ricofederico
(deleted)
|
![]() Posted: Post subject: You don't get off that easy. |
|
|
Quote: `strangely enough, I find "ricofederico" sort of interesting but also find that you gotta have lots of time on your hands to pick apart an opinion and call it an argument.
1. I'll bet you find me more than just "sort of interesting." Oh no, no, NO, cookinbubbles. You and I and everyone else on here knows that you find me utterly fascinating! Make sure to tell your family and friends.
2. What does my having a lot of time on my hands have to do with the soundness of any of my arguments? Answer: Absolutely nothing. I suppose this is where you begin setting up for another passive-aggressive insult to my character or avatar.
3. Whether or not I HAVE the time, I obviously am willing to TAKE the time to address your assumptions and insults in a thorough and reasonable manner appropriate to public forum. You, however, have not. Does this bother you?
4. Your opinions are not arguments? You mean, your demonstration of your conclusions, from your a priori assumptions of a subject unrelated to my statement, via unsupportable rationale and faulty logic... was nothing more than just an opinion? bull----.
Quote: I never said YOU were on this site to find S-- only but sweetheart, many guys ARE
Oh no, of course not, not directly, but not quite indirectly, either (that's because your responses have been passive-aggressive). They are not direct, no indirect: They are implicit. You merely implied via passive-aggressive statements that that is what I was on here for.
1. Why do you care so much if I am?
2. I'm not.
3. Your quotes:
Quote: `Your views are typically male...
Quote: Men do that kind of hit and run S-- all the time. There is NEVER a long term connection to that kind of behaviour.
In the attack above, your implications followed one from the other. Following thus, in the totality of your response, you described a total implication of my character as a hit-and-run male by virtue of describing me as a typical male. See?
Here's another:
Quote: You are on this site hoping to find a big girl that tickles your fancy.
I am on this site hoping to find a man who is looking for a big girl for something more than just tickles.
In this attack, you attempted to dictate my direction (as if you're a psychic), or frame my character, as someone who is not after more than just a tickle. Then, you described yourself as someone who IS after more than just a tickle. Consequently, you imply via the disparity between these characterizations that I am only after a physical idea and nothing more, since in your previous response you already mentioned you desire more than sex, and taken in context, that must be what you mean by "more than just tickles", right?
Right.
I could go on, but two is enough for now. You're not as subtle as you like to think you are. Your insults appear less gracious and more juvenile than anything, really. I challenge you to attempt to demonstrate otherwise.
Quote: You will never be in the position to know that because you will not be approached by those kinds of men.
I lived in San Francisco for four years and encountered all manner of intrusive personalities, including some crazy gay dudes. LOL You have made another erroneous assumption. I have already HAVE BEEN approached like that. Yes, as a straight guy. Why? Because I LIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO. I worked in the Financial District on 1st and Market, and lived in the Tenderloin.
Yes, cookinbubbles, I already HAVE experienced this. Does this make me think ALL gay dudes are like that, or for that matter, any person se---lly interested in me? Of course not.
Quote: Prove to me, with any scientific, wordy, wikipedia sourced argument that S-- first and then intellectual bonding is a viable form of starting a relationship. Quote me numbers, sources, studies, the works.
Okay, wait a minute here. You're asking me to PROVE this to you.
That's like asking me for you to prove to me that a relationship WITHOUT physical attraction will work out long term anywhere; with divorce rates in this nation and in other nations that support divorce nearing 50% and 60%, you would have a hard time PROVING this... and yet we can reason through a solid rationale that such may be the case.
I was not interested in proofs...do you even know what proving entails? I am interested in rational debate and deductive (or inductive, where appropriate) logic.
So, you ask me to pull out something other than Wikipedia? Are you sure you want the answer to that?
