No more circumcision in SF?

[One Brow]

It was just funny that after making several judgments about pro-lifer's motivations

I'm not judging them. I'm analyzing the likely motives based upon consistency with the policy positions supported. I offered no words of condemnation or support for them. If you felt one motive was more or less noble than another, it's because of your own predisposition, not my words.

you reacted with self-righteous umbrage at my judgment of guys and chicks who engage in irresponsible casual sex.

You confuse umbrage with bemusement and resignation. You're not actually capable of riling me.

The strongest supporters of abortion are single men who want to use young females for their own sexual gratification without a care for the consequences,

Linik?

so it is time to stop pretending that you care about women's rights.

I have no need of pretense.

 

[One Brow]

You're being trolled, OneBrow, forget it.

Can't I have a little more fun? Please?

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes, I'm referring to the person who uses term like "free whores" to describe women who choose to have sex without wanting children as dripping venom. Not much funny about it.

You confuse umbrage with bemusement and resignation. You're not actually capable of riling me.
I have no need of pretense.

So you described me as "dripping with venom" because you weren't riled, but simply confused by my unfunny "analysis based on behavior?"

 

[One Brow]

So you described me as "dripping with venom" because you weren't riled, but simply confused by my unfunny "analysis based on behavior?"

I wasn't confused at all. Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling. For example, your notion that an analysis of motives involves a particular judgement about those motives tells us about your beliefs and thoughts. You deliberately responded with words that would get an emotional response from most people, tailored carefully to not directly attack any particular person. Those words, partly by posture but also partly because of what you felt, were dripping with venom. I didn't put it there, just pointed it out.

 

[VINYLONE]

This is just a ploy to promote docking.

Gross.

 

[VINYLONE]

If their sexual behavior didn't effect another life I wouldn't care whether they wanted to act like free whores.

Wow. You don't really believe this do you? (edited by moderator: post was considered insulting and a personal attack)

 

[PearlWatson]

I wasn't confused at all. Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling. For example, your notion that an analysis of motives involves a particular judgement about those motives tells us about your beliefs and thoughts. You deliberately responded with words that would get an emotional response from most people, tailored carefully to not directly attack any particular person. Those words, partly by posture but also partly because of what you felt, were dripping with venom. I didn't put it there, just pointed it out.

And the pretense continues. All your posts on the subject were trolls, and then you get all self righteous about revealed "core beliefs" and "motives." What a hoot.

PS. What do you think "bemused" means?

 

[PearlWatson]

edited by moderator

Wipe that venom off your lip. LOL!

 

[Scat]

Wipe that venom off your lip. LOL!

Actually, smear it around. You'll be happier!

https://gawker.com/#!5798828/*****-natures-anti+depressant

 

[PearlWatson]

Actually, smear it around. You'll be happier!

https://gawker.com/#!5798828/*****-natures-anti+depressant

removed by moderator

 

[One Brow]

And the pretense continues. All your posts on the subject were trolls,

*chuckle* IMAX-level projection.
Sorry, but no. My description of the right to an abortion is exactly how I feel about it, and my determination of the motivations of many anti-abortion was quite serious. I meant it.

and then you get all self righteous about revealed "core beliefs" and "motives." What a hoot.

The real hoot is projecting self-righteousness onto a person who doesn't believe in righteousness.

PS. What do you think "bemused" means?

I've always used it to mean you can see theattempt at humor, and recognize the potential for humor, but it just isn't quite funny. However, that could be highly non-standard. I haven't looked it up in a dictionary.

 

[PearlWatson]

*chuckle* IMAX-level projection.
Sorry, but no. My description of the right to an abortion is exactly how I feel about it, and my determination of the motivations of many anti-abortion was quite serious. I meant it.
The real hoot is projecting self-righteousness onto a person who doesn't believe in righteousness.
I've always used it to mean you can see theattempt at humor, and recognize the potential for humor, but it just isn't quite funny. However, that could be highly non-standard. I haven't looked it up in a dictionary.

LOL!
Okay, let's test us up some of those there assertions

Do you think it is noble to control women's behavior?
Do you think it isn't a troll if you believe what you post?
Do you think you are innocent of posting anything considered venomous?
Do you think there is behavior that is wrong/incorrect/or something you would never be willing to do?
Do you think I was trying to be funny when I used the words "free whore?"

 

[One Brow]

Do you think it is noble to control women's behavior?

I think that depends upon the behavior you are controlling and your motivation for so doing. If you see a car coming down the road and you keep a woman (or a man) from stepping in front of it, that would be controlling their behavior, but could certainly be noble.

Do you think it isn't a troll if you believe what you post?

Calling a poster a "troll" is oftentimes like calling a judge "activist". It means you don't like them.

Since you introduced the word into the conversation, what did you mean by it? Do you have specific, objective standards you can lay out? If so, I'll look at how they measure up to me.

Do you think you are innocent of posting anything considered venomous?

A person can not be considered guilty for how other people consider his posts. They can only be guilty of what they intended to post.

If you think you can point to a post where I intended to be venomous, feel free to do so, and explain why you think it was venomous.

Do you think there is behavior that is wrong/incorrect/or something you would never be willing to do?

Yes, I do think there is behavior that I believe to be wrong, and behavior that I am unwilling to perform. They are distinct, independent categories (for example, making this post at this time is doing something I beleive to be wrong).

Do you think I was trying to be funny when I used the words "free whore?"

