# Question for the guys (Ok a couple)



## Verdant Hollow (Aug 25, 2009)

Thracius said:


> I'd rather have a girl talk to me than stalk me :wink:
> 
> don't be surprised to find that most guys are dull, same as most girls
> 
> however, initiating will probably get you great success with the more introverted guys who are actually great in bed and real romantics (like me)


I will always say "go for it!" If the guy isn't interested, nothing will happen. "The worst" isn't bad at all. The upside to approaching a guy is very high.

If he's a shallow assholish jerk (like me, according to Turran), then sure, you'll get turned down, but you didn't want that type of guy anyway, right? :tongue:



WickedQueen said:


> No, he *shouldn't*.
> 
> "Should" is *your* moral value, not *his*. And if he have different moral value than you, that doesn't mean that he's shallow. It's just his way in dealing with people. And I personally think that he's been polite enough in dealing with your rude and shallow words.
> 
> And it's not a *minor* point, but it's your *only* point when you first decided to arguing with him.


Yeah, please Turran, answer this question for me, don't gloss over it:

If "fuck face" girl started flirting with me, is it really my responsibility to engage in polite conversation with her? Would it be inconsiderate of me to say something like "sorry, but I have no interest in talking to someone who acts so rudely to strangers?"

Please answer those questions as separate questions, not as part of the same question. Thanks :happy:



TurranMC said:


> I do not see any error with your grammar or spelling. I believe this line to be simply a setup. If my interpretation of what you said is spot on, and you don't like what I said, then you will simply say that you used the wrong words.


Turran, please stop injecting intent where none is stated. You can check my location, and yes, it was to guard against mistakes. However, you were wrong. I do disagree with you, and I don't like what you said, but I'm not going to take back anything since I said it all clearly.



> Well first off I don't care too much what other people think. If they think I'm being an asshole and I'm not, fuck em. Why do I care? To be honest my initial post was meant to be rude to get you to respond, though I still agree with my assessment of you. Perhaps calling you an asshole is too much, but I do believe you to be shallow.


Ummm... thanks? I don't know how to respond to this. I guess what I said earlier still holds.



> Well it is easy to say one thing and do another. I will redact my assessment of you when I believe it is incorrect.


Can you please state explicitly how I would redeem myself? I can't meet you in real life very easily, so how can I state more clearly that I agree with you on that point?

It seems to me that you simply think that I'm lying and manipulating my words. If this is the case, just say it. However, that would be based on your belief that I'm a liar. Unless you can point to a particular lie, it will remain your own personal unsubstantiated belief.



> My point was you are attempting to ignore that part of your posts because it is difficult to argue against.


Nope! That wasn't the reason :happy:



> Why should we look down upon others for the way they were born? I believe someone to be shallow if they will only date the beautiful. I don't see why I shouldn't. I have found it difficult to imagine myself with people I do not find attractive, but this does not mean it is right.


Hmmmm... I disagree with you on a few minor points here.

First, someone might happen to only date beautiful people by coincidence. That person wouldn't be shallow.

Second, wanting someone you find attractive isn't "wrong". Maybe it's a silly thing, beauty. It's not particularly reasonable. However, it's very clear that we're wired for it. It's one thing if you say "I only want to date really hot women", but it's an entirely different thing to say "I'd like to be physically attracted to my wife". Sexual attraction is a big part of romantic relationships, so yeah, I want to be sexually attracted to my partner. This is not unreasonable.



> Perhaps I may have misread the meaning of your scale, but I am not convinced. You suggest that its simply a scale on how you rate all of the traits of other people. Well first off you would still be judging someone as better or worse using the scale at all so its foolish to act otherwise. You obviously think a person who ranks 6 is better then a 2. Second, you've only just met this person. How could you possibly rate them on the various traits besides beauty when at this point you've only just greeted each other?
> 
> Finally, if its simply how you rate how much you like them then how come you rated yourself? You said, in a hypothetical scenario, that you considered yourself a 6. If you only were measuring how much you enjoyed the company of other people, as you were attempting to suggest, then there would be no need to measure yourself.


