I'm glad you're at least willing to engage in this discussion in a respectable way, although I do have many disagreements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
You are bending the narrative to get to your conclusion. She did more than trying to save the chickens before she was going home.
in this specific quote, I was responding to the exact words
you said. so in no way was I bending a narrative. you said she was holding everyone to her standards. she was not
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*She asks someone to set the chickens free.
as I said before, I took that to be in jest. especially the way she was laying down right after the challenge with her hurt ankle, and frankly she seemed a bit delirious. I did not take that as a serious request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*She gets confrontational with the tribe to not eat the chickens.
I disagree with this characterization. why do you consider her confrontational, but not wardog? if anyone was imposing their standards on other people, it was Wardog interrogating her, not vice versa. she explained her reason in confessional, and when asked by tribe members. I don't see how you can call this confrontational
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*When Wardog points out how stupid her logic is, she says "OK I'm now a vegetarian", just to win the argument since Wardog was attacking her logic.
I'd like to ask you why this is a bad thing for her. You clearly believe it is the "motivation" of the position that matters, not the position. So shouldn't you approve of this? She believed in her position so strongly that she was willing to extend it to becoming a vegetarian so that she wouldn't be a hypocrite. Again, how does this conform with all your arguments that it is the motivation that matters? This comment should have won you over, by your own logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
What do you think the odds are that she is still a vegetarian today?
I have no idea, and frankly I don't see why it's relevant. And I also don't think it's impossible by any means that she is still a vegetarian today, she very well could be. Would that change anything for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*We see the whole tribe being irritated about her point-of-view.
The whole tribe, really? Or was it just the people who already wanted to vote her out? Because I saw Rick and David being perfectly fine with it.
Of course because of the nature of how Survivor works and the fact that a TC was coming, any disagreement is going to be used as fuel to vote a person out, when you already wanted to vote that person out.
Also, I thought we were complaining about Wendy holding others to her standards. But it's ok for others to hold Wendy to their standards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*They don't eat a chicken before the immunity challenge.
not sure the relevance of this. isn't it because they wanted to see if they'd lay eggs first? also they asked who would kill it and some people said "not me" -- doesn't look like anyone particularly wanted to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*She takes the flint and runs off when they finally decide to kill a chicken.
I've already explained what I think of this multiple times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
*She lies about hiding the flint to David his face.
*She doesn't admit at tribal council that she took the flint.
this part was clearly strategical since it would be suicide to admit it. not sure how you would hold that against her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
What exactly is she doing if the result is not her holding the others to her standards? She didn't say "I wont eat chicken if you kill it.". She did 10x that.
lol, I'm pretty sure if you watch the episode, she literally said that quote exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
What I am trying to say is that 2 people can have the exact same opinion, and 1 of the opinions can be stupid as **** and 1 of the opinions can be a normal, intelligent opinion. I don't understand why you don't understand this. Your motivation why you hold an opinion is most of the time more important than your opinion itsself.
Maybe I need to point it out with an example. There are a lot of people that held the opinion a few years ago "I wont vote for Hilary Clinton. ". People had a lot of reasons. Do you think that all reasons were equal? Or were some people using a reason that made them seem like there were dogs more intelligent than them, while other reasons were reasonable & intelligent?
this isn't the same thing. wendy and tai were both against eating the chicken for the same reason: they felt bad for the chicken and didn't want to kill it. comparing this to the 2016 election is quite a stretch, as people have millions of different reasons for their votes. here, it is very simple to understand why they didn't want to eat the chicken. they both saw value in the chicken as a living creature and did not want to kill it.
that is why i can't understand saying one of them has a good position and one of them doesn't. what do you think is different about their positions? what is different about their reason? because i don't see any difference.
and once again, if you keep criticizing her motivation, then shouldn't it count to her credit that she declares herself a vegetarian now? she is digging in and sticking to her guns, showing it is her genuine position that she doesn't want animals to be killed. so i can't understand why you hold that against her, based on your own reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
Finally, you point to something vague like "men are given the benefit of the doubt" which is very easy to say without backing it up with any proof.
each time this disparity gets pointed out, people yell about making it about sexism. then when i make the general description, you ask for specific examples. it's a circular thing. there are countless examples in these threads just over the last couple seasons. many have been pointed out when they happen. frankly, you will never see it if you don't want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
Don't these threads point out exactly how bad men are at the game, too? Woo & Tai are some good examples. Every challenge beast that doesn't know how to play the tactical side of the game.
If I look at last season, David vs Goliath: Dan, Carl
Isn't this thread saying that Chris was voted out because he did stupid things?
first, I'm so glad you brought up Dan from last season, because as I pointed out in that thread,
no one criticized him. and he was an awful player.
but otherwise, you're missing the point. of course it gets pointed out when men make bad moves too. the difference is the frequency, the degree, and frankly the vitriol, with which it gets pointed out. there is a huge disparity. even talking about the 'challenge beasts' -- no one criticizes them. there is 0 criticism of Joe this season despite tons of Aubry criticism when they are in the exact same position.
even with the criticism of Chris, it is limited to the specific move he made rather than extending it to the rest of his character. people continually say he seems like a good guy, etc -- the criticism is only trying to find the mistake in his gameplay. which is how it should be!!! but the same courtesy rarely gets extended to criticism of the women. and that is the problem. people are so quick to extend it past the game and into their character/personality in ways they don't do for men.