New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Oh, and you're totally graceful and reserved, Lady.
in reply to a message by -=A=-
Your belief that a woman should remain "graceful and reserved" when she hears her gender insulted is sexist in and of itself. Women are just as capable of, and have every right to be outraged and to defend themselves as men do.
Why don't you list all the examples of your personal observations of single mothers giving their sons frilly, weak names and I'll counter with my observations that they don't. And in the end, nothing will be proved, because personal observations are not scientific data, as Chrisell pointed out. And while you're at it, why don't you get into a time machine and transport yourself back to the nineteenth century, where your sexist views will be much more common, and the women will be too "graceful and reserved" to argue with you?
Why don't you list all the examples of your personal observations of single mothers giving their sons frilly, weak names and I'll counter with my observations that they don't. And in the end, nothing will be proved, because personal observations are not scientific data, as Chrisell pointed out. And while you're at it, why don't you get into a time machine and transport yourself back to the nineteenth century, where your sexist views will be much more common, and the women will be too "graceful and reserved" to argue with you?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I'd prefer men be graceful and reserved too as opposed to making such a spectacle from which you cannot refrain.
Asking me to ignore my own observations is like asking me to ignore my life, and is asinine beyond reason, though as a women I guess you *would* have a sense of the art of hiding inaccountability--this however, doesn't invalidate what I have concretely observed.
Asking me to ignore my own observations is like asking me to ignore my life, and is asinine beyond reason, though as a women I guess you *would* have a sense of the art of hiding inaccountability--this however, doesn't invalidate what I have concretely observed.
1
Attention, all females on this board. A has decided that if he insults our gender, and if we defend ourselves, that we are then making spectacles of ourselves and offending his sensibilities. Let's do all we can to avoid that horrible situation, shall we?
It is not asinine to ask you to ignore your personal observations, in the interest of arriving at the correct answer to the question (which you brought up) "Can a woman on her own name a male child appropriately?" If you were truly interested in arriving at the correct answer to this question, you'd be more than willing to do so, in the interest of accuracy. But you don't want to arrive at the correct answer. You want to continue being arrogant and offensive.
And now you've stated that a women "hide accountability"--whatever that means---I'm guessing you mean "avoid accountability"--thereby adding fuel to the fire. Keep going. You'll find that you've run into one woman who doesn't back down in the face of pig-headed arrogance.
It is not asinine to ask you to ignore your personal observations, in the interest of arriving at the correct answer to the question (which you brought up) "Can a woman on her own name a male child appropriately?" If you were truly interested in arriving at the correct answer to this question, you'd be more than willing to do so, in the interest of accuracy. But you don't want to arrive at the correct answer. You want to continue being arrogant and offensive.
And now you've stated that a women "hide accountability"--whatever that means---I'm guessing you mean "avoid accountability"--thereby adding fuel to the fire. Keep going. You'll find that you've run into one woman who doesn't back down in the face of pig-headed arrogance.
1
What i said was "hide inaccountability."
1
Yes, I know that's what you said, but it doesn't make any sense. One can avoid accountability, but not hide it.
1
sigh
By "hide inaccountability" I am refering to the art, especially the women on this board use to rationalize their impulsive and unfounded emotions: always inconsistant from person to person, never with a concrete reason--always with an overzealous list of rare unsupportive exceptions to their opposition, and always with a flare for the darkest hateful language imaginable. How can you expect to cultivate an agreeable response from me? I assure you, you never will like that.
By "hide inaccountability" I am refering to the art, especially the women on this board use to rationalize their impulsive and unfounded emotions: always inconsistant from person to person, never with a concrete reason--always with an overzealous list of rare unsupportive exceptions to their opposition, and always with a flare for the darkest hateful language imaginable. How can you expect to cultivate an agreeable response from me? I assure you, you never will like that.
This message was edited 4/14/2008, 10:38 PM
1
That phrase does not accurately describe the condition you're referring to.
Look, you. You are obviously a sexist pig. Now you're saying women have impulsive, unfounded, inconsistant emotions not founded in reason. Have I paraphrased you correctly? Amazing. And you, being of the male gender, have no emotions,and are therefore so superior to us, yes? Oh and on the Lounge, you made reference to "menstrual ravings" or something similar. So because we have periods, that disables us mentally, correct? We'd better let the world know that women are so impulsive, inconsistent, and unreasonable, so everyone can know what a mistake they made in giving Indira Ghandi, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher such power. How did we survive that?
Realize, please, that this is a predominately female board and you are insulting each and everyone of the girls and women who post here.
I'm not backing down from you, but I think it's time to end this disagreement on what is supposed to be a board for opinions on names. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this discussion. I'm ignoring any more of your posts on this board, and unless you PM me, I will consider myself to have had the last word.