So first, me being a 6. That was just a number I threw out there, but yeah, this is a self assessment as to what the average girl would find my dateability to be. Some women might rate me as a 3 because I'm unemployed and they're only looking to date professional men. Some might rate me an 8 because they don't care about a job and the like my particular interests. That 6 would be a composite of all these ratings. This would be my average average. If I'm in a different situation, then my rating for that situation changes. However, my rating for an individual could be anything. All of this is based off speculation on my point.

So yeah, if someone asks me out on a train, and they're a 2 on my dateability scale (maybe they're obnoxious, materialistic, and disrespectful), then I'll probably turn them down. I have to use some rubric to determine whether I want to date them or not. I could date everyone, but I don't want to. I'm busy and poor, so I have no interest in spending my time and money when I'd rather be with other people.

Now, as far as rating them in such a small time frame. If I'm chatting with a girl, it usually only takes a few minutes for me to determine whether I'm interested in her or not. Sometimes less. So if a girl I had never talked to before asked me out of the blue, I'd probably say something like "how about we talk and I get to know you for a minute first?"



> It seems quite clear to me that you are rating everyone as better or worse then other people.


Nope. As explained above this is not how or why I do it. I rank people by traits, not on some axiological scale of "good" and "bad". I rate them based on dateability. There are some girls I really want to date, some I sorta want to date, and those I'd never want to date. I just assign numbers to those phrases so that I'm more precise. Again, this is not a measure of their value as a person. It's a measure of their dateability.



> You want the "accurate picture" to be that you're a cool smart person only looking to talk to other cool smart people.


Now you're just making shit up. I explicitly stated that this was not my purpose. I gave you many examples to show that this isn't the case. What else do I need to show to prove it to you?

I talk to all types of people on the train, bums, bikers, models, professors, hipsters, etc. But they are all, as individuals, people I want to talk to for one reason or another.

I clearly said when I don't want to talk to someone, the main impetus is my disinterest in their company. However, when the person is especially detestable, my image does becomes a concern. This however, only comes into play when they have a major flaw. It might also happen in cases like the one with the music producer, where this individuals presence might disrupt other areas of my life. If he wanted to start up a conversation with a lady who piqued his interests, then having this young boy around might prove a hindrance.



> You gave a situation where someone is bigoted and you don't want to be associated with them. Of course you wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of person. Bigotry is a trait that should be looked down upon. But the point I'm trying to get at is you're looking down upon the unintelligent and the ugly as if they are lesser.


They are not people I want to date, yes. I don't want to date an idiot. That's not shallow. I would like my girlfriend to have a pleasant face. That's not shallow.

I am not passing judgement and saying that they are worse people, or bad people, or that they shouldn't exist. I just don't want to date them. Is that so wrong?



> As I said in my post above the one I'm quoting, the point is not why the traits being discussed are desired, its why should they be. Why should we like beautiful and/or smart people? What makes ugly and/or dumb people worse?


They aren't worse people, so there isn't anything that makes them worse. However, they'd make worse dates for me. I want a date that can I can have lively intelligent discussion with on a range of topics. Someone who isn't smart can't usually keep up. I thought this was all obvious...



> If someone respects you enough that they desire to talk and/or flirt with you then you should be polite enough to at least entertain their inquiries, though honestly this is a minor point. I did not post to discuss train etiquette.


As Queen said. If you want to talk to everyone, go ahead, but don't force your principles on me. If I want to be a grumpy misanthrope, I'll be on :tongue:

I'm not a grumpy misanthrope, by the way. I don't think it healthy. I like talking with all kinds of people. I'd just rather not talk with certain individuals.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

TurranMC said:


> I like this. Instead of arguing against my rhetoric you are attempting to argue against my character.


That's what you've been doing with tdmg the entire thread. Furthermore, I actually made no presumptions of your character, but rather provided you with an opportunity to fully explain your position on the subject, garnished with a hint of _very_ necessary sarcasm.



TurranMC said:


> Whats that called again? Addendum? Ad trivium? Ad hermaphrodite? I dunno, maybe it will come to me later.