Fine by me. But... what I have included to humor you is a shadow of what I can give you. You want "the works"? You can't handle "the works". That's a lot of information to cover in just the small amount I have included here. So let's go ahead and get you going with a little starter pack of knowledge nuggets, and when you're finished and I have reviewed your progress, and have made the determination that you are ready for something even remotely approaching "the works"... I might send you free copies of more books and reports in .pdf, .chm, .djvu, .doc, .txt, or even .html format for you to read, ponder, cross-reference, *nalyze, extrapolate data from, and generally blow your mind with.
As per your request, I have referenced SOME of the content appropriate to my position below. I doubt that you possess the real interest necessary to withstand a thorough read of my referenced subject matter, so I took the liberty of excerpting and quoting some appropriate passages... AND in drawing some quick numbers for you based on information from this material.
Please..peruse at your leisure.
********'
The New Science Of Intimate Replationships
- by Garth Fletcher; Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers, 2002, 324 pages, $27.95 softcover
Says Edith C. Fraser, Ph.D.:
"...This book highlights not only the power of evolutionary processes in explaining the origin of intimate relationships but also the development of human relationships. Fletcher concentrates on the role of social judgment in relationships. Citing numerous sources, he examines the accuracy and inaccuracy of the social judgment of strangers, dating couples, and married couples in intimate relationships. The book looks at various reasons for relationship success and confronts simplistic models, which focus only on communication or good management. Fletcher il----rates the "complexity and subtlety of the process and concept of communication." He discusses the role of attachment style not only for children but also for adults after relationships break up. The selection of
mates is a pivotal component of relationship development, and Fletcher postulates that mate selection is not random but rather is predicated on interplay between genetic factors and exterior features, such as status, physical attractiveness, personality traits, and attitudes. These factors interact throughout the course of the relationship."
Please read the whole book.
The table of weighted values on page 180-181 directly supports my position; you will see upon examination that the column for physical attractiveness (based on the perception of the respondent) weighs to an average of 36 points across the spread, for a total of 109, while the other columns, Warmth/Loyalty and Status/Resources, scored an average of 22 and 23 points per,respectively, for a total, each, of 67 and 71, respectively. 36 over 23 and 109 over 71 is a notable difference, even dramatic! We're talking numbers over 50% higher! That is substantial weight in ANY field test.
And a peer-reviewed report:
Perceived Physical Attractiveness In Early, Steady, And Engaged Daters
- by Roger C. Bailey and Michael Kelly, East Tennessee State University
Published both separately and in The Journal of Psychology, 1984 (the Journal Of Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal)
Excerpts:
"Perceived physical attractiveness of self and others has further been shown to be an important dimension in the establishment of interpersonal relationships."
"...physical attractiveness continues to be an important attribute in well established friendships (7), in dating relationships (9), and marriage (10). While some efforts have been made to determine whether physical attractiveness perceptions help to establish or maintain relationships, even less is known about how realistic such perceptions may be."
Again, read the whole report.
***************
Quote: You asked about most idividuals, not yourself personally.
Since you take offense, I would have to assume that you consider yourself most individuals. your words, not mine.
1. I did not originally ask about "most individuals." My overall position was not a QUESTION, it was a CONCLUSION, a final statement.
2. Begs the question: to what part of this dialogue are you referring here? ?=|
3. I took offense at your statements and implications about me, not anything you said (or rather, didn't say) about a group.
And I did take offense, and you seem pleasantly satisfied with that.
Yet another demonstration of your passive-aggressive method in arguing.
Take note: I have not attacked your character or personality yet, simply your method, your rationale, your implications, and the underlying theme of your previous insistence on framing my argument as something it was not.
Quote: `Nice to see you back Sheevaa.
This new guy is a trip, sort of fun to watch him flail around, wading through the dictionary and an ecyclopedia.
Watch ME flail around? Who's flailing? I'll ignore the elephant in THAT room and let you slide..again. *le sigh!!*
Quote: So why am on Large passions?
Because I want to. I don't have to explain myself.
A travesty. Truly, I die inside.
I'm done for now.
I have supported my case fairly, logically, and without resorting to personal insult. I have demonstrated a logic supported by current field data and referenced publicly available material that contains that data.
What have you done?
|
|
