To go off topic and discuss something related to the thread title: Hillary's plagiarism charges are completely bogus. Political speeches are not academic papers or books. Political speeches are not journalism. Politicians borrow ideas from one another quite liberally, and they sometimes borrow words as well, and they attribute almost never. There's nothing wrong with that: there's nothing new under the sun in politics, and everyone knows it. So long as the speaker isn't in the process of denigrating whoever he's borrowed from or claiming that the specific borrowed ideas are novel, and so long as we're not talking about lifting a speech in its entirety, who gives a flying fuck? If politicians had to fully attribute everything they said in a speech they'd never get around to actually saying anything at all, which, on second thought, sounds like a really good idea. Still, good idea or not, you can't apply academic standards of plagiarism to political speeches without being a monumental idiot.
Since it was aimed at all men, everywhere, and Peter is one, he has reason to be outraged. Also, if it is inappropriate for Peter to be outraged on behalf of all men, then it is surly inappropriate for you to broad-brush all men with your remark if your criteria for proportionate response would require all men to show up and defend themselves. Besides, it's an unfair and untrue observation. It certainly appears that the majority of men have a tendency to do that, but it is also true that with a great deal of women, their looks is their Achillies heel, and the ripest target for men to use to attack their opponent, if a low one.
Peter might better have made his argument by giving contrary examples. But it's nice he has you to do that for him. Also, as I told him, it's not what he says so much as how he says it. Added, of course, to some past sniping at me on a board where I've never posted, and his recent posting a PM of mine in the RR. It's interesting that he seems to be immune to the "you hardly ever post here, n00b - who asked you?" treatment that so many others receive.
As Diacanu's public defender, you are not one to throw stones. I'm sure Enterpriser would call you a hypocrite there. Now, I never saw this...if true that is BS. He probably hasn't annoyed someone enough yet.
Just as an aside. At the healthclub that I work out at. It is not uncommon for the woman who workout there to be in full make up, perfume, and etc. as they come out of the woman's locker room to exercise. They want to be looking for their best in case they happen to run into some man who might be interested in them on the weight room floor.
Yes, but that doesn't make any difference as to a woman's intelligence or other attributes. And, women don't always wear makeup for men...they do it for themselves and because they are concerned what other, judgemental women might think. Your assumptions about women are as distasteful as Garamet's about men. You cant assume to know what is in a person't heart and mind by simply looking at them.
No that is true. Nor did I say that it does, or insinuate that it does. Honestly, I've seen men in the locker room primping as well before they go up to weight room. We wouldn't want to look like we are at a healthclub to workout or anything like that. There are definitely a multitude of factors that play into the make up thing. Its just that I see them doing up their make up and then spending time flirting with the men in the weight room too. So it is simply an assumption of mine based off of observing them. I'm not saying that I do.
Dunno, but the appearance thing is applicable to both boys and girls, it's just different in execution and degree for the most part.
You could say "men as a whole generally do not like figure skating," and you'd be right, even though there are, presumably, plenty of men who do. Is Garamet right about "the male reaction to women as public figures as a whole" being about her appearance? Maybe not. Actually, I hope not. But let's be clear about exactly what she's saying. It's not "all men always behave this way."