That was not an ad hominem. However, thus far your entire argument has indeed been attacking tdmg directly. You are already way too emotionally involved to pretend that this is just a healthy debate. Perhaps you shouldn't lie to yourself or me.



TurranMC said:


> The point is not why the traits being discussed are desired, but why should they be. But if you must know, some of the things I respect are honor, honesty, creativity, passion, kindness, fairness, and independence.


Most of these virtues require intelligence.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

your posts are far too long, they're painful to read so I'm not gonna do it, sorry


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Yea I think we should take this to a different thread personally.


----------



## Singularity (Sep 22, 2009)

I'm a girl that has asked men out in the past. I'm not shy in that way at all and it just seems to be the most direct route to getting what you want - I am, at times, impatient and impulsive. However, as I got older I started to think about things differently. I started thinking that while I was pretty successful and getting the guy to say yes to the date, it didn't always mean he genuinely liked me. I started wondering if it was like when you are sitting with a friend and they are eating cookies and they say, "Hey, want a cookie?", generally you say, "Yes", because, 'Why not? A cookie sounds fine.', but that doesn't mean you really wanted a cookie, you are just taking it because it's there and being offered to you. So I started wonder if maybe it wasn't like that when I asked a guy out. Maybe he thought, "Well hey, if she is going to offer me a 'cookie' I might as well take it." That doesn't mean he wanted my 'cookie' enough to go and get it himself. So now I'm very hesitant to ask guys out. Instead, I give them as much indication as I think is decent to let them know I would be agreeable to them asking me out, but I mostly stop there. 

Bah! To complicate matters I'm an INTJ and who knows how I actually come off to people? When I hear my friends describe me I sound pretty intimidating. :frustrating:


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Singularity said:


> I'm a girl that has asked men out in the past. I'm not shy in that way at all and it just seems to be the most direct route to getting what you want - I am, at times, impatient and impulsive. However, as I got older I started to think about things differently. I started thinking that while I was pretty successful and getting the guy to say yes to the date, it didn't always mean he genuinely liked me. I started wondering if it was like when you are sitting with a friend and they are eating cookies and they say, "Hey, want a cookie?", generally you say, "Yes", because, 'Why not? A cookie sounds fine.', but that doesn't mean you really wanted a cookie, you are just taking it because it's there and being offered to you. So I started wonder if maybe it wasn't like that when I asked a guy out. Maybe he thought, "Well hey, if she is going to offer me a 'cookie' I might as well take it." That doesn't mean he wanted my 'cookie' enough to go and get it himself. So now I'm very hesitant to ask guys out. Instead, I give them as much indication as I think is decent to let them know I would be agreeable to them asking me out, but I mostly stop there.
> 
> Bah! To complicate matters I'm an INTJ and who knows how I actually come off to people? When I hear my friends describe me I sound pretty intimidating. :frustrating:


Well that was highly interesting. If you find the guy attractive for his personality....and at least the core of him....then he will prolly like you for your personality and the core of you as well. You can see this in attraction consistently. I've noticed that humans typically feel the same way about each other......ill give you an example 


How do I feel about entps? Not entirely fond of them....kinda rub me the wrong way sometimes....but sometimes I like them. 

This is a good indicator of how entps feel about infps. They may not say it the same way....but it is about the same amount of misunderstanding.

How do I feel about ENFJs. I think they are really attractive and nice. 

Again...that's prolly a relatively good indicator of how they feel about infps. 


Now ....if you find someone attractive.....not because they look good....but with how they carry themselves ....basically their personality.....then they will prolly find you just as interesting. 


So....moral of the story is be honest and genuine in your interpersonal matters and you will be fine ( well sorta haha). 


The person who is most attractive to you is prolly JUST as attracted to you. Don't settle for guys that you think are not attractive just because you think that is what you deserve.


----------



## Singularity (Sep 22, 2009)

thehigher said:


> Well that was highly interesting. If you find the guy attractive for his personality....and at least the core of him....then he will prolly like you for your personality and the core of you as well.
> 
> So....moral of the story is be honest and genuine in your interpersonal matters and you will be fine ( well sorta haha).


True, but I generally have to go out with them several times before I know if I find their personality attractive and vice versa. 