Look, you. You are obviously a sexist pig. Now you're saying women have impulsive, unfounded, inconsistant emotions not founded in reason. Have I paraphrased you correctly? Amazing. And you, being of the male gender, have no emotions,and are therefore so superior to us, yes? Oh and on the Lounge, you made reference to "menstrual ravings" or something similar. So because we have periods, that disables us mentally, correct? We'd better let the world know that women are so impulsive, inconsistent, and unreasonable, so everyone can know what a mistake they made in giving Indira Ghandi, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher such power. How did we survive that?
Realize, please, that this is a predominately female board and you are insulting each and everyone of the girls and women who post here.
I'm not backing down from you, but I think it's time to end this disagreement on what is supposed to be a board for opinions on names. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this discussion. I'm ignoring any more of your posts on this board, and unless you PM me, I will consider myself to have had the last word.
1
I hope I do offend you and your like. I am not running for office. I do not need to contour to your emotions or whims, nor will I ever. I don't want to be your friend. I get much more satisfaction out of speaking my mind. This one of the MANY reasons why I'd FAR prefer a MALE partner.
1
"I'd FAR prefer a MALE partner"? Are you saying that you're gay or that you want to be gay? I thought you mentioned having a girlfriend in the past.
BTW, you sound like someone who's just undergone a bad breakup. Did your girlfriend leave you or something?
BTW, you sound like someone who's just undergone a bad breakup. Did your girlfriend leave you or something?
1
I think I only mentioned Lyric, but his real name was Aaron. I referred to him in a subject in which the name Lyric came up.
That breakup was about six years ago. I am currently a few weeks into a new relationship, since you were wondering.
That breakup was about six years ago. I am currently a few weeks into a new relationship, since you were wondering.
This message was edited 4/15/2008, 10:06 PM
1
unneccessary
and rude. Bisexuality exists.
and rude. Bisexuality exists.
1
Contour? I think you mean 'contort', genius.
1
Not at all.
Contour is the exact word I wanted.
Contour is the exact word I wanted.
1
Actually, the phrase is "cater to whims," not contour.
1
Not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with this silly argument, which has already ended anyway, I still must say that -=A=-s use of "contour" was perfectly appropriate in context. There are a number of words that would have fit, but the one he chose is every inch as grammatically acceptable as "contort" or "cater," without being as cliché as they are in that phrase, which, if you're paying attention, speaks volumes.
1
Contour did slightly work in context; however, it altered the acceptable idiomatic expression, which doesn’t do much to bolster his argument. Idioms are not clichés, rather they are colloquial speech that is recognizable to speakers in the culture. Altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it. I was merely pointing out the conventional figure of speech.
1
Contour in the context in which -=A=- used it is interchangeable with the word conform; go back and look. While I do not pretend to speak for him (or agree with what he said), I highly doubt he intended to use the "acceptable idiomatic expression," which, to be very precise, would be "cater to your every whim." That phrase is nothing like what he said; catering implies servicing, while conforming (and certainly contouring) implies yielding. I doubt he meant he wouldn't be of service; what sense would that make? I believe he intended to say exactly what he did say, by which he clearly meant he would not yield to others' points of view.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
I strongly disagree that "altering an idiom generally reduces the effect of an argument, rather than enhances it." Who says? Quite to the contrary, the use of cliché idioms reduces the effect, or strength, of any argument. Any single argument is more forceful when it does not rely on such pap.
And for the record, I pursue this only because I felt the word contour was being maligned, not -=A=-. The English language is a very subtle thing, capable of limitless variety; I'm quite in love with it, and I felt it was being unjustly restrained. This interest is quite separate from the content of who said what.
1
Catering implies servicing, or a subserving one's own opinion to the whims of others. Which means yielding your own personal desires to the desires of others - which also means conform. I'm quite aware that the way he was using contour was synonymous with conform. However, the message he was trying to convey was better served with cater and the recognizable idiom.
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
If one alters an idiom, it generally makes the speaker look like they don't have a grasp on what they are saying - in speech, altered idoms work far better than in text because there are cues in the tone. Again, idioms are not cliches - just as regional differences in the name of things are not cliches. It's about the figurative meaning that's known because of it's usage - looking at the literal meaning does not always convey the full meaning in idiomatic expression. Something like "spend time" or "act of God," can't be altered without changing the meaning attempting to be expressed. This isn't a restraint on language, it's simply the way idomatic expressions work.
I believe that the English language can be subtle, and it does have the potential for variety. However, I don't think we're going to agree on this, as I can see you disagreeing with my points on the ability for others to understand altered idiom. I'd hate to drag the name ops board off topic with a long debate on the usage of expression and word choice in language. Agree to disagree?
1
agree :-)
1
Yah, I know . . .
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
After reading that I did go and look up contour and saw that it can be used as a verb. However by that time it was too late so I just left it as it was and walked away from the thread altogether.
1
Oh my god. You really are a caveman.
1
Then stop making a spectacle of yourself.
1