D
Oh, and I say that out of respect for your decision...[/sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 7:01:05 GMT -5
Ah. So because it's not in the realm of your personal experience to have women discuss this topic with you, it's clearly OK to make a hasty generalization about "par for the course" for all men. Gotcha. And just because her decision and her ideas of men are not part of YOUR personal experience on child rearing you resort to personal attacks and dismissiveness?
Gotcha. And it's OK to deal with that with personal invective. Check. This is going to sound hateful, but I really don't care. *spittake*
So your snotty attitude and telling her you don't care if you sound hateful, personal attacks isn't invective? Holy shit...It's not my fault you don't get logical fallacies. It does your argument no good to stick with them. You not understanding how "hasty generalizations" work is also not my fault. But continue to Internet Scream at me all you want about them. It doesn't teach anybody anything and it doesn't make you look any better. I stopped reading after you admitted that you really don't care.
|
|