Also, a little social skill can take you a long way. I often neglect things others do without thinking.


----------



## vt1099ace (Jun 8, 2009)

docmcelroy said:


> Do you like it when a woman asks you out? Is it flattering? Or does it put you off?
> 
> Would you be OK with a random woman flirting with you or trying to talk to you on a train? (Note: Not a supermodel. An average looking girl.)
> 
> Where do you draw the line between flirting and "coming on too strong?" How agressive is too strong?


I would *LOVE* to have a woman ask me out...I usually get either EEW! or the 'just freinds' slapdown...to find someone that auctually _wants_ to go out with me :shocked:, would do wonders to my self esteem.

Random flirting? I do...but I have to be the instagator, to be flirted with?...see above. 

Draw the line?...I haven't reached that line in a very liong time, so I don't know anymore


----------



## Verdant Hollow (Aug 25, 2009)

thehigher said:


> Yea I think we should take this to a different thread personally.


Sure sure, we are clogging up the place. Turran, please PM me with your response. I don't think a whole thread is necessary :happy:

But yeah, if you didn't read that whole post... I just wanted to make the point I made at the beginning. It's always a good idea to approach the guy, because the outcome is almost never worse than not doing it :laughing:


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

... Where did the odd idea of men being put off by women taking the initiative even come from?


----------



## sunshine (Jul 18, 2009)

thewindlistens said:


> ... Where did the odd idea of men being put off by women taking the initiative even come from?


Giving women the "right" to take the initiative in a relationship would have ruined the sense of power that so many men used to (and some that still do) thrive off of in relationships...


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

docmcelroy said:


> Do you like it when a woman asks you out? Is it flattering? Or does it put you off?


I find it flattering and pleasant when anybody shows a genuine interest in me.



docmcelroy said:


> Would you be OK with a random woman flirting with you or trying to talk to you on a train? (Note: Not a supermodel. An average looking girl.)


 I would definitely be okay with it. I like it when people try to talk to me. I don't mind people flirting with me either. Just gives me more interesting/humorous stories to tell my girlfriend...



docmcelroy said:


> Where do you draw the line between flirting and "coming on too strong?" How agressive is too strong?


Too aggressive would be a girl I don't know putting her hand on my shoulder, looking into my eyes, and telling me she adores me. It might be appropriate for a girl that I do know...especially if it was a sort of joke, or if it was very understated and just a sort of nice, affectionate gesture.

The girl on the train would have to do something really extreme or uncomfortable for me to stop talking to her. If I thought she was taking things too far, I would probably say, "Eh, you're a nice person, but I already have a girlfriend" and try to continue the conversation. Only if she said something like, "She doesn't have to know" would I potentially be offended. [shrug] Otherwise, I might just be a bit uncomfortable.


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

WickedQueen said:


> No, he *shouldn't*.
> 
> "Should" is *your* moral value, not *his*. And if he have different moral value than you, that doesn't mean that he's shallow. It's just his way in dealing with people. And I personally think that he's been polite enough in dealing with your rude and shallow words.
> 
> And it's not a *minor* point, but it's your *only* point when you first decided to arguing with him.


It was not my "only" point. In fact I barely touched on it in any of my posts as it really doesn't matter to me who you talk to. Its irrelevant to me. I merely started the argument because I did not like the way he viewed people. So anyway having different moral opinions doesn't make you shallow? Then what does? Not to mention I really don't see what the point here is. Its ok to do whatever you want because people have different opinions on morality? Well then you could justify all kinds of shit with that line of thought..


Azrael said:


> That's what you've been doing with tdmg the entire thread. Furthermore, I actually made no presumptions of your character, but rather provided you with an opportunity to fully explain your position on the subject, garnished with a hint of _very_ necessary sarcasm.
> 
> That was not an ad hominem. However, thus far your entire argument has indeed been attacking tdmg directly. You are already way too emotionally involved to pretend that this is just a healthy debate. Perhaps you shouldn't lie to yourself or me.


I definitely attacked his arguments, I just attacked his character as well. I am not emotionally involved in anything, ever. But you're right in that you've yet to make any serious judgment on my character, but the point is you're attempting to.