I think you were trying to be funny. Of course, in that context you could have used "prostitute", or "hooker", or "call girl", or "sex worker", or one of a number of other terms that do not typically carry the emotional baggage attached to "whore". You chose that word because you thought it fit, and that choice reveals something about you.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think that depends upon the behavior you are controlling and your motivation for so doing. If you see a car coming down the road and you keep a woman (or a man) from stepping in front of it, that would be controlling their behavior, but could certainly be noble.

Is it control only if you physically stop someone from a behavior, and what if your motivation was to help someone else besides the person being controlled...like the driver of the car in this instance?

Calling a poster a "troll" is oftentimes like calling a judge "activist". It means you don't like them.

Since you introduced the word into the conversation, what did you mean by it? Do you have specific, objective standards you can lay out? If so, I'll look at how they measure up to me.

If you look back you will realize that Trout introduced the word, then you, and lastly I used it in response to you.
I think you just revealed why you used the word.

A person can not be considered guilty for how other people consider his posts. They can only be guilty of what they intended to post.

If you think you can point to a post where I intended to be venomous, feel free to do so, and explain why you think it was venomous.

Then, since I didn't intend the words "free whore" to be venomous, I'm innocent of all charges.

Yes, I do think there is behavior that I believe to be wrong, and behavior that I am unwilling to perform. They are distinct, independent categories (for example, making this post at this time is doing something I beleive to be wrong).

Then you do believe in "righteousness." (are you slacking off at work?)

I think you were trying to be funny. Of course, in that context you could have used "prostitute", or "hooker", or "call girl", or "sex worker", or one of a number of other terms that do not typically carry the emotional baggage attached to "whore". You chose that word because you thought it fit, and that choice reveals something about you.

I wasn't.
All those words mean the same thing so I find it odd that you think "whore" is "venomous" while the others wouldn't be.

 

[LogGrad98]

A person can not be considered guilty for how other people consider his posts. They can only be guilty of what they intended to post.

This flies in the face of hundreds of sexual harrassment cases and what everyone in a management position is taught by their legal department. Perceptions can get you fired, sued, and even put in jail. Intentions get you nowhere. I am interested what kicky thinks about that.

 

[One Brow]

This flies in the face of hundreds of sexual harrassment cases and what everyone in a management position is taught by their legal department. Perceptions can get you fired, sued, and even put in jail. Intentions get you nowhere. I am interested what kicky thinks about that.

Saying "I didn't mean anything bad" is not the same thing as saying "I intended it as a measure of respect".

You can go to jail for sexual harrassment? I don't think so. You can go to jail for vandalism or assault, whether intended as harassment or otherwise.

 

[One Brow]

Is it control only if you physically stop someone from a behavior,

Yes, that's control.

and what if your motivation was to help someone else besides the person being controlled...like the driver of the car in this instance?

That doesn't stop it from being an attempt to control.

If you look back you will realize that Trout introduced the word, then you, and lastly I used it in response to you.

I stand corrected, but you are only partly right. TroutBum introduced the word, but I did not use it to describe you.

I think you just revealed why you used the word.

Except, I did not use it to describe you. I said "Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling." That meant since it is true of trolls, it would also be true of those not trolling.

Then, since I didn't intend the words "free whore" to be venomous, I'm innocent of all charges.

I was unaware your experience with English was so poor you did not understand that some words are more emoitonally loaded than others by their typical usages.

Then you do believe in "righteousness."

Why is that?

I wasn't.

You weren't trying to be funny? OK.

All those words mean the same thing so I find it odd that you think "whore" is "venomous" while the others wouldn't be.

Again, I was unaware you were so ignorant of the connotations of words. I'll have to keep that in mind.

 

[PearlWatson]

Do you think it is noble to control women's behavior

I think that depends upon the behavior you are controlling and your motivation for so doing. If you see a car coming down the road and you keep a woman (or a man) from stepping in front of it, that would be controlling their behavior, but could certainly be noble.

Is it control only if you physically stop someone from a behavior, and what if your motivation was to help someone else besides the person being controlled...like the driver of the car in this instance?

Yes, that's control. That doesn't stop it from being an attempt to control.

Judging from your answer I think you misunderstood what I was asking in this context. I was asking whether you thought physical means where the only way to control someone, and I was asking if you thought it was still noble to control someone if it was done in order to protect someone else?

I was unaware your experience with English was so poor you did not understand that some words are more emoitonally loaded than others by their typical usages.

If you felt one word was more or less venomous than another, it's because of your own predisposition, not my words.

 

[PearlWatson]

You're being trolled, OneBrow, forget it.

Can't I have a little more fun? Please?

Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling. For example, your notion

I stand corrected, but you are only partly right. TroutBum introduced the word, but I did not use it to describe you.
Except, I did not use it to describe you. I said "Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling." That meant since it is true of trolls, it would also be true of those not trolling.

You don't expect me to buy this ridiculous story do you? There was absolutely no reason for you to bring up trolls unless you were using it to describe me, especially after you tacitly agreed with Spout's use of it.

 

[moevillini]

...I said "Even trolls reveal core beliefs by the words they choose and posts they respond to when trolling." That meant since it is true of trolls, it would also be true of those not trolling....

OK, now this is where I start to get confused. How can this be true of non-trolls? If they're non-trolls, they're not trolling, are they? So how can you characterize how "they respond when trolling" if they're not trolling? I just don't get it.