You realise you can be wrong in a near infinite number of ways.

So the way I have been arguing you are wrong is nothing to do with the way you claimed I was arguing you were wrong.

This is your worst post yet from a theoretical pov and that is saying something.

Not to attack Metod here but here is the fallacy in action.

Metod, to his credit, at least leaves some room for his opinion to be wrong with the use of "likely": So this is more using his comments to expose uke and O.A.F.K.

- a stranger is approaching you a few times a year to say something nice, that is likely a positive
- If it is happening daily that is likely a negative
- That is why the few times a year I give a stranger compliment it will be towards another dude. Like nice shoes or hat or something
- Not that the hot 25 year old woman doesn't look good, but I don't think she would appreciate being told for the 5th time that week by a stranger.


What I am not saying is that Metod should not feel as he does and think those things above. (If that is how HE feels he should govern himself that way.)

But a person who is not Metod could have exactly the opposite position in all of those areas. (Should HE govern himself how uke and O.A.F.K say?)

Metod thinks 'complimenting random dude is great' but maybe not 'complimenting random 40 year old women is not'. (again fine for HIM to think)

What makes someone who holds opinions like that so right, so infallible, that they can tell others they are wrong and instruct them to do as they would do?

Why can we not leave room for the INDIVIDUAL to decide (and make no mistake uke and O.A.F.K, etc are deciding when it IS appropriate) .


As i just in my prior post, the article posted in the other thread tells you why. Leftist cancel culture REQUIRES group think on these 'virtue' matters of opinion and simply cannot tolerate any competing opinions.

Guy is such a clown.

If you actually read what was being said to you, you would realise that bolded is utterly spurious and again is just another example of your epic strawmanning, which I believe comes from your inability to understand anything approaching nuance.

I have not made claims about what is appropriate, only how one thinks about what is appropriate.

Does not matter. Nurture, nature, socialization. Irrelevant.

The point you are missing is 'everyone is different' and thus will have different approaches.

When you recognize that, you then should be able to accept that what you might find awkward and wrong another person might find great and welcomes. Thus it hubris and folly to try and speak for others.

uke says 'it is 100% a wrong and gross to walk up to the author and compliment him on his hat as you introduce yourself'.

"That is a fabulous hat. I am a big fan of your work'.

uke say 'no, it is ewww and wrong'

Uke leaves zero room and states it as fact. uke does not care if the author was flattered and appreciated and would still say it was cringe, awkward and wrong.


Can you not recognize what uke is doing (the Carlin Meme). He is using his perception from his vantage point and saying that applies to everyone else and his blind to it because 'it seems right to him' (again Carlin meme).



Of course everyone has choice. That is MY point.

The question is WHO gets to determine how they process and then execute that choice?

Answer me this.

- You are stepping on an elevator that has a loan gal standing on it. Are you RIGHT or WRONG to say hi?


Do you think you answer changes if you find out after how she felt about it?

To the above and for the record, since I am asking you to answer. I always say 'Hello' to the person or people on the elevator as I enter.

I never used to, and i have always had offices and live in condo's where elevators were a daily occurrence. I observed there where always people who did enter and say 'hi' to all present and i decided that I liked that more than not engaging and certainly more than the joked about elevator stare many do to avoid any contact.

Who has a right to tell me I am wrong for choosing to always say hi?

I mean, I know uke and O.A.F.K will try to, but I am looking for better faith arguments.

Fresh coming from the absolute vacuum of good faith that is QP.

I have no problems with you saying HI in the elevator so eggs on your face, that you would think I would just shows how terrible you are at this.

This completely misses my point so I'll spell it out. You arrived at the conclusion that you would no longer hold back compliments partially by taking into account that in your estimation, on average, people enjoy compliments. You didn't decide to compliment instead of withholding or insulting by chance but rather through a series of assumptions. Yes, you never know how the individual will respond, but you have estimated that the average person will respond well. If I or anyone else have a different estimation it doesn't change the fact that you too have made assumptions about the average person in order to form your behavior. For the 100th time, I'm not arguing about which estimation of response is correct or which behavior should be permissible, I'm only arguing the point that you are also estimating, even though you believe you aren't.

I love how you just make up stuff about me in basically every single post. No, Cuepee, I have no problem saying "hi" on an elevator.

The problem is stopping random people walking past you on the street to comment about their appearance. This isn't saying you shouldn't say anything to anyone ever in any context. Obviously.

Just don't be a creep. It really is that easy.

Pretty sure QP from 6 months ago is not the absolute nut woat poster of all time he is now and a big part of this is that 6 or whatever months ago he had near infinitely better comprehension skills.

You guys are creeping me out. I hate bankers and would never say hi.....

I think your comparisons to TS were more on target than this.