> > The point is not why the traits being discussed are desired, but why should they be. But if you must know, some of the things I respect are honor, honesty, creativity, passion, kindness, fairness, and independence.
> 
> 
> Most of these virtues require intelligence.


Specifically which ones? Doesn't take a genius to be honest, passionate, kind, or independent. I guess you could argue fairness and creativity, maybe, but I disagree. You may not be truly fair or creative, the point is you try to be.


Grim said:


> Nothing wrong with healthy debate... might be a good idea to show Doc some respect and start a new thread. At the very least the insults are pointless... they could go away.





thehigher said:


> Yea I think we should take this to a different thread personally.


I do not want to derail Doc's topic.. I also do not want to take this to private messaging as I do not like PM's at all. I prefer arguing where other people can see. But, I don't want to make my own thread so whatever


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

TurranMC said:


> I definitely attacked his arguments, I just attacked his character as well.


Interesting...and yet you made the effort to miscall a logical fallacy as though you deserved some special immunity to moral critique that tdmg does not.
How very interesting, indeed.



TurranMC said:


> I am not emotionally involved in anything, ever.


Foolhardy attacks on another man's character are quite indicative of significant emotional involvement.
Your assertion is not convincing.



TurranMC said:


> But you're right in that you've yet to make any serious judgment on my character, but the point is you're attempting to.


Your intentions may be pure, but your rhetoric displays naïvety regarding virtue.



TurranMC said:


> Specifically which ones? Doesn't take a genius to be honest, passionate, kind, or independent. I guess you could argue fairness and creativity, maybe, but I disagree. You may not be truly fair or creative, the point is you try to be.


Perhaps you meet a man who _honestly _tells you that you're ugly, _passionately _adores sadistic behaviors, _empathizes _with child molesters, and slaps the hand away of anyone who seeks to help him - showing stubborn _independence_. These are your virtues, displayed by a very unintelligent man. Intelligence is more than just how many vocabulary words you know. It takes a well-developed theory of mind to have proper virtues of almost any sort. 

Intelligence is the foundation of virtually all desirable traits.

Now, if someone decides they do not want to exercise their intellect, make efforts towards social skills, or display any other virtues...well then, there will be few who wish to interact with them or befriend them. 
The fault is their own.


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Interesting...and yet you made the effort to miscall a logical fallacy as though you deserved some special immunity to moral critique that tdmg does not.
> How very interesting, indeed.


The point is that you were attempting to attack my character and not my arguments, while I was doing both. Two very different things. Not sure how you missed it.


> Foolhardy attacks on another man's character are quite indicative of significant emotional involvement.
> Your assertion is not convincing.


Whatever you say buddy.


> Your intentions may be pure, but your rhetoric displays naïvety regarding virtue.


I mean seriously, you could simply say "nuh uh you're wrong!" if you don't plan on backing up anything you have to say.


> Perhaps you meet a man who _honestly _tells you that you're ugly, _passionately _adores sadistic behaviors, _empathizes _with child molesters, and slaps the hand away of anyone who seeks to help him - showing stubborn _independence_. These are your virtues, displayed by a very unintelligent man. Intelligence is more than just how many vocabulary words you know. It takes a well-developed theory of mind to have proper virtues of almost any sort.
> 
> Intelligence is the foundation of virtually all desirable traits.


Out of all the things you listed only the "independence" one actually resembles unintelligence, and thats debatable anyway. Because he's empthazises with evil men, is honest with what he thinks, and enjoy his desires passionately, he's an idiot? I also find it convenient you ignored the other traits I mentioned.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

TurranMC said:


> The point is that you were attempting to attack my character and not my arguments, while I was doing both. Two very different things. Not sure how you missed it.


Your arguments have pretty much consisted of:

"Its entirely *shallow *and its *pathetic*."
"You seem to care a lot what other people think of you like all other *shallow jackasses*."
"I also like how you tried to make yourself sound noble. Its cute the way *assholes *do that."
"I think you're a *shallow asshole*."
"I guess I could keep the insults down but it is not in my nature to do so."
"But, again, it's obvious that you are *shallow*."
"Typical *asshole *defense."