You're really a bore with these tactics sometimes, Margaret. You know, maybe if this writing thing doesn't pan out, you could teach a college course called "Weaselly Debating Strategies, and How To Recognize Them". First, Tamar was correct on the point that it was immaterial that your broad generalization wasn't aimed at me alone. Obviously your limited experience with men has tainted your perceptions, allowing you to make such sweeping, erroneous statements as the one in question. It's a no-brainer to assert, without any specifics, that all or most men don't fall into line with your claim. The fact that you used that pesky "always" damns your argument from the get go. Second, are the rights to carry on a conversation in these topics freely something that you must sanction, or are we at liberty to participate as we please? Are you the only one who gets to chime in when the spirit moves you? Tamar wasn't speaking for me, and you'd have to be an utter cretin to make such an assertion. She was simply answering freely (which, last time I checked, is her right here on Wordforge, and in the good old USA), making a logical contradiction to your specious argument. Again....that should be ok with you...right..unless there's some obscure provision in the WF charter which prohibits such free interaction without your blessing. I'm assuming that you do see the difference between a personal defense and a dissection of an irrational argument....no? Third, this thread is a prime example of how you fail to play by the rules by which you apparently expect everyone else to abide when engaging you. You fucked up with the "always". It was an oversight..or maybe not...but you typed it, you submitted it, and now it's carved in stone. As usual, you can't just concede the point, you have to scrap on meaningless minutiae, in what appears to be a ploy to derail the argument to the point that no one's nagging you about your fuck up. Doesn't matter anyway, such a concession would be superfluous at this late date. And as for you insistence that "Peter might better have made his argument by giving contrary examples," would have been acceptable. Hmmm. That's interesting. I have to be specific in answer to your broad generalization which, curiously, was not accompanied by even a minimum of specificity. Again. You play by a set of rules from which you've excused yourself from observing. I could offer myself as proof: BZZZZZT. Sorry, thanks for playing. You'd not accept that. The only other way I would have been able to offer up to those "contrary examples" would be to cite my personal experience with males who do not fit into your tidy, yet delusory hypothesis. You would, as you've done repeatedly in your practice here, disqualify those on some parliamentary detail, or because you couldn't verify the veracity of my claim. I could offer those. I won't, of course. It's absurd for you to ask for such proofs, if for no other reason you have to know that your generalization is simply, totally, wrong. But...since it's good for the goose, please, Margaret, won't you favor us with your proof that men "always" behave in such a way? Does your buddy tafkats act like an uncivilized pig, viewing women as pretty faces, nice tits and round spankable asses? He's a man, after all. Your "always" throws him into that league, with all the other card carrying "Penis Club For Men" members. Is dickie? Is 14th Doctor? Your husband? How can you stomach him? You needn't answer. It would be preferable if you didn't. Any reply is going to be a matter of rote, a missive brimming with all of the usual suspects...recriminations, ad hominems, ambiguous assertions which give leave for future denials, victim mentality, unctuous flattery, facile indignation, deliberate diversions, altered contexts and every other trick in the propagandist's play book. Everything except the meat. Understand that many folks here, save the ones who find themselves in agreement with you on most things realize something: You both revel in and excoriate the manner in which people here, and elsewhere, deal with you, and that manner precipitates from your own behavior. Context is important. Her argument is what it was. But....it's so nice that you would come in and clarify her point for her. She's lucky to have you.
Yup. There's a big difference between saying in effect that it's always a fair presumption until evidence to the contrary emerges that a man judges women public figures first on their appearance, and saying that the presumption is irrebuttable.
Yes, but she didn't say that, did she? You can't unring the bell. And, if her assertion wasn't being addressed as garamet intended, she should have made those clarifications before asking that anyone offer arguments to disprove the statement.(which, if you've payed any attention at all, she did several times.) And, for what it's worth, there's plenty of evidence the contrary. It's simply more convenient for the argument to zero in on the worst, and sadly, the most vocal faction as a basis for the argument when, truly, the preponderance of men, while in the process of acting civilly, don't call much if any attention to themselves. That doesn't mitigate the behavior of the vocal minority of "piggy" men, but it certainly brings garamet's half-assed premise to an abrupt halt.
I agree, in the sense that both sexes check each other out due to some primeval mating thing. But how often do women say "Oh, I wouldn't vote for him because he's fugly. And he's shrill and he's fat and he's old...[size=-8]and also because I don't know anything about his voting record, but I'm sure I wouldn't like it[/size]"?
The flying monkeys go to great lengths to try and make the mistress look innocent. It's not working boys, no matter how hard you strain and add caveats that were not in the initial comment. Besides, knowing her personal biases about the subject of men and their supposed preferences for pretty, young, sexual women, just undermines your attempts at tempering the appearance of her comment.
Thank goodness noone on the left ever made comments about a woman's appearance. Cough..Linda Tripp....Cough
Who said sexism is limited to the right? It may be more common and accepted on the right, but it's still pretty common on the left as well. That said, there is a difference between mocking someone who's acts have shown her to be a complete ass for her looks and dismissing someone's ideas before you even know her to be an ass via ad hominem attack on her looks--or, for that matter, giving extra credence to someone's ideas because of her looks.
Well, then, adjust your figures by at least one woman who's never said that. I guess you just know a lot of shallow women. And a lot of shallow men post on message boards.
