- “Read the article and the comments …” —– Sorry, the reference to “cruel” was clearly pertaining to your repeated attempts at injuring any who oppose you by concentrating on false notions of them having sexual frustration and personal demons. You are aware of this and are only seeking to deflect from it. Luckily, even those with a mere nerve ganglion serving as a brain can see that weak attempt. Nice try. Even so, you are still absolutely incorrect (read the details for a comprehensive proof).
- “And no, you don’t have to become a woman…” —– The comment about “I have to become a woman” was an obvious bit of tongue-in-cheek (well… at least obvious to most). Of course I had forgotten how contemptuous you are of those who do not agree with you. We guys is just stupids. Lol. It is ironic that you continue to see any who oppose your views in the worst light possible (yet advocate that others adopt a more optimistic attitude).
- “Get off the internet, experience real life, real women…” —– I don’t have the weakness you wish I had, so your advice to be introspective is moot. On the other hand, your initial post was, without doubt, a litany of libel and unmistakably emotional. It is clear that the article reached deep into you and unchained some inner demons. You may want to explore this.
- “I hope you get your life and priorities together, Ta” —– Your sentiments are there only to disingenuously support your false claim that any who support the notion of embellished presentation MUST be suffering from some personal challenges. These false allegations are merely ways to resolve your faulty concepts in your own mind. They do not ring true and especially not in the minds of anyone who has read your posts and my refutations of your “reasoning”.
“Read the article and the comments and then tell me who’s cruel. Any sentient being with a functioning heart, cerebral cortex and soul can determine who’s being not only cruel, but creepy. Many (and stronger) other adjectives could attach, but I’m saving myself some time.”
Actually, it is apparent that the “cruelty” referenced was your repeated attempts at pouring salt in an assumed wound of those you disagree with (Lol… as if you didn’t realize all the references to sexual frustration, self-image issues, low self-esteem, etc… wasn’t meant to injure those you cannot best in a debate).
Nice try at deflecting that (if jellyfish were capable of reading, they would likely have detected that surreptitious retreat too).
It is indeed fortunate that I (and many of those who understand the article in the context it was meant to be in) have no such wound (or wounds) and that should be abundantly clear to even you by now. Furthermore, as a tactic used by bullies, it is often (well, really practically always) a way to deter examination of their own damaged soul.
Regardless, let’s entertain your diversion. One would think you would realize that your opposition would have thoroughly digested both the article and the comments before embarking on a critique of your position. Perhaps there is too much credited attributed to you.
The concept that women are largely not culpable for the erosion of the Internet dating protocol is a fallacy. Your foundation is fundamentally flawed because it relies on the deliberate ignorance of why men have to compensate in the first place. The online experience for women creates an environment that inflates ego and self-worth. A typical women gets far more attention on sites like POF than she perceives she gets in the real world. Not only that, she will be largely insulated from the competition of other women (it’s not like people actively look at their peer’s profiles). This promotes the false impression that one is “the only belle at the ball”. This over-valuation is what drives the POF Princess syndrome.
The “player” techniques compensate for this. That is all.
To admonish the article is akin to vilifying women for wearing cosmetics because “why embellish (or even create a fully false image)” especially if it’s just to increase one’s chance of attracting a mate. It’s lying! What about push up bras? Lip gloss? Heck let’s LIE about everything.
Can one truly think that it’s WRONG for men to embellish, but absolutely appropriate for women to do so? Your entire thesis is based on double standards.
Sorry. You have lost this argument. Admit it.
The Gender Gap
“And no, you don’t have to become a woman. You become the sort of person that you would like to attract. I didn’t think that needed explaining”.
I suspect that most of the audience realizes that the comment about “having to become a woman” was a bit of humour. Considering the acumen demonstrated in my care and attention to detail to support my arguments, it should be obvious. Of course, I must have forgotten how low you think the intellect of your opposition is. Me and the guys is just too stupids. It is ironic that you continue to see any who oppose your views in the worst light possible (yet advocate that others adopt a more optimistic attitude).
“Get off the internet, experience real life, real women and quit being so darn cynical, son. And remember my advice to take nothing personally. Nothing. OTOH, if something/someone (like me, lol) touches a nerve, you may want to have a talk with yourself on what the truth may actually be and take steps on self improvement. Again, you’re welcome, ;-)”
Lol. I was wondering when you would play the “age card”.
A condescending tone rarely hides one’s inability to support their arguments. In fact, every single one of your assertions have been either debunked, or, shown to be merely a bit of subterfuge to avoid discussion.
As far as getting off the Internet, it should be apparent that interacting here and in real life are not mutually exclusive. It doesn’t take that long to tap out a refutation, and I do have to come home once in a while… but thanks for your concern (I suppose this is why you are saying “your welcome”).
As far as taking things personally, I do not see where this has happened.
You can pretend that all the attempts at poking at your opponent’s alleged sore spot has been working, but it hasn’t. Sorry. It was easy not to succumb to your provocation since there was no such weakness. In reality, I like to point out fallacies (call me a myth-buster if you will)… I suppose that is an indulgence, but I don’t think you create your fallacies merely for me (that would be self-aggrandizing and I’m not about that).
On the other hand, consider how you introduced yourself into this thread. Your initial post was a litany of libel and unmistakably emotional. (I have taken the effort to save it here, in “part 1” on this blog so that you can review it to see that it is not merely an invention). It is clear that the article reached deep into you and unchained some inner demons.
Deny it if you wish, but most of the audience can see this.
“I hope you get your life and priorities together, Ta”
Your sentiments are there only to disingenuously support your false claim that any who support the notion of embellished presentation MUST be suffering from some personal challenges. These false allegations are merely ways to resolve your faulty concepts in your own mind. They do not ring true and especially not in the minds of anyone who has read your posts and my refutations of your “reasoning”.
Think about how your hostility (and, yes, your initial posts are distinctly aggressive, mean-spirited and antagonistic… you have only become slightly more subversive in delivery, but the desire to wound your opponent remains) is not excused by the interpretation of the article as “creepy”. In reality, the article explores how the dynamics of online dating has inflated the ego of many women to the point that they sabotage their own chances at life-partnership.
You exhibit every trait of a woman scorned. The belligerence, the confrontational attitude, the inability to accept reason, the denial, etc…: they are all present in just a few paragraphs. If you wish to be so noble, then accept that you have travelled down this negative path, turn around, and go back.
The choice is yours as is mine to respond, at my leisure and schedule (as long as the family duties are completed for the day of course), to any attempt to promote falsehoods.