You sound like a broken record player, my friend. There's almost no logical argument from you within this entire thread. It's pretty much just you flaming about something you feel strongly about. So, what exactly do I have to go on?



TurranMC said:


> I mean seriously, you could simply say "nuh uh you're wrong!" if you don't plan on backing up anything you have to say.


In my experience, those who pretend to have no standards for the company that they keep, and _consider this a virtue_, are simply the result of being spoon-fed radically liberal moral propaganda from the moment they learned to speak. It is the behavior of sheep - to not have the will or experience to formulate an opinion of your own. This is what naïvety is.

Does this back my statement up enough for you?



TurranMC said:


> Out of all the things you listed only the "independence" one actually resembles unintelligence, and thats debatable anyway.


Would you care to explain how tactlessness, sadistic acts, and fraternization with sex offenders are indeed intelligent behaviors, then?



TurranMC said:


> I also find it convenient you ignored the other traits I mentioned.


No doubt it was my diabolical plan to masterfully sidestep explanations of more difficult virtues. Caught red-handed!
Or maybe it was because you didn't mention any of the others in the last post? I guess we'll never know.
Here are your _other _favorites:

*Honor*: To be honorable means that you respect others and they respect you. This broad term can come from any virtue and is ultimately completely subjective. If we're referring to something like "honoring your parents" or "honoring the law," then it would be far more intelligent to do so as it will keep you out of trouble.

*Creativity*: This is an obvious form of intelligence - being gifted with an ability to generate novel ideas.

*Fairness*: This requires the intelligence of discerning and judging. Aristotle referred to this intellectual virtue as "Gnomê."


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

Azrael said:


> Your arguments have pretty much consisted of:
> 
> "Its entirely *shallow *and its *pathetic*."
> "You seem to care a lot what other people think of you like all other *shallow jackasses*."
> ...


Uhh no? Quoting all the times where I called tdmg shallow or an asshole doesn't somehow negate the very many other things I've said in this topic. It sounds like you're the one who is too emotionally invested in this thread if you seriously believe this.


> In my experience, those who pretend to have no standards for the company that they keep, and _consider this a virtue_, are simply the result of being spoon-fed radically liberal moral propaganda from the moment they learned to speak. It is the behavior of sheep - to not have the will or experience to formulate an opinion of your own. This is what naïvety is.
> 
> Does this back my statement up enough for you?


Well it backs up the idea that you have no idea what you're talking about. When did I say that I have, or that you should have, no standards for the company you keep? When did I ever even say virtue besides in reponse to you?


> Would you care to explain how tactlessness, sadistic acts, and fraternization with sex offenders are indeed intelligent behaviors, then?


What the hell? I'm trying to point out that the traits I mentioned have no relation to intelligence and you ask me to point out how they make you intelligent?


> No doubt it was my diabolical plan to masterfully sidestep explanations of more difficult virtues. Caught red-handed!
> Or maybe it was because you didn't mention any of the others in the last post? I guess we'll never know.


Uhh.. Well here, let me quote my exact post for you:


> > > The point is not why the traits being discussed are desired, but why should they be. But if you must know, some of the things I respect are honor, honesty, creativity, passion, kindness, fairness, and independence.
> >
> >
> > Most of these virtues require intelligence.
> ...


Notice all seven of the traits I originally posted are right there? I simply directly copy and pasted what I posted from there to here. You only responded to three of them, and now in this post I'm responding to you list three more. You're _still_ missing one. I guess you _could_ argue that I only listed all seven in a quote within a quote, and thats why you didn't respond to all seven. But I still mentioned six in my actual post and you only responded to three. 

Either you're intentionally ignoring what I've said or you have terrible reading skills. Pick one.


> Here are your _other _favorites:
> 
> *Honor*: To be honorable means that you respect others and they respect you. This broad term can come from any virtue and is ultimately completely subjective. If we're referring to something like "honoring your parents" or "honoring the law," then it would be far more intelligent to do so as it will keep you out of trouble.
> 
> ...


Besides the fact that you're still ignoring kindness, this whole argument is still ridiculous. You do not have to be intelligent to have any of the traits I've listed. It is simply the desire to be fair, to be kind, to be honest, etc., that I respect. For instance in terms of fairness if you aren't actually intelligent enough to discern right from wrong in the greater scheme of things, it is irrelevant to me. As long as you try to be fair I have great respect for you.


If you want to continue this discussion are we gonna keep derailing this thread or are you gonna make another? I don't mind derailing the thread, but I was trying to be polite.


----------



## Fanille (Sep 3, 2009)

sunshine said:


> Giving women the "right" to take the initiative in a relationship would have ruined the sense of power that so many men used to (and some that still do) thrive off of in relationships...


It does seem that most of the men here would consider that to be total bullshit, though. Call us new-fashioned. :mellow:

I have heard many women say that they would absolutely never make the first move, though, which is kind of interesting.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

TurranMC said:


> Uhh no? Quoting all the times where I called tdmg shallow or an asshole doesn't somehow negate the very many other things I've said in this topic. It sounds like you're the one who is too emotionally invested in this thread if you seriously believe this.


Please provide these "very many other things" you've said in the topic that are actually logical arguments.



TurranMC said:


> Well it backs up the idea that you have no idea what you're talking about. When did I say that I have, or that you should have, no standards for the company you keep?


You have implicitly stated this by attacking any standards other people have.



TurranMC said:


> When did I ever even say virtue _besides in reponse to you_?


Why is your response immune to critique?



TurranMC said:


> What the hell? I'm trying to point out that the traits I mentioned have no relation to intelligence and you ask me to point out how they make you intelligent?


In your last post, you claimed that the actions I mentioned were not unintelligent. That essentially means that you consider them neutral or intelligent. I wanted you to explain your reasoning.



TurranMC said:


> Notice all seven of the traits I originally posted are right there? I simply directly copy and pasted what I posted from there to here. You only responded to three of them, and now in this post I'm responding to you list three more. You're _still_ missing one. I guess you _could_ argue that I only listed all seven in a quote within a quote, and thats why you didn't respond to all seven. But I still mentioned six in my actual post and you only responded to three.
> 
> Either you're intentionally ignoring what I've said or you have terrible reading skills. Pick one.


There is a third option: that I have mentioned all seven, and that _you _have poor reading skills.
Allow me to list them out in order, so it may be less confusing to you:

*Honor* - "...To be honorable means that you respect others and..."
*Honesty* - "...honestly tells you that you're ugly..."
*Creativity* - "...being gifted with an ability to generate novel ideas..."
*Passion* - "...passionately adores sadistic behaviors..."
*Kindness *- "...empathizes with child molesters..."
*Fairness *- "...This requires the intelligence of discerning and judging..."
*Independence* - "...and slaps the hand away of anyone who seeks to help him..."

I count seven.



TurranMC said:


> Besides the fact that you're still ignoring kindness, this whole argument is still ridiculous. You do not have to be intelligent to have any of the traits I've listed. It is simply the desire to be fair, to be kind, to be honest, etc., that I respect. For instance in terms of fairness if you aren't actually intelligent enough to discern right from wrong in the greater scheme of things, it is irrelevant to me. As long as you try to be fair I have great respect for you.


So you have reduced your virtues to simply aspiring to virtues. This is that naïvety I was talking about. This is having no standards for the company that you keep.



TurranMC said:


> If you want to continue this discussion are we gonna keep derailing this thread or are you gonna make another? I don't mind derailing the thread, but I was trying to be polite.


Of course, your "polite" behavior is so evident with all of the name-calling.


----------



## sunshine (Jul 18, 2009)

MannyP said:


> It does seem that most of the men here would consider that to be total bullshit, though. Call us new-fashioned. :mellow:
> 
> I have heard many women say that they would absolutely never make the first move, though, which is kind of interesting.


I like new-fashioned guys.  (Btw, I wasn't saying I agreed with the balance of power I was discussing. Quite the opposite.) (Edit: Er, I don't agree that it should be the opposite; I meant I disagree with it. Gah, I need sleep. )


----------

